BCC Minutes 06/14-15/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
June 14- 15, 2011
June 14-15,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 14-15, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Clerk of Courts Office
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Operations Manager, CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
June 14-15, 2011
9:00 A.M.
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Vice-Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chair
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice-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.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE
Page 1
June 14-15,2011
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 A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Sammy Mosquera - United Pentecostal Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
(Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent
and summary agenda.)
B. May 10, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 25,2011 - BCC/Collier County School Board Joint Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Page 2
June 14-15,2011
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating June 14, 2011 as Youth Leadership Collier
Day. To be accepted by Bob Sandy, Joan Cox, and Michael Giusto
and 38 students from the 2011 Youth Leadership Collier Class.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Tricia Dorn, Key Account Executive of LCEC (Lee
County Electric), presenting an equity payout of $20, 168.08 to the
Board of County Commissioners.
B. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month award to
Yamron Jewelers. Accepting the award will be Ursula Pfahl, Chief
Operating Officer ofYamron Jewelers.
C. Recommendation to recognize Gary Kessler, Program Leader, Parks
and Recreation Department, as the Employee of the Month for May
2011.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Mr. Dale Johnson, Chairman of the Radio
Road East of Santa Barbara to Davis Boulevard MSTU Advisory
Board, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners support
the advisory committee's effort in obtaining financing to allow
construction of the landscaping beautification project to begin sooner.
B. Public Petition request from Mr. Robert D. Pritt representing the
Barefoot Beach Club Condominium Owners Association, requesting
that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to work with the
petitioner on a plan for modest trimming of mangroves.
c. Public Petition request from Bethesda Corkscrew Seventh Day
Adventist Church requesting that their conditional use permit be
reinstated.
D. Public Petition request from Mr. Frank Oakes expressing his concerns
Page 3
June 14-15, 2011
regarding the use of fluoride in County water.
Item 7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 om unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Advisory Board Vacancies as advertised in the Press Release May 26,
2011.
B. This item to be heard at 9:45 a.m. The Black Affairs Advisory
Board will report to the Board of County Commissioners on the recent
outreach meeting and public comments received from the meeting.
C. This item to be heard immediately followine Item #9B.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the 2011 Finance Subcommittee Report of the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee as assigned previously by the Board.
D. The annual performance appraisal for the Executive Manager to the
Board of County Commissioners.
E. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, expressing opposition to
provisions in Senate Bill 550 passed in 2010 requiring statewide
septic tank inspections. (Commissioner Henning)
F. This item to be heard at 1:05 p.m. To direct the County Attorney to
draft a resolution calling for the placement of a referendum on the
Spring 2012 Presidential Primary ballot that authorizes the Board of
County Commissioners to grant ad valorem tax exemptions to
qualifying businesses within Collier County as an incentive for
encouraging capital investment and job growth, as required by Sec.
196.1995 F.S. and the Florida Constitution. (Commissioner Hiller)
G. Appointment of member to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU
Page 4
June 14-15,2011
Advisory Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve a Sixth Amendment to the Landfill
Operating Agreement to extend the Disposal Capacity Agreement
with the Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., a Florida Corporation (a
subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., of Florida), for a term often
years with successive ten year extension options, thereby providing
the County with additional disposal capacity of 960,000 tons of solid
waste and the ability to divert debris generated by a disaster. (Dan
Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director)
B. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners direct the County Manager or
designee to develop a fertilizer ordinance. (Mac Hatcher, Sr.
Environmental Specialist, Growth Management Division/Planning &
Regulation)
C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$25,935,470.53 to Astaldi Construction Corporation and reserve
$3,315,000 on the purchase order for funding allowances, for a total
of $28,220,238.93 for ITB No.1 0-5342 - "SR 84 (Davis Boulevard)
Radio Road to Collier Boulevard; SR/CR 951 Intersection
improvements; Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 951) North to Magnolia
Pond Drive; and CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) North to the E. Golden
Gate Canal", Project No. 60073 and Project No. 60092. (Nick
Casalanguida, Growth Management Deputy Administrator)
D. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Wednesdav~ June 15~ 2011.
Recommendation to award Contract #10-5572 for Wiggins Pass
Channel Straightening - Design and Permitting to Coastal Planning
and Engineering (CP&E) and authorize the Chairman to execute the
standard contract after County Attorney approval in the amount of
$177,489. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
E. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. Wednesdav~ June 15~ 2011.
Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay
work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of
Clam Pass/Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and
Page 5
June 14-15, 2011
maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay markers; and authorize staff to
proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) permitting. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management
Director)
F. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Recommendation to approve
$29,729 in design alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach
park/restroom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011 BCC meeting.
(Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
G. Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Program Public
Amenity Work Plan. (Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist)
H. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation
of those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater improvements for the US-41 Ditch
segment of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project
No. 51101.) Estimated fiscal impact: $1,927,569. (Jay Ahmad,
Transportation Engineering Director)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. 12:00 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 TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011. The
session will be held for a time certain of 12:00 noon, 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 settlement negotiations in the pending case of KER Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a Armadillo Underground v. AP AC-Southeast, Inc., et al v.
Collier County, Case No. 08-3496-CA, now pending in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
Page 6
June 14-15,2011
B. 1:00 P.M. Time Certain Return From Closed Session. For the
Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County
Attorney regarding settlement negotiations in the pending case of
KER Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Armadillo Underground v. AP AC-
Southeast, Inc., et al v. Collier County, Case No. 08-3496-CA, now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida.
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
after-the-fact approval of the Sheriffs Office submittal to the U.S.
Department of Justice for the FY 2011 COPS Hiring Program Grant.
B. Approve a budget amendment recognizing $1,546,000 in revenues
and expenditures in the Sheriffs FY 2011 General Fund Budget.
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered
to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate
discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the
Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered separately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearine be held on this
item~ all participants are required to be sworn in. This is a
recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Bucks Run Reserve, approval of the standard form Construction
Page 7
June 14-15,2011
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier
County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-
related review and processing fees as provided for in The Code
of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-11.
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to
recognize revenue for projects within the Transportation
Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of$36,925.
4) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staff s extension of
Contract #01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering
Services" with Johnson Engineering, Inc., and approval of a
time extension change to Work Order #JEI-T-3290-06-01 in
order to process the Consultant's final invoice for work
completed for the "Rich King Memorial Greenway."
5) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearine be held on this
item~ all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a
recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Artesia Naples, Phase 2.
6) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to
recognize revenue through reimbursement from Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the CR-901
Vanderbilt Drive Bridge Project.
7) Recommendation to consider approving a Resolution,
amending the Collier County Vehicle for Hire Administrative
Policy Manual, providing for the allowance of lettering on the
rear windshields of the Charter Service Vehicles.
8) Recommendation to receive and approve the Collier County
Floodplain Management Plan 2010 Progress Report and adopt
the 2011 Action Plan.
9) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a Perpetual, Non-
Page 8
June 14-15,2011
Exclusive Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and Utility Easement
(Parcel No. 442RDUE) which will be required for the four-
laning of Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard
and DeSoto Boulevard. Project No. 60040 (Fiscal Impact:
$3,283).
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
endorse changes to the Code Enforcement Board's Rules and
Regulations and Special Magistrate's Rules and Regulations.
11) Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for FY 2011/12, and
budget amendments to recognize grant revenues in the amount
of$I,019,577, and $5,000 in local funding.
12) Recommendation to request the Board of County
Commissioners waive false alarm citation fees for the District
School Board of Collier County.
13) Recommendation to approve the de-obligation of the Federal
Transit Administrative (FTA) Grant Funds for 49 U.S.C. S5316
(JARC) and 49 U.S.C. S5317 (New Freedom) Programs.
14) Recommendation to approve the Release of Liens in the Code
Enforcement Actions entitled Board of County Commissioners
vs. Carolina M. Alvarez, Code Enforcement Case Numbers
CEPM20080005933 and CERR20080006426, relating to
property located at 724 1 09th Avenue North, Collier County,
Florida.
15) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs extension of
Contract #06-3969 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering
Services" with Pitman-Hartenstein, Inc. and approval of a time
extension change to Work Order #4500117579 in order to
process the Consultant's final invoice for work completed for
the "Progress Avenue / Livingston Road Intersection
Improvements."
16) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs extension of
Contract #09-5197 "Annual Contract for Roadway Contractors"
Page 9
June 14-15,2011
with Better Roads, Inc. and approval of a time extension change
to Work Order #4500117578 in order to process the
Contractor's final invoice for work completed for the "2010
Countywide Sidewalk Improvements."
17) Recommendation to award ITB # 11- 5 646 "Nuisance
Abatement Services," to Neal's Lawn and Landscaping
Maintenance, Inc., A-Nolan Landscaping and Lawn, A & M
Property Maintenance, LLC, Ameri-Pride, Inc., Walker Exotic
Tree Eradication, Environmental Restoration Consultants, Inc.,
and Environmental Mowing, Inc., in the estimated combined
annual amount of$160,800.
18) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Better
Roads, Inc. for Bid No. 11-5661 - Progress Avenue Roadway
Improvements from Airport-Pulling Road to Commercial
Boulevard, Project No. 60188-3, in the amount of $475,243.02
19) Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the
Chairman to sign an Underground Facilities Conversion
Agreement with Comcast of the South, Inc ("Comcast") for
Phase One Project as stipulated by Florida Public Service
Commission Tariff 6.31 0 for the conversion of overhead
electric distribution facilities and other non-electrical utilities
located on utility poles within the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (the 'MSTU') Underground distribution
and to approve payment to Comcast in the amount of
$331,351.25 to cover the construction cost for conversion of
Comcast from overhead utilities to underground.
20) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5641, "Rock Road MSTU
Lime Rock Road Maintenance" to Earthtech Enterprises, Inc.,
in the estimated amount of$67,036.15
21) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the
amount of $127,177 for the required 50% local match to the
Federal Transit Administration Sections 5307 FY 10 Grant.
22) To update the Board of County Commissioners on Public
Petition Item #6A discussed at the Board of County
Page 10
June 14-15,2011
Commissioners meeting on January 11,2011 by Anton Karaba
and Eva Karabova seeking approval to retain the ten-foot fence
built on property located at 12243 Fuller Lane.
23) Recommendation to approve defined maintenance
responsibilities for specific public, but unaccepted unplatted
roadways in Collier County.
24) Recommendation to approve the purchase of three fixed-route
buses with trolley decal wraps for Collier Area Transit in the
amount of$I,123,911 funded with FTA 5307 FYI0 grants.
These buses are scheduled replacements and are consistent with
the adopted 2010 Transit Development Plan (TDP).
25) Recommendation to waive formal competition, approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 to Contract
#08-5009 with Sire Technologies, Inc. in the amount of
$129,150, and authorize a budget amendment from the
Development Services Building Permit Fund 113 reserves for
$112,000, with the remaining balance of$17,150 to be
expended from current Fund 113 operating expenses, for the
purpose of extending the County's Electronic Content
Management (ECM) system for the implementation of
ActiveReview, an Electronic Plan Submittal and Review
system (EPSR) designed for land use and building permit
applications, and for enterprise management of capital project
plans.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
approve a budget amendment authorizing the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency to commit $212,000 of
CDBG Grant Award #CD 10-66 for FY2010-2011, Job
Creation Project, to Fund 715 for the Immokalee Business
Development Center (IBDC).
2) A Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, designating the parcels of land depicted in the
attached Exhibits A-G associated with the Immokalee
Page 11
June 14-15,2011
Enterprise Zone as a Brownfield Area of Collier County for the
purpose of economic development and environmental
rehabilitation; authorizing the County Manager or his designee
to notify the Department of Environmental Protection of said
designation; and providing for an effective date.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5691 for the construction
of the Bayshore Drive South Corridor Improvements, in the
amount of $943,599.42.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to reject all quotes for Lift Station 103.01
Rehabilitation Project and re-quote Project #70046.
2) Recommendation to approve a Utility Easement from Collier
County to the Collier County Water-Sewer District for
Irrigation Quality (IQ) Water pipeline and associated
infrastructure including telemetry antennae, electrical panel,
meter assembly, electrical conduit, and for access on, over and
across a portion of the Veterans Park property located within
Veterans Park off Immokalee Road in Naples, Florida at an
estimated cost not to exceed $44, Project Number 70062.
3) Recommendation to approve a contract between the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners for the disposal of
reclaimed waste from the Isles of Capri Park Proj ect. The waste
will be disposed of at the Collier County Landfill on a fee
schedule basis of $50.58 per ton for residential municipal solid
waste, as defined in the FY 2011 Rate Resolution, in an amount
not to exceed $100,000.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$64,391.41 in revenue generated as program income when
conveying properties acquired under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program, in addition to reallocating funds within
the program commitment items to accurately reflect ongoing
Page 12
June 14-15,2011
program expenses. (Fiscal impact $64,391.41)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign one (l) Subrecipient Agreement in the amount of $170,000
with Immokalee Non-Profit Housing d/b/a Immokalee Housing
& Family Services using a Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) grant.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign a U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant Agreement providing funds to
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., d/b/a David
Lawrence Center for $397,375 to provide energy improvements
at three (3) of its sites within Collier County.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign Agreement #11-5693 with Collier County Child Advocacy
Council, Inc. d/b/a Children's Advocacy Center of Collier
County (CAC) to continue providing supervised visitation
services funded by a grant from the United States Department
of Justice, Office on Violence against Women and terminate
Agreement #10-5385 with the CAC for convenience to
accurately cover grant funding years.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an amendment to the 2010 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement with the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Immokalee
approved on October 26, 2010 (Item # 16D6). This amendment
will correct a scrivener's error and revise the scope of services
on the original agreement to include travel costs.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign contract amendments between the Area Agency on Aging
of Southwest Florida, Inc. and Collier County to extend the
grant period by ninety days, approve budget amendments to
reflect funding for the FYII-12 State General Revenue Seniors
Programs in the amount of $838,546, and authorize the
continued payment of grant expenditures. (Fiscal impact
$838,546)
Page 13
June 14-15, 2011
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an Agreement with Physician Led Access Network
(PLAN) of Collier County for $488,000 to provide a shared
information network for PLAN participants in Collier County.
Services will be paid on behalf of the PLAN program through a
$594,000 grant awarded by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA).
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $11 ,625.13 to recognize revenue and its appropriate
expenditures from the collection of co-payments and
contributions from the Housing, Human and Veteran Services,
Services for Seniors program. Total fiscal impact $11,625.13.
9) This item is continued from the Mav 24~ 2011 BCC Meetine:.
Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an amendment to the Collier County Hunger and Homeless
Coalition (HHC) Subrecipient Agreement for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing (HPRP) Grant
approved by the Board on September 15,2009, Item #16DI9.
This amendment will allow for a revision of the Subrecipient
Agreement to accommodate the HHC request to no longer
include Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
activities and to allow HHC to more fully expend grant funds.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign the Assumption Agreement from Municipal Software
Corporation to N. Harris Computer Corporation as it relates to
Contract #06-3962 "New Divisional Software System for
Community Development and Environmental Services
(CDES)."
2) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved
change orders and changes to work orders.
Page 14
June 14-15,2011
3) Recommendation to authorize submittal of an Invasive Upland
Plant Removal Program grant proposal to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission's Invasive Plant
Management Section for contractor services to treat invasive
exotic vegetation within Pepper Ranch Preserve - SSA 7 in the
amount of $76,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an addendum to Contract #10-5440 for enhancements to
Book Direct Hotel Booking Service with Jack Rabbit Systems
for an annual expenditure of $18,250 for a total three year
agreement cost of $60,065.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an Agreement between Collier County and the Florida
Division of Emergency Management accepting a Grant award
for $105,806 for Emergency Management Program
Enhancement and approve the associated budget amendment.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance
proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a budget amendment transferring $118,000 from the
Clam Bay Fund (320) Reserve/Transfers to the Clam Bay Fund
(320) Ecosystem Enhancements.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $5,000 to recognize revenue from the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for repairs to a
modular building located at the Immokalee Regional Airport to
be used as the Immokalee Business Development Center
(IBDC).
Page 15
June 14-15,2011
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Economic Development
Council Post-Legislative Luncheon on May 25,2011 at the
Moorings Park Grill Room in Naples, FL. $15 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Women's Council of
Realtors' Wine and Food Extravaganza on May 25, 2011 at the
Estuary at Grey Oaks, 1473 Anhinga Pointe, Naples, FL. $40 to
be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
May 7,2011 through May 13,2011 and for submission into the
official records of the Board
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
May 14, 2011 through May 20, 2011 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
May 21,2011 through May 27,2011 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the fifteenth year SCAAP letter delegating authority to
Sheriff Kevin Rambosk to be the official grant applicant and
contact person, or his designee, and to receive and expend the
payment of the fifteenth year of State Criminal Alien
Page 16
June 14-15,2011
Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant funds.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for
Parcel No. 27T in the lawsuit styled Board of County
Commissioners v. Collier HMA, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0013-
CA and approve a Settlement Agreement and Release between
Collier County and Wal-Mart Stores East LP relating to the
inverse condemnation claim in the same case (CR 951 Water
Transmission Mains Project). (Fiscal Impact $20,000 after
reimbursement)
2) Recommendation to hire outside trial counsel Bricklemyer,
Smolker & Bolves, P.A. in the matter of Collier County v. First
National Bank of Naples, Case Numbers 04-3587 and 04-3588
under Contract #06-4047 "Eminent Domain Legal Services".
3) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County
for re-approval of a resolution authorizing the Collier Authority
to participate in the Lee County Housing Finance Authority to
issue single-family mortgage revenue bond program to assist
qualified buyers of single family homes in participating
counties, including Collier County, and authorizing the Collier
Authority to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Lee
Authority.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt a Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public
Hearing for approving the Special Assessment (Non-ad valorem
Assessment) to be levied against the properties within the
Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
5) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of
Judgment to Respondent, Pocchi Construction, Inc., for Parcel
Nos. 106FEE and 106TCE in the amount of$17,400 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Annette Pocchi, et aI., Case
No.10-2682-CA (Collier Boulevard Project No. 68056) (Fiscal
Impact $5,000).
Page 17
June 14-15,2011
6) Recommendation to approve settlement of the lawsuit
captioned Collier County Board of County Commissioners v.
Kim Christine Mudge in County Court in and for Collier
County, Florida (Case No. 10-1075-CC), to settle a property
damage claim resulting from an automobile accident for the
total settlement amount of $5,222.09, payable to the County,
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Partial Release of
Property Damage Claim.
7) Recommendation to approve in principal a Settlement
Agreement with Bennett Cinque grana et aI. that settles in full
the litigation styled: Bennett Cinquegrana, Rita Siegel, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v.
Collier County, American Traffic Solutions, LLC and A TS
American Traffic Solutions, Inc., Case No. 09-7628-CA, now
pending in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit
in and for Collier County, Florida.
8)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
authorizes an increase in the purchase order for Carlton Fields,
P.A. to exceed the $100,000.00 cap in the case of Collier
County v. John Reynolds & Sons, Inc., et aI., Case No. 10-
6658-CA (South Reverse Osmosis Raw Water Wellfield
Pipeline Project No. 70030)(Fiscal Impact an additional
$150,000).
~
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
Page 18
June 14-15, 2011
IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item~ all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. PUDZ-2007-AR-12292:
Cope Reserve RPUD -- An ordinance amending Ordinance Number
2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes
the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps; by changing the zoning classification of the herein described
real property from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be
known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project proposes a total of 43
single-family detached dwelling units in Section 8, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3::l::
acres; and by providing an effective date.
B. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearine be held on this item~ all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. ABW-PL2011-0568,
Silver Spot Theatre, a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of
Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number ABW-PL2011-
0568, granting a waiver pursuant to Section 5.05.01.A.6 of the Land
Development Code, concerning two establishments selling alcohol for
on-site consumption and deriving less than fifty-one percent of their
sales from food items and having a minimum separation distance of
less than 500 feet from another such establishment, which are located
at units 8205 and 8210 in the Mercato Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
C. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item~ all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. CU-PL2010-1949,
Hitching Post, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of
Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a
Conditional Use to allow a coin operated amusement arcade within a
C-3 Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.03.C.l.cA of the
Collier County Land Development Code for property located in
Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Page 19
June 14-15, 2011
Florida.
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for modifications to
the provisions related to the annual payments required to obtain and
maintain a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy. A report to the
Board of County Commissioners will be provided, on
program/development activity one year after the effective date of the
changes, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on May
10,2011. Additionally, that the Board of County Commissioners
direct the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee,
to prepare the necessary amendments to the Collier County Land
Development Code, to accommodate these types of payment changes
and specify Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances as the controlling provisions, to be included as part of the
next scheduled update cycle.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
an amendment to Ordinance Number 09-22, the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) time limits and time limit extension requirements
as found in Section 10.02.13.D of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC).
F. Recommendation that the Board approve a proposed amendment to
Collier County Ordinance No. 2006-56, the Rock Road Improvement
Municipal Service Taxing Unit, to amend the geographical boundaries
of the MSTU to remove two properties that no longer derive benefit
from the MSTU's stated purpose, to add properties determined to
derive benefit, and to create an advisory committee to provide input to
county staff as to future projects within the MSTU.
G. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 49 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, relating to economic
development, which will establish additional criteria to be evaluated
(1) when there is a request to lessen or waive certain requirements in
existing economic development ordinances and programs, and (2)
when there is an application seeking grants and/or other incentives
which fall outside existing economic development ordinances and
programs.
Page 20
June 14-15,2011
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-
8383.
Page 21
June 14-15, 2011
. June 14-15,2011
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
Commissioner meeting is now in session.
Would you please stand for the invocation by County Manager
Leo Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Let us pray.
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 Commissioners, guide them in their 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: Please remain standing for the pledge of
allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, do have you--
no. Would you please go through the agenda changes. I know you
have agenda changes.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: These are agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting June 14, 2011. First request is to withdraw
Item 16B2. That's a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
June 14-15,2011
designating a parcel of land in the Immokalee Enterprise Zone as a
brown field area. The CRA had a problem with their public
advertisement for this ordinance, so they've requested to withdraw the
item and readvertise it and bring it back at a later date.
The next change is to move Item 16C 1 from your consent
agenda. That would become Item 101. It's a recommendation to reject
all quotes for Lift Station 103.01 rehabilitation project and requote the
project. That item is being moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change is to move Item 16K4 to Item 16F5. And this was an
item that was inadvertently placed under the county attorney's portion
of the agenda. There is no change in the substance of the agenda. It's
simply being moved under 16F5, which is the proper location on your
agenda.
The next request is to move Item 1 7 A from your summary
agenda, become Item 8A on your agenda. It's a request to rezone land
for the Cope Reserve RPUD. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change requested is to move Item 17 G from the summary
agenda to become 8B . It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance
amending Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinance related to economic development.
Commissioners, I believe you-all, with regard to that item,
received an email from Ms. Nemecek last evening from the EDC
asking for consideration for this item to be continued to a later date to
allow the EDC and the county staff to continue to work on some
revisions to your existing Economic Development Program. I didn't
know if the board wanted to take that action.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to continue the item,
indefinitely?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, until we have a date in the fall.
Page 3
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala, another
second by Commissioner Henning, so I think we've got a majority
approval.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
We have a few agenda notes this morning. The first one is Item
10C on your agenda. That is the recommended construction contract
award to Astaldi for the road expansion at Davis Boulevard and 1-75.
There was a typographical error in the dollar amount of the contract
award. That amount has been corrected to read $24,905,238.93.
Next note is on Item 16D5, which was a recommendation to
approve and authorize the chairman to sign an amendment to the 2010
Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement with
the Community Redevelopment Agency in Immokalee. That item was
approved on October 26,2010, as Item 16D3, not Item 16D6 as was
originally indicated in your executive summaries and your titles.
This particular amendment will correct a scrivener's error and
revise the scope of services on the original agreement to include travel
cost. This scope revision will not increase the previously awarded
grant total. That correction is made at Commissioner Henning's
request.
Page 4
June 14-15,2011
And the last note is Item 16E2. There was a page omitted from
the backup documents on the monthly change order report. It should
read under Item 6 of the change order report, the cost of the added
service is 17 cents per member per month, and that change is offered
at the staffs request.
Commissioners, we have several time-certain items over the
two-day course of this board meeting. I'll go over those very quickly
for the audience.
The first time-certain hearing is at 9:45 a.m. this morning. It's
Item 9B; that item will be followed immediately by Item 9C on your
agenda. Item 9F will be heard at 1:05 p.m.; Item lOB will be heard at
10:45 a.m.; Item 10F will be heard at 2:00 p.m.; Item 11A will be
heard at noon as a closed session previously advertised, and Item 11 B
today will be heard at 1 :00 p.m. All of these time-certains have been
previously approved and published as part of your printed agenda
index.
On Wednesday, tomorrow morning, you have two time-certain
hearings. Item 10D will be heard at 10:00 a.m., and Item 10E will be
heard at 9:00 a.m.
Commissioners, that's all the changes I dare to offer at this point
in the morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No changes.
We'll go to the commissioners, and we'll start with Commissioner
Henning this morning for ex parte disclosure and any further changes
to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's still the understanding that
we are moving 1 7 A to the regular agenda, I don't have any ex parte
communications this morning.
The Item 16D5, under consideration -- or the executive summary
Page 5
June 14-15, 2011
is just plain wrong. Either we're going to pull it, or we need to
continue it and straighten out the executive summary to reflect the
historical events that did take place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this item is 16D5?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one do you want to do?
MR. OCHS: I'd like to pull it then, sir, and get it right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And just for clarification, that's 16D5?
MR. OCHS: 16D5, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So there is--
MR. OCHS: We'll withdraw that at staffs request with the board
approval?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No ex parte disclosure?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need to vote on that to pull it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of the changes, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no -- nothing to declare
on the agenda, and I have no changes to make. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have very limited
correspondence for the -- Item 1 7 A, correspondence and emails, and
for Item 1 7 C I have emails in my file here, and they are subj ect to
review by anyone who is interested, and that is the extent of my ex
parte disclosure.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to disclose on
the consent or the summary agenda. I will disclose later when we talk
about 17 A whom I spoke with and communicated with on that subject.
That's the Cope Lane subject. And I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
Page 6
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question, Leo. Item lIB is
to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. That's part of the closed session. I'm assuming
11 A and B will be heard together starting at noon? Because we have
9F to be heard at 1 :05.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: lIB is to report publicly on a decision
that we make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you're just reporting at that
point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to make sure. I just
wanted clarification for --
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- people who might want to be
here at 1 :05, that there wouldn't be a time overlap. All right. I
understand the clarification. Thank you.
I have no disclosures to make, and I agree with the agenda as
presented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. I'll accept a motion for
approval of the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion 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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 7
June 14-15,2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The agenda as revised is approved
unanimously. Thank you.
Page 8
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 14, 2011
Withdraw Item 16B2: A Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, designating the parcels of land depicted in the attached Exhibits A-G associated with the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone as a Brownfield Area of Collier County for the purpose of economic
development and environmental rehabilitation; authorizing the County Manager or his designee to
notify the Department of Environmental Protection of said designation; and providing for an
effective date. (Staff's request - Ordinance wasn't advertised)
Move Item 16Cl to Item 101: Recommendation to reject all quotes for Lift Station 103.01
Rehabilitation Project and re-quote Project 70046. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 16K4 to Item 16F5: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt a Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for approving the Special
Assessment (Non-ad valorem Assessment) to be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. (Staff's request - item placed under County Attorney's
Report in error)
Move Item 17 A to Item 8A: 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. PUDZ-2007-AR-12292: Cope Reserve RPUD -- An ordinance amending Ordinance
Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; by changing the zoning classification of the herein described
real property from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project
proposes a total of 43 single-family detached dwelling units in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3:i: acres; and by providing an effective date.
(Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 17G to 8B: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 49 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, relating to economic development, which will establish
additional criteria to be evaluated (1) when there is a request to lessen or waive certain
requirements in existing economic development ordinances and programs, and (2) when there is an
application seeking grants and/or other incentives which fall outside existing economic development
ordinances and programs. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 10C: Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of$2S,9JS,470.5J
$24,905,238.93 to Astaldi Construction Corporation and reserve $3,315,000.00 on the purchase
order for funding allowances, for a total of $28,220,238.93 for ITB No. 10-5342 - "SR 84 (Davis
Boulevard) Radio Road to Collier Boulevard; SR/CR 951 Intersection improvements; Collier Blvd
(SR/CR 951) North to Magnolia Pond Drive; and CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) North to the E
Golden Gate Canal", Project No. 60073 and Project No. 60092. (Staff's request - typographical
error in dollar amount)
Item 16D5: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to
the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement with the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Immokalee approved on October 26, 2010 (Item l.,D.,)
(Item 16D3). This amendment will correct a scrivener's error and revise the scope of services on the
original agreement to include travel costs. The scope revision will not increase the previously
awarded grant total. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Item 16E2: There was a page omitted from the back up documents on the monthly change order
report. "Under item 6 of the change order report, the cost of the added service is 17 cents per
member (employee or dependent) per month". (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items for Tuesdav. June 14:
Item 9B to be heard at 9:45 a.m.
Item 9C to be heard immediately following Item 9B
Item 9F to be heard at 1:05 p.m.
Item lOB to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 10F to be heard at 2:00 p.m.
Item llA to be heard at 12:00 noon-Closed Session
Item llB to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
Time Certain Items for Wednesday. June 15:
Item 10D to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 10E to be heard at 9:00 a.m.
6/1412011 8:37 AM
June 14-15,2011
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE MAY 10, 2011 BCC/REGULAR MEETING
AND THE MAY 25, 2011 BCC/COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD JOINT MEETING MINUTES - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we have the May 10,2011, BCC
regular meeting minutes to be approved. Does anyone have any
changes to those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'll accept a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve not only the May
10th BCC Regular Meeting Minutes, but also May 25th BCC County
School Board Joint Meeting Minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Motion to approve both minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minutes are approved unanimously.
Item #4A
Page 9
June 14-15,2011
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATION JUNE 14,2011 AS YOUTH
LEADERSHIP COLLIER DAY. TO BE ACCEPTED BY BOB
SANDY, JOAN COX AND MICHAEL GIUSTO AND 38
STUDENTS FROM THE 2011 YOUTH LEADERSHIP COLLIER
CLASS. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to proclamations.
Item 4A this morning is a proclamation designating June 14, 2011, as
Youth Leadership Collier Day, to be accepted by Bob Sandy, Joan
Cox, and Michael Giusto, and 38 students from the 20 11 Youth
Leadership Collier class, and this proclamation is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle. If you'd please come forward and accept your
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that includes all the students. Each
of you will have three minutes to speak and tell us --
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Here we go. Smile.
MR. SANDY: Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Bob, are you going to speak to us.
Do you require any time?
MR. SANDY: I do not, sir. Thank you very much for
recognizing this exceptional group of students, juniors entering their
senior year from schools throughout Collier County, and we're thrilled
to be here. It's a terrific experience, and we appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. Thank you
very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And by the way, that prompts me to
make an announcement about another student, Casey Weston, who
just graduated from Gulf Coast High School. You will have an
Page 10
June 14-15,2011
opportunity tonight to vote for her on the Voice. So I urge you to
support a local student who is trying to make it in the entertainment
business. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Talk about her dad, a friend to
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Dave Weston is with the Naples
Lumber Company. He's the vice president of the Finance of Naples
Lumber Company. He has been the Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce in Collier County, and so -- great family, great young lady,
and hope you all vote early and often.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because that is allowed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is allowed, as a matter of fact, just like
in Chicago.
MR. OCHS: And with that, if I could please have a motion to
approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamation by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is passed unanimously.
Item #5A
TRICIA DORN, KEY ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE OF LCEC (LEE
Page 11
June 14-15,2011
COUNTY ELECTRIC), PRESENTING AN EQUITY PAYOUT OF
$20,168.08 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda this morning, presentations. Item 5A is a presentation by
Tricia Dorn, key account executive of the Lee County Electric
Cooperative presenting an equity payment of$20,168.08 to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Ms. Dorn?
MS. DORN: Good morning, Commissioners. Tricia Dorn with
LCEC.
Electricity is often taken for granted, but some residents of
Southwest Florida did not have power 71 years ago. At that time no
power company was willing to pay the expense for extending power
lines to remote areas of Southwest Florida, some of which are located
in Collier County.
In 1940 a group of residents decided to share the cost and borrow
money to form an electric cooperative. Each customer of the
cooperative was a member, just as today.
In Collier County, LCEC members reside in Marco Island,
Everglades City, Copeland, Chokoloskee, Goodland, Jerome,
Immokalee, Ave Maria, and areas located within unincorporated
Collier, in addition to the service that extends down to the Dade
County line.
Cooperatives do not exist to generate profit; however, LCEC
does generate margins from excess revenue. Margins are then
allocated in the form of equity.
Earlier this year the LCEC board of trustees approved an $8
million equity distribution. Over the years, LCEC has returned more
than $178 million in equity to its customers. LCEC's mission remains
the same today as it was back in 1940, to provide efficient electricity
Page 12
June 14-15, 2011
at the lowest possible cost.
Today we are proud to deliver the 2011 Equity Distribution
Check in the amount of $20, 168 to Collier County. LCEC appreciates
the opportunity to serve you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the best parts of this job is
. .
receIvIng money.
MS. DORN: Do you want to come down and receive your
check?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MS. DORN: I'll give the real check to Crystal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's good.
MS. KINZEL: I like those days, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have your checkbook here,
Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: No, but right upstairs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want us to hold it?
MS. DORN: Sure, please.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. You did a great
job by the way. You guys did wonderfully on Marco Island.
MS. DORN: Thank you, thank you.
Item #5B
AWARDING COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH
A WARD TO Y AMRON JEWELERS. ACCEPTING THE A WARD
WILL BE URSULA PFAHL, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF
YAMRONJEWELERS-PRESENTED
Page 13
June 14-15, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5B this morning is a
presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month award to
Yamron Jewelers. Accepting the award will be Ursula Pfahl, Chief
Operating Officer of Yamron Jewelers, and Jacob Tuchman. If you
would please come forward to accept your award.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we each get a diamond?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would just like to point out that Yamron
Jewelers was established -- come on, please come up. And you turn
around. We're going to take a picture of you in just a moment.
But Yamron Jewelers is a third generation, Naples based fine
jewelry and watch retail business with two locations. The mission of
Yamron Jewelers is to make customers happy, and that includes
sharing its resources in a meaningful way and contributing to the
community .
Here to accept the Yamron Jewelers award for Business of the
Month is partner and Vice President of Sales, Jacob Tuchman, and
Ursula Pfahl, Chief Operating Officer.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you for being part of our
community. We're delighted to have you, and we're going to present
you with this plaque.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you give us each a diamond?
They gave us a check.
MS. PFAHL: Good morning again. I would first like to say thank
you. Thank you for this award. We thank the EDC, and we thank you
for supporting the EDC.
But I deviate a little bit from what you might usually hear.
Oftentimes citizens come before you as petitioners asking for certain
kinds of things that will help them do the business better. My main
role today is to be here and thank you.
Even though Yamron Jewelers has rarely or, to the best of my
Page 14
June 14-15,2011
knowledge in my 15 years with the company, not come before you
with any kind of petition -- but here is what you do for us. It's on the
macro level. You may know that we have close relationships with our
customers. It is the nature of our business. When people come and buy
precious items to celebrate occasions, they establish a relationship
with a business who provides these items for them.
And as part of this relationship, we hear many comments. To the
extent that many of these individuals are new here, are visitors, are
friends of family, what we hear is great appreciation for how this
community runs. We hear thank you, of course, for the climate, which
is a God given, we hear thank you for the open and good government,
which is all of you in this room, we hear thank you for the civic
organizations, and we hear thank you for living in paradise.
So I would like to thank all of you for what you do. Chairman
Coy Ie a few minutes ago, to the young people, spoke of character. I
think you represent the character that Chairman Coy Ie described. And
we appreciate all you do. Weare here to support you, and thank you
.
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Ursula.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING GARY KESSLER, PROGRAM LEADER, PARKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR MAY 2011 - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5C this morning is a
recommendation to recognize Gary Kessler, Program Leader, Parks
and Recreation Department, as the Employee of the Month for May
20 II.
Gary, if you'd please come forward.
Page 15
June 14-15,2011
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gary.
MR. KESSLER: How are you? Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. Here's a check, and this is
the letter of authorization to use Commissioner Coletta's parking
space.
MR. KESSLER: This is the best part of the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you got to pick me up in the
morning and drive me back.
MR. KESSLER: No, no. That ain't going to happen. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you need to turn around and have
your picture taken.
MR. KESSLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm going to embarrass Gary while
he's getting his picture taken in a little bit and tell you a little bit about
what he's done over many, many years of service to the county.
Gary's been a valued and trusted member of our team for over 20
years here in the Parks and Recreation Department. As a program
leader in the athletic section, Gary's always willing to adjust his
schedule to accommodate the ever changing needs at the North Collier
Regional Park through the weekend and night activities, tournaments,
and numerous special events.
He accepts additional responsibilities at the softball complex to
help with staff shortages at a minute's notice. He's being recognized
also for his outstanding working relationships with the many
organizations that hold special events at the park. He bends over
backwards to make sure that they're totally accommodated. He works
with these groups to ensure that their events are successful at every
turn.
He goes above and beyond to handle these events and often
received personal thank you notes from the organizations that he helps
Page 16
June 14-15,2011
and he, in turn, is an ambassador for the Commission and the County
Manager's Office, and he's certainly appreciated.
He has outstanding people skills: His energy, his positive
attitude, make him a great ambassador to Parks and Recreation and the
county in general, and he is very, very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, I'm proud to present Gary Kessler, Program
Leader, Employee of the Month of May 201l.
MR. KESSLER: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. KESSLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. KESSLER: Thank you. Can I talk?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but not from here. You have to go
to the microphone.
MR. KESSLER: Thank you very much, Commissioners. I love
my job, and stick with it, guys.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. DALE JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
OF THE RADIO ROAD EAST OF SANTA BARBARA TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD MSTU ADVISORY BOARD, REQUESTING THAT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S EFFORT IN OBTAINING
FINANCING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LANDSCAPING BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT TO BEGIN
SOONER - MOTION TO BRING BACK AS A REFERENDUM
RESOLUTION - APPROVED AND STAFF TO PREP ARE A
PROCESS FOR USE IN THE FUTURE
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your
Page 1 7
June 14-15,2011
agenda this morning, public petitions. 6A is a public petition request
from Mr. Dale Johnson, Chairman of the Radio Road East of Santa
Barbara to Davis Boulevard MS TU Advisory Board requesting that
the Board of County Commissioners support the advisory committee's
efforts in obtaining financing to allow construction of the landscaping
beautification project to begin sooner.
Mr. Johnson, good morning.
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. JOHNSON: I thank you for the opportunity to be here. I
represent the ten communities of the Radio Road MSTU eastern half
from Santa Barbara to Davis.
We're asking that the county allow us to borrow sufficient funds
to begin the median strip planning for Radio Road as soon as possible.
Our request is based upon the wishes of the district residents as
expressed in public meetings that were held to share the conceptual
drawings earlier.
It will take until 2017 for the MSTU to accumulate sufficient
funds to complete the project based upon our projections.
The design project is now at 30 percent complete, and the
consumptive water permit has already been issued.
Based upon the current design, the total cost of the project is now
set at about $700,000. Our concern is that the cost of the project will
increase as the economy picks up in the next few years, which could
delay the project even longer in accumulating sufficient funds to meet
the needs.
The MS TU is requesting a loan from the county to repay as funds
are accumulated or direction to work with staff to pursue other loan
opportunities that may be available.
The entire balance would not be required. The MS TU has already
collected some funds, and we have allocated capi- -- you know, funds
in the account that are accumulating, so we would only need the
Page 18
June 14-15,2011
difference between what's available.
We believe it would take about five to seven years to repay any
kind of loan, regardless of what the -- you know, regardless of what
the options might be.
The design plan is based on the MSTU's desire to create a
welcoming landscape while minimizing future maintenance expenses.
We understand that the MS TU may be responsible for ongoing
maintenance once the project is completed. We wish to point out that
the cost per mile is higher than other installations, but that's due to the
width of the medians, which are 42 feet wide, and the average width in
the county is only 1 7 feet.
The other piece is the elimination of Floratam sod, which
necessitates 100 percent planning of the extremely large -- or
mulching of the extremely large medians.
We could reduce the cost by limiting the use or including
additional use of Floratam sod, but in the long run, that would increase
the maintenance expenses. We want to balance the future cost versus
what the costs are today.
We also are looking certainly at alternative plans and other
mulching materials and other ways of reducing the costs the best we
can.
We have representatives here from many of the communities
here today, and our design studio, Urban Green, is also here, and we're
prepared to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Board members, I'd like to ask that
you solicit only the information that is necessary to determine if we're
going to bring this back for a full hearing. We have a very full day,
and I would urge that we not get involved in detailed debate about any
of the items on the public petitions this morning.
So if you have questions that you need to have answered in order
to make the determination as to whether or not you should bring this
back for a full hearing, then please ask them; otherwise, let's take a
Page 19
June 14-15,2011
vote on whether we want to have this come back. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is Commissioner Henning's
district, so why doesn't he lead that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and I appreciate your
guidance for today's meeting. It's prudent that we get this done in a
timely manner.
Just a little bit. The Board of Commissioners under the guidance
of the residents in the area created an MSTU for landscaping this
section of Radio Road. What they're asking for is a -- well, talking to
staff, is they feel that it needs a public referendum within the MSTU
to borrow the money from either the county or any public bank.
So, therefore, I direct -- make a motion to direct staff to bring
back a resolution -- referendum resolution for the MSTU and also to
make recommendations from staff of where the funding source may
come from.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Questions? Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I have constituents in my
district that are facing the same challenges that you are, so I'm very
glad that you're bringing this question forward. And to that end, I
would like to add to what Commissioner Henning just said and would
hope that staff would come up with a process where all similarly
situated MSTUs could avail themselves of whatever mechanism that
we come up with to benefit you.
So I just would like to add that to your motion, Commissioner
Henning, if you would find that acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would find that acceptable, but
it's really the MSTUs that should be coming to the board for
something like that. And if you have one, I think that's --
Page 20
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But what I would like is
staff to come up with a mechanism so we don't have to reinvent the
wheel every time they come forward with this, because, for example,
right now there's a group of constituents that would like to create an
MS TU to beautify Vanderbilt Beach Road between 41 and Airport
Pulling, and the very same thing is coming up in their minds, how are
we going to collect all this money up front to landscape the medians
today? It's going to take years before they accumulate the necessary
dollars.
So it's -- again, it's looking for a process. And then once we have
it established, each MSTU comes forward, you know, a request to be
-- request a referendum, and we know exactly, you know, the method
by which we can make it all happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see a problem with that. I
think that would be advisable -- wouldn't you, Leo -- is provide some
kind of a mechanism if people want to enhance properties above and
beyond what we have the ability to now.
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay.
MR. OCHS: Not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor -- all in favor of the motion,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 21
June 14-15, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Dale.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We appreciate your support.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. ROBERT D. PRITT
REPRESENTING THE BAREFOOT BEACH CLUB
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING
THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT
STAFF TO WORK WITH THE PETITIONER ON A PLAN FOR
MODEST TRIMMING OF MANGROVES - MOTION TO BRING
BACK AND THE PETITIONER TO WORK WITH STAFF AND
THE CONSERVANCY TO COME TO A RESOLUTION AND GET
REQUIRED PERMITS - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 6B is a public petition request
from Mr. Robert D. Pritt representing the Barefoot Beach Club
Condominium Owners Association requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners direct staff to work with the petitioner on a
plan for modest trimming of mangroves.
Mr. Pritt, good morning.
MR. PRITT: Good morning.
Mr. Chairman, members of the County Commission, my name's
Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I'm here along
with my co-counsel, Tom Mullin, with Rose, Sundstrom, and Bentley.
He's an Environmental Lawyer -- George Hargreaves, the Board
Chair; and Belegia Susidellas (phonetic) -- how did I do on that?
Close enough -- who is the Property Manager.
We're here on behalf of Barefoot Beach property owners, and I
would like to -- I think you have a copy of the documents or the
photographs that we had sent to you previously.
Page 22
June 14-15,2011
I don't know if that shows up, but there is a red line and a green
line on the document. The -- there are four condominium units there,
and what we're asking for is to be able to trim the mangroves in the
county's portion, which is just a mangrove fringe on Little Hickory
Bay.
And what we'd like to do is have you direct staff to work with the
petitioner to bring forward to the commission a plan for modest
trimming of the mangroves to restore a view to the bay waters from
the first living level of four residential condominiums.
The background is that the county owns a mangrove area
adjacent to the residential condominium buildings on Barefoot Beach
Boulevard as a result of a settlement agreement in litigation with the
Conservancy in 1985. The majority of the mangroves were small,
sparse, and heavily infested with exotics.
As a condition of the approval of the condominium project, the
developer performed significant enhancement and mitigation in the
mangrove area. Here's another picture. This was 1993, I think, and
then in -- a little later on. The buildings were built in the '90s. And you
can see the mangrove fringe there is pretty sparse.
And -- but the good news is, the mangrove fringe did well. It's
very healthy and is growing. The bad news is it's growing over to
block the first living floor area -- all those buildings are on -- are over
parking, so the first floor is actually the second -- what we normally
would think is the second floor, and the mangroves have grown to
actually block the view from the second floor.
And here's some photographs showing that. And the top there is a
view from 2002, I believe, or -- no, 1996, and the bottom is a current
-- more current view, 2010, and you can see how the view has been
blocked by the healthy mangrove fringe. Here's another picture that is
very similar.
What we would like to do is to do mangrove trimming, not
removal of mangroves and not killing of mangroves, but trimming of
Page 23
June 14-15,2011
mangroves in order to restore the view, and here are photographs that
depict -- on the one photograph here -- does that show here -- this
photograph shows what the state would allow for mangrove trimming
-- I'm sorry. On the right hand side is what the state would allow for
mangrove trimming under the state regulations that are in effect.
On the left side is all that we're asking for with regard to
trimming. We're not going to trim anywhere close to the total -- total
extent of the level that would be otherwise allowed by the state.
Our request is that the County allow us to work with the staff in
order to come up with a meaningful mangrove trimming, not removal
program, that would allow for the restoration of the views. It would
only be in those particular areas where the view has actually been
blocked.
The trimming would be done at the expense of the property
owners, not the county's expense. We would have -- we would have
the trimming -- we would ask that the trimming be done both on the
property that is common area of the condominium association. That's a
-- actually a separate permit type of matter, and we're dealing with
D EP on that permit, and -- but with regard to the county's property, we
are asking you in your proprietary capacity rather than your regulatory
capacity as owners of that property to allow us to have a similar
trimming that -- so that we could restore the view.
The -- I understand that the Conservancy, again, has disagreed
with that. I would love to spend a lot of time pointing out the errors in
the Conservancy's position on that, but let me suffice to say that we
did go to the Conservancy as to our property. That is part of the
settlement agreement says, you can go to the Conservancy and ask
their permission.
The board actually gave us a pretty good reception and voted to
allow us to continue to work with the Conservancy; however, shortly
after that the staff filed an objection to our state permit, and because of
that, the mediation that had been agreed to has not occurred. Has not
Page 24
June 14-15,2011
yet occurred. The Conservancy staff, I'm sorry.
So that's -- now, the settlement agreement -- I don't want to get
into all the details of it. But the settlement agreement says that we go
to the Conservancy -- on our property, not necessarily -- not your
property. You don't have to go to the Conservancy, but on our
property we go to the Conservancy, and it also says that their approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, and in order to withhold approval,
they have to have a two thirds vote. There are some protections in
there, and we will continue to deal with them on those issues
concerning the portion of the property that belongs to us.
As far as your property is concerned, that's your call. Now, I
know the Conservancy says that there's a deed restriction -- or a
covenant that says you cannot do that; however, both of those
covenants actually say that destruction and removal -- destruction or
removal of the mangroves would not be permitted and does not --
neither one of those restrictions say that it cannot be permitted.
As many of you know, the law concerning mangrove trimming
changed significantly in 1995. It used to be that it was always up to
the cities and the counties to make those decisions. The Mangrove
Trimming and Preservation Act, also called the Net Rita Act
(phonetic) sometimes, was the -- changed it, and it preempted
mangrove trimming to the state and away from the cities and the
counties unless the cities and the counties obtained a delegation from
the state to enforce the state mangrove laws.
So that is preempted to the state, and we are dealing with the
state, and we understand and recognize that we cannot do any
trimming unless the state says it's okay, and we cannot do any
trimming on your property unless you also say it's okay.
And the other -- the other -- the last thing I'll say about that is, the
state -- if you look at the legislation, and I know it's all you can -- all
you ever want to do is sit and look at the state legislation. But if you
look at the legislation, the state in at least three places says that it is
Page 25
June 14-15,2011
the intention of the state in its finding of the legislature that not all
mangrove trimming kills the trees. I'm saying that in layperson's
terms.
But, you know, it is -- it is allowed since 1995 and 1996, and we
would like to take advantage of that, and we won't kill the trees.
Again, all at the expense of -- we will have a mangrove trimming plan,
and it will be all at the expense of the property owners, and it will be
only such as is necessary to restore the view that they once had of
beautiful Little Hickory Bay.
I'll be glad to try to answer any questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to
direct that you work with county staff and with the Conservancy to
establish a resolution to this.
If I understand correctly, you'll also need the county to apply for
a permit to trim the mangroves on the county's property?
MR. PRITT: Well, I'm not quite sure about that. My co-counsel
has been working on that aspect of it. If necessary, then we would ask
that that be part of it. But, obviously, we need to come back to you to
-- with anything that we'd come up with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to suggest that all be
explored at the same time.
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because it makes sense to bring
this back in one package. If you're to go forward -- and just one
possible solution would be limited trimming to create a view corridor
where you leave the tops and just trim through the mangroves leaving
the base intact rather than chopping the tops off. I've heard that that is
an alternative for the type of mangroves that you're dealing with, that
protects them, and maybe Conservancy would consider that as a
viable option --
MR. PRITT: Okay.
Page 26
June 14-15, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in the interest of protecting the--
MR. PRITT: We certainly will do that. And I'm sure your staff
will have a lot of input as to how to do it and what to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to encourage the staff to work with you. Is there
a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner
Henning. And, Commissioner Henning, you have a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe Commissioner Hiller
said work with the Conservancy --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and staff and bring back a plan
to do that. I have confidence in Kathy Worley from the Conservancy
to bring something reasonable for the health of the mangrove forest.
So I'll support that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion and a second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously with
Commissioner Coletta being temporarily out of the room.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Pritt.
Item #9B
Page 27
June 14-15,2011
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD REPORT TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE RECENT
OUTREACH MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
FROM THE MEETING - PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners that takes us to your first time
certain hearing this morning. Excuse me. It's Item 9B. It's to be heard
at 9:45 a.m. The Black Affairs Advisory Board report to the Board of
County Commissioners on their recent outreach meeting and public
comments received from the meeting.
MR. UPSON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. UPSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I'm Keith Upson.
I'm Vice Chair of your Black Affairs Advisory Board. Also in
attendance this morning I saw Board Member, Akita Cannon, I think I
saw newest Board Member, Alvan Coke present, and we have county
staff, our coordinating volunteer, whose official title I apologize for
not being able to tell you. Staff liaison, that sounds much more
official. Tamika Seaton is here this morning as well. In reality, I know
her as the person who does everything and makes sure everything gets
done; very grateful for that.
Thank you for the opportunity to report to you this morning. I
wish I had the capacity to simply tell you my report. We worked hard
on what went into it. I'm concerned that I'm not that capable of a
speaker. I apologize to you in the next couple minutes that you may
see the top of my head more --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're doing fine.
MR. UPSON: -- More than anything else. As I go through,
Commissioner, I want to make sure I don't leave anything out after --
through my own shortcomings as a result of all our work.
So, unfortunately, you're going to get less of my eyes and more
Page 28
June 14-15,2011
of the top of my head as I look down. Not the preferred method, but
I'd rather be more thorough.
The ordinance that created the Black Affairs Advisory Board
charges us to identify and evaluate problems unique to the black
community, to review and recommend ways to ensure open
communication between minorities and Collier County Government
and to provide periodic reports to you. I'm here this morning on a third
point, to report to you what we've been doing to foster and encourage
community participation on the first two points, the identification and
evaluation of problems unique to the black community and what we're
doing to facilitate open communication between minorities in the
county and county government.
We traditionally meet the fourth Monday every month usually in
this room at a somewhat later hour in the day, but in an effort to
increase public participation and awareness, we held our April 25th
meeting out at the Golden Gate Community Center.
We were fortunate to have members of the public in attendance
and provide us feedback on primarily two different issues at that
meeting. The first issue involved questions that seemed best addressed
by representatives of the Sheriffs Department. So to facilitate
communication between those residents and the Sheriffs Department,
we've -- and by "we" I mean our staff coordinating volunteer Tamika
Seaton has been able to coordinate a presentation from Sheriffs
Department Representatives back at the Golden Gate Community
Center on June 27th.
We'll do that in conjunction with our next regularly scheduled
meeting so that we can all benefit from the dialogue that we think is
going to result from inviting those members of the public back out and
having those questions and hearing them with the appropriate
representative from the Sheriffs Department who can best address
those.
The second issue that was brought to us, a member of the public
Page 29
June 14-15,2011
expressed an interest in the existence of some sort of mentoring
program for residents of the Juvenile Detention facility. He had
questions about whether or not any such programs exist for civilians to
work with residents at the Juvenile Detention facility similar to a Big
Brother, Big Sister type program where they could meet with them
while they're still detained and help transition them when released.
And his questions were broad, whether such a program exists, and if
not how -- who he might need to talk to to start such a program.
I expect that those questions can be answered also at our June
27th meeting when we have representatives from the Sheriffs
Department in attendance. If not, I expect those representatives can
direct us to the appropriate people with Department of Juvenile Justice
or can give us the appropriate context we need to hopefully then in the
future to coordinate another meeting between those people back at the
community center again and, again, notice -- publicly notice our
follow up Black Advisory Board meeting there, as well for the same
purpose, to bring those questions together under that roof with,
hopefully, the answers that they need.
It sounded as if a common theme at the April 25th meeting
among the public -- and the questions that we were presented seemed
to be one about matching existing resources with members of the
community who, for whatever reason, might not be aware of existing
county programs and how they might access them, so we're delighted
to be able to fulfill our mission to help identify and evaluate those
issues and review and recommend ways to facilitate that
communication between county residents and the people within the
county responsible and most knowledgeable about programs that
already exist.
Because that April meeting out at Golden Gate went as well as
we had hoped, we plan on continuing to hold meetings in local
regional community centers. After this month's return to Golden Gate,
we hope to meet in River Park as soon in July as possible with
Page 30
June 14-15,2011
cooperation and coordination with the city, and we hope to conduct a
subsequent future meeting out in Immokalee.
Our goal, again, being to broaden public awareness of our
existence and mission and hopefully encourage public participation
both at our meetings and through hopefully increasing application for
board membership -- hopefully increasing the submission of
application for board membership to you for your consideration.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to report to you on what
we've been doing pursuant to our enabling ordinance and what we
plan on doing in the near future in furtherance of our charge.
I will gladly try and answer any questions that you may have
about what we're doing and what we're planning to do next. And if
there are none, thank you, and I look forward to reporting -- or some
representative of the board reporting back to you again before the end
of the year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you have -- do you have a
quorum whenever you meet, and do you have a lot of participation?
MR. UPSON: In my involvement with the board, participation
among board members has been seasonal. And the most recent -- and I
don't have the hard figures for you. Most recently we've gone without
a quorum more often than we've had a quorum. So it becomes more --
when people do attend, it becomes more -- since it was properly
noticed for the public, you know, we don't actually conduct any
business or vote on anything, but we do stick around through the
duration, and dialogue ensues. But, you know, at some point it's the
same people talking to one another about the same things.
And it was that craving for more exposure and more public
involvement, because one possible conclusion to be drawn from that is
that there aren't issues unique to the black community and that's why
we frequently met with an empty room in these chambers on our
Page 31
June 14-15,2011
Monday night meetings. And the different members of the board may
have a different take on that. I would be thrilled but surprised if that
were the -- actually the case.
And obviously our charge is not to -- you know, there's only so
much broadcasting and public notice and so forth we can do, so we've
tried more of a grassroots approach through churches and local,
smaller communities within communities, which was sort of where --
the idea to meet out at Golden Gate and Immokalee and River Park so
that we can distribute the public notices through the churches that are
nearby and the county libraries that are nearby.
And as a result, in April we had more of the public in attendance
than we had in quite some time.
We haven't had a quorum in a while. But like I said, in my
experience on the board, that comes and goes. What I hope to see
happen through these -- communities outreach or this more
progressive approach to trying to go to people and have them, you
know, become aware of us and come talk to us, is that not only they
will be better able to identify issues to present to you under our
charge, but that more people will have that moment where they say,
you know, once a month I can go -- I have things to say. I'd like -- I
can do that once a month. How do I fill out the application for your
consideration to become a member of that board?
Because I'd like nothing more than -- I believe nine members -- I
believe we're a nine member board. I'd like nothing more than to have
nine full seats, and I think everybody on the board agrees. And I think
there is -- there are issues to be heard. I think there are resources in
place we can help facilitate under our charge, and obviously we'd
rather be doing that work than not doing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yau had talked about some sort of
mentoring program for youth in detention programs. I think what we
need is mentoring for the youth in the community at all levels. And I
Page 32
June 14-15,2011
was going to make a suggestion to you as an example of one type of
program that I understand that is underway right now. I think it was
the junior league that was intending to develop a program to educate
youth about financial literacy, and SCORE had expressed that they
would work with them to educate young people about how to make a
living, how to manage money -- how to manage their -- you know,
their money and so forth, and I think that would go a long way to
helping in the community.
And I was also going to suggest -- and as far as your outreach
goes -- to communicate with employers and let them know that you're
having these meetings, that if they have employees, you know, that
would like to attend, that they have the opportunity to do so.
And, lastly, I was wondering if any of the representative
members here today would like to add a few words to what you very
well presented.
MR. UPSON: Mr. Coke, our newest member. And thank you for
your suggestions. I think those are excellent.
MR. COKE: Hi. My name is Alvan Coke, a new member of the
board. And it gives me great pleasure to see the support that is
available in the community for the young people. I volunteer at the
Collier Juvenile Detention Center, and I see such great need for
rehabilitation when they get out.
A young man asked me, what can I do to stop coming here so
often? You know, and I have concern for these young men. These are
children that are 16 -- he's just 16. Say, I've be coming here too often,
and I need a support system when I get out, because sometimes the
family failed.
So whatever we can do to assist these young people, you know,
it's very much appreciated.
Thank you for the time.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, currently the Black Affairs, it's
a nine member board, and they have five vacancies, so that's one of
Page 33
June 14-15, 2011
the problems.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I've got a couple of suggestions for
you. We're going to have to take the step of, perhaps, asking some of
the members who are currently on the board who cannot participate--
we're going to have to ask them to step aside, and we're going to have
to find people who will step into those positions.
The other thing is that there is -- there are several youth support
groups, but there is one that is, I think, particularly effective that is just
being organized. I attended the initial meeting at the church on 10th
Avenue just recently there in River Park, and it was a very good
program which was designed specifically to mentor young black
people in the community. And I can provide you the contacts.
MR. UPSON: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you would prefer to have a separate
initiative, some of those people might even be willing to serve on the
advisory board, because they're very active and they're very energetic,
and they have some good stories to tell about what they intend to do.
So I will provide you with that information, and if you wish to
contact them, I'm sure they would appreciate it.
MR. UPSON: I would appreciate that very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. UPSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, okay.
MS. CANNON: Hi. I'm a member of the Black Affairs Advisory
Board.
And first of all, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate
hearing your support here. I'm a new member to the board, and one of
the problems we did have, the difficulties we had was having a
quorum. And I do agree that we maybe have to relook at the makeup
of the board and readdress that.
But out of our outreach, we've gotten new applications coming in
for a board member, so we're hopeful, and that's a good thing.
Page 34
June 14-15,2011
My question, or my concern is, meeting the quorum and how that
quorum is established, what is the guidelines for that, because if we
have a nine member board, it seems like the quorum would be five.
Okay. And it's my understanding that the quorum is not calculated in
that way, so why -- we have not been able to establish a quorum
because of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really?
MS. CANNON: Or one of the reasons is because of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think the county attorney can
straighten that out for you.
MS. CANNON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you need any further guidance
about those things, please feel free to contact our county attorney, Jeff
Klatzkow.
Jeff, you can have the appropriate staff member sort those issues
out, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
MS. CANNON: All right. And, again, thank you for your
support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And by the way, what you're doing is the
right way to solve this, is an outreach program. You have to go out
and find people who --
MS. CANNON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- who share the commitment that you
have and get them involved, and sometimes it's hard to do that. But
there are people out there who are very anxious to help, and so I'd
encourage you to continue the outreach process, and you'll fill all the
seats of that board.
MS. CANNON: I appreciate that. I'm very hopeful for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 35
June 14-15,2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
MS. CANNON: I need to state my name.
MR. OCHS : Yeah, If you could just state your name for the court
reporter.
MS. CANNON: Yes. It's Lisa Cannon, C-A-N-N-O-N. Thank
you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. If the outreach is not
successful, one thing that the advisory board could do is recommend
to the Board of Commissioners to go from a nine member board to a
five member board. And, of course, I would seek your advice on that
.
Issue.
MR. UPSON: Thank you, Commissioner. That's one of the
things we've discussed. And I can -- we can better probably take up
with the county attorney the quorum issues and the different
combinations of possible resolutions we've talked about among
ourselves.
What we believe and hope and expect will result, particularly like
not having gone out to River Park -- I understand the board used to
meet all around, including meetings out in Immokalee, and that it was
a much more active -- it was a lot more active at the time, and that's
part of what we expect to get back to.
Hopefully, if I or a representative of the board is reporting again
to you before the end of the year, hopefully part of that report will
include, wow, we went to River Park and we've got -- you know,
you've seen the applications now for membership -- we've got more
than we know -- we know what to do with, and we're glad to have
them and we're glad to have the involvement.
Because the community is here; we believe the resources are here
as well, the programs. It's a tremendous county to get to live in. And
we've never been interested in the inefficiency of wheel reinvention,
Page 36
June 14-15, 2011
particularly wherein -- I think I'm most excited about this new
program that, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned, about having attended
this startup meeting, because where things already exist -- and that's
phenomenal.
If you have a question, here's a program, here is -- and, of course,
along the way we're educating ourselves and building some more
institutional memory than we may have had previously. And hopefully
we'll retain, we will attain retain board members and get to have that
sort of institutional memory where every time somebody has an issue
or a question, member of the public, we can say, oh, well, we know
this issue because this came up, call so and so, and if that doesn't
work, you know, come tell us again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. UPSON: So thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excellent report. Thank you very much.
MR. UPSON: Thank you very much.
Item #9C
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE
2011 FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS
ASSIGNED PREVIOUSLY BY THE BOARD - MOTION TO
ACCEPT THE REPORT AND PROCEED AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9C, which was
to be heard immediately following 9B. It's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the 2011 Finance
Subcommittee Report of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
as assigned previously by the board.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Commissioners. We're pulling up
Page 37
June 14-15,2011
the PowerPoint presentation now. If I may, I'll just introduce who we
are. From the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, as per your
direction, we set up a subcommittee to focus on the housing related
issues as they -- as they wrap around the concept of affordable
housing and how affordable housing has changed since the burst of the
bubble, if you will, and in this current economic climate.
On our commission we were joined by commission members
John Cowan, Kristine Jones, Sally Masters and myself, and met on 10
different occasions over the period of two years, and on five of those
occasions were lucky enough to be graced by some pretty influential
people in the mortgage financing and housing related industries.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we get your name?
MR. KELLY: Sorry. My name is Ken Kelly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: I apologize.
And, anyways, I'd like to get started into this. Just give you an
idea, I was very pleased to be a part of this, and I went from zero to
hero, if you will. I knew nothing about this, just my five years
experience in affordable housing on the commission, and it prompted
us to really take a fresh look at what changed, visiting with those
industry professionals, and to come up with maybe some suggestions
on where we can point our attention in the future for policy changes
and implications.
What we learned in 2010's buying atmosphere was that 66
percent of the homes that were purchased were actually from cash
buyers outside of the financing stream. So we may, in fact, see the
investment, you know, portfolio increasing again, much like we did
the years leading up to the bubble.
At those rates, if people continue to eat up the stock listed on
MLS, we're looking at housing shortages again in less than three
years. Now, luckily for all of us who own homes in Collier County,
the prices are rising again, and that's expected to slow to a more
Page 38
June 14-15,2011
marginal rate.
But what we also learned is that the foreclosures, which
constitute a large portion of those investing -- those investment homes
or units, are in need of repairs. We found that many of them were left
in very poor condition. The Sheriffs Department has issued many
notices stating how foreclosures have been vandalized all the way
down to appliances and some of the essentials to keep that home
operable.
In 2009, Florida led the nation with 26.43 percent of all
delinquencies and foreclosures in the nation. Now we are in the
sharpest declines, which is excellent for our community.
The delinquency rate for sub-prime mortgages was 30.56 percent
in 2010, and that's very interesting. This is where one of those
contradictions starts, because FHA loans were only at 9.42 percent
delinquency rate, which is very interesting.
There was a, if you will -- amongst even ourselves we thought,
perhaps, those who were under assisted programs were more likely to
be affected by the downturn. And what we found is that's not the case.
It was really the investment buyers who were hit the hardest, if you
will, or who walked away from those investments when they weren't
able to pay due to the decline in the economy.
We also found that unemployment starkly follows the pattern of
delinquencies. As employment rose -- unemployment rose, so did
delinquencies.
The median sales price is still high at $180,000, and that's as per
the Naples Area Board of Realtors' own numbers for 2010, and
because so many folks are out of their homes, are going through
foreclosure issues, we see that rent prices are starting to rise because
that's their only alternative.
What we learned about the mortgage market. We learned that
deregulation and speculative buying more or less caused the bubble.
Well, since its burst, overreaction and restrictive environment of
Page 39
June 14-15, 2011
lending has taken over. You know, much like the pendulum swinging
from one side to the next, that's what's happened here. And self
employment - self employed buyers were hit the hardest.
And what's sad about self employers is that they went from being
able to sign a loan, no asset, no income verification to now being
unemployed or having businesses fail and not being able to prove
anything.
Then there's the other side of the coin, those who are laid off and
are seeking their own self employment and starting their own
businesses and trying to get their feet stable and aren't able to secure
financing because, again, no track record to prove it.
We see continued regulation tightening -- and we're going to
learn more about that in a moment -- CRA loans being eliminated
from portfolios, and 400 percent tighter requirements than 2005 to
secure funding for new homes.
FHA is now the standard guidelines for just about everything
that's going on in the mortgage industry.
According to Barbara Hammon from Wells Fargo, she says if
CRA guidelines were used over the last 10 years, this crisis would
have been at least 50 percent less severe.
What we learned about the income qualified buyer today . We
learned that the FHA FICO minimum scores are around the same,
somewhere right around the 600 mark; however, the down payment
requirements are up to three and a half percent, which is a substantial
increase from before. Government backed loans are pretty much the
only game in town, even for the secondary markets that use the FHA
forms as their guidelines.
Income is now strictly verified. There's no such thing as gifting.
It has to be earned income. And debt for housing cannot be more than
31 percent, and total debt for the buyers cannot be more than 43
percent.
There's a new credit rating system. Now, there was an act that
Page 40
June 14-15,2011
was passed by Congress to help this, but the banks just found an easier
way to get around it. There are many new matrixes that these banks
are using to rate credit scores. Although the credit score minimums
have not necessarily changed much, the way that they go about
looking at them has.
Credit lines have been lowered. Now, the typical case would be,
if you had a credit card and carried a 5,000 balance and it had a high
credit limit of 10,000, you were considered to be okay. You were
building credit. You were showing that you could pay your bills on
time, and you would revolve that amount month over end and
continue to build.
Well, when -- what the banks did is they lowered your maximum
amount, so they lowered it, let's say in this case, from 10,000 to 7,500.
Now all of a sudden your loan to maximum was skewed. And they
don't want you to hold just 50 percent debt; they want you down in the
25 percent market. So a lot of people were caught and now have their
credit scores affected.
Student loans and medical expenses are now being counted
whereas they haven't necessarily been in the past by most banks.
Moe Pereira from IronStone Bank; he's the loan the President. He
stated this in one of our meetings: If you carry debt on one of your
credit cards and you decide to shop at Nordstroms rather than going to
Walmart, plan on taking a hit on your credit score. That's how
sophisticated the credit reporting systems have gotten with computers
today. They're actually watching where we shop and whether or not
we're financially responsible.
These are two charts -- and I apologize for not necessarily being
able to see them well. On the left and the right, they follow fairly close
the same trend between delinquencies and foreclosures. The huge
spike at the top in both charts is sub-prime loans. Down on the bottom
you see the dotted line that follows it; that's FHA lending, which is
pretty much mimicking where unemployment has been.
Page 41
June 14-15,2011
Myth busting, these are some of these paradigms that we
encountered while going through this research. Low home prices do
not equal affordability. Because of high unemployment, because of
the new requirements on conventional loans to have at least 20 percent
earned cash down payment, because of new tough underwriting
requirements and downgrade to credit scores, previously bankruptcy
or foreclosure notices on credit, loans have actually become harder to
achieve and, therefore, making even the least expensive home harder
to obtain.
CRA loans are performing better than prime, which is another
myth that we are able to bust. And the Golden Rule by Confucius, "He
who has the gold makes the rule," that seems to be the trend today.
So what can be done? Marcy came up with this continuum of
housing in our community, which I think excellently predicts or shows
the accuracy on how we go from homelessness to home ownership,
which is considered the holy grail in affordable housing.
Homelessness, for instance, as in homeless shelters and
transitional housing, the next step out of that would be to go into
rental, using rental assistance or maybe even standard rental. From
there, it's nice to move into Habitat homes or CRA lending situations,
which is more of a regulated home ownership, and then ultimately
moving into standard home ownership, which needs no assistance.
What can be done? As the housing stock continues to age in
Collier County, we suggest putting our focus more into rehab rather
than new building. You know, the Land Development Code currently
requires a thousand homes to be built under the affordable flag every
year in Collier County . We didn't build a thousand units in the last two
years combined total out of all conventional. It's completely
unrealistic. So we believe that it should be looked at.
We also think that maybe the county should shift its focus
towards stick built or coming out of the ground homes and put some
of that focus into rehab to try to preserve what we do have, especially
Page 42
June 14-15, 2011
those that are already in the affordable programs, so that we don't lose
them to foreclosures themselves.
Rental. With so many people foreclosed upon and moving into
rental as their only option, perhaps we can shift some of our focus into
the rental program to assist them there.
Homeless and transitional housing. Dollar for dollar, it's the
biggest bang for your buck. It's one of those that requires a little bit of
money but makes a huge difference.
And financial literacy education. Here in Collier County, unless
you elect to take accounting your senior -- or your high school years,
you're not taught how to balance a checkbook. You don't know what a
mortgage loan requires. You don't know what amortization is on a
loan.
Our suggestion is to, one, accept this report as per your request
and, two, allow us to look further to provide additional information on
what we can do to change policy going forward and to help make
affordable housing a part of the sustained community.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a few comments. Thank
you.
MR. KELLY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for a very,
very good report.
MR. KELLY: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see you've been working hard.
One of the things that we deal with -- and I've talked to you
privately about this years ago -- in East Naples is the heavy, heavy
concentration of very low income housing. And because of that heavy
concentration of very low income, it is difficult to attract the middle
income young families who work, because as you read in the paper
just recently, our schools are not an attraction to the East Naples area,
Page 43
June 14-15,2011
which says we need to do a better job. We cannot be concentrating all
of the very low and low income into one area and expect it to survive.
Right now we, in East Naples, have a two pronged economy. We
have the retirees -- and they love living in East Naples, and it's a
wonderful place to live -- and we have the affordable housing low
income people.
The problem is, when the retirees go home in the summer to--
back up north, we have no economy to support and sustain businesses.
So you find that businesses, commercial, retail, restaurants, don't
really care to come to the East Naples area because they can't survive
in the summer when all the retirees go home and the very low income
really aren't shopping in those places.
So we have -- I hope that you will be discussing what you can do
about bringing a better balance and a better distribution of low income
housing rather than locating it all in this one area.
MR. KELLY: May I address that, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You sure can.
MR. KELLY: You'll be pleased to hear that our commissioner,
Mr. Steven Hruby, actually brings a wealth of knowledge from his--
not only his profession, but previous boards that he sat on with the
EULI. And one of their main principles is that you mix affordable
housing throughout the entire community. You don't congregate it all
in one place, like you're saying.
Through staffs hard work in working with NSP, or
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, we were able to take millions
and millions of dollars that was given to us by the federal government
to change the census track recommendations to include almost the
entire county so that we can go and help infill in other areas as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was one of my
suggestions is, maybe you could take some of that -- I realize only
Habitat -- not only -- Habitat, for the most part, is taking the lion's
share of the rehab in the East Naples area, which means they're going
Page 44
June 14-15,2011
to still stay very low income because they don't build for anything
above very low income, whereas, with the county is -- they come in
with their dollars. It's a wonderful thing what they're doing is actually
bringing it up a level, and they're doing a great job, and they ought to
all be proud of that, and I would love to see -- I know that they've
gotten a few homes into East Naples. I'd love to see them put a greater
effort in that, because that just might bring a little bit of something.
But also -- and you were talking about Habitat for Humanity, and
they're a great organization, and they have a wonderful purpose.
What's happening with their organization, though, is that over the last
few years -- and I have all of this paperwork to prove this -- a lot of
their homes have gone into rental units. People have refinanced them,
remortgaged them, then lost them, and they've been sold on the
courthouse steps to people who are in the low income affordable
housing business, and then they rent them out. One of them was
bought on the courthouse steps for $10,000.
So now you change the composition of all of these Habitat
villages from owner occupied. And, you know, people are very proud
to have their very own home. Now you change it to rental units. And I
tell you this, I learned this from a bail bondsman, they went in to
break somebody out of one of the homes who had been avoiding being
recaptured, and when they pounded on the door at five o'clock in the
morning, there were 27 people living in that Habitat home.
Now, you know, that -- you know, we need a stricter overseeing.
I know that they say they do, but if they don't belong to Habitat
anymore, if -- they've gotten a loan on themselves, and so they're not
part of the Habitat oversight, then they can do whatever they please,
really. So --
MR. KELLY: If I may comment to that as well. I was lucky
enough to speak to Nick directly from Habitat, and what they're doing
is changing the way that they attach the lien to the property to extend
the time frame, which would -- in which that home must remain, you
Page 45
June 14-15,2011
know, in the affordable status. And if the owner decides to ever sell or,
in your case, like you stated, refinance, Habitat has the first right at
that loan to keep to it inside the program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've had that, but yet I just drove
through Victoria Falls the other day, and there's for sale signs on the
front lawns. So, you know, that's great that they say that, but that still
isn't solving the problem.
And I had one more comment, but I'll make it a little bit later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you for your
presentation. I was very happy to hear that one of your
recommendations, or I should say one of the omissions in your list of
recommendations, was the acquisition of more properties by the
county .
And to that end, I want to point out that the county had purchased
approximately 67 homes, and of those, only, I think, three or four have
actually sold, and that was at a loss. And the total value of that
investment is about $5 million, which is a very large investment in
that type of program.
I think what you clearly highlighted is the stimulus needs to be
on the demand side, not on the supply side. And so I know we have
programs in the county that allow for loan assistance contributions
towards down payment. I also understand from speaking to individuals
in the community that those thresholds are quite small; the
contributions are really insignificant, not enough to make a difference.
So one of the things that I would like to ask is if you could go
back and explore those thresholds and see what we could do to --
where we do have federal funding to allow for down payment
assistance, to provide assistance that will have an impact and allow
people to purchase homes that are available for sale at these
discounted prices.
So thank you for not including a recommendation, and if you
Page 46
June 14-15,2011
could bring back some information to help me out with my question, I
would be very grateful.
MR. KELLY: Absolutely, Commissioner.
And to your first comment, you're right, the county is not in the
business to buy and sell homes, nor do we want to compete with the
open market. It was one of those incredible opportunities that we were
given to use over $10 million of the federal government's money, and
we just didn't want to pass it by.
The success in that particular program is to prevent blight in the
communities on homes that were otherwise unoccupied and falling
apart.
So we're hoping to wind that program down as the funds are
either being paid back or kept back into other programs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I applaud you for your first
two statements in your response. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it was Abe Lincoln that
once said, "God must love poor people because he made so many of
them." And seems like we're having a problem that's growing every
year. It doesn't seem to ever reach a solution. And it's not the fault of
Collier County Government or the fault of your advisory group. It's
the economy in general, and that's what we're dealing with.
But the situation as it is, one thing I'm very curious -- and maybe
you don't have the answer to this questions. Geographically, you
know, Collier County is the largest county in Florida, maybe east of
the Mississippi. How are we across the board; in other words, is there
one area of the county that's feeling more of an effect from this
recession and the housing falloff than any other part of the county?
That's the first question I got.
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. Commissioner Coletta, through our
research and through the amount of grant funding that we were given
Page 47
J~ne 14-15,2011
based on census tracks, I can say that Golden Gate Estates has the
most number of foreclosures in the county, and one would argue that
that area is hit more hardly -- or harder than the rest of the areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And to build on that, the reasons
there's these foreclosures that are taking place is because people can't
pay their mortgage, and why is the reason they can't pay their
mortgages.
MR. KELLY: That's a part of it, yes, sir, the fact that the jobs just
aren't available. Golden Gate Estates, in my opinion, sir, was founded
by service related families who moved to the Estates to take advantage
of inexpensive land and homes at that time that were attractive.
As the bubble built up and those home prices got to astronomical
levels and, of course, the subsequent fallout, they were -- they realized
that not only did they not have a job, they had a mortgage that was
two to three times what it should have been.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, exactly. But then it all
relates back to the money in, money out. If you're not earning an
income or if you're earning a substandard income because of
employment opportunities being what they are today, you can't -- you
can't make the payments.
MR. KELLY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, if you're without a
job or if you've just been recently employed in a lower paying job,
you probably can't pass the requirements to be able to get a mortgage;
is that also correct?
MR. KELLY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, I mean, we can look at all
the solutions in the world and put all the fancy names we want on
coming up with new types of mortgage, new incentives to be able to
get in houses, but when you get right down to it, the basic thing that
we're lacking is adequate employment or what's needed to be able to
provide jobs, meaningful jobs in meaningful ways just so people can
Page 48
June 14-15,2011
afford to maintain a reasonable lifestyle, and that would be to be able
to have a house of their own rather than have to rent, and be able to
afford a mortgage. That's an observation. You don't have to comment
on that.
But the other question that I have for you, sir, is we're always
looking -- and by the way, I think your advisory group has done some
remarkable things. I mean, the thought process that's been put into it
and the results that have come forward, your programs have really
made a difference in people's lives. Not everybody, but in some
people's lives that you were able to touch, and I thank you for that.
Now, going forward to the next step -- and you pointed out some
of the problems and some of the things you're looking at doing. Have
you researched other counties and other municipalities that may have
had successes in trying to solve some of these problems? And if you
have, what are some of the thoughts that are coming from that
direction?
MR. KELLY: The interesting irony about the comment is, have
we researched others. The funny part is others have researched us. I
believe our county in what we had done prior to the T ARP money and
additional funds that were given to you by the federal government was
lawmakers modeled Collier County's program into their own and then
went nationwide with it.
So, yes, we have, in fact, and we've been a leader, but
additionally, Marcy Krumbine, the director of Housing and Human
Services -- Veterans Services has traveled extensively throughout the
nation at various conferences, so we're not just looking for guidance
from neighboring counties. We're looking throughout the nation for
ideas, and you will see a lot of those proposals coming forth in the
next year or so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 49
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're my last one, and I'll go
quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a break in two
minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion that we approve
the report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
We had a lieutenant from the Sheriffs Office come and give the
East Naples Civic Association Board of Directors a presentation of the
crime in Collier County, and it was very -- it was a very well written
report and so forth. And, of course, the heavy concentration of crime
was in East Naples, and I'm sure you're aware of that.
And one of the board members said to him, but why is that? He
said, because you have all the low income housing there. And so what
I'm suggesting to you, or asking, requesting, pleading with you is, in
your board meetings, if you would try and discuss, please, as you gear
up to prepare for the next few years building more affordable housing
and trying to prepare for the need that will be coming, I would ask that
you find a way to distribute it better to bring a better balance to the
schools, because these kids are never going to have a chance in the
future if we don't give them an opportunity when they're in the
schools. And that is so important to me. Please work with us.
MR. KELLY: Commissioner Fiala, my sister is employed in a
Title 1 elementary school and I get first hand, the problems that she
faces. So, yes, I will bring that back to the commission, and we will
make sure that that's -- there's a focus placed on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion, but the -- to
accept the report. But you requested approval of certain objectives in
this executive summary, four of them, as a matter of fact. And I want
to make sure that the motion and the second incorporate those four
recommendations.
Page 50
June 14-15,2011
And if I could just make a personal observation. Before we
would approve any of these programs, I think you have to present us
the evidence that suggests that it's necessary, but what you're really
asking for is permission from the board to go in that direction, to study
these things, and to come back and make recommendations to us
about what we should do.
So if that's the intent of the motion -- did I capture it correctly?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the intent.
MR. KELLY: That's exactly correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're not approving anything
other than giving you permission to proceed in the direction that
you've outlined in this executive summary, and then come back to us
with a comprehensive report or recommendation about what we would
-- would approve --
MR. KELLY : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or disapprove.
Okay, A motion by Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner--
second by Commissioner Fiala to that effect.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine. And it is now 10:30. We'll
have a ten minute break. We'll be back at 10:40. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We're back
. .
In seSSIon now.
Page 51
June 14-15,2011
Where do we go?
Item #6C
PETITION FROM THE BETHESDA CORKSCREW SEVENTH
DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH REQUESTING THAT THEIR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE REINSTATED - MOTION FOR
THE PETITIONER TO WORK WITH STAFF AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COME TO A RESOLUTION
REGARDING REINSTATING THE PERMIT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, we go to Item 6C. It's a public petition request
from Bethesda Corkscrew Seventh Day Adventist Church requesting
that their conditional use permit be reinstated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. WILLIAMS: I am Robert Williams. I am presenting the
petition details for the Bethesda Corkscrew SDA Church.
I'm most grateful for the opportunity to present the request of the
Bethesda Church.
We were issued a conditional use permit in March 2002. We
sought that permit with the full expectation that we'd be able to, within
the three year period mandated by the permit, acquire all of the
permits, consolidate financing, and execute the construction. But I'm
appearing before you because, in spite of our best efforts to get all
things in line, the financial environment changed so dramatically
within two years of the issuance of that permit that we were not able
to realize that construction.
We have, however, been constantly at work seeking to revise the
building design, as well as commensurate site plans, revisions, to
bring the project closer to budget.
Page 52
June 14-15,2011
It was within the last 30 days that we discovered that after having
our SDP extended at the end of last year and having what we have
decided is the final revision of the building, in our drive to get the
construction under way, that we have now an expired conditional use
permit that is firmly blocking our path to construction.
We've spent, thus far, between the impact fees for the county and
the cost of the site development and revisions on the site plan,
upwards of $160,000 on just getting the plans together, easily
spending just under $200,000 on the project; 47,000 on the impact
fees, which was 70 -- just about 75 percent of what was charged for
the impact fees, 46,000 on developing the SDP, 6,216 on a permit for
right of way turning lane from Immokalee to Lilac Lane, $80,000 in
building designs and redesigns.
We cannot have our new building permit or, indeed, any other
permit issued until this permit is reinstated. And I seek your
understanding in classifying or activating our active SDP that we
currently hold as vestment in the project considering all the financial
investment we have made thus far.
We are seeking your understanding in this matter. Our neighbors
are the same as when the permit was first issued in 2002. A traffic
assessment for the Immokalee -- for the Immokalee area in the vicinity
of Lilac Lane will firmly say the traffic count is significantly below
the covered period that was under review at the time when you first
issued the site development permit and the conditional use permit.
Staffwill affirm that aerial photos indicate that other than
changes in vegetation, the lay of the land is essentially the same.
We've never ceased working on this project. The records of
county planning will indicate that there has always been continuous
activity on some aspect of this project throughout the entire period
from 2002 to the present.
As late as 2009, we had a building design on the permit revision
by the fire department and found the expense of the recommendations
Page 53
June 14-15,2011
too steep for our finances, and necessitating a final redesign to meet
our budget while satisfying code.
Gentlemen, your decision, ladies, to recommend the
reinstatement of this conditional use permit in a timely way will put us
in a position to bring the planning phase of this project to an end and
commence the real construction.
We are ready to begin construction with the dotting of a few I's
and the crossing of a few T's as soon as you give us the absolute
necessary conditional use permission so that we can proceed to get the
outstanding building permit.
Thank you for your time, as I'm hopeful that after being buffeted
by the bubble, pressed down by the recession, we can be enabled by
the commission to finish what we started.
Gentlemen, on behalf of the congregation and well wishes of
Bethesda Corkscrew, ladies; we look forward to your support on this
request that, indeed, the conditional use will be reinstated.
We've got new building plans right here, we've got an active
SDP, and what we're waiting on is if you would reinstate our
conditional use so that we can proceed with construction.
We await your decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, does the staffhave any
objection to the extension?
MR. OCHS: Sir, I don't think we have any objection except the
legal prohibitions that may exist in our LDC at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the board's inclined for us to come back,
we'd come back with an executive summary with some proposals for
the board for your review to hopefully resolve this and any other
outstanding issues that might be out there. I'm sure you're not the only
ones where the conditional use has expired.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
Page 54
June 14-15, 2011
direct the petitioner to work with staff and that staff develop a process
to not only address this situation but all, again, similarly situated
properties, because as the county attorney pointed out, you're not the
only one in this situation, and we need some method of handling
situations that -- like yours that are not -- so that it's not perceived to
be arbitrary.
So -- and I'd like to commend you on your presentation and
suggest to you -- I mean, you are extremely articulate and extremely
knowledgeable. You should apply to the Black Affairs Advisory
Committee because you are exactly the kind of person we need on that
board.
So I'd really encourage you to do so if you have any time left in
your life. I'm not sure how much you'll have with that project.
But Ian Mitchell oversees applications to that advisory board, and
he did indicate there were openings. So it would be wonderful if you
would participate and help the community in that fashion.
So that's my motion, not the participation as a member of the
advisory board, but that, you know, you work with staff and come
back, you know, again, with the assistance of the county attorney to
develop a process to make this fair for everyone.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we look forward to following through
on that, and I do trust that whatever contributions we can make to
realizing that -- the goals of the commission will be fulfilled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much for
being here today. When we filled out that public petition form, I told
you the commissioners would be very supportive, and I was right.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for
.
comIng.
MR. WILLIAMS: Really appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any way I can help you, just let
Page 55
June 14-15, 2011
me know, and I'll be happy to assist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion and seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, now that takes us to your 10:45
a.m. time certain hearing this morning. It's Item lOB on your agenda.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct
the County Manager or designee to develop a Fertilizer Ordinance.
Staff presentation will be made by Mac Hatcher, Senior
Environmental Specialist with our Growth Management Division.
Mr. Hatcher?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on just a minute. We got
one more public petition?
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, the gentleman
has a business. I don't think it will take too much time. Can we get
through that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just have to decide whether we
want to hear it again.
Page 56
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he's waiting for -- people are
-- several people are waiting for him to serve his organic lunches at
Food and Thought.
Item #6D
PETITION FROM MR. FRANK OAKES EXPRESSING HIS
CONCERNS REGARDING THE USE OF FLUORIDE IN COUNTY
WATER-MOTION FOR STAFF TO RESEARCH
SCIENTIFICALLY REPORTED PROS AND CONS REGARDING
FLUORIDE IN WATER AND BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 6D. Let's go to 6D.
MR. OCHS: 6D is a public petition request from Mr. Frank
Oakes expressing his concerns regarding the use of Fluoride in county
water.
Good morning, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman starts,
we've two people registered as public speakers, but public speakers for
petitions are allowed under Agenda Item 14.
MR. OAKES: Thank you, Commissioner Henning, for a bump.
We are kind of busy, as I'm sure everybody else is.
Normally I wouldn't ever be here. I learned many -- my name is
Frank Oakes. I'm an Organic Farmer. I also have Food and Thought
Health Store and Cafe. I normally find ways to circumvent silly
Bureaucratic Regulations and -- but we've hit a stonewall here with
this fluoride.
We -- my store serves about 4,000 citizens every week. I would
say 90 percent of us believe that fluoride needs to come out of our
water immediately. There's no good reason. There's no upside to it
being -- it's a toxin, it's a drug, it's hazardous waste.
Page 57
June 14-15,2011
We have a petition at our store. We have 1,300 signatures so far
to try to entice you, you folks, to look into getting it out of our water
supply.
I've been an organic farmer for 20 years, 25 years. Before that I
was a chemical farmer. Health problems sent me that way. I've been
interfacing with all of these customers the last 20 years with health
problems, many of them directly related to fluorosis and fluoride
toxicity .
Of all the nonsensical and bizarre things government does from
time to time, there's nothing as outrageously stupid as adding this
hazardous waste to our water supply. There's no control of dosages. If
one kid drinks 20 glasses a day and one kid drinks one glass a day, it's
a -- there's no controls.
And it is a medicine. You can't buy fluoride. You can't go buy
fluoride without a prescription. It's a drug. And we're dumping it in
our water.
The advantages -- the proposed -- the proponents of fluoride all
come from the dental paradigm. They don't look at the medical side of
things. The lone advantage of fluoride supposedly -- and let's assume
that it is correct, that from the age of3 to the age of 13, enamel is built
up by the use of fluoride.
Now, even the majority of the proponents of this say that that
only works if the fluoride is applied topically to the teeth. Ingesting it,
drinking it, does nothing to affect that. It's rather like drinking your
sun block to avoid UV rays.
The CDC recently asked, as I note -- I think you guys know that
you've reduced fluoride recently in your water supply. The ADA and
the CDC have asked to reduce the amount of fluoride in water because
now 32 percent of kids in America have fluorosis, which is fluoride
toxicity.
The only thing that this stuff is good for, supposedly, is for young
people's teeth. They come out and say, you know, the problem we're
Page 58
June 14-15,2011
having with fluoride is we're destroying young people's teeth. This is
-- I don't know how anything can be more insane.
The dental argument, the dental domain, they make a lot of
money on this, they've been taught this. If you go to the medical side
-- we've got to get this outside of the dental domain. The medical side,
there's well-documented studies that we can provide to you that state
fluoride causes osteoporosis, central nervous disorders, memory loss,
thyroid dysfunction, breast cancer, prostate cancer, hormone
imbalance, significant IQ reduction, ADD, and depression. But there
is a chance it might help your kids' tooth enamel.
By the way, the American Cancer Society just quit endorsing it,
American Dental Association, because of the high rates of cancer, and
these are -- these studies are based on normal amounts of the
recommended fluoride use.
Again, it doesn't take -- if you go -- if you go buy a toothpaste,
any of you read, warning, if your child under six swallows more than
a pea sized amount of this toothpaste, this fluoride toothpaste, get
medical help or contact a poison control center.
Now, this is on the toothpaste, a pea sized amount of toothpaste
comes out to about a glass of water that we drink of fluoridated water.
Now, all of these things -- the thing is, there's a lot of constituents
that you have that can afford to buy non fluoridated water and afford
to get the little RO systems under the sink to get the fluoride out of the
drinking water, but I would much rather drink fluoridated water than
shower in fluoridated water.
You -- when you shower in hot -- and this -- every morning as I
take my cool water shower, I think about why it's still in our water
system.
But the hotter the water, the larger your pores open up, and this
fluoride goes right into your blood system. Now, this is a fact.
Absolutely, fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier, goes right into our
blood.
Page 59
June 14-15,2011
When you drink fluoride water, 50 percent of it can be filtered by
your kidneys. When it's pouring into your blood, it's going directly
into your brain. It's going into your pineal gland, which, as it's been
proven, that the pineal gland stops melatonin. But the fluoride in the
pineal gland stops melatonin production. When you stop melatonin
production all other sorts of health problems result. Much of the
thyroid problems that exist today are directly related to this hideous
toxin.
The only way to get out -- water -- fluoride out of your shower
water is to get a whole home RO. Not many of your constituents can
afford one of those. So for people who want fluoride, anybody, the
wealthiest or the poorest, can forward to get all the fluoride that they
want. One bowl of Wheaties gives two and a half times the RDA of
fluoride consumption. Wheaties. It's in our sodas, it's in our juice, it's
everywhere. It's in our Teflon pots; it's in every piece of food that has
preservatives in it.
We're so over -- over -- there's so much fluoride in our
environment that there's absolutely no reason to force all of us that
don't want it -- force us to shower in it, to force us to drink it. You're
taking taxpayers' money, buying poison, and forcing us to bathe in it
and drink it.
You must allow us the choice. It's a moral issue. This is a moral
issue. You have no right to force this medicine or drug into our bodies.
You all have the power, the authority, you have the authority and the
duty and the moral responsibility to turn off the spigot.
Our 4,000 customers take this very seriously, and I think
anybody -- anybody who looks into the problem at all has got to come
down on the side that government has no right to force us to do -- to
take these medicines. And they are drugs, they are drugs. They are -- it
is hazardous waste in every sense, and I hope that you can expedite
turning the spigot off, because it's -- all that it takes of you guys to do
is to turn the spigot off.
Page 60
June 14-15,2011
In our clientele this is a hot button issue, and I hope -- I hope you
all can help us in some way. And thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies always.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Frank, thank you for being here today . You make a very
compelling argument, and I completely understand. So I'd like to
make a motion that we direct staff to see how we can remove fluoride
from our drinking water.
MR. OAKES: Turn off the spigot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry?
MR. OAKES: Turn off the spigot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There you go.
MR. OAKES: It's really--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Makes it real simple. And make
sure that there's no, you know, argument out there that basically
trumps all the very strong arguments that you have made today.
You made a very compelling presentation. I personally love your
restaurant. I miss going there. They're keeping me so busy on the
board, I barely have time to eat. So when things slow down, I'll be
back.
MR. OAKES: That's good, that's good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. That's my motion.
MR. OAKES: The thing is, there is very, very little evidence of
what it does good, and we have so much evidence of what it does bad.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion and further
add, I think you eloquently said if people want fluoride for their teeth,
they go to the store and get the fluoride. And this is not the first time
it's -- this issue's been to the Board of Commissioners.
I had concern, or I had constituent concerns, and it was addressed
Page 61
June 14-15,2011
by Mr. DeLony. I just don't think that -- you know, where does it stop
if we start introducing chemicals into our water. You have to look at,
you know, the benefits of it, and I don't see a benefit here.
MR. OAKES: There isn't. The chlorine -- for instance, we can all
afford a $20 filter to get the chlorine out of our shower water. We can
afford that. But you can't -- you can't get the fluoride out. That's the
damning thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's our turn. Okay.
Commissioner Henning, you had your light on. Did you want to
say something further?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Besides the fact, this is a
cost to the water and sewer district to add these chemicals to it. So I'd
like to see it removed. So I support Commissioner Hiller's motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller, a second by Commissioner Henning for having
the staff to research how we can remove it, remove fluoride from our
water.
I, quite frankly, believe that the direction should be to determine
it is -- if it performs any useful purpose, because we've heard one side
of the story here. There are always two sides of the story.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is your motion, okay. Then the
motion is to ask the staff to research this to determine if there is any
harm or benefit from the fluoride that is used in our water treatment
facility .
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, the
motion I heard was to turn it off.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I heard, too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But to turn it -- if I may explain. To
turn it off, yes, but make sure also that there is no argument out there
Page 62
June 14-15,2011
that trumps what Mr. Oakes said that would suggest that turning it off
is not the right thing to do.
But based on everything we're hearing today, if it's only serving a
very limited population in a positive way and has the potential of
being very harmful to a larger number of our population on the other
side, then, obviously, if there's an alternative way for, you know, the
minority group to get their fluoride supplements, then that obviously
makes a lot more sense than putting the majority at risk, to whatever
degree.
I will tell you, my daughter was actually over fluoridated because
of drinking water, and what happens is, you get these brown stains on
your teeth, and we didn't know what was wrong with her, and then we
found out it was the over fluoridated water. So it definitely does have
an adverse impact in -- if used -- you know, or consumed excessively.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We need to get this motion
straightened out. Your motion states that you turn it off unless there is
a reason to keep it going.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to know to turn it off
unless you do the first part first, which is to research it to determine if
there is any benefit and if there is any danger.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if that is the motion, that the staffwill
research the issue to determine if there is any harm or benefit and then
report to us for guidance as to what we do about it, then I would
support the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was what my motion -- or
what I was going to suggest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I could please. And,
once again, the motion still is directing staff to find a way to turn it
off.
Page 63
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can't accept that motion
unless -- I would accept a motion to bring it back to be able to review
it and be able to hear maybe from public health and dentistry and be
able to go forward.
The assumption we're making is based upon one person's opinion
on the whole thing. And I'm not saying you're incorrect. You might be
totally correct.
But -- and I heard this argument -- I mean, probably the
argument's changed with science being what it is today. Going back to
the late '60s, all the '70s, and the early '80s, I can remember there was
national protest in a lot of cities, and even, Washington, D.C., over
this very issue. There's nothing new to it.
Now, I don't know what the science is going to take us to at this
point in time. But what I suggest is that we redo the motion. I'd make a
friendly amendment to that motion, if you'd accept it, to bring this
back for discussion to be able to hear both sides of the story and
remove the idea that we're going to turn it off without hearing the
other side.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That works. Is that acceptable to
you?
MR. OAKES: Well, you know, Austin just turned their -- Austin,
Texas, just turned theirs off. Sixty percent of Canada just turned theirs
off.
The criterion, when you're asking, "Why should we stop it?"
Let's ask, "Why did we start it?" The thing is this has been wrong all
along. The times have changed. Teflon gives -- there's so much
fluoride in our environment now that wasn't there 50 years ago, even if
this argument was correct. We're all getting too much fluoride to begin
with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think --
Page 64
June 14-15, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you. Yes.
Well, I've been trying to say all along that I think we need to do
our research before we just flip any switches or before we turn off a
spigot, and then we all need to know the results of that, of that
research, so that we see all sides of the issue, come back to us, let us
hear these -- let us hear the data that is researched and presented to us,
and then we can make the decision to turn off the spigot if that's what
the data indicates.
MR. OAKES: May I please ask that you look into the medical
side and not just the dental side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That would be the purpose for
bringing it back for a full hearing, but that is not the motion. The
motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no problem modifying the
motion. I like Commissioner Coletta's suggestion, and I think we
should modify it. And obviously we have to hear both sides.
Like I said, you make a compelling argument, but the other side
has to be heard. And, again, to the extent that the risks outweigh the
benefits, then obviously, you know, the recommendation of staff
would follow suit. So there's no harm in bringing it back with both
sides of the argument presented for a full hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the motion has been
modified. It will be brought back for a full advertised public hearing
where all sides of the argument can be heard from.
Commissioner Henning, do you agree?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The second agrees to bring it back
for a full hearing.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.H
Page 65
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It comes back for a full hearing.
Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. OAKES: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we go to our, what, 10:45
time certain?
Item # 1 OB - Continued to after the Closed Session
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO DEVELOP A
FERTILIZER ORDINANCE - COMMISSIONER COLETTA
MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT STATE MODEL ORDINANCE-
NOT CONSIDERED WITHOUT A 2ND TO THE MOTION;
MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATE MODEL WITH STRICTER
RESTRICTIONS ON SPECIFIC NUTRIENTS, STAFF TO
MONITOR WATER QUALITY AND CHANGES, AND TO BRING
BACK THIS ITEM WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW) - CONTINUED TO AFTER THE
CLOSED SESSION
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's Item lOB, as I mentioned,
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
county manager or designee to develop a fertilizer ordinance.
Mr. Mac Hatcher will present.
MR. HATCHER: Good morning Commissioners, Mac Hatcher,
Page 66
June 14-15,2011
with the Land Development Services Department. I'm here this
morning to discuss the first component of the Watershed Management
Plans.
We would like to Develop a Fertilizer Ordinance. Nitrogen and
phosphorus in fertilizers can contribute to excessive algae growth. We
have had nine meetings with the public, including three with the
Environmental Advisory Council and the Collier County Planning
Commission.
Legislators in 2009 directed counties that have impaired waters
for nutrients to adopt the model ordinance at a minimum.
The model ordinance is supported by science to limit nitrogen
and phosphorus in runoff, and controlling nitrogen and phosphorus by
preventing it from getting into surface water is much less expensive
than trying to remove it once it gets into surface waters.
Here are the primary components of the model ordinance: It
requires training and licensing for commercial applicators. It has a
prohibited fertilizer application period that coincides with storm
watches and warnings, and that includes all official storm watches,
including flood watch, and it also prohibits applications during
saturated soil conditions.
The application rate is by the new Florida Administrative Code
label requirement. There is a voluntary 10- foot buffer that can be
dropped down to 3 feet from water bodies with a deflector. I'm sorry.
The buffer is not voluntary. The low maintenance area where removed
vegetation is kept out of the area is voluntary, and that's set at 10 feet
from water bodies also.
Exemptions applied to agriculture, golf courses, and sports turf
fields are also exempted, and it includes application practices such as
no fertilizer on impervious.
We have gotten recommendations for more stringent standards.
And what I have done is summarized here the most common more
stringent standards that have been recommended.
Page 67
June 14-15,2011
The Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning
Commission both recommended limiting the annual nitrogen
application to four pounds per thousand square feet per year. They
both recommended greater than 50 percent slow release nitrogen.
They wanted to make the water buffers a minimum of 10 feet. And the
EAC recommended the prohibited period be applied to the rainy
season, June through September. The Planning Commission
recommended the prohibition period be limited to August to
September.
And I have this morning Terril Nell from the University of
Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences here to give you
all a brief presentation on the effects of fertilizer and surface water.
Mr. Nell?
DR. NELL: Thank you, Mac.
Members of the commission, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
invitation from staff to share some information with you about water
quality and landscape management.
The University of Florida, we've been involved in this for over 25
years and yet, it's only in the last five to ten years that there's been a
very concerted effort on the research side.
You have been given documents that are from our Florida
Friendly Landscaping Program with the Florida Neighborhoods and
Yards Program. We have one that is the Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods Program, which was the original program, started in
the Tampa/Sarasota area in about 1989.
In 1996, with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and funding from EP A, we started a massive statewide
effort to include as many counties as we could in the Florida Yards
and Neighborhoods Program by putting specialized county agents into
your county extension office and others. We were doing five counties
at a time. We came to the southwest coast first.
And the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook, which has
Page 68
June 14-15,2011
been the basis for much of this consumer oriented educational
program, has been through a number of transformations. This is the
2009 version. There have been many renditions. And being in the
scientific world, if we don't modify this and put new information in
here based on science each time we revise it, we're not doing justice to
the people of Florida.
So there are some people who will bring out -- I'm not sure I even
have a copy -- of the 1993 or '96 copy and say, this is what it said in
1996, which is a great historical perspective, but if I do that, I'm
wrong. So this reflects the current recommendations. We're in the
process of revising, and I'll give you one example of how we're
changing it later. But this supersedes all previous versions. So I think
that's important.
We have just released a design guide and plant guide for Florida
Friendly Landscape plants and have already gone through with our
education program in this state nearly 34,000 copies, and -- very
popular document.
And also, the legislature two years ago established both the
Florida Friendly Landscaping Program as a statewide program,
University of Florida has trademarked it, and they also required at that
point that by 2014 every commercial applicator in this state be trained
in the green industry best management practices. But it's a much
longer name on this document, but that's what it is, and it's an eight--
a six hour training program that every person has to go through.
That is approximately 150,000 people that we will train through
county extension offices and others who have been approved either by
us or DEP, and usually both. So those are our documents. They are
science based.
As we look at this issue, it is very, very complicated. There are
many aspects to it. What you see here is simply the nitrogen cycle.
Where does nitrogen come from, what happens to it, and how does it
go from being applied onto a lawn or a landscape, and what's the
Page 69
June 14-15,2011
efficacy? What's the fate of that that's applied?
But it's not just fertilizer. We can have atmospheric nitrogen.
Every time we have a lightning strike, nitrogen is released to the
atmosphere. And there are estimates that that accounts for 40 to 45
percent of the nitrogen that's in water.
We can also have animal waste. The estimates for animal waste
are very, very high; dogs, cats, et cetera.
We can have plant residues, and I'll talk about plant residues
briefly. But there was a study in Boca about 1992 or '93 that showed
amazingly how rapid plant residue, leaves, grass clippings, that are
blown onto the street, the sidewalk, and down the storm drain, how
quickly they decompose. They start decomposing in two days with
moisture.
Now, what's interesting about that is you will find in science or
some reports that radioactive isotopes show nitrogen in certain water
bodies and it's from fertilizer. It may not be from fertilizer. It may be
from the breakdown and the misapplication, or it may be from the
plant material, that debris from the yard, that is being flushed down
the storm sewer, but it will come out the same in the radio isotope
studies. So this is the nitrogen cycle.
We also have from the University of Florida IF AS Lake Watch
Program -- nope, not there. You can find a map that shows
phosphorus. And it's very interesting when you look at the phosphorus
situation. The phosphorus also causes the algae bloom that some
people see.
When you look at this map, the entire southwest coast of Florida
inland to Lake Okeechobee are in the worst three categories of
indigenous phosphorus in the soil and in the water. What it says is,
because of the discussion with the EP A coming in with nutrient
criteria -- is regardless of the nutrient criteria that they have, that these
water bodies are so laden with phosphorus that they will never pass.
It's indigenous; it's nothing that is being done by the human being. It's
Page 70
June 14-15,2011
there.
And when I found that last week, I was actually surprised at how
very high the levels are. And, Collier County, you're in the top two
worst categories. So it's indigenous.
Our concern when we look at water quality and the maintenance
of turf grass and the landscape comes down to the soil physics but also
the simple characteristics of water moving across any surface and
what happens to the water as it infiltrates that surface or it runs off of
that surface.
What you see here are simple examples of a dense turf grass and
also one that is not so dense, whether that be from fertilizer or other
characteristics, disease. And I'll show you that the dense turf grass
absorbs a great, probably 99 percent, of the applied nitrogen. Okay. So
we have to have practices.
And what UF IF AS has done over time is develop landscape
management practices to have healthy turf, dense turf. I think dense is
more important. Because when we look at the advantages of a healthy,
thick, dense turf, it reduces erosion, leaching, and runoff. How? Very
simple, when you have that dense turf, you don't get as much water
running off, or it runs off slower. As it runs off slower, more is
absorbed. It's that simple.
It is such a good buffer, if you will, that in the DEP stormwater
manual and also in the EP A stormwater manual, what do they
recommend to limit erosion? Sod, sod strips, they're showing that
simply a buffer strip will absorb 65 percent of the nitrogen and 75
percent of the phosphorus compared to bare ground, because as water
moves across bare ground, it takes with it soil, most of the phosphorus
is tied up in that soil. When it gets in the water, it becomes more
soluble. Nitrogen's there. It runs off. That is the advantage, and that's
the reason it's there. Doubling the number of turf grass shoots reduces
the runoff by 67 percent.
When we have greater above ground mass, which means we have
Page 71
June 14-15, 2011
to mow it -- but that's the reason we say mow high so we have more
mass. The more -- the healthier the top is, the more dense the roots
under the surface. And, quite frankly, when we talk about water
quality, what we're concerned about are the roots under the surface,
because the roots under the surface are absorbing the nutrients and
reusing them.
We've found -- well, we didn't find, but there are scientific
studies that phosphorus runoff was greater in unfertilized turf grass
plots than fertilized because of the loss of density.
So management practices, fertilization, irrigation, pest
management that really lead to better growth, lead to better root
system, reduces fertilizer leaching.
One of the publications we've given you is a second version of a
document "Urban Water Quality and Fertilizer Ordinances Avoiding
Unintended Consequences," and it really is a review of the literature.
It's a review of the literature over 40 years. And what I'm talking about
is literature that's really in here, okay.
It is astounding how consistent the basic principles are when you
look at 40 years of research related to water quality, and it doesn't
matter if it's in Florida or New York State or Wisconsin or Minnesota.
The sole physics are the same and what we see are the principles of
runoff, the principles of absorption of the nutrients are basically the
same, and that is summarized for you in this document.
This is one that came out of a book that was published in 2002.
They've been through many editions. But this is summer turf grass.
And when you look at the top of the turf grass and you look at the
roots, when you have the most active growth is during the summer
period which it's warm, when we have sunlight. Of course, in Florida
we're blessed with sunlight year round. But see the late spring,
summer, early fall is when we have both top growth and the root
growth. That is when it is actively growing. That is when it requires
the nutrients to provide the proteins, to strengthen the cell walls, to
Page 72
June 14-15, 2011
allow the density to be there that then relates to improved water
quality .
So in 2001 we got with Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. It was fairly easy to see that we needed more information.
They agreed, and we formed a partnership leading to research. It's
important to emphasize that the water related research that University
of Florida IF AS has done on turf grass and landscape has been paid
for by Florida Department of Environmental Protection and in some
cases water management districts, especially Southwest Florida Water
Management District. They've been great partners.
So what you see here is a plastic container, but where you see the
arrow, that plastic container is buried underneath that plot. When we
apply fertilizer, when we apply water, we can measure what goes into
the bottom of that barrel by siphoning it back out with a vacuum
cleaner. We usually do it twice a week.
And we analyze it using EP A standards. If we don't use EP A
standards we're out of the game and DEP absolutely requires it. They
have driven my colleagues and my scientist friends crazy. But you
know what, we can stand behind it. Because, as in this document we're
talking peer reviewed science. We're not talking just an observation.
We have to put statistics on and say it's right or wrong or it's different
or it's not different.
So we've done that. We've applied fertilizer. Interestingly, we've
gone up to 10 pounds of nitrogen on these plots. You're
recommending in most cases four per year. And this is what we see.
This is from just one study. It's been done in three locations in the
state: Fort Lauderdale, Gainesville, and Milton.
And from left to right, the very far left of that is April, and the
very far right is the end of October. And the green line is two pounds
of fertilizer, the yellow line is one pound of fertilizer per application,
and each of the black lines represents an application time.
In most cases we are less than one part per million -- one percent
Page 73
June 14-15,2011
of the applied nitrogen, less than one percent that it's actually getting
into that tank that you saw. So the turf grass is absorbing the rest of it,
and it's reusing it.
What you see is that the peak periods for leaching on these plots
is in the early spring and the fall, when the roots on warm season turf
grass become less active, they can't absorb it. They're not doing it, but
they are during the summer months.
The red arrows are rain events. And even if you study the rain
events, there is very little activity that's taking it above one percent of
applied in so, the fertilizer rates that we're recommending depends
upon the area that you're in.
So one of the things that has been said is that with summer
fertilization -- is you can apply nitrogen. You can apply iron instead of
nitrogen. In earlier versions of the FYN handbook, that was part of the
conversation, part of the written word, but if you turn the page it said,
iron will not replace nitrogen.
So we have worked to clarify that. It will be in the revision of the
FYN handbook, and we gave you a special publication. Iron replaces
iron, nitrogen replaces nitrogen, but they don't cross over. And we
have -- if we want healthy turf, if we want dense turf, then we've got
to apply the right thing as we go.
What do scientific research results show about a restricted
period? You know, what it really says is that withholding fertilizer,
withholding fertilizer during the actively growing period is not
supported by science as a means of improving water quality. There's
nothing in this document that we can find. We cannot find any science
that directly relates the application of fertilizer to a lawn to the water
quality .
What's happening? I think it's pretty easy. We know that the loss
of density increases leaching and runoff. We know that, whether it's
disease or insects or whatever or fertilizer . We know fertilizer buffer
zones, as I mentioned. Even DEP and EPA are recommending those.
Page 74
June 14-15,2011
One of the concerns I would have, if you look at this photo, is
down near the palm trees we've got bare ground. That bare ground is
more conducive to erosion and taking those nutrients into the water
body.
Your use in the draft ordinance of buffer strips is sound and solid.
It's supported by science. As you can see here, we call this the ring of
responsibility. But you can see when we apply fertilizer within three
feet, even though there is a slope here, it's not moving.
And I hate to admit it, but I -- as a kid I did this in Florida. My
mother wasn't very happy when our yard looked like this. And I know
that it's very difficult to correct. But this happens, but it shows that the
fertilizer isn't moving from where it's applied.
So what's happening? You know, I think we can look at the State
of Florida right now, and we know that there have been improvements
in water quality in a number of the coastal bays all the way up to
Tampa over the last 15 to 20 years. That happens to also coincide with
the special efforts that DEP, IF AS, and the counties have put into
educational programs.
Maybe there's a greater awareness among consumers that this is
unacceptable, that blowing turf grass clippings into the road and down
to the storm sewer leads to, in this case, .15 pounds of nitrogen just
because of what's in that road. It's pretty amazing.
We know that sloppy application, fertilizer onto impervious
surfaces, which you are restricting in your draft ordinance -- and I
applaud you for that because I think this is one of the big issues.
People get it onto a street, onto a driveway; it's blown down a storm
sewer. And what does it do? It gets in the stormwater and it
disintegrates there and it builds up, just as the grass clippings and lawn
debris do. So do not apply to impervious surfaces.
Irrigation management, we know, is the same thing. Improper
irrigation is going to wash things into the storm sewer that we
shouldn't have.
Page 75
June 14-15, 2011
So when we look at this we know that withholding -- as I
mentioned, withholding fertilizer during the actively -- active growing
period as a means of preventing the leaching and runoff is not
supported at all by science.
We know there's a greater potential for leaching and runoff when
fertilizer is used at times when the turf is not actively growing, early
spring, late fall. And we know that based on other models that what
works is an awareness of best management practices, which is what is
the model ordinance really is and started back in 2001, combined with
education.
And I think we can see some of the benefits beginning to show. If
we can find a way to more aggressively educate the consumer about
some of these basic principles, we may continue to see some benefits.
So with that, that's the story of -- very quickly, without showing
you tons and tons of graphs or charts, which we could do, and I'll be
happy to entertain any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
How many -- by the way, how many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 23 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question will be quick then. You
were saying -- you were talking about stricter code. Is a stricter code
accepted by science? You were saying all of the reasons why we don't
need one.
DR. NELL: A stricter code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But -- yeah, even a modified stricter
code. Say, for instance, it would just be no less than 50 percent
slow-release nitrogen or, say, fertilizer phosphorus content.
DR. NELL: Right now I would have to say no, based on the
preliminary information we have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're not accepted by science.
DR. NELL: We do not have any information. And I provided this
Page 76
June 14-15,2011
to the county. We do not have information saying that there is a
statistical difference between 15, 30, and 50 percent slow release. I'm
comfortable saying slow release until we have additional data. We
know that soluble is leaching -- is more rapidly.
Now, if we're using the one pound that's in the Department of
Agriculture fertilizer rule, even then with soluble we're pretty much
okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it would be accepted then. What
about application rate no more than four pounds of nitrogen; is that --
DR. NELL: That's very well supported.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By science?
DR. NELL: By science.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all of these things are acceptable
by science. And they are part of a stricter code that -- that we could be
discussing, but they are accepted by science.
DR. NELL: The part that's not supported by science is what is in
there as a restricted period, because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Like the four month period
you're saying?
DR. NELL: The four month period.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
DR. NELL: Because you're withholding fertilizer at a time when
the turf grass is actively growing when you're getting the greatest
absorption of the nutrients and you're keeping it dense for the later
times. If we allow the turf grass to degrade during that period --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You made that pretty clear. I
didn't mean to interrupt you, but I know we have 23 speakers.
So my feeling -- and this is just going into it. I haven't heard all
of the speakers yet. But my feeling is, although I would prefer to see a
little bit of a stricter fertilizer ordinance, I don't want it so much so that
it's going to hurt us as well.
So the first three, the fertilizer nitrogen content no less than 50
Page 77
June 14-15, 2011
percent slow release, fertilize phosphorus content minus 2 percent
guaranteed analysis, and application rate no more than four pounds of
nitrogen per thousand square feet in a year would be acceptable by
science?
DR. NELL: The fertilizer rule says 30 percent slow release, and
right now -- I think 50 percent is -- it's greater than the fertilizer rule. I
don't think that is supported by science. It may be with time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And one thing I wanted to
know, I know the City of Naples has a stricter ordinance in place. And
is this time to ask them in its -- if it has been problematic to them? I'd
love to know, Mike. Do you -- can you tell me?
MR. BAUER: Mike Bauer, natural resources manager for City of
Naples.
We haven't seen or heard any reports of any breakdown by not
fertilizing during the summer. That may be. This is very interesting
science, and we may have gotten that part wrong, frankly.
Our point was not to limit proper application of fertilization. Ours
was to go after improper application and over fertilizations, because
we do have a nutrient problem in our water. That's what we were
aiming at. If fertilizer's applied properly, no problem. But I think what
the doctor said we can support.
And this evidence on the blackout period is pretty new stuff
coming out, and we -- our ordinance has been in effect now three
years, and we may have a reason to modify that and not to have this
blackout period if it's supported by science. And, frankly, we're just
getting the science now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's just about the way I'm
going with this, so thank you very much for that input. Because I think
also we're going to want to watch to see what effect a stricter modified
ordinance would have on the fishing industry in the end, you know.
That's another thing we have to consider that hasn't even been
mentioned.
Page 78
June 14-15,2011
MR. BAUER: And I have to share with you, too, that we've been
degrading Naples Bay for some 50-plus years. We've been measuring
it now for five years once a month. We know the water quality. And
over this five year period, we have not yet seen a significant increase
-- improvement in the water quality of Naples Bay.
Of course, we've got 5 years versus 50. It's going to take time.
There's lots of different sources, but that's where we are right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's interesting. Thank you. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I -- having an
ordinance on fertilizer is not going to do any good unless you have an
educational component. There's no way -- it's impossible to enforce
something like that, so we need a buy in from the HOAs, the industry
and all.
Plants and turf are different applications.
DR. NELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And not all plants require slow
release; is that a true statement?
DR. NELL: I'd say that's fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I have a problem with
the ordinance that we have that is applicable to all fertilization.
DR. NELL: We have research right now in our research center
near Tampa on fertilizer requirements of landscape plants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and then you have
vegetable plants, too, which is quite different. So, again, I don't think
that we can have an ordinance that is applicable to turf, plants, and
vegetables.
Our local land use attorney provided the same study that you
were a part of, and I noticed on Page 4 it states, research shows that
fertilizer derivative nutrients can be lost in urban landscaping under
certain circumstances. The loss is most likely when fertilizer is applied
Page 79
June 14-15,2011
before or during heavy rain falls.
I think it's fair to say that we have shoulder rainy seasons, but I
think that we have very heavy rainy seasons that, you know, I'm
concerned about application of fertilizer in those heavy times.
And looking at the Planning Commission's recommendations, I
think they hit it more than anybody else, because they're
recommending -- and, please, if I'm wrong correct me. They're
recommending a blackout in July and August.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: August and September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: August and September.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: August and September?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
DR. NELL: And the model ordinance does say, do not apply
fertilizer when there's a -- I forgot how it's worded now -- heavy rain
two inches or more, which -- I was talking to DEP yesterday, and we
were comparing that to the past. And it used to be, it's about to rain; go
put out your fertilizer so it's watered in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
DR. NELL: You know we've changed that. I think over the last
15, 20 years that notion's gone away. So, yes, it can still be a problem,
but the research really demonstrates that if -- this gentleman from City
of Naples said, if we can encourage the application at the proper rate,
we're going to be in much better shape, period.
It's when we exceed the application rate, the one pound that's
recommended per application, okay. It's when it's not applied properly
and it goes on the streets and the impervious surfaces.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you had a -- you had a
graph on the growth of turf.
DR. NELL: Uh huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In that -- in that graph I think
you can tie that two months in Collier County. And if you -- if you hit
Page 80
June 14-15,2011
the shoulders of the rainy season, I think it will be just as effective and
safer to apply that so, I mean, you don't have that heavy rain. That's
my concern.
Quite frankly, I've always had it professionally applied on my
lawn, and they've always said you do it in, you know, late October,
November, or you do it in March, April but never in the summertime.
So I'm quite surprised by -- and, of course, more research could --
DR. NELL: Right now you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- produce something else.
DR. NELL: -- have access to more information, more current
information, than any commission that's addressed this in recent times.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I would like to see some kind
of a blackout period personally, because common sense -- not only
common sense, but even the facts that you've written here, don't apply
it during, you know, heavy rainfall, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
I don't know. I read my government manual today telling you
how to act in situations like this, and the -- it said simply, if it moves,
tax it. If it doesn't move, regulate it.
Now, I heard a tremendous amount of doubt in some of the things
you were saying, and then I heard the City of Naples get up to defend
their particular fertilizer ordinance, and they admit the fact that this is
ongoing science that they're trying to find a direction on.
I can't buy into this, you know, to put new regulations on top of
existing regulations over and over again when we're less certain what
we're doing.
Now, let me ask a question. The state has a statute that's going to
take place if we don't put ours in place. There's going to be a state
statute kicking in; is that correct?
MR. HATCHER: Not currently. We -- there's a statute that
requires us to adopt at least the minimum ordinance.
Page 81
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- I'm sorry, sir. I should
have phrased it differently. In other words, we're required to do
something, and there's a minimum standard that the state would
require us at the very least to adopt; is that correct?
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's not an option; we
have to do that?
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what I would suggest
is that we try to stop second guessing how this whole thing's going to
work and stick with the minimum requirements at this time and then
revisit it a year or maybe 18 months from now to see what needs to be
done past then. Maybe by then the City of Naples will have applied
some of the science and be able to come back with a more detailed
report. We can get some feedback from some other municipalities
about what's happening.
To include regulations on top of regulations and -- when the truth
of the matter is, the majority of the -- I don't want to say uneducated
public -- and I commend Commissioner Henning for having his yard
fertilized by professional people. I, myself, have all native Florida
grasses growing so I don't have to fertilize it, which is a blessing. I
don't have to irrigate it, and I don't have to put pesticides down either.
But that's another story.
But, meanwhile, getting back to this. The only thing I would
support is just going with the minimum standards that the state has in
place and then reviewing this at some future date. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm really glad to hear that
there's a focus on attenuation at the source, because that is clearly
what's needed, and this is just one component of what needs to be
done to solve our water quality problems. There's also the low impact
Page 82
June 14-15,2011
design considerations that have to be met as well as, you know,
landscape ordinances that, you know, properly consider how irrigation
is implemented.
I want to just clarify one thing and then just point out a couple of
things that are in the back of my mind.
We have some absolutely outstanding homeowner associations in
our community. For example, Island Walk. And what they have done
is they have implemented their own fertilizer standard, which has been
very successful in curbing their water quality problems, and I know a
number of those individuals are going to be here speaking today.
In adopting this model ordinance, Mac -- and I'll address this
question to you -- this does not prohibit any homeowners association
or any individual homeowner from having their own more restrictive
standard. They can do xexriscaping, they can model it -- modulate
how much fertilizer they use when they use it in a more restrictive
manner than what the model ordinance prescribes; is that correct?
MR. HATCHER: That's my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And I think that's important
that people understand that if we do adopt a model ordinance with
whatever provisions we all agree on, that it doesn't mean that citizens
out there can't do more to help protect our natural environment.
That leads me to my next concern which relates back to South
Florida Water Management District permits and how they're
permitting these types of developments.
It's concerning that Island Walk had to go to the extent it did in a
Southwest Florida Water Management permitted community to have
to manage their water quality as they have.
And I guess this goes back to the issue of low impact design. And
I don't want to merely focus -- for us as a board, I should say, to
merely focus on, you know, fertilizer management, ignoring low
impact designs, you know, ignoring, you know, irrigation ordinances
and everything else that we can do to minimize the problem overall.
Page 83
June 14-15,2011
The last point I'd like to make is just clarifying to build on what
Commissioner Coletta said. With respect to this model ordinance,
what science has been established that allows us to bolster this model
ordinance in excess of what is being proposed as the base by statute?
And if you could -- Commissioner Fiala actually has a great
summary right there that shows what our various advisory boards have
recommended. If you could, like, pick out, you know, how far we can
go with this ordinance, I would really appreciate that, because, you
know, as Commissioner Coletta pointed out, if it's supported by
science, we can do it. If it isn't, we can't, and that's absolutely correct.
I mean, legally that's established -- I think it's in Section 14 of the
model ordinance that requires that.
So can you tell this board how far we legally can go based on
what has been scientifically supported?
MR. HATCHER: Legally you can adopt any of the more
stringent provisions. The requirement in the legislation is that you
consider the state agency comments before you adopt more stringent
standards.
As part of this discussion, we proposed to the three agencies, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Department of
Agriculture, and the University of Florida IF AS, the more restrictive
standards that the City of Naples had imposed. Their
recommendations to us were that they didn't support those more
stringent standards now, that they supported the model ordinance, but
that doesn't prohibit you all from adopting more stringent standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Even though -- well, I'm reading
this maybe a little differently than you, because it says, a local
government may adopt additional or more stringent standards than the
model ordinance if the following criteria are met. And then it goes on
to describe that local government has demonstrated as part of a
comprehensive program to address nonpoint sources of nutrient
pollution, which is science based, and economically and technically
Page 84
June 14-15,2011
feasible, that additional or more stringent standards than the model
ordinance are necessary in order to adequately address urban fertilizer
contributions to nonpoint source nutrient loading to a water body. Has
that been done?
MR. HATCHER: Our nonpoint source program was described in
the letter to the agencies that they responded to. And as I indicated,
they did not believe that we had met the standards for requiring more
stringent standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So if that's their
conclusion, how can we legally do what they're saying isn't supported
by science if this is required by statute?
MR. HATCHER: Well, it may be in my understanding of what
would be legal or not. There are communities throughout Southwest
Florida that have adopted more stringent standards, and they did not
get -- or some of them, at least, did not get the comments from the
state agency.
So I think you can adopt the more stringent standards, but they'd
be contrary to the recommendations from the agencies.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not? Is that right?
DR. NELL: He's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have 23 speakers, I believe.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to break in nine minutes
because we have a closed session for a legal consideration. And we
can start the comments by members of the public now, but we will
stop them at 12 o'clock. We will have our shade session, and then we
will return here at one o'clock with a time certain of 1 :05 that will take
us about ten or 15 minutes, hopefully no longer than that.
We have another time certain at 1: 15, if I remember correctly,
and that's probably going to take most of the day.
So we can get you in before that one starts. We will delay the
Page 85
June 14-15, 2011
next time certain item after lunch, and we'll get you in before that one
starts. But it's going to be a long day. So let's call the first two
speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: All right. We'll use both podiums, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you'll have three minutes each.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Herbert Schuchman, and
the second speaker will be Sally Kirk.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: Commissioners, I represent the community
of Island Walk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you just repeat your name for the
record.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: My name is Herb Schuchman, and I'm
from Island Walk, a community of 1,856 homes spread around 30
retention ponds erroneously called lakes.
The largest dead zone in the world is Gulf of Mexico, spreading
over 8,000 square miles. Dead zones are reversible.
The Black Sea dead zone, previously the largest dead zone in the
world, largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001 after fertilizers
became too costly to use following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Fishing has, again, become a major economic activity in the
region. Over the past few years, Island Walk has noticed an increase
in the algae blooms every year. We had a doubling of the nitrate and
phosphate levels by 100 percent in the last year alone. We have a
severe decrease in the fish, especially the bass.
As a result, the proactive board of Island Walk gave us $25,000
to investigate and to use whatever tests we needed.
We were given the equipment by the South Florida Water
Maintenance (sic) District that we'd have two to three inches of muck.
We sent down a diver. We got 12 to 30 inches of muck throughout.
We had a low oxygen saturation, which have caused the fish
death. We had an increase in nitrate phosphate levels over the past
eight years going back over the records. We had an extreme loss of
Page 86
June 14-15, 2011
depth throughout our pond.
As a result, we initially spent 700 hours speaking to communities
as far away as California, Colorado, and Texas who have similar types
of systems. What we learned was frightening. The problem isn't
unique to Island Walk but is present wherever stormwaters are
present.
The average life of a stormwater system before dredging is
required is 20 to 25 years unless proactive measures are taken.
Aeration is the principal one that would help. Island Walk, as a result,
has spent $320,000 installing an aeration system. We also instituted an
outreach program. We've already spoken to 19 communities who have
contacted us that have similar types of system -- have had similar
problems.
We have to be able to control the fertilizers and the chemicals
going into our ponds and into our storm sewers. The preliminary cost
of dredging in Island Walk is estimated to be 10 to $12 million.
Island Walk will be ready . We have now 35 years because of
putting in the aeration to put that money into our budget, but we worry
about all the other communities around us that don't have aeration,
that don't have any provision, that are totally unaware, and that's the
reason for our outreach.
There are many things we can do besides the aeration. We have
to be able to control all the chemicals that go in. We have to be able to
control fertilizers. We have to educate the people around us and get
them ready so that they can be prepared for this.
The water from Island Walk that leaves our community goes to
the gulf, directly to the gulf. We have several communities that have
water coming into us. Their nitrate levels are 40 percent higher than
ours. We deal with that.
In any event, we really have to be able to do something to
prepare for the future. Fertilizer is a factor and it's an important factor
that has to be controlled.
Page 87
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Jerry Greeley.
Please, can you start. You can start.
MS. KIRK: Pardon me?
MR. MITCHELL: Do you want to start?
MS. KIRK: My name is Sally Kirk, and I live in Longshore
Lake, which is a gated community in North Naples. We have an
88-acre, 21-year-old lake that serpentines behind more than 500 single
family homes. The lake is our backyard, and we also irrigate from it.
Two years ago, when I was president of our homeowners
association, we experienced major algae problems in our lake. The
algae was so widespread and thick that it clogged our intake storm
irrigation pumps. Such algae blooms drew complaints from several
residents regarding possible toxins and reports of respiratory
problems.
Sales in the community suffered when potential home buyers saw
the clumps of algae floating in a lake behind our homes. Longshore
Lake was becoming Longshore Swamp.
So during my research to resolve the problem, I discovered that
water runoff and fertilizers cause nitrogen and phosphorus to pollute
lakes such as ours, especially with our steep slopes, and particularly
during the rainy season.
The fertilizer runoff in our lake was -- that was being reapplied
through irrigation onto our landscape was, frankly, all the fertilizer we
needed. So I found there are a number of other communities along the
west coast of Florida, which included Lee County, the City of Naples,
Pinellas County, and at least 40 other counties or municipalities in
Florida that have fertilization ordinances.
Collier County had none at that time. In fact, last night when I
was watching TV, I noticed that Lee County was showing a cartoon
indicating that fertilization was being banned. No nitrin ( sic) or
Page 88
June 14-15,2011
phosphorous.
I've given you all a handout which Bonita Springs provides, as
well as Pinellas County, and the one from Bonita was being handed
out at Home Depot in their garden section.
Since Collier County had no law, in an effort to resolve
Longshore's problem, I initiated the fertilization ordinance, which our
board of directors approved for the community.
The ordinance was based on both the City of Naples ordinance
and that of Lee County. Our policy calls for no fertilization from June
1st to October 1st. Fertilizer is prohibited within 15 feet of the lake
and have no phosphorous and must be a slow released nitrogen.
As a result, our lake is more than -- as a result, we still have
issues with sediment and the ongoing drought, but our algae is
negligible.
I'm a master gardener who was trained by the University of
Florida Extension Service, and I care for my own yard. I've also been
the chair of our landscape committee for several years. And in 18
years at Longshore I've only fertilized twice a year and used slow
release fertilizer.
Fertilizing twice a year with the slow release fertilizer is all our
landscape needs. My grass is thick and green, as are most of my
neighbors, although rather parched this time of the year. I support the
more strict law recommended by the advisory council and a four
month fertilization ban from June 1st to October 1st.
I don't need scientific proof. Seeing is believing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll take
one speaker. That's it.
MR. GREELEY: I'll try to be fast. My name is Jerry Greeley. I'm
from the community of Island Walk also. And on the screen you'll see
a map. It's basically a two mile square, Immokalee Road, 951 on the
right, Vanderbilt Beach Road on the south. Island Walk is the large
quadrant down in the lower left hand corner.
Page 89
June 14-15,2011
And as can you see, a whole bunch of communities surround us,
and the water, either through canal or sheet flow, flows down into the
Island Walk ponds from all those other communities.
And if you saw the condition of some of those other
communities' ponds today, you'd see why we have a great concern at
Island Walk.
As Herb mentioned before, we've been trying to learn as much as
we can as fast as we can. We've been on an outreach program talking
to these other communities about the kind of water that they're sending
to our community and asking them to take a look at their practices as
well as maybe begin the testing that we've begun in our community to
see if they can maybe modify some of the things that they're doing
that will improve the quality of the water.
As -- the same as Sally mentioned, Island Walk has implemented
a very stringent fertilizer control program. Among other restrictions
that we've put in place, we've included a rainy season summer
blackout from June the 15th through October the 15th, no fertilization
within 10 feet of the ponds because leaching and gravity is going to
carry that into our ponds. We have slopes behind every one of our
homes within that 10- foot buffer, that it's very easy for that to flow
down into ponds.
Four month -- use of four month 50-percent slow release granular
variety fertilizer to keep the turf fed during our summer blackout
period, as well as other restrictive steps, controlling what goes down
our storm sewers, et cetera, into our ponds.
As I mentioned, all those other communities currently are
sending us water that has higher nutrient levels than we currently have
in our ponds. Right now our ponds are clear, but if you saw some of
those other ponds, they're not so clear. They're kind of in rough shape.
Basically, we're looking to not only improve the quality of water
in our community but also the water that we send out of our
community towards the Gulf of Mexico, which I would think
Page 90
June 14-15,2011
everybody, including the golf industry, who is strongly represented
here today, people who pay a lot of attention to the golf course side of
the business, they should also be concerned about what that Gulf of
Mexico looks like so -- as we are.
So we strongly urge the Collier County Commissioners to hear
our plea and put a more restrictive standard in place that we think will
help everybody and particularly motivate these surrounding
communities to us to do something more than they've currently been
doing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Item #llA
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 TUESDAY,
JUNE 14,2011. THE SESSION WILL BE HELD FOR A TIME
CERTAIN OF 12:00 NOON, 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
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PENDING CASE OF
KER ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A ARMADILLO
UNDERGROUND V. APAC-SOUTHEAST, INC., ET AL V.
COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08-3496-CA, NOW PENDING IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
Page 91
June 14-15,2011
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
CLOSED SESSION
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break for the
sunshine (sic) session. We will reconvene here at one o'clock, and we
will begin more testimony on this issue shortly thereafter.
(A shade session was held, and the proceedings continued as
follows:)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to resume our
public speaker session from last time.
Item #llB
FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE
PENDING CASE OF KER ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A
ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND V. APAC-SOUTHEAST, INC.,
ET AL V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08-3496-CA, NOW
PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER -
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Oh, Commissioner, we first have to go to Item lIB,
please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's true. Okay.
MR. OCHS: That's a one o'clock time certain. It's for the Board
of County Commissioners to provide direction to the county attorney
regarding settlement negotiation in the pending case of KER
Page 92
June 14-15,2011
Enterprises, Incorporated, doing business as Armadillo Underground
versus AP AC Southeast, Incorporated, et ai, versus Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we just completed a--
MS. HUBBARD: Closed session.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Shade session. Okay. Go ahead, Jackie.
MS. HUBBARD: Mr. Chairman, I would request that the board,
by motion, accept the mediated settlement agreement dated May 20,
2011.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the mediated
settlement with KER Enterprises, Incorporated, et al.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three to zero.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three to zero.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, now that takes you back to the item
that you were hearing immediately before your time certain break at
noon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item # 1 OB - Continued from prior to the Closed Session
Page 93
June 14-15,2011
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO DEVELOP A
FERTILIZER ORDINANCE - COMMISSIONER COLETTA
MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT STATE MODEL ORDINANCE-
NOT CONSIDERED WITHOUT A 2ND TO THE MOTION;
MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATE MODEL WITH STRICTER
RESTRICTIONS ON SPECIFIC NUTRIENTS, STAFF TO
MONITOR WATER QUALITY AND CHANGES, AND TO BRING
BACK THIS ITEM WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW) - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That was Item lOB. It was a recommendation for
the board to direct the county manager or designee to develop a
fertilizer ordinance. You were hearing public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: And the next public speaker will be Fred
Talbott, and he'll be followed by Erica Santella.
MR. TALBOTT: Good to see you. Three of five. Where are the
other two? They heard I was speaking, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've had enough of this stuff.
MR. TALBOTT: They're out of here. They said, Fred, no way,
no way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please repeat your name for the record.
MR. TALBOTT: Fred Talbott, Fred Talbott. And I'm -- live in
Village Walk.
Last night I was talking to my granddaughter. She's seven. She
was down last summer when we ran into a major problem. I'll show
you. And I told her I was coming to see you, and she asked me why.
And I just thought of this, and so I wrote it down for you. And --
thought it was pretty good for a little seven year old. So she's all
excited about me being here as well.
Last summer we did run into a problem in Village Walk in our
Page 94
June 14-15, 2011
lake, our pond, rather, and this was the problem. And it wasn't just the
summer. It was June 4th -- June 15th, roughly, through October 15th,
four months, one third of a year.
And as you can see, we have a harmful algae bloom. And this is
the view my little granddaughter saw when she walked in from our
great room. And, of course, this is a close-up. And this is called a
harmful algae bloom by scientists because of the impact it has; harm
to the environment, as you know, harm to the economy, and harm to
public health.
First, let's take a look at the environment. And it's pretty simple.
And that even Dr. Nell mentioned today about fertilizer runoff and we
also have fertilizer leaching, the nutrient. This creates harmful algae.
That creates oxygen depletion, but also a very dangerous bacteria and
I want to focus on that a bit today.
In terms of the economy, I'm glad we had the housing discussion
today, because it's a big factor. Of course, there we are. This is a chart
I have for you. I'll leave it on here for you. And we're way down at the
bottom, unfortunately, and one that really got hit by the housing
bubble.
And, unfortunately, when people do know about this -- and I've
seen it firsthand on several occasions -- this is what happens. Quite
honestly, on two occasions in Village Walk during the bloom, two
couples came in on open house Sunday to take a look at the houses,
saw that in the lake, said, what is it? I said, it's a harmful algae bloom.
They turned around and got in the car, and left.
Okay. I want to take you to health. Neurotoxic Cyanobacteria.
Heavy ( sic) effects young children, individuals with underlying
neurological problems, animals, pets. CDC says, neurotoxic reactions;
that's brain, liver, stomach, breathing; and then also CDC points out--
take a look at the bottom, possible liver cancer, digestive system
cancer. This is my concern.
And also watering lawns with contaminated water, which Village
Page 95
June 14-15, 2011
Walk did for four months, and we're breathing it.
And this is the biggest concern. They're seeing links to this.
So I've got nine seconds. I'm worried about my buddies here,
landscape workers, because they're involved with it. We're going to
hear science today, and I've heard this denied several times. But we do
have runoff.
Very quickly. I'm out of here. Three minutes. Just want to thank
you and -- thank you for an extra five seconds. This is what we have
now with the current basic state standards, and this is what I want.
Please support the fertilizer ordinance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an extra 15 seconds now.
MR. TALBOTT: You're good. I owe you. I owe you. Next time
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to subtract that from the next
speaker.
MR. TALBOTT: Oh, no. I'll owe Erika. I'll never hear the end of
it. Thank you so much. Let me close this for her as well.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Karen Bickford.
MR. TALBOTT: I'm trying to close all of them. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. Your time is up now.
MS. SANTELLA: Thank you. My name is Erika Santella. I'm
the technical manager of our TruGreen's Florida branches. I have a
Masters and Bachelors Degree in Agronomy, growing plants and
working with soils. And we really are all here for the same thing,
water quality.
Our people are outdoor people in this industry. We work around
sensitive waters during the day, and our free time, the people in this
room that are in the industry, we fish, we snorkel, we scuba dive, we
boat. We love the water. And so we're going to protect it in every way
we can. And how we did that is through the BMPs, through education,
and through science.
And what I have up here is a copy of the Best Management
Page 96
June 14-15, 2011
Practice certificate that's required in many counties, and many
companies have gone beyond compliance and are getting their people
certified regardless of whether it's needed or not yet.
How many trainers do we have in the room right now?
(Show of hands.)
MS. SANTELLA: And there is several others up in Charlotte
County today where they did decide not to have a blackout. They just
finished their vote probably an hour ago, and they're actually -- had a
public hearing, were voting.
This picture that someone showed earlier, I'm very proud of this
picture because it's one of our lawns, and it was taken in 2008 over in
Vero Beach. The only type of fertilizer ever used on this was soluble
fertilizer. No slow release. Very slow rates of soluble fertilizer.
And we saw -- heard a lot of science from Dr. Nell how nitrogen
doesn't move. When you put it where it's applied, it stays where it is.
And that -- that is true through science and true through the visuals.
Dr. Nell also talked about the BMPs, which there's BMPs not
only for our industry, for golf, sugarcane, citrus, sod production,
silviculture, nursery production, and they all have the same focus,
water quality.
This is another very important piece of the BMPs. And if you
look at the BMP manual, fertilizer is Chapter 5. It's not Chapter 1. One
is design. There's irrigation, mulching, right plant, right place, some
very good IF AS principles.
Now the why not? Why not do what Naples is doing? Why not
do what Lee's -- Lee County is doing or Sarasota County? Well, again,
I covered the stage. We have other people in the industry here, and it
really doesn't work.
When we look at -- they didn't have the benefit of University of
Florida research, as Mike from the City of Naples said. They didn't
have the benefit of showing what we have known for years, that
fertilizer doesn't move.
Page 97
June 14-15,2011
And this manual was reviewed in 2008. So this is -- as Dr. Nell
again indicated, is their new research. It shows it should be modified.
And there were some modifications, but we did -- the DEP,
Department of Ag. and IF AS, did not add a blackout, an increased
buffer, or a slow release requirement, and I would ask that you accept
the state model ordinance as your guide.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Bickford will be followed by Gina
Downs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian, I have a special request from
Commissioner Fiala. There are people in the audience here for a
specific item, and Commissioner Fiala would like to see if the board
would grant a continuance so that they don't have to sit here and wait
for another two or three hours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Actually, they would like to
continue it to the second week in September, and I believe that there's
an approval from the petitioner as well. So I'm asking for your
approval to continue that to the second week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll tell you what it is
I'm continuing, right? 7 A, which is Cope Reserve.
MR. OCHS: It's 8A on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Moved from 17 to 8.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second Commissioner
Fiala's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue is made by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 98
June 14-15, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Rich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was second meeting, not the second
week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, second meeting, thank
you. I'm sorry . Yeah, second meeting in September, thank you, and it
is okay with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the motion seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously, and those
people can go home now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Now, if you'll start with your
name for the record.
MS. BICKFORD: For the record, Karen Bickford, Lee County
Division of Natural Resources.
Thank you very much, Commissioners, for taking time to hear
us. I was asked by a citizen of Collier County, who's very concerned
about this issue, to come and speak on behalf of Lee County to share
our experience with the ordinance. And I will do my very best to sum
up all the intricacies over the next two and a half minutes.
What it boils down to is that Lee County is under a Clean Water
Act mandate, just as you are, to reduce nutrient pollution in all the
watersheds. And we've come to know over time that prevention is a lot
less expensive than watershed restoration.
Page 99
June 14-15, 2011
And with our ordinance we are really trying to enforce the FYN
principles and the Florida Friendly principles and, of course, without
the great help of University of Florida IF AS, we would not be this far
.
In our process.
As far as the costs, just to put it into relative perspective, one
percent that was quoted as being the runoff coefficient for -- or the
excess runoff leachate from turf grass is about, let's see, one percent of
a thousand pounds, which could feasibly be applied to the entire
surface of a county at any point in time is 1,000 pounds.
Well, 1,000 pounds is one third of our TMDL load allocation for
nitrogen in the Hendry Creek Basin, and that's a tiny fraction of our
county .
So you can see that we're very, very cognizant that we have to
reduce nutrients, but fertilizer is not the only nutrient source that we're
looking at reducing. We're also looking at reducing leachate from
septic tanks and from various other sources.
Elicit discharges. We have a very strong NPDES program. It's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. So, while this is
one part of the toolbox, it's a small part of the toolbox, but it is
meaningful.
And I applaud you for your efforts, and I'm very heartened to see
how sensitive you all are to the issue so far. You know, a good
example is Mr. Coletta, Commissioner Coletta's yard. I think that he's
a good example of the kind of principles that we would like to
encourage with our citizenry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't seen his yard.
MS. BICKFORD: Is it wild looking?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have pictures of it.
MS. BICKFORD: Well, Florida Friendly does not necessarily
mean that it has to look completely wild. But I think that the point that
I'm trying to make here is that if we encourage our citizenry to not
Page 100
June 14-15,2011
only be aware of the issue but to also take steps to use sustainable
practices and reduce the use of plants that require fertilizer, that it
would make a huge impact on our water quality overall.
And when you're looking at an entire watershed and saying that
an ordinance like this doesn't work, that's not necessarily fair, because
you're looking at a whole region. You can see impacts in smaller
watersheds because there's fewer -- there's fewer inputs to that smaller
area. So take that into consideration.
When you're looking at metrics to measure the effectiveness of
this, it's very important to take into consideration that you're looking at
all the sources and that you're also being fair and making sure that
you're identifying the sources that you're researching, that you're not
just randomly saying that it's just -- all the nutrients come from this.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Ron Lanning, and
he'll be followed by Albert Beliveau.
MR. SHEFFIELD: I'm sorry. Who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Ron Lanning.
MR. LANNING: Okay.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Didn't you call another name?
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. Albert Beliveau.
MR. LANNING: Before I thought Gina Downs' name had been
called.
MR. MITCHELL: She did, but Gina Downs isn't here, so --
MR. LANNING: Okay. My name is Ron Lanning. I live in
Island Walk. Besides the 1,800 plus homes we have in Island Walk,
we have 170 acres of lakes, stormwater retention ponds, I should say.
I really didn't want to come today because I think those of us that
are in favor of a strong fertilizer ordinance are outgunned a little bit by
those that are opposed to a strong ordinance, because we have -- we
have no funding, we have no sponsors, we have no lobby. We don't
Page 101
June 14-15,2011
even have a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that fertilizer
really does run downhill when it rains.
We're just a group of concerned citizens who have observed that
the ponds and the canals in Collier County are in trouble. And we're
very anxious to get that fixed, and we think that fertilizer is a major
contributor to those problems.
As I was driving down here today, just a look at the canal
alongside the roadway reminded me just how bad some of these canals
are, and they're actually an embarrassment to all of us.
And I'm not talking about the low water level. I'm talking about
the smelly, ugly and sometimes toxic algae that's in all of these canals
and many of the ponds. And surely we must recognize that fertilizer is
a major contributor to those algae blooms. That's the elephant in the
room.
We all want the same thing. It's been pointed out by everybody, I
think, and that is, we want Collier County to be clean and green for
our own enjoyment and for the tourist industry. But tourists see these
ugly canals. Tourists see the ugly ponds. Tourists know that we have
nutrients flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, and certainly they know
about red tide that spoils our beach all too often, and it starts right here
in our own backyard.
So we're asking you to please follow the lead of so many other
Collier counties (sic) and enact a strong fertilizer ordinance. And we
truly hope that your wisdom will prevail and that you'll do just that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Beliveau?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Brad Carnell, and
he'll be followed by Holly Downing.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and
Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier
Page 102
June 14-15,2011
County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. I appreciate this
opportunity to have a couple of minutes just to make a couple of
points.
We -- Audubon does support the stricter version of the fertilizer
ordinance that's aligned with the City of Naples, and this makes a lot
of sense to have regional coordination and alignment.
Collier County is not a do just the minimum kind of place, and I
think that this is definitely an area where we want to go above and
beyond.
A couple of points; One is that we need to recognize another
issue, and that's water conservation. Heavy use of nonnative grasses
that require substantial irrigation, fertilization, and pesticide use comes
with a high cost, and the droughts that we've been experiencing the
last several years on a regular basis, it seems, have underscored this
issue. We've got to look toward more native yards and landscaping
that doesn't take so much water.
Another point; Bank erosion has been raised as a concern if you
don't fertilize as much or as close to the water. I think this can be
addressed through alternative strategies. Native ground cover or other
native plantings to stabilize the banks and shores of water bodies
while offering optimal water quality and habitat benefits.
Also you could optimize the bank slope to be more gradual and
there, I'm sure, are other engineering strategies that could be utilized.
So we urge you to support the stricter fertilizer ordinance, rather
than the state model. It's a modest increase in the criteria. You've
already heard what some of those details are, but I do want to make
one more point regarding the blackout period.
Dr. Nell had pointed out that as much as 40 percent of the
nitrogen in our water could be attributed to lightning. When do we get
lightning? Summertime, wouldn't this ameliorate some of our deficit
issues or concerns if we were going to have a blackout period? So I
think that's something to keep strongly in mind when considering that.
Page 103
June 14-15, 2011
So I think that supports a blackout period from June to the end of
September.
Clearly, alternative bank stabilization strategies are really
important. We've got to recognize the importance of water
conservation and the direct connection to turf grass irrigation
reduction.
And finally -- somebody else made this point, too -- but no
ordinance is good unless you provide the training, education, and
enforcement to get it done.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Holly Downing will be followed by Teresa
Heitmann.
MS. DOWNING: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Holly Downing. I'm in the Natural Resources Department with the
City of Sanibel. We also got asked to come here today and tell you a
little bit about our ordinance.
We passed an ordinance in March of 2007. And similar to what
you heard from Mike Bauer earlier, we continue to look at that and to
see what sorts of results we're getting because of that ordinance.
As Ms. Bickford mentioned, too, from Lee County, we have
some of the same issues that you did, which is -- that you do and that
the other municipalities that have passed these ordinances are facing.
The Sanibel River has been impaired for nutrients for many,
many years. In 2006, 2007, 2008 our beaches were covered with
massive amounts of red drift algae seaweed that was washing up on
the shore. We had pictures of tourists standing up knee high, chest
high with these algae deposits on our beaches.
And so it was the desire of Sanibel City Council to take a look
not just at the fertilizer issue. It's been mentioned several times today
that that, of course, is not our only nutrient problem, but it certainly is
one, and we need to make sure that we are addressing as many of
Page 104
June 14-15, 2011
those nutrient sources that we have, that we use all the tools in the
toolbox.
And we've been following the legislative sessions over the last
several years where there have been numerous proposals in
Tallahassee to try and take away the rights of the local government to
be able to use all of those tools, and we have been very concerned that
some of that legislation would pass.
And so far it hasn't, and so we are glad of that and glad that you
all have the opportunity to look at the model ordinance to consider
recommendations of others that include more stringent provisions and
to make a decision that's best for your community as well as for the
.
regIon.
We are -- our island is -- our water is not just ours on Sanibel. It's
not just yours in Collier County . We all share that same water, and so
that's why we feel so passionate about making sure that it's protected.
So we do certainly support -- Sanibel has a rainy season ban. We
actually have a 25 foot no fertilizer buffer zone. We are a barrier
island, and we knew that we needed to take every -- wanted to take a
strict approach in protecting our water quality. And so we urge you to
consider the more stringent provisions that have been proposed.
I just wanted to mention a couple other things. Education's been
talked about. The city produced an educational brochure and DVD
that was sent to every resident on the island. I brought copies for you
all today, and we are more than happy to work with you and your staff
if you have any questions about the education approach or any of the
provisions of our ordinance; we're happy to answer that.
There's been a lot of talk about science, too, today, and just like
there is -- there are new finding in the soil science arena and the turf
grass science arena, we continue to get new water quality information.
The City of Sanibel just got a final report of a $700,000 study that was
funded by the city in Lee County to assess the source of nutrients on
the red drift algae problem, so we know we have a nutrient problem,
Page 105
June 14-15,2011
and we look forward to working with you guys to help address it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And you said you were asked
to come here. Who asked you to come here?
MS. DOWNING: We received a request to our -- the city council
from, I believe, the gentleman who spoke from one of the local
neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. DOWNING: And our councilman, unfortunately, had other
engagements today, so I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Heitmann?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Joe Welch, and he'll
be followed by Frank Kitchener.
MR. WELCH: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Welch. I'm
technical director for Massey's Green Up Lawn Services.
You know, the science has shown that fertilizer properly applied
to healthy turf does not cause a water pollution situation. It is not the
cause of the algae blooms. Properly applied fertilizer is not the cause
of the algae bloom pictures that you've seen today.
The model ordinance was referred to as a minimum ordinance a
few times today. It's not a minimum ordinance. It's a science based
ordinance.
More restrictive measures have not been proven in science to be
beneficial to water quality. But I can tell you, what they do to me as a
lawn service provider. They make me do things that don't make sense.
They make me apply more fertilizer at a time where the grass is not
growing as actively because I can't apply the minimal amount that I
want to during the time that it is growing actively. It makes me apply
more fertilizer after that blackout period to try to catch up for what I
lost.
The 50 percent slow release requirement makes me apply more
Page 106
June 14-15,2011
nitrogen to get the small amount of water soluble that I want; in other
words, if I want to apply one third of a pound of water soluble
fertilizer, I have to apply two thirds of a pound, because half of it has
to be 50-percent slow release. That doesn't make sense to me.
Turf grass has a job to do in the urban environment. It helps filter
that water pollution. It helps prevent runoff. It captures organic debris
that would otherwise be taken down the road and into the storm sewer
and out into the water. It can be used very effectively as a water
pollution preventer.
Okay. I can tell you what I do with tons of organic debris that's in
my roadway in front of my house. It washes down from all the
neighbors' trees and all their junk that goes down in front of my yard; I
blow it up into my grass. I mow it. I recycle it. I use those nutrients
instead of allowing them to be carried down into the waterway.
Turf grass has ajob to do in order to keep those nutrients off the
roads and out of the storm sewers.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Frank Kitchener, and he'll be followed by
Caitlin Weber.
MR. KITCHENER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you
for allowing me to speak on behalf of the green industry.
My name is Frank Kitchener, and I am General Manager of
Renfroe and Jackson, a large landscape firm here in Naples. We have
hundreds of accounts in both Lee and Collier County.
I've been in the landscape business for 25-plus years. I have a
Bachelors Degree in Ornamental Horticulture. I'm a Certified Pest
Control Operator, Certified Arborist, Certified Horticultural
Professional, and have been certified in Best Management Practices
here in the City of Naples.
Some points I wanted to make today. Collier County should
choose to stay with the State Model BMP Ordinance that was
Page 107
June 14-15,2011
formulated by Florida DEP, Florida Department of Agriculture, and
the University of Florida IF AS.
The model BMP ordinance is based on peer reviewed science, as
we discussed today. The current peer review science does not support
more regulation.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida
Department of Agriculture, and the University of Florida IF AS also
did not support more stringent restrictions because the science to back
these restrictions is not there, does not exist.
Our company has had tremendous challenges maintaining the
high level of customer expectations in Lee County and the City of
N aples. We in the green industry already find it very difficult
maintaining healthy turf and landscaping throughout the year, and
specifically in our fertilizer blackout periods. Not allowing
professionals to fertilize plant material or turf properly in the summer
months when our plants and turf are actively growing leads to nutrient
deficiencies and chlorosis after a long, wet summer.
This then gives us a huge challenge in the fall to try to
re-establish nutrient levels in our plants and turf grass until our
residents return. Adding additional fertilizer, blackout periods or
increasing regulation will not be good for the plant or the customer.
As I am sure you're aware, unhealthy under fertilized turf will
only promote weaker root systems and lead to more runoff: moving
into our very precious bodies of water.
I believe it is important to look at the experts and the science
when making decisions that impact our environment and the health of
our plants and our turf grass. I fully support county staff: Florida DEP,
Department of Ag., and the University of Florida IF AS in
recommending the state model ordinance in Collier County.
Turf grass is our number one water filter, and by following our
best management practices, I'm sure it will be healthy for years to
come.
Page 108
June 14-15,2011
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Weber will be speaking for six minutes.
Someone has ceded her time. So the speaker now is Amber Crooks.
MS. CROOKS: Yes. Hi, there. I'm Amber Crooks from the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We're here today on behalf of our
over 6,000 members to advocate for a more protective fertilizer
ordinance to safeguard our region's water resources.
To date, over 40 municipalities have now adopted strong
fertilizer ordinances more stringent than the state model. That's
depicted here on this map as the -- all that you see there on the map
are municipalities that have -- now have more stringent ordinances.
The ones in the light hatching are the ones done after the state model,
so you can see it's a vast majority.
The state model is intended to be the floor, not the ceiling, and is
woefully inadequate to deal with Collier County's nutrient issues.
The state statute recognizes that local conditions, such as
presence of impaired water bodies, warrant more stringent measures.
One such example is impaired Gordon River, which does not meet
state water quality standards as a result of excess nutrients.
FDEP has set a cap called a TMDL on the pollution loading. As
this area is largely urban, the 29-percent reduction will need to be
made from stormwater improvements. The staff has acknowledged
that to meet this goal, quote, the addition of any nitrogen from
fertilizers is problematic, unquote.
Ultimately, municipalities are the ones that are on the hook for
ensuring compliance with water quality standards. A stringent
protective fertilizer ordinance is one of the most cost effective ways to
improve our water quality.
The City of Cape Coral, who recently passed their ordinance,
found that their more stringent regulations would save their citizens
nearly $5 million over 25 years by extending the life of their costly
filter marshes. And I wonder if the same would be true here in Collier
Page 109
June 14-15, 2011
in terms of saving money for our $30 million investment in Freedom
Park.
Instead, these agencies, which is FDEP, want us to fight our
existing water quality impairments essentially with one arm behind
our back.
Let's talk science for a moment. We have a stack of information
from IFAS and FDEP that supports our more stringent measures. In
other words, these protective standards we're seeking are not just
pulled from thin air. They have a scientific basis, and that meets the
requirements of the state statute.
And I would actually encourage you to look at the information
that Dr. Nell provided to you. In the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods
Handbook, I encourage you to take a look at Page 24 and Page 46. I
would also encourage you in the green GMP manual to take a look at
Page 39, because in those documents he provided to you, you'll see
support for a 10- foot unfertilized buffer, 50-percent slow release, and
zero phosphorus application unless a soil test warrants. Those are
some of the things that we're seeking.
Also in terms of the science, we question some of the information
that's been presented to you today by those who oppose the more
protective measures. For example, information has been presented that
cautions against the summer blackout period citing the summer as
grass is growing season; however, this neglects to acknowledge IF AS
information that South Florida grasses may be actively growing all
year round.
They are also ignoring the IF AS recommendations against
applying fertilizer within 24 hours of a rain event. Historically in our
area we get rain every day and a half from June to September. It seems
very difficult for me that applicators, as skilled as they may be, to be
able to predict if a certain home site is going to get rainfall within the
next day.
The opposition will also tell you that runoff is not a problem and
Page 110
June 14-15,2011
that fertilizer doesn't move once applied. They claim that runoff is
increased when no fertilizer is applied, thus encouraging the
application during the summer; however, what they don't tell you is
that runoff is also very high when too much fertilizer is applied. That's
why you'll often hear a caveat from them, when properly applied. But
we've seen many cases in which homeowners and even professionals
have misapplied, under watered, or over watered.
Additionally, many of the studies they utilized were conducted
on sandy soil where nutrients leached down instead of running off. A
recent USF study from earlier this year that was conducted on a more
typical, compacted soil found that runoff was, indeed, a serious issue,
and they recommended a slow release nitrogen, zero phosphorus
fertilizer.
The staffhas recognized that either way, whether it's from runoff
or from leaching, nutrients could pose a problem in meeting
established TMDLs.
I just want to note that, keep in mind the golf courses are actually
exempt from this ordinance, but they've been very vocal throughout
this process. And I think it's important to note that they have testified
in previous meetings for -- that they actually employ some of these
measures that we're seeking. So they obviously must feel comfortable
enough they use them in many of their golf courses and communities.
F or example, they've testified that they use zero phosphorus
unless a soil deficiency is shown. They oftentimes use a high, slow
release nitrogen fertilizer product. In fact, one testified that they're
already -- already using 50-percent slow release in their residential
areas, and that they follow golf course BMPs that include the 25-foot
buffer.
So, in closing, we respectfully request that the commission adopt
a protective ordinance that incorporates -- and I think some of these I
think we can agree upon and some of these things Dr. Nell says were
scientifically supported, let's go ahead and add them in.
Page 111
June 14-15, 2011
But what the Conservancy is looking for today is an ordinance
that includes 50-percent slow release nitrogen, zero phosphorus
content unless you do have that soil deficiency, four pound cap on
nitrogen per thousand square feet per year, a 1 0 foo~ fertilizer free
buffer zone and that four month prohibit period during the summer.
These measures are absolutely necessary for clean, safe, and
productive waters.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Doug Fee, and he'll
be followed by Bill Davidson.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee.
On behalf of our children, our grandchildren, and future
generations, I would like to very simply encourage you to support a
greater than minimum requirement.
And we have the Regional Planning Council, the City of Naples,
the EAC, the CCPC, and the Lee County area, Sanibel. Please join the
greater region by protecting our surface and groundwater quality. By
making this important decision, we will show -- we can show that
Collier County has never been about the minimum. It goes beyond.
The one other thing I wanted to mention was, I live up in the
Wiggins Pass area and, specifically -- I'm not a scientist, and I
understand where there is some debate on that, but we have algae
blooms that occur in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area.
I think -- my understanding is what happens is we get daily rains,
we get large amounts of rain, and the fertilizer that is in the area is
going through the swales and then ending up in each of the lagoon
canal streets, and you will find often fish kills in that area after heavy
.
raIn.
So I would encourage you to go with a blackout period. I think
that may help the situation.
Thank you very much.
Page 112
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Davidson will have nine minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And why is that?
MR. DAVIDSON: Mom always said I did things backwards.
MR. MITCHELL: He's had time ceded to him by Brian Becknor
and Alberto Quevedo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIDSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
We keep discussing the euphemisms of science, and let's talk
about factual information and things of that nature.
The Conservancy at the Planning Commission presented a study
that was done at Robert's Bay that is in Venice, and they present it in
such a fashion to help it make their case. And when asked if the
Conservancy had analyzed analytically the data that was used in
Robert's Bay, their answer was no.
So what we did is we had a scientist, Dr. Stewart Colin
(phonetic), who had worked 11 years at the EP A, is a registered,
certified groundwater expert, he collected all the data that's obtained at
the University of South Florida, and it's the Sarasota County Water
Atlas, and he analyzed the data for us to actually give us analytical
information, statistically accurate analytical information as to the
effects of the Robert's Bay ordinance.
This is the slide that was presented by the Conservancy. And a
layman's look, if you looked at it, the trending line looks like it's
relatively flat. And in -- when you look at the effective date of the
fertilizer ordinance, you would look at it again and say, hey, the
fertilizer ordinance had an effect because the dissolved oxygen's going
up. And dissolved oxygen is used as a reference measure of the health
of the water. The higher the DO, the healthier the water; and the
inverse relationship is appropriate as well.
Now, when you -- now, when you look at the information
analytically and statistically, what's important to notice is that back in
2002 -- and these are their data points -- the trend line started
Page 113
June 14-15,2011
happening long before, five years before the fertilizer ordinance
happened.
What's also very important to take into consideration, statistically
there are no increases in dissolved oxygen content after March of 2007
when the fertilizer ordinance was put in place.
So what this is telling us is that it's not a fertilizer issue. It's a
nutrient issue. And as it's been testified, nutrients come from a lot of
sources. And this also correlates to what Dr. Bauer said with the City
of Naples. Since 2007 they -- or over the last five years they haven't
seen any statistically grand improvements in the water quality of
Naples Bay due to any fertilizer increases -- or fertilizer bans, I
apologize.
And trying to conserve your time -- I've got multiple slides here,
but they also -- they all show the same trend line. Starting way back in
2002, the trends were all improving, whether it was a decrease in
nutrients or an increase in phosphorus or an increase in dissolved
oxygen, all the trend lines were getting better long before any fertilizer
ordinance was put into place.
So I will concede the rest of my time. I appreciate it. We are very
much in favor of using the state model ordinance. It already sets
maximums for nutrient loads. It already sets training, which is very
important. Everybody's talked about the educational aspect of this
ordeal. The state model ordinance already sufficiently protects our
water bodies.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Matt Taylor, and
he'll be followed by Rich Y ovanovich.
MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. Matt Taylor. I'm speaking on
behalf today -- on behalf today of the Everglades Golf Course
Superintendents' Association.
And the Everglades Golf Course Superintendents' Association is
in favor of the county staffs -- in favor of county staff with the state
Page 114
June 14-15,2011
model ordinance.
Many people are wondering -- in fact, it's come up here a couple
times today, why are the golf courses involved? Well, the golf courses
are involved because we were asked from the very beginning by Mac
Hatcher to get involved with the stakeholder meetings, at the -- with
everybody in the very beginning, so we're seeing out what we were
asked to get started on.
And we also believe the other answers are very simple. Quite
simply, we don't see this as a commercial or a homeowner issue. We
see it as an issue to the turf grass industry.
Even though our association is called Everglades Golf Course
Superintendents' Association, at the end of the day, we're still turf
grass managers.
And contrary to what you've been told, if you adopt a state model
ordinance, we are not exempt. If you adopt the more strict ordinance,
we are not exempt, because we still have to follow our golf course
BMPs, we still have to be trained in the urban BMPs to apply fertilizer
on the golf course, and our common grounds and clubhouses,
roadways will not be exempt.
So I've also -- we're going to have two sets of rules going. If you
don't put a blackout on the golf course but you do put a blackout on
our common grounds, our common grounds will be managed one way
and our golf course will be managed the other.
So help us all with, where's the demarcation line? If I have the
ninth rough that comes up to the roadway, where do I split that? So
that's one of our concerns.
Another one of our big concerns is we believe that a stricter feel
good ordinance, if adopted, will not have an impact on water quality.
In fact, we feel it will only hurt water quality. And when that happens,
everybody's going to come back and say, what's the missing piece?
Well, the missing piece is the golf courses got exempted, so now
let's include the golf courses in a more strict ordinance. Once the
Page 115
June 14-15,2011
camel gets his nose out from the tent, we all know what's going to
happen. And that's it.
And the state model ordinance, as you've been told today, the
urban BMPs, the golf course BMPs, are all based on science and
they're all supported by peer reviewed research over the last 40 years.
It's as simple as that. You can choose not to believe it, or you can
believe it.
But these algae blooms that happen, you know, you can go to
Mote Marine Lab, and they're not 100 percent sure. And proof of that
is -- I understand and I respect Lee County has a fertilizer ordinance
that's more strict than the state model, but there was a major algae
bloom -- there is a major algae bloom in the Caloosahatchee River,
and it was on -- all over the news and in the newspapers last week.
Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
I just want to address a couple of brief points. First of all, the
characterization of the state model ordinance as a minimal ordinance
is an unfair characterization. It is a strict ordinance based on science,
and it was developed with a lot of input, including input from the
various environmental groups, the Florida Association of Counties, the
League of Cities, and various scientific groups. So it was an ordinance
that was adopted through a lot of input and a lot of scientific basis.
It's not a minimum ordinance. It's a maximum ordinance unless
certain criteria are met under the statute. And one of those criteria that
has to be met is that there is a science based and nec- -- and it must be
science based and it must be necessary to do more than what is
required by the minimum ordinance, and I don't think that that science
based standard has been met by the various people.
There is -- this is a difficult issue. Whenever you're talking about
water quality and you're talking about people's health, it becomes an
emotional issue.
Page 116
June 14-15,2011
You had an issue earlier today on fluoride. And people were
saying, fluoride is a horrible thing. Let's get it out of the water. But
what the commission said was, wait a minute, let's take a step back
and let's find out what the science says about the fluoride before we
jump to the conclusion to take fluoride out of the water.
Well, if you listen to the science on this issue, the science says,
you don't stop fertilizing during the summer. In fact, the science says,
you fertilize during the summer. You don't fertilize outside of the
summer or over fertilize outside of the summer to make up for the lack
of fertilizer. You have to analysis this on a science based approach.
The statute requires you to analysis this on a science based
approach, and the science says, you don't follow the recommendation
of a four month blackout. The science supports allowing fertilizing up
to three feet of the water if you have the appropriate guard. The
science says you go with a 30 percent slow release basis. That's what
the science says, and that's what Dr. Nell testified to.
Phosphorus is a nonissue. Everybody agrees, you don't put
phosphorus on the ground unless you have a study for that that
supports you need to put more phosphorus on the ground.
Mac's slide that he presented earlier, I think, eliminated a couple
-- or didn't mention a couple of the exemptions that he said are in the
ordinance, and I would just like, when he comes back, that the slide be
consistent with the ordinance if you see the slide.
I think you need to add the golf courses to the slide. Your need to
add your own parks and rec and sports related turf to that slide to
make it consistent.
It's important that you follow the science in this ordinance, not
follow emotion. It's an emotional issue. We all care about water
quality, and everybody in the industry said they cared about water
quality. And they're advising that you follow the state model
ordinance.
Your staff is recommending that you follow the state model
Page 11 7
June 14-15,2011
ordinance, and the scientists are recommending that you follow the
state model ordinance, and we are requesting that you follow the state
model ordinance.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your last speaker is Judith Hushon.
MS. HUSHON: Over the last year, the EAC has been working
with the county staff and their contractor on watershed management
plans. And one of the things they've shown is that four -- of our four
estuaries in Collier County, three are impaired for nutrients. That's not
good.
You know, they've been talking about TMDLs and things that
we're going to have to go through; that's true, but we have to do
something about improving the health and quality of our estuaries.
The nutrients in surface water affect the growth of plants, algae,
some of which is even toxic. We have problems with loss of fish,
shellfish, red -- we get -- it can contribute to red tide, and the other
thing is that then we have tourism effects and home value effects.
So all of this is important, I mean, it comes all the way -- it goes
all the way around through our community.
Some of the main methods for reducing nutrient runoff from
landscaped areas, of course, are a fertilizer ordinance, and Collier
County is the only jurisdiction around here that doesn't have one. So
we need to get on the bandwagon with the fertilizer ordinance.
Now, the state has put together a basic ordinance. My feeling is
that that is a basic ordinance. It's a one size fits all for the entire state.
South Florida, as you know, is a little different than Tallahassee
or Gainesville or Jacksonville. We have different kinds of soil, we
have different climate. We don't -- it doesn't really frost down here.
We have a 24 -- or 12-month growing season here. Things grow year
round here. Just ask your landscapers; they have to mow year round.
Where I lived before I came here, you didn't have to mow in the
winter months. That was not something that was required.
Page 118
June 14-15,2011
With regard to education, Rookery Bay runs the education
program for the City of Naples. And I've talked with them, and they
have the capacity to educate Collier County landscapers as well,
which is good to know.
With regard to homeowners, signage in stores where fertilizer is
sold and mailers in water bills are good ways of accomplishing this.
My recommendation is to enact an ordinance that's very similar
to that adopted by the City of Naples so that we don't have the
problem of our landscapers having to say, well, it's on this side of the
street or on that side. They'll know the rules. The rules will be fairly
straightforward.
You'll hear arguments from golf courses that the ordinance is a
bad idea, but as proposed, they're exempted and are acting as
mouthpieces, in some cases, for the fertilizer industry . We have some
of that occurring.
We also hear testimony from local communities that they've
already enacted rules similar to what we're requesting. And they were
-- and then the quality of their lakes is improving.
The EAC is convinced that we have to improve the quality of our
surface water, and this is one step we must take. We need the more
stringent provisions to protect our coastal waters.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion
that we adopt the state model ordinance, and the reason for that being
is that this does put something in place to be able to give us protection,
a limited amount of protection that we can make a judgment decision
down the road as to which way to proceed.
And I'd like to remind you that the state agencies, including the
FDEP, the DACS, and the IFAS do not -- do not support any stringent
Page 119
June 14-15,2011
provisions, but instead provide scientific support for the model
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to see a modified
stringent fertilizer ordinance. We've heard much testimony today. And
I've talked with people in my office to see what would work for the
whole county, and at the same time, what would be most beneficial to
everyone.
And I spoke to some of these guys from the golf courses, and I
asked them if the nitrogen content, no less than 50-percent slow
release would bother them, and they could live with that; phosphorus
content minus 2 percent guaranteed analysis, they could live with that;
and no more than four pounds of nitrogen per thousand square feet in
any year, they could live with that.
What would be difficult for them to live with is no fertilization.
And we've heard testimony on that today, quite a bit, of the four
summer months. At the same time, we have heard that in August and
September, the rainiest of the months, you probably can't fertilize
anyway because it would wash right off and into our water system.
So they could probably compromise with that and go for just the
two months block, which would be August and September.
And then as far as the 10 feet from the water body, I don't know
-- I don't know how anybody else feels, but here it says, as it was
pointed out, in the Florida Neighborhoods handbook, it should be 10
feet, and it was pointed out in two pages, and this is what Dr. Nell
gave us.
So my motion would be to take the numbers that I just
mentioned, nitrogen content no less than 50-percent slow release,
phosphorus content minus 2 -- 0 to minus 2 percent guaranteed
Page 120
June 14-15,2011
analysis, and no more than four pounds of nitrogen per square foot in
any year, and -- but only two months block, which would be August
and September, and then no fertilizer within 10 feet of the water
today.
And if in a year we find that maybe that should have been three
feet rather than ten feet, although they do recommend that in this book
as well, we can go back and analyze that. That is my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a direction, but I can
support what Commissioner Fiala has said. This is not an adoption of
an ordinance. It's giving direction to staff to bring back an ordinance
for fertilizer.
The only problem that I have with it, turf is different from plants
and turf is different from vegetable plants and what needs -- what kind
of fertilizer it needs to be sustainable.
And you also have citrus. So you can't -- you can't lump all that
into one, although it needs to be something within the ordinance for its
application. You know what I mean?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but, you know, we haven't
discussed that, so I'm not even familiar with what would be healthy
and what would be injurious --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to our plants and vegetables and so
forth. And I would think that that would be left for another time to
discuss.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a part of the ordinance.
And I'm just saying, if it's going to be a part of it, you need to take a
look at factual information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I wasn't referring to that now,
but if you'd like to make it a part and put some kind of an addition to
my motion together, I would be happy to receive that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just the direction to the
Page 121
June 14-15,2011
staff is to find out what's best management practices.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For plants?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For plants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For vegetables?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For vegetable plants and so on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember that agriculture is excluded
from almost all of these plans. Are you talking about trying to apply it
to agriculture?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, absolutely not. I grew
vegetable plants this year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're just talking about home
gardens and home planting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It applies to -- yeah, it applies to,
you know, the urban area, residential, whether it be Estates or
whatever. People have tomato plants on their patios.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm for that, because I would--
you know, I think some of us might not even know what would be the
healthiest way to fertilize plants and flowers and vegetables anyways.
So if staff could pursue that and present that back with the ordinance, I
would accept that as part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe my vegetable plants
will be a little bit more healthier then, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you have to bring your garden --
you have to bring your vegetables in so we can see if you do a good
job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they're -- I don't think they
got enough fertilizer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, do I understand that you
have seconded Commissioner Fiala's motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion for direction?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Page 122
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I would like to suggest a
modification, and that is that we direct staff to review the science and
come back to us and tell us, with the scientific evidence and having
consulted the agencies that are listed in the model ordinance, as to
how restrictive we can make this ordinance rather than limit them with
criteria that we want or that we think may be correct, because I think
we should explore, you know, all possible alternatives based on what
they uncover through their determination of a review of the arguments
on both sides, and then bring that back, and then with that make a
determination it: you know, the model is sufficient to satisfy what our
needs are or if we need more restrictive provisions.
Because what I'm hearing today is that, you know, we haven't
reviewed all the science. We've had competing arguments presented.
But, again, not everything has been presented. We haven't heard from
the various agencies that we're supposed to consult with directly.
So why not just have staff do that and then, based on that, bring
us back, you know, what the alternative would be to the model, rather
than us speculating?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I wasn't speculating. I
mean, I took Mr. Nell's information, and based upon the information I
was presented, I -- that's how I came up with my findings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I, too -- I took the scientific
approach from not only the people from the golf courses, but also I
took the advice from the Conservancy, I melded and meshed them
together to find a compromise that everybody could live with, that
doesn't hurt anybody, but we -- will give us all a starting point, and I
feel that that's -- I like this motion, to be honest with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I like it also, Commissioner Fiala.
But I would like you to consider one additional step. The thing that
has been missing through all of this discussion is that the people who
Page 123
June 14-15,2011
have implemented more restrictive ordinances have not compiled any
evidence that they have worked. There has been absolutely nothing
presented in this hearing that proves that the Lee County ordinance is
working, that it has resulted in a measurable improvement in water
quality .
The City of Naples doesn't have any quantitative data that
indicates that their ordinance has resulted in any improvement
whatsoever. I find that confusing and certainly disappointing because
-- what I'm going to ask is that Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner
Henning consider adding to the -- their motion that we direct staff to
monitor this on a regular basis to see if there is any improvement in
water quality. I'm not talking about daily or weekly, because it takes a
long time for these things to happen.
I'm merely suggesting that we come back at the end of a year and
give us some assessment about whether or not anything has changed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I like that
suggestion, Commissioner Coyle. And not only that, but now maybe
with us working cooperatively not only with the City of Naples but
also with Lee County, we'll have a better overall picture to see if it's
actually effective, because we'll all be practicing the same best
management practices.
So I'll include that in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And one other question I have of
staff. In the comparison of the state model ordinance with all of the
other programs and recommendations, you list under
recommendations agricultural, but you do not list golf courses as
being exempted.
The models that have -- that you have compared essentially say
that golf courses are exempted in all categories except one. So is it
your understanding that golf courses are really exempted under the
state model ordinance?
MR. HATCHER: They're exempted as long as they're following
Page 124
June 14-15,2011
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection BMPs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which are pretty much the same as the
state model?
MR. HATCHER: They're not as defined in terms of annual
limits, but the practices are much broader and comprehensive than
what is in the model ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. That's it for me.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Reporting could be
TMDLs, and I think they're doing -- Mac, is pollution control doing
that?
MR. HATCHER: They do the monitoring for the county, and it's
directed at TMDL criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So that would be our
report, I would imagine.
The other thing is, when the budgeting comes up, I'm going to
strongly press -- you know, if we don't do education, this is just a feel
good exercise, and I'm going to be pressing under the pollution control
department to, you know, allocate some money for education, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, have we satisfied
the requirements with respect to the science and consulting with these
agencies?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I spoke with Mac and Nick earlier today, but
what we're going to do is when we come back we're going to come
back with backup that'll support the board's decision for more
stringent. You haven't seen the evidence. But if you've got a number
of other jurisdictions that have passed these things, I'm presuming that
they passed it on something.
And we'll also get with some of the people who've talked today
and ask them to provide bound copies of the some of the reports that
Page 125
June 14-15,2011
they're relying on as well. So you'll have it in your backup material as
the scientific basis for your decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. And that goes to what
I was suggesting earlier, you know, that unless the science is there to
support what's being proposed here, if we haven't seen that today --
and that's what the county attorney is representing -- then we couldn't
approve it without it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Hiller, I
agree with you, and that's why I was -- my first motion was such, but
your modified motion to get this the same direction I could support if
we got to that point, you know. I don't think we modified the original
motion that was out there that's on the floor now that's got a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't think we have either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What modification are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, recognizing the
fact that this is not proven science to go with the model ordinance, and
then bring back what we can do to improve upon the model ordinance
as we get into it and we come up with the approved science to be able
to back it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're beyond that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was not Commissioner Fiala's
ordinance -- motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know it wasn't, but you were
just asking where I was coming from.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay. I was merely suggesting that
we add a requirement that you report back in 12 months after
implementation of an ordinance, that -- and provide us information as
to whether or not there's been any measurable improvement in water
quality. That was the only modification I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could support that as an
alternate to what we're going with, because then that makes you come
Page 126
June 14-15,2011
up with -- approve the science and within a year's time to support what
we've put into place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem as I see it is if we go there,
we're not going to have majority support for it. I don't -- at least my
reading of what the position is of the board members.
But let's vote on this motion and see where it goes, okay . We've
got a motion on the floor. We have to deal with it.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes by a 3-2 vote
with Commissioners Coletta and Hiller voting against the motion.
Clearly stated with that motion was the consideration that if it
turns out that we don't have the authority to do that and it would be in
violation of state law, we're not going to be able to do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I change my vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- okay. It passes now 4-1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As long as we incorporate
everything that Jeff said in the motion and the motion is amended to
reflect that that evidence will be produced and we will only advance
the modification to the ordinance if it's supported by the science, then
I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And forgive me, too. And
I don't want to seem to be parochial on this, but the area that I
represent has a whole different situation than the rest of the county,
homes on two and a half to five acre lots, agricultural.
When you get closer to the coast with the density and you have
Page 127
June 14-15,2011
the issue of the estuaries and everything else that's there, it's a whole
different situation. It's like Sanibel Island. They were the big driving
force at the Regional Planning Council to keep this going forward
when the issue they had was completely different than the inland part
of the state has. But be that as it may, I can respect everybody's
. .
opInIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's got to come back to us anyway.
And if I could just paraphrase the effect of the ordinance, it is that
you've sort of split the baby a little bit here and found common
ground, and we're going to monitor the improvements that come from
that, but we won't even approve the ordinance itself unless we've met
the legal requirements of the state law.
So it gives us another bite at the apple, but it at least resolves
most of the issues, and we can begin to move forward with the
program that will hopefully benefit our community.
But, again, from your standpoint, if it doesn't meet the
requirements of the state law and it isn't supported, then we're back to
designing a new ordinance. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I add one comment to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, before you do that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we move on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- can I get a -- maybe a unanimous
support from the board on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't need it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have to say, I understand
exactly where Commissioner Coletta is coming from, because I had
the same concern, that we have different portions of the community
that are -- that don't necessarily need the most restrictive standard
because they're not near any water at all.
And I was thinking exactly along your lines, Commissioner
Page 128
June 14-15,2011
Coletta, which is why I questioned whether we could have -- and I
don't know if we -- where did the county attorney go?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He gave up and went home.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't blame him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wise choice -- whether we could
have something different, for example, for the Estates or for
communities that are not like Island Walk or Village Walk or
communities that are directly on the water, if there is any way to, you
know, bifurcate the standard depending on where the properties are or
the nature of the properties within the community. Because it didn't
seem to be a, you know, one size fits all type of situation.
MR. KLATZKOW: We could look at that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you could bring that back at the
same time, that would be beneficial.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can look at that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And maybe at that point it would
satisfy Commissioner Coletta as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The issue with Commissioner
Coletta's district is he's got all those canals in there, and they all go
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I help you with that, sir?
This is a question that came up years ago, and it's been checked out
many times. Those canals do nothing but deliver fresh water. There
was no nutrients in them to be measured. It doesn't happen until it gets
down to about the City of Naples, and the runoff that comes from the
City of Naples has been the problem. It's been checked by the Health
Department and other sources before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're through with this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Moving on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to our 1 :05 time certain, so
we're right on schedule.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me -- can I -- can I make a
Page 129
June 14-15, 2011
suggestion with respect to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With what, the next item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. What I was going to suggest
is, if I'm not mistaken, I think there are more people here for the
Vanderbilt bathroom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's going to take all afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there might be some overlap.
Maybe they want to --
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please leave quietly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's 1 :05? 1 :05 is just to talk
about our shade session, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. That's to discuss Commissioner
Fiala's (sic) suggestion about a referendum on the ad valorem tax
exemptions for qualifying businesses as an economic incentive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I thought that was shade
session. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the problems we have --ladies
and gentlemen, we're trying to work out what would be most
convenient for you. How many people are here for Item 9F?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is a request by Commissioner Hiller to
place a referendum on the spring presidential primary ballot to
consider authorizing a grant ad valorem tax exemption to qualifying
businesses for economic development. So there are several people
here.
So if we postpone that until after the Vanderbilt Beach issue,
they're going to be here at nighttime.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they're not, because I think -- if
I may ask another question. How many of the same people are here to
talk about Vanderbilt Beach? No, not -- and the referendum. Like, this
is the universe, the intersection of both universes here, the middle.
How many -- so I think you've got --
Page 130
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not the same people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not the same people to talk on
both?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's definitely not the same people.
Some of them are --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A couple of them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there's a large overlap.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's resolve this dispute. How
many people are here to talk to 9F and the Vanderbilt Beach? Okay.
And how many people are going to speak only on 9F? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you've 20 speakers for 1 OF.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: And you have nine speakers for 9F.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. So there's a difference. All
right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These are both Commissioner
Hiller's subjects --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so why don't we let her decide
which one she wants to go first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should let the Vanderbilt
Beach issue go first because there are so many people waiting. If the
referendum discussion would go longer, I think it would hold so many
more people back. So I think we should keep that at the two o'clock
that was promised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we are going to go to 10F.
And if any of you who want to speak on 9F are unhappy about that,
then we'll give you Commissioner Hiller's telephone number. You can
talk with her later.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I look forward to the calls.
Page 131
June 14-15,2011
Item #10F
APPROVING $29,729 IN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE STUDIES
FOR THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH P ARK/RESTROOM FACILITY
AS DIRECTED AT THE MARCH 8, 2011 BCC MEETING-
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
ALTERNATIVE #2 BUILDING IN THE AE ZONE TO BUILD AT
GROUND LEVEL - DENIED; MOTION TO APPROVE THE
ORIGINAL PLANS - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10F is a time certain hearing
at two p.m. It's a recommendation to approve $29,729 in design
alternative studies for the V anderbilt Beach park restroom facility as
directed at the March 8, 2011, BCC meeting.
Mr. McAlpin will present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager.
F or the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
To refresh your memory and a little bit of background, on June
22, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners approved a conceptual
design for the -- to replace the existing bath -- Vanderbilt Beach
bathroom facilities with an elevated facility that met FEMA
guidelines.
On June 27th you appropriated $160,000 for the design,
engineering, the permitting, and the construction contract bidding for
that.
Then on March 8 you asked us to go back -- of this year you
asked us to go back and look at alternatives to construct an elevated
bathroom facility, and that would -- that would be an option to the
elevated facility.
We're here now to -- not to share the results of those options, but
to look at and solicit funding to do those studies. And the studies that
Page 132
June 14-15,2011
we would do would not complete the design. They would be -- they
would be able to put enough -- enough flesh on the bones, if you
would, and we would address the key issues. The key issues being the
layout, permitting, constraints, other factors associated with those.
And if you look -- just take a look over here with me,
Commissioners, for a minute, I just wanted to go through a blow-up of
the general area.
This is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage right in here, this is
the Ritz Carlton, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Gulf Shore Drive. This is
the existing facility that we had looked at as the elevated facility.
You have the existing dune vegetation area right here, to seaward
edge of the dune vegetation. This black line is the mean high water
line, and this whole area in through here is preserve, and this is the
preserve boundary that we are talking about.
So this kind of sets in place the area that we're talking about. And
you could see the existing Vanderbilt Beach, what we're proposing for
-- what we were proposing for the facility in relationship to the other
facilities along with the beach right in through here.
If we blow this area up -- and what we're looking at now is you
can see what we have here is the existing facility that we -- that we
have. This pink facility that we're looking at right in here is Option
No.1, and in Option No.1 you asked us to come in here and look at to
see how we could upgrade this facility, what we would need to do to
put more bathrooms, how many more bathrooms we could do -- put
into that facility.
Option No.2 was to look at where the AE zone would be, the
new AE zone. The zone -- this zone is not -- it's currently on the draft
maps right now. The maps have not been approved, but this is where
this facility would be.
This road right in through here is Gulf Shore right in through
there, and this is the furthest that we would be able to put this facility
as close to the gulf as we could. More than likely it would need to
Page 133
June 14-15,2011
move back to the east and be in this location right in through here to
get out of the view of traffic coming down Gulf Shore Road.
The third option that you asked us to take a look at was to
upgrade this existing facility, this area right in through here, and then
look at facilities that are back in the parking garage. And to give you
an idea, from the existing mean high water line back to the existing
facility that you have right in through here, the dimension is -- let me
get it right -- the dimension is 200 feet. So we're about -- from the
mean high water back to the existing facility is 200 feet.
Back to the proposed one that is going to be in the AE zone,
Alternate 2, it would be 400 feet, and back to the existing parking
garage, to put bathrooms in the parking garage, would be about 700
feet, and that's -- would be walking up through on Vanderbilt Beach
Road and back in through here.
The fourth option that you asked us to consider was a smaller
facility that would be without -- that would be without the existing
concession or deck area in this location.
The fifth option would be a smaller elevated facility that we
would look to have not a concession and not a deck area, but in that
location.
And then the third -- the last option that we looked at would be
taking this existing facility as we see it right here and looking at
converting that into existing concession storage.
There would be costs associated with the engineering for those --
developing those facilities, and the total costs that we would be
looking at would be approximately $29,000.
This option, when we brought it to the Coastal Advisory
Committee, they did not recommend approval of it; neither did the
Parks and Rec Advisory Committee. Both those organizations believe
that this facility -- these options were fully vetted by the community
and fully vetted by and approved prior to that by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 134
June 14-15,2011
When we brought this item to the TDC, they indicated to us that
they did not think we should move forward with the existing -- all the
existing studies, but they only wanted us to look at the two studies.
One would be to upgrade the existing facility and put whatever
bathrooms were needed that could not be put in the existing facility
back into the parking garage, and then the last one would be look at
the one in the AE zone, and that would cost approximately $15,000
for us to do.
So, Commissioners, the item before you is to approve the cost for
the studies so that we could come through and answer those questions
and come back with costs, layouts, designs, address all the pertinent
information so that you could make a decision on how to move
forward.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have two. You did not put up
the original design. Do you have that as well so we can look at that as
well?
MR. McALPIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's an option also, right?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, that was an option that we had
not -- that was the original option to take a look at. To refresh
everyone's memory on that, what we have is -- this is Vanderbilt
Beach Road right in through here. We have about a 4,000-square-foot
facility. That's located in this area. We have a bathroom that's about
750 square feet, a concession storage area that is -- that is 300 square
feet, a deck about 1,900 square feet, and ramps going up to this,
because it has a finished floor elevation of 16. Ramps come into this at
about 1,150 square feet.
So this was the facility that was originally developed and
presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But you don't have a picture
Page 135
June 14-15,2011
of it or anything that, you know, we had seen months ago; is that
correct?
MR. McALPIN: If you -- I could pull up a picture of it,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second question is, I had
understood Leo, that we have -- we had a letter from FEMA or --
saying that our insurance rates could go up around the entire county if
we didn't build this to FEMA. Would you help me there?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Back in March when we last visited
this item, it was -- it was due to direction from the board to ask FEMA
if there was a variance that was an option for the board to consider at
that location. And FEMA came back and said that if we were to build
the proposed facility at that site on grade, that we would most likely
place our community rating system in jeopardy. We currently have a
community rating system of six on a scale of 1 to 10.
And that if we proceeded or if the board proceeded to do that,
that they would recommend that our -- or take our rating back up to a
10, which FEMA estimated may jeopardize about $4.3 million, I
believe the letter said, that was discounted flood insurance rates
currently in place to about 59,000 homeowners in the county. And I
can pull that letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean 59,000 homeowners'
flood insurance would go up if we didn't build this to FEMA regula- --
FEMA height, right? Oh, good. You've got the letter.
MR. OCHS: This was the letter that was part of your backup to
your item on March the 8th. And what I'm referring to is this
paragraph -- Gary, if you could point it out for me.
Here is where they were pointing out the number of people in
Collier County with flood insurance policies that enjoy more than 4.3
million in premium savings.
And then if you go to the next page, Gary. What they concluded
at was that if we went ahead and built the facility as recommended at
Page 136
June 14-15, 2011
grade, that Collier County would be retrograded to a Class 10, which
would provide no premium savings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that that's an important thing
to consider as we move into these deliberations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I'm more than
willing to wait till after the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're going to take a break in five
minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. So then I've got five
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you only have a minute. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See what I have to contend with?
It's hard being number five on this board.
You know, I've been listening to this argument. Talk about
passion. There's a tremendous amount of passion out there. People that
live in the area are concerned. They feel that they have some sort of
prescriptive rights to the beach. They bought there. They paid
premium prices. They want to make sure that there's going to be a
resource there that's reasonable available to them when they're ready
to go out there.
Meanwhile, the other 300,000 people in Collier County are hard
pressed to be able to find places to go. So how do you come up with
some way that meets everybody's needs? I don't think you do.
We went through this same thing when we were talking about
putting up the parking garage. I mean, it was unbelievable the amount
of passion that was exhibited by people that lived in the area against
people that lived outside the area.
The hotels came out opposed to it, and later after the whole thing
was built, it's a wonderful amenity.
I think the same would be true with this. I think we went down
Page 137
June 14-15,2011
the wrong road. The only thing I was willing to look at and consider
was the removal of the food vendor because I was concerned about the
competition with the local entities around there. And since then I've
talked to a number of people, and I realized that that's a false concern.
Other beaches have vendors that are right there on place, that it's a--
it's not the county selling the product. It's a private businessman that's
doing it, and I understand the vendors in that area are also taking
coolers full of food and taking it on the beach and selling it. So it's
more or less open businesses, open as can be, you know, and that's
fine.
And the idea of ever using the restroom in the parking garage for
beach goers, that just doesn't make any sense. To expect everybody to
pack up and have to go and use a bathroom across the street with great
difficulty and navigate through traffic and everything else just to use a
bathroom just isn't fair.
And so the facility's going to have a little bit of an amenity to it.
But isn't that what Collier County's all about, is a special place that has
all sorts of amenities for everyone, not only people that live on the
coast, but those that live on the other side of 41 ?
You've got to keep all that in mind when you're going forward on
this and you're trying to get there. I mean, we have beautiful medians
that we plant; we spend fortunes on it. We've got great libraries,
tremendous parks. So what's wrong with a beach facility that's going
to be able to be used for generations of people that are going to be able
to enjoy something they never had before, a view of the ocean for a
few minutes at a time, a decent restroom and a concession stand?
Thank you for that one minute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, man.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was longer than that.
Commissioner Hiller, you get the remaining three minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary, can you tell us how many
June 14-15,2011
bathrooms there are there now and how many stalls, whatever you
want to call them, will be added in the new facility? Can you tell us
how the amenities will be improved?
MR. McALPIN: Sure. Currently you have a facility that's about
15 years old. It has two commodes for the ladies. It has a commode
and a urinal for the men.
We would have -- we would have six commodes for the women,
and we would have the same amount, potty parody if you would, for
the men. There would be four stalls and two urinals in that. So we
would take this to approximately 750 square feet, and we believe that
that would handle the capacity looking forward for another 15 years or
so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we going to add any showers?
MR. McALPIN: There were to be two showers that would be on
the outside of the facility so that people could come in and they could
wash the sand off their feet. There would be not a -- there would not
be an enclosed shower. It would be outside just for feet washing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And at Wiggins -- how many
bathrooms are we proposing at Wiggins?
MR. McALPIN: At Wiggins -- or Bluebill?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, Bluebill, yeah.
MR. McALPIN: Bluebill we have -- we have a facility there that
we have two commodes for the men and two commodes for the
women. The difference between those two being is that Wiggins we
had a very -- we have a small easement. We had a 20- foot easement,
and that's essentially all we could put in there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Thank you for that.
I completely support the need for these additional bathrooms as
you just described. I mean, it's absolutely essential that we increase
the number of stalls.
I first want to address what Commissioner Fiala said with respect
to the impact on the flood insurance. I guess a question has been put
Page 139
June 14-15,2011
out there that if this particular property were not to be insured, what
impact would that have on our FEMA rating; in other words, if it was
an uninsured building. And I don't know if the answer came back from
FEMA with respect to that; in other words, if it's not part of the pool
of at risk properties, would it even make a difference? So I think, you
know, that's an open question.
I did a little bit of research which I really thought was very
interesting, and I found that, you know, by moving the location from
the current zone, which is the VE zone, which is the high velocity
zone and, in effect -- which pushes this building beyond what's known
as the coastal construction setback line, which will require the county
to receive a variance and -- not only at the local level, but also at the
state level, even to be able to build beyond the coastal construction
setback line.
If we move it out of the VE zone and push this building into the
VE -- into the AE zone, which is just a little bit back, we would be
able to lower this building and we would be able to, in effect, not in
any way hurt our insurance rating at all, which is a very important
factor.
And the reason it's an important factor is because many of the
residents of the community, both in the eastern portion of the
community as well as the western portion of the community, have
expressed great concern over the height of the building.
And I actually did a little bit of research, and I went back to the
original approval for the current location, and the current location
happens to be in the AE zone. And the same arguments that I'm
hearing from constituents today were echoed back then.
And the variance granted by the county to lower the elevation of
the building was for the very reasons that it makes sense to move the
building back into the AE zone today. And here's basically what it was
said: A variance is requested to lower the elevation of the public toilet
facilities so as to negate the construction of a hundred foot in length
Page 140
June 14-15,2011
handicap ramp. This extended length ramp not only makes the facility
difficult to reach but also presents a problem of installing the ramp in
the midst of existing vegetation which is extremely important to the
environmental viability of this important beach.
So what happened was the elevation was at 13 feet NGVD, and
with this variance the elevation was reduced to 9 feet, the current
elevation. And, again, the reason was because there was widespread
community concern, because we have an elderly population, that this
bathroom be handicap friendly, be friendly towards people who were
physically impaired and would have a hard time to navigate five
ramps to get up to those bathrooms.
So the reason that alternatives are being sought is twofold. One,
if it were to impact the flooding, the flood insurance, by moving it
back into the AE zone, that wouldn't happen. And, secondly, by
moving it back into the AE zone, you're able to take that existing
structure and lower it so you don't have to navigate five ramps to get
to the bathroom, in full consideration of our elderly population and
our handicap population. So there really is a precedent for why
keeping the location in the AE zone makes sense.
Yes, there was some discussion about the alternative, you know,
it being a redesign of the bathroom and potentially, you know, adding
more to the parking lot. And I don't think that is necessarily the best
option, but it's definitely, you know, an option that was discussed.
And, in fairness, it was put out there for consideration.
So that, as I was saying, addresses why the AE zone makes
sense. You get it out of the beaches. We want to protect our dunes. We
don't want to have to get that variance from the state and from the
local government for the coastal construction setback line. It takes it
out of putting any insurance premiums at risk, if they are even at risk,
and it does work towards considering the population that will
obviously be a major user of this facility.
And the only last thing I want to mention -- and then I want to
Page 141
June 14-15,2011
hear public comment -- is that one thing we all have to remember is
that the funds being used to pay for this bathroom are tourist
development tax dollars. This money is not coming out of the General
Fund.
And the law is very clear in terms of when you use tourist
development tax dollars, the intent is for the benefit of people coming
from outside of Collier County. So while all constituents certainly,
you know, are going to be users and, you know, they certainly have a
very valid -- a valid voice, if you will, at the end of the day, because
we're using tourist tax dollars, the project has to be looked at from the
perspective of the user from outside of Collier County, not from
within Collier County.
And that's one of the reasons it comes before the Tourist
Development Council for approval, because the monies have to be
spent in accordance with the statute, and that's the purview of the
Tourist Development Council to ensure that that's being done before
the recommendation comes to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to break for--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are just a few thoughts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to break for ten minutes for
the court reporter. We'll be back at 2:45.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
.
seSSIon now.
We're ready for the public speakers, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We'll go to use both --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Thirty five Sir, we're going to use both
podiums, and we'd ask people to, you know, be ready to start speaking
so we can move through this as quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me ask you a question. That's
Page 142
June 14-15,2011
going to be well over 105 minutes. So if you -- those of you who
might want to stay or leave early, maybe you could do it in one
minute, but nevertheless, I'll leave it up to you, all right. But we're all
going to be here a long, long time.
So let's call the first --
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Steve Cosgrove, and he'll
be followed by Chuck Marshall.
MR. COSGROVE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I am Steven Cosgrove.
And I asked the board to approve this recommendation for the
alternative design for Vanderbilt Beach. I ask you this because the
original design, the huge design is unnecessary for a couple of
reasons. All we need there really is clean bathrooms to replace the
existing things that are there, and the original design is way too
expensive. We need to prepare for the future.
If you read Naples Daily News, the St. Pete Times, the News
Press, the New York Times, or if you get your news from MS NBC,
CNBC, Fox, or whatever, we all know that we're coming to an
economic -- continuing an economic slowdown, so we need to prepare
for that, unless you believe in the Obama stimulus plan and you want
to just keep spending, like we have done for the past.
Many will argue today that this is already paid for with the TDC
funds. I would reply that, again, given the current future and
budgetary constraints, that TDC and county would be wise to
conserve their funds for the stated purposes of marketing and beach
re-nourishment, and the maintenance and operation costs would come
from general revenue, so we still have to consider that if you go with
the huge structure.
Commissioner Fiala mentioned that -- a letter last year about the
FEMA rating. I think she's been aware -- I think she was cc'd on the
email that the question has not been answered from FEMA about if
Collier County self insured the structure. I don't think we've had an
Page 143
June 14-15,2011
answer on that yet, so maybe we might want to wait till we get that
question answered.
And the other question is, we're concerned about our flood
insurance going up. How much of our taxes are going to go up if we
keep spending $2 million to improve something that could only cost
$100,000? So --
Some people are going to come up today and argue that we need
it to attract tourists. Really? I don't see any problem with tourists. If
tourist counts are down, it's a direct reflection of the economy, not the
lack of a concession stand at Vanderbilt Beach.
Some people are going to come up today and argue that it is
inconvenient to go to the beach and they can't get a cooler there. I've
seen letters to the editors. But Commissioner Coletta just said, people
will have to build ( sic) their own.
Lifetime opportunity to see the ocean once. People have been
taking coolers to the beach for years. It's not that big of an issue.
You have provided parking. That was very good.
In conclusion, I refer to a quote from the Coastal Advisory
Committee. The original design is consistent with county policy, and
that is correct. County policy for many years has been to build
infrastructure with little regard to cost and no plan for managing future
operating expenses. That's why we are here today to ask you to start a
new policy that fits with current and future economic trends.
We ask you to replace the unacceptable restroom facility with a
clean, safe, appropriate facility at a fraction of the cost to the current
design.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Marshall will be followed by Noreen
Murray.
MR. MARSHALL: Hi, Commissioners. For the record, I'm
Chuck Marshall.
I totally agree with Mr. Cosgrove's concern about our national
Page 144
June 14-15, 2011
economy and our county economy. We have staggering debt both at a
national -- and we have a very large debt load for our county.
I'm concerned with what's going to happen in the near future. If
the economy goes down, how are we going to maintain this bathroom
facility and how are we going to continue servicing our debt?
I would like to see us follow the Tourist Development Council's
recommendations and explore the two options. I think building a new
smaller flood proof facility in the current location as the existing
facility would be a very good approach.
We would get away -- we would be able to keep it at ground
level, we'd take care of the seniors and the ramp issue, and we
wouldn't have to deal with the FEMA insurance issue.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Murray will be followed --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just -- I would like to correct a
misrepresentation of the debt of Collier County.
Collier County is 25 percent below our maximum permissible
debt. Our debt load is really around 9 percent of bondable revenues.
So we're in very good shape, as a matter of fact, and the debt has been
declining regularly every year for the last three years. So I don't know
who told you this, but it simply isn't true. But thank you.
MR. MARSHALL: I was referring to what will happen if the
economy goes down, our economy goes down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been going down, believe me. It's
been going down for the last four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MITCHELL: Ronnie Bellone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. MURRAY: I'm Noreen Murray, and I live in Pelican Bay.
And I'm here to encourage you to consider building the original
facility with the deck and with a concession stand.
Page 145
June 14-15, 2011
I wasn't always -- I wasn't always fortunate enough to live in a
place like Pelican Bay. I grew up in an inner city, and a day at the
beach meant a day with -- I'm even for the drainage -- whatever it is
you need to do hot food in the concession stand, because I think hot
dogs and hamburgers are part of the going to the beach.
I think proposals to move this either 200 more feet or 500 more
feet from the beach for the bathrooms makes no sense, particularly
when one of the major arguments against this facility is the difficulty
for our handicapped tourists who would be coming who -- to handle
the ramps, but they can go 700 feet to the garage. I don't think it
makes a lot of sense.
And I do realize that tourist tax dollars are important, and we
need them for beach re-nourishment and a lot of things. But I think
this is a facility with a deck that would allow people who do not like
to get their feet in the sand the -- which, as we get older, has
somewhat less appeal.
A deck is a wonderful amenity. It's an amenity for tourists as well
as locals to be able to go and sit and see the gulf for people who are
not inclined to sit in the sand for hours.
I do think the argument about it hurting local vendors was
somewhat specious in terms of the difficulty of walking off the beach,
down Vanderbilt Beach Drive, and then down Gulfshore Drive with a
few little kids is kind of onerous.
So it is in my neighborhood, and I do support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. BELLONE: Good afternoon. My-name is Ronnie Bellone,
and I'm in North Naples.
First I'd like to say Happy Flag Day to you and to everybody. I
don't know if you've gotten that yet today. There you go.
I was handicapped for many months, and I was in a wheelchair,
not older as I am now, but years ago, and it was very difficult for the
people who had to push me up the ramp, but first they had to get me
Page 146
June 14-15,2011
down the ramp without letting me slide down the ramp that was full of
sand. Granted it would be with tourist tax dollars. It's very, very
difficult.
What I meant to do today was to invite each of you
independently or if you would like to public notice a meeting, meet
me at Clam Pass Park, I'll bring my wheelchair, and you can either be
pushed or you can push either each other or me to try it out. That's
only one ramp, one. Can you imagine five going up?
So I would like to see -- I think we need the new facilities. We
need them desperately. The 700-square-foot - plus square foot is
absolutely mandatory as far as I'm concerned. A deck would be
wonderful, at grade.
So I would like you to consider that, and I would hope, maybe,
you would take me up on my offer to meet me at Clam Pass Park, and
I'll give Ian my contact information.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Thanks, Ronnie.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'm sure that going up the ramp is
very difficult, but imagine coming down. It's got to be really exciting.
It would be one heck -- it's definitely an E ticket ride.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Paul Feuer, and he's
going to have nine minutes. He's been deferred time by Bruce Dillman
and Paul Maddry. And he'll be followed by Mary Lou Smart.
MR. FEUER: Good afternoon. My name's Paul Feuer, and I
thank the commissioners for giving me this opportunity to speak. I
thank Commissioner Coletta for his opening remarks and the lady
from Pelican Bay.
Today I'm speaking on behalf of my community, Village Walk.
We're a community of850 homes, 1,700 residents. And we're asking
the board to approve no further studies regarding the originally
proposed Vanderbilt Beach facility . We believe that any expenditure
for such studies would come at the expense of your constituents, and it
Page 147
June 14-15,2011
would be a waste of taxpayer or tourist dollars.
Over 350 Village Walk residents signed a petition a year ago,
submitted it to the board, in support of the original plan.
I think we all agree the existing beach facility is more than 15
years old, and it's totally inadequate to serve our current needs. The
facility is a dreadful eyesore, and it's become an embarrassment not
only to your citizens but to the county.
Some seem to have forgot -- and I think this is an important point
-- that the facilities were built prior to the construction of Vanderbilt
Beach extension. The extension, when it was completed, offered a
direct route to the beach from Airport Pulling. Communities as far east
as 951 and beyond were now able to go directly to that beach. I'm
talking about communities such as Pelican Marsh, Emerald Lakes,
Walden Oaks, Lakeside, the Orchard, Wilshire Lakes, Tiburon,
Willow Grove -- Pipers Grove, Village Walk, the Cove, Island Walk,
the Vineyards, Vanderbilt Beach Country Club.
A rough estimate says that it's -- at least an additional 25,000 to
30,000 additional residents had an opportunity now to go directly to
the beach.
It's one of our most popular beaches, as we all agree. And during
the off season it continues to attract large crowds of all ages, and it not
only serves the surrounding community, but it's serving many of our
tourists who I see on a daily basis.
In addition to expanding the facilities, there's another major need
as well as a request from the surrounding communities, and that's the
fact that they fully support the construction of a snack facility at that
location, one that can offer a limited menu, a beverage, and products
at a fair and reasonable price.
Similar such facilities have been built at Lowdermilk Park, Clam
Pass, Barefoot, and Tigertail, and it would be unfair to treat North
Naples as a second class citizen.
The original plan proposed by the county would satisfy this need.
Page 148
June 14-15,2011
The county staff should be commended, if anything, for developing an
outstanding plan. And now it plays (sic) that there's a few concerns
that have been raised.
Some suggest that the snack bar will take away business from
local restaurants, such as the Turtle Club, Lighthouse, Ritz, or
Bayhouse. This concern's without merit. Certainly a customer seeking
a hot dog and a beverage is not going to be hijacked from the Turtle
Club or the Ritz.
It will, however, provide for incremental sales for the
concessionaire without taking money away from either one of those
restaurants.
On the other hand, if the Turtle Club or the Ritz really believed
that they'll be losing business to a snack bar, shame on them.
Competition is healthy, and at the same time it's in the patron's best
interest. They would simply have to do more in the way of
promotions. Just look at the promotions that's running on Fifth Avenue
now that they're competing with the Mercado.
I would also suggest that many beachgoers would no longer have
to brown bag it. They won't have to make and bring sandwiches or
coolers. It will cut back on litter that we now see on our beaches. As a
matter of fact, the Naples Daily News just had an article all about the
litter that we're seeing on beaches.
A concern was also expressed that the facility at the beach would
be an eyesore to some of the surrounding areas. We submit that such
an assertion is without foundation. The concern would be removed
simply by reviewing the plans.
The facility has been positioned in such a way -- and this is what
I was told by the county -- that it will not extend beyond the existing
beach vegetation line. It will not extend further seaward than any of
the other buildings along Gulf Shore Drive or south of the proposed
location.
I would also add that based upon the renderings, there promises
Page 149
June 14-15,2011
to be quite an attractive facility.
It appears that all the excuses simply are a spin to divert attention
from the political pressure that has been applied by the Ritz and the
local restaurants.
The Board of County Commissioners has already made a
substantial investment in this area, and we thank you for that. You
have invested heavily in the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension and have recently made further improvements to it.
You've also made a major investment in expanding Vanderbilt Beach
Road from one to three lanes from Airport Pulling to 951. You funded
the construction of an $8 million Vanderbilt Beach parking facility.
Today we are asking you to consider the thousands of citizens
that you represent. Today we're asking you to follow your charter by
providing that what you consider to be in the best interest of the
welfare of your citizens as well as their quality of life.
Today we're asking you to do the right thing. Today we're asking
you that you complete the job. Today we ask that you stand firm to the
original plan.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just wanted to make a
comment.
Paul, thank you very much for your comments.
I just want to clarify something you said, that the Turtle Club and
the Ritz were afraid that they were going to lose business because of
the concession.
The correspondence that I got from the Ritz -- and I've only
heard from them once on this issue, so I don't think they've ever
engaged in any sort of pressuring at all -- was that they -- their
concern was that when you introduce food on the beach, there's a real
Page 150
June 14-15,2011
problem with the seagulls and then with rodents at a facility, and that
was their concern. So -- and that's what they expressed in their letter
with respect to the food. And I've really -- not really heard anything
other than public comment from the Turtle Club.
So just in all fairness, I know you said that, you know, pressuring
the board and fear of losing business, that has never been the case at
all with respect to those two institutions.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is Mary Lou Smart. She
will have 15 minutes. She's been ceded time by Lee Mathys, Cindy
Seaman, Paul Toneguzzo, and Leslie Oliver. Thank you.
MR. SMART: I don't think I need that much, but, hello, I'm Mary
Lou Smart.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mary Lou, could you get closer to that
microphone, please.
MS. SMART: Oh, okay. Can you hear me now? Is that good?
Okay.
I'm here today to ask you to stop delaying, stop with this
nonsense about studies, and move forward with the beach facility as
designed. If you're really worried about the coastal construction line,
you're going to have to start tearing down buildings, because
everything on Vanderbilt Beach is west of this setback line.
For 20 years I've lived in Naples Park. For the record, the Naples
Park Area Association does not represent thousands of people living in
Naples Park. It's a social club. Everybody knows that. Has about four
-- 240 members; 40 percent of them live outside Naples Park.
It's sickening to think this group has been used as a tool by
Georgia Hiller to -- when she insists that Naples Park is against this
facility, which is exactly what she did on March 8th.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Naples Park is filled
with working families that enjoy the beach on their days off. Their
children and grandchildren grow up spending time on that beach.
We want a food concession. Families on the beach want to be
Page 151
June 14-15,2011
able to keep their eyes on their children, and they do not want to pack
up chairs and towels and go looking for food.
Nobody wants children running around in that congested street.
It's only a matter of time before a pedestrian accident occurs while
we're waiting for this proj ect to get started.
Along Vanderbilt Beach and within walking distance of the
beach it's "I've got mine, and the heck with the rest of you." These are
the people who say that you need to preserve the pristine condition of
the beach. That sounds nice, but it's wall to wall high rises and people
there, and you cannot just bury your head in the sand and pretend that
some toilets are a solution.
How do I get that other picture? Let's see.
I mean, it's nice to talk about pristine condition, but it's just -- it's
time to take care of the people that come to the beach that are on the
beach, whether they're tourists or the people that live and pay taxes
here.
The argument that an attractive beach facility will detract from
real estate values certainly does not hold true in the City of Naples
where some of the priciest and most stable real estate in Southwest
Florida sits right next to the Naples Pier and the Lowdermilk Park.
One thing that we're all concerned about -- and I've been talking
to people on the beach -- everybody says the same thing, it's the
appearance that blatant political pandering is stalling this project.
Call it cronyism if you'd like, but Georgia Hiller did take a good
deal of money from the condominium next to the beach --let's see if I
have that -- and also the Ritz Carlton, many of the businesses and
people associated with the Turtle Club, and the residents all up and
down Vanderbilt Beach, and also in Pelican Bay.
While she should be looking out for the entire community, the
appearance is that she's falling all over herself to appease -- please a
few.
Commissioner Henning, who is taking campaign donations from
Page 152
June 14-15,2011
the same folks, maintains that the county should not be involved in
this privately run food concession. Why not? The county is not up on
U.S. 41 telling new businesses to go away. This isn't even a new
business. What about the private businesses running concessions all
over the county and even in this county complex?
The City of Naples enjoys the 20 percent share of sales earned by
Russell's Clambake, the private business running the Lowdermilk Park
and Naples Pier concessions. These businesses offset the cost of the
facilities, and it's smart business to have them.
This nonsense about a food concession being anti free market is
just that. A private business in a beach facility would create the
opportunity for a business person to hire employees.
We've heard that the local businesses will be harmed by a food
concession, but this is not a new business. It will replace the business
on the beach, and hopefully it will be Cabana Dan's in a new location.
So that this business has a chance to make it, which we're all
interested in a thriving economy; it should have a grease trap so it can
do more than serve packaged food.
Right now a few of the eateries across the street are promoting
delivery services on the beach and in violation of the county's
ordinance which says they should have a license and should give you
a cut.
They're not paying the beach anything. Of course they don't want
competition. That might actually resemble a free market.
The citizens of Collier County have a great interest in the beach.
There are 324,000 people in the county, and the county issued 84,000
parking permits for its 1,800 parking spaces last year. That's a huge
number of parking permits and not many spaces.
The demand at this beach is great, but because of the unfair
influence of a few, you're actually considering having the county's
busiest beach be the only public beach without a food concession.
This is crazy.
Page 153
June 14-15,2011
There is overwhelming support for this proj ect all over the
county. In addition to Naples Park, residents in Palm River, Golden
Gate Estates, Longshore Lake, Bay Forest, Eden on the Bay, Bonita
Shores, Willoughby Acres, Pelican Marsh, Autumn Woods, Village
Walk, Island Walk, the City of Naples, East Naples, Marco Island, and
many more have written to their commissioners. The Pelican Bay
Foundation has conditionally approved the facility as designed with
food concession.
Finally, tourists are a big part of this. The beaches are a tourism
draw, and our destination is in competition with destinations
throughout the state, which all have food concessions. A food
concession is a convenience factor for tourists because they don't often
have the coolers. They don't have the easy access to coolers and
supplies as we do. So you should be looking out for the tourists, I
agree.
The tourists that pay the tax should get a benefit. If you refuse to
accommodate them when they visit your greatest tourism draw, the
beach, then you should quit the -- advertising the beach.
And what's good for the residents of Collier County is also good
for tourism.
Thank you for designing such a nice facility that we'll all enjoy.
Build it. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Emily Maggio, and
she'll be followed by Betty Mathys.
MS. MAGGIO: I fell asleep.
F or the record, my name is Emily Maggio, and I live in Little
Hickory Shores. I'm here to support the original design facility.
It's unfortunate that this issue has become so contentious. This
project does not seek to put a public beach park and facilities where
none has existed before. It is merely a project to upgrade amenities
that already exist on site.
Page 154
June 14-15,2011
The direction given to staff in January of 2008, that long ago,
was that they should develop a plan to upgrade the existing facilities
to address overall community needs consistent with current county
practices and existing beach park facilities, and that's exactly what
they did.
The plan is so perfect it's been approved by the Parks and Rec
Advisory Board, the Coastal Advisory Committee, the County
Commission, the Tourist Development Council, and even the Pelican
Bay Foundation.
The public has a right to the highest and best use of its property,
the same as any other property owner. Requirements imposed by
zoning and building codes must be met, but we are not legally
obligated to get the approval of the neighbors.
As stewards of public trust lands and rights, you are required to
manage these assets in a manner that improves and! or protects their
value for the benefit of the general public. Removing the concession,
the observation deck, and scaling back the design, as has been
suggested, forfeits our development rights, and I have yet to hear what
our compensation for those lost rights will be, and from whom it will
come.
There's a concession at Clam Pass and all the others, as has
already been said. These concessions have all, over the years, been
renovated and upgraded. What's the uproar over this one?
The county gets 15 percent of the gross from each of these
concessions. That means when the concessionaire does better, more
money flows to county coffers, and that's a benefit to the taxpayers.
One of the things the TDC liked -- and I attended the meeting
when they approved this -- was that it got the concessionaire up out of
the sand and into a decent facility.
May I continue?
MR. MITCHELL: You've got another minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have one minute.
Page 155
June 14-15,2011
MS. MAGGIO: Sorry. Okay. Well, I'm going to stop with that,
because I want to get to this, about the cost of it.
Last year $2 million was taken from beach facility portion of the
tourist tax money and used for advertising. That's $2 million in
addition to their regular share of funds allocated for that purpose.
There was no requirement that the monies be restored to the beach
fund. This facility will not come close to costing that much. The
economy was just as bad last year.
V oters approved the tourist tax because it was supposed to be for
beach projects and off-season advertising, with beach projects being
priority. It appears to be morphing into something else.
When that two million was shifted to advertising, it re sliced the
pie chart and appears to have altered the allocation of funds
percentage-wise that the governing ordinance calls for.
Nothing angers voters more than promising them something and
then changing the rules and moving the money around. Advertising
may well be important, but it is more important for you to keep faith
with the voters.
Please build this facility. We need it. It's wonderful. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker Betty Mathys, and she'll be
followed by Duane Billington.
MS. MATHYS: Hello. I'm a resident of Naples Park. I've lived
here for over 20 years, and I'm here to support the original design as it
was approved.
I'm physically impaired. I've been in a wheelchair. I've been in a
walker. I'm currently on a cane. I'm old, and I've had some injuries
and operations. I can't walk in the sand like I used to, which was my
favorite thing to do.
But I would love to see that built, the deck, so that I could go up
and look out of the gulf. And I'll tell you something else. The young
man who said taking a cooler to the beach is no big deal, let him try it
Page 156
June 14-15,2011
when he's my age. We need that food facility.
I don't know how many others there are like me in this county,
our tourists who come, but from the amount of gray hair I see, I think
there's quite a few. And I think we need this facility, and I think it
would be good for property values in the county as a whole, and that
will do more for our budget than anything, just to keep those values
up.
I hope you waste no more money nor time on additional studies,
because while you all are talking, we are enduring a restroom that is
usually dirty because it is overused. I know they come every morning
and clean it, but there's too many people with too little facilities.
And I appreciate any consideration you can give the things I said
today.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Billington will be followed by Mr.
Ginsberg.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
It doesn't matter what I think what should be built down there.
You all are going to decide whatever it is you decide.
What I wanted to speak to, some of us have been criticized in the
past about not using facts and being political. Well, I've heard a lot of
discussion on this item where there's been misstatement. But there's
more than two hotels in the area. There's an ice cream and sandwich
shop that would be competed against, there's a convenience store,
there's a beach supply place that would be competed with, and there's
a Lighthouse restaurant which is an easy walk from the beach access
on Vanderbilt.
We saw a display that had a sign on it with the -- a phone
number. Well, I don't know what establishment that represents. It
could be a pizza parlor at 41 and Vanderbilt Beach. It could be God
knows where from.
We've had a couple speakers who have cited the various positions
Page 157
June 14-15,2011
of dozens of other communities. Why don't -- I don't know if they're
lobbyists that represent these other communities. If so, maybe they
ought to register as lobbyists, because they seem to imply that they
speak for them.
As far as the debt goes, we have three quarters of a billion dollars
in debt right now. Our carrying charge is 76 million a year. And I
don't know of any accidents, any plethora of accidents involving small
children down there at the beach access. I'm sure if that was the case,
it'd be done by now, and that access has been in place for decades.
So I would just ask all of us, let's stick to the facts when we speak
here and be issue oriented and not try to use slant or political
arguments.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Ginsberg, and he'll be followed by Jean
Parfet.
MR. GINSBERG: For the record, Graham Ginsberg and my son
Max.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask my son some questions? He's 11 years
old. And I thought it would be a great opportunity to have an
11-year-old's opinion on the facility, seeing that we do use it as a
family. And I'd just like to know what he thinks about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got three minutes. Use it any way
you'd like.
MR. GINSBERG: Max, when we were handing out flyers on the
parking lot -- and we had a lot of people that didn't really want the
parking lot. There was a lawsuit between the county and, I think it was
WCI -- we handed out all those flyers.
Do you know -- since then have you heard of anyone who said
the parking lot was not a good idea, when we go down to the beach,
anyone real grumpy about the parking lot?
MAX GINSBERG: Except one person.
Page 158
June 14-15,2011
MR. GINSBERG: Which one was that?
MAX GINSBERG: You know the person that we met, the
woman.
MR. GINSBERG: Yeah, but she was talking about the new
facility, not the parking lot.
Okay. So do you know of anyone who says the parking lot was
not a good idea?
MAX GINSBERG: No, except the Ritz.
MR. GINSBERG: The Ritz. Well, before they didn't like it and
after they didn't like it, so -- okay, all right.
So let me ask you this. The TDC funds are going to be paying for
this, the bed tax, right? You know where that money comes from?
MAX GINSBERG: Yeah.
MR. GINSBERG: Do you think that's a good use of funds, yes or
no?
MAX GINSBERG: Yeah.
MR. GINSBERG: And the Ritz relies on tourism.
MAX GINSBERG: Yep.
MR. GINSBERG: That's correct. Can you think of a better use of
these funds?
MAX GINSBERG: Not really, because all Naples is is beaches,
and tourism pays for the beaches.
MR. GINSBERG: Okay. Do you -- what would you think about
going to the bathroom -- say we're playing along the beach and you
say you've got to go to the bathroom. How would you like to run back
to the parking lot to go?
MAX GINSBERG: Not really.
MR. GINSBERG: Why not?
MAX GINSBERG: It's a long way.
MR. GINSBERG: It's a long way. And I'd have to go with you,
right?
MAX GINSBERG: Yeah.
Page 159
June 14-15,2011
MR. GINSBERG: So do you think the location where it's at now
is about far enough?
MAX GINSBERG: Which one?
MR. GINSBERG: Where it is now, the bathrooms where they are
now.
MAX GINSBERG: Oh, it's a good distance, but they aren't as
great. They're kind of gross.
MR. GINSBERG: Yeah, they're gross.
Okay. And if we had to see, say, a person in a wheelchair at the
bottom of this ramp, do you think we'd -- would we just leave him sit
there and struggle to get up the ramp, or do you think we'll help them?
MAX GINSBERG: We'd probably help them.
MR. GINSBERG: Right. So, you know, if anyone needs a hand
going up the ramp, they can call me.
All righty, I think the main problem that people in wheelchairs
don't go to this facility right now is there's no shelter at all. So you can
imagine it's hot, it's 90 degrees out, and you're going to sit out there.
Even if you had to get up those ramps, you've got no shelter at all. So
there needs to be a place to observe the beach and be in the shade at
the same time, very similar to a Clam Pass dock facility.
I ask the commission look at the original plan, move forward,
don't spend any more money on any other research or studies.
Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Parfet will be followed by Doug Fee.
MS. PARFET: I am Jean Parfet. I've owned property in North
Naples and paid taxes there for six years.
This is still the United States, for the people. The beach is for the
people. Having a concession stand there facilitates that.
The original plan looks good with a concession, a better
concession. Certainly we need cleaner bathrooms and more
Page 160
June 14-15,2011
bathrooms.
I come from healthcare management. I taught dental hygiene. I'm
a very preventative oriented person. If it's a clean bathroom and a
larger bathroom to begin with, it's easier to keep clean. That reduces
bacterial infection, viral infection for children, elderly, et cetera.
Having the concessions there also increases the ability for people,
say, with diabetes or other issues to be hydrated, find nourishment
quickly, easily. Anytime the basic public, the blue collar workers who
help all of us and that we are all a part of, can use the beach and can
get nourishment and hydration quickly and easily, it increases
endorphins, it increases joy, it increases stress relief, all of which helps
everybody. It helps everybody across the board.
Having a deck there would help people that are elderly and
would like to enjoy the view of the gulf, the view of the water, the
sand, the beach, and they don't -- they can get there easier because
there is a deck.
Spending more money on research I wouldn't necessarily agree
with unless spending more on research ended up with a totally better
facility than the one already proposed and it's safer for FEMA
requirements, et cetera.
But near as I can tell, the one that's proposed meets a lot of what's
required, and it just makes sense to -- plus the concession stand's
going to bring in taxes.
As far as the Ritz, the Turtle Club, I stayed at the Ritz on my
30th anniversary because it was on that beach, because there were
concessions there. It reminded me that it was there, and I thought,
wow, what a lovely place to spend my anniversary. So we made
reservations and stayed there.
Because it's there, I would see the Turtle Club and think, oh, my
goodness, I've forgot about the Turtle Club, haven't thought about it
for a few, you know, weeks, months. I'm going to go have a drink
there with my husband or a girlfriend, tonight because I spot (sic)
Page 161
June 14-15,2011
again. It's not going to decrease their business. It's going to increase it
in my opinion, just like the parking lot. It's a good thing, period.
So excuse me. This was obviously a hard issue. The beach is for
everybody. It's for the people. We are for the people and by the
people, and we need to remain that way.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Doug Fee will be followed by Olga Williams.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee.
I support the executive summary recommendation of approving
29,000 in design alternatives for this facility.
On Page 3 it says, on April 25th the TDC recommended
unanimously not to move forward with the options identified. They
did, however, recommend 6-3 that only two studies, as indicated
above, be investigated.
To me there's two words here that are key to the equation, and
that is "at grade," okay. I don't want to elaborate on that. You've heard
from the speakers. There are many people that come to this area of the
beach.
And I think it's really important to remember those two words,
because we've got to accommodate the whole segment. We've got the
elderly, we have children, we have wheelchair, we have the ADA. So
I think whatever's decided here, keep in mind that whole segment of
the population.
The other thing that I wanted to point out, on Page 2 of the
executive summary it says, staff will be required to review these
options with the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Pelican Bay Foundation
holds restrictive covenants on this parcel as a condition of the property
deed transfer.
I think what's important about those two sentences are spending
$29,000 and doing an additional study on possibly two options, this
Page 162
June 14-15,2011
will allow Pelican Bay to view another option instead of the original
plan. And, who knows they may see this as a win win. That we can
accomplish this facility but yet also accommodate all of the
population. So I appreciate Commissioner Hiller at least putting out
there some additional items.
And if we're open to at least looking further into it and then going
back to the Pelican Bay Foundation, I think we can find a win win
here.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Olga Williams will be followed by Robert
Schubring.
MS. WILLIAMS: My name is Olga Williams, and I live in
Naples Park.
I definitely do not want this big structure built there on the beach.
I don't think it is appropriate at all. I think that they're going to have to
get all the grape -- sea grape and everything else that's there to protect
us from floods and everything is going to be gone.
It's going to take all that shrubbery away, and I think we aren't
considering some of the flooding that might happen because there's no
shrubbery there. I can foresee the water coming right down Vanderbilt
Drive all the way down, and we'll have a great old time with getting
rid of it.
That's about all I have to say. I'm really against this. I think that
what we have -- what we want is two bathrooms, that's all, in a very
modest place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Olga, can I ask you a
question. I think it was Mary Lou Smart or one of the individuals who
spoke, spoke in a very derogatory way about the Naples Park
Homeowners Association. Could you comment about that and
comment about, you know, the meeting that I attended and how many
Page 163
June 14-15,2011
people were there and the unanimous position of all those who were
there, who were in opposition to this proj ect, and the very detailed
discussion that was had over the course of an hour about this facility;
can you tell us about the Naples Park Association?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. It's a Naples Park area association. It's not
really a homeowners designation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's right.
MS. WILLIAMS: However, we did have a meeting, and most of
the people at that meeting -- and there were about 40 to 50 people, I
believe, at that meeting -- they were against it. They -- definitely did
not want this being built there.
And so I don't know where Mary Lou Smart gets her information
from, because -- I don't believe she was at the meeting, though.
That's all I have to say. If everyone -- we're backing the fact that
we did not want it there, not a big structure like that anyway. We just
want two bathrooms.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Shawn Bess -- sorry, no.
I'm on the wrong list now -- is Pat Milford.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was Robert --
MR. MITCHELL: Shuberg (sic), but he's followed by Pat
Milford.
MR. SCHUBRING: Robert Schubring. I'm a resident of
Beachwalk. I drive down Vanderbilt Beach towards the beach 20
times a day. I want to see the sun going down over the end of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, not this big ugly building. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Pat--
MS. MILFORD: Pat Milford. I've been in business in Naples
since 1976, so I've seen a lot of changes.
I've lived in Naples Park -- it's a wonderful community -- and I
Page 164
June 14-15,2011
now live in Beach walk. And I see absolutely no reason for anything
but bathrooms down at the beach.
And I'm hearing a lot about dirty bathrooms because of the
overuse. Well, why don't we clean them twice? That's a whole lot less
expensive than building a structure that will cost us a lot of money for
building and also a lot of money for upkeep.
I think that we need to let people be able to see the beach, but we
don't need to build a facility where we let somebody come in, we be --
are then landlords to somebody coming in and running a business
from our facility.
So I am buying -- I'm paying taxes so that somebody else can
have ajob, and that bothers me.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Elisabeth Summeth (sic),
and she'll be followed by David Galloway.
MS. SUMMERVILLE: Good afternoon. It's Elisabeth
Summerville.
I'm opposed to the original plan. I do agree we do need
bathrooms down there. There's no question about that.
One of the gentlemen said about 25,000 coming down. Well, if
they all come at once, we're in big trouble. There's no way they would
fit on the beach and, quite honestly, I don't even know that -- we do
need the bathrooms, but I don't know if two extra bathrooms are going
to make a whole lot of difference with the number of people going in
there.
And as Pat said, maybe the answer is to build a couple more
stalls and clean them more frequently, because even when you go
down there, they're filthy any time of the day, and I wouldn't let my,
you know, grandkids go there. I mean, I take a little walk up to the
stores and whatnot.
And as for the concession stands, we do have a pizza shop and a
couple of ice cream parlors and that sort of thing across the road. And,
honestly, I haven't done any studies on it, so I don't know if a
Page 165
June 14-15,2011
concession stand would make a big difference, but I do feel for the
people that work across there, because that's their livelihood. And I
don't know if, you know, they could be considered a concession stand
as it is right now.
But, anyway, that's what I have thought. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is David Galloway. He'll be
followed by Charlotte Galloway . You're ceding your time?
MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, my dear. I'll pay for it later.
Thank you, Commissioners, for the time to speak today.
First of all, I'm not going to bash any of the folks in this
commissioners' auditorium, especially your elected county
commissioners and our long term business owners, like some other
people have, and I truly, truly am appalled to hear that in this forum
today, a public forum, someone do that.
(Applause.)
MR. GALLOWAY: I do recognize that gentleman that spoke
with his young boy, and I was really --liked the young boy. He's a
very -- nice looking young folk, and I liked him.
Mr. Graham, you said that you could -- call you to help with any
of my disabled friends or family members to get up the handicap
ramp. Well, is it adequate to give everybody your number at
404-4221? Because there'll be some people calling you if you'll be at
the beck and call.
Everyone agrees that we need a new bathroom facility at the
south end of Vanderbilt Beach. There isn't any argument about that.
Everyone agrees that we need better beach access. By its definition,
access is a means of approaching or entering a place, but the beach is
limited in its size.
At 12 o'clock today I went down there from the Ritz Carlton,
where their main part is down there, all the way down past the Turtle
Club Restaurant, which is quite a big distance, there was 52 people on
the beach, fifty two is all, fifty two.
Page 166
June 14-15,2011
It wasn't crowded today. It's not going to support a concession
stand, I'll tell you that today, whoever goes. And any private vendor's
going to be out of business if anybody knows what being in business
is like.
The beach is limited in size. The greater the size of the bathroom
structure and observation deck, the less access there will be to the
beach. The greater the height of the structure and the longer the ramp
will need to be in order to accommodate wheelchair users.
Space occupied by the building and ramps takes away space
available for sunbathing and other recreational uses.
Some folks are saying the Vanderbilt residents want a private
beach with no visitors and that is why they want a small bathroom
facility footprint, a small footprint. This is not true at all from anyone I
speak with.
Beach community -- people living in the Vanderbilt Beach
community know that and appreciate the fact that the beach belongs to
everyone and is an asset to everyone. I believe it wholeheartedly.
Residents and tourists alike believe this.
Improving the bathrooms, designated funds to keep the
bathrooms clean and functional, not reducing beach access, and
preserving funds in a tourist tax reserve for beach re-nourishment are
in everybody's best interest.
I hope you'll consider these facts today in your decisions about
this bathroom facility. Let's continue -- everyone wants to put this to a
halt right now, but let's continue to work with all concerned to develop
a project that is suitable for everyone, everyone in the county. Please
do not make this decision today. Let's work further on this volatile
issue. Thanks.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Lew Schmidt, and he'll be
followed by Jackie Bammel.
MR. GINSBERG: This is my business card.
Page 167
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No political advertising here or
MR. GINSBERG: Real estate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- promotion of Realtors.
MR. SCHMIDT: I think that there were two people conceded
(sic) their time to me sitting right there.
MR. MITCHELL: No. I have no record of that. Sorry.
MR. SCHMIDT: Can you give your name?
MS. KAY: Nancy Kay.
MR. KAY: John Kay.
MS . KAY: I concede (sic) my time to Lew Schmidt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were they registered to speak, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, they are, yes.
MS. KAY: We give our time to him.
MR. KAY : We are opposed to the proposition.
MR. SCHMIDT: We're agreed.
Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to use nine
minutes, but I'm very upset and personally hurt by the characterization
of our community and the people of our community . We have always
supported open beach access. We stood shoulder to shoulder when the
beach access was threatened at the north end of our beach.
Beach access is important. And it should be for everybody. I live
on a finger street. The beach access is important to me. I don't live in a
high rise condo.
So please understand, and I hope all of you other people will
understand, we support beach access for everyone.
As to the project, the project design, I know that some of you
favor that design. I don't favor design -- that design, and I think there's
a misconception about the design. We keep talking about beach
access, but that design has nothing to do with beach access. It does not
increase parking. It does not enhance the beach. In fact, it infringes
upon the beach and it destroys the grass and the sea grapes and all of
Page 168
June 14-15,2011
the vegetation that make the beach the beach.
When you go to the beach, when I take my children to the beach,
when your residents from Immokalee go to the beach, do they go to sit
on a deck, or do they go to be in the sand and in the water? Are those
the features you go for? That's what beach access is. Not a deck.
There are other alternatives. I'll leave the business situation
alone, but you're wrong about the businesses.
I support moving the project back to the AE zone. And there's
good news, and I want to thank this commission and I want to thank
the county . We are finally moving forward on the turnabout and a
restroom for the north end of the beach up at Bluebill. It's been a long
time coming, but the county put out a bid and -- or an invitation for
bid in mid May. I'm not sure what the bid will cover, but I think it will
cover the turnaround and preparation for a building at - at ground
level bathroom in an AE zone.
As far as spending design money for a new bathroom, you
already have a design for an AE zone. All you have to do is move
back 200 feet to an AE zone. You can use the same design. Maybe
make it a little larger. Maybe reconfigure it. But it will meet FEMA
standards. It will be accessible from ground level. There won't be any
ramps. It makes the most sense, and it will cost a heck of a lot less.
That's my suggestion. Let's go to the AE zone and make the
beach available for everybody, and remember, a beach is a beach. And
I thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Bammel will be followed by Kathleen
Robbins.
MS. BAMMEL: Good afternoon. I'm Jackie Bammel, and I
thank you for letting me speak in front of you today.
I personally would like to start out by apologizing to
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning for the derogatory
remarks that were made today. All of you commissioners have a veryt
Page 169
June 14-15,2011
difficult job to do, and you need our support, not derogatory remarks. I
was embarrassed coming from this county to hear that.
I'd like to say that I've been in Naples -- or I've been a property
owner in Naples for over 30 years, and for over 30 years I've enjoyed
Vanderbilt Beach. Any of you who have been there know that it's a
very special, unique beach.
And I have spoken to many of our European friends who have
also come to that beach, and I've talked to them about the new
restrooms that are coming -- and we all know we need new restrooms.
That's not a point to consider.
You know what they said to me? And it was kind of funny . You
Americans, you always think bigger is better.
I ask you to consider again the fact that we do have a unique
beach. We have a beautiful, natural setting. As other people have said,
we want to preserve the plantings. We want to preserve as much of
that beach as we can.
And I'd like to thank Commissioner Hiller for her remarks that
she made today. In my mind, they make the most sense of everything
we have talked about so far, that it's possible to move that facility and
not have to contend with the FEMA situation, then I think we should
really look at that seriously.
Again, I say to you, you are the protectors of our beaches here in
Naples. Please guard them and please think long and hard before we
do anything that will harm our beaches. Thanks.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Robbins will be followed by Rollin Rhea.
MS. ROBBINS: Hi. My name is Kathleen Robbins, and I'm
secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
Commissioner Hiller made a very interesting point that when the
original bathroom was built there were variances granted based on the
smaller footprint and moving it out of a flood zone so it could be built
at ground level. Those same factors are at play here in this same site.
Page 1 70
June 14-15,2011
I know that the Coastal Zone Management Department said that
they thoroughly vetted the other design, the original design, but at
every meeting that I attended, the one at the North Regional, there
were many more people against the elevated design, against the
concession stand and the deck, what seemed to be oversized.
It seems that the county can really only do one -- do it one way.
They have a bathroom concession and deck at Clam Pass where there
are no other concession alternatives. At Barefoot Beach again no
other concessions available. And Tigertail, man, if you go to the beach
at Tigertail you have a walk even just to get to the concession stand
that's there. So, I mean, because that is a big, big park.
I think that's what people have failed to take into account is how
much smaller this park is compared to the other county beach parks.
The county has wonderful beach parks, but this is -- I like to call it a
pocket park. It's just nestled right there in and among some residential
area, some commercial area, and we need to build a building that is
site specific, that is very -- fits very well in with the site.
So with that in mind, I would recommend that you do allocate the
funds to do the design alternative, especially for No.2, as highlighted
in your executive summary, which is to build a smaller flood proofed
facility at grade in the AE zone, which is the one that was designed --
I think Commissioner Hiller mentioned it, and a couple of other
people have mentioned it, too.
I think we could build very nice restroom facilities there at grade,
and the public would be served.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Rhea will be followed by Alvin Martin.
MR. RHEA: For the record, Rollin Rhea. I'm here today
representing the North Naples Community Alliance. And the alliance
collectively supports moving the bathrooms into the AE zone.
I think there's several things maybe the general public doesn't
Page 171
June 14-15,2011
understand here. Number 1, North Naples Community Alliance
collectively agrees that the community needs updated bathrooms, and
by that I mean supporting Mr. McAlpin's existing blueprint of
bathrooms, which is a 750-square- structure, 750. The existing
structure is approximately 350 feet. So we simply give the community
the exact bathrooms that they want.
Now, here's the real question. Do we give it to the community at
an elevated platform or do we do it at ground level? Therein lies the
difference.
The question is -- and I've written a letter to FEMA's director,
Brad Loar, asking him a question that has never been asked by Collier
County, and that question is, if a structure were built at grade in this
VE 14 zone, would it be subject to FEMA regulations?
Mr. Loar was on vacation this week, and I've not heard back from
him from (sic) date, so I don't have a question (sic). And that, to my
way of thinking, Commissioners, is a legitimate question.
So until we have an answer on that specific question, then I think
that we ought to slow down and re-evaluate this entire project.
But, you know, Ms. Fiala had in time past recommended that we
have the deck on this existing lower at grade thing, all of those are
negotiable things that can be -- come up later, but let's make the
decision, are we going to put it up in the air in the clouds and charge
you $1.24 million, or are we going to build it at grade level where
nobody has any problem getting elderly and!or children or whatever
into the facilities? Keep it simple.
(Applause. )
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Martin will be followed by David Jeskie.
MR. MARTIN: Hi. I'm Alvin Martin, or Bud Martin. I'm a
Vanderbilt Beach resident, therefore, a Collier County resident,
therefore, a taxpayer.
I came here prepared to talk about spending $29,000 to keep
from spending millions of dollars that we didn't need to spend,
Page 1 72
June 14-15,2011
particularly because we would be spending it to protect to use at a --
up -- very sporadic.
Vanderbilt Beach is pretty small and is not that crowded most of
the time. So it seemed like we were going to build a Fort Lauderdale
facility for Vanderbilt Beach. Well, people don't come to Collier
County to go to Disney World. They come to Collier County because
it's kind of laid back, and it's not high tech and go go. So I like the
idea of staying small, natural, what have you.
So I was -- I was going to -- was going to make that point. I was
also going to say, most of the people that drive to the beach pass
Publix and McDonald's and all of the different sandwich shops where
if they really want to eat at the beach, that would be very easy.
But then somebody said, it's TDC funding. And I said, okay.
Well, TDC funding is not here to protect residents. My understanding
ofTDC funding, it's to attract tourists to Collier County.
Well, if we want to make something for residents, it seems like --
that we should fund it from general funds, not from TDC funds.
So all of the arguments about I live in -- in Eastern Collier
County and I need more food at the beach is fine, but if we want to do
that, it ought to be paid for with general funds, not TDC funds.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Jeskie will be followed by Peter Tierney.
MR. JESKIE: Yes. My name is David Jeskie, for the record.
I guess I'm a little confused and appalled today just listening to a
lot of comments. First with Mr. Coletta indicating that people are
down on the beach with coolers selling stuff. Again, get out of your
house and come on down to the beach. Maybe you'll really see what
goes on, okay.
There's nobody down there selling stuff out of coolers. The only
individual selling stuff out of coolers down at the beach is your chosen
one that's down there right now, okay, Cabana Dan's. He's the only
one, okay?
Page 1 73
June 14-15,2011
There were some signs previously put up by a local merchant.
We, as a group, got together and had that merchant, working with the
code enforcement, remove them and get rid of them, because we felt it
inappropriate, and we like to keep up the pristine nature of the area,
okay?
An individual was claiming she was down on the beach passing
out literature in support, Illegal. She stated it in a newspaper article.
What is someone down there doing soliciting support? That's against
the Collier County Ordinance.
There's so many misrepresentations here it's horrible. The truth of
the matter is we need a restroom. The truth of the matter is we don't
need a concession stand.
My livelihood is in the food business. I work 90 to 100 hours a
week in my store to make a living.
Okay. Mr. Cabana Dan's going to give me 15 percent, fifteen
percent of what? If you're not there, you get 15 percent of nothing.
As being the store, I have to be open the hours that the
individuals want me. Currently I'm open from seven to seven.
In the last four years there has been three owners of the business
that I'm at. Why? Because they can't make it down there, okay? By __
continuing to instill local vendor in a county concession stand makes
no sense.
Yes, we need the restrooms. Please take a step back. Look at
what we're really trying to accomplish. What really -- what I look at
this as, it's almost like the bridge in Alaska, the bridge to nowhere.
We're going to have the restroom and the concession stand to
nowhere. Let's put it up in the sky there. It's total overkill for what's
really needed in the area.
Take a step back. Approach this from a subjective nature and put
it at ground level where people could really utilize it.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 174
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Peter Tierney will be followed by Tom
Cravens.
MR. TIERNEY: Hi. Good afternoon. For the record, Peter
Tierney.
Mr. Coletta, you said there was some passion here today. There's
definitely some passion. Although some of it misguided a lot of
.
paSSIon.
I support the second option. I think it's a great one, moving it
back, avoiding the FEMA regulations. I think everyone agrees we
need bathrooms. We're all pro beach access.
The Turtle Club -- I heard a lot of talking about the Turtle Club
today, and Paul even mentioned the Bay House, which is four miles
away. But I know you're just misguided, Paul. It's passion. It is
.
paSSIon.
We don't -- we're not worried. And we've spoken to no one about
the concession stand. Our position -- we're part of a hotel. We
collected TDC funds. And I'm sure my partner, Mick, will speak to
that.
We've always been more concerned about the access. There is a
parking issue. And I'm sure everyone who lives in the neighborhood
has come over Bluebill one day and not been able to go very far. You
get to the top of the bridge and you're struck. That happens at about
8:30 in the morning.
And then they start to filter all the way across to the Vanderbilt
side. And the parking garage really is not adequate, other than the
patchwork of land that's left opposite that where there's a private
parking facility going on where you can park. When that's gone, we're
going to have a major parking problem.
That's the thing we've also spoken to, not the access, not the
concession stand. We're not worried about a concession stand for the
Turtle Club, and neither is the Ritz. It's never been a point of issue, I
don't thing we've ever even spoken to anyone about it.
Page 175
June 14-15,2011
We're more concerned about beach re-nourishment. And if you're
adding amenities to an area that's taxed for parking, how are you
going to -- how are you going to get any more people there, and where
are they going to park? So that's always been our concern.
The bathroom option, Option 2, we support, and we support
beach access for everyone. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Cravens will be followed by Frank
Alfano.
MR. CRAVENS: Hi. My name is Tom Cravens, and I'm a
resident of Pelican Bay. Please don't hold that against me. And I
strongly support beach access.
And as the other gentleman said, with the parking we have there
now, it's difficult for me to imagine how we can increase access at
Vanderbilt Beach.
I first came to Vanderbilt Beach in 1953 as a ten year old. And I
fell in love with it, and I kept coming back. In 2000 I retired and I
moved here. I was at Vanderbilt Beach this morning. I'm at Vanderbilt
Beach every morning. That's why I moved here.
I support Option 2. I don't want a big, massive structure
obscuring the sunset, as a gentleman pointed out.
I used to come down here and set up my camera at -- on
Vanderbilt Beach and take pictures of the sunset. I used to play in the
sand, swim in the waters there. That's what this is all about.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Alfano will be followed by Mick Moore.
MR. ALFANO: Just for the record, my name is Frank Alfano,
and I'm opposed to the big building that you guys want to build.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 176
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Moore is your last speaker.
MR. MOORE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Mick Moore, and my family has owned Vanderbilt Beach Resort for
about -- just almost 50 years.
As my partner in the Turtle Club, Peter Tierney, mentioned, we
don't really care about a concession stand. We're not worried about a
concession stand competing with us. What we are worried about is a
misuse of TDC monies and wasteful spending that might create a
facility that those of us who live and frequent and work on Vanderbilt
Beach are going to be concerned and dealing with for many, many
years, including, you know, my kids when they take over the business,
and Mr. Tierney's kids. We don't want to see that happen.
I don't know any -- when the last time was any of you were at the
beach, at Vanderbilt Beach in particular, but the beach is shrinking.
TDC monies should be used for beach re-nourishment. Everybody
agrees that the beach is the biggest single tourist draw of this entire
county, and we don't need to go over how important the tourism
industry is to this county.
Well, that beach is getting very small. It's been at least five or six
years since it was re-nourished. When is it going to be re-nourished
again? Do we have the money to re-nourish it? Should the money,
TDC money that could be used to re-nourish it, be used for a bath--
elevated bathroom facility that is probably not necessary and maybe a
wrong use of those funds?
Deciding this today is like fiddling while Rome burns. The beach
-- it is about the beach, and the best way to ensure beach access is to
create the biggest beach possible. I think even Ms. Smart would agree
with me on that. That's what it's about.
I encourage you to pass the -- what's on the table today, consider
alternatives. We all need bathrooms. Let's put the bathrooms back at
grade level. I'm not saying that because there's something in it for me.
I'm saying it because it's common sense, and we can turn our attention
Page 1 77
June 14-15,2011
where it should be focused, re-nourishing the beach.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Sir that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, question. The angry
person from Naples Park said this is the only busy beach in our
beaches that doesn't have a food concession. What is the -- that is the
busiest beach, right? Would you say that's true?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. We had 249,000 people at that
beach last year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the next busiest beach or
whatever that is in the county's --
MS. RAMSEY: As far as access point, I guess it would be
Barefoot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Barefoot?
MS. RAMSEY: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what concession stand is at
Barefoot?
MS. RAMSEY: There is a concession stand at Barefoot, food
.
conceSSIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The Vanderbilt Beach
north, is that one of the busiest beaches?
MS. RAMSEY: No, but -- based upon the parking that the county
has, probably not. But Wiggins Pass is, and it does have concessions, I
believe. So -- we have concessions at Barefoot. We have them at Clam
Pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clam Pass.
MS. RAMSEY: Which is a totally different thing, because we
have it with a hotelier, and then we also have it at Tigertail.
So those are the ones we have. We have other access points with
restrooms. For example, South Marco has --
Page 1 78
June 14-15, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. RAMSEY: -- a very small one unit restroom facility, and
there's no concession at that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any competition at
Barefoot, at Wiggins, or at Tigertail, or Clam Pass?
MS. RAMSEY: Competition for?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to provide food and drinks.
MS. RAMSEY: As far as for sale, like, within walking distance;
is that what you're asking me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. RAMSEY: No, I wouldn't believe that there is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, you know, it's
always been the point is, the private sector is providing for the visitors
up there. Why should the government have to do that? I mean, I go
down to Keewaydin. I don't see the government down there providing
food for me when I go to the beach down there. They don't even
provide a bathroom.
MS. RAMSEY: No, when -- I would have to say, though, that at
Vanderbilt we do provide food. Cabana Dan does have an agreement
with us to do chairs and cabanas, and he also does sodas and packaged
food and everything right off of the beach currently. So there isn't a
concession at Vanderbilt, but we do provide amenities, including
sunscreen and various other things through the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So does this gentleman here that
MS. RAMSEY: -- agreement that we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- has invested a whole bunch of
money in his business --
MR. JESKIE: Pay substantial rent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and pays taxes. This facility
where you want -- where some feel it's a government responsibility to
provide those things, doesn't have to pay taxes.
Page 1 79
June 14-15,2011
I mean, I'm -- you know, just really perplexed on why some feel
that it's, you know, 200 -- or a million dollar -- or $2 million recycling
center, and it just goes on and on and on.
Government has a specific role: Health, safety, and welfare. The
bathrooms do need to be expanded up there for the health of the gulf.
There's no question about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have to provide food.
So I'm going to make a motion to accept staffs
recommendations, the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Executive summary. The
Executive Summary, recommendation is to look at alternatives.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion on the table. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to second it, but I'd like to
ask for a modification to your motion. I listened very carefully to what
everyone has said, one of the things that I think there's consensus on,
that leaving these existing bathrooms and improving them and adding
bathrooms in the garage is not really a great idea.
So I think if we eliminated that alternative. And what I'm hearing
general consensus on is that moving the design over into the AE zone,
which is Alternative 2, and bringing it down to ground level, would
seem to address what a lot of people are looking for. Keep the same
number of stalls, keep, you know, the -- I personally would like to see
more showers, I think two showers is just not enough.
I mean, if we've got as many visitors as we have, having like, you
know, a really cool strip of overhead showers where everyone could
take a shower would be a great thing.
I also think the lady who spoke about the self cleaning -- about
Page 180
June 14-15,2011
the cleanliness issue is very significant. There are commercial self
cleaning toilets that are worthy of consideration so that it's perpetually
cleaning and we don't have to worry on staff cleaning the bathrooms
all the time.
So I really would like to support your motion, but I would like to
limit the study to Alternative 2, which is shifting the design to the AE
zone, bringing it down to ground level, and considering adding more
showers and considering adding self cleaning toilets.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, sir.
Wow, what an interesting discussion we had, and passion again.
I'll say that one more time.
I'm going to take -- I'm going to ask -- I'm going to ask some
questions, probably Marla, I think, or maybe -- I'm not too sure who
would be the best one, but first an observation. What's -- the limiting
factor of this beach, doesn't it have to do with parking?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, we -- if you'll recall back when we did the
parking garage, we tried to size the parking garage to a certain square
footage on the beach to make sure that we at least provided some kind
of enjoyment so that it wasn't just so tight on the beach. We used a
very dense calculation of that, and we went a quarter of a mile in
either direction, which is usually the walking distance for it.
And the parking garage originally was designed with five levels.
And as you know, that it was reduced to three levels. So we do have
some additional capacity for cars on the beach itself, but no additional
opportunity to expand the parking at the existing facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So parking is a limiting
factor. I mean, when you use up all the parking, people have to turn
around and go back or find some other location; isn't that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, that's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's the simple answer.
So we're not talking about increasing the parking, are we?
Page 181
June 14-15,2011
MS. RAMSEY: I don't believe we were talking about increasing
access at all at this particular location. I think we were only talking
about doing something with the amenities that exist.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Adding an amenity to the
situation, I -- the fear that I see out there has nothing to do with the
blocked sunset. It has everything to do with how many people are
going to use it and what the pressure's going to be over a period of
time.
Right now the weekends are probably the busiest; the holidays
are probably very, very busy. Probably the weekdays are a little bit on
the slow side, for the most part, except for peak season. That's what
I've known in the past. Is that basically still true?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that that's still true, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you add an amenity
like this, you may get some more people, but they're still limited by
the garage itself, correct?
MS. RAMSEY: Garage or their ability to mob illy come in?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or other parking. I mean, even if
there's some other parking that's out there that's been there forever,
you might be able to find it on some side street or whatever. But the
thing is, is it's -- a limiting factor is the parking. People can't find room
there, they're going to do one of two things, they're going to turn
around and go to another beach, or they're going to go home. That's
just the way it is.
So this is not really that big of a deal. Now, it's going to probably
attract more people on the off times than would normally be there,
because we're adding -- it would be adding an amenity to this whole
thing that would be extremely appreciated by the people that use those
beaches.
Now, I understand, once again, about the residents that live in the
area. They'll do everything they can to try to preserve what they got
and try to keep it as whole as they can to protect their own interest,
Page 182
June 14-15,2011
and that's fine. That's a -- that's a normal human reaction.
However, with that said, we've still got tons of people that would
like to be able to enjoy the beach. They'd like to enjoy some
amenities. And I don't think we're going way out of our way with this,
and I won't support the motion. And if it comes back, I'll make a
motion to go back to the original design and keep everything intact
when the vote comes down.
But it's just -- and when the whole thing happens, it's going to be
one of those things like the parking garage was. There was a
tremendous upheaval of anger out there, and then that abated over a
period of time.
The thing is is that you live at a beautiful amenity, and it's also an
attractor. Might call it a nuisance in a way, but still, it's an attractor for
all the public. We all came down here for the beaches. True, I don't
get there very often. I get to see the Gulf of Mexico maybe three times
a year, and it looks very nice, and I'm glad it's there. Maybe some time
I'll get there more times. Who knows.
But the thing is is that it's an amenity that we all move here -- we
should be able to enjoy it. And if we enhance this ever so lightly, that's
great. I think the public deserves it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta, I'm
not sure you understood what all these people said. On both sides of
the discussion everybody wants the bathrooms and everyone wants
them improved.
The only discussion we're having here today is whether or not it
will be in Location A or Location B. If it's in Location A, it's high. If
it's in Location B, it's at ground level, so you eliminate the ramps and
the cost of the pilings, and you still have the amenity. So I don't
understand what your argument is. I mean--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that has -- so I'm not really sure
Page 183
June 14-15,2011
where you're coming from.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, exactly. The cost of
pilings is minimal. It's an amenity. People will be able to get up there
and view the gulf at a high point, they might be able to sit down for a
minute and enjoy something that they'd never be able to enjoy at their
homes, and they certainly couldn't enjoy it at ground level. It just adds
another dimension to the experience of going to the beach.
And I don't think I misunderstood. I mean, there's two different
points of view out here in the audience. Those that want to keep it at
ground level and much smaller, and it's not cost savings they're
looking at. The thing they're looking at is to try to take away the
attractiveness of this location to preserve this unique amenity more for
their own use, normal human reaction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they're not -- can I finish what
I -- I wanted to finish my remarks, but he --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. Then Commissioner
Fiala gets to talk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to say, I really value the
input from the community. There are so many great points that came
out.
One gentleman made a point. And I have to tell you, I never
thought of it from this perspective, but it's something I think we
legitimately have to consider in light of all this discussion.
You know, if these bathrooms are predominantly for the benefit
of our local community, which is a great thing and well deserved
because it's long, long overdue, legitimately we really cannot use the
TDC funds, and then I would have to ask that we go back to the
General Fund, because if we're building these bathrooms for tourism,
then the monies need to come from TDC.
If we're building these bathrooms for our local community, then
we need to go back to the General Fund, and that's a point that
someone made.
Page 184
June 14-15,2011
Another point that somebody made, which I thought was really
important, was the fact -- and I think it was Kathy Robbins from the
VBRA. She mentioned how, you know, the bathrooms and the
amenities need to be site specific, and she called Vanderbilt Beach
essentially a pocket park, and that is so true, because the other
amenities at the other locations are serving huge parks.
This is truly a pocket park. This is a tiny jewel. And, yes, it is
being serviced by a parking garage which draws a lot of people to the
location, because the other people parks don't have parking garages.
And that's actually a problem.
When I heard your statistics that 249,000 people are using this
beach and it is the most used beach and it is actually one of the
smallest beaches, if not the smallest area, then it's obviously a parking
issue, and it's something that actually was highlighted to me this
morning in an email.
We obviously need more parking at the other beaches. And I
don't want to cloud this discussion, but we need parking garages at the
other beaches where we have these large parks and where we have
these already established amenities. Because I think what I'm hearing
is that we need to alleviate the burden that Vanderbilt Beach Park is
facing.
So, again, I mean, I think some very, very important points were
made. And I think they have to be carefully considered when
contemplating this design.
Moving it back is -- accomplishes several purposes. Eliminates
the flooding issue, does not put a structure over the coastal
construction setback line, keeps buildings out of the beach, especially
that public beach where so many people go to visit. Very different
than you know the other locations, we want to keep that very small
beach as open as possible. Pushing it on the other side of the coastal
construction setback line does that.
And it just -- overall, from an environmental standpoint, a
Page 185
June 14-15,2011
financial standpoint, providing the amenity to the community,
servicing tourism, all is very clearly established by Alternative 2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The -- somebody made the
point a couple hours ago about tourism is down, but as we well know,
tourism is not down, and it's improving every year, thank heavens.
And as our tourism is coming back, thank heavens, and it's a
great -- it's a great economic engine for all of us, we have to give these
tourists a place to go.
So many of the hotels are not located on the beach. And the only
way for those people to get to the beach is to go someplace and park
their car. And when they get there, just like somebody else mentioned,
they don't have any coolers or anything. They have to buy something
to eat.
And like somebody else said, when he's going to buy something
to eat, he's not going to let his son run over there all by himself. He's
got to have -- you know, he's got to pack up his stuff and go with him,
and it would be nice to have something for the tourists.
To me this is, in my opinion -- and I would believe that most
everybody else would have to agree with me -- this is definitely a
tourist beach and a beach that will accommodate the tourist's needs.
Now, I believe that the tourist tax dollars -- and please correct me
if I'm wrong -- they come in different pots, if I'm not mistaken. You
have the beach re-nourishment pot, and you have the beach park
facilities. They're all in different pots. They're not -- you know, you're
not taking from beach re-nourishment to build a bathroom. Two
separate pots altogether.
I know that people like a deck. The reason I know that is a lot of
times either they're changing their baby and they don't want to do it in
the bright sun or they've had too much sun but the rest of the family
still wants to stay there, and they just want to take cover a little bit. It's
a great place to take cover, or even a storm comes up and they want to
Page 186
June 14-15,2011
take cover. I think that this is a good thing also.
Over at Residents Beach -- that's on Marco Island -- they have
the ramps that go up. And they have a lot of people. At Residents
Beach it's mostly just -- mostly just retirees, and they have a lot of
people that are handicapped in some way or another.
And I'll tell you honestly -- I was going to run -- I'd asked when
our break was, because I was going to run in and talk to the people at
Residents Beach. I'd asked Gary, but he's not familiar with it. Just to
ask them if they've ever had any problems with the ramps on
Residents Beach. But they also have the ramps going up. I think that
that is an amenity, quite frankly.
And so I feel that this would be a -- I like the original proposal,
because I think it's going to be the best proposal for the tourists, and
that's what we're building. We're not building for residents. Residents
only need a bathroom. Tourists need all of the amenities, and that's
what the money should be going for. It's tourist tax dollars.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a ten minute
break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at 4:30.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session now.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking at the last meeting
minutes that we discussed this issue, and I see a lot of flip flopping,
having staff do a lot of things, and I just don't understand. If you're --
my colleagues were going to go to the original design, let's stop
wasting staffs time chasing air. It just doesn't make sense.
If you're changing your mind and want to build a deck and a
restaurant or whatever in the AE zone on a ground level, I think you
ought to direct staff just to do that.
Page 187
June 14-15, 2011
So I'm not sure -- it was a 4-1 -- actually Commissioner Hiller
voted against it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I was against it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You voted against the guidance,
and we're having staff chase all these things. It just doesn't make
sense. I could forward you this, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It's just the quote in there is
one of the greatest ones I ever made. I was just looking at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We'll make sure I blow it
up for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you read it to us? I would be
anxious to see that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm glad somebody has
been opinion, but I don't see any great quotes there --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- except for, you know, let's
have staff chase something else. It just doesn't make sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we've got a motion on the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it failed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we haven't voted yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to call the question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve the
staffs recommendation to consider this alternative -- alternate -- the
alternate of moving it to the AE zone. Is that -- is that essentially --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's what Commissioner Hiller
suggested we modify the motion to include; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is that acceptable to you as the
motion maker?
Page 188
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Say the motion again just so I
know exactly what we're doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was to approve the executive
summary, and I asked what alternative, and Commissioner Hiller then
suggested that it be an alternative to move to an AE zone and build it
at ground level, okay. That's what I understood we were doing. And so
if that's acceptable to the office (sic) maker. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Just a point of clarification, Commissioners. The
staff recommendation was to approve the design alternative
recommendations for all of the options.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: That was the one that staff had recommended.
Commissioner Hiller had made a separate motion just to do the one
option.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I just recommended -- I
mean, rather than -- I mean, if there's consensus here that we really
don't want to improve the existing bathrooms and add more bathrooms
in the parking garage, which I don't think is a very good idea at all.
So, you know, why not eliminate that option? If there's consensus
here, why spend the money on doing a study on something that
everyone agrees, you know, isn't, like, the greatest idea.
So I just thought in terms of simplifying and saving money, just
consider the alternative that the majority of the people here seem to
support, which is Alternative 2, being taking the design, moving it --
leaving the design as is, moving it to the AE zone, but just bringing it
to ground level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me try to make sure that we're clear
on this. The staffs recommendation here is to -- for us to approve
$29,729 in design alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach Park
restroom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011, meeting, and that
Page 189
June 14-15,2011
was Commissioner Henning's motion is to approve the
recommendation in the executive summary.
Commissioner Hiller then suggested -- and she seconded the
motion but suggested that the motion be changed to include a
consideration for movement to the AE zone at ground level.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that not true?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- but I just want to -- Gary,
can you help us out? The costing that you're proposing is suggesting a
study of several alternatives?
MR. McALPIN: At the Board of County Commissioner meeting
you asked us to look at six alternatives. We've come back with a price
to look at those six alternatives, and that's $29,000. So if you want us
to look at those six alternatives, that's what it's going to cost.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And one of those alternatives is
moving it to the AE zone and bringing it to ground level.
MR. McALPIN: There is an alternative that says to move it,
which is Alternative No.2, which says just to do -- move it to the AE
zone and look at that option. You could look at that option if you want
to, and the price would be the price that's in there for that option.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And how much is that?
MR. McALPIN: I'm going to say it's going to be about $10,000,
Commissioner, when you add your -- to look at that option, it's going
to be around $10,000 when you add your presentation and everything
to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could, to answer her question more
accurately, that is not the cost of moving it to the AE zone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That is the cost of doing a study to
move it to the AE zone. The cost to do it at the AE -- on the AE zone
might be cost prohibitive or it might be impossible, because you're
talking about a preserve where we've got to get approval, and that
Page 190
June 14-15,2011
preserve is under the control of someone else, not us. So it creates an
entirely different situation.
We've had a conversation here that seems to imply that, well, it's
just something we can do. It's not something we can do. We have to
go to other agencies and try to get approval to do it, and we don't
know how much that's going to cost in mitigation or anything else; is
that true?
MR. McALPIN: That's correct, Commissioner. It's $10,000 to do
the study to look and see if it's an option.
MR. OCHS: The other point, while we're on that, just real
quickly for clarification, on the visualizer. Probably people are
wondering why didn't we just originally propose a design in the --
what is now being described as the AE zone.
Again, remember that AE zone is not final. That was a product of
the newly revised maps. They're still not certified by FEMA. So when
we -- when the board commissioned the project a couple years ago
and we originally started working on it, this AE zone potential was not
on the FEMA maps.
And Gary's going to kind of explain that to you real quickly.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioners, this is our current -- this is our
current map. This map is in place right now. The AE zone or the
proposed flood maps have not changed.
This is the Cabana Dan area, this is the boardwalk, this is your
existing facility, this is Vanderbilt Beach Drive, and this is Gulf Shore
Drive. This VE zone continues further east, and it probably goes close
to the parking garage. So when we started this project, we had no
option to go to any AE zone.
Subsequent to that, Commissioners, in August of this year, the
FEMA put out proposed or preliminary flood maps. These are still
preliminary. So when we say we would go to an AE zone, it's still
very preliminary at this point in time if these maps are approved. That
AE zone is right here. This is the closest that we could build this
Page 191
June 14-15,2011
facility .
But unless these maps are approved, we could not put the facility
at this point in time, and we would not build this facility until this
FEMA map is approved. This is the existing facility, and this is the
closest we could build it to the beach. And that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there is no approved AE zone at that
location?
MR. McALPIN: These are preliminary FEMA maps at this point
in time, and they're not firm at this point. They're not -- and they're not
final at this point in time, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you don't know when that will be
final; is that true?
MR. McALPIN: I have -- there's -- we have no indication of
when they will be final. I don't know, Nick, if you want to talk to that
.
Issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we've been working on that for 13
years.
MR. McALPIN: For a number of years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no hope that it will happen
any time in the next two or three years, but nevertheless give me some
hope.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No guarantee. Nick Casalanguida, for
the record.
I can't tell you, sir. We expect to get them sometime this August,
assuming no other changes comes forward, and then we'll get a six
month period before they would become final.
So you'd be looking at approximately in the next 12 months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're still doing studies that will
change these maps, aren't you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do not expect that coastal study to
change, but they are still being done, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well.
Page 192
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we're talking about this
facility -- we keep mentioning this facility -- is it the facility
bathrooms -- expansion bathrooms, or the whole facility as it is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The whole facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but put down, including
concession stand and everything?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. I think Commissioner Hiller -- and I
won't speak for -- let me just summarize, and you tell me if I'm wrong,
Commissioner Hiller.
I believe that Commissioner Hiller is suggesting a scaled back
version with certainly enough bathrooms to serve the anticipated
volume of people who would be there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no problem -- no. I don't
have a problem with the current design. I think -- you know,
especially -- you raise a point about the preserve. The preserve issue
will be an issue in that VE location as much as it will be in the AE
location.
In fact, we have another major problem with the VE location,
that it's above the -- or ahead -- the design proposed is substantially
ahead of the coastal construction setback line. We would need a local
variance for that. We would also need a state variance for that.
But, yeah, I mean, that's actually a big deal. I mean, we've got
preserve -- I mean, we're dealing with preserve all around there. So the
preserve issue is common to both. What we eliminate is the coastal
construction setback issue.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if I may?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. McALPIN: Let me -- let me correct or restate an issue. This
is the area right here that the preserve -- the preserve boundaries. So
the area where we have this existing facility is outside the preserve.
Page 193
June 14-15,2011
So the preserve area is from this dog leg in through here back all
the way into this area right in through there. So this is the preserve that
we're looking at that would be controlled by South Florida Water
Management District.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, we could deal with
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, none of what you just told us,
Gary, was broadcast on TV, so the audience couldn't see it, so they
have no idea what you're talking about.
But -- to simplify it, where you have planned the original facility
is not in a preserve, but if you were to move it to what we think will
become an AE zone in the future at some point in time, it will be in a
preserve, which will require us to make some kind of arrangements or
get approval, if we can get approval at all, from the South Florida
Water Management District. Is that --
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- a correct statement?
MR. McALPIN: We would need a -- we'd need a variance from
South Florida Water Management District, and there would most
likely be some type of mitigation that we would have to do there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
So look, we've got a -- yeah, Commissioner Henning is still here.
We've got a motion.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It fails. Motion fails with
Commissioners Fiala, Coyle, and Coletta voting against it.
Page 194
June 14-15,2011
Now, Commissioner Coletta was next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. We keep kicking this can
down the road. Let's just go ahead and bite the bullet and do the right
thing and authorize staff to return to the original plans, which we see
up there on the board, and proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to -- by
Commissioner Coletta to proceed with the original plans, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
And, Commissioner Hiller, you have comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The majority of the people
here today do not support that position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
All in favor of the motion, please signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes -- the motion passes 3-2,
with Commissioner Hiller and Henning dissenting. Okay . We're
finished.
(Applause.)
MR. JESKIE: Why did you just waste all our time with this when
you knew exactly what you were going to do?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're finished with it.
MR. JESKIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You like to do these without public
comment?
MR. JESKIE: Yeah. So you sit there and you make us like
monkeys.
Page 195
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really?
MR. JESKIE: Yeah.
MR. GALLOWAY: Absolutely.
MR. JESKIE: What a joke. I know some people that aren't going
to get re-elected.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, do you want to proceed to your
next item, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
Item #9F
DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A
REFERENDUM ON THE SPRING 2012 PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY BALLOT THAT AUTHORIZES THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GRANT AD VALOREM TAX
EXEMPTIONS TO QUALIFYING BUSINESSES WITHIN
COLLIER COUNTY AS AN INCENTIVE FOR ENCOURAGING
CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND JOB GROWTH, AS REQUIRED
BY SEC. 196.1995 F.S. AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION _
MOTION TO APPROVE - DENIED; MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS ITEM UNTIL THE EDC BRINGS BACK
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICS ON THE PROGRAM-
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That would -- we'd move back to the 1 :05 p.m. time
certain, which was Item 9F on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9F.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we wait till they clear? I
can barely hear what's taking place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. OCHS: This item was to direct the county attorney to draft a
Page 196
June 14-15,2011
resolution calling for the placement of a referendum on the spring
2012 presidential primary ballot that authorizes the Board of County
Commissioners to grant ad valorem tax exemptions to qualifying
businesses within Collier County as an incentive for encouraging
capital investment and job growth as required by Section 196.1995
Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution.
This is Commissioner Hiller's item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Leo.
Commissioner Coy Ie, may I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I, several weeks ago, attended the Republican Men's Breakfast.
They do allow women, which is nice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought that was against the rules.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I had the pleasure of hearing
Mr. Haridopolos speak, who is a member of the Florida Senate, and he
is also a Republican candidate running against Mr. Nelson, Senator
Nelson.
And I have to tell you, I asked a question when I was in the
audience, and the question was one that he gave me an answer that
resulted in my request today, and my question was as follows: If
you're a county that's essentially cash strapped and you would like to
provide economic incentives to stimulate business expansion and to
encourage businesses to move to your community, you know, what
tool would you recommend?
And his response was property tax exemptions. In the meantime
there was discussion about an applicant who wanted property tax
rebates, and a county commission candidate actually found out that
those don't really work and that you have to go a constitutional and
statutory route to create an exemption program.
Page 197
June 14-15,2011
And I did a little bit of research, and I actually found that we are
missing that tool in our economic development tool kit. And in doing
that research, I read the statute and I read the Constitution, and
essentially what both provide is that in order for that tool to be in our
economic development tool kit, we have to enact an ordinance that is
supported by referendum.
In other words, the question has to be put on the ballot, and the
people have to decide whether or not they would like to see property
tax exemptions awarded to incoming businesses and locally expanding
businesses as an incentive.
I found out that there are approximately 38 other counties that
have done this. Hillsborough County recently did it. Martin County
recently did it. And so I don't think that it's really a question that the
board can decide without the -- without it being put on the ballot.
The statute has made it very easy for us. They've actually
provided the wording, so it can't become, quote, political, that you
can't influence one way or another.
And here's what it substantially would read as: Shall the Board of
County Commissioners of this county or the governing authority of
this municipality or both, as the case may be, depending on, you
know, who's putting the question on the ballot, be authorized to grant,
pursuant to Section 3, Article 7, of the state constitution, property tax
exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses?
Yes for authority to grant exemptions, no against authority to grant
exemptions. Very simple, very black and white.
Now, here's the good news. There would be no cost to put this
question on the ballot, because we have a presidential primary that
will coming up, and it will either be the first Tuesday in January,
February, or March.
So while, normally, if we had a special vote on this, it could cost
as much as 550,000, because we have that presidential primary right in
the heart of season, it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime for this
Page 198
June 14-15,2011
referendum. So it's a win win all around.
And at the end of the day, it would be something that the voters
would decide. If the voters decide property tax exemptions are a good
thing to have in our tool kit, we can have an ordinance that would
allow for it, and then there are statutory guidelines as to what kind of
business qualifies, what is the definition of a new or expanding
business, what type of exemptions could be granted. You can get up to
a 100 percent of your property taxes exempted. You could get up to
100 percent of the incremental tangible property taxes that you would
incur as a result of a relocation or expansion.
So it's something to consider, and I wanted to throw it out and
have this board discuss it today, and then hopefully the board would
direct the county attorney to draft a resolution. I provided a sample
resolution to make his job easier because I know he has a lot on his
plate.
And that resolution could be tailored for Collier County and
brought back. And if the resolution is supported by a majority vote of
the board, in the winter of this coming year you would see that
question on the ballot, and then you can make the decision if you like
it or if you don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Earlier today we agreed to continue
indefinitely the discussion concerning what incentives we thought we
should be providing while the EDC and our staff work together to
define these things.
And I don't know why we would want to proceed ahead
assuming that we would even agree at the board level whether
property tax abatements would be appropriate. We don't have property
tax abatements at the present time. We have a tax increment financing
concept that we've never used. And I even questioned the validity or
the use of that, because it really hasn't proven to be very effective.
Page 199
June 14-15,2011
But if -- my question is twofold. If there is a concern about our
existing property tax incentive program, which is really an increment
financing -- it's not an abatement program. If there's concern about
that or confusion about how it's to be used, I would be willing to just
suggest that we eliminate that kind of incentive, because abatements,
in my opinion, were never anticipated or never approved by the board
or the public or anybody else.
So we don't have an abatement program now. It might be
something that we should have in the future, and if we did, we would
have to go to the voters to get that resolved.
But property taxes are one of the ways that we get the economic
incentive for getting a company in here. So if we keep abating them or
waiving them, then we're not going to get the economic incentive that
we want.
So I would suggest one of two things. Either we just decide we're
not going to have a property tax abatement program of any kind, and
if we decide to do one in the future, then we take it to referendum, or
as an alternative we can continue this item until we have worked out
the list of incentives and the criteria for the incentives that we had
asked the county attorney to work on, and at that point in time make a
decision as to whether we do this.
Because I don't -- I certainly wouldn't vote for a tax abatement
program, and I wouldn't even propose taking it to the voters, because
now -- you know, now is not the time to be increasing taxes for
people, and I hate to give them the impression that we're even
contemplating that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you like me to respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, sure, if you'd like. Go ahead. But
I've got three others sitting here waiting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let everybody else speak, and then
I'll just respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got Commissioner Fiala,
Page 200
June 14-15,2011
Coletta, and then Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I wasn't the first. I think
Commissioner Coletta was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, ladies are always first. That's the new
rule.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it works, yes, unless I'm involved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't even thinking of that, but I
felt -- you know, I didn't really like the idea of a tax abatement. I don't
remember us ever doing anything like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Never done it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I was happy to go to the
voters with it if somebody wanted to do a tax abatement. But your
suggestion of just forgetting the whole thing is so much better,
because we never do it anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second thing is, I wanted to
make sure, as we go forward with this plan, as the -- as -- I don't
know, David Jackson, are you going to be working on that plan and
coming up with some criteria?
We have to make sure that to the outside world, and even to our
own businesspeople, that we -- they feel that we're embracing business
and not -- and not rejecting it.
So as you put these incentives together, something that we as
taxpayers can live with and they as businesspeople could embrace
would be important. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, Commissioner
Henning's next. You turned off his light by mistake.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, did I? Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a property, you
know, business - property tax stimulation program the board passed in
Page 201
June 14-15,2011
2003. It's quite amazing. And Collier County came up with stimulus
before it was popular in 2008.
And I think there's a little bit of confusion about that, and that's
the issue about Arthrex applying for that.
Statute 125.04 clearly states -- and the legislators said, in order to
be effective to attract and retain expanding companies, the language
shall be liberally construed. Liberal, I don't -- I know some people
don't like, but that's what the statute says.
And it says, the county may grant private enterprise for
expansion of business -- expansion of a business existing in the
community or attract new businesses. We can make grants, okay.
And if we were going to -- and I said this at the last meeting. I
don't think we're really serious about economic development, because
if we were, we'd have specific language to grant businesses. Stick to
that language, go to the voters and say, "Shall we bond a certain
amount of millage for economic development in the community?"
Peter Gaddy was correct. The only way that we're going to have
serious economic development in this community is go to the voters
and be done with it, simple. This -- this property tax stimulus program,
you know, I took a look at it from the recent application. It's nothing.
It's just -- it's not going to attract a business to our community.
Our whole economic program -- I mean, we're getting blown out
of the water all around us because we don't have the vehicle to really
entice people, businesses here.
So if we put anything on the ballot, let's put something
meaningful on the ballot and let the voters of Collier County tell us,
yes, we are in economic -- we are interested in economic development
under certain criteria or, no, we're not. I mean, that's where I would
like to go.
And, you know -- and the EDC right now, Economic
Development Council, they hired a consultant under the guidance of
the Board of Commissioners to take a look at, you know -- because of
Page 202
June 14-15,2011
the Jackson Labs thing, kind of regroup and where do we really need
to go, and that's going on right now with public input.
And they're going to be coming back to the board, the public and
the board, to give the findings. And I hope one of the findings is, get
the community involved; otherwise, we're just, in my opinion, playing
games.
Okay. And I hear -- I see a lot of people agree with me, so -- if
we go to the voters, I want it to be something meaningful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if I could, let me just clarify
something. The proposal before us right now talks about granting ad
valorem tax exemptions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, and we don't do that
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't do that now, and we don't have
a program to do that now, and we have never done it. So I would
suggest we not do it, but at least hold off on making that decision until
the EDC has completed their study.
They can work with our staff and bring to us some
recommendations about what the program should be, and then we can
make a decision as to what any referendum should say. We would be
able to specifically address the issue then in accordance with a study
that has been completed rather than--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're saying the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only thing that I'm saying is,
I don't think that we really want economic development until we ask
the voters to put -- like we did for Conservation Collier or, you know
-- and somewhat like the zoo, a substantial amount of money. That's
what I'm saying is, we're not serious until we ask that question of the
voters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I understand what you're saying,
but I do disagree with you --
Page 203
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because the -- when you go to the
voters now during a very, very difficult economic time and you say,
we want $5 million or $10 million or $50 million to put into a fund for
some future economic development activity, I'm going to vote against
it, and I think most -- most voters would do the same thing. They want
to know what it is we're going to spend the money on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what I said,
Commissioner Coyle. That's a misrepresentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then tell me what it is you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said with specific criteria how
you're going to spend the money, specific criteria, like we do the TDC
funds; it takes a supermajority to pass it.
This item on the consent to where, you know, the board can
waive the requirements, the public's not going to ask that. I agree with
that. It has to be specific criteria on how you grant money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me give you an example, and
we probably should have this debate later on.
But let me give you an example. Our current economic
development criteria says that in order for a company to be available
-- to be able to qualify, they must create a minimum of five jobs, and
they must be at a specific percentage above the average wage in a
certain geographical area in the county.
Now, let's suppose someone says, okay, I can only create four
jobs, but I can create them at $250,000. Now, should we tell that
person, you're disqualified because you can't do it unless you create
five jobs? That's the kind of flexibility the Board of County
Commissioners should have, and they should be able to exercise it
during a public hearing and take evidence from the public and
reactions from the public.
We just went through that with that scrap metal company who
came in here and said they met it and they created all the jobs and they
Page 204
June 14-15,2011
had the salary requirements, they met all those requirements, and we
said, well, no, we don't want you to come here because you're going to
put some of our people out of work.
So that's the kind of -- you've got to give your elected
representatives some discretion in making decisions. You can't just
have a recipe and say, if you don't meet every little requirement in the
recipe, you're disqualified.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true. That scrap metal
did not meet our --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They were asking for an exception.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were asking for it. But my
concern is, just like the Jackson Labs, it didn't meet our criteria, and
before Commissioner Hiller got on board I was the only one that
opposed that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and I can tell you, you
know, the Jackson Labs thing wouldn't have passed ifit went to the
voters with what they were going to provide is 200 jobs for $120
million.
So I think we do need specific criteria that needs to be adhered to
so the public needs some as surety .
But, again, our Economic Development Council, with their hired
consultant and the public's input, is going to tell us that later on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll have that debate when we get
to the point of developing the criteria. But I will say to you, you don't
know what the Jackson Labs deal was or what it would be, nor did I.
We never negotiated anything about Jackson Labs. You don't know
how many jobs were going to be covered, you don't know when they
were going to provide them, you didn't know how much it was going
to cost us, we didn't know what the source of funding was going to be.
Just making the statement that the Jackson Labs thing would
never have passed, you know, you have no idea what the deal was.
Page 205
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle,
that's just not true. Again --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The county manager
forward -- they met with the Jackson Labs people, and I know that you
met with them several times. And they put down in writing what they
were going to provide, 200 jobs and, in turn, the county would have to
come up with 120 million. It's still a public record. If you'd like, I'd
provide it to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I helped create that public record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you will find nothing in that public
record that said that Collier County will agree to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, but that's what they offered.
I'm telling you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's not a deal. What people offer
is not a deal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we get back on the subject,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's 200 jobs for 120 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just get back on the subject.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And just a quick note on
that Jackson Lab thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There you go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, seriously. I'm going to have
to drop my two cents in this. We never got to negotiate it. Remember,
before they came to the end, they came out and they were going to
take $50 million off the whole deal? And we're looking at them saying
"Who's negotiating on this?" No one.
If we got down to the end, it could have been something that
Page 206
June 14-15,2011
would have been carried by industrial bonds. Show me where we ever
committed one dollar other than staff time to be able to make that all
happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was on the agenda, and,
you know, it was continued because it wasn't all accounted for,
Commissioner Coletta. We did spend over $100,000--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the Jackson Lab thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we did not give them that.
We spent it. We're doing research now for Arthrex. We're doing
research for other things. This is going to cost money when we send it
to staff.
These are the things you do. You put a certain element of risk in
everything you do to try to come up with a goal that's going to have a
financial return on it.
But let me drop that and get to where we were. Let me tell you
something. You're 90 percent right on everything you've been saying
up till the time you got back to Jackson Lab.
Commissioner Hiller, thank you for bringing this forward. I
started down this road back in -- when was it now -- January 20th with
something somewhat similar. I got to be honest with you, I think you
got a little more -- little more substance to yours than I had in mine.
At the time I was asking the commission to allow me to go
forward into the public. I got it on the agenda a couple days too late,
and so it was pointed out to me to bring it back at some other time. I
got thinking about it, and I was talking to some of my consultants, and
they says, you know, Commissioner Coletta, you don't need
permission to go out and talk to people. As long as you're not dragging
staff along and you're doing that, you can talk to all the people you
want, and I've been doing that ever since.
The Hillsborough one that you brought forward, I'm intrigued by
it. It doesn't -- I could see things that I'd like to see differently.
Page 207
June 14-15,2011
Commissioner Henning, you're right. What we do for economic
development is a pittance to what it should be, and it has been for a
long time. Last year when I asked the question it was $100,000 we
spent on economic development. Of course, business is way down.
There's not much of a demand. We don't have the engine in place to be
able to do something that's truly remarkable.
We've got some people that are going to be coming this way, and
it's the enticement maybe to do it. Maybe they're going to retire here
or they love the place; they're going to move here.
But as far as being able to say we got money aside to be able to
do something that's going to make a real big difference, we can't do
that. We're nowheres near there.
So somewheres down the road separate from the economic
incentives that we have now, which are extremely limited, we do have
to try to develop some sort of pot of money that's going to be
meaningful over a period of time, get to the point that it might equal
something like Lee County just did. What is it, 25 million? I believe it
was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, of course, they took it out
of reserves, but still, they committed some money that they had to it.
Serious money. Real serious money.
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, you're correct. This
thing doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever making it to first base in
this economic climate. Commissioner Coyle said he'll vote against it.
Let me give you another example. What's the most sure thing you
can think out there you can ever put on the ballot that would probably
pass. Conservation, The Zoo, Conservation Collier. The City of
Naples has done it for a couple of items. They always pass.
We're coming up to the end of Conservation Collier allotment on
the ad valorem. You don't hear a peep out there about putting it back
Page 208
June 14-15,2011
on the ballot. Why? Because the most popular item you got would
probably fail. So, you know, we got to be realistic.
However, with that said, I really do think it's worthy of putting
something to the EDC and the Chamber of Commerce to start the
discussion going forward with not the idea that we're ever going to hit
the presidential primary -- I think that's totally unrealistic to be able to
get a community sentiment of what we should do -- but with the idea
that possibly things may change favorably when we get to the general
election in November of2012.
And I think that's the way we should be thinking about, but not
making the commitment, but get it out there to the EDC, the Chamber
of Commerce, and start the process going forward.
Meanwhile, it's basically life as usual and make sure that we
don't do anything that trespasses on anybody . We have to be conscious
of the feelings of everyone out there. This is one of the hard things to
do. I mean, we all want to do the right thing. The problem is is that
there's a lot of difference of opinion what that is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to turn him off now.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we have 11 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to be kidding me.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thanks for your comments. I
appreciate the feedback.
Whatever we do with respect to any sort of economics
development program and any question that we put with respect to
that on the ballot would have to be separate and apart from this
question. This question stands alone and, as I said, it's constitutionally
required to go to referendum if we are going to consider property tax
exemptions as an economic incentive.
What's very clear is that our legislators saw this tool as a means
for local governments to provide economic incentives, and they
Page 209
June 14-15,2011
provided a mechanism for us to do that. It's Florida Statute 196.1995.
Going out to the community to develop a sense of whether the
community wants this or not doesn't have to be done. That's the whole
purpose of a referendum.
When you put something on the ballot, that's when you get the
community consensus. It's not about lobbying for or against a program
like this. It's for getting the feedback from the community as a whole
as to whether or not they would like to have such an ordinance that
provides you a means for us to incentivize business development.
I'm really getting the sense that this board, you know -- because
here's a great opportunity to have the potential to have an ordinance,
to provide for an incentive that, obviously, our legislators think is a
good tool, and we're turning down this opportunity of asking the
people what they think.
Now, if the people think that it's not a good idea, that's okay. This
year may not be the year, and the voters will tell us that. We could
have a vote again 12 months later. The law provides for that.
You don't have to give a full 100 percent of the assessed value.
You can give up to that amount, so you can give considerably less.
There are clear criteria as to which businesses qualify and, you know,
what taxes can be exempted.
You have an opportunity here to put a tool in your economic tool
kit with the support of the community without having to expend funds,
without having to lobby, without having to, in the negative sense of
the word -- and I don't happen to think it's a negative word -- but
politic, if you will. It's a very fair program.
So I would like to make a motion -- and then, of course, I'd like
to hear the speakers before we vote on this -- to recommend that we
direct the county attorney to draft a resolution to call for the placement
of the referendum on the spring 2012 presidential prim'ary ballot that
authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to pass a future
ordinance granting ad valorem tax exemptions to qualifying
Page 210
June 14-15,2011
businesses within Collier County as an incentive for encouraging
capital investment and job growth as required by Section 196.1995,
Florida Statute, and the Florida Constitution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I'll second it, and I'll say this. I
would never vote for it, I would never want to put it on a ballot
because I would never vote for it anyway, and nobody up here will,
and I think it's a waste of time, but if you want to put it on there for
something we don't even want to do --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's something the people need
to decide, not us. This is -- that's why you put it to referendum. It's the
people's choice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you know what we're going to
do is have our people going out there and finding out what the people
really want to do, and then they're going to bring it back to us for us to
then give to the voters to vote on, do you want to do this, this, this,
and this or not. But, you know, we're kind of stabbing in the dark at
something none of us even believe in, and we never do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's listen to our speakers and see
if they disagree --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- like we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I'll second your vote -- your
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I'm very grateful. I
appreciate that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call them.
MR. MITCHELL: First speaker is Shawn Bess, and he'll be
followed by Steve Cosgrove.
MR. BESS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Hi. My name's
Page 211
June 14-15,2011
Shawn Bess, for the record. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I'm here to
speak to you a little bit about Commissioner Hiller's idea about a
referendum.
I've only been in Collier County for about three years now. I'm
retired military, a member of a lot of the community organizations,
Golden Gate Civic Association, and many others as well.
I want to say that I support the idea of this referendum. I don't
typically support referendums. I know the founders didn't believe in
them. I don't like them very much myself. I would probably not even
vote in favor of the referendum.
But let me just say this: Why wouldn't you want to do it? You
know, there's actually -- there's no cost involved. It's another tool in
your toolbox to enable you to do your job. You'd be able to use it if
you wanted to use it. I have many tools in my toolbox, some of which
I hardly ever use, but I have them. You know, just in case I ever need
them, they're there.
That's all this would do for you. It would give you a tool in your
toolbox. If you needed to use it, you would be able to do that.
I know it seems to me and many of the other people in the
community that every time there's an economic opportunity for us for
development, we reinvent the wheel. We start all over at square one,
and let's try all new with a new deal.
I'd like to see something consistent, something fair, something
that is published that when companies look at Collier County and say
that's someplace that I want to go. What do they have available to me?
That they have something they can look at and say, okay, this is what
they have in their toolbox. This is what I have to choose from. Let me
see if I can negotiate with these guys.
And that's all I see this as doing. You put the question out there.
It doesn't cost us any money to do it. Let the public say yes or no,
because if they say no, then you know that tool is not in your toolbox.
That's all I've got to say. Thank you.
Page 212
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Steve Cosgrove. He'll be followed by Chuck
Marshall.
MR. COSGROVE: Yes. Good evening, Commissioners.
I'm encouraged by the fact when we came in today and you guys
took the waivers off the agenda today to go back and have the
Economic Development Council look at a better plan. That's one of
the things I had planned on talking about today was asking you to do
that, and I'm glad that you looked through that and got that done.
Almost anything I had prepared doesn't really pertain now since
everything's been said.
But I think it's important to have this referendum because so
many citizens -- and speaking from a citizen's point of view -- feel that
politicians at every level are really out of touch with what we want
and what we need and the economic situation that we're facing right
now, at all levels of government, federal, state, local.
And I think that there's no cost to the public for doing this. I think
it would send a message to politicians that we -- whatever way it goes,
it would send you a message how people think, and you right now are
saying that you don't think it will pass.
And the role of government is curious to me to have politicians
sitting up here saying, the role of government -- well, right now it
wouldn't pass. The role of government doesn't change based on
economic conditions, whether we're having a boom time and you want
to spend money and say, well, let's pass this now. This is important
now. We can get it through.
One of the reasons this is important, because bureaucratic speak.
You know, you say we don't have a tax exemption and this is why we
need to do the -- that state law says we have to do this, so that's
another reason to do it. But -- and we don't have -- we have tax
increment financing.
But as citizens we understand when a company comes in, they
pay their taxes in full, and then you give them a rebate. What's the
Page 213
June 14-15,2011
difference? You're just finding a different way to go around what the
state statutes tell us to do, that you have to have a referendum to give a
tax exemption.
A rebate after it's paid is basically an exemption. It reminds me
of a famous presidential quote. It depends on what the definition of
"is" is. You know, what's the definition of exemption? What's the
definition of rebate? You're still using our tax monies.
So one other thing. You know, if by your own account reducing
property taxes, impact fees, utility fees, regulations, all these things,
on certain qualified businesses that come to the EDC or come to you
and ask for these things, is -- it incentivizes them to stay in Collier
County, to expand in Collier County, or to possibly move to Collier
County, by your own account and by your own definition we're doing
the exact opposite to every business in Collier County by having high
tax rates, by having high utility fees, by having high impact fees.
So the role of government -- Shawn mentioned a perfect thing. If
a business wants to look at Collier County and why I'm coming here,
if I looked at it and said, they have the lowest structure, the lowest
utility rates, the lowest utility fees, impact fees, and property taxes,
that's going to make me come here, because I know my workers will
be here and I know I'll be able to stay and have the stability to stay
here.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Chuck Marshall, and he'll
be followed by Tim Nance.
MR. MARSHALL: For the record, again, my name is Chuck
Marshall.
Our Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 3, specifically
requires counties to hold a referendum by the voters approving the
establishment of an ordinance to grant ad valorem tax exemptions.
I've taken a look at our Chapter 49, Article 4, the property tax
stimulus program. This program provides payments to refund ad
Page 214
June 14-15, 2011
valorem taxes that -- the payments are based on the ad valorem taxes,
the payments are dependent on them being paid, and as Steve stated,
they are directly a rebate back. And so it's -- to me it just looks like we
are hiding the fact or getting around the Constitution, and I think that
takes away our credibility with the citizens when they see that kind of
thing happening.
I do have a recommendation. Our Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Dwight Brock, he's the one that's going to have to write the check, I
understand, to the companies to pay back these taxes they paid. I
would assume that we would want to meet with him and get his
opinion on it so we could -- the commission and he could issue a joint
statement to the public to allay the public's concern about is this a tax
exemption, a tax rebate, or what is it. I think that would go a long way
in helping the public's perception.
I've heard people say they wouldn't vote for a referendum. I
probably would vote to enable a tax exemption provision to be
implemented here as long as it was fair, not based on subject- -- not
based on subjective criteria but objective criteria, and maybe even a
"You will get it if you meet these criteria." It doesn't have to come
before the board. Those are the kind of things I would vote for.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Tim Nance, and he will be
speaking for six minutes. He has been ceded time by Steve Hunt.
MR. NANCE: I think I have nine.
Good afternoon, Commissioners, late afternoon.
I would like to make a couple general remarks about economic
incentives as a tool at the onset. I think they're used primarily to attract
and retain and influence business movement. They're not a primary
factor for a business decision to move to Collier County.
F or a business to come to our county and for us to attract a new
one and to make significant change, we have to have fundamentals in
place. The incentives are just the whip cream on top of the sundae, if
Page 215
June 14-15,2011
you will, help influence a final decision. They're an element in almost
all economic development programs and are definitely used by the
counties that we have to compete against.
I'm supporting a referendum for a voter approval on a property
tax exemption ordinance for several compelling reasons. Number one,
it's a great incentive, and I think Collier County needs to be eligible to
do this.
It's the law. The law intends us to do this. It's offered by all the
competitor counties that we" have to compete against for new
businesses across the state. Hillsborough County, Sarasota County, St.
Lucie, Martin, Charlotte, and dozens and dozens of municipalities.
And I think you're underestimating the electorate a little bit,
because what brought this to my attention is that most of these
counties have held these referendums and passed them successfully
within the last year. If you'll look at them, you'll find out that the
voters have supported them in the last year.
As outlined in the Florida Statutes, they have a very simple
administration. They're very user friendly, and it's a grant and tax as
you go sort of incentive.
Jim Flanagan will pass out an example of what the City of Tampa
did to try to sell theirs, and I think you'll be -- I'll think you'll be
refreshed as to how the approach was met by the voters.
This property tax exemption referendum concept was so popular,
indeed, in this legislative session, the rules were updated by House
Bill 287 and Senate Bill 506, which was sent to Governor Scott on
June the 13th, just a few days ago. It updated the concept, added
flexibility for counties, extended eligibility, updated the ballot
language, makes charter counties eligible, and passed unanimously in
the House 116-0, and in the Senate 37-0, including 100 percent of the
Collier County legislative delegation. So this is a good -- this is a good
thing.
Authorizing tax exemptions through a referendum brings us in
Page 216
June 14-15,2011
line with our competitors and, like it or not, Collier County is going to
start to compete. I don't care how great people think we are, we must
compete.
Another and I think probably the greatest value of it is that it's
going to promote community buy in for our economic diversification
plan. Up to now, it's been strictly top down, and it hasn't done very
well.
The referendum process itself will open and stimulate the
discussion. It's going to demonstrate the need to the voters and the
taxpayers, it's going to open up programs for open review and update,
it's going to gain public support for economic development and help
re-establish the trust and faith in the activities of our local government.
To be successful, we're going to have to regain the social trust of
the taxpayers we obviously do not have at the present time.
When I first came to work in Collier County, I went to work for
my first big boss. I was amazed that he had a little sign over his door
that said, "Attitude is everything." And I learned -- I came to
understand that that is very, very true.
The referendum process, if we choose to go forward with it,
would be a first next best step in rebuilding our failed program. In the
last six plus years, our incentive programs from 2005 to date, we've
actually spent $1.2 million, and we've created 148 jobs.
Since you all have been in office, the average of the board
combined has been adding one new job in Collier County a month;
that's between the five of you.
It's the failure of government and it's the failure of this board that
caused this to happen. It's not a failure of the EDC.
Compare ourselves to other counties. You'll see that we need a
complete overhaul, we need an update of our programs and their
presentation to new and prospective businesses. We need an update of
our attitude and the practical application of government for our
economic incentive plan.
Page 217
June 14-15,2011
I don't know who it was. I looked on the Internet and I tried to
figure out who defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting
different results. If we run around our current programs and we tweak
them and we bite around the edges, we're going to get the same result.
Six years from now you're going to be looking at the same failure.
We need a positive business environment in Collier County.
Why? Because jobs are a byproduct of a good business environment.
Jobs will not come to a bad business environment.
F or years Collier County has been -- has been visited by people,
and in a lot of cases because it was expensive and exclusive. Over the
last ten years the Board of County Commissioners has been successful
either by design or by unintended consequences of making business in
Collier County expensive and exclusive.
A discussion and debate that comes with a referendum is a good
first step for reform. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask -- who ceded their time
to you?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Flanagan had also ceded his time, but he'd
done it later on, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was the other person?
MR. MITCHELL: The other person was Steve Hunt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Steve Hunt?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He doesn't hunt.
MR. MITCHELL: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He doesn't hunt. It's getting late.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Duane Billington.
He'll be followed by Steven Hemping.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, I'm Duane Billington. I'm
not here to talk about Jackson Labs.
We have an existing program called a tax rebate program. All
that program is is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Everything's based on
what the tax assessor says the values were. Other people have
Page 218
June 14-15,2011
addressed it, but it's a sham. It would never test -- pass a legal
challenge. In fact, I'd be willing to put my name to a lawsuit if you all
ever used it.
I do agree that if you're going to have any kind of tax incentive
program, put it to the people. Let them decide. It's already been stated,
and you've been given evidence that other counties have done this
within the last year.
I'm starting to question whether it's a matter of whether the
people would pass it or not or whether you're afraid you have to put
some criteria in a referendum that is going to hold you to that criteria.
It seems like some of the members of this board have a record of
wanting to do what they want, when they want, how they want it, and
whether or not the public -- they have public support.
Evidence of that is in the innovation zone regulation. You all can
decide what you want to do. There's no guidelines. You can arbitrarily
dish out taxpayer money. And let's get real here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask, what is an example of
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, ask him for an example.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is an example of that? Would
you please?
MR. BILLINGTON: In your innovation zone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. You have really no criteria. Any --
the money that is -- comes about because of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What innovation zone. Would you
tell me first what you're talking about?
MR. BILLINGTON: Yeah. You have an ordinance that --
whereby anything that is recovered in an economic recovery, that
these taxes are collected and that they go in to identify innovation
zones, and then that money can also be used in other zones. And you
all can define the zones however you want to define them.
Page 219
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
MR. BILLINGTON: It was a program that you all voted on a
year ago. You passed it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll explain it when he finishes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. BILLINGTON: And the bottom line is, is that you're afraid
to put this out to the vote or you're afraid of having criteria that you
have to follow. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, does Duane know that we have
criteria now or doesn't he?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Obviously not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The thing he's talking about is the tax
increment financing program--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that we set up for innovation zones for
specific targeted industries, which really says that their taxes, the taxes
they pay, as their properties increase in value, they can retain within
their zone to spend on improving their zone and attracting more
business there, very much the same way the Community
Redevelopment Agency works. It's essentially a community
redevelopment agency but on a smaller scale, and it's a zone that is
designed specifically to attract business clusters.
So it has nothing to do with us making arbitrary decisions. There
are very clear rules about tax increment financing. It's a concept that
has been used forever here, and we've approved them on numerous
.
occaSIons.
So this is pure hyperbole.
MR. MITCHELL: Steve Humping will be followed by Doug
Fee.
MR. HUMPING: Anybody still here?
I'm Steve Humping of East Naples, and it's a pleasure to address
Page 220
June 14-15, 2011
the Collier County Board of Commissioners this afternoon, even
though it's late.
I come from a background of having worked with companies
who have successfully partnered with local and state governments in
an economic development effort.
I'm here in support of a totally transparent economic
development plan, number one, one which will be utilizing the best
business and government practices holding both sides accountable.
And, most importantly, one approved via voter referendum of the
overall economic development plan and a cap on the allocation of
funds and! or support provided by the county.
This is in the best interest of all of us here in the county, and I
appreciate your time today. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Fee isn't here, so Noreen Murray will be
the next speaker.
MS. MURRAY: Doug's here.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, we were using two podiums. Sorry.
MR. FEE: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee.
I have -- I did attend a meeting this week. Probably about ten
people in this audience also attended. It was, I believe, sponsored by
the EDC in order to get community input on a strategic plan for
Collier County. And I support that effort.
I'll be honest with you, as an accountant, up until about 2005, I
didn't give much thought to our economic development plan here in
Collier County. The last four or five, six years, it's been tough for a lot
of business o~ners, a lot of homeowners who have lost their homes,
and now it's an extremely important issue. You know it. I respect all of
you. We've got to come up with something for the future. Diversify
our economy.
The Jackson Lab issue, which has nothing really to do with
Page 221
June 14-15,2011
today, but it brought to life -- light for this community how do we get
down that road to diversify our economy so maybe in the future we
will not have to go through what we're going through right now.
What you have in front of you is a very, very, very narrow
question, and I would hope that this would be a 5-0 vote, because the
way I see this, you've got a Chapter 49 Code of Laws which explains
your program, and in that toolbox you have one incentive program for
tax incentive. And to me it's not working right, okay.
Whether it is or it isn't, whether it's constitutional or not, if you
put this very direct question to the voters, you can get that answered,
and some of the companies who will consider in the future and are
considering now, they will have the benefit of this, and we'll get
further down the road.
So I don't see there being any negative to this except that you're
going to get an answer, okay.
Now, an answer -- as an accountant, many of my clients have had
trouble. I think that if you put a narrow question like this, authorize for
tax rebatement or exemption, I think the actual homeowner or the
company people will say, this is an important tool, and I want to vote
for this so that I have a dedicated source of funds, small amount --
may not be huge amounts -- so that I actually have a job in the future.
So they may be willing to actually vote for this, even in our
economic times right now. Some of them are in this because we didn't
have the program.
So I would recommend and try to convince you, let the voters
have this very narrow question. The broader issues, the EDC's
working on. It's going to come back soon, and there'll be a lot of
debate. But this one's pretty specific.
Thank you very much for your time.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, please.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Noreen Murray, again. Good
evening, I guess. We're way beyond afternoon.
Page 222
June 14-15,2011
I think we're having two separate conversations here. If I've
understood what I saw in the newspaper -- which I admit mayor may
not be accurate, but it is what I read and what I heard -- there is a
program that exists right now and there is some question as to whether
it is in violation of or at minimum an end run around a constitutional
issue that says voters would have to approve.
That's a question for the lawyers to decide whether you do have
something, so that -- I'm not going to address that.
I fully support economic incentives for business. In a perfect
world I would not because businesses would be able to go to the
commercial market, and if they had a wonderful business plan, they
could borrow money and set up their business.
Unfortunately what has developed in this country is a bidding
war for business, and every state and every county and every city has
incentives programs, and we need them. I know -- you may remember
I was not a big fan of the Jackson Labs proposal, but I am a fan of
economic diversity, but I think we need the whole package.
To say it's no cost has to do with administration. There's always a
cost in educating the population if you want them to support
something.
And what we want, I think, broad support of is a logical, rational
economic development package. So while I have agreed with many of
the speakers on previous issues, I don't think it would be beneficial to
go to the voters with one narrow, specific tax abatement program.
Let's get something real and complete and then have a community
discussion as to why we need it and put the effort in to educate voters
that sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And that's exactly my point here. We are in the process of
Page 223
June 14-15,2011
developing or improving a -- an economic development plan. Some of
the specific criteria that some of the speakers spoke about and said we
need, we already have, you know. This information is all very highly
structured. There are forms to fill out and formulas to apply, and
they're all very, very well defined.
They might not be adequate, and that's what we're trying to find
out now. And whenever the EDC comes up with some of their ideas,
they will get with our staff, and we will try to develop a better
economic development plan.
And at that point in time I think it is logical for us to make a
decision as to whether or not there are things in that plan that require
voter approval. And it is illogical, in my opinion, to go out and start
talking about one segment of that overall plan and putting it on the
ballot only to find that perhaps in a month or two months or three
months, we've got two more questions that we think ought to go on the
ballot, and that gets very confusing to people when it's taken out of
context that way.
So my suggestion is to -- is to continue this issue until such time
as we've completed our analysis of what is necessary for a
Comprehensive Plan. And it is very complex.
People who are suggesting that property tax abatements are a big
drawing tool are, in fact, missing a lot of points. Number one is that
Florida has the 46th lowest tax burden per capita in the entire nation.
Taxes are not a big draw. I mean, it's not an issue for people coming
from other states. They would look at what we've got here and think
they had died and gone to heaven when it comes to paying taxes, and
it's going to get better because of changes of the state legislation,
which places commercial properties essentially under the same
provisions as homesteaded properties.
So it means that there are going to be substantial property tax
reductions already, and for us to start piling on abatements on those is
probably sweetening the pot a bit too much. So we have to take into
Page 224
June 14-15,2011
consideration those kinds of things.
And I think if we would take time to develop this revised
comprehensive economic development plan and present it, most of the
people who are opposed to what has been done would finally
understand that it's not really as bad as you thought it was and that
there are a lot of things that are very clearly spelled out and they're not
really subjective.
And so I still think that what we need to do (is continue this until
we get a completed plan and then make a decision as to what we put
on the ballot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't mean to say that you were
rambling, but it's my turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you've already rambled.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I haven't even begun.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it Noreen or Maureen?
MS. MURRAY: Noreen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, it's interesting that
everything that you said I was just going to say. And my second still
stands.
What I want to -- what I want to say is I think maybe it's a good
time for us and maybe it's too far away in January. Maybe sometime
until then we ought to have all of the people in our community drop us
notes or go to a certain area and fill out what they think would be
incentives to attract business here.
Because let's face it, if we don't have businesses coming to our
area, our taxes will go up, because businesses are our mainstay. They
are the people that keep our taxes low, and we want to do everything
we can to encourage businesses to look at us and to incentivize them.
Yes, we've got a downed economy right now, but I bet -- I bet
people out there will think of ideas we'd never thought of.
We have a plan in place, and for those of you who aren't familiar
Page 225
June 14-15,2011
with it, very clearly defined incentives, criteria that they must meet,
and they don't get the money until then, and we check on them to
make sure.
But the plan is old and it needs to be updated and improved upon,
and the times are different, so we need a different plan. And I'm here
to say I'd like to hear what our people in the community have to say.
Now, maybe there's something that they could drop by the
County Commission office and they could drop by the Chamber, and
they could drop by a couple other places, we could think of them, and
just leave notes or fill out a form that says, here are things that I think
would be good incentives.
So as our people are gathering to form these things, rather than
just having a few regular people always there, we're going to hear
from other people who never have input.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The EDC is currently involved in those
public hearings right now. They're having them now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do people put input?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They come there or they can access it
online. The information is going to be posted online. They are
advertising it. They're public meetings. They're asking people to come
in and talk with them, and they hope to gather a lot of public input that
way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's say -- let's ask this. On our --
like at our meeting today, we should find out how to get a hold of
EDC and where to give that input, and what we should do is we ought
to stream it along the bottom of the Government Channel so people
can see that they have input and that we're soliciting for the input, and
say for the next month so that people know that they can -- who they
can contact or how they can contact.
Page 226
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But now we're going to call your
question and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and if it's approved, this goes on the
ballot before --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you get that done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it's the cart before the horse, but
that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed to the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion fails with
Commissioners Henning, Coletta, and Coy Ie voting against it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a sexist statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, girls against the boys.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I hadn't noticed that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another gender one, huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just not sensitive to that, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to -- can I briefly
comment about your remarks regarding the public meetings with the
workshop?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Earmarks (sic)?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the public meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which ones?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With the EDC.
Page 227
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, the EDC public meetings. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I had the opportunity to
attend the workshop last night. It was advertised as a BCC/EDC
workshop, but I was the only commissioner there, and I thought that
was really a disservice to the public.
When we approved these workshop meetings -- and the minutes
reflect this -- we said that they were going to be, I believe, in April
and May with basically one working meeting in June to tie up what
was determined in April and May when the community is here in full
force.
I really don't see the benefit of hosting these meetings when
everybody is gone. Ifwe want the input of the business community,
we shouldn't be doing it when they're on vacation with their kids or
when they're up north at their, you know, cottage in the Carolinas.
So I would like to suggest that we postpone those meetings to the
fall when the public comes back and that it truly be held as a
workshop, as was intended, in the commission chambers with all the
cameras on so the entire community can witness the discussion and
that the commissioners all be present to participate in the dialogue and
provide input.
So that's a comment I'd like to make, because that is something
that I understood we had voted on, but it -- it didn't at all turn out
anywhere near the way that was discussed publicly. So I think we
have to keep our promise to the people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take a 14-hour break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're getting close to that point. We are
getting close to that point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I would like to bring that back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion has failed, and I will make
another motion. I'd make a motion that this be continued until such
time as we complete our comprehensive economic development
program and then make decisions about what needs to go onto the
Page 228
June 14-15, 2011
ballot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fair enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- I'd be interested to see
what the recommendations would be if this is the best that we can do,
yeah, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm anxious to see that, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's fair enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to thank Commissioner
Hiller for bringing that up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Did you have anything you wanted
to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. In nine minutes we take
another break.
Okay. Where do we go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have 9G.
MR. OCHS : Well, Commissioner, if --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a lot of things.
MR. OCHS: Might I suggest, perhaps, the board might want to
consider Item 1 OC? We have representatives from the Astaldi
Construction Corporation present, and if -- it's the pleasure of the
board, but you may want to take that item. I don't know how long
you're going to go today.
Page 229
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Midnight.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Would you like to hear that one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, why not?
Item #10C
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $25,935,470.53 $24,905,238.93 (PER AGENDA CHANGE
SHEET) TO ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND
RESERVE $3,315,000 ON THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR
FUNDING ALLOWANCES, FOR A TOTAL OF $28,220,238.93
FOR ITB NO. 10-5342 - "SR 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) RADIO
ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD; SR/CR 951 INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS; COLLIER BOULEVARD (SR/CR 951)
NORTH TO MAGNOLIA POND DRIVE; AND CR 951 (COLLIER
BOULEVARD) NORTH TO THE E. GOLDEN GATE CANAL",
PROJECT NO. 60073 AND PROJECT NO. 60092 - APPROVED
MOTION MADE TO CONTINUE THIS MEETING TO
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011 AT 9 A.M.
MR. OCHS: It's Item 10C on your agenda. It's a recommendation
to award a construction contract in the amount of $24,905,238.93 to
Astaldi Construction Corporation, and reserve $3,315,000 on the
purchase order for funding allowances, for a total of28,220,238.93 for
Invitation to Bid No.1 0-5342.
And I'm not going to read all these roads, but essentially it's the
project to widen Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard, including
the intersection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker.
Page 230
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's how many?
MR. MITCHELL: We have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. MITCHELL: It's Brian Penner.
MR. PENNER: Hello. I'm Brian Penner with -- CO, Mitchell &
Stark. I just have one concern, I think. If you move to approve this --
Astaldi with this bid, you're making a fundamental flaw in your
bidding process, because in this scenario it's clearly (sic) that Astaldi
did not bid on the same scope of work that the other bidders did.
In fact, they indicated that they did not bid on a process of using
barrier walls, which was a specific requirement of the bid. And it's a
significant requirement because it's, you know, 1.5, $2 million worth
of items.
And in my opinion when they indicated that they turned their bid
in and did not plan to use the barrier wall as was required in the bid
documents, their bid was unresponsive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. PENNER: And if you allow this to occur, I don't see why in
the future -- why would I want to bid on anything that you ask us to
bid? I mean, it's kind of like if you put an advertisement to bid on
Cadillac cars and three people turn in a Cadillac car and somebody
turned in a Yugo car, that's not fair. It's not fair to go apples -- it's
apples and oranges.
We'll both do the job. I'm sure they have an alternative that may
work, but it's not the same. It's not the same scope and safety by not
using the barrier wall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you filed a protest on this bid, or
are you interested in doing that? Is that why you're here?
MR. PENNER: No. I think at this point -- originally we were
recommended for award. Astaldi filed the protest, and then there was a
change in recommendation of awarding.
And at this point, you know, I'm somewhat frustrated from the
Page 231
June 14-15,2011
standpoint that I strongly feel that this is a mistake. But, you know, I
feel like -- that if this board doesn't want to award the job to Mitchell
& Stark, that's fine. I don't want to do the -- I don't want to do the job.
But I think you're setting yourself for a bad precedent in your
bidding process by allowing bidders to bid not to the scope of work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think you raise some good points,
and I'd like to have staff address those.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, purchasing
director.
There's a quick chronology of events we've got to go through
here to understand what's happened.
The bid invitation went out and it specified that the maintenance
of traffic during construction would involve the use of barrier walls.
That was plainly, clearly stated in the plans and specifications.
The document also talks about the contractor having the ability to
request changes to the maintenance of traffic, but that's contemplated
after a bid award. That's contemplated prior to or at the time of
construction commencing. In other words, we, just without getting too
far in detail, the construction -- the contractor is responsible for the
means and methods. We don't tell them to the nth degree how to do
the job. We tell them what the end result is, and we do the design--
the plans and specifications do put boundaries sometimes on how the
work's going to be done, but we always entertain requests or will
entertain requests for changes to how the contractor will deliver the
work.
In this case, the bids were tendered and received in late March,
and Astaldi's bid on its face, the tendered bid offer, had no exceptions
taken to it. What caught our eye was that the line item for traffic
control -- and this is a bid schedule with hundreds of line items in it --
was -- the unit price was one penny for doing that work.
And when we inquired with Astaldi -- and this was about a week
after the bid opening. We actually had a sit down meeting with them --
Page 232
June 14-15,2011
we were told that they -- their intention was not to supply a barrier
wall but to use an alternative technology, essentially, where they
would maintain a soft shoulder off of the roadway rather than a barrier
wall. And they said this was more cost effective and ultimately more
safe.
And we had several, I'll say, skeptical questions from the staff in
terms of whether this would really be functional, and also understood
that it was going to be very intensive for the contractor to do this.
They were going to have to essentially re rake and re-form this
shoulder every day, this temporary shoulder. And so we had that
discussion with Astaldi.
And it was our position that Astaldi -- that Mr. Penner was right,
that Astaldi was bidding -- making an offer that was not -- that was
contrary to the written plans and specifications.
Now, in investigating this, Astaldi did make the comment to us
that they had done this on other FDOT projects, and FDOT is a
significant funding partner here. FDOT is providing about two thirds
of the money, if I'm not mistaken, for the project.
And so we did have some conferring with FDOT on this, and we
found out that FDOT had sanctioned the use of this alternative
approach in some other instances, and we also had learned that they
had dealt with issues regarding what -- this is known in the industry as
unbalanced bids where somebody underbids a given line item, and
there were two in question here.
This is the main one, was the barrier wall that was in question
where we had this one penny bid, and on its face it looks untenable.
And, again, that was the whole focus of the discussion initially with
Astaldi.
Our position was that Astaldi was nonresponsive. When we
talked to FDOT, FDOT said that they had allowed this type of work,
this alternative shoulder approach to be used in certain instances, and
that what -- and they provided us a form that they had used where
Page 233
June 14-15, 2011
essentially they had the contractor sign off on the fact that he would
perform the work as specified, that he would go to contract as a
bidder, which is what he is until he's -- was awarded a contract. He's a
bidder. He's one of multiple bidders.
He would agree to do the work according to the plans and
specifications and he could reserve his right to ask for a change in the
-- in whatever it might be -- in this case the traffic control -- at a latter
date, but that the FDOT made no guarantees, gave no assurances, that
they would afford him that change.
So he had to agree to do the work for the price he had tendered
the price at, the work for the way it was specified, no changes, no
change in price, and he could pursue his options to ask for alternatives
later with no assurance as to what we would do.
So we took that information from the FDOT and we sent Astaldi
a letter -- and this was in late May -- and asked them to give us those
assurances.
Essentially what we're doing, folks, is we're just saying, honor
your bid, honor your bid. Not one penny charge -- not one penny
higher. Honor your bid the way it was specified, the way we told you
to deliver the work.
And Astaldi came back and signed a form, which is in your
backup, in which they committed to do that.
So with that understanding and given that we had more than a
million dollars at stake here, the difference between the two bidders,
staff -- the protest decision that came out of my office was to go
forward with the award to Astaldi.
I will make one other caveat. Mitchell & Stark gave us a
responsive bid, but they also had a pricing defect of their own in the
bid in which they inadvertently failed to bid one line item for
miscellaneous concrete, so they -- it showed as zero. And the real cost
of that was in the 20- to $30,000 range.
When we contacted Mitchell & Stark about that, Mitchell &
Page 234
June 14-15,2011
Stark agreed to honor their total bid price and do the work as
specified, so essentially they were eating that $20,000.
So in pure process and structural terms here, regardless of which
bidder you award to, you have an issue where we followed the same
pattern in both instances. Are you willing to honor your bid?
And given that Astaldi is the apparent low bidder and they have
come back and said they will honor their bid, we are making the
recommendation of award to Astaldi.
I do understand Mr. Penner's concerns, and he's right in the sense
that -- or at -- he's raising a flag that we cannot allow to become
precedent. We cannot have people offering a bogus, silly, absurd price
on a given item and then say, oh, I didn't really mean it, and say, well,
that's all predicated on me being able to give you carrots instead of
oranges or whatever. We can't let people do that. He's absolutely right.
And so we're back to saying -- we're really back to saying,
Astaldi, if you'll do it the way we specified it in contract with no
dependence or guarantee that we're going to change anything at the
time that we start the contract, then we will allow you -- we'll
recommend you for award.
So I think what you all need to think about in terms of business
terms here is, essentially Astaldi is taking the risk that they may get
told no by the engineer of record and county staff if and when they
bring forth these changes in the maintenance of traffic, and if they get
told no, they're, in effect, going to be eating a million dollars on a $28
million contract.
And the -- it's one thing for Mr. Penner to eat $20,000 on a $29
million offer, if you sit here and you think to yourself percentages and
profit and whatnot. It's another thing to have a bidder eat $1 million on
28 million.
Essentially -- and really what started with me in terms of my
ruling was I ultimately determined that if FDOT was allowing this and
there was precedence for this and it was a possible opportunity to save
Page 235
June 14-15,2011
a million dollars -- and the logic here is you're saving a million, and
you're putting up a temporary structure you're going to have to tear
down and rip up -- it has no lasting value; it exists only to provide
safety during construction -- and you've got a better way to do it, then
you should consider the award to Astaldi.
But that's the issue here, and that is our recommendation, and
we'll answer any further questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But the one thing -- and I'll let the
other commissioners ask questions in a second. But the one thing that
bothers me is that there is this potential for getting additional money if
they can convince us that they need it.
MR. CARNELL: No, sir, no, sir, no, sir. If they -- if they
convince us to use the alternative method, they don't get one penny
more; they just get the alternative amount.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But if they don't convince you of
doing it -- you said -- you said that there was the possibility they could
negotiate with us to get some additional payment.
MR. CARNELL: No, no. I'm sorry. I misspoke. No. They can
come back and ask for a change in the means and methods but not a
change in the price pertaining to this issue.
So they're either going to do it the way it was specified in the
plans and specs for $28 million, or they're going to do it with their
change approved for $28 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But their change has to be
approved by you?
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you could still require that they use
the barrier process --
MR. CARNELL: Correct, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which would cost them an additional
million dollars?
MR. CARNELL: That's correct.
Page 236
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they understand that that's --
MR. CARNELL: That's the whole purpose of them signing that
form that's in your backup, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's a bad deal. I hate to see people
get treated like that, but it's -- yeah, it's a shame.
But, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to hear your response
to his comments.
MR. PENNER: You know, I think -- I mean, he's fairly correct,
everything he said. I think there is some concern that this alternate
plan in the MOT plan is -- there's basically two or three ways that you
would do this for traffic control, and it's pretty standard. It's all in
manuals, and it's something that your engineers contemplated how you
wanted to do MOT work. And there's a certain degree of safety.
And maybe somebody have to appear -- this opinion, but to me if
-- I'd rather be standing behind a barrier wall than barrels on 50 foot
on center with cars coming at me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess I'm looking more to the
issue of how this bid took place. If you had known about this
specification, what dollar amount would you have -- what dollar
amount would you have put in your bid?
MR. PENNER: I think it would be -- you know, I didn't calculate
that. It's something that you would have to go back and -- there are
even certain requirements whether you have enough room to do this
alternate that you would -- you could do this alternate depending on
your lane widths that you have existing.
But it would be significant. I mean, you're talking every bit of the
million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That you would have reduced your
bid by if you would have used -- if you had used this other alternative.
So you would have been competitive with this bidder?
MR. PENNER: I think it's -- it certainly was a competitive
Page 237
June 14-15, 2011
advantage that the other bidders were not granted, if it's specific --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a huge problem.
MR. PENNER: It's very specific in your bid documents that
you're not allowed to bid alternates. And it's also an issue to allow a
bidder to turn in a bid with an alternate, and now you've given him the
next 20 days or 30 days after the bid to think about, do I want to do
this job, do I don't want to do this job. It's another competitive
advantage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. PENNER: You've got a difficult issue. I mean, one option is
rebid it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that was my question,
because that was what I had considered. I mean, if this alternative is
the better approach and we can achieve a million dollar savings, then I
think this project does have to be rebid.
Is this a project that's being bid pursuant to statutory guidelines?
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, then I really do think it needs
to be rebid. I don't think we can legitimately go forward and accept
this bid if we have given one of the bidders a specification that the
other bidders have not received.
MR. CARNELL: Again, that's not what happened.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It sounds like it.
MR. CARNELL: Everybody had the same specification. One
person chose to underbid a line item and ultimately said they would
honor the bid and build it exactly as it was specified, the same
specification everybody else bid to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're saying on the backside
that you're willing to accept an alternative proposal.
MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then -- here's the thing. Then
I don't think you should change the specifications and the design
Page 238
June 14-15,2011
should remain as is, and they should build exactly what all the other
bidders would have built.
MR. CARNELL: What we're saying -- and I apologize if this is
confusing. And you're asking good questions. This is important.
What we're saying is, the bidder Astaldi has agreed to build the
project for the price they offered to the plans and specifications. And I
understand your last point, Commissioner, that they do have the
ability to come in and ask for this alternative to the maintenance and
traffic control, and the FDOT has told us that this has been an
acceptable method in other projects. I don't want to say FDOT
endorsed it here. They didn't go that far.
But what we're saying is, we would look at that later where -- we
would look at it where it's contemplated in our contracting process,
which is, if you've got some alternative means and methods, you can
present it at that point in the process.
Now, just on the rebidding question. If you want to look at
rebidding the project -- just, we should make one other thing clear. If
you took the barrier wall out of this altogether, took everybody's
pricing for the items in question, Better Roads would -- actually would
have been the low bidder, not Mitchell & Stark or Astaldi, if you just
take all the other items and price compare them to each other.
If you want to rebid it, really, from what the transportation
growth management staff is telling me, really the only impact at this
point is lost time in terms of going (sic) this back out -- back out again
and having to redo it, having exposed prices on the table.
And the issue there is, I don't -- you know, we could be looking
at September before it gets awarded if we're not able to get back to
this board. We can probably make the July 26th agenda, but that's not
going to be necessarily assured. So we're going to -- you could
potentially lose a few months on the award. That's your -- I think, the
only real drawback to rebidding it, plus the exposed prices.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 239
June 14-15, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm going along the same line as
Commissioner Hiller here. You know, it -- it just -- I hate to use the
word "sneaky" or "underhanded," but that's what it feels like. I mean,
if they -- if you've given them a criteria and these people came in and
bid according to what you gave them, and then somebody else tried to
pull a fast one and go around the back way, and then go in and want to
come and change, I would say, first of all, I would never want to see a
change order on that thing, nor would I want to see any changes in the
means or methods at all.
And if any kind of change orders came through, I don't care if it
was to bury a utility line, I would want to see it before us, because to
me this is -- this smells, and I just don't like the feel of it at all.
And so -- and I want to know one other thing. Which is safer, the
barrier or the soft shoulder? You know, I could guess, but --
MS. MESSAM: Good evening, Commissioners. Marlene
Messam, for the record, Growth Management Division.
I would just like to put on the visualizer here what we're talking
about. What you're looking at is a pictorial view of the item under
discussion.
This is what is called a low profile barrier, and it comes in
12-foot lengths. It's about 18 inches high. And there are special,
specific reasons why we would use this barrier.
And I want to put this other one up here just to show you, okay.
This -- what you're looking at here comes from the FDOT standard
index drawings, and it really essentially outlines the specific -- why
we use this barrier. And it depends on your dropoff.
If anyone -- I know you guys have driven on the interstate or
through a construction project, and when the pavement is uneven, you
get that -- you know -- it's not very -- a comfortable ride.
Well, DOT has specific guidelines as to the amount of dropoff
you can have, and the distance -- and the clear zone for you -- and
what type of device you need to use. You could use a low-profile
Page 240
June 14-15,2011
barrier, you could use what is called a Jersey barrier. You've seen
those. They're called the Type K barriers. You could use drums. And
in the corner, in the upper right, you can also use a soft shoulder,
okay.
But each one of those instances require you to meet the criteria
that is within that table that you're looking at in the middle of the
drawing, okay.
So if you have a dropoff that is greater than three inches, then
you're going to need a device such as a barrier.
And over to your left in the area that I've highlighted, it says that
basically if a barrier has been specified and the contractor wants to use
another method, he has to replace it with one of those devices there.
Well, at issue when Astaldi came to us, they wanted to use the
shoulder-treatment option, and basically they said they would be
running a 24-hour operation on this project. Well, our plan -- our
specifications did not call for them to run a 24-hour job. There were
specific times set in the contract documents for them to be there. So
that's why staffwasn't initially comfortable with their method that
they were going to use.
Now, I must tell you that the plans do allow for the contractor to
propose a different method of maintaining traffic, but that is usually
done post award. So, hence, this is why we were here and having issue
with the -- with the way they came about offering this alternative.
And as Mr. Carnell said, we held their feet to the fire. You must
honor the price that you have tendered in your bid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the question I asked was, which
was safer, and you didn't answer that.
MS. MESSAM: Well-- okay. Which is safer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. MESSAM: Again, safety depends on the criteria that you
are following there. It's not a -- which is safer. If you went by the rules
as outlined in the criteria, then you'll have a safe condition.
Page 241
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's break this down into
segments that everybody can get their arms around.
We have a contract right now that's a million dollars below what
we were expecting to pay; am I correct?
MR. OCHS: It's a million dollars lower than the second low
bidder.
MS. MESSAM: Than the second lowest bidder, correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. We have some way of
irregularity that we didn't recognize but it's been a standard practice of
Florida Department of Transportation where they've been accepting
this as an ongoing thing. We had another issue of an irregularity
within the bidding and another contractor who put down zero for
concrete and ended up agreeing to eat it.
This case here, I'm a little bit concerned. We take this thing to try
to -- we've got a person here that's raising some objection but he hasn't
filed a protest, and he doesn't even know ifhe wants the job.
So I'm looking at all these different elements and I'm saying,
okay, the motion would be to approve this with the caveat that we
come up with some standard procedures in the future that purely
identify this practice as not being acceptable so all bids can be
accepted on an even playing field.
I'm very reluctant to put this thing back out to bid now and find
out that we're paying another half a million dollars more.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I agree with you.
A couple things. First of all, we've got a good relationship with
Mitchell & Stark right now on Oil Well Road, and you've got a good
relationship with Astaldi. You've done two successful projects with
them as well, too.
The president/CEO for Astaldi is here, and he wants to put on the
record that he uuderstands that it was an imbalanced bid, was not his
Page 242
June 14-15, 2011
intent, just as Mitchell & Stark said it was not his intent to put an
imbalanced bid up.
Now, the difference, obviously, is significant, 20,000 to a
million. But as Marlene put on the record, we've said to them, we may
not approve that alternative track or design. You will hold to that bid.
And he has said yes. And if you want to ask him on the record, it was
not his intent to be sneaky, you know. He was -- his intent was to offer
that alternative, and we said that's not part of the bid process. You can
do it after or you can do it as a bid alternate. He did not.
So, Commissioner, I'm hesitant as well, too, to put this back out
on the street. You've got a really good price.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll tell you what, I don't
need him to come up. Your bid process is what it is. We don't need a
person to stand here and raise their right hand and say they'll agree to
do the bid that they already signed that they would do.
I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's too late.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry? Too late.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's a motion and a
second on the floor now, and that was, I don't know how many hours
ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That was a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was the motion and the bid?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning made a motion to
approve and I seconded it, I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't mean to jump in front of
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you didn't jump in front of
me. I'm just trying to get this stuff done in a timely fashion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you, please, three of you vote
Page 243
June 14-15,2011
against that? But anyway, let's call that motion, unless you want to
withdraw it. You want to withdraw the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I understand completely
what is said, and I know some others don't, but I understand and I
support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Okay. It passed 3-2 with Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
And, you know, we value our business relationship with Mitchell
& Stark. I feel badly that this happened, and I would like to assure you
that you will get fair consideration next time around.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may add something,
Commissioner Coyle. It's not just about that company. It's about the
other companies that weren't given the specification as well.
And the other issue I have is why our design didn't contemplate
this in the first place. You know, this is a million dollars that easily
could have been avoided if the design had had that as a criteria from
the outset. I have serious concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that isn't -- exactly not
true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What staff has said is, they're
going to, with the engineer -- they might not even accept it. They
might have to put those barriers there, and Astaldi has to eat it. They
Page 244
June 14-15, 2011
can come in with an alternative. They might not accept it. Staff might
not accept it; the engineer might not accept it. There's too much
liability. They have to eat it.
And I think that's what the misunderstanding is. It doesn't
necessarily mean that what they're proposing is going to happen out
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I voted for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. If anybody at any point
in time wanted to make a motion to adjourn, I would happy to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would make a motion to
continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay -- oh, that's right. To recess until
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, till tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would prefer adjournment, but continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nine o'clock?
MR. OCHS: Nine a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nine a.m. tomorrow morning we'll be
back to finish this stuff up.
And this is the item you told us we could finish up in just a short
period of time?
MR. OCHS : Yeah, it is, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good shot.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
*****
Page 245
June 14-15,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 14-15, 2011
Day 2 (June 15, 2011)
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Mike Sheffield, Operations Manager, CMO
Page 246
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
So we're going to go directly to our 9 a.m. time certain item,
County Manager.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO ENDORSE THE
RECOMMENDA TION OF THE CLAM BAY WORK GROUP
AND THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE
MARKING OF CLAM PASS/BAY; PROVIDE DIRECTION ON
PERMITTING, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
CLAM PASS/BAY MARKERS; AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
PROCEED WITH FLORIDA WILDLIFE COMMISSION (FWC);
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE);
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP); AND THE UNITED STATES COAST
GUARD (USCG) PERMITTING
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Commissioners, good morning. You have
a 9 a.m. time certain item. It is Item 10E on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay
Work Group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of
Clam Pass/Clam Bay, provide direction on permitting, installation,
and maintenance of the markers, and authorize staff to proceed with
the Florida Wildlife Commission, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the
United States Coast Guard permitting.
And Mr. McAlpin will make a brief presentation.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager, for the record,
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Manager.
The Board of County Commissioners on January 25th endorsed
Page 247
June 14-15,2011
the CAC's recommendations to move forward and work with the
Pelican Bay and the Seagate community with the county and to try to
come up with an overall community solution to facilitate marking safe
and -- safe marking within the Clam Bay Community.
Commissioners, and what we have -- what we've done is we had
three -- we held three public meetings on this issue where we
established a work group, and the work group consisted of John Sorey
from the City of Naples; Ernie Wu, who is the president of Seagate;
Steve Feldhaus, who is the Secretary of the foundation; Keith Dallas,
the Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mary
Johnson, who's President of the Mangrove Action Committee; Kathy
Worley from the Conservancy; Marcia Cravens with the Audubon
Society; and myself, Marla and Pamela Keyes from the County.
We came through and we worked the issue with the -- with the
community. We also worked very hard with the FWC. And FWC is
the lead agency on this item.
The direction from the board was to not move forward with
navigational markers but to move forward with informational markers
on the system. And FWC will be required to issue the permit.
We worked the language relatively -- relatively steadily and
consistent with them. They're the ones who are going to -- they will
approve the language on the signage.
So we wanted to make sure that they were going to buy into what
we were proposing, and they participated in all of our discussions via
telephone call.
Commissioners, what you have on the -- in front of you on the
visualizer is the -- a general overview of what we're looking at. We
have 12 markers throughout Clam Bay, and those markers are
highlighted in orange. And we believe that those are the critical
locations throughout the pass where they, again, direct boaters and
kayakers and canoeists and swimmers around critical pieces so that
they would stay in the pass and stay away from the environmental
Page 248
June 14-15,2011
sensitive areas.
We've also marked it. And those markers would look like this.
There will be canoe trail markers. Since this is informational signage,
they will not be red and green. They will be a white sign. We can
only mark it as a canoe trail marker to show the route of the waterway.
The marker will have a paddle -- cross paddles on it, the number of
the marker. It will say Clam Bay. And beneath that it will have a
local knowledge required sign, a Clam Pass/Clam Bay caution, local
knowledge required, keep on the lookout for boaters and swimmers.
But one of the things that we wanted to do throughout this pass is
mark it from a safety point of view and alert as many people as we
could that this is exactly -- we need to be cautious because this is a
multi-use channel.
We also believe that it's important that we mark this facility and
we mark it for safety. And what we have done is we have two bridge
signs that will be out on the -- on either side of the bridge, and they
will say caution -- attention caution, Clam Pass/Clam Bay is a
multi-use waterway for kayakers, canoers, boaters and swimmers.
Use caution throughout the marked trail, especially at the pass
entrance. Local knowledge required. That's this sign here,
Commissioners.
And FWC will have jurisdiction over this sign, and the wording
will be very -- this -- that's this sign right here. FWC will have
jurisdiction on that sign, and the wording will be critical.
We also want to mark it at the beach on either side of the two --
the beaches in the inlet of Clam Pass, and that sign will be exactly the
same as the sign we'll place on the bridge.
The "attention," this sign here we'll place at the beach park, at the
park facility, and also on the ramp that goes down to the beach.
Again, it's another sign that's going to -- that's going to -- primarily
aimed at the swimmers, and it will say, attention, boaters and
swimmers. Clam Pass Bay is a multi-use waterway for kayakers,
Page 249
June 14-15,2011
canoers, boaters and swimmers. Boaters and swimmers must use
caution while in the pass. Local knowledge required.
So we've tried to mark that very -- be very cautious from a safety
point of view . We also have marked it with the appropriate location
for shoal grasses and also the appropriate location for -- for the shoals.
So, Commissioner, we believe that we have -- Commissioners,
we believe that we have gone through this with the community and
identified a plan that will work, identified that a plan that -- at least
from a preliminary point of view in reviewing it that is permittable
with the FWC.
We've done enough discussion with the -- with the other agencies
who have -- who have jurisdiction on that but do not have the primary
jurisdiction, and those would be DEP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and U.s.
Army Corps of Engineers, and they have not voiced any objections to
our plan at this point in time.
We wanted to look at this from a safety point of view. We
looked at it -- and that was one of the major concerns of the work
group. Currently what we have out there is one sign at the beach that
is -- that is in -- a caution sign.
But, clearly, what we've tried to do is separate this, since it is a
multi-use pass, and give everybody the opportunity to understand that
this is a multi-use facility and there's going to be swimmers and
boaters, canoers and kayaks throughout the system.
We have acceptance of this from all of the participants except
from the Seagate community. The Seagate community was not
supportive of this plan. And it's based on their belief that navigational
channel markers would provide a higher level of public safety for the
boaters using Clam Bay and Clam Pass.
They also believe that the navigational markers protect the
historic boating rights of the Seagate community.
We gave the Seagate community the opportunity to propose
additional language on the signs that -- that they believe might support
Page 250
June 14-15,2011
their position better. They did not do that. They also chose not to
participate, because of scheduling conflicts, in the last meeting.
So we believe we have a plan. We're looking for your
endorsement of this plan to move forward with the permitting phase of
this proj ect.
From here, if you endorse it, we would move forward to the
agency. We would get concurrence from FWC, written concurrence
from FWC, and then we would start the permitting with the three
subsequent agencies: The Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers,
and DEP.
The other issue that is unresolved or as -- we would like some
direction for you -- from the Board of County Commissioners on is
the permitting and how we proceed with the installation and the
maintenance of these markers.
Three options exist for that, but the most important thing that -- I
think it's important that the markers currently as they are need to be
modified so that the permit for the markers throughout the whole
system -- and there's 33 markers in the system -- although we're
specifically dealing with only the lower half of the system, the upper
half of the system -- the upper half of the system has additional canoe
trail markers on it, and these need to be in Collier County's name.
So what we would -- in any event, whatever would happen, we
are recommending that all the markers be placed in Collier County's
name to make it consistent with what we have done throughout the
rest of the county.
The options that we're looking at is -- the first option would be a
four way agreement. The first option would be a four way agreement,
Commissioners, and that would be an agreement between what we
would consider they key stakeholders, which would be the Pelican
Bay Foundation, the City of Naples, Pelican Bay Services Division,
and the county, and that would be that they would participate in the
cost of the installation and the maintenance on an equal basis for these
Page 251
June 14-15,2011
-- for these permit -- for these markers, that any plan would have to be
approved by three out of the four parties, that this would last for ten
years or -- and can be mutually extended by all the parties.
If a dispute arose, there would have to be -- three of the four
parties would have to resolve it, and the dispute resolution individual
would be the chairman of the designated representative.
So at this point if there was a dispute that arose, that would be the
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, the chairman of the
foundation, the chairman of the services division, and the appointee
from the City of Naples.
And that the installation of 12 new markers in lower Clam Bay
would be by the Coastal Zone Management. The maintenance of the
markers in upper and middle Clam Bay would continue to be
performed by the Pelican Bay Services Division. They have done an
excellent job on the canoe trail that goes up through there.
We would install -- Coastal Zone Management would install the
informational signage at the beach, the mouth of the pass, the bridge,
and the canoe trail launch area, and we would maintain those, and that
all additional poles and markers would be removed from the system.
That's one -- that's one option. We believe that we -- that that
gets all the key stakeholders -- and there's enough checks and balances
in this so that no decisions or changes could be made without
concurrence from any of the other stakeholders.
The second option would be to move this and have -- continue
the Pelican Bay Services Division main control and stewardship
within the Clam Bay. They have done a -- they have been responsible
for the markers in the past. They would continue to be responsible for
the markers. They have said that they would pay for the installation
and maintenance completely themselves. Several stakeholders have
expressed concerns with that approach.
And the third option would be for the Coastal Zone Management
to do everything, the permitting, the installation, and the maintenance,
Page 252
June 14-15,2011
and that would -- the reason, we have responsibility for the rest of the
markers throughout Collier County. And this would just fit under a
section of the business that we maintain and control.
This was approved. The plan was approved by the Coastal
Advisory Committee last week. It was approved 6-2, and they
recommended approval-- the recommendation was 6-2, and they
recommended approval for Option 1, which is the four party
agreement.
We anticipate this would cost less than $20,000, Commissioners,
and this would solve a very nagging issue that we have been dealing
with for close to three years now.
So we believe we have concurrence from everybody except from
the Seagate community . We believe we've addressed the major issue
that the pass -- that we have addressed it and marked it from a safety
point of view. We have -- we believe that we have an option that the
agency will support that allows for -- recognizes multi-use function of
this, that it's for boaters, kayakers, swimmers and canoers, and it in no
way impedes the historical riparian rights from the Seagate
community to use the pass.
And that's all I have, Commissioners. And I'll answer any
questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm really pleased to see that
you've come up to an agreement. It would have been wonderful if it
was unanimous. It isn't, but at least you've come up to an agreement
that everybody can live with.
My concerns are: My concern -- and now let me preface this by
saying I'm not a boater. I don't go into the pass. I don't know
anything about boating, so I'm just -- you know, I'm just a neophyte on
this. As a neophyte, if I saw signs that said canoeing and kayaking, I
would think boaters aren't allowed in there, and possibly that's what
other people might think and that's why they hoot and holler and shout
Page 253
June 14-15,2011
and give dirty signs at people and try and stop them from boating in
there. That's my concern.
How do we make sure that the people who act so childishly and
try and stop any boaters from going in there -- even though you say
they're allowed -- how do we make sure that people know, who are
swimming, for instance, that these boaters are allowed in this pass?
MR. McALPIN: That's why, Commissioner, we've tried to mark
it and mark it as clearly as we can. We have the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't see anything that says
boaters are allowed.
MR. McALPIN : Well, I think that what we have here -- and,
again, we have to be -- we -- the FWC is very specific with what we
can put on the signs. These are informational signs that they have to
approve.
And what we have tried to do is in -- we cannot -- we cannot --
from a boating point of view, we cannot appear that these are
navigational markers. They're informational markers, and that's a
distinction here. But if you look --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But the thing is, the
information isn't complete. It doesn't say boaters are allowed.
MR. McALPIN: I understand, but I think that as we said here,
when we mark it throughout the pass, if you look at this slide,
Commissioner, on the local knowledge required right after -- and this
will be on each one of the 12 markers throughout the pass. It says
local knowledge required. Keep -- keep the lookout for boaters and
.
SWimmers.
The next signs that we would put -- and that we would put at the
bridge would say, use caution throughout the marked trail, especially
at the pass entrance. Clam Pass/Bay is a multi-use waterway for
kayakers, canoers, boats ( sic) and swimmers.
We would say the same thing at -- on the bridge sign, and we
would -- we would -- at the kayak launch area we would say basically
Page 254
June 14-15,2011
the same thing, and we're alerting swimmers at our parks -- that say
that boaters and swimmers must use caution while in the pass.
So we've tried to mark it as clearly and distinctly as we can, but
within the guidelines of informational signage. And I believe that's
the direction that the board gave us in January, to come up with a
solution that meets all the needs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I need to interject something
because I don't think Commissioner Fiala got an accurate answer to
her question.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has nothing to do with
informational signs on the bridge or in the parking lot. Okay.
MR. OCHS : No, sir.
MR. McALPIN: They believe--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They have nothing to do with our signs
on the bridge and the parking lot. You said that the Fish and Wildlife
Service restricted what we could put on those informational signs.
That might very well be true in other cases. It's not true under those
circumstances.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry. They have asserted
jurisdiction on the signage on your -- on the bridge, not on the beach
ends or in our park, but they have asserted, I believe, jurisdiction on
the sign --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Under what authority?
MR. OCHS: -- over the bridge.
MR. McALPIN: They believe that they have the state authority
since this is a -- this is a waterway, and they believe that they have
jurisdiction on the signage that goes on the bridge. They have -- they
have indicated that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And have we challenged that?
MR. McALPIN : We have not challenged that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, okay.
Now, the real issue here is that we tried to get the word
Page 255
June 14-15,2011
"motorized vessels" are authorized use, and the point here is that that
is not acceptable to the Pelican Bay members of the committee, okay.
And the only way to get an agreement was to take out that provision,
I presume. That at least is what I'm told.
And I just want to make sure that you have an accurate answer
for why it's not as specific as it could be. My feeling is, we have not
provided adequate informational signage here. But all of the advisory
committees have recommended approval. It is the only way you get an
agreement, a majority agreement for marking this pass.
But the accurate answer to your question is that the signage is not
specific, and it is not specific not because the Fish and Wildlife won't
allow it to be specific; it's not specific because the Pelican Bay
contingent will not approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. I think it -- I think
that one of the biggest things is all the hostility towards the boaters has
had them fighting to try and make sure that their presence is allowed
and that people know that. And hostility never -- never encourages
people to work together and embrace a situation. And if -- I think if
the hostility toward the boaters in this thing could end, you would find
a lot more relaxed atmosphere. Thank you.
You know I'm all about people anyways. I'm sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if I may? The Fish and
Wildlife have indicated to us that they would not approve the signage
in the pass, the 12 markers in the pass, if the -- if it was "motorized" in
front of "boaters." They have said that to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, when were you going to tell us
that?
MR. McALPIN: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When were you going to tell us that?
I've been asking this question now for six months, and no one has said
Page 256
June 14-15,2011
that the Fish and Wildlife would withhold permission of the markers if
we had "motorized vessel."
MR. McALPIN: For the ones in the pass, Commissioner. I think
what we have -- if that has not been clearly communicated, that's my
error.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If you would, please,
Gary. Is it -- is it legal to be able to use a motored boat within that
pass? Is that considered waterways that are permissible to have a boat
in?
MR. McALPIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is it -- they're public
waterways, correct?
MR. McALPIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're spending money to
maintain signage of some sort, which is county funds. What I'm
getting at is this idea of local knowledge of the water on the sign. I'm
an access person and I -- you know, either the place is accessible or it
isn't accessible. And we can dance around that situation all we want,
but when you use the words, you know, only canoe trails -- let's just
see. How does it work here?
Local knowledge signs on each of the 12 markers is being
proposed. Local knowledge of the water. It's no different than a key
pad on the outside of one of these gated communities. If you know
the four numbers, you can get in.
Now, I don't mean to put down Seagate, and I don't mean to put
down Pelican Bay. But this is nothing more than a restrictive measure
to try to keep people from lawful enjoyment of a waterway.
Now, I admire what you tried to do and how you brought
everybody together and you sat down. We haven't got there as far as
I'm concerned, and I don't think we're quite there.
Page 257
June 14-15,2011
Like Commissioner Coyle mentioned about the lack of the word
"motorized" in the boats. Fish and Wildlife, now at one point weren't
they more or less leaning towards allowing this, at one point?
MR. McALPIN: That was when we were looking through -- for
navigational markers through the pass, we have -- we had approval
from the U.S. Coast Guard and DEP at one point in time. They
withdrew their approval and asked for a significant amount of
environmental studies, and we brought that back to the board and said
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. McALPIN: -- we're going to spend a tremendous amount of
money here. Is that what you want to do? And that's when the board
looked at us to see if we could reach a solution.
If we're not going to put navigational markers in, we would have
to put informational markers in. Fish and Wildlife has the jurisdiction,
and they're very specific on what they will allow us to put on the
.
signage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And we all are -- we
have been dancing around one part of this subject for some time. We
all realize that no matter which way we go with it today, there's going
to -- in all likelihood, from what I've heard from both sides, there's
going to be a lawsuit that will probably eventually settle this down the
road.
Have you heard something to that nature also?
MR. McALPIN: I can't comment on that. I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, no problem. But what
are we exactly doing here today? That's what I'm trying to figure out,
is we have two warring communities, one trying to establish their
traditional right to be able to make sure that their right to be able to
boat within this canal with motorized boats is not going to be infringed
upon. That's just cutting right to the chase on it.
They want to make sure that they're not going to at some point in
Page 258
June 14-15,2011
time have this dedicated for some sort of use that will be other than
motorized vehicles, which would seriously diminish the value of their
properties.
We have Pelican Bay on the other side that sees this as a pristine
part of their environment, and they're correct, it is, and they want to do
everything they can to preserve it, and they're coming together in a
way that doesn't seem to be -- be working towards any really
meaningful solution.
But I'm having a real problem with this local knowledge of the
water. I just can't get my arms around that and endorse it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Gary has gone out of his
way to make all the information from the state publicly available to
everybody, including all the commissioners.
There were multiple public hearings, and the representative from
the -- from Fish and Wildlife actually spoke to the public and was
open to any questions, and there was full disclosure, and any
commissioner could have attended those hearings. I did. They were
very informational. And they provided the disclosure, if you will, that
you're claiming Mr. McAlpin didn't provide you.
Bottom line is, what the state has represented and made very
clear in the public meetings, on the phone so everyone could hear, is
that the state does not mark every navigable waterway. The state
operates by exception; quite frankly, the way a government should,
only if there is a compelling public need.
The state will only place navigational markers in an area where
there is a history of public safety incidents where there is a history, an
established history . Not one incident, but a full history of reckless
boating, you know, injuries, basically public safety issues that would
necessitate the need for information -- for navigational as opposed to
informational markers.
The state will not put navigational markers in Clam Bay and
Page 259
June 14-15,2011
Clam Pass because there is no legal justification to do so. They mark
by exception.
There are so many navigable waterways in our county that are
not marked, and all boaters know how to navigate those waterways.
Seagate's riparian rights are not affected in any way as a result of
the markers being proposed. What is being proposed is the only legal
alternative available to Collier County. The state will not permit
anything but this and, therefore, we are doing the most we can do for
the benefit of all.
So no one is adversely affected. Every -- every party's needs are
being satisfied. And we are in full compliance with the law by
applying for the permit as Gary has proposed. And, quite frankly, he
has -- he has found the best possible legal solution under the
circumstances.
No. It's an explanation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian, how many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 20 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Again, we'll be using both podiums. The first
speaker is Linda Roth, and she'll be followed by Kathy Worley.
MS. ROTH: Good morning. I'm Linda Roth, Board of
Directors, Mangrove Action Group. I'm here today to express the
support of the Mangrove Action Group for the marker plan that has
been recommended by the Clam Bay Marker Work Group of which
we were a member.
The plan calls for the installation of canoe trail markers from
Seagate to the gulf with the addition of information signs that help
assure safety for all users of the system.
The advantages of the proposed marking plan include it denotes
the deepest threat of water from Seagate to the gulf and the safest
passage for boats that use the system, including canoes, kayaks, and
shallow-draft motor boat.
Page 260
June 14-15,2011
It advises the boaters and swimmers share the system. It
conforms to the current regulatory regime and meets Fish and Wildlife
conservation requirements. It does not imply greater navigability than
actually exists. It does not add pressure to dredge to improved
navigability .
This plan takes into consideration that Clam Bay is an extremely
shallow system of bays and waterways with average depths of, at low
tide, in the one to two foot range. This has not changed over the
current recent time period since development has occurred.
As you consider this proposal, please keep in mind that Clam
Bay is a conservation area that is currently enjoyed by thousands of
visitors and Collier County residents each year. They come to
experience nature in a unique tidal estuary system. This plan
recognizes that the system is used for access to the gulf by Seagate
residents in small motor craft. It would continue to accommodate this
historic use, but also preserve and protect the unique characteristics of
Clam Bay system.
We urge you to approve the proposed plan for maintaining a
canoe trail marking system in Outer Clam Bay.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the proposed permit, this issue was
specifically excluded from the scope of the working group; however,
we support continuation of PBSD oversight for permitting of the entire
canoe trail, Option 2, including the minor modification being proposed
in this plan. This is based on the successful history of management of
Clam Bay canoe trail for the past 10 years under a permit issued to
Collier County in 2000, which is submitted here as an attachment.
Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Tim Nance will follow Ms. Worley.
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Kathy Worley, the Conservancy.
I've spoken a lot on this issue, so I'm going to be -- I'm going to
be brief and just say that the Conservancy supports the plan that has
Page 261
June 14-15, 2011
been presented by Coastal Zone Management today to install the
canoe and informational markers.
As far as the "local knowledge required" statement on signs, I
believe this is important due to the shallow nature of this estuary. And
if you are unfamiliar with it and you go in there with your boat, you
could ground and get stuck in there and, therefore, have to be towed
out. This could cause damage to the environment and the shoals and
the sea grasses.
And one thing that the Conservancy and myself, really, do
approve of is that this plan informs the public where the
environmentally sensitive areas are, such as the sea grass, and
hopefully this will give them further protection from prop scarring or
canoe or people just walking on them.
So we hope you approve this plan today. Thank you.
MR. NANCE: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Nance.
I am not, obviously, as you all know, a coastal resident; however,
I can say that I -- in my lifetime I have enjoyed Clam Bay. My uncle
and I used to go into Clam Bay in our 17-foot Grumman canoe. He's
now passed away. But I can say as a resident of the interior, what is
remarkable to me about Clam Bay is that it is substantially the same as
it was 30 years ago when I first moved to Collier County full time.
Even when I was a resident of Fort Lauderdale, I had an opportunity
to be there, and it's a wonderful place.
It is remarkable that it has remained in the condition that it's in,
even though it's had the tremendous growth around it. You know, I've
been there in a canoe. I have friends that live in Seagate. I've been in
Clam Bay in a boat.
I think everybody should be commended for working together to
maintain this asset for Collier County despite the fact that it is used by
so many people now in so many different ways.
So I think -- I think this is an excellent compromise. I know it's
going to be contentious because of the great use, but everybody should
Page 262
June 14-15,2011
be glad, and the people in the interior are glad that it's getting good
stewardship from everybody that's using it and enjoying it.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Steve Feldhaus. He
has 12 minutes. He's been ceded time by Maryann Womble, Jim
Hoppensteadt, and Ronnie.
MS. BUSH: I'd like to cede my time, too. Patricia Bush.
MR. MOFFATT: Jerry Moffatt will also cede his time to Mr.
Feldhaus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to be with us all day, Mr.
Feldhaus.
MR. FELDHAUS: I'm not sure I can talk for that long.
MS. MURRAY: We are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was a low blow.
MR. FELDHAUS: Although I do have that reputation, I admit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay . You have three minutes. Go
ahead.
MR. FELDHAUS: Well, I want to start out by thanking
everyone who participated in this process, and thank you for sending
us back to try to work together. We really did; all of us made a great
effort to work together to try to do what was right for Clam Bay and
what's right for each of the stakeholders in this -- in this endeavor.
As was just stated, Clam Bay is a rarity. It is the way it was
hundreds of years ago. How many other places like that exist in all of
Florida? Not many.
And our goal as the Pelican Bay Foundation, which has legal
responsibilities under the governing documents when the Pelican Bay
Foundation's predecessor in title gave that property to you to be
stewards to it, our goal and our obligation is to see that it stays that
way.
And we believe that this compromise -- and it is a compromise --
will assist in all of us achieving the goal of keeping this treasure the
Page 263
June 14-15,2011
way it is, and while at the same time promoting -- as Ms. Fiala
correctly observes is a critical important of this -- promoting the safe
usage of Clam Bay.
From my own personal perspective, the single biggest worry that
I've had in trying to figure out how to do this is not only to protect
Clam Bay, protect the ecological resource, but more importantly to
protect the human beings who use it.
And I'm -- I, too, am very concerned about people getting into
shouting matches with boaters at Clam Pass. That is scary at best, and
we know that the boaters aren't going to win that interaction and that
we could have a -- damage to people or even a loss of human life, and
no one, no one wants that, and we want to put the system in place that
makes that least likely to happen.
Now, I passionately believe that the compromise that we have
agreed to is much more likely to protect human life than red and green
markers would. Red and green markers don't warn anybody except
seasoned boaters about what's happening out there.
Ms. Fiala, as not being a boater and you're in the pass and you
want to wade and you see markers out there, while that may in some
corner of your mind say, well, maybe that means something, you're
still going to go out into the pass. We need -- we need a proactive
campaign to keep people from interacting, boaters and swimmers from
interacting with each other and using that pass safely.
And that's what we've tried to do. We have signs that are going
to go on the beach that are going to say to these young kids that are
jumping out of those trees into the water, to parents who are taking
their kids out wading, they're going to say, watch out. There are
boaters who are using this, too.
We also have signs all throughout the system that are going to
tell boaters that -- watch out when you got to the pass, because this is
a multi-use system and -- so be careful when you get there.
Now -- but I don't think we can stop there. I think we have to go
Page 264
June 14-15,2011
further. And we've proposed, and the county agrees with us, that we
should have signs at the county park that say -- in other words, this is
at your beach facility there -- and they should tell people before they
even get down to the beach, watch out. This is a multi-use
environment. And we should hit them before they get to that.
And so we back up from there, and we -- in the parking lot when
they park their cars before they get on the tram they see something
that tells them that that's there.
So, again, I think safety is absolutely important. From the
Pelican Bay Foundation side -- we're right on the other side of the pass
-- we're proposing that we do the same thing, that before our people
can go down the steps to the beach where they swim right there near
the pass, that we have a big sign that says the same thing, watch out.
There are boaters who are going to use that pass.
And, again, before they get to that, we'll have a -- we will have
signs -- and we will have an educational campaign within our
community, because I think -- I think that this is a critical issue, I
really do.
But I think that red and green markers don't address it nearly as
well as the solution that we've come up with, and that was one of my
pre-eminent roles.
I'd just like to say that what Kathy Worley of the Conservancy
had to say about local knowledge is -- it's what I thought local
knowledge was there for, Mr. Coletta. I'm as sensitive as you are to
trying to -- to the charges of elitism and the charges of "let's keep this
solely for our own use." I believe that the foundation -- I believe that
the county has an obligation and the foundation has -- in its
stewardship role has an obligation to make this treasure available to
everyone.
And we're not trying to keep people out of there and keep them
from using it. That's not the goal of this. The goal is to enable them
to do it in a safe way, safe to the people at the pass, your swimmers
Page 265
June 14-15,2011
and our swimmers, and safe for the environment.
And local knowledge really is designed -- and what it was
designed, from my perspective and I believe from the other
participants, is to ensure that people don't go in there, they don't get
stuck, they don't damage the environment because they don't know
which way to go.
And it really is a very unsafe environment for boaters. You
really do need local knowledge. And the NOAA even recognizes that
in its pilot. You know, it says that this is suitable only for outboard
motors, you know, in sort of ideal conditions, that it's, you know, a --
previously they even called it non-navigable. At the request of
Seagate, they've changed that. But they say be cautious in there, and I
think we should warn people to be cautious. But, again, it's not from
an elitism or an exclusive attempt to keep people out of there.
And this is not about riparian rights. I'd just like to say that once
again. I've said it as a representative of the foundation time and time
and time again. We recognize Seagate's right to -- their historical right
to traverse out of Clam Bay to get to the gulf. We will continue to
recognize that right.
As Tony Pires, a noted local attorney and Coastal Advisory
Committee Member said, signs don't give you riparian rights. They
arise by a matter of law, and they can't take away from those rights.
So they have the rights to get to the gulf. We're not interested in
taking them away, and our desire to have this signage be appropriate
for Clam Bay, to help us maintain Clam Bay the way it is, is not
designed to take anything away from them.
And I just want to close with where I started, and that's to say
that I think your responsibility and I think the foundation's
responsibility is to ensure that we do no damage to Clam Bay. It is
absolutely unique. It's -- again, it's just -- there isn't anything like it
around here on the coast.
And I ask you to consider very carefully whether these signs are
Page 266
June 14-15,2011
not signed to protect human life, give all the users recognition that
everyone else is going to be in there with them using it, and enable us
to keep this very, very special treasure in the heart of our urban
environment.
I have a few more minutes. If anyone has any questions, I'll be
glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. That was
excellent. You know, I'll be honest with you, you've shined a little
different light on this whole situation.
The idea of the signs in the parking lot, you know, as you're
coming in is an excellent idea, because Commissioner Fiala stated her
concern was over some of the conflicts that were taking place between
the boating public and the swimming public. Very, very concerning,
you know, and it's something that would probably go a long ways.
The only thing that I would suggest, and I hope everybody takes
this seriously and for the right reason -- the signage in itself is so
limited in words, and you can't put a paragraph up there because
people aren't going to read it and then it's open for discussion. It's just
too difficult. So, I mean, probably the signs couldn't say any more
than they're already saying.
What would be great is if there was a -- on the signs, a spot in
there, www.colliercountygovemment and then slash, and then all
about what the pass is about so somebody could go there and be able
to get the history of what it is, what exactly is meant, and maybe an
aerial photo showing the pass where people can draw their own
conclusions from what they see. To me that changes the dimensions
of the situation tremendously.
I mean, would you be admirable (sic) to something like that?
MR. FELDHAUS: Absolutely, absolutely. I'm totally in favor
of disseminating information and getting people knowledge about it.
Knowledgable users are safer users.
Page 267
June 14-15,2011
So if that could be done from a permitting process, I'd have no
problem in that at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would my fellow
commissioners have any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know ifFWC would
approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't -- I can't imagine many kayakers
going out there and seeing the sign and then signing onto the Internet
while they're there to check it out. I just don't see that happening.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, everybody's carrying
these small little phones, and the kayakers are usually younger people,
very knowledgeable and into high tech.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever. I don't have any objections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got the ability to be able
to do it, you've got the ability when you pull up to the parks to be able
to do it, to be able to take a look at it if you want more information, or
even write it down to be able to research later.
Sir, you were very, very helpful in this process.
If I may, you know, we're always trying to find balances in this
world between everybody that's out there, and you talked at great
lengths over the concerns of Seagate and the fact that they have -- they
have rights that precede everything that's taking place in the pass.
They have rights today, and they have rights in the future that cannot
be taken away. I understood you correctly on that?
MR. FELDHAUS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there documentation different
places within Pelican Bay's enabling ordinance or whatever that
recognizes this right?
MR. FELDHAUS: No. It's a right that arises as a matter of law,
so it isn't something that was granted by Pelican Bay to Seagate, and
it's not even something that the developer of Seagate legally
transferred to them as a title matter. It's something that, by virtue of
Page 268
June 14-15,2011
the fact that when they bought their property their property had this
access that they can -- that no one can take that away from them by an
affirmative act. No government body can take that away from them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, all that may be
true, but I mean, obviously they have some concerns, and they're very
intelligent people, and I'm sure they've done their research, and
they've still got those concerns. So somewheres along the line there's
something that fell short.
I think what they're looking for is some sort of assurance into
perpetuity. I mean, reasonable assurance. I mean, who knows what
would happen as far as the pass being blocked some day by a
hurricane or some other natural force coming into play that something
might change.
But I mean, they're looking for something that's reasonable. And
for some reason, they're here today, and their comments that have
been made in the past indicate they don't feel they got that assurance.
But that's something we're going to have to work through in the short
order.
But thank you so much for taking the time and to answer my
questions.
MR. FELDHAUS: Thank you.
I've just been handed a note and asked to use my last three
minutes or however few seconds I have to talk about the maintenance
side of this, who should maintain it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got 10 seconds.
MS. MURRAY: He's got more time.
MR. CULLIGAN: I'm Brendan Culligan. I cede three minutes.
MR. FELDHAUS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can have my three minutes,
too.
MR. FELDHAUS: Thank you, sir.
The idea is, if we get this behind us, we don't want to be sitting in
Page 269
June 14-15,2011
front of another board three or five or seven years from now hassling
about it again. We want to try to put it to bed in a way that's fair for
everybody.
And so the thought came up -- and I don't even know who voiced
it first -- that we ought to have some sort of interlocal multi-party
agreement where it could only be changed with the concurrence of the
parties who are affected.
And the City of Naples offered to step in in a representative role
for the representatives of Seagate, and it was proposed that the
services division and the foundation step in for Pelican Bay. And so
that was the genesis of the four way agreement; three out of four were
needed.
I -- myself, I like to keep things simpler, and I was in favor of a
three way agreement, and not have the services division since it's the
foundation who has the legal powers under the governing documents
there.
I also had a concern that the services division really doesn't exist.
There's the services division right here, so is what we're saying that,
you know, three out of the four can do it, county, county equals
services division, and the City of Naples, that you could overrule the
Pelican Bay Foundation. And, you know, that's not what I intended in
putting this forward.
So I'd be willing to do the four way if we said the services
division board, which is elected by the representatives of Pelican Bay,
but I'd also be willing to do a three way.
And, again, this was designed as an accommodation to try to let
people know that we were putting this behind them. And if we can
work out a solution that will enable us to do that, I think it would be
beneficial so that we're not back up here fighting the next time
somebody comes up with some legal theory to put a different kind of
marker in.
So I would propose either a three way under Alternative No.1 or
Page 270
June 14-15,2011
a four way where the services division board can cast that vote so that
Pelican Bay, in effect, does have a voice.
Alternatively, if we can't do that, I'm happy with the Coastal
Zone Management having the authority to control that decision. And
we're negotiating now about a possible agreement with the county
over the role of the foundation, because we believe that our documents
say we have a role on markers. And we believe that we'll be able to
reach an agreement, some type of an agreement that will give the
foundation a voice in the future direction.
So I would be willing to rely on that if we can't do Alternative
No.1. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you have
questions to ask?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Just--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got more speakers if you'd rather
wait.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Just to understand Seagate
residents, if we record something in the public record recognizing
their right to use the Clam Bay system, their motorized right, would
that be sufficient? Is it -- or is it more than that? So I would be
looking for some guidance on that.
MR. FELDHAUS: 96-16 already exists. Ordinance 96-16 exists
as a matter of public record passed in 1996 by the Board of County
Commissioners recognizing that Clam Bay is open for motorized boat
use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the one that
recognizes and marking of the manatee signs; is that right?
MR. FELDHAUS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the rest of the speakers.
Page 271
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Jeff Gibson, and
he'll be followed by Keith Dallas.
MR. GIBSON: Good morning. I really wasn't planning on
speaking this morning, but listening, I can't help myself.
I'm a resident of Naples, a resident of Pelican Bay. I'm a Pelican
Bay Services Division Board member, but I'm standing up here to
represent myself.
But being a board member, I'd like to tell everybody that I do
exist, unlike our previous speaker said I didn't exist. I'm big and you
can see me and I do exist.
Moved here, bought property 1989, and I was told by a Realtor--
never trust a Realtor -- that when I looked at beautiful Clam Bay that
it was going to be forever in perpetuity. Well, I certainly hope it does
remain in the existing condition.
I'm a boater. I'm a graduate of the Chapman School of
Seamanship. I'm a graduate of the North Fort Myers Captains School,
eight days of intensive training. So I do know boating. I'm leaving
Saturday to go down to the keys with my son.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I come?
MR. GIBSON: And we were taught in all of these various
schools that if you see red and green markers, you are to assume four
feet of depth and you are to assume that it should be five, but because
the Coast Guard and the government agencies are underfunded they
can't do any more dredging than what's already there.
So I see a red and green marker. I'll take my boat in. I see a
canoe trail marker, I don't take my boat in, because I don't have local
knowledge and my draft in my particular boat is just over three feet.
You would expect future dredging if you had the red and green
markers, because that's just the way boaters are. That's what you
assume if you're a boater. I've spent a lot of time at the helm.
It's important to me that it be left alone. I take my grandkids
canoeing. It's a blast.
Page 272
June 14-15,2011
So I support Mr. McAlpin's proposed compromise to the best of
my ability, and I thank you for your time. I'm certainly under three
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. DALLAS: Hello. I'm Keith Dallas. I'm the current
chairman of Pelican Bay Services Division. I was part of the work
group.
First, let me just mention a couple things that had been brought
up earlier. The whole language on these signs really to, a large extent,
have been dictated by Fish and Wildlife. A lot of us thought it would
be good to put motorized on some of those, and we were just told no.
So there was no ulterior motives here. It's just we were backed into
this.
As far as the "local knowledge required," if you -- I don't know if
you've ever been out in Clam Bay, but it's an amazingly beautiful and
amazingly shallow body of water. When you're out there canoeing, if
you're not careful, you're hitting bottom with your canoe paddle
sometimes. It's that shallow.
And so, clearly, the "local knowledge required" is really there
just to warn people, the uninitiated, don't get out here unless you know
what you're doing, because like I say, a person out there with a
motorized boat with any kind of a draft is going to get themselves in
trouble, particularly if there is a low tide.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into this document
you're looking at. Now, a lot of people in the community have
worked on it and thought about it. It is a compromise. Probably none
of us on our own would have come up with exactly this language, but
I think it's a workable -- a workable approach.
It -- let's move this forward. A lot of us would like to see this
behind us instead of in front of us. Let's move this forward, because I
think it does work. And like I say, it's got as much support as I think
anything in the community could get. And like I say, there's a lot of
Page 273
June 14-15,2011
things that, individually, we may disagree with it on.
One of the things that the service division disagrees on is who
should hold the permit. We think we've done a wonderful job in the
past. We recognize we're part of county government. We take our
direction from your board.
F or instance, a couple years ago some of the markers needed to
be replaced and, we thought we should replace them. And we were
told that it might add to the controversy instead of take away, so to
stand down, and that's what we did. So we are part of your
government, and so that's a point that we disagree on.
But please go forward with this and pass this, because I think it
will be wonderful, and then we can go on to do things that are more
important, hopefully, for all of us.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Sue Black, and she'll be
followed by Ned Renfroe.
MS. BLACK: Hi. My name is Sue Black, and I'm a resident in
Seagate. And I have basically three gripes. I just -- I'm a little
doubtful here only because a couple years ago we sat at this board
meeting, and Seagate doesn't have navigable rights, Seagate doesn't
have -- and now I'm hearing Steve and all these Pelican people saying,
you have navigable rights. You do. So the tune has changed, so I'm
kind of skeptical.
The two points that I want to make is -- if you can show that --
no, the crustation sign.
This is what we're dealing with now in Seagate in the pass. And
this option of Pelican Bay keeping up with the maintenance of the
sign, that really scares me, by just looking at this photo.
I'll keep talking while he warms it up.
Just looking at this sign, this is what we're dealing with. A lot of
the signs have broken off, and there's a steel pole that the bow of our
boat can get hit and scratched. That scares me that they want to take
Page 274
June 14-15,2011
over and maintain this right.
The other thing that scarce me is all this local boater knowledge.
That's going to be on the bottom of the sign. How high do you have to
put that sign up so crustation doesn't hit like it's hitting right down
there at the bottom?
Because you could see that that sign flipped over, but some of
those signs are so loaded with crustation that you can't even read
www.dot or ordinance, "we have the right" sign.
The other thing that I'm a little bit disappointed about is does
there need to be a death or something in that pass to, quote, make it a
legal issue to get these markers in there? I think that if we have the
markers, the Coast Guard approved markers, they're recognized, just
like a stop sign is recognized. You put some kind of verbiage on
there, people say, oh, yeah, boaters, uh, uh, uh. Pass it up. You put a
stop sign there, people know to recognize and stop at a stop sign.
I'm sorry if that nobody -- some people, such as yourself, Donna,
that you don't know what a green and red marker is, but if you do have
any experience with boating, you will know what a red and green
coastal guard -- I really hope that you guys don't approve this today.
And then being not a key player? Isn't Seagate, with our
property backed up against that -- I know you said there's two Pelican
Bay people represented, the City of Naples, and then that waterworks
place is going to be represented. Where is Seagate in this picture? Is it
-- do we go under the blanket of City of Naples?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's the intent.
MS. BLACK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I
respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your presentation. I
just wanted to respond as to what I understand is the situation with the
existing markers, the one that you showed up on the overhead that was
Page 275
June 14-15,2011
barnacle encrusted.
The Pelican Bay Services Division acquired the replacement
markers a long time ago. The county prohibited them from replacing
the markers that you just highlighted. So it isn't that the Pelican Bay
Services Division didn't do what they were supposed to do.
F or whatever reason -- and I don't understand why because it
predated me -- the county has barred them from being able to do the
maintenance that they were ready to do and are required to do. So just
to clarify that point; I just wanted to make sure you understand the
history behind it.
Thank you for your comments.
MS. BLACK: Thank you. The only reason why I was showing
that crustation part is I'm nervous, I'm a little doubtful, that if we give
Pelican Bay the authority to maintain these signs, they're going to look
like that in a couple of years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. The issue is, they were
prohibited from replacing the signs by the county, okay. They would
not do that otherwise. If they had their druthers, they would have been
replaced long before they got to the condition that you see them in.
F or whatever reason, the county -- so that your concern should be
with the county, not with the services division. And I guess --
MS. BLACK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I would like to have the answer
myself. I would like to know why the services division was prohibited
from putting up those signs myself. So I think you raise a very good
point, but the question needs to go to the county.
MS. BLACK: Right. I'm just nervous if we get these little
informational signs that they, too, will look like that in a matter of
years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that was a county issue. But
you -- I have the same question, so I respect your concern. And those
should have been replaced a long time ago. And they've been -- those
Page 276
June 14-15,2011
signs have been held in storage by the services division, already paid
for and ready to go up, and the county said, you know, stand down.
So I respect your concern, because it is unacceptable. And I want
the answer just like you do. So thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Renfroe -- Mr. Renfroe will be followed
by Robert Rogers.
MR. RENFROE: Hi. My name is Ned Renfroe--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they going to answer it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah. Let me -- for just a moment.
I think Commissioner Hiller is correct. I don't recall the Board of
County Commissioners ever voting to prohibit anybody from doing
anything, but it certainly could have been done by one of the other
departments.
And after the speakers have completed, I'd like to have Mr.
McAlpin answer that question.
Okay. Are we ready to go now?
MR. RENFROE: Sure. My name is Ned Renfroe. I'm an
II-year resident, Seagate, and a lifelong resident of Naples.
I've been boating my entire life, and I bought specifically in
Seagate 11 years ago for the boating lifestyle.
I've had three different boats in there, and I go through Clam Pass
on almost most conditions except for very low tides, and I think that
there is a huge safety problem there.
And I'm glad to hear it addressed, finally, that it is a problem, but
I'd like to say that I don't favor the compromise. I favor the navigation
markers that were supposed to have been put in in the last permit.
They have been required to be put in for years, and they have not
been.
And I think that's the only way that I'm going to feel safe as a
boater to have my rights be seen by the public and to be seen by the
boaters.
You know, if you want to add some different informational signs
Page 277
June 14-15,2011
about safety for the boaters in Clam Pass and for the Pelican Bay side,
that's great, please do that, but the markers do need to go in. They
were agreed upon in previous compromises, and the fact that they
haven't gone in, I think, is interesting, and I'm not sure how it's
happened, and I think that they need to go in.
So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Rogers will be followed by Sarah Wu.
MR. ROGERS: Sarah's actually given me her three minutes.
MS. WU: Yep. He's got them. Go for it.
MR. ROGERS: I'm also going to use the rest of Mr. Feldhaus'
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will be a total of 45 minutes.
MR. ROGERS: Okay, good. Robert Rogers. I live in Seagate.
I'm a lawyer by trade.
I'm probably the most impacted individual with regard to what
goes in Outer Clam Bay. Oh, Gary's picture's not up there, but my
house is the one that looks right out into the bay. And it's a great
estuary. There's no doubt about any of that.
First, I'm going to address a couple questions that I heard and
give you Seagate's view of those questions first.
Commissioner Fiala had raised a question of, you got canoe trail
markers marking a navigable waterway, and it just doesn't really make
sense. I mean, the canoe trail markers have paddles, and a normal
person --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to get you on the
mike.
MR. ROGERS: Sorry. In our view, a typical person would look
at those markers and know exactly what paddles mean. It means
kayaks or canoes. You can put all the writing under it you want.
Well, that's a perfect segue into Commissioner Coletta's question
of what's this "local knowledge required," which is a perfect segue to a
Page 278
June 14-15,2011
point made at the Coastal Advisory Committee by -- I can't remember
which member -- that nobody's going to read these paragraphs you put
on there. It just doesn't make sense.
Well, why doesn't it make sense? To figure that out you've got to
go back to 1998 when the permit first came into play. The permit was
created to restore the mangroves in Clam Bay, which it did very well.
Every single requirement in the permit has been met to date except
one, which is a line that says, finally, the channel will be marked in
accordance with requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard. That's why
you have your questions.
The U. S. Coast Guard doesn't put paddles, they don't put local
knowledge requirements, they don't put all this other language. They
put red and green markers universally recognized. Those accomplish
several things. They do establish our riparian rights and, yes, you
legally have them, but the alternative suggested by Mr. Pires of "You
can go to court to enforce them" is not what we're looking for. We're
looking not to go to court. We want this to be established.
That's why the 1998 permit says, "markers approved by the
United States Coast Guard." That's all Seagate has. We don't have a
big, powerful community. We have that and our credibility. That's it.
And if you guys don't do what the permit says, that forces us into a
very bad position, which I'll talk about later.
So now, how did we get here today? Seven years ago -- not three
meetings ago, like the committee that was recently formed which, in
our view, was basically a Pelican Bay meeting. That's why Seagate
didn't attend the last one. It simply -- we had no voice in it.
But seven years ago our neighborhood started raising the issue,
why isn't permit being completed? They attended several Pelican Bay
meetings and were basically summarily dismissed. Fast forward, they
go to staff. Staff was very helpful. I still believe staff is very helpful
to us. And staff said, yeah, you're supposed to have these markers.
Staff produced a plan -- and now I'm getting right to the issue of
Page 279
June 14-15,2011
who's compromising. Staff produced a plan that had two markers.
We didn't ask for red and green markers. We didn't ask for
navigational markers. That came from staff because staff knows what
approved by the U.S. Coast Guard means. Approved by the U.S.
Coast Guard is only red and green navigational markers. That's what
they do. Fish and Wildlife puts up informational signs.
So staff agrees we're going to have 28 markers. You guys, then,
wisely formed a committee that really had all the answers to the party.
It had a representative from each of your districts. It had three people
from Pelican Bay, it had myself, it had two science people.
We met for a year. During those meetings, we went from 28
poles to 24 poles to 16 poles to 13 poles to 12 poles to 3 poles and 9
buoys. Seagate compromised every step of the way. But what we
can't compromise on is approved by the U. S. Coast Guard, because
that ensures the safety of the pass, as well as shields the county from
liability .
I have many more points, but I'm going to run out of time.
Finally, Mr. Coletta had said that there's some thought this will
end up in court. We don't believe so. We are investigating our rights
at Seagate. I'm a member of the board. But we don't think it's going
to end up there at all, and we don't think it has to end up there because
we think, hopefully, you're going to go back to putting in the
navigational markers.
Our view is, if it is going to end up in court, the county should be
on the position of having done what the permit says. The county
should not be in the position of noncompliance with the permit. I'm
not even sure what the cause of action would be if you comply with
the permit.
So we are hopeful today that you will ask Mr. McAlpin and staff
to go back, get letters that confirm what are the requirements to put in
the navigational markers. Get things that say there has to be an
environmental study.
Page 280
June 14-15,2011
If you'll recall, one of the reasons the navigational markers didn't
go in, because there was an environmental study. To me it begs the
question is, how does the first plan of nine buoys and three poles
require all these studies whereas the present plan that has a total of 45
poles, signs, informational signs, and other items not require any
environmental study? This is clearly rhetorical.
My point is, we hope that you will go back to where it was
before, ask them to investigate, and in the end do what the permit
requires for the safety of all parties involved, for the safety of the
swimmers and the boaters and also, frankly, in all honesty, to establish
our navigable rights in perpetuity.
Thank you, and I would love to have questions.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rather than a question, I'd like to
.
gIve you an answer.
MR. ROGERS: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the answer relates back to
your assertion that the county is noncompliant with the permit where
there are no lateral navigational signs.
The term "navigational marker" and "aide to navigation" are
general terms that include both lateral and non lateral navigation signs.
I have a response from the Army Corps, and the Army Corps has
said, yes, the placement of non lateral informational signs and the
canoe trail markers by the Pelican Bay Services Division does satisfy
the requirement referred to in the Department of the Army permit.
No, the Corps definition of navigability does not require the
placement of lateral navigational signs that denote safe passage as
defined by NOAA for navigability.
Yes, Clam Bay meets the definition of navigability as defined by
the Corps. All waters subject to the ebb and flow of tide meet the
Corps definition of navigability waters.
Page 281
June 14-15,2011
So to that end, the Army Corps has made it clear that these
informational markers do satisfy the permit, the historical permit's
requirement. So that answers what was your last concern, and it's in
writing.
MR. ROGERS: Oh, and I won't mince words, because I've never
seen it. But I would simply point to the permit, which says, finally the
channel will be marked in accordance with requirements of the U.S.
Coast Guard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. ROGERS: The entire point of what's being done today is to
avoid the requirements of the U. S. Coast Guard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. ROGERS: Those are the words from the permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. The--
MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry. I don't know. Is the Coast Guard
approving this plan? I guess Gary could answer that.
MR. McALPIN: Ifwe mark this channel for navigational
markers, the Coast Guard would have to -- has the final jurisdiction on
what signage would be used.
MR. ROGERS: Any more questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a
minute. The Coast Guard, not the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. McALPIN: Army Corps of Engineers said that the channel
needs to be marked by -- as per u.S. Coast Guard standards. Now
we're talking about navigational markers. The navigational markers
that the Coast Guard has said -- this is a -- this is the crux of the issue,
interpreting what this is, and we have conflicting information by the
agencies. We have overlapping jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard has said -- is that it had to be marked. If we
stay with navigational markers, it has to be marked, and the only thing
that they have told us would be red and green.
The Board of County Commissioners -- and we have said that,
Page 282
June 14-15,2011
that -- and they issued us the permit one time, they pulled back the
permit. They said, now you have to do all these navigational -- all
these studies for the environmental impact statement. We came back
to you and said, look, do you want us to spend $60,000? The board
said no.
So what we're now doing is we're off the navigational markers
and we're trying to come up with something else.
This is the bone of contention between the Seagate community
and the county and the Pelican Bay is what does "navigational
markers" mean. It's not the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers who's
going to decide this. It's going to be the Coast Guard if we stay with
navigation markers, but we're not going down the navigational
markers path.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Okay. We have another speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, yes. Your next speaker is Ernest Wu,
and he'll be followed by Tim Corcoran.
MR. WU: Good morning. One of your speakers, Gay Gross
right there, has ceded her three minutes to me, so I'll have six minutes.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ernest Wu,
Seagate resident, president of Seagate Property Owners Association,
and a member of the, quote, "compromise group" that was set up.
Let me tell you -- I know you're relying a lot on what the CAC
has voted on and, you know, they do a great job. But in this case, they
were sent flawed information.
Why did Seagate, having already secured red/green Coast Guard
markers, even go for an alternate plan. Well, it was promised by staff,
CAC member, foundation member that said, look, we'll get you
something even better, safer. It will not be a canoe trail. Just please
come to these talks. Said, fine.
We've always worked with the county. We've always
compromised. We come -- we show up. It's a sandbag committee.
Page 283
June 14-15,2011
Seven members, one from Seagate, five from the Pelican Bay camp.
That would be equivalent -- instead of five commissioners from
different areas, let's have one commissioner from District 1, one from
District 5, and five commissioners from District 2. How would that
feel? Would that be fair? I don't think so.
So while I think CAC does a great job, they're dealing with a
stacked deck, a flawed committee, and something that was
profoundly, in my opinion, unfair.
Yes, we worked and worked and tried to get something. But
when you're dealing with a stacked deck, you'll never win. It's just
unfair, and I don't think that's what this board wants to deal with.
Second issue is what you're going to deal with if you do approve
this canoe trail. Just the very -- the very top, you're going to be
opening up a whole new hornet's nest there. You've got to get four
committees again to get together and agree all the time. And if you
don't get three out of four, you're going to another committee. Have
fun with that one. That's just a whole 'nother mess that you do not
want to deal with.
Next, these are the proposed markers that will be used. Let me
just say, this marker is only used in one place, it was only proposed to
use in one place, and that's in Clam Bay. It's used nowhere else in
Collier County, nowhere else in the State of Florida, nowhere else in
the entire United States.
Now -- says not true. Well, I believe it is.
In addition you'll have these additional signs on here.
Now, let me make another point. This sign has no words on it,
yet I'm looking at this, and I'm sure you're looking at it. It's like, I
know exactly what this means. I'm driving by a school, and I think
there's going to be someone crossing that school (sic). That means
there's children and students crossing their way to school. That's
because this sign is universal, it's used in front of every school.
There's no homemade design.
Page 284
June 14-15,2011
Now, this would be the equivalent of substituting a standard
universally accepted sign with your homemade sign.
Let's replace that universal sign with a sign like this. Heck, let's
put ten of those signs on there. Do you think that would improve
safety, improve cooperation with all users? I don't think so. I think
the universal sign is the way you go, and that's the equivalent of U.S.
Coast Guard red/green signs. They are -- unlike these signs that are
only used -- used nowhere else in Collier County, standard red/green
signs are used in every other waterway in Collier County. They're
used in every other navigable waterway in the State of Florida, every
other navigable waterway in the United States. Why are we messing
around with this? It's clearly a way just to put up fences around this
area to keep the riffraff out, and that's really unfortunate.
Just in closing here, it was said that -- is this or is this not part of
the permit? Briefly, that last line underlined in red is from the permit
says, finally the main channel will be marked in accordance with
requirements by the United States Coast Guard. You're being
basically dragged around by a plan. The United States Coast Guard,
why aren't they involved? That's because FWC has a very short leash,
and as soon as you even go beyond that leash by one inch, it needs to
go by the Coast Guard.
This plan is being -- purposely tried to stay below the radar of the
Coast Guard, which is unacceptable.
Let me just also show this. Again, the underlined area from the
U.s. Coast Guard, which was really the nail in the coffin that says,
you have not put in navigational markers. These are, indeed, a
requirement of the permit.
Last, I've been working with the U.S. Coast Guard. We're no
longer dealing with permitting. We're dealing with enforcement now.
Her name's Theresa Hudson, who's in charge of enforcement. She has
already written a letter. She apologizes. She does not have it ready for
today because it's being run through their legal department.
Page 285
June 14-15,2011
I was just called out from a phone call from the legal department
saying they are working on it. She gave me permission, because this
letter was not ready, to go ahead and release her numbers, both her
work -- and she even gave me her cell phone number that pretty much
just says the letter is going to be brief. It is pretty much going to say
whatever Donnie Kinard said, we are standing by that. We're not
changing it, and pretty much that says navigational coast markers are
required. You are not in compliance with the permit.
That -- and as soon as I get that, I will forward it to you. But,
again, she apologizes and even gave me her personal numbers for
backup.
Thank you. I, of course, will answer any questions if you have
any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions. Thank you very much,
Mr. Wu.
MR. WU: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Tim Cochrane.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Mr. Wu one question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What type of navigational, lateral
or non lateral?
MR. WU: There is only one way to mark a channel or -- I would
say even -- any type -- when you're dealing with any type of
motorized boats, the traversing of that boat requires that you use
lateral navigational markers. That's not my words. That is from my
conversation with Joe Empress, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is she going to write a letter that
says lateral navigational markers are required as opposed to non
lateral?
MR. WU: There's only one type of marker when you're talking
about motorized boats and navigation. That is a red/green standard
navigation -- U.S. Coast Guard lateral navigation markers. It is
Page 286
June 14-15,2011
published in a small little manual called U.S. Aids to Navigation
published by the U.S. Coast Guard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did she say, though?
MS. WU: What Susan (sic) Hudson said is pretty much --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Theresa Hudson.
MR. WU: Oh, I'm sorry. It's Theresa Hudson. She's pretty much
reiterating what Mr. Kinnard said. Navigational markers must be
installed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. WU: They must meet U.S. Coast Guard standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, but navigational markers
are both lateral and non lateral. So I need to know with specificity, is
she requiring lateral or non lateral --
MR. WU: Just by using the wording, any -- if you're going to
include any -- all the following, U.S. Coast Guard, navigation,
motorized vessels, that universally encompasses the fact that you have
to use lateral navigable markers.
The reason they're lateral is because if it's a red one when you're
coming in, you stay right of it. If it's a green one, you stay the
opposite. It helps keep you in the channel. If they're just poles, do I go
right or left of that? How do I know that I'm not going to ground my
boat by not going right or left? How do I know I'm staying off the sea
grasses? Because you need to corral those people, the boats, into a--
on the street.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need the narrow question
answered whether it's going -- because I have a letter from the Army--
or a statement from the Army Corps that says, non lateral navigational
markers satisfy the permit requirement.
MR. WU: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to see if she is going to
provide that there has to be lateral navigation and what is the basis for
that.
Page 287
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll see when we get the letter.
MR. WU: That is -- you make a great point. That statement you
are referring to is an email from Susan Blass, which was coerced out
of her by Ted Rhea after sending several emails and ending it with,
under threat of congressional inquiry, you will answer my question or
I will file charges against you.
So she finally did answer them, and they were a direct -- they
were extremely wishy washy because of the three previous letters, one
from Mr. Kinnard and two from Susan Blass, Army Corps in Fort
Myers -- say the same thing, and this -- an official letter in letterhead
writing with an official signature.
Susan Blass' was just the quick email response, I believe, just to
get Mr. Rhea off her back.
As you know, in response to that, Jim Mudd, God rest his soul,
read that and sent a response back saying, as a former Army Corps, I
am deeply disappointed in what you're saying here. You're jerking us
around. I need an offic- -- if this is your stance, I need an official
answer from either the district commander or the southeast
commander. That has never come. They've stuck by what is written
here.
So, yeah, Jim Mudd has done the proper follow up to that email
from Susan Blass, and, you know -- and Theresa Hudson will be soon
following up with this here as well.
So you have your -- you know, do you want to be on the side of
following the permit, and if this ever came to court say, hey, we did
what we were supposed to do. You can keep us out of this. Let
someone else, if they want to bring it into court -- or do you want to be
dragged into this? Do you want to protect the county from liability
saying, hey, we did do this -- someone ever gets injured or killed, go
ahead and write that check for $50 million now for that wrongful
death, because that's -- you're going to lose that one. You've been on
notice for so long.
Page 288
June 14-15,2011
And, you know, this -- it really has to be more than just -- I'm
sorry. Am I interrupting anyone speaking here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WU: This is more than just Seagate and more than Pelican
Bay. You need to do what's right for the county. Because all your
commiss- -- you know, you don't -- some of you represent these areas,
but a lot of your commissioners aren't in that area, and you need to
protect your people, too. You need to protect them so they have
access, protect them from liability, and protect them from wasting the
county's money if you ever get dragged into a lawsuit.
I'm sorry. I've gone way over my time, but thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. You were
responding to a question. Thank you very much.
Do we have another speaker? You don't get twice.
MR. FELDHAUS: Mr. Corcoran has ceded his time to me. I'm
speaking for him. Just -- I want to -- I just want to try to put this in
perspective. This -- we try to talk about whether it's about safety. I
truly believe, honestly believe, that you couldn't put a more safe
system in than we have.
A question of what's required from a regulatory perspective --
Susan Blass, by the way, not only sent that email; she sent a formal
letter to the foundation saying the same thing.
I've had a face to face meeting with Linda Ellicott, who told me
there is absolutely no desire on the Corps' part to enforce any
purported conditions. She wants us to work this out in a way that's
best -- that we feel is best for our community.
I sent you a letter from 2009, Lainie Edwards of the DEP. Lainie
Edwards said this was not a requirement of the permit. This was
merely something that was permissible, that whatever our community
wants to put in will be fine with DEP, assuming it meets the
regulatory requirements of state law.
Page 289
June 14-15,2011
What this is about is deepwater access to the gulf. Jeff Gibson
told you this. He is a trained boater. He says red and green markers
mean that it is safe to boat. You don't go there unless it's at least four,
five feet deep. Seagate is using all the rhetoric of purported regulatory
requirements, and there are none, and purported safety issues -- and
red and green markers don't meet the safety issues as well as these
signs do, in my opinion -- to try to get deepwater access.
I'm sympathetic to that. If I lived in Seagate, I would want
deepwater access. My homes would be worth a lot more. But that's
not what's right for Clam Bay, and it is not what's right for your
swimmers at Clam Pass Park or our swimmers at our south beach
facility. And you need to keep that in mind.
I have tremendous sympathy for Seagate. I want this controversy
to be behind us. But their historical rights are not deepwater access.
It's not the right thing for the system, or for the -- for the members of
our community who use Clam Pass.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many more speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: One, I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Jerry Moffatt.
MR. ROGERS: He ceded his time.
MR. MITCHELL: He ceded his time. We're finished, sir.
MS. MURRAY: No, Ian. I didn't get called.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, you ceded your time while --
MS. MURRAY: No, I did not. Jerry Moffatt did, Ronnie did.
MR. MITCHELL: But you put your hand up and said --
MS. MURRAY: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take it outside.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll tell you what we're going to
do. We're going to take a ten minute break for the court reporter, and
then you two can fight it out in the break, okay.
Page 290
June 14-15,2011
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in
.
seSSIon now.
We will continue with the public speakers with Noreen Murray.
She won the battle.
MR.OCHS: My money was on her all the way, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, me too.
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Noreen Murray. And it wasn't a
battle, and I apologize for the confusions of having waved my arms in
excitement and having it be a little misinterpreted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian just needs to understand that you
always do that.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah, and that I usually don't cede my time.
I would just like to take a brief period to read part of the
paragraph in the management plan. The reference to the main channel
being marked is not actually in the permit itself. It's in the
management plan, and that paragraph in its beginning says,
appropriate notification, signage, and policing will be provided by the
county or PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage will be
strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and the areas
around the boat ramp located at the southern and outer end of Clam
Bay.
These are intended to ensure that persons accessing the Clam Bay
system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the
limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the
necessity of staying out of areas identified as having maturing sea
grass beds and potential manatee habitat.
Precise locations and language to be included in the signage will
be determined in cooperation with the agency's post permit issuance.
The signs that staff has proposed that came out of the work group
precisely do this. The permit recognized the limitation of access due
Page 291
June 14-15,2011
to shallow water depths and the necessity of warning people.
The idea that red and green markers would be safe for swimmers
is a total mystery. As I said yesterday, I grew up in the inner city. I
do read signs, though. Boats -- "beware of boats" I would understand.
A red and green marker does nothing to protect a swimmer. A red
and green marker is there, as Jeff Gibson said, to ensure that boaters
have safe depth to navigate, and no one has made any contention that
inner -- Outer Clam Bay has a safe depth for motorized navigation.
You can get in and out of there in a motor boat some of the time,
but adopting red and green markers would be taking on, I think, going
forward, the obligation of the county to dredge all the way up to
Seagate to a four foot depth. And I don't know -- that's certainly not
what this permit implied. As a matter of fact, it talks about just the
opposite, the limitation of access due to the ecological nature of the
system. It's a natural preserve area that has access for recreation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Setting aside the fear that red
and green markers would indicate that there -- a deeper channel is
needed and could be dredged, which seems to be a fear coming from
the Pelican Bay people and has been denied from the Seagate people,
we're going to set that issue aside. And what I mainly want to make
sure is that everybody has access, access, and that the boaters can get
in and out safely and that the swimmers are not heckling the boaters
who are trying to use the channel.
What recourse do we have if the Pelican Bay residents block or
try to block Seagate from using the channel, just with the markers that
we have, that we're discussing today? What recourse do we have or
do they have if that -- if that surfaces?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we have in our county
Page 292
June 14-15,2011
ordinance notified this as a motorized access with idle speed, low
wake. We -- as far as the enforcement of that, we could have the
sheriffs deputies out there to enforce that -- those issues.
But the biggest issue that we had before that kept coming up was
education, that the people did not understand that this was a multi-use
channel. And what we've tried to do with the marking, with this type
of marking, is identify clearly that this is a multi-use channel.
So we've tried to address it with this plan from an education point
of view and a noticing point of view.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Steve Feldhaus got up before.
That's one of the first things he said was he was going to make sure
that the educational information went out to all of the people and that
there were signs posted in the park and so forth. And I believe that, by
the way; I believe he's going to do that.
I just wanted to make sure that when we vote on this today and if,
indeed, we vote the way our people -- and that's where I'm inclined to
go -- where our people recommend to go, that then it's a good decision
for everybody and that in my vote I don't then block the use from the
Seagate people.
I just wanted to make sure that this vote -- make sure that -- you
know, no matter what it says, I wanted to make sure that it comes out
to be that way, because I believe that everybody should have free and
open access to that channel.
MR. McALPIN: That is our intent, Commissioner. We want to
make sure that everybody knows that is a multi-use channel. We've
identified it as a multi-use channel and that it would in no way block
anybody's use, not only Seagate, but the kayakers, canoers, or
.
SWImmers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know Steve will follow
through on that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I could, too. I have a
Page 293
June 14-15,2011
couple other issues, if I could add to what Commissioner Fiala just
said, because that -- my concern has been access. It's also the rights of
Seagate and the safety of the public out there, all of them rolled into
one.
And I do think that you got the right direction on this; however,
we've seen examples of signs and we've seen examples of visual aids
that would help people. And no matter what you do, you never can
really tell people the full story. It's just -- you know, it's up for guess.
You know, the multiple use channel, does that really tell people
they have no right to get near boats, they shouldn't be blocking boats,
that they place themselves in danger? There's a bunch of things. The
boats that are coming into the area, okay, they know that they can
follow the canoe markers to go in.
There's reasonable assurance that boats that don't -- aren't too big
that might be able to get back there most of the time. There's an issue
of them going back when there's a low tide. None of this is really
explained. I mean, you can't explain it in signs. I mean, they'd have
to read signs all day long to be able to get to where they need to be.
It's not practical.
So we do know that the signs that are -- as far as going into the
water and -- on the bridge, if I understand correctly, they have the
guidance of the state Fish and Wildlife; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they have certain things--
and you couldn't put "motorboat" in there. You had to say just
"boats. "
MR. McALPIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, to be able to cover
that, probably cover sailboats and everything else, too. Who knows?
But the issue being is that there's a lot of guesswork still going.
And we do know that we have the rights to be able to make the signs
to our own liking to be able to put in our park. Would that be always
Page 294
June 14-15,2011
true, the signs that would be posted on land as far as the channel there
where the swimmers and the boats would be sharing?
You got a sign that you have planned for there, multi-use.
MR. McALPIN: Yes. At the mouth of -- at the entrance to the
channel, at the mouth of Clam Bay, there would be signs on either side
of the channel that would identify that this is a multi-use channel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And, once again, lack of
description, and the description's for boaters coming in? Whereabouts
is the grass beds that you should avoid? What part of the channel
should you stay out of because of the fact that it's extremely shallow
and you could get stuck in there and cause great harm to your boat,
and possibly yourself, not to mention destroying the bottom beaches
that are there? So we have a lack of ability to communicate with
.
sIgns.
And so what I'm going back to proposing -- and I hope my fellow
commissioners agree, you know. Now, I can't tell you that the state
Fish and Wildlife would ever allow us to put in there a little notice, the
fact that additional information could be gained from www.Colliergov
slash, and then whatever it would take for that person to be able to get
to the website that would give them more detailed description of
exactly what they're dealing with.
Like the map that's in front of you right now, that's a tremendous
aid to what it is, and that explains a lot.
Now, true, most kayakers and canoers may not have their small
computers with them, their phones with the ability to be able to access
the Internet, but at least that would be there and they could, if they
wanted to at some point in time, go back and refer to it.
That would give me a level of comfort that far exceeds what
you're proposing at this point in time, to be able to have that on the
signs, at least at the point where we can make that determination then
go on, and hopefully the state Fish and Wildlife would also permit it
on the ones that would be in the waterway.
Page 295
June 14-15,2011
If we were allowed to do that and if my fellow commissioners
would agree to go forward on that, I could -- I could endorse this
whole -- this whole project as you got it outlaid.
MR. McALPIN: If I understood you correctly, Commissioner,
what you are looking at would be a tag line www.collier, which would
-- which would direct traffic to a website which would be more
descriptive.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
MR. McALPIN: Okay. And that -- so that the signs could do
that. I think that the channel marker signs, we could propose that to
the FWC agency. They will ultimately have jurisdiction. Certainly,
the signs that we have jurisdiction on and they do not, the ones in our
park, we'd work with the foundation on that.
But we can get that language -- I believe we can get that
language put on the signs that we have jurisdiction on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I hope that when we get to
the point that the motion maker will include that in their motion so
that we can proceed on this.
Thank you very much.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The issue is not conflict
between kayakers or canoers and boaters. It is the swimmers in the
pass -- and Austin and I have done that several times, and hope to do it
next week -- that is the conflict. And the only way that swimmers or
beachgoers get there is through Clam Pass Park.
You have -- we have the ability to put a sign right where the bar
is or we may be able to even do it on the beach. That's where the
conflict is. It's not in the waterway.
And on the other side of the pass is Pelican Bay's. And, you
know, Mr. Feldhaus said it's -- we're going to do an educational
campaign. That's what needs to be done. You're not going to get wifi
Page 296
June 14-15, 2011
out there. I know that. I've been out there with a kayak, and I haven't
seen any of those little sticks up there to enable you to connect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and besides, there are
markers in Collier County, National-- Everglades National Park does
have informational markers that goes from Chokoloskee Bay all the
way to Onion Bay to Ausmits (phonetic) Bay. They -- it's just trying
to get you where the deepest part is, because it's not four feet, like the
gentleman said.
And if you put a marker up, a navigational marker up, you're
going to -- that jurisdiction's going to have to maintain it. Those are
Collier County waters. You're going to have to maintain those to four
foot level.
Mr. Moreland said that at the last meeting on Wiggins Pass when
we were talking about the dredge. He's absolutely right. You have to
maintain those once you mark them with navigational aids. That's
another fight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And since he did address your
proposal, go ahead and respond briefly, and then we'll go to
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it.
And Commissioner Henning is right on it a lot as far as how we
can reach out to people at the entrance to our parks, and that's
absolutely great, but there's also a concern that's not just the boaters.
It has to do with the waterway itself and the protection of the bay,
Clam Bay, where can people go.
I mean, where should they avoid? What about the sea grass
beds? There may be people that would be interested--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are marked,
Commissioners Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you
Page 297
June 14-15,2011
told me before I shouldn't interrupt you when you're talking, and you
shouldn't interrupt me when I'm talking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to help you out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. Let me finish my
statements, and then you can help me out a lot. And I know you're a
boater.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm done helping you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take another ten minute
break if you guys don't shut up and get going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know what we're arguing
about. The only thing I'm looking for is information to be able to help
people and protect the bay that's there now. The environment. It's at a
loss for me why this discussion's going to such detail.
And as far as wifi out there, come on. That's kind of childish. I
mean, cell phones work out there, and the cell phone signals would be
strong enough to be able to pick up something if somebody wanted to
do it at that time, or they could just write it down and look into it later,
and they may want to research where they're going to go before they
go there. All this is just another tool to try to get people to the point
that they can be responsible citizens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I just -- I had a couple
of comments. The first thing I want to say is that, you know, public
safety and access are important considerations, and they are
considerations that the state has factored into their decision not to
issue regulatory markers but rather to limit their authorization to us
strictly to the informational markers.
What the state has done by providing us with the right to have
informational markers is the unintended but positive consequence of:
in effect, dividing the canoers and swimmers from the boaters.
With that marked canoe trail, the canoers know exactly where to
go, the swimmers know where the canoers are going to go, and the
Page 298
June 14-15,2011
motor boaters know where the canoers are going. So as between the
motorists and the canoers, they will stay apart.
And I think the recommendation by Commissioner Coletta is a
good one, to have those informational signs in our park for the benefit
of the swimmers so that they know what to expect from that area as
well. I think that's a very positive contribution.
The design of the signs was not developed from within Collier
County. That actually was a sample provided to us by the state, and
we refined the wording by adding the additional disclosures because
we wanted to go as far as we could to provide as much information as
legally permitted without tripping into the regulatory zone, which was
accomplished.
And preliminarily the state has said the additional wording
beyond what they initially proposed seems to be acceptable to them.
So that, again, is a very positive step in the direction of the promotion
of public safety and access.
There is no history, in the opinion of the state, to warrant
regulatory markers. There is no public safety history to justify it. In
fact, if we put red/green markers in, you would have a public safety
issue because the waterways don't support, you know, speeding deep
draft boats in that area. You would actually be creating the nuisance
as opposed to what we're doing here, and that is protecting against it.
In conclusion, I want to say that, you know, over the discussion
and the misunderstanding with respect to what the interpretation of the
joint coastal permit really did provide with respect to the type of
markers needed, there is a letter that came from FDEP to Gary
McAlpin in June of 2008, and the concluding paragraph really says it
all, and I'm going to read it into the record.
The required signage intended by the permit is specified within
the permit, and it is clear that the intent of the permit was
environmental enhancement rather than navigational enhancements.
From the department standpoint, the installation of the USCG
Page 299
June 14-15,2011
navigation markers are not a specific requirement of this permit, and
the signage required in Special Condition 5 of the permit would
address the department's environmental enhancement concerns. Thus
it does not appear that the additional signage would be necessary.
There is no requirement with respect to the existing Clam Bay
restoration and long term management project to have lateral
navigational markers in Clam Bay and Clam Pass.
So we are doing everything required by law. We are promoting
public safety in doing so. We are protecting public access in doing so.
We are following the letter of the law and the spirit of the law in the
public's best interest by the proposal presented here today by Mr.
McAlpin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to make just a couple
of quick observations, and then we need to call for a vote. We need to
get somebody to make a motion.
But, one, it needs to be made clear that the only point of conflict
is at the mouth of the bay with the swimmers. That really isn't true. It
is a conflict with the swimmers, but there are conflicts with canoers in
other parts of the bay, because they don't understand that motorboats
are allowed to be there, and there have been confrontations between
canoers and motorboats.
I don't think everything has been done that could be done to
make sure that that is clear to everyone who uses that facility. I think
there has been an effort to minimize information concerning
motorized vessels, and I understand that's objectionable to Pelican
Bay, but it is a reality.
And I find the reluctance to do that somewhat curious. If we're
talking about safety, there is an important issue here that requires that
we let everybody know that there are vessels with propellers there,
and they're allowed to be there, and they are the ones who are likely to
cause death or injury if we have an encounter with swimmers, not
canoers.
Page 300
June 14-15,2011
So -- and we've avoided that issue. But that's all been debated.
We've talked about that now for two hours, and I'm going to ask
somebody to make a motion.
Commissioner Fiala, is it you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will make the motion. Let me first
just ask one more question. Earlier in this conversation it was said
that the county has prevented Pelican Bay from putting up the signs
that they've had in storage for a few years. Could you tell me about
that?
MR. McALPIN: Surely. When this all came about, the Pelican
Bay Foundation was looking to do some additional -- place some
additional signage and maintain some additional signage on the canoe
trail markers at that point in time.
MR.OCHS: The services division?
MR. McALPIN: The services division, excuse me. The services
division were looking to do the -- put up navigational markers, deal
with the permit -- put up canoe trail markers and deal with the permits
associated with that.
Then County Manager Mudd asked us to -- directed that that
activity stop, that activity to stop because it was confusing the
agencies. We were dealing with DEP, we were dealing with Fish and
Wildlife, we were dealing with the Coast Guard.
And he directed us not to have any more markers work activity
there until we could get the issue with navigational markers, the
resolution of navigational markers in Clam Bay resolved. That's the
issue, Madam Chair (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just curious; being that
the accusation was made, I didn't know what had gone on.
Okay. I'd like to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay
work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the markings of
Clam Bay -- Clam Pass/Bay and the bay, provide direction and
permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay
Page 301
June 14-15,2011
markers, and authorize staff to proceed with the permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
endorse staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't -- you haven't really given
guidance concerning which alternative. Alternative 1, 2, or 3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like 3 myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That certainly would be suitable to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was 3?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three was the coastal management
perform the permitting, installation, and maintenance of the markers in
Clam Pass and the bay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it if you would
include to direct staff to see the feasibility of signage at the canoe and
kayak area in Clam Pass.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'll agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Notifying that the motorized
boats caution -- or awareness of motorized boats, and also signage in
Clam Pass Park preferably close to the pass warning swimmers that
there are motorized boats.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And we should also include
the www.colliernet dot, whatever it needs to be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- at least in the park, so that people,
if they want to take that down, they can. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that very clear? Was it pretty
understandable?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Page 302
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think it was clear. And so it's
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify. I want to
make sure that we are approving the signage as presented here today.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding from the motion is that
it's staffs recommendation, Option 3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Option 3 is regarding who's
going to manage -- who's going to be the permittee.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the signage is what staffs been
recommending with an addition of the informational signs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the signage that staff is
recommending is what has been produced here today as exhibits in the
locations as the map exhibit. And this is going to FWC. So I'd like to
add that to the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That should be directed to the
county manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, or -- sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the backup material.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He does whatever's necessary to get the
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I just want to make clear what
we -- who we are applying to and what we are applying for.
MR.OCHS: That is clear to staff: Commissioner. What is
unclear right now -- and I need some clarification -- is on the addition
that Commissioner Henning offered to the motion.
If I understood it, he was suggesting that on the two signs, or at
least on the sign on the Clam Pass Park side of the entrance to the
pass, that we -- that we add "motorized boats" as opposed to just
"boats" as it reads now on the sign.
Page 303
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought he said at the parking facility.
MR.OCHS: Okay. That's why I asked for the clarification, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually, I would like it --
I know it's -- it will work better for the swimmers who use that, close
to the pass as possible without having to get a state or federal permit.
MR.OCHS: Ifwe could find a place outside of the jurisdiction
of the permitting agency to do that in the county's portion of the Clam
Pass Park certainly at the entrance to the beach at our park facility,
we'll certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR.OCHS: Okay. Got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'd be very disappointed if
the foundation did not approve that, because they do need to approve
that signage in the park. Is that correct, Gary?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to add one more item
to the motion, if I may, and that is that we give staff direction to
authorize PBSD to replace the encrusted signs with the replacement
signs that they have now so that they're readable.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we were going to move out quickly
to get these signs installed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But I mean, why can't they
go ahead and start replacing the barnacle encrusted signs now?
There's no reason not to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they read differently than what
we're going to be doing?
MR. OCHS: They're different signs than what were just
presented here, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're not intending on
changing those signs.
MR. OCHS: Are you talking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The north.
Page 304
June 14-15,2011
MR. OCHS: Oh, the north, no, ma'am. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can we direct staff to direct
PBSD to go ahead and pull out the 30-some signs that they've got in,
you know, the--
MR. OCHS : Yes. You're talking about the balance of the signs
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. The balance beyond the 12.
MR.OCHS: -- due north of this area that we just discussed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MR.OCHS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that need to be a part of the
motion, or is that just direction?
MR.OCHS: It's just direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then let's make sure that direction
is on the record and we get it done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second
with some revisions that have been duly recorded.
All in favor, please signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
So it passed 4-1, with me objecting.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- we're just in time for our 10 o'clock
time certain.
MR. OCHS: Ten a.m., yes, sir.
Item #10D
Page 305
June 14-15,2011
AWARD CONTRACT #10-5572 FOR WIGGINS PASS CHANNEL
STRAIGHTENING - DESIGN AND PERMITTING TO COASTAL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING (CP&E) AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STANDARD CONTRACT
AFTER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL IN THE AMOUNT
OF $177.489 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: And it is Item IOD on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to award Contract 10-5572 for Wiggins Pass channel
straightening design and permitting to Coastal Planning and
Engineering, authorize the chairman to execute the standard contract,
after county attorney approval, in the amount of $177,489.
Mr. McAlpin will present, Commissioners.
MR. McALPIN: For the record, Gary McAlpin. Thank you,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to our rule?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just throw it in the pile. We'll read it
later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can't read it now. Way too late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know why they wait till the last
minute to hand this stuff out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither. You need to be sending
these things so we can read them in advance and prepare, guys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's continue the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we have the option of doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you can just tell us what it says.
MR. McALPIN: Gail, would you remove those items then. This
is -- the item was a letter of support by the Conservancy.
MR. OCHS: Take it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this the one we received already?
MR.OCHS: Probably.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a public record now?
Page 306
June 14-15, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you can't withdraw public records.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nicole says we already received
this.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The item, BCC directed us in the May 8th meeting to go back
and solicit DEP's direction and obtain a probability of obtaining a
permit to straighten out Wiggins Pass.
You were concerned that -- of the effort was being spent, the REI
that the DEP came back with and the Coastal Planning and
Engineering's proposal.
You wanted us to make sure that the agency would come back at
that point in time and support us and was in -- and is in concurrence
that -- that straightening out Wiggins Pass was doable from a
permitting point of view.
We had several meetings with the agency. We met with -- we
met with the -- Secretary Vinyard, and we had a number of conference
calls with them, and DEP has agreed -- and we have a memo in your
backup packet that identifies that -- their position on this. They have
agreed that straightening -- a straightening approach -- on the
straightening approach and will issue a permit.
I don't believe that there's any questions from anyone from any of
the parties that straightening out the channel is the right thing to do.
If we look at straightening out the channel, that would improve
navigation, improve boater safety, eliminate the mangrove damage,
stop the erosion on Barefoot Beach, and it would employ a plan that
has been completely vetted and extensive -- and has extensive
community input into it. And the permit, going through this process at
this point in time, would take 12 to 18 months.
DEP -- the only one -- in our discussions with DEP, they asked
us to come back, and they asked us to, as much as we could, keep the
channel as shallow as possible. We agreed to that. They asked us to
stay away as best we could from the clay and sediment area and to
Page 307
June 14-15,2011
stay away from the existing limestone hardrock in there. We've
agreed to that. We have agreed that we would look into this with
additional geotechnical information. So from an information and
technology point of view, I believe we've resolved all the issues.
The concern that has come up -- and they have voiced it -- is that
they -- we had -- in our modeling, in our program, we utilized the best
technology available to model the system, and we believe that there's a
four year cycle time associated with this project between the major
dredging events.
We would go in, do the work to straighten out the pass, and then
on a four year basis we believe we'd have to go in with a major
modeling.
DEP has come back and said, based on their experience and
judgment, not necessarily looking at the modeling program, but that
they think that the maintenance cycle is closer -- for a major dredging
event is closer to two years, and that's based on their experienced,
judgment, and their opinion.
We have -- we have looked at this, and we've said, okay, if that's
the case, we could come back in and -- with an intermediate dredging
event, and we have permitted that into our program so that we would
not necessarily do a maj or dredge every four years, but come back --
come back and do a touch-up dredge on the two year period. On that
touch-up dredge we would expect to remove approximately less than
10,000 cubic yards of material.
Not many options exist to straightening out the channel except to
live with where we are in the current situation, which is unacceptable
from a navigation, boater safety, or environmental damage point of
.
VIew.
Boater safety and navigation, if we did nothing, would continue
to be a problem as well as the erosion to Barefoot Beach.
We will not know the exact numbers on everything till we
complete the design and we'll-- and we have the permitting plan. But
Page 308
June 14-15,2011
based on where we're at right now, to give you a feel for numbers, we
expect that straightening out the channel would cost about $1.7
million.
Repairing Barefoot Beach is an open issue, how much sand we
put on the beach there. It could cost between 2.8 and $3.4 million.
We expect that every four years we would have a maj or dredging
event, and we would take out 50,000 cubic yards of material. We'd
have to mobilize a dredge to do that. And in the past that's cost us
$750,000.
And then an intermediate dredging event, if we had to do it on
the intermediate two years, would cost approximately $75,000.
And over a 20-year period, the -- if you look at this plan to just
coming in and moving forward with the -- with dredging every other
year, which is what we're currently doing right now at the cost of
$750,000, it breaks even. And it breaks even, it -- assuming that we --
that we straighten, and the cost to Barefoot Beach is around $5 million
which we believe is correct.
Wiggins Pass -- I just wanted to add, Wiggins Pass is the home of
-- it's not just the people associated -- have boat slips there. We have
Wiggins Pass that is the -- that is -- we have the Cocohatchee Boat
Park Marina. It's the marina that services all the boat traffic to the
north end of the county.
We have 21 percent of the boaters go through this area there, so it
is a popular boating park that we have. And, Commissioners, we're
asking for you today to allow us to move forward with the -- the
engineering, the proposal by Coastal Planning and Engineering for
$177,000 which would allow us to move forward with doing the
permit engineering and obtaining the permit to straighten out the pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a number of public
speakers today. I would like to get this issue completed before we
have to break for lunch.
But Commissioner Fiala has a quick question to ask before the
Page 309
June 14-15,2011
speakers start.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I won't take but a minute, because
it's a very simple question and that is, the dredge material that you're --
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. The dredge
material that you would be taking while you straighten out this
channel will then be placed in the Barefoot Beach area to start
building that erosion, the problem that the erosion caused, building it
back up to good standards again?
MR. McALPIN: While we straighten the pass, we -- the material
that we take out of the pass, we would have to -- we'll use that
material to build the intermediate berm that would -- that would act to
prevent -- to train the channel to prevent further erosion.
More than likely, Commissioner, we would -- when we would do
the -- put the material on Barefoot Beach, that would be a separate
event where we would have to bring sand in for that. We would look
anywhere between 100,000 cubic yards to 150,000 cubic yards.
We don't know what that final number is. We won't know the
final interaction at this point in time how we need to sequence this job
until we complete the design.
So more than likely, the initial dredge, the sand material would
go to build the berm, and a -- and if we did this project in conjunction
with our next maj or dredging event, we would have the repair of
Barefoot Beach done at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, okay. So it's just going to be
mainly now to build up that deep slope. Not slope, but the dropoff?
MR. McALPIN : Yeah. We would do something there,
Commissioner. We don't know to what extent we would do that right
now. We've lost 250,000 cubic yards of material.
We would have a plan over ten years to rebuild that beach with
the material that we would take in subsequent dredging events, two
years -- four years and eight years, that would go on Barefoot Beach.
But that's our intent. It would be final flushed -- it will be further
Page 310
June 14-15,2011
flushed out with our plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's start with the public
speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first public speaker is Keith Dallas, and
he'll be followed by Noreen Murray.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Thirteen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirteen, but one is going to take 24
minutes because of the number of --
MR. MITCHELL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DALLAS: Hello. I'm Keith Dallas from Pelican Bay. I
urge the commissioners to approve this recommendation. This is
based on the best information, scientific information that is available
at this point in time, and I think you should go ahead and approve it.
I know there's some -- been some discussion in the past of some
sort of a hard solution to this so that you would have to dredge less
often. To me, there's -- that's going to -- the hard solution's going to
create a lot of controversy, does have some pretty significant upfront
cost. So I would recommend that you try this and see how it works. It
seems like it has a lot more potential than the way it's been dredged in
the past, and I think we should give it an opportunity to be done.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Is there anyone here who objects to us proceeding with dredging
as it's proposed?
Doug Fee, okay. All right, next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Dick Lydon, and he'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. LYDON: Good morning. My name is Dick Lydon. I come
Page 311
June 14-15,2011
from Vanderbilt Beach. And I guess I've been here way too long,
because I arrived today to find a memorandum from Doug Fee, who
seems to be against what we're doing, and attached to that email was a
letter from an attorney who has been engaged by Wiggins Pass
Conservancy, Incorporated.
I am probably the only living member of the board of directors of
the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, Incorporated.
Wiggins Pass Conservancy became the Estuary Conservation
Association in legal form, in due form, and with monies contained in
Wiggins Pass, transferred to ECA under the capable hands of attorney,
fellow by the name of Kim Kobza.
Just wanted to make that clear, that Mr. Fee was a member and a
treasurer ofECA at one time who left us holding the bag for some of
our records.
I'd like to say this: Straightening that makes some sense. We did
it in '95 and '96 in Turkey Bay, and we were told it will close up in a
year. It's still open.
I'd also like to offer any assistance that I may in getting rid of that
dog park that we now have in Turkey Bay -- or in Wiggins Pass. At
low tide we now have a dog park on the little area that comes up as an
island. The dogs have a lot of fun there. I'm not too sure how happy
the people. But, anyways, they are using it.
And I thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dick. Good seeing you
.
agaIn.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Following Nicole will be Doug Fee.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
You have before you a contract to continue with the permitting of
the new dredge template for Wiggins Pass, a template that will provide
a soft engineering solution for managing that pass, a non structural
Page 312
June 14-15, 2011
solution, and this is something that the Conservancy continues to
support.
I've testified at previous meetings that the Conservancy was a
member of the Wiggins Pass subcommittee that spent well over a year
looking at different alternatives for the pass. And I want to be clear
we don't like dredging, but in a managed pass system where dredging
is going to occur, we look for that option that will have the least
environmental impacts. And from our assessment, we believe that the
current dredge template moving through the process is that best
option.
At your March 8th meeting, you asked staff to get additional
clarification and assurance from DEP that this project was permittable.
And I believe that the communication from DEP does indicate that
they believe it is a permittable project, and the county can proceed
with confidence, in our opinion, on further expenditures of funds on
this dredge template.
I do want to spend a couple moments in addressing some of the
issues that I heard at that March 8th meeting in your discussion.
There's been discussion about simply maintaining the current
dredge template of the pass, dredging as we've done for the past 11
years, keeping the S curve in there. And it's tempting, because on the
surface this does look like it would be the least expensive alternative.
But we do have a few concerns about that.
First of all, in the S curve configuration, the pass is in need of
dredging extremely often. It seems like almost annually. It's costly to
both the taxpayers and the environment.
Also, the current channel alignment is causing significant erosion
to the south end of Barefoot Beach Park, and this erosion has to be
dealt with in some way. And if we maintain the S curve, then we're
looking at structures on the south end of Barefoot Beach, which is
something that is very concerning to the Conservancy.
Structures are expensive, and they do have negative
Page 313
June 14-15,2011
environmental ramifications. So we don't believe the current dredge
template is suitable.
At the March meeting some of you also raised concerns about
having to spend money to dredge every few years at Wiggins Pass,
and the comment was made that we should just put structures or jetties
in and be done with it. And I think it's very important to dispel that
myth.
Dredging, maintaining a pass is costly. And there are significant
problems associated with structures. Environmentally, structures
interrupt the natural sand transport, which then artificially modifies
how much sand the down current beaches receive. Impacts both sea
turtles and shore bird nesting habitat.
And it also impacts tourism, which is one of our key money
makers, so we need to make sure that we maintain healthy beaches.
In response to the question about structures, D EP responded that
structures would likely cause significant erosion to the adjacent
beaches, and the cost of beach erosion control activities to mitigate
erosion caused by inlet structures would surely exceed the cost
savings of an increase in the maintenance dredge cycle.
So we just wanted to let you know, we've really looked at all of
these options, and I know there are no easy choices, but we still do
support the current dredge template that staff is proposing, and we ask
that you approve the contract and move this forward.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Doug Fee will be followed by Joe Moreland.
Mr. Fee has six minutes. Noreen Murray's ceded her time to Doug
Fee.
Would you like to confirm that?
MS. MURRAY: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the future, don't let Noreen speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Two copies.
MR. FEE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
Page 314
June 14-15,2011
name is Doug Fee.
I handed out a copy of a letter to put into the record. I am also
handing out a BCC transcript from a meeting held on November 22,
1994. I encourage you to read this transcript, the transcript of this
meeting I would like to put into the record as it relates to the issue of
DEP putting a restriction on Pelican Isle Marina project.
The restriction that the county and DEP put on this project was
language in a legal document called an annual slip agreement.
The BCC, back in 1994, foresaw this very day that we are here
talking about. They foresaw a day when people would come to the
board and ask why they could not get their boat out of the pass.
The concern was that DEP was issuing a permit for Pelican Isle
that would allow up to five foot draft boats in an area that should
adhere to the three foot draft requirement. The transcript very clearly
has the developer, Mr. Brian Weber, agreeing to this restriction.
Hopefully, Commissioners, many of the speakers here can verify
that they are, in fact, signing this document making them aware of this
three foot draft limitation.
Another issue I would like to stress is, Commissioners, you have
a requirement from the state, as well as local, that you must provide to
the state a consistency letter that this project is consistent with your
Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code.
Over and over for the past year and a half I've been asking Gary
McAlpin, when will the county hold meetings with the CCPC and
EAC to determine if this development or proposal to straighten out the
channel is consistent? Over the year and a half, many times Gary has
stated, and Bill Lorenz has confirmed, that the county will hold
meetings to determine the consistency issue.
In my opinion, I'm not certain why we're here today asking for
permitting money in the executive summary when the county has not
held these meetings to determine the consistency issue.
I ask you, can Gary McAlpin tell me what Policy 10.3 and 10.5
Page 315
June 14-15,2011
of the GMP CCME states? Can Gary McAlpin tell me what 4.01.14
or 4.02.I4(E) and (F)2 states? I believe that Chairman Mark Strain of
the Planning Commission could.
Can Gary McAlpin tell us what is required in the conservation
zoning and ST overlay requirements? I believe Chairman Judith
Hushon of your Environmental Advisory Council can.
How can Gary stand here and tell you that the State of Florida
will issue a permit for this project? Commissioners -- Commissioners,
we have the cart before the horse. And all I am asking for is for the
county to do this right.
Before going to the state and making your case, begin with
having local hearings with your CCPC and EAC. They are the
experts.
We need to replace your current Wiggins Pass Inlet Management
Plan, which was approved back in 1995, with a brand new inlet
management plan that will need to come to these advisory groups for
their input before proceeding with permitting of this proj ect. In a
letter to the state, the county spells out that this process may cost
$250,000.
I have also raised an issue regarding a deed restriction. It is
placed on a 200-foot strip of land running from the bay side to the gulf
on the north end of Delnor Wiggins State Park. This deed restriction
must be looked at very closely to determine if this project, as
proposed, will not have impact on this deed restriction.
I am through. There's two other small points. The first thing is,
we are talking about a lot of money for the future. So I want to make
sure that the county, as well as citizens, have the ability to put input in
these meetings.
Commissioner Coyle, you asked if there was anyone in this
audience who was against this proj ect, and I did raise my hand. I'm
here to say I'm not necessarily against this project. It just needs to be
vetted further, and if it's consistent with our GMP and LDC and your
Page 316
June 14-15,2011
experts say so, I'm here to support this project.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Joe Moreland, and he'll
be speaking for 24 minutes. Well--
MR. MORELAND: No, I won't. Mr. Chairman, I was
wondering --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Got to get you on the mike, though.
MR. MORELAND: Oh, I'm sorry.
I would suggest, perhaps, that one of the questions that was asked
by Mr. Fee might, with your permission, be answered by Gary
McAlpin prior to my comments, because he'd be better to address it,
and it needs to be addressed. With your permission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then before Mr. Moreland
speaks, could we find out who all ceded their time?
MR. McALPIN : You'll have to tell me which question it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we will. We sure will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which question is that?
MR. McALPIN: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to address a couple
of Doug Fee's comments, if that's appropriate at this point in time,
Commissioner.
The first comment was -- is that we are -- we need to take this to
all of the committees and the Growth Management Plan to make sure
it's in compliance with the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code.
We truly intend to do that, Commissioner. I need to spend
enough engineering time to develop those plans to flush them out so
that I could then bring them back to Bill Lorenz, have him review
them, and then schedule the meetings with the EAC and also the
Planning Commission. That has always been our case. We had
always looked to do that.
It's a question that when a developer comes before you, he's
Page 317
June 14-15,2011
already done the engineering, he's already performed all of the details
associated with that, and then he's bringing it to these committees to
get their input into it, their approval or their input.
Well, we're in a different situation. I have to ask you for funding
to allow me to do the engineering so that I could make that
presentation to you.
I have -- we have -- I've worked very closely with Bill Lorenz
here. We have reviewed it from -- in enough detail to satisfy
ourselves that we're not driving down any box canyons, that we
believe that what we're doing is in compliance with the Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code and that we can --
and based on something that is -- that is unforeseen at this point in
time, we have a level of confidence that we will -- we will get the
positive input from the boards and move forward.
The State of Florida, before they issue a permit, requires a letter
of consistency from Collier County. That letter of consistency will
not be given unless we get approval from the -- the zoning and
planning and also the EAC. So we intend to do that.
I don't recall what the other questions were, but I think that --
Joe, was that the issue you wanted me to address?
MR. MORELAND: No -- I think that's the hot point, yeah.
MR. McALPIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before we start, let's make sure we're
clear on the number of speakers we have. How many ceded their time
to Mr. Moreland, and who are they?
MR. MITCHELL: The speakers that ceded their time are Audrey
Moreland, Don Neal, Bill Pittman, Pat Worthington, Jim Owens, Irene
Owens, and Sue Frank.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, are other speakers going to speak
in addition to Mr. Moreland? Are there --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Moreland's the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That answers my question.
Page 318
June 14-15,2011
Okay. You've got three minutes, Joe.
MR. MORELAND: Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank you for
that. I do -- would like to start out with feeling your pain for all day
yesterday and what you've had to deal with today, so I really
constructed a bit of an ode to Wiggins Pass to just kick it off.
It sort of goes like, the tide rolls in, the tide rolls out. The
channel squeals, come dig me out. That's how we're feeling about it,
and that's what we need to have done.
I -- I certainly support the comments made by Gary McLaughlin
(sic) regarding Doug Fee's comments. I, certainly, also support those
that were made by my colleague there concerning the past history with
this.
I don't think at this point we need a structure to get in the way
and add to the burden of administrative procedures. That really flies
in the way of common sense. It's technically incorrect.
I in no way will use the 24 minutes, but I -- redundancy
sometimes does have a place in things, and so what you're going to
hear me comment on, essentially, is redundant. But this is not a new
project. It is not a new project. It has an enormous investment in it of
both man hours, county staff time, public staff time -- personal time
and funding. It is -- of all things, it has an economic impact, which
cannot go overlooked, even though it cannot be precisely measured.
The -- District 2 is really the hub of the benefits of this with
respect to the economics as well as is the county, in that it will affect
property values, it will affect the tax base. And we have seen property
values going down, down, down. And, yes, for the practical matter,
most of that is undoubtedly due to the national economic situation
itse If.
But it would be naive to believe -- and I can give you anecdotal
evidence, and I have on past occasion appearing before you in the
CAC -- that we, in fact, are losing -- that is within District 2 and
within the county -- we are losing sales of high end properties because
Page 319
June 14-15,2011
of the condition of Wiggins Pass, the condition being very imprecise,
very indefinite, and its future cannot be foretold.
Now, this is an opportunity to begin to foretell what that future
will be. I can certain (sic) to you that between the two principal
properties immediately affected by the pass, which is the new aqua
development, which is just trying to get back on its feet after
bankruptcy -- and I think you will be pleased for their attitude and
approach to working with the county, which may be refreshing to you
-- and certainly, I can also speak for the Pelican Isle situation, not for
the boaters, but the property owners, the residents, that, in fact, there
have been real estate sales of condominiums in both of those facilities
which were walked away from because of the ambiguity of the
navigation of Wiggins Pass.
That may offend a lot of people, because who are those? They're
boaters, yeah, they're boaters, but they're a lot more than that. They're
buying 3, $4 million things, and they don't want to be somewhere
where they can't have ingress/egress with their boats. They've lost
those sales.
Same for slips. Remember, we've said before that within that
estuarial waters there, there are 1,700 wet slips, which is anywhere
down from one third to one half in their occupancy. Some of that, of
course, is the result of the economic situation. But, again, I can assure
you that a significant portion of those, that detracts from their resale
value of or whatever, is the ambiguity, again, surrounding the pass.
Now, when I first saw this coming on the agenda, based on
everything I knew, what we were going to be concerned with was
essentially an economic issue, and that was to say, can the county, in
these times of short funding, really afford to go forward with the
$177,000 that is being asked for -- and that is what's being asked for
here -- to continue the research necessary to answer the questions that
have been asked by the state.
As a result, and I say, of the efforts of the county staff and it's
Page 320
June 14-15,2011
official in going forward with the governor to plead the case for
administrative streamlining and getting rid of the procedural steps that
are not demanded but simply preferred to be followed by the state
staff area, that has been overcome and, bingo, what happened -- and I
want to compliment Georgia Hiller for her pursuing the fact that she
wanted to know the answer to the question of, are we really barking at
the moon by requesting this permit to do what the permit would
permit to do?
She wanted some assurance. I honor that. I do submit, however,
I believe that assurance has been given. It was quoted by Nicole Ryan
in the -- in her testimony, and you all have received the letter from the
-- from the state saying that.
Ergo, we have spent 400 -- we, collectively, speaking for the
taxpayers, if I may -- $450 to date in developing the information and
data necessary to submit that permit. It was submitted.
What came back was an additional -- request for additional
information, the which of will cost, as Gary has laid out, about, excuse
me, $177,000.
Well, if you were to deny that funding, you're throwing away all
that has been spent before, let alone all the staff efforts in whole sum.
It is not the end of this issue, because assuming that permit is
granted -- and I truly believe it will be if it's looked upon by the merits
and not politically and not by mere obstructionism -- there will come
that day when you will be asked to fund the actual dredging itself, and
we will hold all arguments in support of that funding until that time
comes.
But I think that the commissioners have been very indulgent in
listening to this issue over the three years that this -- these very points
have come before you or your subcommittees, advisory committees.
I hope we can move on. That little ode to Wiggins Pass is really
true. It's squealing. It's squealing. The damage to Barefoot Beach is
unforgivable.
Page 321
June 14-15,2011
To the extent that this project will at least mitigate the ongoing
damage to Barefoot Beach is and of itself a damn good buy, and that
has nothing to do with later on, as Gary pointed out, over time
restoring that beach.
I was very happy to take those of you commissioners who
accepted our invitation to get a briefing and to a tour of the Wiggins
Pass area to see firsthand what it was like. And I don't think I am
exaggerating a bit that those who participated were truly influenced by
what they saw.
And my statement still stands that the offset of that, that you all
don't have time in this world to visit everything that comes before you,
but Wiggins Pass area there has, I think, suffered mightily from both --
from the entire panoply of county officials who go where the
squealing and the money is causing the squealing to be the loudest.
That little nick of the woods up there is one of the most golden
pristine areas, not the most, but one of the most, and it is the one I
think that gets the least on sight observations by those who have the
authority .
So I urge you, to those that haven't accepted, please do, and we'll
be after you all along.
I will terminate this by simply saying that there are several
billion dollars in real estate values and assessed values in that
immediate area. That's riparian property owners for the Wiggins Pass.
They are affected; indeed, they are.
I would certainly like to -- it's my privilege to release you for
lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to kill a few more
minutes, because we have some commissioners who want to make
statements or ask questions. Now, which of you was first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was.
Page 322
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. You were? Okay,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In -- I guess I'm going to
support the request, but the -- this has an S T overlay that -- the pass
has? I mean, we've dredged it in the past. Why did it need to go
through a public hearing, or is it permitted, dredging?
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Land Development
Services director.
Commissioner, I'm not sure why in the past the process that it
went through or did not go through, but, quite frankly, for this
particular -- for this particular application it will have to go through an
S T approval, and the S T approval will go through the EA -- will also
require an environmental impact statement.
The environmental impact statement, of course, will go through
the Environmental Advisory Council. It will go to -- the ST will go to
the Planning Commission and will come to the Board of County
Commissioners for final approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unbelievable. For dredging?
That's incomprehensible. The -- Gary -- I'm sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, maybe to put a little bit finer
point on that, the dredging that we've done in the past has been
maintenance dredging. What we're doing here is a new venture where
we're straightening out the pass, and that may be the issue that allows
it to be the overlay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the difference.
MR. McALPIN: So, that's the difference, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your application, are you
going to -- as far as maintenance and any other improvements, it will
be in the application so you wouldn't have to go through this again?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, it would, and that's what the state would
require us to develop, a new inlet management plan. We have monies
Page 323
June 14-15,2011
in the proposal to develop a new inlet management plan, and that inlet
management plan would stay at a three foot draft vessel, the way it is
right now, and that would be approved by the boards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about hardening it?
Ifwe -- I mean, I'm -- what I heard you say is, it's still going to
require a -- somewhat of a dredge every other year.
So if that's the case, really nothing has changed except for you're
straightening it, and hopefully it wouldn't -- by straightening it, it
won't -- it will help the erosion factor on Barefoot Beach. That's what
I understood --
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so --
MR. McALPIN: -- to address that, we've looked at it. We
believe that the cycle time is four years; however, we're prepared to
say that we may have to go in there every other year, and that's a
contingency on our part to do that. And so that's what we consider
with the maintenance dredging would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in the process -- what I
would like to see in the process moving forward -- and I know people
are opposed to hardening it, the pass. I -- don't limit us on that, please.
MR. McALPIN: Understood, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just -- I go out to the
pass every once in a while, and it just makes sense. And maybe I just
use too much common sense, but that's how I feel. I'm going to
support the request, so I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Let me add one thing, which I believe is true; please correct me,
Gary, if I misstate this.
But one of the objectives of this permit is to get a ten year permit,
and that way we don't have to go back and put in subsequent
Page 324
June 14-15,2011
applications during that period of time. Our long term goal, I believe,
is to stop these recurring studies to do recurring work on things that
we've done before, which is exactly your point. It's stupid
bureaucracy that wastes a lot of our taxpayer money.
But at least in this case is it true that we're going to be applying
for and receiving, hopefully, a ten year permit?
MR. McALPIN: This is a ten year permit application,
Commissioner, yes, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if you have to go back and
maintain it, again, two years or four years, you can do so without
going through this entire approval process.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct, you would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm just -- I don't want to
see the constant maintenance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's costly also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe Commissioner Hiller
was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thank you. Thank you very
much.
I just wanted to address a few comments that Commissioner
Henning made.
You were talking about structures, and D EP in their letter dated
May 13, 2011, said, although not a part of the permit application, it
was noted during our teleconference that the use of jetties or other
inlet stabilization --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. Forgive me. Let me start
Page 325
June 14-15,2011
again. I forgot about you. I'm sorry.
Although not a part of the permit application, it was noted during
our teleconference that the use of jetties or other inlet stabilization
structures would not necessarily increase the maintenance dredging
interval but would likely cause significant erosion of the adjacent
beaches, the cost of beach erosion control activities to mitigate erosion
caused by inlet structures, which really exceed the cost savings of an
increase in the maintenance dredging cycle.
So I just wanted to point out that's what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm just sharing with you
D EP' s position.
And I also wanted to address a little bit about the dredging, the
consolidated material, that since the design has been revised to avoid
dredging the consolidated material, the necessity for additional
numeric modeling is now not required to complete the permit
application.
So I just wanted to highlight those two things, and I want to use
that as a lead in to a few questions I have, if Gary could help me,
please.
Gary, thank you again for sending me your financial and risk
analysis. I appreciate that. And I was reviewing it, and I went back to,
you know, the historical information I had, and I was trying to
reconcile the numbers.
At the last session, the last public meeting we had where we
discussed this issue, you had indicated that the cost of the dredge --
I'm sorry -- of the straightening was going to be between three and a
half -- 3 and 5 million, but now in your analysis you're saying that the
cost of straightening the channel is 1.7 million, and the repair to
Barefoot Beach is expected to cost between 2.8 to 4.3 million.
Can you help me out, and explain to me, if you will -- because
it's not just straightening. I mean, in effect we have three things going
Page 326
June 14-15,2011
on here, as I understand it. We've got the straightening, the dike, and
the erosion.
Could you help me out and just explain what's going on here
from a financial standpoint.
MR. McALPIN: Sure. We will go in -- and if we would -- thank
you, Commissioner.
What we're -- what we're, in fact, looking at here is that we're
straightening out the channel, and this is what the -- you can see in
blue what the meander channel looks like, and this is the straight
channel.
This is area right in through here, Commissioner, is where we
would have to build the dike, okay. DEP has come back and said to us
-- is that they don't necessarily believe that the ebb tide shoal or the
placement of sand at Barefoot Beach needs to be done in the same
time we straighten out the channel.
So we have said that we -- this is one area that we have to look
at. We don't really know how much sand is going to be required on
Barefoot Beach initially to -- to protect that area, that we believe that
there's going to be some.
But through our engineering and as we go through this, we're
going to fine tune that. We're also going to fine tune the sequencing to
see that -- if the sequencing of this -- this straightening out the channel
and the repair of the beach have to be done at the same time.
So what I've tried to do with that is, we think that straightening is
a $1.7 million operation. We believe that there's going to be some
cost associated with repair of the beach. There's nothing magic, as we
see it, about the quantity of sand we put on there. At least initially
we're going to fine tune that quantity as we move forward.
And that's why I'm saying that -- I still believe that, you know, if
-- that, you know, we're in the $5 million range in terms of cost to do
this project, and that's the best we could determine at this point,
Commissioner.
Page 327
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what about the dike? What
about the dike? Gary, what about the dike? Sorry.
MR. McALPIN: Building the dike would be the part of the
initial $1.7 million, the straightening out the channel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the dike and the
straightening is 1.7, and the balance is the erosion?
MR. McALPIN: And the rest would be the erosion repair to
Barefoot Beach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's going to be treated as one
comprehensive project?
MR. McALPIN: That I don't know. That's what we're going to
determine as we go through the engineering, whether it's going to be
treated as one comprehensive project or that we would have -- we
would fall back, straighten it out first, and then repair Barefoot Beach
at a later time. And so I can't answer that question just yet,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I think that's going to be a
question of concern to many in that northeast -- or northwest quadrant.
I think they're going to be very concerned about the repair.
Now, going back to the proposal we have here today, I really
don't understand why the dollar amount is staying at 177,000. As I
read earlier, the county has -- I'm sorry -- the state has eliminated the
need for the modeling of the ebb shoal.
And as you can see on -- in your Page 2 of your executive
summary, that's now zero. You've added that contingency. And then
there's a statement in the letter from state, from DEP from Mike
Barnett where he says, the information submitted in your application
indicates that most of the analysis needed to complete a management
plan were near completion a year ago.
So I just don't really understand why this proposal is still 177,000
when we're eliminating 40,000, and the inlet management study is
essentially, you know, from the perspective of the state, substantially
Page 328
June 14-15,2011
complete.
So, quite frankly, I think what we're asking for today in 1 77,000
is more than is needed to take this to the next level. Can you help me
on that?
MR. McALPIN: Certainly, Commissioner. And if you look at
Page 2 of the executive summary, it gives a breakdown between what
their original proposal was.
And after we have -- we went through and we had extensive
discussions as a result of the board's direction, additional extensive
discussions with DEP, DEP came back and understood what we were
trying to do better, and they gave us some revised direction.
They were concerned more about the additional geotechnical
surveys, and they -- they felt more that we needed to improve that
area, but they also felt like the modeling of the ebb tide shoal, if we
stayed away from the silt material, was not necessarily going to be
required.
So I asked -- as a result of this, I asked Coastal Planning and
Engineering to come back and give me a revised proposal that really
reflected all the best information we had at that time, and they came
back and did that.
And we reallocated funds based on what the revised scope from
the agency would be, and we included $10,000 in contingency
because -- because we -- we believe that there may be some item --
other items that come up, and it still -- we believe that the cost is still
in the range of$I77,000.
I would not expend -- expend the contingency unless we have
board direction on that, but I don't think -- I would like to keep the
number the same at this point in time at $177,000 to move forward
with this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I reviewed what the state is
asking for, and it doesn't seem to me that they're asking for any more
than they asked before. In fact, what's very clear is they're asking for
Page 329
June 14-15,2011
less.
So, I mean, I would have a hard time approving the full 177,000
based on the state's letter.
The next question I have is, I'd like to talk a little bit about that
state letter and have -- I just want to correct -- and I really appreciate
Mr. Moreland's comments. You know, we did go to the state to find
out whether they would permit it. They would permit it, except that
they're not permitting it based on the fact that they agree with what
our permit states. And I think that has to be stated very clearly for the
record.
On Page 2 of the letter sent to you, Gary, dated -- what is it --
5/13 of this year, it says that the bureau engineering staff does not find
support for an increase in the maintenance dredging cycle from two
years to four years resulting from the channel expansion.
It goes on to say, hence, a four year dredging cycle, which is a
longer dredging cycle than that necessary to maintain many navigation
channels in Florida, may not be feasible as part of a long term solution
sought by the county.
And I think it's very important, because I think both Conservancy
and Mr. Moreland mistakenly believe that because the state is granting
us the -- or suggesting that they will more likely than not permit this,
that they agree that this is going to result in a shortened dredging
cycle. And that -- from this letter, that clearly doesn't seem to be the
case.
One of the concerns I had is we're engaging in straightening this
channel much like the Kissimmee River was straightened, and I would
like assurances from the engineer that what he is proposing to do is
going to have the intended consequences.
And I completely understand that he cannot be held responsible
for unforeseeable circumstances, but I think we need assurances. I
think, you know, these people that are buying into this project, the
board and the public alike, need to have some sort of certainty that this
Page 330
June 14-15,2011
expenditure of $5 million is going to make it better, because if all
we're doing is expending $5 million to be in the same boat that we're
in right now, than Mr. Moreland is no better off.
So I'd like some sort of assurances that, going forward with this,
is going to have the intended benefit justifying the $5 million
expenditure that's being proposed.
MR. McALPIN: Well, Commissioner, we wouldn't be here
today unless we believe that the program that we are proposing would
make it better, that it would make it better because we know that
there's a navigation issue out there. We know that there's a boater
safety (sic), we know that there's mangrove degradation to the north
side, and there's been erosion to Barefoot Beach.
We believe that straightening out the pass -- and all of the experts
have said straightening out the pass will improve those items, okay.
So that has not been, from everything we've done and said -- and DEP
has come back and said that -- that's been not a bone of contention.
The issue is, is do you get two years or do you get four years
between the dredging cycle? Our best technology and our best
knowledge and the consultant that we've hired has had a very strong
track record of doing this -- has -- says it's four years. The agency's
come back and said, we have not looked at your modeling, but we
think it's two years, okay.
And what we've tried to do is we've tried to address that by
giving us the ability to do an intermediate dredge in there.
The consultant has looked at this and says, you know, my four
years I believe is accurate and correct, but I can't guarantee it, and
that's where we are at this point in time, Commissioner, with that. The
consultant believes that what he has is correct, and the best technology
-- and he used a wave climate data and actual conditions, and he's
correlated his model to actual-- what we've seen, but it's not
guaranteed, and that's the -- that's the risk that we have to deal with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 331
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I could, sir, I've just
got a couple of questions, and I won't take too long.
The timing. We're talking that once we send this in and we start
the process going forward, you anticipate it's going to be a year to 18
months before we get our permit?
MR. McALPIN: By the time we get done with everything, I'm
anticipating at least a year, probably closer to 18 months.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, here's my concern. And
thank you very much for taking me on a tour, Joe, of the estuary there.
It was very much appreciated.
What's going to happen if we have an event and we have a worse
situation prevail than we have now? I mean, when I drove around
there, over half of all the boat dock areas were empty, and I
understand the situation is getting worse by the day.
Is there anything in there that would be a temporary fix to be able
to keep us in business?
MR. McALPIN : We have a maintenance dredging permit that is
in effect. It will be in effect for another four years. So up -- and for
four years we could do another maintenance dredging on the exact
same basis that we have done in the past to correct and to keep the
pass open.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do -- we have funds
available for that, or is this going to be a big issue?
MR. McALPIN: We projected funds. When we do our ten year
program for the CAC, we've projected funds to do one more
maintenance dredging cycle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, the welfare ofa lot
of people are dependent upon this. And I hope we can keep this all on
track.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question,
then we'll have additional questions after that. But we do have -- we
have a motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner
Page 332
June 14-15,2011
Coletta for approval.
Now, is there any further discussion? Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. Jeff, is there any way that
we can have anything in the contract to protect the county and the
interests of the citizens that are depending on this? Because, you
know, we're investing an awful lot of money into this project, you
know, with no assurances from an engineer that what he's doing is
going to, you know, give us what we're hoping to achieve. There's a
great deal of uncertainty here.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You're looking for a guarantee from the
engineer?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just like, you know, if an engineer
designs the structure of a building or a bridge or, you know, whatever
they -- however they -- to what degree can we get some sort of
protection to ensure that we are -- we are really getting what we
bargained for --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and that this isn't some sort of
experiment, you know, on the backs of the taxpayers?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm not sure I'd call it an experiment.
I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what we want to guard
against.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you want to guard against. I
don't know that you can practically. I mean, I can look into it. I just
don't know that you practically can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you could find that out, I think it
would be a worthwhile question to answer. Because if we could
somehow ensure that, you know, they have responsibility if this
doesn't work, it would certainly serve to protect everybody here.
The other question I have is just about the management plan and
the deed restriction. Doesn't the management have to be approved
Page 333
June 14-15,2011
before we submit this to the state? And what is this deed restriction
that someone referred to here today? What -- are we limited by deed
in some regard?
MR. McALPIN: The issue with the deed restriction came up.
Recently it's come up over the last two years, Commissioner. It was a
200- foot zone around the park where nothing could happen.
We recently brought this back to Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and they say -- they have indicated to us
that the deed restrict- -- this deed restriction does not apply to this
project.
So, you know, we have -- we believe we have addressed that
item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And prospectively, with respect to
this management plan, doesn't the management plan have to be
approved before this permit is submitted?
MR. McALPIN: The management plan is a document that is
developed and submitted at the same time we submit the permit
applications, and as we go through this, it's submitted at once and then
the agency will come back and ask for additional questions.
Once we get -- and that management plan would be approved by
the appropriate local agencies, Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before the permit is approved?
MR. McALPIN: It would be -- it would be -- yes, because we
would have to have the management plan and -- a letter of
consistency, and the letter of consistency from the county would not
be written until -- until we have a management plan. So they kind of
all go together, Commissioner, but the permit would not be approved
unless there was a letter of consistency from the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we need a supermajority vote
on that?
MR. McALPIN: I believe that the -- no. I believe that is just a
3-2 vote. This came up before. Commissioner Coyle asked this, and I
Page 334
June 14-15,2011
believe it was a 3-2 vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And we are breaking for
lunch. We'll be back here at 1: 10.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Item #9A
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES AS ADVERTISED IN THE
PRESS RELEASE MAY 26, 2011 - PRESENTED REPORT ON
VACANCIES
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go to Item 9A, County
Manager.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. It's advisory board vacancies as advertised
in the May 26th press release.
Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. The press release was issued, and
these are the applications that we're looking for.
Page 335
June 14-15,2011
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee currently has two
vacancies. The Black Affairs Advisory Board, although the press
release says four vacancies, since then we've had another resignation,
so there are five vacancies.
The Collier County Code Enforcement Board has one vacancy,
the Environmental Advisory Council has one vacancy, the Golden
Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one vacancy, the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Committee has two vacancies, and the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee has a vacancy.
And the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee, it's
posted as one vacancy but, again, since then we've had a resignation,
so there are two vacancies on that committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And those are all being advertised?
MR. MITCHELL: Those are all advertising. And also in the
next press release, I will be advertising that there is -- a vacancy
occurred on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Since this morning? Were we mean
to them or something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Next item?
Item #9D
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE
MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER'S
EVALUATION, TO BRING BACK INFORMATION
REGARDING MERIT PAY AND RAISES AFTER THE BUDGET
HEARINGS - APPROVED; COMMISSIONER COYLE OFFERED
TO TAKE THE 3% FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET SO THERE
ARE NO ISSUES FOR FUNDING, IF APPROVED BY THE
BOARD
Page 336
June 14-15, 2011
MR. OCHS: Next item on your agenda is 9D, sir. It's the annual
perform appraisal for the executive manager to the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions, comments from
board members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to accept the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's right. Go ahead,
Commissioner Henning. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion the board
accepts the performance evaluation for the executive manager for the
Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion and say he's
done a great job, and it's been a pleasure working with him.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, good. You've done very, very
well for someone who's--
MR. MITCHELL: Couldn't speak the language.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- who has English as a second language,
yes.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm glad the audience has left, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've all learned to understand you.
But thanks, you've done a great job, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now merit pay is part of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah. What are we going to do
about that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we giving anybody any merit
raises at all this year yet?
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am.
Page 337
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. As much as I would love to,
I guess we just can't do anything about that yet. Are we allowed to do
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can make a recommendation any
way you want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think to me that's
something we should bring back that we should evaluate. I don't
know -- I don't know how that's done. I don't know what our policy is.
I don't know what our budget is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I would agree with that,
because we haven't been into budget meetings yet, and we don't know
what we're doing with the rest of the employees. He certainly
deserves plenty of a merit raise for putting up with all of us, but still --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, for that he deserves doubling of
his salary. But it has -- well, it's been the policy recently, at least, that
all senior level personnel and contract employees have voluntarily
waived salary increases for the past four years. So I don't know -- Ian
is in a different category, however.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And he took the job at a
decrease in pay from the last person that was here, a tremendous
decrease in pay, almost one third less.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we bring it back, so -- I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- mean, I don't even know what
the pay is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or what it was, I mean, compared
to what it is now. We should review the budget and make sure we
properly review it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- I think continuing this to the
next meeting would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be okay?
Page 338
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the meantime provide us information,
not only of current information, Ian, but historical information
concerning how the county manager has dealt with similar situations
over the past several years with the budget restrictions we have.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we do that? Okay. Good.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now you have a motion and a
second on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion to accept the
evaluation as shown in our agenda, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In respect to some sort of merit
pay, I would hope that we can wait till we get at the budget adoption
hearing. It wouldn't be fair to Ian if, you know, the salaried
employees would get a raise or a merit and he wouldn't, or vice versa.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's one that should be
coming back when we go through that process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we'll go through the
budgeting process Thursday and Friday of this week. The last
meeting of June we should be in a better position to make a
determination. At least we will have determined what our
compensation policy is going to be for the following year, right?
Page 339
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean in July?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Your budget guidance in February of this
year was, you know, as recommended by the staff, was no cost of
living or merit adjustments in fiscal year' 12, just as it has been in
fiscal year '9 and '10.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: But we'll go through that all tomorrow as part of
your briefing on your budget for '12.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I appreciate the
discussion that's taking place, and I'm sorry I didn't get here a few
minutes sooner.
One of the things I just wanted to point out, and we wait for the
discussion when we get into the budget, but for a position like Ian
holds today, the pay would be 68,924 in the average for the county.
This is what HR told me. I did some research into it. He's making
66,377. And not that we're making a decision today, but I'm just
going to show you some of the logic and the thought behind this.
If you did 3 percent, that would come to 1,991; however, that 3
percent should almost be based upon 100 percent endorsement. I
would -- that's always the way I looked at it.
When you break it down to what was -- how we came across the
board, and the average was 87 percent, then that would leave the
amount of $1,732, which would be $33 per week.
Now, normally I haven't endorsed anybody for any pay increases.
In this case, we got an office manager that started at a wage that was
below the norm. He stayed with it. And, believe me, I think he's got
one of the hardest jobs in the whole county. He's performed
admirably. I mean, it just seems like every turn of the way he was
there for us without any problems at all.
So when we get to the budget process, I'll bring these items up
Page 340
June 14-15,2011
again for your consideration, but I just want him to know that I think
he's doing an excellent job. And first time in the history of my time in
the county I gave somebody a perfect score; that's how impressed I am
with Ian.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And as you're evaluating that
over the next few days, I'd like for you to keep in mind where the
money can come from. I doubt -- I don't know if Ian budgeted a
salary increase for this budget, so it would mean that the money's got
to come from somewhere, and let me suggest to you a source of
funding that should not cause any of us any difficulty.
So if the board is interested in giving Ian an increase, then reduce
my travel budget by an equal amount. That way you don't have any
budget overruns, you don't have to budget any additional money, and
we'll just reduce my travel budget by the amount of money. Okay. So
it should be an easy decision for you.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, sir. I really appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. So let's go on to the
next item.
MR. OCHS : You obviously haven't seen your travel budget for
next year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if it's zero and they take it out of
that, that's okay, too, but-
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2011-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROVISIONS IN
SENATE BILL 550 PASSED IN 2010 REQUIRING STATEWIDE
SEPTIC TANK INSPECTIONS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: The next item, Commissioners, is an item -- Item
Page 341
June 14-15,2011
9E. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, expressing
opposition to provisions in Senate Bill 550 passed in 2010 requiring
statewide septic tank inspections.
This is Commissioner Henning's item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
I hope you had a chance to read the backup material and also the
executive summary. This -- this language -- this bill was targeted in
areas in Florida that have freshwater springs. As you know, that we
don't have those here in Southwest Florida.
I spoke to -- the bill is -- it's like -- it's, like, 100 pages. The
effects of it would be pump out every three years and inspection every
five years. And what I'm told from the industry, a local contractor,
that person who is certified to inspect can make recommendations to
replace your field, and you have no recourse. There's no arbitration in
that issue. You just need to do that. That certified inspector would
make that recommendation.
We don't have a problem here in Southwest Florida with seepage
of sewers coming from septic tanks in septic systems, and we've
proven that when Dr. Colfer reported to us, I believe it was three years
ago, where there was a concern a fecal matter spreading in Golden
Gate City. In checking the systems, they could not find a problem. It
was an anomaly.
This would be -- if this bill is enforced in 2015, the effects would
be very costly for the working people of parts of East Naples, Golden
Gate, and Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee. So I hope that you
endorse the resolution so we can send it off to our delegation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I'm going to -- this is
a great thing you brought forward, Commissioner Henning, and I'm
going to make the motion for approval, and I'd also like to add some
additional information that you alluded to, but you didn't tell them
Page 342
June 14-15,2011
everything.
Not only you have no recourse; you can't even get a second
opinion from another person in the industry. So in other words, you're
being held hostage. It would be like somebody coming to look at your
air conditioner and doing an estimate on it, and that's the end of it.
You could never bring another person in to be able to take it to the
next step. Totally inappropriate.
Commissioner Henning's right, there has been -- there has been
research, and even research into this numerous times in Collier
County . We're of a different make-up than Sanibel Island and some of
the places where this might be a necessity.
They have checked the Golden Gate Canal to see what kind of
nutrients were in there from septic tanks or even runoff from fertilizer,
and it was next to zero, at least -- when you get to the city, then the
situation changes.
But this is not an issue for the interior part of Collier County. It
may be at some isolated places along the coast, like Plantation Island
where they have very small lots and there's issues there, and there may
be some other places. But for the majority of Collier County, this is
totally inappropriate, and I commend you for bringing this forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I'll second the motion, and
I'll add something else. These kinds of regulations passed in
Tallahassee to apply to everybody in Collier County -- or everybody
in the state without regard for the differences among the counties is --
they're absolutely ridiculous, and there are too many of those things
happening, and I enthusiastically support your resolution,
Commissioner Henning.
Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'll call the question. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 343
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2011-104: APPOINTING JERRY PARILLO TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that brings us to 9G.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Appointment of member to Radio Road
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recommendation that we accept the
committee recommendation for Jerry Parillo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle
to appoint Jerry Parillo, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jerry Perillo is appointed unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I notice that Chief Smith and his
Page 344
June 14-15,2011
staff are here. I wondered if you'd like to take them and allow them to
get back to work. Under I2A and B, they have a brief item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought they were here for the
budget, just a day early.
MR. OCHS: Early start.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll save them until after public
comment.
MR. OCHS: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on up.
Item #I2A
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE
AFTER- THE-F ACT APPROVAL OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR
THE FY 2011 COPS HIRING PROGRAM GRANT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I2A is a recommendation that the board provide
after the fact approval for the Sheriffs Office submittal to the U.S.
Department of Justice for the fiscal year 2011 Cops Hiring Program
Grant.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Greg Smith, chief of administration for the Collier County Sheriffs
Office.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is a routine after the fact
approval due to an application timing issue. But past practice of the
board for these particular grants, since they do have a follow on
requirement that -- for, I believe, Chief, it's a minimum of 12 months
after the expiration of the grant, you must retain and pay for the
salaries and benefits of the positions that are approved through the
grant. The board in the past has asked that this be a regular item as
opposed to a consent item.
Page 345
June 14-15, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's in fiscal year 2015 we will
have to budget for these additional officers at least for 12 months.
Will you be greatly disappointed if we at that point in time don't
have sufficient money to do that?
MR. SMITH: Well, I don't think you can categorize it as great
disappointment but, certainly you know, some of the economic
indicators that we're looking at show that we're going to be in a more
advantaged position at that point in time to support the request. We've
done that analysis coming forward today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Then I will make a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala. I'll second the motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Chief.
Item #I2B
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $1,546,000 IN
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IN THE SHERIFF'S FY 2011
Page 346
June 14-15,2011
GENERAL FUND BUDGET - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I2B is approval of a budget
amendment recognizing $1,546,000 in revenue and expenditure in the
sheriffs FY20II General Fund budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll approve the revenues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Item #IOA
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE LANDFILL OPERATING
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE DISPOSAL CAPACITY
AGREEMENT WITH THE OKEECHOBEE LANDFILL, INC., A
FLORIDA CORPORATION (A SUBSIDIARY OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT INC., OF FLORIDA), FOR A TERM OF TEN
YEARS WITH SUCCESSIVE TEN YEAR EXTENSION
OPTIONS, THEREBY PROVIDING THE COUNTY WITH
Page 347
June 14-15,2011
ADDITIONAL DISPOSAL CAPACITY OF 960,000 TONS OF
SOLID WASTE AND THE ABILITY TO DIVERT DEBRIS
GENERA TED BY A DISASTER - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item IOA on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve a sixth amendment to the
landfill operating agreement to extend the disposal capacity agreement
with the Okeechobee Landfill, Incorporated, a Florida corporation, for
a term of ten years with successive ten year extension options, thereby
providing the county with additional disposal capacity of 960,000 tons
of solid waste and the ability to divert debris generated by disaster.
Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your solid waste director, will report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If this is just an extension, I'll
just go ahead and approve it. There's not very many options that we
have for some debris and solid waste to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dan, please affirm that it is just an
extension of an existing contract.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. It's the amendment to our
landfill operating agreement with the sixth amendment to extend it for
ten more years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller has a comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I would really like an
analysis of the totality of the contracts that Waste Management has
with the county. That was something that I had brought up when we
approved the last contract. And if that's something I could have, I
would really appreciate it.
I'd like to know exactly what the total -- they're being paid, also,
you know, what alternative revenues they're getting by way of
Page 348
June 14-15,2011
contracts. I'd like all of that.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want that before we vote on this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, do you have that now? That
would be great. If you could present that to us right now, that would
fantastic.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not at the moment, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it's something to take into
consideration. I mean, could this be contracted out to anybody else?
Could this be put to bid?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, Commissioner, as Commissioner
Henning stated, there are very few options. As we know, there are
very few landfills, especially in our region. South of Orlando there's
only four options. Three of those options are municipal landfills.
Like Collier County, they do not accept out of county waste. And the
Okeechobee Landfill, which is about 100 miles away from the
Immokalee transfer, is the only private landfill available. There's
another one in Holopaw, which is further north, but the expense in
transportation would have a negative impact on our ratepayers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
Is that IOG now?
Page 349
June 14-15,2011
Item #IOG
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM PUBLIC
AMENITY WORK PLAN - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: IOG, Sir, Recommendation to approve the
Conservation Collier public -- excuse me -- Program Public Amenity
Work Plan.
Melissa Hennig will report.
MS. HENNIG: Melissa Hennig, principal environmental
specialist.
In January when we came to you and asked that you suspend
acquisitions, we also asked that you direct us to create a public
amenity work plan so that we basically can show that we can manage
what we already have before we acquire anything else, and that's what
this is all about.
The status of the preserves. We now have 19 preserves, about
4,000 acres all over the county, and currently eight preserves are open
to the public.
What the future holds. We'd like to have 13 of those reserves
open to the public. And our tax revenue ceases in FYI3, so our ten
years are up. Any revenue after that is going to come from interest
that's the principal. We explained this to you.
So the work plan objective is to ensure appropriate public access
at all these preserves while still ensuring that land management
occurs. Land management is exotics, plant removal, prescribed burns,
any kind of hiking trails.
So how do we get there? We started this process in 2008 with
the CCLAC, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee.
And we went through and they looked at all the preserves and decided
what logical public access would make sense at these preserves based
on environmental factors and location. Then we put into a spreadsheet
Page 350
June 14-15,2011
how much it's going to cost to have land management at all of the
preserves and the public access facilities that the CCLAC
recommended.
They then categorized these preserves based on what type of
amenities we're going to offer people so that people know what's out
there and what to expect when they get to that preserve.
Finally, prioritized the preserve amenities based on what do you
want to see done first. We want to make sure we're doing what you
want us to do, and that's the purpose also. We want to make sure -- if
we're going to limit how much money we have, any public amenity
that we spend, any money coming out of our principal fund, will limit
our interest revenue in the future. So it's a finite resource.
Different categories. There's five different categories. The first
is Category 1, primary use. Those are going to have ADA parking and
trails, capital improvements like boardwalks, and a daily staff
presence.
The second category would be limited ADA parking and trails,
so no daily staff, no major facilities.
Category 3 is a neighborhood preserve, limited use, no parking
and just primitive trails.
Category 4 is just seasonal use, and you can see under water half
the time. We're not going to put a boardwalk there, but people can go
there when it's not raining.
Category 5, no trails. These are preserves that are in the middle
of nowhere or parking would be very restrictive or there's a boardwalk
right next door, so we're not going to put a boardwalk in.
And here's a list of all the different preserves, a map. The plan is
to have three Category 1 preserves, five Category 2 preserves, three
Category 3 preserves, two Category 4 preserves, and six Category 5
preserves.
My final slide was -- is in the work plan. This is a list of all the
amenities that we're going to have to expend money on to get to where
Page 351
June 14-15,2011
we want to be with all those preserves.
There's 12 projects. We asked the CCLAC to decide on those
projects and then rank them in the order that they felt was the priority.
The thought there was, okay, what do you want done first, because if
interest rates drop and we run out of money, we might not get to the
bottom of that list.
So as of right now, with our estimates out to 2025 with our
current budget, we can achieve all of these amenities. But, again,
things change, so that was the plan.
And that's my final slide, so if anyone has any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So yes, yes. Can you assure us that there
is sufficient money in the reserve to properly construct these facilities
and maintain all of these facilities in perpetuity?
MS. HENNIG: Yes, till 2025.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll be gone by then, so that's in
perpetuity as far as I'm concerned.
MS. HENNIG: That's as far as we went out with our projections,
but we'll keep going as we move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well.
We have a public speaker on this issue?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've two speakers, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Doug Fee, and he'll be
followed by William Poteet.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee.
If I could, real quick, I think Mr. Mitchell has done an excellent
job. And I know you're going to have budget hearings tomorrow. I
did want to give you one piece of advice and that is -- and this is not to
say he doesn't deserve a raise or anyone else in the county. But keep
in mind that the federal government this year has given all W2 wage
earners a 2 percent payback from their social security.
Page 352
June 14-15, 2011
The rate was 6.2; it's now 4.2. So everybody got a 2 percent pay
raise this year from the federal government.
Onto this item, there's a map showing the Wet Woods Preserve
off of 41. It has approximately a thousand feet of access. I followed
the cycle as it went through. I certainly commented. There was a
Land Management Plan that was adopted.
Approximately .69 miles to the north of this parcel is another
Conservation Collier project or parcel called Railhead. I think
between the two they're somewhere around 150 to maybe 160 acres.
The reason why I'm standing here today is over the period when
the Land Management Plan was being drafted and adopted -- as
citizens we followed this, and they had a kayak and canoe plan for this
parcel.
And let me just put that on the monitor.
I don't know if you'll be able to see this, but up on the north part
is a linear boardwalk. It's approximately 550 feet. The cost was
proposed around $330,000.
In January through March of this year, they held some meetings
and they obviously eliminated some of the amenities. And I'm here to
ask you to reconsider this item. While I support Conservation Collier,
I'm certainly -- as a voter I voted yes.
And we have these 160 acres up in our area that we'd like to have
access for. The voters voted for the acquisition, but they also voted
for some limited access to these parcels. And I just -- I wanted to
point that out.
In your Exhibit B, while I think Gordon River Greenway is a
great project, as well as Pepper Ranch, Gordon River Greenway has a
budget of $1.6 million, as well as Pepper Ranch has 700,000, and
there's also another six hundred and thirty hundred -- thousand in a
bridge.
So my point really is, there's a lot of money in the pot that may
not expand -- there may be -- there may never be another referendum,
Page 353
June 14-15,2011
so we've got to be careful what we spend on our amenities.
In the Gordon River Greenway, in that 1.6, you have a bridge
over a river, a security lighting, you have 1,500 linear feet, as well as
asphalt trails of 2,300 feet, and shade structures totaling the 1.6.
I just am here to ask you to find a way to put something in this
parcel here up in North Naples.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- that's Cocohatchee,
Doug, is that correct?
MR. FEE: That's the Cocohatchee River there, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a campsite there.
MR. FEE: Future Citizens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
MR. FEE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We own a piece of property
adjacent to it.
MR. FEE: Yeah. Let me point that out real quick. Hopefully
you can see this. At the very north, that's Wiggins Pass Road, and that
parcel that is green, which the county manager will point to right here,
that's a stormwater property that the county owns.
Going further east, there's two lots that the county acquired four
or five years ago, and then you have the Future Citizens lot, you also
have a fire district acre or two that has never been built upon, and then
you have the 16 acres of the Conservation Collier area.
I have always thought there is something that could be done here
to even help out the Future Citizens, the Boy Scouts, to make access
for this area. I know there's money involved, but I think that -- it
would be a great area through this -- through this area, the
Cocohatchee River.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's an existing dock
there.
Page 354
June 14-15,2011
MR. FEE: Is there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I've -- Melissa? Am I
correct? I mean, I've been on that parcel when I was camping.
MS. HENNIG: I think they call it a platform.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A platform, yes.
MS. HENNI G: We've been in discussions with Future Citizens.
We are working for some sort of access and easement. But they're a
little uncomfortable because of the situation with the campers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have access right on
u.S. 41. That platform is on our property or the Citizens' property?
MS. HENNIG: No. It's on Future Citizens'.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's on the Future Citizens'.
Okay. But our property abuts the tributaries (sic) ofCocohatchee?
MS. HENNIG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we could put some
improvements to get to --
MS. HENNIG: The issue that -- we did kayak to see if we could.
It got really shallow, even at high tide. And to get to a dock down
there, you'd have to punch a hole through the mangroves. So it would
just be an expense and detriment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mean trim a mangrove?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And from the ground, not the
.
aIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless we can catapult the
kayaks over the mangroves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds like fun.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That could probably be arranged. We
could experiment with Mr. Fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've answered my
question. Thank you.
Page 355
June 14-15, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker, Mr. Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Hi. My name is William H. Poteet, and I'm here
on behalf of Conservation Collier. I have the pleasure of serving as
their chairperson.
And the only reason I'm here is just to give you the thoughts of
the committee and how we got to where we were.
Back in October the county's Finance Department came and gave
us a very stark report on the amount of monies that were going to be
available, and at that time we had to decide, you know, what we're
going to do.
We're limited to the 15 percent on the management side, and
because of that we wanted to make sure we took a very conservative
approach, the same way the county has taken in the last few years in
most of the things you've done.
And so there's a lot of projects out there we want to do. Wet
Woods is one of those that all of us thought was a great idea, when we
had money. But right now, and according to projections, the money
wasn't there.
The issues with W et Woods that we face was accessibility to the
project. You know, right now you could access it off of u.s. 41, but
there's no parking, and that's a major issue.
We have a preserve out in -- at Logan Woods that is a similar
situation where it does not have a parking area, and it's not highly
used, and that's one of our fears, if we were going to go to expend
$350,000 on a boardwalk and not have the ability to bring people in so
they could use this. Not to say this couldn't be done.
In the approach of talking to the Future Citizens and other areas
in the area and trying to get some type of legal access to the property
and parking for the people, it would be a great thing, and we could
look at that again.
Another issue we were faced with was the Gordon River
Greenway . We got budgeted approximately a little over $8 million to
Page 356
June 14-15,2011
do the improvements there. That particular project is being driven by
Parks and Recreation, and we're just sitting back waiting to see what
the end product is going to look like. So we don't know exactly what
we're spending and what we're not.
So, again, we have to have that very conservative approach until
we find out what we're going to have available.
And the other thing that I looked at during our hearings was the
county had not showed a lot of increases in ad valorem taxes over the
next few years. It showed the market being relatively flat. Personally
I've seen some growth in certain areas in Collier County that prices are
just inching up, which is a good sign. And I could see in the future, as
property values increase, there'll be more money in the short period of
time for the Conservation Collier, and then we can reassess our goals.
But right now we're going to take the conservative approach and use
those properties that we know we can get people on and utilize the
property .
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask Mr. Poteet a
question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Poteet, first, thank you very
much for your devotion to Conservation Collier. You seem to be the
one person that's always here for it. It's very much appreciated.
Now, the funding for this runs out this tax year, is it?
MR. POTEET: 2013.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And is there any efforts
underway to have a new referendum go on the ballot to try to extend
this out?
MR. POTEET: From the committee's perspective, we have not
talked about that at all. I've heard rumors out there that some
individuals at the Conservancy are talking about doing a study or
doing some type of research on whether or not it's a possible venue to
Page 357
June 14-15,2011
put on the ballot. But as for the committee standpoint, we don't talk
about any of those issues there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Sure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Make a motion to
approve the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- work plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's approved.
Item #IOH
RESOLUTION 2011-105: AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF THOSE PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY
EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE US-4I DITCH SEGMENT OF THE LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That takes us to IOH, right?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to adopt a
Page 358
June 14-15,2011
resolution authorizing the condemnation of those perpetual and
temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
stormwater improvements for the u.s. 41 ditch segment on the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project. Estimated fiscal impact,
$1,927,569.
And Ms. Margaret Bishop will present.
MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. This is a condemnation
resolution. You already approved the gift and purchase at the
previous Board of County Commission meeting.
I do have a brief presentation if you wanted to see that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. BISHOP: Now, I do have to -- did you want to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to put something on
the record, but I would like to see the acquisition area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a map right in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know. I seen that, but it
doesn't have a start point and end point. Oh, I see it.
Well, wait a minute; it does. Okay. On here it's a little bit
different.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's a big map.
MS. BISHOP: This is the area right here --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know exactly where it is.
MS. BISHOP: -- on U.S. 41. Okay.
This is also part of the design proj ect, but we don't need to
acquire any easements through Naples Manor. All the properties we
need to acquire are along U.S. 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you need to get on the record?
MS. BISHOP: At your direction, staff has ensured -- we had to
go over five items in these -- in this acquisition. Number 1, alternative
routes have been considered. The proposed easements are sized to be
Page 359
June 14-15,2011
just wide enough to accommodate the ditch widening and maintenance
for construction.
Number 2, the safety of the public has been considered. The
major purpose of the project is to reduce flooding and provide the
connection to the outfalls.
Three, long range planning has been considered. The project is
part of the countywide plan to improve the level of service for
flooding and flow way enhancement within the basin.
Four, environmental impacts have been considered, and
throughout the permitting process each alternative configuration was
reviewed and debated, and it has been determined that the current
design provides the most public benefit with the least environmental
impacts.
And, lastly, the costs of competing alternative designs have been
considered. The design maximizes the improvement benefits while
minimizing the amount of impacts to the environment and to adjacent
properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just curious as to what
it's going to look like now. Along that pathway that you have right in
front of the Manor, that area is pretty -- you know, there's not much of
anything going on there anyway.
But is it going to be as wide as the LASIP that you have in
another areas? Is it going to be a small ditch? Are people going to --
if they have -- if they eventually establish any businesses there, do
they have to go over a bridge?
Could you tell me what it's going to actually look like?
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Are you talking about the piece along u.s.
41 here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. BISHOP: Right here? Okay. It's going to be a series of
culverts and swales. The culverts that are existing if they need to be
Page 360
June 14-15,2011
upsized, they will be; otherwise, we're trying to work within that area.
So it's going to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, maybe when we go in there,
we'll even put grass in there, and it might look pretty nice, huh? Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A little bit of a segue off this
specific topic but still generally on point.
You know, one of the concerns I have, since you mention
culverts and swales, is that throughout the county, especially going
into the rainy season, there are so many culverts that are not compliant
with the standards of the law.
MS. BISHOP: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What could we do? And, Leo, I
wanted to ask your input on this. What could we do to implement
some sort of a program where when we have county staff driving
around, if they see a crushed culvert or if they see that, you know, a
culvert isn't there where it -- you know, if there isn't one, that there
should be one, what can we do to help, you know, bring our culverts
and swales up to a standard where they're able to, you know, serve
their intended purpose in the rainy season?
MR. OCHS : Well, Commissioner, in terms of notification of
deficiencies or culverts that aren't working, we can alert, obviously,
not only our field crews in road and bridge, but also in public utilities,
code enforcement, any of our field people, we'll make sure they're on
alert that as they are doing their business up and down the streets, that
they make sure they're checking those and reporting any of those that
are damaged or deficient to our road and bridge department.
In terms of funding, we'll talk a little bit about that tomorrow as
part of the review of the transportation section of the Growth
Management Division budget.
They do have an ongoing maintenance program for the swales.
It's -- like many of our other preventative maintenance programs, it is
Page 361
June 14-15,2011
not fully funded, and some of the maintenance has been deferred over
the last few years in favor of maintaining our General Fund millage
neutral, and unincorporated area General Fund millage neutral
position.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that area is a very important
one, because you're really talking about a public safety concern if the
swale systems are not properly maintained and we have consequential
flooding.
So, you know, I'd ask if you could maybe -- I would like to know
if you could develop some sort of program where we can -- I don't like
the -- I hate to use the word "code enforcement" because I don't want
it to be viewed as punitive or anything like that.
But, you know, who is out there that could make the evaluation
with respect to the culverts?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand the swale
problem, the swale maintenance problem as well, but I'd like to focus
first on the culvert issue.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Nick, do you have a quick --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good afternoon. For the record,
Nick Casalanguida.
Commissioner, we talked about it a little bit. We've already
started talking internally about, as part of our -- doing our normal
sweeps on private culverts, just notifying homeowners as a courtesy to
keep them clean, noticing if they're not maintained, especially where
that cross between private systems and public systems are.
Weare working with our road maintenance guys to look at the
major ones that may be of issue. But on the private side, we are going
to start notifying them as courtesies if a culvert mitered end is crushed
or if a pipe is crushed, if they're not keeping it clean. So we're going
to start being more proactive on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a courtesy.
Page 362
June 14-15,2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a courtesy at first, I think. Because
obviously it's a fiscal impact to the homeowner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. To give them the
opportunity to cure, and then --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- if you come back and it's not
done then you'll --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because we have to ensure that
our culverts are all functioning.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We spoke about that, and we started
talking about that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't leave, Nick.
One of the problems that we've had in the Manor, especially --
we've got all of those little canals going in there, or little culverts, if
you will, going in there, and -- but you've got a lot of rental properties.
And even though we have twice a week garbage pickup and once a
week recycling, for some reason the countries that they come from
they feel that the dumping ground is actually the canal behind their
house instead. We see them filling up all the time.
But that's exactly referring to what Commissioner Hiller has said
is, you know, how do we keep them clean? We can -- we can pass out
information in whatever languages, but then they move and somebody
else moves in and they go right back to the other practice again.
What can we do? I mean, it's a never ending problem in that
particular community. What can we do to help that along a little bit?
I mean, being that we have the pickup right there and it doesn't cost
them any money.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. I think it's part of that meet and
greet and the sweeps that we do. I think working with the
Page 363
June 14-15,2011
neighborhoods to get them to understand it better. I think that's the
best we're going to do right now. As the county manager pointed out,
we're trying to prioritize our funding a little bit, but I think we can do
a better job of working with the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, one of the things we
found out, we did a -- not a meet and greet, but it was community
cleanup.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we hauled in -- with the help of
Waste Management, we identified some lots and we put some
dumpsters there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Dumpsters, with the help of public
utilities, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One was dumpsters for tires, another
one was for metals and so forth. There were so many -- they filled
them all up. I mean, they were wonderful about it. They brought
everything out of their yards.
We pulled 14 of them away in the first six hours; 14 dumpsters
just filled to the brim with stuff. And maybe if we had a dumpster
located there once a month or something like that, instead of dumping
behind their house, they would dump in there. I don't know.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we just had another successful
one in Commissioner Henning's district with the Water Management
District and public utilities on the green canal there. We cleaned it out
quite a bit with the local community.
So I think our outreach efforts and also maybe a little bit more
code enforcement pressure to make sure that if they're not doing it,
that we hold them accountable. I think that's where we're going to go
with this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 364
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL QUOTES FOR LIFT
STATION 103.01 REHABILITATION PROJECT AND RE-
QUOTE PROJECT #70046 - AWARDING THE BID TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION AND THE GENERATOR PORTION TO GO
TO BID - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Brings us to 101, which was moved from
I6CI.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to reject all quotes
for Lift Station 103.01, rehabilitation project, and requote the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was me that pulled it.
MR.OCHS: This is moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Mr. Pager is here from staff, along with Mr. Tom Chemlik, who will
present or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You could just answer. I don't want
to make you go through a whole litany of stuff.
Let me say that everybody has now seen what the figures were
that were bid. All we're looking for is the generator in there. We're
not looking for anything else.
I would prefer and -- but I don't know about my other fellow
commissioners. I would prefer to go out and bid the generator, rather
than -- after everybody seen the bids here, I don't think it's such a fair
Page 365
June 14-15, 2011
playing field anymore.
MR. PAGER: For the record, my name is Craig Pager. I'm a
principal project manager in the Public Utilities Division.
We were going to discuss potential options, and that is definitely
an option that we can pursue is to award the contract -- today the
board can do that -- to Kyle Construction, and we would purchase a
generator separately and mitigate any issues that there might be with
respect to the warranty.
Our concern was having a single source of the possibility for the
electrical system so that the contractor would be responsible for
accepting it and integrating it completely into the project, and then
responsible for the warranty.
But we can certainly get a warranty from the generator
manufacturer, which is a standard thing that they do, and we would
coordinate with the contractor to make certain that we have a seamless
integration into this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would prefer to award the bid
today and have you do that, but I'm going to ask my fellow
commissioners how they feel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I make a motion to
award this bid to Kyle Construction for $212,500 and bid separately
on the generator.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the generator's going to be
a lot less. The generator's included in this quote.
MR. PAGER: No, it is not. It is excluded. The generator will
cost approximately $75,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They forgot to put that in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see, okay. I'm all set.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Page 366
June 14-15,2011
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's unanimously approved that
the award will be made to Kyle and that you will bid the generator
separately.
MR. PAGER: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thanks.
MR. PAGER: Thank you very much.
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS - NONE PRESENT
ON 6/15/2011
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14, public
comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: We've some people signed up, so I'll ask.
The first one is -- and excuse my pronunciation, Arbyummi? No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MITCHELL: The second one is Faheem Arbyummi.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, the third one is Duane Billington. Nope.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
Page 367
June 14-15,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington, no.
Sir, there are no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll start with County Manager. Do
you have anything for us?
MR.OCHS: Just one item, Commissioners. Just asking for the
board's endorsement for me to contact Clarence Tears and his board at
the Big Cypress Basin to ask permission for myself and the staff to get
a line item budget proposal going into their next fiscal year.
As the board will recall, you recently approved a settlement on
the A TV issue that included a one year extension of the maintenance
contract with the basin. Obviously, their funding between the basin
and the Water Management District impacts for next year what
funding will come our way, and we just want to make sure that we
have eyes on target there. And I just wanted to bring that to the
board's attention --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: -- in case they get any questions from colleagues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
MR.OCHS: That's all I had, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. We've got three nods, right?
Everybody happy with that.
Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have two things. The first is a request
from the sheriff dealing with the red light cameras. They usually have
hearings once a month for about a half a day. The sheriffs been
running into issues with attorneys showing up raising various legal
Page 368
June 14-15,2011
arguments. He's asked for my office to help out on these hearings.
Other County Attorney's Offices throughout the state are doing
this now. And I didn't think I should start the work without informing
you of this, but it's something that unless the board directs me not to
do -- so we'll start sending out assistant county attorneys to help the
sheriff prosecute these cases. Again, it should be about a half a day
once a month.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have any problem with it. Okay.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was surprised he didn't have a
legal staff of his own, but that's good.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's asked us to do it and--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. We'd be happy to loan you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We passed the law. He's figuring it was
our responsibility, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't blame him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a very good working relationship
with the Sheriffs Office, and it's always been my pleasure to work
with them. They've been very helpful, the queries that we've had.
And the second one is, I've been asked to -- by one of the
commissioners, Commissioner Henning, to conduct a shade session,
and I think it's a good idea. So I'm going to give notice that pursuant
to Section 286.0118, I'm desiring advice from the Board of County
Commissioners in a Closed Attorney Client Session on Tuesday, June
28, 2011. The session will be for a time certain for 12 noon in the
commission conference room in this building.
In addition to the board members, County Manager Leo Ochs,
myself, and Ms. Hubbard will be in attendance. The board in
executive session will discuss possible settlement negotiations and
litigation expenditures in the various Blocker cases we have pending
now. And that will be at the next board meeting.
Page 369
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we'll start--
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you have something?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. From the direction of the board
from the last meeting about the way we've been handling the Advisory
Boards' Minutes and the Agendas and Minutes.
We've done a lot of work since that with Kristi Bartlett, who's
Commissioner Coyle's aide, and the Clerk's Department, and we've set
up now a system that is going to more effectively deal with these
minutes, and the end result will be that under the County
Commissioners' Advisory Boards part of the website, we will actually
post all the minutes so that people can more readily find them.
In addition to that, instead of them going onto the board meetings
under -- just under general correspondence where it's a list and
everything, we'll now have general correspondence, and then there'll
be a second category, which will be advisory board agendas and
minutes. So, again, it will be much easier for people to go in and look
and be able to track everything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. That's all for you?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we finish your subject?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. I was just making the shade
announcement, ma'am, unless you had any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we go to commissioners for
correspondence and communications.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Two things.
Ian, are you going to announce the openings on the advisory
board, on the various advisory boards?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He did.
MR. MITCHELL: I did that.
Page 370
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. I'm sorry. Did I -- which
advisory boards have openings?
MR. MITCHELL: I did that earlier, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's all listed on here under 9A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I missed it. I absolutely -- that
just went right over my head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He read them all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wonder where I was.
MR. MITCHELL: I spoke quietly so that I didn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were just -- it was that
English. It was the way you speak English. I didn't understand.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to -- I apologize -- I
just missed it, sorry.
MR. MITCHELL: But just as of relevance, there is a -- on the
Pelican Bay Services Board, we've now got a vacancy, so we'll be
advertising that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I remember that.
MR. MITCHELL: Do you remember that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you said, why did they run
off or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I did. They quit after this
.
mornIng.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's all coming back. It's been a
long two days.
Just in support of Jeffs discussion about a shade session, you
know, all the communications that I've received are here, and I'm
going to enter them in the record if anyone wants to review whatever I
have. I had -- the shade session, so I'm going to give you a full packet
there, and it's all labeled, so Ian should be happy.
I just want to follow up with a few comments about Wiggins
Pass. We discussed that this morning. I had the opportunity to talk to
Page 371
June 14-15,2011
Mark Strain, who's the chair of the Planning Commission, and he did
confirm that management plan will have to go to the EAC, will have
to go to the Planning Commission, and then will have to come to the
BCC for approval before that permit -- before it can be submitted with
the permit to the state. So that has been confirmed by him that that
was correct representation.
The other thing I just wanted to be sure of, that this -- what we
approved this morning is limited to the very narrow specifics that
comprise up to 177,000 but not necessarily the expenditure of all those
funds and that we did not sign a contract that in any way authorized
the actual construction or the prospective construction of this project,
and that when this project is let, the total cost will be in excess of the
CCNA threshold. So I just want to be sure that the Clerk's Office
works with purchasing to ensure that the provisions of the CCNA are
respected for the bidding on the construction itself.
Lastly, I want to add an option -- and actually Ian suggested it.
And it was something that had been brought to my attention by others
in the community and is actually another safeguard in addition to the
guarantee that Jeff is going to look to to include in the construction
project -- in the construction contract, and that is we get a peer review
done on this project as well, because peer reviews are another
safeguard for -- to look out for us on this.
MR. KLATZKOW: A peer review would mean -- this is new.
Are you talking about the peer review of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of the actual-- of what will be
done in terms of the construction, the proposed construction and the
design. Do a peer review of the design, do a peer review of the
construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just digging a hole in the
ground.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, then skip the
construction. Do the peer review of the design.
Page 372
June 14-15,2011
MR. KLATZKOW: The board could do that if--
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that wasn't -- that wasn't part of the
staff recommendation or the discussion during the item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not today. I'm saying when -- but
we should consider doing that. We can bring that back and do that as
a separate action to ensure that what's being done is, in fact, in -- the
right thing. I mean, a peer review of what's being proposed is just
another safeguard that we could consider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had a consensus that
anything over -- what was the threshold for, you know, design or
something like that -- was going to come back to the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We approved -- or we gave
direction that there's a threshold of design --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that comes back to the board.
So before going to contract -- and I don't know if this is going to meet
that threshold or not. I forget what the threshold was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- Crystal?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the 177,000 that he was
saying that was the top that it would be -- would be spent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you approved the design contract
was your action today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So why can't we get a peer
review on that design?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can, but when it comes back--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- you'll have to authorize the expenditure
and authorize staff to do it. That's a board decision.
Page 373
June 14-15,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's more money.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're sort of getting a peer review
over the whole process by submitting that stuff to the state. And they
review that stuff, and they've already reviewed our concept and
they've said, we don't necessarily agree with you that it's going to
extend the period out to four years. It might be only two. That really
was a peer review. I don't know how far you want to take that.
If there's -- if there's an objective to get an ironclad guarantee that
this dredging project is going to solve the problem permanently, we're
never going to get that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't think that it will
provide that. I think what it would do is just make sure that going
forward there isn't something in that design that we're overlooking that
could make it better or that there isn't something in there that's
unnecessary where we could save some dollars.
I mean, as an example -- and this is not a good example. But
hypothetically, like -- and I don't -- nothing personnel, Nick, but you
know that Astaldi contract where there was an optional route that
could be taken and could have saved us a million dollars -- and that's
not the best example, but I'm just throwing out a hypothetical.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I believe that we have gotten
pretty good feedback from the state on that. The state has looked at it,
and according to Joe Moreland, they are excited about what we're
doing, they like the concept; they believe that the potential is very,
very favorable.
So my only -- my concern is not that we don't get some
verification of what we're trying to do, but the problem is how much
money do we spend trying to take out the variables, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And in a project like that, I will admit
that there are variables that are induced by Mother Nature that will:
Page 374
June 14-15,2011
overwhelm any judgment that we might make concerning how we do
dredging in an inlet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think a peer review would be
prudent, I mean, considering that it's potentially a $5 million job. But,
you know, it's the board's will. I mean, if you don't want to do it,
that's fine.
MR. KLA TZKOW: But you're not making a decision now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I make a comment? May I
make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we don't have to.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You're not making a decision now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't have to. I'm just
throwing it out for consideration, and it can be brought back and staff
can consider it and they can tell us, you know, what it would cost and
what benefit it would add. And if it costs too much or the benefit is
too little, we just don't to it. It's just something for consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a comment also on
this, and that is, the people have stayed very close to this whole issue.
They've watched us all the time. They want to know everything that's
going on. That's wonderful. We love to have them do that.
We're also under a time constraint, because the longer we take
and the longer we hold the thing up, the more it's going to take us, and
they need that thing straightened out.
So I would suggest that as long as we keep it open and
transparent, and they'll be watching everything, I think -- I don't think
we have to drag it out to have official reviews and everything. They'll
be close to it. I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that Joe Moreland
is not going to let a thing go by without him watching it, and CAC as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The process in place has
been working very well for many years now. You know, I'm a little
Page 375
June 14-15,2011
bit concerned that every time we come to a decision on something, we
try to micromanage that decision and re-determine what we actually
said and where we're going with it, you know.
And, forgive me, sometimes it's just counterproductive to keep
bringing these discussions back once a decision's raised, unless there's
a good reason. In this case I don't see a good reason.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, do we -- sorry. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There may be a good reason. I
mean, it's just like the EEOC building, that the cost from design -- and
we didn't -- we had nothing to do with the design. The cost, what was
it, like 40 -- no, it was like 60 percent more than anticipated.
If that's your concern, Commissioner Hiller, then I think that we
should look at that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is my concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we confirmed that two
meetings ago there was a threshold for these design contracts, before
going out to bid, that we were going to see those.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR.OCHS: It's coming back at your next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is?
MR.OCHS: That follow on report. You asked us to develop a
set of recommendations with thresholds, so we're going to have the
board review that and adopt it officially next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And one other thing. Remember that this
dredging project that we're doing is going to be done in phases, that is
the process of doing the study first, then there will be a detailed
design, and then once we pull all that together along with the
management plan, we will apply for a permit. And it is subject to
review by us at each of those steps so that whenever the first $177,000
Page 376
June 14-15,2011
is spent, we will review what happened there, and then that will refine
what the total project is going to cost and what the schedule will be.
We will get a chance to see that. If we don't like what we're
seeing, we can have something reconsidered there.
So this isn't as if we're just approving this huge multi-million
dollar project. We're looking at every phase of the process even
including the permit application. Am I right?
MR. OCHS : Yes. Commissioners, we'll make regular progress
reports, whatever you'd like to see on it. But it's going -- like you said,
you've had a work group working on this for more than two years,
your Coastal Advisory Committee's been monitoring this regularly
over the last couple of years. You asked us to go to the state to get
indication on whether the project could be permitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's going to make us all sick before we
leave here. Quick, hurry. Let's get this over with.
Okay . You're all set?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, help me out. When do you
do peer reviews? When have you done peer reviews in the past?
MR. OCHS : We did a -- I believe a peer review several years
ago on the Clam Bay water quality study initially. That's the last one I
recall, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What other examples?
MR.OCHS: Don't have any.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you never do peer reviews?
MR. OCHS: I just told you that's the last one I remember doing,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Define peer review so that we all
understand what you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where you bring in another
engineering firm to review the work done by the engineering -- by the
Page 377
June 14-15,2011
engineering design firm that you're using to evaluate, you know,
what's being proposed, that nothing is being omitted or that there may
be a better way or a greater, more -- way to either achieve greater
savings or efficiencies, as the case may be.
Peer reviews are typically done in the industry. I mean, there's
nothing objectionable to doing them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's another review called value
engineering that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that we have performed in the past that
is particularly useful when it comes to determining whether or not
what we're getting is justifiable from the standpoint of cost. So we
have done that before.
But once again, I think we have the opportunity to make that
decision as we go through the process. If we see something that we
believe is excessive or if we have a large and complex project, we can
make the decision at that point in time that we want it to be reviewed
by someone else. But trying to peer review a $177,000 study --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not the point. It's not
peer reviewing the study. It's peer reviewing the design of the project.
I just want to answer Commissioner Fiala. Peer review is a
process of self regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation
involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.
They're reviewed -- they're employed to maintain standards,
improve performance, provide credibility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I wanted to ask a
follow up question. How much more does that add to each thing as far
as cost goes? After we've already let the thing and, you know, and--
or approved these things, how much more does that add to each one of
the projects?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what we need to have
staff give us an analysis on.
Page 378
June 14-15,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean the peer review.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Because like I said, again,
it's going to be a cost benefit analysis. If the advantage of having a
peer review is to, you know, provide us improved quality, upholding
standard or, you know, providing a less expensive or better way to do
something, then whatever the cost is will be outweighed by the
benefit.
But we can't make that determination in a vacuum here right
now. It's just something to throw out there to consider. You know, if
it makes sense, we'll do it; and if it doesn't, we don't. It's just a
suggestion to add, you know, some level of protection in light of the
fact that we are investing $5 million in a project that right now doesn't
seem to have a lot of certainty.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It's a good suggestion. Perhaps what
we can do is when we bring the report back to you on the thresholds
for design we can tell you what we've historically done for peer
review or value engineering initiatives, and then if the board wants to
put some additional requirements on as part of that discussion, we'd be
happy to follow your direction, obviously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's my suggestion.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, are you
finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See you tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't have anything.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, is there
something in that blue folder that I should study for the closed door
Page 379
June 14-15,2011
session?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All of it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It looks pretty meaty there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know -- I didn't -- when I
received these communications, I didn't look to see who was the
addressee. I'm sorry, to who -- yeah, I guess it's the addressee --
addressor, addressee, whoever -- you know, whoever the recipient
was. So I just wanted to make sure that you had the communications
that I had on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that from our legal team?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Some of it is from our legal team,
some of it is from their legal team. So I just wanted to make sure you
had the full package of what was in -- what I had.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that the stuff that they sent us
under confidential packaging?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That -- we received a separate
packet related to our settlement shade session that we're going to have.
But this is independent of that. Everything is -- in here is readily
available as a public record. So I just wanted to make it easy.
And maybe you all have all of this; I'm just not sure. So I just
wanted to make sure that it was in the record and available to read if
you wanted to look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do we have copies to give to all
of us or something?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I've arranged for--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's in the record.
MR. MITCHELL: It's been taken away to be copied so that each
commissioner will have a copy of it, and the copy to Jacqueline
Page 380
June 14-15, 2011
Hubbard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not done yet. Geez.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thanks for the extra work,
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hey, I want to make sure you get
it ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I appreciate that. I
-- you know, I had concerns about getting the budget book on time. I
just want to prepare you, I do have some questions for the budget. I
haven't got through the whole budget book yet. And I'm glad that we
have the opportune time in September to further ask questions. That's
all I have.
I'll make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. We're adjourning.
*****
****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Page 381
June 14-15,2011
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BUCKS RUN RESERVE,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROV AL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - LOCATED IN
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2011-95: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE
OF DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING
FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES~ SECTION 2-11
Item #16A3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,925 - FOR
THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) REVIEW AND THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD
MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS
Item #16A4
RATIFY STAFF'S EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #01-3290
"FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES"
WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., AND APPROVAL OF A
TIME EXTENSION CHANGE TO WORK ORDER #JEI-T-3290-
Page 382
June 14-15,2011
06-01 IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONSULTANT'S FINAL
INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED FOR THE "RICH KING
MEMORIAL GREENWAY." - THIS PROJECT WAS PLACED
ON HOLD BY THE COUNTY DUE TO INSUFFICIENT
FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH ALSO CAUSED THE
DESIGN TO BE PLACED ON HOLD, THERE WERE FURTHER
DELAYS FROM CHANGES, MADE BY SFWMD'S IN
OBTAINING A GENERAL PERMIT, THE WORK ORDER
COMPLETION DATE WAS EXTENDED TO APRIL 30~ 2011
Item # 16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTESIA NAPLES, PHASE
2 - LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST
Item #16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
THROUGH REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR THE CR-
901 VANDERBILT DRIVE BRIDGE PROJECT - FUNDS ARE
PART OF THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
W/LODGE ABBOTT AND MUST BE USED TOWARDS
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE V ANDERBIL T DRIVE
CORRIDOR~ PROJECT #60178
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2011-96: RESOLUTION, AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY VEHICLE FOR HIRE ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY MANUAL, PROVIDING FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF
Page 383
June 14-15,2011
LETTERING ON THE REAR WINDSHIELDS OF THE
CHARTER SERVICE VEHICLES - ALLOWING LETTERING
DISPLAYING THE COMPANY NAME, WEBSITE, LOGOS, AND
PHONE NUMBERS PROVIDING IT MEETS ALL COLOR AND
SIZE REQUIREMENTS AS DEFINED IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY VEHICLE FOR HIRE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
MANUAL
Item #16A8
COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010
PROGRESS REPORT AND ADOPT THE 2011 ACTION PLAN -
AS A VOLUNTARY PARTICIPANT IN THE COMMUNITY
RATING SYSTEM (CRS) COLLIER COUNTY HAS A CLASS 6
RATING WHICH PROVIDES UP TO A 20% DISCOUNT ON THE
PREMIUM RATES CHARGED TO FLOOD INSURANCE
POLICY HOLDERS
Item #16A9
PURCHASE OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
(PARCEL NO. 442RDUE) WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
THE FOUR-LANING OF GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD
BETWEEN WILSON BOULEVARD AND DESOTO
BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO. 60040) (FISCAL IMPACT: $3,283)
- FOR PARCEL #442RDUE
Item #16A10
ENDORSE CHANGES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SPECIAL
Page 384
June 14-15,2011
MAGISTRATE'S RULES AND REGULATIONS - REVIEWED
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS WHICH WAS REQUESTED BY THE
BCC
Item #16A11
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S
(MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR FY 2011/12, AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,019,577, AND $5,000 IN LOCAL FUNDING-
FOR WHICH THEIR FISCAL YEAR BEGINS ON JULY 1~ 2011
Item #16A12
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAIVE FALSE
ALARM CITATION FEES FOR THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY - WAIVING $4,867.88 IN
CITATION FEES FROM 51 FALSE ALARM CITATIONS SINCE
MAY OF 2006
Item #16A13
DE-OBLIGATION OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATIVE (FTA) GRANT FUNDS FOR 49 U.S.C. 95316
(JARC) AND 49 U.S.C. 95317 (NEW FREEDOM) PROGRAMS -
ALL FUNDS THAT WERE APPORTIONED TO COLLIER
COUNTY HAVE EXPIRED AND WILL BE EV ALUA TED AND
RE-OBLIGATED THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR'S PROGRAM
Item #16A14
RELEASE OF LIENS IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Page 385
June 14-15,2011
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
CAROLINA M. ALVAREZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NUMBERS CEPM20080005933 AND CERR20080006426,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 724 109TH AVENUE
NORTH, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - BANKUNITED, FSB
HAS OBTAINED THE TITLE THROUGH FORECLOSURE AND
IS REQUESTING A WAIVER OF $27~275 IN FINES
Item #16A15
RATIFY STAFF'S EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #06-3969
"FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES"
WITH PITMAN-HARTENSTEIN, INC. AND APPROVAL OF A
TIME EXTENSION CHANGE TO WORK ORDER #4500117579
IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONSULTANT'S FINAL
INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED FOR THE "PROGRESS
AVENUE/LIVINGSTON ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS." - FOR THE CONTRACT THAT EXPIRED
ON SEPTEMBER 25,2010, EXTENDING THE WORK ORDER
AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS WITH THE NEW EXPIRATION
DATE OF JUNE 29~ 2011
Item #16A16
RATIFY STAFF'S EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #09-5197
"ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ROADWAY CONTRACTORS"
WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. AND APPROVAL OF A TIME
EXTENSION CHANGE TO WORK ORDER #4500117578 IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONTRACTOR'S FINAL INVOICE
FOR WORK COMPLETED FOR THE "2010 COUNTYWIDE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS." - THE CONTRACT EXPIRED
ON JANUARY 25,2011, STAFF ISSUED A TIME EXTENSION
Page 386
June 14-15,2011
CHANGE ORDER EXTENDING THE WORK ORDER 196
WORKING DAYS
Item #16A17
AWARD ITB #11-5646 "NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVICES,"
TO NEAL'S LAWN AND LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE,
INC., A-NOLAN LANDSCAPING AND LAWN, A & M
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, LLC, AMERI-PRIDE, INC.,
WALKER EXOTIC TREE ERADICA TION, ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION CONSULTANTS, INC., AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MOWING, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED
COMBINED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $160,800 - FOR THE
REMOVAL OF LITTER/DEBRIS, MOWING, AND WEED
REMOVAL FOR OWNERS WHO FAIL TO MAINTAIN THEIR
PROPERTIES. VIOLATORS THAT RECEIVE THREE OR MORE
VIOLATIONS ARE ENROLLED IN THE LOT MOWING
PROGRAM AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECT COSTS
Item #16A18
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR
BID NO. 11-5661 - PROGRESS AVENUE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO
COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60188-3, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $475,243.02 - FOR THE MILLING,
RESURF ACING, CONSTRUCTION OF PAVED SHOULDERS
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO BOTH SWALES WITHIN THE NAPLES
PRODUCTION PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
(MSTU)
Page 387
June 14-15,2011
Item #16A19
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CONVERSION AGREEMENT
WITH COMCAST OF THE SOUTH, INC ("COMCAST") FOR
PHASE ONE PROJECT AS STIPULATED BY FLORIDA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION TARIFF 6.310 FOR THE
CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
FACILITIES AND OTHER NON-ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LOCA TED ON UTILITY POLES WITHIN THE V ANDERBIL T
BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (THE 'MSTU')
UNDERGROUND DISTRIBUTION AND TO APPROVE
PAYMENT TO COMCAST IN THE AMOUNT OF $331,351.25
TO COVER THE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR CONVERSION
OF COMCAST FROM OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO
UNDERGROUND - IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A 25%
GOVERNMENT ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) COST
REDUCTION FROM FPL, ALL COMCAST LINES MUST BE
REMOVED FROM THE FPL UTILITY POLES
Item #16A20
AWARD BID #11-5641, "ROCK ROAD MSTU LIME ROCK
ROAD MAINTENANCE" TO EARTHTECH ENTERPRISES, INC.
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $67,036.15 - FOR THE
MAINTENANCE AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE MSTU BOUNDARY WHICH MAY INCLUDE
ATTENDANT FACILITIES SUCH AS STREET LIGHTING,
SIDEW ALKS~ AND DRAINAGE
Item #16A21
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,177 FOR
Page 388
June 14-15,2011
THE REQUIRED 50% LOCAL MATCH TO THE FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS 5307 FY 10 GRANT-
DUE TO RISING FUEL COSTS DURING FY11, ALLOWING
FOR THE ADDITIONAL FUEL COSTS AND MEETING GRANT
REQUIREMENTS
Item # 16A22
UPDATING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON
PUBLIC PETITION ITEM #6A DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON JANUARY 11, 2011
BY ANTON KARABA AND EVA KARABOV A SEEKING
APPROVAL TO RETAIN THE TEN-FOOT FENCE BUILT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12243 FULLER LANE - THE
PETITIONER'S WAS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY ON MAY 18,2011 AFTER ALL
DOCUMENTATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE SHERIFF'S
DEP ARTMENT AND BY DOMESTIC ANIMAL CONTROL AND
REVIEWED BY STAFF
Item # 16A23
RESOLUTION 2011-97: DEFINED MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC, BUT
UNACCEPTED UNPLATTED ROADWAYS IN COLLIER
COUNTY
Item # 16A24
PURCHASE OF THREE FIXED-ROUTE BUSES WITH
TROLLEY DECAL WRAPS FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,123,911 FUNDED WITH FTA 5307 FY10
Page 389
June 14-15, 2011
GRANTS. THESE BUSES ARE SCHEDULED REPLACEMENTS
AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED 2010 TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) - PURCHASED THROUGH THE
GILLIG CORPORATION UNDER THE FLORIDA TRANSIT
CONSORTIUM CONTRACT
Item # 16A25
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION, APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #2
TO CONTRACT #08-5009 WITH SIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $129,150, AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING PERMIT FUND 113 RESERVES FOR $112,000,
WITH THE REMAINING BALANCE OF $17,150 TO BE
EXPENDED FROM CURRENT FUND 113 OPERATING
EXPENSES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE
COUNTY'S ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT (ECM)
SYSTEM FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVE REVIEW,
AN ELECTRONIC PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW SYSTEM
(EPSR) DESIGNED FOR LAND USE AND BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATIONS, AND FOR ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT OF
CAPITAL PROJECT PLANS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
BUDGET AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO COMMIT
$212,000 OF CDBG GRANT AWARD #CD 10-66 FOR FY2010-
2011, JOB CREATION PROJECT, TO FUND 715 FOR THE
IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC) -
Page 390
June 14-15,2011
FOR THE PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE IBDC. THIS IS 1 OF 10 SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR
HUD FUNDING
Item #16B2 -Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
DESIGNATING THE PARCELS OF LAND DEPICTED IN THE
ATTACHED EXHIBITS A-G ASSOCIATED WITH THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE AS A BROWNFIELD AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION;
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION OF SAID DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item # 16B3
AWARD BID #11-5691 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BA YSHORE DRIVE SOUTH CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $943,599.42 - FOR A BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECT THAT WOULD INCLUDE A SHARED USE
PATHWAY, 56 PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTS, CROSSWALKS,
DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION TO MEET ADA
STANDARDS, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A CULVERT
IMPROVING THE FLOW OF STORMWATER
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 391
June 14-15,2011
Item # 16C2
UTILITY EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR
IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER PIPELINE AND
ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING TELEMETRY
ANTENNAE, ELECTRICAL PANEL, METER ASSEMBLY,
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, AND FOR ACCESS ON, OVER AND
ACROSS A PORTION OF THE VETERANS PARK PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN VETERANS PARK OFF IMMOKALEE
ROAD IN NAPLES, FLORIDA, AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT
TO EXCEED $44 (PROJECT NUMBER 70062)
Item #16C3
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF RECLAIMED WASTE FROM THE ISLES OF
CAPRI PARK PROJECT. THE WASTE WILL BE DISPOSED OF
AT THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL ON A FEE SCHEDULE
BASIS OF $50.58 PER TON FOR RESIDENTIAL MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE, AS DEFINED IN THE FY 2011 RATE
RESOLUTION~ IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100~000
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $64,391.41 IN
REVENUE GENERATED AS PROGRAM INCOME WHEN
CONVEYING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED UNDER THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM, IN ADDITION
TO REALLOCATING FUNDS WITHIN THE PROGRAM
Page 392
June 14-15,2011
COMMITMENT ITEMS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT
ONGOING PROGRAM EXPENSES. (FISCAL IMPACT
$64,391.41) - FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 380 47TH AVENUE
NE~ NAPLES
Item # 16D2
ONE (1) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$170,000 WITH IMMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING D/B/A
IMMOKALEE HOUSING & FAMILY SERVICES, USING A
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME)
GRANT - TO INSTALL ENERGY EFFICIENT CENTRAL-
HEAT/AIR AND WATER HEATERS TO THIRTY-FOUR (34)
AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
Item # 16D3
u.S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT PROVIDING
FUNDS TO DAVID LA WRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER,
INC., D/B/A DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER FOR $397,375 TO
PROVIDE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS AT THREE (3) OF ITS
SITES WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY - LOCATED AT THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 6075 BATHEY LANE, NAPLES;
2806 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH, NAPLES; AND 425 NORTH
1ST STREET~ IMMOKALEE
Item #16D4
AGREEMENT #11-5693 WITH COLLIER COUNTY CHILD
ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC. D/B/A CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
CENTER OF COLLIER COUNTY (CAC) TO CONTINUE
Page 393
June 14-15,2011
PROVIDING SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES FUNDED
BY A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
TERMINATE AGREEMENT #10-5385 WITH THE CAC FOR
CONVENIENCE TO ACCURA TEL Y COVER GRANT FUNDING
YEARS - WHICH EXPIRED ON AUGUST 31,2009, THE NEW
AGREEMENT WAS NEEDED TO INCORPORATE THE
CURRENT AGREEMENT WHICH COMMENCED ON
OCTOBER L 2009 AND TERMINATES SEPTEMBER 30~ 2012
Item #16D5 - Withdrawn (During Agenda Changes)
AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
IMMOKALEE APPROVED ON OCTOBER 26, 2010 (ITEM
#16D6). THIS AMENDMENT WILL CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR AND REVISE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES ON THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE TRAVEL COSTS
Item #16D6
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY
ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND COLLIER
COUNTY TO EXTEND THE GRANT PERIOD BY NINETY
DAYS, APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT
FUNDING FOR THE FYll-12 STATE GENERAL REVENUE
SENIORS PROGRAMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $838,546, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED PAYMENT OF GRANT
EXPENDITURES (FISCAL IMPACT $838,546) - EXTENDING
THE CONTRACT PERIOD 90 DAYS WITH THE NEW
CONTRACT BEGINNING ON JULY 1,2011 THROUGH JUNE
Page 394
June 14-15,2011
30~2012
Item #16D7
AGREEMENT WITH PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK
(PLAN) OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR $488,000 TO PROVIDE A
SHARED INFORMATION NETWORK FOR PLAN
PARTICIPANTS IN COLLIER COUNTY. SERVICES WILL BE
P AID ON BEHALF OF THE PLAN PROGRAM THROUGH A
$594,000 GRANT AWARDED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
(HRSA) - TO BE UTILIZED FOR PAYING SALARIES,
BENEFITS, TRAVEL COSTS, SUPPLIES, MARKETING
MATERIALS, OFFICE FURNITURE, LABORATORY,
PHARMACY VOUCHERS, LABORATORY SUBSIDY,
PHARMACY SERVICES, CONSULTANTS, PUBLIC
RELATIONS, WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT, FINANCIAL
SERVICES, RENT, UTILITIES, INSURANCE, WITH HOUSING,
HUMAN, AND VETERANS SERVICES TO USE THE
REMAINING GRANT A WARD FOR ADMINISTRATION,
SUPPLIES, CUSTOMER SUPPORT, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
AND COMPUTER SUPPORT
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,625.13 TO
RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND ITS APPROPRIATE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE COLLECTION OF CO-
PAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HOUSING,
HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES, SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAM. (TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT $1 L625.13)
Page 395
June 14-15,2011
Item #16D9 - Continued from the May 24, 2011 BCC Meeting
AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HUNGER AND
HOMELESS COALITION (HHC) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) HOMELESS PREVENTION AND
RAPID RE-HOUSING (HPRP) GRANT APPROVED BY THE
BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 15,2009, ITEM 16D19. THIS
AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW FOR A REVISION OF THE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE HHC
REQUEST TO NO LONGER INCLUDE HOMELESS
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS) ACTIVITIES
AND TO ALLOW HHC TO MORE FULLY EXPEND GRANT
FUNDS
Item #16E1
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM MUNICIP AL SOFTWARE
CORPORATION TO N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION
AS IT RELATES TO CONTRACT #06-3962 "NEW DIVISIONAL
SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (CDES)" - COUNTY
STAFF RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE AND
NAME CHANGE ON MARCH 9~ 2011
Item #16E2
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS - FOR THE
PERIOD OF APRIL 18~ 2011 THROUGH MAY 17~ 2011
Page 396
June 14-15,2011
Item # 16E3
SUBMITT AL OF AN INVASIVE UPLAND PLANT REMOVAL
PROGRAM GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S INVASIVE
PLANT MANAGEMENT SECTION FOR CONTRACTOR
SERVICES TO TREAT INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION
WITHIN PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE - SSA #7 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $76,000 - FOR THE CONTINUING
MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE EXOTICS THAT WERE
INITIALL Y TREATED IN THE WINTER OF 2010
Item #16F1
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT #10-5440 FOR ENHANCEMENTS
TO BOOK DIRECT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE WITH JACK
RABBIT SYSTEMS FOR AN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF
$18,250 FOR A TOTAL THREE YEAR AGREEMENT COST OF
$60,065 - FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO THE HOTEL BOOKING
SYSTEM ON THE CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
WEBSITE MANAGED BY THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT
Item # 16F2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FOR $105,806 FOR
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT-
THE ONE YEAR GRANT IS TO ENHANCE EXISTING
PROGRAMS WITH ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, SERVICES OR
HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, FOR THE PERIOD OF
Page 397
June 14-15, 2011
JULY L 2011-JUNE 30~ 2012
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2011-98: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $118,000 FROM THE
CLAM BAY FUND (320) RESERVE/TRANSFERS TO THE
CLAM BAY FUND (320) ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS -
FOR THE PELICAN BAY WATER MANAGEMENT SOUTH
BERM THAT SEPARATES THE WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM FROM THE CLAM BAY ESTUARY
Item #16F5 - Moved from Item #16K4 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2011-99: RESOLUTION FIXING THE DATE,
TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR
APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - MSTBU WILL BE
HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,2011 AT 5:05 P.M. IN
THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, IN THE W.
HARMON TURNER BUILDING, BUILDING F, THIRD FLOOR,
BOARD ROOM~ AT 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL~ NAPLES
Item #16G1
Page 398
June 14-15,2011
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 TO
RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR
REPAIRS TO A MODULAR BUILDING LOCATED AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT TO BE USED AS THE
IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL POST-LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON ON MAY 25,2011
AT THE MOORINGS PARK GRILL ROOM IN NAPLES, FL. $15
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA' S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE WOMEN'S
COUNCIL OF REALTORS' WINE AND FOOD
EXTRAVAGANZA ON MAY 25,2011 AT THE ESTUARY AT
GREY OAKS, 1473 ANHINGA POINTE, NAPLES, FL. $40 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 399
June 14-15,2011
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 400
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 14,2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of March 14,2011
2) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of March 16,2011
3) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Agenda of January 15, 20 I 0
4 ) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of February 16,2011
5) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of March 14, 20 II
Item #16J1
June 14-15,2011
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 7, 2011
THROUGH MAY 13, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 14, 2011
THROUGH MAY 20, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 21, 2011
THROUGH MAY 27, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
FIFTEENTH YEAR SCAAP LETTER DELEGATING
AUTHORITY TO SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK TO BE THE
OFFICIAL GRANT APPLICANT AND CONTACT PERSON, OR
HIS DESIGNEE, AND TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND THE
PAYMENT OF THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF STATE CRIMINAL
ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS-
TO BE USED FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
INCARCERATION OF ALIENS
Item #16KI
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 27T IN
Page 401
June 14-15,2011
THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. COLLIER HMA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO.
06-0013-CA AND APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND W AL-
MART STORES EAST, LP RELATING TO THE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION CLAIM IN THE SAME CASE (CR 951
WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS PROJECT) (FISCAL IMPACT
$20.000 AFTER REIMBURSEMENT)
Item #16K2
HIRE OUTSIDE TRIAL COUNSEL BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER
& BOLVES, P.A. IN THE MATTER OF COLLIER COUNTY V.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES, CASE NUMBERS 04-
3587 AND 04-3588 UNDER CONTRACT #06-4047 "EMINENT
DOMAIN LEGAL SERVICES" - AS A RESULT OF THE ROAD-
WIDENING PROJECT INVOLVING TURNING MOVEMENTS
IN AND OUT OF GREEN TREE SHOPPING CENTER
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2011-100: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
COLLIER AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LEE
COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
SINGLE-F AMIL Y MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM
TO ASSIST QUALIFIED BUYERS OF SINGLE F AMIL Y HOMES
IN PARTICIPATING COUNTIES, INCLUDING COLLIER
COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER AUTHORITY
TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
LEE AUTHORITY
Item #16K4 - Moved to Item #16F5 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 402
June 14-15,2011
Item #16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, POCCHI
CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR PARCEL NOS. 106FEE AND
106TCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,400 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANNETTE POCCHI, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 10-2682-CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT NO.
68056) (FISCAL IMPACT $5,000) - FOR THE CONDEMNATION
OF PARCELS
Item #16K6
SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT CAPTIONED COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. KIM
CHRISTINE MUDGE IN COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 10-1075-CC), TO
SETTLE A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM RESULTING FROM
AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT FOR THE TOTAL
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT OF $5,222.09, PAYABLE TO THE
COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A
PARTIAL RELEASE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM - THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON APRIL 26. 2008
Item #16K7
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BENNETT
CINQUEGRANA ET AL. THAT SETTLES IN FULL THE
LITIGATION STYLED: BENNETT CINQUEGRANA, RITA
SIEGEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. COLLIER COUNTY,
AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, LLC AND ATS
Page 403
June 14-15,2011
AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., CASE NO. 09-7628-
CA, NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item # 16K8
INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR CARL TON
FIELDS, P.A. TO EXCEED THE $100,000.00 CAP IN THE CASE
OF COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN REYNOLDS & SONS, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 10-6658-CA (SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS RAW
WATER WELLFIELD PIPELINE PROJECT NO. 70030)(FISCAL
IMPACT AN ADDITIONAL $150,000) - FOR CONTINUED
LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES FROM DAMAGES
INCURRED AS A RESULT OF FAILURES PERTAINING TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS
WELLFIELD PIPELINE
Item #17 A - Moved to Item #8A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2011-101: ABW-PL2011-0568, SILVER SPOT
THEATRE, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
PETITION NUMBER ABW-PL2011-0568, GRANTING A
WAIVER PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.01.A.6 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CONCERNING TWO
ESTABLISHMENTS SELLING ALCOHOL FOR ON-SITE
CONSUMPTION AND DERIVING LESS THAN FIFTY-ONE
PERCENT OF THEIR SALES FROM FOOD ITEMS AND
HAVING A MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE OF LESS
Page 404
June 14-15,2011
THAN 500 FEET FROM ANOTHER SUCH ESTABLISHMENT,
WHICH ARE LOCATED AT UNITS 8205 AND 8210 IN THE
MERCATO MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2011-102: CU-PL2010-1949, HITCHING POST, A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A
COIN OPERATED AMUSEMENT ARCADE WITHIN A C-3
ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION
2.03.03.C.1.C.4 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2011-20: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
ANNUAL PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AND
MAINTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
ADEQUACY. A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS WILL BE PROVIDED, ON
PROGRAM/DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ONE YEAR AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANGES, AS DIRECTED BY
Page 405
June 14-15,2011
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON MAY 10,
2011. ADDITIONALLY, THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO PREPARE
THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO ACCOMMODATE
THESE TYPES OF PAYMENT CHANGES AND SPECIFY
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES AS THE CONTROLLING PROVISIONS, TO
BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE NEXT SCHEDULED
UPDATE CYCLE
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2011-21: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
NUMBER 09-22, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
TIME LIMITS AND TIME LIMIT EXTENSION
REQUIREMENTS AS FOUND IN SECTION 10.02.13.D OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2011-22: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2006-56, THE ROCK ROAD
IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, TO
AMEND THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE MSTU
TO REMOVE TWO PROPERTIES THAT NO LONGER DERIVE
BENEFIT FROM THE MSTU'S STATED PURPOSE, TO ADD
PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO DERIVE BENEFIT, AND TO
CREATE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT
TO COUNTY STAFF AS TO FUTURE PROJECTS WITHIN THE
MSTU
Page 406
June 14-15,2011
Item #17G - Moved to Item #8B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the 2 - day
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 p.m., on June 15,
2011.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uJ-w.~
FRED COYLE, CRAI
'.;\,' .('t'
i.li~1Pi j' ,
'.j. , '., c, '\.~. . "
;~~. 0,1..)
AT1:~T:'" .....,.~
QWl9ijr~ 'a\QCK, CLERK
. '.' ~-,." i 'v};>" 1 ">- : ~
,. ,~ ' ,i) ,:." ~
: ,!:c':, , I" .' .... ,..' . l'
..tttt'.- to..,,:
1valth..._,~;: ·
These ~i~~tes ap}2ved by the Board on J ~
as presented A . or as correc d
12~ , Z 0 , ,
.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 407