BCC Minutes 07/26/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
July 26, 2011
July 26, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
July 26, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
Chairman: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Operations Manager, CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
i?.
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
July 26, 2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
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 -249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
Page 1
July 26, 2011
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Kathleen D. Korb - Unitarian - Universalist Congregation of
Greater Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
(Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. June 14, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting Minutes
C. June 15, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting (Carryover) Minutes
Page 2
July 26, 2011
D. June 16, 2011 - BCC /Budget Workshop Meeting Minutes
E. June 28, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting Minutes
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Mark Gedvillas, Wastewater
b. William Combs, Wastewater
2) 25 Year Attendees
a. Marc Stephenson, Water
b. Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
C. Jesse Komomy, Wastewater
d. Jon Flomerfelt, Wastewater
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
1) 5 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Keith W. Upson, Black Affairs Advisory Board
b. Joe Swaj a, County Government Productivity Committee
C. Margaret Harris, Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee
d. Joseph Langkawel, Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee
2) 10 YEAR ATTENDEE
Page 3
July 26, 2011
3)
a. Anthony P. Pires, Jr. Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee
15 YEAR ATTENDEE
a. Richard E. Joslin. Contractors Licensing Board
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating August 13 -14, 2011 as "Spirit of 45" Days in
Collier County. To be accepted by Lavern Gaynor, Lois A. Bolin, Ph.D.,
Peter Thomas and Jim Elson. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month award to Salazar
Machine & Steel. Accepting the award will be Pete Salazar, President of
Salazar Machine & Steel.
B. Recommendation to recognize Alfred Robertson, Recycling Specialist,
Solid Waste Department, as the Employee of the Month for June, 2011.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Michael George Hagan regarding his concern
for safety on East Tamiami Trail and his ideas to reduce homelessness.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. All participants are
required to be sworn in. RZ- PL2009 -25: The Gordon River Greenway
Park — Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which established comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
Page 4
July 26, 2011
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from Rural Agriculture
(A), Rural Agriculture (A) with an ST Overlay, Conservation (CON),
Conservation (CON) with an ST Overlay, Commercial Intermediate (C -3),
Residential Multi- Family District 6 [RMF -6(3)] and Residential Multi -
Family District 6 [RMF -6(3)] with ST Overlay zoning districts to the Public
Use (P) zoning district for a public park with an ST Overlay to be known as
the Gordon River Greenway Park; and by providing an effective date. The
123.6 + /- acre subject property is located on the east side of Goodlette- Frank
Road (CR -851) and south of Golden Gate Parkway (CR -886), in Sections 27
and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the Collier County Florida- Friendly Use of
Fertilizer on Urban Landscapes.
C. This item to be heard at 10:15 a.m. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. All participants are
required to be sworn in. SRAA- PL2011 -0657: Ave Maria SRA — A
Resolution amending Resolution Numbers 2004 -89 and 2005 -234A for the
Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area to revise the SRA Master
Plan to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and Town Center 2b; to
relocate Town Center 2b to Oil Well Road and to relocate an access point on
Oil Well Road. The property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of
Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29
East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South,
Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida. (Companion: DOA- PL2011 -0653)
D. This item to be heard immediately followiniz Item 8C. This item requires
that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. All
participants are required to be sworn in. DRI- PL2011 -0653: Ave Maria
DRI: Resolution amending Resolution Number 05 -235 (Development Order
No. 05 -01), as amended, for the Town of Ave Maria Development of
Regional Impact ( "DRI ") located in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47
South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18,
Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida; by providing
for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order by revising Exhibit C:
SRA Master Plan to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and Town
Center 2b, relocate Town Center 2b to Oil Well Road and relocate an access
point on Oil Well Road; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,
Page 5
July 26, 2011
Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued
Development Orders, Transmittal to Department of Community
Affairs and Effective Date. (Companion: SRAA- PL2011 -0657)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of alternate member to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
E. Appointment of members to the newly created Rock Road Improvement
MSTU Advisory Committee.
F. Advisory Board Vacancies advertised in the Press Release of July 14, 2011.
G. PHU Agreement (Commissioner Hiller)
H. Commercial Redevelopment Impact Fee Executive Summary.
(Commissioner Hiller)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to execute a Transportation Regional Incentive
Program (TRIP) Agreement between the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County to provide funding in the
amount of $1,400,000 in FDOT Fiscal Year 2011/12 for construction of
the Primary Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intermodal Transfer facility at
the Government Center; to approve a resolution authorizing Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to sign the agreement; to
approve the required budget amendments; and to endorse the project for
bidding purposes. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alternative
Transportation Modes, GMD /Construction & Maintenance)
B. Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #11-5650, Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) for Collier Area Transit (CAT) Program to
Page 6
July 26, 2011
Avail Technologies, Inc. for an estimated $1,109,947, in FY 2011 and
$449,366 in FY 2012 and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
(Michelle Arnold, Director, Alternative Transportation Modes,
GMD /Construction & Maintenance)
C. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation to review and approve
the proposed Collier County 2012 State Legislative Priorities (Debbie
Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator, Communication & Customer
Relations Department)
D. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Change Order #1 to Contract #10 -5541 with Paradise Advertising and
Marketing, Inc. for up to $800,000 in additional media and production
billing at gross in accordance with their agreement with Collier County.
(Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
E. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a project
modification for rehabilitation activities funded through the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. The modification will allow stolen items to be
replaced and secured against future theft. (Fiscal impact $33,778)
(Frank Ramsey, Housing Development Manager)
F. 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 16D3). This
amendment will correct a scrivener's error and revise scope of services
on the original agreement to include travel costs. (Rosa Munoz, Grants
Coordinator, Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
G. This item to be heard at 9:45 a.m. Recommendation to adopt a
Resolution establishing proposed millage rates as maximum property
tax rates to be levied in FY 2011/12 and Reaffirm the Advertised Public
Hearing Dates in September, 2011 for the Budget approval process.
(Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services,
County Manager's Office)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 7
July 26, 2011
A. To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period July 18, 2011
through July 20, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the
Board.
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Ronald M. Medeiros Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CEPM20090009462, relating to property located at 8 Pelican Street
West, Collier County, Florida.
2) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Bonness, Inc.
for Bid No. 11 -5687 - Pine Ridge Road right turn lane improvements
at Livingston Road, Project No. 60016, in the amount of $94,344.02.
3) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Bonness, Inc.
for Bid No. 11 -5 682 - Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection
improvements at Goodlette -Frank Road, Project No. 60016, in the
amount of $129,090.34.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve recording the final plat of Lakoya Replat of Lot 86.
Page S
July 26, 2011
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve recording the final plat of Arezzo at Tuscany Reserve Replat.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the pump station and
connecting force main utility facility for Avellino Isles, 595 Avellino
Isles Circle, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to
release any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or
the Developer's designated agent.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$71,604.37 for Traffic Accident Reimbursements, Project #60076.1,
and to recognize revenues for future repairs.
8) Recommendation to reject Bid #11 -5733 "Irrigation Parts, Pumps and
Related Items."
9) Recommendation to amend Resolution No. 06 -200 in order to revise
the membership requirements of the Floodplain Management
Planning Committee and direct the County Manager to re- appoint
Committee members in the category of "members of the public."
10) Recommendation to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with Marsala at Tiburon Homeowner's Association for work
performed along the Livingston Road County Right -of -Way.
11) Recommendation to approve the 2011 Annual Progress Report to the
Collier County Transit Development Plan and authorization for
submission to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
12) Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5604R for "Lely MSTU Doral
Circle Roadway Sidewalk Improvements" and award a contract to
Bonness Inc. in the amount of $90,524.42 and approve a Budget
Amendment in the amount of $110,000 from Lely MSTU Fund 152 to
fund bridge improvements and purchase light poles for the project as
endorsed by the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU.
13) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10 -5528 to
Page 9
July 26, 2011
AC Signs, LLC for Bus Shelter Installation in an estimated annual
amount of $150,000; to authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract; and, to authorize the County Manager or his designee, to
evaluate the existing shelter design and explore possible options.
14) Recommendation to cancel the previously executed agreement with
the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District concerning the
Northern Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Plan, Collier
County Project No. 33134; to accept and approve funding Agreement
No. S0539 from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $75,000 for
Project No. 33134; and to use the South Florida Water Management
District $75,000 funding, accepted by the Board on December 14,
2010 and currently budgeted in Project No. 33134, as the 50% match
required in Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Agreement No. S0539.
15) Recommendation to reject Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11 -5629R
"Background Check Services" and associated quotes that were
submitted. The annual impact associated with this solicitation is
approximately $75,000.
16) Recommendation to approve Change Order #6 in the amount of
$355,916.44 to Contract #10 -5366 with Stevens and Layton, Inc. to
complete the Gateway Triangle Phase 2 Stormwater Construction
Project. (Project #51803)
17) Recommendation to approve and ratify staff's zero - dollar time
extension to Contract #06 -3980 "Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services" with Cardno /TBE and related Work Order
#4500115973, dated February 16, 2010 in order to process the
consultant's final invoice for work completed for upgrading the
existing span wire traffic signal at Airport- Pulling Road and Pine
Ridge Road to a steel mast arm assembly.
18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify staffs authorization of a change order to extend Work Order
#4500105331 for SCOOT Drafting Services.
Page 10
July 26, 2011
19) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to
direct the County Manager or designee to create and fund a project via
budget amendment within Parks and Recreation Capital Fund (306)
for the specific purpose of establishing a public All Terrain Vehicle
(ATV) Park and to move forward with public involvement, concept
evaluations, cost comparisons and then come back to the Board with
alternatives and a final recommendation to implement the project.
20) Recommendation to reject Bid #11-5718 for the replacement of
Bridge No. 030152 at Oil Well Road and authorize re- advertisement
of the project in accordance with ITB #1 1-5718B.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve local advisory board members and CRA
staff's attendance at the Florida Redevelopment Association's 2011
Annual Conference including payment of attendees' registration,
lodging, travel and per diem expenses from the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle Trust Fund (187) budget and declare the conference
attendance and training received as a valid public purpose.
(Estimated Fiscal Impact: Approximately $839 per person)
2) Recommendation to reject the lone bid received by Regions Bank
under Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11-5702 which was issued in an
attempt to refinance, at the lowest overall financing cost, the current
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Series 2009 Term Loan and to
direct the County Manager or his designee to negotiate more favorable
finance terms with Fifth Third Bank, the current note holder, with the
intent to lower the overall debt service cost.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Sweat Equity Grant Agreement between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (3249 Cottage Grove Avenue - Fiscal Impact: $647.83)
4) Recommendation to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA), to approve the submission of a letter to the Collier
County Housing, Human and Veteran Services Department (HHVS)
in application for Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
Page 11
July 26, 2011
Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI)/ Disaster Recovery Enhancement
Funds (DREF) grant opportunity seeking grant funding in the amount
of $2,100,000 to support further implementation of the Immokalee
Stormwater Master Plan.
5) Recommendation to approve the shortlist for RFP #11 -5697, CEI
Services for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Stormwater
Improvements.
6) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant
Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (3639 Bayshore Drive - Fiscal
Impact: $50,000)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and ratify staff s extension of Work
Order No. 4500101204 with Hole Montes Engineering, Inc., to
process the consultant's final invoice of $2,184.54 for work completed
at the South County Water Reclamation Facility.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$120,000 to reallocate budgeted operating expenses between
operating fund centers within the Utility Billing and Customer Service
Department to reflect FY2011 forecasted expenditures.
3) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract #06 -3972
with Tele - Works, Inc., to transfer the Utility Billing and Customer
Service Department's existing Interactive Voice Response Software
System to a hosted environment, waive the formal bid process, and
approve a contract with Collector Solutions Inc. for credit card and
Automated Clearing House processing to meet Payment Card Industry
Data Security Standards compliance for automated telephone
payments.
4) Recommendation that the Collier County Water -Sewer District
administer a program to refund utility impact fees and Allowance for
Funds Prudently Invested fees, as applicable, for properties not
connected to the utility infrastructure and located in areas within the
Page 12
July 26, 2011
utility's service district boundaries that are currently exempt from the
imposition of such fees.
5) Recommendation to approve the Renewal and Amendment of the
Agreement for Delivery and Reuse of Reclaimed Water between The
Club Pelican Bay, Inc. and the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, as the Ex- Officio Governing Board of the
Collier County Water -Sewer District.
6) Recommendation to authorize renewal of non - standard sole- source
Contract #10 -5583 for a period of five more years and add the
purchase of Siemens Industry, Inc., Bioxide Plus 71 for use by the
Public Utilities Division's Wastewater Department in the estimated
annual amount of $543,895.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final submission of the Disaster
Recovery Initiative 2008 Disaster Recovery Enhancement Funds
(DREF) application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
for funding in the amount of $3,323,962.
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida supporting the County's
applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) for Long Range Budget Plan Requests for Inlet Management
Plan and Beach Renourishment Projects for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013
and authorization of any necessary budget amendments.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$63,073.20 in revenue generated as program income when conveying
property acquired through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(Fiscal Impact: $63,073.20)
4) Recommendation to approve Category "A" Tourist Development
Fund 183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities FY 2011/12
in the amount of $1,025,000, make a finding that the expenditure will
promote tourism, and authorize the Chairman to sign necessary
agreements following County Attorney approval.
Page 13
July 26, 2011
5) Recommendation to approve Category "A" Tourist Development
Council Grant Applications from the City of Naples, the City of
Marco Island and Collier County for FY-2011/2012 in the amount of
$2,884,950 and authorize the Chairman to sign grant agreements after
County Attorney's approval.
6) Request that the Board of County Commissioners review and approve
the County Attorney's recommendation to waive any potential ethics
conflict for a Code Enforcement Board member based on Ch. 1125
Florida Statutes.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5706 to DeAngelis Diamond, Inc.
in the amount of $422,890 (omitting Bid Alternate No. 3) for the
construction contract of the Bluebill Ave. Beach Access Turnaround
Project No. 80058 and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard
contract after County Attorney approval.
8) Recommendation to reject ten (10) proposals received under
Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) #11 -5681, Rehab of Residential
Structures and to reissue a new solicitation.
9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$50,000 in compensation for FYI I from the City of Marco Island
pursuant to Interlocal Agreement. (Fiscal impact: $50,000)
10) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to approve the
submission of the 2011 -12 State of Florida Challenge Grant
application and authorize the County Manager to sign authorizations
on the completed application before submission. The application is
for $100,000 and must be submitted to the Department of Children &
Family Services Office on Homelessness (DCF) no later than August
10, 2011. This grant application has no effect on ad valorem or
general fund dollars.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing (HPRP) amendment
to the subrecipient grant agreement with the Collier County Hunger
and Homeless Coalition (HHC) incorporating additional American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) reporting
Page 14
July 26, 2011
requirements in response to Ernst and Young's Single Audit
Management Letter Observation 2010 -2.
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
agreements between the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida,
Inc. and Collier County and approve budget amendments to reflect a
decrease of $22,232 in funding for the FYI 1-12 State General
Revenue Seniors Programs.
13) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #I ODB-D4-
09-2 1 -0 1 -K09 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County to reallocate portions of the funds among and
within projects, update budget documents, work plans, number of
beneficiaries, and sign an associated subrecipient agreement
amendment with the Collier County Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Agency.
14) Recommendation to approve the Collier County 5 -Year HUD
Consolidated Plan for FY 2011 -2016; One Year HUD Action Plan
FY 2011 -2012 and revised Citizen Participation Plan, and sign the
supporting resolution and certifications for submission to the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
15) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) Mortgage and Note Modification Agreement for Single Family
Rehabilitation to reconcile the total funds disbursed on previously
recorded security instruments.
16) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staff's authorization of a one-
time price increase requested by Caribbean Lawn & Garden based on
unexpected site conditions at county -owned Neighborhood
Stabilization Program properties. This modification will authorize
payment for services in the amount of $1,960.
17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to an agreement between David Lawrence Center, Inc.
and Collier County for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant
Program, to reallocate funds among line items, decrease the
contractual amount, neither of which impact the total grant award.
Page 15
July 26, 2011
18) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #08DB -D3-
09- 21- 01 -A03 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County. This modification will extend the grant period.
19) Recommendation to reject Invitation to Bid #11-5697 for the
construction of Immokalee South Park Community Building due to
considerations in bidding associated with Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requirements not considered in solicitation.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and ratify staff's Zero - Dollar Time
Extension of Contract #04 -3576, Construction Manager at Risk,
Annex & Parking Garage, with Kraft Construction Co., Inc., in order
to process the Contractor's final invoice for work completed on the
Courthouse Annex - Project No. 52533 and close out the contract; and
authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign the necessary
documents.
2) Recommendation to reject proposals for RFP #11 -5609 "Real Estate
Appraisal Services ".
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and
the International City Management Association Retirement
Corporation (ICMA -RC) for the latter to continue to provide 457
deferred compensation services to employees.
4) Recommendation to ratify a sole source repair to the County's
Thermal Storage Tanks made by FAFCO, Inc., in the amount of
$170,406.
5) Recommendation to award and authorize the Chairman to sign a
contract with Allegiance, Inc. for Group Health Third Party
Administration Services in the amount of $690,976 annually.
6) Recommendation to ratify one (1) addition and deletions to the 2011
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from April 1, 2011
through June 30, 2011.
Page 16
July 26, 2011
7) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate revenue for special
services in the amount of $44,173.94 & $20,351.98 for reimbursement
for fingerprinting charges to Facilities Management's cost centers and
approve all necessary Fiscal Year 2011 budget amendments.
8) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval for the submittal
of a Request for Fire Management Assistance Subgrant application to
the Florida Division of Emergency Management for reimbursement of
expenses incurred during the Florida Slope Fire.
9) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Modification to Contract #11 -5704 for the Pelican Bay Community
Crosswalks to Bateman Contracting, LLP.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign three
FY 11/12 Tourist Development Tax Category B Grant Agreements;
two with Corrigan Sports Enterprises, Inc. and one with Naples
International Film Festival, Inc. totaling $40,000.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Amendment #2 to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FYI Tourist
Development Tax Grant Agreement to change the current funding
source from Category C -2 to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 as a
Category B Marketing Grant.
4) Report to the Board of County Commissioners covering budget
amendments impacting reserves in an amount totaling $25,000 or less.
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting as the Airport Authority, approves and authorizes the Chairman
Page 17
July 26, 2011
to execute Hole Montes Work Order under Contract #09- 5262 -AE in
the amount of $23,766.95 for engineering consulting services
required to design and bid the airfield lighting rehabilitation project at
the Immokalee Regional Airport.
2) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments to recognize
revenue from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
the amount of $187,270.83 and return funds in the amount of
$274,550.99 to Immokalee Infrastructure Fund 497 borrowed to
reconstruct facilities at Everglades Airpark damaged by Hurricane
Wilma.
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to transfer
$20,103.85 remaining in the Everglades Airpark Dwelling Project to
Reserve for Contingencies to be used as match funds for future grants.
4) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of an Easement to Lee
County Electric Cooperative for providing electric service to the
Immokalee Airport USDA Building located at 190 Airpark
Boulevard, Immokalee at a cost not to exceed $27.
5) Recommendation to approve a License Agreement between the
Collier County Airport Authority and Serenity Construction Services,
Corp. relating to the harvesting of palmetto berries at the Immokalee
Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended a lunch meeting at Arthrex, Naples, FL on June 3, 2011.
$10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended CBIA June General Membership Meeting at CBIA, Naples,
FL. $16 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Page 18
July 26, 2011
Attended the Beautiful Marco Celebration Dinner on June 27, 2011
at the Marco Marriott on Marco Island, FL. $47 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala'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 June 11,
2011 through June 17, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 18,
2011 through June 24, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 25,
2011 through July 1, 2011 and for submission into the official records
of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 2,
2011 through July 8, 2011 and for submission into the official records
of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 9,
2011 through July 15, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
6) Recommend approval of a Budget Amendment to Fund 611 E -911 in
the amount of $200,000 for unanticipated expenses for base telephone
costs and other equipment repairs & maintenance.
7) Recognize carry forward from Fund 602, Confiscated Trust Funds,
and approve the expenditure of $146,000 in Confiscated Trust Funds a
required grant match for a Public Safety Interoperable
Communications (PSIC) Grant, and transfer funds to Sheriff s Grant
Fund #115.
Page 19
July 26, 2011
8) Recognize revenue from Circuit Criminal Fines in the amount of
$34,166.55, approve the use of $25,000 of those Confiscated Trust
Funds for support of Collier 211 Campaign, and place the balance of
$9,166.55 in Reserve for Contingencies.
9) Pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(b) the Clerk of the Circuit
Court is required to file the amount of traffic infraction surcharges
collected under Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a)(1) with the Board of
County Commissioners.
10) Request that the Board of County Commissioners accept and approve
capital asset disposition records for the period October 1, 2010
through March 31, 2011.
11) Recommendation that the Board accept the investment status update
report for the quarter ending June 30, 2011.
12) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a resolution changing the boundaries and
numeric designations of certain precincts due to consolidation with
adjacent precincts.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement with
business owner, East Coast Waffles, Inc., and a Stipulated Final
Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as
the Mediated Settlement Agreement awarding business damages in
the amount of $30,000 for Parcels 110FEE and 1 IOTCE in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. A. L. Subs, Inc., et al., Case No. 09- 3691 -CA.
(Collier Boulevard Project #60092) (Fiscal Impact: $57,325)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
Collier County Health Facilities Authority to disburse grant funds to
certain non -profit health service agencies.
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
Page 20
July 26, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC -
PL2011 -905, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's
interest in a 30 -foot wide easement as originally created by Official Record
Book 457, Page 361 in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
situated in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, the subject easement to be vacated is more specifically depicted
and described in Exhibit "A ".
B. Recommendation to approve a Resolution amending the Collier County
Water -Sewer District's Utilities Standards Manual.
C. 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. DOA- PL2010 -274: Heritage Bay DRI - A
Resolution amending Development Order 03 -01, Heritage Bay, a
Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Addition of
Build -out Date and Extension of Expiration Date; Section Two: Findings of
Fact; Section Three: Conclusions of Law; Section Four: Effect of Previously
Issued Development Order, Transmittal to DCA; and providing an Effective
Date. The property is located in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48
South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
Page 21
July 26, 2011
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
Page 22
July 26, 2011
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioner meeting is now in session. Would you please stand for
the invocation by Reverend Kathleen D. Korb of the Unitarian
Universalist Congregation of greater Naples.
REVEREND KORB: Spirit of wisdom and of truth, of justice
and compassion, be with us as we begin the heavy work of this day.
Be with us all as we come to observe, to testify, perhaps to protest or
support. Be with the staff who have prepared so carefully, and with
the Board as they make their decisions and go through their necessary
work.
Help us to remember that although our own interests are
paramount to us, they may not be so to others, that they must
sometimes give way to the greater good, and that principle can
become self - righteousness when it cannot bend to the give and take of
compromise, the soul of democracy.
Be especially with the Commissioners. Help them stay alert and
engaged amidst the swirl of routine demands. Should there be
differences of opinion, keep them ever mindful that honorable people
of integrity can differ in their opinions, and help them continue the
respect that all of us must give to one another, even in the midst of
heated controversy.
Keep them mindful as well of the reality that although they
represent different districts and those districts' interests must always
be of import to them, their ultimate concern is will all of Collier
County and its people, its beautiful, diverse, recreational and fertile
land, the rich and poor, the young and old, the healthy and those
whose health is challenged, those here for play and those for work, or
who hope for work, those in penthouses on the beach and the
homeless and the hungry.
Give them also to recognize that although they were elected to
represent us to do our work for us, as leaders they have the
responsibility not merely to reflect the needs and desires of those who
Page 2
July 26, 2011
voted for them, or even everyone in their district or the county, but to
use their own informed and careful judgment in their decision making.
Grant us above all the ability to discern with gratitude the hard
work that they do and to support them with our own work and
appreciation.
Be with us all. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Reverend Korb.
Would you please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Beautiful prayer.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, will you please review with us the changes to
the agenda today?
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. These are the changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' agenda for the meeting of July 26th, 2011.
First change is a request to continue Item 16(D)(6) to the
September 13th, 2011 BCC meeting. That item is a request that the
Board review and approve County Attorney's recommendation to
waive potential ethics conflict for Code Enforcement Board member.
This item was originally moved to the regular agenda at the request of
the Commissioner Hiller.
Subsequently the staff received a request from the Code
Enforcement Board member in question, who was unable to attend
this morning, and asked that the item be continued to the September
13th meeting.
Page 3
July 26, 2011
Next item is to continue Item 16(F)(1) to the September 13, 2011
BCC meeting. It's a modification to a contract for the Pelican Bay
Community crosswalks. Pelican Bay Community staff has asked that
this item be moved -- excuse me, continued to the September meeting
in order to further address vendor concerns regarding the scheduling
of the crosswalk construction.
Next item is a continued item to 16(F)(3) to move to September
13, 2011 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve and
authorize the chairman to sign an amendment to the Friends of
Rookery Bay FY 2011 tourist development tax grant agreement. This
item was moved at both staff and Commissioner Hiller's separate
request in response to the grantee's request for a continuance to
resolve questions raised by the Clerk's finance department.
Next item is to move Item 16(D)(14) to the regular agenda to
become Item 10(H). It's a recommendation to approve the Collier
County five -year HUD Consolidated Plan for 2011 through 2016 and
the one -year action plan for FY 2011 -12. This was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16(D)(1) from the consent agenda
to become Item 10(I) on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation
to approve final submission of the disaster recovery initiative 2008
Disaster Recovery Enhancement Funds application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs. This item was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16(A)(19) for the regular agenda to
become Item 10(J). It's a recommendation for the Board of County
Commissioners to direct County Manager to create a project fund for
the purpose of establishing a public all - terrain vehicle park and to
move forward with public involvement, concept evaluations, cost
comparisons, and then return to the Board with alternatives and final
recommendations to implement the project. This item was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
July 26, 2011
The next change is to move Item 16(C)(5) to become Item 10(K)
on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the renewal
and amendment of the agreement for delivery and reuse of reclaimed
water between the Club at Pelican Bay, Incorporated and the Board of
County Commissioners. This item moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16(F)(5) from the consent agenda to
become Item 10(L) on your regular agenda. This is a recommendation
to adopt a resolution approving amendments to the fiscal year 2011
adopted budget. This item is moved at the staff s request and is
intended to be a companion to Item 10(A). 10(A) is the
recommendation this morning that you will hear regarding the
proposed C.A.T. transfer station to be built around the government
center.
This resolution would establish the project budget, if the Board in
fact approves that project. If you do, then this will become a
perfunctory approval at that time.
Next change is to move Item 16(B)(1) to become Item 13(B)(1)
under CRAs. It's a recommendation to approve local advisory board
members and CRA staff attendance at the Florida Redevelopment
Association 2011 annual conference. This item was moved by -- at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 17(D) from your consent agenda to
become Item 8(E). It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution
approving amendments to the fiscal year 2010/2011 budget. This item
was moved at staff s request.
And again, these are resolutions that would establish project
funding and budgets for two items on your regular agenda this
morning. If those items are approved, this will again become a
perfunctory approval to set up the project budget. If not, then we will
make appropriate adjustments to this resolution.
I have three agenda notes this morning, Commissioners. First is
Page 5
July 26, 2011
Items 9(G) and 12(A) are companion items. This is pointed out by the
County Attorney's office.
Item 16(D)(7); it's an advisory committee recommendation.
Should read as follows: The Tourist Development Council
recommended approval of this item by a vote of 6 -1 on July 21 st,
2011, subject to verification by the Clerk that TDC funds can be used
to fund this item.
The council also made a finding that this item supports tourism
and serves a valid public purpose. This note was added at the staffs
request.
Item 16(D)(19), the numbers should read number 11 -5692
instead of 11 -5697 as shown on the agenda and the executive
summary. That correction is made at the staff s request.
Finally, Commissioners, you have a series of time certain items
today. First being at 9:45 am. That item is 10(G). It has to do with
the resolution adopting the proposed fiscal year 2012 maximum
millage rate.
The next item is heard at 10:15. It's Item 8(C) on your agenda.
It's a proposed revision to the Ava Maria's stewardship receiving area
master plan. That will be immediately followed by Item 8(D). That is
a proposed revision to the Ave Maria DRI.
At 11:00 a.m., you have a scheduled hearing on Item 8(B), which
is the proposed fertilizer ordinance.
At 1:00 p.m. you're scheduled to hear Item 10(C), which is the
proposed FY12 state legislative priorities by the Board of County
Commissioners.
And finally, at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, you're scheduled to hear
Item 8(A) regarding a rezoning of the property that is proposed to
become the Gordon River Greenway.
And that, Mr. Chairman, is all the changes I have for this
morning. Thank goodness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
July 26, 2011
MR. OCHS: Welcome back, by the way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll go to the Commissioners.
We'll start with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have any ex parte disclosure for
the consent or summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. I have, for 8(A), meetings,
e -mails and calls and a review of staff reports.
For 8(C) I have meeting, e -mails and calls and review of staff
reports. And the same for 8(D).
And then for 16(A)(4), I have no disclosure. For (A)(5), I have
calls. And for 17(A), no disclosure. 17(C), no disclosure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. For the consent and summary
agenda disclosure part, I have nothing on the consent at all. And on
the summary agenda, I only have 17(C), which is correspondence
having to do with Heritage Bay.
And I'll give the other ex partes when the subjects come up at
that time. I have no changes nor would I think of making any more
changes to this agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have no additional changes to
the agenda this morning.
I do have ex parte disclosure with respect to the Heritage Bay
petition on 17(C), and it is mostly ex parte that occurred at the time
that item was previously considered. But the meetings and
correspondence and staff reports are part of my file, if anyone wishes
to review them.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 7
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, I have no changes to
the agenda. And the only thing I have to declare would be 17(C),
where I've had meetings, correspondence, e -mails and calls, and it's all
contained within my agenda packet -- my package here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I really enjoyed the prayer this
morning, I think it was spot -on. I'm hoping to get a copy of it and
distribute it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say the same thing; I
want a copy as well. Beautiful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was. And what a great way to
start out a day.
I have ex parte communication on 17(C). I received the Planning
Commission's report. I would like to move 10(F) to the consent
agenda. I asked the County Manager to put that on the regular
agenda. Subsequently, as of late last night, discovered there was two
different previous agenda items that called for that item to be
approved. So Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that on the consent
agenda, save some staff time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have that change?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We'll move that to the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And before I ask for a motion to approve
the agenda, we have a speaker concerning an item on the agenda.
Would you call the speaker, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. It's Marvin Courtright, and he'll be
speaking to Item 16(G)(5).
MR. COURTRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners,
Chairman. My name is Marvin Courtright. I'm a resident of Collier
July 26, 2011
County. I have a small business in Immokalee. And I guess you think
I'm bringing a little humor to your meeting today by addressing Item 5
under Airport Authority.
There's a contract prepared, complete, seven pages, for this
organization, this local individual who lives in Lehigh, to pick the
berries on airport property, and it's before you now to approve. And I
have no problem with it.
What I have a problem with is how did we manage to get a
contract seven pages long, beautifully detailed by our County
Attorney's Office, yet we have seven -- no, I'm sorry, right now three
major businesses in Immokalee who can't get a contract to continue
business? This confuses me.
I have no problem with picking berries on the airport. I do have a
problem with terminal security; however, I'm sure that the airport
manager will address that.
But the fact that Mr. Greg Shepard and his business, eight months
now still doesn't have a contract. Mr. -- I'm sorry, Steve Fletcher, with
his ag. business, eight months, still no contract. Mr. Corky Mayhood,
same time, still no contract.
It's amazing to me that we can complete a seven -page lease
agreement to pick berries on the airport, but we cannot accomplish a
matter that puts money in the coffers, does business, jobs and all. So
thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask, we were asking
to continue the Rookery Bay item. Is there somebody from Rookery
Bay that had a comment on that, or no? Okay. Is there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There must be.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Courtright.
MS. DeMATTIA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. I'm Robin
July 26, 2011
DeMattia. I'm the director of marketing for the Friends of Rookery
Bay. I just wanted to thank the County for the opportunity to provide
us with a grant and for all the work that Commissioner Hiller and the
County Attorney's Office and the finance department are doing to help
us to restructure that grant into a Category B grant.
I just did want to remind everyone that we've been very prudent
in using the money. We increased attendance at the Rookery Bay
Environmental Learning Center by 34 percent in 2010. And I
received statistics last week telling us that we're up 20 percent this
year as well.
We have three hotel packages right now, and we're working on a
fourth one that will launch in November. So we are working to bring
tourists to Collier County by partnering with the hotels.
I just wanted to remind this Commission, as I reminded
Commissioner Hiller and the County Attorney's Office and the finance
department, that the grant period technically ends September 30th. So
if we do continue to your September 13th BCC meeting, if there
would be any accommodation to either extending our grant period or
rolling over that money to fiscal year 12, we would appreciate any
consideration to that.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Who requested that the item be continued?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, it was initially, I believe the grantee
the Friends of Rookery Bay, resulting from a meeting that they had
with members of the Clerk's finance department and the County
Attorney. And they discovered there were some issues that needed to
be resolved and they most likely couldn't have been resolved in time
to get on this agenda. So I believe it was Mr. Clay Brooker that was
representing Friends of Rookery Bay sent an e -mail asking for a
continuance. And I see Mr. Klatzkow may be able to add to this.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's substantially correct.
Page 10
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How are we going to grant an
extension if the deadline occurs before our next meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: It does not occur before your next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It does not occur before the next
meeting? So it can be placed on the first meeting --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- first agenda in September without
jeopardizing their status?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the agenda as
amended, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve the agenda as
amended by Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion, with the
understanding that we will be readdressing the Rookery Bay issue and
we are all in agreement that if this is on the agenda, we can extend this
grant if this item is approved.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll be working personally with Mr. Brooker
to bring this back for your first meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much, Mr. Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a second by
Commissioner Fiala, but we have at least two, maybe three
commissioners who wish to make comments. I think Commissioner
Hiller was first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the matter has been
addressed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, let me, if I may, there's
one thing, I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We almost made it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry.
Page 11
July 26, 2011
I was addressing -- talking about the Rookery Bay issue. Could
you give us a status report, County Attorney, on the three airport
contracts that Mr. Courtright brought up, just to clarify for the record,
you know, where we are in the negotiations that have been ongoing
for so long? Thanks.
MR. KLATZKOW: The one that I can recall offhand is Mr.
Shepard. He was offered a lease some time ago. He continues to raise
issues, let's just say, that's ongoing. We expect that hopefully to be
concluded shortly.
I don't recall where we are on the other two at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, basically that was what I
also wanted to ask. I do know there's been ongoing efforts to bring
about a contract but there's been considerable resistance over some of
the requirements for the contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Curry has been more than amenable, in
my opinion, to the tenants who have certain expectations based on
past practices, which I agree Mr. Curry needs to no longer continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- yeah, I will add to that.
Mr. Curry, our airport administrator, has gone so far as to get the
FAA involved in the process to make sure that appropriate regulations
are being followed at the airport. And the airport -- the FAA has
specified that the tenant who wants a contract has to provide certain
documentation. Very specifically, they have to provide documentation
that the aircraft that they have stored in a hangar there are actually
operable aircraft. And they asked for flight logs for those aircraft.
And the flight logs have not been provided. Instead, a flight log was
provided for an aircraft that is not one of those aircraft stored in the
hangar.
So it is considered by some to be a delaying tactic by the tenant
so he can enjoy substantially reduced rates for a longer period of time.
Page 12
July 26, 2011
So I find, after examining that and talking with Mr. Curry, that
there is no fault on the part of our airport authority and that they're
doing the things exactly as they should. So I don't think Mr. Curry is
to blame here.
In any event, Commissioner Coletta is next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, sir, that light was on from
before. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Then I turned your
lights out.
Okay, all in favor of approval of the regular consent and
summary agenda as amended, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 13
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
July 26, 2011
Continue Item 16D6 to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting: Request that the Board of County
Commissioners review and approve the County Attorney's recommendation to waive any potential ethics
conflict for a Code Enforcement Board member based on Ch. 112, Florida Statutes. (Original request was
from Commissioner Hiller to have this item moved to the Regular agenda; Staff requested item is continued
due to fact the individual in question isn't able to attend this meeting.)
Continue Item 16F1 to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting: Modification to Contract #11 -5704 for the
Pelican Bay Community Crosswalks to Bateman Contracting, LLP. (Staffs request to further address the
vendor's concerns regarding the scheduling of the crosswalk construction.)
Continue Item 16F3 to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign Amendment #2 to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FY 11 Tourist
Development Tax Grant Agreement to change the current funding source from Category C -2 to Tourism
Promotion Fund 184 as a Category B marketing grant. (Staff and Commissioner Hiller's separate requests in
response to grantee's request for continuance to resolve questions raised by the Clerk's Finance Department)
Move Item 161314 to Item IOH: Recommendation to approve the Collier County 5 -Year HUD Consolidated
Plan for FY 2011 -2016; One Year HUD Action Plan FY 2011 -2012 and revised Citizen Participation Plan,
and to sign the supporting resolution and certifications for submission to the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D1 to Item 101: Recommendation to approve final submission of the Disaster Recovery
Initiative 2008 Disaster Recovery Enhancement Funds (DREF) application to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for funding in the amount of $3,323,962. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A19 to Item 10J: Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to
direct the County Manager or designee to create and fund a project via budget amendment within Parks and
Recreation Capital Fund (306) for the specific purpose of establishing a public All Terrain Vehicle (ATV)
park and to move forward with public involvement, concept evaluations, cost comparisons and then come
back to the Board with alternatives and a final recommendation to implement the project. (Commissioner
Hiller's request)
Move Item 16C5 to Item 1OK: Recommendation to approve the Renewal and Amendment of the
Agreement for Delivery and Reuse of Reclaimed Water between The Club Pelican Bay, Inc. and the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as the Ex- Officio Governing Board of the Collier County
Water -Sewer District. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F5 to Item IOL: Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted
Budget. (Staffs request) Companion Item to IOA
Move Item 16131 to Item 13BI: Recommendation to approve Local Advisory Board members and CRA
staff attendance at Florida Redevelopment Association 2011 Annual Conference including payment of
attendees' registration, lodging, travel and per diem expenses from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust
Fund (187) budget and declare the conference attendance and training received as a valid public purpose.
(Estimated Fiscal Impact approximately $839 per person) (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 17D to Item 8E: Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating
carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget. (Staff's
request) This item to be heard subsequent to Items 10A and 10J.
Note:
Items 9G and 12A are companion items. (County Attorney's request)
Item 16D7: Advisory Committee Recommendations as follows: The Tourist Development Council
recommended approval of this item by a vote of 6 -1 on 7/21/2011 subject to verification by the Clerk that
TDC funds can be used to fund this item. The Council also made a finding that this item supports tourism
and serves a valid public purpose. (Staffs request)
Item 16D19: Bid Number should read #11 -5692; not #11 -5697 as shown on the agenda and the Executive
Summary. (Staffs request)
Time Certain Items:
Item IOG to be heard at 9:45 a.m.
Item 8C to be heard at 10:15 a.m.
Item 813 to be heard immediately following Item 8C
Item 8B to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item IOC to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
Item 8A to be heard at 2:00 p.m.
7/26/20118:38 AM
July 26, 2011
Item #213, #2C, #2D and #2E
MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 1412011 - BCC /REGULAR
MEETING; JUNE 15, 2011 - BCC /REGULAR MEETING
(CARRYOVER); JUNE 16, 2011 - BCC /BUDGET WORKSHOP
MEETING AND JUNE 289 2011 - BCC /REGULAR MEETING —
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we have minutes from the June
14th, 2011 BCC regular meeting, June 15th, 2011 BCC regular
meeting carryover, June 16th, 2011 BCC meeting minutes budget
workshop, and June 28th, 2011 BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
And that brings us to service awards.
Item #3A and #313
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS
Page 14
July 26, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you would be joining us in front
of the dais please to present. Thank you.
Commissioners, we have two employees this morning celebrating
20 years of service to county government. The first is Mark Gedvillas
from Wastewater Department. Mark, please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Our next 20 -year recipient is William Combs, also
from the Wastewater Department. Bill?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have four employees
celebrating 25 years of service this morning. The first is Mark
Stephenson, from our Water Department. Mark?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next one is a special presentation. I
have to read to you something about this person. This is a newspaper
article from June 11th, 1986.
Collier hires a new official. A new personnel manager for
Collier County has been hired. He will be paid $38,000 per year,
which is about $9,000 more than the base pay for the job, and
approximately $8,000 more than the current director earns.
We've solved that discrepancy since then.
The Board approved hiring Leo Ochs, present Human Resources
Director, of Joliet, Illinois, after County Manager Don Lusk explained
that the new director is taking a pay cut to come here. Ochs reportedly
now earns $41,000 per year in Joliet.
His salary continues to go down as the years pass.
Lusk used the opportunity to pitch the higher executive pay
scales. We have to work out a higher executive pay plan, he told the
Board. Every time we hire someone we have to ask you for more
money. This man sounds well qualified, said Commissioner Fred
Voss, we would be foolish to hire someone for less money.
Page 15
July 26, 2011
In addition to directing the personnel department, Lusk said Ochs
will also coordinate the purchasing and risk management departments,
which now report directly to an assistant county manager. In Joliet he
said Ochs was responsible for labor relations, personnel, payroll, risk
management, physical plant operations, and maintenance in public
relations.
Now he's responsible for just about everything that the
commissioners don't want to assume responsibility for. And he hasn't
had a pay raise in at least three years. But he's still doing very, very
well. And I'd like to join --you to join mein recognizing Leo Ochs
for his fine service to this county.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never saw Leo blush before.
MR. OCHS: Never been paid so much before. 41,000, I'm doing
good.
Thank you, Commissioners.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That it, we're done? No, I'm just teasing.
Now we've got some real people to celebrate here. Twenty -five
years of service this morning with our Wastewater Department, Jesse
Komorny. Jesse.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our final 25 -year service awardee
this morning is John Flormerfelt, also from our Wastewater
Department. John?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, while you're right on the floor
there, if we could move into our advisory board service award.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know you were the only one
that wasn't in public utilities?
MR. OCHS: I know. I couldn't qualify to get in over there.
They take care of the drinking water. They're not going to let me
Page 16
July 26, 2011
touch that.
We have a series of five -year advisory board members that we'd
like to recognize their service this morning. First one of those is Keith
Upson from your Black Affairs Advisory Board. Is Keith here?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating five years of service, after a short
break, with our Collier County Productivity Committee, Joe Swaja.
Joe?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Joe.
Five years of service with the Golden Gate Beautification
Advisory Committee. Margaret Harris. Margaret?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Also with five years of service on the Isle of Capri
Fire Control District Advisory Committee, Joseph Langkawel. Joe?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next award recognizes 10 years
of service on the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee for
Anthony Pires. Is Tony here?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
MR. OCHS: He's almost always here.
And finally, recognizing 15 years of service on the Contractors
Licensing Board, Richard Joslin. Is Richard here?
MR. MITCHELL: No.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
Commissioners, that concludes our service awards today, thank
you.
Item #4A
Page 17
July 26, 2011
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING AUGUST 13 -14, 2011 AS
"SPIRIT OF 45" DAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
LAVERN GAYNOR, LOIS A. BOLIN, PH.D., PETER THOMAS
AND JIM ELSON. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER FIALA -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to item five on your
agenda this morning, presentations. 5(A) is a presentation of the
Collier County Business of the Month award to -- I'm sorry, excuse
me, I moved ahead. 4(A) is a proclamation designating August 13 and
141 2011 as Spirit of 45 Days in Collier County, to be accepted by
Lavern Gaynor, Lois Bolin, Peter Thomas and Jim Elson. And this
proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about Homer Helter, is he involved
in this?
MR. OCHS: Homer here too?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come on, Homer, you can't get out
of this so easy.
Look at Marcy Simples.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any way you could hang that up
here? Did you bring a hammer and nails?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'd love to have that up here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll tell you what. At our break -- we'll
break at 9:00 -- well, 10:30. We'll see if we can't get it up here at
10:30, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks so much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
July 26, 2011
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH AWARD TO SALAZAR MACHINE & STEEL.
ACCEPTING THE AWARD IS PETE SALAZAR, PRESIDENT OF
SALAZAR MACHINE & STEEL — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Now we move to presentations, Commissioner.
5(A) is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month
award to Salazar Machine and Steel. Accepting the award will be Pete
Salazar, President of Salazar Machine and Steel. Please come
forward, Mr. Salazar, accept your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I hold up something here? You get a
proclamation, Lois -- or all of you get a proclamation. There you go.
Thank you.
Mr. Salazar.
MR. SALAZAR: Good morning. And thank you again, Collier
County Commissioners. The Airport Authority in Immokalee and the
advisory board, Chris Curry, the EDC, you guys have been just
tremendous for us. You guys have always been there for us, and we
really appreciate that.
It's been very exciting for us as a company growing in
Immokalee. We started out with 2,000 scare feet, now we're getting
40,000 square feet. And we're very excited about that. And we see
great things happening in our company and also in our community in
Immokalee.
And I'd like to thank also the people that I have working for me
there. Tremendous bunch of guys. They take a vested interest in what
we do. And they take a lot of pride in what we do. And that excites
me. And we're creating j obs in Immokalee through our company. But
more important of all, not only are we creating jobs, but we also are
changing people's lives, instilling, teaching skills that they can take
with them and they can also be productive citizens of Collier County.
Page 19
July 26, 2011
So that's very exciting for us as a company, it's not only to create jobs,
but to be able to do that but also change people's lives. And as they
instill skill in them. So we're very excited about that.
But, yes, tremendous things are happening in our company, and
I'd like to thank all of you for this award. It's a very humbling
experience for me. And I thank you, and I also thank my wife for
being there for me. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for being part of the Collier
County community, Mr. Salazar, we appreciate having you here.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING ALFRED ROBERTSON, RECYCLING
SPECIALIST, SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT, AS THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE, 2011 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5(B) is a recommendation to
recognize Alfred Robertson, Recycling Specialist with the Solid
Waste Department, as the Employee of the Month for June, 2011. Al,
if you'd please come forward, accept your award.
(Applause.)
MR. ROBERTSON: I've got bucks, guys.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have the day off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you've got to buy
everybody lunch.
MR. ROBERTSON: Got to be a bigger check.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or a small lunch.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm going to read a little bit about
Al and his accomplishment. Al has been the recycling specialist in our
solid waste department for over 10 years. As a recycling specialist
with certifications in hazardous materials handling and safety, Al
Page 20
July 26, 2011
works in the environmental compliance section of the department.
He's often the first person in each morning. He sets the standard for
punctuality, dependability and dedication for others in the department.
With his vast knowledge of landfill operations and recycling
centers, he's able to address problems quickly and often makes
valuable suggestions for improvement. Al strives to provide excellent
customer service and good working relationships with our vendors and
he always handles customer issues and provides creative, cost
effective solutions.
He's certainly a team player. Al's always willing to go above and
beyond to help his customers and his coworkers. He's a valuable asset
to this county and truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my great honor to present to you Al
Robertson as Employee of the Month for June, 2011. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We appreciate you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
MR. ROBERTSON: I appreciate all these guys.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could we have a motion to
approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the proclamation, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in
favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
Page 21
July 26, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The proclamations are accepted
unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have a 9:45 time certain
hearing, but I wonder if the Board would first like to hear the single
public petition so we can allow that individual to make his petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's your pleasure, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's hear 6(A).
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MICHAEL GEORGE HAGAN
REGARDING HIS CONCERN FOR SAFETY ON EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL AND HIS IDEAS TO REDUCE
HOMELESSNESS - NOT PRESENT
MR. OCHS: 6(A) is a public petition request from Michael
George Hagan regarding his concern for safety on East Tamiami Trail
and his ideas to reduce homelessness.
Mr. Hagan here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We go to the first time certain,
which is IO(G), right?
Item # 1 OG
RESOLUTION 2011 -125: ESTABLISHING PROPOSED
MILLAGE RATES AS MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATES TO
BE LEVIED IN FY 2011/12 AND REAFFIRM THE ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARING DATES IN SEPTEMBER, 2011 FOR THE
Page 22
July 26, 2011
BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item 10(G) is a recommendation to adopt
a resolution establishing proposed millage rates as the maximum
property tax rates to be levied in fiscal year 2011 -12 and reaffirm the
advertised public hearing dates for September, 2011 for the budget
approval process. Mr. Mark Isackson will present.
MR. ISACKSON: Good morning, Commissioners, Mark
Isackson with the County Manager's office.
Every July 1 County receives taxable values from the Property
Appraiser. And that begins the laborious process of establishing your
millage rates and ultimately approving your budget in September.
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to read a few items into the record,
which is part of the TRIM process.
Before you this morning is a resolution establishing the
maximum property tax rates to be levied in fiscal year 2012, and a
reaffirmation that the September budget hearing dates will be held on
Thursday, September 8th, and Thursday, September 22nd, 2011. Both
hearings will be held at 5:05 p.m.
The Truth In Millage statute sets forth a specific timeline under
which a series of budgetary and property tax related events must take
place. This process begins July 1 with the receipt of certified taxable
values from the Property Appraiser.
Subsequently the Board receives on July 15th the tentative fiscal
year 2012 county budget. The maximum tax rates adopted this
morning must be provided to the Property Appraiser by August 4th,
2011 or used in preparing the statutory required notice of proposed
taxes or the TRIM notice.
By law this information must be mailed by August 24th, 2011.
This TRIM notice provides a statutory notice requirement for the first
September public hearing.
While the millage rates adopted today constitute the maximum
Page 23
July 26, 2011
rates intended for adoption, the Board may choose to lower the rates
during the September hearing process.
The full TRIM process culminates with submission of the
county's final TRIM compliance package on October 14th, 2011.
The resolution, Commissioners, that you have in your packet
accomplishes the items that are required today, which is the
establishment of property tax rates as the maximum tax rates, and also
reaffirms the two public hearing dates in September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're asking us to approve the tax -- the
millage rate, the tax rate, that existed in prior years as the maximum
millage rate for FYI 2.
MR. ISACKSON: That would be for the general fund, sir, and
for the unincorporated area general fund.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala, and a question
by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't that apply to all the
MSTUs, the water pollution and other millage rate --
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, your water pollution control is
at millage neutral; in other words, the same rate as it was last year.
But remember your budget guidance said that MSTUs with advisory
boards could range from anywhere from millage neutral to the rolled
back rate. Some of your MSTUs have elected to set their millage rate
at the rolled back rate. And you'll see that in your detail in the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't my question. Your
comment was that we're approving the millage rate for the
unincorporated and general. Wouldn't that also apply to the MSTUs
and pollution control and others?
Page 24
July 26, 2011
MR. ISACKSON: All the Collier County taxing authorities are
within this resolution that's attached, sir. And I think that answers
your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does. So we're approving all
of them as --
MR. ISACKSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --as submitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2011 -126: APPOINTING JENNIFER W.
WILLIAMS (TERM EXPIRING JUNE 255 2014) AND FRANK L.
CUMMINGS AND VAUGHN YOUNG (TERMS EXPIRING JUNE
25, 2015) TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9 on your
agenda this morning, Board of County Commissioners. 9(A) is
appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Jennifer
Williams, Frank L. Cummings and Vaughn Young.
Page 25
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before you do that, I think you have
different terms here pursuant to the executive summary. You've got
some expiring June 25th, 2014 and others that were will expire --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two terms that expire June 25th on
2011; is that what you're saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got one that's 2014, one is 2015, so
you've got to pick who's doing which terms --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's the one, pick the one to serve
until 2014.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going with the woman, Jennifer
Williams.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies first. Okay. So we have a
motion to approve Jennifer Williams for a term that will expire on
June 25th, 2014, and Frank Cummings and Vaughn Young who will
serve -- whose terms will expire June 25th, 2015.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Where are they? They were here earlier, weren't they?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011 -127: RE- APPOINTING MANUEL
Page 26
July 26, 2011
GONZALEZ TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9(13) is appointment of member to the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Emmanuel
Gonzalez.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve Manny
Gonzalez by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it is approved.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2011 -128: APPOINTING CHRISTOPHER DEVIN
HUDSON AS ALTERNATE MEMBER (W /TERM EXPIRING
FEB. 14, 2014) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9(C) is appointment of alternate member to
the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Christopher
Devin Hudson.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 27
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Mr. Hudson by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller has a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I reviewed Mr. Hudson's
resume, and he doesn't seem to have the background that would help
with someone sitting on the Code Enforcement Board. And I was a
little bit concerned about that, since there are so many, you know,
construction- related issues and legal issues. I would think you would
want someone that has more of that background. He seems to be in
public relations.
Isn't he your campaign advertising --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was waiting for you to bring
that up. Among many things there, he's a campaign manager for
myself. And he works for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I think it's to disclose
that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a company that's Action
Point, and he's very involved in the community, interjecting himself in
many different affairs that are out there. But it's an interesting point
that you brought up, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
July 26, 2011
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2011 -129: RE- APPOINTING MICHAEL SORRELL
(NON - TECHNICAL CATEGORY) TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9(D) is appointment of a member to the
Environmental Advisory Committee --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Michael
Sorrell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion by Commissioner
Coletta to approve Michael Sorrell to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't hear Commissioner Hiller's vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She voted for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She voted for, okay. So it passes 3 -2,
with Commissioners Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need to encourage him to have
better attendance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and that's one of the
things I noticed in here. I didn't see the attendance, on the first page at
least.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It hasn't been particularly good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. So I was really moving toward
Page 29
July 26, 2011
Chris Strayton because I thought that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask what the attendance
is -- was?
MR. KLATZKOW: According to your agenda book Page 496,
he's had two unexcused and 11 excused absences since 2004.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How many meetings would that
be for --
MR. KLATZKOW: They average about one a month, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So he misses about one out of,
what, four meetings?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One out of five meetings?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One out of four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you're right. I'll get a
personal note to him on that. And I'll ask him if he can't -- if it's going
to continue that way, that he consider stepping aside. You're right.
Thank you for pointing that out, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2011 -130: APPOINTING RENEE DARCY,
DOUGLAS L. ALLEMONG AND DANIEL J. WING TO THE
NEWLY CREATED ROCK ROAD IMPROVEMENT MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9(E) is appointment of members to
the newly created Rock Road Improvement MSTU Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the three
applicants that we have, Darcy, Alman and Wing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 30
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve the three applicants, all three applicants. Second by
Commissioner Fiala. Question or comment by Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No it was related to the other, but
you answered my questions through the discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #9F
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES ADVERTISED IN THE
PRESS RELEASE OF JULY 1412011 — VACANCIES
PRESENTED BY BCC EXECUTIVE MANAGER IAN
MITCHELL
MR. OCHS: 9(F) is advisory board vacancies as advertised in
the press release of July 14, 2011. Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, one thing to note on the last
press release that we issued was the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee and the Black Affairs Advisory Committee. We had no
vacancies. And that's the first time in probably two years that we
haven't had to advertise for those committees.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
MR. MITCHELL: The Airport Authority has one vacancy for a
Page 31
July 26, 2011
term that will expire in 2015. And that's been advertised and we're
looking for applications.
The Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board has a vacancy for a term expiring on May 22nd, 2012.
The Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has a vacancy
for a term that will expire on October 13, 2014.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has two vacancies for
terms, one to expire June 25th, 2013 and one to expire June 25th,
2015.
The Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
has one vacancy for a term expiring on February the 11th, 2015.
And then finally, the Value Adjustment Board is seeking
applications for one citizen member and one alternate citizen member
to represent -- these are appointments made by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of July we lost both our citizen
members. They both had to resign. So that -- we're currently looking
for people to serve on the Value Adjustment Board.
And that was the end, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask, will we have a quorum
on Friday?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Commissioner, you will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #9G
PHU AGREEMENT — DISCUSSED (COMPANION TO ITEM
#12A)
Item #12A
Page 32
July 26, 2011
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 18, 2011
THROUGH JULY 20, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD — APPROVED
(COMPANION TO ITEM #9G)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9(G) has to do with panther
habitat unit agreement previously approved by the Board. This item
was added to the agenda or placed on the agenda by Commissioner
Hiller. And there's also a companion item to this item, which is Item
12(A) on your agenda, having to do with approval of disbursements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have a procedural question.
This is an item that has been approved by the majority of the board in
a prior hearing. Is this a request for reconsideration?
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes and no. That's why I asked to have
12(A) as a companion. 12(A) is asking you to approve a
disbursement, the disbursement's actual payment of this. The Board --
as an action item, the Board can always vote no on the payment,
which has been withheld at this point in time. So that in essence, yes,
this is a motion for reconsideration, but on the other hand you do have
an action item whether or not to pay it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the payment is based upon a
previously approved Board action.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And in order to deny the payment, we
have to reverse our decision that was previously made.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is a request for reconsideration.
MR. KLATZKOW: In that sense, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller is not
authorized to make a request for rehearing, because she did not vote in
the majority.
Page 33
July 26, 2011
Secondly, the time has expired for a reconsideration hearing. So
none of us can make a motion for reconsideration; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: The reconsideration time has passed, that's
correct. But you have an action item before you whether or not to pay
it. And to decide whether or not you want to pay it is going to go back
to the original agreement. You can simply vote to pay it and that will
be the end of the story.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have some guidance for
us with respect to the legal authority for approving this item?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure I understand your question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was this legally approved by the Board
of County Commissioners? Did we have legal reason for approving --
MR. KLATZKOW: Your prior action?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it was fully supported legally; is
that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have an opinion that it was properly
done, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This was not an options contract, as
alleged by Commissioner Hiller?
MR. KLATZKOW: This was more in the nature of an insurance
contract, to be blunt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is the position of the board?
Do you want to rehear something that you've already heard, or not?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bear with me, sir. I would
suggest that -- I mean, I can't see the logic of hearing it again, but then
again too, I don't want to deny Commissioner Hiller the right to be
able to explain why this is before us today. I'd like to hear from her
before we cut the discussion off.
Page 34
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has a question,
and so does Commissioner Hiller. But I'm going to turn it over to
Commissioner Hiller in just a minute. Do you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that light was on for the
discussion on Item 9(G).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this isn't a motion for
reconsideration. The only thing that this Board approved was a
budget amendment to set aside the funds. The question of the actual
payment of these funds was not voted on by this Board. And as such,
it is not a motion for reconsideration. I agree with the County
Attorney as to the issue of the approval of the disbursement.
The item that was brought forward as the companion item does
request approval of the actual disbursement. And that has not been
approved in any action by this board.
In reviewing this contract, it appears clear that this is an options
agreement. There is no obligation on the part of county to pay the
amount that Barron Collier is requesting, which is, I believe,
$1,863,000. Because it is an option contract, as clearly stated in
paragraph 4.B, that it is an option to purchase up to -- and I believe
there is an error in the -- in my calculation, because it says to purchase
up to 1,723 and a half unbundled panther credits from Barron Collier
at the $1,200 per credit price.
The actual amount that we need is not 1,723 and a half but rather,
as was pointed out to me by staff, 1,552 and a half panther mitigation
units.
With that, there is a legal question as to whether or not the county
actually has an obligation to put this out to bid. It is, as I said, an
option to purchase, not an obligation to purchase. And with that, staff
has put this out to bid and has come back with -- and I believe this was
in 2010 that they came back with prices which were considerably
lower than the 1,200 per credit price, which is the option price in the
Page 35
July 26, 2011
what I meant to say was if I didn't use the word payment of the
contract, that was what I was referring to, that payment pursuant to
this contract had not been approved, merely the budgetary
amendment.
But you're absolutely correct, the contract was approved back in,
you know, whatever date it was that you stated, in 2008 or nine, or
whenever it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm always right.
Okay, Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, you're
referring to the agreement between the Board and Barron Collier,
paragraph four. Did you review paragraph three of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --the agreement?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you think that that applies
to paragraph four?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. What paragraph three
provides is in essence what would have amounted to what looks like a
barter option on the part of the county, where the county, if they had
been able to -- if they were able or chose to use the credits that they
could have derived from the Starnes property could have applied that
to the project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the barter means that
you're giving something and you're receiving without cash payment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And barter is probably -- and you
make a very good point, it's not barter, it's basically that we would be
able to go ahead and use the Starnes -- that we said that we were going
to use the Starnes credits, and that was how, you know, we were going
to perform our obligation, but we weren't getting anything specific in
return.
So thank you for clarifying that. It was the wrong choice of
Page 37
July 26, 2011
words.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you just stated that we're
giving something to receive something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we were --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under three it's saying -- and I
know that we went over this before, and we tried to get PHUs from the
Starnes property, which the county owns. Very difficult. Many a
party's involved. We didn't get those.
And we got the contract -- or the permits to build Oil Well Road
based upon the availability of PHUs from Collier while we seek the
Starnes PHU -- or mitigation bank. And it spells out the payment --
the purchase price and payment in section four. Section three is the
vehicle for section four. We had the mitigation from the Starnes.
Section four doesn't apply, because we would have already had those
PHUs.
That's the way I see it. And, you know, Jeff, correct me if I'm
wrong. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not going to correct you, because you're
right. To be blunt, this was in essence an insurance contract. We
thought -- we had hoped to get the panther habitat units off our own
properties. We gave it a year. If we didn't get that, in order to get the
permit we had to have some source. Barron Collier was good enough
to grant us units off of their property at a substantial discount on the
then current fair market value. And we were simply unable to get it in
time. We still don't have it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discounts at that time, even
though that we can purchase them less, the bottom line is --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, now you can. The world changed.
But at that point in time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was 2005 when we decided to
move on Ave Maria, put the road in, put all those agreements together
and move forward.
July 26, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if the purchase price of these
things had gone up, we'd be insisting on this deal from Barron Collier.
So, you know, it's -- you know, hindsight is easy, but at that point in
time, you know, we locked in at a certain price. That price was below
the fair market value at that point in time. We were able to secure a
permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'm a little bit of a loss why
we keep reinven -- venting these particular items after the commission
makes a decision. However, due process sometimes is a little difficult
to work with.
Jeff, the -- you just brought up a good point. The contract we
made is a binding contract. And we go into it in good faith, and so
does the seller at that point in time. There wasn't a clause in there that
said if the price fell we can come back and renegotiate it, or a clause
in there that said if the price goes up they can come back and
renegotiate it. Did such a clause exist somewhere in there?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Nor was there a clause that gave us the
right to go outside of the contract and seek other units from somebody
else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Once again, we're trying
to demonstrate the fact that we're a business friendly county, but we're
trying to stack the deck in a way that it's going to be advantageous
only to the commission, and that's not right. You have a contract, you
live with the contract. If the prices go up, you benefit, if they go
down, you lose something.
We've got to be realistic in this and we have to be able to keep
moving on and stop dwelling on the past issues that somebody might
have come up on the wrong end of the slate on.
So with that, I make a motion against this particular
recommendation.
Page 39
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that with my comments.
MR. KLATZKOW: You do need to approve 12(A).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I make a motion to
approve 12(A). And we don't have to address this one in any form.
Or does 12(A) address it totally?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well if you address the payment, you're
implicitly rejecting Commissioner Hiller's argument.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more time, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you approve payment, you're implicitly
rejecting Commissioner Hiller's argument.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I make a motion for -- I
withdraw my first motion and make a motion of approval of 12(A).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, and I'll second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I wanted to know why we
didn't pay this in the first place. Why has it been languishing for two
years when in the contract it said we would pay them within one year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just asked for them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just asked for them. No, that
was the budget amendment. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right. And Commissioner
Henning, you were so on target. I mean, you didn't miss a step. You
were absolutely right. Everything was approved, we felt everything
was in place and we felt things were going forward. I had no idea we
hadn't been paying them. Not only that, we were hoping the Starnes
property would come into being so we didn't have to work and buy
any PHUs.
I don't know what held the Starnes property up. That's still being
held up, so we can't even negotiate with that. And I don't know --
again, now we find things held up, two different things that cost the
taxpayers a lot of money. Why is that happening?
July 26, 2011
We should have an investigation to find out what is holding these
very important things up and why the taxpayers are then stuck holding
the bag with this.
Lastly, things like this being brought up after they've been
approved just says to the community at large we're not interested in
doing business with you, and even if we signed a contract we're not
interested in sticking by that contract, we're going to do as we please.
And this sets a very bad example.
So that's why I seconded this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. We have a
motion for approval by Commissioner -- approval of Item 12(A),
which will reject Commissioner Hiller's --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand. Just let me repeat the
motion and second.
And we have a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Hiller wants to speak. Do you want to wait
until after the public speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't mind. I'd like to speak now
and then I'll speak again if I'd like after the speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course, good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to an option contract,
the intent is for the protection on the upside. And then with respect to
the downside, the reason than it's an option is so that the county can
protect itself in case the price goes down and have the ability to go out
and basically take advantage of that decrease in market prices for the
benefit of the taxpayer.
With respect to the -- this matter being before us now, that is
actually a very good question. There is a provision in this contract
that said that Barron Collier had a duty to perform within one year and
had to receive approval from all applicable regulatory or governmental
agencies, as I said, within one year after the effective date. They
Page 41
July 26, 2011
failed to do so.
Also, it says that it was subject to a conservation easement
obligating the county to monitor and maintain the rehabilitated habitat
and wetlands. And that actually hasn't been done through today. No
conservation easement has been established. Instead, this property
was deeded.
And so that is why the county did not have an obligation in
addition to the fact that this was an options contract, because quite
frankly, Barron Collier failed to perform pursuant to the contractual
requirement.
If you do approve this, I would like to know the basis for the
approval. Are you saying that this is an obligation of the county or are
you saying that you are essentially agreeing to exercise your option
under this contract to purchase these units at $1,200 per unit? At the
end of the day you are potentially unnecessarily costing the taxpayers
of Collier County $1,863,000 if we could get a letter of reservation on
our two mitigation bank properties. And at a minimum you are
foregoing savings of, you know, in the neighborhood of 465,000 in
light of the fact that the price of panther mitigation units has dropped
from 1,200 to 900.
And of course the remaining question is, under the
circumstances, given the contract as written, whether or not we have
actually a legal obligation to put this out to bid with respect to what
the current price of those units are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have already heard the County
Attorney say that he does not agree with your legal interpretation here.
So we'll -- I will go with the man who we pay to perform our legal
responsibilities.
So we have a speaker. Who is the speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, John Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman
Commissioners, my name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth
Page 42
July 26, 2011
Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents the Barron
Collier Companies.
We thought it might be instructive for the benefit of the public to
share an historical perspective with you. As you know, and as your
staff reports clearly reflect, the Board of County Commissioners and
Barron Collier Companies entered into a legally binding bilateral
contract for the sale of PHUs at a then discounted rate of 20 percent.
The market, the county acknowledged, was $1,500 per PHU. The
county prescribed a rate of $1,200.
The Barron Collier Companies fully performed all of its
obligations under that contract. Collier County has received the
benefit of its bargain under that agreement. All conditions precedent
to Barron Collier Companies' entitlement to be paid have in fact been
satisfied. County staff has concluded that all obligations to the
county's obligation have been satisfied. The County Attorney has
advised you that you have a legal obligation to pay this contract.
In fact, 60 days ago the Board of County Commissioners
acknowledged its obligation, directed the payment of an invoice under
this agreement for the prescribed amount.
Sixty days have since elapsed. Barron Collier Companies, for
reasons that continue to perplex us, has not yet been paid.
Commissioners, there is a sophisticated legal term for the theory
that the bilateral agreement before you is an option that the county can
fulfill or reject its legal obligations. But that sophisticated legal theory
is loosely translated in the vernacular to malarkey. We're entitled to
be paid and we respectfully request your direction to the Clerk to that
effect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, we have a motion on the table. All in favor, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 43
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4 -1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting. Okay.
Let's go to the next item, County Manager.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2011 -131: SRAA- PL2011 -0657: AVE MARIA
SRA- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBERS
2004 -89 AND 2005 -234A FOR THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA
STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA TO REVISE THE SRA
MASTER PLAN TO DIVIDE TOWN CENTER 2 INTO TOWN
CENTER 2A AND TOWN CENTER 2B; TO RELOCATE TOWN
CENTER 213 TO OIL WELL ROAD AND TO RELOCATE AN
ACCESS POINT ON OIL WELL ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP
KEAIS ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47
SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND
16 THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION: DOA- PL2011-
0653) — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Commissioners, you have a 10:15 a.m.
time certain hearing. It is Item 8(C) on your agenda this morning.
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.
This is SRAA- PL2011 -0657, Ave Maria SRA. The resolution
amending resolution numbers 2004 -89, 2005- 234.A, for the Town of
0-- ii
July 26, 2011
Ave Maria stewardship receiving area, to revise the SRA master plan
to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2 -A and Town Center 2 -13;
to relocate Town Center 2 -13 to Oil Well Road and to relocate an
access point on Oil Well Road.
The property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp
Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29
East, and Sections four through nine and 16 through 18, Township 48
South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida.
And there is a companion item which will be heard immediately
following this item. That is DOA- PL2011 -0653 .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll start with ex parte disclosure with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received information from
staff, the Planning Commission's reports, and -- let me see if I have
any other correspondence. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I reviewed staff report of
June 2nd, 2011. I've had meetings, correspondence and e -mail. And
once again, everything pertaining to this is in my file.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I also have ex parte
disclosure for Item 8(C), and actually D, but we'll deal with 8(C) now.
I have -- over the past two years this or a similar petition has been
heard by the Board of County Commissioners, and I have a fairly
extensive file of meetings, correspondence and e -mails and staff
reports that are available for review by anyone who wishes to see
them.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I have the same disclosure,
meetings, correspondence, e- mails. I've spoken to staff members a
number of times on this subject and reviewed the reports.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had already announced in the
Page 45
July 26, 2011
morning, but I'll repeat myself. With respect to this item, meetings,
e- mails, calls, and I reviewed the staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, could we -- anyone who
plans to give testimony in this item, please stand, raise your right hand
and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's going to start with this?
MR. OCHS: The petitioner will address the Board first, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, and our
firm represents Ave Maria Development. As applicant and
companion petitions before you is addenda Items 8(C) and 8(D) this
morning.
Our land use and transportation consultants are
Wilson- Miller- Stantec. Margaret Perry, Al Reynolds and Jeff Perry
from the firm is available to respond to any technical questions you
may have at the close of my remarks or at any time during the public
hearing.
Our petitions propose to amend the master plan for the Town of
Ave Maria stewardship receiving area to do three things. And if I
could ask the County Manager to assist me with the display.
The first is to divide the existing town Center 2 on Camp Keais
Road into Town Center 2 -A and 2 -B.
The second is to relocate newly created 50 -acre Town Center 2 -13
from the town entrance on Camp Keais Road to the town entrance on
Oil Well Road.
And the third, to relocate the previously approved westerly Oil
Well Road access point east to accommodate the new entrance to
Town Center 2 -B.
The proposed map change does not change the overall approved
uses, entitlements, densities, intensities or perimeter boundaries of the
July 26, 2011
previously approved Ave Maria SRA. It simply changes the location
of permitted uses so that each of the major entrances into the Town of
Ave Maria is anchored with a town center.
The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the
map change does not create the likelihood of any additional regional
impact, and therefore does not constitute a substantial DRI deviation.
The Regional Planning Council has determined that no formal
review by the RPC is required.
And the County Attorney has opined that the criteria described
on pages five and six of your staff reports govern your deliberations
when considering a proposed SRA amendment.
Based on that criteria, staff has recommended approval. The
Planning Commission, in its meeting last month, recommended
approval by a vote by 7 -1, and we respectfully request your vote of
approval today. Happy to respond to any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Questions by the
Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staff -- Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you so much for your
presentation. It was unfortunate we didn't have an opportunity to
speak, even though I made myself as available.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a result, I'd like to ask you
some questions. Is this the same proposal that was going to come
before the Board on January 11 th, 2011?
Are you proposing the same changes that you were proposing
back then? I mean, there's no difference between what was being
proposed then and now?
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's correct. I hesitated over the date.
But it is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or around that time. And I know
Page 47
July 26, 2011
you decided -- I'm not sure if you continued it or decided not to go
forward. But back in January when this was brought forward.
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's correct. We actually withdrew that
and reinstated it. The same petition was considered by the Planning
Commission twice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so this is the same petition
MR. PASSIDOMO: It is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that was being reconsidered.
Back in that time there were concerns about due process and
notice issues, and I have a letter which went to the Board of County
Commissioners on January 7th of 2011 that raised concerns that the
notices were inadequate because they had general text descriptions but
didn't have a map or sketch. This time around I just want assurances
that in fact maps and sketches were included in every instance that this
was noticed.
Was that the case? Can staff tell me?
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner.
Yes, maps did go out, and all the advertising was correct pursuant
to the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For all noticed meetings, for this
meeting, as well as the Planning Commission?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fantastic, thank you so much.
The second issue that was brought up in this letter at that time,
and again, this is on the assumption that what you're presenting here is
the same as what you presented back then, relates to the RLSA
standards and access road issues.
And you know what, why don't I just make it easy for you. Do
you want to take a look at this, John, and read it and then you can
respond and then I'll just enter it into the record, as opposed to reading
July 26, 2011
the entire paragraph?
MR. PASSIDOMO: You have the floor, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me go ahead and just for your
benefit let you read it and we then can discuss it. And you might want
to look at both one and two under B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shouldn't we all hear it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you like me to just read it
out loud?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, sure. I just didn't -- I
wanted to make it as easy as possible for John.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we give it to the County
Manager and let him put it on the overhead, then everybody can see it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But someone has to read it. Do
you want to read it? Do you want to read it, County Manager?
You've got a very nice voice.
If you could start with -- it starts over here, one. And then, you
know, let John address one, and that finishes over here. And then you
might want to read two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is this from, by the way?
What are we looking at?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a letter that was sent to the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tony Pires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to make sure that
these issues have all been addressed and properly considered.
MR. OCHS: Okay, Item B.1 reads as follows:
The proposed Ave Maria SRA master plan change would in part
split and move a portion of Town Center A to create a Town Center
2 -13 along Oil Well Road. This proposed amendment is inconsistent
July 26, 2011
with the intent and purpose of the town center as outlined within
Section 4.08.00 of the LDC, the Rural Land Stewardship Area Zoning
Overlay District Standards and Procedures.
Town center is defined in Section 4.08.01.S.s as, quote, a
defining context zone that is intended to provide a wide range of uses
-- I'm sorry, Cherie', I'll slow down -- including daily goods and
services, culture and entertainment, and residential uses within a town.
The town center is an extension of the town core. However, the
intensity is less as a town center reserves -- serves as transition to
surrounding neighborhoods, unquote. Emphasis added.
The proposed Town Center 2 -13 is not an extension of any town
core. The proposed Town Center 2 -13, if approved, will be a
standalone designated use within the Ave Maria SRA, contrary to the
RLSA standards. The design criteria for the town center are contained
within Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.ii.
The town center is, quote, the main street area of the town, end
quote. Buildings shall be positioned near the right -of -way line. White
sidewalks shall be shaded by street trees, unquote. Further, the, quote,
maximum block perimeter shall be 2,500 feet, end quote.
And the Ave Maria SRA general design standards at Page 77
state that the block perimeter is a maximum of 3,500 feet.
Under the RLSA standards, the town center is the, quote, primary
pedestrian zone designed at human scale to support the walking
environment, unquote.
By virtue of its location the proposed Town Center 2 -B is
inconsistent with the adopted design criteria and context of the town
center.
In further support of this objection, please refer to the proposed
plat as well as the site plan and building layout submitted as part of
South Florida Water Management District permit application number
100423 -3. Referring then to the attached Exhibit F.
You want me to stop there, Commissioner?
Page 50
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
Would you like to explain why this is either correct or incorrect?
MR. PASSIDOMO: I don't even understand the question in that
part.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think it's pretty clear, it's
stating that what's being proposed is not in conformance with RLSA
standards, among other things.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Let me ask either Mr. Reynolds or Ms.
Perry to address. But let me just also refer back to the staff report.
What you see in front of you, petition in front of you is for an
amendment to the SRA master plan for the Town of Ave Maria. What
you see from this excerpt from the master plan is that there is an
existing town center on Camp Keais Road, and that existing town
center is not adjacent to the town core. It is at the entrance to Ave
Maria on Camp Keais Road.
And what is being proposed is exactly what exists on Camp
Keais but simply relocated to Oil Well Road.
There's a technical planning answer for it and I'll ask Mr.
Reynolds or Ms. Perry to respond to that. But common sense should
be able to tell you just by looking at the SRA map, and that's the only
thing in front of the commission for consideration today, not a site
plan for this property, not a subdivision plat, an amendment to the
SRA master plan.
And looking at the existing master plan and what is proposed to
be changed, it should be pretty simple to see that the existing town
center is surrounded by neighborhood general. The proposed town
center would be surrounded by Naples general -- neighborhood
general. Both are at the entrance to a town. It should not surprise
anybody to anticipate that there should be commercial activity at the
entrance to a 5,000 acre town.
So with that, if you'd like elaboration, I'll ask the consultants to
respond, but I'd also ask you to just reflect on some common sense.
Page 51
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd love to hear what the
consultants have to say.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Al Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. Commissioners, my name is
Alan Reynolds, I'm with Wilson - Miller Stantec, 3200 Bailey Lane,
and I'm the planning consultant for the Town of Ave Maria and have
been since the beginning of the project.
Specific to your question, the entire concept of the RLSA town
design standards is to promote three or four specific things. The first
is a mixed use environment as opposed to a segregated environment
where instead of having land uses that are isolated from each other,
they are allowed through a series of design standards to be
incorporated into a context so that residential uses, commercial uses,
businesses can all coexist. And that's done through a series of very
detailed design standards that are incorporated into the SRA
document.
So Mr. Pires was quoting from sections of the SRA and the LDC
that gets into very specific standards as to things like block size, the
requirement for pedestrian interconnection and other parameters. And
those are the parameters that actually result in the ability to have
compatibility between these uses; whereas in a traditional format you
try to segregate them.
If you look at the master plan of the overall project, you'll see
that as Mr. Passidomo pointed out, there is one town core, but in fact
there are three different town centers. And the concept there is rather
than having all of the nonresidential uses in one location, when you
have a project of 5,000 acres or a town, the idea is to disperse those
uses, and that allows the proximity from residences to these services
and places to work to occur more localized. And that promotes
pedestrian friendly traffic, it reduces trip lengths and creates the kind
of environment that is sought.
So I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that having a
Page 52
July 26, 2011
town center that is not immediately connected to a town core is a
violation of the standards. In fact it is promoted under the standards
and is something that is desirable to take place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're saying that Mr. Pires in
item one is incorrect?
MR. REYNOLDS: I would disagree with Mr. Pires' assertion,
that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
You want to read number two, Leo?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much longer can you go without a
break? You okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll try to schedule the break at 10:45
for you, okay, that will be six more minutes.
MR. OCHS: Item B is titled RLSA standards issue and access
road issue.
B -1. The proposed Ave Maria SRA master plan change --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You want to go to two. We've just
addressed one. On the next page.
MR. OCHS: Sorry. Number two, the SRA master plan change
petition in part states that the applicant proposes to create and/or
relocate an access road to Oil Well Road. If the SRA master plan
change is approved as the result of an access road that was approved
as part of conditional use Petition CU- 2006 -AR -9337, the
creation/relocation of the entry road requested by the SRA master plan
change will result in three access roads to the Ave Maria SRA from
Oil Well Road.
It is submitted that Petition SRA -PO- 2010 -1988 should be held
in abeyance pending the processing and approval of an amendment to
the above noted conditional use resolution so as to eliminate any
access to Ave Maria from Oil Well Road as depicted on the aerial
photograph attached as part of Exhibit H.
Page 53
July 26, 2011
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if you'd like a response, I
think Mr. Reynolds has more of a historical on this than I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. PASSIDOMO: If you'd like a reply to the question Mr.
Pires raised in January --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Passidomo, I'll tell you, my opinion
is that the Collier County Planning Commission has heard this
multiple times and they have almost unanimously, with one dissenting
vote, approved this every time. They are intimately familiar with
these regulations.
Mr. Pires' position notwithstanding, he was clearly working to
undermine the past project that was proposed at this location. And I'm
guided by the Collier County Planning Commission. They are very
competent people who understand this entire issue and they work hard
to reach the right decisions. And I'm quite satisfied with their
recommendation on this matter.
But if Commissioner Hiller wants to continue to drag this out,
then she can ask for a response, but I don't know that one is necessary,
okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you have any
more you want to add?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like a response.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. REYNOLDS: What is being referred to is the conditional
use for the excavation of fill which is being used for the construction
of Oil Well Road is a conditional use. As part of that conditional use,
there is an access point. That conditional use is outside of the Town
of Ave Maria, okay. It so happened that the location for the access to
the conditional use was located at the same location that ultimately
would be a permanent access point to the Town of Ave Maria. That's
the permanent access point has been relocated to the east.
Page 54
July 26, 2011
That does not change the validity of the approval for the specific
access point to the conditional use. So again, Mr. Pires, I think, is
incorrect in his assertion that this creates a new access point. It
relocates a permanent access point for the town but it does not
eliminate the approval and the need for an access point for the
commercial earth mining operation, which is a conditional use, which
is outside the town.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I see the wording in Mr. Pires'
comments again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the meantime we're going to go on to
another commissioner. Who was next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How many speakers do we have
on this subject?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to see us go
directly to the speakers. I don't know how my fellow commissioners
are, but we're listening -- what I'm hearing here is nothing but
repetitive arguments that have been answered numerous times before
in many meetings, and I can't understand what the justice is in
dragging this thing out. If you repeat everything over and over again,
it doesn't make a lie to the truth.
So let's get on with the speakers and then I would like to make a
motion for approval at the end of that point in time and then we can
make our decision as to what we're going to do.
And I'd also like to ask the County Attorney, I heard it one time
and I want it heard another time from you, sir. If someone is asked the
question that is repetitive over and over again, this isn't a court of law,
we're not trying to trap our citizens here and to make an admissions of
guilt that don't exist, can the person decline to answer in the fact that
Page 55
July 26, 2011
they've answered previously?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Hiller's questions
have been fair. You have a hearing before you. Whether or not these
questions were asked in prior hearings isn't relevant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But are the people that are
speaking before us, are they obligated to have to answer on --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're never obligated to answer, but they
fail to answer at their peril.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate your input on that,
sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10- minute break
for the court reporter. We'll be back here at 10:56.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
We're going to call the public speakers. Where's Ian?
Who's the first speaker, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the first speaker is Amelia Figueroa, and
she'll be followed by Richard Moore.
MS. FIGUEROA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners.
My name is Amelia Figueroa, and I am resident at 5883
Plymouth Place, in Ave Maria, Florida. My husband and I were the
second family to move into Ave Maria four years ago this coming
October. Since moving to this growing community, we have enjoyed
wonderful neighbors like Don and Darlene Imbus and Rick and Gwen
Moore.
We have also suffered the inevitable consequences of a recession
and its negative impact on our home values.
We are here to support this motion, as we believe a good
company like Arthrex will provide jobs and revitalize the economic
growth in our district.
Page 56
July 26, 2011
The Town of Ave Maria, bearing our blessed mother's name, will
benefit from this project.
We also want to express our gratitude to Commissioner Coletta
and all the commissioners that have supported Ave Maria and to the
Barron Collier company for maintaining the high standards of our
community. Thank you.
MR. MOORE: My name is Richard Moore. I live at 5843
Plymouth Place in Ava Maria. And I'm here too to support the motion
in front of you. I believe everything I've heard, it's been reviewed
endlessly and it's time to move on. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Don Imbus, and he'll
be followed by Gwen Moore.
MR. IMBUS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Don
Imbus. I live at 5856 Constitution Street in Ave Maria. That is the
Del Webb community. That is the community that is closest, most
affected by this zoning change.
I can tell you on behalf of every neighbor that I know, we are
strongly in favor of this. This issue we hope will be speedily
approved, since it has been dragged out it seems ad nauseam. It's a
very simple zoning swap, 50 acres here, 50 acres there. It's good for
the economy of Eastern Collier County. It's good for all of Collier
County. I hope that you will approve it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Gwen Moore will be followed by Renee
Beckner, who will be your last speaker.
MS. MOORE: My name is Gwen Moore. I live at 5843
Plymouth Place in Ave Maria. It's my new home. I love it there.
I really urge you to go forward quickly with this. We're very
frustrated in our community about the development or lack of
development. We know the economy's hit us all hard. And we have a
lot of very talented people working in that community to try to find
Page 57
July 26, 2011
ways to economically develop the area. They've come up with some
really good ideas. I just don't want to see us standing in their way.
I think the four commissioners who have already supported the
programs that have been put forward -- I'm sorry, Commissioner
Hiller, a lot in our community are very frustrated, we just don't
understand your position.
But thank you for letting me come to you.
MS. BECKNER: My name is Renee Beckner. I live at 14693
Southerland Avenue in Naples. I have a business in Naples as well as
in Ave Maria. And I'd like to read a letter that has been written by the
owners of businesses in the Town of Ave Maria.
Dear Commissioners: We the undersigned as commercial
business owners located within the town of Ave Maria wholeheartedly
and enthusiastically support the map changes amendments that are
being requested at the Board of County Commissioners meeting today
Tuesday, July 26th. This map change will encourage companies to
locate their businesses in our community, which will result in a
creation of high wage jobs that will be beneficial to all of Collier
County.
We encourage you to vote and approve the map change
amendment. Sincerely, Gerald Wamback, manager of Ave Maria
University Bookstore, Jean Mastandrea, owner of Salon d'Maria,
Christina Pinero, manager of Ave Maria Dentistry, Caitlin Raiger,
owner of Ave Maria Dentistry, Casa dei Bambini Montessori School,
Jay Roth, manager of Lutgert Insurance in Ave Maria, Brooke Rowe,
owner of Munchkins Childrens Store, Daniel Dix, owner of the Queen
Mary Pub, Monica Dix, owner of The Bean of Ave Maria, Karen
Ledesma, owner of Ave Maria Dance Academy, attorney Robert
Klucik, Charles van Meter, owner of Seven Advertising, Mel Cron,
president of Tropical Smoothie Ave Maria, Ann Wykebeck, manager
of the Secret Ingredient clothing store, myself, Renee Beckner, owner
of Beckner Jewelry and Repairs, Chelsea Allen, owner By way of The
Page 58
July 26, 2011
Family and Ave Maria Chiropractic Store, and Michael Mastandrea,
president of Regional Construction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
That was our last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll close the public hearing at this
time.
Commissioner Coletta, I cut you off right before the break. You
want to continue --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I'd like to make a
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Fiala -- Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Fiala will second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala seconds it.
And there is obviously discussion. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning was
before me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning is next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you need to open up the
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you have questions, we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll reopen the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The statement was made that
this has been a long process. Has this been more than usual? My
understanding is the application for the original map change was
withdrawn and then had to be resubmitted. Has it been a longer
process than normal?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Commissioner, we did not make that
statement so I think you need to ask the speaker to elaborate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want a statement from the
Page 59
July 26, 2011
application --
MR. PASSIDOMO: We have no complaints as to the way this is
being processed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It was what, a month
ago, and it had to go through staff and the Planning Commission and
then the Board of Commissioners?
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So 30 days?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We didn't make the statement and we don't
have any complaints.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think in defense of the person who
made the statement, this item has been before us for probably 10
months. And it has been before the Collier County Planning
Commission twice. And so it has been quite some time, albeit for
different companies that were coming there. But the process of
rezoning has been going on for a period of time that would seem
excessive for people who are experiencing what the people in Ave
Maria are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the applicant withdrew the
map change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, they withdrew it. And then they've
resubmitted essentially the same map change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it has been under review for a long
time. We vetted it very, very carefully.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This petition has only been to
the Planning Commission once.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This particular petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this petition only went to
the Planning Commission once. This petition is here before the Board
for the first time.
•1
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This petition. But the rezoning process
that is identical to this petition has been here more than once.
So in any event, all right, did you have other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had a lot of questions
and some comments, but we've already got a motion on the floor and
maybe my comments wouldn't be as kind as they should be, so I'm
going to just say that we have to think about -- cannot think about
vendettas or anything, we have to think about what's best for the
taxpayers in our community and what's best for the Ave Maria people,
for goodness sake. This is something that they need to move forward
with.
And taxpayers, as we all know, as commercial business grows, if
we can get it to grow, it also -- they pay the giant share of our taxes,
which brings our taxes down lower. My goodness, we're one of the
lowest paying tax -- tax paying counties in the entire State of Florida,
and that's because we try and encourage business, and we need to keep
-- we need to do that. And we need to stop discouraging or thwarting
efforts and move forward. So I am solidly behind this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'd like to go back to the
question that I had about the access points. I need assurances that you
are only going to have two access points along Oil Well Road and not
three, as would result based on what's being proposed here. That
would have to be a condition of this approval for me to be able to
accept it. Because as I understand, you know, what was approved
pursuant to that conditional use petition allows for general access. So
would the petitioner like to address that?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Commissioner.
The petition in front of you does not address that point. We'll
Page 61
July 26, 2011
make no representations, commitments or limitations on what we may
do in the future. That would require, if you explain it, a major
amendment to the SRA. None is contemplated, but we make no
commitment to limit our flexibility to do what we think is in the best
interest of the community in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what you're proposing here
are three access roads.
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, what we're proposing here, unless I'm
corrected by Mr. Reynolds, are two access roads within the Town of
Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's call it three access roads
along Oil Well Road. You've got one existing and now you're
proposing two additional.
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, we're simply looking to relocate one of
the existing ones.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And eliminating that one in the
process.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Eliminating that one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When will you eliminate it?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Let me ask -- Mr. Reynolds has been
involved in the permitting for the conditional use that is served by that
access point, so let me ask him to address that point.
MR. REYNOLDS: Again, to be very clear, there is currently the
major access into Ave Maria, Ave Maria Boulevard. There is an
access point that accesses the conditional use, which is the earth
mining, which is not within the Town of Ave Maria. There is a
proposed future access point at that location that is being moved over
to become this access point. So with the approval of this map change,
there would be two access points into Ave Maria from Oil Well Road
and there would be an access point that is specific to the conditional
use earth mining operation, that is not an access point into Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when will that be eliminated?
Page 62
July 26, 2011
MR. REYNOLDS: It will be eliminated when the completion of
the earth mining is done, and I can't tell you when that's going to
occur.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Staff gave me a different
representation.
Mr. Casalanguida, can you explain to me what your position is?
Because you indicated that that would be eliminated and
cul -de- sac -ed, and I'm not hearing that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
What I said to the Commissioner at the break, we talked, is that if
they came for a permit to tie into that conditional use, it would be
denied. So the fact, though, they have two access points. Right now
they have an access point that if they come in for a plat through that
conditional use we would grant. With approval of this SRA they
would move that location. But if they did come into our office and
say we want to plat a connection to the conditional use, it would not
be granted without them coming back to the Board asking for that
additional approval. So this process would not allow us to grant that
development order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to close the public
hearing.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Am I hearing that it passed
unanimously?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 63
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passed unanimously. Thank you
very much.
Item #8D
RESOLUTION 2011 -132 /DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2011 -03 FOR
DRI- PL2011 -0653, AVE MARIA DRI: RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 05 -235 (DEVELOPMENT
ORDER NO. 05 -01)5 AS AMENDED, FOR THE TOWN OF AVE
MARIA DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ("DRI")
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47
SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND
16 THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER
BY REVISING EXHIBIT C: SRA MASTER PLAN TO DIVIDE
TOWN CENTER 2 INTO TOWN CENTER 2A AND TOWN
CENTER 213, RELOCATE TOWN CENTER 2B TO OIL WELL
ROAD AND RELOCATE AN ACCESS POINT ON OIL WELL
ROAD; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION
THREE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR,
EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS,
TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND EFFECTIVE DATE. (COMPANION: SRAA-
PL2011 -0657) — ADOPTED AND NOTED THAT THE BOARD_
HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF FIRE FEES
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 5(D) (sic),
which is the companion item. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commissioner members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
DRI -PL -2000 --
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He said five, but it should be 8(D).
MR. OCHS: I'm so sorry, 8(D), Item 8(D). It's
DRI -PL- 2000 -0653, Ave Maria DRI. The resolution amending
resolution number 05 -235, as amended, for the Town of Ave Maria
development of regional impact, DRI. Located in Sections 31 through
33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in Collier County, Florida.
By providing for section one, amendments to development order
by revising Exhibit C SRA Master Plan to divide Town Center 3 into
Town Center 2 -A and Town Center 2 -13; to relocate Town Center 2 -13
to Oil Well Road and to relocate an access point on Oil Well Road.
Section two, findings of fact, section three, conclusions of law, and
section four, effective previously issued development orders,
transmittal to Department of Community Affairs and effective date.
So ex parte disclosures, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, yes. Ex parte disclosures, we'll
start with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The same as the previous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Likewise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And likewise for me.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, will all of those who intend to give
testimony in this petition please stand and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You going to make this presentation, Mr.
Passidomo?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, this one is very short. As
the Commission knows, that the map change you just adopted needs to
be attached as an amendment to -- as an exhibit to the existing DRI
Page 65
July 26, 2011
development order, and that's the nature of the petition in front of you
today. Substantively, it's exactly the same as the one you just
considered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, it recommends adjusting
the fees for this approval. And just a question for either legal or
county staff, how can we adjust the fire review fees since it is an
independent district?
We're adjusting the fees of $120, as long as the requirement
establishing advertising fees -- include insubstantial change fees for
the PUD of $1,500, the fire review fee of 120.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioner. For the
record, Nick Casalanguida.
It's a discussion we had with fire when we put it in the agenda,
but we do not adjust fire fees. That was what they agreed to do the
review for us so we included it in the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So don't approve the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can't approve that one since
we don't have the legislative authority to do so.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're correct, sir, and we should
probably strike that out. They agreed to that amount, but we do not
make that final approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the fees are
reimbursed by the applicant for services rendered.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir. We reviewed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No special favors, it was just --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've reviewed it three times. I thought
it was unfair to charge the applicant almost a third time for the same
process we've done twice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I concur with that.
MR. OCHS: Do we have staff --
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. The same concerns that I
raised in the first part of the hearing -- or I should say in the other
hearing, I'm going to raise with this section again. And I assume that
the petitioner is going to have the same response to all the same
concerns? Can you just state that for the record?
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Just out of curiosity, as a tangential question, what is the fire
rating out there?
MR. PASSIDOMO: I hope you're not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The ISO. You're all - knowing.
What's the ISO rating out there?
MR. PASSIDOMO: I don't have a clue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does anybody? I'm just curious.
What is the ISO rating?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a fire station out
there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a fire station out
there?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I do not know what the ISO rating
is at Ave Maria. I do know that there is an EMS station that's jointly
manned by EMS and a member of the Immokalee Independent Fire
District in the town.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to know what the ISO
rating is, if someone could get back to me on that.
MR. OCHS: Sure, we'd be happy to find that for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we don't have any public
speakers, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By the way, I heard it was like a
nine or a 10, like one of the highest.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there are no public speakers.
Page 67
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning has
seconded --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did he second it? No, he hasn't
seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to recognize that
the Board doesn't have the authority to adjust the fire fees as a
recommendation under executive summary, that that not be a part of
the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll add that to the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
And the motion is a motion to approve with the exception of the
adjustment of the fire rating. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fire fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fire fees, yes, I'm sorry. Yes, fire fees.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
July 26, 2011
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2011 -24: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA- FRIENDLY USE OF
FERTILIZER ON URBAN LANDSCAPES — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to our 11:00 a.m.
time certain hearing this morning, which is item 8(B) on your agenda.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the Collier County Florida - friendly use of fertilizer on urban
landscapes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have something you want
to share with us, County Attorney, or staff?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, Mr. Klatzkow had sent an e -mail
last evening to the Board, advising them of a concern about the
proposed ordinance raised from the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
We are aware of that concern, but staff is still ready to move
forward on this item as previously directed by the Board. We would
propose that if the state's going to force changes, that they would do
that across the state to all public agencies. And if and when they make
those changes, we'll certainly bring those back to the Board for
consideration.
But as far as the staff s concerned, the Board has given direction,
we've taken that direction and included it into this revised ordinance
and we're ready to move forward, if the Board is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, you communicated a
different recommendation to the commissioners by e -mail. Does your
recommendation still stand?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, not a recommendation, just a
proposal. I mean, the state is asking you to continue this item until the
July 26, 2011
state can get with the various -- Florida Association of Counties, I
know they're working with, because this is a statewide issue for them.
Another thing you could do if you'd like is simply to pass the
state model ordinance at this point in time. And once the state gets
everybody on the same page, come back here to make any changes.
Or you can go forward with what's being presented here. However,
the state has told you they're not happy with it and they may or may
not challenge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we address their two
concerns, then it shouldn't be an issue. Their two concerns they put in
writing was, one was the sale of fertilizer. And if we just apply it to
the application and not the sale, then that's one -- should take care of
one of their concerns.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the other one I just don't
quite understand about, are we outreaching on the amount of
fertilizer? Five pounds? Is that the other issue?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Might have been the blackout date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the blackout date is not one
of their concerns. Is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: From what I understand, that's not one of
their concerns. Their concern is they regulate the sale and the
composition of fertilizer. We can only regulate the use and
application. Quite frankly, I'm struggling with the differences
between those two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just because you buy
Johnny Walker Red one day doesn't mean you're going to drink it the
next day. It's the actual consumption of it, the use of it. So, I mean,
the application is within the ordinance; is that right, Mac?
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services.
The application is in the ordinance. Some of the language from
Page 70
July 26, 2011
the model ordinance, which was retained in the proposed ordinance,
includes the term formulation -- or formulated, and this is one of the
things that the Florida Department of Agriculture has specifically
indicated that the legislation, the recent legislation gives them the sole
responsibility for regulating.
So to move forward with the proposed ordinance, we probably
would need to resolve the wording there.
They also indicated in verbal communication this morning that
they would not have any problems with us adopting the model
ordinance at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we need to strike out
the sale of fertilizer, if that's within the ordinance.
MR. HATCHER: Well, the discussion of sale is not specifically
mentioned. But the term formulated is included in the description in
the application of fertilizer, and that's the area that is clearly in
conflict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So if we strike that, what
does that do to the ordinance? Is it --
MR. HATCHER: Well, I would prefer to have the County
Attorneys weigh in on that after discussion with the Florida
Department of Agriculture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So maybe we should continue it
then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we don't have an answer to those
issues.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think what we can do is adopt the
model ordinance without fear of any sort of litigation from the state,
because obviously the state has approved the model. And that moves
us in the right direction and allows us to take that first step into, you
know, addressing this problem that does affect water quality.
So with that, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the model
Page 71
July 26, 2011
ordinance as the state allows. And then once the state has, you know,
resolved what we can or can't do with respect to modifying that,
address that at a future time.
So to simplify, adopt the model ordinance today would be my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Hiller to
adopt the model ordinance --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
We have public speakers. Let's call the public speakers.
Commissioner Henning, you want to comment now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd rather wait and get
something that is more specific and applicable to Collier County. We
are not the same as other counties in the state. We are a coastal
community, and I think that we should have our own ordinance. And
the model ordinance doesn't do it.
So I can't support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to respond to that. It's
the first step. Obviously the model ordinance is more permissive than
the ordinance we're proposing. Some sort of restriction is better than
none at all, and will benefit the environment and the community as a
whole. We always have the ability to, once the state allows us, to
make this model ordinance more restrictive, more tailored to Collier
County; isn't that right, Mac?
MR. HATCHER: I believe so, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this also doesn't prevent any
citizen who wants to be more conscious about what impact they have
with respect to water quality and how they fertilize to do so. And we
have examples of that, like Village Walk and Island Walk who have
voluntarily self - imposed more restrictive fertilization standards, and
with successful results.
Page 72
July 26, 2011
So it's not to say that we can't tailor it down the road, but if we
don't do anything today, we're not taking that first step to improving
our environment.
MR. HATCHER: We can move forward with our education
program at this point in time also.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's actually -- I'd like to
add that to my motion, that in addition to adopting the model, that we
go forward with the education program with respect to how
fertilization affects water quality.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I include that in my --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In your second? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to be required at
some point in time to adopt either the model ordinance or a more strict
ordinance, but we're kind of limited at this point in time as far as the
elements of an ordinance that exceeds the model ordinance; that's the
way I'd put it together.
So we put the model ordinance in place while we're wrestling
over the issues of what the rules should be and how they're going to
come together. We're covered as far as the state goes with the model
ordinance already in place. We can always come back and review it,
nothing more than an interim ordinance to be able to cover the gap at
this point in time; that's the way I look at it.
And if we get into a pinch on time, we're not going to be rushed
to try to meet whatever deadline the state is going to set to come up
with an ordinance, because we'll have one in place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 14.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fourteen. Okay.
Let's call the first speaker.
Page 73
July 26, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Herb Schuchman, and
he'll be speaking for six minutes. Jerry Greely has waived his time to
him.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: My name is Herb Schuchman. I represent
the community of Island Walk.
The overhead displays the 40 some -odd cities and counties in
Southwest Florida that have already passed restrictions during the four
month rainy season. Collier County is sort of behind.
I'm really making an urgent plea to the commissioners for help
now. We've already told you about the problems facing the
communities built around the stormwater retention pond systems.
And these are not unique to Island Walk, they are true throughout the
entire country. Florida just happens to be the state with the greater
number of these systems.
The way they're developed, we have high nitrate and phosphate
levels. Those, as I said before, have doubled in one year in Island
Walk. We have lower oxygen saturation levels, and that's resulting in
fish deaths and odors. We have ever - increasing algae blooms. We
have increased muck levels.
We realize that fertilizing is not the total cause of this, but it
certainly is one of the causes. If there's anyone who still believes that
fertilizers are not part of the cause, I ask you to consider the following.
And this is from a book published in 2011, Shadows on the Gulf.
A dead zone is an area of the sea with so little oxygen that few
animals can survive in it. A few such places exist naturally in
locations with stagnant water, but there are currently more than 400
dead zones around the world, and humans are responsible for 99
percent of them, including the mother of all dead zones, the Gulf of
Mexico, which in 2010 covered 8,000 square miles, an area larger
than the State of New Jersey, devoid the life.
Dead zones form where nutrient runoff from cities and
agricultural fertilizers spark runaway algae blooms, big enough algae
Page 74
July 26, 2011
blooms for a population explosion of bacteria that suck every milliliter
of oxygen out of the water. Any animal trapped in such a zone dies.
Even chronically low oxygen levels, those not enough to kill, can
cause severe reproduction effects in fish.
The Gulf now has, as of this year, 9,000 square miles devoid of
life. That's the largest dead zone in the world.
Previous to 1991, the largest dead zone in the world was the
Black Sea. This largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001, after
fertilizers became too costly following the collapse of the Soviet
Union. After that, fishing has now resumed to normal and is a major
economic activity.
Dead zones are reversible, and fertilizers are a major factor. We
must help our communities. Our communities are all in trouble that
any of them that are built around stormwater retention systems are
going to be suffering major expenses in the years to come.
We have already in Island Walk spent $320,000 to put an
aeration system in, and we know that we're going to have to dredge
sometime in the future. We have bought many years by putting in an
aeration system, so we have 20 some -odd years. But the cost of that is
estimated to be between 10 and $12 million.
Now, we're aware of that and we're preparing for it. We've
already paid for aeration, we're already getting ready to put into our
budget reserves so that in 25 to 30 years from now we won't have a
problem. But the communities that aren't preparing are going to face
the fact that the average life expectancy before dredging is
approximately 25 years. And that time for many of these communities
is approaching rapidly.
Many, many developments were built in Florida during the past
20 years, and during that time they used all of these systems the same.
Island Walk is doing its part. We've started an outreach program
to other communities and have met so far with approximately 20 and
spoke at other forums to alert the communities. We installed aeration,
Page 75
July 26, 2011
as I said. We have instituted our own fertilizer restrictions, including
50 percent slow release fertilizer, four month no fertilizing, no
fertilizing within 10 foot of ponds, and only granular fertilizers will be
used.
The water entering our community is 40 percent higher in nitrates
than our water, and the water leaving our community goes directly to
the Gulf. Island Walk is spending many thousands of dollars running
tests and bringing in experts so that we can determine what is our best
course of action, and we are taking it.
But what about all these other communities? What's going to
happen to them?
Please, do whatever it takes. See to it that Collier passes strict
fertilization laws. These other counties and cities don't have dead
grass, they're getting along fine, and if you speak to them, as we have,
you'll see that they're all quite content. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is John Cisar, and he'll be
speaking. He has 12 minutes. Bill Davidson Allison Taylor and Matt
Taylor have ceded their time to him.
MR. CISAR: Good morning. I'm a professor with the University
of Florida. I've been here for 25 years. Since my graduate student
days, I've been working on environmental impacts of turf grass
management systems. Got my Master's Degree at Cornell University,
my PhD at the University of Rhode Island. I'm in the environmental
horticulture department. I'm located on the other side of the pond over
here, I'm in Fort Lauderdale, not in Gainesville, so it's an easy jog over
for me. And I'm thankful to be here this morning.
I've been conducting research on nitrogen leaching on turf grass
systems in Florida for 25 years. Before that, work has started here in
the 1960's, so we have a strong body of evidence in the research
investigating this topic. Because as pointed out, we're surrounded by
water. The water we recreate in, that's the water we drink. We need
to protect that water.
Page 76
July 26, 2011
The University has been very proactive in trying to develop
programs that would do that. We've contributed to the model
ordinances that are being promoted in the state. My research has been
cited in that arena. We've conducted research not only on sports
fields, which was our first focus because of the high nitrogen rate that
goes on sports fields type grass, golf course grass, but in the last 20
years we've been looking more at the home lawn issue, specifically
because there's a greater acreage of home lawns in the state, and not a
lot of data was available prior to my coming on board down here.
Now, what have we found? Basically what we found is that if
we follow the ordinances that we've talked about, where we have a
fertilizer that would have some soluble fertilizer in it and some slow
release fertilizer or controlled release fertilizer as nitrogen, generally
we don't see any impacts on the environment. We don't see very
much leaching at all. We've done this test a number of different times
on St. Augustine grass. We reported on this research in the literature.
It's been accepted by our peers.
With regard to runoff, we're the people who developed that
runoff plot with a steep 10 percent slope. If you don't know what a 10
percent slope is, try walking up and down it, you get tired very
quickly.
We try to simulate runoff events. We've done experiments in the
rainy season. We've done experiments, we've put out fertilizers before
hurricanes, really high precipitation events, and in all cases we don't
catch a lot of nitrogen leaching.
So what's going on? Why do we need to fertilize? Well, one of
the reasons we need to fertilize is our soils have very little nutrients in
them. Our nutrients come from the organic matter for the most part.
If you go to the Everglades, for example, we have sod, we have a great
sod production industry in the state. There's more sod produced here
than the rest of the country. We're the number one sod state in the
country.
Page 77
July 26, 2011
If you go to the Everglades, the soils -- first study I ever did, we
recommended that you didn't have to put any nitrogen fertilizer to
grow a sod crop bed. Why? There's plenty of nitrogen in our organic
matter in the muck soils, and then mineralized nitrogen, and you don't
have to put on fertilizer at all. I did that study 25 years ago. It's still a
stalwart. We also reduced the amount of phosphorus we had to put
on, the amount of potassium.
So it really depends on what kind of soils you have, your
fertilization. Especially as the fields have changed. In the last 20
years or so a lot of the areas that we used to get sod from have been
taken off of production, more into conservation areas.
A lot of the sod we're getting in this area now is sand based sod.
Those sods are a little bit hungrier. The amount of nitrogen that you
carry in the sod is much less, the carryover is much less. You're going
to have to fertilize it more often.
I recommend fertilizing six times a year at a one pound of
nitrogen per 1,000 square feet basis.
Our research on the hill basically showed that if we put in a
fertilizer that had about 70 percent soluble, roughly 30 percent slow
release -- a product at the time that was very hard to find, by the way,
in the commercial marketplace, this was almost 15 years ago now --
that we got very little leaching. And this is regardless to whether we
did this fertilizing in the dry season or in the wet season.
In 1999 when we did the study, we had a very large rainfall
event, we had a tropical system in June just after fertilization, and that
was the only time that we got a runoff event where we were actually
collecting water that moved in sheet flow off these 10 percent slopes.
And the nitrogen in that water was less than what's in the rainfall,
okay.
So the grass is doing exactly what we want it to do. We want it
to filter nutrients, we want it to cleanse the water, we want the water
coming off those plots better than what's coming into it. And basically
July 26, 2011
that's what we see in our research.
Why is that? People -- it seems reasonable, it seems rational and
logical that if you fertilize in the summer, all the rain we get, that
we're going to have environmental problems.
Why doesn't the research show that? I mean, we try a lot of
different scenarios, and unless we do extreme things, like things that
are illegal, we can't really get those events.
Research recently published showed that grasses have 14 times
the ability, the warm season grasses that we use, 14 times the ability to
take up nitrogen in warm months than in colder months, okay. So
although the residual time of the fertilizer in the system might be less
with a lot of water coming into the system, the plant has a
tremendously greater ability to take it up.
Research has shown that you put fertilizer onto grass in the
summertime. Within about 24 hours the grass is basically -- one of
my professors described grass as dogs chasing red meat, they just eat
it up. The root systems are very active in the summer. And that's
exactly what we see. We see that the plant utilizes -- responds to the
fertilization, utilizes it and takes it up, thereby cleansing the water
that's in that soil system and actually enhancing the environment.
I remember I did this work for the DEP, 19991 I went to talk over
to Sarasota, because at the time it was Sarasota Bay that had an issue
with water quality in the Sarasota Bay. And they asked me, what was
the impact of our data. And basically we said that -- I think I said on a
watershed basis, what does this mean? It means that really turf is
providing very clean quality of water for Florida. And I'd like you to
consider that today.
And the last thing I want to mention, why do we need to fertilize
in the summer? This is just by serendipity, I got this e -mail the other
day from a Randy Roberts, this is a local fellow over in Hollywood.
He says, hi, I found your e -mail on turf grass research and
education, hopefully you can help me. In the past two months I've
Page 79
July 26, 2011
seen the St. Augustine grass in several yards in my neighborhood die
out very quickly. My lawn has suffered the same. I checked for cinch
bugs, found nothing. I dug some small homes for grubs, to no avail. I
treated my backyard with Bayer fungus control and there was no
difference between treated and untreated.
At the end he goes, perhaps you can point me in the right
direction to find the answer to the solution to the problem.
Well, I told him what the solution was. What's happened in the
last six months? We had the greatest extended drought I think in
recorded history in Florida. The grass has suffered terribly. By the
time this fellow's trying to make a reaction to his problem, the
problem is gone. What can we do now?
What I told him to do was tender loving care. Fertilize the grass,
water the grass, try to grow the grass back in. You don't have to use
all sorts of pesticides, insecticides, fungicides. Let's get the grass
healthy. Once the grass is healthy, vigorously growing, you'll do
better.
That's one of the reasons I'm a little bit concerned about blackout
periods, because who would have ever predicted we'd have the worst
drought in the last 70 years, okay? And what can we do to help the
customers, help the neighbors to get better turf grass systems if we put
handcuffs on them to not do something?
What will happen if we can't do the things that I recommend? I
think you'll have a weedier type of lawn at the end of the day. You'll
be using more agrochemicals to try to take care of the weeds, take care
of the other problems on that lawn, so the overall problem might
become greater. The overall impact might become more severe than if
we just do things that are what I would call good science -based
nutrition and watering programs.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. As a
matter of fact, I want to volunteer, I know you guys are interested in
blackouts. If you want to do a little demonstration study here, we
July 26, 2011
could look at the impact of fertilizer versus no fertilizer in the summer
period. If you want to make a demonstration project for the
community, it's a beautiful facility around here, maybe I can get the
help of Doug Caldwell, the Extension people, the master gardeners or
whatever who have done these studies in the past in Sarasota. They're
very great educational opportunities.
I think this is an awareness issue as well as an ordinance issue.
I'd be happy to put in a little demonstration trial here, look at fertilizer
versus no fertilizer, put up educational materials that would help
people, guide them in their application of fertilizer to maybe get a
more safe environment. I'd be happy to do that and volunteer my time
for that if you'd like to take me up on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's an excellent suggestion. Do
members of the Board have any objection to asking him to work with
the staff in order to identify an appropriate demonstration site?
MR. CISAR: We could do it at extension, we could do it here,
wherever would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Use my yard --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, sir, I was excited about
this. Right out front, the front door here would be an excellent place.
You've got a length of green yard separated by a sidewalk, one part of
it fertilize, the other part not, following the model ordinance,
following whatever, to see what happens and be able to just serve as
an example.
MR. CISAR: Could we put up a few boards to describe what
we're doing, you know, a little bit of educational paraphernalia there
too, would that be okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we've got a lake right here.
MR. CISAR: I was looking around here, you've got the perfect
opportunity to do a little demo right here. And we could do it now
because this is the rainy season, this is the time of the year you're
July 26, 2011
worried about. I'd be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's a great idea.
MR. CISAR: No cost to you. How do you like that, huh? That's
even better, right? That's an Obama stimulus package benefit. Okay,
well, I'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Obama stimulus package, we pay
you.
MR. CISAR: Well, if you want to go ahead with that, if I could
just -- if you could just tell somebody to get in touch with me, I'll
work it out and do it as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three nods on the
commission to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see this guy sitting there?
MR. CISAR: This guy right here --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The older guy, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That older guy.
MR. CISAR: More work for him. All right, we'll get together on
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. CISAR: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, can you help me out. Why
is it that communities that have these finger lakes for water
management like Village Walk and Island Walk are having such a
horrible time with their algae blooms in their water?
MR. CISAR: Well, you know, it's a complicated question. It's a
good question. I think a lot of it has to do with oxygenation. Maybe
they're not getting enough oxygen. I think the gentleman gave a fine
talk. And you're talking about putting oxygen into the system, and
that would be very important, because you get a lack of oxygen in the
July 26, 2011
lakes and you get the algae blooms that are associated with that and
the dead fish. So just bubbling the water is a really good method of
improving the quality of the water in the lakes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So does that go back to the
permitting by South Florida Water Management, that somehow the
way these projects that include these waterways haven't been properly
permitted to allow for sufficient oxygenation, and should the water
district be looking at some alternative way of permitting at these
projects?
MR. CISAR: I can't speak to what the district does, but I
certainly know that when we have problems, we have little what we
call manmade lakes where we're taking out soil to build homes and
whatever. Whenever we have these inversion issues, the first thing
that everybody says is, oh, we did something pollution -wise. But
generally speaking, it's just a lack of oxygen. And then what we do to
get around that it is just get the bubblers in there and they work just
fine, they help to clean up the lake.
The other thing we try to do with lakes is that we try to keep as
much tree debris and things like that getting into the lakes to build up
the amount of carbon in the lakes. And that helps as well. We have
all sorts of screening systems for that as well. So to me it's just
common sense and also just hygiene, good hygiene.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask just one question? Does
Village Walk or Island Walk have bubblers in their lakes?
Not Village Walk?
MR. SCHUCHMAN: Island Walk has it, Village Walk does not.
Aeration is what he's referring to, the bubblers that are put on the
bottom of the ponds --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we're going to have people from the
audience speaking, you have to come up to a microphone so we can
get you on the record, please.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: My name is Herb Schuchman and I'm
July 26, 2011
from Island Walk. We put in an aeration system, which is the
bubblers he's referring to. And there is definitely, in the short time that
we've had it in since April, a noticeable difference.
And in the literature, if you read it, you will find that they
estimate you can buy 20 to 25 years of time before dredging. The
average life expectancy is between 20 and 25 years normally. And
that's why we're so concerned, because so many communities are
approaching that area. These systems basically, a good part of them
went into effect about 20 some -odd years ago.
And Island Walk is basically 12 years old. That would mean in
about 13 years we were looking at dredging. We bought another 20,
25 years now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By putting the aeration --
MR. SCHUCHMAN: By putting the aeration in. And that's why
we're also doing, as the gentleman suggested, we're doing more
frequent sweepings of our streets. We're picking up our coconuts,
we're doing all sorts of things to try to minimize the impact on the
ponds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did you start your
fertilization program?
MR. SCHUCHMAN: That only went into effect in I believe
May.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you started the aeration in April
and then the fertilization limitations in May, and concurrently you
started limiting your -- the debris going into the lakes.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: That's correct. Plus we have all those
restrictions as to where we fertilize and when we fertilize, which is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the only reason I'm asking is,
given that all of these events occurred concurrently, I was wondering
if you had isolated, you know, how you changed your application of
fertilizing and were you as a result able to see that there was, you
know, a direct effect.
July 26, 2011
And I just want to make sure that I understand that the aeration
isn't the material solution that you're seeing as opposed to the quantity
of fertilization that you're putting on your lawns to address the point
that you're raising.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: Let me say this: That Island Walk is right
now running I can't tell you how many thousands of dollars worth of
studies. We're running it over a year basis. We're sending divers
down to measure muck level.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's impressive.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: We are measuring the fertilizer content,
starting at one foot below the high water mark, the high water mark
going back to 10 feet where our fertilizer goes into effect, and 20 feet
back. We're running all sorts of studies.
We're also going to be testing the water leaving our community,
as soon as the water level continues to rise to see the impact there.
And this takes time. We really only found out about the problem
starting at the beginning of last September. So we're talking 10
months, nine months.
And in that time we've spent thousands of hours, we really have,
investigating the problems and calling all over the country. We didn't
only limit ourselves to Florida, we actually contacted 10 of the
communities that we have up there, asking them those questions. We
had a list of questions that we prepared, asking them to tell us what
negative effects if any did you see, what positive effects did you see,
did it impact your budget. We had a whole list of questions.
And the answer to all of that was that they had no change
whatsoever. Two of the counties reported that they seemed to be
using less water fertilizing, they need less on the grass now. And
that's the only thing we could find.
And again, we are doing all of our own testing. We are having
this done on a regular basis, a lot of it is being done every single
month, some of it is being done every two or three months, and at the
July 26, 2011
end of a year we'll have a lot more information. But at this particular
time all we have is what we can see.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a suggestion, but with all
the research that you're doing, I don't know if you'd be willing to work
MR. CISAR: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And vice versa. Because I think
there would be a real opportunity to see which of the different steps
you're taking is having the biggest impact. It's a thought, since I'm
matchmaking here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That should be a lunch hour
discussion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's just a thought.
MR. SCHUCHMAN: Can I just say this? We're not -- there's no
way that we're going to have to tell you which one is doing what,
because we are instituting all of them. Each of them buys more time.
And frankly, the whole concept has to be to buy more time. If you
read the manual put out by the Southwest Florida Water Management
District, they estimate that you have to dredge every 10 to 25 years. I
can't find that anywhere else in the literature; everywhere else I've
been able to find is 20 to 25 years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's have the next speaker please.
MR. MITCHELL: If I could ask the speakers to use both
podiums, please. So the next speaker is Sally Kirk, and she'll be
followed by Rich Yovanovich.
MS. KIRK: Good morning. I'm Sally Kirk, and I'm from
Longshore Lake. And it wasn't Village Walk -- Village Walk has no
fertilization ordinance, Island Walk. Longshore Lake has had a
fertilization ordinance for two years. We don't have aeration, and we
have no algae.
We had algae before we started the fertilization ordinance, just to
digress, because we've already covered this, but I had to address what
July 26, 2011
the others -- what -- part of your issue.
I think part of the thing is we're doing really well. We were
doing really well until we had rainfall, I guess about -- we haven't had
very much to speak of, but about two weeks ago we had two inches,
and we have a pond in front of our community that's not hooked up to
our 88 -acre lake where we have no algae. The pond, after significant
rainfall, developed significant algae blooms in the front. And we
attributed that to the fact that all of the communities along Valewood
Drive do not have a fertilization ordinance. And our pond in the front
is basically a stormwater -- a small stormwater retention pond, and all
of their junk washed into our pond. We're still battling that. Our lake
is still clear.
So going on from that, the letter that you got from your County
Attorneys states that this legislation which we're talking about appears
to be in conflict with the state statute which encourages local
governments to adopt the model ordinance but allows for local
changes when there are impaired local waters.
All you have to do is drive down Immokalee Road and look at
the canal along Immokalee Road, the canals along Airport Road and
also look at our Gulf of Mexico, which was in the paper, where it says
unusual congregation of sea life along Collier beaches could be linked
to offshore algae bloom.
Now, I know one of the commissioners was concerned about the
golf courses, but we have people who come here to do more than just
play golf. We have people who come here to go to the beach. And if
you read this article, you'll see a lot of our visitors did not want to go
to the beach where there were dead fish and there was algae and black
water. As you can see, it's pretty dark.
So I'm encouraging you all to vote for this ordinance, needless to
say, and also for the blackout. And I respect what the professor's
comments were, but we have very steep embankments, just as most of
these communities do when they were created. So when we have a
July 26, 2011
significant storm, who knows when a significant storm comes, it all
washes down into our water.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Rich Yovanovich will be followed by
Frederick Talbott.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
The statute that was adopted requiring the counties to adopt a
model ordinance basically said yes, you can adopt more stringent
regulations when certain things happen. And one of those is it must be
that it's science based. Second, it must be economically and
technically feasible. And finally, it needs to be necessary to
adequately address the urban fertilizer contributions.
Dr. Cisar did an excellent job summarizing the science. He spent
25 years analyzing the impacts of fertilization under many, many
circumstances, including the steep grade that the previous speaker just
testified to. And what he testified to was that regulating fertilizer,
blackout periods and location is not necessary to address fertilizer
issues.
I think we all have heard many, many -- a lot of testimony
regarding issues with people who cut their grass, they fertilize the
sidewalk, they fertilize the road, and they don't properly blow the
fertilizer grass back into the grass, so it gets into the water
management system.
I think that this is predominantly an education issue. It also is
clearly an oxygenation issue, by one of the previous speakers. The
lakes that were built in some communities are not deep enough, there's
not enough oxygen in them to process the nutrients that are in those
lakes.
The -- this ordinance has not met the legal requirements for
adopting more stringent standards. In fact, I think Dr. Bauer testified
July 26, 2011
from the City of Naples that the city has had an ordinance in effect for
years. And I believe he testified that there's been no change in the
water quality over those years. So we know that an ordinance that has
been adopted locally has not resulted in better water quality. That's
consistent with what all the scientists have told you and what all the
scientific literature has told you.
I think that what the Commission has done by a motion to adopt
the model ordinance is a good first step. Dr. Cisar has offered to do
local research so we can get local research as to the impacts of a more
restrictive ordinance without going all the way to that more restrictive
ordinance without a scientific basis.
What this ordinance really does is it punishes the professionally
trained who apply fertilization. They have to keep the records, they're
the ones who have been trained in the proper application of this. I
doubt you're going to go after the individual property owner who
misapplies or does not follow these fertilization rules.
The professionals should be allowed to do their job. They're
going to have proper training. The professionals should not be subject
to this model ordinance. If they have the proper training, they should
be exempt from it. It should be those who do not seek the proper
training or have the proper training that should be subject to this
ordinance.
I don't think anybody should be subject to it, because frankly the
model ordinance is good enough and we should be training our people
on how to properly cut their grass and blow the clippings back in their
grass and deal with the fertilization that way. And we encourage the
Commission to follow the model ordinance.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Talbott will be followed by Amber
Crooks.
MR. TALBOTT: I'm Fred Talbott. I live in Village Walk. And
unfortunately last year, 2010, we had a one -third of year harmful algae
bloom cover our entire 80 -acre pond. That's why I'm here.
July 26, 2011
Tried to work through Village Walk, nothing. We have two
fountains that are really pretty. They do nothing for aeration. Put
lights on them at Christmas. Didn't help.
Little bit disappointed, to be honest. Been waiting a year to -- a
year ago I was going to write a great story, hopefully for the New
York Times or another national article about Collier County. And I
think to be honest with you, it may be time for me to write it now
because I'm hearing science denied for a year, I'm hearing the
University of Florida come in and basically say that we don't have
gravity here, we don't have water running downhill and carrying
whatever debris is on it, which includes fertilizer sprinkled on it,
downhill into our pond, when I've visually seen it.
I've got a little granddaughter seven years old at home who
couldn't get near it for another two weeks this year because it's full of
harmful bacteria, cyanobacteria. And I talked to most of you about
what that will do and what that does to people.
We're seeing environmental harm. We're seeing economic harm.
I'm seeing people walk away from open houses when they see what's
in our lake. And most important, we know, we know this stuff poses
public harm, great danger. Great, great danger.
So I came here today to ask you to stop it, that's all. But you can
hear from the tone of my voice, I think frustration is at a point now of,
after waiting a year and hearing science denied here and the golf
community asked you not to regulate this so they can't be blamed for
fertilizer pollution.
I think it's time for me to write that story, launch a few websites.
Thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Crooks has six minutes. Jeremy Frantz
has ceded his time too.
MS. CROOKS: Thank you. Amber Crooks from The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, here today on behalf of our over
6,000 members to advocate for a more protective fertilizer ordinance
Page 90
July 26, 2011
to safeguard our region's water resources.
During the last legislative session we advocated that local
municipalities not be preempted to consider more stringent, more
protective fertilizer ordinances when local conditions warranted. Our
state representatives agreed when they voted unanimously to preserve
the right of local municipalities to adopt such ordinances.
The state model is intended to be the floor, not the ceiling, and is
woefully inadequate to deal with Collier County's nutrient issues. So
we applaud the Commission for recognizing this fact at the last
hearing and directing staff to make improvements to the ordinance by
incorporating a four -pound maximum nitrogen application rate, use of
50 percent slow release nitrogen and low or zero phosphorous
products, 10 -foot fertilizer -free buffer zone and a summer
season/rainy season prohibited application period.
In the interim, The Conservancy in addition to other stakeholders
has submitted scientific and technical support that can be utilized to
meet the state statute requirements; these are many IFAS and FDEP
documents.
As the proposed ordinance meets the state statute language, and
as the proposed ordinance does not attempt to regulate the sale of
fertilizers, the ordinance is not in conflict with existing statutes. The
ordinance that staff has crafted in no way attempts to regulate the sale
of fertilizer products. The proposed ordinance does not contain
language that regulates sale, packaging, labeling, distribution of
fertilizer products.
The current state statute language allows local governments to
adopt ordinances that regulate the application of fertilizer products.
So asking applicators to adhere to caps on maximum rates, select
certain products that are more environmentally friendly, such as the 50
percent slow release, or to apply fertilizer under best management
practice such as buffer zones and rainy season prohibited periods does
not infringe on the state's role in regulating the sale and content of
Page 91
July 26, 2011
fertilizer products.
And the language formulated, which the Florida Department of
Agriculture highlighted in their letter, as staff highlighted, is directly
from the state model and should not be a concern. And so I'm a little
confused why they would recommend a state model when it contains
the same language.
What we would recommend at a minimum for the Commission to
consider is adding at this point the 10 -foot buffer and the summer
blackout rainy season ban, because those things are not in question in
the FDACS's letter.
At the first hearing you received documents from Dr. Nell of
IFAS that showed support for a 10 -foot fertilizer -free buffer zone.
That was in the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook.
The two -month blackout period during August and September
was recommended by the CCPC based on Dr. Nell's input at their May
meeting. He testified that there were slow release products that would
last at least that long. While a two -month period is more protective
than none at all, we would continue to recommend a four -month
blackout period.
Opponents of the rainy season blackout have stated that the
summer is grass' growing season and so nitrogen should be applied
during this time. However, these IFAS documents state that here in
South Florida the growing season is all year round, so therefore
application of fertilizer is not necessary during the summer and could
as well just be done outside of the blackout period.
Not only is the blackout period -- four -month blackout period
necessary for enforcement and consistency between jurisdictions but it
meets with our historical rainfall data. We get rainfall event about one
and a half days, every one and a half days between June and
September. It seems very difficult for applicators, as skilled as they
may be, to be able to predict if a certain home site will receive rainfall
within the next day. I know it's been difficult for me to kind of predict
Page 92
July 26, 2011
when I need my umbrella. In fact, data collected by staff that's in the
report that they gave you show that we receive more rain in July than
in other months of the rainy season.
We talked with Mike Holsinger, who was an IFAS director at the
Sarasota Extension for 14 years, and he believes a four -month
blackout period is necessary to avoid potential pollution events. In his
professional opinion, we have a letter that we'll be happy to
disseminate to you; he says, the use of a 50 percent slow release
product in April or May, supplemented by nutrients naturally from the
rain and from breakdown of grass clippings is sufficient to meet the
needs of turf grass throughout the rainy season. And this would also
help avoid overapplication of nitrogen, which can lead to disease and
pest problems.
So we are here to ask the county to continue this issue so we can
work out the issue with the FDACS's letter and resolve how the new
bill language is being applied. However, if the Board is interested in
pursuing a decision today, we respectfully request that you adopt the
improved protective ordinance and with the recommended
improvement of an extended four -month blackout period. This is
absolutely critical in reducing pollutant loading to our impaired waters
and sensitive outstanding Florida waters that we have here in Collier
to protect our tourism based economy and our quality of life. Thank
you.
Here's the letter.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Gina Downs, and she'll
be followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. DOWNS: I was here at the last meeting on behalf of the
Environmental Advisory Committee. I can't begin to convey to you
how disappointed I am that we're taking a -- considering a baby step to
comply with the state proposal and yet we are miles behind all of our
adjoining counties who do take their water quality apparently a lot
more seriously than we do.
Page 93
July 26, 2011
I had this slide at my last presentation, and there have been some
minor changes to it. Charlotte County I now have two red asterisks
beside. They have made their ordinance even more strict, and that just
happened in June, June 14th. They increased their blackout period to a
four -month blackout period, and they changed their restrictions for
nitrogen on turf to apply to all turf. It used to be based on different
types of turf was the loading for the nutrients -- for the nitrogen.
The other thing that has happened since then, since the last
meeting, is Manatee has included an ordinance and passed it that
includes the four -month blackout, the 10 -foot buffer, the nitrogen
loading, the slow release and the training for turf professionals. So we
seem to be surrounded by counties who are giving much more serious
concern to their water quality.
I do have the Manatee, the newest ordinance that was passed in
May. They say in their ordinance: Whereas, the detrimental effects of
nutrient laden runoff are magnified in a coastal community due to the
proximity of stormwater and drainage conveyances to coastal and
estuarine waters.
Up and down the coast Manatee has now passed the more strict
ordinance that the EAC was recommending. Sarasota put it in place in
'07, Charlotte County in '08, recently made it more strict. Lee County
in 108, City of Naples in '06. And the South Florida Regional Planning
unanimously passed it by the vote of 23 in 2007. So I'm very troubled
and disappointed. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Brad Cornell will be followed by Joe
Moreland.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And we definitely support the proposed ordinance and the
improvements that were suggested by Amber Crooks of The
Conservancy, the four -month blackout in particular, and the 10 -foot
buffer.
July 26, 2011
And certainly we recognize that you've had some conflicting
advice at the very last minute, which is very frustrating for all of us
who have been observing this process. If you're unhappy with moving
forward on the proposed ordinance, then I would suggest that you
continue this item rather than adopt the model ordinance.
There are two additional points. One is this is a case I believe of
the state usurping your authority over a local issue. Your legislative
priorities that you're going to be looking at at 1:00 has at the top some
overarching principles, one of which is home rule. I think this is a
good example of a case where you want to exert your authority over
some specific issues.
There's a problem with the state imposing a one - size - fits -all
ordinance. Collier County water quality concerns have different
parameters than other areas of the state, and Commissioner Henning
made that point in the earlier discussion. I think it's a very good point.
Turf studies don't necessarily apply here, the way they do where they
were done in other parts of Florida or the United States. We have
much more porous soil. The turf studies are oriented towards turf, not
towards water quality. They want to know how much fertilizer is
needed to make the grass grow green, not what are the issues with
water quality. They first want to make sure the grass grows green.
And I would suggest that we have perhaps a different priority. We
can do both, I think.
Also, Collier County gets much of its summer rain via
thunderstorms. So there's a significant amount of nitrogen, as we had
heard, in June in some testimony. And I think this would help address
the turf needs of a summer blackout period when you're not fertilizing
during that time. You're still getting nitrogen from the rain.
We believe that you can do both: Better protect water quality
and have reasonable turf maintenance while you implement this
proposed ordinance, and I think that's definitely what we recommend
that you do.
Page 95
July 26, 2011
Again, if you feel like the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Community Service's opinions on possible legislative conflicts are
concerning, then we ask you to continue the item rather than adopting
an inadequate state model ordinance. Thanks very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Moreland will be followed by Todd
Josko, who will be your last speaker.
MR. MORELAND: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Joe Moreland. I'm the President of the Estuary Conservation
Association and, for the record, also a member of the Coastal
Advisory Committee. However, I'm speaking to you today as
president of the Estuary Conservation Association.
I'm also speaking to you on behalf of actually District 2's gem of
the county, which we are charged with helping to take care of, and
that is the Cocohatchee Estuary and the basin.
It is indisputable that there is indeed stormwater runoff and
nutrient pollution deriving therefrom. No study that can be conceived
is going to deny those facts. The question is, is it serious? If it is, can
it be mitigated? The answer to those is yes and yes.
I want to focus particularly on the Cocohatchee Estuary, which
better known to us all as the Wiggins Pass watershed system. We've
worked very hard with respect to certain aspects of that; clearly,
boating safety, but more particularly the dredging formula that would
facilitate the greater flushing of a greater area for that pass, which
would help to rapidly discharge much of the -- more of the runoff than
it does now. Which, of course, will help within the estuarial waters.
But where does it run off to? Right into the Gulf, where we are
even today witnessing dead fish all up and down the side and we're
witnessing them inside our estuary and up the Cocohatchee River.
They're there, come take a look at them.
Now, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have already identified
several watch bodies within the Collier County and declared them as
0=2611
July 26, 2011
impaired due to the presence of excess nutrients and the result of such
nutrients under the Florida Impaired Waters Rule. Wiggins Pass is
specifically noted, or that is to say, the Cocohatchee Estuary.
There's the problem. Where's the solution? We go back to the
very simplistic thing: The solution is to change something. That
something we have submitted to you in the form of a resolution and in
our strong support for what our other -- the -- some of our others have
testified to, particularly The Conservancy that just preceded me. We
are a bit -- well, I am a bit taken by what has come up here this
morning on this. I am going to have to terminate. Please read my --
please read the petition. And I hope you will honor it. And something
needs to be done. Do it. Thank you. With great respect, thank you
very much.
MR. JOSKO: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Josko. I
represent TruGreen. We're the industry leader in professional lawn
care services.
My comments I think have changed a little bit based on the letter
you received today from the Department of Ag.
My understanding is that they're asking to delay consideration of
any ordinance. Your County Attorney has proposed an alternative,
and it seems that that was what Commissioner Hiller and
Commissioner Coletta made a motion to consider, to just adopt the
model today and then once the state gets its act together, for lack of a
better term, we can always go back and look at those additional
restrictions.
I would think that that sounds like a prudent way to move
forward, because as you correctly pointed out, it's a good thing to have
an ordinance on the books. We all agree that fertilizer ordinances are
a good thing. It's a good thing to limit nitrogen and phosphorous. It's
a good thing to promote best management practices. I think where we
differ, our folks that work in the industry, we don't support provisions
that go beyond the model that aren't supported by science or don't
Page 97
July 26, 2011
promote those best management practices.
And I'm not going to go into the science, Dr. Cisar did a great job
of talking about one in particular, the blackout period, and how that is
not supported by science.
But I will talk a little bit about our best management practices.
Someone, one of the previous speakers, mentioned about the best
management practice of growing good green grass. That's not the
case. Our best management practices are for the protection of water
quality. Everything we do is to promote the protection of water
quality, and we have concerns when ordinances are proposed that go
in conflict to what we've been taught are the best practices to promote
water quality.
It doesn't sound like you're going to take up the issue of blackout
period or anything, that might be decided at a later date. But when
that does get decided, I would cite one of the previous speakers that
talked about exemptions for professional, certified, licensed
commercial applicators. And that's something we feel strong about,
particularly the blackout provision. By nature of the blackout, it's
discriminatory towards our profession because it can't really be
enforced against most anybody other than our professional folks.
And, you know, we are the folks that follow BMP's, that are licensed,
that are card - carrying DACS- certified professionals that show that we
know how to do the right thing.
So when you get to the point where you're looking at these extra
provisions, and it doesn't sound like that's going to be today, I gave for
your consideration Orange County that has a very fair way of
exempting BMP- certified professionals from the blackout period so
long as they have a DACS certificate that proves that they are doing
things right and following best management practices.
But today I think the prudent course that the speakers have
alluded to would be let's adopt the model, let's get an ordinance on the
book, let's put some rules down, and we would look forward to
I •I,
July 26, 2011
working with you as you debate those other restrictions once DACS
has decided what is in their parameters and what isn't. So thank you
very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to address what Mr.
Moreland said with respect to the contamination of the Cocohatchee.
Mr. Jimenez? Mr. Jimenez? George? Is pollution control -- pollution
control is under your division; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's Yilmaz.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, is that -- sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did I say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They'll tell you.
MR. YILMAZ: George Yilmaz.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm so sorry. I apologize. George,
that makes it so much easier.
Could you help me out? I was very concerned about what Mr.
Moreland said with respect to the contamination of Cocohatchee and
what he identified as indisputable evidence that there was pollution
running off properties abutting the Cocohatchee, and whatever was
leaching from those properties was causing the water contamination.
Is that something you're aware of and, you know, are you doing
anything to control the pollution?
MR. YILMAZ: Under our pollution control ordinance there are
a number of things that we do to prevent pollution sources, point
pollution sources. Manage them appropriately upstream, all the way
from underground storage tanks to small quantity generators of
hazardous waste. And conditionally exempt generators of the
hazardous waste, all inspected and regulated under pollution control.
But they are all non -tidal inland waterways.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not -- so is there anyone
July 26, 2011
who's overlooking, you know, the Cocohatchee, overseeing, you
know, pollution management with respect to the Cocohatchee?
MR. YILMAZ: One of the things we do -- to answer your
question more directly, one of the things we do, we have annual
surface water monitoring program. And the data is posted on our
Sharepoint as well as website and shared with the State of Florida.
And our team in pollution control closely work with our growth
management team. And they have the data we have. And we also
have limited -- given the funds available from Florida International
University, limited data gathering under estuarine system. But all the
data we collect is more supplement to -- under estuarine and coastal
zone management, that is pretty much under growth management and
posted on the state.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm very concerned about what he
said. I want to find out what the statistics are with respect to the water
quality impairment in the Cocohatchee, and, you know, what are we
doing to enforce attenuation at the source to prevent the contamination
from whatever the identifiable source is that he highlighted.
And if it's under growth management, maybe Mac can address it.
Because obviously that's an important body of water and we want to
make sure it's kept pristine.
MR. YILMAZ: Right. And if I might, Commissioner, there are
-- when we look at wider system management, it's a holistic
hydrologic management system, meaning we have to have protection
all the way from the source upstream all the way to downstream. Our
focus has been non - tidal, and therefore our program's targeting going
after potential point sources, including above and underground storage
tanks, hazardous waste generators, and monitoring of groundwater and
surface water. And we issue our groundwater data to South Florida
Water Management District and what have you. And that actually
does contribute to local, regional as well as statewide assessment of
what the potential pollution levels are and how that compares to
Page 100
July 26, 2011
outstanding Florida waters and how they compare to what's called
Class I, II, III water standards.
For instance, Class I means you can swim and at the same time
drink the water, and if you have shellfish, you can take it and eat it.
And Class II, you can swim but you may not want to eat what you
catch as the shellfish. And Class III goes down to maybe you can
swim, but you don't want to drink and/or eat something from it.
So the State of Florida established classification of waters. And
then corresponding to those classification, there are standards
established. So therefore, the big picture is really -- given the
referendum we have under pollution control, restricts our programs to
non - tidal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I need to find out
who is addressing the Cocohatchee and what has been determined.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'll get you a report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that would be -- I would
appreciate that. And if you don't want to address it now,
notwithstanding the concerns he has raised --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's fine. I just -- it was
brought up, and if it's related to the fertilization, I want to understand
it.
My other question is how are you going to enforce this? Once
this ordinance is adopted, what is the county going to do to enforce
these standards? How are you going to find out if a citizen is or isn't
-- or is improperly fertilizing? How are we going to monitor and deal
with people who violate this ordinance?
MR. HATCHER: Our proposed enforcement mechanism is to
use the existing code enforcement staff to enforce it as part of their
regular duties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How? Like are they going to --
how can they tell if someone has or hasn't fertilized?
Page 101
July 26, 2011
MR. HATCHER: Well, they can't tell whether or not somebody
hasn't fertilized, but they can inquire when they observe people
fertilizing to see whether or not they're using the appropriate materials
in an appropriate manner.
They can also respond to any complaints that they receive for
fertilizers that may be left on impervious surfaces like sidewalks or
streets, things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion. All in favor of
the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion I think was -- okay, all
opposed, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion fails 3 -2 with Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Coletta in the minority --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I support you. I made the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I thought you voted --
MS. HILLER: No, I voted with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's back up. Commissioner Fiala
got me confused.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
That's Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Hiller.
Page 102
July 26, 2011
Those opposed are -- please signify by -- raise your hand, that
way I'll get it right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, there are two people who are
opposed to it, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning, okay.
So it passes.
And we are breaking for lunch for 10 minutes. Would the Board
-- do any of you have plans for lunch? Can you have a short lunch
break and let us get back here at say 12:15 -- 1:15? Can you do this in
45 minutes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, if I'm not back, don't start
without me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. Okay, we'll be back here at 1:15.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast comment. When we
started this meeting today, I inadvertently mistook one of the items. I
thought we had taken 16(D)(19) off the consent agenda, put it on the
regular agenda. It's 16(A)(19). So I wanted to see if we could bring
16(D)(19) to the regular agenda, if that would meet with the other
commissioners' approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again? Which one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16(D)(19). And what it has to do
with is the building in Immokalee that they're trying to build the
community center and they want to build a new one, they want to tear
town the delapidated church and a modular trailer and build a new
community center there. So I wanted to talk about that in the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do we deal with that? We've
already approved it, unfortunately.
Page 103
July 26, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: Basically by a motion to reconsider. You
can make it right now. If there are three votes then in essence you
could hear it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, would you like to
make a motion for reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would like to make a motion
to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 16(D)(19).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you do it in one motion or
you have to do two motions?
MR. KLATZKOW: One motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One motion to reconsider, yeah.
Okay, do we have a second? I'll second it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's a question on the topic for
approval or disapproval, if it's a comment, I think we ought to wait till
the end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, any time. Yeah, till the end of
the meeting is fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a question or a comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I want to reconsider. I want to
vote on that individually, because it's definitely some concerns.
COMMISSIONER KENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, we have a motion for
reconsideration of 16(D)(19).
All in favor of the reconsideration, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And those opposed, by like sign.
Page 104
July 26, 2011
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I appreciate that. Thank you,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like it is unanimous.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that will be Item 10(M) on your
regular agenda now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're going to go to our time certain
for 1:00 p.m., which is item IO(C).
Item # l OC
PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY 2012 STATE LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH COMMISSIONER
HENNING TO PRESENT AT THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
ON AUGUST 18, 2011 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to review and
approve the proposed Collier County 2012 state legislative priorities.
And Ms. Debbie White, your Legislative Affairs Coordinator, will
present.
MS. WHITE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You have before
you this afternoon a slate of proposed Collier County 2012 state
legislative priorities for your review and approval.
As you know, the Collier County legislative delegation annual
hearing is scheduled early this year on August 18, due to redistricting
meetings being held statewide. The 2012 legislative session is
beginning January 10th, 2012, and continues through March 10th.
Also, because of redistricting, some proposed priorities have
been added as directed by the Board, including septic tanks and
private hunting camps in preserves.
Just -- Mr. McCandless is here today. June 28th he filed a public
petition, and by Board direction you asked me to add this to our
Page 105
July 26, 2011
priorities list.
He also has asked me today to change hunting camps to private
recreational cabins. And I think that's doable, if that's okay with the
Board.
He's also here to speak to you. He's got a comment slip in.
And anyway, others have shown great interest by commissioners,
legislators and citizens in the past six months, economic development
and transportation disadvantaged program, which received -- actually
in Collier County it's a 4.8 percent cut. And at Representative Matt
Hudson's Town Hall meeting June 23rd it was brought up, and there
was a discussion about it. Senator Richter actually has spoken to
Governor Rick Scott about it last month, about the fact that it was a
cut that shouldn't have been made, because it's a population in our
community with great need.
We also moved the Everglades Boulevard Interstate 75
interchange from issues to monitor to the primary list as a result of
Collier delegation support in the 2011 session.
And when we were in Tallahassee in March, Commissioner
Coletta and the County Attorney and myself, we spoke to the
Governor about this project, as well as DOT. So it did get a lot of
support.
And are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- was it Henning or
Coletta? Who's first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that was prior.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was last time. Okay. I have a
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did have one, but go ahead, I'll
follow you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recognizing that we are facing difficult
economic conditions at the state level, and understanding that the state
needs to cut expenses where they can, it would seem to me that we
July 26, 2011
would urge them to make those cuts in areas which would have the
least impact upon us locally.
And with respect to regional planning councils, I have to be quite
honest, it is probably one of the most worthless organizations as far as
local government is concerned. And if you're going to cut
somewhere, that's the place to cut. And so if we're asking them to
restore money to regional planning councils, and that's one of our
legislative priorities, they're going to be looking for some other things
to cut. And I'm a little worried about where they're going to save that
money.
I have served on the Regional Planning Council, everybody there
does a good job. They consider a lot of things. But when it comes to
impacting Collier County local governments and other areas, my
experience has been they are no benefit whatsoever. And so I'm
wondering why that gets to be one of our top priorities.
MS. WHITE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can anybody answer that question for
me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't on last year, I don't
believe.
MS. WHITE: No it was added because a couple of
commissioners are interested in it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Coyle makes
a good point, to be honest with you. I know I'm even a member of it,
but I don't know how greatly it affects us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as Collier County. And I don't
know that -- I mean, if we have to cut, that would be something I
would prefer to see cut. But, you know, that's just a second person's
opinion, you know, please --
MS. WHITE: It's a Board decision.
Page 107
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let everybody else weigh in on it,
because I could be wrong.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't intend to be critical. If we've
got plenty of money and they want to spend it on regional planning,
that's great. But we don't have plenty of money. If you're going to cut
someplace, let's cut there, and let us worry about our local issues.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, frankly, that's why we listed that as
one of the items under the heading of enacted legislation and issues to
monitor. It's not in your primary category of priorities, but it is an
item that we're aware of and we were intending to keep it on the radar
in case there was an opportunity to support it if it didn't impact
adversely another higher priority of the Board, that was all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's just a watch item, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. A monitor item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Very well.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We finally got back to you, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for that.
Because of the way it's worded, I'm not going to get in defense.
But briefly, they do serve a purpose. They give you a chance to be
able to interact with the municipalities and other counties in a way that
you can't do any other place. And I've seen great things come from
them. Sure, it's not an everyday occurrence, but they do have an
influence, all the way up to the state level.
But going back to the real issue that I wanted to talk to you
about, there's another thing that -- I kind of hope I'm going to get a
report now from somebody that's going to tell me that they got ahold
of Keith Arnold and they talked to him about it, but this is regarding
our Immokalee Master Plan.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but when we put it on the shelf,
I think every one of us had the sincere intentions of it sitting up there
July 26, 2011
until that point in time that either the Blockers issue was settled or
political differences changed to the point we can bring it down.
Well, regrettably I don't think we were watching what was
happening too closely. The Governor's growth management plan that
got passed had a 120 -day window for any legislation that was hanging
out there that was unresolved. So in effect, the master plan is dead.
We can't reconsider it.
Well, I talked to Dudley Goodlette, I talked to Keith Arnold, I
talked to the County Attorney, and the consensus earlier in the day on
Monday when I was bringing this up was that this may be something
our local delegation might be able to do something about.
Now, after that I think, Jeff, you may have talked to Keith Arnold
again. Can you enlighten me in any way what happened past that
point?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And Keith was supposed to call you.
I don't know what happened.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He did, and I called him back.
It was like, he called at 8:30, I was busy at the moment. I called him
back at a quarter of 9:00 and never got a return call, just got his
answering machine.
But what I'd like to do is be able to put a tag on this with the idea
that if it's at all possible for our local delegation to be able to have the
legislative body and the Governor realize that unusual circumstances
exist with this particular plan. And as far as sunsetting something
where seven to eight years is invested in it and three - quarters of a
million dollars, that it be allowed to sit on the shelf for like another
maybe year or so before it came to that point of no return and had to
be done over.
If not, the whole plan has to be done over from scratch. Now,
true, we wouldn't be creating the whole thing, it's more or less creative
and just be going through the fine points again. But you'd have to
hold "X" number of meetings, you'd have to expend money from the
Page 109
July 26, 2011
CRA at a time when they're very low on their resources to be able to
bring it back to the point where it would be ready to go.
And what I'd like, just be able to put a tag on it until we get more
information and recognize that as a possible priority with more
information to follow.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
We just checked with our staff, we've been doing a little
follow -up. We have till December 28th of this year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: December 28th?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, we do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's indeed good news. I
wish you'd gotten to me a little sooner, I could have saved us another
two minutes.
Okay, in that case we'll just drop -- well, you know, tell me,
Nick, do you think maybe to play it safe we should keep it on there
and --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I don't think it will have bearing,
only because by the time this gets enacted, which will be next
June -July, you're going to be way past a period of time where they're
going to want resubmittal. So I think your window is till the end of
this calendar year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate your patience. I
went through that little --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, that's so important to that
community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very, very important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Keep watching out for them.
Page 110
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you need a motion to approve?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by me to approve the legislative
priorities --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have some public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Fiala.
Oh, yes. Okay, how many do we have?
MS. WHITE: Commissioner, I also need to find out who's going
to present August 18th. I understand a few of you are going to be
away. Present the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's probably going to be you.
MS. WHITE: At the legislative delegation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or the County Manager.
MS. WHITE: August 18th.
MR. OCHS: Staff is happy to do it, sir. We didn't know if any
commissioners would be available and/or interested in presenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a weekend?
MS. WHITE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll be here.
MS. WHITE: You'll be here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Franklin Adams, and
he'll be followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and
gentlemen of the Commission. For the record, my name is Franklin
Adams. I'm here on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation, of
which I am the southern regional director.
The Florida Wildlife Federation is interested in this issue of
camps in the Big Cypress, these recreational remote backcountry
camps. We have a long history with the Big Cypress many years
Page 111
July 26, 2011
before it ever came under federal management and public ownership.
We have been involved in all the management issues out there, the
general management plans. We've observed what's happened out
there to the traditional recreational community. And so I'm here to
say that we support your interest and concern in addressing the issue
of code enforcement and building regulations in the Big Cypress
National Preserve.
We -- these camps were built prior to the establishment of the
National Preserve in 1974. There's never been a public health issue out
there or concern expressed before. The National Park Service, being a
federal agency, looks at a lot of issues quite differently than the State
of Florida and the local people do, and it's not always positive for the
local people and traditional users of the area.
It is a publicly -owned property. These people were
grandfathered in. Some of these camps have been in families three
generations.
I offer our support and interest in this, if you decide to make it a
legislative priority this afternoon, or to negotiate with the State of
Florida. My only caveat would be that I would like whatever is
decided upon and -- to be specific to just the Big Cypress National
Preserve. I would not want to see this become a statewide issue that's
going to come back and cause problems for us, and I would like to be
able to have preliminary input as this issue goes forward, and so our
concerns are represented. Thank you very much.
Any questions? Clarifications?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Nicole Johnson will be followed by Brad
Cornell.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about
your legislative priorities. I know there certainly will be a lot of
Page 112
July 26, 2011
challenges and constraints and changes ahead, and the lack of funding
is going to certainly be an issue, both locally and at the state level.
But there are two issues that I wanted to address today. And the
first, which I'm sure is no surprise, is the I -75 interchange at
Everglades Boulevard. For full disclosure, in case you don't know,
The Conservancy is opposed to this interchange. But I'm not here to
discuss the merits or the detriments of that interchange, plenty of time
to do that at other venues.
I did want to have you maybe take look at this as a priority from
a different perspective, of course. We believe that with the natural
resources implications, it shouldn't be something that the county is so
myopically focused on. But what about if the county took a look at
highlighting a project that is more shovel ready, less controversial and
currently doesn't have funding attached to it: Some of the bridges in
North Golden Gate Estates, a project that really could have a very,
very beneficial impact and could happen in the next couple of years.
So I toss that out because I think that there are other projects that
don't have funding, that don't have the public attention that really
could provide a benefit in the short term. So I would ask that you
consider that instead of the interchange being the focus.
The second issue is numeric nutrient criteria. And I guess this is
under your watch section. But it does use a very strong verb, which is
the county opposes what is referred to as a one - size - fits -all mandate
imposed on states by the EPA, and to instead support DEP's efforts.
And I assume that this policy position was vetted through staff. I don't
know who on staff reviewed this.
But I do want to point out that there are two sides to this issue
and two perspectives. And The Conservancy has been working
diligently to get the EPA's numeric nutrient criteria in place, because
the state for so many years didn't act on this issue. And the EPA
standards are not one size fits all.
I don't have time in my three minutes to go into a very detailed
Page 113
July 26, 2011
explanation, and I'm not the expert, so even if you gave me 30 minutes
I probably couldn't do it. But the point is that you really have not
vetted this issue before you to listen to all sides. And I would ask that
since that hasn't happened, this be removed from your list of priorities.
And finally, to respond to the issue of the regional planning
councils, perhaps in the past because we had a DCA that really took a
look at planning issues, the RPCs weren't quite as important, though I
think they do serve an extremely important role. But I think you have
to realize that going forward, there is no DCA. The growth
management laws have changed dramatically, and the regional
planning councils could provide a very, very important support role
for planning.
Collier County may not need it, but certainly rural counties like
Hendry and Glades do need it. And poor planning decisions in the
rural areas will impact Collier County. So I toss that out there. I think
that support of the RPCs is something important. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Brad Cornell, be followed by Lyle
McCandless.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, again on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you on your legislative
priorities for the 2012 legislative session.
I agree with many of these, including your overall principles,
which I referred to earlier when we were talking about the fertilizer
ordinance and the usurpation of local authority.
However, the Collier County Audubon Society has a couple of
concerns that I want to detail. One is, as Nicole had brought up, with
the I -75 Everglades Boulevard interchange. We also are opposed to
building this interchange for a variety of reasons, which I won't go
into. We believe that there are alternatives which are much less costly
for the public and achieve the important benefits that you've
Page 114
July 26, 2011
articulated.
I'll note one benefit that's available right now is that there is
current emergency access to I -75 at Everglades Boulevard for fire and
hurricane evacuation. The ramp already exists. It's being used as a
construction ramp right now for the restoration project. So that exists
now.
The second issue I want to raise to you that's our concern is the
opposal or your advocacy of repealing the Septic Tank Bill, that
Senate Bill 550 of 2010. I understand the concern about costs
imposed upon residents. However, I think you'll agree that we have
statewide, including here in Collier County, an obligation to look at
ways to incentivize and leverage inspection and maintenance of septic
systems.
If you look at Golden Gate Estates and its build -out, we have a
huge problem in this regard, as well as a number of other growth
management issues.
So I would say that you need to advocate for a good compromise
that achieves some good incentives and leverage for inspections and
maintenance.
I agree with Nicole and The Conservancy on numeric nutrient
criteria. I don't care whether it's DEP or the EPA, clearly we need to
have criteria that are very specific and effective in protecting our
water and our water quality. So I don't particularly care to jump into
this very heated debate, but I think we have opportunities to improve
our water protection.
Finally, I do want to say that you have identified as a positive
support item in monitoring the Regional Planning Council as Nicole
Johnson had just noted. Collier County Audubon Society also
supports funding for the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council. As DCA diminishes and becomes a different agency, the
state is pulling itself out of oversight of planning in this state, so we
need to look at ways to keep the regional planning councils statewide
Page 115
July 26, 2011
as resources for all the local governments, including those like Hendry
and Glades County that don't have those kinds of resources. Thank
you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. McCandless.
Sir, this is your last speaker.
MR. McCANDLESS: Yes, for the record, my name is Lyle
McCandless. I'm here today speaking in behalf of myself personally
as president of the Big Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance.
First of all, I'd like to really seriously thank you, Commissioners,
for listening to us on this what we consider very serious major issue
here. I thank you for taking the second step here in this process.
I would also like to very strongly thank Jim Coletta, James
French and the county staff. They have really been good and
professional and thorough in working with us to this point. We thank
them for that.
I would like to just make note here, the item was referred to as a
septic item. This -- just for the record, we are looking here and our
proposal is that these in Collier County and in the Big Cypress in
particular, but since this is going to be a statewide issue, then this is
going to have to be addressed on the state level.
Now, I'm a member of the Fish and Wildlife Commission's
DMTAG, Deer Management Stakeholders Team. We meet about
every six weeks up in Ocala. Now, I've consulted with some of those
people over the last couple of weeks, and one of them in particular
represents the bulk of the major private landowners statewide. And
I'll tell you, Commissioners, this is not a problem unique to the Big
Cypress area here, this is a big problem statewide, make no mistake
about it.
So this item needs to be addressed. In particular these remote
recreational cabins needs to be reclassified absolutely as something
other than a single - family residence. As I reminded you in my last
presentation at your meeting last month, going back to the Big
Page 116
July 26, 2011
Cypress, there's about 150 of these cabins out there, over
three - quarters of a million acres, that's just about one cabin per 5,000
acres, and they're occupied maybe 10 percent of the time.
Now that might vary across the state, but talking to my cohorts
here with the DMTAG, their situations across the state is a very
remote situation also, even on these large private -held properties.
So that would be our major concern here would be again to have
these things properly classified. And we do not -- myself and the
people I represent, we do not want to come across as having a
situation with absolutely no rules. We're looking for something to go
in place, to reclassify these as something other than single- family
structures where they can be set up under some reasonable guidelines
in contrast to what exist today.
Do you have any questions of me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any Board members have questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, apparently not. Thank you very
much.
MR. McCANDLESS: Thank you for your time, I really
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: It was, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
Just a comment that I wanted to follow up on is Brad Cornell,
when he was talking about the Everglades interchange and the
emergency entrance that you have and exit that you have with the
ramp that's there, he was absolutely correct. And that's wonderful, we
do appreciate that. But we had to fight for that.
Originally they told us they were going to put armed guards there
and we weren't going to be allowed to get on there. That only lasted a
short time. Public sentiment turned that around.
Page 117
July 26, 2011
However, Brad did not tell you the fact that intentions is when
they finish the restoration of the Everglades, as far as the equipment,
and they get it out of there, their intention is to dismantle that ramp
and remove all the materials. Not only are you taking away the
emergency exit, but also removing the materials for future use for
building the new ramp.
So, I mean, it's pretty hollow when you mention one end of it and
you don't mention the other. And I just had to get that in.
Also, we mentioned about the Golden Gate Estates area and their
septic tanks that they have in their leach fields and the need for a
statewide ordinance too that fits all to be able to cover the needs of the
people that live out there. Not true.
Coastal communities that are right next to the water have some
problems that can only be remedied by sanitary sewer systems. When
you're inland, like they are in Golden Gate Estates, there's no
problems. They have done numerous studies and they found no
problems. Our public health has gone out there and they found no
problems. They checked out waterways, the main canal coming in to
the Naples Bay, there is no pollutants in that canal. The water is
nutrient poor, as they put it from public health.
So the issue isn't even the problem of septic tanks, it's just an
excess water that's going to Naples Bay that hopefully they'll come up
with a way to be able to channel it someday.
So while some places of this state may need something in the
way of septic tank inspections forcing people into sanitary sewers,
Golden Gate Estates is not a candidate for that product. And until
public health comes before us and tells us there's a reason for it or
disputes the facts they told us earlier, I don't think we should give it
any serious consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, and one other issue if I can,
too.
Page 118
July 26, 2011
On the issue of the rural cabins, I'm trying to remember the exact
terminology; we're not going to use the word hunting --
MR. McCANDLESS: Recreational cabins.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recreational cabins. I think
what we need to do is when we get together, Commissioner Henning,
in your meeting with the legislative delegation, I'm going to work
ahead just a little bit to brief Matt Hudson about what we're doing,
because Matt Hudson covers that area. Matt Hudson would be a
perfect candidate to be able to take this thing and carry it forward and
to be able to gain the trust and support of his fellow delegates within
the legislative body.
So with your permission, I'm going to do that and to reach out.
Lyle, they'll give you the conduit you need to be able to work
personally with somebody as it starts to go through. We didn't give
any directions, we just broadly came out in support to get it to that
point. So you'll be able to massage it as it goes along, because we
can't sit on it on a day -to -day basis like you'll be able to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
MR. McCANDLESS: We look forward to working with Matt
Hudson on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, he's a wonderful
representative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The majority of the Big Cypress
is in Jeanette Nunez's district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Seventy - five's the dividing line. I log
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
involved. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the fertilizer ordinance?
I stand corrected, you're right.
A that for a minute. But Matt --
Anyways, I'm not done yet.
Okay, I'll get both of them
Numeric nutrient criteria, is that
Page 119
MS. WHITE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
July 26, 2011
Would you explain what that is,
please?
MR. OCHS: We have Mr. McAlpin here that could address that,
Commissioner. This is related to water quality issues around the state
and the one size standard that is being promulgated by the EPA. You
recall the Board --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see --
MR. OCHS: -- had some discussions when you talked about the
Clam Bay water quality monitoring. And the staff s position was
similar to the DEP in that we were advocating site - specific criteria that
recognized the natural elements in the existing waterbodies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember that. Thank you.
Okay, I'm all set.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
MS. HILLER: Yeah, could staff help me out? Can you explain
to me what your support is with respect to impact fees? It says home
rule authority, then it goes on to talk about the preponderance of the
evidence, you know, standard of review for local governments in
cases of challenges.
What position are you actually taking on that?
MS. WHITE: There was a Senate Bill 410 passed this -- in the
2011 session. And what it did is it brought back the legislation that
was passed in 2009, was the preponderance of evidence review.
And what it did is Senator Bennett filed that -- sponsored that bill
to bring it back, because that was the bill that everybody -- well, not
everybody, but many counties, HB -227, I believe, maybe Jeff
remembers, filed suits against, because it was something counties
were opposed to.
And we just -- we continually maintain that we have home rule
authority over Collier County's impact fee program. And so we also
write what --
Page 120
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you addressing the Board's
burden of proving that the impact fees that are levied are valid? Are
you challenging that and suggesting that it's the developing --
MS. WHITE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that you're support -- you
continue to support that?
MS. WHITE: We're not challenging that the Board's burden --
that the Board's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Burden of proof continues to rest
with the Board.
MS. WHITE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's great.
The other question I had was with respect to CCNA, the
legislative reform that you're monitoring. Can you explain that a little
bit? What exactly is the county's position on the CCNA? And what are
you advocating on that?
MS. WHITE: We're advocating that it doesn't get rid of any of
the steps that are in the process now, but what it does is it puts price in
the first steps of the process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ahead of qualifications?
MS. WHITE: Not ahead of it, it puts it with the qualifications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words, not
qualifications first and then price, what you're saying is price and
qualifications concurrently?
MS. WHITE: Right. It adds it into the process rather than
eliminating -- as it is now -- Steve Carrell is here. Oh, Len Price.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon. Len Price, for the record.
What we're advocating is including the option for a best value
consideration after qualifications. So you would look at the top
qualified group and then have the option to do it the way it is right
now or to add in a best value process that would contemplate not only
price with qualifications, but also other things like maybe timing or
Page 121
July 26, 2011
process or any number of things to try and get the best value. But
only once we've already identified the most highly qualified firms.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you adding a third level of
criteria -- are you suggesting a third level of criteria on which to base
the decision? Because right now first you qualify, you know, based
on qualifications, and then after that you to go to the pricing. Now --
MS. PRICE: After that you go to the top level.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But what it -- so are you
saying -- are you proposing like a third level of criteria you're willing
to consider in the mix? Steve is nodding his head.
MS. PRICE: And it would be another option. We're advocating
another options, which would be to consider price along with
qualifications. So it would be -- I'm not sure if you look at it as a third
possibility, but where you look at the price for maybe the top three
ranked firms, they provide you with a proposal for the whole project
so that you could look at it in totality.
Steve, you want to add something?
MR. CARNELL: Just to be really clear. For the record, Steve
Carnell, Purchasing Director.
Commissioner, what we're proposing is to leave -- the existing
process is a qualifications based selection. Price is not a criteria at all.
Price is negotiated with one firm, all right.
What we're proposing to do, leave that in place but create a
section option, and as Len said, under the second option you would
compete -- the way the language reads in our proposal is you would
compete on qualifications initially all the firms, and then among the
top firms or what the statute calls the short- listed firms, you would
have the ability to go get a price before -- from all of them, instead of
from one firm singularly, be able to get it from all of them.
You have the option of doing it the way you do it now or doing it
under this alternative method.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's completely different than
Page 122
July 26, 2011
what Len said.
MR. CARNELL: That's the plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is the plan?
MR. CARNELL: That's what's proposed. And it's really a
matter of local choice, if you will, that's way we view the legislation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which we have as it is right now,
it's just not looking at prices against each other at the same time.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: That's correct, we're prohibited from doing so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve. All in
favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the legislative priorities are
approved by a vote of 4 -1 (sic) with Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. OCHS: And Mr. Chairman, I presume that the Board is in
concurrence with Commissioner Henning then if he's available to
present the priority list to the local delegation on the 18th?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be fine with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta was absent during
the vote. So it was three, four -- 3 -1. That's right. And the one
dissenter was Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go to the time certain?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have another time certain in four
minutes.
MR. OCHS: And no, sir, I don't have any item that can get
completed in four minutes. But we could start this one as soon as
you're ready. I think all of the folks that are here for the 2:00 p.m. are
Page 123
July 26, 2011
here.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2011 -25: PETITION RZ- PL2009 -25, THE GORDON
RIVER GREENWAY PARK — ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED 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 RURAL AGRICULTURE
(A), RURAL AGRICULTURE (A) WITH AN ST OVERLAY,
CONSERVATION (CON), CONSERVATION (CON) WITH AN
ST OVERLAY, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C -3),
RESIDENTIAL MULTI - FAMILY DISTRICT 6 [RMF -6(3)] AND
RESIDENTIAL MULTI - FAMILY DISTRICT 6 [RMF -6(3)] WITH
ST OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE PUBLIC USE (P)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PUBLIC PARK WITH AN ST
OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS THE GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY PARK; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. THE 123.6 + /- ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD (CR -851)
AND SOUTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (CR -886), IN
SECTIONS 27 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/O
ATTACHING ADVISORY BOARD'S CONDITIONS UNTIL
DESIGN PORTION IS COMPLETED
Page 124
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that will be item 8(A).
MR. OCHS: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to 8(A) and stall a couple
of minutes and we'll start it.
MR. OCHS: Okay. By the time I'm done reading the title, it will
probably be 2:00, so.
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.
It's RZ- PL2009 -25, the Gordon River Greenway Park, an
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41 as amended, Collier
County Land Development Code, which established 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 rural agricultural, rural agricultural with
an ST overlay, conservation, conservation with an ST overlay,
commercial intermediate C -3, residential multi - family district six, or
RMF -6, and multi - family district six with ST overlay zoning districts
to the public use zoning district for a public park with an ST overlay
to be known as the Gordon River Greenway Park. And by providing
an effective date.
The 123.6 plus or minus -acre subject property is located on the
east side of Goodlette -Frank Road and south of Golden Gate Parkway
in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Commissioners, this item, as I said, does require ex parte
disclosure and swearing in of participants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I'd like to really
wait until 2:00 before we begin any substantive hearings on this issue.
But there is one thing I would like to clarify.
Page 125
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ex parte?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we could do ex parte. But let me
clarify about the hearing itself. I have gotten several questions about
the actual project design and some of the materials to be used in the
project design.
I would like to emphasize that that is not the purpose of this
hearing, that this is a zoning hearing, and the materials that are to be
used in pathways and parking lots, whether they're pervious or for
non - pervious will be a subject of a future hearing when we get to the
point of final design with what we intend to do with this, or at least a
preliminary design.
So those people who are concerned about the materials that are
likely to be used, the width of the paths and the things like that, should
really discuss those and bring those issues up to the staff, and they will
be made part of the presentation when we approve the final design.
So with that, it's 2:00. Would all persons who are going to give
testimony in this petition please stand and be sworn in. That means
public speakers.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Ex parte
disclosure by commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received the Planning
Commission's report, talked to one of the Planning Commission
members. Also talked to Reg Storter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is on items what, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Item 8(A).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 8(A).
MR. OCHS: Gordon River Greenway, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Correspondence, e -mail,
reviewed staffs report of 6/1 and reviewed the EAC staff s report of
Page 126
July 26, 2011
5/4.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have had meetings,
correspondence, e- mails. I've reviewed staff reports. I've reviewed
the EA staff report. I have met with individuals and members of the
Environmental Advisory Committee. And those communications are
contained in my public folder for review by anyone who is interested.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I have received
correspondence and e- mails, and I've had meetings. I've reviewed my
staff report. I've reviewed the EAC report. And as I say, I've had
meetings with staff and constituents and some -- like for instance
Nicole -- it was Ryan, Nicole Johnson, I've spoken to her here and
there about this. I've spoken to staff members about it. I've spoken to
Gina Downs about it and to other members of our community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, give us your name and -- I'm
sorry. Commissioner Hiller. That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Meetings, e- mails, calls, and I've
reviewed the staff report. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MARCHAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for hearing us
this afternoon. My name is J.P. Marchand. I'm a professional
engineer with Kimley -Horn and Associates working on this project for
your Parks Department and the Conservation Collier.
With me today from our design team is Ray Lorraine with
Cardno ENTRIX, our environmental consultant on the project.
County staff here that we've worked within include Marla Ramsey and
Barry Williams. And Conservation Collier we have with us Alex
Sulecki.
Today what we have before us today is a rezoning of the
proposed land for the Gordon River Greenway Park. It is
RZ- PL2009 -25. It proposes to rezone the existing land from four
Page 127
July 26, 2011
different categories of zoning classifications to public use for a public
park.
I do want to just mention briefly, there is an ST overlay over a
portion of the property. That will be considered in a separate ST
permit application and process.
Current zoning is as shown on the graph in front of you. The
project is located south of Golden Gate Parkway and east of
Goodlette -Frank Road. It's about 123.6 acres. The majority of the
current zoning is agricultural zoning with some commercial
intermediate conservation and residential multi - family as well.
The existing site is mostly undeveloped. It is located primarily
on the east side of the Gordon River. There's a little bit of the project
that is located on the west side of the Gordon River, adjacent to
Goodlette -Frank Road in between the zoo and The Conservancy area.
And then Conservation Collier lands to the south. The red line
that you see on the graph, everything south of there are Conservation
Collier lands. There's a little bit of that also on the west side of the
river.
Currently it is mostly undeveloped. There are some developed
portions of the property adjacent to Goodlette -Frank Road. Mostly
zoo facilities, including their current overflow parking area, grassed
parking area.
What's proposed on the property is a proposed greenway park.
This is going to be -- is part of an overall trail system that will run
further north and south of here. There are a group of stakeholders that
have been working on the overall trail system, as well as participating
in this. Those include the airport, the City of Naples, The
Conservancy, the zoo. Conservation Collier is a very big part of that.
All have been working together on this overall north -south trail
system, of which this is a central component.
The passive park will consist of the trail system itself, two park
nodes, a northeast node and a west node. Those -- I'll talk about those
Page 128
July 26, 2011
briefly in a few minutes -- and a stormwater treatment facility that will
capture some of the currently untreated runoff off of Golden Gate
Parkway and treat that prior to discharge into the Gordon River.
The concept plan consists of, as I mentioned, a trail system with
both boardwalks through all the wetlands and then in upland areas an
asphalt trail is proposed. The spine trail, the main trail running north
and south will be lit.
There are two park nodes, a northeast node located adjacent to
Golden Gate Parkway. That will include a restroom, a pavilion and a
maintenance facility, mostly a maintenance storage facility for storage
of maintenance equipment. There will be parking there also for access
to the park.
In the west node adjacent to the zoo area and The Conservancy,
there will be again a restroom and a pavilion, a playground, and then
shared parking shared with the zoo. There will also be a kayak launch
for access to the Gordon River.
There are two pedestrian bridges proposed in the project to
connect the different nodes together and connect the trail together.
One major bridge, larger bridge, would be located at the Golden Gate
canal right near the airport.
Included also within the property is a proposed -- in the project,
excuse me, is a proposed 22 -acre preserve, gopher tortoise preserve.
With that, I'd like to have Ray come up and talk to you a little bit
about the environmental aspects of the project. Ray?
MR. LORRAINE: Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is
Ray Lorraine. I'm a senior project scientist with the environmental
consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX. It's a pleasure to be here
representing Parks and Rec and Conservation Collier this afternoon.
As JP has said, the project is about 126 acres. Approximately 80
acres of that are wetlands, primarily fringing along the Gordon River
system. Those are a variety of mangrove systems and some
freshwater ones. As in many cases in this part of the world, there are
Page 129
July 26, 2011
varying levels of nuisance and exotic infestations in those, Australian
pine, Brazilian pepper, downy rose myrtle.
The overall project will have some wetland impacts. The
impacts are currently going to go through the review of the southwest
-- South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and your environmental staff. So there are a number of
specific design details obviously that will be reviewed as the project
moves forward.
There are approximately 30 acres of uplands on the site. About
26 acres of that is the rare scrub or scrubby flatwoods habitat. There's
some upland forest flatwoods and mixed forest communities and then
the off -site areas near the zoo on the western side of the project.
This map here shows generally the location of wetlands.
As JP has indicated, the project proposes a park node in the
northeast corner that's situated as close to Golden Gate Parkway as
possible, then a series of boardwalks through the wetlands on the
system.
We've conducted extensive surveys of listed species on the
project site. There are a number of gopher tortoises primarily on the
eastern side of the project in the scrub habitat. Those areas were
prioritized for the designation of upland conserves or conservation
areas as part of the project.
And overall, of 123.6 acres on the site, about 10 or 11 acres will
be developed. Remaining are about 113 acres of native both uplands
and wetlands that will be managed and conserved on the property,
including the 22 -acre preserve. And that's nearly 90 -91 percent of the
entire site will remain in a native state once the project is developed.
So with that, I'll give it back to JP.
MR. MARCHAND: Just to make sure we're real clear, the 113
acres approximately is the existing native habitat that's out there now.
At the end of the project, based on the work we've done to date, we
anticipate that there will be 103 acres of retained native habitat. So
Page 130
July 26, 2011
overall, the project will leave intact 91 percent of the existing native
habitat. In fact, the project also includes removal of exotics, so it will
not only retain that native habitat but will improve it, but through
removal of exotics.
The proposed rezoning's been reviewed by your staff. It's been --
it is consistent with your Growth Management Plan, including your
Future Land Use Element, your Capital Improvement Element,
Transportation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element and
your Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
We have gone to and held a neighborhood information meeting,
received generally positive comment about the park, and went through
also the Environmental Advisory Council. They recommended denial
principally because of some material issues in terms of what the --
how it might be designed or constructed.
But we do meet the criteria for a straight rezoning, the project
does. It has a recommendation from your Planning Commission for
approval with conditions. Your staff recommends it for approval with
conditions as well. And we request the Board approve the rezoning.
I want to just mention that the park is proposed to be open until
10:00 p.m. The staff report had a comment in there about closing it at
dark, and I just want to clarify that it is proposed to be open until
10:00 P.M.
With that, we'd be happy to entertain any questions. And again,
thank you for your attention, and we request approval of the rezoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian, do we have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. MITCHELL: Eight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you
want to wait until after the speakers or you want to speak now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to ask my questions
first. It has nothing to do with the speakers.
Page 131
July 26, 2011
What portion of this is ST overlay? Do you have a map on it?
MR. MARCHAND: Yes, I do. Hold on just a second. I believe
it's about 63 acres of the 123 acres. But let me get that map for you.
Yes, it's just over 63 acres.
And the shaded -- yeah, the shaded portion that you see there
running along the river and primarily on the eastern side of the river is
the ST overlay area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What improvements will be
done outside the ST overlay area?
MR. MARCHAND: Outside the ST overlay area, all the
improvements to the westerly node here are outside of there. There
are trails through the uplands and through part of the wetlands that are
also outside of the ST area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So those we will not be hearing
in the future, only what's in the shaded area.
MR. MARCHAND: I'm not sure what other -- I know that you
will hear the ST permit application. I'm not sure what other
opportunities the Board has --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we won't be talking about
it. So this is not coming back in this total, only half of it that we have
input on. The other elements we will not. Yes.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I may? In speaking with staff, it
would be staffs intent, concurrent with the timing of the ST overlay
review by the Board, that we would also bring back the final design
for the Board to take a final look at and approve. So if you have final
changes at that point to the design, we would certainly appreciate that
direction at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it will be or that's the
intent, it could be?
MR. OCHS: We are going to bring it back as a separate item to
the ST overlay, but at the same Board meeting, for the Board to
review the final design.
Page 132
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the pathways or trailways
only going to be a footpath proposed, or are there going to be other
users on that path?
MR. MARCHAND: There will be no motorized users, it will be
pedestrians, bicyclists, rollerblades, that sort of thing. No motorized
vehicles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much land will have a
conservation easement over it?
MR. MARCHAND: The preserve will be preserve. That's 22
acres. The mitigation areas that will have -- have to have a
conservation easement on them will need to be at least --
MR. LORRAINE: Commissioners, again for the record, Ray
Lorraine.
There will really be conservation easements or encumbrances for
two reasons: One for your codes relative the upland preserve, which
is 22.2 acres. Additionally, wetlands on the site will be placed under
conservation easement as part of the mitigation requirements for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District. Those acreages have not undergone complete
agency review yet, but we believe it will be in excess of 15 acres.
The Conservation Collier program has expressed an interest in
placing all of its holdings, which is the southerly portion of the site,
under easement to the Water Management District as part of the state
permitting process. So the total acreage is yet to be determined.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Within those
conservation easements there's going to be uses, proposed uses. Has
anybody looked at whether it is in compliance with the Board's rules
and other agencies' rules for those uses?
MR. LORRAINE: Absolutely, we have. The --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think one is an observation
tower for gopher tortoises. If that's the upland conservation --
MR. LORRAINE: Can we go back to the overall site plan?
Page 133
July 26, 2011
MR. OCHS: Back on the computer, guys, if you want to go
back.
MR. LORRAINE: Here we go.
There is no observation tower proposed on this plan for gopher
tortoises. I haven't heard or discussed that with staff or any of the
design team.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was informed wrong then.
Thank you.
MR. LORRAINE: That's a new one for all of us, sir.
The preserve, there was a lot of back and forth iteration,
interaction with your staff, the design team to balance a number of
environmental aspects of this project, all of which are important and
have merit.
The location of the node -- the northeastern node up by Golden
Gate Parkway was placed there to largely avoid impacts to the
imperiled scrub habitat and the gopher tortoise habitat, which is a high
priority for preservation, obviously, in your code.
The upland trail, which is an at -grade asphalt path, has been in
place to skirt the perimeter of the upland preserve so as not to create
an intrusion into the preserve area and carve it up into smaller pieces.
So it runs outside of the regulatory buffer of the Water Management
District and just outside of the preserve for your uplands species. So
there is no intrusion into the preserve based on that proposed multi -use
recreational facility.
The boardwalk system through the project will be constructed in
accordance with state and federal criteria such that the boardwalks are
raised five feet above grade to allow for light to penetrate underneath.
The recreational facilities, the kayak launch that's proposed on
the zoo node will be constructed in a manner that's being reviewed by
all the wildlife and wildlife agencies as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question,
thank you. That's all I have.
Page 134
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's have the public speakers, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Gina Downs, and she'll be
followed by Jim Flanagan.
MS. DOWNS: Jim Flanagan is giving me his three minutes that I
don't need. I only need about four. And I understand this is a rezone,
and I'm certainly not here to annoy you. The Environmental Advisory
Committee at the last meeting unanimously voted for me to come
today and share our concerns. So I hope it's an appropriate time to do
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're supposed to nod your
head.
MS. DOWNS: I'm giving you an opportunity to kick me off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I happen to know your concerns, but the
others might not. As I said at the beginning of the meeting, this is not
the time to debate what the materials are going to be on the parking lot
and the trail --
MS. DOWNS: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because it still has not been
determined, and I would intend to take a very close look at that
whenever this comes back for our consideration for approval of the
project design itself.
MS. DOWNS: At the risk of annoying my Environmental
Advisory Committee, I will come back at a later time when this comes
up again and I'll bring a longer Power Point with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, you don't have to wait that
long. And anyone who has concerns about the final design and the
materials, whether things are pervious or impervious, you can feed
those to staff right now and you can feed them to commissioners right
now, so that when the time comes for us to make decisions about those
items we will be fully informed and we can move ahead fairly
quickly. And I think you'll find that most of the commissioners are
probably supportive of those kinds of things that the EAC perhaps
Page 135
July 26, 2011
didn't get across to staff very effectively at the time.
MS. DOWNS: Well, then I'll be back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, go ahead.
MS. DOWNS: Go ahead? That was a go ahead?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it wasn't, but if you want to take
up the time and do it twice, you can do it now and do it next time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you said to inform us now
so that the staff would know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she can talk with the staff any time
between now and the next hearing on this thing, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's flip a coin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's up to you. My preference is
we've got a lot to do and this is not what we're voting on.
MS. DOWNS: I understand that. I'll be back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a zoning proposal.
MS. DOWNS: And you'll look forward to my Power Point the
next time around.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'll try to be absent.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Ellie Krier, and she'll
be followed by David Tetzlaff,
MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, I'm Ellie Krier with the Southwest Florida Land
Preservation Trust. And I'm here today to urge your support for the
rezone.
It's been a long process. Perhaps some of you aren't aware that
the first time these lines were put on a map was in 1987 when Rudat
came to town and produced the report under Ned Pacelle's direction.
And we've been working since then, albeit a bit slowly on bringing
this to your -- to fruition for our residents.
The rezone is just one step in bringing us closer to the ultimate
goal, which is providing access for the public to this natural area that
they voted overwhelmingly to tax themselves to acquire. So thank
Page 136
July 26, 2011
you for your consideration.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Tetzlaff. And the next speaker will be
Michele Avola.
MR. TETZLAFF: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. David Tetzlaff, Naples Zoo. I'm not here to talk
about what, I'm just here to talk about why.
There's been some great discussion about zoo parking and how
much we need and do not need. And just to indulge me, please, I
pulled a couple pieces of language from the zoo lease that a number of
you were here to talk about six years ago. And this has to do with our
growth.
Whereas, Collier County has determined that in the best interest
of the citizens of Collier County for this lease agreement to be
assumed by County for the Naples Zoo, Incorporated to continue and
grow and develop for the enjoyment by, the education of,
enhancement of the quality of life and entertainment of the general
public and Collier County and the State of Florida.
And then along with the parking, Article 1, Item E, says, in the
future, lessor, that is you guys, requires improvements to the parking
area which improvements shall be limited to paving or other
permeable surface -- I know we're not here to talk about that -- but this
is about what we have to do with you all, such as crushed shells, marl,
et cetera, lessor and lessee shall investigate the relative cost of the
improvements and future costs of maintenance. Lessee agrees to
maintain the improved parking surface and to share a 50150 cost with
lessor in the case of improvements and maintenance.
So this is going forward, just for your edification, a deal that was
made six years. So the zoo will have its 50 percent cost share of not
only the parking area but also the road that's going to come in.
And it was questioned at the EAC meeting, you know, what's
wrong with the zoo parking as it is now? We won't have any parking
where it is now. It will be gone. When the road comes off
Page 137
July 26, 2011
Fleischmann Boulevard, our gravel lot and both asphalt lots will be
gone. Therefore, we have to have this new parking.
Both our strategic planners and our master planners have
identified 600 -plus spaces as what we need for our growth. Currently
on our monthly free days, a lot of days in season, especially events,
our visitors or guests are forced to either park at Fleischmann Park or
across at Coastland Mall. And it's really unsafe, unfair for visitors to
walk across six lanes of traffic to reach the zoo. So by having your
500 -plus spaces, it's a safer experience for everybody. So as we move
forward, I just wanted you all to be able to consider that. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Michele Avola, and she'll be followed by
Curtis Cafiso.
MS. AVOLA: Good afternoon. Michele Avola, representing
Naples Pathway Coalition. I've been copied in on a number of the
e -mails that you received from our members encouraging you to move
forward with this rezone, and I'm here to just echo that.
We have been waiting for this amenity to come to Collier County
for a very long time. So any steps that we can take to move this
project forward is going to benefit our residents as well as our guests.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Curtis Cafiso. and he'll be followed by Bill
Barton.
MR. CAFISO: Good afternoon, folks. I'll be very brief today.
Curtis Cafiso, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I just want to let you folks know that we are advocates of this
project. We think it's a great opportunity to provide access to the
evolving amenities that you're seeing in the central Naples area right
now, The Conservancy, the zoo, etcetera.
So we would appreciate you voting for the rezoning today.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Bill Barton, and he'll be followed by your last
speaker, who is Andrew Dickman.
Page 138
July 26, 2011
MR. BARTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name's Bill Barton. I think most of you know me.
I'm here today in my capacity as a board member of the
Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust. And I'm here to speak
very strongly in favor of this rezone petition. This project in my
humble opinion is one of the most exciting things to happen in the
urban area of Collier County from an environmental standpoint in
many, many years, and I'm excited to see it move and continuing to
move forward.
I'm following Commissioner Coyle's advice and I'm not going to
speak to some issues today, but rather I will speak to staff and I will be
here at a later date when the SDP comes before you.
But very briefly, let me talk about two. We're not going to get
into any details, but I wanted to talk to you because I would hate for
the staff to go away today believing that the CCP's recommendation
for treatment swales shall be added to walking trails is an appropriate
recommendation. It is in some instances. In other instances it is
absolutely counterproductive for the environment.
Keep in mind, as was stated earlier, these trails have no vehicle
or traffic on them. As a consequence, the pollutants that hit that
surface are minuscule compared to roadways or parking areas. As a
consequence, to destroy another 10 to 15 feet of vegetation to put a
swale beside a non - polluting walking trail to me is counterproductive.
Why would we want to do that?
So I hope that your staff will not take that as something that is
built into this system. Do it where it's appropriate. Don't do it where
it's not appropriate.
I would also say the same thing, that simply grabbing 50 percent
out of the air for parking stalls, for grassing, you just can't grab
numbers like that. These turfed areas must -- and parking areas must
be areas that are not often parked on. If they are used on a daily basis,
then the turf does not get adequate sunshine, it fails very quickly and
Page 139
July 26, 2011
what you have then is a failed parking lot. So where they're -- they're
very appropriate where the parking is like a church, three to five hours
during sunshine during the week. If you have three to five hours of
sunshine gone during the day, the turf will fail. So don't grab a
number like 50 percent. Have your staff look at it, decide which is
more appropriate areas and which are not, and make those
determinations from a logical point of view, not a grab a number out
of the air point of view.
That's all I have, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. DICKMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Andrew Dickman. I'm
here individually, but I am a member of the EAC. And I just wanted
to share a few ideas that I had and a little insight into the EAC
meeting.
And I am comforted to know that the design part of this will be
coming back. And I hope the EAC will have an opportunity to weigh
in on the design part.
Personally, this is a fantastic project. Couldn't be in abetter
place. Freedom Park, Fleischmann Park, the zoo, The Conservancy.
It's going to be a wonderful experience for anybody that wants to learn
about the environment and nature. So there is no opposition from me
personally.
At the EAC, however, what I don't want you to be confused with
is our vote against this project as being a vote against the overall idea
of this. What actually happened was staff was not effective at
communicating to us the details of the project. In fact, from my
opinion, they were quite dismissive of us. And when we asked for
more information, it was very vague about the parking, the size of the
parking, why the trail, whether it's a walking trail or a multi -use trail,
was as large as it is. I found it very frustrating. First time I've been
that frustrated on the EAC.
And I do not come back after voting on the EAC and petition to
Page 140
July 26, 2011
the Planning Commission or the -- you all very frequently, but this is
near and dear to my heart, because at the same time we're dealing with
a very important project or plan that's going to be about the
watersheds. And Naples Bay is one of the most polluted estuary
areas, which is in very dire need of being cleaned up. If you want to
look at it just from an economic point of view, it's very important to
the economic industry, tourism industry of this area.
So on that same agenda that this project, the Gordon River
Greenway project came up, that plan with our experts that you have
hired for over a million dollars came before us and talked about low
impact development. And on the same agenda where we're getting
recommendations for low impact development, we're asking questions
about low impact development of the greenway plan.
And as you can imagine, my responsibility is to ask why are we
-- why are we not doing the best that we can do on the Gordon River
Greenway project in a place where it ought to be the most progressive,
and at the same time hiring consultants at a very large price to tell us
how important low impact development is. That's why I voted in the
negative for this project. It's not because I think it's a bad project. I
think it's the best project that can happen.
But again, I'm comforted that this is going to come back before
the EAC on the design part, but I have concerns about the parking lot
and the size of the walkways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
Has staff done a parking study? Are you aware of -- is there a
parking study that was done that you reviewed?
MR. DICKMAN: We asked that question and we ask that
question of most developers when they come to us to justify the need
for the parking spaces. Here we were looking at -- and they were very
vague about it but the calculations I did was over 700 parking spaces
Page 141
July 26, 2011
with the north parking lot and this parking lot.
I understand now that there's a Memorandum of Understanding
between The Conservancy and the zoo. Perfectly fine. But that
impacts the size of the parking lot, which impacts stormwater runoff.
And that's where the EAC comes in. No information given to us about
why the parking lot had to be that big. Perhaps they've become more
effective at communicating that to advisory boards and yourself. But
at the time of our meeting, it was very disappointing, to be honest with
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I'd like to ask staff the
question, have they done anything about the parking lot? How was
that determined?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Land Development Services.
And Commissioners, I just wanted to remind you that the parking
matrix is evaluated at the time of Site Development Plan review. And
this afternoon we are here for a rezone and it's not part of the rezone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. So that information will be
forthcoming down the road.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just out of curiosity, has it already
been done?
MS. GUNDLACH: There is a Site Development Plan submittal
currently in our office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A parking study?
MS. GUNDLACH: A parking matrix would be part of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- and I hope the Board
supports the rezone. Miss Avola stated that, you know, some of her
users are going to be using it. And I would imagine we don't want to
limit the people in wheelchairs either. I can't support anything that
limits by site design those users.
Page 142
July 26, 2011
And furthermore, we don't do site planning. The Planning
Commission doesn't do site planning. The EAC does not do site
planning, okay. So if they're asking for that information and not
getting the answer, it's because it's not under their purview. So I
would -- I think we all value our advisory boards' opinions, but when
they step out of their role as advisory into staff, their
recommendations is not valid, in my opinion. And I hope they would
stick to what we ask them to do.
I support this project, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and ready to make a motion
to support the -- make a motion to approve the petitioner, which would
be Parks and Rec's petition with no additions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, when you say with no additions,
does that mean without the conditions of the CCPC?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And your intent, if I could
clarify, you tell me if I'm wrong, is to consider those things that the
CCPC recommended at the time of site design, and rather than
imposing those restrictions at the present time, is that essentially what
you'd like to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we see the site plan. The
Planning Commission and the EAC is going to see the ST overlay and
the uses in that. The advisory board members have an opportunity as
citizens to give us input on that. But I don't think the site plan's going
to go to advisory board members, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. But here's my concern, and
I'm supportive of what you're trying to do, I just want to make sure it's
properly communicated in our minutes. The CCPC says that
treatment swales shall be added to walking trails. We've had testimony
that says maybe that's not an entirely good idea for the entire length of
Page 143
July 26, 2011
these trails. It's something that should be determined at the time of
site plan and final design.
And that 50 percent or greater of the parking stalls shall be
grassed parking. Well, maybe there's other permeable surfaces that
would be acceptable for parking rather than just grass. So maybe a
combination of grass and something else would be acceptable.
So I think what I hear you saying is we won't attach those
stipulations to this zoning approval, but we would intend to consider
those things at the time when you bring the design back to us for final
approval. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, we're going to
see it -- we're going to see it in quite detail just as the plan, not the ST.
And I agree with that.
But again, just to let everybody know my feelings, I don't want to
limit users such as people in wheelchair or bicycles. I think that's
important that we construct something for all to enjoy, unless they're
on a motorcycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion is to approve the zoning
application --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As submitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- without attaching the conditions --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of the CCPC to it. But we'll address
those when we see the site plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
And you have a question. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast one. I agree with
everything Commissioner Henning has said, certainly we would never
Page 144
July 26, 2011
want to limit, even down to baby carriages and strollers, we want them
all to be able to get on there and enjoy this wonderful amenity that
we're going to be building for them. At the same time, I do want to
make sure that we have input, like Bill Barton, for instance, gave us
some outstanding advise, really, and I want to make sure that we don't
limit the input as we're planning this design.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not. Yeah, that's
important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. So that was all I
wanted to insert. And as long as that's the case, then I will certainly
vote for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Sir, would you like to take a break for your court
reporter at this point, or you good?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're about four or five minutes early,
but I guess we can break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do we get the extra four minutes
in our break time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, you've got to be back here at
2:51.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioners meeting is back in session.
Page 145
July 26, 2011
All right, where do we go, County Manager?
Item #9H
COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY - PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're back to item 9(H) on your
agenda. It's a commercial redevelopment impact fee executive
summary. This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner
Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she's not here, so we'll just have to
-- let's have a vote on this right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one was that one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 9(H). Anybody --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go to 9(A).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I heard that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I make a motion that we disapprove
Commissioner Hiller's presentation and -- okay, Commissioner Hiller,
it's your item, let's go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We received an opinion from
outside counsel, and I believe it was in March, and essentially what
outside counsel said was -- and it was actually a well written opinion.
It explained the difference between a waiver and an exemption as it
relates to impact fees.
I'm out of breath after running. When I heard your voice,
Commissioner Coyle, it just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, it's exciting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is very exciting, I must say. It
really just sends a chill down my spine, it's so exciting.
Anyway, as I was saying --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Straight to the darkness.
Page 146
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would yours, not mine.
As I was saying, the opinion basically explained the difference
between an exemption and a waiver as it relates to impact fees. And
what it detailed was that if no impact fee were to be charged because
there is no impact on the infrastructure when development occurs, that
would rise to the level of an impact fee exemption.
By contrast, if you have a situation where you have development
and that development has an impact on the infrastructure, you would
charge an impact fee. And if there is some reason that government
would not want to charge the developer an impact fee, for example, if
there is a policy to not charge those impact fees that would otherwise
be owed, for example, because you want to engage in economic
stimulus, then that would constitute a waiver on the part of
government.
When you waive impact fees, you have to reimburse the impact
fee fund for whatever the developer would have paid but for
government's decision not to charge that particular fee.
And the reason you have to do that is because the law as it relates
to impact fees requires that every developer only pay up to their fair
share and not any more. And if you waive one developer's impact
fees, somebody has to bear the underlying cost of the impact and --
otherwise the other developers would be picking up that cost and they
would be paying more than their fair share. The effect of that would
be that you would be turning the impact fee into an illegal tax.
Collier County has an impact fee ordinance, and part of that
impact fee ordinance provides for a program called the impact fee
program for existing commercial redevelopment.
And in effect that is a waiver program. Because when you have
redevelopment that has an impact on infrastructure, as I said, an
impact fee would be charged. And this program allows for a waiver of
the impact fee for the benefit of the permittee to the extent that the
redevelopment has an impact on the county's infrastructure.
Page 147
July 26, 2011
The county has to make the impact fee fund whole so that other
developers are not unfairly burdened.
And so what I found was that the county, as a result of waiving
these impact fees through this program, has not been refunding the
impact fee funds using alternative county revenue sources in order to
make it whole.
And staff was very kind, they shared with me what the total
dollar amount was approximately at this time. And the number that I
have is somewhere between two and -- 2.3 and 2.4 million. I think the
exact number is about, $2,369,293.
And then there are other programs, like for example where they
-- where the county has waived impact fees, for example, for nonprofit
projects. I think there's about 100,000 in impact fees that have been
waived pursuant to that program.
And then we have future impact fee waivers related to anticipated
development, as I mentioned in my executive summary, for example,
Arthrex.
So with that, what my recommendation is, is that in order not to
be challenged with a claim that we are in fact levying an illegal tax as
opposed to a fair impact fee, in order to be legally compliant, we need
to find an alternative source of public funds to make the impact fee
funds whole to the extent of the waivers that have been granted and, as
necessary, budget accordingly for future waivers that will be awarded.
So what I would like to recommend is that we direct the county
staff and county finance to work together to come up with a
calculation of how much the general fund, if that's the source of funds
we decide to use, owes the impact fee funds for those impact fees that
have been waived pursuant to the existing commercial redevelopment
program and other similar programs or transactions, for the reasons
that I just explained.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, have you seen
the March -- obviously you've seen the March 25 letter from Nabors,
Giblin to Amy Patterson --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on impact fees?
Did this address the existing buildings that the Board said they
were going to collect an additional impact fee?
And furthermore, did this letter address not - for - profits?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It didn't address either one of
those?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. This letter addressed our economic
development ordinances. My guess is it was done in light of Arthrex
to get it forward. But it is not based on a change of use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, the economic
ordinance is targeting certain businesses. Is that -- that would be high
wage jobs.
MR. KLATZKOW: But here's the difference. What this is
getting at is that new development needs to pay its fair share. That's
new development. We're not talking about existing buildings which
have a constant turnover in tenants, right. So growth pays for growth.
And for the growth pays for growth is what this particular
opinion is addressed to. So if we're going to have an economic
development scheme where the county will in essence waive an
impact fee, we have to make it up to the general fund in the form of a
grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what we're doing
with Arthrex.
MR. KLATZKOW: With Arthrex. What we did in ordinance --
let me get the right number -- 2009 -14, was in essence we put a
moratorium on your change of use fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's not in our economic
Page 149
July 26, 2011
development --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, in fact, I talked to Mr. Stewart
yesterday. Well, understand, when I put this together back in 2009,
we did it in consultation with Greg Stewart. He's our primary outside
counsel dealing with impact fees. When I called him yesterday, he's
on vacation. I put the question back to him. He says no, one thing has
nothing to do with the other, all right. This is a change of use. Many
counties do not charge fees on a change of use because they're
transitory. Take a strip mall, you'll have a restaurant in. It's a high
intensity use but then they go out of business. You may have a dance
studio in there, low intensity use, they go out of business. And it goes
up and down over the years.
Basically what we've done is we've said, okay, given the current
economic climate, let's put a moratorium on this and look at it when
times improve.
There is no requirement on any economic fee if you announce a
moratorium that you start making up with the general funds, all right.
Because everybody's being treated the same.
Now, having said that, okay, Commissioner Hiller does bring up
a fair point in that you only have so many sources of funding. And
eventually you need to build roads and eventually you need to put in
parks, eventually you need to do all of this. So over the course of
time, as you do moratoriums, you're losing some income to the
county. And there will come a time where eventually you're going to
have to make that up down the road. You don't have to make it up on
a case -by -case basis here or on any other moratorium.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hopefully we'll get to that point
some day.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hopefully the economy turns around and it
fixes itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the not - for - profits?
MR. KLATZKOW: The not - for - profits.
Page 150
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the first one I ever heard
that we waive impact fees for not - for - profits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Habitat for Humanity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ooh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let Amy address that.
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record.
We've had a program for not - for - profits since 2001. And the
program originally did start as a funded waiver. What happened is a
portion of the interest earned on the impact fee trust funds was used to
fund these waivers for specified not - for - profits. However, as we
evolved, the Board changed that program to a deferral program. And
it now is a specified term deferral running for a period of 10 years.
So we have two things: Either a funded deferral based off the
interest earned off the impact fee trust funds, and we have now -- and
that stopped in 2006 and moved to an impact fee deferral program
where the not - for - profit can come and qualify. They have to be
approved by the Board for up to $100,000. It's limited to $200,000
per year, and they get to have that deferral for a 10 -year period.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then they have to pay --
MS. PATTERSON: Then they have to pay it back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we had some of them that
we continued prior; is that correct? I mean, we extended their waiver.
MS. PATTERSON: I think the ones that you're thinking about
were the ones that were participating in the deferral program for rental
housing. There were a few extensions granted on those deferrals.
They weren't waivers, they were deferrals of impact fees for
affordable housing. They're rentals. And some of those are coming
due in the near future.
And then there's another one that was provided a pretty lengthy
extension.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you'll remember, sir, every now and
then they don't pay and I'll come to you with a foreclosure request and
Page 151
July 26, 2011
we'll follow up on that. And often they pay following that. So we do
get paid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, answered my
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I wanted to specifically address
one that was my idea at the time that we created, and that was the -- on
existing buildings that were just being vacated and we found that they
were becoming a detriment to society and to the community
surrounding them. And I said why don't we just allow them to not pay
impact fees, because they'd already been paid once anyway, and
though it's a change of use, at least we can get somebody in and get
that off the rolls as -- off of our inventory and get them into some kind
of use, rather than have them either being run down or being utilized
by people that shouldn't be in them in the first place.
And that has been quite a successful program, from what I
understand. We've been able to get those buildings off of the
inventory, and actually it's been able to help young or new businesses
to begin to establish themselves. So that's been really a good project.
And I would think that if we ever tried to charge anything on them, it's
kind of like double taxation anyway, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a lawful charge. I'm not so sure it's a
fair charge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I would hope that this idea would
not apply to those, because they've already paid their impact fees
anyway, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: The building paid its impact fees, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to read what I'm relying on
in the opinion. And no, the opinion doesn't specifically address this --
(Musical interruption.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry.
Page 152
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're taking a moment for
entertainment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The impact fee -- the opinion that
was written by Nabors, Giblin doesn't specifically address the
commercial redevelopment program. What it does address is in part
the general concept of a difference between a waiver and an
exemption. And I'm going to read this for the record.
Generally exemptions are granted where a particular
development does not have an impact on infrastructure, and therefore
no fee is due. For example, the renovation of an existing residential
unit which does not create any additional dwelling units is generally
determined to be exempt from the payment of the fee, primarily
because no impact is created.
Normally waivers are provisions which are applied to a particular
development that has an impact on the infrastructure yet, based upon
some policy determination the governmental entity has determined
that they should not be required to pay the impact fee.
The economic development incentive program being considered
in Collier County is in the nature of a waiver.
And that's an example that they give. And that applies directly to
this issue. If you have an intensification of a use, of an existing
building, you would normally collect an impact fee. And that's what
has happened historically. I pulled an example where there was an
intensification of use and an impact fee calculation, and it was a
conversion from office to medical. And this was in 2006, about 3,443
square feet were converted. And as a result of the determination that
there was an intensification of use, the difference between what was
originally paid when this project was an office, compared to what it
would pay as a medical unit was $29,305. That was charged to the
developer.
Under the commercial redevelopment program that is now in
effect, this policy the Board has adopted to promote commercial
Page 153
July 26, 2011
redevelopment, and it is a good program, this 29,000 would not be
paid today, had this conversion taken place today, assuming the same
numbers.
So with that we need to make the impact fee funds whole. And
so the monies are owed from some source of funds to the impact fee
fund.
I spoke to finance about it and I asked them whether or not they
had booked an adjusting entry for these amounts and I asked them to
take a look at it, and they concurred that it would appear that an
adjusting entry was required.
And so, as I said, I'd like to make the motion that staff work with
finance to make a determination of how much is owed to those impact
fee funds so the other developers that are being charged impact fees
are not being disproportionately charged. Because there is an impact
on infrastructure, there is an underlying cost, and someone has to pay
it.
And bottom line is, you know, these incentive programs, be they
economic incentive programs or affordable housing- driven programs,
have to be paid for by somebody. And if we're going to waive these
impact fees that would otherwise be collected, then we need to make it
up to the impact fee funds. And that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Let's make sure that everyone understands what's being said here.
The principle seems to be that if you have charged an impact fee in the
past and the Board changes that policy, that you've got to make up for
that by taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets. And nothing
could be further from the truth.
Commissioner Hiller has advocated on numerous occasions that
we should eliminate impact fees across the board. Using her logic,
suppose we did that and we passed an ordinance that says we're not
Page 154
July 26, 2011
going to charge anybody impact fees anymore, we're going to put a
moratorium on those things, how many millions would we have to
transfer from taxpayers' pockets, general fund, to the impact fee to
compensate for the cost of that decision?
Well, it would be ridiculous.
This is a bizarre interpretation of an opinion that wasn't even
written for this particular case, and it undermines our ability to make
decisions about impact fees at all. We have reduced impact fees by
almost 50 percent over the past few years because the cost of building
infrastructure has gone down dramatically.
Now, if we make a policy decision to eliminate impact fees on
something we previously had charged for, does that mean the general
fund has to make up the cost for that? No. It simply is not true.
And the specific issue we're talking about is a builder builds a
building and there are certain uses prescribed for that building. The
builder pays impact fees on that building. If the uses that are
described are not as intense as originally anticipated when he paid the
impact fees, doesn't get him a refund. We keep his money. And we
spend it.
On the other hand, if his building doesn't get rented out, who
suffers as a result? Our residents and others. So we want that
building to be occupied. And if the building is occupied, then there is
no good reason to say to the person who comes in and occupies a part
of that building that they should pay an additional impact fee on top of
what the builder already paid. As the County Attorney has said, it
seems to be an unfair method of assessing impact fees.
So what we did was prudent. It resulted in 40 new businesses
occupying existing vacant buildings in Collier County and 40
additional branches of existing businesses in those buildings. And it
helped reduce the inventory of vacant buildings in Collier County. It
has a good impact.
And to suggest that we have somehow been remiss in not paying
Page 155
July 26, 2011
money out of our general fund for the privilege of making a policy
change is lunacy.
So the process we have followed to the best of our knowledge is
supported by our outside legal counsel, our own attorney, our impact
fee department that calculates impact fees, and I presume the County
Manager agrees with this process.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So Commissioner Coletta, you
have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I think you covered it
totally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Hiller, you
have rebuttal, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. And my rebuttal rests on
again in part what is included in the opinion, more generally as to the
validity of impact fees. And I'm going to read what's written.
The fundamental premise of impact fees is that new development
should be required to pay its fair share of the cost of its impacts upon
infrastructure required to serve that development. The growth may be
charged less than its fair share. It can under no circumstances pay
more. If it does, then the impact fee is deemed an unlawful tax and
not authorized by Florida law.
And they reference a case, which is Volusia County versus
Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, LP.
In Collier County impact fees are calculated on the basis of 100
percent of the cost of gross impact on infrastructure. Even if a new
development is granted an exemption which -- and they use exemption
and waiver interchangeably in this memo, but meaning a waiver -- for
economic development purposes, that new development still has an
impact on infrastructure which will need to be funded. Therefore
sufficient protections must be incorporated into the administration of
the impact fee to assure that the cost of the infrastructure to support
Page 156
July 26, 2011
such businesses is not absorbed by other fee pairs.
Generally that impact is addressed by the use of alternative
revenue sources. Therefore, if, as in this case, a waiver is granted, the
impact upon the infrastructure resulting from the new development
should be addressed by other revenues appropriated to offset that
impact. Failure to do so or provide some other mechanism to address
that cost would be contrary to established impact fee law and
potentially could result in the fee's invalidity.
Further, to the extent that other revenues are utilized to offset the
impact of new development on infrastructure and other growth which
has contributed to this revenue stream, then a credit may be due.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the Nabors, Giblin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we've heard the County Attorney
opine that that letter has nothing to do with the issue you describe.
MR. KLATZKOW: I talked to the author of that very --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry -- yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: The author of that very letter says it does
not apply for change of use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there is no question about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did you talk to him?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't seem to make any difference
that we provide that information, it is not going to change
Commissioner Hiller's mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you say that one more time
though, Jeff, just so that I can --
MR. KLATZKOW: The author of the opinion that
Commissioner Hiller's referring to is Greg Stewart. I spoke with him
yesterday and reaffirmed my original conversations with him in 2009
when we had the ordinance, that it does not apply to change of use.
It's for new development. It's growth pays for growth. This is change
Page 157
July 26, 2011
of use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Even though there's an incremental
impact on the -- because we're talking about only the delta. We're not
talking about --
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, but you're saying okay, office to
medical you should pay more. What if medical goes down to office?
We never give a rebate. There's an essential fairness here about the
change of use that's always bothered me. It's lawful but it's -- there's
some unfairness about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've finished with that item.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I was in this chambers several meetings ago, it was probably
shortly after Commissioner Hiller came aboard. And at the time she
was questioning this impact fee waiver program. And if I recall, the
way it was explained and how it was purportedly validated was
because funds were put in to replace the amount of impact.
Well, if that was the explanation then, how are we getting
conflicting information now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not getting conflicting
information. You're taking information about one circumstance here
and trying to apply that information to a totally different circumstance
that has nothing to do with the subject.
MR. BILLINGTON: I'm just talking on impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just talking on impact fees. There is
no conflicting information. The outside attorney has said that, our
own attorney has said that. I have said that. How many people do
you want --
MR. BILLINGTON: But we're also saying it -- the impact fee
Page 158
July 26, 2011
fund doesn't need to be reimbursed. Sooner or later taxpayers are
going to pay for it anyhow. You can't keep exempting for whatever
reason impact fees from being filed, because the taxpayer ultimately is
going to pick up the tab.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nobody --
MR. BILLINGTON: I'm done, thanks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to -- Duane, if I may, I
want to just address the point you make, if you could just stay up there
in case you want to comment.
I see your point. In fact, that's kind of what concerns me,
because like, I'm looking at an example right here where we have an
intensification of use where we charged a developer 29,000 in impact
fees. According to Jeff, if he's saying that, you know, you've got an
offset where you have intensification over here and a decrease over
here and the net effect is, you know, zero because you have this happy
balance going on with existing uses going up and down, then we owe
a lot of people a lot of money. Because we've been charging all these
people the delta in the -- when there's an intensification of use.
So, I mean, the way I see it, either this isn't justified in the first
place and so everyone who has paid that change, okay, that delta
between what the original developer paid and what the impact fee
would be for the new development, the -- because of the
intensification should never have been charged. So it can't can be
both. We can't talk out of both sides of our mouth.
MR. BILLINGTON: Well, I'm not an expert on this, don't
pretend to be, but I do remember what was said at that meeting I cited.
You know, perhaps to answer this is quit giving all these waivers and
let's get back to doing the core base of government and let the free
market handle the rest of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good point, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's move on. This is crazy. But
where do we go next, County Manager?
Page 159
July 26, 2011
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2011 -133: A TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $114001000 IN FDOT FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIMARY COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT (CAT) INTERMODAL TRANSFER FACILITY AT
THE GOVERNMENT CENTER; A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; THE
REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS; AND ENDORSING THE
PROJECT FOR BIDDING PURPOSES — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we go to 10(A). It's a
recommendation to execute the attached transportation regional
incentive program trip agreement between the Florida Department of
Transportation and Collier County to provide funding in the amount of
$1.4 million in FDOT fiscal year 2011/2012 for the construction of the
primary Collier area transit intermodal transfer facility at the
government center.
To approve a resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to sign the agreement to approve the required
budget amendments and to endorse the project for bidding purposes.
Miss Michele Arnold, your Director of Alternative Transportation
Modes, will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. For the record, Michele
Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director.
As the County Manager said, I'm here before you to request that
you all execute the transportation regional impact program trip
Page 160
July 26, 2011
agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign that agreement, as well
as approve a concept for us to bid our transfer facility that is intended
to be located on the government complex by the garage. To bid the
ground level as a primary bid and then as a secondary or alternative
bid would be our second floor.
What we would do is if the bids come back favorably, the Board
will be considering those bids and then making a determination at a
future meeting to decide whether or not that second story would be
constructed.
What I provided for you in your executive summary is some
background giving you what we've done to this point. The Board has
taken several actions, including designating the site that we're
considering construction of the transfer facility on for that purpose.
We have currently our transfer activities at the parking lot next to
the museum, as you all know, and that activity was located in 2007
and intended to be temporary, but today we are four years temporary
at that location and looking forward to building a permanent facility
for the users.
We presented a status report to the MPO back in June, and at that
particular meeting we had several Board members request that we
look into several things, one of which is get back to you information
about alternative sites that were considered for the transfer facility.
In your packet we do have the analysis that was done. We
studied locations on the site. The one specifically requested was the
museum. We also looked at our purchasing facility, as well as our
facilities management building.
The analysis shows that there are concerns with respect to the
transfer activity moving further in on the campus. And the location
which the Board designated back in 2008 is a more ideal or preferred
location when you consider all of the functionalities of transfer
activities that we need to contemplate.
We also looked at several sites off campus, and as I indicated, the
Page 161
July 26, 2011
list is provided to you in your Exhibit A in your packets. And there's a
site map also in that exhibit that shows those locations off campus.
Again --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where's the money coming from?
MS. ARNOLD: The trip funds that you're being considered
today is a state grant that we've applied for and been awarded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're asking us to approve the
acceptance of a state grant to begin construction.
MS. ARNOLD: Construction. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I just want to tell you, I
totally think this is a wonderful idea, taking a resource we already
have and building upon it. If there's ever a better location -- we're
talking about transfer stations all over the county some day. Kind of
hard to tell the rest of the county they should have transfer stations if
we don't have a true transfer station ourselves.
Right at this point in time it's -- it's really not right to be having
our customers, those people that are using the transfer station where
it's located now in a parking lot, having to deal with the hot sun and
the weather like they're dealing with. This is the perfect opportunity
to be able to grow the bus system, to be able to reach more people, to
be able to cut down on the needs for personal cars on the roads. So I
think it's an absolute perfect mix. I commend you.
And I don't know who came up with the idea of using the parking
garage and remodeling it to accommodate this, but I that's a wonderful
idea. And it's -- you Commissioners know, we have excess capacity
within that parking garage that will last us for many years to come,
even with this small section removed from inventory.
With that, I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a motion for approval by
Page 162
July 26, 2011
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, this was discussed at length
at the MPO meeting, and the MPO did not vote -- the MPO Board did
not vote to approve this, and requested that staff bring back
information. And there was a great deal of concern and alternatives
presented. Commissioner Henning I believe raised a number of
concerns. Commissioner Fiala presented an alternative. I think you
presented the DeVoe facility.
Doesn't this need to be approved by the MPO first?
MS. ARNOLD: No, the item that went to the MPO was just an
information item. And it was just to give you -- the MPO at that time
the status report of where we were with the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So at no time does the MPO have
to approve this?
MS. ARNOLD: No, this is a Board action.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you going to bring back the
information to the MPO?
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. We're planning in September to
bring the information and the action taken by the Board to the MPO to
give them a status report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So essentially all the concerns
raised by the MPO are really not going -- I mean, whatever you bring
back is really going to be immaterial, because the Board will have
already approved this as you're presenting it today.
MS. ARNOLD: If that's the position of the Board, yes, that's
correct. But I will bring it back as information to the MPO, as I noted
at that meeting.
I had a little birdie whisper in my ear to just let me know that I
need to point out that in the executive summary we did address all
those concerns that the MPO raised at that time. So the executive
summary, even though it was not an action item for the MPO, we did
Page 163
July 26, 2011
bring all those concerns and raise those and address those concerns in
the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the motion is to approve
staff s recommendation, and your recommendation is to bid out the
second floor as a --
MS. ARNOLD: As an alternate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As an alternate.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And those will come back to the
Board of Commissioners.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, will that be going to the
MPO first?
MS. ARNOLD: What's going to the MPO is what your action
today is. That's what we're going to be bringing to the MPO, just as
an information item, because we don't have decision - making
authority. This board is the one that would take action on this request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's opposed by Commissioner Hiller.
Passes 4 -1.
Item #1013
Page 164
July 26, 2011
AWARD OF RFP #11 -5650, INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS (ITS) FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
PROGRAM TO AVAIL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR AN
ESTIMATED $1,109,947, IN FY 2011 AND $449,366 IN FY 2012
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10(B) is a recommendation to
approve the award of RFP 11 -5650, intelligent transportation systems,
for Collier area transit program to Avail Technologies, Incorporated
for an estimated, $1,109,947 in FY 2011 and $449,336 in fiscal year
2012, and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached contract.
And Ms. Arnold will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this is a contract that we are requesting that
the Board approve for Avail for our ITS, our information
transportation system program. The program will introduce
technology in our transfer -- in our transit system. Currently we have
-- all of our functions are manual. And this will bring a lot more
efficiency to the transit system.
The funding that we're utilizing for this is our funding that you all
approved back in 2008. The -- our funding will fund the acquisition,
implementation and maintenance of the system for five years. And
thereafter we will have to look at alternative funding such as FTA
funds for the fifth year and thereafter, or potentially gas taxes to fund
the ongoing maintenance for the system.
We are looking at improvements such as APCs or automated
passenger counters. We're going to be able to count or determine how
many passengers are coming on and off the buses at a stop by stop.
Currently right now we have to do that manually and have our drivers
take on that role and put additional responsibilities on them that
hinders the safety of the operations. So we're looking forward to
Page 165
July 26, 2011
having that done automatically.
We're also going to be looking at vehicle locaters that will help
us identify exactly where the vehicles are at any given time. It will
help us respond to incidents or accidents much quicker and also it will
enhance the customer service function so that we can then tell
passengers exactly where the buses are, whether or not they're going
to be coming in in the next few minutes. So that's going to be an
enhancement to our system as well.
We are also looking at audio - visual, or AVAs, which is audio and
visual displays for our ADA clients. It will display the next stop and
give information to our visually and hearing impaired -- thank you, I
was looking for that word -- to let them know, you know, when they
are able to get on and off the bus safely.
There are a number of advantages I think that the ITS system will
add to our system. We're looking forward to starting implementation.
Because this is an ERA grant fund, we have to have this implemented
by December 30th of 2012. And so we're looking forward to entering
into this contract with Avail and getting this particular project started.
If anybody has any questions, we'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, with respect to
ongoing funding, what are the risks and opportunities for funding?
MR. OCHS: For this particular project?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Well, looking five years out, sir, it's a little difficult
to project that far out. Our three -year projections on the budget project
that we'll begin to get back into at least neutral territory in terms of
assessed value in fiscal year 13 and then moving up slightly in maybe
two percent increments after that.
So if the Board at that time maintains the current millage rate,
we'll begin to see some positive ad valorem revenues come forward.
So if we continue on that projection, and we do need -- and we do lose
grant funding five years out on this project, we would hope to be able
'.:- •i
July 26, 2011
to backfill that with either ad valorem or future gas tax revenue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're unable to backfill it, can you
terminate the service and forego the expense?
MR. OCHS: You could terminate the contract, I believe, after
five years; is that correct, Michele?
MS. ARNOLD: The contract is through -- it's through five years,
actually. And what the ongoing maintenance would be, to host the
system continually. So, I mean, that's always something that you can
-- you can terminate any contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can terminate it at any time or only
after five years?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, you have currently an annual renewal
process with this particular contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if we run out of funds to
continue this for any reason, we can terminate the contract at the next
annual renewal time and thereby avoid paying the costs; is that
correct?
MS. ARNOLD: And thereby the Board paying the costs?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Avoid paying.
MR. FEDER: In answer to your question, yes. But again, the
grant at 100 percent coverage would cover the first five years of our
warranty equipment, as well as the hosting and everything. After that,
portions or all of it you could stop paying warranty on, use the
equipment, try to handle it in -house without warranty being paid out,
which would be your ongoing cost. And so there's a lot of options you
have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The grant covers you for the five years.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, I understand.
Okay, motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 167
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion for approval by me,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And County Manager, you want to go to
maybe 10(J) and that way we can get 8(E) moved along?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #I OJ
TO CREATE AND FUND A PROJECT VIA BUDGET
AMENDMENT WITHIN PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL
FUND (306) FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING
A PUBLIC ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) PARK AND TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONCEPT
EVALUATIONS, COST COMPARISONS AND THEN COME
BACK TO THE BOARD WITH ALTERNATIVES AND A FINAL
RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT —
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, IO(J) was an item that was moved
by Commissioner Hiller, I presume at Mr. Billington's request. Do
you still want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was actually moved at my
July 26, 2011
request. He was interested in it as well, but it's here because I want it
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like the presentation made
to explain how this is all going to occur, you know, how there's going
to be transparency in the process, public participation, and so forth.
And the reason is, is because this is an issue that is near and dear
to many people's hearts. And it's also an issue that has some people
very concerned.
So I think where so many people have opinions about this one
way or another, everybody needs to understand what the process is
going to be going forward. And so I'd like to ask staff to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, for the public's benefit, just quickly
if I could read the title to this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation for the Board of County
Commissioners to direct County Manager or designee to create and
fund a project via budget amendment within Parks and Recreation
Capital Fund 306 for the specific purpose of establishing a public all
terrain vehicle park and to move forward with public involvement,
concept evaluations, cost comparisons and then come back to the
Board with alternatives and a final recommendation to implement the
project.
Mr. Casalanguida will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Commissioners, I don't have a formal presentation, but I think we
wanted to put some items on the record based on Mr. Billington and
Commissioner Hiller's concerns.
Our intention is to place a public advertisement in, hold the
public meeting out in an area in the Estates and start to gather criteria.
Every time we meet we would advertise it or provide some sort
Page 169
July 26, 2011
of notice to the folks involved. We would collect that information and
progress in that manner.
I don't think it's our intent to do anything any different than
similar to what we've done to the master mobility plan. We'll
advertise them, take notes, tape the meetings, develop the criteria, and
then bring back progress reports to the Board on what we do.
Other than that, Commissioner, I can answer any questions that
you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has some
additional information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, we met with some of the
stakeholders and the idea was to keep this thing open with the idea
that they're going to determine the direction that this is going to go.
And they came up with numerous ideas. And for us to micromanage
it at this point in time would be a terrible disservice to the people that
know what they want.
And I doubt if anyone here is ever going to go ATV riding out
there, so let's let them get into this process. They were talking about
such things as looking at the possibility of getting the right -of -ways
along canals for long areas to be able to go, looking into the
possibility of power lines to be able to accompany some sort of land
lease or purchase to be able to expand the areas that they're using.
They were coming up with some very, very creative ideas, something
that I never heard before.
We also know that we've received several calls, and I've had
several people approach me that I told them it was too premature, I
couldn't talk to them regarding possible purchase of their lands.
There's a real interested market out there.
Let's let this thing go its own way and then come back and find
out what they want and what's doable and then go from there. That
was the whole idea. It is vague, you're right about that. But we're still
trying to find the will of these people that have not been served.
Page 170
July 26, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, your pleasure. But my
intention is definitely to advertise at least the first meeting and then
have the working group continue to go forward. But we will put
notice out to anybody who wants to participate. There are public
dollars now so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was the direction of this
Commission not to have an appointed group. It was the direction of
the Commission to be able to leave this open for whoever wanted to
attend for whatever reasons they could attend and offer their particular
input.
For some reason if the process doesn't work you can come back
and report that too and we can redefine it. But I'll tell you, I got all the
confidence in the world that these people are going to come up with
some wonderful ideas.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I intend to come back with
progress reports as we move forward on this. I don't think it's going to
be a set plan. There are going to be a lot of opportunities for ideas, and
we'll let the Board know what we find.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, going back to create and
fund a project, be a budget amendment, what dollar amount are we
talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The exact, $3 million, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the $3 million that came out of
this element is what we're discussing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're going to notice all the
public meetings?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And conform with Sunshine
requirements.
Page 171
July 26, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Two. The first speaker is Nicole Johnson,
and she'll be followed by Duane Billington.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And with the payment of the $3 million to the county, the county
really has a very important opportunity and obligation to make sure
that this is an open public process. It sounds like it will be so that's
wonderful, I like the idea of everyone participating, not a designated
group.
But also, we have to make sure that the lands that the county is
looking at are really going to be the most appropriate lands. A
focused concentration. And I appreciate that we really need to look at
all of the appropriate lands.
But one thing struck me when I read the executive summary and
I wanted to bring it to your attention, and that is the Conservation
Collier lands. Because those are county -owned public lands but
they're not appropriate for this sort of use.
And I just wanted to put on the record in pulling from the
ordinance, the objective is to acquire, preserve, restore and maintain
vital and significant threatened natural lands, forests, uplands and
wetland communities located in Collier County for the benefit of
present and future generations.
It does allow for the natural resource based recreation, but ATV
use is a much more intensive type of outdoor recreational use. So
Page 172
July 26, 2011
there is an exceptional benefits policy, that is for infrastructure and
you have to demonstrate that there is no other piece of land that could
possibly suit the activity in order for that to apply.
So I would ask that Conservation Collier lands be specifically
excluded from this so that we do have that really important focus
concentration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the primary locations for this was
Robert's Ranch. And if we excluded that, I think that would severely
hamper the opportunity to --
MS. JOHNSON: Pepper Ranch, you mean?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pepper Ranch, I'm sorry. Pepper Ranch.
Is that okay?
MS. JOHNSON: Pepper Ranch needs to be excluded from it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You wouldn't mind going out there
ATV -ing next weekend, would you?
MS. JOHNSON: Horseback riding, maybe, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nicole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Poor Nicole.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I commend Commissioner Coletta for doing the outreach on this.
But right now we're beyond the outreach problems part of it. So
everything should be public, everybody should have an opportunity to
have input. I myself used to ride down there in the Picayune. There
may be others if there becomes an available site that would be
interested in doing that also who haven't done it in the past. So I just
-- I'm happy to hear that something's going forward on this and that
everything is going to be public and everything's going to -- people
have that opportunity for input.
But there again, from this point on it needs to be public. Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
Page 173
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. All those in
favor of approving it, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it is done.
Let's go to -- it will be 8(E), right, County Manager? And then
we'll pull all those three together.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2011 -134: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 -11 ADOPTED
BUDGET — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir, yes. 8(E) was formerly 17(D). It's
a recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments to the
fiscal year 2011 budget. What this resolution will do is approve the
budget amendments that will implement two actions that the Board
just took relative to item 10(A), which is your bus transfer station, and
item 10(J), which is the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 174
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye, because we're combining
both items. Otherwise I would have supported the funding of the
system that we're acquiring but not the transfer station.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
That takes us to —
Item #I OL
RESOLUTION 2011 -135: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 -11
ADOPTED BUDGET — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Sir, just to finally close the loop on that, we had
also moved 16(F)(5) to the regular agenda as a companion item to
10(A), because that was also contained a budget amendment relating
to the CAT transfer station.
So if we could get a motion to approve item 16(F)(5), which was
a recommendation to adopt resolution approving amendments to the
fiscal year 2010 -2011 adopted budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not approving 16(F)(5),
are we?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That was the companion item to 10(A).
Page 175
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't that already on the
consent if it's 16(F)(5)?
MR. OCHS: No, I said it was formerly 16(F)(5). It was moved
to 10(L) at the beginning of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was 10(A)?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Okay, motion by Commissioner Coyle for approval, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, are you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm getting -- can you -- 10(A) is --
what did we approve prior? What was the other budget amendment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10(L).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 10(L) is for --that relates back to
the transfer station?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To 10(A). And what did the
previous budget amendment relate back to?
MR. OCHS: Both to the transfer station, ma'am, and also to the
ATV project that you just discussed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: E refers to the three million and
the transfer station?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner. It was 17(D).
Page 176
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then 10(L) is just the transfer
station.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It gets really confusing when we do this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It really -- it does. It's very --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a better way we can deal with
this next time?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a function of your Board recess and
the fact if any of these funds had to be accessed or obligated before
the end of the fiscal year, it would be difficult to move forward, we'd
have to wait until you get back in September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is once in a year.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, unfortunately it's kind of a once -a -year
occurrence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not business as usual.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you very much.
Now, the motion was I think 4 -1, Commissioner Hiller
dissenting, but I'm not sure. That was on 10(L).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm so --
MR. OCHS: I believe Commissioner Hiller voted in the majority
to approve 16(F)(5), which was the budget resolution that established
the funding stream for the CAT transfer facility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I misunderstood. Whatever the
amendment was that combined the transfer station and the $3 million
for the park, I can't support because it combines the two. I would
support the funding for the park, I can't support the funding for the
transfer station.
The second one that supports just the transfer station, I can't
support that either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So both of those were passed by a
margin of 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. That was for
Page 177
July 26, 2011
item 8(E) and IO(L).
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to qualify for the
record, I would have supported the funding of the $3 million for the
park, not the transfer station.
MR. OCHS: Understand, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that brings us back to —
Item #1 OD
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #10 -5541 WITH
PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. FOR UP
TO $80000 IN ADDITIONAL MEDIA AND PRODUCTION
BILLING AT GROSS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10(D), sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: IO(D), okay.
MR. OCHS: That's a recommendation to approve and authorize
the Chairman to sign change order number one to contract number
10 -5541 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Incorporated for up
to $800,000 in additional media and production billing at gross in
accordance your their agreement with Collier County.
And Mr. Jack Wert, your Tourism Director, will present.
MR. WERT: Thank you, County Manager. For the record, Jack
Wert, Tourism Director.
And you have all the information before you in the executive
summary. I do have a short Power Point presentation that would
summarize it, if you'd like, or I can answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we have questions -- how many
speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, just one.
Page 178
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dare I guess?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, it's Cedar Hames.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. Commissioner Henning, did
you want to ask questions or you want the full presentation?
Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board approved this
amendment -- or taking these funds, which is the interest and apply it
to increased advertising. We did that in December. Subsequently we
-- in March the Board approved agenda item for Paradise
Advertising's contract in March.
Why wasn't there an addendum or an addition to the contract in
March so we wouldn't have to have all these actions?
MR. WERT: I'll try to answer the question. First part of your
statement I just want to clarify.
The one million dollars that was approved in December of 2010,
that was a million dollars transfer from beach park facilities capital
fund. And of that million dollars, 800,000 was designated to go to
Paradise Advertising and Marketing for enhanced destination
marketing for an enhanced winter, spring and summer campaign.
That's what those funds were used for.
You referred to the approval of the new contract with Paradise in
March of this year. And one thing just may help clarify, may make it
more difficult too --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, God.
MR. WERT: -- but at the time you approved the additional
funding back in December, Paradise Advertising was actually under
an extension of their 2010 agreement which ran through March 31 st of
this year. So there was a bit of overlap, but the funding was exactly
the same fiscal year.
So they were operating partly on their old contract. We gave
them a new contract in March, same basic terms and conditions using
the same $2 million starting October 1 st last year. So that's how this
Page 179
July 26, 2011
process did.
Now, to answer your question why we didn't do a change order
then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, not a change order,
an addendum to the contract, addition to --
MR. WERT: Okay, good point. And here's what happened. In
January actually you all approved that Paradise agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was after December.
MR. WERT: Yeah, it's true. But at that time we had negotiated
that contract, we had put it on the agenda. Yes, we could have pulled
it off, but we felt that that time we would get this approved and wait
until we got closer to the -- getting closer to spending the $2 million
and then do this change order.
So yes, we probably could have done it differently. The point
was we thought we were managing it correctly, and at that time we
were going through that reconsideration of that agreement. And it just
seemed to be cleaner if we kept the agreement exactly the same as had
been originally proposed to and approved by you and Paradise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So next year if you come
forward with advertising dollars over two million, we're going to have
to do the same thing --
MR. WERT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we're going to have to get the
advice of the Tourist Development Council, we're going to have to
approve the action of the amendment, of the categories, and then
amend the contract -- or do an amendment to the contract.
MR. WERT: That is correct. That's the procedure that we've
gone through. And actually, we've done that every year since fiscal
year '04 when you have given us additional, either emergency
advertising dollars or in the case of last year we had some dollars from
the beach renourishment fund.
So we've had to do this each and every time we've done it. And
July 26, 2011
the contract in fact does specify that we need -- when it looks like
we're going to go over two million, and that would only occur if you
approved additional funds like you have in the past and you did this
year, then we have to go through this procedure of getting the change
order approved so that the contract, they're able then to bill at gross
the over $2 million amount, which is in the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It just doesn't seem efficient,
Jack.
MR. WERT: I don't disagree, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is there anything prohibiting
us from next time putting language in there or adding language now,
since -- because we're actually approving this twice. We approved
this in December and now you're asking us to approve it again.
Unless you had some ideas that you want to use somebody else for
that --
MR. WERT: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- added money. Was that ever
contemplated?
MR. WERT: No, that is not the case at all. And honestly, part of
the reason we didn't do that change at the time, those funds that you
approved in December actually were not transferred into our fund
until late February. So all this stuff happened at various times, pretty
much prohibiting us from doing exactly what you said, making it a
simple one -step process.
In fact, it ended up being a two -step -- it could have been a
three -step and we tried to avoid that because we might have had to do
two change orders, one for the 800,000 and another then when we
reached the two million level in their billing so that they could then
would be able to charge the gross amount.
We saved one step anyway. And we'll try to do more next time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask our legal staff
who helps with these contract.
Page 181
July 26, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an RFP issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an RFP issue. And the RFP didn't
contemplate that.
Though you make a very good point. I think the next time we
put this out on the street, we include the language you're suggesting so
we don't have to go through this two -step process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I don't know if there's
any others out there, any other contracts similar to where we're doing
additions where it's going to come to the Board anyways.
It just seems like, you know, you have better things to do besides
MR. WERT: Well, the unfortunate part is that almost always the
additional funds come from some kind of an emergency situation that
you don't really plan for. So it's hard to write that into the contract.
That's why we've always kept the level of their approved funding for
the year at that two million level, so that it was -- that was always
consistent and we budgeted that way.
But if we did have emergency situations come up and we come to
you and ask for either a transfer from either our emergency advertising
fund, which we've done after hurricanes and that type of thing, that's
when we have to do the change order. Seems a little redundant, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jack, are we anticipating any more
change orders with respect to this contract this year?
MR. WERT: I'm not anticipating any. However, if let's say we
did have an emergency situation and we really did need to pull some
additional dollars out of our emergency advertising fund, yes, we
Page 182
July 26, 2011
would need to come back again with a change order. I don't like to do
them, but that's the process that we have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So last year the total we paid
Paradise was 4 million. And in March we approved a contract for 2.3
million. And you want -- and how much has been expended so far?
MR. WERT: We have expended to date two million in the
marketing area, which is in both production and media. So we're up to
$2 million since October of last year. Not since March, since October.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, can you verify that?
MS. KINZEL: Crystal Kinzel, for the record.
Jack, I understand that, but I think the old contract was extended
because of the issues that came. We're only showing about 900,000
under the current contract from March. So if that isn't your
understanding, we probably need to get together as to what contracts
have been purchase ordered, extended and balanced. Because we're
only showing about 900 during the current agreement, I think, because
of the extension previously.
MR. WERT: I think that's probably it, Crystal.
And what we did was we actually requested a new purchase
order, and that was at direction of at least purchasing told us we had to
cancel the old purchase order, which was the extended agreement
from October to March. We had plenty of expenditures there. Then
we wrote a new purchase order for the difference between what had
been expended and the $2 million.
So we wrote a purchase order for I think around 900,000 I think
is what -- the PO for this year for the new contract is what I mean. So
you add the two together, that's where we come up with two million.
MS. KINZEL: I think he just said where we're at. Under the
new PO we're showing about 890,000. He just said 900 because we
had extended the prior year contract. So what he's saying is from his
year to year, he's still in that two million. It's just that one contract
was extended because of the problems we had earlier this year. But
Page 183
July 26, 2011
that just means last year's contract was much higher than originally
expected.
MS. HILLER: Right. So I thought last year's contract was 4
million. So you're telling me it was more than that? By how much?
If you say that you've expended like almost two million and per on a
PO basis you've got 900, that wQuld be about 1.1. So are we saying
that the total expended on last year's contract as extended is five
million?
MR. WERT: No, actually, the funding stopped September 30th.
So, yes, we spent that amount of money, the four -- around four
million total for FY10, through September 30th. The contract itself
was extended, but the new funding started -- we were out of money so
we started new funding October 1 st, the new two million.
So the clock then started again, and we started accumulating
additional -- we were spending additional dollars then in FYI 1.
So the only -- the only thing we're dealing with is it's actually
two contracts, same terms and conditions, one funding here and we're
in it, $2 million for FYI 1.
MS. KINZEL: Let me just say, I did not go back and revalidate
last year's, so I will obviously go do that, based on this conversation,
to make sure we have the integrity of both contracts and fiscal years.
I think what Jack is saying is that four million number that you
have includes that extended amount. The 900 plus that additional
million equals his two million for this year, which is why he's now
going into emergency funds.
But I did not go back and validate last year's. But I think I'm
understanding that to be what Jack has in his mind, and I will have to
make sure that's how it is contracted in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So under the current year contract
what we're saying is while it was bid for 2.3, we're up to 3.1 now?
MR. WERT: We are at 3.1 with the 800,000 that the Board
approved last December, yes, that is correct.
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it was bid at 2.3.
MR. WERT: Yes, because we didn't have the 800,000 then. It
wasn't even discussed at that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2.3 and eight is 3.1.
MR. WERT: 3.1 total. That's two million for media and
production, 300,000 for the fee and then the 800,000 that we're
discussing today. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
approve this $800,000 additional billing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have to have a speaker?
MR.00HS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the way you asked, do we
have to have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
That takes us to 10(E).
Item #I OE
Page 185
July 26, 2011
A PROJECT MODIFICATION FOR REHABILITATION
ACTIVITIES FUNDED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM. THE MODIFICATION WILL
ALLOW STOLEN ITEMS TO BE REPLACED AND SECURED
AGAINST FUTURE THEFT - MOTION TO APPROVE BASED
ON THE ASSURANCE FROM STAFF THAT THERE IS
CONTRACT BUYER ON THE PROPERTY AND THE CLERK,
COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY MANAGER TO WORK
WITH HOUSING STAFF TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS AND
MAKE SURE THE WORK IS DONE — APPROVED; DIRECTION
TO COUNTY MANAGER TO STOP PURCHASING PROPERTY,
PROCEED WITH CURRENT CONTRACTS READY TO CLOSE
THIS WEEK AND FIND ALTERNATIVES TO RUNNING THE
PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10(E) is a recommendation to approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign a project, modification for
rehabilitation activities funded through the neighborhood stabilization
program. The modification will allow stolen items to be replaced and
secured against future theft.
Mr. Frank Ramsey, your Housing Development Manager, will
present.
MR. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm pulling up
a brief presentation, if it's the desire of the Board to view that
presentation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like a presentation. He's
going to do a presentation, right? Okay.
MR. RAMSEY: Thank you, Commissioners.
The item before you today -- oh, for the record, excuse me, Frank
Ramsey, your Housing Development Manager.
The item before you today is a request to approve a product
:.
July 26, 2011
modification for rehabilitation activities funded through the
neighborhood stabilization program.
The modification is requested based on the changes, the
modifications amounting to greater than 10 percent of the current
approved contract, as well as additionally triggered it but it's not
greater than $10,000. And we must request your approval based on
that condition.
The modification is required due to theft on the property. The air
conditioning unit was stolen, and in the process of stealing the AC
unit, a well pipe was cut and a sliding glass door was broken.
Just to provide you with the conclusion and a little summary of
the project, we're discussing the address there on your screen, it's on
Fourth Avenue Northeast. We purchased the home for approximately
$95,000. We have initial rehab costs of approximately $27,000. The
net modification costs here are just shy of 7,000, bringing our final
amended rehabilitation costs, if approved, to $33,778.
One note on the modification costs, the total cost of the
modification to repair the damaged and stolen items was
approximately 7,300. But in order -- because we were now replacing
a unit, and to save money, we did not require the servicing of the unit
that was stolen, so we reduced that item. So you have a net change of
$6,661.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a contract buyer on
this property?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is that supposed to be
executed?
MR. RAMSEY: We have another foreclosing this week, and so
I'd have to confirm if it's one of the sales closing this week or if it's
closing at a later date.
Page 187
July 26, 2011
MS. PDXON: This property is not scheduled to close yet.
Meghan Poxon, Grant Support Specialist.
It is under contract to be sold. There is a buyer waiting, but it is
not ready to close as of yet, the construction is not complete.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When the construction is
complete, that's when it will close.
What's the purchase price?
MR. RAMSEY: The purchase price will be at the end of the -- as
this Board approved the new administrative plan, we'll take an
aggregate of the costs and we will -- if my memory serves me we'll
take an aggregate of the costs invested in the project and reduce it by
$1,000 or the appraised value, whichever is less.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we selling it for?
MR. RAMSEY: If the project closed today and the home
appraised for the amount equal to our investment, my rough math
would say that we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a contract for this
house, you must have a price in that contract. What is the price in that
contract?
MS. PDXON: The purchase price would be the 95,563 plus the
cost of construction. And then there's a reduction of $1,000. I don't
have the buyer contract in front of me to tell you the exact amount
that's on the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I asked for the complete file for
this piece of property. The contract would not be in that file? That
was a public records request, by the way.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, it should have been. We apologize but it
was a miscommunication. You were provided the construction file.
We maintain the client file with the client's data, credit report, et
cetera, in a client purchaser file, which we would be happy to forward
to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you realize there were
Nollam
July 26, 2011
requests for payments on work done on this house that were
supposedly done and was not complete?
MR. RAMSEY: I wasn't aware of that right immediately, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The floors are not complete, the
screen enclosures. I went to the house. Screen enclosures were not
complete. There were a lot of items submitted by housing for
payment to the clerk that is not -- they're not -- has not been done.
MR. RAMSEY: If it was anything -- if it was anything other
than punch work, then that should not have occurred, that would have
been a mistake.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a criminal act. By state
law and federal law, that's a criminal act.
MR. RAMSEY: It certainly would -- there would certainly never
have been any intentional misrepresentation. If anything it would
have been considered punch item work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has this happened in the past
where you were notified that work was done on other homes and a bill
was submitted to the Clerk for payment, the work was not done?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, we've had situations where a contractor
has submitted an invoice and billed for mistakenly the entire line item
and then it turns out that they hadn't completed that entire line item.
And again, that would be an error of -- an unintentional error. It
would not be anything intentional --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the second unintentional
error.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. And we always strive to work very
hard with our partners within the department and the Clerk to correct
these items as soon as we're aware of them. And we're always
consistently trying to improve our processes to ensure that we've
reduced these and eliminate these sorts of innocent oversights.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who checks to see if this work
has been done?
July 26, 2011
MR. RAMSEY: We confirm that all the work's been done at the
time. So again, I don't have the specific example in front of me. If it
was punch item stuff, then that would be handled prior to final
payment. But if it was inspected and the items were thought to be
there and they were not, that would have just been an error.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you realize the pool
equipment and well equipment are not there at the house and they're
not asked to be -- actually, you have -- and also, he was requesting for
some maintenance of the pool and there's no water in the pool, and it's
green. There's missing screen on the pool cage that is part of the
submittal.
MR. TOWNSEND: May I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. TOWNSEND: My name is Chris Townsend. I'm a
Rehabilitation Specialist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You work for the county?
MR. TOWNSEND: Yes.
First thing is the floor is done. The floor is 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The toilets are not in. The house
is not secure, it's not locked.
MR. TOWNSEND: That is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is the second one out there
MR. TOWNSEND: I have not been able to get in that house
without using the key. The windows are -- okay, let me start briefly.
The floor is complete. The -- I asked the general contractor not
to install the well equipment or the -- anything else until -- that could
be stolen, until we neared the end of the completion date. He's
purchased the well equipment, I asked him not to install it.
We've had a lot of theft out there. There's a pole barn on the
property that has been slowly getting dismantled. They have nearly
stolen the front door, they removed the sliders. We're trying to get
Page 190
July 26, 2011
through this process safely and with the least cost. If I keep putting
well equipment in there and it keeps getting stolen, this can snowball.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The bill that was
submitted was water system repairs. It doesn't say water system
purchase.
MR. TOWNSEND: Well, if you read the specification on that
water system, it does show and the cost does show that it's a complete
replacement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bill that was submitted to
the Clerk says water system repairs.
MR. TOWNSEND: That is the header, yes. The specification
shows that of the equipment, pieces that needed to be replaced.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He submitted payment for the
equipment and installing the equipment.
MR. TOWNSEND: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, you answered my
question --
MR. TOWNSEND: I asked him not to do that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many homes do we have
through this program? Isn't it close to 70 homes?
MR. RAMSEY: For single- family homes, it's 53.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many of them are on
contract?
MR. RAMSEY: I have that information for you, Commissioner.
I'll put it up for you to see. If the computer will cooperate.
While the nice graph is pulling up, sir, I'll give you the -- oh, here
we go.
Before you you'll see, this is the status of the resale for the
single- family homes we own.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could you go back to the
spreadsheet instead of the pie.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes.
Page 191
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. RAMSEY: The top is the single- family residence of what --
construction status report. So you have 29 units, the construction is
complete, four units are under construction, and construction is
pending on 20 units.
Next little block is the resale efforts on the homes. We have sold
15 homes. We have another four scheduled to close this week. Six
are under contract, eight are reserved. A reserve is that we're not close
enough to the end of the construction to enter into a contract.
Four again are under construction, 20 pending.
The last item is related to multi - family. I included it so you had
all the information in that. These are units that we will be coming to
you at some point to request action on partnering with non - profits to
operate these. And on those, four of the buildings are complete, two
are under construction and 11 are pending.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You answered my
questions. But I have a real concern moving forward with this
property, knowing there was fraudulent claims for payment. But yet I
want to get rid of these houses as soon as possible. We've owned this
house for over a year. Over a year it has sat.
And government needs to get out of this business, this particular
business, because there's no way that you want to have that liability
sitting out there for over a year. And you're having -- you should be
maintaining them. There's electric bills for $6.00 on this piece of
property. There's no way that you could be running an air conditioner,
there's no way you could be running the pool equipment. That is --
that's alone, not running the pool equipment is against our ordinance.
You have algae growing in a pool that code enforcement goes in
there and covers up. But yet we're not taking care of these problems,
we're not maintaining them. We're not maintaining the lawns. We
need to get out of this business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
Page 192
July 26, 2011
Commissioner Coletta -- I'm sorry was it Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, Coletta is first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not going ahead of you, I
hope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she says you should go first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had the opportunity also of
seeing this house, courtesy of the Clerk, and I thank him very much
for taking the time and giving me a different perspective of what he's
seen.
Some of the things that Commissioner Henning's seen and I seen,
I see it a little bit differently. When I got there, I think they made the
repairs to the screen because it was in perfect shape. In fact, there was
one tab of the screen when they put it in, they forgot to trim it off.
And I thought that was -- it just stood out. I used to own an equipment
rental store and I know construction pretty well.
The thing that also stood out was the fact that the pool that we
were talking about was at a level that was probably contiguous to what
the groundwater level was. There was no electricity so there's no way
you can treat it other than maybe put chlorine in it. It had brand new
marcite in it, it had new coping around the side. The deck around the
pool was a cobblestone effect, beautifully laid, but somebody had
neglected to treat the area for weeds, which stood right out. But I
know that's a minor problem in the end, getting rid of the weeds and
doing the treatment for it.
It must be extremely disheartening to be able to drive up to
something like this and see all the equipment, you know, removed. I
mean, we've got a problem with theft that's unbelievable anymore.
$65000, $4,000 worth of equipment that might gain a couple hundred
dollars worth of scrap value from it.
Unfortunately this house is at the end of Fourth, which is a very
isolated street off of Everglades to begin with, and it's another 250 to
Page 193
July 26, 2011
350 feet into the woods. You can't see it from the road. Perfect place
for somebody that wants to be able to run amuck with stealing or
doing damage. And I'm sorry if I'm advertising this house for future
damage. But it was very disheartening to see all the damage, all the
cut pipes, and obviously the air conditioner was stolen.
If possible, I really think that if the instructions were given to the
contractor not to install this equipment -- because it never should have
been put in until the tenant was ready to move in and be able to protect
what's there -- and then at that point in time of course then the pool
guy could come back and with electricity on help the tenant for the
three months that's required and monitor the pool, make sure they
know what they're doing.
So it was some things that were wrong, and I'm sure that we
could do a lot better with it. All in all, I did see a lot of positive
things.
I was a little bit dismayed when I took the trip down here into
East Naples. I wished I could remember the street. The Clerk told me
about a house that was built and the stucco was paid to be going on the
house and it never went on.
And I took the trip down there and sure enough, there was the
house and the stucco wasn't on the house. I mean, the old stucco was
on the original part. So I tried to inquire some more. Because like
Commissioner Henning, I was concerned about a crime being
committed. So I asked the question, I said, you know, if there's a
crime that's been committed, we have an obligation, you and me as
elected officials, to drive right down to the Attorney General's Office
and put in formal complaints.
And Dwight has a lot more experience in this than I'll ever have.
And he says, no. He says, we don't know if a crime has been
committed.
And I said, please explain, because to me, you know, you'd think
it's obvious. If you had something that you paid to be done and it
Page 194
July 26, 2011
wasn't done beforehand and you were paying for it after, obviously
that goes against Florida statutes and God knows whatever the other
laws.
He says there has to be a proof of intent, that somebody
intentionally wanted to disobey the law and to go in front of it. And
he says we probably would have a hard time proving it.
Then I asked him to be the devil's advocate and tell me what kind
of possible excuse housing could ever come up with why they paid in
advance for the stucco to go on and it wasn't.
And Dwight wasn't absolutely sure but he said he thought it
might be because the grant was running out and they had to be able to
spend the money or they would lose it.
Now I don't know if that's true or not, but it does give me some
concern. For the most part I think you guys did a great job against
unbelievable circumstances out there. You're working with a limited
budget. You have oversight on you that is far beyond anything that a
normal contractor would ever have, and I thank you for that. But
there's got to be a little bit better way to be able to perform this to be
able to make sure that we can protect the best interest of the taxpayers'
money. In this case it's all government grant.
And I'm sure there's some ways we can do it, such as making
sure the equipment isn't installed until that last minute. Make sure that
the contractor that put it in without permission is billed back for it.
That's only fair. I mean, I don't see how he can justify it unless
somebody gave him written permission to go ahead to be able to do
that. So we should be able to recoup that.
There was a lot of damage to the house. The side door was
busted in, you've got a easy access to it. But then again, isolated
condition, you might have checked it two days ago and the whole
thing would change overnight. And I don't know how you ever get
around that. That's an impossible situation other than maybe asking
the sheriff to do checkup on the house a little bit sooner, come up with
Page 195
July 26, 2011
some sort of monitoring device that can be left someplace. And that
I'll leave up to you.
But as we get into this, I think there's going to have to be a point
in time to do a reckoning and an accounting to be able to find out
where we are and where we're going with it.
Personally I think the program is great. I know you lose money
on each house but that was the intent of it in the beginning. You filled
the gap between the free market out there and Habitat for Humanity in
that you reached the working person out there whose income couldn't
qualify him for Habitat for Humanity. Helps to put people of a
modest income in different neighborhoods and spreads them out
through the community.
And your money will be recycled as you start to get it in and it
will be able to go into new houses and you'll be able to keep the
process going forward.
But I really do think at some point in time we need to have a total
accounting of where we are and where we're going and what
suggestions you may have that we can go with improving this whole
situation, you know, and see where it's going. It's difficult. I know
you guys are on the fire right now, and I understand that this isn't your
fault, you're just following directions that were given to you, and I
appreciate your patience as we work through it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you so much.
Did you have anything to do with this house? Were you the
manager or staff in charge of this particular project?
MR. RAMSEY: I'm the -- as the housing development manager,
I -- my staff project manage this in the field.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So did you give staff direction as
to what they were supposed to do in the field?
MR. RAMSEY: They're just to monitor the progress of the work
and confirm that the stuff was done.
Page 196
July 26, 2011
In certain cases -- the stucco example is a capacity building issue
with the contractors, the smaller ones. And in their efforts to try to be
clear and concise what they're requesting, they typically copy the
language word for word from the bid spec. In that case he failed to
remove the language.
But no, they provide the onsite --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What kind of language did he fail
to remove?
MR. RAMSEY: If my memory serves me correctly, I don't have
it in front of me, Commissioner, the line item was to install the
concrete block and stucco. And inadvertently he billed for both but he
meant to or should have removed the stucco component because he
had not completed that yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're aware of this?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And did you let the bill go through
knowing this?
MR. RAMSEY: We were not aware -- we did not catch it, I
should say, at the time that the bill was submitted for payment. But
since that time, the Clerk was wonderful in catching it so we didn't
pay the bill. That would have been bad.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you the one who reviews all
the invoices?
MR. RAMSEY: I do. I provide a review of the invoices.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you ensure that the inspection
is done by your staff?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
What does Marcy do? What's her role?
Are you his boss?
MS. KRUMBINE: I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you review what he does?
Page 197
July 26, 2011
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing and Veteran Services.
We have a threshold of authority for pay requests. So if they're
over a certain amount, then yes, I review them. But if they're not over
a certain amount, then the management staff has a certain authority to
approve them as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's your direction to them
with respect to approving invoices, inspecting homes?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, the direction is that all invoices have to
be dated and that all inspections have to be done. Like, for example,
we have contractors that will submit invoices for work and our staff
have been directed do not submit that until they've gone out to do the
inspection to make sure that the work is done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you all ensure that the work is
done before you submit the invoice to the Clerk.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's the safeguard to make
sure that an incorrect invoice isn't submitted, you verify that it's
complete as a result of inspection.
MS. KRUMBINE: That is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what you direct staff to do
and then you ensure that the inspection is done because you confirm it
with staff?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who is the staff person on this
project that did the inspection?
MR. RAMSEY: I have two staff members that would have been
-- it would have been either Chris, who just previously addressed the
Board, or another one of my staff members named Tammie Hammer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who did it on this project?
MR. RAMSEY: It would have been Chris.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would have been Chris, the
July 26, 2011
gentleman behind you?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chris, can you tell me what you
did? I just want to understand the process, because Commissioner
Henning and Coletta are identifying issues and I just want to
understand what your system is. How do you inspect the property in
this case?
MR. TOWNSEND: Again, Chris Townsend.
When a contractor submits an invoice, I go through its process
and it comes back to me as a checklist. I take the checklist out to the
house and meet with the general contractor. If the item is very close, I
know we have a 30 to 45 -day period in there where the invoice is in
processing. If they're within the punch -out -- and this is set by me,
and I take it upon myself.
If to me if it's 95 percent done, I'll let it go in, I will monitor the
property and I'll make sure that any punch -out items or loose ends are
tied up.
In this house the pool that is drained is a result of the contractor
draining the pool and acid washing the pool and getting the pool nice.
Pool equipment got stolen, we have an empty pool.
Again, the pool does looks beautiful. When it gets full of water it
will look great. Do I want him to put the pool equipment in? No. Do
I want him to secure the pool equipment, keep it in his garage,
whatever? Absolutely. So we can keep moving forward. That way
when we get to the end of the project we have a contract on this house,
I can go okay, install the pool equipment, install the well equipment.
We have an agreement with the sheriff. The sheriffs volunteer
community service guys drive by there once a week. We all try to
work together. They're in communication with me, the contractor's out
there, neighbors. We go -- I introduce myself to the neighbors many
times. And we try to wrap it all up and get it sold quickly so we can
get people in there.
Page 199
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did you figure out that the
air conditioning was stolen?
MR. TOWNSEND: Well, this house is actually interesting,
because every time I went out there there was something. The air
conditioning condensing unit on the outside was stolen -- I have a
police report. I really don't know the time frame, six, eight weeks.
I went there again, they had actually gotten into the attic and
were removing the air handler. They had taken the trim off the front
door. They were about to steal the front door off the house.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- can I ask one more
question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, were you aware of this?
MR. OCHS: Of what, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of this issue? This agenda item?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were aware of it? What's your
take on all of this?
MR. OCHS: My take is that we've got a $3 million project to
rehabilitate homes that are in delapidated condition. We are working
very hard to get the project done in the amount of time that the federal
government says we have to complete the projects and spend the grant
hinds.
We have spent, Commissioner, untold hours as a staff working
jointly with the Clerk's staff to try to refine our businesses processes,
do as many checklists as we can, resolve any issues we have so that
we can get invoices paid timely, based on properly completed work
that's verified in the field.
Mistakes do happen on occasion. We have a lot of problem with
thefts, as Commissioner Coletta pointed out. We are trying to revise
some of our systems on the fly. For example, these issues that were
brought up about buying appliances or air conditioning units and
Page 200
July 26, 2011
installing those before the units are ready to be closed and occupied,
then we find out all that equipment gets stolen. So now we've tried to
purchase the equipment but not install it, as Commissioner Henning
said, until just before the sale closes and the occupants can move in.
So am I satisfied that we're 100 percent flawless in our
execution? Absolutely not. But when I have a situation like this, I
can either let it get worse or I can bring it to the Board and point out
the situation and correct it and move forward as best I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I've said this now for two or
three years. We should not be in this business. This is not what we do
well. We've charged you with doing it. It's a difficult job. There are
going to be errors. But in my opinion, they're not errors that we
should take responsibility for. We ought to get out of this business.
And, you know, we are losing government money, taxpayer
money every time we do one of these transactions. We're not
recovering additional money over and above our costs, we are losing
money every time. I have a feeling that somebody in the private
sector wouldn't do that. They would take a look at property like this
and say, you know, how can I protect this property if I'm going to
rehabilitate it and sell it, because their money is on the line. And they
might not buy an isolated house like this and try to reconstruct it and
sell it.
But the point is, that's not our strong suit. We shouldn't be in the
building and reconstruction of homes. And I would hope that we
would get out of this as quickly as we possibly can. I just don't see the
upside for us or for this community.
So Commissioner Henning, can we bring this to a close? If you
don't like it, let's vote against it or continue it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, we --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great, but he called me,
Ian, so hang on a minute, all right?
Page 201
July 26, 2011
I think we need to resolve this issue. But it's a greater concern,
okay, that's bringing light in -- it was just a few months ago that four
of the commissioners accepted three point -- I think it was $3.8
million to do the same thing, okay.
I'm glad you're changing your mind now. Commissioner Coletta
said we always anticipated losing monies on these houses. Obviously
Commissioner Coyle doesn't feel that way. I never would have
anticipated losing money, okay?
So, you know, we have ordinances and laws, it was stated by
Commissioner Coletta, put the equipment at the end. You have
concern here, you should have concern about mold of these homes.
This house has not had a working air conditioning since we purchased
it, okay? That's over a year ago. And commissioners say that's okay?
No, that's wrong.
Put that picture up on the viewer. Now, Commissioners think
that that's okay to have that condition in a neighborhood where there
are children there. Now, code enforcement and our laws say that
needs to be secure. You can walk right in to that screened in area.
That is not secure. And that's okay? No.
And this is one of the reasons we need to get out of this. We
have a liability. We are creating a liability. And I can tell you, there
were two phone calls to code enforcement on a house in Golden Gate
City, the same house. I don't know if we still own it. And that was
because of weeds. We're not exempt -- one department is not exempt
from our own laws.
So I think the Clerk has signed up to speak, and I'm going to
wait. But I really -- if we have a buyer on this house, I want to finish
this and give directions how the hell to get out of this so -- these
existing houses and future houses contemplating on buying.
So if we would wait for the speaker, then I'm going to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock?
Page 202
July 26, 2011
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I'm here to speak to the item on
the agenda, and the item on the agenda only, which is the request to
fund the purchase of an air conditioner to replace an air conditioner
that has allegedly been stolen.
If you go back to the police report, which occurred in June of this
year, it evidences that Housing knew that the report -- the air
conditioner was stolen in January. But the police report wasn't filed
until June.
But here's the problem I have with what you're being requested to
do. The contract that we are operating under provides that the
contractor is responsible for that air conditioner, as I read it, until such
time as he is completed and has been paid. Which has not occurred to
date.
Another issue is there are, as I understand it based upon what I
heard today, a lot more items that are missing from that house that
have never been reported to the police.
But from the standpoint of the Clerk's concern about you
approving that particular payment for that air conditioner, that's the
contractor's responsibility, not the taxpayers of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question for you,
Dwight.
Your basing upon that is he submitted a bill for servicing the air
conditioning.
MR. BROCK: He submitted a bill. And I would defer to
Crystal; Crystal has all of the documents regarding that. But as I
understand it, Crystal, they submitted a bill for payment of the air
conditioner and putting it in order, correct?
MS. KINZEL: Let me look at --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a repair.
MS. KINZEL: There were several items that were included, and
part of it was the exact description that he had billed for was HVAC
servicing. No, he had not collected on the air conditioning servicing.
Page 203
July 26, 2011
That was not part of his bill. But it was his responsibility under the
contract to service that.
And the contract also does have a clause regarding protecting
loss of the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right, well, help me out. He
didn't service it because it was -- even if he did service it, the staff is
asking us to reduce that from the item, okay. Now it's a replacement.
He didn't replace it, he serviced it, supposedly.
MR. RAMSEY: If I may? And I don't have the contract in front
of me, I apologize. The unit that was stolen was the existing unit that
was with the house when we purchased it. So the unit was functional
at time of purchase, so we requested just a service of that existing unit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did he service it?
MR. RAMSEY: No, he did not, because before he had a chance
to service it, it was stolen. So that's why you'll see in the change order
that you have the addition of buying a new AC and reducing the
project to remove the servicing, because there's no need to service a
brand new air conditioner.
MR. BROCK: The point that I'm trying to make is the contractor
is responsible for the loss associated with that once we has begun the
work there in the facility. And that's what we are saying is giving us
some concern at this particular point in time, is that that risk of loss at
the point in time that he began working on that facility has been
shifted from the owner to the contractor.
That make sense?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. BROCK: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. BROCK: I think that's what your contract says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What air conditioner becomes the
responsibility of the contractor?
MR. BROCK: Whatever air conditioner is there.
Page 204
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that apply to the entire house?
MR. BROCK: I think so. I think that's the way that it's
structured.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The contractor assumes responsibility
for the entire house and any damage occurred to the house?
MR. BROCK: He has control of that house at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Until he's paid?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boy, I'll tell you, if I were a contractor
I'd never sign a contract like that.
MR. BROCK: Neither would I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that until he's paid --
MR. BROCK: But I think that's part of the problem --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then how can we predict
when he's going to get paid? Is that what you said, as soon as --
assumes responsibility till he gets paid?
MR. BROCK: That is correct. Until all of the work has been
paid and he's turned that over to the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if he doesn't get paid for months
and months, then it's his responsibility.
MR. BROCK: That is correct. Hopefully if in fact he submits
bills in proper form, the payment will be timely, and that will be a
very short period of time. However, we now have some concern
about that. But those we will address later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was he hired?
MR. BROCK: I don't have the contract in front of me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it doesn't matter, we don't
know when things were stolen. Were they stolen before the contract or
after the contract. All we know is we can read --
MR. BROCK: All we know is we have the police report, which
reflects that Housing informed them in June that they think it was
stolen in January. The police report was done in June.
Am I wrong, Mr. Ramsey?
Page 205
July 26, 2011
MR. RAMSEY: The basics of what you're -- are very accurate.
What the police requested, my understanding on the police report is
that since we were not able to identify a specific day it was stolen
because we don't visit the site every day, that they put in a date range.
And as for the contract, it was my understanding, and again, this
is not my area of expertise, that the contractor was warrantying
damage or theft against the work, meaning the work contained on that
project. So that if, for example, someone burned the house down, he
wouldn't be responsible for replacing the whole house for us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is exactly my reading of the
contract that Crystal just placed on the overhead, that it relates
specifically -- the warranty relates specifically to the work performed
and the equipment supplied by the contractor. It doesn't include
assumption of all of responsibility for the entire building and all of the
equipment that existed there before.
MR. BROCK: If that's your reading of the contract, I'll certainly
look at it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if -- look, this is an absolute mess in
my opinion. There's a lot of things that have slipped through the
cracks here. And once again, I'll get to the same point. The only way
we're going to solve this is to get out of this business.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, to go along with or to support, I
think, your position, I want to tell you some facts.
With regard to the Delva (phonetic) home, that's the home in
which they submitted the bill to do the stucco, and we go out there and
look at the house and there's clearly no stucco. And that was not the
only thing but that was just the obvious one.
We spoke to the contractor, I brought the contractor in, sat her
down and spoke to her on multiple occasions. Now, I will tell you
that what she told me when I requested of her why in the world would
you submit a bill when you know that it hasn't been completed?
Her response to me was, and I'm essentially quoting her
Page 206
July 26, 2011
verbatim, that we knew that we were not completing it, we told them
that it was not completed, they never thought that it was completed,
that we were told by Housing that that is the way we had to do it.
In addition to that, this particular contract with the Delva home
was not a contract that was actually owned by the county, it was a
contract owned by a third party that was being remodeled as a
consequence of hurricane damage.
One of the provisions of the grant was that if you've received
insurance from that destruction, that that must be used first. We sat
down on tape with the lady who submitted the application, who told us
-- I told them that I had received insurance. And she actually brought
to the meeting, and it was not with me, it was to my staff, brought
with her a copy of that page relating to the insurance proceeds that
was blank. But yet the copy that we got from Housing reflected that
she had received no insurance proceeds.
Now, that would not necessarily have precluded her from
receiving some benefit, but it would certainly have reduced that
benefit. And I can tell you that she claimed an itemized deduction on
her income tax return that year of $76,000.
So obviously when we asked her, she didn't know exactly how
much the insurance proceeds were, but we were told that it was
somewhere in the neighborhood of what she had claimed on her tax
return.
So obviously that would -- we have tried -- my office has tried as
hard as we could to try to convey to that particular department -- I've
worked with the County Attorney's Office, my staff, as I understand it,
have tried to work with Housing to remedy the problem. With one of
these pieces of property, we noticed that there was no date, no invoice
date on the invoice that was being submitted.
And we asked her, why are you not putting dates on the invoice
that you're submitting? To which she responded that we are being told
not to put the invoice date on them, okay. Now, we've received all of
Page 207
July 26, 2011
the invoices sometime around April or May.
MS. KINZEL: April and May.
MR. BROCK: She told us, well, we submitted one of them way
back as early as March. They all got submitted to us at the same time.
I'm just giving you some indication of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't need to convince me, okay.
MR. BROCK: But I mean, I want you to understand what we're
doing and where we're going, and, you know, they're fully aware we're
now going back and looking at all 70 homes. We're going to go
through the invoices that have been submitted and everything.
And Commissioner, you know, I don't know whether there's been
a crime committed or not. I assure you, if I ultimately come to the
conclusion that there's probably a crime here, I'm going to refer it to
some law enforcement agency somewhere.
I hope that's not the case. But these false claims that are being
made to the Clerk's office I hope stops.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's your turn, by the way, go ahead.
But please, let's bring this to an end --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dwight, you're right -- I did
look at this on my own time, and I'm going to do it, sir. And I did
suggest that to you when we were together.
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if there is crimes
committed we have to take care of it. Question is, where do we go
now? We're at kind of an impasse now.
We've got a responsibility. We've taken out a grant from the
federal government. We made a declaration that we were going to
perform "X" amount of service for so long. So I'm not too sure if we
can continue that, if we can turn it over to somebody else or we could
run the program out and return the money. And I don't think
anybody's got the answer today.
I think what we need to do is direct the County Manager to bring
July 26, 2011
this back at the next meeting and come up with several alternatives.
And this is just purely suggestive at the moment.
One, how could the program be modified to make it work where
it would meet everybody's needs, including the Clerk. And the Clerk's
got to work hand -in -hand with you.
Two, what about a private provider taking it over, and I'm
thinking even Habitat for Humanity might be the perfect one for it,
because of the fact that they have such low overhead.
Or number three, another option that I haven't even thinked (sic)
yet. You might even want to look at the option of how do you close
the program out.
We could sit back and take a look at three or four different
options we can do. I'm not happy, and I explained that to you when
you came to my office. I thought we were doing a terrible job with it
and something has to be done. And I think we need to give you that
direction to come back, and we can go at it.
Meanwhile we have this immediate situation at hand that we
can't just walk away from and we can't put off to the next meeting,
because if anything, the situation will be exacerbated by the fact that
the place is open to the whims of everybody that's out there. I don't
know how you're going to get around this to be able to close it up.
Do you have a buyer for this?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You do. So there might be a
way that we could put a package together, one, two, three, you can do
an audit on this thing after we sell the darn thing. That's not going to
be a problem.
MR. BROCK: One of the things that I have instructed my staff
to do on these two homes is to begin doing everything that we can to
pull all of the information together to do an interim audit report for
you all so that this is in yours and the County Manager's hands, so that
you can figure out where you go from here. And, you know,
Page 209
July 26, 2011
hopefully in conjunction with the County Attorney and everybody
else, we'll figure out where --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my suggestion is we
include you and the County Attorney with the County Manager. You
fix it and bring it back to us with a couple of different solutions.
MR. BROCK: I don't have a problem --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to micromanage
this thing all day today. We're not going to get a damn thing done.
We recognize there's a problem, we don't know the total depth of it,
and we don't know the solutions. So let's give them that direction.
But meanwhile, get back to this side at hand. How do we close
this item out so that we can protect the very best interests of the
residents of Collier County? That's the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well if you have any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to say a couple things --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- okay. But I'd like to see
Commissioner Henning close it out. But I just want to tell you how
extremely discouraging and disappointing this is to hear all of this
stuff going on. And I don't know how it could happen that our own
department could go out and look at a stucco and sign it off as being
done when any person can go in and just see that it's never been done.
I mean, that's definitely wrong, so wrong.
And I was going to say, before we go any further we should
identify the problems before we fix another thing, if we fix anything.
We should honestly identify the problems and then determine
solutions. And I see that that's moving forward now.
So that's -- there's so many errors, so many mistakes that are
going on, and we haven't taken care of them, and we should have done
that a long time ago, because this is not the first time that you have
identified problems in this area. And we should have stopped
Page 210
July 26, 2011
everything and first identified all of those problems, come up with
solutions before we moved any further, because everybody is
suffering because of it, whether it be your department or us or the
homeowners who are counting on this to be done.
I just -- I just feel terribly disappointed. And it seemed like so
many things were being -- in their presentation to us being
whitewashed instead of just saying flat out, you know what, we didn't
do this right, or we shouldn't have signed off on this. But we didn't
even do that, we whitewashed it. And that's very disappointing.
So I thank you for bringing this to our attention. I had Allison
and Mark Strain come into my office and show me the pictures,
because we weren't able to get out there because of some rain that was
going on at the time. And I really appreciate you bringing this to our
attention.
So thank you, and let me get closer here --
MR. BROCK: We tried to show it to everyone, and
Commissioner Coyle was so busy that we weren't able to get to him,
but we've tried to show everyone --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he's right on board.
MR. BROCK: Absolutely, I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was there before this. But
Commissioner Hiller is next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, let me make my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dwight, will you work with the
Housing staff to inspect to make sure this work is done if the Board
approves this item?
MR. BROCK: Well, one of the problems I'm going to have, if
you approve the item obviously I want to go back and make sure that
it is not a part of the contract. But if it is, it will be back because I
won't pay the bill.
But if in fact, you know, you approve it today, we'll certainly go
Page 211
July 26, 2011
through the motions to make sure that it's done properly. And if it can
be done, we will do it that way. And that's not an issue. And we will
work with any and everybody we can to make sure that this gets done
right and gets cleaned up so that we don't have any more audit
comments and we don't have anything such as this coming up in the
future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want the checks and balance
on this house. That's what I want. So I'm going to make a motion to
approve this item, based upon staff s assurance there is a purchase
contract on this home. Okay? That's my motion. But I do want to go
back to the whole program in general. We need to give that better
direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion so we can
move on to that next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I want to understand
something, Clerk. These are HUD funds, right?
MR. BROCK: Absolutely, both of them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That --
MR. BROCK: Different programs for both of the two houses
that I'm referring to, but they are all coming through HUD.
And, you know, one of the things that sort of puzzled me one day
was County Manager Ochs, Leo and I were talking, and we were
talking about, you know, how we would go about dealing with this.
And you know, I'm asking what are they telling? Well, they're telling
me that you require more than HUD does.
And I'm thinking at the point in time that he says that, well, that's
probably true. I probably do require more than HUD does, if you
think about it. Because HUD was the one that was giving ACORN
the money, and I'm not going to be doing that.
But be that as it may, they are HUD money that are passed
through to us. But I mean, they're in the custodial control of the Clerk
Page 212
July 26, 2011
or the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, can we get to this motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't understand your motion,
Commissioner Henning. What are you saying, that we approve what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Approve what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The item. And the item is
asking for the amendment to the contract to finish this home. Okay?
And furthermore --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your stipulations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the stipulations is staff
work with the Clerk, asking the Clerk to provide the better checks and
balances to make sure that all the work is done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that there is a definite buyer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the stip on it, you know, no
work is to be done if there is no buyer. But staff has assured we have a
contract buyer. I don't want to do any of this work if we don't have a
contract buyer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have a house that's
molding, we have a house without air conditioning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, you're saying we
have a house from molding. Have you seen any mold?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I couldn't physically get in. But
you told me that there was no air conditioning unit in place for the last
year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then we're assuming -- that's an
assumption there is mold.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there has been no air
conditioning unit in that home for how long? How long has this home
been without air?
MR. RAMSEY: My understanding is probably six to eight
weeks.
Page 213
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Only six to eight weeks?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can you get a bill -- how
can you get an electric bill for $6.00 when you're running the air
conditioning?
MR. RAMSEY: I'm sorry --
MR. BROCK: Wait, wait, there's a police report where they said
that it was stolen in January. What am I missing here?
MR. RAMSEY: I'm sorry, I was told that it was longer than
eight weeks. So we will determine exactly how long.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When was the last time you were
in the house? You inspected the inside of the house. You said all the
floors were done?
MR. TOWNSEND: Yes, ma'am, I was in the house last week.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was there any mold in the house?
MR. TOWNSEND: No, I didn't see any mold. And the air
conditioner hasn't been -- I mean, obviously it hasn't been there, hasn't
been running. Generally the houses, through the winter I turn the AC
off. There no really reason to run it. It can get cold. It's drier.
The air conditioning, you know, to answer your -- when I was out
there with the officer, I didn't know exactly when it had been stolen.
You know, could have been three months ago, could have been six
months ago. It had been gone. So when I called the police was when
they went inside and took the air handler. I said, well, I've got to go
ahead and get the ball rolling, because the contractor's working, we
can get everything rolled up here, get the AC running, get the pool
running, get it sold. I'm trying to time it, all of these appliances going
in for the end, so it can be finished, AC can be on, pool can be running
and we're good to go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did they also steal the air handler?
MR. TOWNSEND: They were in the attic removing the air
handler, yes.
Page 214
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You caught the guys removing --
MR. TOINNSEND: No, I did not catch them. I went in there,
the contractor was in there, he said the attic access is missing. I got
the ladder out of the truck, climbed to the attic, the air handler was
ripped from the ductwork and drug across the attic. It was still in
there but it had been damaged from its abuse. At that's at that moment
I called the sheriff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got a motion. All in favor of
the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All opposed, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no idea how to vote on this.
I mean, I find this completely unconscionable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it passes 3 -2 with Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I want to bring something to your
attention. The Delva home, the home right over here off of 41 where
there is no stucco, the lady that is involved in that, I'm sitting here on
bills. I may in fact be bringing something to you to try to work out a
resolution for them. The lady -- you know, one of the things I said to
her was, well, I mean, you know, one of the things I'm concerned
about, you know, if you're going to ask for equity, you've got to come
in with clean hands.
And she's sitting here with her signature on a payment request
which clearly indicates that the work was done when it wasn't. But I
mean, I understand part of the problems if she's being told to do this.
The same thing is true with the homeowner. If the homeowner is
being told to do this then, you know, we've got a problem that we may
Page 215
July 26, 2011
need to deal with, not with the grant money but with the county --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a management problem,
it's not the Board of Commissioners. And hopefully the County
Manager heard --
MR. OCHS: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
something about it.
-- what's going on, so he can do
But getting back, Mr. Chairman, getting back to direction about
the whole program, I would like to give direction to the County
Manager, stop, stop, stop purchasing homes, okay?
And then furthermore, see if it's legal if we can do a request for a
proposal for an organization or affordable housing builder to take over
these homes. Number one, keep them affordable, number two,
indemnify the county, and don't ask any money for repairs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I certainly agree with your
objective. But the problem is the termination of the program wasn't on
the agenda. And I think that the most we should do is to reach a
consensus, at least get three nods to provide the kind of guidance
you've just suggested, but to bring this back for a full public hearing
on the termination of this program, or evaluation of whatever
alternatives the staff will suggest, as Commissioner Coletta had said.
If that's acceptable to you, I would certainly support it. So we've
dealt with the item on the agenda. It's been done. So now we are
talking about providing guidance to the staff for some future action at
a future meeting. So if -- suppose we ask for a minimum of three nods
to do essentially what both you and Commissioner Coletta had
suggested, that we advise the County Manager to stop buying homes
and to have staff come to us with a proposal for the orderly
termination of this process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or the turning it over to another
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I mean. Do we have three
Page 216
July 26, 2011
nods to do this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to discuss this further
before we take a vote on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is it you want --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because you're making a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think we can have three
nods, this is not a consensus action. I mean, this is something that we
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not an advertised public hearing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have the ability to deal with
issues on the agenda that are not advertised. I think we have an
emergency situation where we have to safeguard the public's assets,
and we are dealing with federal funds.
So I think the situation calls for exactly what Commissioner
Henning said. I think we have to basically get someone to take over
these homes and cut off staff s ability from dealing further with this,
and let it proceed accordingly.
I agree with you, Commissioner Henning, there is no way we can
wait and allow this to continue. And quite frankly, I'm shocked. I
pulled two items off the consent agenda for 2.6 million in HUD funds
and another 3.3 million in HUD funds for exactly this kind of stuff,
because I wanted to object to it. And if I hadn't pulled it off consent,
you all would have approved it automatically.
And we're sitting here today hearing this story, which is
outrageous. I mean, I really think we need to essentially appoint a
receiver to take this program over from today forward, basically seal
all the records, stop everything in its tracks and look backwards and
find out what's going on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we go to the County
Attorney when we get advice like that from a Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the only person I'm going to
Page 217
July 26, 2011
listen to when it comes to legal advice.
But Commissioner Henning, this is your motion or your
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question for
Commissioner Hiller. Some of these homes we have contracts on.
They showed -- I think it was five contracts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I really -- I question the
contracts. I question how these homes have been acquired, I question
how they've been improved, and I question how they've been disposed
of. So I don't know how it affects whatever is currently pending, if we
even have real contracts with deposits. I mean, we've got homes that
aren't even finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, those contracts have to be
ratified by the Board? Yes --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe they -- do they come to the
Board? I'm not sure that they do.
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioners, the -- when you approved
this program, you approved an ordinance that allowed the Chairman to
sign the contract. So the Chairman is signing all of the --
MR. KLATZKOW: So they're not coming to the Board.
MS. KRUMBINE: No, he has been a -- he's been given the
authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my fault.
MR. KLATZKOW: So they only come to you if there's a
change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or handcuffs.
MS. KRUMBINE: Now, these are the real property contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. It only comes to the Board if the
contract was amended, is my recollection. There are times when you
amend the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I've got news for you, don't bring
another one to the Chairman for signature.
Page 218
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Until we deal with this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait, wait. I'm sorry, I've got to
jump in here. I don't know what's out there, but I can tell you right
now, we got some family that's in -- I thought you could hear me over
there.
But if we have some family that's in transition right at the
moment, the last thing I want to do is find somebody that just sold
their house or moved out of an apartment, or whatever, expecting that
they're going to have an orderly transition into a house. So think twice
before you give directions on something which just ends everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marcy, I can't hear very well. I'm
sorry, go ahead, keep going.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My concern on just
putting everything on suspended animation until we get more
information. In fact, do you have some contracts out there that are just
coming to completion where the people are ready to move into their
homes?
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioner, we have four contracts that
are closing this week by Friday. We have one that closed yesterday,
another that I believe is closing tomorrow, and the remainder on
Friday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's nothing that's going to
change if we close these contracts out. We have a deficit going with
money that's been lost. We have some transitions that happened that
weren't correct. It's not going to change with the contract closing out.
I just -- I feel bad about these people that have been drafted into this
mess. That's it, you have four and there's no more behind that at the
moment, where people's lives are on the line?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I suggest that you wind up --
at this point in time, treat it as a wind -up. If you've got people under
Page 219
July 26, 2011
contract who have already closed their homes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I agree with you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just do a wind -up on your current contract
and put the rest of it basically in stasis until you can figure out what's
going on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meanwhile, we gave direction
to the County Manager that was completely legal. We're not making a
motion, we're just giving directions. We're within our bounds, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can give direction or make a motion,
it's up to you. It's the same thing at the end of the day.
But I would recommend, if you've got signed contracts -- because
you're right, people have made plans, they've gotten mortgages. We'll
proceed with that and then put a stop to it until you get better
information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would follow that suggestion.
I don't know where we are with motions, but I would make that a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was no motion. Commissioner
Henning had proposed essentially the same thing you said earlier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We never voted --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have a formal vote if you want to
vote on it. The motion was to give guidance to the County Manager
to stop purchasing any new homes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And to come back to us at a future
meeting to provide us alternatives with getting out of this business and
bringing it to a close.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And work with the Clerk and
the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've got a motion. Do
we have a second on that? Henning made it, we'll call it a motion.
Page 220
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We got a motion, we got a
second. That's your role.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we don't have a Henning.
(Commissioner Henning is absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He'd also mentioned something
about getting outside contractors to do this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever the alternatives are. Just turn
it over to someone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But before we do that, we have to
decide whether we want to design these homes for very low income or
low income. Because that's going to make all the difference in a
neighborhood in the world. I know what's happened to us.
And so, you know, you have to decide if you're going to be
designing these for low income or for affordable or what, so that you
then can choose a contractor that would build to that specification or
repair to or upgrade to.
(Commissioner Henning is present in the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we -- okay, Commissioner
Henning, we're going to take a vote on your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did already, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The first one we did. We're talking
the second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't a motion, you asked
for guidance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know, but Commissioner Hiller
has decided we ought to have a formal vote. So we're going to
consider it a motion and I seconded it.
Now please, everybody --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could the court reporter read back
the motion that Commissioner Coyle made, please.
Page 221
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just read it back just a few minutes ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For Commissioner Henning's
benefit, could you read it back for all of us.
(The motion was read back.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was Commissioner Henning's
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did Commissioner Coyle say
after that?
(The transcript was read back.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be later than that, it would be
just near the end of where you stopped, before Commissioner Henning
came back into the room. I was trying to summarize it at that time.
Let's forget about that part and let me try to summarize what I
understood Commissioner Henning's motion to be.
It's to provide guidance to the County Manager to stop
purchasing more homes. And number two, to come back with
recommendations to the Board concerning getting out of this business.
And that is pretty much the extent of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Work with the Clerk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we going to do with
the homes that we have contracts on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we just proceed with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. I could
support that motion.
Jeff, you're going to work with him?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it would be a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to add, if we could
add what Commissioner Henning said at the beginning, what you read
is his motion to Commissioner Coyle's motion, I think that's
supportable. Because what's not being addressed is what's going on
Page 222
July 26, 2011
right now and how we proceed with the homes that are in a state of
repair that need to be completed, the homes that are unsold.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stop, stop, stop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, well -- but you said
something about some -- appointing some sort of contractor, some sort
of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, they have to be compliant
with the Board's rules. I mean, you know, if -- in this case if you had
an open pool like that, not being maintained, it needs to be covered,
needs to be secured --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, if I understand correctly, we're
going to let staff continue with what they've been doing with the
remainder of the homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, what are we doing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to purchase
any. The homes that we do have, we're going to see if we can --
County Manager's going to come back and get rid of them -- well, he's
going to do something with them, but we're not going to be
responsible for them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the repairs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the ones that are -- have a
contract in there, they're going to be finished. The ones that do not
have a contract, they're not going to be done, but they have to comply,
still has to comply with Board's ordinances and rules.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We still have another issue, and
that is that we have a program where we're using HUD funds to repair
properties, not only properties that we own but properties owned by
others. And the issues that are before us today relate to the problems
with how these repair payments, if you will, and direction have been
administered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the purpose of directing the
Page 223
July 26, 2011
County Manager to come back with recommendations about how we
extricate ourselves. You can't make those kinds of decisions right
now. He has to assess where he is with respect to all of these homes.
My preference would be to stop repairing anything, stop buying
anything, perform the sales contracts that are available, and that's the
extent of it. And how we extricate ourselves is going to be based upon
what the County Manager and his staff can advise us at the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fatal flaw in there, if I may help
you with this, sir. Seriously, they have materials now onsite, they may
be putting an air conditioning in that's going to preserve the home.
We're going to be going through the hottest month of the year with the
heaviest rains.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's going to tell us how he extricates
himself from those situations. Does he pay the contractor for the
materials, does the contractor take the materials back, does he
complete the repairs if they're that close to completing? These are
variables that it's impossible to establish a set rule for how you handle
them in this motion.
Give the County Manager the guidance to tell us how he's going
to extricate us from these things, and he'll say for these houses that we
need to do this, for these houses we need to do this, for these houses
we don't need to do anything, and we're not going to buy any more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He has to have the right to be
able to respond to this thing, like putting a front locked door on a
building rather than say he can't do anything. I understand what
you're saying now. You covered that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just wanted -- before we vote
on this, I want to get input from the County Attorney. He's been
sitting very silent. I mean, there are a lot of legal issues here. What's
your take on all of this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what the issues are yet. That's
Page 224
July 26, 2011
what we're going to be coming back to you with at a future meeting.
My understanding at this point in time, you want the program
basically to be stopped as far as new homes go. We'll wind up the
existing contracts and we'll come back with alternatives for the Board
as to how to extricate ourselves out of this program.
But Commissioner Coletta brings a point, you've got between
now and your next meeting, and it's some time from now, the County
Manager may have to do certain things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In September. Because the
meeting is like what, the second week in September? So we actually
have like almost two months, about a month and three weeks between
now and then, and in the meantime we have this pending problem.
I mean, we're really looking at, you know, how are these assets
going to be safeguarded and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess that's the right term, the
County Manager will safeguard the current assets in his discretion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously. And we're
taking a break. We're going to give you 12 minutes this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I say one thing before we
break just to finish this item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We voted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, I'll bring it up when we
come back. It's important.
Page 225
July 26, 2011
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
We're going on to item --
MR. OCHS: 10(H).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten -- is it H or F?
MR. OCHS: No, that got moved to the consent agenda earlier in
the morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah --
MR. OCHS: It got moved, that Commissioner Henning --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay. So we're going to H.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, and that was an item that I
pulled.
But before we move to that, I wanted to make a comment after
my vote but we had already broken for a break, so I'd like to add a
comment, because I question with respect to the last item if there isn't
more we need to do.
I know we've addressed all those homes that are within the
housing program that fall under HUD, but have we -- does this also
encompass, and I want clarification on the vote that we just took, the
homes that are funded through HUD that are within the CRAs?
I mean, are we basically -- was this a motion with respect to all
the homes that have been purchased, all the homes that are being
refurbished with HUD monies, you know, regardless of where they sit
within the county? Or are we limiting it to -- to what? Because I
think that the motion lacked definition in that regard.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, my understanding was this related
to the NSP program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The what?
MR. OCHS: The NSP program only.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the NSP?
Page 226
July 26, 2011
MR. OCHS: The neighborhood stabilization program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the Frank -Dodd, Barry
Frank.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So nothing else is going to be
affected, just --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just that?
MR. OCHS: That's my understanding, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, is that enough?
I mean, if we have an issue and we're dealing with federal funds, does
it need to be broader or are we doing what should be doing with
respect to safeguarding assets?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to get with the County Manager
and the Clerk and we're going to take a look at this, and we're not sure
what the issues are in depth and we'll find out and bring back a report
to you in September.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but does our motion -- is it
sufficient for our motion to be limited to this HUD program, or should
we apply it to all the HUD programs?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's a Board decision, ma'am. Right now
you're limited to the NSP program. I haven't heard that there's
anything wrong with the other programs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, you know -- as you're
going through this, I mean, are you going to wait till the second week
in September to advise us if there are other problems or will you alert
us as you discover them?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I think you're talking to me. If I
think there are other problems, I'll advise the Board, certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As you progress through whatever
Page 227
July 26, 2011
you're going to be doing.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, got it.
Item # l OH
RESOLUTION 2011 -136: THE COLLIER COUNTY 5 -YEAR HUD
CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FY 2011 -2016; ONE YEAR HUD
ACTION PLAN FY 2011 -2012 AND REVISED CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PLAN, AND SIGN THE SUPPORTING
RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATIONS FOR SUBMISSION TO
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, IO(H).
MR. OCHS: 10(H), sir, was a recommendation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pulled by Commissioner Hiller?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It was a recommendation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller. Okay, I'm
sorry, you've got to read it, right?
MR. OCHS: I don't have to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please read it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
knows what we're talking about.
I'd like him to read it so everyone
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We still won't know what we're talking
about.
MR. OCHS: Recommendation to approve the Collier County
five -year HUD consolidated plan for the 2011 through 2016 period,
one -year HUD action plan, FY 2011/2012, and revise citizen
participation plan and to sign the supporting resolution and
certifications for submissions to the United States Department of
Page 228
July 26, 2011
Housing and Urban Development.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you get started, what I'd
like to mention is that when I read the executive summary, what it
indicated was that the fiscal impact would have a combined grant
allocation amounts for all Collier County HUD entitlement programs
for the next year, 2011/2012 to be approximately $2,649,863.
The thing that raised some concerns to me was it said that it
should be noted that the HUD allocation reflects a 16 percent decrease
in CDBG funds and a 12 percent decrease in home funds to offset
HUD's reduced budget. An additional decrease of 160,000 in home
funds is also included. This additional reduction is to reimburse HUD
for the Cirrus Pointe project, which has not been completed.
The first concern I have is in light of what we just determined, I
can't see how we should be approving this grant application if the goal
is to get out of the business of housing, as Commissioner Coyle
suggests.
The second thing that is concerning to me is this issue with the
reduction to reimburse HUD for Cirrus Pointe. That isn't complete.
And that Cirrus Pointe project was a project I understand the county
decided to sue the developer for because the developer -- do you want
to explain to me what happened on that?
MS. CASTORENA: For the record, Margo Castorena, Federal
Grants Manager, Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
First of all, the 16 percent that you are referring to in your
opening statement was a reduction across the Board for HUD
Nationwide that reflected a 16 percent cut in the federal budget. And
that was -- naturally that was passed on to Collier County as a part of
our federal entitlement.
The same goes for the home program, which there was a 10
percent decrease from previous year. These are all -- at this point we
have not gotten our funding letter from HUD, and therefore these
numbers can change a little bit. But that is the guidance that we were
Page 229
July 26, 2011
given by HUD. We do not have the final figures when we put this in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me, what's your name?
MS. CASTORENA: Margo Castorena.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, Margo, thank you.
Can you explain to me what's going on with the 160,000 in home
funds being reduced related to Cirrus Pointe?
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, ma'am, I will be happy to.
Back into the 2005/2006 time frame this is a project that went
forth through the FAH department when housing was part of ODES.
At that point they were trying to buy in a certain number of units, I
believe it was 16 units, in a project that was going to be 36 units,
okay.
We went ahead -- we did help purchase the land, okay, which
was the 120 -- $320,000. The project did not go vertical. The reason
it did not go vertical, as I'm sure we all know, that the housing market
took a terrific dip in the 2007 time frame.
This happened across the nation. It was not just Collier County,
it was Cleveland, it was Detroit, it was Phoenix, and it was Seattle. It
was not feasible to go forward. Because of that, we met with the
contractor and we said, you can't bring this affordable housing
development to market. It was financially impossible. Therefore,
what we did is when we realized that the project could not go forward,
we went ahead and referred it to the County Attorney, okay. They
brought suit against the sub - recipient, and they have made -- and they
have made a settlement. And they are still pursuing this. This is in
open litigation.
As far as we had -- were concerned, at the housing department,
HUD -- we asked for a waiver, because we believe this is a nationwide
project in which many entitlements are getting hit. We asked for a
waiver. HUD said that we could not have a waiver, but they did offer
to allow us, instead of using 320,000 in general fund money to pay
back HUD, that they would decrease our home entitlement by 160,000
Page 230
July 26, 2011
over a two -year period. They told us that they would have to note it to
the public, that we would have to put it in our consolidated plan,
action plan, advise the public, advise our advisory committee and
advise you of our ruling board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How was that going to be done if
this was going to be on consent? Was the advising us going to happen
just merely as the result of the publication --
MS. CASTORENA: Ma'am, you were provided both a draft of
the plan and you were also provided a final draft complete with all of
the changes that were made. Most of them were not major changes.
But we gave them to you and we posted them on our web as well, so
that our population and our citizens would know as well what these
changes were.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the reason that HUD
gave for saying that they wouldn't honor a waiver?
MS. CASTORENA: Well, I only talked to our rep. However, I
did later attend a national conference of HUD. And basically what
they said was while they realized that this was a nationwide project,
they had not been able to come up with a process to waive this.
Federal government works even slower than we do, ma'am, and
for that reason, they -- you know, there's an aging report that happens.
And therefore, we had to make some decision.
When I came to make that decision, I referred it to legal and they
are still pursuing it to try to get our money back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are you doing, legal?
MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams from the County Attorney's
office.
Again, we -- as Ms. Castorena stated, it's in active litigation still
at the courthouse.
This project involved two defendants, one who had to quality and
thus received the HUD funds, the 320,000 that the developer then took
the 320, used every bit of the HUD funds and no money out of his
Page 231
July 26, 2011
pocket for down payment of the real estate, just the dirt. Never went
vertical. Still pursue -- we're in litigation. We can discuss litigation
outside of the public forum, but we're after the 320,000, and if we get
it, we'll --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're suing both parties?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, settled with one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who did you settle with?
MR. WILLIAMS: With the nonprofit organization.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How did you settle with them?
MR. WILLIAMS: We moved up and obtained their lien status.
We acquired -- they had secured a lien on the property --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a subordinate lien to the
mortgage?
MR. WILLIAMS: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words there's no means
to collect on it. So it's not really a settlement, it's an empty -- it's an
empty arrangement because --
MR. WILLIAMS: It moved us higher than we were but not into
first place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the loan amount?
MR. WILLIAMS: Higher than 320.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much was it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Off the top of my head, I don't want to give
you incorrect information, but it was substantial.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the loan to value ratio?
What --
MR. WILLIAMS: I could go up and get the HUD document if
you'd like and we could put it on it, but I don't want to give you
incorrect information, but it was well over the 320. But they used
every bit of that 320 to put us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you talk more directly into the --
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I apologize. I'm a bit height
Page 232
July 26, 2011
enhanced.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, do you know any of the
details?
MR. KLATZKOW: Steve's more familiar with the details. It
was a project that smelled, to be quite honest with you, and we're
doing the best we can to recover the money. I don't think we'll ever
recover it. But we've got a personal suit against the individual
developer and we'll see what happens down the road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't understand how you
could have settled with a nonprofit.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, the settlement went to this Board
for approval, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When was that?
MR. KLATZKOW: When did we bring this, about a year ago?
MS. CASTORENA: I can give you that information. It was
agenda item number 16.K.1 on April 13th, 2010. The
recommendation was to authorize the County Attorney to file a
lawsuit on behalf of Collier County Board of County Commission
against the Collier County Housing Development Corporation, now
known as the Housing Development Corporation of Southwest
Florida, for failure to comply with the grant agreement to develop
Cirrus Pointe.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And later we wound up settling with
them --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when was the settlement?
MS. CASTORENA: I'm not sure, ma'am, you would have to ask
the County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was about a year ago.
MR. WILLIAMS: They had no assets, Commissioner Hiller,
they were --
MR. KLATZKOW: They were a straw person in the transaction.
MR. WILLIAMS: They were a pass - through, they were a straw.
Page 233
July 26, 2011
The developer himself did not qualify to receive the HUD grant. So
Housing used the straw corporation, which did qualify. They got the
320,000, and now we're pursuing it, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How did they have a lien on the
property?
MR. WILLIAMS: It was part of their purchase -- their
agreement with the -- their private did not include the county
agreement with the developer and the bank.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How come we didn't have a lien
on the property?
MR. WILLIAMS: You're beyond my knowledge. I wasn't here
at the time it was drafted or done.
MS. CASTORENA: None of us were here at that time, ma'am.
None of us were here at that time. I think this is an inherited issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you here, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I was here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Weren't you working over in
CDES at the time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you knew all about this
transaction?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I did not, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I'm just asking. It was a
question.
MR. KLATZKOW: No it's not a question, it's an accusation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm not. I'm asking, did you
know about it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Did I know the particulars of this deal? No,
I did not. What I told you initially was this deal smelled, all right, at
this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You say it smells now in
hindsight.
Page 234
July 26, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: This deal smells, okay. I don't really want
to get into it. But, you know, we take what we're dealt, and at this
point in time we're going after the developer in his individual capacity
for the full amount.
In the meantime we've lost $320,000 in HUD funding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you the one who
recommended the settlement?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, that would be me. I've been the litigation
attorney who's been handling it, going through it. I've got this
501(C)(3) who's there, they have no assets. All they had was this lien.
They was nothing else. They had one employee. No -- that's all I
found. I got there, at least have them, and also -- and I hate to discuss
this in a public forum, it's open litigation.
But they've agreed to also assist us in going after the developer. I
mean, there's a lot going on here that I would rather not have on
television for opposing counsel and everyone else to be listening to me
talk about. But it's open litigation, it's still going, we're pursuing it. It
was not only the lien that we obtained, but we obtained more than that
as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe it would be better to talk
privately after this rather than put it on the record?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have some concern about it,
because, I mean, we've got HUD that's saying this all needs to be
publicly disclosed and the public needs to fully understand what
happened with this and why this reduction is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When did HUD say that? I don't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She said it.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, ma'am. And that is exactly why we
put it in our Comp. Plan, we put it in our website.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think we need to fully
explain it so that all the viewers at home understand that. Because
they don't have the Comp. Plan and the website to access. We have to
Page 235
July 26, 2011
consider. This is the public forum, so I think we need a full
description of what this is about. I need it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, nobody has asked
for nor does anybody require that we discuss our litigation strategy in
public --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not talking about litigation
strategy --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and your attempt to do so is
destructive to the county's ability to do its job. If you want more
information, I suggest you get with the County Attorney's
representatives and talk with them off line.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate. And I don't want to
get into public disclosure of your strategy, I respect your need for
privacy with respect to that.
However, on the other side, the description of the transaction and
the specifics as to why HUD is withholding that money is something
that needs to be publicly disclosed in detail.
MS. CASTORENA: That is exactly what we attempted to do,
ma'am, by putting it into our Comp. Plan, putting it into our website,
bringing it before you and advertising it at the Housing Advisory
Committee. We also are putting an ad in the newspaper, along with
that, to tell the public that this has happened.
All I can do, ma'am, is advise the public what happened in the
past, why it occurred, and that was the downturn of the economic real
estate market. It was not feasible to put more money into the project.
And therefore, I closed it down and referred it to legal. And that was
the advice that HUD gave me, and that's the advice that we followed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have any documentation
from HUD that I could see where it says that they basically are turning
it down because of the downturn in the housing market?
MS. CASTORENA: No, ma'am. That was our letter by our
director to HUD to explain why we were requesting the waiver.
Page 236
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was HUD's response?
MS. CASTORENA: HUD response was a two -page paper that
was sent by the HUD field office. I can go ahead and put it on the
visualizer if you'd like, or I can give it to you after the fact. You did
get it? Yes, ma'am, you were forwarded that information by our
director.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I haven't had an opportunity to
review it yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go on with --
MS. CASTORENA: It was sent to you yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
deny this plan, in light of what happened with the last segment. And
I'd also like to make a motion that the description of the transaction for
Cirrus Pointe -- and I'd like to make them two separate motions, that
the description of the Cirrus Pointe transaction and the refunds that
HUD is calling for be brought back and fully explained so that it is
vetted in a public forum, so that we have all the details for the public
to understand.
And while I appreciate you've done these different steps, I would
like to have this explained before the Board and before the citizens
orally. I think we need to do that to comply with HUD's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion dies for lack of a
second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Margo, the five -year plan
is an update from the -- it's an updated five -year plan.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this something that we must
do?
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir, it is. It must be at HUD no later
Page 237
July 26, 2011
than August 14th. The entitlement, the consolidated plan is a
five -year program not just for housing, but it's for community
development, it's for affordable -- for the homeless, how are we going
to help them. It assists with public services, it assists with a variety --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I read my agenda packet, okay.
MS. CASTORENA: It was originally requested by Collier
County in 2001. And they had the first five -year plan. We are now
on the third five -year plan, that will run from 2011 to 2016.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve the plan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the plan. Seconded by anyone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. It's a requirement
anyway, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Turn off the light, please.
The only concern I have with the plan is the apparent
dissatisfaction by some in the community that their suggestions were
not solicited to the extent that they felt they should have been
solicited, and which I find very strange, since the person who
complained about it was at one of the public meetings. But
nevertheless --
MS. CASTORENA: They were at two public meetings, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two public meetings, okay.
Well, I would just like to make the observation that that process
goes both ways. You conduct the public meetings, people can input at
the public meetings, but they can also contact the staff and make the
attempt to provide information to staff, the County Manager, any of
the Commissioners, well in advance, or they can be here to make their
objections known.
Page 238
July 26, 2011
It is not sufficient just to attend a meeting and then complain
about the fact that their recommendations weren't included in the
report.
So in any event, but I would -- I bring that up just for the purpose
of making sure that the staff is sensitive to the need to create the
atmosphere where people feel comfortable sharing their concerns,
okay.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion. And
Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'm understanding correctly,
your motion is -- I understand that part of the funding is for projects
like homelessness. But you're going to approve this plan, which will as
a result give us funding to acquire and rehab houses in part --
MS. CASTORENA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing at all related to that? No
rehab, no acquisitions? No rehabbing?
MS. CASTORENA: Ma'am, in the CDBG --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In this one there's none?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. OCHS: There's the projects --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are we doing with this?
MS. CASTORENA: There's the projects on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is -- oh, okay, so this is
doing like we did strictly with the home. This is set aside --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the agenda packet. I call
the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 239
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
Let's go on to the next item.
Item #101
FINAL SUBMISSION OF THE DISASTER RECOVERY
INITIATIVE 2008 DISASTER RECOVERY ENHANCEMENT
FUNDS (DREF) APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,323,962 - APPROVED W /STIPULATION
MR. OCHS: 10(I) is a recommendation to approve final
submission of the disaster recovery initiative 2008 disaster recovery
enhancement funds application to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for funding in the amount of $3,323,962. This
item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16(D)(1), which is item number
10(I).
MR. OCHS: Yes, I'm on item 10(I). We just finished 10(H).
10(I).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought we did that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I agree with
Commissioner Hiller on this one. Well, this one has an expenditure
for the disaster recovery initiative for 400 -- well, one of them is
$414,000 for housing and human services rehab single- family homes,
residential homes. So if that's her objection, I support it and I will
make a motion to approve with the absence of $414,000 for rehab
Page 240
July 26, 2011
single- family homes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I ask some questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You sure can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess it dies, my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wouldn't be too sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was talking. Say it again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, let's -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say what you said again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On packet Page 1625, there's a
spreadsheet, housing and human, veteran services, the activity is
rehabbing single- family homes, residential homes. The amount for
the disaster recovery fund is $414,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see all of that, yeah, I had that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, that's what I said.
So I'm saying is I agree with Commissioner Hiller, if that's the
reason she pulled it, and made a motion to approve, except for that
$414,000 for the rehab.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I please comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In response to Commissioner
Henning, you've got -- I'm looking at the document in front of me,
Collier County Housing Authority rehab, 414,500, Bromelia Place
apartments, rehab, multi -unit residential; 300,000, Esperanza Place
apartments, improvements again, 35,000. You know, housing -- I
guess that's the housing department, rehab single- family residential,
414.
I mean, you've got everything except the flood and drainage
improvements for the Immokalee area CRA --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the Collier County Housing
Authority is a -- separate from the Collier County's Housing
department.
Page 241
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a board, actually, a board
that the Governor appoints members to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we are a conduit, we're a
pass - through.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're a pass- through for funds,
just like we are with the Immokalee CRA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they have independent
authority to rehab these multi -unit residential properties?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're affordable housing.
They do Section 8. They do all that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they under us, or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're independent of us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Independent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then what about Bromelia Place
and Esperanza and the item under that, the 414? What about those
three?
You say the 414 is okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You say it's not okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's not okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the 35,000 for
Esperanza?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not doing that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Esperanza is a development in
Immokalee, and they are going to improve the property to the tune of
$35,000 for flooding and drainage improvements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got a light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, but you have to wait. He had the
floor first.
Page 242
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the Bromelia?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no idea, but it's not the
housing department for rehab, and that's an item that you were
concerned about.
And I don't know why you're not asking staff before the meeting
these questions, because, you know, I had concerns, as late as 9:00 I
was talking to the County Manager and resolved issues, and it went on
the -- back on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I was going to oppose it
altogether, so I wasn't going to get into these details because I have a
problem with taking these federal funds. So I had a very different
perspective. My perspective changed again after I heard your
presentation on everything that's going on with the housing. And
when I became aware of what was going on with the Cirrus Pointe
project and how we were basically a pass - through, or -- I don't know,
what's the term when we act as a conduit for these funds?
We still have an obligation to ensure when we pass these funds to
another entity that they're doing the right thing. I mean, obviously we
have a liability now, we have litigation going on and we have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the problem with the item that is
before us, please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think it should be supported
for the reasons that I just identified with Cirrus Pointe and for the
reasons that we just identified with this other rehabilitation
neighborhood program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who represents this product?
MR. RAMSEY: That is me, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you the Collier County
Housing Authority?
MR. RAMSEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why isn't the Collier County
Page 243
July 26, 2011
Housing Authority here today when they seen this item was pulled?
MR. RAMSEY: They -- as a sub - recipient, their award to them
is contingent upon your approval of this item. So they would be here
at the time when you would review the contracts to formalize the
award to them, should the item be approved by the Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Help me with this now, is this
Collier County building these houses?
MR. RAMSEY: The Collier County Housing Authority -- the
Immokalee area CRA is the CRA, they would be undertaking those
activities. The Collier County Housing Authority is made up of a
board that's approved by the Governor, and they will be undertaking
those activities and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are they responsible for the
homes they build?
MR. RAMSEY: There wouldn't be any construction, this would
simply be hurricane hardening existing units in Farmworker Village.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't understand where we're
going with this. This is to help hurricane harden some buildings. I
can understand not wanting to be in the business yourself, but why are
we going to take federal funds that are designated to help the most
troubled part of our county and say we don't want them?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I don't understand what's
going on here. What are our controls, you know. We have a situation
where we have a sub - recipient --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was asking staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, I thought you were looking
at me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I wasn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, I thought you were --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was a blank stare, believe me.
If I go like this, I'm looking at you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's 6:00. I'm sorry.
Page 244
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First, can you understand why
there's any resentment over this? What's the problem that I'm missing
here? You're looking at it from a professional standpoint now.
MR. RAMSEY: I'm sorry. For the record, Frank Ramsey.
I can definitely appreciate the anxiety and displeasure or concern
with the 414.09 that would be a rehab program administered and
carried out by my department. The other projects listed above would
be carried out by non - profits or the agencies listed and that we would
reimburse them upon receipt of a proper invoice.
So I would put forth -- I mean, we can do whatever is the
pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do this. So you're
responsible for the part that you would be carrying it out would be
what, the one that's under which one?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct, the 414,019.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 019. Okay, can we approve
everything but that and bring that back at next meeting with the
possibility you might have another vendor to take care of it?
MR. RAMSEY: That's an excellent question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to see this money go
away, because the need is so great --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It can't go away, this is so important
to that area.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. If we don't accept the full amount, we
can't get any of the money. But I have a suggestion or a comment for
your consideration.
The application submitted by the Collier County Housing
Authority was for millions of dollars. However, based on what we
had available, we could only fund one section of Farmworker Village.
If it is the pleasure of the Board, I would be happy to confirm with
that agency, would they accept the additional funding, which would
increase their award amount to expand the activity to another section
Page 245
July 26, 2011
of Farmworker Village.
The other option for the Board's pleasure is to deny the item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta let me
just interrupt. Isn't Farmworker Village already trying to harden their
homes and rehab or upgrade them because some of them were so
dilapidated? So the money would go into something like that; is that
what you're saying?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. My understanding is they receive
ftznding from the USDA to do those improvements, and this would
further that effort.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning,
would you amend your motion to change it just to this and direct the
money to the Farmworker Village?
If not, I'll take a chance, and if your motion fails I'll have to make
one after that. It would be a lot easier to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why the housing
authority? Why not --
MR. RAMSEY: The reason for the housing authority is that this
grant had a number of requirements, but one specific requirement was
that 14 percent of the funds be spent on the rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, at least 14 percent.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct, sir. So that helps us achieve that goal
that's required by the grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I understand now. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to amend my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to amend it? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That we take that 114,019 (sic)
and add it to the Collier County Housing Authority's rehab
multi - family residential category.
Page 246
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got a second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I'll revise my second.
Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm learning this, so you have to be
patient with me, because this is an education.
What is our liability when we are basically the conduit for these
funds and we are passing them through to a subrecipient?
And the reason I'm confused again is because of this clawback, if
you will, on the Cirrus Pointe where, I mean, everything that you're all
describing here, while I understand it's different than the repair issues
that we had in part on that other house that we rehabbed under a
different program, what is our liability?
I mean, what is -- and housing oversees these sub - recipient
grants; is that correct?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do we have liability?
MR. RAMSEY: Our responsibility with this specific grant with
sub - recipients is to monitor their performance under the terms of the
contract.
One of the nice advantages to this program is that these are
federal funds that flow through the state. And so the Department of
Community Affairs, the grant agency for this grant, requires that we
obtain their approval for all of our contracts, all of our bid packages,
and they will site visit any new site. So there's an extra layer of
protection there that they are not going to sign off on something that
they don't believe is compliant.
So we are left, to answer your question directly, to monitor the
performance of the sub - recipients under the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How were Bromelia Place and
Esperanza Place selected?
MR. RAMSEY: When we received notice of the award, we
solicited proposals from the community partners that specialize in
Page 247
July 26, 2011
these sort of activities. And those, what you see represents the full --
each person that submitted an application was funded, although albeit
not at their full amount, in some cases where the project was just
larger than the scope of our total award.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So who selected Bromelia and
Esperanza?
MR. RAMSEY: These were the only ones that were submitted.
And so they were processed through our department. They were
scored and they -- we had another enough funding to assist in one way
or another each of the applicants. So no one was turned down.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How do we advertise so that
people know they can submit?
MR. RAMSEY: This was posted to our website as solicited from
-- via e -mail to a blast e -mail to our list of non - profits that administer
these sorts of programs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm surprised in this market
we only had two responses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I call for the question please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 3 -1, with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting and Commissioner Henning being absent for the moment.
Okay, that takes us to 10(K); is that correct, County Manager?
Item #I OK
RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT FOR
0-
July 26, 2011
DELIVERY AND REUSE OF RECLAIMED WATER BETWEEN
THE CLUB PELICAN BAY, INC. AND THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS THE EX- OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to approve the
renewal and amendment of the agreement for delivery and reuse of
reclaimed water between the Club Pelican Bay, Incorporated and the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida as the ex
officio governing board of the Collier County Water Sewer District.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is actually a very simple
matter compared to everything else we've addressed today.
George is working on standardizing the contracts with the various
golf courses that buy reclaimed water from the county for their
irrigation. And right now we have one contract which is coming up
which is the Club Pelican Bay reuse contract. Fortunately they're
coming up for renewal right before we anticipate the standardized
contracts to be approved by the county.
County Manager Ochs told me that he anticipates the standard
contract to be coming before this Board in October, which is just a few
months away.
So what I would like to suggest is that we add a provision to Club
Pelican Bay's contract that basically gives them the option, once the
standardized contract is approved by the Board, to opt into that
contract rather than stay in the contract that they're currently in.
We want as many of our -- actually, we want all the clubs that are
currently purchasing reuse water from us to be a part of the
standardized approach. And quite frankly, you know, we can do it in
another way, rather than give them the option to opt in, we could
Page 249
July 26, 2011
require that they opt in at the time that the standard contract is
approved.
MR. YILMAZ: If I might, Commissioner. For the record,
George Yilmaz, Interim Public Utilities Administrator.
Briefly, if I might present the process and the action items that
we have taken for continued implementation that has taken to us today
where we are.
And the first step was adoption of our irrigation quality reuse
policy that was adopted by this Board, laid out very clearly what the
expectations are, including standardization of contract for all
agreements currently in place.
And once Board adopted the reuse irrigation quality policy,
second step was as required by the policy, to develop and complete
our first reuse irrigation quality master plan so that we can move to
following step that would be first time we would do reuse irrigation
quality rate study, which we have done and brought before you, and
did receive the Board approval.
And having said that, our Commissioner Hiller brought up a very
good point, and indicating that if that's laid out, we're going through
that process from start, having where we want to go at the end that
22 -plus contracts being standardized per policy do we have means and
methods in this five -year renewal in this contract that before five -year
expires, if we approve it today, can we initiate negotiation and renewal
process before the five -year ends when the Board adopts and approves
the templated standard contract for reuse agreements that will be
adopted as part of our reuse ordinance as an exhibit and what have
you.
From there, I just want to make one point, is that section 27 of
the original agreement, Page 7 on your packet -- package. Page 1607
states that quote, unquote, this agreement and provisions contained
herein shall be construed, controlled, and interpreted in accordance to
current Collier County reclaimed water ordinance and its successors.
Page 250
July 26, 2011
And that was something that we went through the discovery last
24 to 48 hours working with our County Attorney's, if indeed we did
have the means and methods. And we did have a chance to talk to our
-- one of the customers among 22, Pelican Bay general manager,
who's in the audience right now, Mr. Dave Mangan. And at Board's
pleasure, he can come before you and confirm what I'm about to share
with you, that they are in agreement with moving forward with the
contract amendment with the understanding that when the standard
contract is approved, Section 27 will initiate that amendment cycle
where we will move to Board - adopted templated standardized
contract.
And with that, our recommendation with the executive summary,
which we did our best with Commissioner Hiller's help, put language
in there that second paragraph under considerations, packet number
1595, last sentence indicates that once the template is approved by the
Board, the district will initiate negotiations with all users, not just
Pelican Bay, to include Pelican Bay for incorporation of the standard
terms. If mutually agreeable, we will execute the contract.
So having that in executive summary and having that in Section
27 and having a mutual understanding with our customer, I just want
to kind of share where we are today, where we started --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, George, let's get to the bottom line.
Are you recommending that we approve the contract as it is shown in
this executive summary?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir, with the understanding --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you believe there is a process that
you have worked out that helps you to transition to the standardized
contract.
MR.00HS: Yes.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fine, let's call the speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker --
Page 251
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you agree with what Mr. Yilmaz has
said?
MR. MANGAN: Good evening. I'll just state my name for the
record. Dave Mangan. I'm the General Manager of Club Pelican Bay.
And we are very supportive of our contract going forward at this
point. We are also very supportive of Dr. Yilmaz, Beth Johnson.
They've been a pleasure to work over the years and we look forward
to continuing our long -term relationship. And we are excited that the
county's attorney with the water management is reviewing
standardizing contracts. We think that will bode well for us in the
future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Are there any public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was the public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I just want to ask one
question before I vote, and I just wanted to know, will this affect other
communities or will it deprive anybody? Just give me a simple yes or
no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear from him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will take him 10 minutes --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, this action before you only impacts Pelican
Bay Club.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And by giving them this
increased amount, it's not going to deprive anybody else, and the
standardized contracts for everyone is not going to deprive anybody;
is that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: The amount in terms of reused water they are
getting is as same as the previous contract. No increase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's not going to deprive anybody
and it won't affect any other community.
Page 252
July 26, 2011
MR. YILMAZ: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's what I want to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Hiller, did you
want to say something else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. To the extent we're
speaking about this contract, Commissioner Fiala, that is a correct
answer. To the extent that we're speaking about the standardized
contract and how that will affect all the different golf courses out
there, it will affect each golf course differently, depending on what
their contract is at the time that they're faced with the standard.
The point of the standard is that everyone will have the same rate
and everyone will have a total allocation that is a function of their rate
times whatever the acreage is they're going to irrigate.
Right now we have situations where there are golf courses that
are getting far more than what their acreage would dictate. They're
just getting very excessive allocations, like double of what they would
normally get under this fair allocation. And by contrast, we also right
now have golf courses that are getting much less.
So the whole point of the standardization is to make it fair based
on acreage, applying a standard rate. And there will be some who will
benefit and there will be some who will lose when that happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for that explanation. I
just want to make sure things are fair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I think your question
is very valid, which is why I want to confirm with the County
Attorney that the way this contract is written does allow Club Pelican
Bay to participate in the standardization, and that the county at the
future time when this ordinance is amended will not say or can't say,
well, whoever is in a contract as of right now doesn't have the option
to opt into the standardization until the end of the term of the existing
contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: What your executive summary says --
Page 253
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's non - binding though.
MR. KLATZKOW: What your executive summary says, if it's
mutually agreeable, okay, that means you've got to agree and they've
got to agree, we'll get into the standard form contract. You could later
say no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not -- the executive
summary is a non - binding document. The contract is the only thing
that is going to bind Club Pelican --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, it's mutually agreeable. If the Board
wants to do it and Pelican Bay wants to do it, it will be done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern is if the Board doesn't
want to do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then it won't be done. That's why it's
mutually agreeable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there's a problem with that,
because then in effect what happens is if the Board decides that since
they're entering into a five -year term now, the Board will not allow
them to escape that five -year term before they're able to enter that
standardized contract, that would be fundamentally unfair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
That brings us to 13(B)(1); is that correct, County Manager?
Item # 1 OM
Page 254
July 26, 2011
REJECT INVITATION TO BID #11 -5697 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK
COMMUNITY BUILDING DUE TO CONSIDERATIONS IN
BIDDING ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) REQUIREMENTS NOT CONSIDERED
IN SOLICITATION - APPROVED STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
MR. OCHS: No. No, sir. We have to go to 10(M). That was
the reconsideration item that Commissioner Fiala brought forward
earlier. That was formerly 16(D)(19) on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wouldn't mind, Leo, if we
continued this. My point is that, you know, because I realize
everybody's tired now and they're -- and it's late. But my point is
we're talking about a new community building, to construct a new
community building. And for a park, right, for the Parks and Rec
Department?
And that will be the third community center in Immokalee, and
Immokalee has 17,000 people. And, you know, I work -- do
everything I can to always support the Immokalee community.
Do you have anything to say to me, Leo? I thought you were
going to say -- but I've been begging now for a community park at
Eagle Lakes Community Park. We have one community center in
East Naples to serve 70,000 people, and here we're going to building
the third one. We can't build one in East Naples, Eagle Lakes
Community Park, the busiest park in the system because we don't have
any money, but we have the money to do this one. I don't understand
how these things keep coming out of the wall, money for everybody
else and we still never have -- we applied for a CDBG grant. But of
course we might not get that so then we can't have -- we still can't
have the park. I'm just very, very upset about this.
Page 255
July 26, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this was an item to reject the bid. If
the Board still wants to allow us to reject the bid and then tell us not to
rebid, that's an option for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got my light on first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Barry, this goes back about
three years ago, we got money from the federal government, how
much was it?
MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and
Recreation Director.
Commissioner, we got economic development initiative funds in
the amount of $147,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How dare you build a new
community center? Are you building a new community center?
You're not building a new community center is what I'm trying to say.
MR. WILLIAMS: We are building a new --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you're tearing down the
existing one because it's non - functional, the floors are giving up
underneath the place, they can't use it, the building's unsafe, it's got
dry rot through the whole place. We tried to salvage it over the last 10
years five or six times, numerous thousands of dollars have been
poured into this thing. We finally got a federal grant to be able to get
this together, and it's not giving a new one, it's just replacing one.
The community of Immokalee has 26,000, it's bigger than the
City of Naples. It might have three community centers but it's spread
over a great big area. People would have to travel tremendous
distance to be able to reach the other far end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't even fit all the people in
mine, in my one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't put any in this one
because the floors aren't safe --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the staffs
Page 256
July 26, 2011
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To reject. Yeah, second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I realize that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just were talking about
something else, and that was my concern in the beginning when you
wanted to pull this off. You were going to talk about not this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it is this item, Commissioner,
because after we reject this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could have did this under
Commissioners' communications --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I would like to see that money
directed to something -- I realize, well, I'm not going to argue about
that now, we'll talk about it later, but I will second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to deny the award of
the contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's what the motion is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what the motion is, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the motion is seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, I don't -- I
Page 257
July 26, 2011
always support what you do in Immokalee, it's just that it's so unfair
that we never have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not unfair, it's three
community centers. Now they're only going to have two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, darn, two for 20,000 people --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: People don't have cars --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we have one for 70,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we are --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm flabbergasted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously, okay.
Now can we go to 13(B)(1)?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Jackson is here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller always
brings comments up at the end, I'm going to do the same. I voted with
It --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, this is not -- okay, I'm
sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I voted with it so I can bring it
back for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you.
Item #13131
LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AND CRA STAFF'S
ATTENDANCE AT THE FLORIDA REDEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATION'S 2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE INCLUDING
PAYMENT OF ATTENDEES' REGISTRATION, LODGING,
TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FROM THE BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST FUND (187) BUDGET AND
DECLARE THE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE AND
Page 258
July 26, 2011
TRAINING RECEIVED AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
(ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: APPROXIMATELY $839 PER
PERSON) - MOTION TO APPROVE FUNDING W /ONLY STAFF
ATTENDING — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, 13(B)(1), Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, this was actually brought to
my attention by a concerned citizen, and I was wondering, David, if
you could please explain how many local advisory board members
went to this and why.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
I believe the chairman for this item is Mr. Coletta; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: To answer the question, you're asking me a
question as if this is a past tense. This is a request for permission to go
to an event this October. Do you understand that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Your question was how many went to
lt.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. I apologize. It's 6:35.
You have to forgive me.
MR. JACKSON: That's happens when you come to the house of
pain.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, David, pull out the whip,
let's keep building it up.
Go ahead and explain what this is all about, please.
MR. JACKSON: This is our only opportunity to educate my
work force. We go to it every year. And this is the only item that we
go to. It's like the college of redevelopment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate the staff attendance.
Page 259
July 26, 2011
Explain the local advisory board member attendance, that's the part I'd
like clarification on.
MR. JACKSON: This is pre - approval if any of them want to go
to the conference. Last year we had two people go to the conference
and they went for one day and that was for the awards ceremony,
when we won a state award. That was one day and it was about $300
total cost for them to attend. The rest of the time it's the staff for the
entire time.
Now, those advisory board members are allowed to go, because
they also get trained. How else are they going to make decisions on
what happens in Immokalee, what happens in my CRA area. They've
got to understand the programs. They don't always go.
Last year two went for one day. The year before that, none of
them went. The year before that, we had four that went. Of course,
those four that went the initial time, they're still on the board, so
they've been educated.
Now if you don't want to approve the advisory board to attend,
extract that from the executive summary and make that motion. I have
no problem with that, they don't have any problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. So why don't I make that
the motion, we approve it for staff.
MR. JACKSON: They're fine with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. So let's do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Limit approval of funding for the
Florida Redevelopment Association annual conference to CRA staff
attendance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you not want board
members, in case they can learn and move forward and help this
project move forward?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because we don't fund volunteer
Page 260
July 26, 2011
advisory board members for any other advisory board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that true? Is that true?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, that is, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is true, we don't ever fund any
other advisory members for anything?
MR. MITCHELL: Not that I'm aware of
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not that I'm aware of either. And
I think it starts a problem precedent, especially in these difficult fiscal
times.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now I'll try to summarize the
motion. The motion is to approve this item for staff members only.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor -- wait a minute.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta is the
chairman of the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here you go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't know he wanted to
delegate his authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might just call for a recess
right now.
Okay, so we have a motion to allow only staff to go and pay for
their -- how many staff people would that be?
MR. JACKSON: Total of five, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Total of five. And how many
board members would it have been if that was the motion?
MR. JACKSON: We never know until about late September,
early October, because most of them are employed and have
Page 261
July 26, 2011
businesses and they can't always have their schedule that far in
advance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller and second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Henning, do you have some questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that, we'll call the
question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, my gosh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like something to eat?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm starving to death --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you handle this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I can handle it. Okay.
The motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It passed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four -one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hiller, Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, Commissioner Fiala was the
dissenting vote. Four -one with Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
Now, with that, we're into public comments.
We don't have any public speakers, do we?
MR. MITCHELL: We've got Duane Billington, but he doesn't
seem to be in the room.
Page 262
July 26, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We always have Duane Billington.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to have general
communications now. County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Nothing from me, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, couple of things. First of all,
a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to tour the Utilities
division. Since I've joined the Board, I've, time permitting, gone to
the various different divisions to meet with the staff and look at the
facilities so I can better appreciate when I cast my votes.
And I want to thank George very much for that tour, and his
staff. You all did an absolutely marvelous job in educating me and in
impressing me. It was really an exceptional division to tour. So I want
to thank you and everybody else for all they did to welcome me and
educate me, I really appreciate that.
The other thing I wanted to talk about was the Arthrex vote. I
thought that was actually -- it produced a very interesting public
discussion. And what came out of the vote for Arthrex's incentives is
what seemed to be a unanimous request for five votes when public
funding is being approved for private enterprises.
And quite frankly, I agree. I think it actually is a safeguard to
require a unanimous vote of this Board whenever we award economic
incentives to private enterprise. So what I'm going to suggest, because
I'm going to bring back the question of referendum for the purposes of
funding that full economic incentive pot if we do decide to go forward
Page 263
July 26, 2011
with an economic incentive program. And one of the things I'm going
to suggest is that when individual awards are made by this Board, that
it be a unanimous vote.
I think asking for a unanimous vote ensures that you don't have
crony capitalism. It would be very difficult for a petitioner to
ingratiate himself to five board members. And it just -- it introduces
another check in the system to make sure that the vote is for the right
reason.
So I think that was actually a positive, and I took that away from
that experience.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that in the Naples Daily
News, and also circulated on the e -mail, there was a letter that was
published by Bob Mulhere, and there was also a letter published by
Reinhold Schmieding. There was a separate e -mail letter that was
circulated by Tammie Nemecek.
And all those three letters cast me in a false light, and quite
frankly maliciously libeled me. And so I'm going to ask that they
retract the false statements that we made, because they're
unacceptable. And that's all have I to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, Commissioner -- I
wasn't going to say this at all, but you've called us many names, very
hurtful things, spending like drunken sailors -- and those cast us in a
very bad light.
And so I -- you know what, I never asked you for an apology.
You're entitled to your opinion. But, you know, people get what they
give. And so when you issue -- when you criticize people or make
accusations that are false and, of course, that's the only thing the
public hears are these false accusations. And then afterwards when we
say, you know, we didn't do that, just like referendum business as
well, you know, we wanted to go to referendum with that thing except
there was nothing to go to referendum with until you're --
Page 264
July 26, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you referring to Jackson
Labs?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- at a negotiation table, and we
never were able to sit down and to negotiate. We were never able to
get a contract, for goodness sake. And yet we were all accused. And,
you know, I just think that it's nice that you want an apology. And if
I'm hurting your feelings now, if I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not hurting my feelings, not
at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just feel that accusations should
end. We should never do that. And maybe it should start here. We
stop accusations, and maybe others will as well. That's my first thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond? Can I just make --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm asking Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She stated her opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would really love to go but let's --
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I want to say is I appreciate
what you're saying. There's a difference between opinion and slander
and liable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but you called us corrupt in
the newspaper. I kept the article.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't call you corrupt, never.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then maybe the newspaper
interpreted --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The newspaper is also part of the
problem. Because one of the things with the newspaper is it tends to
inflame and spin in a manner that doesn't necessarily fairly present
what's actually going on. So I would agree with you on that.
To give you an example, the newspaper never called me and
asked me, you know, what my thoughts were on Mulhere's letter or on
Page 265
July 26, 2011
Reinhold's letter. My comments were never solicited. I was never
offered the opportunity to even discuss it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we just move on, because I'm
going to come to a happy subject. And that's the way I want to end it.
Not only will I say have a nice month ahead of you because we're
going to be off and that will be a nice breathing time, but when Leo
received his 25 -year pin this morning, I wanted to say it then, but I
didn't want to break the momentum. You did such a job, Mr. Coyle,
or Commissioner Coyle, or Fred, that I didn't want to stop it.
But when I first met Leo, it was in the early 1990's, '92, I believe
it was. And Leo was in charge of the parks then, weren't you? And I
was -- we had this East Naples park and it was just -- it was -- this was
a park that was -- it didn't even have a swing set in there, they just had
-- it was just, you know, dirt. And hardly any trees, nothing, they just
had a community center and a hand ball court, that was it.
And I as president of East Naples civic started working at that.
And I didn't know anybody at the county so I go knocking at a door,
and who do I meet but Leo. And Leo worked with me and we got
things changed and taken care of. And I think it was a fast friendship
from there on in. So here it is 20 years later and I still feel like you're
a I good friend, not only to me but to our whole community. And I'm
so glad you're our County Manager, Leo. And congratulations on
your 25 years, and keep it up.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, Commissioner, I appreciate
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything to say.
Commissioner Coletta -- oh, yeah, except I of course agree with
Commissioner Fiala about what a wonderful guy you are. But
nevertheless, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's regrettable, you know,
that you had to lose so much money coming down here, but we
appreciate. You know, most people are in it for the profit motive, sir,
Page 266
July 26, 2011
and you stand above that. And I truly appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's taken you 25 years to get back to
where you were in Illinois, isn't it.
MR. OCHS: But look at all the sunshine we have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No one noticed, but I wore my
fishing tie, because I'm trying to inspire myself to do something --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I noticed it the first thing you
walked in. And I was going to tell Commissioner Henning to take a
look at your fishing tie, because he's the big fisherman. But then
again, you must be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a happy note, I hope
everybody has a great recess, and looking forward to our next meeting
together.
Commissioner Henning, you've got your own mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of the board members made positive comments about the
invocation this morning. Mike Sheffield is going to attempt to get a
copy of that for all of us. And I think going to carry it with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I loved it too. It was inspiring,
wasn't it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was. It was truly --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it addressed each one of us in
the room. Each one. You know, it had so many different things, and
each one --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It didn't address me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You weren't listening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no prayer that anybody could
make that would address me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I pray for you every day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the second thing is, how
can we stay on the agenda item? And I ask you to give me some
Page 267
July 26, 2011
suggestions on how can we focus on the item at hand? To try best to
do the public's business and allow the staff to get back to their job,
besides assisting us is serving the public. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got some suggestions, if you want to
hear them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do, but I just have one more
thing. One more thing and I'll quit.
Can I get from you, Leo, how many community centers are in
each of the commissioners' district, so I have an understanding?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In their districts? Did you say in
their districts?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, in each of the districts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to talk about ideas of how
we can stay on topic and get things done --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, I think it would be very
productive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board today did things that you
haven't done much in the past. When you get tired of people running
on and on and varying off topic, get a motion on the table. Make a
motion. The motion takes precedence over everything else. And that
focuses us back on the point. And it can cut down some of these
discussions dramatically.
The other thing is that it's important that the Board members
resolve questions with the staff before we come in here. Read the
documents, read what's in these things. And if you've got questions,
get them resolved by staff. And that way you don't have to ask the
staff for explanations for a lot of stuff and we can move through these
things a lot more quickly.
So I think those things. And I can and will try to do a better job
U •i
July 26, 2011
of calling a commissioner to order on an issue where they are varying
off and going to other things. But I'm going to need the cooperation of
the majority of the board to do that, because some commissioners will
feel they've got a right to continue to talk about things that don't apply
to that particular topic. And they might have a good point.
So it's always difficult for me to determine where a person is
going with their comments, whether they're really going out in left
field or they're going to come back and some way tie their comments
to the task at hand. So it's not real clear cut. But if you get frustrated
with that, then I would encourage you to make a motion, to get a
motion on the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it's not -- I see the
pain and I've heard the pain from staff members and the public, and I
agree with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So thanks, I appreciate your
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Our meetings are probably 30 percent
longer now than they've ever before and, we're getting less done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Less productive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we're way less productive. We're
making the staff way less productive. The public gets frustrated, and
nobody enjoys that. And it doesn't accomplish anything useful. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All right, let's do it.
Page 269
July 26, 2011
* ** *Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item #16A1
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
RONALD M. MEDEIROS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. CEPM20090009462, RELATING TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 8 PELICAN STREET WEST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — WAIVING $171,000 IN FINES, SINCE THE
VIOLATION OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE NEW OWNERS
PURCHASING THE PROPERTY
Item #I 6A2
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BONNESS, INC. FOR BID
NO. 11 -5687 - PINE RIDGE ROAD RIGHT TURN LANE
IMPROVEMENTS AT LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO.
600161 IN THE AMOUNT OF $941344.02 — FOR EXTENDING
THE EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #I 6A3
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BONNESS, INC. FOR BID
NO. 11 -5682 - VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS AT GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD, PROJECT
NO. 600165 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1295090.34 — FOR
EXTENDING THE WESTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE INTO A
DUAL LEFT TURN LANE
Page 270
July 26, 2011
Item # 16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LAKOYA REPLAT OF LOT
86 — DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #I 6A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AREZZO AT TUSCANY
RESERVE REPLAT - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #I 6A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PUMP STATION AND
CONNECTING FORCE MAIN UTILITY FACILITY FOR
AVELLINO ISLES, 595 AVELLINO ISLES CIRCLE, AND TO
RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — WITH RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item # 16A7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $711604.37
FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REIMBURSEMENTS, PROJECT
#60076.1, AND RECOGNIZING REVENUES FOR FUTURE
REPAIRS — REIMBURSEMENTS ARE FOR DAMAGES TO
COUNTY LANDSCAPE MEDIANS
Page 271
July 26, 2011
Item #16A8
REJECT BID #11 -5733 "IRRIGATION PARTS, PUMPS AND
RELATED ITEMS." - DUE TO LACK OF COMPETITION ON
THE IRRIGATION PARTS LINE ITEMS AND INCONSISTENT
BID RESPONSES ON THE PUMP AND MISCELLANEOUS
ITEMS
aml -101M
RESOLUTION 2011 -118: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 06 -200
IN ORDER TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANNING
COMMITTEE AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO RE-
APPOINT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE CATEGORY
OF "MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC." - TO REFLECT CHANGES
IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Item #16A10
ENTERING INTO A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT WITH MARSALA AT TIBURON HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION FOR WORK PERFORMED ALONG THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD COUNTY RIGHT -OF -WAY - TO ENSURE
THAT PLANTINGS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND WILL BE MAINTAINED TO
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS
Item # 16A 11
Page 272
July 26, 2011
THE 2011 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBMISSION
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT)
Item #16Al2
AWARD BID #11 -5604R FOR "LELY MSTU DORAL CIRCLE
ROADWAY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS" AND AWARD A
CONTRACT TO BONNESS INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$901524.42 AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1101000 FROM LELY MSTU FUND 152 TO FUND BRIDGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND PURCHASE LIGHT POLES FOR THE
PROJECT AS ENDORSED BY THE LELY GOLF ESTATES
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
Item #16A13
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10 -5528 TO AC SIGNS, LLC FOR
BUS SHELTER INSTALLATIONS IN THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $150,000; EXECUTING THE
ATTACHED CONTRACT; AND, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EVALUATE THE
EXISTING SHELTER DESIGN AND EXPLORE POSSIBLE
OPTIONS — FOR INSTALLATION OF 13 SHELTERS IN STOCK
AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY_
TEN (10) SHELTERS ANNUALLY
Item #16A14
CANCELLATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER SOIL AND WATER
Page 273
July 26, 2011
CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONCERNING THE NORTHERN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FLOWWAY RESTORATION PLAN,
COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 33134; ACCEPTING AND
APPROVAL OF FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 50539 FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $751000 FOR PROJECT #33134; AND TO USE THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT $75,000
FUNDING, ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD ON DECEMBER 14,
2010 AND CURRENTLY BUDGETED IN PROJECT #33134, AS
THE 50% MATCH REQUIRED IN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGREEMENT NO. 50539 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A15
REJECT INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #1 1-5629R
"BACKGROUND CHECK SERVICES" AND THE ASSOCIATED
QUOTES THAT WERE SUBMITTED. THE ANNUAL IMPACT
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SOLICITATION IS
APPROXIMATELY $75,000 — DUE TO CONFUSION RELATING
TO THE REQUIREMENTS, A NEW SOLICITATION WILL BE
ISSUED THAT FURTHER CLARIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS
Item #16A16
CHANGE ORDER #6 IN THE AMOUNT OF $355,916.44 TO
CONTRACT NO. 10 -5366 WITH STEVENS AND LAYTON, INC.
TO COMPLETE THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE PHASE 2
STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (PROJECT #51803)
— DUE TO DELAYS RELATING TO EXTRAORDINARY
Page 274
July 26, 2011
GEOLOGICAL FORMATION AND CONDITIONS THAT EXIST
IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA
Item #16A17
STAFF'S ZERO - DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION TO CONTRACT
#06 -3980 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES" WITH CARDNO /TBE AND RELATED WORK
ORDER #4500115973, DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2010 IN ORDER
TO PROCESS THE CONSULTANT'S FINAL INVOICE FOR
WORK COMPLETED FOR THE UPGRADING OF THE
EXISTING SPAN WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT AIRPORT -
PULLING ROAD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD TO A STEEL MAST
ARM ASSEMBLY — THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED UNTIL
LATE SPRING 2011 TO AVOID SEASONAL TRAFFIC
INTERRUPTION
I MMI SI:M
STAFF'S AUTHORIZATION OF A CHANGE ORDER TO
EXTEND WORK ORDER #4500105331 FOR SCOOT DRAFTING
SERVICES — DUE TO FDOT' S THREE THIRTY -DAY REVIEW
PERIODS
Item # 16A 19 — Moved to Item # l OJ (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6A20
REJECT BID NO. 11 -5718 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 030152 AT OIL WELL ROAD AND AUTHORIZE
THE RE- ADVERTISEMENT OF PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITB #11 -5718B — ALL BIDS ARE NOT WITHIN A
Page 275
July 26, 2011
REASONABLE PERCENTAGE ABOVE THE ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
Item # 16B 1 — Moved to Item # 13B 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16132
REJECT THE LONE BID RECEIVED BY REGIONS BANK
UNDER INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #11 -5702 WHICH WAS
ISSUED IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFINANCE, AT THE LOWEST
OVERALL FINANCING COST, THE CURRENT
BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA SERIES 2009 TERM
LOAN AND TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE MORE FAVORABLE FINANCE
TERMS WITH FIFTH THIRD BANK, THE CURRENT NOTE
HOLDER, WITH THE INTENT TO LOWER THE OVERALL
DEBT SERVICE COST — STAFF IS NOT PLANNING ON RE-
BIDDING AND WILL PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH
FIFTH THIRD BANK
Item #16133
A SWEAT EQUITY GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (3249 COTTAGE GROVE
AVENUE - FISCAL IMPACT $647.83) — FOR EXTERIOR
UPGRADES INCLUDING NEW PAINT
Item #I 6B4
THE SUBMISSION OF THE LETTER TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES
Page 276
July 26, 2011
DEPARTMENT (HHVS) IN APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI)/ DISASTER RECOVERY
ENHANCEMENT FUNDS (DREF) GRANT OPPORTUNITY
SEEKING GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2910000
TO SUPPORT FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
IMMOKALEE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN
Item #16B5
THE SHORTLIST FOR RFP NO. 11 -5697, CEI SERVICES FOR
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS — RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM URS
CORPORATION AND ALLIED ENGINEERING & TESTING,
INC.
Item #16B6
A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
AREA. (3639 BAYSHORE DRIVE - FISCAL IMPACT $50,000) —
FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS,
CONCRETE PAVERS AND LANDSCAPING
Item # 16C 1
STAFF'S EXTENSION OF WORK ORDER NO. 4500101204
WITH HOLE MONTES ENGINEERING, INC., TO PROCESS
THE CONSULTANT'S FINAL INVOICE OF $29184.54 FOR
WORK COMPLETED AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY
Page 277
July 26, 2011
Item #I 6C2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $12000 TO
REALLOCATE BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSES
BETWEEN OPERATING FUND CENTERS WITHIN THE
UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT
TO REFLECT FY2011 FORECASTED EXPENDITURES — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C3
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT #06 -3972 WITH TELE-
WORKS, INC., TRANSFERING THE UTILITY BILLING AND
CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT'S EXISTING
INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SOFTWARE SYSTEM TO A
HOSTED ENVIRONMENT, WAIVE THE FORMAL BID
PROCESS, AND A CONTRACT WITH COLLECTOR
SOLUTIONS INC. FOR CREDIT CARD AND AUTOMATED
CLEARING HOUSE PROCESSING TO MEET PAYMENT CARD
INDUSTRY DATA SECURITY STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
FOR AUTOMATED TELEPHONE PAYMENTS
Item #16C4
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT TO
ADMINISTER A PROGRAM TO REFUND UTILITY IMPACT
FEES AND ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY
INVESTED FEES, AS APPLICABLE, FOR PROPERTIES NOT
CONNECTED TO THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
LOCATED IN AREAS WITHIN THE UTILITY'S SERVICE
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXEMPT
Page 278
July 26, 2011
FROM THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH FEES
Item #16C5 — Moved to Item #10K (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C6
RENEWAL OF THE NON - STANDARD SOLE - SOURCE
CONTRACT NO. 10 -5583 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE MORE
YEARS AND ADD THE PURCHASE OF SIEMENS INDUSTRY,
INC., BIOXIDE PLUS 71 FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION'S WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT IN THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $5439895 — 5 YEAR TERM
WILL EXPIRE ON NOVEMBER 27, 2016
Item # 16D 1 — Moved to Item # 101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6D2
RESOLUTION 2011 -119: SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S
APPLICATIONS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR LONG RANGE
BUDGET PLAN REQUESTS FOR INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012 -2013 AND ANY NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — FOR THE WIGGINS PASS INLET
MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH
RENOURISHMENT PROJECT AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS
Item #I 6D3
Page 279
July 26, 2011
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $63,073.20 IN
REVENUE GENERATED AS PROGRAM INCOME WHEN
CONVEYING PROPERTY ACQUIRED THROUGH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (FISCAL
IMPACT $63,073.20) — FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3120
WILSON BLVD.
Item #I 6D4
CATEGORY "A" TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND 183 GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES FOR FY
2011 /12 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,025,000, MAKE A FINDING
THAT THE EXPENDITURE WILL PROMOTE TOURISM, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN NECESSARY
AGREEMENTS FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVAL — FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: BAREFOOT
BEACH #80193, #801905 #801915 #80186, #801925 #80195 AND
#80194; CONNER PARK #80189; NEW CLAM BAY #80187 AND_
SEAGATE BEACH #80188
Item #I 6D5
CATEGORY "A" TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GRANT
APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY- 2011/2012
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,884,950 AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN GRANT AGREEMENTS AFTER
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL — FOR THE PLANNED
PROJECTS: WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM,
EMERGENCY TRUCK HAUL - VISTA'S AT PARK SHORE, FY
11/12 BEACH DESIGN & PERMIT WITH HS SOLUTIONS,
MARCO ISLAND RENOURISH DESIGN & PERMIT WITH BW
July 26, 2011
SOLUTIONS, LASER GRADING AT NORTH MARCO BEACH
AND TIGERTAIL BEACH REFURBISHMENT
Item #16D6 — Continue to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE ANY POTENTIAL ETHICS
CONFLICT FOR A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEMBER
BASED ON CH. 112, FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #I 6D7
BID NO. 11 -5706 TO DEANGELIS DIAMOND, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $422,890 (OMITTING BID ALTERNATE NO. 3)
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THE BLUEBILL
AVE. BEACH ACCESS TURNAROUND PROJECT NO. 80058
AND EXECUTING THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER
COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL
Item #16D8
REJECT THE TEN (10) PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER
INVITATION TO QUALIFY (ITQ) #11 -5681 REHAB OF
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND REISSUE A NEW
SOLICITATION — DUE TO THE OMISSION OF HUD SECTION
3 SELECTION CRITERIA IN THE PROPOSAL
Item # 16D9
Page 281
July 26, 2011
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $50,000 IN
COMPENSATION FOR FY 11 FROM THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND PURSUANT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. (FISCAL
IMPACT $50,000) — FOR BUILDING PERMIT FEES
COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND TO BE USED
FOR THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Item #16D10
SUBMISSION OF THE 2011 -12 STATE OF FLORIDA
CHALLENGE GRANT APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN AUTHORIZATIONS ON
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION BEFORE SUBMISSION.
THE APPLICATION IS FOR $100,000 AND MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN &
FAMILY SERVICES OFFICE ON HOMELESSNESS (DCF) NO
LATER THAN AUGUST 10, 2011. THIS GRANT APPLICATION
HAS NO EFFECT ON AD VALOREM OR GENERAL FUND
DOLLARS — FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS —
HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, ST.
MATTHEW'S HOUSE — CASE MANAGEMENT &
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND SHELTER FOR ABUSED
WOMEN & CHILDREN — CASE MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
Item # 16D 11
A HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE- HOUSING
(HPRP) AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY HUNGER AND
HOMELESS COALITION (HHC) INCORPORATING
Page 282
July 26, 2011
ADDITIONAL AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT
ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO ERNST AND YOUNG'S SINGLE AUDIT
MANAGEMENT LETTER OBSERVATION 2010 -2 —
AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTIONS VII B
"DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDKEEPING" AND SECTION
G "AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS"
Item #I 6D 12
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY
AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT A
DECREASE OF $22,232 IN FUNDING FOR THE FYI 1-12 STATE
GENERAL REVENUE SENIORS PROGRAMS — FOR THE
FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE
ELDERLY, ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE, HOME
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY (CASE MANAGEMENT) AND
HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY (SUBSIDIES)
Item # 16D 13
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
AGREEMENT # l 0DB- D4- 09- 21- 01 -K09 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO REALLOCATE PORTIONS OF THE
FUNDS AMONG AND WITHIN PROJECTS, UPDATE BUDGET
DOCUMENTS, WORK PLANS, NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES,
AND SIGN AN ASSOCIATED SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY — RELATING TO THREE (3) REVISIONS BY DCA
Page 283
July 26, 2011
Item # 16D 14 — Moved to Item # l OH (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D15
ONE (1) MORTGAGE AND NOTE MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION TO
RECONCILE THE TOTAL FUNDS DISBURSED ON
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SECURITY INSTRUMENTS —
LOCATED AT 700 HABITAT CENTER, WITHIN MISSION
VILLAGE, FOLIO #60205225303
Item #16D16
A ONE -TIME PRICE INCREASE REQUESTED BY CARIBBEAN
LAWN & GARDEN BASED ON UNEXPECTED SITE
CONDITIONS AT COUNTY -OWNED NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM PROPERTIES. THIS
MODIFICATION WILL AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR
SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,960 — DUE TO
PROPERTIES BEING SIGNIFICANTLY OVERGROWN,
ADDITIONAL TIME, EQUIPMENT AND LABOR WAS
REOUIRED
Item #16D17
AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAVID
LAWRENCE CENTER, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE
ADULT DRUG COURT DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM,
TO REALLOCATE FUNDS AMONG LINE ITEMS, DECREASE
THE CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT, NEITHER OF WHICH
IMPACT THE TOTAL GRANT AWARD — FOR THREE AREAS
July 26, 2011
OF IMPROVEMENT AND CLARIFICATION: REALLOCATING
TRAVEL FUNDS, SUPPLY FUNDS AND TO CORRECT
CONTRACT SUM AMOUNT
Item #1 6D 18
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
AGREEMENT #08DB- D3- 09- 21- 01 -A03 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY. THIS MODIFICATION WILL EXTEND
THE GRANT PERIOD — ALLOWING THE MODIFICATION TO
BE SIGNED BY DCA AND ALSO INCLUDES THE SELECTION
OF REINSTATEMENT ON THE NOTIFICATION FORM
Item # 16D 19 — Moved to Item # 1 OM (Per Commissioner Fiala
during Meeting)
Item # 16D20 — Moved to Item # l OF (Per Commissioner Henning
during Agenda Changes)
Item # 16E 1
ZERO - DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #04 -3576,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK ANNEX & PARKING
GARAGE, WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONTRACTOR'S FINAL INVOICE
FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX -
PROJECT #52533 AND CLOSE OUT THE CONTRACT; AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS — DUE TO
CORRECTION OF DEFECTS WHICH TOOK LONGER THAN
Page 285
July 26, 2011
EXPECTED
Item #I 6E2
REJECT PROPOSALS FOR RFP NO. 11 -5609 "REAL ESTATE
APPRAISAL SERVICES" — STAFF DETERMINED THERE WAS
NOT SUFFICIENT ACTIVITY IN THE PAST, NOR PROJECTED
ACTIVITY, TO SUPPORT AWARDING CONTRACTS
Item # 16E3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) AND THE INTERNATIONAL CITY
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT
CORPORATION (ICMA -RC) FOR THE LATTER TO CONTINUE
TO PROVIDE 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION SERVICES TO
EMPLOYEES — NEW SERVICE AGREEMENT RENEWED FOR
ANOTHER 5 YEAR PERIOD
Item #16E4
A SOLE SOURCE REPAIR TO THE COUNTY'S THERMAL
STORAGE TANKS MADE BY FAFCO, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $170,406 — FOR REPAIR AND WARRANTY WORK TO THE
ICE TANKS IN THE CHILLER FARM THAT SERVICES THE
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16E5
A CONTRACT WITH ALLEGIANCE, INC. FOR GROUP
HEALTH THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES IN
OEM
July 26, 2011
THE AMOUNT OF $690,976 ANNUALLY — EFFECTIVE
JANUARY I , 2012
Item # 16E6
ONE (1) ADDITION AND DELETIONS TO THE 2011 FISCAL
YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM
APRIL 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 305 2011 — FOR THE
ADDITION OF THE FLORIDA YARD AND NEIGHBORHOOD
OUTREACH COORDINATOR
Item #I 6E7
APPROPRIATING THE REVENUES FOR SPECIAL SERVICES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,173.94 AND $20,351.98 FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF FINGERPRINTING CHARGES TO
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT'S COST CENTERS AND ALL
NECESSARY FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16E8
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A
REQUEST FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
SUBGRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE FLORIDA SLOPE
FIRE — APPLICATION DEADLINE WAS JUNE 30. 2011
Item #I 6E9
Page 287
July 26, 2011
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR
THE PERIOD OF MAY 18, 2011 THROUGH JULY 7, 2011
Item #16F1 - Continue to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
MODIFICATION TO CONTRACT #11-5704 FOR THE PELICAN
BAY COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS TO BATEMAN
CONTRACTING. LLP
Item #I 6F2
THREE FY 11/12 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY
B GRANT AGREEMENTS; TWO WITH CORRIGAN SPORTS
ENTERPRISES, INC. AND ONE WITH NAPLES
INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, INC. TOTALING $40,000 —
ADVANCED PROMOTION FOR EVENTS TO BE HELD IN
NOVEMBER 2011
Item #16173 - Continue to the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AMENDMENT #2 TO THE FRIENDS OF ROOKERY BAY, INC.
FY 11 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX GRANT AGREEMENT
TO CHANGE THE CURRENT FUNDING SOURCE FROM
CATEGORY C -2 TO TOURISM PROMOTION FUND 184 AS A
CATEGORY B MARKETING GRANT
Item # 16F4
July 26, 2011
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES
IN AN AMOUNT TOTALING $25,000 OR LESS — BA #11 -363,
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
HELICOPTER
Item # 16175 — Moved to Item # l OL (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16G 1
HOLE MONTES WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #09-5262 -
AE IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,766.95 FOR ENGINEERING
CONSULTING SERVICES REQUIRED TO DESIGN AND BID
THE AIRFIELD LIGHTING REHABILITATION PROJECT AT
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — FOR RUNWAY
AND TAXIWAY LIGHTING AND TO REPLACE THE
ROTATING BEACON
Item #16G2
RECOGNIZING REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $187,270.83 AND RETURN FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $274,550.99 TO IMMOKALEE
INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 497 BORROWED TO
RECONSTRUCT FACILITIES AT EVERGLADES AIRPARK
DAMAGED BY HURRICANE WILMA — FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE T- HANGER BUILDING AND THE
SHERIFF' S DWELLING & TIKI HUT
Item #16G3
July 26, 2011
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $20,103.85
REMAINING IN THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK DWELLING
PROJECT TO RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO BE USED
AS MATCH FUNDS FOR FUTURE GRANTS — FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16G4
THE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO LEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC
SERVICE TO THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT USDA BUILDING
LOCATED AT 190 AIRPARK BOULEVARD, IMMOKALEE AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27 — FOLIO #00115400003
Item #16G5
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND SERENITY CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, CORP. RELATING TO THE HARVESTING OF
PALMETTO BERRIES AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT — BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 AND
TERMINATING ON NOVEMBER 1 2011
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED A LUNCH
MEETING AT ARTHREX, NAPLES, FL ON JUNE 3, 2011. $10
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Page 290
July 26, 2011
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED CBIA JUNE
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING AT CBIA, NAPLES, FL.
$16 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — LOCATED AT 3200 BAILEY LANE, NAPLES
Item #161-13
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE BEAUTIFUL MARCO
CELEBRATION DINNER ON JUNE 27, 2011 AT THE MARCO
MARRIOTT ON MARCO ISLAND, FL. $47 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT
400 S. COLLIER BLVD.
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED — NOTHING SUBMITTED FROM
ADVISORY BOARDS
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 11, 2011
THROUGH JUNE 175 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #102
Page 291
July 26, 2011
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 185 2011
THROUGH JUNE 24, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 25, 2011
THROUGH JULY 15 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 212011
THROUGH JULY 8, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY % 2011
THROUGH JULY 155 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 611 E -911 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $20000 FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES FOR
BASE TELEPHONE COSTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE — BA #11 -353 ASSOCIATED WITH
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Item #16J7
Page 292
July 26, 2011
CARRY FORWARD FROM FUND 602, CONFISCATED TRUST
FUNDS, AND THE EXPENDITURE OF $14600 IN
CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS AS REQUIRED GRANT
MATCH FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE
COMMUNICATIONS (PSIC) GRANT, AND TRANSFER SAID
FUNDS TO THE SHERIFF'S GRANT FUND 115
Item # 16J8
REVENUE FROM CIRCUIT CRIMINAL FINES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $34,166.55, THE USE OF $259000 OF THOSE
CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR SUPPORT OF COLLIER
211 CAMPAIGN, AND PLACE THE BALANCE OF $911166.55 IN
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES — THE NEW "COLLIER 211
INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICE" WILL HELP TO
ELIMINATE CONFUSION ON WHO TO CALL, REDUCING
INAPPROPRIATE CALLS TO 911, PROVIDING HELP TO NON -
ENGLISH SPEAKING CITIZENS AND YIELDING EXTENSIVE
INFORMATION AND STATISTICS FOR COMMUNITY
PLANNING
Item #I 6J9
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(B) THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE
AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION SURCHARGES
COLLECTED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(A)(1)
WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16J10
Page 293
July 26, 2011
CAPITAL ASSET DISPOSITION RECORDS FOR TIME PERIOD
OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2011
Item # 16J 11
INVESTMENT STATUS UPDATE REPORT FOR THE
QUARTER ENDING JUNE 3012011 — PROVIDED BY THE
CLERK OF COURTS
Item #16J12
RESOLUTION 2011 -120: CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES AND
NUMERIC DESIGNATIONS OF CERTAIN PRECINCTS DUE TO
CONSOLIDATION WITH ADJACENT PRECINCTS — AS A
RESULT OF THE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS
Item #16K1
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BUSINESS
OWNER, EAST COAST WAFFLES, INC., AND A STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AWARDING BUSINESS
DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $309000 FOR PARCELS
110FEE AND 110TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. A. L. SUBS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 09- 3691 -CA
(COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT #60092). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$57,325) - RELATING TO PROPERTY OFF OF BECK BLVD
Item #I 6K2
Page 294
July 26, 2011
DIRECTING THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH FACILITIES
AUTHORITY TO DISBURSE GRANT FUNDS TO CERTAIN
NONPROFIT HEALTH SERVICE AGENCIES — ASSISTING CHS
HEALTHCARE, PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK OF
COLLIER COUNTY, SENIOR FRIENDSHIP CENTERS'
FRIENDSHIP HEALTH CLINIC COLLIER AND DAVID
LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2011 -121: PETITION VAC- PL2011 -905,
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 30 -FOOT
WIDE EASEMENT AS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 457, PAGE 361 IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THE SUBJECT EASEMENT TO BE VACATED IS
MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT "A" - ASSOCIATED WITH VITA TUSCANA OFF OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2011 -122: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER -SEWER DISTRICT'S UTILITIES STANDARDS
MANUAL — REVISIONS TO SECTION A, DESIGN CRITERIA
RELATING TO FIRE SERVICE SYSTEMS
Item #17C
Page 295
July 26, 2011
RESOLUTION 2011 -123 /DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2011 -02:
PETITION DOA- PL2010 -274, HERITAGE BAY DRI --
AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 03 -01, HERITAGE BAY,
A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PROVIDING FOR
SECTION ONE: ADDITION OF BUILDOUT DATE AND
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATE; SECTION TWO:
FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW; SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 13, 14123 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17D — Moved to Item #8E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 296
July 26, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:52 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT: ,�,B OCK, CLERK
These AMU an ' "roved by the Board on S �szf 13
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 297
20(1