BCC Minutes 09/13-14/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
September 13 - 14, 2011
September 13-14,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 13, 2011
(Day 1)
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
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
September 13,2011
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 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
Page 1
September 13, 2011
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
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. Trista Sue Kragh - Naples Embassy
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. July 26, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
September 13, 2011
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating September 12 through September 16, 2011 as
Industry Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Beth Sterchi and Katie
Betz. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation recognizing The United Way of Collier County for their
outstanding contributions to the community and to wish them yet another
year of great success as they kick off their 2011/2012 season. To be
accepted by Ernie Bretzmann, United Way staff, and United Way Board of
Directors. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
C. Proclamation designating September 13, 2011 as Cody Anderson Day. To
be accepted by Cody Anderson. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant,
Public Utilities Operations Department, as the Employee of the Month for
July 2011.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Allan G. Reeves regarding the requirement of
permits for the replacement of electric water heaters located in multi-family
dwellings.
B. Public Petition request from Keith Roman seeking Board approval for a
repayment settlement of $2,000 for a State Housing Initiative Partnership
(S.H.I.P.) loan of$24,272.50, for his home at 7797 Esmeralda Way, Unit
201, Naples.
C. Public Petition request from David Delaney, requesting a "variance" from
the Board of County Commissioners, to keep six adult dogs at his residence
at 168 Skipping Stone Lane; thereby exceeding the limit of three adult dogs
as permitted in the Land Development Code. Case was heard by the Collier
Page 3
September 13,2011
County Special Magistrate on February 4, 2011.
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 has been continued to the September 27. 2011 meetin2. DR!-
2006-AR-I0147: Hacienda Lakes DR! -- A Resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approving a Development
Order for Hacienda Lakes, a Development of Regional Impact located in
Sections 11 through 14 and 23 through 25, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida which will allow up to 1,760 residential dwelling units
including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior housing for
independent living, assisted living and nursing care, 327,500 square feet of
retail use, 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office including a
conversion of retail use to professional and medical office, a 135-room hotel
including a conversion to business park, 140,000 square feet of business
park or educational facility, a public school, and continuation of existing
"Junior Deputy" passive recreation and existing "swamp buggy" attraction;
providing for Findings of Fact; providing for Conclusions of Law; and
providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions PUDZ-2006-AR-I0146
and CP-2006-11) (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner)
B. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
members. PUDZ- PL2009-1 0 17: Estates Shopping Center CPUD -- An
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the 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 an Estates (E)
zoning district with a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment
Overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district
with a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay for the
project to be known as the Estates Shopping Center CPUD to allow up to
Page 4
September 13, 2011
170,000 square feet of commercial development on property located in the
northwest corner of the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard
intersection in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 41::f: acres; and providing an effective date
(Companion to Petition CP-2008-01).
C. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
members. Recommendation to approve the 2010 Cycle of Growth
Management Plan Amendments, including one 2008 Cycle Petition.
(Adoption Hearing)
D. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. This item reQuires that ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to
Consider and Adopt a Resolution Establishing New County Commission
District Boundaries, Pursuant to Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, and the
Florida Constitution.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Airport Authority Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Value Adjustment Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Water and Wastewater Authority.
F. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
G. Request for reconsideration of Item #16D4 from the July 26,2011 BCC
Meeting titled "Recommendation to approve the Category "A" Tourist
Development Fund 183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities for
FY2011112 in the amount of$I,025,000, make a finding that the expenditure
will promote tourism, and authorize the Chairman to sign necessary
Page 5
September 13, 2011
agreements following County Attorney approval. (Commissioner Hiller)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Recommendation to review and
approve the Parks and Recreation Master Plan prepared by Tindale-Oliver
and Associates, Inc. with the addition of citizen input meetings held April 6
and 7, 2011. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator)
B. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution renaming the Gulf Coast Park, 5611
Warren Street, "Cindy Mysels Park." The renaming is sponsored by Mr.
Anthony P. Feola, Vice President of the Gulf Coast Little League and
supported by 1,288 residents of Collier County. (Mike Sheffield, Business
Operations Manager, County Manager's Office)
C. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Provide a staff response to the question
of using fluoride in the public potable water supply distributed by the Public
Utilities Division's Water Department, as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners during its June 14,2011 meeting. (George Yilmaz, Public
Utilities Administrator and Dr. Joan Colfer, Collier County Health
Department Director)
D. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,497,195.48 for the "North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Main
Electrical Switchgear Replacement" to E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc., Bid
Number 11-5747, Project Number 70069, and authorize a budget
amendment in the amount of $247,695.48 to Project Number 70069. (Tom
Chmelik, Public Utilities Engineering Director)
E. Recommendation to award Contract #10-5447 in the amount of$574,996 for
Phase One and Phase Two, and $774,240 for Phase Three to EMA of
Minnesota, Inc., with authorization to issue a purchase order for Phases One
and Two for $574,996, in support of "Public Utilities Asset Management,"
Projects #71012 and #73165 . (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator)
F. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to submit an appeal in
Page 6
September 13, 2011
response to a request from the Florida Department of Education, Food and
Nutrition Management Section (FNMS) to reclaim 25,652 meals for
program year 2009 and 31,582 meals for program year 2010 associated with
the Summer Food Program. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Cottesmore with the
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and
authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Saturnia Falls - Phase One,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Page 7
September 13, 2011
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Caldecott with the
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and
authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Verona Pointe with the
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and
authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
5) This is a recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and
Release relative to the subdivision improvements associated with the
final plats of Sapphire Lakes Units 4A, 4B and 4C.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Seacrest Upper School Campus, 7100 Davis
Boulevard, 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 final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Naples Dodge/Mazda Storage Lot, 2451 J & C Blvd, 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.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Meridian Market Place, 3355 Meridian Place, 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.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for American Momentum Center, 8625 Tamiami Trail North,
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.
Page 8
September 13, 2011
10) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Robert Custer, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No.
CEPM-2009-0001763, relating to property located at 29 Covey Lane,
Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve the award of Contract #11-5639 in the
amount of $450,000 and authorize the Chairman to execute an
agreement with TY Lin International, for "Design & Related Services
for the Replacement ofCR29 Bridge (#030161) over Chokoloskee
Bay" for Project No. 66066.
12) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.3 to Contract #09-
5278 in the amount of$210,645 with Stanley Consultants, Inc., for
Design & Related Services for the Intersection Capacity
Improvements to the US 41 and SR/CR 951 Intersection and
Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation roadway improvements to
SR 951; Project #60116.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Release of Lien for the Tuscan
Isle Apartments (formerly Saddlebrook Village Phase II) due to the
impact fees being paid in full in accordance with the Agreement for
100% Deferral of Collier County Impact Fees for Multi-Family
Affordable Housing, as set forth by Section 74-401 (e) and 74-40 1 (g)
(5) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the
executed Settlement Agreement between Creative Choice Homes,
XIV, Ltd. and Collier County.
14) PMC-PL20 11-872: Heavenly PUD - Notification of staffs intent to
approve a minor amendment to the Heavenly Planned Unit
Development in accordance with LDC Sections 10.02.13.E.6 and 8 to
change the location and type of plantings and to revise the buffer
standards to reduce the height of trees and plantings due to site
conditions and conflicts with FPL lines, and to allow payment in lieu
of sidewalks instead of construction of a sidewalk along Myrtle Road
from North Trail Boulevard to the project entrance. The subject
property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire
Page 9
September 13, 2011
block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail
Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier
County, Florida.
15) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5737 for "Forest Lakes MSTU
Sidewalks, Lighting & Planting - Phase I & IA" Project to 3-Rs
Equipment (d/b/a Richards Company) in the amount of $841 ,492.40
16) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal
of a State of Good Repair (SGR) Bus and Bus Facilities grant
application, for the amount of$II,335,290, to the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) for construction of improvements at the Collier
Area Transit (CAT) Administration and Maintenance Facility at 8300
Radio Road.
17) Recommendation for Board approval of Hole Montes, Inc., as the
design professional short-list for RFP #11-5724 and to enter into
negotiations between Collier County and Hole Montes Inc. for
"Construction Engineer, Landscape Inspection and Site Restoration
Services for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU: FPL Underground Conversion
Project - Phase 1,2,3" pursuant to RFP #11-5724.
18) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, establishing a speed limit of thirty-five miles per hour (35
mph) for the currently non-posted speed limit section of roadway of
Bailey Lane from Coco Lakes Drive east to Airport-Pulling Road at a
cost of approximately $400.
19) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, authorizing a speed limit decrease from fifty-five miles per
hour (55 mph) to fifty miles per hour (50 mph) on Collier Boulevard
from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard at a cost of
approximately $500.
20) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Page 10
September 13, 2011
Florida, authorizing a speed limit increase from forty-five miles per
hour (45 mph) to fifty miles per hour (50 mph) on Pine Ridge Road
from Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard at a cost of approximately
$600.
21) This is a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Quarry Phase 3, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
22) Recommendation to terminate the award of Bid #10-5528 "Bus
Shelter Installation" to AC Signs LLC, at the request of the contractor;
to award Bid #10-5528 to the second lowest bidder, Wm. J. Varian
Construction Company, Inc.; and to authorize the Chairman to
execute the attached contract.
23) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal
of Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant in the
amount of $35,000, to the Florida Commission for Transportation
Disadvantaged for the installation of security cameras on-board the
paratransit vehicles and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign
the grant and all applicable documents.
24) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #11-5621 for
Design Services for improvements at the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Administration and Operations Facility at 8300 Radio Road, to Atkins
North America, Inc., and to authorize the Chairman to execute the
attached contract in the amount of $502,451.20.
25) Recommendation to advertise an amendment to Collier County
Ordinance No. 2009-44, the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara
Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MS TU) Ordinance, to remove the sunset provision of six years and
provide that the MSTU be dissolved upon recommendation by the
MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 11
September 13, 2011
26) Recommendation for the Board to approve termination of the
Subrecipient Agreement for a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), between The Growth Management Transportation
Engineering Department and the Housing, Human and Veteran
Services (HHVS) Department for the Naples Manor Sidewalk
Installation Project.
27) Recommendation to approve Change Order #1 for the Work Order
with Bonness, Inc. for the Construction of the Progress Avenue at
Livingston Road Intersection Improvements, Project No. 60188-2, in
the amount of $40,906.26.
28) Request to authorize the Chairman to sign 30 day notification form
letters to utility companies requesting relocation of facilities located in
the County's Right-of-Way.
29) Recommendation to approve modifications to two Local Agency
Program (LAP) funded contracts: 1) #11-5679 Intersection
Improvements Lake Trafford Road and SR 29 and 2) #11-5674
Boston Avenue Sidewalk Improvements in order to fulfill the
requirements of the granting agency. (Fiscal Impact: $0)
30) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
recognize FY 2011 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 grant
revenues in the amount of $2,504,638 for Collier Area Transit,
recognize auction proceeds from the sale of rolling stock in the
amount of$7,760 and approve the necessary budget amendment.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs Zero Dollar Time
Extension to Contract No. 09-5333 for Professional Consulting
Services in order to process the Consultant's final invoice for work
completed on the Bayshore/Gateway Overlay Land Development
Code Regulations with RW A, Inc., and to close out the Contract; and
authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign the necessary
documents.
Page 12
September 13, 2011
2) This item was continued from the Mav 10. 2011 BCC meetint!.
Recommendation to approve a Resolution to petition Governor Scott
to extend the "Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern" designation
awarded to Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development
Initiative, Inc. for another 5-years and to keep the Community of
Immokalee within the South Central Rural Area of Critical Economic
Concern designation.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments in the amount of
$671,077 to transfer various projects between the water and
wastewater capital funds in order to spend down and close out the
2006 Revenue Bond Proceeds Fund.
2) Recommendation to approve the purchase and installation of two
clarifier mechanisms from Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of
$220,800 for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
Technical Support Project, Project Number 73968; and approve a
budget amendment in the amount of$220,800 from Project Number
70050 Master Pump Station Technical Support to Project Number
73968.
3) Recommendation to award Bid Number 11-5668R, Collection and
Recycling of Latex Paint, to Scott Paint Company, Inc., as primary
vendor, and to E.Q. Florida, Inc., as secondary vendor. Expenditures
are estimated to be $54,000 annually.
4) Recommendation to approve and ratify staffs extension of Work
Order No. 4500106888 with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., to
process the consultant's final invoice of$2,542.68 for work completed
on the Roost Road Water Main Interconnect.
5) Recommendation to approve Contract #11-5720, South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Deep Injection Well IW-2 Tubing
Replacement, Project #70088, in the amount of $720,300 to
Youngquist Brothers, Inc.; and authorize a budget amendment in the
Page 13
September 13, 2011
amount of $720,300, for Project #70088.
6) Recommendation to award Bid Number 11-5678, "Palm Springs
Water Distribution System Replacement," in the amount of$794,538
to Southwest Utility, including the base bid of $689,675 to rehabilitate
the potable water distribution system, and the bid alternate of
$104,863 for stormwater management improvements serving the Palm
Springs Subdivision, Project No. 71010 (base bid) and Project No.
60113 (bid alternate).
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution revising the procedure by
which Collier County Water-Sewer District customers receive credit
adjustments for cooling tower water evaporation, superseding and
replacing the current procedure established by Resolution No. 2002-
365.
8) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of$343,620
to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for the Sub Master Pump Station 312.41
Rehabilitation, Project Number 70046, under Contract #08-5011,
Fixed- Term Underground Utilities Contract.
9) Recommendation to approve the purchase and installation of two
motorized strainers and return activated sludge and waste activated
sludge pumps from Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., in
the amount of $267,720 and $245,728 respectively for the North
County Water Reclamation Facility Technical Support Project
Number 73968; and, approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$513,448 from Project Number 70050, Master Pump Station
Technical Support, to Project Number 73968.
10) Recommendation to approve a Utility Easement from the School
District of Collier County to the Collier County Water-Sewer District
for Irrigation Quality (IQ) Water pipeline and associated infrastructure
including telemetry antennae, electrical panel, meter assembly,
electrical conduit, and for access on, over and across a portion of the
Vineyards Elementary School property located within Vineyards
Elementary School off Vanderbilt Beach Road in Naples, Florida at
Page 14
September 13, 2011
an estimated cost not to exceed $30, Project Number 70062.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with The District School
Board of Collier County, Florida, and accept a Right of Entry for a
groundwater monitor well and environmental monitoring purposes, in
an amount not to exceed $27.
12) Recommendation to approve a requisite Memorandum of Agreement
with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida
Department of Financial Services, Division of Treasury, to establish
an interest bearing escrow account for the funds required to relocate
Collier County Water-Sewer District-owned underground utility lines
to accommodate the widening of State Road 84 between Santa
Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road.
13) Recommendation to approve staffs proposed Deduct Change Order
No.2, to Contract No. 10-5441 with Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for the
Isles of Capri Water Main Replacement Phase 1 Project.
14) Recommendation to approve budget amendments of $1 08,300 and
$1,100 for Fund 408 (Collier County Water Sewer District) and Fund
441 (Goodland Water District) respectively, to reallocate budgeted
operating expenses within the funds for reimbursement to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency/State of Florida for Tropical Storm
Fay expenses also paid by insurance.
15) Recommendation to approve a Utility and Access Easement from
Collier County to the Collier County Water-Sewer District to improve
current access and to install a water line for fire protection for Master
Pumping Station 312 for a total cost not to exceed $27, Project
Number 72549.1.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize reimbursement to the grantor agency,
Corporation for National & Community Service, for an unauthorized
$300 expenditure for musical entertainment at the RSVP recognition
Page 15
September 13, 2011
event.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.6 to the FDEP Cost
Share Contract No. 05CO 1 yearly monitoring cost reimbursement of
the Collier County Beach Renourishment and authorize the Chairman
to sign Amendment No.6. This Contract Amendment will result in a
$300,075 reduction in contract value from the State close out of
completed contract work.
3) Recommendation to approve and ratify staffs Zero Dollar Time
Extension Change Order for Professional Engineering Services with
Atkins (previously known as PBS&J) to Work Order No. 4500100227
in order to process final invoice for work completed for "Clam
Pass/Bay Estuary".
4) Recommendation to Reject Solicitation (ITB) #11-5723, and the
associated proposal that was submitted and authorized by the
Purchasing Department for the Golden Gate Canal new pathway.
5) Recommendation to waive boarding fees in the amount of $16,400
associated with the kenneling of two declared dangerous dogs, in
exchange for dismissal of a pending dangerous dog appeal, and in
order for the dogs to be reunited with their owners, who currently live
out -of-county.
6) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$100,000 for pool tank repair at North Collier Regional Park Sun N
Fun Lagoon.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Trademark License Agreement with the National Down Syndrome
Society (NDSS) for the Second Annual Buddy Walk at North Collier
Regional Park on October 22, 2011.
8) This item was continued from the July 26. 2011 BCC Meetin2.
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,
Page 16
September 13, 2011
Florida Statutes.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance regulating the public's use of "preserve
lands" managed by Conservation Collier and the Collier County Parks
and Recreation Department.
2) Recommendation to award ITB #11-5696, "Paint and Related Items,"
to Sherwin-Williams for an estimated annual amount of $65,000.
3) Recommendation to award ITB #11-5715, "Plumbing Parts and
Supplies," to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., as the primary, Plumbmaster,
Inc., as the secondary, and First Class Plumbing of Florida, Inc., as the
tertiary for an estimated annual amount of $185,000.
4) Recommendation to waive the formal competitive process in the best
interest of the County and approve a negotiated contract with Robert
Flinn Records Management Center (approximate annual spend:
$48,000).
5) Recommendation to approve the proposals received for the Letter of
Interest (LOI) #11-5731 Food Service for Collier County from
Russell's Clambakes, Jason's Deli, Subway Candito Management and
Country Caterers BBQ Inc, for events that are related to emergencies
and disasters.
6) Recommendation that the Board terminate Contract #08-5034 Tee
Shirts with North Coast Imagewear, Inc. (approximate annual spend
$40,000).
7) Recommendation to award Bid No. 11-5699, Part A, Medical Director
to Dr. Gregory E. Leach MD, and Part B, Employment Physicals &
Drug Testing to Advanced Medical Center, LLC. (Estimated annual
fiscal impact $50,000)
Page 17
September 13, 2011
8) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11-5721 to
Scripps Media dba Naples Daily News as the news media source to
advertise delinquent real estate or property taxes (estimated annual
advertising cost: $90,000).
9) Recommendation to approve the assumption of Contract from Gruelle
Construction, Inc. to Honc Marine Services, Inc. d/b/a Honc
Destruction for Demolition of Commercial and Residential Structures.
10) Recommendation to rename the Conservation Collier Limpkin Marsh
Preserve to the Redroot Preserve.
11) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
as the Board of County Commissioner's agent, to apply for Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Antlerless Deer Permits
to facilitate Pepper Ranch Preserve Hunt Program events.
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign, an
InterlocaI Agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and an InterlocaI Agreement with Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust in order to facilitate
managed public hunting at Caracara Prairie Preserve.
13) Recommendation to establish standards and criteria for the use of Peer
Reviews of designs for major capital projects.
14) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate special service
revenues in the amount of $53, 188 and approve all necessary Fiscal
Year 2011 budget amendments.
15) Recommendation to approve the artist's renderings to be used in the
construction ofa bronze bust of former County Manager James V.
Mudd donated by Abbas Asli (landlord of the former Property
Appraiser's office building) for placement in the James V. Mudd
Emergency Services Center.
Page 18
September 13, 2011
16) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
17) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Automobile, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the
Third Quarter of FY 11.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda
Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled
recess. (In Absentia Meeting dated August 9,2011)
2) This item was continued from the July 26. 2011 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Amendment #2 to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc., FYIl Tourist
Tax Development Tax Grant Agreement to extend the agreement until
January 3 1, 2012, change the current funding source from Category
C-2 to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 as a Category B marketing grant,
clarify reimbursement requirements in the agreement, and waive the
$25,000 funding limit and 80% second request guidelines in the
Category B grant application for FY 11 and FYI2.
3) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for the funding of Medical/Rescue Equipment and Supplies in the
amount of$38,919 and to approve a Budget Amendment.
4) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and First Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. in
support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and
manmade hazards emergency response.
5) Recommendation to accept report to the Board of County
Commissioners covering Budget Amendments from reserves in the
amount less than $25,000.
Page 19
September 13, 2011
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for the contribution
of$53,447 to the Pelican Bay Irrigation and Landscaping Fund (322),
Program (#50066) Pelican Bay Hardscape to pay for the construction
of a crosswalk.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Amendments to FY 11 Tourist Development Tax Category Band C-2
Grant Agreements to clarify reimbursement requirements.
8) Recommendation to approve and ratify the Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the Professional Firefighters of the Everglades
International Association of Firefighters, Local #3670.
9) 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, acting as
the Airport Authority, adopt and authorize the Authority's Executive
Director to execute and promulgate the attached Leasing Manual for
Aircraft Storage Space at the Marco Island Executive Airport,
Immokalee Regional Airport, and Everglades Airpark.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Airport Manager(s)
to execute the attached standard self-fueling permit for the Marco
Island Executive Airport, Immokalee Regional Airport and
Everglades Airpark.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, amend the 2011 rates and charges for the
Everglades Airpark, Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island
Executive Airport to add a $1,000 non-refundable fee for the
Authority to start processing a self-fueling permit application.
Page 20
September 13, 2011
4) Recommendation to approve the two (2) attached Sub-Lease
Agreements between the Collier County Airport Authority and
Gregory Shepard for parcels of land improved with buildings at the
Immokalee Regional Airport.
5) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of a Utility Easement to
Immokalee Water & Sewer District for providing water service to the
Immokalee Airport USDA Building located at 190 Airpark
Boulevard, Immokalee at a cost not to exceed $18.50.
6) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of an Underground
Easement (Business) to Florida Power & Light Company for
providing electrical service at the Marco Island Airport located at
2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida at a cost not to exceed $35.50.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Economic Development Council 2011 Excellence in
Industry Awards Luncheon on September 15, 2011 at the Hilton
Naples in Naples, FL. $15 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
2) Appointment of members to the Southwest Florida Workforce
Development Board, Inc.
3) To authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign a letter of concurrency for the Florida Department of Children
and Families for the State of Florida Refugee Services Targeted
Assistance Grant Program and the utilization of these funds in Collier
County through the Catholic Charities.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
Page 21
September 13, 2011
2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 21,
2011 and July 22, 2011 and for submission into the Official Records
of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 23,
2011 through July 29,2011 and for submission into the Official
Records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 30,
2011 through August 5, 2011 and for submission into the Official
Records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
6, 2011 through August 12, 2011 and for submission into the Official
Records of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
13, 2011 through August 19, 2011 and for submission into the Official
Records of the Board.
6) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
20, 2011 through August 26, 2011 and for submission into the Official
Records of the Board.
7) Recommendation to authorize the Collier County Supervisor of
Elections to accept federal election activities funds in the amount of
$32,213.21 with a 15% matching contribution in the amount of
$4,831.98 and that the Board direct its Chairman to sign the
Certificate Regarding Matching Funds.
8) Recommendation to approve an InterlocaI Agreement for Election
Services pertaining to services and voting equipment used by the City
of Everglades City in connection with an election to be held on
Page 22
September 13, 2011
November 22,2011.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
lawsuit styled Berkshire Lakes Master Association, Inc. v. Wilson
Miller, et al., Case No. IO-1270-CA (Fiscal Impact: None).
2) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration ordinances which repeal or amend certain Collier
County ordinances relating to the regulation of firearms and
ammunition in order to comply with recent amendments to Section
790.33, Florida Statutes, which preempts all such regulatory powers to
the State of Florida effective October 1, 2011, and that following such
future public hearing the Board considers referring two Special Acts
dealing with firearms to the Legislative Delegation, with a request that
the Legislature review them for possible repeal.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Retention Agreement for legal services on an "as needed" basis with
the law firm of Hopping, Green & Sams, P .A.
4) Recommendation to approve a settlement in the lawsuit entitled
Jennifer Ressel, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Joshua Friedman, a
Minor v. Collier County, A Political Subdivision of the State of
Florida, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, for the sum of$8,000 and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Settlement Agreement.
5) Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit
Declarations of Continued Use to maintain service mark registrations
with the United States Patent & Trademark Office to preserve the
County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans.
6) Recommendation that the Board consider the withdrawal of the
designation of the Stewardship Sending Area known as Half Circle L
Ranch Partnership ("HCLRP") SSA #8 and the termination of the
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement and the Stewardship
Page 23
September 13, 2011
Easement Agreement, and the canceling of the Stewardship credits
generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending Area.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALl.. PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearine be held on this item. all participants are
reQuired to be sworn in. CU-PL2010-166: YahI Mulching & Recycling,
Inc. - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a
collection and transfer site for resource recovery within an Agricultural (A)
zoning district pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.C.12 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for property located in Section 31,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment
rolls as the final assessment rolls, and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal
Service Benefit Units, Service District Number I and Service District
Number II, Special Assessment levied against certain residential properties
within the unincorporated area of Collier County, the City of Marco Island,
and the City of Everglades City, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 2005-
54, as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $18,527,700. For FY2012,
the total special assessment proposed for Solid Waste Municipal Service
Benefit Units, Service District I is $173.49 and Service District II is $165.28
Page 24
September 13, 2011
per residential unit. These assessment amounts are the same as those
approved by the Board in FY20Il.
C. Recommendation to approve a resolution designating the Close-Out of nine
(9) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which have fully completed
all or an independent portion of development pursuant to their development
orders constructing up to the authorized density and/or intensity and have
been found by county staff to be compliant with their specific developer
commitments.
D. Recommendation to approve a resolution designating the Close-Out of five
(5) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which have fully completed
all or an independent portion of their developments pursuant to their
development orders constructed up to the authorized density and/or intensity
and have been found by county staff to have only one transportation
commitment remaining which will be tracked through the Commitment
Tracking System.
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 25
September 13, 2011
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. Will you please join
us for the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
The invocation will be delivered by Trista Sue Kragh.
MS. KRAGH: Good morning. Let us bow our heads in prayer.
Father, we come to you today . We honor you, we love you. We
thank you, Father, for your peace that is here today, and that every
issue that is being addressed will be issued and dealt with in a fair and
honest way.
And I thank you, Father, for your peace here and healing, Lord,
also.
We thank you Father, Lord, for all the commissioners here, their
gifts that they serve their community and the citizens, Lord, as they
honor you and uphold the law. We thank you, Father, for your
kingdom come in our lives and in our community, and in the County
of Collier County. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, you have some
changes to the agenda today?
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR.OCHS: We do indeed, Mr. Chairman, good morning. Good
morning, Commissioners.
These are agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners
meeting, September 13th, 2011.
Page 2
September 13-14,2011
First item is to continue Item 6.A.3 to the September 27th, 2011
Board of County Commissioners meeting. It's a grant of a final
approval of roadway and drainage improvements. This is due to a
staff request to correct the calculation error in the performance
security .
Next item is to move Item 16.A.14 to your regular agenda,
becoming Item 10.J. It's a notification of staffs intent to improve a
minor amendment to the Heavenly planned unit development. Next
item is to move Item 16.A -- excuse me, that move was at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next item is to move Item 16.A.16 to the regular agenda,
becoming Item 10.K. It's a recommendation to provide after-the-fact
approval of a grant application for construction of improvements to
the Collier Area Transit Facility at 8300 Radio Road. That item is
moved at Commission Hiller's request.
Next item is to move Item 16.A.19 to your regular agenda,
becoming Item 10.H. It's a recommendation to accept a speed limit
study report for Collier Boulevard, from Green Boulevard to Golden
Gate Boulevard. And that item is pulled at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
Next item is to withdraw Item 16.A.25. It's a recommendation to
advertise an amendment to the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara
Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit Ordinance. Now, that item
will come back later in the year in coordination with a potential
referendum for that MSTU.
Next item is to move Item 16.B.2 to your regular agenda under
CRAs to become Item 13.A. This is a recommendation to approve a
resolution to petition Governor Scott to extend the rural area of critical
economic concern in Immokalee. That item was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to withdraw Item 16.C.12. It's a recommendation
to approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Departmentm
Page 3
September 13-14,2011
of Transportation and the Florida Department of Financial Services.
That item is pulled at County Attorney's request and staffs request to
work out some details with the Finance Department.
Next change is to move Item 16.D.5 to the regular agenda,
becoming Item 10.1. It's a recommendation to waive boarding fees in
a settlement agreement. And this item is moved at Commissioner
Coletta's request to the regular agenda.
The next item is to move Item 16.D.8 to the regular agenda,
becoming Item 10.G. It's a request that the Board of County
Commissioners review and approve the County Attorney's
recommendation to waive any potential ethics conflicts for a Code
Enforcement Board member. That item is moved at Commissioner
Coyle's request.
Next item is to continue Item 16.E.13 to the September 27, 2011
meeting. That is done at staffs request, pursuant to discussion with
Commissioner Hiller.
Next change is to move Item 16.H.3 to become Item 10.H on
your regular agenda. And that is a -- to authorize the Chairman to sign
a letter of concurrency for the Florida Department of Children and
Families for State of Florida refugee services. That item is moved at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change is to move Item 16.K.2 from the County Attorney's
consent agenda to become Item II.A. It's a request for authorization
to advertise and bring back for future consideration ordinances which
repeal and amend certain Collier County ordinances relating to the
regulation of firearms and ammunition. That item is moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to continue Item 16.K.6 to the October 11, 2011
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board consider
withdrawal of the designation of the stewardship sending area known
as Half Circle L Ranch. That's moved at -- excuse me, continued at
County Attorney's request to allow for public advertising.
Page 4
September 13-14,2011
Then we have a few agenda notes this morning. One that's not on
your change sheet, Commissioners, is to note that Item 8.D, having to
do with redistricting on your agenda, is listed as requiring ex parte
disclosure, and it does not require ex parte disclosure. And I'll remind
the Chair when we get there.
Next note is Item 8.C, also does not require that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members, as stated in the
agenda title. And a further reminder that Items 8.B and Care
companion items; therefore, Item 8.C will be heard first, followed
immediately by Item 8.B.
Next note is Item 16.A.20. It's a recommendation portion of the
executive summary, should read as follows: That the Board of County
Commissioners accept the traffic speed limit study and adopt the
resolution increasing, rather than decreasing, the speed limit on the
designated section of Pine Ridge Road.
That change is made at Commissioner Fiala's request. Thank
,
you, ma am.
Next note is Item 16.A.21 does require that ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and should a hearing be held on
this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
And finally, Commissioners, a reminder we have three time
certain items on your agenda today. The first one is Item 8.D
regarding redistricting will be heard at 10:45 a.m. Second is Item
10.C regarding fluoride in the public water supply will be heard at
4:00 p.m. And finally, Item 10.A, a brief presentation of the results of
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is scheduled to be heard at 5:00
p.m.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Manager.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
Page 5
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll go to Commissioners. We'll start
with Commissioner Henning this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no
changes to today's agenda. I do have ex parte communication on
summary agenda A, reviewed the Planning Commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, good morning, sir. I have
no changes to the agenda. Of course 16.A.2 is moved to 13.A, so I'll
make my declaration at that time.
8.21, no disclosures. 17.A, I have meetings, correspondence,
e-mails, and calls and staff report. That's all within my folder. Thank
.
you, sIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And I have no additional changes to the agenda, and I have no ex
parte disclosure for the consent agenda.
F or the summary agenda, 1 7.A, I have the staff report of the
Collier County Planning Commission, and I have reviewed that report.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First I wanted to mention that
--look at Norman's already getting up. Bless your heart. I couldn't
find the item number, Norman, but there was an item that I was just
concerned with, and that was the sidewalks in Naples Manor. And I
wanted to make sure that as we change the funding source we would
not lose those sidewalks. I was going to pull it and put it on the
regular agenda.
But Norman and I talked, and he assured me that the sidewalks
will still go in as planned, and we had a hearty talk about it. I believe
him, and so I'm going to leave it where it is, that's one less thing to
discover on the regular agenda.
As far as consent agenda goes, 8.2 I believe has been moved, but
I had no disclosure for it anyway.
Page 6
September 13-14,2011
8.21, no disclosures. And on the summary agenda, 17.A, I had
e-mails and phone calls.
Thank you. And nothing else to change on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to pull 16.D.3 from
consent and place it on the general agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where will that go, County Manager
Ochs?
MR.OCHS: 16.D.3, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Is that going to be 9.I?
MR.OCHS: That will become 10.L on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10.L.
So 16.3.D -- 16.D.3 becomes --
MR.OCHS: 10.L.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: L, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Also, which is the agenda item that
addresses the wellfields?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's on the Growth Management
Plan amendment.
MR. OCHS: I believe you're talking about -- Commissioner, I
believe you're referring to Item 8.C on your agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it 8.C?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The wellfields is incorporated in
that one.
And are we hearing the -- when are we going to hear the
shopping center project? Are we going to do that first and then the
wellfields?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, you're going to hear 8.C first, which is
your Growth Management Plan amendments, and then you will hear
8.B immediately following that item, because they're companion
Page 7
September 13-14,2011
items.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I understand, but specifically
about the wellfields, the issue about the wellfield will be heard before
the Compo Plan amendment related to the shopping center?
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's part of the Compo Plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: After? You're just going to hear it
-- okay, so it's all just going to be approved simultaneously.
MR.OCHS: It's all part of that item, ma'am, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As far as ex parte
communications, on 8.B I have meetings, correspondence, e-mails and
calls. And with respect to the other items, I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you -- yes, Commissioner,
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I add one more thing? We were
talking about ex parte. I just wanted to show you, this is my ex parte
book, and it is on file for anybody who wants to have a night of
reading pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have one other announcement I would
like to make. I have been asked to consider setting a time limit for the
meeting today . We have reserved tomorrow for a continuation of this
meeting, and so we will be adjourning at 6:00 p.m. today, unless we
finish our business today, which is highly unlikely.
Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, County Attorney, could you
please explain what needs to be included in the ex parte backup?
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the ex parte is for a
quasi-judicial hearing. Normally in a court setting nobody gets to talk
to the judge before a decision is rendered, everything is open court.
Here people have the right to see their representatives beforehand.
Am Ion, am I off?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's hard to hear.
Page 8
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not very loud, I know that.
MR. KLATZKOW: How's this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: About the same.
MR. KLATZKOW: About the same?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just have to speak louder, I guess.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, I can speak louder.
In the context of our quasi-judicial, people have the right to see
you, you know, beforehand to talk about these items. So the ex parte
would be your identification of the people who have seen you, e-mails
you've gotten, correspondence you've gotten, and you put it in a folder
in front of you. Anybody during the course of a hearing who wants to
look at that could have the opportunity then to review what you've
seen beforehand as part of the preparation for the hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how far back does that go?
MR. KLATZKOW: It goes back as far as the item, really. I
mean, generally speaking you're only talking a couple weeks lead time
on most of these things, but it goes back as far as the item goes,
pertinent to the hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's agenda
as amended, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve today's regular
consent and summary agenda as amended by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 9
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 10
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 13,2011
Continue Item 16A3 to the September 27. 2011 BCC Meetine:: Recommendation to grant final approval
of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Caldecott with the roadway and
drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
(Staffs request due to a calculation error in the performance security)
Move Item 16A14 to Item 10J: PMC-PL2011-872: Heavenly PUD - Notification of staffs intent to
approve a minor amendment to the Heavenly Planned Unit Development in accordance with LDC Sections
10.02.13.E.6 and 8 to change the location and type of plantings and to revise the buffer standards to reduce
the height of trees and plantings due to site conditions and conflicts with FPL lines, and to allow payment in
lieu of sidewalks instead of construction of a sidewalk along Myrtle Road from North Trail Boulevard to the
project entrance. The subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block
bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A16 to Item 10K: Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal ofa
State of Good Repair (SGR) Bus and Bus Facilities grant application, for the amount of $11,335,290, to the
Federal Transit Administration (FT A) for construction of improvements at the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Administration and Maintenance Facility at 8300 Radio Road. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A19 to Item 10H: Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, authorizing a speed limit
decrease from fifty-five miles per hour (55 mph) to fifty miles per hour (50 mph) on Collier Boulevard from
Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard at a cost ofapproximately $500. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Withdraw Item 16A25: Recommendation to advertise an amendment to Collier County Ordinance No.
2009-44, the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MSTU) Ordinance, to remove the sunset provision of six years and provide that the MSTU be dissolved upon
recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
(Staffs request in order to coordinate with future MSTU Referendum question)
Move Item 16B2 to 13A: This item was continued from the May 10,2011 BCC meeting. Recommendation to
approve a Resolution to petition Governor Scott to extend the "Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern"
designation awarded to Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative, Inc. for another 5-
years and to keep the Community of Immokalee within the South Central Rural Area of Critical Economic
Concern designation. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Withdraw Item 16C12: Recommendation to approve a requisite Memorandum of Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of
Treasury, to establish an interest bearing escrow account for the funds required to relocate Collier County
Water-Sewer District-owned underground utility lines to accommodate the widening of State Road 84
between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road. (County A.ttorney's request)
Move Item 16D5 to Item 101: Recommendation to waive boarding fees in the amount of $16,400
associated with the kenneling of two declared dangerous dogs, in exchange for dismissal of a pending
dangerous dog appeal, and in order for the dogs to be reunited with their owners, who currently live out-of-
county. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Move Item 16D8 to Item lOG: This item was continued/rom the July 26,2011 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.
(Commissioner Coyle's request)
Continue Item 16EI3 to the September 27. 2011 Meetinl!: Recommendation to establish standards and
criteria for the use of Peer Reviews of designs for major capital projects. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16H3 to Item 9H: To authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign a
letter of concurrency for the Florida Department of Children and Families for the State of Florida Refugee
Services Targeted Assistance Grant Program and the utilization of these funds in Collier County through the
Catholic Charities. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 16K2 to Item IIA: Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration ordinances which repeal or amend certain Collier County ordinances relating to the regulation
of firearms and ammunition in order to comply with recent amendments to Section 790.33, Florida Statutes,
which preempts all such regulatory powers to the State of Florida effective October 1,2011, and that
following such future public hearing the Board considers referring two Special Acts dealing with firearms to
the Legislative Delegation, with a request that the Legislature review them for possible repeal.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16K6 to the October I I. 2011 BCC Meetinl!: Recommendation that the Board consider
the withdrawal of the designation of the Stewardship Sending Area known as Half Circle L Ranch
Partnership ("HCLRP") SSA #8 and the termination of the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement and
the Stewardship Easement Agreement, and the canceling of the Stewardship credits generated by the
designation of said Stewardship Sending Area. (County Attorney's request)
Note:
Item 8C does not require that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members as stated in the
agenda title. Also, Items 8B and 8C are companion items; Item 8C will be heard before 8B.
Item 16A20 "Recommendation" portion of the Executive Summary should read: That the Board of County
Commissioners accept the Traffic Speed Limit Study and adopt the Resolution deereasing increasing the
speed limit on the designated section of Pine Ridge Road, authorize the Chairman to execute the Resolution,
and authorize the County Manager to erect and remove the appropriate traffic control signs. (Commissioner
Fiala's request)
Item 16A21 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.
Time Certain Items:
Item 8D to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 4:00 p.m.
Item lOA to be heard at 5:00 p.m.
10/3/2011 9:22 AM
September 13-14,2011
Item #2B
JULY 26, 2011, BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I would entertain a motion to
approve the July 26th, 2011 BCC Regular Meeting Minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
It passes unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 12 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 16,2011 AS INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK,
ACCEPTED BY BETH STERCHI AND KATIE BETZ-
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, your first Proclamation is 4.A. It's a
proclamation designating September 12 through September 16, 2011
as Industry Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Beth Sterchi and
Katie Betz. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 11
September 13-14, 2011
Would you please come forward?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to say something? You're
going to speak?
MS. STERCHI: Good morning, Commissioners, citizens. Thank
you so much for recognizing this week as the 28th annual Florida
Industry Appreciation Week in Collier County.
On Thursday, September 15th, Collier County EDC is actually
hosting an awards program called industry -- Excellence in Industry.
You are all invited Thursday, 11 :30 to 1 :30 at the Naples Hilton to
help us celebrate our local businesses. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for your good work.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE UNITED WAY OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO WISH
THEM YET ANOTHER YEAR OF GREAT SUCCESS AS THEY
KICK OFF THEIR 2011/2012 SEASON, ACCEPTED BY ERNIE
BRETZMANN, UNITED WAY STAFF, AND UNITED WAY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.B is a Proclamation
recognizing the United Way of Collier County for their outstanding
contributions to the community and to wish them yet another year of
great success as they kick off their 2011/2012 season. To be accepted
by Ernie Bretzmann, United Way staff, and United Way board of
directors. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
If you'd all please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't leave, Ernie. Once you're
Page 12
September 13-14, 2011
committed to these meetings, you have to stay here until 6:00 p.m.
MR. BRETZMANN: Good morning. My name is Ernie
Bretzmann, I'm with the United Way of Collier County. And as
always, it's a great honor to receive this proclamation each year, and I
want to thank you for giving us the time this morning on a busy
schedule.
Throughout the years United Way of Collier County and Collier
County government has worked together to improve lives in our
community. And I certainly hope this continues in the future.
On Saturday, September 24th, we'll be conducting our sixth
annual Walk for the Way at the North Collier Regional Park. This is
an event that is open to the community. It's a large community event.
Certainly, we'd love to have everybody attend it, you'll have a great
time. It's really cheap. The signups begin at 8:00. The walk starts
precisely a 9:00. The first 1,000 participants will receive a free
commemorative collectible T-shirt. There will be free food and drink,
it's all donated, that will be provided.
The walk is an optional. You can walk on the beautiful path
going around the park, it's about two miles, or you can walk around
the lake, it's a little less. We'll be having an agency fair and vendor
fair in the air-conditioned gymnasium. Everybody will get to meet all
of our member agencies, many are represented here today, and find
out about the services they provide for our community.
They'll be a lot of nice door prizes you could possibly win. And
as an added bonus we'll have two of the stars of the Miami Dolphins
undefeated and Superbowl season will be there, Mercury Morris and
Larry Little, signing autographs and telling stories. And they're worth
the price of admission itself. So I hope everybody can attend the
walk. It's a great event and it brings the community together.
Also, today the team from Collier County government is
conducting a book, video, bake and hot dog sale right outside this
building. So if you get a break, go on out there, you can get some
Page 13
September 13-14,2011
great bargains on things. Get some good food; it's all donated. Every
penny goes to United Way.
Thanks so much, and have a great day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the date of that, again?
MR. BRETZMANN: The date is September 24th, for the Walk
for the Way. And love to have you all there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to say thank you again
for all you do for our community.
MR. BRETZMANN: Thank you, it's our pleasure.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 13,2011 AS
CODY ANDERSON DAY, ACCEPTED BY CODY ANDERSON -
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.C is a Proclamation
designating September 13th, 2011 as Cody Anderson Day. To be
accepted by Cody Anderson. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
If Mr. Anderson is here, please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Anderson, if we could have you get a photo,
please, in front of the Board, if you don't mind.
MR. ANDERSON: Appreciate this very much, Commissioners.
You've always been very kind in helping me with the endeavors that I
do, whether it's for heart, cancer, diabetes, leukemia or 9/11. And of
course in supporting our troops.
I've been concentrating pretty strongly on supporting our troops.
In 2006 I flew over to the Middle East and handed out 7,000 phone
cards on five bases to our soldiers. And the executive director of the
Page 14
September 13-14,2011
American Red Cross there said that my personally going there I raised
the morale of the whole base. The phone cards were great, but they
just couldn't believe that somebody actually flew over there and shook
their hand, looked them in the eyes and thanked them and gave them a
phone card.
I'm trying to go to Afghanistan now to hand out phone cards
again. And Collier County was very generous in helping me when I
went in 2006. And I'm trying to beat the 7,000 phone cards that I
delivered in 2006 with over that amount going to Afghanistan. And
I'm going to buy $1,000 in phone cards myself out of my own pocket
and I'm asking, you know, rich people, match me. And the average
working guy, gal, a $10.00 phone card.
And I'm even going to sell two of my most prized possessions.
These are keys to cities that have been given to me. That's the key to
Naples, and that's the key to Fort Myers. And I'm going to sell those
two to raise even more phone cards for our troops for me to take over
there.
And I'm going to do my last big walk-a-thon. Now, I've walked
around the world in mileage to heal the sick, I've biked around the
world in mileage to feed the poor. But I got assaulted 12 years ago
and I've had 10 back surgeries. I got assaulted at work, crazy. And I
have a spinal cord stimulator implant. And it's getting really, really
hard for me to do these things. So I wanted to do one really last big
walk-a-thon to push for the soldiers and getting the phone cards to
Afghanistan.
So October 3rd I'll be out in front here at 8:00 till about 9:00.
And then I'm going to start walking to the City Hall in Fort Myers.
And every 100 paces I'm going to kneel down and say a prayer for the
peace of America and the well-being of our soldiers and being able to
come home safe, and go all the way to Fort Myers City Hall, turn
around and then come back. But I won't be kneeling on the way back.
And I'm hoping that this really hard walk-a-thon -- which is
Page 15
September 13-14, 2011
really going to be hard for me to do because of my health; but even if I
was in good shape that would still be pretty hard to do -- that that will
kick-start the phone card drive. And people can drop offphone cards
at Homer Helter's World War 2 store on Shirley Street. He does a lot
for the soldiers. Or at Dell's Supermarket on Bayshore, you can drop
one off there. And Dell and Homer are going to match those phone
cards up to a certain point. Dell did it like to $1,000 last year. And he
also helped pay half of my plane fare to the Middle East in 2006. And
Homer paid some of that and donated on that, and then I paid the rest
out of my pocket.
So I'm hoping on October 3rd -- I'm real dry -- when I leave,
maybe one of you commissioners could come out and wish me luck.
Now, I'm going to be in a knights outfit, like King Arthur's Round
Table, because I admire the chivalry and the spirit of a knight of the
Round Table. So I'm on crusade for our troops. So I'm going to have
mail, a shield, the whole thing. It cost me three grand to get this outfit
so it's historically correct. And if one or all or as many commissioners
can wave me off, then October 3rd I'll be starting. That's why I'm
going to get here at 8:00 and leave like around 9:00, so it gives you
guys and gals a little bit of time maybe to wave me off and wish me
good luck.
And it will take about four days, because I'm really going to have
a tough time with it. But I hope that that effort convinces people to
give up a phone card for our troops.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you.
Long live our troops and King Arthur.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll be there. Cody, Cody? You're
hearing voices. It's me. I'll be there.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, wonderful, thank you. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My pleasure.
MR. ANDERSON: Have a wonderful day now.
Page 16
September 13-14, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I may get a motion to approve
the proclamations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve the
proclamations 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 proclamations are approved.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING SHEREE MEDIA VILLA, ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT, PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
JULY 2011 - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5.A is a recommendation to
recognize Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant, Public Utilities
Operations Department, as Employee of the Month for July, 2011.
Sheree, if you'd come up, please.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm going to read a few things about
Sheree to embarrass her while she's getting her photo.
Page 1 7
September 13-14,2011
Sheree's been an Administrative Assistant in our operations
department in Public Utilities since January, 2010. Since that time
she's used her positive attitude, prior training in county experience to
have an immediate impact on the operations of that department. She's
always willing to take on new assignments, and works quickly to
become competent in any new subject area.
Sheree has used her vast budget experience in our SAP system
and has proven to be a valuable asset during the fiscal year 2012
budget process to the division. With her assistance in preparing
necessary reporting, we've been able to prepare a budget in record
time.
She also fills in in many other areas in the division where needed.
She's always energetic, great customer service skills, and certainly a
valuable asset to Collier County . We're glad to have her, and she's
very truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my great pleasure to present to you Sheree
Mediavilla, Employee of the Month, July 2011. Sheree, thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM ALLAN G. REEVES
REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF PERMITS FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS LOCATED
IN MUL TI-F AMIL Y DWELLINGS - MOTION TO BRING BACK
TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to our public petitions.
First public petition is Item 6.A. It's a public petition request from
Allan G. Reeves regarding the requirement of permits for the
replacement of electric water heaters located in multi-family
dwellings.
Page 18
September 13-14,2011
Mr. Reeves?
MR. REEVES: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Allan Reeves, I'm a local plumbing contractor here in Naples.
And I guess in a -- for Industry Week I come to talk to you a little
bit about my industry. I'm representing 28 other plumbing companies
and over 70 individual plumbers. And it's all in regards for the current
water heater permits that we have to pull.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I hold you up for just a moment?
Can you turn up these microphones a little bit, Michael.
MR. REEVES: See if that's any better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's better, yeah.
MR. REEVES: Two years ago you had several concerned
citizens come to speak before you about the same predicament that
we're in right now. And at that time all they could do is really
speculate what might happen if these permits come into being.
Well, everything that they were worried about and concerned
about has come true. Over the last 16 months I've lost 50 percent of
my business in Collier County because of these permits. And other
companies are noticing the same trend. And it's not because the work
isn't there. The calls still come in just as they always have. But once
we mention that you might need a permit or that you might need to
upgrade your electrical connections, those calls end right there. My
business is based solely on just doing water heaters.
This is an ad that we used to run in the Naples Daily News every
week which worked really well for us. And since the permits have
really taken effect, here's the same page, that's our ad right now.
Because there's really just nothing happening in Collier County
because of these permits.
Now, you might think that it's because of the slowing economy
that everybody talks about. But in Lee County our business thrives.
That's because Lee County doesn't enforce these permits. Still on the
books but they choose not to enforce them, just like 16 months ago
Page 19
September 13-14,2011
here.
We spent a lot of time down at the Collier County Permitting
Department going back and forth over the need for these permits, what
it's for. And in the end, what two of the inspectors finally admitted
were that they weren't really so much looking at the plumbing aspect
of a water heater but the electrical connection, making sure that's
brought up to code.
And so why after all these years of water heaters passing their
original permits and inspections, why are they so interested in going
back at that for something that's been in the National Electric Code for
over two decades? And really, the only reason it can be is that they're
wanting to get paid twice for ajob they didn't do in the first place with
enforcing the electrical code that's been in the books since the early
Nineties, according to the permitting department.
So why now do they need to enforce this ridiculous tax in the
form of a permit on the citizens of Collier County when people can
afford it the least?
A few examples of how these permits are hurting local
businesses, local economy. It goes against public safety. All you
have to do is really consider the cost. If you take a $300,000 house
that you build, the permits for that is $636. That gives you 2000ths of
a percent the cost of the house in permits. That's not very bad.
If you replace your air conditioner, that's about $8,000. The
permit for that is $110 . You're just shy of under 100th of a percent of
the job.
But when you have your water heater replaced for just $500, if
you get a permit on that, it's 22 percent additional cost on top of that
water heater. That's ridiculous.
Now, if you have to get your electrical connection upgraded,
you're pushing up to 64 percent additional cost over that $500 water
heater. That puts me out of business in Collier County. And that's
why all of my advertising dollars that used to go here in Collier
Page 20
September 13-14,2011
County, that all goes to Lee County now. And when I need to hire
new employees, I'm going to have to hire them from Lee County.
So I just -- if it's not really helping public safety, if it's not
helping the economy, if it's burdening everybody with time and
money that's being wasted, and it's not really keeping any unlicensed
contractors away from doing these jobs because they can't pull permits
in the first place, what good is it? And what do we really need that
for?
So that's what we're asking you. All these other contractors and
regular plumbers that have signed my petition, we just want to go back
to, you know, how it was 16 months ago where they trusted licensed
contractors to do the job. It's not brain surgery, it's just changing a
water heater.
I'm not saying to get rid of all water heater permits, because
honestly, if you need to relocate your water heater for whatever
reason, that should be inspected. If you have gas water heater, that too
should be inspected, that's where things can go wrong. But if you're
taking out the exact same thing and replacing like for like, the same
connections, everything else is already there, that doesn't need to be
inspected again. They did it the first place when the house was built,
it passed then.
If the county wants to go back and chase after these electrical
connections that they hadn't enforced for the past 20 years, let them
find another way of doing it. Maybe when the house sells, like when
you have to have a termite inspection, or when FPL comes in and puts
their on-call boxes on all these water heaters that we do, that could
take care of the majority of them there, instead of letting FPL just
have a free pass from codes and permits and inspections like they do.
So that's what we're asking for is just rethink this whole thing.
It's a bad idea. It's hurting everybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, let me remind
you that the action we are being asked to take here is to make a
Page 21
September 13-14, 2011
decision as to whether or not we bring this back for a full hearing, not
necessarily to resolve the issue today. Okay?
So Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
bring this back for a full rehearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Hiller to bring it back for a hearing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
And there must be more discussion. Commissioner Coletta has
his light on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When we bring it back, besides
the cost of the permit, how the permit's obtained should be an issue.
And there should be a recognized difference between electric and gas.
They're two different entities, they're totally different.
If you're replacing a hot water heater that already has a plug in,
nothing more than connecting the pipes and plugging it back in again,
that's an exorbitant expense. And why should somebody have to go
all the way down to the county building to pick up this permit if
needed. It should be something that could be attained through the
computer directly without having to go through it, take a payment in a
credit card. It's moving in that direction, but we're not quite there yet.
That's something I hope that's in this consideration when it comes
back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. And also I would
like to talk about -- I also heard from a contractor just a couple weeks
ago about the prices of the permits and how they've gone up and
possibly we should be addressing this.
I just have to ask you, Jamie, thank you for being there, we don't
need a permit to put a water heater into a residential home, it's only for
multi-families?
Page 22
September 13-14,2011
MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Jamie French. Thank you.
Yes, ma'am. Ordinance number 2009-59, this Board directed
staff to no longer require, and the State of Florida allows for that
within the Administrative Code of the Florida Building Code, to
exempt single-family detached homes.
I think what this gentleman is speaking about is commercial
connections. In 2008 the National Electric Code was indeed updated
to require that a flexible cord no longer be allowed. So these hot
water heaters, even in new construction, and quite honestly in the
single- family homes, although they're exempt from the permitting
process, they should be hardwired in. And if in fact that connection is
not within sight from that water heater or that connection, they should
have an electrical lock-out. That's what the code says.
Now, we also have a declaratory statement from the State
Building Commission that gives us that direction.
Now, I would tell you that we don't necessarily disagree that, you
know, a like-for-like replacement seems to be di minimis in scope of
building a new home or constructing a new facility. However, the
state has not given us much leeway. So to minimize that intrusion,
we've minimized this to one single inspection.
Now, for like-for-like replacement it is a $50 plan review and
$60 fee. And that's been adopted within our fee schedule. So it's $110
for that inspection, unless of course it requires all new electrical -- let's
say you have to install a lock-out, you don't have your breaker box
immediately available, it's in the other room. At that point it would
require a secondary inspection just for the electric from the breaker all
the way to the new wiring, which would be an additional $60. So at
the very most you'd be looking at $170 for this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jamie, I just asked the question, you
know, if it was just a single-family home. Because I think -- this is --
I'm so glad you brought this to light.
Page 23
September 13-14,2011
And again, I heard from another gentleman just about a week ago
or two weeks ago about the same issue. I think that maybe we need to
readdress -- one of the things we haven't displayed is friendliness
toward the business community. And I think we want to do
everything we can to start encouraging businesses to be able to expand
to improve, and we're going to hold a workshop on economic
development as well. And we need to let the business community
know that we do care about them.
And so maybe when we do this, this -- you know, when we bring
it back to a meeting, maybe there's something we should be discussing
about workshopping. But we can talk about that behind the scenes
and see if this is an item that we want to even put together a workshop
on.
Thank you very much.
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 will be scheduled for a full
public hearing.
County Manager, can we expect that at the next meeting?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Item #6B
Page 24
September 13-14,2011
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM KEITH ROMAN SEEKING
BOARD APPROVAL FOR A REPAYMENT SETTLEMENT OF
$2,000 FORA STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP
(S.H.J.P.) LOAN OF $24,272.50, FOR HIS HOME AT 7797
ESMERALDA WAY, UNIT 201, NAPLES - MOTION TO BRING
BACK TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 6.B is a public petition
request from Keith Roman seeking Board approval for a replacement
-- excuse me, a repayment settlement of $2,000 for a state housing
initiative partnership loan of $24,272.50 for his home at 7797
Esmeralda Way, Unit 2001 in Naples -- excuse me, 201, Naples.
MR. ROMAN: Hi, there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. Please state your name
for the record.
MR. ROMAN: Keith Roman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Keith, go ahead.
MR. ROMAN: I'm here requesting a short sale approval for my
loan that was received through the SHIP program. It was a down
payment assistance program. And since then I have lost my part-time
evening job, and trying to get another part-time evening job with my
full-time job, nobody -- I couldn't make anything work. And I had to
let the property go.
So I -- you know, I got approval from my bank for the short sale
and from my HOA for the short sale. Now I'm hoping for the same
from you guys.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, this is a fairly
complex issue. Do you want to bring it back for a full hearing?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is really to change the amount
payable back to the county from 24,000 to 2,000.
MR. ROMAN: To 2,000. The bank was going to pay it back at
Page 25
September 13-14, 2011
2,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The bank is going to pay 2,000
rather than 24,000?
MR. ROMAN: Yeah, the bank is going to pay you guys -- the
county $2,000, as well as take their -- their offer on the property is
65,000. And their loan on it was 142,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so there is an additional lien
for 24,000 that's owed to the county?
MR. ROMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're basically asking that to
be reduced to 2,000.
MR. ROMAN: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I would like to bring it
back. You know, the issue in this housing crisis, there are many short
sales going on. And a lot of times there's a secondary involved. I
don't know what is reasonable, though. And I think that we need our
staff to assist us on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to bring this back for a full hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
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?
Page 26
September 13-14, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. You'll get your
hearing. Hopefully we can sch~dule that one for the next time, or is it
going to take longer than that?
MR. OCHS: Next meeting is fine, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think there's some urgency here.
MR. ROMAN: It's going into foreclosure at the end of this
month.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We will be meeting before the
end of this month, so we will have a decision for you before the end of
the month.
MR. ROMAN: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's also important that we
look at this from a policy standpoint. I'm sure there are other similarly
situated properties, and, you know, how much have we booked as
receivables with respect to these SHIP funds, and what type of an
allowance for uncollectibles are you looking to consider these type of
issues? I mean, this goes to a budgetary issue. I mean, this is one
example, but there may be more out there. And are we going to be --
how are we deciding that we should do it for this gentleman and not
do it for others?
I see a real -- I see a whole bunch of issues here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why I said it's a complex issue,
and so we need a full hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree with that, except that
if you're bringing it back to the next meeting, all these other issues
need to be contemplated simultaneously because we can't cherry pick
and decide we're going to forgive the amount owed to one borrower
and then arbitrarily deny it to another. And what is the budgetary
implication, what are the policy implications, what's our duty, you
Page 27
September 13-14,2011
know, vis-a.-vis SHIP with respect to this? I'd need all those questions
answered.
MR. OCHS: You'll have them, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. ROMAN: Thank you very much.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM DAVID DELANEY,
REQUESTING A "VARIANCE" FROM THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO KEEP SIX ADULT DOGS AT
HIS RESIDENCE AT 168 SKIPPING STONE LANE; THEREBY
EXCEEDING THE LIMIT OF THREE ADULT DOGS AS
PERMITTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CASE
WAS HEARD BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE ON FEBRUARY 4,2011 - MOTION TO BRING
BACK FOR A FULL HEARING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, 6.C is a public petition request
from David Delaney requesting a variance from the Board of County
Commissioners to keep six adult dogs at his residence at 168 Skipping
Stone Lane, thereby exceeding the limit of three adult dogs as
permitted in the Land Development Code.
This case was heard by the Collier County special magistrate on
February 4th, 2011.
MR. DELANY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Delaney, go ahead.
MR. DELANY: My name is David Delaney. I've come here
today, as you mentioned. I'm in violation of the land development act.
Basically I've come here because I feel that in part the reasons
I'm here are questionable. It's a report to code enforcement. But
Page 28
September 13-14,2011
although my dogs do not outwardly cause anybody any disturbance,
barking, pooping, so on and so forth, I've been reported.
Since I've been at my address for the last four years there's been
numerous complaints to code enforcement for various issues, I
believe. I printed them off this morning. There were seven of them.
All of them except for the dogs have been dismissed, no evidence
found to support them. So I somewhat feel victimized, obviously, by
that.
As far as the current land development act is concerned, I feel if
you would just stop say 100 people in the street and actually ask them
how many dogs can be kept in Collier County at a residence, you may
or may not be surprised that most people would not know. You would
get all sorts of numbers. Some would say three. I've asked lots of my
friends and neighbors that question, how many dogs can you keep in
Collier County, and they would say three. And I would say well, how
do you know that? They would say, well, it's a guess.
This is the problem, I feel it's somewhat of an archaic law that
doesn't really work very well.
My personal opinion is that I don't think it's the position of the
government to tell people how many dogs should be kept. I think it's a
case that Animal Services should ultimately make those decisions
based on how the dogs are looked after, so on and so forth, the care
that's given to the dogs, whether there's somebody at home with the
dogs all day. Because, you know, there are many people that have
one or two dogs and the dogs are treated terribly. Any dog shelter or
humane society could give you evidence of that.
My dogs are looked after exceptionally well. My wife works
from home so she's there all day with my dogs. So as I say, there are
various mitigating circumstances I feel with my case in person.
I have obviously dog licenses, Collier County dog licenses for all
of my dogs. Nowhere on the dog license does it mention the fact that
there may be restrictions. Because obviously when I purchased my
Page 29
September 13-14,2011
house I inherited the dockets, many, many pages of regulations that I
can and can't do. The fact that I have to mow my lawn, the fact if I
want to paint my front door I have to ask permission from my local
board.
In here, when I just had a couple of dogs, it says here basically
dogs and cats can be kept at any lots; a reasonable number can be
kept. And obviously in any dispute, obviously the board of directors
of our community will be ultimately the decision-makers on what is
reasonable.
And as I say, as far as the dog licenses are concerned, there's no
reference on the dog license as to how many dogs you can have.
There's not even a reference to say that, you know, you should do your
homework depending upon what district or zoning area you live in
within the county to make people think, hey, you know, maybe I
should do some homework here before, you know, I get any additional
dogs.
Obviously in my case my three additional dogs came from the
Naples Humane Society. There to have a dog you have to fill out an
application form. I did that for all three of my dogs, disclosing all my
existing animals. The adoption counselors, obviously, that are there
are trained people, they didn't seem to have a problem with this.
So I've sort of found myself really pretty screwed, if you like,
really in a position here with, you know, an archaic land act that
somebody's reported me for.
As I say, I feel the reasons for reporting me aren't -- because
really, I have six dogs. They, you know, have some kind of other
agenda. My dogs do not bark -- no, see, they don't bark unnecessarily.
Obviously if somebody comes to the door they'll bark. We always
pick up after them when we go out. There's no environmental impact
with me having six dogs in my community; hasn't anybody else.
There haven't been no complaints to Animal Services. I'm not even on
the radar at Animal Services. I'm by no means any kind of animal
Page 30
September 13-14,2011
hoarder.
I have six dogs. Four of those dogs -- well, two of them are
teacup chihuahuas. Two of them are chihuahuas. I have a
photograph, if anybody's interested in seeing. I don't have six huge
great dogs tethered up outside barking all day, causing an
environmental nuisance.
In part my reason for coming today is to request a variance from
this law for obviously many of the things I've mentioned. I guess
ultimately I would like to see the law changed, because I honestly
don't think that the current law -- I think it's somewhat archaic, I don't
think it really addresses the situation somewhat.
I live in the Pebblebrook Lakes community, which is on one side
of the 951/Collier Boulevard. If I was to move to the other side a half
a mile, then I'd be up in the Golden Gate Estates. There of course
obviously I could keep a horse, a couple of pigs, I don't know how
many dogs. And, you know --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No pigs.
MR. DELANY: Okay, no pigs. A horse, two horses, you know.
Some cows maybe, I don't know. Chickens. None of which I want to
do, but I could do it. And under the current law I could have 20 dogs
out there and I could kill half of them and code enforcement or the
county, you know, it wouldn't be covered because I'd be over there, I'd
be out of the way.
That's why I believe that it would be much better placed for the
decision on how many dogs, instead of being two, three or four, to
actually be down to something like Animal Services that can actually
come and actually look at people and say, well, hey, this guy's got six
dogs, they're chihuahuas, they're indoors, they're not causing anybody
.
any nUIsance.
In his case, you know, when the complaints had been made to
code enforcement, nobody has said these dogs keep me awake all
night, they're barking, they're vicious, they're pooping everywhere.
Page 31
September 13-14, 2011
No, it's just the fact that I have six dogs.
And you could have somebody with two dog and they're a total
nuisance with those two dogs. And because they only have two dogs,
obviously it doesn't come under the land act.
And that's it, I guess. Ready?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we understand your problem.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
Mr. Delaney, I'm glad you came here with this issue today.
Within our code and ordinances there's all sorts of things that are
imposing upon the public, good common sense things that just
shouldn't be worded the way that they are. This is a good example.
There's no limits on cats. There's other places in the county where
there's no limits on dogs.
The idea was was to keep people from building kennels in the
back of their yard and being a disruption to their neighbors.
Now, you know, a person keeps their animals within the house, I
mean, who cares if they got two dogs or six dogs as long as they
contain them within the house, they don't allow them to run wild. If
they have a yard that's fenced in that they keep it neat and orderly. I
mean, that's what good neighbors are all about. Not the number that
counts, it's how people work with it.
I'd like to bring it back with the idea that we should look at
changing this and putting it more as a nuisance thing that we deal with
rather than an issue with the number of dogs. I don't think it has any
bearing on the problem that exists. I'm sorry you're going through all
this today, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
bring it back for a full hearing, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Sir, are these your
Page 32
September 13-14,2011
personal animals?
MR. DELANY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Jeff, the correspondence
that I sent to you -- by the way, I meant to send it to Diane Flagg and
accidentally sent it to Commissioner Fiala. So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did Commissioner Fiala respond?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, she didn't.
There is an opinion by Susan Istenes. And this is the discussion I
had with staff, that they're depending on this opinion. And the
opinion, Susan writes: Furthermore, upon review and analysis of the
LDC and SIC code book, the term kenneling, it is referenced in the
Land Development Code specifically within agricultural zoning
district and is not in my opinion intended to address of keeping dogs
for personal use.
Now, I think this is what was cited in your code case.
MR. DELANY: Kenneling, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think we should bring this back. I
think we should handle that at that point in time. I agree with you.
And we do have a decision by the special magistrate which we'll have
to address in that executive summary, how we're going to deal with
that.
But I agree with you, this is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I don't want this to
become another Blocker issue where you're losing information, you
know, from a Code Enforcement Board or special master or something
like that.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll try to get everything to the Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
bring this back.
Page 33
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion's already been made and
seconded.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I missed that. Then let's
vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
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. We'll bring it
back for a full hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good presentation, Diane.
MS. FLAGG: I was just going to say -- Diane Flagg for the
record --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's enough.
MS. FLAGG: -- Code Enforcement Director.
We have four items that we're bringing back at your next
meeting, requesting you to place a stay on enforcement and to revise
the LDC or the ordinances. And we can include this with it. So thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Diane, at the same time, if I may,
can you also address what's going on with the horse stables? I
understand that there are requirements in the ordinance with respect to
the size of horse stables, and I guess that's not being enforced? I
mean, is it necessary or are you going to enforce it? Which way are
we going on that?
MS. FLAGG: We have open code cases on horse stables that
Page 34
September 13-14,2011
have -- it's based upon the zoning, and it's based upon the amount of
property that they have. But I can update you on those cases.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2011-155: RESOLUTION RENAMING THE GULF
COAST PARK, 5611 WARREN STREET, "CINDY MYSELS
PARK." THE RENAMING IS SPONSORED BY MR. ANTHONY
P. FEOLA, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE GULF COAST LITTLE
LEAGUE AND SUPPORTED BY 1,288 RESIDENTS OF
COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to go now to agenda
Item 10.B.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Item 10.B
is a recommendation to adopt a resolution renaming the Gulf Coast
Park, 5611 Warren Street, Cindy Mysels Park. The renaming is
sponsored by Mr. Anthony P. Feola, vice president of the Gulf Coast
Little League, and supported by 1,288 residents of Collier County. Mr.
Sheffield will present.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mike Sheffield from the County Manager's
Office.
In accordance with established county policy, the County
Manager's Office received a petition sponsored by Anthony Feola of
the Gulf Coast Little League to rename the Gulf Coast Park the Cindy
Mysels Park. And Mr. Feola is here today to answer questions.
MR. FEOLA: Thank you very much for entertaining this request
by our league.
I'm here before you to represent hundreds of volunteers and
parents affiliated with Gulf Coast Little League located in East
Naples.
Page 35
September 13-14,2011
As you can see on the diagram there, it is a very small park
within East Naples, and it has two ball fields and a concession stand.
It's not a typical park that you would see with basketball courts and
tennis courts. It's basically the home of Gulf Coast Little League. It's
been there for at least 25 or 30 years, as far as I know, maybe more.
The league itself has been around for over 50 years as a charter
member of Little League International.
The league itself has been through some times -- when it first
organized it did not have a home site, and over the years they acquired
this property. This property was actually sold to the county at one
point, based on the fact that the organizers of the league could no
longer handle the maintenance of it. And the league itself sold the
property to the county. And we've had a great relationship with the
county over the years. We pay user fees for it and we use it primarily
as our home site for the Little League in East Naples.
This Little League services children from East Naples and Marco
Island. As you know, there are five Little Leagues in Collier County
and each of them have their own specific areas where they play.
Over these years Cindy Mysels was an integral part of the league.
She was a 30-year Collier County resident and she was a part of this
league for almost 20 years. During those 20 years she was acting in
various capacities from coaching to volunteering at the concession
stand to being the president of the league for 10 of those 20 years.
She is a person that gave so much to this area and to the county
as far as the children in East Naples, and she was there through thick
and thin. She basically allowed the league to survive for many, many
years, especially during times when the league attendance had gone
down, she was there to keep it going. She also was instrumental in
maintaining a Collier County-wide program called the Cope
Tournament, which is a big tournament for our 12-year-olds in
Naples. And she was there to keep that going, and that's still going on
right now.
Page 36
September 13-14,2011
We would like you to consider renaming this park on her behalf.
She passed away in January of2011 due to cancer. She has three
children. All of them have grown up in Naples. And we feel this is
the most appropriate name that we could call this field. We no longer
feel that we would want to call it Gulf Coast Park, we would feel
better that it would be called Cindy Mysels Park. So if you would
consider that we would appreciate it.
We did receive over 1,200 petitions. We could have gotten a lot
more, I'm sure. Everybody in the county knows of her, whether they
be part a of the government or whether they be part of the Parks and
Recreation Department. She was very well known in the county. And
I think it's very appropriate if you would consider that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I was so happy when you first called me, Mr. Feola. This is Mrs.
Fiala. Aren't the names similar? And I think it was wonderful. I'm
glad you got all of these those signatures.
My children, my youngest two, played at the park 30 years ago,
so you're right about that. And that was a wonderful part of our
family back then, the boys playing there.
So I want to tell you that I am delighted to make the motion that
we change the name from Gulf Coast Park to Cindy Mysels Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you for bringing that to
us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the change in name to Cindy Mysels Park, and seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really appreciate the fact that
you've gone to the effort of collecting all those signatures. It shows,
you know, a great sense of community spirit. And when parks or
Page 37
September 13-14,2011
buildings are named, it's really nice to respect the will of the people
rather than, you know, politicians naming a building after themselves
or to favor their fellows. So thank you for doing that. That's the way
it should be done.
MR. FEOLA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the next petition is going to be to
name the jail the Fred W. Coyle Jail.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sure we'd get a lot of people on
that would sign that petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I bet you could. I bet you could.
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: It passes unanimously.
MR. FEOLA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners for going out of order
there.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2011-156: RE-APPOINTING JAMES MURRAY
AND LLOYD BUERHOFF AND APPOINTING FRANK HALAS
TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
Page 38
September 13-14,2011
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 9 on your agenda this
morning, Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve -
MR. OCHS: 9.A is appointment of members -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner, to the Airport Authority Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve committee
recommendations by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta. And those are James Murray and Lloyd Byerhof for
reappointment, and Frank Halas to fill the vacant position.
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.
That brings us to 9.B.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011-157: APPOINTING TRACEY DEWRELL TO
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.B is appointment of member to the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve committee
Page 39
September 13-14,2011
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, motion to approve
the committee recommendation of Tracy Durell, seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
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.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2011-158: APPOINTING DARLENE M. ALLIA
TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9.C is appointment of member to the Value
Adjustment Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Darlene Ayala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve Darlene Ayala, who by the way is the only qualified applicant
for appointment.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 40
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2011-159: APPOINTING SUSAN O'BRIEN TO
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.D is appointment of member to the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve committee
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the committee recommendation of Susan O'Brien, seconded
by Commissioner Coletta. Did I have that right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right, you got 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.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2011-160: RE-APPOINTING FAY BILES AND
Page 41
September 13-14,2011
JERRY MORGAN TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9.E is appointment of members to the Water and
Wastewater Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the two
applicants, Dr. Fay Biles, reappoint her, and Mr. Jerry Morgan,
reappoint him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
appoint the committee recomm -- no, there was no committee
recommendation -- Dr. Biles and Mr. Morgan, who both by the way
have served on the committee for a long time, and Mr. Morgan has a
perfect attendance record over the four-year time and Dr. Biles has
had only one excused absence in the four-year term. So they're
committed members.
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.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2011-161: RE-APPOINTING LAVERNE C.
FRANKLIN TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD-
ADOPTED
Page 42
September 13-14, 2011
MR.OCHS: 9.F is appointment of member to the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve LaVerne
Franklin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve LaVerne Franklin
for reappointment to the Board 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: It passes unanimously.
Item #9G
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #16D4 FROM
THE JULY 26, 2011 BCC MEETING TITLED
"RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CATEGORY "A"
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND 183 GRANT APPLICATIONS
FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES FOR FY2011/12 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 - MOTION TO RECONSIDER - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: 9.G is a request for reconsideration of Item 16.D.4
Page 43
September 13-14, 2011
from the July 26th, 2011 BCC meeting titled recommendation to
approve the Category A Tourist Development Fund 183 grant
Applications for Beach Park Facilities for Fiscal Year 2011 and '12 in
the amount of $1,025,000; make a finding that the expenditure will
promote tourism, and authorize the Chairman to sign the necessary
agreements following County Attorney approval.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, would you like to
provide some information?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
The item addresses improvements to beach park facilities. When
I reviewed the proposed expenditures, they seemed very high. I met
with staff and a representative constituent. Staff acknowledged that
the items were at prices that were in fact higher than they ought to be.
And they proposed to bring back an adjusted budget which more
realistically reflected what the cost should be. And they were
planning on doing that before this meeting but they did not do so.
So I would like to suggest that this item, in light of the fact that
revised numbers haven't as yet been presented, be continued till staff
comes back with that information and that number is adjusted
accordingly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not -- you're asking it be
reconsidered or you're asking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm asking that it be
reconsidered and that I was hoping actually -- well, let me rephrase
that. We reconsider it to give staff the opportunity to come back. So
I'd like to continue any discussion about this until staff has the
opportunity to come back and present revised numbers. So it's a
motion for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, only for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But I don't want to get into
a big debate about, you know, the merits of the cost, because staff has
Page 44
September 13-14,2011
admitted that they, you know, could have done better and they were
willing to work the numbers out. So I want to give them the
opportunity to do it and bring back a revised budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coletta, you have some comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, I just want to
make sure I fully understand what staff is saying here. And I'd like
Leo, ifhe can comment on it, or -- you know, if there's a way to be
able to improve the cost on this, fine. But if there -- I want to make
sure we fully understand what staff has told Commissioner Hiller and
what they meant by it.
MR. OCHS : Yeah, I was not in that meeting. I'll ask Ms.
Ramsey to address that.
MS. RAMSEY: Actually, we were at the -- Public Services
Administrator Marla Ramsey.
We met with Commissioner Hiller, as she suggested, with the
one of the -- with the president of the Friends of Barefoot, because
there was concern that we shouldn't be doing the projects at all in the
Barefoot area. We brought in the constituent and had a conversation
about how we had vetted these proj ects at Barefoot Beach with the
Friends groups, and how the Friends really wanted these various
proj ects to happen.
We talked about the toll booth attendant. We talked about how
much the toll booth costs us on an annual basis. We talked about how
much revenue we were in, and I did provide that information to
Commissioner Hiller at a later date.
The question came in is that can we do it for less than is budgeted
in our element. And of course we don't have any exact quotes, we
haven't quoted this or put the scope of it together, so I don't have the
Page 45
September 13-14, 2011
exact cost associated with it.
When we did our research, we found that the gatehouse where
the toll booth attendant stands, that in 2001, I think, at Tigertail it cost
$120,000 to do that. The Vanderbilt toll booth with the garage cost
$150,000 to do that. That's about the price that we had for the tool
booth attendant at Barefoot. And so Gary went through his numbers
and did some more adjustment on it, and he can show you a
spreadsheet if you want to, but they really do come in very close to the
budget numbers we have currently. And again, they are just budgeted
numbers. We will bring a contract that will have the exact price when
they're out to quote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, Marla, the people that
are raising the issue with us have the issue with the increased parking?
MR. OCHS: No.
MS. RAMSEY : No, no, this is -- no, it has nothing to do with
increased parking that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What it is, it's some sort of
amenity that's being improved?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, it -- I don't know of any constituant that's
really saying that they don't really want the program. I'm saying that
the Friends group does want it. There's a repair of the roof at the
educational center, there's a repair of the toll booth attendant, there's a
new sign to be put in. There's a look at the parking on the north side,
which is up near the Bonita Beach Road access rather area, which
floods all the time, and trying to do some water management
associated with that. And then there's engineering degree -- design
fees in there as well for both the bathroom -- not the bathroom, but the
bathroom and the toll booth as well as the parking area--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the sign that will be going
up, this is to make the area more noticeable, or easier to find?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, apparently there's a crack in the sign
Page 46
September 13-14,2011
currently. And, you know, for aesthetics purposes the Friends of the
Barefoot want to make an impact when people come in, and they
would like it to look nice when people drive up. And right now there's
a little port-a-john off to the side, a cracked sign, the landscaping
needs to be improved, it hasn't been done in a number of years.
We've pushed this project off for three years. They've been
requesting it. We've just been pushing it off, pushing off because we
had other things that were a higher priority. And now this one has
come up and we have some funding that we could probably do this
project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, and the reason that
Commissioner Hiller wants to pay for it is she has concerns over the
cost and that supposedly the comment was made by staff that you
could save considerable amount of money if it was brought back.
MS. RAMSEY: There was a comment that we would take a look
at the funding to see what they look like as far as the dollar amounts. I
know Gary has done that. I don't know that the numbers have really
changed that much. Because again, it's a budgeted number, and until
we actually get the full scope and send it out to a contractor to give us
a price, that's when we actually let the funds anyway. It's not in the
budget --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When it goes out to the contract
for a bid, it has to come back again for --
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, especially the ones that are over $50,000
have to come back to the Board; that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. I think we're right on
course, to be honest with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, let's clarify that process.
You establish a budget based upon your best estimates.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're not authorized to spend any
money.
Page 47
September 13-14,2011
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. When you solicit proposals, you
get a firm indication of how much it's going to cost you to do that.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you make a decision as to whether
or not you have the budget to execute that contract with that vendor.
And if you do, you bring it back to us to see if we agree that that is a
reasonable price and that we're willing to approve the funding.
MS. RAMSEY: Right. And I think there's even maybe one
more step, and I think we take it to TDC too if there's a contract
associated with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. All right.
Well, the motion we have before us is a motion to reconsider the
budget. Not the approval of the project or the expenditure of money,
it is about the budget. I think we need to understand what you can do
to refine the budget numbers if you don't go out and solicit proposals;
is that correct?
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure what the intent is, Commissioner. As
you all know, this budget is funded with TDC monies, it's restricted to
Fund 183. If the dollars aren't spent on a particular project, they go
down into the reserves in that fund and they're restricted for that
category of use under your TDC Ordinance.
So this is a budget that went through review and approval by
your Coastal Advisory Committee and your Tourist Development
Council.
I guess you have a couple of options. You can certainly
reconsider it, as Commissioner Hiller suggested, or you can take it up
at your final budget hearing on the 22nd, since it is a budget matter.
But in any event, if you don't spend that money, as outlined in your
budget, it simply goes into the reserves in that fund. It can't be used
for other uses outside of the category of uses that are prescribed in
your tourist development ordinance.
Page 48
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is unusual for us to deny a
Commissioner's request for a reconsideration that is timely submitted.
And this has been timely submitted. So unless there are others who
want to speak to this issue, I'll be ready to take a vote on this motion.
Commissioner Hiller, would you want to take a vote?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to take a vote. I just
want to make a comment.
When staff met with me they admitted that the numbers they had
come up with were not based on best estimates. And that in further
discussion, they felt that those numbers could be significantly reduced.
F or example, the guardhouse, a number was thrown out that it could
be closer to 100 instead of 150. Just taking that as one example out of
the total.
And so to that end, any time that we can avoid unrealistically
budgeting, overbudgeting, padding the budget and coming in at
numbers that are more supportable by reality so the balance can be
either moved into reserves or allocated to another project that we
might be, you know, waiting to execute in the pipeline but for the
availability of funds, we should do everything necessary to do that.
And that's the reason that I brought this forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, if that's the case, the staffhas
brought this upon themselves, okay?
Commissioner Henning?
Either the staff can deny that or they can accept it.
MR. OCHS : Well, certainly we're not accepting the fact that we
padded the budget. These are our best estimates of budget
expenditures for those projects in the next year. As the staff
explained, there's no way to know precisely until you bid the projects.
And it's no different than any other budget that we bring to you, it's a
best estimate of our expenses and revenues for the coming fiscal year.
The budget is just that, it's a plan of revenues and expenses. Until
you go out and bid individual projects, you don't know what the
Page 49
September 13-14,2011
specific price is.
In this case you have a fund that has restricted uses. And if the
money in the line item exceeds the quote or the bid, then it simply
remains in that fund and will remain in the reserves for future --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's the issue: Commissioner
Hiller is alleging that the staff admitted that they had padded the
budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you may, when I finish.
And either the staff is going to respond to that and deny it or
they're going to accept it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
I reviewed the Tourist Development Council's last meeting and
they're looking at ways to put more money into advertising to create
business in Collier County. If there's a way that we could save money
and do reallocation for the best use of monies, we -- the Board has
done that before, in this particular case, I think that would be good for
the industry.
And furthermore, I understand that -- I would like and hope to get
best estimates for budgeted items.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have seen in the past,
and this could be just because the way the bids are coming in, they're
coming in much lower because of the economy. And that could be the
reason for the assumption or the statement that maybe it could be
lower. I don't know.
But if we can get more money for advertising, it would be better
for the community.
MR. OCHS : Well, that's fine. Again, if I need to for the record,
I will tell you that we deny padding the budget.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
Page 50
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So I understand Commissioner
Henning is talking about advertising, and that's a noble effort because
that really adds to the bottom line. But you can't take park money and
put it in advertising, can you?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the only way you can do that is
what you've done in the past where you've taken money out of one of
your other TDC funds under a declaration of economic emergency and
rerouted it and reallocated it to the advertising account.
But that's a separate action of the Board. It doesn't happen as a
matter of course and it certainly isn't allowed routinely under your
current tourist development ordinance. It has to be a specific action of
the Board that's outside the norm of that ordinance. And again, it's
usually under the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a budgeted amount is just a
guess. You're hoping it's the best guess you can come up with to
accomplish what needs to be done. But at the same time if it comes in
lower, super, then you take that money and you can use it back into
the parks category again. If it comes in higher, then you have to ask
for some permission to go over budget, right?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'm going to vote in favor of the
motion, so there's no point in continuing to debate it. There's enough
votes to approve the reconsideration of this item. I think it's
misguided, but nevertheless I don't want to set a precedent of denying
a commissioner the right to reconsider an item that is of importance to
them.
So all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 51
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Fiala dissenting.
So we'll schedule that for a future board meeting.
Item #9H
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN A LETTER OF CONCURRENCY FOR THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FOR THE
STATE OF FLORIDA REFUGEE SERVICES TARGETED
ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM AND THE UTILIZATION OF
THESE FUNDS IN COLLIER COUNTY THROUGH THE
CATHOLIC CHARITIES - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is 9.H. It was
previously 16.H.3 on your consent agenda. That item is to authorize
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign a letter
of Concurrency for the Florida Department of Children and Families
for the State of Florida Refugee Services Targeted Assistance Grant
Program, and the utilization of these funds in Collier County through
the Catholic Charities. And that item was placed on the regular
agenda by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did not realize that we had --
that we accepted money -- and we don't have to accept the money, by
the way, to finance refugee resettlement. I didn't realize -- I don't
know if that's something that encourages more refugees to come here
or not. I know we've been having a lot of problems with -- well, like it
Page 52
September 13-14,2011
says, you know, Collier County is one of those that receives a large
number of refugees. I don't know if it's that we are financing that or
encouraging more refugees to come to this area or not. But whatever
it is, I felt that this would be something we would all want to discuss
here on the commission before we approve something like this.
And if everybody agrees that this is a great thing to do, fine. I
just felt it should be a matter of public record. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we do have a representative
from Catholic Charities here who could perhaps speak to the subject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is he standing at the podium now?
MR. MITCHELL: He is, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That comes as a big surprise to us.
Please state your name.
MR. GALELLA: My name's Armando Galella, District Director
of Catholic Charities of Collier County. And I also have with me Mr.
Slav Tkach, who is a contract manager.
Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and to kind of clear
up whatever questions that you might have.
This is a program that has been funded by the Department of
Refugee Resettlement -- Federal Refugee Resettlement. The dollars
flow through the Department of Children and Families, and Catholic
Charities is one of several faith-based organizations throughout the
State of Florida that received this contract.
The emphasis here is refugee employment, and that is the thrust
of this contract. We are paid for benchmark placements of these
refugees. And there are approximately -- we're working with
approximately 300 of these refugees now. These are all individuals
who come to the United States, and I must state clearly that the vast
majority, over 90 percent, are Cubans.
Now, why are they in America? Well, you know why they're in
America. They are refugees who come here through channels. Many
of whom are prosecuted for their faith. As you probably know,
Page 53
September 13-14,2011
Cubans are not allowed to practice their faith in a communist state.
They come here with nothing but the hope that assistance can be given
to them to resettle in this country.
Just for my own story, my mother came here in 1936 because she
was a refugee from Fascist Italy. My colleague Slav may tell his story,
but he came to this country because he was a refugee from the Soviet
Union to this great country.
I wanted to just give you one little story. This was in the July 1 st
Naples Daily News. It has to do with Desiree Gutierrez, who is a
neighbor of ours. Desiree Gutierrez came here from Cuba with
nothing, just as these people who we're working with, 300-plus
individuals we're working with now. We got her a job through this
program. She was the supervisor of janitorial housekeeping services
for a local Doubletree. She's been promoted to manager and then to
executive housekeeper. And now she actually speaks on behalf of
Doubletree Corporation who received an award for the -- of all the
Doubletree hotels throughout the United States, her hotel won an
award for the way she organizes her housekeeping team. And she
actually goes out now and speaks to other Doubletree managers on
how to effectively build teams.
And one thing that she -- two things that she does in her program:
English lessons for the staff, and civic lessons for the staff.
I'm going to quote a recent question that was asked of her weekly
meetings with the staff: If both the President and the Vice President
can no longer serve, who becomes President of the United States?
Hopefully everyone here knows that answer. But that's the
question that she asks her staff in part of their civic and English
language teaching.
These are the kinds of people -- these are the refugees who come
to Collier County with whom we are working with.
And we only get compensated for benchmark placements, by the
way. The benchmark placements are 90 days of employment, 180
Page 54
September 13-14,2011
days of employment, and if they get health insurance as part of their
employment. That's how the contract is fulfilled.
There are, as I said, over 300 of these individuals. It is a huge
benefit to this community for us to be able to have our case work staff
work with these people on not just their language and presentation
skills, but also how to become better Americans. And then obviously
how to find meaningful work in our community.
And we're very proud of the fact that in this very difficult
economy, 40 percent of the individuals we were able to find
placement for in this very, very difficult economy. And that's a credit
to the case workers, all of whom, by the way, are refugees and either
now American citizens or seeking American citizenship.
If you have any questions on the contract, I'd like to have Slav
perhaps come up and speak to you specifically about that contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have questions by Commissioners
right now.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As you're describing it, it almost
sounds like an economic development program --
MR. GALELLA: That's exactly what it is--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it should be characterized as
such.
You verify the legitimacy of all the applicants?
MR. GALELLA: We don't, it's the -- go ahead.
MR. TKACH: Good morning. My name is Slav Tkach, and he
already introduced me.
Well, I'm refugee myself. I came from the former Soviet Union
some years ago and I'm running the program here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Zdravstvujtye.
MR. TKACH: Say it again?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Zdravstvujtye.
MR. TKACH: Oh, Zdravstvujtye.
Page 55
September 13-14, 2011
So basically the contract, we only can service people who are --
who have eligibility criteria, people are checked by DCF. And also
we have eligibility trainings for our employees who also check their
eligibility .
And part of our contract we have to report back to DCF stating,
you know, that they have their parolee cards, they have their refugee
cards, they have their 1-94 cards. So basically you're not servicing
anybody who's illegal.
As far as encouraging more refugees coming to this community,
well, many people come here because this is a big city . We are
servicing people in the Sarasota County, Lee County, Port Charlotte
County. But seems like here in Naples more so the Cuban people
come and because they have more opportunities to get jobs.
The purpose of the DCF-run funds are so they can become
self-sufficient in the shortest possible time. And if they are accessing
any public assistance, our goal is just to make them, you know,
employed full-time, self-sufficient. So as soon as we are placing
them, within five days we report to DCF and their public benefits are
being cut.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask a question with respect
to what you're describing? We have tremendous unemployment in
Collier County. Are you actually recruiting people to bring them here
and then basically having these people compete with people who are
currently living here who are unemployed and displaced, or are you
helping people who currently live here who fall in the status that
you're describing to get employment where they are unemployed?
MR. TKACH: To answer the question, 95 percent of our clients
are being referred to us from DCF. In order for them to start the
benefits, they have to register with us so we can help them to find
employment. So we are not recruiting people from the streets.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Whether DCF is recruiting -- and I
don't mean from the streets or from other areas. My point is, are you
Page 56
September 13-14,2011
bringing in people to the community who are unemployed to compete
against the unemployed who already live here?
MR. TKACH: No, no, not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you helping people who
currently live here who are in the status that you're describing to get
employment where they are unemployed?
MR. TKACH: Correct. When they go to DCF, if they are
looking for any benefits, you know, DCF register them and then send
us the referral --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So these are -- these are Collier
County residents who happen to be refugees and who come to you
through DCF because they applied to DCF to get aid?
MR. TKACH: Correct.
MR. GALELLA: If I could just chime in on that.
They're coming here because they have friends or relatives that
are here. So they end up coming here from -- once they come through
their processing in Miami, they come here because they have friends,
relatives and others who live here. That's not -- has nothing to do with
what we do. They are here and wanting to live and work here. And
then they through DCF --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not like DCF is sending
people from Sarasota here --
MR. GALELLA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- saying there's employment here,
there --
MR. GALELLA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- isn't employment there. You're
basically trying to get locals employment --
MR. GALELLA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- within the local market.
MR. TKACH: We have similar services in Sarasota County and
Lee County, same contracts. So their residents are being serviced
Page 57
September 13-14,2011
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to confirm that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Armando, thank you for bringing this forward today, and I'm
sorry that we're going through all this, but these are good questions.
And if anything, it should, if anything, help to enforce the fact that this
program is a tremendous plus to Collier County. These people already
are here, they came here for the right reasons, they came here from
countries where they were being persecuted, and they came to the
right place. We have -- Collier County has a very healthy Hispanic
population and they've got every right to be able to help their relatives
when that time does come.
This program if anything will avoid the possibilities of people
having to depend on welfare for a long period of time. It's nothing but
plus. If we would deny you these funds and this program ended, these
people will not leave, they'll stay.
As far as attracting people, is this the only place in the United
States that has this program?
MR. GALELLA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, they got it other places.
So in other words, if you're in F oct Myers or Sarasota or Miami,
this same program exists there.
MR. TKACH: Our contract has seven counties, so this is--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Talk right in the microphone,
please.
MR. TKACH: Sorry. The contract -- we are servicing clients
throughout seven counties which covers the Diocese of Venice
territory.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you're not asking these
people to move to Collier County --
Page 58
September 13-14, 2011
MR. TKACH: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to receive this.
MR. TKACH: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, this is global,
it's across the United States what's taking place. Your other
organizations are doing the same thing.
MR. TKACH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that to do anything but
approve this would not be in the best interest of Collier County. If
anything, it would cause people to not be able to get employment,
become dependent on welfare and raise all sorts of problems that
could exist for generations to come.
With that I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion, but I just
wanted to say -- this is why I wanted this public discussion. I didn't
know if they were bringing in illegals or if this -- now, you say
Cubans. Of course they arrive wet foot, dry foot, they get, what,
$10,000 when they arrive, put their foot on dry land, and then they --
but then they're also legal as soon as they enter the country, whereas --
and that's exactly what I wanted to know, was that who -- I mean, are
we encouraging more illegals to get here, we have plenty --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not illegal.
MR. TKACH: They're not illegal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but you say no. As Cubans,
they're already legal as soon as they put foot on dry land. So that's
what I wanted to know.
So it sounds like it's a good program and it's helping those people
who are already here and who are here legally. I'm just concerned
about people who are here illegally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The underlying issue in my opinion is
Page 59
September 13-14, 2011
that we have funds that will help people who are refugees and are here
legally who are unemployed. We have people who live here legally,
who are u.s. citizens who are not employed. And I'm not sure what
kind of a program we have to help them.
So that's -- do we have any program funding?
MR. GALELLA: If I could interrupt you, Commissioners.
Workforce Development, that's what they do. Workforce
Development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what you do?
MR. GALELLA: No, no, we don't do that. There is a program
called Workforce Development, and that's when their charge is.
MR. TKACH: It's a mainstream employment program there for
everybody. Now, ours is specifically for those people who have
limited English.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I understand that. I understand the
issue entirely. I just don't understand the amount of money that flows
to each group. And I think we need to make sure that -- our citizens
who are unemployed need the same kind of job placement assistance
that you're providing. And maybe they're getting that. But I'm not
sure how much additional funding is available for that purpose. And I
can understand why some citizens might feel shortchanged here.
But in any event, we have a motion on the table.
Commissioner Hiller, do you need to make another comment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to add to what
Commissioner Fiala was questioning, and your question about who
helps with local employment. Joe Paterno's group, Workforce Florida,
or whatever the official title is, does a great job doing that. And in fact
they were looking to place about 75 potential workers with Arthrex,
and Arthrex would have been incentivized to the tune of I think four
or $5,000 per employee, which would have amounted to about three or
400,000 in incentives to Arthrex had they accepted what Mr. Paterno
was offering.
Page 60
September 13-14,2011
I don't know if they have or haven't accepted it, but they
absolutely have a program in place and they are actively working to
place unemployed Collier County workers at local firms that are
looking to build their workforce. So yeah, there is definitely a
program out there that services those individuals.
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: Okay, the motion carries unanimously.
And it's 10:40 now, we're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll
be back here at 10:50.
MR. OCHS: You have your time certain item, Mr. Chairman,
when you come back, on redistricting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are now going
to consider an item that I'm sure will bore most all of you.
MR.OCHS: Sir, that's Item 10 -- excuse me, 8.D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Item #8D (Discussed and tabled to later in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2011-163: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW
COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 124, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION - MOTION TO CONSIDER MAP NUMBER
Page 61
September 13-14, 2011
ONE, WITH MINOR CHANGES TO CARVE OUT CERTAIN
AREAS FOR DISTRICT 5, TO INCLUDE IN DISTRICT 5, AND
DAVID WEEKS WILL PRESENT TO THE BOARD AFTER
LUNCH - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: 8.D on your addenda this morning, set for a 10:45
a.m. time certain hearing. It's a recommendation to consider and
adopt a resolution establishing new county commission district
boundaries, pursuant to Chapter 124 Florida Statutes and the Florida
Constitution. And Mr. David Weeks from your planning staffwill
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Weeks, go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David
Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Section within the Growth
Management division. And the County Manager has read the title to
tell you what we're here about.
You might recall, on April 26th of this year the Commission
approved the redistricting criteria and basically set the process in
motion.
I want to stop now and mention that in front of you on the dais I
provided during your break some additional written correspondence
from the public. An attachment to your executive summary packet
was the written correspondence received from the public as of
September 6th at 5:00 p.m. And we received some comment from
that time until midnight last night, and that's what I provided to you
this morning, those additional comments. I'll speak more to those in a
moment about the public comments received.
As you I believe will recall from that April 26th meeting, we
have to do redistricting. It is a requirement of the State Constitution,
based upon the population growth that has occurred since the last
census in 2000 up to 2010. We've experienced a population growth of
about 70,000 persons, but that growth did not occur equally amongst
Page 62
September 13-14,2011
the various districts.
Of course the very nature of redistricting is changing district
boundaries such that population that is presently within one district
gets moved into another district. That's what this is all about. It's a
population driven process.
Page 1 of your executive summary shows you the table of
population. And you can see there's a discrepancy -- or excuse me,
disparity of about 33,000 persons from District 4 to District 3, the
lowest to the highest population based upon the 2010 census data.
The ideal population would be 64,304 persons within each district, but
there is the ability to deviate from that figure by as much as five
percent on each side of the equitable population.
Commissioners, as you might recall also from the April 26th
hearing, staff advised you that we would be hiring -- or had hired an
independent law firm to prepare a review of the redistricting process,
public notice, the map options that have been prepared and so forth,
and to provide to you an independent review and report to you. And
that report is included within your executive summary packet. And I'd
like to ask Mr. Adam Kerlek from the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck &
King to step to the mic. now and present to you the conclusion of that
report.
MR. KERLEK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Adam Kerlek. I'm a member of the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck &
King here in Naples.
The county engaged our firm to conduct an independent review
of the 2011 commissioner redistricting process. The county selected
our firm based on our response to a request for information. I believe
our firm was chosen based on our experience in New York State with
the last 2001 redistricting process in various counties, as well as our
firm's local involvement with the county and the city.
In the request for information, the county requested that our firm
review the redistricting process as carried out by the staff, and also
Page 63
September 13-14,2011
verify that the five proposed alternative maps meet the board's four
redistricting criteria and that the maps do not violate state or federal
law.
As included in the report that was provided to you, I'll briefly
explain in more detail our firm's role in the redistricting process and
our conclusions that the redistricting process, as conducted by staff,
was comprehensive, fair, legal and a truly commendable effort.
Second, I will explain our firm's conclusion that each of the five
proposed maps meets the Board's four redistricting criteria and that all
five maps do not violate federal or state law.
Our firm's role in the redistricting process has been that of an
independent third-party reviewer, similar to a referee, in that we were
there to blow the whistle if there was anything that raised any issues
during the process.
In April of this year, as David had mentioned, the Board
established four redistricting criteria and directed the staff to draw five
alternative maps.
In May our firm met with David Weeks, Scott Teach, Deputy
County Attorney, and Michael Bosi, as well as Tim Durham from the
Supervisor of Elections to discuss the time line, the public meetings
and the public notice format. We discussed the time constraints that
were placed on the redistricting process here in Collier County. There
are various factors that have come to play with regard to the time
constraints.
First, the Florida requirement says that the redistricting plan must
be adopted in an odd year, which means the plan must be adopted in
2011 or we'd have to wait until 2013.
The census data was released only in March of 20 11. The staff
had to consider a public comment period, providing notice to the
public, as well as holding public meetings.
On top of that, once a map is chosen by the Board, there's a
60-day pre-clearance requirement wherein the Board has to submit the
Page 64
September 13-14, 2011
selected map to the Department of Justice. They have -- the
Department of Justice has a 60-day turnaround on that, and that can be
extended if they ask for more information.
On top of that, the Supervisor of Elections has made it clear that
they wish to redraw their voting precincts based on the commissioner
districts as adopted by the Board. That will have an effect on the
primary preference election coming up -- presidential primary
preference election which could come up as early as January 3rd.
So all those factors played a determination in the time constraints
that set the time line that the Board should adopt a plan in this
September, hopefully at this meeting.
As far as our firm's involvement with the map drawing process,
our firm was not involved in drawing the maps. We again acted as a
third-party independent reviewer with an objective eye to see if the
maps met with legal or state requirements.
We attended two of the five public hearings. We were only
requested to attend one, but based on the information that was
becoming available, we thought it would be advisable to attend two.
We found that the public meetings were very comprehensive, with
Tim Durham's speech on the presentation of what the redistricting
process entails, as well as David Weeks encouraging to ask questions
and provide input from the public via the website, in person, e-mail or
phone calls.
David Weeks and Tim Durham also made presentations to the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, the Black Affairs Advisory Board,
North Naples Rotary, Naples City Council and the President's
Council.
As far as notice, a notice was made through press releases, the
website, contacting the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes. Notices
were sent to homeowners associations, newspapers, a distribution list
of over 88 entries, and of course the trilingual notice in the Naples
Daily News.
Page 65
September 13-14,2011
Based on that conclusion of that process, our firm's conclusion is
that the process was comprehensive, it was fair, and again, it was
commendable, so there's no objections from our firm as to the process
that was entailed by the staff.
Second, regarding the legality of the five alternatives maps and
also whether they met the Board's four redistricting criteria that you
set forth, it is our firm's conclusion, considered opinion that each of
the five maps complies with the Board's four redistricting criteria.
I can go through those briefly, and if there's questions later we
can answer them now or you can ask them again later.
I will also analyze the federal and state law briefly as applicable
to the five alternative maps.
The first criteria that you set forth was that the population of each
district should be as similar as possible, based on the Florida
Constitution and the u.s. constitution. It's called the one person, one
vote requirement, which permits a total maximum deviation of 10
percent from the maximum district to the minimum population district.
All five maps met that requirement and have a less than 10 percent
deviation. So criteria one for all five maps was met.
Second criteria, all districts should be as compact and regularly
shaped as feasible. The Constitution and federal law requires that
districts be contiguous, which means that they have to be touching.
They can't have pockets of one district inside of another district. And
on top of that, as the Board requested, that they be compact and
regularly shaped on top of being contiguous.
The determination for compactness, based on the U.S. Supreme
Court, tends to be an eyeball test of whether it looks irregularly
shaped, dramatically irregular or bizarre. Our firm concluded that all
five alternative maps are compact and regularly shaped, based on this
eyeball test.
The third criteria is the incumbent commissioner's residence must
remain in his or her district. That is the case in all five alternative
Page 66
September 13-14, 2011
maps.
And then the fourth criteria is that the staff was to consider racial
and ethnic populations in accordance with the law. This is a complex
area of the law, and I'll try and do it briefly.
Basically there are two considerations: There's the U.S.
Constitution, mainly the Equal Protection Clause, and also the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. Between the two of these documents and statutes
is permissible consideration of race for a language minority, in our
case the Hispanic population in District 5, when redistricting.
However, this population, Hispanic population information should
only be used in specific circumstances in order to avoid a Section 2
voting rights claim, in which our firm concluded that that is unlikely,
based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Hispanic
population's voting history.
To put it simply, the Commissioners -- the Board has to walk a
legal tightrope between considering race, which is permissible to
avoid a Voting Rights Act claim, where -- and also under the U.S.
Constitution, which suggests that using race as a predominant factor is
unconstitutional as a form of racial jerrymandering.
Our firm's conclusion is that based on an analysis of the Voting
Rights Act and the u.s. Constitution that all five maps do meet federal
requirements and do not dilute the Hispanic population District 5.
I'm more than happy to provide a legal analysis on this if the
Commissioners desire that or they're unfamiliar with the report that we
have presented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 13 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thirteen?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not very many.
Let me make a comment and then we'll just see how we proceed
with this.
Page 67
September 13-14,2011
You know, I recognize that my district was the one that really
had to be adjusted substantially in order to balance out the number of
voters. That's District 4. And I -- the staff didn't have many choices.
They could go north, they could go south or they could go east. And
they did all three. And I think they did a wonderful job of pulling all
this together.
And quite frankly, I would be honored to serve any constituency
that the Commissioners deem appropriate to place in my district. But
I would like to get an indication from the Board as to which options
are clearly off limits and there's no point of even debating them.
And I would like to suggest that maps two, three and five fall into
that category.
I understand that after reviewing the results of all the public
meetings that Commissioner Hiller does not want to lose Pelican Bay.
And Commissioner Fiala does not want to lose Marco Island. And
the other map makes a fairly major change in the assignment of
Everglades City to Commissioner Fiala.
The only maps that -- the only map in my opinion that causes the
least amount of disruption on existing districts is map four. And I
think that should be an item of great interest to voters and candidates
who have already declared for this next election.
So I would like to ask the audience, how many of you are
opposed to map two, giving me Pelican Bay?
(Show of hands.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I have no intent of
supporting that map, quite frankly. And I have no intent in supporting
the map that gives me Marco Island. Now, I don't know how the other
Commissioners would vote. But if we could get a straw vote on an
indication of which of these things is out of bounds, then we could
probably reach a conclusion pretty quickly and not spend a lot of the
day debating this issue.
So could I just get an indication from the Board as to whether or
Page 68
September 13-14,2011
not you agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree to eliminate two and three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And five. Two, three and five.
Does anybody have any objections to proceeding along those
lines?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, what I want to say is
David Weeks is the most non-political person that I've ever met. And
I don't think he took any of his thoughts on drawing these maps based
upon politics. The politics is up here. In all my years working with
David, he'll tell you based upon facts.
So anyways, with that said, I don't like any of the maps. My
preference is map five. Map four, I've heard from my constituents in
Oakes Boulevard, they would like to remain in my district. So I
respect that. And talking with the leadership over there, they have no
disregrets (sic) of moving into another district, they're just used to
working with the District 3 Commissioner.
I cannot accept map two. If there's a majority of the
Commissioners that support map five, I'd be elated. Ifnot, I can really
consider map one. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's helpful.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
What part of the baby do you throw out the door? It's -- it's very
difficult. I know that my fellow Commissioners probably feel the
same way. Whatever part of the district that goes into another district
does not mean a net loss of constituents. We all recognize
constituents across the county. Any part of my district that eventually
will move -- and I have to because of the fact my population exceeds
Page 69
September 13-14, 2011
the average and so I'm going to lose some ground, no matter what
happens.
I agree with you about map two, three and five. I really don't
think that they meet the needs of what Collier County is all about.
However, with that said, map one and four, both of them do
major incursions into Collier County. But here's my concern is the
fact that District 5 has been a poor district forever. Originally the
district, when 2000 used to go all the way down to Willoughby Acres
on the north side of Immokalee Road and then the map revision took
place in '02, removed everything up to 951, making the district even
less wealthy, which, you know, trying to get some sort of balance.
Now, map four takes an incursion into the district, once again
removing more of the middle class and upper middle class. And if
we're ever going to keep a balance as far as how this world's put
together, I need a district that is not all just very low income people. I
need to be able to have a base of people that are, you know, upper
income, be able to assume leadership positions at different times.
So my first preference would be map one, as Commissioner
Henning stated. Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Copeland, these are
areas that have been dear to my heart. But I'm not losing them, I plan
to still be totally involved if they have a tendency to shift to
Commissioner Fiala's district, and I couldn't think of a better
commissioner to be able to serve them, you and me together as a team.
So I'm putting my support behind map one at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And as far as I'm concerned, map
one and four are acceptable to me.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
My East Naples Civic Association took a vote, their board
members took a vote and they strongly support map four. And then
my kitchen cabinet, that's my East Naples advisers and my Islands
advisory board both supported map one and four. And so we're pretty
Page 70
September 13-14, 2011
well evenly divided. Nobody mentioned the other three. Nobody
even considered two and three. I don't think that's ever really been on
the table for consideration. But it was good that you drew it. I mean,
it's a good thing that we had things to choose from, and I thank you for
all your hard work. But anyway, we appreciate that.
And Commissioner Coletta, just in case we do choose map four
instead of one, and I don't care, there's something coming up in that
district is the Six L Ranch at some point in time. So you might have a
different influx of the economy there, if that ever comes to be. So that
might be helpful too. If that's the one that comes to be. But I will--
and they didn't want to lose you in Everglades City. I got some
messages on that. And that's nice that you're loved. But if you do, I
will strongly support them. I always do anyway. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: David, can I ask a question about
map four? That section of the map that was previously Commissioner
Henning's district that moves into my district is a very small
protrusion, and the law does provide that you can have a 10 percent
deviation between the maximum and minimum population districts.
My district as it stands did not have a material population change. And
so quite frankly that portion that was pulled out of Henning's district
and put in my district, it really could stay in Commissioner Henning's
district, keeping everything else the same in map four without
affecting the requirements to fall within the criteria.
MR. WEEKS: You had a question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that correct? That was kind of a
question without a question mark. But it was a question.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I don't know. I'll try to find the
answer to that in a moment. I agree with your statement, your district
was one that only needed roughly a couple thousand or so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I didn't even need
anything, quite frankly. Because again, you know, you've got the --
Page 71
September 13-14,2011
you know, you have a range that you can -- the districts don't have to
be all exactly the same number with respect to population. You have
the right to have that 10 percent deviation. So you're not expected to
have every single district at 64,000. I mean, I think my district is at
60,000 and it would become 64. So we're talking about 4,000
additional people you would add.
My district could stay exactly the way it is, and whatever you
move from Henning's district into mine could actually stay in
Henning's district.
And, you know, if the Board's preference is between one and
four, it basically, you know, satisfies what the Board is looking for, in
addition to keeping the residents of that community in District Three
who don't want to be disenfranchised by a change in the district lines.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, your district does have to grow
some. Your existing population of 60,032 is a little bit outside of the
10 percent deviation range.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much am lout?
MR. WEEKS: I believe the bottom of the range is around 61,000
and something, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what am I at?
MR. WEEKS: 60,032.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're like about 700 people
out?
MR. WEEKS: I'm thinking it might be a little bit over 1,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 1,000 people. So that certainly
wouldn't be that whole square.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, if I understand your question
then, you would be asking if it's possible to leave the area bordered by
1- 7 5 on the west, Logan Boulevard on the east, Immokalee Road on
the north and Vanderbilt Beach Road on the south, leave that in
District 3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
Page 72
September 13-14,2011
MR. WEEKS: And I can say for certain that your district would
be acceptable to population number. What I don't know is what it
would do to District 3, because I don't know exactly what that
population is in that area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we find that out? Because
my point is if -- it seems the whole Board agrees with one and four as
being the options we should consider except for Commissioner
Henning's concern as expressed by the voters of that particular
quadrant. So I would like to respect, you know, what these people are
requesting.
And I think there's a way to do it. And maybe that's just a minor
modification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me correct your statement.
The eastern part is not Oakes Boulevard. You might want to consider
Golden Gate Estates unit 97 and unit 96.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Hopefully I said Logan Boulevard. If I
didn't, I was mistaken.
For that area we're just describing, the eastern boundary would be
Logan Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're on the same page.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. With one exception for clarity, it does not
follow Logan completely. It first begins on the canal that runs along
the east side of the Golden Gate Estates units. If it were to follow
Logan Boulevard, it would grabbing that multi-family portion of
Island Walk and it does not. That would remain in District 3.
And commissioner Hiller, I will check and see. I may have some
notes that will answer that question about what that population figure
.
IS.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you do that, you're also going to
have to look at what Commissioner Henning's district population will
be and how you adjust that between Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Coletta.
Page 73
September 13-14,2011
Is that something you can do on the fly?
MR. WEEKS: I believe I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Ifwe're going to do
something on the fly, I'd very much like to be able to see map one
include Everglades City, which is the population of 600 and some
people down through there, and that would makes no sense. If we're
going to make adjustments, let's just talk about making adjustments
across the board to accommodate other Commissioners too.
I have a very strong connection with Everglades City, and if
possible if we could keep map one with Everglades City in it, that
would be something that I would be very, very appreciative of.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't it already include it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doesn't it already include it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It already includes it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, map one at this time
includes Everglades City in District 1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. And you're saying
include it in District 5.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, include it in District 5, if
we could. You know, keep it where it was. The population's so small,
it would have a minuscule effect on it.
Then at some point in time maybe we better get guidance from
our speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's getting different.
Okay, so Commissioner Hiller, you expressed a preference for
either one or perhaps four with certain modifications; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I don't have a problem
with what Commissioner Coletta wants either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But that would be done offmap
four, not map one.
Page 74
September 13-14, 2011
So you were supportive of map one; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the bulk of everyone I have
heard from in the community is supportive of map one with
preference, and provided that everything is legally conforming, it
seems that, you know, map one maybe with the modification
requested by Commissioner Coletta is what is the consensus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've got--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One or four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it looks like it's one or four. We
have one, two, three, four-and-a-half votes for one. And one, two,
three, four -- three-and-a-halfvotes for four. So I think we can safely
say that between -- that the Board would vote for one of those two
maps, one or four.
Now, that brings us back to the speakers. I would prefer not to
spend the morning debating something we're not even going to
consider. So if it's acceptable to the speakers, I would appreciate it if
you'd let Mr. Mitchell know that you have waived your interest in
speaking, and we will go on to those that have specific issues with the
remaining districts.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to suggest that we
actually have a formal motion to eliminate those other maps so that
the speakers don't waive their right and then afterwards something
happens and then they have waived their right and the issue of one or
any of those other maps comes back and they feel that, you know,
they've been -- they've lost their opportunity to speak. So if that's
okay with you, I'd like to make the motion that we not consider maps
two, three and five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that motion is seconded by
Commissioner Coletta already, isn't it? Didn't you say second?
Page 75
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you have a second.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Before you vote, I just want to make one
statement.
If we're going to alter maps, okay, David is going to need a little
bit of time to go through the numbers to make sure from the
retrogression analysis we're good. Because I'd hate to come back two
weeks from now and say, you know what, we're sorry but the map you
chose wasn't any good.
I don't know how long it's going to take David to do that. He's
best able to give you that estimate. But I think we can get it done
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But can we at least take action on
maps two, three and five?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you can disregard maps two, three and
five. What I'm saying is you can move these boundaries around, that's
fine. Just note that David needs a little bit of time, just a little bit of
time --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a problem with that. If
necessary, we can recess this particular hearing and give him --
MR. KLATZKOW: And come back later on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- thirty minutes, an hour, whatever.
And then --
MR. KLATZKOW: No pressure, David.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen minutes, David? Can you do it
in 15 minutes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's get it right, that's the main
Page 76
September 13-14,2011
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: Okay, those maps then, two, three and
five are off the table. And we're working now with maps one and
perhaps four with some modifications which David will present to us.
Now, if there is anyone who has -- now, do those of you who
wanted to speak on map two, are you willing to waive and let us
concentrate on the other two maps? And if you hear something that
you don't like, then you say I want to talk about it, then we'll do it
then; is that fair enough for everybody?
Then do we have anyone who wants to speak on map one?
MR. MITCHELL: Should I just call the speakers?
MR. OCHS: They can waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can if you wish. Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: We'll use both podiums, please.
The first speaker is Vincent D. Angiolillo, and he'll be followed
by John Lundin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember that you can waive if we're
not going to be considering the map you're concerned about, okay?
MR. ANGIOLILLO: Hi, I'm Vincent Angiolillo, candidate for
Sheriff of Collier County.
Thank you, Chairman, for your insight in looking at this. I
expected a complete different decision, and I waive any other further
comments, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: John Lundin will be followed by Steve
Page 77
September 13-14,2011
Hemping.
MR. LUNDIN: Hi, I'm John Lundin. I'd like to speak about the
criteria used for the redistricting. I've made a list of the different
criteria that's been presented here.
The first criteria, at the April 26th Collier Board of County
Commissioners meeting, the original executive summary with only
three approved criteria, you can see it on the map there, population,
compactness, and incumbents was passed. The criteria of a racial and
ethnic population was in a separate paragraph as a consideration.
I've looked at the video of that meeting, I've looked at the
minutes of that meeting, and nowhere in that meeting was it ever
voted to have a fourth approved criteria. So because you didn't vote
this, this is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Because you have to
have racial and ethnic populations as a criteria.
In addition, at the public redistricting meetings we repeatedly
asked the county staffwhy a majority/minority Hispanic voting map
was not drawn, based on the 69 percent increase in Hispanic
population from the 2010 census.
Staff said repeatedly they are quote, unquote, not required to
draw majority/minority districts, because other unlisted criteria such
as communities of interest are equal to racial and ethnic populations.
This is a violation of the Voting Rights Act, because the Voting
Rights Act is a federal law, and other lesser criteria are not equal to be
referenced.
The second part of the map, I call this map the magic fourth
criteria. Because like I said, in the minutes of the April 26th meeting,
it was never officially voted on to add the fourth criteria of racial and
ethnic populations. The only time this criteria showed up that I saw
was two days after the maps were posted on-line. Two days after the
maps were posted on-line this revised criteria showed up. In my
opinion, this is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Then I'd like to point out to the third criteria. This was the
Page 78
September 13-14,2011
criteria used at all five of the public meetings. During the public
meetings -- this is not the criteria the Board of County Commissioners
vote on. This is a separate generic criteria list that was used. In my
opinion -- Commissioner Hiller asked twice, why don't we have the
correct criteria voted on by the Board of Commissioners. It was never
changed. Tim Durham, he could have changed the PowerPoint slide
in one minute. I can do it for him right now. I can change the
PowerPoint slide to put in the criteria that was approved by the Board.
But it was never done.
So in my opinion this was done to confuse the public. The public
never saw the actual criteria. The public never -- let me repeat that. At
all the public meetings the actual criteria voted on by the Commission
was never presented to the public. This is a violation of the Voting
Rights Act.
And in my opinion, all five of your proposed redistricting maps
do not comply with the criteria of racial and ethnic populations, based
on the increase -- am lout of time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lundin, are you a resident of Collier County?
MR. LUNDIN: Not at the moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are you registered to vote?
MR. LUNDIN: In Broward County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Steve Hemping will be followed by Peter
Gaddy.
MR. HEMPING: Good morning. I'm Steve Hemping, an
II-year resident of Lely Resort, East Naples. Thank you for hearing
me today. I'll be very quick.
I'm representing myself today, concerned citizen, potential
candidate for public office of the future here.
I did come here to strongly recommend map five, and secondary
recommendation for map one. I understand five is no longer in play.
Page 79
September 13-14,2011
Commissioner Henning liked map five as well. I appreciate his
support of that.
So I would strongly support map one and not support map four.
And I appreciate all the work that the SOE office and staff has done
and appreciate the process. And thank you for hearing me this
.
mornIng.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Mary Lou Smart, and
she's been ceded time by Lee Mathys and Betty Mathys.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they left.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. The next speaker is Duane Billington,
and he'll be followed by Joyce Fletcher.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Duane Billington. I want to thank staff, both our County staff
and Supervisor of Elections staff. They've done a terrific job on this.
I also want to thank you all from what I'm hearing here this
morning. My preference is map number one.
Also, I have an understanding, based on the conversation, that
this was run by the Hispanic Affairs Board. And I don't know too
many of them, but I don't see any of them here complaining about a
special district. And I just want to make that comment. And again,
thank you all for all your hard work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it wasn't run by the Hispanic
Affairs Board, it was reviewed by the Hispanic Affairs Board. Okay,
thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Joyce Fletcher will be followed by Tom
Cravens.
MS. FLETCHER: Good morning. Joyce Fletcher, vice president
of the League of Women Voters.
The League of Women Voters wants to commend David Weeks
and his team from the Supervisor of Elections Office, the County
Attorney's Office and the School Board on the open and timely
Page 80
September 13-14,2011
process they followed and the ample opportunities for the public to
comment on these maps. Thank you. And the League has taken no
position on any particular map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Tom Cravens will be followed by Bob
Krasowski.
MR. CRAVENS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak. My name is Tom Cravens. I'm the vice
chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division.
I want to read you a letter that was sent by our chair, Keith
Dallas, to the Commissioners. Actually, it was sent to Mr. Weeks and
cc'd to the commissioners.
Dear Mr. Weeks: The Board of the Pelican Bay Services
Division has reviewed the five proposed redistricting maps and the
executive summary prepared by the county staff. The Board
commends the county staff for the thorough work that has gone into
developing these alternatives.
The Board recommends that Commissioners select map one,
which is simple and straightforward, reasonably maintains the current
boundaries but allows for population shifts, closely follows
established roadways and county borders, and is the least political
solution that can be easily explained to the voters. We respectfully
urge the Commissioners to select map one.
I would like to also add that the Pelican Bay Foundation, the
master homeowners association's board, unanimously voted to endorse
map one, as did the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. We
have approximately 7,600 residential units in Pelican Bay, and there is
widespread support for map one within Pelican Bay. Thank you very
much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Tim Witherite, and
Mr. Chairman, he's your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Page 81
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I have Windermere back?
MR. WITHERITE: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim
Witherite. I'm the president of the Oakes Boulevard Advisory Board.
You've already discussed our neighborhood quite a bit here so I'll be
brief.
We just want to make clear our preference to remain in District 3.
And the only reason we want to do that is because we feel our
neighborhood has much more in common with the existing District 3,
Logan Boulevard and so forth, those neighborhoods. We have large
semi-rural neighborhood lots and we just feel we fit in better there.
However, we'll work with whoever we work with. And we've
already worked with Commissioner Hiller on a few things. She's
helped us. Because our neighborhood does sit right on the boundary.
No matter what map you take, we're going to be still sitting on the
boundary, just a matter of left or right. So we do appreciate your
consideration on our request.
Speaking personally for myself, I like map one, it's the one that
makes the most common sense. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: That was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You called Bob Krasowski's name at one
point.
MR. MITCHELL: He waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did he? Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I just wanted to hear my name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For the record, what's your name?
Okay. Commissioner Hiller, is that light on from before?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's a new.
I would like to make a motion that we eliminate map four. And
based on the consensus of all the letters, the speakers today and the
Board, there seems to be unanimous agreement that map one, subj ect
to the adjustment of Everglades City moving back into map five, is the
map that everybody seems to support. And I'm not sure that if you
Page 82
September 13-14,2011
move Everglades City into District 5 that you really even need to
touch any of the other boundaries at all, because again you have that
10 percent leeway.
And quite frankly, as Commissioner Coletta pointed out, you
know, you're only dealing with about 700 or so voters; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's approximately what I
think the number is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it really wouldn't be a material
deviation. Of course Mr. Weeks would have to confirm that to us.
But then it would eliminate him having to analyze map four and, you
know, the more material changes that would have to be made to adjust
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, were you listening to any of that,
or are you still figuring?
MR. WEEKS: I have my shoes off, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I have done a quick count for
District 4 -- excuse me, map four. But I guess that's off the table now
or at least --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not necessarily.
MR. WEEKS: Then let me comment on that one.
The population shift discussed earlier by Commissioner Hiller,
that would be acceptable. Both Districts 2 and 3 would remain within
the acceptable population range if that change were to be made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just move that one section that
was in Commissioner Henning's district back in Commissioner
Henning's district and leave everything else the same?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's great.
MR. WEEKS: As to the proposed change for map one, I need to
ask the question of Commissioner Coletta: Were you referring to
shifting Everglades City only back into District 5?
Page 83
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it would be very difficult
to take Chokoloskee and say that's still in District 1, because of the
fact all of a sudden it becomes a burden for somebody to have to
travel that whole route just to visit people in Chokoloskee and go right
through Everglades City. So they're like one unit. Is that possible?
MR. WEEKS: I don't -- that's what I'll have to run the numbers
on. We'll need to go over to I think the elections office, to their
computers, since they're closest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we continue this until we
get those numbers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would include Plantation
Island, too, right? Plantation, Chokoloskee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, that would be everything
in that quadrant. It wouldn't make any sense to subdivide a small area
like that.
MR. WEEKS: And the reason I ask, Commissioners, I could tell
you, because Everglades City's population is 400 per the 2010 census.
That would still fall within the acceptable range. Adding those other
communities, as small as they are, may be enough to push it out of the
range. That's why we--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you'd let me know. Because
trying to divide the baby in this case isn't going to work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let me make sure I'm clear
on one thing: Adding that section of map four back into District 3
does not cause a substantial change in population for District 2, but
what does it do for District 3?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, let me give you the figures. To
start with, let me give you the acceptable range, that 10 percent
deviation. The low end is 61,089 persons. The high end is 67,519
persons. With that shift we're discussing, District 3 would be 67,216,
below the top end range, and District 2 would be 62,357, above the
bottom range. So again that would be acceptable. And that does not
Page 84
September 13-14,2011
affect District 5, so there's no issue with retrogression analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
To be honest with you, district map four, the way it is subdivides
the Estates in a way that is totally unacceptable. There's no way we
could make an adjustment that big to make it work. So I'm still back
to District 1 -- the map number one to make it work, that small little
deviation, if possible. If it's not possible, then not possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
MR. WEEKS: May I address that, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Map four, the only change it makes -- it makes no
change to Golden Gate Estates east of 951. The area that is being
moved from District 5 to District 3 is within what we know as the
rural fringe area. It's the agricultural area, but it is outside of Golden
Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's still an integral part of
Golden Gate Estates. Just like Orangetree is, even though we don't
call it Golden Gate Estates.
If you look at the continuous block that you have here, this is the
population area. I'm sorry, no one else can see it. The rest of this part
of the county, with the exception of Everglades City and everything, is
basically conservation land. So if we're going to try to keep
something united, this is the area you try to keep united to be able to
make it a working entity, map one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we -- it looks like the majority
of support is shifting from map four to map one now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, clarify it for us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the statements that were
made were inaccurate and incorrect. It has -- map four keeps Golden
Gate whole, okay? The population in the rural fringe, there is no
Page 85
September 13-14, 2011
population in the rural fringe. In that map it is -- the fringe area would
be south of Eagle Creek. Nobody lives there except for wildlife,
okay? So it's just a -- doesn't have anything to do with population.
Now, map two, the reason I was opposed to it, because it would
divide Golden Gate Estates. Even though I would love to represent
that part of Golden Gate Estates, it wouldn't be fair to the citizens of
Golden Gate Estates. That's why I opposed map two.
If map four divided Golden Gate Estates, I would be very much
opposed to it. It's not fair to a community. It's kind of like East
Naples, you know, that is a -- everybody is pretty much like minded.
Golden Gate Estates is too. Those people are people with large acres
of land, and they like certain amenities that East Naples doesn't like,
and vice versa. So map four does not split Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That raises another question. If
there's no population there, what difference does it make whether it's
in District 3 or District 5?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, there's minimal population in the
rural fringe area that Commissioner Henning referred to, but that
boundary goes all the way over to -- excuse me, the area added starts
at Collier Boulevard and runs east. That first mile is an urban corridor
where you have Vanderbilt Country Club and several other
developments. So certainly there's a chunk of population in there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a true statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, we're focusing on map four
now; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, but we heard the
vast majority of people speak in favor of map one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know how we suddenly
Page 86
September 13-14, 2011
go to map four as being the alternative. I've got to object to map four
because of the fact that I'm losing a part of the population that is
diversely different than the rest of the district in the fact that it gives a
balance. We keep cutting District 5 back as far as our upper income
people and our middle income people. I don't know if it's this
Commission's direction to try to keep District 5 the poorest district
forever.
But this was enabling us to be able to keep something in the way
of a middle class, to be able to have people we can draw on to be able
to help us with different items that come up within District 5.
Vanderbilt Country Club has been a very important part of it. They've
been a central point where we've held meetings numerous times. They
figure into a lot of the issues that take place in Golden Gate. They've
been to Ave Maria a number of times. They're very active. It's part of
a geographic --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I got it. I got it.
Now, but even with map one you're talking about carving out
Everglades City and Copeland, right?
MR. WEEKS: Everglades City, Chokoloskee and Plantation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, yes, Everglades City,
Chokoloskee and Plantation. Now, that's not going to be a lot of
population. It can't possibly create a big difference in the
representation.
MR. WEEKS : Well, because map one already shows District 5
at less than 1,000 persons from the top range, more like about 700 or
so, it's going to be close. It may be close.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How quickly can you calculate that for
us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's do it this afternoon.
MR. WEEKS: This afternoon, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What we'll do is--
MR.OCHS: Sir, we can go right after lunch before your public
Page 87
September 13-14,2011
hearings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll break for lunch, and -- make
sure you don't get lunch, okay? You work on this. And then if you
have extra time, you can have lunch, okay?
MR. WEEKS: Look for some morsels. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Tim, did you want to say
something to us before we --
MR. DURHAM: No, sir, I'm just going to grab David and we'll
get to work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would also like to say thank you,
in the event you don't come back after lunch. You've done a great job.
You and David and the entire staff have done a good job. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like to get
one thing on the record quickly. I did not finish my presentation, and
that's fine. But I did want to mention the tally of the public comments
that were received. You of course heard some this morning here, but
you had in your executive summary packet written public comments, I
provided more to you today. The total was by far map one was the
preference. I mean, 77 votes for the map. The second closest was
map five with 15 votes. Conversely, map two had by far the highest
votes of opposition than any other.
And we did have multiple organizations. I won't walk through
those unless you ask me to, but I'll just say that we had 10
organizations or entities, like Naples City Council, Civic Association
and so forth, and collectively the consensus of those, not unanimous,
but a consensus was map one also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, David. Now, get to work.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go have lunch,.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean we get an extra 11
minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it means the County Manager can
Page 88
September 13-14,2011
recommend to us something that he can get done in 10 minutes.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Do we need a motion to table, County Attorney, on that item?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what we're doing, but if you'd like a
motion, I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a motion pending,
because I had made a motion to eliminate four and just consider one,
subject to the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to just have a vote on that
right now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion was to eliminate all
maps except one, map number one, with some minor changes to that
that David Weeks will report on after lunch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Okay, so once again, we'll only consider map number one with
minor changes to carve out certain areas for District 5, to include in
District 5. And that report will be provided to us after lunch and we'll
make a final recommendation concerning adoption.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, those were Chokoloskee,
Plantation and Everglades.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifpossible.
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?
Page 89
September 13-14,2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that does it for this one right now.
And we'll take up the rest of this after lunch.
But what do you have for us for the next 10 minutes, Leo?
Item #10D
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,497,195.48 FOR THE "NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT MAIN ELECTRICAL
SWITCHGEAR REPLACEMENT" TO E.B. SIMMONDS
ELECTRICAL, INC., BID NUMBER 11-5747, PROJECT
NUMBER 70069, AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,695.48 TO PROJECT NUMBER
70069 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, I'd suggest we go to Item 10.D.
It's a bid award. It's a recommendation to award a construction
contract in the amount of$1,497,695.48 for the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Main Electrical Switchgear
Replacement to E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Incorporated. Bid number
11-5747. Project Number 70069. And authorize a budget amendment
in the amount of $247,695.48 to project number 70069.
Tom Chmelik, your Public Utilities Engineering Director, will
present.
Tom?
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you. Commissioners, Tom Chmelik for
the record, Director of Engineering, Public Utilities.
I have a presentation ready for you if you'd like, or we can go to
questions. Your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 90
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this -- is this a big
electrical box? There's a mechanical within --
MR. CHMELIK: It's many -- excuse me, sir, many electrical
boxes. It's a very large switching device that switches the power that
runs the entire plant from FPL to our generators that are within the
plant. So it's a very large switch, high amperage. It's almost 20 years
old. It's just plain wore out and needs to be replaced.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this wasn't done at the
expansion of the plant?
MR. CHMELIK: No, it's original equipment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Makes sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
And we have a question by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: E.B. Simmonds is a local
company?
MR. CHMELIK: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really applaud you for selecting a
local vendor. While we can't pick a local vendor over another vendor
if they're more expensive, assuming all factors being the same, we
want to give local vendors preference. The Lee Commission was just
considering that.
And quite frankly, I don't think we as a county are doing a good
job to promote local vendor selection. So I commend you for doing
what really isn't being done to the degree it should be. So thank you.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much. And if I may also add,
Page 91
September 13-14,2011
we will be working with the vendor to do a direct material purchase
where the county will buy the equipment, which is the majority of the
cost here, and we'll save $69,000 in sales tax.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. 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.
What can you do in seven minutes?
Item #10G
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO 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 - MOTION TO DISAPPROVE WAIVER-
FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER - FAILED; WAIVER
IS NOT GRANTED DUE TO LACK OF A SUPER-MAJORITY
VOTE
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, perhaps you want to take agenda
Item 10.G, which was previously 16.D.8 on your agenda. And that
was an item that Commissioner Coyle moved to the regular agenda. It
was continued from the July 26th, 2011 BCC meeting.
It's a request that the Board of County Commissioners review and
Page 92
September 13-14,2011
approve the County Attorney's recommendation to waive any
potential ethics conflict for a Code Enforcement Board member, based
on Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll just tell you why I pulled it.
Ken Kelly is probably one of the most honest and honorable people
I've met in Naples in all the years I've lived here. I would trust him in
any capacity advising this Board. But I cannot waive the requirements
of a statute to accommodate a single individual, no matter how highly
I think of him. And I think once you do that, you're going to feel
obligated to do it for the next person who comes in and asks for a
.
waIver.
So that's the only reason I pulled it. I will vote against it, but that
doesn't mean I don't highly respect Ken Kelly. He's done a lot of
wonderful things in this community and operates a fine company.
And I'd like to see him be able to continue doing business with the
government, ifnecessary, and not have people saying there's a conflict
with him sitting on an advisory board. So that's my position. Okay?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree, and so I support your
position. And are you making a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yes, I'll make a motion to
disapprove of the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this really going to be an
issue, since we're divulging (sic) ourselves of these homes? Is this an
issue with the Housing Department?
MS. GREEN: Commissioner Henning, Colleen Green, Assistant
County Attorney for the record.
That's what initially brought this issue to light. But the fact that
Mr. Kelly remains on any advisory board, he has a potential status
conflict. So he will continue to be on the Code Enforcement Board. If
Page 93
September 13-14,2011
he continues on the Code Enforcement Board he would need this
waiver, which is authorized by Florida Statute in order to continue to
do county jobs.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifhe wants to do the county job is my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. So ifhe wants to do --
reroof one of the buildings, he would need this waiver?
MR. GREENE: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is nuts. It has nothing to
do with his advisory capacity to the Board of Commissioners.
Can we get an AGO on this?
MR. GREENE: Well, Commissioner Henning, there are a
number of AGOs on point. This is regarding Florida Statute 112-313,
Subsection 12, which gives the Board the discretion to waive the
status conflict. We have waived the status conflict in the past. It's
been several years when we did have a similar case like this. We only
bring recommendations to the Board that we think are legally
sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where is the harm in supporting
this executive summary? I don't see any harm in it.
Now, if there was a direct conflict to where he was doing work
on homes for the Housing Department or he was soliciting to do bid
on code violation for residents, that would be considered in my
opinion a conflict. If he is bidding -- a local, mind you, roofer, well
established, if he was bidding a reroof for any of the buildings that we
have, where's the conflict? There is no conflict except for the
interpretation of the law.
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, the conflict is he's doing business with
us. That's all this is. And you can waive this conflict if you so
choose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I support the agenda item,
Page 94
September 13-14,2011
because unless he is doing work for those two entities, rehabbing a
house or doing work because of a code case, that to me would target
the issue. So to disallow an advisory board member, good standing in
the community -- and by the way, I think he makes a great Chairman
of the Code Enforcement Board. I support this item, and I will not the
support the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got a vote for. All right,
now, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, couple questions, if I
may.
This waiver that we're asking for that's allowed by Florida
Statutes, is this a fairly common thing throughout the state for
municipalities or county governments to use?
MR. GREENE: Commissioner Coletta, I don't know how often
it's used, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But this waiver does not
give him the right to vote on his own contract, does it?
MR. GREENE: No, it doesn't, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it kind of limits it in general.
But the fact that if anything ever came up that would be a conflict, he
would have to excuse himself; am I correct?
MR. GREENE: That's correct, if a conflict came before the Code
Enforcement Board, and that may be a different analysis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll tell you what, our
biggest problem is trying to find qualified people to serve on these
different boards. And these qualified people have to have expertise in
the industry. And in order to support themselves, because they don't
get paid to serve on these boards, they have to earn a living. So I can
see how one thing leads to another, and personally I'm not offended by
this direction at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got another vote for yes. Okay,
Commissioner Hiller?
Page 95
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think this is something that
should be discussed in more detail at a later time as a full agenda item.
I think we need to have a policy that applicants to these advisory
boards disclose if they have business with the county or if there are
issues with the county that are ongoing. While they sit on boards,
they should update those disclosures.
And they do create a conflict, regardless of the type of business
they're involved with, with respect to the county. I personally don't
think we should grant any waivers. I mean, there are so many people
in this community who are willing to serve, there are so many
qualified people out there who can serve, and it's up to us to market
these positions to the community to make them attractive and make
them something that people want to do and be honored doing.
So I support what Commissioner Coyle said and I'd like to take it
one step further and set it as a policy so we don't have these issues
with respect to anybody on any board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if two of you are solidly on
that position, then I won't bring anymore to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, how many votes does it
take?
MR. KLATZKOW: You need four--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- to waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, Commissioner Fiala -- okay. All in
favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In favor of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In favor of granting the waiver, please
signify by saying aye --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the motion was not to grant
the waiver.
Page 96
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner Coyle, sir, just to make sure
everybody's clear, this is a waiver from service on your Code
Enforcement Board. Mr. Kelly is no longer a member of your
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Just so everybody
understands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we understand that.
It is a waiver of an ethics statute, okay. We have the authority to
make that waiver if we wish to do so.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the motion was to deny--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the waiver.
All in favor of denying, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So all in favor of granting the waiver, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so the motion prevails --
MR. KLATZKOW: The waiver is not granted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. He cannot serve on the
board.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, he'll need to make a decision, does he
want to do work for the county or serve on the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm still confused. I must have
misunderstood the motion. I honestly am like so -- it went back and
forth so many times I'm really confused about --
MR. KLATZKOW: There are only three of you in supporting of
the waiver. That's one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so you need four votes.
Page 97
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So in order to do this --
okay, that's where the confusion comes in. All right, so you need a
super majority to approve this.
May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we bring this back as a policy
consideration and just basically say we will not consider waivers and
we will require disclosures, so we don't address it repeatedly?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We really can't do that because you're
trying to tie the hands of future -- of votes by the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a policy they can always
change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they could--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we can have -- I mean, we
bind future commissioners with our ordinances and our policies all the
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if you're got three people who
oppose us and don't agree with us, what is the point of bringing it
back? Those three people are going to vote against prohibiting
waivers. So it's really --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's truth to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So in any event, it is time for lunch. The
motion passed, by the way -- the motion to deny the waiver passed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In effect. Even though it was only
a two-person vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: The waiver was not granted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The waiver was not granted, yes. We'll
get it straight. All right. We'll be back here at 1 :04.
MR.OCHS: Thank you.
(A lunch recess was taken.)
Page 98
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commissioners meeting is back in session.
David, did you have a leisurely lunch?
Item #8D (Discussed further and tabled to later in the meeting)
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW COUNTY COMMISSION
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 124,
FLORIDA STATUTES~ AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioner. I watched my
colleagues eat hot dogs while I crunched numbers with Mr. Durham.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I like, a dedicated employee.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we did run the numbers, and
unfortunately the population of Everglades City, Chokoloskee and
Plantation Island combined is too large to be able to make the map
adjustment that was discussed prior to the break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what's the alternative?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just take that
section of map four where you put the rural fringe in and apply it to
this map? Would you -- would it equal out then?
MR. WEEKS: I don't know. We would have to run those
numbers. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just hang on just a minute.
You have considerable flexibility in that area where
Commissioner Henning is suggesting that you carve out some of that;
is that true, or not?
MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir, there's flexibility of somewhere in the
neighborhood of2,OOO to 2,500 persons to shift back and forth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And many do you need to shift
Page 99
September 13-14, 2011
back and forth in order to accommodate the absorption of the
communities that Commissioner Coletta has asked to be retained in his
district?
MR. WEEKS: I apologize, Commissioner, I thought you were
talking about map four that Commissioner Henning was talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if we go to map one, Commissioner
Henning, suppose David were to find some area where you could
expand on map four to the east to take up enough votes -- enough
residents to make the difference; does that make sense to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's basically what I was
.
saYIng.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So David, if you take map one and you
look at Commissioner Henning's district, if there is anything to the
east of that in his district that you can transfer to him that would equal
the population you're adding, does that make sense to you?
MR. WEEKS: It does. We're back to that analogy of squeezing
a balloon. So if we're going to add from District 5 to District 3, then
we're going to have to take from --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's very easy. Can I help you?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, how much are we
talking about?
Is that okay, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think he already told us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much is your discrepancy
now? By -- if you shift those three into District 5, what's your
discrepancy? What's the overage in District 5 now?
MR. WEEKS: Exactly 250 persons.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So all you need to do is adjust
District 5 by 250 people. So why not do exactly as was suggested,
aPage 100
September 13-14,2011
just take 250 people out of Commissioner Coletta's district and shift it
into Commissioner Henning's district exactly in that small corridor
that was being addressed earlier.
MR. DURHAM: Tim Durham, Supervisor of Elections.
That may very well be doable, but one of the issues could be
census block population. Census blocks are the minimum building
block that can be used to build these districts. And we won't know
exactly what populations are there to make that work and do it in a
way that necessarily meets the other criteria. I'm not saying it's
impossible, but it isn't as easy as just shifting to a road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that --
MR. DURHAM: -- because you have to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but it's -- we're talking about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him finish, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. DURHAM: I'm not -- this isn't like a rebuttal, but I'm just
explaining to the Commissioners that may not be aware that we have
to abide by census geography, and blocks are the smallest units. They
could be as small as 100 people. Don't know how that would work
out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With only a 250-person difference, it
seems to me you could select another street or another block that
would do the job for you. And it could be either in Commissioner
Fiala's district or Commissioner Henning's district.
MR. DURHAM: It may be perfectly okay, but it also may mean
polling a street and polling it into the district and ignoring the rest of
the people across the street from them. And we're not too crazy about
that, because when it comes to voting, that kind of breeds voter
confusion and administrative difficulties. Because we're talking a
super tiny population here trying to equalize.
I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm not saying that. But it could be
problematic. And we really don't want to split up a neighborhood or a
community or anything like that.
Page 101
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would just think that in some of
the rural areas you could find 250 people without splitting up a
neighborhood.
But nevertheless, we need to draw this to an end very quickly.
MR. KERLEK: Chairman, Adam Kerlek with Bond Schoeneck
& King, the independent review.
I just wanted to make a comment that if we start making changes
to the alternative maps that were proposed, we start to run into the
issue of the fact that all five maps have been run by the public over the
past couple of months and they didn't have any opportunity to suggest
changes, even minor changes to these maps. And just from a process
perspective, it's clean by adopting maps as is.
Yes, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not correct. I attended
these, not all of the meetings, but three of the meetings, one by way of
audio and two in person. And they had the opportunity and they did
suggest changes. So what you're describing isn't the case.
Like for example, you know, all of the changes we're talking
about now one way or another have been addressed, you know,
directly or indirectly in conversation with the public at these meetings.
So I'm not sure I agree with you.
MR. KERLEK: You're correct, Commissioner Hiller, that there
were -- at the meetings people did suggest making tweaks. But those
tweaks were not incorporated into new alternative maps that were
proposed to you today.
I guess looking back from the beginning, the concept for the
process established by the Board and the staff was to draw five maps
and pick from those five maps. There was no procedure to make
adjustments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, no, no, no.
MR. KERLEK: If I'm incorrect--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is most certainly not my
Page 102
September 13-14, 2011
understanding. In fact, it was the opposite. My understanding is that
they could be modified. And not only that, the public could submit
alternative maps themselves. And legally, I don't think you can even
prohibit that.
MR. KERLEK: Commissioner Hiller, you are correct. The
Board is the -- the buck stops with you, you can make any changes
you want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. KERLEK: I'm not saying that you can't make these
changes, I'm just saying from a process perspective, it may be cleaner
and avoid any claims from the public that they didn't have an
opportunity to tweak maps as well, based on what's happened here
today. That's the only comment that I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
If you take a look at the map where District 3 is and you look at
the north side of Immokalee Road, you have a population there that is
growing, and it's a mixed population of some affordable housing and
some upscale housing going into Mule Pen Quarry, I believe is the
name of it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bull Pen, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that in
there there might be some sort of dividing line if you follow the
natural line of the county line and you came down? Just a suggestion.
MR. KERLEK: Commissioner Coletta, as an independent
review, I didn't participate in drawing the map, so I'm going to defer to
David Weeks. I just wanted to make a comment, the potential risk of
changing the maps at the end. But again, that is totally within your
power, and these changes can be made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we in danger by making a
change like that as far as approval from the Justice Department?
Page 103
September 13-14,2011
MR. KERLEK: No, it just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not at all.
MR. KERLEK: It just was a point that the -- continuing to make
changes, it's just unclear of when that process will end. Because, you
know, as David said, you make a change here, it affects somewhere
else. And it could go back and forth for a while and then affect the
time constraints --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask David the question.
David, if you could view one of these maps and if you see the
natural line as where we join to Lee County, and it makes several
right-hand turns, if we were to follow the natural line of Lee County
down in such a way that it wouldn't intersect an existing
neighborhood, is that a possibility?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'll have to run the numbers, but I
think it is. You've seen one map option, and I keep saying I'll run the
numbers, because I don't know these neighborhoods that specific to
say that's what the population is. I need to check.
The good news is, as was the case with Commissioner Hiller's
question earlier about map four, I do have some notes, I do have some
population notes as we were going through the mapping exercise. So
again, if I can have a few minutes, I may be able to give you an
answer without having to run back to the computer again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're getting so good at this.
Please, go ahead, David.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm overstepping bounds?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're okay. The question is what
do we do now while he's pushing numbers.
County Manager, you have something we can take care of while
we have this brief sidebar?
Item #10H
Page 104
September 13-14,2011
RESOLUTION 2011-162: SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT DECREASE FROM FIFTY-
FIVE MILES PER HOUR (55 MPH) TO FIFTY MILES PER
HOUR (50 MPH) ON COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GREEN
BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD AT A COST
OF APPROXIMA TEL Y $500 - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: We have 10.H, Commissioner. That was an item
moved onto the regular agenda by Commissioner Fiala having to do
with a speed limit issue. I don't know how detailed that discussion
mayor may not be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It probably won't be much, but it's a
good time because we have a lot of Golden Gate people here.
MR. OCHS : Would you like to do that, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She would like a speed limit that more
approximates her normal driving speed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seventy-five or 80.
MR.OCHS: Let's go ahead then. It's 10.H on your regular
agenda, on your regular agenda. It was previously 16.A.19. It's a
recommendation to accept a speed limit study report and adopt a
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, authorizing a speed limit decrease from 55 miles an hour to
50 miles per hour on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard
to Golden -- excuse me, from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate
Boulevard, at a cost of approximately $500.
Mr. Jay Ahmad will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Jay Ahmad for
the record. I'll be happy to answer the questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good presentation, Jay.
Page 105
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just pulled this because I know you
were adjusting three speed limits. This particular one on 951 between
these two areas, when we expanded 951 between Davis Boulevard and
U.S. 41 and then reduced the speed from 55 to 45, we got a lot of
letters from people saying how could you do that. You make the road
more convenient for people to travel, you take out the road -- the
median cut so that you have a better straight shot, no -- really hardly
any stop lights, and then you reduce the speed by 10 miles an hour.
And of course we learned that by having the curb and gutter there,
then you had to reduce the speed.
But I figured there's nothing here, no reason that we have to
reduce the speed, why reduce it from 55 to 50 when there's no reason
to do that. And I thought it's good that the Golden Gate people are
here, maybe they like the speed reduced there, but it seems to be such
a nice clear shot, and I like going 55. So -- probably shouldn't say
that, right? So that's my reason.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In 35-mile zones, right?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I had similar concerns and I was going to pull it also; I'm glad
you did. Then I asked the question about accidents. And I'll let Jay
get into that.
MR. AHMAD: Well, great questions, Commissioner Fiala and
Coletta.
The reason for our studies here, we had a constituent asking these
questions. They were concerned about there's numerous driveways
along Collier, and they were questioning why we have these speeds on
Pine Ridge that is 45 and we have 55 on Collier.
So as a result we initiated traffic studies on both roadways. And
in the traffic study where state statute to determine the speed limits,
there's a bunch of factors that we must consider. One is the 85th
percentile speed on the roadway. Eighty-fifth is that speed which most
Page 106
September 13-14,2011
drivers driving at or below. In this case they were driving about 56
miles an hour on Collier. So that we said is fine, there's no issue there.
We must also study the crash history. We go back as far as six
years. And there were -- on Collier we found that 79 crashes occurred
in that period, and 20 of those were people running off the roadway,
and I think approximately 10 or so were sideswipes, people hitting
each other as they were passing each other. So it's precisely the crash
history that dictated that that was not according to the statute,
according to the FDOT process that we must follow.
The speed was a contributing factor to those crashes. On Pine
Ridge, however, we found that the crashes actually -- it's the opposite
case. The crash rate on Collier was 4.2. The crash rate on Pine Ridge
in the same vicinity was half of that, about 1.8. And we said there was
no reason really to keep the speed 45 on Pine Ridge. We increased it
to 50. But in the other case, the crash history was just too much to
keep on Collier. There were too many accidents occurring in that
section.
The other -- to answer your question that you started with, we
built all these roadways and why are we going to 45, not increasing
the speed. Again, it's a decision by this board and us for many factors.
One, in order to have higher speed per the statute, per design
criteria, per engineering studies, you must have what we call the clear
zone. The clear zone is you don't have an obstacle near a traveling
lane within a certain distance.
The clear zone change is based on the speed. For 45 miles an
hour, if you have curb and gutter, that clear zone is only four feet. If
you don't have curb and gutter, it goes to 18 feet for 45 miles an hour.
It goes to 24 feet for 55 miles an hour.
So you could see, in order to take every obstacle, meaning poles,
you know, any street signs, any business signs, you must move them
way out from that clear zone. And what that does, it extremely
impacts businesses along a corridor like Collier. Collier has
Page 107
September 13-14,2011
businesses on the west side, gas stations, other businesses very close
to the travel lane. So you would wipe out a whole lot of
neighborhoods.
And we elected to go with the design criteria of 45 miles an hour
with curb and gutters and sidewalks with the four feet of clear zone.
I hope I answered the questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You answered about 45 and you
kind of answered about the 50. You just didn't answer why you're at
this point in time when nothing has changed on that road you're
dropping it from 55 to 50. Or did you answer, and did you say
because it was crash sites?
MR. AHMAD: The crash history, ma'am, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have anything to compare
with? Is that only that section that we've had this crash history, or
have we had it on other sections of that same road and other sections
of the same county?
MR. AHMAD: We evaluate crash history throughout the county.
We keep records of those. And in this case brought to our attention by
a constituent that specifically asked about those two segments. We've
had one on Vanderbilt Drive before you; I know Commissioner Hiller
has been involved with that as well, some constituents were asking
about that. And we will be bringing -- as a matter of fact, we're
discussing that with the neighborhood and a few concerned citizens
about the speed study that we did on that particular segment of
roadway and we'll be coming back to you with that recommendation
as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does somebody have a motion
now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's let Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you, we heard
the crash rate was almost twice what it is on Pine Ridge on that section
that goes from 951 down to, what, Logan?
Page 108
September 13-14, 2011
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And that's pretty open.
We found the crash rate was about double on that section. With that, I
think we have to exercise due diligence in the safety of the public and
ask for the study at least. So I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second it.
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: Okay, the item is approved, Jay, thank
you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, another one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to go into I?
Item #10L
RATIFYING STAFF'S ZERO DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION
CHANGE ORDER FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH ATKINS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PBS&J)
TO WORK ORDER NO. 4500100227 IN ORDER TO PROCESS
FINAL INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED FOR "CLAM
PASS/BAY ESTUARY" - MOTION TO BRING THIS ITEM
BACK TO A FUTURE MEETING WITH CLERK AND COUNTY
STAFF TO WORK TOGETHER REGARDING EXPIRING
Page 109
September 13-14,2011
CONTRACTS AND VERIFYING WORK PERFORMED BASED
ON CONTRACT AND SCOPE OF SERVICES - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Sir, if we could go to 10.L. That was an item that
was previously 16.D.3 on your consent agenda that was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request. It was a recommendation to approve
and ratify staffs zero dollar time extension change order for
professional engineering services with Atkins to work order
4500100227 in order to process final invoice for work completed for
Clam Pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I pulled this at the
request of a constituent who wanted to address this matter publicly,
Marcia Cravens.
Marcia, could you come and speak to what your concern is with
respect to this issue, please?
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon. I'm speaking both as a citizen
of Collier County and also as the conservation co-chair for the Sierra
Club, which has weighed in on a number of disturbing things about
the PBS&J, now known as the Atkins firm's reports that have been
submitted, predicated by the original contract for sand bypassing --
artificial sand bypassing at Clam Pass, which was originally pursued
as a $25,000 contract.
. And it was disturbing enough in that it was pursuing the
preparation of studies and submittal of a permit to be able to more
extensively dredge out the ebb shoal than had ever been done in the
1988 joint coastal permits for Clam Pass.
What we have seen here is that there has been a ballooning of
public funds expended for additional surveys, and with what has
resulted in a permit application to the regulatory agencies wherein the
consultants for PB S&J -Atkins are denying any intent to dredge out the
ebb shoal, the very project which predicated their contracts.
Page 110
September 13-14,2011
So we're faced with a lot of contradicting information within the
reports themselves, beginning with the Clam Bay sea grass
assessment. In the Clam Bay sea grass assessment there was a
confusing renaming of all the bays in Clam Bay and in the Doctors
Pass-Moorings Bay system, and it did include some water quality
data, wherein in the PB S&J firm, consultants indicated that the water
quality of the Clam Pass system was better than the median for all
Florida estuaries.
Then we get the next report that was done in 2009, where a lot of
very contentious interpretations of data were done and in which there
was a very strong inference that there was a problem of water quality
and sediment within the Clam Pass system.
However, upon scrutiny it became clear that there was not a
problem of water quality within the system and there was not a
problem of sediment.
Now we have an additional report that has just been submitted to
FDEP about water quality for the Clam Pass system wherein the
FDEP reviewer has stated it would appear from the information
provided that the Clam Pass system is a healthy estuary.
So the whole premise of needing to alter Clam Pass and Clam
Bay, which is what all of these contracts and change orders were
pursuing, has no basis of factual support.
There's been a lot of dollars expended on this. There's been a
multitude of change orders from the original contract. Seems very
problematic to the people who are following this. And also, there's no
factual basis for it.
One last thing is it's not consistent with the purchasing policy and
preferential treatment for local vendors that Commissioner Henning
was so good at getting this Board to adopt to try and help our
economy by providing some preference to local vendors. So more and
more of our public funds have been going to this out-of-area vendor.
So there's just a number of troubling aspects about continuing to
Page 111
September 13-14, 2011
award public dollars and providing extensions of time and change
orders to this firm.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary, would you like to respond?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
Coastal Zone Management.
The item before you has nothing to do with water quality. The
item before you was originally set up to have -- when we originally
started with the Clam Bay discussion group, there is funds set aside to
have PBS&J, now called the Atkins Group, support us in those
discussions. And then it moved into obtaining a permit to dredge
Clam Pass.
We have to dredge Clam Pass. If there's ever a hurricane that
closes the pass, it will be shut down, and all of the hard work that has
been done with the mangroves, there will not be sufficient tidal
flushing and the mangroves could be injeopardy.
So this work has been in support of Clam Pass. We do not have a
permit yet for Clam Pass at this point in time. We have spent a
significant amount of money dealing with community comments and
questions. And what we are trying to do now is get our contractor, our
consultant paid, and has nothing to do with water quality, madam.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Marcia's concern was not
about water quality, I think what she was saying, from my
understanding of her presentation, is that the water quality testing has
revealed that Clam Bay and Clam Pass are healthy ecosystems, and
that there is nothing that would necessitate expanded dredging of the
ebb shoal, or for that matter any other part of the Clam Bay system in
order to promote water quality.
To the extent that we need a permit to be able to dredge in the
event of the pass closing because of a storm or something like that is a
different issue. And I think her concern is that these extensions of
time and these invoices for services really aren't warranted in light of
the studies that have been done for us by the other consultants.
Page 112
September 13-14,2011
I think you're talking about Tomasco; is that correct, Marcia?
MS. CRAVENS: Tomasco and Humiston & Moore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tomasco and Humiston. So I think
-- I think that Marcia makes a very good point in raising it in the
context of this particular request for an extension.
What is the purpose -- I mean, let me ask one question, Gary. Do
we actually need a new permit for dredging of Clam Pass? Because
my understanding was that the state actually has no intention of
allowing for any expended dredging of the ebb shoal. I mean, they've
made that very clear. So isn't the existing permit, doesn't that satisfy
what we need to do in the event of an emergency situation?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, before we go too much further, you
know, we're going quite a bit away from the item at hand. If you'd
like us to schedule a separate report or a separate discussion on that
whole item, we'd be happy to do it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doesn't this item request an
extension of time? Is it an extension of time to perform or an
extension of time to do what?
MR. OCHS: Make the final payment.
MR. McALPIN: Madam Commissioner, this is an extension of
time so that we can make the final payment to PBS&J-Atkins for the
work that has already been accomplished to date.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why do we need to give them an
extension of time if the work was already accomplished within the
time frame?
MR. McALPIN: Because the work order for the work has
expired and we need to extend the work order through the period of
time where they have completed the work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, is that okay? So basically
they went beyond the terms of their contract?
MR. McALPIN: Madam--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're asking to ratify -- I
Page 113
September 13-14,2011
mean, is this a quantum meruit request? What is this?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a quantum meruit -- you're looking
at legal considerations, ma'am. You'll see this is a quantum meruit.
The work was already done. It was done pursuant to a work order that
probably should not have been issued but it was issued nonetheless,
the work was done, and staff is asking for the Board to pay it under
that theory.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is Finance's position on this?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, both the work order and the
contract I think had expired on this one, and this was to end -- my
understanding from Gary is that this is the quantum argument -- in
other words, everything had expired, but the work was done anyway.
So now it is a matter of how do you pay the vendor.
And we have been working with the County Attorney's Office,
and it really is legal direction from them. And we would ask that if
that is the position of the Board that you're going to do it under that
legal parameter, that that be a part of the motion that that is the way
that you are awarding or allowing this payment to be made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it isn't the proper legal process
for sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: I agree. I mean, I agree with that.
However, having said that, the work was performed pursuant to staff
direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what exactly was this work
that was performed outside of the purview of the contract?
MR. CARNELL: Let me address this, just so we're clear. Steve
Carnell, Purchasing Director.
The work order was issued correctly. There was no problem with
the work order being issued. It was issued almost three years ago.
Commissioner Hiller, let me let Gary address the scope question
in just a moment. But what happened was that there was a whole
permitting process and a series of permitting reviews that took place
Page 114
September 13-14, 2011
and the whole schedule protracted. And Gary can explain that more if
you need to understand it. He knows firsthand.
But what happened was there was a set date of November 15,
2010 for the work to expire, for the work to be completed. And we
went past November and the work was still going. The consultant was
working in good faith performing the services. They were not doing
anything they weren't authorized to do. All that happened was we lost
attention to the deadline for completion and did not extend the work
order prior to November 15th.
We did extend it in June after we realized the oversight. And
that's all that it is. We're not paying one penny more. There's
agreement between the parties to perform the work. There's no
dispute over the work, the quality of it or the receipt of it, it's just a
formality in that the work order expired before it was extended.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the scope of work?
MR. McALPIN: The scope of work, Madam Commissioner, was
to obtain a permit for tidal flushing of Clam Pass. It is not an
expanded scope for the ebb tide shoal. It is exactly on the same basis
of the permits that we have dealt with in the past. It is valid.
We do need a valid permit if we ever want to dredge Clam Pass
again. We know we have to dredge it in the future for tidal flushing.
We know that if it is closed by a storm we have to dredge it. And this
is an instrument and a vehicle which would allow us to do that.
So the work order was issued for this work. The work was valid.
And as Steve has said, the time expired. What happened is sometimes
we get into a period of time in the permitting process where there's
120 days where we're waiting from responses from the agencies.
During that period of time there's no activity from the consultant, and
they forget the completion date on the contract. But all the work was
done was in -- based on our direction, required to get the permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask the question again.
Don't we have a permit that's in place that allows us to do the flushing
Page 115
September 13-14,2011
if necessary?
MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am, we do not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is one that will be newly
created for the first time -- or the one that we had has expired?
MR. McALPIN: We had a 10-year permit. That 10-year permit
expired, I believe, in 2008. It was extended for a year. They would
not extend it any more. In 2008 we started the process of trying to get
a new permit for Clam Pass for tidal flushing of Clam Pass, and we've
been working at it for the last two and a half years now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, Marcia, I'd like to
address your last comment, and then I'd like to make a proposal so we
move on.
MS. CRAVENS: Yes. The very first work order is subject Clam
Bay Sand Bypassing. And on the scope of work by the consultants for
PBS&J, it very clearly says, provide professional recommendations to
the county on the Clam Bay ebb shoal analysis and modifications to
allow additional dredging and sand bypassing. That was never a part
of the 1998 JC permits. And yet that's what's predicated the original
contract and all the change orders and all the various convoluted
reports.
And there's also been additional work that I have never seen
brought before the public that was recently provided to FDEP, having
to do with a site specific alternative criteria for water quality that was
prepared by the PBSJ-Atkins firm. I've never seen anywhere where
it's been brought before anybody to fund it.
So I think that the fiscal impact is a lot more complicated than
what this consent agenda item shows.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, in light of everything I'm
hearing, and it seems that there are contradictory statements being
made, can we continue this and do what Leo suggested and address
this to ensure that, you know, they actually did what -- the scope of
work, you know, proposed? I mean, and I'm not even sure that we're
Page 116
September 13-14,2011
paying for what we intended to have done.
I mean, I understand that they've done work, and I understand
that they're, you know, asking for payment, but they're not -- from
what I understand, they're not doing work under an existing contract.
The contract had expired, okay. They must have known it had
expired, you must have known it had expired. This work was done.
N ow they're seeking quantum meruit, and yet I'm hearing
contradictory statements as to whether the work they did is actually
necessary or justified under the initial work order. And I have some
concerns about it. So if we could continue it so we don't, you know,
debate this, I would rather do that and bring it back.
MR. McALPIN: Madam Chair, there's no--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because quantum meruit is not the
way we are supposed to be handling these type of arrangements.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you've probably handled half a
dozen or more of those quantum meruit issues here in the last three
Board meetings. I don't know what makes this one, frankly, any
different. I say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we shouldn't be.
MR.OCHS: Well, I agree with you, we shouldn't be, but that's
not the question. The question is did they perform the work under the
scope. Your staff is telling you that they did. That's our
recommendation is to --
MR. McALPIN: And there's no question by any of the staff
members that -- about the performance of the work as directed by us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
this item to approve and ratify staffs zero dollar time extension
change order for professional engineering services with Atkins,
previously known as PBS&J to the work orders in order to process the
final invoice for work completed for Clam Pass/Bay Estuary.
And I just want to refer to Crystal's comment. All they needed to
Page 11 7
September 13-14, 2011
do was have this extended legally on the record so that they could pay
it. They're ready to pay it, they know the work is done, they just need
us to do this. So that's why I'm making the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Crystal wants to --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me, Commissioner Fiala. I do have to put
on the record, we did not go back and audit the scope. We do have a
due reliance on staff regarding scope. So I just don't want them
misinterpreted. We had understood about the expiration of the work
order, expiration of the contract. We worked with legal on that aspect
of this alone. I have not audited nor reviewed the scope issue that has
been brought forward today.
So I just wanted to put that on the record that we would have to
look at that prior to a payment being released. So now that it's been
brought up --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me how long we have
been waiting to pay this?
MS. KINZEL: Quite some time, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why did we wait this long?
MS. KINZEL: Because we've had a list of outstanding issues.
As the County Manager pointed out, there have been several with
expired contracts and work orders, and that's what we have been
reviewing and working with staff on a legal basis. But it would require
us to look at the scope issue that's been brought forward today prior to
a payment being made, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But I want to hear from
Dwight Brock first. He obviously came over here to address us on this
thing.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, my name is Dwight Brock. I'm
the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
I'm not totally familiar with the facts and circumstances, but we
Page 118
September 13-14,2011
have been in discussions with County Attorney's Office, the County
Administrators' Office. There are a multitude -- and I don't know how
many, but there's a lot of cases or instances in which we've got
contracts that have expired and we've got county staff out there
executing purchase orders to do work when there's no contract in place
for them to be entering into those P.O.'s.
And we've been working on trying to resolve it. It actually came
down to a discussion between the county staff and my staff whereby
they were trying to figure out a mechanism to have a contract that
ended on one date but they were going to issue P.O.'s that went
beyond the contract date on that particular -- termination of that
particular contract.
We've been trying to work with the County Attorney's Office in
an attempt to resolve this issue, and I thought we were to a point
where we all understand we needed to work together to resolve it.
And I'm just walking by the TV and I see this on the TV, and I'm
wondering exactly what's going on.
I think we need to sit down and we all need to work together to
figure out what's going on here. You enter into a contract, you have a
termination date in that contract. That's the date the contract ends.
You can certainly come back before the expiration of that contract and
extend the contract date. We don't have a problem with that, that's
your discretionary decision. But if you don't, county staff can't be out
there issuing work orders on something that doesn't exist. And if they
do, we don't have the legal authority to be making payment. That's the
problem that we're confronted with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Brock, thank you so much
for coming over.
MR. BROCK: No problem, any time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, where this
Page 119
September 13-14,2011
thing lies right now and the difficulty we have and the fact that
approving this will serve no purpose, because the Clerk's Office isn't
going to pay it because of the fact there has been a lapse of the
contract --
MR. OCHS: They didn't say they weren't going to pay it, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Brock, you're not
going to pay it, are you?
MR. BROCK: I can tell you the following. If in fact the contract
date has expired and there has been a purchase order for work that
went beyond the terms of the contract that you entered into, I have no
legal justification to make a payment and won't pay it.
MR.OCHS: Unless you approve this action just like you have
on several others, the quantum meruit, which is --
MR. BROCK: No, I am not paying on quantum meruit. That
was a deal that I worked out with the county over the issue of the
CC&A. And that's been -- you know, somehow that has grown legs to
the point that there's no limitation.
Board of County Commissioners, under the statute, is the entity
in Collier County that can approve contracts. They are the body
prescribed by law for accepting and approving contracts for this
county. And we are bound by the determination that they make.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'm going to -- if
Commissioner Fiala's motion is dropped, I'd make a motion that we
continue this item and direct the County Attorney and the County
Manager to work with you to try to resolve this so that we can go
forward in a way that meets the legal ends of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second Commissioner Coletta's
motion, which is what I had suggested earlier. And I think you're
absolutely right, Commissioner Coletta.
MR. BROCK: I mean, we will -- we gladly will sit down and
work with the County Attorney to try to resolve the legal issue. We're
trying to resolve the issues in a manner in which we are able to carry
Page 120
September 13-14, 2011
out the directives of this Board. We understand there's a problem, and
we're now trying to figure out a way to resolve that particular issue in
conformance to the intent of this Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CARNELL: If I could--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, there's a motion on the floor, we're
going to take a vote on it. 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: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I say something? I notice
other commissioners had ample time.
The -- I think the issue is you're going to check the work
performed is within the scope of the contract.
MR. BROCK: That is our legal test. We make a determination
that we are paying for work that is performed, based upon a contract
that has been approved by this Board of County Commissioners as the
body politic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what your director of
accounting or auditing said, they haven't done that. So if we could
bring those two issues back on a further agenda so we could deal with
them all in one issue.
I just want to point out, this previous change order to PBS&J was
approved 4-1 vote. It has over a 500 percent increase in dollar amount
and it has almost doubled in time, okay? It would be nice to get rid of
this contract once and for all.
Page 121
September 13-14,2011
And furthermore, we're seeing more and more about managing
contracts and that fail to execute the management of these contracts.
And I think the worst example was in the housing department. I'm
committed to bring something on the Board's agenda to hopefully fix
that so we can timely pay invoices and get some -- a little bit more
education on managing the Board's contracts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion, by the way, passed
unanimously. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to additionally sit
down with staff, Leo, and with Marcia Cravens, and I would like to
review exactly what's going on. Because, quite frankly, she is correct,
the testing has revealed that there is no contamination of water, there's
no necessity for any sort of expanded dredging. So the amount of
flushing that's necessary should be the scope that was historically
approved by the state in the earlier permit. If in fact that permit has
expired, the new permit should mirror that word-for-word,
number- for-number.
So I would like to sit down and review that, because that also
falls into the scope question. I certainly hope that no scope was done
that goes beyond the scope of what's supportable by those facts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we move on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Is David ready for his report?
MR.OCHS: Sort of.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we did some rough running of
the numbers and we believe the changes that were discussed will
work.
What we would prefer to do is take it from that we believe it will
work and rather actually produce a map that you can see in front of
you and with the associated population numbers. So for certain,
Page 122
September 13-14, 2011
because if you're going to take final action on it, we want to make sure
we get it right.
I think the suggestion of the county would be to postpone this,
continue it later in the meeting and go ahead with the next agenda
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do that today before we
adjourn?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Unless you adjourn rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only in my dreams. But what time
would you like to be back?
MR. WEEKS: At least another hour from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a break at 2:30. Why
don't you come back right after the 2:30 break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's only half an hour.
MR. KLATZKOW: You do have a 5:00 time certain, so if worst
comes to worst we can do it after that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. But let's clarify this. Will you
be able to come back after the 2:30 break? Is that too quick?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a half an hour.
MR. WEEKS: We'll try, Commissioner. I'll certainly be here
and I can report to you we're ready or we're not ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like to get it done as quickly as
possible. But you're talking about a completed map will be available
to us today sometime?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And it will be a map that looks
like the map you were provided a little bit earlier. Not the pretty
colored maps, but the one that's -- yes, ma'am, the one that
Commissioner Fiala's holding up, it will be like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you, David.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: David, could you do one of the
pretty colored maps? Because these are really -- when I look at this I
honestly have a hard time seeing what's what. Can you do both?
Page 123
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put some roses on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just so that we can -- and, you
know, for people in the audience, so that they see also in a simpler
fashion what was approved.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'll make that request.
I tried calling our GIS staff member and she was away from her
desk at the time. So we're doing it on what's called My District
Builder in the Elections Office, that's what created that map version.
I'll try again, because I certainly understand and agree with you that
the color map is much easier to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I honestly can't tell what
the district boundaries are that we're approving based on this map.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where do we go from now?
Item #8C (Discussed; other amendments continues to later in the
meeting)
ORDINANCE 2011-26 (CPSP-2010-02/G.G. AREA MASTER
PLAN & FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAPS SERIES);
ORDINANCE 2011-27 (CPSP-2010-05/FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES
DELETING DAVIS BLVD/COUNTY BARN ROAD MIXED USE
SUBDISTRICT) APPROVAL THE 2010 CYCLE OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Going to 8.C. It's a recommendation to approve the
2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one
2008 cycle petition. This is an adoption hearing. Mr. David Weeks
will present.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again for the record, David
Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
Page 124
September 13-14, 2011
This is the cycle of amendments 2010 that includes a total of four
petitions. You've seen these all at transmittal hearings before. This is
your adoption hearing, the time at which you will take your final
action on these items.
There is no requirement that you make your ex parte disclosures
or swear in participants; those are both optional considerations for the
Board.
One, the very first petition is Petition CP2008-1. That's located
in Golden Gate Estates. It is a companion item to the rezone petition
for the Estates Shopping Center.
Now, you have four different Growth Management Plan
amendments. And I know there was some discussion earlier today
about the wellfield map changes. And that would be the third of the
four petitions within this agenda item. My presumption is, unless you
say otherwise, Mr. Chairman, is that we will take these in order, these
four petitions in order. And then I don't know if you want to take that
companion rezone, though, at the same time as you're considering that
first Comprehensive Plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we need to deal with Item 8.C in
its entirety first, and then we'll go back to 8.B.
MR. WEEKS: Good enough.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we had request to deal
with the well maps first prior to consideration of the map amendment
for the Golden Gate Area Shopping Center, 2008-1.
And furthermore, I understood that we were going to take the
zoning and the comprehensive amendment for the shopping center
together.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, on your change sheet this morning
we indicated that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That 8.C would be done first.
MR. OCHS: -- 8. C would be heard before Item 8.B. Or
conversely, 8.B would be heard immediately after 8.C.
Page 125
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct. We did not specify,
however, that we would separate Petition CP2008-1 from 8.C and
consider it separately and then to go to 8.B. We did not say that. If
that is the best way to handle it and it is most convenient for the
petitioner, I'd be willing to consider it. But I don't quite understand
why it makes a difference.
MR. WEEKS: I think at the convenience for everyone involved
in having the two discussed either concurrently or in succession is that
they're of course talking about the same project. And the rezoning
petition is contingent upon the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
being approved.
Now, you've also wanted to discuss the wellfield issue, and that
is a different Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Perhaps we could
take that one first and then come back to the CP2008-1, which is the
Golden Gate Master Plan amendment, and then take the rezoning
petition that's companion to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we had a time certain for 8.B and
8.C, and it's already an hour after that. So if we're going to do that,
let's break it apart. We'll take Petition CP2008-1 and Item 8.C. We'll
deal with that. And then we'll subsequently go to 8.B and deal with
that one, since we will be talking about the same subject for both of
those.
At that point in time we'll come back to Item 8.C and consider
the other changes to the Growth Management Plan. Okay?
MR.OCHS: Very good.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're going to have a
problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because earlier this morning
before adopting it, it was the understanding of the Board with the
Page 126
September 13-14, 2011
public here that we were going to hear -- Commissioner Hiller brought
it up -- that we were going to hear the wellfield maps prior to the
compo and the zoning for the shopping center.
And the problem is you need a super majority on both of those,
shopping center and comprehensive amendment.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have a staff suggestion is that
you've got four petitions under your Growth Management Plan
amendments. Let's hear the wellfield and the other two petitions first
and then we'll finally end up with the final petition that's related to
8.B, which is your rezoning. That way you've gotten the other three
out of the way and you could deal with those two related items as the
final matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we've got 14 people signed up
to speak to Item 8.C. And they don't necessarily split up, you know,
what portion of 8.C that they're actually going to address. So that's
another aspect of it.
MR. OCHS : Well, what we can do is call on your speakers after
each of the four items, sir, and anybody want to speak to that
particular one under 8. C can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you suggesting now that we take
these items out of order?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR.OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Which petition do you want to
take first?
MR. WEEKS: That would be Petition CP2010 -- CPSP2010-2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's on packet Page 192.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this is actually what we call a
batch petition. They're multiple amendments to the Future Land Use
Element being proposed, one of which is the change to the wellfield
map, wellhead protection area map that is located within the Future
Page 127
September 13-14,2011
Land Use Element.
The proposed amendments to that map are based upon the latest
hydrologic modeling of wellfields. And this is something that's
required by a couple of different elements of the Growth Management
Plan to be done periodically, and the results of that modeling show
that we need to change the map wellfield boundaries, protection areas,
which has been done and that's what is before you this morning.
There is one change on the map that is before you today versus
what you saw at your transmittal hearing. At the transmittal hearing,
the Planning Commission had asked that the Marco Lakes site located
in the northeast quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East
be added to the map. And at that time staff had no objection, and this
Board endorsed that change and it was transmitted to the Department
of Community Affairs.
Since then staff has investigated this further and our conclusion is
that though we absolutely agree that protection of that water supply
source is important, this is not the way to do it. This will not
accomplish that protection. Because this is not a groundwater source,
but rather a surface water source. The issue is not contaminants going
down into the ground and into the water supply, it's surface
contaminants.
And the example we've used is imagining maybe a tanker truck
traveling on Collier Boulevard, it runs off the east side of the road,
turns over and its fuel spills into the canal that runs along County
Road 951/Collier Boulevard, and it flows right past this site, the
Marco Lakes site. But there's not a good barrier between that canal
and the lake itself. That I think is about a half mile or so where the
canal abuts that Marco Lakes property and there's porous rock. I'm
talking about subsurface, but we're talking about above ground in
between the canal and that water supply source.
And so that contaminant could flow right through the rock and
into the lake. So your wellfield protection does absolutely nothing to
Page 128
September 13-14,2011
address that situation. And that's why staff has taken the position that
though we agree that it's important to protect the water supply, this
isn't the way to do it. This is not going to accomplish that objective.
And so our recommendation and that of the Planning
Commission at adoption is to remove the Marco Lake site from this
wellhead protection map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And otherwise approve the petition?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay, do we have speakers for
this particular petition?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can--
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to ask a question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I address a question first
before we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- have the speakers?
With respect to -- do you have a copy of the wellfield map?
MR. WEEKS: I'm sure I do. I'm trying to locate it and put it up
on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have it here. Do you want
this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to do is -- and I
know this has been a concern both to the developer and county staff
and to the Commission -- I want to make sure that it's dispelled on the
record.
Can you focus on the area of the wellfield map where the newly
proposed Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center will be and where it is
relative to the existing boundaries and the new proposed boundaries,
and give us assurances that the proposed location of the Golden Gate
Page 129
September 13-14, 2011
Estates -- or the Golden Gate, whatever, shopping center, you know,
the next items that we're going to hear, you know, as companion
items, are in no way going to put the wellfields at risk and that no
future shifting of these wellfield lines will occur so as to be at risk as a
result of the location of this center?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly, Commissioner.
First, this is an enlargement of the map that we just had on the
visualizer. And you can see the intersection of Golden Gate
Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. And the yellow area indicates the
project we're speaking of, the rezoning petition that's coming up next.
And then the red and green and blue boundaries are the different
wellfield protection zones.
I need to point out first of all that this map in the Future Land
Use Element in and of itself has no regulatory effect. It sets the stage
for the next step, which will be an amendment to the Land
Development Code, which does have a series of risk management
zone maps and associated text that does regulatory effect, that does
restrict certain types of land uses within certain wellfield zones.
And the red area, and it's labeled Plant, that is the utility plant
that is proposed as part of that rezoning petition.
And I think I'll stop here and let Ray Smith come up and address
your question further, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you get started, if I
understand correctly, the adoption of this map isn't final till it gets
adopted as part of the LDC.
MR. WEEKS : Well, from a standpoint of regulatory effect, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's very important
because if we do adopt this and then we subsequently decide to adopt
the shopping center, the shopping center will need assurances that the
LDC in fact will adopt this from a regulatory perspective. Because if
it's denied over there and then everything here is approved, there's
Page 130
September 13-14,2011
going to be a problem.
So somehow -- I mean, I know you can't decide something
obviously ahead of the hearing to decide it, but there has to be some
sort of assurance, because, you know, obviously there's an element of
risk.
MR. WEEKS: Well, one thing, Commissioner, I want to make--
I think I just heard your question. The boundaries shown here on this
map are based upon the modeling report. And so the subsequent Land
Development Code amendment also is going to be based on that
modeling report. So there would be no anticipated change between
the boundaries that are shown here and what will be shown on the
more detailed Land Development Code maps.
The property owner, as would any property owner that's
proposing a project, they're going to be subject to whatever
regulations, such as wellfield zones, are in effect either at the time of
their development order issuance -- I think that is the time of their
development order issuance.
My point here is the number one objective here is to protect the
groundwater, and the county staffs position is to bring to you the
maps based upon the modeling that will accomplish that. For
whatever project, be it the next project that will be on your agenda or
some future project at some other location, it will have to comply with
the regulations that we've adopted to protect our water supply.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern is that there isn't any
inconsistency in the regulations that are adopted pursuant to the LDC
than, you know, what would be anticipated as such regulations, based
on this hearing and the approval of this map.
And I understand you say the underlying studies are going to be
the same. But I think it's important to provide that level of assurance.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control
Director.
The -- within the LDC, 3.06, Groundwater Protection, within
Page 131
September 13-14,2011
Zone Two, the W -1 risk management Zone Two, a domestic
wastewater treatment plant is allowed with the issuance of a certificate
to operate, which -- certificate to operate, which requires that the
county inspect that facility to make sure they remain in compliance
with state rules and regulations.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm further advised from the
County's planner on the next project that the uses proposed are the
same. Under the existing map and under the proposed map the uses
and their locations are the same, so there is no conflict.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask another question,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. Gracious.
As far as the movement of these lines that you have on the map,
what's the projected trend and what's the period of time and does it
matter that this is located in the middle of Section Two with respect to
what's going on here?
I mean, I'm not sure how dynamic these wellfield boundaries are.
MR. SMITH: The model that you -- again, Ray Smith for the
record.
The model that you have in front of you reflects the most recent
information regarding what the utility has either put in new wells or
increased pump rates in that wellfield itself.
In the future if they put in new wells, that line will change. It
may not change there, it may change in a different portion of the
wellfield. It's just difficult to say unless I have the data to put in the
model to indicate there is a change in that.
Regarding a trend, there is no trend in the model. What exists is
what the model models.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So once a development order is
issued, you're basically grandfathered in, regardless of where these
wellfields or where -- I'm not sure if you call them fields or -- I don't
Page 132
September 13-14,2011
know what you call them. What do you call these things?
MR. SMITH: There's a terminology regarding future and
existing. If a facility exists, it is grandfathered in, okay. If it is the
future, it is prohibited in Zone One, but it is permitted where it
presently resides in Zone Two with the certificate to operate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically as long as they have a
certificate to operate before any future map change, they're
grandfathered into this second zone?
MR. SMITH: If they're identified as existing, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the existing would be the
certificate of -- certificate to operate.
MR. SMITH: Right. Which will require annual inspections of
that facility, possibly more inspections regarding the protection of our
wellfield.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So my point is, regardless of what
the trend is, as long as they have that certificate to operate, and this is
true for anyone in these wellfield zones, that they're able to continue,
notwithstanding the changes in the maps.
MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ray, are you going to be the one
that's going to bring proposals for LDC amendments for the well
protection?
MR. SMITH: Proposals like this regarding the models or any
changes in language associated with that? Yes, I would probably most
likely be that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you would take a look at all
the language and hopefully clean it up. I remember seeing language
there in the future LDC amendments we're going to do. You see my
concern. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Yes, I do.
Page 133
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to be confused. Is
there any contemplation not to allow treatment plants in W-2?
MR. SMITH: Not at this time. The DEP presently has a
500-foot setback from a wellhead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From the wellhead.
MR. SMITH: From the wellhead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that's an important
distinction. We have stricter requirements --
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to keep it even further away
by creating these different zones. And within those different zones you
can do certain activities. And the one thing that is confusing to me is
hazardous materials, what is referred to in the Land Development
Code W -1 through W -4. It's not really specified.
Hazardous materials. Pepto-Bismol is a hazardous material, once
you take it out of the bottle. They actually have an MDS sheet on
Pepto-Bismol. So if we have some kind of standards to refer, whether
in the Land Development Code or refer to national standards like we
do the Standard Industrial Code book, I think that would be very
helpful for landowners and especially the Board of Commissioners.
We want to protect our wellfield.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, will do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, one thing, and I want to
have this discussion. I sent off to staff, in the Comprehensive Plan,
the wellfield, it prohibited -- or not prohibited, it discouraged
conditional uses. I would like to know what was the purpose of that.
Now, I understand that staff is going to correct that in the
EAR-based amendments. But I would like to know the reasoning why
that language was added back in 2003, Ray. Does that sound right?
MR. WEEKS: That sounds right. I don't think it was part of the
restudy in the past.
The cleanup that staff was going to be preparing as part of the
Page 134
September 13-14,2011
EAR-based amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is going to clarify
that the conditional uses that are addressed in that policy in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element is referring to not the
conditional uses of the Estates zoning district but rather certain
conditional uses that are discussed in the policy which apply to very
intense land uses.
I'm not sure if landfill would be an example, but it would be
something akin to that, something like that. Not your typical Estates
zoning district conditional uses like churches, child care, nursing, not
at all. It was never intended that way, but it was poorly written and
could be construed that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean like -- give us an
examples of the meaning of the language put in there and subsequent
LDC amendments. What would be those conditional uses?
MR. WEEKS: Landfill is the first one that comes to mind. I
don't know. I don't want to say toxic waste disposal. I'm struggling to
answer that, Commissioner. But it's very intense uses. And for the
most part these types of uses you would think would be associated
with the government as opposed to 'private sector. But I can't
specifically --
MR. SMITH: I can help. I can run off a listing of the types of
land uses that apply to Section 3.06 of the Land Development Code, if
you wish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, if they're pertaining to
those conditional uses, just an example would be sufficient for me.
MR. SMITH: Well, then you can jump in regarding, you're the
conditional use person. But they have the solid waste disposal
facilities, solid waste transfer stations, solid waste bulk standard
containers, solid waste storage collection recycling facilities, solid
waste storage collection and -- well, I repeated that. Landfill injection
disposal of hazardous waste, nonresidential handling of hazardous
products, residential handling of hazardous products, nonresidential
Page 135
September 13-14,2011
generating/storing of hazardous waste, residential generating/storage
of hazardous waste, domestic wastewater treatment plants, domestic
wastewater effluent disposal--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on, I have a question from
that. Residential generated storage of solid waste?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hazardous waste.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hazardous waste, such as paint,
used paint cans?
MR. SMITH: This would be your household hazardous waste
collection center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Would that be paint?
MR. SMITH: Depends on the type of paint. If you have Latex
paint, the answer is no. If you have oil-based paint, the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think that we need to
have a discussion under the 2008-1 on particular uses, stores, and
those stores are selling contained hazardous waste.
MR. SMITH: The -- just a general guideline regarding what a
hazardous waste is, it's an ignitable, it's a toxic, it's a corrosive or it's a
reactive. They're the four sort of determinants regarding a hazardous
waste. And it has to be a waste, not a product.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a product.
If it spills over --
MR. SMITH: It's waste.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- then it's waste? Okay, great.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of the list that you just
enumerated, the plant that you have on that overhead, that's not going
to be exempted in any way other than in that first zone, W -1; is that
correct?
MR. SMITH: That's prohibited in Zone One.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's permitted in W-2.
Page 136
September 13-14, 2011
MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am, with a certificate to operate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's not going to change.
MR. SMITH: That's not changing at this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to reconfirm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, does anybody have a motion?
What do you want to do with this thing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as there's no public
speakers, I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any public speakers for this
particular petition?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Lori Burns.
MS. BURNS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Lori Burns.
I have a question. While reviewing the executive summary on
this, I made note of some of the concerns that were stated by the EAC
under their recommendation on Page 5. And the concern number D
was that the Golden Gate wellfield drawdown may negatively impact
private wells in Golden Gate Estates.
While that might not seem like a concern, this added to the
proposed Estates shopping subdistrict and the potential questions that
we've been going through with regards to the possible shifting, I mean,
we could have some concern. It really just exacerbates my concern
with the potential impact on the private wells and the natural resources
in Golden Gate Estates. And I'm really having trouble here.
Reasonable assurance that come after the fact for me come a little
bit too late. Should in the future -- I appreciate Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Hiller's questioning on this, because my
problem is in the future should there be an equal amount of shift or
change, it could very well put the package plant in the W -1 zone,
which it's sounding like would be grandfathered in and would be
there, and with the convenience store and the potential gas station and
gas tanks that are kind of where it's located on the plan, kind of on the
Page 137
September 13-14,2011
border of the W-2 and W-1.
And I realize that we also have already in the W -1 wellfield, we
also have E's Gas Station, just seems like an awful lot of potential
problem to me and not a whole lot of a reasonable assurance that that's
-- I thank you for my consideration, and I have some questions with
that if anybody can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the limitation we're dealing
with is we can only deal with the facts that we have before us, and
there are so many businesses that are similarly situated that we can't
suggest one wouldn't qualify without considering the others. Because
obviously, you know, they're all affecting the well.
So I appreciate your point, but without any evidence to the
contrary to what we have, I don't think that there's any legal
justification to, for example, object to this plant being where it is
because of some future trend.
Notwithstanding the good points you make, because it -- the
same points apply to all the other businesses in that area as these lines
change and beyond throughout the county wherever businesses are in
the wellfield.
MS. BURNS: I respect that. Can somebody explain to me
though why there would be a concern that the Golden Gate wellfield
drawdown would negatively affect private wells in that -- in Golden
Gate Estates?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can. Actually, it's been
brought up to the Board of Commissioners before with the City of
Naples wellfields within Wilson Boulevard, Golden Gate, that's where
the City of Naples has theirs. Actually, a lot of residential concerns.
The problem is those are existing wells, municipal wells that allegedly
affects residential single-family.
What the City of Naples is doing today, they are creating an ASR
well where they're actually taking surface water and storing it
Page 138
September 13-14,2011
underground where it's not needed and drawing it up when it's needed.
So what I'm trying to say is their future needs of water from the
Tamiami Aquifer in the future is going to be less. And hopefully that
will alleviate the concerns of drawdowns of private wells.
There's nothing in this amendment that we can do that really
addresses drawdowns --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and sometimes the EAC goes
way out of their bounds when they deal with issues coming before the
Board of Commissioners. And I seen it at their last meeting. And this
is another example of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And with respect to the
ASR wells, my understanding is I have actually asked this question of
our head of utilities. George, I don't know if you want to share the
discussion we had and the questions that I asked of you regarding our
ASR well projects, because we actually had started it.
And this was before I came on board and I noticed it was
suspended and never went forward. And I questioned why we weren't
doing the same as the City of Naples for the same reason. And
George has actually been looking into answering my question.
Because I think it is a good idea for us to be doing the same type of
thing. And wherever anyone, like, you know, the golf courses, if they
can have their own ASR wells instead of pulling from the aquifer, you
know, better for everybody.
So he was going to answer my question someday soon.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. For the record, George Yilmaz,
Public Utilities.
Consistent with our Commissioner Henning, as he summarized
City of Naples and how they are optimizing freshwater resource
supply, and we are pretty much moving in that direction, optimize our
fresh resources water supply and go above and beyond, actually
Page 139
September 13-14,2011
change the ratios. And ASR is part of that planning process and we'll
be bringing before you as we progress in that endeavor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it is something that, you know,
I've asked and I'm just waiting on the answer to find out which
direction we're going to take, because we have the potential to do it.
MS. BURNS: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we approve CPSP-20 1 0-2. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta has
seconded the motion.
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 to approve CPSP-2010-2 has
been approved unanimously.
We have three minutes.
MR. WEEKS: Let's see, next is CP2010-1? Looking at you, Leo,
sorry .
MR.OCHS: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Commissioners, this was -- this is for
the Davis Boulevard-County Barn Road mixed use subdistrict. Has
some history. But the short of it is the transmittal is to remove this
subdistrict, taking the property back to its prior designation as urban
residential subdistrict which existed prior to the creation of this
Page 140
September 13-14,2011
subdistrict via private sector amendment. Recommendations all the
way through has been for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was this --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have some public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there anybody here speaking
on other Growth Management Plan amendments other than the Estates
Shopping Center? Please raise your hand. Which item is it?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't know, it's the one for
Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bradford Square?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's the client, don't worry about him.
He's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you sure he's okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope so. If not, we're in trouble.
MR.OCHS: I think Commissioner Fiala had a question on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I was just wondering, I'm just
going back for a second. Did you say CPS number one or five?
MR. WEEKS: I gave the wrong number, Commissioner, thank
you. It's CPSP2010-5. I'm out of order, but that's the right number for
this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, then I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Be gentle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
Page 141
September 13-14,2011
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. That was
Petition CPSP2010-5.
Okay, County Manager?
MR. WEEKS: I believe next is CP2009-1. I'm sorry, 10-1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10-1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the Vanderbilt Beach
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And usually the agent goes first.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'm Wayne Arnold, representing the property owner. With me is Rich
Y ovanovich.
This item came to you with the transmittal and you forwarded it
to the DCA. No comments from them. Planning Commission heard
this for their adoption and had no comments. I can go through a brief
discussion.
This, just to refresh your recollection, was to modify the
subdistrict language to allow certain uses to increase the square
footage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wayne, would you prefer that we take
our break now or wait a few more minutes and do it during the middle
of your presentation?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I was hoping we could have an approval
prior to your break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
Page 142
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you give me a fast presentation?
MR. ARNOLD: I can conclude my presentation if
Commissioner Fiala's motion--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala just made a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that fast enough?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was pretty darn fast. That's pretty
good.
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. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good presentation, Wayne. You did a
really, really good job.
We're going to take a break for 10 minutes, then we'll be returned
to take on the final item, right?
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. Do we have anything from
David Weeks yet?
Item #8D (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2011-163: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW
Page 143
September 13-14, 2011
COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 124, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION - MOTION TO APPROVE MAP #lA-
ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR.OCHS: We have something from--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tim Durham, that's almost as good.
MR. DURHAM: We were separated at birth, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're relieved, aren't you?
MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir.
Tim Durham, Chief Deputy Supervisor of Elections.
David had to go. I have good news. We went back, we worked
the map plans based on map plan number one. We included
Everglades City and the surrounding town in Commission District
Five. But to compensate for that population we added to Commission
District Three. The numbers all match up. The total population for
each district is within the allowable deviation.
This change does not adversely impact retrogression issues in
Commission district Five. So we believe the maps lawful and
acceptable, maintains communities of interest. And what I'd like to do
at this time is share the maps with you and then just kind of briefly
explain them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have one final complication for you. I
would like to find a way to move Bob Krasowski out of my district.
MR. DURHAM: We tried, sir, but he just keeps coming back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It didn't work? I'm just kidding, Bob,
wherever you are.
Thank you.
MR. DURHAM: Now, this was -- these maps were built on My
District Builder, so it's not as robust as the normal GIS. However, you
can do it relatively quickly.
If you look at first map that you had, it shows at the bottom the
Page 144
September 13-14, 2011
important populations, and that's the reason why I included it.
The second one shows a blowup of where a portion of
Commission District 3 goes beyond Collier Boulevard, north of
Immokalee, and that's to make up for the difference of population.
That takes population away from Commission District 5. So that on
the final map you'll see that Commission District 5, which is the area
to the east and kind of the pink color now captures Everglades City
and the surrounding area. So that's basically what's occurring.
And I understand Mr. Teach would like to add a word or two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. TEACH: Commissioners, I just want to add additionally
that when you -- if you approve this map and accept it, that part of
your acceptance be that you made this adjustment to keep intact
communities of interest, which Tim just said a moment ago, which
was the driving intent per the previous discussion.
And also, as part of the submission that will make the Justice
Department, we give the legal boundaries. But because of the short
time period we don't have time to make those adjustments, because
there is going to be a change. So we would ask that the Board, when
they approve it, that they authorize the Chair to sign the resolution
reflecting the map. And we will bring the legal description and attach
it to the map at that time. It just can't be done this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I understand that. But how can
we be assured the legal description that you provide us is absolutely
precise and correct?
MR. TEACH: Well, Chairman, I agree with you. I mean, staff is
going to have to prepare the legal description, which they had
prepared legal descriptions with the resolutions that were submitted--
with the resolution and the versions of the map that were submitted
today.
You trusted staff on the legal descriptions that they had prepared
with the versions of the map today, and staff is going to have to go
Page 145
September 13-14,2011
back, they're going to have to redo a legal description based on this
adjustment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you do understand that there
have been numerous occasions where we've had to make changes to a
contract or some other kind of decision that we've made because there
was an error in the legal descriptions. I would like to make sure that
we are very, very careful about this legal description.
MR. TEACH: And Commissioner, I won't sign off on the
resolution until we're certain that the legal description comports with
what the Board is directing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you use well defined boundaries like
-- are you going to say Alligator Alley or are you going to use metes
and bounds descriptions?
MR. TEACH: It's more substantial than metes and bounds,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well.
Who was first, Commissioner Henning or Commissioner -- ladies
first, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let Commissioner Henning go,
he was first. First in time over --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The cut-out on the northern side
of District Three -- cut-in, I should say, that's Heritage --
MR. DURHAM: Bay. Correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Bay.
What is on the east side of that cut-out? Is that also Heritage
Bay? It is.
MR. DURHAM: I don't know for sure, Commissioner. But the
one thing is it almost matches equally the population that was -- that
had to be exchanged with Everglades City. And it's a complete VTD.
And a VTD is an intermediate census geography that is used for
creating precincts. So by capturing that block the way it was captured,
it not only equalized the population, but secondly, it conforms to
Page 146
September 13-14,2011
creating a precinct that's not divided in any way, if that's helpful.
But I'm not as familiar with the actual what's on the ground as
others might be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, and I have a concern
adopting this without knowing that.
I would say that Heritage Bay, if we're going to draw a line in the
center of it, it's not meeting what Mr. Teach said is keeping
community of interest together.
MR. DURHAM: Well, it is a VTD, which is a census recognized
intermediate boundary. Almost by definition that's viewed as a
holistic unit or entity that's acceptable to make divisions by.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But is it right to Heritage Bay if
we're splitting it in half?
MR. DURHAM: That I don't know. That would be up to folks
in the community. That's one of the liabilities of trying to tweak a
map at this late stage in the game.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Is there any way that we
can continue this to the next meeting?
MR. DURHAM: It jeopardizes what we need to do as an
Elections Office to prepare precinct and polling place identification
for the PPP, the Presidential Preference Primary, which could be
scheduled as early as January 3rd. And when you add the
pre-clearance requirement to that, it makes it very difficult to satisfy
the deadlines we have to meet to make our adjustments before the
Presidential Preference Primary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think community of
interest takes precedent over government's interest.
MR. DURHAM: It's not a government interest, sir, it's the
voters' interest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's --
MR. DURHAM: Tim Durham benefits nothing from this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not saying government,
Page 147
September 13-14, 2011
Tim Durham, what I'm saying is the Elections Office would like to get
this as soon as possible so they can draw precinct lines. And I
understand that. And I appreciate that.
This is a decade map. And if we split a community, we have to
live with that for a decade. And I don't think that's fair to the citizens.
MR. DURHAM: Well, no redistricting map is going to be
perfect. And there's going to be places where you have to make
adjustments for population. And it's not a matter of convenience for
our office, it's a matter of are we going to make a choice.
I mean, we really have two options: We can settle polling places
going into the PPP prior to the 2012 election cycle, which will be the
biggest election the country ever had. Or we can push all this off, let
the time line slip -- and by the way, Hillsborough County that's a
covered jurisdiction did this June 20th. They had 10 maps and 11
public meetings. But if we have more difficulty doing it, then so be it.
Our office doesn't want to change polling places in between the
PPP and the fall election cycle. We think that's bad. Bad for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For voter confusion --
MR. DURHAM: -- not government, but for our voters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Voter confusion.
MR. DURHAM: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It looks like it splits it, doesn't
't?
1 .
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually looks like you encompassed
all of Heritage Bay. I want to confirm that. I'm looking at the map in
more detail, and it looks like to the east there's Twin Eagles, and that
line is all of Heritage Bay. If I can take it -- we can take another --
carry this a little further, I can --
MR. DURHAM: There's a PUD map out in the hallway that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's hard to tell unless I look at the map
outside.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a PUD map in my office.
Page 148
September 13-14, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think we have this covered. I
think it's all of Heritage Bay. Let me take a look.
(At which time Mr. Casalanguida exits the boardroom.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it lies up with the county line.
It's Heritage Bay. You want to put that on the map.
For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Commissioners.
This is your county line coming down. This is the Heritage Bay
boundary. So this is all of Heritage Bay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You addressed my concerns,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With all the stipulations that
were previously mentioned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, what's the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We had numerous things that
were said by Mr. Teach.
MR. DURHAM: Mr. Teach is going to bring the corrected or
adjusted legal descriptions for follow-up. Is that what you mean,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. DURHAM: And it's to maintain the communities of
interest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of adopting -- this is
map one; is that correct, or I-A?
Page 149
September 13-14,2011
MR. DURHAM: I-A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I-A? All right, Map I-A.
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 is done.
MR. DURHAM: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just confirm some things on
the record? I want to be sure, because there has been a great deal of
citizen concern about the legality of the public hearing process, as
well as how these maps were drawn. I want to have assurances from
the county's counsel and our outside counsel that we have done
everything to comply with the Voting Rights Act, particularly
Sections 2 and 5. And that the public hearing process was also, you
know, done correctly in accordance with the laws.
The last thing I want to see is any sort of litigation. So, you
know, if there's anything that's being done incorrectly, I want to make
sure it's addressed here and now and that we do what's necessary to
correct it. Because I don't want to see the County go through
unnecessary litigation if there's something we could have addressed
today.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll speak first and then I'll let the outside
counsel speak for himself.
From my standpoint, and it's in the legal considerations which
Page 150
September 13-14,2011
Scott and I spent a lot of time on, all right, we went above and beyond
what was legally required. Above and beyond.
Many jurisdictions have one map, one meeting. We had
numerous maps, numerous meetings. Spent time on this. And the
people who were in that room to put this map together were as
apolitical as you could get. There was -- the only consideration here
was doing what's best for the people of Collier County and in keeping
with the Board's direction the criteria and the legal requirements. You
couldn't get more legal than this, quite frankly. We were as outside
the political process as you could be.
I did not get any phone calls from any of the Commissioners. I
don't know if anybody else did. It was a -- you allowed staff to do
staffs job. David Weeks did a herculean job on this, and he's to be
commended. Mr. Durham did a herculean on this and he's to be
commended. It was as apolitical process as you can get. And I'll
defend this from here to kingdom come.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm just, again, just
notwithstanding the efforts, the positive efforts, I should say, of staff,
again, conformance with section two, conformance with section five,
all the public hearings properly conducted, you're comfortable that
that was all done correctly?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KERLEK: Adam Kerlek, Bond, Schoeneck & King.
Commissioner Hiller and the rest of the Board, I would also like
to second that all five maps, including the map that was just adopted,
will avoid a section two or section five claim.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no evidence of cracking or
anything like that?
MR. KERLEK: Correct. I can't guarantee that a section two
plaintiff or a citizen that claims they were affected will file suit.
There's no I immunity from a lawsuit. I can say that what was done
Page 151
September 13-14,2011
here today will eliminate any risk of a successful lawsuit against the
Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I wouldn't want to see
anything done that was unfair or in any way intentionally
discriminatory .
MR. KERLEK: And Commissioner Hiller, based upon our
firm's involvement, I can say that it is our opinion that there was no
discrimination of any sort.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for confirming that on
the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And speaking of on the
record, I just want to take a moment, it's not something we get a
chance very often to do, to thank my fellow commissioners for every
single one of you for working so hard to meet the needs of the
residents of Collier County.
A lot of people thought this was going to end up being a food
fight over the district boundaries. Every one of you were most helpful
in the way you went out of your way to try to make it happen, and I
thank you for that. And I'm sure the people in Everglades City and
every one of the districts will be very appreciative to be able to keep
themselves relatively all attached to their present commissioners.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, we go back to
Mr. Arnold's presentation, right?
MR. OCHS: This is -- actually we're going to hear --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we?
Item #8C - (Discussed and continued to Day 2, 9/14/2011)
ORDINANCE 2011-28 (CPSP-2010-01/FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT-FLUE, MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF
Page 152
September 13-14,2011
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT): APPROVAL THE 2010 CYCLE
OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS,
INCLUDING ONE 2008 CYCLE PETITION - ADOPTED
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2011-30: PUDZ-PL2009-1017: ESTATES
SHOPPING CENTER CPUD -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE 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 AN
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A WELLFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREA TMENT OVERLAY TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A WELLFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREA TMENT OVERLAY FOR THE
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ESTATES SHOPPING
CENTER CPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 170,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD AND WILSON BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IN
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 41::f:: ACRES;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO
APPROVE WITH CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 153
September 13-14,2011
W/LIMITATIONS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 150~000
MR.OCHS: We heard that one. We have -- the next one is
CP2008-1. That's your final amendment under Item 8.C. That will be
heard in conjunction with Item 8.B, which is the PUDZ-PL2009-1017,
the Estates Shopping Center CPUD.
Commissioners, since we're going to hear these together, I'd
recommend that, Mr. Chairman, you do your ex parte disclosure up
front and swearing in of witnesses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with Commissioner
Hiller on Item 8.B for ex parte.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've had meetings, correspondence,
e-mails and calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would say the same. I've had
meetings, phone calls, correspondence, and talked with citizens
personally and called people to verify. I've done as much research as I
can into this subj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I also have a file of
correspondence and e-mails from both supporters and opponents of
this petition. And I have also attended meetings, I have had meetings
with Mr. Y ovanovich and his client, the petitioner. And it is all part of
my public records folder, if anybody needs to go through it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess the question would be is
who didn't I meet with, who didn't I receive an e-mail from. It
probably would be a shorter list. Numerous meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, and of course I reviewed the
staff report. I watched the Planning Commission meeting on the
subject. That pretty much covers it. But my documentation's all in
my folder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Commissioner Henning?
Page 154
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with the petitioner and the
petitioner's representative, received a voluminous amount of e-mails.
And I did watch the Planning Commission meeting.
All my ex parte is in the file. If Mr. Bishop would like a copy of
it, I'd be more than happy to provide it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's an additional issue that I'd
like to address with respect to the ex parte. Yesterday -- and I don't
know about you, but I received an e-mail from Laura Layden from the
Naples Daily News. And I actually will also make that part of the
record.
And what she asked of me were my impressions with respect to
this project, and then she specifically asked me what my vote was
going to be, whether it was going to be a yes vote or a no vote. And
obviously that concerned me. And I e-mailed her back and said are
you polling the Commissioners, smiley face. And of course there is a
First Amendment issue, and that is of course she has the right to ask
questions and do her business and report, and we value that. But there
is a limitation and there's an AGO, which is 8142, and that is she can
do that so long as the news reporter is not being designedly appointed
and used by the member or any other member of the council, or in this
case the Board of Commissioners, as an intermediary in order to
circumvent or evade the public meeting requirements of the Sunshine
Law.
So I think what I would like, and I went ahead and I forwarded
bye-mails to the County Attorney, I forwarded the Attorney General
opinion that I have to the County Attorney. I also spoke to the
Attorney General's Office. And I think it's important, and I'd like the
County Attorney's opinion, and I hope he supports me on this, that we
all disclose what our communications with this reporter was so we all
Page 155
September 13-14,2011
have assurances that there is no one on this Commission or no one
among staff that directed this reporter to do this in order to, you know,
use her article as a way of sharing to the Commission what the other
Commissioners were thinking and how they would vote on this matter.
Because the article was published in today's newspaper.
And I was the only one who said I'm not going to tell you. It's
like you don't have a right to know. And I didn't say it quite in those
terms, I was actually nicer. I said, I'll tell you after I vote and after
I've heard the evidence, which is quite frankly what my duty is. I
really can't come to a conclusion before I have heard all the evidence
that's presented here today. And for me to walk into this hearing with
a foregone conclusion before the evidentiary hearing I think would be
prejudicial to the petitioner.
So that was a concern I had with respect to the ex parte. And I
don't know how you'd like to address that, County Attorney, but I
think we need to at least have it in the record, our respective records or
as part of the public record as to how this occurred.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not really -- I haven't had a real chance
to go through the materials you forwarded to me. I'm really not
entirely sure what the issue is, Commissioner. The four
Commissioners gave their ex parte. If they had written
communications with this reporter, they should be part of that in the
folders.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and that's my point. I think
these communications with the reporter should be part of that. And
we should have assurances that no one asked Laura Layden to do this
and publish it so this information could be shared among members of
the Board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, my advice to you is when
you get called by a newspaper on a quasi-judicial matter, you have no
comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would agree with that.
Page 156
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know she called me yesterday, and
I told her I still had people to call and things to do. I said, I'm still
investigating, I said, so I don't really know. I said, I always walk into
a meeting with an open mind anyway.
And quite frankly, the Naples Daily News is still in the plastic
wrapper on the floor of my car, so I don't know what anybody else
said either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's probably where it should
stay. Touche'. I had to say that. I just had to. It's not often I get to
speak my mind about them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are we finished with posturing?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's a very -- it's seriously a
very important issue. And just so you understand, it was Pat Gleason
at the Attorney General's Office that recommended that I bring this up
and have the County Attorney address this and properly guide us on
this particular issue.
So that's why I forwarded everything, and I'd like you to guide
us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Like I said, it should be part of the ex parte
communications which you've already given. If they're not, they
should be included. And my advice on these is to have no comment on
a quasi-judicial matter to the press.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the question that I have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've gone through it, he's given
you the answer. Now let's not spend a day debating your issue, let's
get to the item that people are wanting to address.
So how many public speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 45.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, three minutes apiece, that's going
to take a while.
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to have a presentation by
Page 157
September 13-14, 2011
the petitioner first?
MR.OCHS: Swear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. Will anyone who is planning to
provide testimony in this hearing please stand and raise your right
hand to be sworn in. That includes all 45 members of the public who
are going to be speaking.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today is Bob Crown, who's the owner of the property,
Wayne Arnold who's the professional planner on the property, Dave
Schmidt is here to answer any utility related questions that may
remain. Mike Timmerman was our economist on the project and can
answer any questions you have with that. Scott MacLaren with Stiles,
who is a shopping center developer, is on our team and will be making
a brief presentation. And Ted Treesh, our transportation consultant, is
able to answer any questions.
So you'll have a presentation from me, Wayne and Scott
MacLaren. Hopefully we'll move it along quickly for you.
I'm going to take both petitions at the same time, since they're
very similar. There are certain things in the Comprehensive Plan that
are not in the PUD ordinance, and I'll point those out. But generally
you have a very comprehensive Comprehensive Plan, so they're both
very similar and I think it's easier to do them at the same time with
separate votes later, instead of trying to present one first and then
basically say the same thing for the PUD.
Your adoption hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and the
consideration of the PUD for the Estates Shopping Center. In
summary, the Estates Shopping Center Comprehensive Plan
amendment proposes a grocery anchored shopping center with a
maximum of 190,000 square feet on approximately 40 acres.
Page 158
September 13-14, 2011
And as you know, it's at the northwest quadrant of Golden Gate
Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. And that's the master plan that is
for the PUD -- for the PUD.
The PUD differs slightly from the Comprehensive Plan in that
we're not asking for the full 190,000 square feet as part of the PUD,
we're asking for 170,000 square feet at this time.
The project, as you know, has been around for many years. I
don't think there's any question that the community knows about this
proj ect and knows exactly what has been discussed over these many
years, and what was discussed and voted on at the election last
November.
We had over 20 meetings with our neighbors and community
over the past five years, and these meetings occurred prior to and after
your transmittal hearing, and then as lately as three days before the
Planning Commission meeting.
We worked closely with our neighbors and we met with those
who supported us and those who opposed our project in order to come
up with a project that we believe accounted for all the concerns we
heard from the community, other than please go away and don't build
this center. But from that perspective we did listen to and take
seriously all the comments we had and we incorporated those
comments, even if somebody was still opposed to the project.
You received -- and this is all in your record, but I'll briefly go
over it. You received 2,000 letters of support prior to your first
transmittal hearing, we did a survey, of which 83 percent of the people
in the area supported the center. The Collier Citizen did an online
survey, showing that 65 percent of the people supported the center.
At the initial transmittal hearing in front of the Board of County
Commissioners, the room was full of people -- and you had received
all this other information -- but there was still a question as to whether
or not the community really wanted the center, so the Board of County
Commissioners agreed to put the center on the ballot, a straw ballot to
Page 159
September 13-14,2011
receive further input from the community as to whether or not they
really wanted the center.
The actual ballot language and the precincts was approved by the
County Commission on February 9th, 2010, and that ballot language
was drafted by the County Attorney and ultimately approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
The ballot language which you have in your packet was very
clear and explicit as to what the voters were voting on. They talked
about the location, the size of the center, the square footage in the
center and the grocery anchored aspect of the center.
We did many mailings. And we've been criticized for doing
many mailings, but we did many mailings to everybody in the
community . We informed not only our supporters but we informed all
of our objectors to this project. We even got down to the point where
we told them where it was on the ballot, go vote. So if you were
against our project, we did a great job of letting you know exactly
where to go to vote no.
In the meantime we were meeting with the voters. We did a lot
of community outreach and we heard a lot of comments from the
community. And you're still seeing those comments, I think, in some
of the emails you're receiving, certainly on the blogs in response to
today's article.
We heard from the community that they're tired of driving to the
urban area for these services. They want a grocery store, they want
banks, they want restaurants. And they want the same retail services
that the urban area has. They want a place of their own, they don't
want to drive to the urban area.
People have said that we're going to create traffic. Well, the
reality is we're going to reduce traffic. When this center is
constructed, vehicle trip lengths will be reduced. People will no
longer have to drive to Collier Boulevard to get services.
And, in fact, our transportation analysis, which is in your packet,
Page 160
September 13-14, 2011
shows that the trips will actually be reduced on Collier Boulevard as a
result of this project. So we actually improve traffic with this project.
And you can ask your transportation staff if in fact that is true,
because I believe they concluded that as well.
We've heard that they want a location specifically in this
location. They want one in the center of Golden Gate Estates. They
know that there are centers on the outskirts, but they want one in the
center as well.
We heard people tell us that we believe that this center will
improve their property values. We're going through probably one of
the worst recessions ever, and Golden Gate Estates has suffered quite
a bit as far as property values go. We've heard those people tell us
they believe this will improve their property values, and that is in fact
a correct statement.
We heard people say they want jobs. We're going to create
approximately 269 jobs when this center is created. Now, they will
range from part-time to full-time jobs, but people want those job
opportunities for their kids after school, for themselves part-time and
for themselves full-time. Unemployment throughout Collier County
and especially in Golden Gate Estates is very, very high. And they
want jobs, and we will be delivering jobs.
We heard that they're glad that someone is willing to spend $13.5
million to build this center out in Golden Gate Estates. They view that
as a positive; it's a good thing that people are willing to invest in their
community .
They also like the fact that it will create 150 construction jobs as
part of this. And they like the overall economic impact of
approximately $17.7 million a year into the economy as a result of this
center.
Not surprisingly but most loudly, we've heard why is it taking so
long to get through this process. And it is a long process. And
Commissioners, this is a long and expensive process. And I think we
Page 161
September 13-14,2011
can all agree that it's going to be the private sector that creates jobs
and makes the economy go forward, not the government. We need the
regulations to be reasonable, but we need a process that doesn't take
five years to get through in order to go forward with this project.
Prior to the election, the Naples Daily News ran another poll.
Everybody is saying these are unscientific polls, but you'll see some
similarity in the numbers. And again, the unscientific Naples Daily
News poll came back with 76 percent of the people out in Golden
Gate Estates wanting this center.
If you'll recall, about the same time as we're going through this
process, Jackson Labs was being discussed. And the voters, a lot of
people said we need to take major issues like this to the voters. Well,
we did take this issue to the voters. This was a big issue for Golden
Gate Estates. It was a changer of the Comprehensive Plan.
The reason we're here is because the Comprehensive Plan doesn't
allow this use. I understand. So, I mean, I understand the objectors
are saying that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't allow this use. They
are correct. That's why we're amending the Comprehensive Plan, to
allow this use.
This was a big change under the Comprehensive Plan, and we
went to the voters to ask them, do you want this big change. And the
overall turnout was 76 percent said we want this change, we want this
center, we want this location. We won every precinct by a huge
margin. In fact, the precinct in which the center itself is located, we
won it by 72.4 percent said we want it in our immediate vicinity.
So there's no question that the Golden Gate Estates community
has spoken and they have spoken loudly that they want this center.
And we need to move forward with this center.
There are people who are opposed to the center. And we respect
that opinion. They didn't move there with -- telling us they didn't
want this center, this wasn't their vision of Golden Gate Estates.
Well, you have comprehensive plans, they're not fixed in stone.
Page 162
September 13-14,2011
As community sentiment changes, you can and you are entitled to
amend the Comprehensive Plan. We have followed the process, we
have gotten a lot of community involvement, and the community has
spoken and said we are ready to change the Comprehensive Plan to
allow this center to go forward.
The CCPC, Planning Commission, I'm sorry, spent several hours
going through the specifics of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the
specifics of the PUD ordinance to make it better. There were changes
that were made that made this potential shopping center a better center
for the Golden Gate Estates community, as well as the immediate
neighbors to the center.
Throughout this process, we have been concerned about not only
our immediate neighbors, but the entire community. And we have
designed a center, and Wayne will take you through the buffers in
greater detail, as well as the master plan in greater detail, to address
the concerns of the community. I'll highlight a few changes, then I'll
let Wayne speak, then I'll have Scott MacLaren talk about some of the
process that developers go through.
First of all, the center will be built in two phases; we're not
building it all right now. And those phases will probably be phased as
the market dictates the need for more uses. The first use has to be the
grocery store. Ifwe don't get a grocery store, we have no project. So
we've bet the entire project on getting the grocery store. To provide
certainty to the residents, we've included an exhaustive list of allowed
uses in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the PUD so the
Comprehensive Plan and the PUD match as far as uses go.
The PUD -- I'm sorry, the master plan, this is the PUD master
plan. The same, similar master plan appears in the Growth
Management Plan except that we don't have the exact building
locations on the Growth Management Plan, but we have an area that
development can occur. But the buffers that you see here are all in the
Comprehensive Plan so they're protected that way.
Page 163
September 13-14,2011
We have enhanced buffers along Golden Gate Boulevard, along
First Street and Third Street. We have large building setbacks from
our neighbors to the north and to the west. We addressed in the PUD
hours of operations for the businesses. These same hours of operation
appear in the Brooks Village PUD, which is on 951 and Pine Ridge
Road, also in Golden Gate Estates.
Although we have agreed further to a request that the
drive-through, because that was a concern about amplification related
to a drive-through for fast food, we have prohibited the drive-through
amplification after 9:00 p.m. So the drive-through will become just
you drive up to the window and make your order so there won't be
amplification. And that was to address some concerns from the
immediate neighbors about how sound travels out in Golden Gate
Estates.
We agreed to limit the buildings to single story. We also further,
as a concern raised by the neighbors, we agreed to limit the size of the
respective buildings. Other than where you could see the grocery
store in the middle, that one building, other than that building, all of
the other buildings cannot exceed 30,000 square feet. So that's why
you see it broken up into smaller, smaller buildings on the master plan.
The GMP and PUD prohibits bars, it prohibits outdoor TV's and
music. So you can't have a Stevie Tomatoes situation that's occurred.
The architecture is OIde Florida, Key West or Bermuda to fit into
the community as to what's out there already.
The lighting is the same lighting standards that everybody else
has to meet in the Estates. So we're not going to all of a sudden light
up the sky and change the environment out there in Golden Gate
Estates.
One correction we need to make is that Item 12 of the PUD is the
convenience store with gas pumps. It also would allow a car wash.
We had agreed to eliminate the car wash, so that needs to come out as
an allowed use.
Page 164
September 13-14,2011
We believe that both the GMP and the PUD document rezones
have been designed for this project to meet the needs of the residents.
We're bringing the uses they want in a respectful way . We've broken
up the project so it fits into the community.
Recently we heard concerns about what will the impact of this
center be on existing centers on 951. Scott will get into that in greater
detail. But from a population standpoint, what the individual grocers
are looking for as to population to serve their individual shopping
centers, we will not have a negative impact on those two centers.
Without our population that is coming to this center, those stores will
meet the guidelines that developers want for those shopping centers,
and Scott will get into greater detail on how that works.
I know you've heard a lot of this before, so I'm trying to do it
quickly and not repetitively. I'm going to ask Wayne at this point to
come up and take you through the master plan and how we've
addressed community concerns. And then Scott can take you through
the market factors and the concern about impact on other shopping
centers. And then we can answer questions or we can do questions as
we go along. It's up to the Commission on how you would like to
proceed. But if we can continue on, maybe Wayne will answer some
questions you may have and Scott may answer others. But whatever
the Commission chooses at this point. Those are the brief introductory
comments about what we're trying to do and where we've come to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a question on some
comments that you made.
You said that it's going to increase -- it's going to be an added
increase of $1 7.7 million of spending?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's that money going now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could have the economist -- where did
you go?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right --
Page 165
September 13-14,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could have the economist explain where
it's going.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my first question.
The second question is you said we need to find a different
process because it's taking such a long time for this process.
How long did the ballot question take? By the time you're here --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me see, I think it was March of
2010 that we decided to go on the ballot. So that would have taken us
to November, 2010. And we're now at -- we're September, 2011. It's
almost been a year since --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's over a year.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Almost a year since we had the ballot
question decided to get to this point. And that's what I'm talking about
-- it shouldn't have had to take that long to get back after we received
the communication from the voters as to what they wanted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you were here and we
could have made a decision then without even going to the voters.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm thankful that you went to the
voters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whose idea was it to go to the
voters?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That added a lot of time,
didn't it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It sure did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It did. Any -- do you want to hear from
Mike Timmerman on the economics question right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine, I'll hold off my
other. I'll wait till Mr. Timmerman -- you wanted to do in order. I'll
wait for Mr. Timmerman. I'm sure he will address it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, he was not scheduled to speak, so I
Page 166
September 13-14,2011
can bring him up right now to answer that, since it's a fresh question.
And then I can have Wayne go on to the planning considerations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Mike
Timmerman, Fishkind Associates.
The question was, there's $17 million that is positive economic
impact that this center will generate. Right now those dollars are
going to the urban area. So it's just going to go ahead -- it's going to
go ahead and just spread them out.
Basically what that includes is when you spend dollars at a
shopping center or anything else --
(Audience disturbance.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please.
MR. TIMMERMAN: That's what those dollars are. So by
having this center in the middle of -- having this center here, it's
generating more revenue and more tax base within the Golden Gate
Estates so far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what does that do to -- for
anybody? What's the benefit for anybody for that statement?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, Commissioner, we have to look at--
we can't just look at what's going on today. This is a 20-year forecast
time horizon. So as we're building this center here, we've got 20 years
of growth that's going to occur. So I think we focus so much on
what's happening today, we need to be looking at this future. We
know the Golden Gate Estates is going to be the fastest growing area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That money is going to be spent
anyways in Collier County.
MR. TIMMERMAN: It's going to be -- you're right, it's going to
be spent anywhere. But what it does from a stand -- you've got to take
it into consideration of everything: Trips, the growth within the
immediate area, the fact that there aren't any other sites within Golden
Gate Estates to go ahead and support the residents --
Page 167
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Financially it doesn't do any
different for Collier County as a whole.
MR. TIMMERMAN: It adds more tax base to the county by
having this center here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you have growth, that's going
to be spent anyways in Collier County.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct. Yeah, for looking at the county
as a whole, yeah, there's no difference. But what we're saying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has no -- as far as spending,
more spending dollars, it has no benefit to the Golden Gate Estates. It
adds nothing to that. I was just wondering --
MR. TIMMERMAN: It's going to create more of a tax base,
based upon the commercial development that's within Golden --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Growth will create more tax
base.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct. So will the center. Because the
taxes for the real estate of that center are going to generate more to the
county and to that particular region.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be spent in other
areas in Collier County anyways.
MR. TIMMERMAN: The taxes for the real estate, it won't.
That's what I'm saying. Those will stay within Golden Gate Estates. I
mean, it's going to generate more of a tax base, that's the main thing.
We obviously know the commercial real estate generates more of
a support for taxes than residential does. Any more commercial real
estate that we can add that's supportive within a market is going to
ahead and help diversify that tax base.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold,
Professional Planner with Grady Minor and Associates.
What I think I'd like to do, Rich has the colorized version of the
zoning master plan up on the visualizer still, and I thought what I'd do
Page 168
September 13-14,2011
is just quickly sort of take you through some of the planning
considerations that drove that site plan, if I could. I think they're
important considerations, and they go to how closely we worked with
all of our neighbors in the community in coming up with this plan.
And then secondly, I wanted to close by talking to you a little bit
about some of the specifics, if you will.
This plan, if you look at it, is driven a lot by green space. And
it's a green plan, if you will, for several reasons. One, we have a large
buffer area and a preserve that we established along our northern
property line, primarily to separate ourselves from some of the
residential neighbors to the north. I think it's important to note that
one of our most immediate neighbors is a Comcast site to the north of
our preserve area. And then our client also holds another parcel that's
not included in this. So the property owner retained a home to be a
buffer to the other homes along Third Street.
In this particular case I think I'll take you sort of from the west to
the east. So I'll start at Third Street. But you can see that we have our
water management lake system and an enhanced buffer along the
Third Street. We worked closely with some of the residents along
Third Street to deal with that and come up with a specific buffering
plan so that they could have the vegetation, the berm. And the lake
created another function of separating the uses that much further from
their homes on Third Street.
We have the utility site which you saw earlier from your staff
wellfield presentation. We located that far enough away from the
wellhead that's over on Wilson Boulevard to an area that's central to
our site where it functions properly.
As you travel further east you get to what I would call the core of
our commercial area, and that's where the grocery anchored center
would be. We have a few of the other uses, our larger parking field.
You could go further east, you come First Street, it's another
access to our site. But it separates us from the park that's in the
Page 169
September 13-14, 2011
neighborhood center today. And we have a collection of smaller
buildings located at that intersection.
I think one of the more significant features of this plan that is
very unique, and that's that we have a 50-foot wide not only a
landscaped enhanced buffer along Golden Gate Boulevard, but we
also have part of that frontage that will be managed as a 50-foot-wide
preserve. I think that's pretty unprecedented in Collier County for any
other retail shopping center that Rich and I could find as an example
in Collier County. It's really close to approaching only even a couple
of office type park projects that you'll find in our community when it
comes to the level of buffering and landscaping we have.
One of the other things I think it's important to note as we look at
this across the landscape is that we did make the commitment in this
to have single-story only development. We did hear from many of the
neighbors that said we don't want multi-story buildings, that's not in
character with Golden Gate Estates. This needs to be a low-level
shopping facility, it needs to be a functional site for us. I know that it
needs to be one that they want to feel comfortable using.
Our client spent a good deal of time and effort looking at what
the community wanted by doing some visioning with some of the
people who were willing to help. And they told us they wanted a lot
of green space, a lot of buffers, give us water and give us a functional
shopping center. So that drove a lot of the decision-making in this
case relative to, like Rich says, we're betting the farm on it, a grocery
anchored shopping center. And that's what we're trying to do.
If I could, I'll just quickly walk through some of the buffers. I'm
not going to talk about them in detail, but I do think it's important to at
least highlight what we're trying to do.
For instance, here's a cross-section of what we're achieving on
the Third Street buffer, which is our western boundary. That would
extend, and it's got a wall that's buried behind a hedge in it, for
instance, but that is sort of a depiction of what will be the anticipated
Page 170
September 13-14,2011
planted buffer plantings along Third Street.
The residents who were involved in this process on Third also
said it would sure be nice if you could wrap this landscape buffer
around the lake so that we are sure as we drive south toward Golden
Gate Boulevard we don't now have to also see the back potentially of
any buildings in your center. So we again designed an enhanced
buffer for a portion of our northern boundary to avoid having people
on Third Street look at the back of commercial buildings.
We go over to First Street again, we have an enhanced buffer.
And this one, it's a buffer that's really a good functional buffer. It's
wide, but it's also got a hedge that we're going to be maintaining so
that the view for people who do reside on First Street that drive
through here, it's something that they're going to have a nice appealing
entrance.
I did see one of the comments from some of the neighbors that
indicated that they're going to have to drive through a commercial area
to get to their home. And I don't live in Golden Gate Estates, I live in
the City of Naples, but every night on my way home I turn next to the
BP station and the Best Western hotel and have a beautiful median
entry and it's not a negative experience for me personally. And I think
we can achieve much of the same right here.
Over on Wilson Boulevard again, this one, it's again a function
buffer, it's one that we're going to put a wider buffer, more vegetation,
more landscaping and a hedge. That's going to be a heavily traveled
wider roadway, as you know. And we made the commitment here to
go ahead and put in an enhanced buffer there as well.
One of the other things that I wanted to point out, and I think this
is really a unique aspect of what we have, is along the Boulevard,
that's a cross section of the 50-foot wide buffer, and we've agreed to
go ahead and make this a true 50-foot wide buffer. There may be
parts of it that have minor water management detention systems in
them that we're depicting on the upper left of that. But for the most
Page 171
September 13-14,2011
part we want to fill up the space. It's not going to be one line of trees
that's 10 feet wide and a 50-foot-wide piece of landscaping. This is
intended to be a true enhanced buffer.
This exhibit is one that there was a question behind the main
body of the shopping center building that would contain a grocery
store. There's some vegetation that's not as thick within our
75-foot-wide preserve. And staff, rightly so, asked what we intended
to do. And the code does contain provisions for how you handle
revegetated preserves. But we created an exhibit that will be part of
the PUD record that indicates the types of vegetation, sample of how it
gets planted and how it gets maintained.
The other important part that came out of your Planning
Commission hearing relates to the single deviation that this project
has, and that is the Planning Commission wanted us to install a sound
wall adjacent to our northern drive isle behind the main body of the
shopping center. Your code requires there to be a separation between
a preserve and any wall. And in this particular case the Planning
Commission asked for us to have the deviation. Instead of having a
five- foot setback from that, it would allow us to place the wall
adjacent to the preserve. In this case, since it's largely going to be
revegetated and recreate a preserve, that was seen as a win/win
situation I think from everybody's perspective. And I think rightly so,
the Planning Commission supported that idea.
That's I think in a nutshell where we were in driving the site plan.
I will say that from a planning function, I think this represents a
good planning concept. You have obviously a subdivision that many
people love to live in in Golden Gate Estates. But Golden Gate
Estates isn't so unique. There are other subdivisions in South Florida
like Golden Gate Estates where this land use pattern --
(Audience disturbance.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. ARNOLD: Where we have scenarios where we have large
Page 1 72
September 13-14,2011
lots --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please be quiet.
You'll have a chance to speak.
MR. ARNOLD: And what I mean is we have other large lot
platted subdivisions that really were done back in the 1960's that don't
represent how we plan and live today.
So in this situation you're bringing back a potential shopping
opportunity in the middle of Golden Gate Estates at an intersection
that's heavily traveled, it captures a lot of trips. Rich pointed to it.
We've done the analysis that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, it
reduces vehicle trips, it actually benefits your traffic network outside
Golden Gate Estates.
Those are all positive things that we should be striving for. And I
think the site plan highlights the fact that we've worked so closely
with everybody to try to deliver a product that can not only be
functionally and work here but will fit in here.
So hopefully with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions
related to the site planning. But from my perspective, it's a good
example of planning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not for you. I want to talk about a
comment that Rich made that he said Scott would address.
One of the statements that Rich made was that there would be no
negative impact on any other plaza. And there is another large plaza
which will be at about what, three-and-a-half miles distance from the
current proposed plaza? My understanding is that these grocery stores
need a critical mass, a certain level of population to support their
existence. We also have a grocery store at Ave Maria, which
obviously is being subsidized in terms of its existence today.
Can you please show me the projected demographics and explain
to me how the, you know, projected population trends in this area will
Page 1 73
September 13-14,2011
support two grocery stores in close proximity to each other in addition
to the store at Ave Maria?
MR. MacLAREN: Sure. Thank you for the question. For the
record, Scott Maclaren with Stiles Corporation, part of the
development team. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
The question hits exactly what I want to get up here and talk
about.
Just a quick introduction. Stiles Corporation, working with the
petitioners, you know, a 60-year-old privately held full-service
development company led by Terry Stiles, done a lot of work over on
this side of the coast as well, and frankly, from Tennessee down to
Miami, including 23 anchored shopping centers -- grocery anchored
shopping centers.
What I want to show you is a couple of things. One -- can I put
this up here? Thank you.
This is -- well, you can call this a very simple aerial. But what
we've done here is we've gone in and we've drawn one-mile rings
around the existing centers. It's really the left-hand side of the
television monitor.
The right side, the yellow, is the potential new center that we're
here talking about today.
And what you see on the left is those one-mile radiuses. It's a
very typical grid for an area such as this county. And when you look
at this on a map of Florida, on a Google map of Florida, it's very
similar for urban areas such as Collier County.
What really sticks out like a sore thumb is this area of the Estates
and the amount of homes that, when you dig into the demographics,
exist, and the potential for a shopping center.
So I'll step back just for a second. What we -- and I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you tell me, where is the --
because I'm not so familiar looking at these maps where these roads
are. Where is the Randall Center?
Page 174
September 13-14, 2011
MR. MacLAREN: I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but where will it be?
MR. MacLAREN: That's a good question. I'm sorry. The
Randall Center is at Immokalee and -- forgive me, Commissioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's at Immokalee and Randall.
MR. MacLAREN: Oh, I'm sorry. Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's the -- if you did your
one-mile circle, how does that fall, and what is the density in the
yellow circle where you have the pin representing your district -- or,
I'm sorry, your center and the Randall location compared to the
densities in these other circles that you've identified -- not densities,
but, well, you know what I mean, total population.
MR. MacLAREN: I've taken too long getting to your question
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay, there's no rush. We
have till 6: 00 and then we have tomorrow.
MR. MacLAREN: I want to show you a second piece here.
What we've done here is really, focusing on your question, we've
come in and we wanted to study those two closest stores; those again
being Mission Hills and Brooks Village. Mission Hills being the
Sweetbay Center and Brooks being the Publix to the south.
When you look at the numbers, they're very hard to see on these
screens, I know. But the top circle there is a two-mile circle. And one
of the reasons I wanted to get up here today is to talk to you about
typically what we look for as shopping center developers. It's also
rough rules of thumb, but what shopping center -- excuse me, what
grocers look for when they're trying to determine whether a new store
should be put in a certain area. And the number of people that are
required typically -- again, rough rules of thumb -- to support a new
store is seven to 10,000 people. And that is based on levels of
household income.
So you may be able to support a store with 7,000 people if you
Page 175
September 13-14,2011
have extremely high levels of income. The other side of that threshold
is roughly 10,000 people if it's the other side of the demographic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're talking about a grocery
store, right?
MR. MacLAREN: Grocery store -- grocery center -- excuse me,
a shopping center. Grocery anchored shopping center.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Grocery anchored shopping center.
MR. MacLAREN: So a grocery store. In this case--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want to also focus on a
grocery store, per se, because obviously these grocery stores are only
going to establish themselves where they have a critical mass.
MR. MacLAREN: That's correct. And so, you know, back on
that other graph you see the density of the circles. And those stores
are doing very well. The shopping centers, for that matter, are 90 --
you know, the closest ones here are 90 to 95 plus percent leased. Only
a couple of vacancies today. So they're doing quite well in these areas
within these populations.
Now, within those circles there, one of the things I want to point
out, is that top number. Again, it's hard to see. It shows 11,200 people
surrounding the top center on the left, the Sweetbay Center. You've
got an overlap of these two-mile circles there. You can see the
so-called football in the middle is approximately 1,200 people.
The 11,000 is a net number. So net of the 1,200 people in the
football, the number down below, 16,000 people, that's a net number
surrounding that store. Again, mouths, not rooftops, just to be clear.
So that's not to say that's indicative of exactly who is shopping at
that center, I want to be clear. It's just showing demographics on a
map to show you how they're being successful. And those rough rules
of thumb apply.
When you go out to the proposed site in the Estates, all we've
done there is we've drawn a circle as big as we could, could have gone
closer to those other two circles to encroach those two, but that's a
Page 176
September 13-14,2011
three-mile circle, for example. Could have gone out to almost
three-and-a-half miles. And within that three miles we're talking
almost 17,000 people.
I'm sorry? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, thank you. Almost 11,000
people.
So we're trying to show here that there is plenty of population
here. Now, if you took that three-mile circle and grouped it five
miles, for example, there's 25,000 people in there. Many of those
people today, yes, are traversing and coming in and buying their ice
cream and trying to get back home before it melts. But none of this
that we're showing here today shows anything to the east or the south
and, as Michael discussed, talked about future growth. So I'm not sure
if I'm getting close to your answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not coming close to where
I'm going.
And this was all done before I came on this Commission, so I'm
bound by what these guys have adopted. And basically what they
decided was that there was going to be a shopping center at Randall
and they were going to put a grocer at that center as well. And
obviously staff must have, through its analysis of whatever you've
produced, come to the conclusion that the market can support two
grocers simultaneously and two centers, one being a 3,000 square foot
center and one being a 190,000 square foot center simultaneously.
And so what I need to see is, you know, where are the maps that
show me that that can happen. And I think that needs to be on the
record, because I think there's a lot of discussion in the public forum,
you know, where there is concern that the market can't support two
grocers and where one has already been approved through a Compo
Plan amendment but hasn't gone through a zoning yet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have -- Commissioner Hiller, we
don't have a -- what we have is a map that Scott did that is a five-mile
radius from our store. And that will include the Randall propertya
Page 1 77
September 13-14,2011
you're talking about, okay. We didn't do one around the Randall
Center that's the same way. But on that ramp, on the one that's five
miles that Scott's going to put up and includes the Randall Center, you
will see that that number -- and Scott can correct me on that -- is over
25,000 people, and it doesn't include all of Golden Gate Estates east,
south and north of that.
And as Scott has said, the rule of thumb for grocery stores and
grocery anchored shopping centers is a population of 10,000 people.
So what you'll see is just simply within -- 10,000 people for the store.
So what you'll see is just simply in that five-mile radius you have
25,000 people to serve -- that will be available to both the Randall
Center and this Estates shopping center. And then there are people
that are even further to the east and south that we haven't factored into
that number, so that number is really higher.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But in the last map what you
indicated is that it looked like the majority of the traffic comes from a
one-mile radius. No?
Or what was that one-mile radius--
MR. MacLAREN: No, sorry. The first map that I put up, one
mile --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are they?
MR. MacLAREN: I'm sorry, these were simply to show you the
proximity of the stores. Drawing one mile is showing you the density
of a typical --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the population within each
of these circles?
MR. MacLAREN: I don't have that listed here today with us.
However, I've got the two miles around the two closest, and that was
the second slide that I showed you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which was the 11 and the 16?
MR. MacLAREN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's the -- again, I mean,
Page 178
September 13-14,2011
the problem we have and that you need to reconcile on the record is
we -- this Board approved a center at Randall that included a grocer.
And now another grocer is being proposed and another center is being
proposed.
MR. MacLAREN: I'm sorry, Commissioner, my answer to that
is that around this site, just five miles, that doesn't mean it's going to
take into account everybody to the east and south, but there's 25,000
people there, and we see that as an opportunity for more than one
store, more than one grocery store. And we feel certain that the grocer
that we're currently working with is very good with this site, based on
the proximity to their other stores. There's going to be another grocer
that's going to look at this well and see the ability to come in and
compete --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But here's the issue. The other
Compo Plan amendment said that the other developer can't build his
project out till he gets his grocery store tenant.
I need staff to answer this to tell me how they have come to the
conclusion that all these people you're working with right now and
when you get a grocery store into your location won't create a
situation where the guy who has this condition as part of his Compo
Plan amendment -- which I believe is also a part of yours, isn't it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we started the requirement that
there be a grocer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Can I ask Nick a question
or Michele Mosca? Maybe Michele Mosca. I'm sorry, not Nick, not
Nick, wrong person. Wrong person. Principal Planner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close. They look similar.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, Michele, you're miles
ahead. Miles.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive
Planning staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Michele, help me out. How
Page 1 79
September 13-14,2011
did you come to the conclusion that the Randall Center will not be
cannibalized by this center getting their grocer first? And I'm
concerned about the grocer. Because what this whole community is
so excited about is a grocer. And I've gotten so many questions about
that. And I honestly don't know how to answer it, and so I need your
help. You need to explain to me how this is supportable. Because
otherwise the other center is out of business.
MS. MOSCA: Staff -- actually, for the Estates Shopping Center
subdistrict, staff reviewed the applicant's needs analysis. Within that
needs analysis they demonstrated, and I hope I can recall this
correctly, about a 27,000 square foot shopping center could -- I'm
sorry, grocery anchor could be supported within their geographic area.
It wasn't until -- and this is my understanding -- it wasn't until
both petitions were moving forward to the Board at transmittal and
that the requirement for the straw ballot for the Estates Shopping
Center occurred. It was sort of a last minute thing for the Randall
Boulevard to include the grocery anchor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that last sentence again?
MS. MOSCA: The Randall Boulevard Shopping Center did not
have a grocery anchor as a requirement within their subdistrict the
entire time that it was brought forward to the public hearings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did they not want one?
MS. MOSCA: They suggested that there could be one but they
weren't committing to one. So the project wasn't evaluated based on a
requirement for a grocery store.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I understand. However,
subsequently you adopted a Compo Plan amendment that provided that
they have to have a grocery store as part of their first phase, otherwise
they can't proceed to their subsequent phases, which is, as Mr.
Y ovanovich explained, a requirement that they brought forward.
MS. MOSCA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now, basically I've got planning
Page 180
September 13-14,2011
staff suggesting that two shopping centers are going to be within this
radius, both of whom are going to have grocery stores. We've got one
that has a condition precedent to future expansion that they have that
grocery store in place as part of their Compo Plan amendment. We're
bringing a second one on line that is going to propose the same thing
and is getting its zoning approved today.
If this one gets a grocery store today, does that, because of the
limitation in the population, make it -- I need to see the numbers to
support that the other center can also get that shopping center, because
if the presence of one center precludes -- one grocery store precludes
the other center from getting a grocery store, it can cannibalize that
whole project. And we have a provision in their Compo Plan that
effectively will put them out of business.
And by the way, this is not a criticism of you, this is just
something that has to be explained on the record to support what's
happening here.
I've seen -- I have another situation which is similar that concerns
me. I was working with Nick on it involving a commercial
development at the intersection of Airport Pulling and Orange
Blossom. It was a project owned by a Mr. Caroty (phonetic) They put
a provision in there that says that he has to, you know, get the
intersection approved and all the other people around that intersection
have to fund the intersection improvement before he can get his C.O.
He has no control over them. And in effect it's cannibalizing his
project.
We can't have provisions in the Land Development Code that
have the effect of interfering, if you will, with the free market. And
that is in effect what we potentially have going here, unless you can
support to me that the population is there that if this center gets a
grocery store today, that the Randall Center will not have a problem
getting a grocery store that the other grocery store won't sit there and
say there's no grocery store that will come in here because the market
Page 181
September 13-14,2011
is already dominated by one. Because that puts the other center, all
300 square feet out of business -- 300,000 square feet out of business.
MS. MOSCA: I understand your position. And both of these
provisions to add the grocery store, these were not staff
recommendations, both of those provisions within both subdistricts
were proposed by the applicants. So they can most likely offer --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the Randall applicant wanted a
grocery store also and put that as a provision in there. So they must
have found it acceptable to have --
MS. MOSCA: One second. Over the years, my workings with
several of the Estates residents, there's always been a demand for a
grocery store. And what I would say, and to be quite frank, I think
both applicants were saying we will provide that grocery store for you.
And I'll defer to them how they arrived at their decision.
But it is in the needs analysis for the Estates Shopping Center,
supportable square feet. When you look at a market study, you can
determine, based on the income of these household, how much is
supportable in terms of your retail, specifically your grocery store.
And we don't have that for Randall. It was a last minute type of
proposal to add that into their subdistrict text.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, you got a
good line of questioning going. Could we go down the line. We have
every Commissioner's light--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, I just haven't gotten my
question answered, and I have to have it answered. I mean, it's critical
because it's material to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm really concerned about how
these Compo Plan amendments are being designed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me try to answer the question.
We were going through the process, and always had a
commitment for a grocery store. The Randall Center, knowing that
Page 182
September 13-14,2011
we had that commitment for shopping -- for a grocery anchored
shopping center, added that commitment to themselves knowing we
had that very same commitment. They volunteered to subject
themselves to that, knowing they were going to be competing with us
for a center.
So one must assume that they did the numbers and concluded
that their market area, although some of it overlapped, they were
drawing from a different area to arrive at there's enough out there for
their shopping center to have a grocery store and for our shopping
center to have a grocery store.
Now, what we did is used the same method of analysis that the
Randall Center did to determine need, and that is in our backup. And
Mike Timmerman is going to kind of take you through that to show
that the numbers all work for both centers to go forward.
Now, keep in mind, neither center comes on 100 percent at the
same time. Over time both centers will phase in, and both centers will
be supported based on market data. Staff is not experts in market data.
That's what Mike does and that's what Scott does. But we have that
in the backup and we could show you that the numbers and demand is
there for both centers over time to each get their grocery store center.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's significant to me is what
you just said. And I'd like Michele to confirm this. What you just
said is that the decision by the other center to have a shopping center
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Grocery.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Grocery store as a condition of
their Compo Plan amendment was something that they voluntarily
brought upon themselves--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't that what you just said?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They added it -- they never had a
commitment that their first C.O. was going to be a grocery store until
Page 183
September 13-14, 2011
the adoption hearing. And we had already had our transmittal hearing
and already had been going through the process that we committed to
our first C.O. being a grocery store in our application prior to their
even getting into the process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I wasn't part of their
transmittal hearing, that's why I'm trying to educate myself. So as part
of that hearing they voluntarily accepted --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When it came back from the DCA, DCA
had some comments. There was a objections, recommendations and
comments report for the Randall Center. There were comments that
came back. In response to those comments, and I'm assuming
comments from the community, they elected to add a grocery store as
their first C.O.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you hold off --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could show you the transmittal from the
Randall Center if I need to, that didn't have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But they didn't have a requirement of a
grocery store until the adoption.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, we're starting to get
a discussion out of order here. Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner
Henning has some objection to what's taking place. You still have the
floor, but may he go ahead and express his objection--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me? I'd love -- can
you help me with what isn't -- I mean, this is all testimony under oath,
so when I hear a commissioner say something isn't true, I need to
know why. And I wasn't here, and I haven't read the transcript so I
need -- can you help me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was the commissioner of the
Page 184
September 13-14,2011
district that requested they have the same as the Wilson site, they have
that commitment of a grocery store.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I need to enter into it since
my name was brought up, that's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The commissioner of the
district. The district didn't change, and I appreciate the fact you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So help me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What happened was is that the
residents kept saying grocery store, grocery store, just like we're
hearing here today. So I wanted to make sure that we weren't just
going to have a shopping center that did not have a grocery store.
The developer had not committed to it. I asked him if he would
include that as his first priority just like the Golden Gate one had
previously made that commitment, because I realized that was the
number one thing the residents were looking for. So, if that's any
help.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically you requested it and
they agreed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they agreed knowing that this
center was going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's also correct,
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- come on with another competing
grocery store. .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And very interesting too is the
fact that I'm sure Mr. Y ovanovich could enter into this. They did their
own study. And their own study, this is the Randall Center, indicated
there was room for both shopping centers. And so they dropped their
objection, and that took away a lot of the inner fighting that might take
Page 185
September 13-14,2011
place --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then let me make a suggestion.
Do you have -- because that has already been approved. So you must
already -- you have the study for the Randall Center that shows that
the geographic area supports two grocery stores.
MS. MOSCA: I would have to pull the Randall Boulevard needs
analysis to determine if they identified specifically a grocer within the
supportable square feet numbers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you please look into that?
MS. MOSCA: I will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I think that's an important
issue, because we don't want to create a situation where by virtue of,
you know, accepting one we cannibalize the other and put them in a
situation where they're locked in or can't perform because of whatever
this Board requested.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. Nick Casalanguida asked that I put the
map that you see on the visualizer. Hopefully that's clear enough.
If you look at the second map in the middle, you'll see that the
total population within the Estates two miles east of Collier Boulevard
in 2010 is 33,348 and in the year 2020 it's 49,808. So if what we
heard from Scott today, the 10,000 population figure would support a
grocer, then he would in fact have those numbers to support two
grocers. And this is without taking a look at the Randall Center and
all of their information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are these based upon the new
census?
MS. MOSCA: This is based upon --let me see if I'm on here.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the CIGM.
MS. MOSCA: It is. It's the T AZ information. But I believe it's
either from 2007 or 2009 data. I'll have to look.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's all changed
Page 186
September 13-14,2011
dramatically.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would have to be offby a factor of
13,000 people for that to be in today. And remember, we're talking
about a Compo Plan amendment that's not only today but also into the
future.
So I think the data is already in your backup for the Compo Plan
that shows those numbers and projected numbers. So clearly from a
comprehensive planning standpoint there's enough population for at
least two centers.
The Commission's never gotten into the business before of
choosing one center over another. They've always allowed the market
to decide, even though you may approve grocery stores in multiple
locations, you've always allowed the market to decide what's the best
location.
And what we're thinking is that for the 10,000 people, you're
thinking there's only one grocer's willing to go in there. But there's
lots of examples where you'll have a grocer just like you have Eckerd
-- I'm sorry, I keep forgetting they changed their name to CVS -- and
Walgreen's, you'll see where the grocers will be smack dab in the
middle, two grocers serving the same population, and it works. And I
think Scott is really the expert who can address those types of
situations.
MR. MacLAREN: Commissioner, just quickly, to his point--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is wrong with you people.
MR. MacLAREN: -- I know that I shop at home, a Wal-Mart, a
Fresh Market and a Publix all located right next to each other, and
they service the same community. They sell different products. And
that's the other thing, there's a definition of grocer that I know we're
talking about that that could come into playas it relates to the Compo
Plan. But at the end of the day a -- just using names, a Publix and a
Sweetbay or a Publix and a Whole Foods could exist in that same
trade area and compete quite reasonably, based on different shoppers
Page 187
September 13-14, 2011
and shoppers' needs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And my concern -- I completely
appreciate that -- my concern is, you know, this provision that was put
on the other -- in the other Compo Plan amendment. And, you know,
is it supportable or, you know, is it something that will, you know,
ruin someone else's business because practically you can't have two at
the same time. And yeah, the market will pick. Conversely, it could
hurt you. It doesn't make any difference to me. The only difference
being is that you being first in time with respect to the zoning would
be more likely to get a grocer now, so the impact against him would
be that he couldn't get one because now you've got one in place. And
then all of a sudden 300,000 square feet don't get developed at all
because him getting a grocer is a condition precedent to the
subsequent development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about multi, multi --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question, just a fast one
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Come on, geez, equal time here
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, Donna, your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Only a moment.
I seem to remember that we voted a year or a year and a half ago
on another shopping center that I haven't seen reflected, nor have I
heard it being commented on, and I thought it should be thrown into
the mix. But I could be wrong. I seem to remember us voting on a
shopping center at the comer of Immokalee and Wilson Boulevard. Is
that true?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
(Audience discussion.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's no grocery anchored shopping
center approved for the comer of Wilson and Immokalee Road.
Page 188
September 13-14,2011
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's commercial.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's office and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the Chairman here --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all I need to know. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to
take a 10-minute break, as required for our court reporter. And when
we come back, we have a time certain for 4:00. We will take that time
certain item, because it appears we will never get this one done
tonight. So we'll continue it probably tomorrow morning. Okay.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. For those of you who are here
with respect to the shopping -- Estates Shopping Center, if you haven't
already heard, we're going to begin public input tomorrow morning at
9:00. It seems that we can't get started on this hearing, but we will get
started on the hearing tomorrow morning at 9:00, and that's when we'll
have you have a chance to speak. And we'll have it all done in one big
leap tomorrow.
And I apologize that you've been delayed in getting this resolved.
But nevertheless, we've got two time certains that we've got to get in
before the end of the day. One at 4:00, we're already 20 minutes late,
and one at 5:00. We are closing this meeting at 6:00 p.m. tonight. So
we're going to get those things done and pick up on the Estates
Shopping Center tomorrow morning at 9:00.
Okay, now, County Manager.
Item #lOC
STAFF RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF USING FLUORIDE
IN THE PUBLIC POTABLE WATER SUPPLY DISTRIBUTED
BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S WATER
Page 189
September 13-14,2011
DEPARTMENT, AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DURING ITS JUNE 14, 2011 MEETING -
MOTION TO CONTINUE USING FLUORIDE IN THE PUBLIC
WATER - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we're on Item 10.C on
your agenda, 4:00 time certain. Items to provide a staff response to
the question of using fluoride in the public potable water supply,
distributed by the Public Utilities Division's water department, as
directed by the Board of County Commissioners during its June 14,
2011 meeting.
Dr. Yilmaz will make the initial opening remarks, followed by
Dr. Joan Colfer, the director of your Collier County Health
Department.
Dr. Yilmaz?
DR. YILMAZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
George Yilmaz, Public Utilities.
On June 15th, 2011, at the Board meeting a public petition was
presented requesting our Collier County water sewer district to stop
the addition of allowable levels of fluoride to our finished drinking
water supply.
During the same meeting, request was made to hear from dental
profession and from medical profession in addition to dental
profession, MD's to testify for an informed decision-making process,
giving all the information provided by all parties.
Given that general direction, now I'd like to invite our water
director to make a brief introductory presentation, including our cost
of current fluoridation, followed by Dr. Colfer, MD, Director of
Collier County Public Health Director, so that when we start our
presentation, our Board members know about the cost, total cost of
fluoridation, as well as our Board members is aware of cost of per
thousand gallon fluoridation as we currently practice.
Page 190
September 13-14,2011
With that, sir?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Dr. Yilmaz. For the record,
Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. During that meeting you
requested to be provided with the cost of fluoridation. And I want to
give you the annualized all-in cost of fluoridation. This includes time,
materials and replacement costs. And that is $32,600 per year.
And putting that cost into perspective, the cost of fluoridation is
in dollars, $0.0038, or 3.8 cents -- actually, 0.3 -- I'm sorry, 0.38 cents
per thousand gallons of water. That's a penny in the cost of2,577
gallons. Or for a typical family of four using around 7,000 gallons a
month, that's a little less than three cents per month. That is an all-in
cost.
There is no regulatory requirement to feed fluoride to optimally
fluoridate public drinking water supply. But consistent with
recommendations of the Florida Department of Public Health, the
Collier County water sewer district has adjusted the level of fluoride
in drinking water since the first water treatment plant was brought on
line in August of 1984.
Fluorine is the 13th most common element the earth's crust, and
because it's so prevalent, fluoride occurs naturally in all natural water
supplies, all raw water supplies. And ours is no different. Our
freshwater, that from the Tamiami aquifer, has somewhere between
0.25 milligrams per liter or parts per million of fluoride to 0.3 parts per
million. So it's relatively low in the amount of fluoride that's present
naturally.
The brackish raw water ranges, depending on the well and the
source, between 1.0 and 2.8 milligrams per liter of naturally occurring
fluoride.
The finished water averages somewhere around 0.3 or 0.35
milligrams per liter of naturally occurring fluoride before we do any
adjustment. So I just want you to understand that the amount of
natural fluoride in the water after treatment is about one-half of the
Page 191
September 13-14,2011
recommended 0.7 amount of fluoride for optimally fluoridated water
supply.
And that recommendation is new. That recommendation was
made by -- jointly by the United States EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Health and
Human Services. And this was an easy date for us to remember. We
made the change from the old range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million,
they used to give us a range to stay within. Now that it's no longer a
range, it's just the recommended optimal amount of fluoride in
finished water is 0.7, and that happened on 1/11/11. So all ones. That
was the date that we implemented as a county the new level of
fluoride in water.
But the decision to fluoridate is not really one of the economics
or how much water, how much is in the water naturally, but it's really
one of public health. And I've asked Dr. Colfer to make a presentation
based on the public health implications of fluoridation. Dr. Colfer.
DR. COLFER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the
record Dr. Joan Colfer, Director of the Collier County Health
Department.
Here with me today are researchers from the University of
Florida, as well as members of your medical and dental community in
response to your request for a presentation on fluoridation.
This is an important issue for Collier County. In addition to the
county supply, the City of Naples drinks fluoridated water, people out
in Immokalee drink fluoridated water. Over 200,000 people are
drinking fluoridated water today in Collier County.
In Florida that number is about 13 million people or 77 percent of
the population that has any access to a public water supply. In the
United States that number is 170 million people or 72 percent of the
population on a public water supply.
As recently as last year, the Department of Health and Human
Services set a goal for the country to be at about 79 percent by the
Page 192
September 13-14,2011
year 2020. And indeed, as the population has increased and the
availability of public water supplies have increased, more and more
people are drinking fluoridated water. The red line on the slide is the
growth of the population. The blue line under it is people that are on a
public supply. And then the lines under it indicate the numbers of
people that are drinking a fluoridated supply.
The next slide is a map that I think you're going to see better on
the visualizer. Help me, Leo, please.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
DR. COLFER: This is an interesting map. You have to blow it
up a little bit for me so they can see better. Great, that's terrific.
This is a map of 42 of the 50 largest cities in the United States
that fluoridate their water supply. I mean, you can just look at them,
Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, work your
way on down the coast to Florida, Jacksonville, Miami. Tampa and
Orlando fluoridate their water supply. They're not on the map because
they're not one of the top 50 cities by population.
Am I back on the Power Point now? This isn't working up here,
Leo. Okay, thank you.
Now, from a public health perspective, fluoridation is considered
one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the last century.
We fluoridate so people don't have tooth decay. This group of
presenters believe that fluoridation in the levels used in water supplies
is safe, it's effective against tooth decay and it's accessible to anybody
that drinks from a public water supply that's fluoridated.
The following organizations recognize the benefits of
fluoridation. It takes two slides to show them all to you, there's about
a hundred. Notably among them is the American Dental Association,
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society,
American College of Physicians, the Centers for Disease Control and
the World Health Organization.
The next slides, there's 10 of them, represent just some of the
Page 193
September 13-14,2011
research that supports the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. And I
just am going to leaf through them just to give you a sense of the
volume of research that's supportive of fluoridation. Clearly, after 60
years of research and experience, the preponderance of credible
scientific evidence indicates that fluoridation of community water
supplies is safe and effective.
Commissioners, this is no different than what we do when we
add Vitamin D to milk or iodine to salt. It's the same thing. Vitamin
D prevents rickets. Iodine in salt prevents people having goiters. We
add fluoride to our drinking water to prevent decay. This is not a
picture of somebody off the internet, this is a child in our dental clinic
that does not live in a place that has fluoridated water.
As you all know, you all support that dental clinic to some extent.
You do that under contract with us. We fill cavities over there every
day. But that's secondary prevention. Putting fluoride in your water
supply is primary prevention and helps us avoid decay.
The research shows that if you remove fluoride from the water
you will increase the cavities rate. And the best example I have is
Antigo, Wisconsin. That's a community that stopped fluoridating their
water supply for five years. They went back and looked at the
children's caries rate and they went up to as high as 200 percent. They
put fluoride back in the water supply.
Commissioners, I've expanded the little dental clinic that I have
at the Health Department twice now. I have seven chairs, and we
provide 8,000 visits to poor children, mostly to poor children, and
we're able to see some adults. I have no more space, and nobody I
know has any more money. If you take the fluoride out of the water, I
hate to tell you this, but I don't think I would be able to respond in any
fashion. I'm taking all I can take and I have nowhere else to go.
Next, Commissioners, before we go to our next presenter, we'd
all like to show you just a short video about fluoride. It's only six
minutes long, if you would, please.
Page 194
September 13-14,2011
(A video was shown.)
DR. COLFER: Thanks, Claire.
Commissioners, our next presenter is Dr. Lauren Governale. She
is a dentist with a master's in public health. She is board certified in
pediatric dentistry, has a certificate in dental public health, and is a
fellow of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
But what should be important to you is she's also a clinical
associate professor at the University of Florida and serves as your
clinic director of the Naples Children and Education Foundation
Pediatric Dental Center here in Collier at Edison College.
She has worked extensively on dental public health issues, and
just this morning helped launch Collier County's first school based
dental sealant program. She's a member of numerous professional
organizations, including the American Dental Association, Florida
Dental Association, and the Collier County Dental Association.
Dr. Lauren Governale.
DR. GOVERNALE: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
First of all, I'd just like to review the decay process. We have those
sugars that are found in diet reacting with the bacteria found in plaque
which forms the acid, and that acid in turn turns a healthy tooth into a
decayed tooth.
There's a few ways that fluoride works. The first one is that it
acts to inhibit the demineralization of teeth. The fluoride is beneficial
to protect the tooth from the acids that we just talked about that cause
the decay.
It enhances remineralization of the tooth by creating a fluoride
reservoir to strengthen the enamel. The lower diagram shows a
regular enamel crystal that's transformed with fluoride into a flora
appetite-like crystal, which is considered to be much stronger.
Fluoride also inhibits bacterial metabolism, therefore the bacteria
has difficulty producing the acids that's necessary to cause tooth
decay.
Page 195
September 13-14,2011
How fluoride works, it works in a couple of ways, one is
considered the systemic effect. For decades it was believed that
community water fluoridation worked only by incorporating itself into
the enamel during tooth formation, only benefitting those who grew
up in a fluoridated community. They call it a pre-eruptive effect. And
although this is absolutely still the case, there's also for the past 20
years it's been believed that the mechanism of action of fluoride works
mostly by providing the ideal amount of fluoride to benefit the tooth
by providing primarily a topical effect as well. It's known that
community water fluoridation is very well suited for delivering low
levels of fluoride in plaque, so you have appropriate levels of fluoride
between the plaque and the enamel to prevent the tooth decay.
In terms of accessibility, one of the major benefits of community
water fluoridation is that no one has to change their habits to receive
it.
According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, their
guidelines state that they recommend children that are receiving
non- fluoridated water receive fluoride supplements. That means the
families must then access a medical or dental professional to obtain a
prescription for the fluoride supplement. And unfortunately for low
income families, compliance with this method is not possible due to
many barriers such as transportation, et cetera.
More recent findings have suggested that there's evidence that
fluoride also aids in the prevention of crown and root surface decay in
adults due to the topical effect. So it's considered to be effective for
all members of the community.
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about what we're doing at the
NCEF Pediatric Dental Center here located on the campus of Edison
College. The trustees of the Naples Children and Education
Foundation recognize the need for dental services for low income
children as their highest priority compared to all other health needs in
their 2005 sponsored needs assessment survey called Study of a Child
Page 196
September 13-14,2011
Well-being in Collier County, and decided to do something about it.
With state matching dollars, they funded the NCEF Pediatric Dental
Center, along with additional supporting funds.
In that study it was estimated that 1 7,000 children, 31 percent
that is in Collier County lacked access to dental care and low income
children were suffering from tooth decay and there were not enough
dentists to treat them. The results of dental examinations performed
on all students in one high poverty elementary school by the Ronald
McDonald caremobile was a staggering 68 percent of children had one
or more cavities. The average number was 4.5, and 18 percent had
such extreme decay that they needed to be referred for immediate
dental care.
We have the caremobile dentist here today, Dr. Kelly Johnson,
and she just advised me that this week she evaluated a four-year-old in
the City of Naples, and that four-year old had 20 teeth, and out of20,
16 were already decayed.
Additional data from HERSA suggests that dental resources in
Collier County were not able to meet the demands, and at that time
there were many Medicaid eligible children who had not received any
dental care, and the utilization rates were very low for ethnic and
racial minority Medicaid eligible children.
The goals of the Pediatric Dental Center was to build a world
class pediatric dentistry program to expand clinical services to at risk
children due to what was considered a catastrophic crisis in rural
health found in Collier County.
Another goal was to deliver advanced care and specialty services
such as sedation and hospital based pediatric dentistry services to meet
the severe needs of the population. So 20,000 square foot facility was
constructed with 17 operatories, including two sedation suites. The
University of Florida currently trains nine pediatric dental residents,
while Collier Health Services administrates the program at this
facility .
Page 197
September 13-14,2011
And I have a couple pictures here of actual patients of ours.
These patients aren't found in a third world country, they're right here
in Naples. Since December of2009, the facility has performed over
450 dental rehabilitations to low income children in the OR. The
decay is so extensive that this environment is required for the young
children to be able to comfortably receive their dental care. The
waiting list is currently six months long and there's no other facility
providing this care to low income children in Southwest Florida.
Additionally, we've treated 219 patients with our IV sedation
service. We have a pediatric anesthesiologist that comes to the clinic.
These children also lack the ability to cooperate for these highly
specialized services due to their young age and severe needs. The
waiting list for this service is nine months long, and there's also no
other facility providing this service.
You may ask why is there so much decay if the water is
fluoridated. You have to remember, here's a little equation, where
fluoride is only considered one factor in the equation, it helps tip the
balance toward less disease, but it does not completely prevent it. I
think you can see on the right side it mentions pathological factors.
There's some dietary components that we're working to help solve as
well.
In terms of some of the benefits of fluoride, it causes less pain
and suffering for the children, fewer school days lost and as many as
51 million school hours lost nationally.
Another benefit is fewer cavities and less severe cavities.
One more benefit, less need for fillings and teeth extractions. It
increased self-esteem. And it produces 18 to 40 percent in dental
caries of both children and adults. Even with other fluoridated
toothpaste and topical fluorides.
Concerns about the discontinuation of community water
fluoridation. The citizens should not have to endure potential 200
percent increase in the decay rate. The county does not have the
Page 198
September 13-14,2011
capacity, even with our Pediatric Dental Center, two other Collier
Health Services dental clinics, the Ronald McDonald caremobile and
the Collier County Health Department. These are the agencies that
provide services to low income children. But we cannot handle a
significant increase in tooth decay if the community water fluoridation
is stopped.
The surgical approach is not the best solution to the epidemic.
Prevention is the best solution. And community water fluoridation is
the foundation. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. Do you want to leave
the -- can the professor stay at the podium.
I appreciate your presentation. I -- coincidentally someone had
given me an article that was recently published in the Bradenton
Times that quoted a Dartmouth College research scientist, Dr. Roger
Masters. Have you heard about the studies that Dartmouth is doing on
fluoridation? Are you familiar with the concerns about the hazards of
the fluoride, which are, as I understand, waste from, I guess -- what
industry is it that they're a waste from?
DR. COLFER: I think our next speaker is more familiar with
that research, if you would indulge us just three more minutes, we
could get to him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, because, I mean, I'm very
concerned. I'd like to know where we're buying our fluoride from and
if it's the same toxic substance that I'm reading about here. Because I
don't know if you're aware of this, but there's just been a very large
lawsuit filed. I'll be happy to share the details with you about it.
DR. COLFER: Paul can answer the question about where we
buy it from. But if we could go ahead with Dr. Scott Tomar, who's
our next presenter and really is a national expert on fluoridation, I
think he can answer your question about the Dartmouth research. We
Page 199
September 13-14,2011
were just talking about it this morning.
Dr. Scott Tomar is a dentist with both a masters and a doctorate
in public health, and who is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I interrupt for a minute?
DR. COLFER: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many more presenters do
we have?
DR. COLFER: We have Dr. Tomar, we have Dr. Richard
Garcia, who is the president of your dental association --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this all necessary?
DR. COLFER: We have Dr. Todd Vedder, who's the Chair of
the Department of Pediatrics. And we have Dr. Allen Weiss, who is
the President of Naples Community Hospital.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, is this all
necessary?
DR. COLFER: I thought we were providing what you asked for,
.
SIr.
MR.OCHS: Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of it's repetitive. And I'm
just saying, we have the public speakers. We have another item. Is
there any way to cut this down a little bit?
DR. COLFER: I think each of our speakers can try and make
their time a little bit shorter, if you would like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Absolutely. Dr. Tomar is a nationally
recognized expert. Let me just pick out a few important things.
He is a professor at the Department of Community Dentistry and
Behavioral Science at the University of Florida College of Dentistry in
Gainesville. He has worked at the Centers for Disease Control as an
epidemiologist. He's well published. He's been an editor of the
Journal of Public Health Dentistry. Is very familiar with the literature
and research on fluoridation. And he also serves as a consultant to the
Page 200
September 13-14, 2011
World Health Organization, the Mayo Clinic and the National Cancer
Institute. And he has been kind enough to assist us with our review of
fluoridation.
Dr. Tomar.
DR. TOMAR: Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you for the
opportunity to speak to the safety of community water fluoridation.
And I'll try to answer the question that was asked starting with that
one study at Dartmouth.
First just as a disclosure, I have no financial or other relationship
with anybody that manufactures dental products, pharmaceuticals,
fluoride products. Receive no pay for being here. In fact I'm here on
my own dime down from Gainesville.
Just a reminder that fluoridation is a process of adjusting the
natural occurring fluoride concentration in drinking water. As was
mentioned, and I reiterate it just because I think that there's
misinformation about what fluoride is and how it winds up in our
water.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance. It's ubiquitous, which
means it's in all water supplies. It's in all soil and rock. Fluoridation
is simply the adjustment of that level to optimal levels to prevent tooth
decay.
One of the courses that I teach at the University of Florida
College of Dentistry is evidence based dentistry . We teach our
students how to synthesize information, how to use that information to
make clinical decisions, and in this case public health decisions.
We don't make clinical or public health policy decisions based on
a single study. Because you can almost find one study that shows one
thing or the other. What we use is what we call systematic review,
which as you see here is really considered of a pinnacle of the
pyramid. It's really a synthesis of the entire body of literature on a
specific scientific subject. And that's what we use as the scientific
basis for making clinical and public health decisions.
Page 201
September 13-14,2011
And in fact there have been quite a number of systematic reviews
done on fluoridation over the years, and I list just a few of them here.
Almost all of these are internationally recognized experts on not only
fluoridation but on the conduct of systematic reviews. These are not
based on individual studies but really the entire body of literature at
the time that they were done, as well as several communities that have
also reviewed this.
So I just chose to present just a couple of quotes, but I'm happy to
present the full text of these systematic reviews if you would like to
peruse those. But just a few quotes.
Water fluoridation both at levels aimed at preventing dental
caries and possibly at higher levels appears to have little effect on
fracture risk -- talking about bone fracture -- either protective or
deleterious at a population level. There's a substantial body of
evidence that fluoride up to one part per million -- which is actually
higher than the level that we now have in Collier County -- does not
have an adverse effect on bone strength, bone mineral density or the
incidence of fractures. No clear association between fluoridation and
bone fractures, cancer or any other adverse effects.
And then one of the accusations that's out there related to water
fluoridation and Downs Syndrome, and in fact there's no evidence of
association there.
There's actually a study that just came out just a month or so ago
on fluoridation osteosarcoma, and in fact, consistent with all other
studies that have been done on this, in fact found no significant
difference in bone mineral fluoride concentration between persons
with osteosarcoma and those who did not have that condition.
And so, you know, just in summary, the highest level of available
scientific evidence, the systematic review, consistently and repeatedly
over years has demonstrated no association between community
fluoridation and cancer, bone fracture or essentially any other adverse
health effect. The safety of community water fluoridation, again
Page 202
September 13-14,2011
repeatedly upheld by virtually all leading medical and public health
authorities.
And I'd be happy to answer your questions.
MS. HILLER: Can I go ahead now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about the Dartmouth study?
DR. TOMAR: I'd be happy to speak with that if you'd like. That
study, in fact, I had reviewed that study a while ago. The claim was in
that study that the fluoride in the drinking water leached the lead out
of the plumbing and caused lower levels oflQ, higher levels of
behavior problems, higher levels of incarceration, poor school
performance.
The study unfortunately committed some of the most egregious
violations of some of the principles of epidemiology, which is if
you're going to compare communities, for one thing, the communities
you're comparing should be relatively comparable. They actually
compared a low income inner city low SES population with one of
much higher SES. And in doing so, they also compared a community
living in very old housing stock, almost all the houses built before
1940 in the community that where supposedly fluoride was
responsible for increasing the lead levels. In fact it had nothing to do
with the fluoride, it's that they had plumbing that was put in in the
1930's and 40's. The community they compared it to was all relatively
new housing. The communities were just completely different in
many ways. You know, rates of incarceration, poor school
performance, these are complex sociological phenomenon, not at all
due to water fluoridation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that?
DR. TOMAR: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'm reading here doesn't
address what you're talking about at all. As a matter of fact, what this
talks about is that fluoride that's used in our drinking waters is actually
a waste by-product of the phosphate rock fertilizer industry,
Page 203
September 13-14, 2011
fluorosilicic -- silicic -- I can't say it, acid.
And essentially the quote that I'm going to read you from this
professor at Dartmouth, which, I mean, most everybody here knows is
ranked as probably one of the top research universities in America,
Ivy league school.
The quote is as follows, you know, regarding the dumping of
billions of -- industry billions of dollars to dump it's hazardous
neurotoxin described by Dartmouth College research scientist Dr.
Rogers Masters is potentially the worst environmental poison since
leaded gasoline into our public water supplies and bottled waters.
In other words, how this is happening is the question obviously
raised.
You know, this article goes on to discuss what's going on in
California. A suit was filed against the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, the largest water wholesaler in the area on behalf
of millions of citizens and water consumers in San Diego, Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties, California. Suit alleges willful
misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by water supplier
for delivering a hydrofluosilic (sic) acid drug through their water
system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness nor
in the expected dosages delivered by NWD, which is the water
district, through retail water districts, either topically, systemically
through ingestion or trans dermal exposures through baths and
showers.
And again, it's addressing this fluoride product, which is bought
from the phosphate rock fertilizer companies and basically added to
our waters. And with very significant maladies as a result of this
forced pollution being the consequence.
And just as an example, Manatee County confirmed that, you
know, they only pay 86,000, but, you know what, the cost is probably
a lot higher than that when you consider the other consequences.
So it's a serious concern. And you know what you're describing
Page 204
September 13-14,2011
when you describe -- when the other professor was describing the real
problems that we're having in Collier County with tooth decay among
children, I understand that the argument you're trying to make is that if
we eliminate fluoride in water that these children are going to have
even worse problems than what we're experiencing now.
But it seems when I'm reading other articles, like for example, in
Canada, less than half of the communities in Canada use fluoridated
water. And what they -- you know, what the Canadian health
authorities say that's it's, you know, the toothpaste, the fluoridated
toothpaste that's critical, and the mouthwashes and the frequency of
the brushing, and like you pointed out, the type of diet. You know,
obviously if you drink soda and go to sleep and don't brush your teeth,
you will have problems. I mean, we've all seen what Coca-Cola does
to a penny.
So I appreciate, you know, your comments, but there seems to be
evidence that goes to the contrary of what you're saying.
Now, if young kids need more fluoride or, you know, I don't
know if certain adults need more fluoride, everybody can voluntarily
supplement to do what's necessary for themselves and we can have
programs for those who can't afford to supplement. But to put it in
drinking water and subject everybody, people who don't need it, to the
hazards of this toxin just doesn't make any sense.
And it's not about money, this is about public health. And I'm
reading right here that, you know, one of top universities in the
country sees this as a health hazard.
So unless George can tell me we're not using that type of fluoride
and we're using some other natural occurring fluoride that isn't a
by-product of the phosphate rock fertilizer industry, then I have
senous concerns.
DR. TOMAR: Well, I can respond just to one of the points. I'm
not exactly sure what the question was. But to just one of your points,
you know, first I would ask you to weigh the expertise of this
Page 205
September 13-14,2011
professor at Dartmouth, who in fact has no grounding in either
toxicology, medicine, epidemiology or chemistry. He's a professor of
government. He really lacks the expertise. And I want you to weigh
that against the list of World Health Organization, American Public
Health Association groups that actually use science to make public
health policy.
I'm a public health dentist. I went into public health to help
communities. If in fact I had any doubt about the safety of this, I
wouldn't drink it, I wouldn't have given it to both my boys who grew
up caries free. It just -- it defies logic why world authorities on
medicine, public health and dentistry would be on one side and yet we
put a tremendous amount of weight on this one professor who in fact
lacks expertise in the claims he's making.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not citing that as the only
source. But no one is saying that the right type of fluoride applied in
the right situation for the right reason doesn't make sense. This
fluoridation of all our water supplies, subjecting every citizen to
fluoride is the issue. And the type of fluoride. So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, could we get the rest
of the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we're not here to argue with the
presenters, Commissioner Hiller. Let's hear the presentations and then
we can form our own opinions.
DR. COLFER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Our next speaker is Dr. Richard Garcia. He's been practicing
dentistry in your community since 1979. He's a graduate of Temple
University in Philadelphia. His practice is an adult practice, which
delivers all phases of general and cosmetic dentistry. He's probably a
member of more associations than the rest of us, except Dr. Tomar.
And is -- he's here really in his role as the President of the Collier
County Dental Association.
DR. GARCIA: Thank you, it's an honor to be here today. I'm
Page 206
September 13-14,2011
just a regular dentist. I don't have a Ph.D., I'm a general dentist in
town here, so --
I've been a dentist here for 12 years. My practice concentration
is adult patients. I'm also the current President of the American -- of
the Collier County Dental Association. I represent over 110 active
member dentists in Collier County. Our members include
periodontists, pediodontists prosthodontists, endodontists,
orthodontists, oral surgeons.
As a voice for our professional association, we support keeping
fluoride in the drinking water supply. As this date came closer, Dr.
Primera, another CCDA member that's sitting in our audience here,
thought what can we do to -- what can we do because schedules are
kind of tight and we wanted to get a lot of advocates here. So my
wife, my wife sent out 100 faxes before 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 1 st. By the end of the day we were flooded with faxes
containing the majority of our 120 signatures of the dental
professionals in support of keeping fluoride in our water supply.
I was proud of our quick response of our members. As you can
see, this issue is important to dentists. Our professional code puts the
welfare of our patients first. This is at the heart of preventative
dentistry .
I wish we lived in a perfect dental world where all children had
access to dental care, where all patients did what we asked them, to
brush, to floss, to watch your sugar intake. But unfortunately this is
not the case. Fluoride needs to be in our drinking water, even though
it benefits adults and children alike, the lower socioeconomic
segments of our population will benefit the most.
And I was doing some research on websites on the topic and I
came across some interesting websites. Some were negative websites
against the fluoride issue. And you know, they're discussing fluoride
as a tool by the government of -- they discussed social engineering.
You know, governmental agencies in cahoots with large corporations,
Page 207
September 13-14,2011
greed and money as a central issue. I think this is really, you know, an
issue, or it's a matter of trust. Do we trust that our governmental
agencies, scientists, medical and dental professionals want to do the
right thing for our citizens.
I'm not saying to follow professionals blindly, but look at the
overwhelming evidence that supports keeping fluoride in water
without this conspiratorial backdrop. Let's be practical. Let's use
common sense when approaching this issue. Fluoride at recommended
levels have been used for more than 50 years.
I'll close by a quote by the Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett
Koop: Fluoridation is the single most important commitment a
community can make to the oral health of its citizens.
So please, on behalf of the dental professionals that take care of
the residents of Collier County, vote to keep fluoride in our water.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Commissioners, our next to the last speaker is
Dr. Todd Vedder. You've met Dr. Vedder before a couple times here.
He is a board certified pediatrician, Chairman of the Department of
Pediatrics for the Naples Community Hospital health care system, and
graciously has agreed to be Chair of Collier County's Safe and
Healthy Children's Coalition.
Dr. Vedder's been in practice here in Collier County for over
eight years. Dr. Vedder.
DR. VEDDER: Thank you, Commissioners for your time. And
we are limited on time, so I will try to abbreviate my comments.
How do I forward, I just click?
I'm here to just talk about the safety of optimally fluoridated
water from the medical perspective. You've heard over and over that
in some form or variation there's countless world organizations, both
international and national that advocate this statement to some extent
or another, and it's been done repeatedly over the decades, that
Page 208
September 13-14,2011
optimally fluoridated water provides a safe, effective and accessible
means for preventing dental caries.
But if we don't want to believe the international agencies, and we
don't want to believe the Florida Council of Aging or the national
organizations that sponsor the vast majority of physicians who provide
medical care in our communities and around -- across the nation and
around the globe, then perhaps we might listen to our local physicians,
the local doctors who are providing care for you, for your children,
and for your grandchildren.
And I just wanted to show you a list of the pediatricians, family
physicians, and med-pedes physicians in our community that support
overwhelmingly and very strongly that optimally fluoridated water is
safe.
The first group from CHS, Collier Health Services, and when I
bring up the slide, if you just stand just briefly. Collier Health
Services represents 33,000 children in Collier County, most of whom
are disadvantaged, underinsured or uninsured. We have Dr. Jerry
Williamson, we have Dr. Scott Needle from North Naples. Dr. Jerry
Williamson is the CMO ofCHS. We also have Dr. Camina -- or Jorge
Camina from Golden Gate Pediatrics.
From NCH Health Care Group, we have Dr. Deborah Shepherd
and Dr. Andrew Podos. And from among the other 45 -- nearly 40
physicians, I don't believe any of the other ones are here in this room,
but they represent a broad swath of our community.
In fact, if you look at all of these physicians and all of the
children and adults that they care for, we're probably talking about
60,000 of the roughly 75,000 children who reside in Collier County.
That's 80 percent. And then some of these physicians also see a
number of adults. So a few thousand adults as well.
I think that this is the strongest statement one can make from the
medical community about how safe and secure we feel about
optimally fluoridated water.
Page 209
September 13-14,2011
One other local physician I forgot to mention, I should mention is
Dr. Pia Myers. Unfortunately not every child in Collier County has
the ability to go to the number of physicians that we've listed. They
don't have a medical home there. Their only medical home is the
emergency room. And Dr. Myers is the director of the pediatric
emergency room at NCH. She comes from Jacksonville where water
is naturally fluoridated. And she is -- expressed a great deal of angst if
the fluoride was removed from our county supply. She would be
seeing more children like this, a seven-year-old with a dental abscess.
And we've already talked about the pain, the suffering, the loss of self
esteem, the loss of school days, the loss of the parent's ability to work
on account of these issues.
You know, essentially the preponderance of scientific evidence
shows that fluoride, when it is ingested, it crosses the bloodstream
through the small intestine and the stomach. There is a brief period of
time where it enters the bloodstream, it interacts with the soft tissues,
peaks in 20 to 60 minutes, then declines rapidly within three to six
hours. Depending on how old you are determines how much of that
fluoride you've ingested stays in your body. If you're younger, like
Dr. Camina, he could probably absorb 50 percent of what -- of the
fluoride he's ingested. My age, we're looking at closer to 10 percent.
Actively growing bones you can harbor more fluoride.
The fluoride that is not harbored in the hard tissues is excreted in
the kidneys. And if you look at the whole body, where all that
fluoride is, 99 percent of it is deposited in the hard tissues. Again, the
rest is excreted by the kidneys. So the logical areas of concern from a
medical perspective would be from the teeth, the bones or the kidneys.
Ten percent of dental fluorosis is attributable to water
fluoridation alone. This is the mottling of the teeth that actually led to
the whole discovery of fluoride back in the '20's and '30's with Dr.
Dean and McKay. They saw this mottling of teeth in these children
from the west and midwest. And they realized that these kids with the
Page 210
September 13-14, 2011
mottled teeth also had much lower incidence of dental decay. So 10
percent of dental fluorosis, which is this mottling is a attributed to
water fluoridation alone, and of these cases, only six percent --
actually not of these cases, I should say of all cases of dental fluorosis,
only six percent are considered moderate to severe. The remaining 94
percent is very mild to mild.
And we heard from the county water manager about the fluoride
content in the water. It has been shown that the fluoride content in the
water must exceed two parts per million to start seeing dental
fluorosis. The water is continuously analyzed in one plant at the 0.7
parts per million, and it's checked three times a day at the other county
plant. And never, as long as our county water manager has been here,
he at least told me that he's never seen a level exceed the two parts per
million.
Then there's the bone disease issue, bone mineral density and
fractures we've heard about. In fact, there was a report from the
Surgeon General I believe in 2004 that said fluoride might actually be
beneficial to bone and reduce the number of fractures, because there
were some comparative studies between a couple of cities that had
optimally fluoridated water and some that did not have any. And
there was actually no change or even a decrease in the number of hip
fractures.
Osteosclerosis is actually fluoride binding to the bone. There
have been cases in the literature of crippling bone disease from
fluoride. However, these can be counted probably on two hands. The
case reports in the medical literature, there was a survey of x-rays
from 170,000 people in Texas and Oklahoma drinking water at four to
eight parts per million, and that revealed only 23 cases of
osteosclerosis and no cases of debilitating skeletal fluorosis.
And then the last area, the kidneys. There has been no cases of
dental fluorosis or symptomatic skeletal fluorosis reported among
persons with impaired kidney function. And the National Research
Page 211
September 13-14,2011
Council in 1993 concluded that the dose of fluoride which causes
adverse kidney effects in animals is 50 parts per million, which is
greater than 50 times what we see in our water supply -- county water
supply.
Now, I did mention that there is the 99 percent -- 99 percent of
the fluoride in your tissues is held in the hard tissues. But there's also
that one percent factor. And I know opponents of fluoridation like to
cling to this one percent. Where is that other one percent, what is it
doing, what is it doing to harm us. And we've already heard from Dr.
Tomar about some of the other allegations as far as cancer, Downs
Syndrome, heart disease, AIDS, low intelligence, behavioral
problems, precocious puberty, but time again and time again we've
seen that the science is flawed, no control groups, observer bias, and
they're not reproducible studies.
So in summary, optimally fluoridated water provides a safe,
effective and accessible means for preventing dental caries. The
doctors here in this audience today sacrificed seeing patients or being
with their families to be here today because they felt so strongly about
this issue. There's 40 other doctors on that list as well. Ifwe take
fluoride out of the water, I'm afraid when I see -- I'm going to be
seeing more patients in my office where I'm going to see Johnny
coming in, and I'm going to say where does it hurt, Johnny. Or Dr.
Camina's going to say, donde te duele, Johnny. Or Dr. Valcourt is
going to say, ki kote li fe mal, Johnny. And the child is going to point
to their teeth. And then I'm going to turn to Johnny's mother, his
father, his grandparents, essentially our taxpayers, and I'm going to
ask the same question. Where does it hurt? Right here (holding up his
wallet) and this is the same in any language, the same meaning in any
language. Thank you very much.
DR. COLFER: Commissioners, our last speaker probably needs
no introduction, but for the TV cameras, let me tell you that that's Dr.
Allen Weiss, the President and CEO of Naples Community Hospital
Page 212
September 13-14, 2011
health care system. He is board certified in three specialties, internal
medicine, rheumatology and geriatrics. Dr. Weiss has been a
practicing physician in your community since 1977. He had his own
practice for 23 years before becoming president and later president
and CEO ofNCH. Dr. Allen Weiss.
DR. WEISS: Thank you, Dr. Colfer, and thank you,
Commissioners.
I'm here actually as a father of two children who grew up in the
area. And I know some of you are also parents. I've got two
preschool children.
And I think what we've just heard scientifically really makes the
point. We want to take care of our children, we want to take care of
our children's teeth, and we want to be able to take care of the 69,000
kids who are under age 18 right now in the country . We'll have about
3,800 children born this year. They'll go through the schools, and so
on. We can see all the good that we can do.
We're fortunate and we can be very proud of being in a county
that has been ranked twice now two years in a row as the healthiest
county in the State of Florida by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, which is a very credible source. It's based on morbidity,
mortality, socioeconomic factors.
As we add disease, we will drop that ranking. Weare fortunate
now that the University of Wisconsin in a recent study has shown that
women in Collier County have the longest of life expectancy of
anywhere in our country of 87 years. Happy to produce that article for
you. Men are the second longest at 81 years, Fairfax, Virginia being
the number one for men. So we've got the longest longevity, we've
got the healthiest county of 67 counties, we have, we have things
going in the right direction.
We still have huge problems with smoking. When I walked on
the campus here today, somebody was walking off smoking. We're
taking care of that in our local institution in a big way . We've seen
Page 213
September 13-14,2011
our numbers of smokers go from 20 percent, which is the national
average, down to 12 percent. 61 percent of Floridians right now are
either overweight, obese or morbidly obese. We've got all these real,
legitimate public health problems to work on. And as we're spending
time with this august audience and taking your time to talk about
something that's been solved for over 60 years, I urge you to make the
right decision and to continue with our county's health. Thank you
very much.
DR. COLFER: Commissioners, that concludes our presentation.
But there are a number of dentists, hygienists, physicians, school
nurses and others that are here in support of fluoridation and are
signed up as public speakers if you would like to hear from them as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 21.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-one. Okay. Would all those
who are in favor of keeping fluoridated in Collier County please stand
up. There's more than 41 here.
DR. COLFER: They're not all signed up as speakers but they are
here in support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Take your seats, please.
Now, all those people who want to stop fluoridation in Collier
County, will you please stand up.
Is it safe to assume that all the people who are in favor of
fluoridation agree with the comments that have already been made
publicly?
(Affirmative response.)
If it's acceptable to you, so that we can get this issue decided
before it gets dark, I'd like to let the eight people who are standing
have a chance to speak. And then if you feel compelled to speak, we'll
give you that opportunity too. But you can also just waive and say
you agree with the information that has already been provided in
Page 214
September 13-14,2011
support of fluoridation, if that's acceptable to you.
So call -- you don't know speaking for or against, do you. Why
don't we just start in order. Young lady, could we start with you, come
up and give us your name.
MS. WOODWARD: My name's Amanda Woodward. I'm a
recent college graduate. And I rent a home here in Naples, Florida. I
am a lower income. I have a lot of student loans, and I have no health
or dental insurance.
The only way to remove fluoride from the water is a reverse
osmosis system, which costs 4,000 to $5,000. This isn't feasible for
me or anyone else in this economy, especially when I don't own my
own place. Anyone who wants fluoride simply has to pay two to
$5.00 for toothpaste, something that is much more affordable.
Because I don't have health insurance I worry about showering in
a toxic chemical that affects my immune system. When you -- your
skin is the biggest organ of your body, so when you shower, your
pores open up and it goes straight into your bloodstream. Because I
don't have dental insurance, I worry that what has already happened to
36,000 Americans who have dental fluorosis will affect me as well,
because I have white and brown stains on my teeth.
Sorry, I get so nervous to talk publicly, but I'm very passionate,
so excuse the shaking voice.
What about my friends with newborns? The ADA recommends
infants should not receive fluoridated water, which is impossible to
avoid unless they buy bottled water or a reverse osmosis system,
which again is too expensive.
How can they avoid the toxic chemical on low income? My
grandfather had kidney failure. I believe one of the doctors mentioned
that it -- the only way to get rid of toxins in your body is through the
kidney. And since he was drinking fluoridated water, bathing in it due
to the county putting it in the water, it was so hard for him to be able
to heal in time.
Page 215
September 13-14,2011
So that's -- my concern is for people in the community who can't
afford another option to get it out. We can't remove it. And so we'll
be forced to shower in it, put it in our teeth. And even though I buy
toothpaste without fluoride in it, I will still have to, you know -- thank
you for saying what you did today, that was very good.
My last thing is I feel like one of the dentist said that it defies
logic. But it's unethical and unlogical to be giving people medicine
without their consent. And you don't have my consent, and it's poison.
And it's disgusting, you know. So I just want you to think about it.
It's in rat poisoning. It can't be that good.
And a lot of those statistics, especially that map up there. I just
went to Austin Texas, and that map was for 2005 and now those cities,
a lot of them have removed it. And we have a whole list of cities,
especially in Florida that have also removed it. So thank you for
considering and taking the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. RAINEY: Hi, my name is -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just state your name for the record so
we'll know what name to take off the list.
MS. RAINEY: My name is Jessica Rainey, and I'm here to share
about my condition, hypothyroidism.
Fluoride affects hypothyroidism negatively. It's a dentist -- I
think you mentioned that a chemist should say it's toxic. I just learned
that fluoride is one of the most -- one of the more toxic elements in the
halogen group. It's in the same group as iodine. And iodine is what
the thyroid absorbs. And when fluoride enters into the system, it
blocks the iodine from being absorbed into the thyroid, causing
hypothyroidism or an underactive thyroid.
And symptoms like sleep -- lethargy and even personality
changes have been -- there's other diseases that happen after that that
get worse, like fibromyalgia and bipolar disorder.
I just want to raise the question, is it safe to have this in our
Page 216
September 13-14,2011
public's water? Is it even ethical to have it in our people's water?
For me it's not good because it affects the -- my person -- in my
personal experience, it -- I mean, I had to leave school because I was
sleeping all day. And--
MR. MITCHELL: You're okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's merely a caution signal. You've
got about 30 more seconds.
MS. RAINEY: I also wanted to bring up that there are numerous
studies out there that show it affects the IQ in a negative way, in the
physical development of people in a bad way.
Several counties have already taken it out. In fact, one that was
listed on there, Calgary of Canada, I have an article by them, have
taken it out, and a doctor from that area, Dr. Beck, has written about it.
I want to end on this, this is the medical credo -- of medical
professions: Above all, do no harm. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Who's the next speaker?
There was another lady here on the front. Were you a registered
speaker? Okay, all right. So we'll start in back.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, if I could explain to the speakers, you're
given three minutes. When you've got one minute left, it gives you a
beep just to tell you you've one minute left.
MR. OAKES: Thank you. I'm honored to be here, thanks for
having this forum. We as politicians, you all know the how to get to
the root of a problem is to follow the money. The phosphorous
fertilizer industry and the aluminum industry has sold over
$900,000,000 worth of fluoride collected in taxpayers' money over the
last eight years.
If they didn't get that money from municipalities, the only other
thing they could do with their fluoride is to sell it as rat poison, and
there's just not that big a market for rat poison.
One of the speakers mentioned that we put iodine in salt and
Vitamin D in milk. We sell a lot of milk at our store, most of it
Page 217
September 13-14, 2011
without Vitamin D . We sell a lot of salt in our store, and it has no
iodine. And people can choose whether they want it or not. What
we're doing, we're being forced into putting something in our body
that we don't want. With every medicine, with every chemical there's
a benefit to risk ratio. There's approximately 30,000 people in Collier
County who don't have any teeth.
Now, if they're being forced -- I mean, what's the upside, where's
the benefit. There's no benefit for somebody that has no teeth. The
only benefit you're talking about is enamel on teeth. You have no teeth
but you have to shower in it, you have to bathe in it. There's no
benefit to risk.
I also know that the CDC and the American Dental Association
has said that we must take fluoride water out of babies' formulas.
How do you get it out? How do you get it out if you're poor. How do
you get the fluoride out of --- and all we're asking here is for a choice.
You need a choice.
You can have all the fluoride you want. It is ubiquitous, and it's
more ubiquitous than it was 10 years ago, because it's in every frying
pan. When you fry an egg, every teflon pan, every soda you drink,
every can of vegetables you eat, every prescription has this crap in it.
That was not true 20 or 30 years ago.
But the biggest thing of all, and you're talking about the World
Health organization, and I'd like to hand this to all you guys, we have
a good study. There's 14 western countries that has no fluoride in the
last 40 years and four that do. This is the World Health Organization.
The incidence of caries is either the same or better in those 14
countries. The same or better and they have no fluoride. And that is
because all western nations did go to fluoride toothpaste. God bless
fluoride. You can have it all you want. Don't force it down a baby
that's being bathed in it at one month of old or that has to drink it in
their --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, you didn't state your name for the
Page 218
September 13-14,2011
record.
MR. OAKES: My name is Frank Oakes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I
address Mr. Oakes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Oakes, I want to thank you.
You're the one who brought this forward through a public petition. So
I want to thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I want to
address the point you just paid. Today what we have is the medical
lobby that has brought a number of people. And I know there are
many, many citizens in this community who oppose fluoridation of
water because I have received so many e-mails in opposition to
fluoridating the public waters that, I mean, my mailbox was on
overload. I mean, it was unbelievable.
It's 5 :30 in the afternoon, these people are all working, because
it's not season yet so we don't have the community of retirees who
have the luxury of being here during the work day. So the group of
people who stood up definitely outnumbers the number of people you
have here. However, based on the e-mails I received, the e-mails far
outnumber then the people who are present today.
So I have a real concern about making a decision as a Board
member based on who is in the audience, rather than, you know,
people who I know who are concerned.
I want to address the discussion that you had with us here
regarding the World Health Organization. Germany does not
fluoridate its water. The Netherlands does not fluoridate its water.
France does not fluoridate its water. I can go on and on and on.
Quebec, where I was born, doesn't fluoridate its water. British
Columbia, where my parents live, does not fluoridate its water. And
the other lady just said Calgary just decided not to fluoridate its water.
The trend is not to fluoridate public drinking water. And I will
Page 219
September 13-14, 2011
also on a matter of principle say that with respect to choice, it is a
choice, and there are benefits to fluoride in certain situations. To add
fluoride in public drinking water has not been established as necessary
for everybody's health. And government shouldn't be interfering
where this is really a matter of choice.
If we want to have a program for indigent children to help them,
that's one thing. I can understand that and I appreciate it. But to force
it down our throats when it hasn't been proven necessary is a big issue
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we hear from the rest of the
speakers, please --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I want to commend you very
much for the points you made. And I wanted to clarify what's going
on in terms of how many people are standing up.
MR. OAKES: We have a petition here signed by 1,500 Collier
County residents to get it out that we want to present to you along
with the other packet.
And I want to thank you very much. This is a very important
issue to all of us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MARBLE: My name is Charles Marble. And I'm a nurse,
I've been a nurse for over 20 years, and I just wanted to make some
statements in response to the statements promoting fluoridation.
I'm appalled that any health care practitioner would dare to claim
the audacity to medicate myself or my family without my prior
consent. Tome this is the greatest issue at hand. Everything that I
saw discussed today was to promote the fluoridation of water on the
basis that it would prevent tooth decay. That's a form of treatment.
Every individual in this country has the right to informed consent.
They have the right to know the information or the medication or the
treatment they are to receive. And they also have the right to choose
another option.
Page 220
September 13-14,2011
What we're proposing here is the blanket fluoridation of water to
every single citizen, whether they choose to have it or not. Weare
actually claiming to be able to treat every person, that's what I've
heard today, that the medical professionals claim that they have the
right to promote the treatment of every individual, even without their
individual consent.
And I have a few issues here to bring up. And this was a quote
from Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, the past President of the American
Medical Association stated, and I quote, I am appalled at the prospect
of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison
that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to
use water this way is deplorable. That was the past President of the
American Medical Association.
And when I saw the claim that there was a one percent retention
of fluoride in the body as though this was not an issue, what wasn't
discussed and what has not been studied is the cumulative one percent.
What happens year after year, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years of
exposure of that one percent cumulatively. There is evidence of harm.
The CDC itself in 2005 stated that 32 percent of American
children have dental fluorosis. Now, I saw a quote listed on the screen
that 10 percent of fluorosis was attributed to fluoride in the water. Ten
percent of those individuals out of that 32 percent were affected by the
fluoridation of their water. And I will also assure you that it was
without their consent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you turn down the volume, please.
Thank you.
MR. MARBLE: I'm sorry. I'll calm down. I apologize.
As a parent, I also have a defined concern. The American Dental
Association itself in November 2006 reversed its recommendation and
recommended that all infants below 12 months of age with all their
formulas when they're produced, that it be produced without
fluoridated water, purified water because the body mass index of an
Page 221
September 13-14, 2011
infant is far less than that of adult. On the screen it said you can drink
25 gallons and that's where the toxic range was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired.
MR. MARBLE: -- well, an infant doesn't have that ability. It's
250 times more concentrated in an infant. So are you going to put a
disclaimer to every parent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We got it. Your time has expired.
MR. MARBLE: Oh, has it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it has, about a minute ago.
MR. MARBLE: Okay. Thank you. I do have the packets if you
would like the facts from the CDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'd like to leave one for the record,
that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like one.
Ian, give me that copy. I want a copy. I want a copy. He had
several copies. I want a copy of it.
MR. HUGHES: Hi. For the record, my name is Martin Hughes,
and I'm here to speak in opposition to the fluoridation of the water
supply here in Collier County.
From what I understand, fluoridation started approximately 60
years ago. And it was at a time when it was a by-product of the --
both the aluminum production from smelting of the bauxite and also
from the phosphorous for fertilizer, phosphates.
And basically the same individual who -- the industry, they were
getting sued because what was coming out of the smokestacks at the
time was going downwind and taking out crops and also livestock, and
they hired a gentleman by the name of Ed Bernays, who actually led
campaigns to have women smoking cigarettes. He was also one who
had a campaign of 12,000 doctors recommend smoking Chesterfield
filtered cigarettes, and he wrote a famous book called Propaganda.
And that's initially how the fluoridation of our water supply started.
Another thing I think should be brought up is that in the
Page 222
September 13-14, 2011
groundwater here in Collier County, we're at something like 3.32 parts
per million as far as the fluoride level. After the filtration has been
done, we're still at .27 or .3, which is, you know, almost halfway to the
safety -- the safe maximum limit that was set by the ADA.
And it just -- it makes you wonder, how much fluoride do we
actually need. If we had -- there's fluoride in what we drink, there's
fluoride in the food. We're not living in a third world country, so
there's adequate access to dental care. There's a topical-- they can go
anywhere in Collier County, no matter at what economic level they're
at and they're provided with dental care.
Also, if someone -- there's also the topical application from
toothpaste. If someone wants, they can go to your local CVS and get
two trays and put your toothpaste in it and let your teeth soak in it 24
hours a day.
And it just -- it just, you know, how much fluoride do we actually
need?
And, you know, it's in mouthwashes. Also, you know, there's --
the ADA has actually put out recent statements that it admits that it
causes caries and fluorosis and the mottling of teeth.
And also, another thing that I think should be brought up.
There's also other countries, there's Pinellas County, Pasco County,
Clearwater, Bradenton, Palm Beach County and Boca Raton have all
rejected fluoridation. And I recommend we do the same here. Thank
you.
MR. BOLDUC: Good afternoon. My name is David Bulduke,
and I'm a citizen of Collier County.
And I am here today because the fluoride that Collier County
adds to the water supply is not the pharmaceutical grade fluoride that
you would find in your toothpaste. In fact, it fluoridates it's water
supply with sodium silica fluoride, which has never been proven to be
safe or effective through scientific testing.
In fact, Commissioner Hiller referred to the studies by -- well,
Page 223
September 13-14,2011
co-authored by Mr. Masters from Dartmouth College. In response to
his first study in the year 2000, he wrote a letter to the EP A, and the
EP A responded to, quote, to answer your question of whether we have
in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of
fluorosilisilic acid or sodium silica fluoride on behavior or health, our
.
answer IS no.
That is probably why the EP A recently looked at a whole host of,
I guess, scientific studies, both human and animal, and has classified
fluoride as a chemical with substantial evidence for developmental
neurotoxicity .
So let's look at the science a little bit further. The EP A, when it, I
guess, defines sodium silica fluoride, it defines it as a highly toxic to
all plant and animal life.
Looking at some of the index material from Dr. Colfer's
presentation, specifically the paper by Dr. Easley, where he states
fluoride serves as an essential trace element and that the concept of
fluoridation is very quite similar to adding Vitamin D to milk or
adding Vitamin C to fruit juice. But really, it's not that case at all.
If you look at studies from the National Research Council along
with the National Academy Of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine,
they state that fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for
human growth and development. That means no disease, including
dental decay, has ever been attributed to a lack of fluoride.
When you look at how does the FDA classify fluoride. Quote, it
is a drug. So we are adding a drug without any way of, I guess,
accommodating or tracking or following how much everyone is taking
of that drug on a daily basis. In fact, in a published paper from the
Journal of American Dental Association in '95, it says the optimal
level of fluoride intake has never been determined scientifically and
has been used only in general terms.
Looking at the CDC statement, the one from 1999 where they
say fluoridation is one of the top 10 public health achievements in the
Page 224
September 13-14,2011
last hundred years for the 20th century, they state within this paper,
research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly
after eruption and of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily
are topical and for adults and children.
Again, in 2001, the CDC follows this up with another paper that
states fluoride's predominant effect is post-eruptive and topical.
Again, this is another supplementation from Dr. Colfer's
presentation, it's a full paper called Fluoride Facts. It's outside. In it it
says fluoride protects teeth in two ways, systemically and topically.
And that they have a quote from professor John D.B. Featherstone,
who states that there is irrefutable evidence in numerous studies that
fluoride in drinking water works to reduce dental caries in
populations.
Well, I wonder where he's getting that statement. He has two
published papers. The first one where he states the effect of
systemically ingested fluoride on caries is minimal. And that one
from the ADA, or the Journal of the ADA, fluoride, the key agent in
battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, your time has expired. Thank you
very much.
MR. BOLDUC: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that the last speaker? Now, is there
anyone who wants to speak from the others group?
Yes, sir.
MR. POINTER: I would like to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Oh, you want to speak, Jack?
MR. POINTER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. POINTER: My name is Jack Pointer. I live in North
Naples. The World Book Encyclopedia under the title of fluoridation
says fluoride is used to treat certain bone diseases such as
osteoporosis. Fluoride also may help keep bones from getting hard and
Page 225
September 13-14,2011
brittle in old age. Among those here present, I believe that those with
the title of old age, I am chief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll give you the prize, Jack.
MR. POINTER: I've lived here for 25 years and have used
Collier County tap water to drink. During those 25 years, I have not
suffered a broken bone.
DR. PRIMERO: Good afternoon, thank you. I am Dr. Patricia
Primero.
Like Mr. Henning said, yes, it's repetitive, so I will speak to you
as a mother, as a citizen of this area, but also because I have 25 years
of dental practice.
And because I was not born in this country, I have a different
perspective. I was able to work in a foreign country and I have been
able to work in several cities here in the United States. And I have
been able to experience firsthand what it can do to you when the water
in your area is non-fluoridated.
Unfortunately I see it today, not only in children but also in
adults. And remember, our population, it's increasing here, is not only
made up of young families like mine, but also made up of all the
retirees that decide to take our city as their final destination.
I see a lot of these adults which are probably part of the baby
boomer generation, and they come with extensive bridge work.
Sometimes they have rampant decay under their crowns. And many
have compromised immune systems, and many take several
medications. Now that I'm mentioning the several medications, so
many of them can cause dry mouth syndrome, Xerostomia.
And because of this, you have all of these exposed roots. And
because those roots are exposed and you have high acidity in the
mouth, then you tend to develop not only recurring decay, but severe
sensitivity in all those areas. So then what is going to happen to all
those patients. These patients that have those roots exposed can also
be requiring surgical restorations and expensive reconstruction or even
Page 226
September 13-14,2011
tooth loss.
Why? Why would we want to have something like this. These
are actual patients in my practice and they have moved into our area
and they have come from areas where there was no fluoridation in
their water.
Very good, if you look at this one. Very good oral hygiene.
There's no plaque, there's no tartar. This person has an excellent oral
hygiene. But the only explanation that I can find is the lack of
fluoride. So if most of the situations may be preventive by continuing
to provide our community with optimal levels of fluoride in our
drinking water. Why not. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that it? Another person
wants to speak? Okay. I'd like to get this over. I've got to go home
and brush my teeth with fluoride water and lots of fluoride toothpaste.
DR. DOLAN: That's a great thing to do. Good afternoon, thank
you for the time. My name is Dr. Terry Dolan. I'm a dentist. I'm the
Dean at the University of Florida College of Dentistry. My dental
specialty is dental public health. I'm board certified in that dental
speciality .
I live in Gainesville, I'm not a member of your community. So
you might be asking why am I here speaking with you. I want you to
know that the University of Florida has become very invested in the
oral health of the children in this community, largely at the invitation
of the Naples Children and Education Foundation, who through their
study of children's well-being in this community identified dental
disease as one of the top four problems facing children in this
community.
They invited us to come down and work with them. They have
invested -- your colleagues have invested more than $10 million to
attempt to address this problem facing the children in your
community. That's a significant investment. And we have partnered
together with Collier Health Services and many of the leaders in this
Page 227
September 13-14, 2011
community to address this problem.
I implore you to think long and hard about this decision to
remove fluoride from your community water source, because it clearly
is a safe and effective preventive agent, particularly benefitting low
income children and adults. Why work against these initiatives that
have been well funded and well supported by leaders in your
community because they have identified this as an important issue.
So I thank you for the time. And I'd also compliment your
professional community for coming out in such large numbers. These
are very busy people, and they have come out in large numbers and in
very forceful and influential presentations, because they really believe
this to be an important issue. And I encourage you to listen to your
professional leaders. They're not here out of self interest, they're here
because they care about the people in your community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay, unless somebody jumps up
and runs to a podium real fast, that's going to be the last--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to go on forever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this the last one? Everything else will
be repetitive.
MS. COVINO: Yes. My last effort to speak. I'm Antoinette
Covino, and I represent the registered dental hygienists of Collier
County. I've been working for the past 42 plus years helping people to
prevent oral disease, and I just wanted to relate to you that this month,
not in Collier County, but in Cincinnati, Ohio a 24-year-old single
father without health insurance who could not afford medicine passed
away because of dental disease. It's not an uncommon story.
Yes, I understand from the opposition that they would like to
have pro choice, and I think many of us are fortunate enough to have a
choice to purchase bottled water without fluoride. If that's the case, go
for it. But the people that can't afford a choice, the people that have
income issues and low education and low socioeconomic status need
you to protect them. And the fluoride in the water benefits far exceed
Page 228
September 13-14,2011
the risks. And you can stand all day and talk about statistics, but look
at the scientific evidence and you see which way is stronger.
Thank you for your efforts to protect Collier County, keeping it
strong and not allowing it to get weak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
I'm going to start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry . You want to be first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's all right, you can start with
Commissioner Henning. But I was first. We have a little button thing
here.
You can go with him first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's a lot younger than you are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know he is, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Should let the younger people go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You would have to mention that,
right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I could have been done
by now.
It was stated by Dr. Colfer's presenters there was a four-year-old
that had something like 20 cavities within the City of Naples.
Sixteen? The City of Naples, Florida ain't their water, okay. You
know, what I was looking for is factual information. This is highly,
highly an emotional issue. And I'm very disappointed that we couldn't
get some factual information.
Dr. Colfer, is this factual-- I mean, this is an emotional picture
that you're putting up here. That's what you're trying to portray here,
okay. What I was looking for is evidence from a medical journal that
it does not affect things like Jessica brought up, about low thyroid.
The things that Commissioner Fiala is bringing up -- or
Commissioner Hiller is bringing up about the Dartmouth study. The
thing the gentleman brought is fluoridealert.org and we know that's
Page 229
September 13-14, 2011
what's kind of causing this.
What I'm looking for is to make a rational, factual decision on
whether to pull the fluoride out or leave it in. And I'm going to keep
on searching that, because we didn't -- I know where the dental
association is, there's no question about it. I know where fluoride alert
is, there's no question about it. And the doctor and I and the director
for the water department and I were talking about if the citizens want
it out of the system, please bring a peer review study that shows it has
medical effects on whatever the disease is, Fluorosis or low thyroid or
whatever. Let's get that information and make a decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I haven't had an
opportunity to speak in an awful long time. No, it's most welcome. It
just seemed like the last issue that came up, I was sitting over here in
the comer while the whole world was resolving around me. And
believe me, I do have opinions, and I think I'm right.
But just if I may, I'd like to draw some comparisons. These kinds
-- well, first, fluoride issue, this thing has been around. This is a
Fifties, Sixties, Seventies thing. I can remember the national protest
that took place and the yelling and the screaming way back. I thought
it all went away, but it didn't, it's still here.
Is there some dangers for fluoride, I suppose in probably
excessive amount there probably is dangers. But the good far
outweighs the bad by all means.
We've been through the same thing with mosquito control. This
is not the Mosquito Control Board. I personally got involved with Dr.
Colfer, thank you very much. We petitioned the Mosquito Control
Board to expand their range. Golden Gate Estates, later Immokalee,
we did it two or three times and we were very successful in doing it.
And every time we had people come forward about the great dangers
of the spray that they're going to be using in minute doses, the danger
to their pets, the danger to this, the danger to that. Thank God there
Page 230
September 13-14,2011
was enough people that were willing to stand up and say, you know,
there might be a small danger with these particular chemicals, but by
God, being without mosquitos and the dangers of the disease and the
uncomfort (sic) that takes place with them being here in such great
numbers, it's worth it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I interrupt just to trim down--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can, but I don't appreciate
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well no, but why don't you give us a
motion. Let's get a decision on this thing --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to but I'm going to go
through my thing --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This trip down memory lane is getting us
nowhere.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everybody else--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you could stay on point, on
the topic --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am staying on point, sir, and
you're interrupting me, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing to do with
mosquito spray.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has everything to do with
mosquito spray, it's the public's perception of what's taking place. The
public is supportive of fluoridation or it would not be where it is
today. I thank the medical community for coming out in such force to
stand up to what's taking place today.
I never thought we'd see the day in the Collier County
Commission that we would have to prove something that's been a
proven fact for a long time.
I make a motion that, one, to thank everybody for coming, for all
Page 231
September 13-14,2011
the presentations we received and to maintain the fluoridation of our
water now and in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.
A motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the use of fluoride
in the public potable water supply. It was seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Now, is there any discussion about that motion? Commissioner
Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's not about the motion, I
was just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not down memory lane again, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I was just going to say
you would have gotten a motion a lot sooner if you would have called
on me first.
Actually, when this first was brought to us, I called my dentist,
David Clary. And I said, Dr. Clary, is this really true? And he
assured me that we must have fluoridation in our water to protect the
health and the teeth of all of our residents, not only children but all of
us. So then I called Dr. Colfer, and I said, have we had signs of any of
these problems? I want to do whatever I can to research.
And she said, no, this is a very important health care issue for all
of us and we must keep it.
So then I called my personal physician, Dr . Julie Harris, and I
asked her. And she said sometimes it's the only health care provision
the children get, those especially in the lower income strata have no
other way of getting health because they can't afford anything else, but
they get the water.
Well, you know, I felt that that was really important to hear. And
I've lived here 37 years and I've raised five kids in this community and
none of us have ever had any problems, nor anybody that I know. So
I wholeheartedly second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
Page 232
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: George, can you come to the
stand, I have a question for you, and then I have a couple of
comments.
What type of fluoride do we use in our drinking water? Who do
you purchase it from?
DR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities.
We use sodium silica fluoride, and we do not use hydrofluoric
acid as a by-product. And sodium silica fluoride is Standard 60
certified by National Sanitation Foundation. And it's an NFS certified
additive to drinking water. And it goes through numerous testing prior
to utilization.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
You know, with respect to Commissioner Henning's question
about the proof, there is no proof to support the benefits that are being
touted, that was why those European governments in the World Health
Organization basically said no, we're not going to do it. Because there
is no evidence to support that it's beneficial. And that's why Germany
doesn't have it. That's why Holland doesn't have it. You know, that's
why all these -- that's why so much of Canada doesn't have it. And
that's probably why a lot of the communities in the States don't have it.
Because there is no proof of the positive.
But there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence about the
negative. And I agree with you, that was not brought forward. That
was not brought forward. In fact, the evidence that was brought
forward was that the fluoride that is beneficial is topical, it's not the
ingested fluoride.
So we have a real issue here. And I'm very concerned, I'm
concerned about the litigation that's coming forward, I'm concerned
about that the liability that the government is assuming by in effect
medicating individuals. And as far as the opinion of the community, I
would like a copy -- I don't want the original, but I would like a copy
of the petition that Mr. Oakes got with over a thousand signatures of
Page 233
September 13-14,2011
people that in the community opposed it.
The community does for the most part, from what I have heard
and from what I have seen, oppose the fluoridation of our drinking
water. It should be an individual choice. And it shouldn't be forced
on individuals by government through the water they have to drink,
and citizens should not have to be forced to go out and buy
unfluoridated water. Water is essential.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fluoride is not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to answer your question, it's
on the motion. My discussion is on the motion.
I'm going to support the motion because I could count the votes.
But if I support the motion and find evidence that doesn't support the
water department and the fluoridation, I get to bring it back. And
nobody has in my opinion, and I'll repeat it again, has provided
medical evidence on either side the effects of fluoride in the water
system. Except for the dental association and the Florida alert --
fluoridealert.org.
I want something on a peer review, scientific based opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, 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, the motion passes 4-1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting, to support the continued fluoridation
of water in the public water supply.
Thank you all for being here, both sides. Sorry this took so long,
Page 234
September 13-14,2011
but thank you very much.
Okay, Leo, we said we were going to quit at 6:00.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, and that's fine, Commissioners.
Item #lOA
REVIEW AND APPROVAL THE PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN PREPARED BY TINDALE-OLIVER AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. WITH THE ADDITION OF CITIZEN INPUT
MEETINGS HELD APRIL 6 AND 7, 2011 - CONTINUED TO
THE SEPTEMBER 27.2011 BCC MEETING - CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do the staffs presentation on the park
master plan tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a professional
that we're paying that has to stay overnight.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I was going to suggest our
consultant on the Parks and Rec Master Plan cannot be here
tomorrow, but he will be here on the meeting of September 27th on
another item, so if the Board would allow us to continue this item, we
can -- for one meeting, we can make the presentation then and he will
be present, or we can go over, whatever the pleasure of the Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's okay with me, okay with the majority
of the Board?
MR.OCHS: It's up to the Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS : We will continue that item till the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's fine. Now, we'll do
communications tomorrow?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 235
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I'll entertain a motion for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no we're not adjourning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to recess till tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Continue the meeting tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The chairman just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recess till tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recess till tomorrow, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we will recess and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need a motion or a vote on
.t?
I .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, he can just do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recess until tomorrow at 9:00. And we
will begin with the Golden Gate --
MR.OCHS: Rezoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Shopping center rezoning. Okay.
Thank you very much. Have a good evening everybody.
*****
The meeting was recessed by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m. until 9:00
a.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 2011.
Page 236
September 13-14,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE DAY TWO MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 14, 2011
(Day 2)
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 SECOND DAY OF
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
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Page 237
September 13-14,2011
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting
is back in session after our break from yesterday.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2011-29 (CP-2008-0l/G.G. AREA MASTER PLAN
AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES) - MOTION
TO APPROVE CP-2008-0l W/STAFF AND CCPC
RECOMMENDATIONS - ADOPTED
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2011-30: PUDZ-PL2009-l0l7: ESTATES
SHOPPING CENTER CPUD -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE 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 AN
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A WELLFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A WELLFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREA TMENT OVERLAY FOR THE
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ESTATES SHOPPING
CENTER CPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 170,000 SQUARE FEET OF
Page 238
September 13-14, 2011
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD AND WILSON BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IN
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 4l:i: ACRES;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO
APPROVE WITH CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS
W/LIMITATIONS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 150,000-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we will begin with Item 8.B, and --
MR.OCHS: 8.C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- portions of 8.C.
MR.OCHS: Yes, the final compo plan amendment under 8.C,
which relates to the rezoning request under 8.B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we promised that we would start
with public comment immediately, so the public will have an
opportunity to be heard. I don't see many people from the public.
Can anybody tell me if there's a delay or problem?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Everybody had to go back to work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I can understand that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may suggest, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's keep it open. Ifwe call a
name and that person isn't here, let's give them an opportunity at the
end of the list, if they come in a little bit late. Try to accommodate
people coming from a great distance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That sounds all right to me.
Ian, can you begin? Do we need to -- do we have any new
people here who were not sworn in from yesterday?
Is there anyone who was not sworn in? Please stand and be
sworn, if you're going to provide testimony today.
Page 239
September 13-14,2011
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
If people come in later, we'll have to make sure that they've been
sworn.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll go through the list again at the end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MITCHELL: I'll go through the list again at the end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But we need to make sure they're
sworn in before they speak, okay. But if they've already signed a slip,
they have to have been sworn in. Okay.
Who is the first person?
MR. MITCHELL: The first person is Stanley R. Harris. And
he'll be followed by Duane Billington.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing my
story .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And for your --
MR. HARRIS: I'm Stanley Harris.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. HARRIS: And I usually don't know the procedures and
everything like that, so -- but I live directly behind Comcast. And for
me it's a real concern, you know, as far as what this grocery
store/shopping center, you know, will bring to my neighborhood.
Especially with pesticides and, you know, fertilizers and stuff.
Because that's a natural thing that they're going to have to do, you
know. And where the building in itself, how high of an elevation is it
going to be?
And yes, there's going to be runoff, but where is it going to go?
Is it going to go like into my backyard and I'm going to be flooded?
You know, I have no idea, you know.
And it's peaceful out there. I moved there in 1997, and I just love
it. I came from a big city, and 15 feet away was your next door
neighbor. My neighbor is two and a half -- I can't think of it right now
Page 240
September 13-14,2011
-- two and a half acres away from me, you know, which makes it nice,
peaceful.
Yes, there are times I walk out my house and I hear G's, you
know, and I'm a distance away. But I still hear G's. You know, I hear
the speaker and the music that they play sometimes.
So it's going to be -- it's going to be very, very hard for me to
accept something of that magnitude, you know. Everybody else there
followed the master plan, and now somebody wants to come in
because they bought up all this land thinking that they had the only
one there, you know.
And I'm just perplexed that they want to build that big of one.
And I have never really been addressed until it was coming close to
the end, then I was approached, you know, about the shopping center.
And I'm, wait a minute, this is too late. You come to other people and
-- well, thank you for hearing me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. HARRIS: I appreciate it.
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: I give my time to Mark Teaters.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be John Graves.
MRS. GRAVES: I would like to give my time to John Graves
also. I'm Sally Graves.
MR. GRAVES: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
John Graves. I live at 190 Wilson Boulevard.
I'm here to speak about this project again. And I've been to all the
meetings I could attend, and I have some observations that I wrote
down, and then maybe some observation things that you can tell me,
maybe with these questions I have.
First of all, I want to know, what's the point in denying the will of
the voters here? I've seen arguments for and against this thing, but
you put it to a straw vote and now you're going back on that.
And I know some of the commissioners here even made
Page 241
September 13-14,2011
statements -- I have the tape with me and I have a verbatim of it here
-- that you would put it to the will of the voters and then pick up the
ball and run with it for us. But I haven't seen that.
I've seen petty things happening with some of the Commissioners
here, and petty things happening with something that means a lot to us
out there. And remember, voters remember. We voted for a reason.
Our word counts. And with that I'm going to go through my list here
basically.
We need and deserve services like the rest of Collier County.
We are now forced out of our local area to 951 for trading, and it's a
hardship for many of us. This new center will lift the spirits of the
local residents out there during these difficult times.
Fuel prices have added to hardship. I mentioned it a little earlier,
but, you know, excessive distances don't make life any easier for us
out there. Corralling us out of our trade area, you're not taking us
seriously about how much we need this.
Don't deny us the chance to prosper. With these new jobs and
investment in our local area, this project will encourage development
to the Estates by providing valuable services to the residents. It will
increase trade traffic to the subject intersection, which will do a good
for all the existing businesses there, making a better enterprise zone.
Collier County will benefit from impact fees, tax base increase and to
more resources to be realized by the county overall.
Investment of this magnitude, 13 plus million dollars, will be a
positive effect on the Estates. Property values will improve. And local
services near our homes is a help to us out there for further
development of homes in the area.
The points brought up yesterday by Commissioner Henning
appear to be demeaning, negative and personal in nature against this
project. And I've seen this from him before; I addressed it at a
previous meeting here that I didn't know how he was going to vote.
And I still don't know how he's going to vote, although right now from
Page 242
September 13-14,2011
what I saw yesterday.
Traffic patterns indicate the need for the center to be the --
easternmost Collier residents basically that travel Golden Gate
Boulevard west and east are going to go right by this location. It's
going to be a big convenience to them.
Building this center will not diminish the success of the existing
951 businesses. The center will need unique additional workers to
staff the businesses and thereby gaining a net gain in jobs locally.
Saying that $17 million in sales to Collier County shifting to this
center is no big deal to you, Commissioner Henning, shows how little
regard you have for the residents who have to drive an extra 15 miles
to do that $1 7 million worth of business to shop and bring those goods
back to their home every day. That's just not caring about us out
there.
What do you figure the estimated gross number of vehicle trips is
to do that? I'm sure you wouldn't want to put up with that burden.
Give us a break, Commissioner Henning, and vote yes for this
project --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I'm sorry, I don't -- this is
Commissioner Coletta up here. I really resent the fact that you're
attacking the Commissioner in his particular points of view. If
anything, you're not helping the situation at all. There is no reason to
take on a commissioner over an item like this. Please, when you
address the situation, don't pick out a commissioner or commissioners
to try to direct it to us in a negative way. We're not getting anyplace
with this negativity.
MR. GRAVES: Well, I don't feel it's negativity, I think it's
acknowledging the fact that from out here sitting in the audience we
get the feeling that we don't have an approval on this project, or at
least it's not giving us a fair chance because some of the
commissioners up here have not been fair-minded about this, in my
estimate.
Page 243
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you don't know that.
What to do -- please, those kind of comments would be more suitable
made after a decision is made, rather than prior to it.
MR. GRAVES : Well, isn't it a little late for us to address it then?
I'm trying to get across the point of the importance to us out there to
get this project approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I'm trying to get four votes
up here to make it happen.
MR. GRAVES : Well, again, I'm not trying to be adversarial
here, but these things were said yesterday, and I took it that way that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. GRAVES: -- hearing that 17 million didn't need to move
out to our area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your points are well taken by
the reasons why it needs to be done. But please, leave any reference
to any commissioners out of your repertoire here. It would be most
appreciated.
MR. GRAVES: Well, basically then I'll just wind it up by
simply saying this: That again, I went back through the tapes last
night, because I left here yesterday with such little hope that this was
going to pass because of the sentiment I feel is happening up there.
And basically going back to it, I did see where some of these
commissioners agreed to put this to a vote, seconding the motion to
put it on as a straw ballot item. And right now I just don't feel like
they're sticking with the program when the will of the voters are
saying that this proj ect is needed out there, we want you guys to do it
on our behalf, pick it up and do it correctly, not leave us hanging here
and basically deprive us because of a so-called pending project up on
Randall, which is not in the traffic pattern for us.
If you use those circles I see the planning department using to
describe where our trading area is, it's skewed. Use a hurricane cone
from three miles west of this center out towards the eastern Estates.
Page 244
September 13-14,2011
Those are the people who are going to benefit from this. And they are
not going to drive up to Randall, they're not going to do that to get
.
servIces.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to say that, you know,
this gentleman can say whatever he likes and he can address any
commissioner in any way he wants. I think attempting to chill his
ability to speak, you know, for or against an issue or for or against a
position that a commissioner expresses is not something that we have
any right to suppress or attempt to suppress in any way.
So you can speak against anyone you want in any fashion you
want with respect to anything that we as government do. It's your
legal right. With that said, I also want to address -- First Amendment,
by the way.
With respect to that, I want to say as far as the referendum goes,
and this is a point of clarification, the -- I really think, you know,
going back in hindsight -- and quite frankly, I came into this project
after everybody had already made a decision to put this to referendum.
I think this Board was actually remiss to do that. The Board should
have known what the public sentiment was, and the Board should not
have had to compel this developer to put this to referendum. In fact,
the law is clear that you can't have a referendum, and the law doesn't
say binding or non-binding, but you can't have referendum on land
issues. You can't have it on a compo plan amendment or a zoning
issue. That's what Amendment Four was all about, and Amendment
F our failed.
So, you know, in terms of giving us information as to what the
public sentiment is, yeah. Is it persuasive, binding? Can we use it to
make our decision as a Board? No. We're limited to the evidence
Page 245
September 13-14, 2011
presented here, and there are strict guidelines in the law as to what that
evidence is.
So from my perspective I think that's a very important point, and
I think that needs to be brought out. Because I was reading the
Planning Commission minutes, and there were certain commissioners
who said we have to vote this way because the referendum produced
this result. That's not true. That's not true at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let me address a couple
things.
You've offered an opinion about whether or not another
commissioner can make a comment about what a speaker is saying.
You both have personal opinions about how that's to be done and you
both have a right to express them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that includes Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The other point is that your reference to
the referendum is in fact factually wrong.
This was sent to a referendum in 2010. It was a straw vote. The
state law that prohibited referenda for a development order was not
passed until this year, 2011. So the straw ballot was entirely legal
then, and a straw ballot is entirely legal now, if it serves to give the
commissioners a sense of the opinions of the people.
So there was nothing illegal about it. There is nothing that -- no
effect that the state law passed in 2011 can possibly have on a straw
ballot that was taken in 2010.
So that is an inaccurate argument. And I know that some of the
public feel the same way you do, but it's because they have incorrect
information.
Commissioner Coletta, did you need to say anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I had that light on for
something --
Page 246
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to the next speaker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, to what you said?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to hear the speakers. We're
not going to have a debate among ourselves at this point. We can
debate this later when it's our turn.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Leonard
Montgomery, and he'll be followed by Mark Gerstel.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Hello, my name is Leonard
Montgomery. I live at 570 Third Street Southwest.
You know, this has been three-and-a-halfyears now. I've been
coming to every meeting I can. My opinion is the shopping center
should go in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you talk in the mic,
please.
MR. MONTGOMERY: My opinion is the shopping center
should go in. It's going to be progress. I would like to see it in. But if
you commissioners decide not to do it, you decide not to do it.
One way or another, you guys have ajob to do up there. I have
an opinion, just an opinion, and I believe it should be. It's a long
distance for me to go where I do to shop. Now, to get here is almost
an hour from where I live to get down to here. To go to the store, it's
20 minutes each way, just to go to the store.
And then I remember you commissioners were talking about -- I
wouldn't say people, because that's incorrect -- Commissioners were
talking about alcohol and beer and bars, and there is going to be one or
isn't going to be one. Well, there is one there on Wilson. Right across
the street there's a beer and wine bar and cafe. It went in after the last
meeting and it's there now. So we do have a bar on that comer.
So I think that is a moot point right now, because I was in there, I
thought it was a restaurant, I found out it's got six tables in there and a
bar. Well, the six tables, I went in there for lunch, had a nice lunch, it
was good. But mostly the guys after work and stuffwere sitting in
Page 247
September 13-14,2011
there drinking and talking. I didn't see anything wrong with that. It's
just the idea that people argue back and forth over this thing and I'm
tired of it. You've heard me say the same things every time. I know
that some people are going to vote against it, I know some people are
going to vote for it. I know some people that are going to vote against
it are going to use it, because they'll be passing it. And they'll use it.
But most of you people don't live in our area.
I used to be middle class. Pretty high middle class at one time. I
lived in Gulf Harbor. I had to move out of Gulf Harbor because I was
taxed to death and insurance'd to death out there. I mean, from $1,500
a month to $5,000 a year and $16,000 for my insurance from State
Farm. Put me out $22,000 right there. Plus I starting out at $1,300 a
month payments, now I end up being $27,000 a month -- $2,700 a
month. And I had to move out of there. Of course I sold my home at
a good price, got a good price. Moved out there, paid $400,000 for a
house I'm living in now I can't get 124 for.
And I have to thank the Tax Collector for dropping my taxes this
year $400. That really helps me out. But of course the home's only
worth 125,000 now. That's what they say.
All right, I just wanted to say thank you for hearing me, and I
hope it passes. We've done a lot of work out there and I just hope it
passes. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you very much. I do appreciate
it, and I'm glad you listened to me. And I'm sorry for anything else
that was said up here this morning.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Mark Gerstel.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Patti Truman?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Edith Perez?
(No response.)
Page 248
September 13-14, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Richard Faust?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Kevin Broader?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Judith Montgomery?
MR. MONTGOMERY: She's in the hospital.
MR. MITCHELL: Patti Truman?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: John Stamand?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: James Ashness?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Ernesto Velasquez?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Fred Rump?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Gloria Cooley?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Geraldine Conde?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Dan Rickard?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Joy Anderson?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Leonard Montgomery?
MR. MONTGOMERY: I already spoke. Can I do it again?
MR. MITCHELL: Scott MacLaren?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's on the team.
MR. MITCHELL: Valerie Syren.
MS. SYREN: Ah, winner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get the time of all those people that
didn't --
Page 249
September 13-14,2011
MS. SYREN: Really? That's fantastic.
Thank you. My name is Valerie Syren. I have sent numerous
e-mails to county leaders, as well as state leaders. Hopefully today is
the last time I have to speak on this.
But I want to start by saying that the petitioners asked for a straw
ballot back in January, 2010, meaning that they had over nine months
to campaign for the shopping center before it came to the ballot in the
November elections. And during that time they had all the funds,
plenty of funds, to print up all their fliers, mail them out to the
residents, buy up hundreds of yard signs to stick in people's front
lawns, host yard sales to generate support for the shopping center and
to hire a web designer to build them a nice website.
Now, I ask, what did the opposition have? We had money from
our own pockets, which aren't nearly as deep as the petitioners. And
we had time that we took from our own work schedules to try to get
the word spread to the Estates community.
And I just want everyone to know that there is quite a bit more
opposition than you might think. There are a lot of people out there
who are just -- they just assume that they have no chance because
they're not the ones with the money, so they've developed an apathy.
And that apathy carried them away from the voting poles. So not only
did they not vote no for this, but they didn't vote at all. And to me
every non vote out there was a no vote. If you take a look at it that
way, that straw ballot is an entirely different picture.
And now the petitioners have also led people to believe that we
are all entitled to convenient shopping, no matter where they live. I
don't believe that. Everyone who purchased property in the Estates
was well aware of how long it takes to get to a grocery store. To me it
is illogical to move to a piece of land that is away from urban, even
suburban areas and demand that commercial conveniences be built by
their house.
And with that, I just want to thank you all for your time today, I
Page 250
September 13-14, 2011
really appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Lora Jones.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Jack Sullivan.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Tony Kincaid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody -- Jack Sullivan? Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Is the aerial
slide thing on?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.
My name is Jack Sullivan, for the record. I'm the president of
Emergent Development Group and I'm the gentleman behind the
Randall commercial project, which is roughly three-and-a-half miles
to the north of the proposed site in front of you today.
I came here yesterday as an observer and was not planning on
speaking. But the line of questioning has compelled me to comment
on the record and at least make my presence known.
I'm not here to speak out against the Estates shopping center
project, but I am here to remind this Board of your support for my
project. What seems like only a few months ago the Randall
Boulevard subdistrict was expanded to allow 340,000 square feet of
mixed commercial space. We received unanimous support from this
Board for the transmittal vote for our Growth Management Plan
amendment. We also received unanimous support from this Board for
our final adoption vote.
Only one person spoke out against us at either hearing, and we've
had incredibly widespread support from the surrounding community.
The Randall center is in no way controversial. Ours was the first
and only commercial petition of its scale to ever be approved in the
lengthy history of the Golden Gate Estates.
Page 251
September 13-14,2011
Since being approved by the state in the fourth quarter of last
year, we've established a relationship with a major South Florida
development partner. For our grocery anchored Phase I we have in
place financing from one of the largest insurance companies in the
country. And we're in active conversations with every major grocer
with a presence in the Southwest Florida market.
Once we secure our grocer, we'll reemerge for our rezone, and
we look forward to doing so. We also look forward to hopefully
having the support of this Commission during that process.
Regarding a few of the comments made yesterday, the five-mile
market circle that the representative from Stiles showed didn't take
into account that the Randall Center is within that five miles, and that
the two centers will roughly cut that circle in half and split that trade
area. So if it's 25,000 in the circle, I'm not sure how many were in
their circle, split it in half. That makes both centers struggle to gain
the sufficient density that they're going to need.
Regarding the Brooks Village Center which has been discussed a
lot yesterday, I thought I'd weigh in. I actually drove the site
yesterday and pulled a couple of things off the website.
The Brooks Village Center at Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard
is a great example for the commissioners to follow if they want to see
what the real market is right now for grocery anchored shopping
centers.
The developer of that center, the Sembler Company, listed
45,041 people within their three-mile circle. That's more than 10,000
people that live two miles east of 951 today, the entire Estates. Now, I
don't know the accuracy into that number, but certainly it's close to the
real market area.
Despite the comment from the Stiles rep yesterday that they have
roughly 90 percent occupancy, and I believe that's an inaccurate
comment, that's not the real story. Again, I pulled this off the website
and I confirmed that the data is accurate by driving the site last night.
Page 252
September 13-14,2011
If you exclude the grocery-anchored center, the shop space, the retail
tenant space in this center, which was one of the last grocery anchored
shopping centers built in Collier County over the last five years, and
it's been open for three years, it's 50 percent vacant. And it draws
heavily from the southern Estates.
So just an observation about a different store and what the real
market numbers are out there. Certainly I look forward to your support
as I move forward through the process.
Again, I wasn't intending to speak out, but my center was
mentioned several times yesterday and I felt like I needed to make a
few comments on the record. So thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to ask him some
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
Commissioner Hiller has some questions to ask you.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'd be happy to answer those questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Sullivan, you said something
in your statement, and it's a question that I had asked staff to
substantiate for me yesterday, and it hasn't as of yet been
substantiated, but I want to give them the opportunity to do it.
What you said is that the trade area would be split and that there
would be insufficient density to support either grocery anchor.
MR. SULLIVAN: I said it would certainly make it more difficult
for both grocery anchors to make it. It would make it more
challenging for both of us to survive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there has to be -- you know,
there has to be some -- I mean, either it will be a problem or it won't
be a problem. And here's the problem I have. And this was also
debated yesterday and you probably heard the debate and you heard
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta saying -- you
know, giving me different versions of what happened. And again, I
Page 253
September 13-14,2011
wasn't here when this all transpired, so I don't have all the details.
Although I just got the minutes and I'm going to take a look at them
during our break.
You accepted the requirement that you would have the grocery
store as an anchor tenant or C.O.'d, if you will, before you would be
able to build the rest of your development, before you would be able
to move on to other phases. Was that required of you or that was -- I
mean, what was the basis for you accepting that, and what study did
you use to support that?
MR. SULLIVAN: There's a couple questions wrapped up in
that, so let me try to address a few of them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's A, Band C.
MR. SULLIVAN: First, I appreciate what Commissioner Coletta
said yesterday. His comments were accurate. We were asked of our
home district commissioner during a hearing if we would provide the
same commitment to a grocery anchor that the competing project had
already provided, and we obliged our home district commissioner
because it seemed like that was in the best interest of the community.
That was his presumption and that was our presumption as well.
It certainly meant that if both centers were approved we would be
competing with each other. Whether there's enough people within that
market to support two centers, that's a decision for this Board and for
county government to decide.
Certainly you'll hear the numbers that they put together. I think
they even referenced in yesterday's commentary that I've shared with
them some data during my presentation when I was coming through
that shows there's demand for two centers.
I would -- on the record, I would advise you to listen to what staff
has said. I did pull one quote from David Weeks during the Planning
Commission hearing in 2009 when we were both coming through
together, both projects. David Weeks said in the October 19th hearing
with the two projects coming forward together, and I quote, all these
Page 254
September 13-14,2011
projects themselves, the four requesting all commercial east of 951,
are approximate to one another. The maps show in the staff report
analysis you can see overlapping market studies. If you approve one,
that most certainly has an impact on the others in that geographic area.
Unquote.
I think that's all I'll say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But do you understand that -- and I
need to make sure I understand, because the effect of approving the
zoning on this grocery store, if the numbers support having two in the
area -- or I should -- then you shouldn't have a problem, okay. If the
numbers support having two grocery stores, then you should be able to
get a grocery tenant just as readily as they should. And it shouldn't
have any impact on the rest of your project, you should be able to then
move on to the other phases as you've agreed to.
However, if the numbers are not correct, then the issue is, is that
by virtue of the terms that you have accepted to please your home
commissioner, you have basically put yourself out of business.
Because as it stands, if they bring in a grocer and no other grocer will
go in the area because the population density isn't high enough to
support two grocers, you will not get a grocer anchor, you will as a
result not be able to move through the other phases of your project,
which means you'll basically, you know, have probably a lot of your
300,000 square feet undeveloped for a long time.
So either you accept that the population supports it or you say it
doesn't and you'll be out of business. Because they'll be the first in
time. And their ability to get that lease will precede yours, because
they will have their zoning in place and you won't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we move on?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a big deal. I mean, we're
talking -- how much do you have invested in your center?
MR. SULLIVAN: There are millions of dollars at stake.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sure it's probably over 20
Page 255
September 13-14,2011
million. I'm sure the other developer has as much. So we're talking
about, you know, multi, multi-million dollar centers. And this issue is
a very significant issue. And I haven't seen the evidence to
corroborate any of this.
MR. SULLIVAN: I think I'll just defer to the example I gave.
Certainly market studies can say one thing, certainly market circles
can say another, certainly --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I mean --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, let's not argu"e with
the man. Let him make his statement. He said he doesn't want to go
any further. Let's hear some more public speakers. You have your
. .
opInIon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a big deal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know. I know it's something that
troubles you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to reserve the right to call
him back, if I may. And if you would please allow me to as this
develops to ask you questions, because I need to resolve this in my
head if I'm going to make a vote.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'd be happy to answer any other questions if I
could.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Tony Kincaid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, have you registered to speak?
DR. MANDELKER: Yeah and I just want to acknowledge --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you Tony Kincaid?
MR. McCOURT: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's your name?
MR. McCOURT: Hal McCourt.
Page 256
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I guess we'll get to you. If you've
registered, we'll get to you.
MS. MOSCA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. MOSCA: I have a letter from Tony Kincaid. She left it with
us yesterday . Would you like me to read it into the record or just
provide it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did she request that we do that --
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- read it into the record?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, let's do that.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. Again, this is from Tony Kincaid. She's a
homeowner on Third Street Northwest. And Michele Mosca, for the
record.
As a homeowner in the Estates I have much at stake here. Be
clear, if the shopping center was proposed somewhere else in the
Estates I would still oppose it.
People saw two words on the straw ballot: Grocery store. Many
people didn't understand or care what that meant. The Growth
Management Plan would have to be changed to accommodate this
project. The Estates already has areas set aside for commercial
growth, ensuring there can and will be grocery stores.
This proposed shopping center will be 41 plus acres, 170,000
square feet and built on neighborhood residential streets where
commercial growth had never been planned.
Earlier Mr. Henning said Estates like East Naples should stay
together because they are like-minded. This situation is an example of
division. Please do not allow this shopping center.
And then she goes on, this journey has been long and frustrating.
In the end we have to depend on the commissioners to be the voice of
reason for opponents to this amendment.
Page 257
September 13-14, 2011
With the current plan, the needs of all Estates residents can be
met. We can even have grocery stores. Although the real reason
we're here today talking about amending the GMP is for the approval
of individuals desiring to develop a large shopping center.
You as commissioners have the ability to stop the fallacy of the
Estates having the fastest growth in Collier County over the next 20
years. Just drive around and see the empty houses and commercial
buildings. Please be reasonable by voting to maintain the existing
rural integrity from the Estates. Do not allow the bigger is better
mentality. And vote no to amend the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Lucretia West.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Mark Teaters. He'll be
speaking for 12 minutes. Jeanie Syren, Sandy Slavy and Duane
Billington have ceded time to him.
MR. TEA TERS: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record,
Mark Teaters, 140 Wilson Boulevard South. I'm within 1,000 feet of
this project, proposed project, thank you.
F or the record, Commissioner, with all due respect, under the
frequently asked questions on the Community Planning Act, it says
how will new comprehensive plan amendment that is currently in the
process of being adopted be handled.
The response is: As of June 2nd, 2011, the date the bill was
signed by the Governor, all plans and plan amendments will be
processed under the new law. I did communicate with the DCA
people, and the straw ballot does go under the new law, which means
you're not able to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not true.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I keep hearing this.
MR. TEATERS: He's taking my time. Can I finish before he
Page 258
September 13-14,2011
goes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he gets to speak for nine minutes.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are two processes, okay? There's a
process of a referendum and there's a process of a straw ballot. You
have your home rule power and it's specified in Florida Statute 125 to
initiate a straw ballot to gauge your citizen sentiment on any issue.
Any issue. Then you get a referendum. A referendum is binding, all
right?
What was happening is that there were communities around
Florida who were trying to stop development who were requiring
referendums on comprehensive plan amendments. The legislator
wanted to put a stop to that and they did put a stop to that.
All you asked was to get voter sentiment. You're not bound by
that, all right? It's no different than if those 8,000 people or 10,000
people or how many people voted came into this room and told you
how they felt about it. It's the same thing, okay. There's a difference
between a straw ballot and a referendum. You did a straw ballot to
gauge voter sentiment. You were allowed to look at it in any way you
want, vote for it, vote against it. It's just another piece of evidence for
you to consider.
MR. TEA TERS: Thank you.
Okay, looking back, this all began with a secret. A friend
contacted me and said one of his employees had sold his home on
First Street for a large amount of money and asked him not to tell
about it.
I called Don Scott with Collier County to confirm my worst
fears. He laughed as he told me they wanted the details kept secret.
This process has divided our community. It's been sometimes
ugly, even in public. It started with grandiose plans for the Fifth
Avenue Golden Gate Estates, and now a possible strip center with no
creative design, as Commissioner Schiffer from the Planning
Commission stated. He also stated it was too large. Commissioner
Page 259
September 13-14, 2011
Ebert said it was too large and more suitable for an urban area.
They didn't have to have a straw ballot referendum to turn public.
People want additional services in Golden Gate Estates. It just raised
the publicity. I'm sure anyone would like to have a grocery store in
close proximity. As you know, there are projects that will service the
Estates that you've already approved.
Planning for the future needs of a community requires a balance,
not a rush for immediate gratification. We need to evaluate the
potential costs, impacts and potential benefit projects will bring,
because we'll be looking at them for a long time.
The Planning Commission did something interesting. They
discussed the project, expressed concerns and sent this forward with
stipulations, all the while conceding the inevitably positive vote from
the BCC referring to the referendum and the will of the people. Never
seen a meeting like this before.
Many residents on First and Third Street are in opposition to this
project. You have a petition on record with a clear message from
them. There isn't just one or two. Some who have persevered through
all the many meetings and who were here yesterday could not return
today due to work and other commitments, so they've ceded their time
to me.
The petitioners would like you to believe that they have the
support of the neighbors. The First and Third group started out with
large meetings in vehement opposition. Two people positioned
themselves as representatives of the group with no legal organization
or charter that presumably represented the immediately affected
neighbors on both First and Third Street Northwest. They used the
lack of neighbor participation during the process to justify making
critical decisions which impacted the future of others.
I remind you of Commissioner Coletta's statement, because this
commission doesn't approve projects if we have the immediate
neighbors in opposition to it, uniform opposition.
Page 260
September 13-14, 2011
Also, I'll read something from Commissioner Coletta's resume.
In 1991, Jim was named chairperson of the first Golden Gate Master
Plan committee. Through numerous and public meetings, the
committee was successful in laying out the future land use for the
Golden Gate area. Among its successes was the elimination of
provisional use in residential area the laying out of Golden Gate
business district and the strengthening on the restrictions on
commercial ventures in Golden Gate Estates. This plan has been the
main reason why Golden Gate Estates has been able to preserve its
country setting.
Please consider that I've never been in opposition to this project,
only its size and negative impact on the neighbors in the community.
It's against our master planning visioning process that we hold dear,
will forever change the rural character of the community and set a
precedent that others will expect the same treatment.
As you may know, the State of Florida has reorganized Chapter
163 of the Florida Statutes -- we're going to disagree on it but we'll get
there. Some of the changes are removal of House Bill 697, the
greenhouse gas requirements, to clarify that an initiative or
referendum in regarding to a development order or comprehensive
plan amendment is prohibited. They also state that any amendment
shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. There are 13
indicators.
I don't think that anyone will deny this is truly an urban
development. It is certainly not consistent with our rural residential
community.
Also, I gave you all a map. I think you all have a map. We call
it the overlap map. Okay, this is the business aspect of this. Now, I
have a background in this industry, I've worked for two global
corporations in the supermarket industry, in distribution, in marketing
management and physical plant, so I've been involved with the water
systems, the chemicals that they use and all the different aspects ofi
Page 261
September 13-14,2011
that industry, in wholesale distribution as well.
There are no cookie cutter methods for determining the amount
of people necessary to justify a successful supermarket. There are
many determining factors: Population density, average household
income within the trade area, which is a biggie, especially in Golden
Gate Estates where we have lower income. It takes more people to
justify a supermarket in a lower income area.
Competition within the target trade area, which is something that
Commissioner Hiller talked about earlier.
Size and the type of store. How can someone that's coming
forward that can't even tell you the size, scope, type or size of -- any
information about the store tell you how many they're going to need to
be a success? It's impossible. Can't be done.
Customer shopping preference. If somebody lives in the Estates
and they want to shop in Publix, if you don't have a Publix, they're
going to drive there.
And demographics. That's the other thing too. You have to
remember that there are an awful lot of folks that -- I think our
Hispanic market in Golden Gate Estates is 60 percent, if that number's
correct. Even if it is that large of a number, the Hispanic folks shop in
certain stores and do certain things. Okay, the demographics has a big
deal to do with this.
Okay, I have some information from the University of Florida
here about Publix. Store structure. Current store prototypes range
from 27,000 to 60,000 square feet. Stores are often located in the strip
shopping centers. This is to provide a one-stop grocery shopping
convenience for the customer. Store location and accessibility are
important. Availability of real estate's a deciding factor in
determining store locations. Other factors include locations of
competitor stores, locations of other Publix stores, demographics and
even populations. Demographics determine the size of the store and
the departments located in each store. Each store has its own layout
Page 262
September 13-14,2011
and organization. Each store is designed for the neighborhood to
which it enters.
The map that I gave you has the trading areas for the two
supermarkets -- I mean, the two projects on it. If you look at the map,
the blue area, the area that's outlined in blue -- by the way, I got this
map from Michele Mosca. It has the information from both projects
on there.
The blue area is the Randall area, the red area is the Golden Gate
Estates, the Golden Gate shopping area.
You can see in yellow the overlap. Now, this is all based on the
TAS areas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mark, could we put this on the
visualizer?
MR. TEATERS: You sure can. Absolutely. Thank you very
much.
Oh, we can use this one for right now. Commissioner, do you--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's got it.
MR. TEATERS: Okay, very good. Okay, terrific.
If you look up there, the -- there's a legend on the top. The
Randall primary and secondary trade areas in the blue, the red area is
the Estates shopping that's outlined in red, all the way down on the
bottom, and you can see the massive amount of overlap that's involved
in this. If you look off to the left, there's three little boxes off to the
left. Let's see if I can get it from here. I borrowed this from the CAT,
by the way.
Here's a Publix right here at 951, here's a Sweet Bay right here,
and here's a Publix. There's a line about halfway down here. These
people that live in this part of Golden Gate Estates are not going to
drive back to Wilson Boulevard to go to a smaller store if they're used
to buying in this Publix super store, the Sweet Bay or this Publix right
here. You also have a Wal-Mart Super Store down here. Those folks
aren't going to drive the opposite direction. So this information is kind
Page 263
September 13-14, 2011
of interesting for you.
Let me think, what else. Folks that live in that part of Golden
Gate Estates in the far western side of Golden Gate Estates, they're
going to stop on the way home. They've been doing it forever.
They're not going to come home and then drive out to Wilson
Boulevard and come back.
Did I say something to offend you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just hit the -- I am so sorry.
MR. TEATERS: No, that's okay.
The questions for you commissioners today, if a Publix anchored
shopping center already built and operating at the very busy
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road isn't doing
well, why should we approve the Estates shopping center when it's
going to be relying on the same population? Those that travel Golden
Gate Boulevard.
Given the slowing pace of growth, especially in the eastern
portions of the county, will the addition of this project negatively
impact the other east of Collier Boulevard projects within the Estates
which were already approved and part of the county's future land use
plans? Won't they all be competing for the same limited number of
potential customers within the interior of the Estates?
If approving new centers like this thinks shopping center hurts
already existing centers that are trying to gain their footing, how does
approving new projects actually help the community at large?
The last thing we want to see is more failed commercial centers.
There are already too many in Collier County. We want to see
successful commercial centers. We want people to be successful.
Okay.
Transportation. Golden Gate Boulevard is failing in the area in
the front of the proposed center. Per the access control policy for the
county, the ideal minimum distance between traffic signals is a half a
mile, or 2,640 feet.
Page 264
September 13-14, 2011
The projected distance between the proposed signal in front of
this center and the existing signal at Golden Gate and Wilson is
roughly 1,360 feet, or 50 percent of the target distance.
By locating them so close together, this creates an unsafe
situation for the public. It will undoubtedly force the closing of the
median on First Street and restrict the median on Third. This is an
unfair inconvenience to the residents who will need to drive through
the shopping center parking lot to get to their street or increase
congestion by having to take a circuitous path -- that's a 25 cent word
-- of U-turns to get home.
This also put the immediate neighbors at risk should fire, EMS or
other first responders be required.
Golden Gate Boulevard to the east from Wilson Boulevard is
currently a bottleneck to a two-lane road. Transportation states they
would start phasing sections of the road out from the intersection
between a half mile to a mile as money is available. I got this from
Nick the other day. Thank you, Nick. As money is available. This
could add to the congestion and can have the road under perpetual
construction for many years due to financial constraints.
If this property was developed consistent with the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, we wouldn't have these issues today.
The water system. Again there's -- I think we covered the W-1
wellfield zone yesterday. There are some issues with hazardous
products. You can't just think about the stuff they have on the shelf.
They had a situation on Sanibel Island where the supermarket,
where the zinc in the floor finish that the people stripped off the floors
stopped their water treatment plant. There are many, many other
hazardous ingredients that they have in the store that they use as
cleaning agents that are going to be a problem.
I respectfully request that you deny this petition as it's written, or
downsize it according to staffs recommendation to 100,000 square
feet. Thank you.
Page 265
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Pat Humphries.
MR. HUMPHRIES: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Pat Humphries. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I am board
of director on the homeowners association.
It's been two years since the first county meeting addressing the
Estates shopping center, and the opposition is still fighting to save the
rural character of the Estates and the preservation of their quality of
life.
It should have stopped in January, 2010 when no second was
voiced for the motion to pass.
This shopping center is too big. Something smaller would be
more compatible. It no longer looks like the project depicted on the
website or the propaganda distributed by the developer. According to
the Planning Commission, it's just another strip mall.
The allowable uses do not meet the approval of the surrounding
82 neighbors. The supporters ofPirst and Third that Mr. Y ovanovich
referred to, otherwise known as the First and Third Group, consists
now of only one homeowner.
The package sewage plant is unacceptable and I believe poses a
threat to the stability of the surrounding neighbors' well water supply.
The well protection presentation yesterday does not reassure me.
Can you imagine impact of 170,000 square feet of retail on a package
sewage plant? The existence of another 40-acre shopping center
three-and-a-half miles away neutralizes the success of both.
Changes proposed by transportation department will negatively
affect traffic patterns at and around the intersection of Wilson and
Golden Gate Boulevard. Three lights in a little over a half a mile and
only .2 miles between two of those lights.
This intersection is rated seventh for accidents in Collier County.
It's a catalyst for future commercialization of residential property and
the eventual urbanization of Golden Gate Estates.
Page 266
September 13-14,2011
The straw ballot initiated by the developer generated an
over-priced advertising campaign, making promises of jobs and
property value increase, something the President of the United States
can't even do.
We didn't have a straw ballot. If we had, I think the vote would
have been completely different.
The Planning Commission voted to adopt the PUD and zoning
change based on the straw ballot. The 2011 Florida Statutes, here we
go again, prohibit the use of referendum in regard to comprehensive
plan amendments. And it looks pretty definite to me. The transmittal
is under the old rules, the adoption is under the new rules.
Ifwe have to go back to Tallahassee, we will. We've already
been there once. The Save Florida statutes have eliminated the energy
efficiency greenhouse gas reduction provisions. It is not compatible
with the Golden Gate Master Plan, a valuable tool that protects the
rural character of the Estates, which is why the Board of County
Commissioners voted on January 25th to not readdress it. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Lori Burns.
MS. BURNS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Lori Burns.
All my husband and I wanted to do was buy a beautiful home in
this unique rural community with a simple, tranquil, rural lifestyle.
Then in September, 2009 I discovered we could have the proposed
Estates shopping center subdistrict with accompanying water/sewer
treatment plant some 500 feet from my home. Not quite the dream we
had in mind and certainly not what we bought.
I became involved at that point. It appears that this is far greater
than the shopping center itself in the desire for a grocery store, even
greater than whether my husband and I will be able to continue to use
our home for its intended purpose.
Although our financial investment is certainly a concern, it is
about integrity and doing the property thing in the proper way. I
Page 267
September 13-14,2011
realize that this is not always easy, nor does it always happen. From
what I understand, there is a system which includes a master plan, a
proper planning process, as well as hired, appointed and elected
officials entrusted to uphold this system. This should provide for a
proactive framework to direct and guide growth based on the vision
for the community, based on the input and needs of the community
that fosters integrity and credibility, resulting in belief and trust in this
very system.
I want to believe in this system. Somewhere along the way
amongst everybody's rights and perspectives and the intense focus on
the result of the straw ballot and the unprecedented specifics that have
become involved in this project we have lot sight, with all due respect,
of what is significant. Comprehensive rather than piecemeal, reactive
planning. Without that, the system lacks credibility and integrity
where no one wins and no one is truly protected.
In light of the new statute, which nobody agrees with, Statute
163.3167, Item No.8, prohibiting referendums in the local
comprehensive planning process, I am asking that we take a step back,
that we take a look further at planning. Golden Gate Estates truly is a
treasure. There's far too much at stake here. Naples is a beautiful area
as well. To be one with nature and yet close enough to enjoy and
experience all that Naples has to offer is a rare blessing.
While changes may indeed be necessary, would it rather be
preferable to respect the master plan and allow the proper planning
process to work as it was designed, resulting in a solution where all
residents can have input, can benefit in building a sense of community
instead of tearing it apart, all the while preserving the unique rural
li fe sty Ie we all bought.
My concerns come in where -- I've got 18 seconds -- where we
know the possibility of future movement of the wellfield risk
management zones yesterday. We know that there's a potential that
we could have a package plant possibly in a W -1 at some future time.
Page 268
September 13-14,2011
And we know that now. I understand that that was there before.
That's a concern.
I greatly thank you for your time and attention, while respectful
of the magnitude of the decision that you'll be making.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Carolyn Polak.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: She had a doctor's appointment. She
yielded her time to Mark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. TEATERS: So I didn't get that three minutes? Can I come
back up there again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. MITCHELL: Eugene Polak.
MR. POLAK: I also yielded my time to Mark.
MR. TEA TERS: I get that too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MITCHELL: Sandy Slavy.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's finish with the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Jean Syren.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to ask a question, I
want to get documents. I want to give them time to get it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the speakers want to speak too,
Commissioner Hiller, so let's give them a chance to speak.
MS. SYREN: For the record, I'm Jeanie Syren.l'm on 10th
Avenue Northwest. And I want to thank the commissioners. You do
a wonderful job and I don't envy you what you have in front of you
now.
That being said, if I were to move to the city and expect the
buildings to be torn down and trees planted, you would think I'm being
ridiculous. I don't see how this proposed shopping mall being built in
our rural area is any different. If you want convenient shopping, move
Page 269
September 13-14,2011
to the city. We don't need another mall that's 50 percent vacant.
We moved here over 20 years ago for the peace and quiet of
nature. I ask that you drive out to the Estates and look at how many
vacancies there are in the shopping malls along 951 and on the
southeast corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard.
I believe the numbers being bandied about by Mr. Y ovanovich
are numbers from the height of the boom. There are now many vacant
homes out here.
Please don't vote for this. When this store's open, it will destroy
the face of the Estates. And where can we go from here? When it's
gone, it's gone forever.
As far as the problem of your ice cream melting before you get
home, buy a cooler. We've been doing it for years. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker -- Stanley Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Harris.
MR. MITCHELL: Harris, yeah.
Sir, no, I think what it is, is there were a number of people who
had signed up for 8.C and then they're duplicated because they've
already signed up for 8.B.
So, sir, that's all the speakers, other than the gentleman at the
back.
MR. CAMPBELL: I signed up also. I put it on your desk.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, what's your name?
MS. COMP AGNONE: Tom Campbell.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, Tom Campbell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what's the other gentleman's name?
Do you have his sign-in sheet?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, what is your name?
MS. McKEE: Allen McCormick.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He will be the next.
MR. MITCHELL: He'll be the next speaker and he'll be the last
Page 270
September 13-14,2011
speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Allen, you're on.
MR. McCORMICK: My name is Allen McCormick. And my
wife and I live at 111 18th Street Northeast, here in Naples. We are
transplants from Oshkosh, Wisconsin. We are retired from the
university in 2004. We have been coming here for more than 10 years
before we decided to move here.
We like where we live. We enjoy the peace and the quietness.
Unfortunately those who live west of us, it seems like that if the
shopping center is there, that their peace and quietness be destroyed. I
understand that. And I voiced this opinion in the planning committee.
However, I think about those beyond where I live who have to
drive a greater distance. N ow for us, my wife and I, if we go to the
Publix on Collier Boulevard, that's an eight-mile drive, 16 miles in
return (sic). But that's okay for us. Not all the time, but it's okay.
However, those that live, as I say, east of us on the other side of
Golden Gate Boulevard, on Everglades Boulevard north and south,
they have to come a greater distance.
I think of myself, but I think of them more. Because I think that
there's nothing there that -- I talk with people there, and they told me
that it's either go to Ave Maria or to Collier Boulevard, and both are
great distances for them to travel for groceries. They look for what I
call quantity items. There are some items that you cannot find in the
stores around where I live.
I live 2.2 miles from the corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and
Wilson Boulevard. And I understand heartily the issues and the
problems.
I would like to think that these things can be ironed out, because
there are others who are in need.
One of the things that I know about the community that I live in
is that they're a diverse community in terms of professions, in terms of
ethnicity. And it makes it a unique community as far as I'm
Page 271
September 13-14,2011
concerned. But I have a concern and I have feelings for those who
need things as much as we need, but they have to travel farther for
them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much, sir. Your
time has expired. Thank you for being here.
Mr. --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Campbell?
MR. CAMPBELL: Hi. I'm Tom Campbell from 187 First
Avenue North.
I'm here for a limited purpose. I've just been listening to the
proceedings and I'd like to make a few remarks.
In terms of credibility and so forth and so on, I was a member of
the Board of Conservancy for years, and I did win its environmental
award some years ago. So I don't say that because I'm not here
speaking for the Conservancy, but just to add some credibility.
One of the things I think we accomplished years ago was that we
recognized when we were dealing with Pelican Bay that the 500-acre
preserve was important, and that's why we created density centers.
Same thing in Golden Gate. This shopping center in my opinion will
preserve the rural nature of Golden Gate forever, because it will create
in one area the privileges the people in Golden Gate deserve, which is
to be able to come to one central location and enjoy all the different
amenities that this center will provide. So I look at it environmentally
as a plus.
Secondly, with respect to Mr. Crown, most of you don't know
him individually, but I can tell you, I've lived here since the orange
crate days of The Conservancy. I remember when Mrs. Fiala was
with PBA and all the old days. We used to fight to preserve the lot
next to the hospital. But, you know, time moves on.
And all I can tell you is that with respect to Mr. Crown, he's
viewed as a hero in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, if you talk to the people
in Pittsburgh. He created a company which is one of the greatest
Page 272
September 13-14,2011
companies in the United States of America, employing hundreds of
thousands of people. And if you want to get on Google and Google
who he is, you'll find that he's viewed as a hero there.
And I can tell you that I appreciate your looking into every detail
of the project. And I can tell you that he will adhere to each and every
detail that you put into the plans for this project. That's his reputation.
His reputation's worth more to him than anything else.
And so I appreciate the job that you all are doing, and I can tell
you, you've got a world class guy here. He doesn't come up here
complaining about different centers and this and that. He will create a
center that the people in Golden Gate will have a privilege to be proud
of. It will be successful. He wouldn't be doing this if it weren't going
to be. He's done all that homework.
So I can assure you, you don't have to worry about that. He's one
of the most successful business people in the United States, and one of
the greatest guys, incidentally.
So I thank you very much and appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. I'm telling you
something, I'm going to be glad when this thing is over.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's never going to be over.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't know if it's ever
going to be over. If this center doesn't take place today, it's just going
to be a matter of time before it comes back again. There's a pent-up
desire for this.
Mr. Teaters gave a wonderful presentation, and he referenced me
quite correctly in my involvement with the first master plan, and I
appreciate that very much, in the fact that we were very successful in
making sure that the people of the Estates area could interact in a way
they couldn't prior to that plan as far as development went.
Page 273
September 13-14, 2011
Prior to that it was very easy to get development through. You
only had to paste a notice on a telephone pole the size of this. Later
there was other things that were put into place, community meetings
were required, numerous others things took place.
But once again, what we're looking for at times is the will of the
people, you know. We try to get a census for that. We're nothing
more than the representation of the will of the people.
Couple of things I wanted to go through and just take a few
minutes.
Mr. -- I guess staffwould be the correct one for this. I got a
question. It was brought up about the runoff and where the runoffs
going to go. Because one of the concerns within the Estates and
throughout all Collier County, whenever you build something with
impervious surface, you're going to have a certain amount of runoff
that has to be accounted for. Could somebody answer that question?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have our civil engineer here, if that
would help.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it would be best if
we had a neutral party speak on this, if you don't mind, Mr.
Y ovanovich.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Growth
Management Administrator.
What I can tell you is every development's required to address
the first issues of events of a storm on-site and then to move that off
time. So they'd have to address everything on-site, not to add
anything more to drainage problems in the area, no matter what
development we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now going back to it, this site
specific, this particular project, to the best of your knowledge, are they
going to contain it on-site?
MR. FEDER: What I'm telling you is we're going to make sure
that any development anywhere in the county does that on-site, yes.
Page 274
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might be able to speak on
this, Mr. Feder, but if you can't, we could get Mr. Casalanguida or
somebody else from staff.
The master plan, reference made to the master plan many times.
We did offer to change it but we were asked not to change it, to leave
everything at the status quo, not to start the process. And that's fine.
The existing master plan now, is there provisions in there for
changes if people wanted to make changes?
MR. FEDER: I will defer to Nick on that, he's been working
with it. Or Michele.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca.
Presently the master plan does not have --let me back up. The
only way you can make a change is through a comprehensive plan
change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what we're doing
here today?
MS. MOSCA: And that's what we're doing here today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is this unusual?
MS. MOSCA: No, this occurs pretty much annually.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason being for that is,
is the master plans generally come up for review every five or 10
years?
MS. MOSCA: Roughly seven years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven years?
MS. MOSCA: And staff had requested the restudy--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MS. MOSCA: -- when this was moving forward earlier in the
process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope when all this nonsense is
over we can get into a master plan study.
Forgive me while I go through my notes here as I'm going
forward.
Page 275
September 13-14,2011
Some of the concerns I wanted to talk about a little bit that I've
heard, and what I'm hoping is that all my commissioners engage in
this conversation as we go forward. Rather than when we get to the
point for a vote and making a very short statement supporting which
way we're going to go on the vote, let's get into the discussion of what
makes things work and what doesn't make them work. Your own
personal feelings on something, which you're entitled to, how you
arrived at those decisions would be most helpful.
I assure you that within your own districts, if you had a large part
of your constituency that wanted something done, you would be very
receptive to them and you'd probably be quite upset if you didn't see it
going that way, and you would do everything in your power to try to
make it happen. So I'm hoping we get into the discussion, because I
heard different comments happen here today that just didn't make
sense, but I'm sure we can get further clarification as we go in.
Taxes generated. This is going to generate -- hello? I'd rather
address staff right at this point in time, Mr. Y ovanovich.
Taxes generated from this, whether it be additional taxes that will
become part of the county's annual assessment from a shopping mall
or shopping malls.
MS. MOSCA: Yes, with any new development, residential or
commercial, you'll see additional revenues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And is it also true that
you figure a budget, the budget's based on an "X" number of dollars.
The more you have from commercial, the less it is for residential as far
as the share on that? Or isn't that a fair question?
MS. MOSCA: I'm going to have to defer to maybe senior
management or Mr. Ochs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr.Ochs?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I'm not sure I understand your
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, we're talking about if an
Page 276
September 13-14,2011
entity didn't exist, in other words, a shopping center, or if it does exist.
If it does exist, wouldn't there be additional taxes that would come
from it that would be going to the public treasury?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The assessed value is likely to be greater
than it was as an ago --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And when we figure out our
budget and they're going to be assessing the property owners out there,
we come up with a set number that we're going to have for our budget
and then the tax collector breaks it down across all entities, including
commercial and residential. If you have more commercial than
residential, in all likelihood's going to pay a little less.
MR. OCHS: Well, that depends on the millage rate that the
Board assesses and puts in their guidance for their budget, obviously.
But --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, I mean, if the budget's $100
million and you have 40 percent of it being paid by commercial and
60 percent being paid by residential, if you change that balance where
42 percent of it's being paid by commercial, thus you have lowered the
other end of the equation. Would that be a correct statement?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. You're shifting some of the burden to the
commercial sector, as opposed to the residential sector.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And impact fees that take place,
impact fees that would have to be applied someplace. If you were
going to build something -- probably this would be Mr. Feder. You
look too comfortable back there, Mr. Feder. I just had to get you back
up again. I probably could have asked Nick, but I like to watch you
move across the room.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He finds you attractive.
MR. FEDER: I think we'll stay away from that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. A little humor doesn't
hurt along the way. You know, we've got a very serious situation
here.
Page 277
September 13-14,2011
Mr. Feder, transportation, we know that there's a deficit for roads
in the Estates. We're talking about Golden Gate Boulevard that's been
put off a couple of times because of the lack of funds to proceed, we're
talking about other road improvements that will have to take place in
the future.
Would impact fees from this help in any way to be able to get
those roads done?
MR. FEDER: That's a two-part question.
Basically yes. Obviously if we generate additional impact fees,
which is the only thing we're using right now for capacity
development, yes. But you've also got provisions out there that are
using the impact fees from the two districts on Oil Well Road at this
time. So that would be an issue that would come into in response to
your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that.
Who do we have that can speak as far as employment goes?
Mr. Y ovanovich, you're an expert on employment?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to offer our staff. I don't
know if they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would be so kind. Unless
is there anyone from staff that would consider themselves an authority
on employment?
MS. MOSCA: I certainly would not. We reviewed the market
analysis study, and the employment numbers that the applicant
provided do in fact appear reasonable. Just -- I'll defer to the expert--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, then I'll talk to your
consultant, if you don't mind. Thank you so much for -- let's talk
about the realities of employment. One of the comments that was
made was okay, you don't have a net gain in employment. What you're
having is just taking employment from one area and transferring it to
another. So in other words you don't have a net gain of jobs, you have
just a reconfiguration of the job picture.
Page 278
September 13-14,2011
Now, you know, I'm not overly concerned about that, because I
don't think it's my role to have to assure that every single job out there
has a certain amount of protection to it. I mean, my role is to try to be
able to provide something out there.
But going to the job issue itself that was brought up several
different times in several different ways, could you address that in
such a way that you could either give us a level of concern (sic) or
justify the concerns of others?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Sure. Good morning, Commissioners.
Mike Timmerman from Fishkind Associates, for the record.
We did an analysis to kind of figure out what the job creation
would be, both from a standpoint of construction jobs, which we
estimate about 150 construction jobs over the timeframe to construct
this shopping center, and then at stabilization, when it's all built, about
260 jobs. Those jobs are in addition to where we are already. So
those are additional jobs with this new center that would be built.
As we talked about yesterday, I'm trying to clarify a little bit.
Obviously those people get paid. Those people get paid their salary.
Those numbers go back, those dollars go back into the economy. So it
helps to go ahead and help generate the economy from this particular
center.
The other question that we talked about yesterday was from a
standpoint of the tax base. We're adding more to the tax base.
Commercial properties use less services than residential properties do.
So when we add more tax base from a commercial standpoint, more
of those funds get spread to the residential within a marketplace,
because they're not as -- they don't use as many services.
The jobs would be in addition to what's already in the market.
And again, we've got to look at this over this 20-year time horizon.
This is not just as of today. As we build this center those job will be
in addition to what's already there. We're going to have population
increases, we're going to have a lot of changes that occur obviously
Page 279
September 13-14,2011
over that 20-year period.
And we know that Golden Gate is one of the areas that's going to
grow the fastest. Having a center -- having centers, both centers, for
example, will help in stabilizing the overall economy of Golden Gate
Estates. Those jobs will continue to go ahead and grow there. And
there are additional jobs that are done indirectly from those base jobs
that are at that center.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It does to a point. I'm sure some
people will want you to elaborate some more on some of those details.
There was other issues that were raised as far as the competition.
Now, I don't think it's our business to try to be overly concerned
about competition from one entity to the other. I believe in the free
market system.
I personally, maybe I'm wrong with this, I don't think that we're
going to over-build overnight. It's going to be a question of what
stores go in, when they go in, based upon the market needs that are out
there. No one is -- maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely that
somebody is going to build some edifice to try to compete with
something that's down the road. In other words, if a Publix went out
there at Randall, would a Publix likely also want to locate down at
Wilson? Most likely not until that point in time they got the number
of rooftops that they need.
So the market has a self-leveling effect as it goes forward. This
has always been my experience. I've been involved in Chambers of
Commerce and just about every kind of business entity out there
forever. People don't invest money unless they expect a return.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's been also comments
made about the 50 percent absentee rate in some of the local centers.
Maybe they did overbuild. Maybe they got caught on the wrong side
of the economy when they planned it out.
Page 280
September 13-14, 2011
Would you comment on that? Because that's something I don't
have the answer to.
MR. TIMMERMAN: What -- and this is one of the things that
I've done. And I've been here for 28 years and doing analysis of real
estate and residential and commercial as they relate.
When we build more residential product in the marketplace, the
more residential units we build, the more commercial support is added
to those residential to support those residential units.
When we overbuilt the market between 2003 and 2006, we were
building residential units very quickly. A lot of those units were
speculative.
Commercial developers would come to me and say, okay, Mike,
tell me the forecast of how many rooftops are going to be built in here
based upon the pace of sales that are occurring.
I can tell you the number of rooftops. The concern that I had was
there aren't enough people in all those rooftops to support the retail
that's here today and as we forecast forward.
The commercial model prior to this great recession was we're
going to count the number of rooftops that are built and that's how
we're going to use -- that's the gauge we're going to use to plan for
commercial support.
My contention was the rooftops are great, but I want to look at
how many units of those are occupied. So we would say there are
4,000 rooftops. Of those 4,000 there's a 25 percent vacancy rate. And
of those 75 percent of the rooftops that are there, the purchasing power
of those rooftops will only support "X" number of square feet of retail
space.
Commercial developers didn't think that way. They're looking for
the future. So when we overbuilt the residential product, we also
overbuilt retail product, which is directly correlated.
Now, one of the things you have to be very careful is, if you sit
down and look at the retail that was developed, grocers have their own
Page 281
September 13-14, 2011
model to analyze the retail development. They really dictate where
they're going to put a center and they really do their own very detailed
analysis as to where and how many centers they want to have, whether
it be Publix, whether it be Sweet Bay. They really dictate the
development of grocery anchored centers.
If they don't feel -- if a developer wants to have a grocery
anchored center and the grocer says there's not enough demographics
there to support it, you're not going to get a grocer.
So if you notice, most of the grocery anchored centers have --
there aren't any grocery anchored centers that have gone out of
business, with the exception of the standalone Albertsons centers that
were done. Those are the only ones that went out.
Really, the retailers, the grocers in particular, are very, very
knowledgeable of their client, of the demographics and of the market.
They're going to put centers where they feel there's enough demand
not only for today, but in the future. This is the reason why we've got
a Publix on 951 and Immokalee, and we've got a Publix on Pine Ridge
and 951. Both of those centers -- and then you've got the Sweet Bay
in between. All those centers, there's enough demographics within
those centers -- within those three centers there's about 32,000 people,
if you took a rectangle. And based upon talking with Stiles and other
developers who we've talked to, you want to have a minimum of
10,000 people in order to go ahead and support a grocer as a minimum
to start.
So Publix and Sweet Bay are not going to go ahead and sign a
release for a center unless they know that there's enough demand
there. And I can -- and the people from Stiles are much more
knowledgeable about the grocery and what they're looking at. But in
general that's what's going to happen. And they want to have healthy
competition.
And I can go ahead and kind of start my presentation. I don't
know if you want to take a break at 10:30, but I could start my
Page 282
September 13-14,2011
presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm having too much fun. We're
not going to quit untilI'm ready.
MR. TIMMERMAN: In general, let me just kind of start --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really didn't mean that.
Just a couple more things, sir, if I may.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Yeah, no problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't know if this is a fair
question, being that you work for the petitioner, but this has always
been my contention, that if I have two centers that are both looking to
go in within a geographic area that offer something in the way of
competition, I'm more likely to get one of them completed sooner than
not.
Now, I know Mr. Sullivan is making all sorts of inroads in
moving this project forward, but the truth of the matter is, we're still in
a down market and we still don't have a tremendous amount of activity
in real estate. But we know those times are going to change.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the thing is, if you've got
one center only, there's less likelihood that they're going to be in a
rush to be able to build it, if they know they've got a neighboring
center that's ready to get off the ground. Because the first one to get
going is going to have the edge. They're going to capture the first
store and probably the first retailers. The other one's going to have to
wait till more rooftops come in and then they can exercise it. Am I
wrong?
MR. TIMMERMAN: No, you're not wrong. However, it
depends on how they want to look at it. And let me explain -- I mean,
again, we're going to get into what my discussion was.
Yesterday Commissioner Henning said, well, what's the 2010
population numbers? I said we literally just got them. So last night,
and thank you for the time, I went ahead and put together a map.
Page 283
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have extra copies of
that?
MR. TIMMERMAN: I do.
This map shows the 2010 census data for the north and the south
portion of Golden Gate Estates. I've got to look at it myself.
So basically what it is, I took everything two miles east of 951,
took the block groups from the 2010 census and estimated from those
block groups the population.
The southern portion, 13,425 people for that red portion on that
map. This is the 2010 census.
The northern portion is 15,953 people. Now, that includes Twin
Eagles, because it's included in this very large block group. In Twin
Eagles there are about 800 people. So if you took 800 people off of
there, you'd still be at the 14,900, about 15,000 people.
So if we're saying that there's a minimum of 10,000 people that
are required for a grocer, without those units competing, saying all
right, everything north of the canal would go to the Randall center,
everything south of the canal would go to the Golden Gate Estates
center. You can see that the three centers to 951, they don't compete
with that.
Within those three centers on 951 there's 32,000 people, so
there's 10,000 people theoretically for each of those centers.
Again, this is based upon today . We know that this is going to
grow in the future. We know that we're going to see more of this
population occurring.
Now, on this map, just over to the very right you can see the edge
of Ave Maria. The distance for people to drive all the way to Ave
Maria is a heck of a lot more than driving to 951. So by having these
two centers, both centers, it's going to cover all of Golden Gate
Estates, both north and south of the canal. So this is an exercise that
we want to do.
Obviously we went through and did our market study, like we
Page 284
September 13-14,2011
normally do. Mr. Sullivan went ahead and did his market study. The
methodologies are a little bit different and neither one of them's right
or wrong, there are several different methodologies that determine
market need. But we really didn't get into the situation of what's going
to be competing with what until we started coming up with this
yesterday.
So that's why I wanted to go ahead and kind of draw up these
maps and show this.
And the other map I'll show you shows the other centers that are
within the urban area. These are the centers that are within the urban
area. You can see how much overlap there is. Now, granted, they're
within the urban area so there's (sic) going to have a lot more overlap.
The point of that is, there's competition. That's what the market
wants. That's one of the things that's very healthy.
The thing I think that's most important about this analysis is it
includes the 2010 census data, which literally just came out a month
and a half ago by Block Group so I could do this map, and to show
that there's enough population for a grocer today in both of those
places.
And again, we've got to look at this over this 20-year time
horizon. We know Golden Gate Estates is going to be one of the
fastest growing areas. By having both these centers in Golden Gate
Estates, it's going to help to diversify that economy, but in the same
token when you look at the size of Golden Gate Estates from an
acreage standpoint, most of the area is still going to be in its very rural
character. If you take 41 acres out of, gosh, I don't even know how
many square miles of Golden Gate Estates there are, there's a
tremendous amount, you're still going to have a tremendous amount of
your rural character there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, this is a perfect time to have a
break for the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I want to reserve my spot.
Page 285
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back here at 1 :30. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was the best decision I've
ever heard you make.
MR. TIMMERMAN: I can give you more numbers to read, if
you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have more questions.
MR. TIMMERMAN: I'm sure you do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are at least two more
commissioners after Commissioner Coletta who will be asking
questions. So it's entirely likely we'll be here at least until 1 :30. But
we will return at 10:41.
MR. TIMMERMAN: I better cancel all my afternoon meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you have a presentation yet
to give us?
MR. TIMMERMAN: No, basically this is kind of what I was
going through, and then we'll just answer questions.
MR.OCHS: Yes, staffwill have a presentation, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
(Recess. )
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen; thankfully we
have a live mic only now.
We are back in session, and Commissioner Coletta is going to
continue his line of interrogation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.
And yeah, at the moment I'd like to address the next question to
Mr. Y ovanovich, if I may.
You don't like loaded questions that you don't have any idea
where they're coming from?
Page 286
September 13-14, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what -- I thrive on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, great, then I'm going to
make you happy.
Earlier Mr. Teaters made a reference that was totally correct
about my statement many times about developers working with the
local population and bringing them in hand-in-hand and how
important it is before -- and I don't think I'd be the one to really
comment on it since you're the one that many times have had this kind
of discussion with me.
And if you could share that with everybody, I would really
appreciate it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. As -- we had 20 meetings with the
community, starting from -- working our way out. Our closest
neighbors were invited to a meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And who was the instrument
that kept asking you to do these meetings?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who was the instrument?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meetings over and above what
was required.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I always do. I start with my
-- I try to build consensus on the project. So we started closest
residents first and expanded out to where we ended up having larger
and larger meetings.
We also went the additional step of hiring a group called Fathom,
which we talked about the last time, which had individual one-on-one
interviews that were an hour and a half to two hours long with
residents to get their input.
I went to Mr. Harris's house to meet with him. I asked, will you
meet with me, and it was before the first transmittal meeting, because
he'd been at several of the individual meetings, because the First and
Third Group was very vocal from the get-go on this project.
And finally they acquiesced to my request can we sit down and
Page 287
September 13-14,2011
talk. And we sat down and talked about the proj ect. I sat down in Mr.
Harris's living room with he and his wife to talk about the project, to
solicit their input. We incorporated that input into our project, other
than please don't do it. But we did reach out and meet either
one-on-one with people who would meet with us one-on-one, we had
20 community meetings, we did probably I think it was around 40
individual interviews with anybody who would meet with us. I spoke
to Mr. Teaters no less than five times on the phone about this project.
I talked to a lot of people.
So to sit there and say we didn't reach out to the community to
get their input is totally unfair to how this process went and how we
arrived at the master plan that we arrived at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Many times in the past when we
have talked about different projects you were bringing before the
commission, I always told you that if you didn't come hand-in-hand
with the local residents -- you didn't have to bring them all in, you had
to bring the vast majority of them in. I really -- I think that we arrived
at that point of no return as far as the denial of something like this
because of the vote that took place.
Your comments on that. Now, that was your suggestion that you
made to the commission --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- at that point in time. Because
we were obviously at an impasse, and it wasn't probably going to clear
at that particular meeting. But we had a lot of support and so you're
the one that made the suggestions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did. What happened, remember, I
presented you with 2,000 letters of support. People criticized them
because there was -- you know, it was kind of a form letter. We did a
survey that showed 83 percent of the people wanted it.
All of these numbers, all this information I'm providing, for
whatever reason the commission still had doubt as to whether that is
Page 288
September 13-14,2011
really what the community wanted. So I said, if you want to get a --
and you had local people saying do a restudy so we could figure out
what the community really wants.
I said, well, you don't need to do a restudy, I know that these
people really want it. Let's go out to the voters. And if I'm wrong, we
lose. And if I'm right, you'll at least have the feedback from the
community as to whether or not the community really is ready to
change the comprehensive plan.
Unanimously you all sent it out to the voters for a straw ballot.
And a few of you said who are you -- although I might not like it, who
am I to say no if the voters say they want this.
So we did go out and we ran an election. I told you at the
transmittal we provided a lot of information to the residents to inform
them. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that we spent a lot of
money informing the people of Golden Gate Estates exactly what our
project was. And they came out and they voted 76 percent, 24 percent
on a straw ballot to tell you they wanted it.
And then to add insult to jury, shortly after we won the election
the very same people who told you they wanted a restudy came in and
said we no longer want the restudy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're talking about the Golden
Gate Master Plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, the restudy of the master plan.
So we had the election. The voters had told you what they
wanted to see changed. The same people who said they wanted the
restudy said we don't want it anymore. I can kind of guess as to the
reasons for that, but I don't know for sure so I'm not going to guess.
But at least at the time they said they didn't want the study, the vote
had been made and the voters had said we want this center at the
corner. And they knew exactly what they were voting on.
And I don't know how you ignore it as far as the will goes of
what the community wants.
Page 289
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much for
allowing me this much time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller is next -- no, I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning is next in line. That's right, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Timmerman, thank you for
the added information that you worked on last night.
My concern, and it's always been my concern, is the effects of
the existing grocery stores if a grocery store is built out in Golden
Gate Estates.
On the Sembler website it's stating a three-mile radius is -- sorry,
I'll get to that page -- 45,000 people. Do you agree with that?
MR. TIMMERMAN: No. If you're doing a pure radius from the
center of that state, there's no way there could be 45,000 people there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The--
MR. TIMMERMAN: I don't have -- I ran those statistics, I didn't
bring that with me. I think what I did is I ran a two-mile radius and I
think around that particular center for the two-mile radius it was
17,000 people. So another mile radius including Golden Gate Estates
is not going to add another--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it might be a marketing
thing, I don't know.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Yeah. There's no source on it so we don't
know what it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In a five-mile radius it's
100,000. Knowing the population in Collier County, we either grew
in population or we shrank in radius.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right. I don't think geography is wrong.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I can tell you, that store, I
typically shop there. Used to on a regular basis. My opinion, it is not
as busy -- it's not a busy store. And there is a lot of vacancies, like
what was stated today.
Page 290
September 13-14, 2011
The whole thing is we have to plan for the future, and that is fine.
And the work that you did last night shows what we have on the
ground today.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if staff would confirm, do
you agree with what Mr. Timmerman has provided as far as
population as it is today in Golden Gate Estates?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
I actually asked the applicant to provide that analysis, and at the
same time asked our GIS folks to run this map this morning, just to
confirm it.
And the map that's in front of you is not broken down in two
sections as the applicant has done, but it equates to the same
approximate number, 29,000. And that's based on today's census.
And each one of those dots represents a household, approximately 25,
so it's pretty evenly spread out between those two locations.
The map that Mr. Timmerman put up, we asked him to divide it
between the canal. Because 8th and 16th aren't connected. And
there's a canal there, that's the logical break between the two. Also
recognizing that the circles are as the crow flies where traffic follows
two streets, Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard.
So the answer to your question is yes, the numbers match and the
map that Mr. Timmerman put up represents the two direct road links
that go east and west by those areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michele, do you have
knowledge on what population sustains a grocery store?
MS. MOSCA: Actually, I don't. I can't validate that 10,000
number.
What I did is I looked at the applicant's needs analysis, looked at
the population that supports their proposal, and just to make it as
concise as possible I came out with a figure of 1.68 square feet per
Page 291
September 13-14,2011
capita. That's based on their -- that's based on their retail expenditures
for food for 2010.
So if you look at that population number for 2010 -- the one that's
split between the two -- below Golden Gate Boulevard, the 13,425
population number, that times the 1.68 would give you roughly
support for 22,554 square feet. And if you look at--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, this is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michele, I want you to finish
your thought.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Mike Bosi just brought this up.
And he said by the CIGM model that we've adopted in the Estates
area, the number per persons per neighborhood center is 13,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's about 100,000 square feet. You
could probably have Mike talk about that a little more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're basing it upon
other information. I don't know if I want to confuse it with the CIM --
CIGM.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The CIGM doesn't plug in new
stats.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're still working on the old
stats. And I don't know if it's relevant in this discussion right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir. I just -- it's something
we had as a reference for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I wrong? Is it relevant in
this discussion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would let Mike talk about the CIGM.
But we were looking for something in our files that referenced at least
a population per center that we had at least on file, and this is the one
Michael found.
Page 292
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get Michele to finish,
please.
Michele, 22,000 square feet is half of what a regular grocery
store --
MS. MOSCA: They vary in size. Typically I think they're
roughly 45,000 square feet or more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. MOSCA: And the only reason I mentioned that is because
of the geographic area provided by the applicant and the needs
analysis provided by the applicant.
Typically planners look at market studies, and that will indicate
the expendable or disposable income and the percentage of income
that's going to be spent on any given retail item, such as food, that's
listed within the applicant's needs analysis. And it's just, you know,
rough number broken out for that 2010 number only, based on what
they provided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michele, in the executive
summary staff report, it was prepared by you and edited by somebody
else.
MS. MOSCA: The staff report was prepared by myself. I
believe the executive summary, which includes all of the Growth
Management Plan amendments, was prepared by David Weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was any of your comments
removed from the executive summary staff report?
MS. MOSCA: I can't recall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, during transmittal
you stated that you felt that the Board of Commissioners should not
adopt.
MS. MOSCA: That was the original recommendation when all
of the commercial projects came in. And we had suggested as a staff
that instead of the piecemeal approach to planning, that we would do a
comprehensive look at commercial needs and noncommercial needs
Page 293
September 13-14, 2011
within the Golden Gate Estates area.
So originally we said no, let's do a restudy. And then when we
came back for I believe the transmittal, we looked at the CI GM, but
staff also looked at the market studies that were prepared for all of the
commercial proposals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your recommendations
have changed.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To approve.
MS. MOSCA: And that's based on the Board making the
decision not to go ahead with the restudy. So staff had recommended,
based on the CIGM data, which is a population driven model only, it's
not a needs analysis, it doesn't identify what's needed where, we had
recommended based on the population within the applicant's
geographic area that it was enough to support a neighborhood sized
center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a neighborhood sized
center is much smaller than a grocery store.
MS. MOSCA: Well, actually a neighborhood sized center would
include a grocery anchor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 45,000 square foot?
MS. MOSCA: Well, if you look at the upper end ofa
neighborhood center, typically it's 100,000, and can go I believe
somewhere up to somewhere around 150,000.
And you would have to look at the incomes of the individuals
within that geographic area to determine the supportable square feet.
And so depending on the supportable square feet for the different
types of retail, food, et cetera, you'd derive your supportable square
feet for that center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Mr. Timmerman and I had some discussions during that -- thank
you so much. One of the discussions we had was the $1 7 million that
Page 294
September 13-14,2011
was discussed yesterday.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You were talking when the
center --
MR. TIMMERMAN: When it's built out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When it's built out. And that
may be 20 years from now, depending on the population.
MR. TIMMERMAN : Yeah, that was the number when it's built
out, everything's done, that's what the impact is. It's obviously not
going to be the impact initially. If we build the grocery anchored
portion first, obviously what we would do is be taking the
employment for the center as -- what you could do is do it at any
given time, and when we add more space, and then you would figure
out what the economic impact would be at any given time.
But we obviously know that there's going to be economic impact,
because the employees that are working there are getting paid, they're
spending those dollars either at that center or someplace else. Those
are direct impacts. And then there's indirect impacts from -- which
feed through that process. So there is impact. We don't know what it
is at any given time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And if you built it
tomorrow, would it be a $17 million added impact?
MR. TIMMERMAN: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was the difference of
what you were trying to convey --
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and what I heard you say.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right. The $17 million is at build-out
when the whole center is in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
And the new employment, if it was built today, would be a shift
in employment; is that a fair --
Page 295
September 13-14,2011
MR. TIMMERMAN: No, it would be additional employment.
Because we're adding another center. It's not going to take from any of
the other centers, it's going to be new employment that will be
generated at this center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you was to build -- do you
know about Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do they serve the typical grocer
market, or typical shopping shopper?
MR. TIMMERMAN : You know, I'm going to really defer to
Scott from Stiles regarding the typical shopper for those grocers. I'm
the numbers guy and don't know and don't deal with the retailers and
grocers that often. He'll be able to explain to you what the typical size
population and everything is and the differences.
Typically a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods are going to be
different than a Publix or a Sweet Bay. That's not to say that people
won't go to all those places. I go to Whole Foods if there's certain
specific things that I want to have. Some people shop at Whole Foods
all the time.
The difference in the Publix that's at where the old Sweet Bay
was in Pelican Bay, that's a different Publix than the Publix on
Vanderbilt. There are different things in each one. And so the
competition basically just provides additional sources.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only reason I mention that
is because I got additional information that a Whole Foods or a Trader
Joe's serves an average population of 22,000. But that's not a Publix
or a Winn Dixie.
MR. TIMMERMAN: And those are more specialty centers,
which they're going to want to have more of a population. They're not
the -- because they're specialty centers they're going to require a larger
center.
You're also going to find only one Whole Foods in a market.
Page 296
September 13-14,2011
You're only going to find one Whole Foods in Naples, you're only
going to find one Trader Joe's in Naples. You're not going to find as
many convenience-oriented grocers like you would a Publix or Sweet
Bay, so that's why the difference in population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Nick? Where's Nick?
There he is.
Can you show me in this compo plan amendment where it
provides that the Golden Gate Estates project is required to have a
grocer as its first phase requirement in that they cannot expand beyond
that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in your packet. It's Page 215.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just pull it out and just -- I
want to see it. Just put it up there and let's just make sure --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My packet is different.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your agenda Page 215. Right there.
I believe it's three. Until the intersection improvements on
Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are completed, the
county shall not issue a certificate of occupancy, C.O., for more than
100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must obtain a c.o.
for the grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the
grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And this is basically the
same type of provision that was voluntarily agreed to by the developer
at Randall; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. His was tied to a road
improvement. But it didn't reference a c.o. for any particular project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did -- I just read the minutes.
I just read the minutes of the Randall approval. Where are they?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Number three I believe -- is this what
you provided?
Page 297
September 13-14,2011
The first phase of the project development, exclusive of the
existing 20,000 square feet of development on the east one-half of
Tract 54 shall include a grocery anchor with a minimum of 35,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area, prior to any certificate of
occupancy being issued beyond 100,000 square feet of commercial
development. So it's a little bit different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- but essentially -- because I
read the minutes, I pulled the minutes from July 28, 2010. And it
says, the other substantive change to the amendment text -- and this
was represented by Mr. Anderson -- is that my client has agreed too
that a grocery store anchor of at least 35,000 square feet would be
included in Phase I portion of the project.
So essentially the provisions that both of these centers have to
bring forward, a grocery store in the first phase of their development
before they can proceed, is a requirement?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this one was -- the one for
Randall was voluntarily entered into by the Randall developer and--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let him speak for that. I wouldn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, it's in the minutes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And at the time that he
accepted this, this Board put forth the requirement that this group go
and put a referendum out to see that -- whether or not the community
wanted a grocery store.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was more than that. The
referendum -- it probably should be read. I think it's been talked about
a lot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just generally. The referendum
was a question as to whether the community wanted that Golden Gate
Estates grocery store.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
Page 298
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which was in addition to the
Randall grocery store.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the community sentiment was
what -- was yes, they wanted it. And this Board accepted the Randall
developer's word that the community wanted a grocery store at his
center, but the Board didn't accept the word of the Golden Gate
Estates center that the community wanted that grocery store as well,
notwithstanding surveys that proved that in fact the community did
want the other store in addition to the Randall store.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't speak for what the Board
wanted. I can just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you were at the meeting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You heard everything that was
said.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, the--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just continue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question of the
developer?
Sure, you can be the developer. Agent for.
Have you been in negotiations with grocery stores for your
location? Have people been --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they've been positive?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they were at the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
Can I speak to Mr. Sullivan? Is Mr. Sullivan here? Can I ask
Page 299
September 13-14,2011
you a question, Mr. Sullivan? Thank you.
MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan for the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan, are you in negotiations with grocery stores and
have you been in negotiations with grocery stores?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in your case, they all know
that this other grocery store is being proposed. I mean, they all must
be aware of it.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
That's the proof. I don't care what statistics are presented here
today; it makes no difference at all. We've got two centers, both
proposing shopping -- grocery stores, sorry. And I don't really care
what kind goes in which, that will be determined by the market. And
obviously it has not been a deterrent to these grocery stores that two
centers will be in close proximity to each other to continue negotiating
with both centers.
That is the most significant information that I have got here
today. Because no one has presented any evidence to the contrary to
say that this market will not support two grocery stores.
My big concern today, and my -- and I'm just repeating what I
expressed yesterday that was -- going into this hearing, that either one
of these developers would be prejudiced as a result of the conditions
that we have placed in these compo plans. The conditions being that
they have to have a grocery store in place and C.O.'d before they
could continue to develop.
And what we have just established here is that that would not
happen, that neither developer would be prejudiced, that obviously the
grocers believe that the market is big enough to support two grocers.
Because multiple grocers are in negotiation with both of these
developers simultaneously at this time, knowing exactly what's going
Page 300
September 13-14,2011
on. It's their business to know what's happening in this market.
Now, I don't believe this referendum can be used to bind my
opinion. My opinion has to be based on the facts presented in this
hearing. And I think that's a very important point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I didn't want to go before anybody else, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're after you. You've been waiting
a while.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were talking -- you were talking
about grocery stores. I live in Lakewood, which is right around the
corner here. We have three grocery stores. Oh, thank you.
I live in Lakewood, which is right around the corner, and we
have three grocery stores right close by. And, I mean, I can get to any
one of them in less than a mile. So that does happen, you know, you
can have grocery stores close by.
My big concern is the immensity of this particular shopping
center. The three grocery stores I refer to are all in shopping centers.
I'll tell you the one I go to all the time and that's King's Lake Shopping
Center. It's a great little shopping center, it has a grocery store. I
would say the shopping center is about 100,000 square feet, total. My
shopping center is not overwhelming, yet it serves so many
communities right in the area. But it feels more like a neighborhood
store. It still has a grocery store, it has a fitness center, six eating
establishments, a Starbuck's, an eye doctor, a mailing center, a bank.
And also a number of empty stores, by the way. It serves the whole
population and all these surrounding communities very well.
I think in a community such as Golden Gate Estates who planned
what they wanted to look like and planned to try and keep the inner
part of the Golden Gate Estates rural, a country feeling, they want to
preserve that. And I think a shopping center 40,000 -- what is it, 40
acres of a shopping center is just overwhelming for a small area like
Page 301
September 13-14,2011
this. And I'm trying very hard to look at all sides of it, but I just can't
get past the fact that this is so huge. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I really appreciate you
sharing that, Commissioner Fiala, because that's what I've been trying
to draw out of my fellow commissioners, what the vision is, rather
than being quiet and waiting until the end, having a motion take place
without understanding all the parameters and concerns of everyone.
And your concerns are probably shared by many people. I heard
Mark Teaters mention 100,000 feet. I don't know if that was
coincidence or not. But in any case --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It has to be, because I haven't
spoken to him about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, he just mentioned
it. Maybe it was suggestive and you picked up on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Osmosis. I didn't even realize.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 100,000 feet is mighty small for
what the people are looking for in Golden Gate Estates.
Mr. Y ovanovich, would you take the stand over here, please.
Earn your keep. You're walking with a limp, sir. Nobody's hit you
yet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Right now the original
request was for what, 190?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The original request was for 190,000
square feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the Planning
Commission in their ultimate wisdom -- that was total for build-out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the total build-out of the compo plan
was 190,000 square feet. At the Planning Commission the
commissioners said Rich, scale out the buildings that you have on
there right now, and that was 150,000 square feet.
Page 302
September 13-14,2011
And we said, Commissioners, we need some room because we're
not sure that that's the exact building sizes and format. We can agree
to go down to 170,000 square feet in our PUD request. Ifwe need
more square feet, we'll come back, because we're going to have to -- if
we're going to get more square feet we're going to have to prove we've
been a good neighbor. And two, we're going to have to get four out of
five votes again.
So, you know, it's quite a heavy burden, so we did reduce the
request in the PUD to 170,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, Mr. Yovanovich, being
rational people, we do want to try to come up with something that's
going to meet the needs of everyone, from many of the people who are
speaking in favor of the center to that faction what Mr. Teaters
represents, he's talking 100,000, he mentioned. Commissioner Fiala
mentioned the same number.
100,000 is probably the very low end of the scale that might
never work within that particular area. Of course, you know, who
knows, 20 years from now there may be a demand for even more
space which you could always come back and fill in, if it's necessary.
Is there somewheres between 100 and 170 that would meet the
needs? Now, I don't want you just to arbitrarily cut the number down.
I want to make sure that what I got in there is going to meet the
shopping needs of the residents of Golden Gate Estates. And then
now, or when you build it, which is probably two, three years out,
which hopefully we'll be in full recovery, until some reasonable time
in the future. I don't want it built down to the point where it's so
compact that nothing can ever be done with it and then there's going to
have to be something else that's going to have to be dreamed up to be
able to cover the deficiency.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm trying to get a sense of keeping in
mind that, you know, Michele Mosca says that the range is -- you
know, neighborhood centers can go up to about 150 and still be a
Page 303
September 13-14,2011
neighborhood, you know, providing the grocery anchor and things like
that.
The thought now and since our initial master plan is really right
at that number, is to go to 150, to see if that is acceptable to four out of
five commissioners. Because it will allow us to attract a grocer, it will
allow us to attract appropriate in-line retail.
But keep in mind, we're phasing. We're capped at 100,000
square feet. And keep in mind, Mr. Crown's a good businessman, he's
not going to even get to the 150 until he's got good solid tenants in
line. So you're not going to have a situation where he's just going to
rush out and build the first 100,000 square feet, let alone the 150. It's
going to be phased.
Just like Mr. Sullivan's projects, it's going to be phased. And he
even had that in his own data that, you know, he's going to do 100,000
square feet initially and then in increments he's going to add to it. So
we're going to phase it over time. So 150 would give us the flexibility,
keeping in mind we could always come back and prove we've been a
good neighbor, we've been successful and we can ask for more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The question, and this is
extremely important, if you get down to 150, would you be
down-sizing this supermarket? Because that's not what people want.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. The supermarket -- and I
appreciate that Michele says she's really not an expert in sizing
supermarkets. Scott is and he can tell you really what the size of the
supermarket will be.
But it will not -- the reduction in square footage will not come
out of supermarket. Does that answer your question? It will come out
of some probably in-line space or outparcel, but it will not come out of
the supermarket and it will be a full-service supermarket and we'll go
-- hopefully with Mr. Sullivan we'll both be successful and competing
and getting one and you'll have two out there sooner rather than later.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the person you're
Page 304
September 13-14, 2011
going to have to address when you get the chance would be
Commissioner Fiala. She's the one that brought up this subject
material. And once again, I'm looking for some way to resolve this to
meet the reasonable needs of anyone. And I thank you again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could just interject to make sure that
I understand your answer to his question, are you saying that there is
still an initial phase of 100,000 square feet but you can go up to 150?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We would leave the compo plan
language as it is at the 190. The PUD would get approved at 150, but
it would be in two phases. You still have the original 100,000 square
foot phase, knowing that that will probably be further phased. The
100,000 square foot phase is really tied to certain road improvements
before we can go beyond that. But, you know, good economics tells
you that you don't build unless you've got it leased up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner Fiala
expressed a concern about 40 acres. I think you need to take that site
plan and demonstrate how much of that site plan really is in preserves
and water retention.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will.
And again, as you know, in the urban area if we were coming in
with a 40-acre shopping center, we would put 400,000 square feet on
that 40 acres. The reason we have this much land is dedicated to -- and
I'll get the master plan up as soon as Wayne gives it to me. Because I
had it yesterday and I don't know where all those exhibits went. Bear
with me one second.
Anyway, we have the large buffers all the way around the
project, our water management lakes on the edges of the project to
create that buffer. The reality is -- and then when you take out the road
right-of-way, because remember, of those 40 acres, First Street counts
against me, Third Street counts against me, part of Golden Gate
Boulevard counts against me and so does part of Wilson, because
that's within my legal description, although they're encumbered by
Page 305
September 13-14, 2011
county easements. So I'm really only around 35 acres of potential
development land.
And then when you put all of the -- you put in all the buffers that
we have in there, the -- what you see as either buildings or parking
area is about 15 acres. So we have really used the land as buffering to
the residents around us, as well as screening along Golden Gate
Boulevard so that you're not going to have your typical urban
shopping center staring you in the face.
I would say, if you're familiar with the Poinciana Office Park
where Barron Collier has their offices, it's right by the overpass, you
don't really see those buildings. I mean, there's nice landscaping
hiding those office buildings. They weren't only one story, they're
multi-story. That's the best vision I can give you as to what you'll see
for this project, because we're creating these enhanced buffers to
essentially hide our commercial uses. And we can do that because
there's limited commercial out there. We're not relying on drive-by,
like a lot of other shopping centers.
So to answer Commissioner Fiala's concern about the 40 acres,
we've lost quite a bit of it to buffers. And that's why it's that big.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- I'm okay with the
phasing. The magic number is what's going to be in the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One concern that I have, and
Nick and I haven't finished this discussion, is about the traffic light
entitlement that's in the PUD document. And I should be complete
after that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, Commissioner, I remember
reading it over the phone with you the other day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- if it meets warrants,
a traffic light will be installed and the developer will pay for the
design and construction.
Page 306
September 13-14,2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If -- when you're gone, and I
don't know when that is, there might be some other feelings of where
traffic lights need to go.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are we going to get that
traffic light out?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if it meets warrants, sir, you're
looking -- we did put a paragraph in here that talks about capacity.
Capacity's not guaranteed, is not given this developer. It says the
county reserves the right to modify the median opening, should safety
or documented capacity conflicts develop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it in one or two or three?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in two, sir. It's the second to last
sentence. So if there's a capacity issue there or a safety issue, we
reserve the right to close that median or modify in that median.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Teaters mentioned that the
traffic light doesn't meet the spacing requirements on Wilson.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your traffic management, access
management policy is a half mile. But the Board's approved traffic
signals much closer, less than a quarter of a mile. Our minimum is a
quarter mile, and this is a quarter mile.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this traffic light's going to
come back to the Board for approval?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It usually does in a site development
plan. Your access management policy says that we can adopt it
administratively as part of the review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, it's not the Board that
does a quarter mile then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, in your--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a policy.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, that's right, sir.
Page 307
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
And Rich, you agree that the light can come out any time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we acknowledge that, you know,
., h
It s t e--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Once we get rid of Nick.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, right. Well, don't get rid of Nick.
But we understand that if there's a safety reason or this light is
interfering with your capacity -- and as you know, we're required to
give more green time to the through so we don't interfere with the
intersecti on.
If there's a safety reason or a capacity reason, you can take the
light out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- the fire districts are
going to have a say-so about the site plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the traffic light?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not the light, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not the light?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's how they're going to
access Third Street, correct? No, First Street.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: First Street.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how they're going to
access. And if that slows down the response time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the fire station is on 13th, which
is pretty close by.
First Street would be closed anyway, regardless of this project
coming in, because the design of the intersection is set to go back past
First Street. So that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Design of Wilson?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Design of Golden Gate Boulevard and
Wilson intersection expansion--
Page 308
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the residents are aware of
that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. And we'll have more public
meetings as we go forward with the project. That was always
intended to be closed that first meeting, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, do you have
questions of the public?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I would like to speak again
and ask some questions, or mention something and ask something of
staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to know when is the
appropriate time to close the public hearing so that we can make a
decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't want to close it yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick?
Michele, I'm sparing you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How large is the Randall center in
terms of square feet?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately 330,000, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this project all along has been
proposed at what square footage total?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This project here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Um-hum.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It started at about 225 and then got
down to 190 and now we're talking 150 in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But the other is over
300,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sorry, for clarification, Randall is
Page 309
September 13-14,2011
400,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 400,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're looking at a project that
you're suggesting now should be somewhere between 190 and 150,
and there's a concern that that's too big, and we have another project
within three miles that's 400,000?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is what's really interesting. I
went back to the minutes when that other project was approved, and
Commissioner Coletta said: Okay, well, I appreciate -- I do have
another question, we're talking about the compatibility of this and
possibility that there's a concern for over-commercialization of the
area and the carrying capacity for yourself and other developments
that have previously been approved and possible new developments
that may come down beforehand. I understand your client has done a
study on this; is that correct?
Mr. Anderson: That's correct.
Commissioner Coletta: Would you share that with us at this
time?
Mr. Anderson: Yes. It was submitted to your staff and it finds
there's sufficient needs for what exists and what is proposed both with
our petition and another one that the commission chose not to
transmit.
Referring to the Golden Gate project. Meaning that the -- it is
not deemed over-commercialization based on the study presented by
the Randall project's representative if this project, which at that time
was even more than what is being proposed today, were to be in the
same market as the Randall project.
And this Board actually, when I read these minutes and the
Randall project was proposed, the 400,000 square feet, was thrilled.
They thought it was completely compatible with the community. The
Page 310
September 13-14,2011
community thought it was compatible with the community. So this
Board thought the Randall project was great. And the Randall project
didn't have a problem with this project coming in at over 200.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And still felt that the markets
could support both. And no one on this Board thought that that was
over-commercialization, and no one thought in the community that
400,000 square feet in the Estates was excessive. In fact, they were
thrilled to have it come to that market.
Now, I understand that the acreage of this parcel, this 40 acres, is
a very large site. But what I would like to see with commercial
centers as we move forward is as much environmental contribution, if
you will, by way of green space as we have in this project. Fact that
we have very large retention ponds for drainage -- and I heard a
concern from one resident about the water flow from this project,
because obviously, you know, once you start paving, especially where
you have flat surfaces, you are displacing water and it has to go
somewhere.
The fact that we have large retention ponds is significant. The
fact that we have as much green space as we have is significant. I
want to see more of that in our projects. It is very important. We
need the green space for drainage, we need it for other environmental
reasons.
So from that standpoint, I have -- I mean, again, I am bound by
what the Board decided in the past and by what the record establishes
in the past. And it seems very clear to me that it is not
over-commercialization, and it is not too big if this community
accepted 400,000 as being reasonable.
And it does appear, based on everything presented from the other
developer, as well as staff, that there will not be cannibalization of
these respective projects as against each other.
The most important thing is the phasing. I don't think either of
Page 311
September 13-14,2011
these developers are going to build beyond market demand. So we're
not going to have the vacancies because obviously that would be
foolish on their part.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, the only thing I can
add to that is time. The only thing you commented on I want to just
elaborate on is I think questions have come up, it's a population today.
You're not -- your zoning and compo plan is concerning population
five, 10, 15, 20 years out. So that's an accurate statement going
forward. I believe you're going to have adequate population. Golden
Gate Estates is scheduled to be 88,000 people, residences. So it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the one thing I want to be
sure of, and I am very glad that both proj ects are requiring grocery
centers -- grocery stores as the first phase of their centers. Because
there is no question that the residents of the Estates do want a grocery
store. If I understand correctly, this will force those grocery stores,
regardless of the size and regardless of the type, to be built as quickly
as possible. It can't be delayed. And they won't get Phase II of their
projects until Phase I is complete.
The only thing I would like to see is the possibility of Phase I for
both these projects with respect to the zoning being tighter, or -- yeah.
In other words -- in other words, that they can't develop a --I'd like --
whatever we can do to make sure that these people get a grocery store,
regardless of whether it's the Randall project or this project, as soon as
possible. Because that's the reason this is so popular and the reason
that Randall was so popular.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the reason that the
specification here requires that this project build the grocery store
first. It must be the first C.O.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it required to be the first C.O.?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Is it the first C.O.?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And this project's in the
Page 312
September 13-14,2011
compo plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there are provisions that require that
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. I didn't understand
that it was the first C. O.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioners, let me encourage you to let's move toward a
motion and spend the rest of our times debating the motion. I can't
imagine that we have unanswered questions so far. If you just have
comments to make, why don't we make a comment --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- would that be acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we make comments at
lunch?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you can't make comments at lunch,
but you've got 27 minutes to make comments, if you'd like to do so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, would you
like to make a motion?
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't want to make a motion.
MR.OCHS: Sir, excuse me, we still have a staff presentation.
We have to get some things on the record before you close your public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Could I just comment on
something Commissioner Hiller just said? And it will only take me a
second.
And that is when we approved this, the reason we approved the
Randall was because it was on the perimeter, and this one is inside.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. You can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Give us the minimum required
Page 313
September 13-14,2011
presentation for the staff. You have three minutes.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. Thank you.
F or the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal
Planner with zoning, and I'm here to respond to the PUD portion of
the project.
And you have in your packet a staff report --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: May I stop you for just a moment?
MS. DESELEM: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to address the
Growth Management Plan amendment first.
Can you tell us about what you have to say about the Growth
Management Plan amendment?
MS. DESELEM: That's Michele. I was just thinking that you
were hearing both of them together --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are.
MS. DESELEM: -- and you close the hearing --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have a vote on the Growth
Management Plan first and that's the one I want to hear--
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- first, okay?
MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michele Mosca.
I really don't have any more to add except to mention that the
staff recommendation is contained within the executive summary. If
you want me to state on the record, I'll be happy to do so or answer
any more questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody want to reiterate what's in our
packet?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, for the audience.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. Staff is recommending approval of this
project, contingent upon the reduction in square feet of the total size.
Also, looking at uses similar to a neighborhood center, roughly or
typically your C-l through C-3 zoning uses. And also, limiting the
Page 314
September 13-14,2011
commercial size, any user, to 20,000 square feet and less except for
the grocery store use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's for any single user.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Now, Kay, you want to tell us about the other part of this vote?
MS. DESELEM: Thank you. Again, for the record, Kay
Deselem.
Yes, as I started to say, you have in your packet of information
the staff report that was prepared for the Collier County Planning
Commission. That contains a findings of fact to support staffs
recommendation that's carried forward then in the executive summary.
Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent to the
extent that the Growth Management Plan amendment is also adopted.
And if there are limitations of that, then the PUD would have to be
amended accordingly.
And we do concur with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and we recommend approval of the PUD rezoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
May I close the public hearing now, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And can we concentrate on a
motion one way or the other to deal with this issue?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I'll be happy to
make a motion for discussion, and that's what I'm hoping we have here
is open discussion on the motion. That we go with the Petition
CP2008-0 1 regarding the amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, and
master created Estates shopping center subdistrict to allow for a
maximum 150,000 square feet of commercial use of the C-l through
C-3 zoning with exceptions. And some use of the C-4 and C-5 zoning
district with the requirement to construct a grocery store for property
Page 315
September 13-14,2011
located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard, extending from
Wilson Boulevard west to Third Street Northwest in Section 4,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of plus/minus 40.62
acres.
That's my recommendation and that's my motion. This is for the
Board to adopt all the Collier County Planning Commission's
recommendations.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you're limiting it to 150,000 square
feet?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did I miss something, Mr.
Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, not exactly.
Remember, what the Planning Commission recommended was to
adopt the Growth Management Plan at the 190 and cap the square
footage in the PUD at, in that case, 170. And we said we would cap
the square footage in the PUD at 150. Recognizing that to go above
the 150, we would have to come back through the very same process
and would require a super majority vote. It didn't make sense to have
to do a concurrent compo plan amendment to also try to get more
square footage.
That's what their logic was for the Planning Commission
originally, to keep the compo plan at the 190 and just reduce the PUD.
That's what we were suggesting. But I'm not going to talk--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could solve this problem if you
recommended that it be approved with the CCPC --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- recommendations included, if you'd
like to do that. And then deal with the 150 in the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. That's what we're saying is deal
with the 150 in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that acceptable for you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's acceptable.
Page 316
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So your motion is to approve Petition
CP-2008-1 with the staff and Collier County Planning Commission
recommendations?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: With the planning Commission
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, with the Planning Commission
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may add a note to this
whole thing? I hope that every one of my commissioners will chime
in at this point in time as to what they see as a positive or negative to
this so that we can reach a consensus. It would be very desirable for
the residents of Golden Gate Estates to have a 5-0 vote on this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, because I know -- I hear
what he's saying the motion should be, okay. My understanding,
Commissioner Coletta, is the motion is for the 190,000, subject to
Planning Commission recommendations only.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not you're correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we were proposing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, I won't -- if
the deal is 150 we're going to end up with and we have to end it -- do
it in the text item, I want that understood that I will accept nothing
more than 150.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have the right to bring it back
to rehearing if we don't do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you, sir. I
appreciate that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, I'm just trying to get clarity of the
motion. This is the compo plan only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding, it's 190,000 square feet;
is that correct?
Page 317
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is. But I just wanted to give
comfort to the people that are up here. And we're going to -- on the
rebound for the next item, we'll address that.
MR. KLATZKOW: This motion is 190,000 square feet subject
to Planning Commission recommendations only?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to confirm that my
understanding matches yours. We're essentially as part of the compo
plan amendment adopting what the Planning Commission has
proposed, which is the same as staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: No. No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can someone put it in writing so
we can all see what it is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here, I've got it in writing. I
printed the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can somebody put it on the
overhead so everybody knows what's being approved?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, as they do that, I'll explain it.
At your compo plan level, your compo planner said that it should
be less. It should be, you know, between 100, 150,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought that was for the zoning.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, your compo plan are doing
your comprehensive plan amendment. So they're saying it should be
no greater than 100 to 150,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the compo plan?
Page 318
September 13-14,2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
And the Planning Commission said compromise was keep the
compo plan at 190 and then at zoning drop it down, is what you're
doing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what the Planning
Commission said?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what the Planning Commission
said.
Now, you further at the zoning dropped it from 170 down to 150
at the rezone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically the Planning
Commission that has reviewed everything made the determination that
it should be 190 at the compo plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And 170 at the rezone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And 170 at the rezone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the developer has accepted
190 at the compo plan and has offered 150 at the rezone --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as a compromise to make it
smaller.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we should go with what the
Planning Commission--
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's your motion, whatever you think's
appropriate. You have a Planning Commission recommendation and
you have a staff recommendation, and you can do something different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is the Planning
Commission -- does staff continue to make the same recommendation,
notwithstanding the Planning Commission's review?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just going on what's in the
documentation, ma'am, the executive summary.
Page 319
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, here's the point of confusion: The
CCP recommendation was to approve it at 190,000 square feet with
some requirements.
The staff recommendation to the BCC, which is right below it,
says, same as the CCP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Same as the CCP, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is misleading.
So what the staff did not repeat, their recommendations to the
CCPC when they forwarded it for the BCC to approve, you have to go
back to the prior page to find out what the staffs recommendation was
to the CCPC to find out what they are now saying they recommended
to the BCC, which is very, very confusing. And I'd appreciate it if
staff wouldn't do that anymore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, because this contradicts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It appears to, but it really doesn't. A
close reading of it says that the staff made the same recommendation
to the BCC as they made to the CCPC. It does not say that the staff
recommended the BCC to support the CCPC's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except for on Page 4 where it
does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And on Page 4 it says staff
recommendation to BCC, same as to CCPC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's so confusing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, if I can clarify it for
the record one more time.
At the compo plan your comprehensive planning staff, it says
should be neighborhood size, neighborhood districts 100,000 to
150,000. Your planning commission said 190,000. Now, you're
getting that reduction at the PUD, down to now 150. That's the
discrepancy between the Planning Commission review and now the
Page 320
September 13-14,2011
Board review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And let's ask you to tell us, is that
acceptable to the staff? Does the staff see anything wrong with that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think your comprehensive
planning staff, in fairness to them, had always recommended about,
you know, neighborhood 100 to 150. So they're staying with that
recommendation at the compo plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So neighborhood -- I hate to jump in
and I know that I should -- but you keep referring to 150, but
neighborhood is 100.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, as Michele said, 100 to 150. So
in that range.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't say that in here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. And that's -- we had
talked about that and that's what she just said a few minutes ago.
So I think, for clarification, you're getting the reduction at the
rezone, you're not getting it at the compo plan, as comprehensive
planning --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what are you recommending to us?
The CCPC decision?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. And then the further
reduction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And reduce it in the PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's what you -- and that is the
motion that is on the table.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the motion that's on the
table.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So staff is supporting the motion that is
on the table?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
Page 321
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think we got it straightened out.
Commissioner Fiala, anything more?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I asked my --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, we have a motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Fiala dissenting.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, could you clarify who seconded the
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think anybody did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's been too long.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Too far back in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
Commissioner Henning seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought it was Commissioner Hiller,
but I'm not certain.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it was not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It wasn't me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, you
seconded the motion, did you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm waiting for the next motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do we need to have a revote, now
Page 322
September 13-14,2011
that we've clarified who seconded it, or not.
MR. KLATZKOW: Four-one. I counted a 4-1 vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, then it passed.
All right, now, we have to hear from you again?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just waiting here to make sure
the 150 is there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question on the 150.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the zoning, what are you -- in
that picture that you drew for us that, you know, depicts what will
happen, since you're adjusting it to 150, what are you changing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Essentially the buildings will -- those
buildings right there are about 150,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's 150?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And we had hoped to have some
flexibility to maybe move the walls a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a conceptual plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, it's not totally engineered,
but those are -- that scales out to about 150.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically we retain the ability
to deny any future expansion, notwithstanding what's in the compo
plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. I've got to get four out of five to
go above 150.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you step out of line once.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure that if we're not good
neighbors we're not going to get above the 150.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You put the bar in last.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, put the bar in last.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've had the staff presentation on this
one already, so is there a motion for this one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we
Page 323
September 13-14,2011
approve the recommendation of staff with a limit of 150,000 square
feet.
Did I word that right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you did. We would incorporate
the Planning Commission recommendations that are included in the
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that covers the issue.
Okay, the motion by Commissioner Coletta is to approve the
PUD while incorporating the recommendations of the Collier County
Planning Commission and limiting the development, total
development square footage to 150,000 square feet.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just for clarification, that's the
initial phase of the project, to limit it to 150,000 square feet?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The initial phase is still capped at
100. The maximum project size is 150. We reduced the maximum
project size.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the first C.O. is still --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The first C.O. is still the grocery store,
,
yes, ma am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what you intended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say one more time, I
know I've said it before, I'm fine with the grocery store and I'm fine
giving people that opportunity to shop. I'm just not fine with the
Page 324
September 13-14,2011
immensity of this property, of the land and what I'm afraid the effects
will be on Golden Gate Estates. So I'm just going to say that again, I
just do not feel it's in keeping with the rural country character of the
Estates. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is the perennial
dissenter.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are -- yeah, thank you very much.
Thank you all for being here.
You want to take more than an hour; is that what you want to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I have to leave at
2:30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there something you'd like to
have done first when we come back here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everything done first, okay.
I would like to move quickly also. But -- so Commissioners, let's
try to get back here at 12:51, how does that sound?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Try it.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. See you then.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, BCC is
back in session. We're starting obviously with -
Page 325
September 13-14, 2011
Item #10E
AWARDING CONTRACT #10-5447 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$574,996 FOR PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, AND $774,240
FOR PHASE THREE TO EMA OF MINNESOTA, INC., WITH
AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR
PHASES ONE AND TWO FOR $574,996, IN SUPPORT OF
"PUBLIC UTILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT," PROJECTS
#71012 AND #73165 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Item 10.E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Item 10.E, okay.
MR.OCHS: That's a recommendation to award contract
10-5447 in the amount of $574,996 for Phase I and Phase II. And
$774,240 for Phase III to EMA of Minnesota, Incorporated. The
authorization to issue a purchase order for Phases I and II for
$574,996 in support of public utilities asset management projects.
Mr. Yilmaz, your Interim Public Utilities Administrator, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. YILMAZ: Thank you, County Manager. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. For the record, George Yilmaz, Interim Public
Utilities Administrator.
To guide this effort, first we have created integrated vision, as
displayed on your screen. That is consistent with vision that our
County Commissioners worked through their strategy plan, as well as
our vision consistent with our charter and mission thereafter.
The vision is a sustainable asset management program providing
best value and industry leading practices that leverage appropriate
technologies.
Secondly, the resulting GIS-based asset management system will
incorporate an automated work order system with a graphical user
Page 326
September 13-14,2011
interface capable of automated data collection through existing
databases that is integrated with other enterprise businesses and
financial systems.
In summary, with the Board's approval, multiple division,
including public utilities division, we have invested a significant
amount of time, money and manpower to establish systems for us to
be able to operate and plan forth.
Next is we have established collectively mission. And mission
includes repair, maintain all our assets Just-In-Time through a
GIS-based system, having full operational visibility.
Establish risk base and managed preventive maintenance
programs with full visibility of the assets for resource optimization.
That is something that our County Manager's general guidance to
all administrators since I came on board, is that every dollar counts
more than dollar itself. So we have to optimize everything we got in
terms of resources; that includes our assets.
And last, provide short and long-term CIP plans, integrated into
the master plan and the AUIR based on a level of risk and service
levels.
And that's important due to the fact that our Board of County
Commissioners go through AUIR process annually, and you go
through our master planning process, depending on the division cycle.
But it's all driven and needs to be integrated through our GIS-based
asset management system.
Lastly, we identified guiding principles collectively, and they
were sustained, safe and reliable deliverables and public utilities
division services, water, sewer and irrigation water services.
It ought to be revenue centric, cost contained with an approach to
integrated CIP and operations, full asset visibility and preservation,
sustainable logistic support functions, and follow discipline-specific
taxonomy that we have developed in-house that are all incorporated.
What we have talked about so far, in terms of the vision, mission and
Page 327
September 13-14, 2011
the guiding principles all are incorporated into the scope of work itself
and included in the agreement.
The scope of work refers back to set vision, mission and guiding
principles constantly to make sure and certain that the direction
remains clear and followed by the consultants and sub-consultants,
along with our delivery team for the project for an integrated GIS
SCADA work order system. SCADA stands for Supervisor Control
and Data Acquisition.
We currently have that -- as we speak, we have multiple stations,
let's say 750 lift stations, minute-by-minute collecting data on over
3,000 pumps operating for us to make our utility system work at levels
to manage compliance level.
F or example, if I might want to jump to a laptop, you'll see that
realtime -- what you're only seeing here is the south portion of the
wastewater. All those yellow numbers indicates a lift station. And if I
had any AC power outage or face fault or face sequence or generator
hookup or high levels, that means we're about to overflow, there is a
malfunction in one of those lift stations, you will see any of these
numbers blinking.
An example is that if you want to go to very briefly 302, one of
the largest lift stations -- by the way, this is realtime. This is as if
you're right in front of that lift station. Oh, by the way, one of the
field trip -- during the field trip, our Commissioner Hiller was indeed
looking at the same screen and looking at the VFT's in the VFT
generator room. And it was pretty much with few seconds delay
pumps on, pumps off, and she was able to see what we're seeing now
at the station itself.
As you can see--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She didn't disable anything, did she?
DR. YILMAZ: We were good, sir.
As you can see, well, at this time showing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just interrupt. I only
Page 328
September 13-14,2011
disable bombs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The ones you make or the ones
somebody else makes?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Usually the ones that you try to
throw.
DR. YILMAZ: From there --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a second, I have to answer,
since we're on this roll.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to understand,
Commissioner Coyle told one of the newspapers that I throw
grenades, so I just wanted to explain. I don't, I just detonate the
bombs he throws. Just correcting a previous record.
DR. YILMAZ: The field trip was peaceful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
DR. YILMAZ: As you can see, there are about three VFT
pumps. Those are variable speed pumps for energy, efficiency and
right amount of pressure in flow routing. And you can see constant
pumps when we have peak flows that they all come in.
And there are times when we have storm events when I watch the
screen, all those pumps comes up. And you see the wet level where I
indicate goes high, as close as to top. And those are the times middle
of the night, not only me but all my staff members moving flows
around and making sure that we don't have as a source (phonetic).
So what you're looking at is, in summary, one master pump
station out of 22, and we've got 700 lift stations similar to this,
realtime through AirCard. Remotely we're able to control, monitor
and sustain compliance with our SSO's.
In result, an outcome outstanding customer service with no
backups where they have not only water service but also sustained
sewer serVIce.
The point I want to make here is as you can see, this is a SCADA
Page 329
September 13-14,2011
system with somewhat artificial intelligence built in. Every minute it
collects data. This system knows every single pumps, thousands of
pumps out there, on every single lift station. How many times they
tripped, how many times they are on and off, and how long they have
run. They all matter in terms of determining when we have to replace
a pump, that's just one example out of 48 attributes we have for each
lift station, and water pumps as well on the water side, if we can go
there.
So what we don't have, we have this great operational tool that
we have invested significant amount of time, money and resources,
but there is no integration to an asset management for this automated
collected data being gathered in a centralized system with a user
interface that all our field technicians are familiar with be able to use.
What I just put on your scene is our government center. As I
zoom in and zoom out, you'll see right here, that's the pump station
right after the parking lot when you walk through. And you'll see that
there is a pump station there. That's what that pump station is. And if
you zoom in that pump station, you'll see that there are a number of
attributes.
And the point here, very briefly, without taking valuable time of
our Board, is that I'm making -- you can zoom in, but more
importantly, you can zoom out. And as you zoom out, at the end
you'll see that we have close to, for the wastewater side, over 1,000
miles of pipes, and on the water side over 900 miles of pipes. That's
about close to 2,000 miles of pipes. That is already identified in our
GIS in terms of size, material, where they are and their conditions are
the ones that we're working on now being built in the GIS.
So when we talk about GIS-based asset management system
integrated with our SCADA makes all these investments we have
done already work with each other without investing unnecessary
funding.
And the vision, mission, guiding principles are simply we ared
Page 330
September 13-14,2011
asking our experts and consultants to deliver with tangible outcome
and results. So we're not hiring a consultant to come in and tell us
what we need. We know what we need, we know our assets, we know
what the gap is. And the gap is integrating our SCADA system that
we have invested, GIS system that we have invested and other systems
that we have in other divisions we have invested on one single user
interface, available to not only utility but county-wide enterprise
system.
And if I might, very briefly, it will take no more than 90 seconds,
that the vision, mission and guiding principles are shared with
cross- functional team, including a member from our clerk's finance,
Kelly Johns, who is one of the most visionary and smart working
professional that we have had chance to work with. And we
appreciate, Crystal, you have made her available to be part of our
project delivery team in this endeavor.
And also, our project delivery team will include senior members
from administrative services division, public services division, public
utilities division, who is the lead in this endeavor for pilot project
where all lessons learned will be shared through phased approach prior
to next phase as we move forward.
And lastly, Commissioners, now I'd like to invite our public
utility division planning and engineering director, Tom Chmelik, who
is a licensed professional engineer from a private manufacturing sector
with great deal of electromechanical engineering knowledge and
experience. Supported by our principal engineer, Karen Kroemer,
who is a licensed engineer as well, but happens to be licensed
electrical engineers -- and double EE's are tough to find -- and has
extensive private sector experience in GIS and integrated asset
management in energy, utilities and utility industries.
With that, I'm going to invite our Planning and Engineering
Director Tom Chmelik to continue and finish presentation as quick as
we can.
Page 331
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a couple of commissioners who
have questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm not sure if that's
needed, really. I just have a couple of questions.
This is about taking a look at the inventory and deciding when it
needs to be replaced?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that would alleviate a
lot of my concerns in the past. Have somebody take a look at the --
and tell us when we need to replace it. And I think that's wise.
So the CIP --I'm not sure if that's in the AUIR in our planning
exercise, all our assets? What are we going to present at the AUIR,
based upon your presentation? Expansion?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. Example would be we have a master
planning process that has CIP. And the master planning CIP gets
summarized and consistently shown on AUIR simply saying how are
we going to finance what AUIR says.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
DR. YILMAZ: But driving forces, that master planning process,
what you see in the AUIR is a very, very small summary bottom line
figures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you're correct. It has the
number in there for --
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- capital replacement costs.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now -- I just lost my screen. In
the contract, I don't know what it means by ESIR GIS system. What
does --
DR. YILMAZ: That's a S-3 system. It's industry standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, it's the name of the GIS
system?
Page 332
September 13-14,2011
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR.OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who are the stakeholders that
are in the -- referred to in the contract?
DR. YILMAZ: Stakeholders would be all the divisions that we
have mentioned who have senior members in our project delivery
team. And the same GIS platform being used by public utilities
division, water, sewer and solid waste department, including
deplumation, as well as our transportation systems. And we'll add to it
other divisions more than what they are using now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that included in the staff
member in the clerk's office or --
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I lost my notes, I
apologize.
I think this is a great item, myself. I mean, I think again it will
again alleviate a lot of concern about, you know, having to replace
stuff and then from those recommendations then you could develop
your budgetary long-term like you've done last -- the past--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Capital improvement -- yeah,
I'll make a motion to approve. I think this will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking forward to the
results.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
I'll go to Commissioner Hiller in just a moment. But it would be
really, really wonderful if this could be adapted to keep tract of when
our contract approvals end so that we're not approving purchase orders
afterwards.
Do you have a solution for that one, Leo?
Page 333
September 13-14,2011
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. OCHS: Called a kick in the butt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Several probably would probably be a
good idea.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I was listening to your
presentation, George, and you describe that what this company was
going to do was be the interface between multiple systems you have.
And what you also said was that you already had a full understanding
of the aging of your systems. These people are not going to be
evaluating the aging of the systems and what types of repairs and
replacements need to be made at what point in time, are they?
DR. YILMAZ: They will assist on risk management approach.
What that means is that what comes first, what comes next, even
though we know what is worse. But our approach is much more
simplistic than it should be more scientific. For instance, what might
be worse, the oldest pump. But through the SCADA integration, you
might have a younger pump which has hundred times more --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Utilization.
DR. YILMAZ: -- start times, on off, on off, and utilization, and
therefore we may end up with changing the wrong pump.
So what this will bring, integration with artificial intelligence and
human interface where we're changing the right pump just before it
fails. Not just because of the age, but because of the other variables
that we know it is there, it's just that it's so large in gigabytes for us to
be able to get it to utility technician in the morning, what's his work
order to go after that pump and replace it before it breaks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is the
information already exists, but the interface between the -- these
different sources of information for you to make the determination of
how an asset is aging is not available to you. And what they're going
Page 334
September 13-14, 2011
to do is provide the integration in the system that will allow you to
make a determination of how an asset is aging.
Then you will go back and you will, you know, rank these
projects based on repair or replacement over time. So you will
separately create a schedule that will show what the aging of these
assets are.
DR. YILMAZ: Aging, conditions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And aging along with --
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I mean aging, I mean not
only in terms of chronological age but in terms of utilization.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you will doing part two derived
from the information that you will be pulling together as a result of
this integration. They will not be doing that. They're not doing the
aging of the assets and the repair and maintenance schedule, that is
still going to be relegated to you.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes. This is more assisting us with looking into
what we have county-wide, but more importantly first looking into
what we have in public utilities, have a pilot project, and make sure
that everything we're doing in a smaller scale, which is only one
master pump station --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
DR. YILMAZ: -- and then we'll move -- phase out with the
lessons learned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand exactly what you're
proposing to do based on utilities, because you have computerized
systems that capture the data about, you know, how these different
pumps operate, at what frequency and so forth.
But we don't have the same information in transportation. So I
don't understand how what we are doing with respect to transportation
in terms of integration and -- you know, what I'm hearing is that we're
Page 335
September 13-14,2011
going to need, you know, obviously someone else to make a
determination of the aging of the transportation assets. Because what
I've heard transportation staff say is that they don't have the technical
staffing to make those determinations. Like the conditions of a bridge
or the conditions of a road beyond, you know, a pothole. So I don't
understand how this applies to transportation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Transportation is not on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it is part of this program. This
is supposed to -- this program, what George represented is that what
this interface that they are -- this service that they're going to purchase
for about what, a million-three dollars, is essentially going to interface
these existing systems so as to allow staff to establish, you know, a
repair and replacement schedule for these aging assets. Which will
include transportation. This is not just for utilities, according to what
he represented.
DR. YILMAZ: If I might, my understanding of your inquiry and
question, Commissioner, is right on the mark. And I'll do my best to
be responsive.
I put the slide on the visualizer. It talks about pilot strategy. And
the program we have presented, Phase I and Phase II, is being
requested to be funded today. There's a decision point which we will
come back before you to get authorization for Phase III, which is a
public utilities full-scale demonstration project.
In this endeavor, what we have is we have a project delivery
team from other divisions, including our finance clerk, because of the
fact that they are moving with their initiative on establishing asset
intra-management system so that we don't want to miss the
opportunity for that integration.
So it's a public utilities program. However, every dollar we
invest we want to make sure that through this cross-functional delivery
team it is shared and the consultant is going to look at indeed, as youp
Page 336
September 13-14,2011
stated, not only public utilities but all other systems.
It may turn out that the entire work order system we have may
not be good enough, but the work order system transportation may be
good enough. Then our migration might be toward that way. But that
all to be determined through 308 beta Phase I moving to pilot project
full-scale demonstration Phase II. And then we'll come back to you
for a decision-making what the next steps are, even for utilities before
we go enterprise-wide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is these
guys are going to look at what can be interfaced in transportation to
the extent that anything can be interfaced there?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As part of this work order or
project or contract or whatever it is.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Nick, can you explain to me
what they're going to look at in transportation? I mean, what is the
interface there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. We have a cardiograph system
we've invested in.
I think to answer your question, coming from discussions with
Leo is he doesn't want us at the end of the day two, three years from
now that each division has their own system. Now, asset data
collections is a totally different story, each division will agree to
progress on their own to get their own assets imported into whatever
system we ultimately decide on.
The goal, from what Dr. Yilmaz is working on, is that at the end
of this we're going to have one system that everybody is going to
parallel and work off of in the end, so we don't have a transportation
version of asset management work order, parks doesn't have their
own. That's the coordination we're working on.
But asset data collection is a different story. That will all be done
Page 337
September 13-14,2011
independently by each division, because it will have to be based on
funding and time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this is not a proposal for an
asset management system.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a work order system. But they're
looking at how we collect assets and how we prioritize that system to
make those work order changes and make those improvements that we
need in terms of repairs.
If you look at George's system, he's got 2,000 miles of pipe.
Well, that pipe is in our road. So whether that pipe is -- you know,
whether it's a utility line or a pavement line or whether he's got a
pump station with a traffic signal, our work order systems to maintain
and repair those should all be the same at some point in time. So if
. .
you can ImagIne --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're talking about is the
coordination of the repair and replacement of, for example, utility
lines with the repair of a road so that they don't -- so we're not, you
know, tearing up the road twice? Is that the interface you're talking
about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, but that's a good benefit point.
That's the ultimate goal and that's a great benefit is we'll know at the
same time using the same system when things have to be replaced. So
if George has a utility line that needs replacing in two years and we
have a road project that's maybe three years out, he can say well, you
know what, I'm not going to replace that utility line for one more year
because we'll tie those projects together.
Or more importantly, when our workers go out to do a signal
system or to go out and do a stormwater repair, the format that we
input information and manage our asset management will all be the
same. That's the direction from --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Prospectively.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me?
Page 338
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Prospectively.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the problem is we still have,
you know, billions of dollars in inventory that has been, you know, I
guess processed differently and non-uniformly. And the problem I
have and that I've expressed both to Leo and to you and actually to
George also is we don't have an asset management for what exists, and
we've got aging assets. And we absolutely don't have anything that
tells us right now what needs to be repaired or replaced at what point
in time. And as a result we don't have repairs -- I mean reserves for
repairs and replacements that are supported by anything.
And, you know, this goes back to an issue that Leo and I had
discussed that I had discussed with your staff, with Norm, about the
roads and the bridges. And, you know, we have an estimate; you've
told me so far on a limited basis preliminarily we have $20 million in
road repairs --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that are anticipated. We still
don't know what the bridges are and we still don't know that those are
the road repairs.
But I just don't understand what we're accomplishing by this
other than the integration. And I guess my point is this is not
accomplishing what I heard Commissioner Hiller -- Commissioner
Henning -- that was amazing. I think that was funny. I feel like I'm
jumping into Coyle's shoes. It just -- it is not accomplishing what I
think we need, and that is an asset management system that
inventories existing assets and tells us what the aging is and how much
we have to reserve to replace.
Because we're talking millions and millions and millions of
dollars prospectively. And right now it looks like a major unfunded
liability to me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Each division is funded separately
Page 339
September 13-14,2011
from different resources, so you always have that fund restriction
level. We're all going to proceed at different paces collecting and
managing our assets in terms of data. The goal -- and I'll let these
gentlemen talk about it more because they're going to take the lead on
this because they're funded. The goal is that this comes back together;
all agencies come in and do it uniformly. I think they should talk a
little bit more about that. But we are integrating this project.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, if we could have--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to deal with this
specific --
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- award, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we either vote for it or against it.
If we want to redesign the thing, we can postpone it and come back
and talk about it again, which delays this process.
So can we have a vote on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to explain why I say
no. I support the need, but the problem I have is once again we're
doing something piecemeal. I need to see the totality of the picture to
be able to understand that we're not wasting public funds on this and it
turns out we really need something else. Unless I have the totality of
the picture that tells me how we are going to come up with an asset
Page 340
September 13-14,2011
management system, you know, to support this out of context is very,
I mean, quite frank impossible. It's difficult. I can't do it.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that is our goal, and it's part of this
effort. And what I would like to do with your permission is schedule a
time for this team to spend as much time as you would like to get into
as much detail of the proposal here as is necessary for you to get all
your questions answered above and beyond the utility --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate that. But I need to
understand what you are proposing to do to develop an asset
management program that goes beyond this. And I need to see it all
integrated. And I need to know what we expect as our -- you know,
what our unfunded liability is with respect to repairs and replacements
of this massive asset system we have.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. This is part of that effort. It's a
multi-year effort. It's a very large effort because we have quite a bit of
assets that the Board owns above and below the ground. So we've got
to get started and this gives us an opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand what you've told us is that
you want to proceed with this project, you want to involve all
divisions in the planning and integration ultimately of this project, and
you'll be coming back to us with other programs or projects which will
accomplish that overall goal.
MR. OCHS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you could give Commissioner
Hiller a briefing on how you plan to do that, that would be great. Or if
you bring it back to the whole Board and tell us how you're going to
do that, that would be good.
MR.OCHS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Page 341
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And ideally I think it should be
both. I mean, I'd like to sit down so I can get my individual questions
answered, but I think the whole Board should have all the same
information that I have in that meeting, and so should the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion passes by a vote of 4-1
with Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, again, not to belabor this, but we do
have a meeting with the Board, our annual AUIRlCIP meeting in the
middle of November. It should go fairly quickly, because frankly
there's not a lot of new projects in the next five-year window.
Maybe we could set a little bit of that meeting time aside to
provide a little bit more information on where we're going with this. It
ties into CIP and AUIR, frankly, so maybe that's an opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where are you going from here?
Item #10F
DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO SUBMIT AN
APPEAL IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FOOD AND NUTRITION
MANAGEMENT SECTION (FNMS) TO RECLAIM 25,652
MEALS FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2009 AND 31,582 MEALS FOR
PROGRAM YEAR 2010 ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUMMER
FOOD PROGRAM - MOTION TO FILE THE APPEAL; IF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY FINDS INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS, THE
APPEAL WILL BE DROPPED - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Next item in order, sir, is Item 10.F on your agenda.
And it is a recommendation to direct the County Attorney to submit
an appeal in response to a request from the Florida Department of
Page 342
September 13-14,2011
Education, Food and Nutrition Management Section, FNMS, to
reclaim 25,652 meals for program year 2009 and 31,582 meals for
program year 2010 associated with the summer food program. And
Ms. Ramsey will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
The Collier County Parks and Recreation and the Collier County
Public School District have been working together over a number of
years to provide meals to our youth during the summer, as you know.
The school district prepares all of those meals for us in their kitchens
and we use their staff in order to do that; they are the experts in that
area.
In 2009 and 2010 we served over 580,000 meals. During that
period of time the Department of Education came back this summer
and said that they are disallowing 25,000 meals from 2009 and 31,000
meals from 2010 because there was not adequate receipts for milks
purchased to correspond with meals served.
When we reviewed the program that we have, it was indicated
that milk that was left over from the school year was used to start the
program, and no invoices were submitted for reimbursement.
Secondly, another thing that the staff was doing was taking milk
that was not consumed at the sites and collecting them and
refrigerating them and then providing them for the next meal service.
So in essence they were counting those twice.
The way that this works is you might remember, we have over 40
sites that we work with. And on the visualizer you'll see a form that
each site does. This one happens to be I think in the Methodist
Church Learning Center. And the people that -- we bring the meals to
these centers, but the staff that are at the centers are not employed by
us, they're employed by the center staff or whomever is the sponsor of
that particular location.
And as you can see under it, there's a number of little
checkmarks. In this situation, 48 meals, breakfasts were served on the
Page 343
September 13-14,2011
first day of the program in this case. And then we take that
information and we consolidate it onto this form. And you'll notice
that the very first day I've kind of highlighted a little bit there shows
the 48 meals.
We do this twice at every center at 40 different centers, so we
have a lot of information that we receive from people that we feel are
very unbiased, the numbers that they're serving.
The other thing that they have to do, in order to get a checkmark
on that slip, every child has to take the unitized meal, which means
every component of it. So it's a meat, a bread, a vegetable and a milk.
And the milk is always the consistent. And that's why the state used
the milk purchases as an indicator for the number of meals served.
The item that you have in front of you really is to ask if you
would allow the County Attorney to do an appeal on the finding that
the Florida Department of Education had on August 16th to disallow
the 57,000 meals that we requested and were reimbursed for..
I guess I'll take questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta I think was
first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Marla, what do you think our
chances are of winning this appeal?
MS. RAMSEY: I'm going to have to ask him that particular
question. He's the attorney. I don't even know exactly what this--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you the person going up,
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll be the person who would be appealing it.
From my standpoint, this is a numbers game. Right now your
number is $101,000. That's the upper limit of the exposure. If you
take the appeal, maybe I can settle it, get less, maybe I can win it, get
it all knocked out, I don't know. But there's -- from a financial
standpoint, there's no real hit to the county by taking this appeal. Best
we could do is save money. I'll use in-house staff on that. It's a $300
Page 344
September 13-14, 2011
filing fee, so the cost will be minimal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you can't use logic on this
to be able to try to -- I mean, it's a proven fact that we had milks left
over, but my understanding, those milks might have been carried to
the next day and they weren't supposed to.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to sound facetious, but
sometimes when you're dealing with government programs like this, I
mean, logic doesn't have a lot to do with it. I mean, it's very paper
oriented. If our documentation wasn't there, our document wasn't
there.
I mean, quite frankly, we're using perfectly good milk. To me is
what you do. So, you know, it took me a while to figure out why we
even had a problem on this one. But, you know, the government is
what the government is from a federal standpoint.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It could be a number of things.
I mean, out of the children, the few milks that are carried from one
day to the other, they might be kids that have an allergy of milk and
they're just refusing them. I mean, it could be any number of things.
But it seems unjust, the fact that we're getting billed back, you
know, $100,000. It just seems impossible.
One of the things I'm a little bit of a loss is, is you probably
notice that we had Jim Thomas who has been well recognized for his
past performance in these programs -- many times proclamations,
plaques and everything else, congressional I understand at one point in
time -- wandering the halls yesterday. I picked up a little bit along the
way about how he feels he's the scapegoat on this whole thing. And I
find that personally very disturbing. Of course, you know, there's
always two sides to a story, I know that, but it's something that I hope
that at the County Manager's level we can resolve whatever issues
there may be or at least a serious look at what took place.
I'm sorry to see that Mr. Thomas is not in our employment
anymore, I really am. He was a tremendous asset to the county. I
Page 345
September 13-14,2011
have to pass that on in good conscience, you know. Even though we
have the County Manager's ordinance and you're responsible for your
employees, he's still a constituent at large for us commissioners.
So when these things come up, there's always concern. I have
the highest regards for the man, I'll tell you, and I just can't understand
how everything came together the way it did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you recommending approval of the
appeal?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am. I'm making -- I'm
recommending approval of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the appeal by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, this program is
actually a federal program through the Florida -- you know, basically
administered through the Florida Department of Education. And in a
letter dated July 28th from the Florida Department of Education what
the state says on behalf of the federal government is the complaint
alleged that the sponsor has been filing fraudulent claims for
reimbursement in an effort to receive additional funding from the
FSFP program.
It goes on to say that Collier County Parks and Recreation is
seriously deficient in its operation of the FSFP.
It then goes on to say that a corrective action plan is required,
which includes repayment of the meals identified by submitting
revised claims for $101,324. And this corrective plan must be
received by your office within seven calendar days from receipt of this
letter.
I didn't see that plan in our backup, and I would like a copy of it.
I want to see, you know, what you agree to, because it wasn't
included.
Page 346
September 13-14,2011
Then on August 16th there was -- sorry. On August 16th there
was a letter back to the county from the administrative hearing officer
after hearing the appeal -- or I should say after the hearing where the
county represented what happened. And this was their final
determination letter, you know, with respect to the allegation of
fraudulent activity by Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department regarding these what they called filed fraudulent claims
for reimbursement.
And essentially what concerns me about this appeal is our staff
did not dispute any of the alleged facts on the record. And in fact they
also didn't dispute the law. Because what's clear, and this goes to
Commissioner Coletta's point about intent, it doesn't matter what the
intent was. It says regardless of intent, the sponsor's failure to comply
with 7CFR22516B and Rules 64 E-ll.002 and 64 E-ll.004 Florida
Administrative Code, resulted in inadequate documentation to prove
meal count data. This was stated at the hearing and was not disputed
by any of the participants.
So I don't see how, based on both an admission of fact and
agreement with respect to law, even though we have the right to
appeal, that we should appeal. I mean, you've admitted everything on
the record and you've agreed with the law that binds us.
So regardless of what our intent, it is what it is. The way that this
request for reimbursement should have been made was
unsubstantiated, and according to the state we owe them that money.
And I have real concerns about the operation of the Parks and
Recreation Department. We have the housing issue and now we have
this issue. I mean, this doesn't go to the individual employees, this
goes to upper management. I mean, this is not one single incident.
And, you know, this one man being identified, you know, is just the
second man in what is now a series of claims of fraudulent activity.
So I'm very concerned about how Parks and Recs is being
administered, Leo, and that's your responsibility.
Page 347
September 13-14,2011
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I see absolutely no basis for
an appeal based on the admissions on the record. I don't know why
we're wasting -- you know, to say that it's only going to cost $300,
that's not true. We're redeploying limited attorney staff time to
something which seems to absolutely not support an appeal.
I mean, if we have limited resources -- you know, we've got a lot
of other more serious cases that we should be focusing on, rather than
going after something we don't stand a chance of winning.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, you just heard the County Attorney
say he can handle this appeal with his own internal resources and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but that still is a cost
because we have limited resources and we're redeploying it. And we
obviously still have a problem with the, you know, management of the
parks department -- or division. I'm very concerned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve the
appeal.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, where did
you get this information about the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The letters? It's in the letters. It's
in the letter. It's in the letter from the state. These are two letters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The grant was approved by the
Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm a little disturbed that
the state informed us that there was a problem and there was a hearing
but yet we knew nothing about that hearing.
Was there any attorney staff that went up to the hearing?
MS. RAMSEY: No, the attorney staff did not go with us to the
hearing. We received a notice on July 28th that there was an issue.
They gave us nine working days to put together our case to go up to
Page 348
September 13-14, 2011
the state. We conferred with the County Attorney's Office to get some
information as to how we should proceed up there.
Our indication was that you go up and you're having a
conversation. It was a little different when I got up there; it was two
attorneys sitting in the room against my staff and myself. Basically all
they really cared, did I have documentation or did I not have
documentation to prove that I had purchased the milks. And of course
I had to agree I did not have the documentation with me, and still don't
actually have an invoice for milk, as I've explained to you. That is not
exactly how it came about, it came as a leftover from the school
district to start the program off each year.
And even though the school takes an inventory at the end of the
year for each school and then has a list in their kitchens as to what
they borrow, for some reason we pay back everything like peanut
butter or whatever else that they've borrowed, but they did not have us
reimburse them for the milk that they brought into the center in the
very beginning of the program.
I don't know why. I don't have a donation letter from them
saying that they have done that either. So I had neither donation nor
did I have an invoice when I went up. Just it really was a very short
turnaround from the time that we learned about the issue to the time
that I had to make a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the role of the School
Board in this grant? Aren't they a partner in this?
MR.OCHS: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what is the school saying
about this?
MS. RAMSEY: I've been working with Mickey LaBute at the
moment to try and get the documentation that I need on this. As a
matter of fact, staff has also done some data on our side and the two
are getting together tomorrow at 3:30 to compare our two days to find
out what we have.
Page 349
September 13-14, 2011
We have interviews from the two main ladies that run the food
wrap program for us as far as it relates to food and getting the meals
out, and both of them in separate interviews state that they use milk
from the schools to start the program.
Our indication of going through our receipts and finding when
milk was actually brought on-site shows in some cases the first
delivery that we've paid an invoice for would be 14 or 15 days into the
program before we've had an invoice come our way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the school feel that we
should appeal it?
MS. RAMSEY: I didn't really ask them about it, because we are
the sponsor of that program, sir. They are supporting us in trying to
find the answers, though, I will say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to admit any guilt
in running this program the way the guidelines are supposed to be --
was outlined?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that this fiscal year this program year
which started in June, there were some changes that were made by Mr.
Thomas and the management staff to make sure that that duplicated
milk that you talked about wasn't going to be happening this year
where you take it out to the site. If it's not consumed we throw it
away now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the appeal, is there any
admittance of not following the criteria by the grant?
MS. RAMSEY: In the one that we went to Tallahassee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, in the appeal.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I don't believe we've written an appeal
yet, have we? I guess I'll have to turn to Jeff on that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure how much
the County Attorney knows.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have not seen the record that was up in
Tallahassee. That's what's going to be appealed. I have not seen that
Page 350
September 13-14,2011
record yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would hate to --
personally, if there was something done wrong, I think it would be
better to admit yeah, we didn't do it right.
MS. RAMSEY: Sir, I can help you with that particular -- when it
talks about the recycling of the milk, we have said that we have done
that. They don't like us to do that. We have discontinued that process.
But in 2009 and 2010 they were recycling milk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR.OCHS: That otherwise gets thrown away.
MS. RAMSEY: Right. And that's the way the program was run
this year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, to answer your question,
Mr. Henning, or Commissioner Henning, the description of what they
admitted to is in that letter dated August 16th, 2011. And what was
also made clear on the record is what they did can't be done. And
there was no dispute as to the law that says it can't be done.
What's more important, and this goes to what the County
Attorney said, the reason that the determination only came on August
16th after the hearing rather than at the hearing was because staff
wanted to know whether there was any way that there could be some
sort of a, you know, negotiated settlement or a waiver of this claim on
overpayment. And the state did the research and made a
determination that there is absolutely no permission under federal law
to allow for any sort of negotiation or waiver of a reclaim on
overpayment. In fact, they are prohibited from disregarding
overpayments in virtually every case. And they make reference to a
CFR -- 7CFR22510(C) in that in fact if they don't collect the
overpayment, then the U.S.D.A. will assert a claim against them,
Page 351
September 13-14,2011
which is again referenced by a different section. It's actually the same
section, but 12(C), subsection 12(C).
So again, I don't understand why we are appealing something
when there is a complete admission on the part of staff of what they
did wrong, when there is no intent defense, and where the state does
not have the ability to negotiate a settlement or waive the reclaim on
the overpayment.
So I don't understand why we are not, you know, given all these
admissions which, you know, are going to be part of the appeal record,
why we're not, you know, admitting to the mistake and paying what is
owed.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I believe the specific
recommendation was to allow us to file the appeal on a timely basis
and then the County Attorney and the staff to go through the record of
the appeal again and make other contacts with the school district and
then make an assessment and a recommendation back to the Board
before the actual appeal hearing to determine whether, you know, we
believe that we have a case that we can make on appeal.
I'd ask Mr. Klatzkow to see ifhe's got--
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's a jurisdictional issue. Okay, you've got
30 days to file your Notice of Appeal. That day will be expiring in a
day or two. If I don't file that we're done anyway.
What I'm asking the Board here to do is only we file that Notice
of Appeal. What I've also asked the Board to do in this executive
summary, is that will give me the time to go with Marla to go through
everything.
Ms. Hiller's assumptions mayor may not be right. If her
assumptions here are right, then I will be coming back to the Board to
say no, we have no grounds for an appeal, we're done.
It may very well be, however, that in a settlement context, they're
a lot more freer as far as maybe waiving some of these fees, in which
case that would be my primary approach. I don't know until I actually
Page 352
September 13-14,2011
get there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the motion again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is to file the appeal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there's a difference between
what Mr. Klatzkow just said -- so it's just filing the appeal but not
proceeding with the appeal that he'll come back to the Board after he's
investigated what's gone on, and if feels we have absolutely no way of
winning this appeal then he won't proceed with court action, like he
won't actually go to court?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. If after sitting down with
staff I determine that we do not have sufficient grounds to move
forward with this appeal, I will simply drop the appeal and then notify
you that we didn't have sufficient grounds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As long as that's made part of the
motion, I'll accept that motion.
MR. OCHS: That was the recommendation.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the recommendation.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I think that was actually part of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Well, as long --
MR.OCHS: -- the Board recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It wasn't worded that way. I mean,
what's in the executive summary isn't the motion. It's what we say up
here is what the motion is.
Page 353
September 13-14,2011
(At which time, Commissioner Coletta exits the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My light is on, though, for just a
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that is it breaks my heart. You
know, I go back to the people thing, I'm always about the people
anyway. And I just hate to see all of that milk just thrown out because
the kids don't drink it or they're allergic to it or their mom packs
Gatorade or something.
Is there a way that we can -- rather than throw it in the garbage, is
there a way that we can put it out in ice water or something for those
people who maybe can't afford milk but are in those neighborhoods?
We've got three commissioners here who have a lot of children in the
poverty range in their area, and maybe on their way to picking their
kids up after this whatever it is that they were serving these meals at,
maybe they could pick up the unused portions of milk rather than just
throw them in the garbage?
I don't know if that can be done. Could you check on that?
MS. RAMSEY: No, we won't do that at this point in time. I
mean, what we have done in the past is do a share table and the kid
can come up during the mealtime, which is a very specific time. No
meal can be served before, no meal can be served after . Nothing can
be consumed off-site.
So if they're at the site and want a second milk or something,
they're able to take it at that time. Anything that's left at the end of
that one hour or 45 minutes that we're serving goes into the garbage,
ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think if we don't achieve anything other
than bringing -- or surfacing this ridiculous government mandate, then
we will have accomplished something. I believe that by publicly
opposing this, whether we have grounds or not, I think we need to
Page 354
September 13-14,2011
expose the waste in this government program that we're being forced
to participate in.
And if the facts are as they have been presented, in my opinion
the staff did exactly the right thing. Morally and ethically they did the
right thing.
But somebody should have known how this program is being
monitored, and they should have known that this practice would result
in a discrepancy. And if that was the case, it should have been
documented a long time ago and we wouldn't have been in this
situation. But now your reputation is being tarnished, the
government's reputation is being tarnished, allegations are being made
that you falsified records, and it all came as a result of a good faith
attempt to keep from throwing perfectly good milk in the trashcan.
And so now we're throwing perfectly good milk in the trashcan just to
satisfy a federal grant program requirement that I think is not soundly
thought out.
But nevertheless, okay, we've got the motion, it passed
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just, if I may add one thing,
because I -- Commissioner Coyle, can I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I remain very concerned, Leo,
about how you're overseeing the administration of the Parks
Department. In fact, what I learned was that the state had been
monitoring this program for some time, and my understanding is that
there were criticisms by the state about how staff was administering
this program before I guess this claim was filed.
So, you know, to go back to what Commissioner Coyle is saying,
and correct me if I'm mistaken, but, you know, the state was saying
that we were not administering this program properly in different
ways. And then it finally came down to this.
So I don't think that this is just like all of a sudden out of the blue
Page 355
September 13-14,2011
that they said hey, you're deficient. I think they've been over time
stating that.
And I guess the problem I have is when we get negative reports,
why aren't we as the Board being told about it?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, as soon as I got information about
this, we moved immediately to prepare the appeal and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but there --
MR. OCHS: -- follow the process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- were reviews by the state prior
to this where they said we were not performing properly, weren't
there?
MS. RAMSEY: I'll address 2010, because this was the -- this is
what I took to the state. Ninety-five times they came out to our
program and monitored. They had a lot of monitors in the state in
2010. They came 18 times in 2009 because they didn't have very
many monitors across the street, so they couldn't make as many of
them.
Of the 95 times that they came out to the state, only three times
did they even reference our share table. Not once did they say that we
were sharing -- that the milk that we were recycling was illegal to do.
So I used that as part of my program is that their monitors are staffed,
we should be working together on these sites. And these 40 sites that
I'm talking about are not Collier County park sites, they're not school
district sites, they're nursery schools and child care areas and various
other places where the people are doing it that they go out and monitor
that person as to how they're running the program. Not once did we
see in there where we did not provide a milk during the meal.
So that was part of my case, and I did bring that documentation
with me. But that documentation was not a receipt for milk, and that's
all they really wanted from me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like all the reports from
the last two years that we have received from the state as to how we
Page 356
September 13-14,2011
have been administering this program, in addition to that requirement
that we, you know, have a program in place prospectively that, you
know, was requested through that state letter, please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta had
to leave for a brief meeting. He should be back in about 20 minutes.
So Item 10.1 was pulled by him. Why don't we wait until he
returns and then we can hear that.
Item #10J
PMC-PL2011-872: HEAVENLY PUD - NOTIFICATION OF
STAFF'S INTENT TO APPROVE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO
THE HEA VENL Y PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 10.02.13.E.6 AND 8 TO
CHANGE THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF PLANTINGS AND
TO REVISE THE BUFFER STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE
HEIGHT OF TREES AND PLANTINGS DUE TO SITE
CONDITIONS AND CONFLICTS WITH FPL LINES, AND TO
ALLOW PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALKS INSTEAD OF
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG MYRTLE ROAD
FROM NORTH TRAIL BOULEVARD TO THE PROJECT
ENTRANCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6926
TRAIL BOULEVARD, AND COMPRISES THE ENTIRE BLOCK
BOUNDED BY RIDGE DRIVE, WEST STREET, MYRTLE ROAD
AND TRAIL BOULEVARD IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So why don't we go to 10.1, which was
pulled by Commissioner Hiller.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Page 357
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll go immediately to
Commissioner Hiller and answer questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the Heavenly PUD is a
project that backs up on Pine Ridge Estates, which is a residential
community that sits between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach
Road, Goodlette-Frank and U.S. 41.
And at the time that the Heavenly planned PUD -- I'm sorry, the
-- well, whatever it's called, the Heavenly planned unit development, I
guess it's called Heavenly, Heavenly PUD. At the time the Heavenly
PUD came forward there was a great deal of concern from the
residents in the surrounding community. And one of the big concerns
was the tree height. And I don't recall that sidewalks were as much of
a concern.
There was a letter included in your backup that suggested that the
president of the Pine Ridge Civic Association didn't object to this.
However, it wasn't circulated throughout the community. The
community was not made aware of the change being proposed here.
Normally something like this would be deemed a minor
modification, but it wasn't in this particular instance, it was actually a
material issue to the community.
And so what I would like to suggest is that we not vote on this
today but rather that you take it back to the community and get input
from the surrounding neighbors that they're okay with this reduction in
tree height, because they will be adversely affected if they don't have
the buffer that they anticipated. That was part of the negotiation. And
these meetings were, you know, very long and very drawn-out going
several years back. So I would really hate to see something be
approved when it was approved otherwise in order to allow this
proj ect to go forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this a motion for continuation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to continue this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 358
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, motion to continue by
Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a question on that
item. Who -- should they go to the homeowners association?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think what needs to be
done is we don't have a homeowners association per se. It's a civic
association. So I think what you need to do is request that the civic
association provide adequate notice, hold a meeting, publish this at the
meeting and allow the residents to know what's being proposed. And
if -- you know, if they choose to attend, that's fine, and object, it's on
the record. And if they choose not to, at least the right thing was done
to give notice to the citizens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just real quick for the record,
Commissioner, this is a minor amendment. It's not a typically
advertised public hearing, so this worked exactly the way it's supposed
to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We received a letter from the HOA or
association president said that they vetted it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which they didn't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Commissioner Hiller pointed it
out, we talked to the applicant, said to the applicant you are at risk.
And he said he was willing to continue it and talk to the community.
So we have no problem with it. And Mr. Y ovanovich, who represents
Heavenly PUD, said he'll go back and make sure that everybody is
informed and when it's ready they'll come back.
Page 359
September 13-14,2011
There are no public meeting requirements. I'll just make sure Mr.
Y ovanovich knows that he needs to get everybody involved. How he
chooses to do that is up to him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And he's welcome to talk to me
about it. He actually lives in that neighborhood, so he will have an
easy time herding those cats.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do.
Item #10K
PROVIDE AFTER THE F ACT APPROVAL FOR THE
SUBMITTAL OF A STATE OF GOOD REPAIR (SGR) BUS AND
BUS FACILITIES GRANT APPLICATION, FOR THE AMOUNT
OF $11,335,290, TO THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT 8300
RADIO ROAD - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. That brings us to Item 10.K.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was also pulled by Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the issue on this item was
the concern that in the grant application the county is using basically a
preexisting land purchase as the county's contribution towards this
grant.
I spoke to Michele Arnold -- there you are, hi. I spoke to you
about this, and through a phone conversation you indicated that you
think that they might accept that. It conceivably could be denied,
though, and we don't have any -- do we have anything in writing that
says that?
Page 360
September 13-14,2011
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michele Arnold, Alternative
Transportation Modes Director.
We received written e-mail from Washington, the grants officers,
and I forwarded that e-mail to you. I found it and I sent it to you. So
it's a very long e-mail chain. And we asked the same questions that
you're asking of me, and we were informed that we would be able to
use it. It's a matter of receiving environmental approval or a
categorical exclusion prior to the grant receipt. And we have received
verbal approval from FT A for a categorical exclusion for this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The bottom line is if we don't get
approval on that piece of land then we will have to come up with over
$3 million ourselves --
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It hasn't been budgeted for, and
therefore this whole project becomes moot because we don't have that
money.
MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. We would have to withdraw that
request if we were awarded.
The item before you today is an after-the-fact approval of the
submittal of the grant because the deadline for that submittal occurred
during the Board's recess. So if we were awarded the grant and FTA
-- well, if we were awarded the grant, then FT A would have made the
decision that the land was eligible to use -- to be used as a match. If
we weren't awarded the grant, then it's moot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And my question also following
that is if we were awarded the grant because this is a very substantial
grant for a very material modification of this building, is there any
reason this building, considering that it's going to, you know, house
the administration, the maintenance facility, could also be used as the
transfer station?
Because I looked at the facility and I looked at the parking and, I
mean, it is -- I don't know how that would work in the system.
Page 361
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is a transfer station.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's currently being used as a transfer
facility. But it's limited in that particular location, because we went
through a conditional use process where it limited the transfer activity
that can occur at that location.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me out,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because this is -- because, I mean,
it was obvious to me that's what it looked like. But my question is
why are we building this transfer station over here at the government
center for millions of dollars if we're going to be expanding this one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- I don't think we're
really expanding it.
But the whole idea, and we discussed this during the conditional
use for this property on Radio Road, is not create one hub of a
transfer, being that we're so spread out. Like you want a transfer
station in Immokalee, you want one near Golden Gate Estates and you
want some in the urban area, so you're not forcing all that traffic in
one area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I get it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And actually, that was Jim
Mudd's idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Quite frankly, the request of
conditional uses are no different than PUD's. They ask more than
really what they need.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you, that makes a
lot of sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve --
Page 362
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commission Hiller, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we just received a note via e-mail
from minutes and records. They believe that we had a motion and
second but not an actual vote on the 10.1 continuance of the Heavenly
PUD. I don't recall, quite honestly. I don't know if the court reporter
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, for 10.J. How could they possibly
think that I made a mistake? I mean, what's wrong with those people
over there?
MR. OCHS: Maybe they're mistaken, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They must be.
Item #IIA
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES WHICH REPEAL
OR AMEND CERTAIN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES,
WHICH PREEMPTS ALL SUCH REGULATORY POWERS TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,2011, AND
Page 363
September 13-14,2011
THAT FOLLOWING SUCH FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING THE
BOARD CONSIDERS REFERRING TWO SPECIAL ACTS
DEALING WITH FIREARMS TO THE LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION, WITH A REQUEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE
REVIEW THEM FOR POSSIBLE REPEAL - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you. That takes us to Item II.A on your
agenda. This was an item that was previously on the County
Attorney's consent agenda, 16.K.2, moved by Commissioner Hiller,
relating to ordinances removing local control of firearms and
ammunition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You two attorneys behave.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, could you please -- I do have
some questions but I'd like you to explain for the benefit of the
audience and the Board what has happened and what is precipitating
the changes to our ordinances and what those specific changes are.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be happy to, ma'am.
Over the years there have been attempts by predominantly large
urban areas, Miami comes to mind, I believe Tampa area, to put
stringent gun control ordinances on the local books.
It's the state's view that gun control is a statewide issue and that
they have sole jurisdiction over it.
The state has started to get tired of these jurisdictions passing
these ordinances. And what the state said, guys, we're really, really,
really serious about this, you're preempted on this. And if you try to
pass an ordinance, we'll remove your elected officials from office and
fine you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an easy out.
MR. KLATZKOW: Really.
So basically they said we really, really mean it. You're
preempted. This is not a matter of home rule, this is now going to be a
Page 364
September 13-14,2011
statewide issue, solely statewide issue, and the legislation passed.
And I keep track of these things. And one city after the other and
one county after the other is passing ordinances -- or rescinding
ordinances substantially identical to what we're doing here.
(At which time, Commissioner Coletta enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that's exactly why the
Parks and Rec Department had to put out a request to remove all of
the gun prohibition signs from the parks, because we had an ordinance
in place that guns weren't acceptable in our parks. And so now we
have to take those signs down because they have become illegal.
MR. KLATZKOW: We were trying -- we have some ordinances
that sort of got in between the lines of the legislature, which is what
sort of home rule was about. The legislature was very, very clear,
thou shalt have no ordinances with respect to gun control or
ammunition. And, you know, we got the message, you know, on a
statewide basis, the local level attorneys, and we're removing them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait, wait. No, I'm not done yet.
So we're basically repealing all ordinances related to gun control?
MR. KLATZKOW: Everything I could find.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask a question. Can
employees who have a concealed carry weapons license bring guns to
work?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. That's a different issue. We have a
County Manager's policy, I believe it was approved by the Board, that
you're not allowed to bring firearms to work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How can we have a policy that
disallows something that is permitted? Let me ask you this: Can a
county commissioner bring a firearm to work?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, a county commissioner can bring a
firearm to work. He or she's not part of the County Manager rules.
Page 365
September 13-14,2011
However, you cannot bring a firearm into the boardroom during a
board meeting. That's against state law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we've carved out a policy that
basically says employees can't but commissioners can? And you say
that we can have a policy that goes against what state law allows?
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't go against what state law allows.
We control our own employees. What the state's saying is when it
comes to the general public, you can't have any gun control laws, all
right. It's just like when you to go Tallahassee and you try to walk
through their legislative office, you'll have to go through their airport
type secure because they don't want guns in their building, we've got
the same proprietary ability to keep guns out of our buildings if we
choose so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there's a law that says if you
have a concealed carry permit that you can as an employee bring a
gun to your workplace.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can bring it to your parking lot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you can't bring it to the
workplace? I thought that was one of the exceptions under the
concealed carry weapon --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's a specific provision that allows
you to keep your gun in your car. So that we could not ban an
employee from keeping a gun in their glove compartment; however,
we have the prerogative as employer/employee relationship to say
you're not bringing a gun to your place of business. And it makes all
the sense in the world, because if we had one employee shoot another
employee --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about a commissioner
shooting another commissioner?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that would be a terrible thing, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got to put my gun away.
Page 366
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It depends on the commissioner.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that would be a terrible thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not really clear, because
my understanding from what you wrote me is that a commissioner
actually may carry a firearm in accordance with Florida law, which
includes the workplace.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, me too, because I'm not part that
County Manager rule. If I wanted to bring a gun in here, and I don't
carry a weapon, nor am I licensed to, I could do that.
But if you want to expand the policy to include every single
person in this building, that's your prerogative as a Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I guess my question is can
we have a policy that prohibits something that the law allows like
that? And I just --I'm not sure. I don't know.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You can control your own building. Keep
in mind, we have elected officials in this building, we have you good
people, plus we have state representatives and we have federal
representatives now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can any employer do that? Can
an employer say even though the law says you can bring in a
concealed weapon because you have the license but because I'm your
employer I say no?
MR. KLATZKOW: Every employer in the State of Florida has
the right to tell their employee keep your guns away from my
building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like the school system, for instance.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, school's different. The school has their
own statute because they've got children there. But any employer has
that right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the bottom line is
employees can't bring guns into the workplace because of a County
Manager policy that says even if you have a concealed carry permit
Page 367
September 13-14,2011
you cannot bring your guns into the building, but because of this
Florida Statute 700.251(4) you can have it while you're parked on
county property so it can remain in the vehicle.
MR. KLATZKOW: It can remain in the vehicle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And a county commissioner can
carry a firearm into the county building, but not into the boardroom.
MR. KLATZKOW: When the boardroom is in session, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Shoot the gun off in an empty
room.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When the boardroom is in session.
Shoot the gun off in an empty room.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to do it in an empty room, yeah,
that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's very interesting.
So basically we need a motion to repeal all ordinances related to
the public's use or possession -- well, the public's possession of guns,
be they concealed or not, on any government properties. Because it's
being preempted by the state.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry, that's not what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are you asking?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm asking is for permission to
advertise --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- so I can bring back to future board
consideration to repeal of various county ordinances with respect to
guns and shooting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 368
September 13-14,2011
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #101
WAIVING OF BOARDING FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,400
ASSOCIATED WITH THE KENNELING OF TWO DECLARED
DANGEROUS DOGS, IN EXCHANGE FOR DISMISSAL OF A
PENDING DANGEROUS DOG APPEAL, AND IN ORDER FOR
THE DOGS TO BE REUNITED WITH THEIR OWNERS, WHO
CURRENTL Y LIVE OUT-OF-COUNTY - MOTION TO DEMAND
PAYMENT WITHIN TWO WEEKS FOR THE HARD COST OF
BOARDING THE TWO DOGS AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK
TO BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: We'll now go to 10.1, which was previously 16.D.5.
It was pulled by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coletta, we'll listen to your questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hi. Looking this over, first I
want to compliment you on the fact that notice was sent with Dixie
County, let the authorities know that we had this dangerous dog and
the owners of it move into their county. That was a good move. You
know, I'd hate to ever think that something would happen because of
the lack of due notice.
Very, very concerned over this business of waiving a $6,000 fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 16 -- I know, I have a hard time
Page 369
September 13-14,2011
with it, 16,400 to be exact, boarding fee. Of course that amount is
based upon what it probably would cost in a commercial kennel to
board your dog by the day, like $25, $30 a day, I would assume.
What was it, two years it was there?
MS. TOWNSEND: For the record, Amanda Townsend, Director
of Domestic Animal Services.
Today is Abigail and Lola's 821st day at DAS. And in
accordance with the Board's established fee policy we charge $10 per
day boarding, so that's $10 per day per dog.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it just seems unrealistic for
them to expect to be able to just take the dog and get on with their
lives when the citizens of Collier County have paid for the upkeep and
the boarding of this dog without question for that period of time.
So this $16,000 is a realistic number; is that correct?
MS. TOWNSEND: Well, Commissioner, I know you had
concerns about sort of what the fee policy establishes. Of course the
fee policy wasn't established contemplating a stay of this duration.
And it is important to note that DAS has been in conversation with the
Durens and has offered them the ability to reclaim their dogs at any
time, could they meet certain provisions as, you know, pay the fees
and also, you know, let us know that they can reasonably contain the
animals.
So it's not that we've -- the Durens have had the opportunity to
reclaim throughout this process and have really just now made the
decision that they would like to drop their lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They got a lawsuit. Explain the
lawsuit.
MS. TOWNSEND: The dogs were claimed dangerous by DAS.
The Durens took their option to appeal that decision at the time we
were still using the three-person panel. The three-person panel upheld
DAS's decision to declare the dogs dangerous. The Durens then
exercised their right to appeal that to county court. And that case has
Page 370
September 13-14, 2011
been in county court since that time.
The Durens have now decided that they would like to drop their
appeal in county court and reclaim their animals, accepting the
dangerous dog declaration. The only item that's standing in the way is
the fees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and it should. $16,000 is
nothing to laugh at. And it's not only that but, I mean, dangerous dogs
have been an issue throughout the county, especially in District 5 for
as many years as I've been a commissioner. And we've come out with
numerous ordinances, amended those ordinances, tried to, excuse the
pun, but put teeth into them to be able to handle it, and we're still
getting nowheres.
Now we have someone that wants to just be able pick up with
their life, take their animal back after costing the residents of Collier
County a small fortune and everybody's supposed to say that's okay. I
don't buy into it and I could never approve this item the way it is. It's
just not right to the citizens of Collier County. If we were ever to
approve this, everyone that comes before us, whether it be Domestic
Animal Services, code enforcement or whatever, would say well, I'm
not going to worry about it, somewheres down the line somebody's
going to say that's okay, don't worry about it, I'll get the commission
to write it off.
Now, I'm not going to try to second guess what is totally fair, but
it would be something that would be a realistic number to be able to
give them a chance to do it. And if they can't pay it, then at that point
in time what do you normally do with dangerous dogs when people
don't claim them?
MS. TOWNSEND: I can address both sides of your issue,
Commissioner.
I agree. Obviously as the director of animal services, I'm not
allowed any discretion in fees, which is why we're here. It's also
somewhat unusual for staff to bring forward a recommendation to
Page 371
September 13-14,2011
waive fees. What I can say of course is that DAS is highly motivated
to resolve this issue and get the animals out of the shelter.
If they cannot be reunited to their owners, then they will be
humanely euthanized. We cannot adopt out a declared dangerous dog,
it just doesn't make sense for community safety.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my suggestion to you is a
demand of $16,400 up front with a time limit on it. And when that
demand's not met, of course you know working with the County
Attorney's Office, if it's not met, if the dogs do not mean that much to
them that they're willing to pay the fee for the services that we
provided, at that point in time get the legal permission that you need to
have the dog euthanized and the world can get going again. But I
would still at that point in time hold this as a debt against them.
MS. TOWNSEND: The only other thing I can offer to you,
Commissioner, is we were able to calculate hard costs for the care of
the dogs, so that is specifically setting aside all staff time associated
and only looking at medications that were administered and food fed
to the dogs. And I have a figure for that, if it would be something that
the Board would be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is that figure?
MS. TOWNSEND: $991.74.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, and that covers -- it
includes everything but staff time and overhead, right?
MS. TOWNSEND: It includes food and medications.
It's the only way that I could calculate absolutely hard costs that
were attributed specifically to these animals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the way the agenda is
right now, I can't agree to it. But I'm going to let my other
commissioners weigh in on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to leave in a few minutes.
But this sounds like a settlement agreement.
Page 372
September 13-14,2011
Have they dropped their case or they will drop it if we waive the
fees?
MS. TOWNSEND: Their attorney has filed a motion to
withdraw that has not yet been granted by the court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is it a settlement
agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, not really. But it will have the effect of
that. I mean, if the dogs are being taken out of county, that will be the
end of the suit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not necessarily. They
can't take them out of the county until we resolve this issue of the fees
and fines. They can't take them from DAS.
Can he withdraw his motion? I would imagine, right, if it isn't
acted on? Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: My guess is the people have financial
hardship and my guess is they're not paying the attorney, quite
frankly, which is why you got the motion to withdraw.
I mean, I could set this up as a settlement of the case, but
obviously the case had no merit to begin with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta, if
you're not happy with this settlement, you need to make a motion for a
counter. The fees are based upon time and material.
MS. TOWNSEND: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me give you my impression. I
hate to just kill two dogs because the owners are not responsible, or
are acting irresponsibly. But on the other hand they might not have
the money. And certainly $16,000, there's no way anybody's going to
pay that much money for two dogs. They can go get two more dogs
somewhere else. They're not that emotionally attached to them or
they wouldn't have left them for two years. But it's still hard for me to
vote to kill two dogs because of the conduct of their owners.
Page 373
September 13-14,2011
And I would suggest that we have DAS make a demand for
payment for the hard costs of the dogs, the boarding of the dogs for
the period of time, and see if that prompts any negotiations with these
people. They might just say no, we're not going to pay that.
I don't know if it's possible to find a home for the dogs. You
might want to find somebody who would be happy to waive any risks
and hold the county harmless. There are people who will do that. But
that's the only other alternative I can think of.
MS. TOWNSEND: Any potential adopter -- and of course I
would want specific board direction to adopt out a declared dangerous
dog, that's something that's highly unusual and outside the bounds of
what we usually do. However, understand that any potential adopter
would be accepting all the conditions of harboring a dangerous dog in
Collier County, which includes a $300 registration fee per dog per
year, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What has been your experience with the
dogs while they've been at the DAS?
MS. TOWNSEND: We've done our best to offer them
enrichment. It's very difficult for a dog to live in a kenneling
environment for that long. They've done very well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're probably going to need
counseling after this.
MS. TOWNSEND: Going back -- and of course understanding
the dangerous dog is based on what happened in one incident, and
doesn't have anything to do with the character of the animal, et cetera.
It appears, from both the record of what happened in the case and our
observation of the dogs in the two years plus that they've been at DAS,
they are dog -- aggressive dogs that will act in a pack mentality when
allowed to do so.
Obviously in our environment they've been separated. Abigail
responds very well to humans. Lola has suffered I think some mental
breakdown in the sheltering environment. She's not as responsive to
Page 374
September 13-14,2011
humans in a kennel setting.
(At which time, Commissioner Henning exits the boardroom.)
MS. TOWNSEND: But when we do allow them some
enrichment opportunities in larger play areas and what have you, she
exhibits rather normal dog behavior.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we just make a demand
for the hard costs and let's see what happens. Is that okay? And then
if that doesn't work, come back to us for more guidance. Would that
be all right?
MS. TOWNSEND: The one thing that I would ask is that we do
put a time limit on the demand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
MS. TOWNSEND: But, you know, we're willing to discuss that
with the Durens and their attorney, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would that be all right? I'll make
that motion, make a demand for the hard costs and see where that
leads us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Within what time frame?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe what, two weeks?
MS. TOWNSEND: Two weeks is more than ample. We had
discussed originally with our attorney seven days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's try two weeks and see what
happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by me to propose a payment of
the hard costs for boarding the dogs over the past two years. And
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
MS. TOWNSEND: Commissioner Coyle, may I ask for one
point of clarification? You said come back to you, so that would be
that not after the 14 days the dogs would become DAS property and
be humanely euthanized but that we would need to seek further board
direction?
Page 375
September 13-14, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would really like to consider that
situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you interested in adopting
them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, but I just hate -- I just don't like--
I've got a dog of my own and I don't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He might be lonely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've trained her to attack any county
commissioners that I don't like. But since I like them all here, we're
all right.
But in any event, okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question before I vote?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain to me what the
county's duty is and what the county's liability is with respect to
dangerous dogs? You know, you take it in if it's dangerous. At what
point do you release it and what liability do we have for releasing a
dangerous dog back in the community?
MS. TOWNSEND : Well, the law provides for us to investigate
on dangerous dog, to make a declaration, it provides for an appeal
process for the owner and it provides for reclaim by the owner,
provided that the owner is able to meet certain conditions. It's a
matter of policy that we would not release a dangerous dog to
someone other than the original owner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what are the conditions for
release back to the owner?
MS. TOWNSEND: $300 annual registration fee; posting of
Page 376
September 13-14,2011
signs at all entrances to the home; the dog must be muzzled when
walked off the property and obviously walked on lead; listing of the
animal on the DAS website; the animal must also be micro-chipped
and spade or neutered, unless excused by a veterinarian.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then you're comfortable
releasing this dog, notwithstanding that you've described that, you
know, one or both of these dogs are still potentially dangerous?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but there've moving out of
state, right?
MS. TOWNSEND: They're moving to Dixie County. And we
have also alerted the authorities in Dixie County that they be declared
dangerous --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter. I mean, my
concern is they're released back into the public forum or domain or
whatever you want to call it for a dog.
MS. TOWNSEND: That's what both the Animal Control
ordinance and state law regarding dangerous dog provides for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're doing the right thing if
we release it if we get payment?
MS. TOWNSEND: We're following the law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all I want to know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One thing that's very important,
if I may, is you have to have something in the agreement someplace
that if they ever move back to Collier County, prior to moving back
that they notify us they're coming back and that they immediately
register their dog at that time and pay all the appropriate fees up-front.
MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely, sir. That's also a provision in
state law. And we have precedent with that with other declared
dangerous dogs and we'll make that patently clear to the Durens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if they violate those agreements,
we'll place the owners in the DAS facilities, right?
MS. TOWNSEND: Please note.
Page 377
September 13-14,2011
Item #13A
RESOLUTION 2011-164: A RESOLUTION TO PETITION
GOVERNOR SCOTT TO EXTEND THE "RURAL AREA OF
CRITICAL ECONOMIC CONCERN" DESIGNATION AWARDED
TO FLORIDA'S HEARTLAND REGIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, INC. FOR ANOTHER 5-YEARS
AND TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY OF IMMOKALEE WITHIN
THE SOUTH CENTRAL RURAL AREA OF CRITICAL
ECONOMIC CONCERN DESIGNATION - MOTION TO
APPROVE AND DESIGNATE PENNY PHILLIPPI AS THE
COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, that takes us to 13.A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I vote yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it was a unanimous vote, 4-0.
MR. OCHS : Yes, Commissioners, that takes us to 13.A, which
was previously 16.B.2. This item was moved to the regular agenda by
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The last time Tammie Nemecek presented, it was a very
disjointed presentation at best. And there was no backup map, and it
was very difficult to understand exactly what was going on.
And I know how articulate you are and versed in this matter, so I
thought I would give you an opportunity to please present what this is
all about and, you know, what the county stands to gain or, you know,
who stands to gain by this. And if you could put the map up on the
overhead so everyone can see what this area of critical economic
concern is all about, where it is.
MS. PHILLIPPI: For the record, I'm Penny Phillippi, the
Page 378
September 13-14,2011
Director of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency.
The first map that I put up here shows all the rural areas of
critical economic concern for the entire State of Florida. And as you
can see, the one that we are nearest to is the heartland region, which is
Highlands, Hardy, Glades, Hendry, Okeechobee, six different counties
that we actually are not connected to physically. Therefore, when --
it's called FHREDI, Florida's Heartland Rural Economic Development
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Named after me, right?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your candor.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Anyway, we're very familiar with FHREDI.
As you know, before I came here, I worked in Highlands County
as the housing director. And we use those same six counties
demographically over and over for home participating jurisdiction, for
our homeless consortiums, for our homeless coalitions, because they
all share the same things: Very low income, very rural, and not a
whole lot of resources available, and certainly nothing available to
compete with the larger urban areas as far as economic development is
concerned. That's the genesis ofFHREDI at any rate.
So fortunately for us at some point in time the leaders in
Immokalee and primarily the housers, I would say, applied for a
federal empowerment zone to be -- just for a certain region in and
around Immokalee. And I believe they applied twice and didn't get it.
But they did get the designation as a federal empowerment zone.
So although they didn't get the money, what it did provide was
connectivity to the rest of the rural economic area. So as you can see
when you look at Immokalee on this particular map, we call it the
green map, you can see the dark green is the urban area of Immokalee
and you see a big area dotted above it. That is part of that
empowerment zone that provides Immokalee as a community with
connectivity to the rest of that RACEC.
Page 379
September 13-14,2011
So when the Governor's office -- so when it was applied to the
Governor's office for a RACEC, it was that designation that allowed
Immokalee connectivity.
So, let's see, it was 2006 I believe that it was designated. The
time expired, it became time to redesignate those -- that same area.
So in your package you saw two memorandums of agreement.
One is for the Immokalee community. They call it the Town of
Immokalee, but we know it's the Immokalee community. And the
other is for Collier County. And when they refer to Collier County,
they aren't referring to the entire county, they're referring to that
section north of Immokalee that provides that connectivity which
allows us to be part of that RACEC. And with that come the benefits
of, you know, regionalized planning, regionalized marketing, all those
kinds of things that help you bring and attract business to the rural
areas.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you show me how this map
connects to the other map? Can you show me the interface?
MS. PHILLIPPI: With my finger?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a map that shows the
two?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, as you can see on that statement that you
have in your package, Immokalee is just kind of floating out there in
space by itself. And there's several other communities. In Palm
Beach County, Pahokee and a couple of -- Belle Glade, a couple
others. But Immokalee is floating free. And so in order to get
connectivity to that area, we need that space right above there --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Further down.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I'm sorry, to connect right up here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Show the other map.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you show the other map? Can
you show me how that -- so where are the boundaries relative to that
Page 380
September 13-14,2011
big dotted square?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The northern area adjoins Hendry
County .
MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The northern area up there?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess my question is why
didn't we just draw a straight line up? You know, why do we have
this larger area and who does this larger area belong to? I mean, why
didn't we just draw -- if the northern boundary is Hendry, why aren't
we just drawing two straight lines up if this is just for Immokalee?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, primarily because we needed a
designation that would link all those areas together. And the
designation was the empowerment zone, which is a much bigger area.
And that's why I put the third map in there so you could see.
The empowerment alliance itself covers a very broad area. But
what we needed that space for was to connect us to Hendry County
and the rest of the RACEC in order to get the designation for
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me on this
empowerment alliance map, where the previous map sits relative to
this one?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, this is the Big Cypress Indian
reservation. This is another Seminole reservation here. And I'm
trying to see where Immokalee --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You take the one that's numbered -- the
area that's numbered 113 and 114. Lake Trafford is on the lower
left-hand side of that boundary. Right there. Okay. Now, the upper
part of that boundary should be --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Hendry County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hendry County.
MS. PHILLIPPI: This is the Hendry County line, yes.
Page 381
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And where is -- so if I understand
correctly, this previous map is the empowerment alliance map?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The last one you looked at. This one is the map
from the Governor's office that shows the RACEC, the part of
Immokalee and Collier County that are part of the RACEC that attach
it to Hendry County and the rest of the RACEC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to see is one
map that shows all these boundaries superimposed upon each other so
I can see the relationship of, you know, these three different economic
development areas. Because it's very confusing to me. I just don't see
the relationship between all of this as they're disconnected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that big yellow outlined area on
Penny's map that you first saw fits into that little slot of -- show us the
state map again, Penny. The yellow outline fits in that little slot right
there. And that's part of the RACEC that provides connectivity to
Hendry, Glades, Highhands, Okeechobee--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what do we get out of that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you get regulations associated with
economic development that the state has passed that provides
economic benefits for that entire economic development zone; is that
right?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like what?
MS. PHILLIPPI: For example, marketing. When FHREDI
markets for -- markets to an industry, then specifically it can tell the
industry we have an airport in Immokalee that's the right size that's
available for blah, blah, blah, or it could be Sebring is ready to go
right now, they have this on the ground, this infrastructure is in place.
So as a planning group together they actually -- we all actually
work together to help each other promote these rural areas that have
the same concerns and the same shortcomings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like is if you could
Page 382
September 13-14,2011
provide me with a list of, you know, the incentives provided for each
of these levels of, you know, these economic development zones.
And this is -- and then the other thing I'd like is these maps
superimposed so I could see how they overlap and what area they
cover. Because it would really help me understand it. I want to
understand exactly what this whole economic development --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Initiative.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- initiative is all about, and I think
we need that backup. So I would really appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay--
MS. PHILLIPPI: I would actually be delighted to do that. Many
of those are listed on the MOA's that are in your package. But once
you realize what FHREDl's doing out there, you're going to be so
amazed by their work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to, because I can't --
tying it all in is a little --
MS. PHILLIPPI: It's a huge initiative.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MS. PHILLIPPI: And of course they recently just got millions
and millions and millions of dollars for our broadband grant through
the federal government so that our region and the region up in the
Panhandle will now have broadband before the year is out. These are
the kinds of things they're doing to help --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that will be only in that zone,
not anywhere else in the Estates, it's strictly in that northeast quadrant.
MS. PHILLIPPI : Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the rest of the Estates is not
going to get the same benefits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not the Estates we're dealing with, it's
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand, this is strictly
Page 383
September 13-14,2011
MS. PHILLIPPI: Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Immokalee. I just wanted to
clarify that.
So yeah, if you could give me that information, I would really
appreciate it. You know, I look forward to meeting with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to take action on this item
today, though.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Specifically.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'll make --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you beat me to it, and that's good.
Commissioner Coletta makes a motion to approve a resolution to
extend the rural area of critical economic concern designation for
another five years, and keep the community of Immokalee within the
south central rural area of critical economic concern designation.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by -- well, there is one other thing.
MS. PHILLIPPI: There are a couple of things, actually. You
need for approve the resolution, approve the two memorandums of
agreement and actually designate someone to attend those meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And I was going to suggest we
designate Penny Phillippi as the person to represent this area. The
EDC is being reorganized and we don't have anyone right now to
represent us there, and I can't imagine anyone more qualified than
Penny to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you accept that?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really like Penny to come
Page 384
September 13-14, 2011
back to this Board before she makes presentation so we can approve
what she's presenting and so we know what she's presenting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, but I'm not adding
that to my motion. What we have before us now is the start, just to be
able to send --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A letter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the letter, you know. And
we're trying to put the cart before the horse, we're making demands
that are going to tie up staff time tremendously. My motion expressly
goes with the recommendations at hand and nothing else at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala's
second is related directly to your motion; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Yes, it is, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye -- along with the designation of Penny Phillippi as the
person responsible.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Now, you will of course come back and brief us on things
associated with this thing in the normal course of events?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I will brief you. I don't plan to make
presentations to FHREDI, but I would attend those meetings and I
would attend the meetings of the planning sessions and bring that
information back to you.
And if I should need to make a presentation, I would certainly be
happy to preview that with the Board before I did that.
Page 385
September 13-14, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Penny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
County Manager, I hope that takes care of everything. Doesn't
.t?
1 .
Item #14A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Except for public comments on general comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have anybody registered for
public topics, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have anybody registered for public
comment?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we do. We have Duane Billington.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He isn't here.
MR. MITCHELL: He was the only person who was scheduled
to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we have no one for public
comment.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, County Manager, what do you
have for us?
MR.OCHS: I have nothing this afternoon, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. We all received a letter
Page 386
September 13-14,2011
from an attorney, Mr. James Kelly. And it was addressed to Mr.
Dempsey of Cheffy Passidomo, and we were copied.
And basically it made some very strong allegations that the
individuals who presented to us that -- whose representations we relied
on to go forward with the litigation against the tearing up of the road
leading to the Smallwood Store were false. And I'm very concerned
about that. And I'd like the County Attorney to address what this is all
about and, you know, what's going on and what's going on with that
case. I'd like a status report on that as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. We're in the middle ofa preliminary
junction hearing. It was continued. It will recommence on Thursday.
Some witnesses have presented, other witnesses are waiting to be
called.
This is an attorney up in the Sebring area who also, my
understanding, has an economic interest in this particular project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He claims that in the first sentence,
I mean, that there's no speculation about that. He says I represent
Florida/Georgia Grove LLP and have an ownership interest and along
with 10 other individuals.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And, you know, I've worked with
Mr. Dempsey off and on over the years and, you know, my opinion of
Mr. Dempsey is a lot higher apparently than Mr. Kelly's opinion.
You know, at the end of the days Judge Hayes will make a ruling
and it will be based on the law and the facts that are presented to him.
And if Mr. Kelly wishes to impeach some of what was said, he'll have
his opportunity to court with sworn testimony.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What exactly is our claim?
MR. KLATZKOW: Our claim. We're partnered with the
Smallwoods, and the claim is that they tore up a public right-of-way,
public road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else?
Page 387
September 13-14,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Happy birthday, belated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. And thank you
very much for signing the birthday card.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was my pleasure. It was sealed
with a kiss.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And an arrow through my head.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it had a smiley face.
MR. KLATZKOW: We said no shootings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she uses an arrow.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Always remember, if looks could
kill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I had two suggestions. I don't
know that they'll hit anybody in the -- with an approval or not. But it's
just things to throw out onto the field here.
One of them is I suggest that when we have speakers, maybe we
should listen to all of the speakers before questioning them. Because
they're not a witness, they're actually just presenting their thoughts.
And then afterward -- and we can make notes, and we do, we make
notes all the time. We can make notes, and then afterwards so that we
can move the meetings along a little bit then we can -- and we can
bring up some of those thoughts or objections or whatever. It's a
thought. I don't know if you like it.
And the second one is our meetings are seeming to get longer and
longer, so you might want to just think maybe -- oh, I should get out
by the doorway before I present this one -- going back to meetings
once a week. I knew that. Put your arrows away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How about lessen the agenda?
Like how about a more realistic agenda, Leo?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, it seems that we have less and less
administrative discretion these days, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, in other words, it's all the
Page 388
September 13-14, 2011
Chair's fault?
MR. OCHS: So you're going to see longer and longer agendas
and more backup material, and I'm afraid there's not too much I can do
about that right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I used to like it when we were able
to get through a meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Fiala makes
some good points. For example, I think one of the things that we can
do to manage the time is limit how much time we spend on the
proclamations and the awards to the same amount at every meeting.
That's not to say these people are not going to get their proclamations,
it's not going to say they're not going to get the awards, it's just a
question as to which meeting they're going to get it at. I mean, if
United Way got it next week as opposed to this week, you know, or
two weeks from now, no one would be hurt. And I think that would
give us a lot more time to do the county's business.
That -- you know, granting the awards and recognizing staff is
very, very important and I think it's properly placed at the beginning
of the meeting. But we could maybe limit it to no more than, you
know, whatever this Board decides, a half an hour, three-quarters of an
hour, one hour, as the case may be. Because sometimes we've had
those presentations and awards go, you know, late into the morning.
So maybe we limit it to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We cut those back a lot.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Again, I don't really control that
section of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I know you've managed to --
and I know you're giving some awards, you know, in sort of private
luncheons, because I've attended some of those and they've been very,
Page 389
September 13-14,2011
.
very nIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which we didn't do before. And we
used to read the proclamations --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is even --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- which took a long time. So we
don't. And in fact there are some we even put, as you know, back in
the consent agenda that aren't to be read, they're just there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How about if we limit it to no
more than a half an hour, the first half hour of every meeting is for
awards and proclamations? It's not going to stop them, it's just going
to roll them over to the next meetings, and that way we have more
time --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the pleasant part of the
meeting, though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This other stuff that drags out is--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Our interaction with the public,
that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where they get their
chance to come before us. That and also of course the presentations,
which are very beneficial. But also the public petitions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that you can't cut back. That
can't be affected.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the reasons why MPO
meetings and commission meetings are running long is that you offer
a lot of detail. You ask a lot of detailed questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? If
you could spend more time researching it before you came here rather
Page 390
September 13-14,2011
than do your findings completely here, maybe take staff and work
with them for three, four hours at a time. And then when you walk in
here you're totally versed. Because a lot of the questions you ask are
superficial knowledge that we generally all have and it's just a
repetition of it. Not that it's wrong, it's just that it's repetitious. It
would be tremendously beneficial if you could, you know, come to the
meetings totally prepared--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do come to the meetings totally
prepared. In fact, I spend a great deal of time with constituents and
with staff going over information.
The questions that I ask in the public forum, as I said, are
questions that need to be asked and answered in the public forum.
And there are times where there are questions that come up as a result
of information presented in the public forum, not a function of
anything that I would have anticipated based on research.
I have to do my due diligence when I ask questions, I have to
have the answers in order to cast my vote, and to do anything less
would be a disservice to the citizens I represent. And I wouldn't want
to limit your ability to ask questions, discuss anything or say anything
on the record. We as representatives have to have the ability to do
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we've had very complicated
subjects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We do a lot of this behind the
scenes, get our answers and -- like today, for instance, when I was
reading something, I'd already done my homework, I talked with staff,
and so I read into the record what I'd learned and why I made my
decision, because I thought maybe we could get to the point a little
more quickly. I've still said it on the record, it's just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We all have our own way of doing
our business and, you know, this is how I do it. And I respect how
Page 391
September 13-14,2011
you do yours, you know. Anything you want to say, you -- I was very
impressed with how detailed you were and how many questions you
asked, and you asked a lot of questions, Commissioner Coletta, during
the public hearing, which I thought were important. So I wouldn't do
anything to limit your ability to ask, to be informed or to present to
whatever extent you feel is necessary. I don't think anyone should be
limited.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The simple thing is is that we're
just going to have to resolve ourselves that the meetings like MPO will
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Will be -- right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- run an hour and a half extra--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It will --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the commission meetings
might have to run two days. If that's the way it is, that's fine. I've got
all my time dedicated to this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do too. I do too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But occasionally we may have
to talk to each other about presentations we're making --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where we're going to. I think
that kind of conversation is necessary once in a while to be able to
find out where we're going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But back to what I had originally
said, I was just asking if we could first listen to all the speakers, makes
notes for ourselves and then afterwards --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- rather than talk with each one, I
think that that adds a lot of length.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only concern I have with that
if sometimes speakers -- like for example in this public hearing or on
the fluoride issue, there were speakers who brought up very, very
Page 392
September 13-14, 2011
important points that I had -- I wanted to have the opportunity, for
example, to ask questions about. I don't want to have to have every
speaker sit here until the end of public comment because I would like
to ask them additional questions about their testimony.
And quite frankly, for example in the public hearing, these public
speakers are testifying. They're not just public speakers, they're under
oath, they're providing testimony to us that will influence our
decision-making. Obviously that isn't the case with the fluoride and,
you know, that's a different situation.
But if I for example have a question of Mr. Ochs, if I wait till
after all the speakers are done, Mr. Ochs will be obligated to sit here
till the end of the speakers' presentations, and that wouldn't be fair to
the public. And that's the only reason why I think it needs to be done
then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fair to the public was the face
that everyone who came -- under normal procedures we would have
got to hear everyone --
THE COURT REPORTER: Commissioner Coletta, could you--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to speak into the mic.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I talk to myself all the time
so I'm used to it.
But what happened yesterday was the item on the Estates
shopping center, we had probably about 60 -- not 60, maybe 40 some
people wanted to speak. Because of the fact we went into overtime
with all the detailed discussion, the clock ran out, the people left and
they couldn't afford to come back again the next day. I don't know
how we can get around that, unless we start maybe at 8:00 in the
.
mornIng.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And actually that was a different
situation. What happened was we had a time certain at 4: 00 for the
fluoride. And this goes to the issue of agenda management. What
really needs to be done, the chairman, whoever it is, be it Chairman
Page 393
September 13-14,2011
Coyle now or Coletta, you know, subsequently, you have to know
how long these people are going to present. I mean, I was sitting here
listening to the presentation one after another after another with
respect to the fluoride. I never anticipated that we were going to have
so many presenters on the topic. And that is something that the
chairman, whoever that person may be, should manage ahead of time.
They should speak to the presenter, know how long the presentation
is going to be and gauge the agenda accordingly.
There are issues that are not as time sensitive that could be
pushed forward to another agenda. If we know we're going to have a
major public hearing on a controversial subject, be it fluoride or the
shopping center -- for example, the fluoride issue could have been
postponed to a meeting where we didn't have the shopping center
coming forward. It's all about case management. And that's what the
chairman is supposed to do. And the questions and answers and
presentations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Happy birthday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, it's all your fault.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's always my fault.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not. It's a matter of coming to
an agreement of how we prioritize and how much time we need to
address the issues that are priorities. It's very simple.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let me address this issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm missing my meeting, by the
way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is all bull roar.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, it's not. It's very
important. And I'm glad Commissioner Fiala --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is no way you can anticipate how
many speakers you're going to have here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Presenters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, presenters took up probably less
Page 394
September 13-14,2011
than 20 percent of the whole presentation time. The presenters took
about 35 minutes total. We spent four hours on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On fluoride?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On the fluoride thing. Well, maybe
three, three-and-a - half.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It started at 4:00, we were out of
here by 6:00. There was a lot more --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, that's right. I was talking about
the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Estates?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the Estates.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, that you can't predict.
That's a judicial hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can't predict the fluoride issue
either.
But here's the problem. There really is too much advocacy going
on by commissioners at a time when we're trying to take public input.
You are giving your opinions to the members of the public, seemingly
in an attempt to influence their testimony or to undermine it,
depending upon what your position is.
And it -- any commissioner of course has the right to do that. But
if you want to have a meeting finished in a reasonable period of time
and get to a decision, we have to exercise a little more restraint.
Now, the other point with respect to the preparation, there are
several instances today where you asked for things and the staff told
you they're in your packet. The most recent one was Penny Phillippi,
you asked for a map of the area and Penny says it's in your packet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, what I asked for was not in
the packet. What I asked for was a -- taking those maps and
superimposing them so I could see the relationship, because it is
incomprehensible how these maps relate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then if you knew those maps
Page 395
September 13-14,2011
were in your packet, why didn't you ask for a clarification before
Penny ever appeared here? Why didn't you ask for maps that
answered your question? You didn't because you didn't even know
that those maps were in your packet. So don't tell me that you read
this stuff in great detail. You get information from other sources and
you represent that, but you do not read this packet.
There are numerous instances where you have been -- you have
asked for information that is clearly explained in the packet. And that
is an absolute fact, and all of us know that. So I would appreciate it if
you would spend the time reading the information --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and if there's something--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I read as much as I can absorb in
the four days that I receive the information. I get the information on
Thursday, the meeting is Tuesday morning. You don't read all the
information in the packet. I can tell by Coletta's statements that he
doesn't read all the information. I can tell my Henning's statements
that he didn't read it all. Like for example the letters that came from
the state on the testimony given by Marla.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll guarantee you, I read the entire
packet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'm going to interrupt
here. This is going on enough.
Commissioner Fiala, what do you have to add under comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all. I said too much, I'm
afraid. I didn't mean to bring all of that up about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's all your fault, Donna.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what? I really
appreciate what Donna brought up and I think she's absolutely right.
And I agree with you, and I support -- I don't agree with, you know,
not asking questions when people testify or publicly speak, because I
do feel we have to all have the ability to ask questions as needed and I
Page 396
September 13-14, 2011
don't want to hold people up.
But your comment that these agendas are overloaded for the time
frame that we know we have allotted absolutely is true. And that
really like I said goes to agenda management and that is the
Chairman's responsibility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, come on, we're starting
on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, my turn. I was just
answering the question before.
Now, let's talk about the agenda. If you were to go to Lee
County as an example and look at their agenda, what would it look
like compared to ours, Leo?
MR.OCHS: Theirs would be much smaller, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: I think they meet as a formal commission probably
for two or three hours on average for each meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're out by noon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And the reason for that is exactly
what you pointed out, that you are given less latitude to make
decisions with respect to administration of county government than
probably any other county manager in the state. Everything that is to
be done here has to be approved by this Board, and there are very few
exceptions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's the law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is a lot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's the law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's questionable.
But in any event, if it's a law, why isn't it the law in the other
counties too. It's not.
So the point is that we have huge agendas. I don't like the size of
the agenda. But if we postpone items, we're merely stacking them into
another very large agenda or you're not getting the government's
Page 397
September 13-14,2011
business or the people's business done.
So I say just buckle down and do your job and get familiar with
what's going on here and then we can make decisions on a more
timely basis.
And we have always had big agendas here. They are growing
larger as we move forward. And we all need to look for ways to
reduce it. But I think we are, we are the reason that it's as big as it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to tell you, Commissioner
Coy Ie, our agendas are not larger . We have very little in land use, and
here we used to have a tremendous amount, remember? Our agendas
used to always be jampacked. And we occasionally had to meet the
next day, but it was a rare thing, and usually because we might add an
evening meeting to accommodate something. But we're becoming
more and more dysfunctional as we go forward. I don't know what the
.
answer IS.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you I think have mischaracterized
something. The agendas have never been this large. We always had
more land development issues than we have now. And land
development issues tend to take a little more time. We have relatively
few land development issues, but we load it up with most of which is
administrative decisions. And we are largely responsible for doing
that, okay. And unless there is general agreement that we're going to
let the staff exercise authority on certain things without bringing it to
the Board of County Commissioners, then we're always going to have
large agendas. But my agenda is four volumes--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is unbelievable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in size. And it is a struggle. But I get
through it. And the County Manager I know he and I have talked
about these things, we talk about every agenda, and say, you know,
this is ridiculous. But the problem is the problem, and there's not
much we're going to do about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're limited by law. You
Page 398
September 13-14, 2011
know, the law makes clear that we as a Board cannot delegate
discretionary decision-making authority. And, you know, what the
County Manager can or can't do is clearly identified in Florida statute.
So if there is anything on here that the County Manager can do
without our review, then it shouldn't be in here. And I don't think
that's the case. I think everything's that's been included in here does
require board approval, which is why it's on the agenda.
I don't know what other counties do. Maybe they have less
business. But for some reason, I mean, I guess we're a very high
maintenance county.
Now, the other thing is, you're a new county manager, and this is
-- is this your first year as County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Second year, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this the start of your second
year, or have you actually been -- are you moving in your third year?
MR. OCHS: I will be, God willing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, considering that this is--
well, I don't know.
MR.OCHS: We'll find out next meeting, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't know. I didn't know
exactly when you came on board. I wasn't sure what the timing was
relative to the passing of County Manager Mudd.
You are new to being a manager of the county. And that's a big
deal too. And part of it may be that as you become more familiar and
as you refine the processes here in the county, you've obviously
inherited a lot of problems. And we've got the housing issues, we've
got, you know, this issue that came up today. As you start -- we don't
have an asset management system. I mean, that's unbelievable with
the volume of assets that we have.
I mean, as you start implementing your own systems and things
become more refined based on how you see this county should be run,
we won't necessarily have all these problems that are coming before us
Page 399
September 13-14,2011
that are very time-consuming.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I appreciate that. That may be
contributing at some level, but I think it's very minor, frankly.
And in terms of experience, you know, I was the deputy manager
for 10 years with Jim Mudd, putting all the agendas together just like
we always have. So, you know, that is not a new experience for me.
I'll tell you, things that are new, for example, just in the last year
or two, on CCNA selection processes, most counties short-rank their
top three firms, do their selection and then bring that final
recommendation to the Board. You know, within the past year now
that's -- we've now been required to bring the top three firms -- first
we bring you the project for permission to go out for solicitation, then
we get the solicitation back and winnow down to the short list. Then
we bring the short list back on another agenda so you can authorize us
to go negotiate with the highest ranked firm. And then we bring the
contract back. We never used to have to put the full contracts on the
agenda. Those all have to now be put on the agenda.
So I'm not saying there's more items, but I'm saying the volume
of the packets --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you know what, everything --
MR. OCHS: -- because of all the backup now required that
wasn't historically is contributing to the size. And I'm struggling with
a way to avoid that and still get the authorized payment that's going to
be required when these contracts go forth.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you know what? That what
you just described is great. That's exactly statutorily how it is
supposed to happen. So I think that you are implementing all those
steps as you're describing is an improvement. I understand that it's
more than what was done before, but apparently what was done before
was wrong. So yes, I understand that's contributing to more time, but
you're doing the legal thing. You're doing what the statute requires,
and that's commendable.
Page 400
September 13-14,2011
MR. OCHS: I'm simply trying to explain why the volume of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's positive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's Commissioner Coletta's turn now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leo, do you die your hair gray,
or --
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I figured that. You'll catch on
eventually.
MR.OCHS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's really -- couple things.
One, absolutely wonderful, great things that happened today. We got
-- over the last two days. We got the redistricting done. No one killed
anyone. Everyone's relatively happy with what they got.
Two, the Estates shopping center, an issue that is of primary
importance to the people out there in the Estates finally got resolved
once and for all. Now, when it's built is another issue.
Number three, the Smallwood Store. As you know, they're going
through -- you just got a small report about the court case that's in
motion. It convenes again tomorrow morning, correct, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Right now meeting in the
other room is a group that I put together to raise some funds for the
Smallwoods to try to help them hold the wolf at bay. With no revenue
coming in, it's been a difficult stretch for them. We got a pretty neat
group of people working on it; will be doing several different things in
the near future. But I only got to attend 15 minutes of the meeting,
which probably worked out great because they got something done.
And with that, since I got the last word, I make a motion for
adjournment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned.
*****
Page 401
September 13-14,2011
* * * * *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 #16Al
RESOLUTION 2011-140: ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
COTTESMORE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND
AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SATURNIA FALLS-
PHASE ONE, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3 - Continued to the September 27,2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CALDECOTT WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
Page 402
September 13-14, 2011
RESOLUTION 2011-141: GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA POINTE WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A5
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE RELATIVE TO
THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE FINAL PLATS OF SAPPHIRE LAKES UNITS 4A, 4B AND
4C - THIS RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WILL
HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE PENDING CASE WITH CODE
ENFORCEMENT AND THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR SUBMITTING THE REQUIRED PUD MONITORING
REPORTS
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR SEACREST UPPER SCHOOL CAMPUS, 7100
DAVIS BOULEVARD, 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
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR NAPLES DODGE/MAZDA STORAGE LOT, 2451 J & C
BL VD, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR
Page 403
September 13-14,2011
HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item # 16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR MERIDIAN MARKET PLACE, 3355 MERIDIAN PLACE,
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
Item # 16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR AMERICAN MOMENTUM CENTER, 8625 T AMI AMI
TRAIL NORTH, 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
Item #16AI0
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
ROBERT CUSTER, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM-2009-0001763, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 COVEY LANE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - WAIVING $6,550 IN ACCRUED FINES,
REGARDING AN INFESTATION OF BEES UNDERNEATH THE
REAR OF THE MOBILE HOME
Page 404
September 13-14,2011
Item #16All
AWARD OF CONTRACT #11-5639 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$450,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH TY LIN INTERNATIONAL, FOR
"DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE REPLACEMENT
OF CR29 BRIDGE (#030161) OVER CHOKOLOSKEE BAY" FOR
PROJECT NO. 66066
Item #16A12
CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO CONTRACT #09-5278 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $210,645 WITH STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.,
FOR DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE
INTERSECTION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE US 41
AND SRlCR 951 INTERSECTION AND RESURFACING,
RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 951 (PROJECT #60116)
Item #16A13
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR THE TUSCAN ISLE APARTMENTS
(FORMERL Y SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE PHASE II) DUE TO
THE IMPACT FEES BEING PAID IN FULL IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AGREEMENT FOR 100% DEFERRAL OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR MULTI-FAMILY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AS SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-401(E) AND 74-
401(G) (5) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES AND THE EXECUTED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES, XIV,
LTD. AND COLLIER COUNTY
Page 405
September 13-14,2011
Item # 16A 14 - Moved to Item # 1 OJ (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A15
AWARD BID #11-5737 FOR "FOREST LAKES MSTU
SIDEWALKS, LIGHTING & PLANTING - PHASE I & IA"
PROJECT TO 3-RS EQUIPMENT (D/B/A RICHARDS
COMPANY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $841~492.40
Item #16A16 - Moved to Item #10K (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A17
HOLE MONTES, INC., AS THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
SHORT-LIST FOR RFP #11-5724 AND TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND HOLE
MONTES INC. FOR "CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER,
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION AND SITE RESTORATION
SERVICES FOR VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU: FPL
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT - PHASE 1, 2,3"
PURSUANT TO RFP #11-5724
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2011-142: SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER
HOUR (35 MPH) FOR THE CURRENTLY NON-POSTED SPEED
LIMIT SECTION OF ROADWAY OF BAILEY LANE FROM
COCO LAKES DRIVE EAST TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AT
Page 406
September 13-14,2011
A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $400
Item #16A19 - Moved to Item #10H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2011-143: SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT INCREASE FROM FORTY-
FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH) TO FIFTY MILES PER
HOUR (50 MPH) ON PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM LOGAN
BOULEVARD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD AT A COST OF
APPROXIMATEL Y $600
Item #16A21
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY PHASE 3,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - LOCATED IN
SECTION 13~ TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A22
TERMINATE THE AWARD OF BID #10-5528 "BUS SHELTER
INSTALLATION" TO AC SIGNS LLC, AT THE REQUEST OF
THE CONTRACTOR; TO AWARD BID #10-5528 TO THE
SECOND LOWEST BIDDER, WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.; AND, TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT - AFTER A SITE
VISIT TO EACH LOCATION THE CONTRACTOR
Page 407
September 13-14,2011
DETERMINED THEY HADN'T ADDRESSED ISSUES
SUFFICIENTL Y
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2011-144: AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR
THE SUBMITTAL OF SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $35,000, TO THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF SECURITY CAMERAS ON-BOARD THE
PARATRANSIT VEHICLES AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO SIGN THE GRANT AND ALL
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Item # 16A24
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #11-5621 FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE COLLIER
AREA TRANSIT (CAT) ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
FACILITY AT 8300 RADIO ROAD, TO ATKINS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE A TT ACHED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$502.451.20
Item #16A25 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-44, THE RADIO ROAD EAST OF
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) ORDINANCE,
TO REMOVE THE SUNSET PROVISION OF SIX YEARS AND
Page 408
September 13-14,2011
PROVIDE THAT THE MSTU BE DISSOLVED UPON
RECOMMENDATION BY THE MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Item #16A26
TERMINA TION OF THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG),
BETWEEN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE
HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES (HHVS)
DEPARTMENT FOR THE NAPLES MANOR SIDEWALK
INSTALLATION PROJECT
Item #16A27
CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR THE WORK ORDER WITH
BONNESS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROGRESS AVENUE AT LIVINGSTON ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 60188-2, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $40~906.26
Item # 16A28
30 DAY NOTIFICATION FORM LETTERS TO UTILITY
COMPANIES REQUESTING RELOCATION OF FACILITIES
LOCATED IN THE COUNTY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item # 16A29
MODIFICATIONS TO TWO LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
Page 409
September 13-14,2011
FUNDED CONTRACTS: 1) #11-5679 INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND SR 29 AND 2)
#11-5674 BOSTON AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN
ORDER TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
GRANTING AGENCY (FISCAL IMPACT: $0) - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A30
RECOGNIZE FY 2011 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 5307 GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,504,638 FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT, RECOGNIZE
AUCTION PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF ROLLING STOCK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,760 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16Bl
RATIFY STAFF'S ZERO DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION TO
CONTRACT NO. 09-5333 FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING
SERVICES IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONSULTANT'S
FINAL INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y OVERLAY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE REGULATIONS WITH RWA, INC., AND TO CLOSE OUT
THE CONTRACT; AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS
Item #16B2 - Moved to Item #13A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16Cl
Page 410
September 13-14,2011
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $671,077 TO
TRANSFER VARIOUS PROJECTS BETWEEN THE WATER
AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUNDS IN ORDER TO SPEND
DOWN AND CLOSE OUT THE 2006 REVENUE BOND
PROCEEDS FUND
Item # 16C2
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO CLARIFIER
MECHANISMS FROM DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $220,800 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) TECHNICAL SUPPORT
PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 73968; AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $220,800 FROM
PROJECT NUMBER 70050 MASTER PUMP STATION
TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO PROJECT NUMBER 73968 - THE
CLARIFIERS ARE BEING REPLACED WITH A NEW
RELIABLE AND ROBUST DESIGN
Item #16C3
AWARD BID NUMBER 11-5668R, COLLECTION AND
RECYCLING OF LATEX PAINT, TO SCOTT PAINT COMPANY,
INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR, AND TO E.Q. FLORIDA, INC.,
AS SECONDARY VENDOR. EXPENDITURES ARE
ESTIMATED TO BE $54,000 ANNUALLY - IN 2010, SCOTT
PAINT RECYCLED 217,634 POUNDS OF LATEX PAINT AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY RECYCLING CENTERS
Item #16C4
RATIFY STAFF'S EXTENSION OF WORK ORDER NO.
Page 411
September 13-14, 2011
4500106888 WITH Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., TO
PROCESS THE CONSULTANT'S FINAL INVOICE OF $2,542.68
FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE ROOST ROAD WATER
MAIN INTERCONNECT - DUE TO DELAYS ON PART OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS GOING THROUGH
BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURES WHICH DELAYED THE WORK,
WITH THE COMPLETION DATE OF APRIL 19~ 2011
Item #16C5
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT #11-5720,
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DEEP INJECTION WELL IW-2 TUBING REPLACEMENT,
PROJECT #70088, IN THE AMOUNT OF $720,300 TO
YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC.; AND AUTHORIZE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $720,300, FOR
PROJECT #70088 - USED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF
CONCENTRATE FLOW PRODUCED BY THE REVERSE
OSMOSIS
Item #16C6
AWARD BID NUMBER 11-5678, "PALM SPRINGS WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT," IN THE AMOUNT
OF $794,538 TO SOUTHWEST UTILITY, INCLUDING THE
BASE BID OF $689,675 TO REHABILITATE THE POTABLE
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AND THE BID AL TERNA TE
OF $104,863 FOR STORMWATERMANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENTS SERVING THE PALM
SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. 71010 (BASE BID) AND
PROJECT NO. 60113 (BID ALTERNATE)
Page 412
September 13-14,2011
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2011-145: RESOLUTION REVISING THE
PROCEDURE BY WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT CUSTOMERS RECEIVE CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS
FOR COOLING TOWER WATER EVAPORATION,
SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING THE CURRENT
PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2002-365
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $343,620 TO DOUGLAS
N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE SUB MASTER PUMP STATION
#312.41 REHABILITATION, PROJECT NUMBER 70046, UNDER
CONTRACT #08-5011, FIXED-TERM UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES CONTRACT - DUE TO THE CORRODING PUMPS
AND PIPING CAUSING A REDUCTION IN FLOW
Item #16C9
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO MOTORIZED
STRAINERS AND RETURN ACTIV A TED SLUDGE AND
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPS FROM MITCHELL AND
STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $267,720 AND $245,728 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY TECHNICAL
SUPPORT PROJECT NUMBER 73968; AND, APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $513,448 FROM
LOCATEPROJECT NUMBER 70050, MASTER PUMP STATION
TECHNICAL SUPPORT, TO PROJECT NUMBER 73968 - FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO MOTORIZED STRAINERS
HELPING TO MEET THE DEMAND OF IRRIGATION QUALITY
Page 413
September 13-14, 2011
WATER
Item #16CI0
UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
COLLIER COUNTY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT FOR IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER
PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
INCLUDING TELEMETRY ANTENNAE, ELECTRICAL PANEL,
METER ASSEMBLY, ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, AND FOR
ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF THE
VINEYARDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN VINEYARDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OFF
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD IN NAPLES, FLORIDA AT AN
ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $30, PROJECT NUMBER
70062 - ALLOWING FOR PROACTIVE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCED COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL
CAP ABILITIES
Item #16Cll
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ACCEPT A RIGHT OF
ENTRY FOR A GROUNDWATER MONITOR WELL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PURPOSES, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $27 - LOCATED OFF OF 18TH
STREET NE AND 20TH STREET NE, KNOWN AS SCHOOL SITE
DDD
Item # 16C 12 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REQUISITE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE
Page 414
September 13-14, 2011
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
DIVISION OF TREASURY, TO ESTABLISH AN INTEREST
BEARING ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR THE FUNDS REQUIRED
TO RELOCATE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT-OWNED UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES TO
ACCOMMODATE THE WIDENING OF STATE ROAD 84
BETWEEN SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND RADIO
ROAD
Item #16C13
PROPOSED DEDUCT CHANGE ORDER NO.2, TO CONTRACT
NO. 10-5441 WITH DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE
ISLES OF CAPRI WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 1
PROJECT - FOR THE REMOVAL OF CEMENT PIPE
Item #16C14
BUDGET AMENDMENTS OF $108,300 AND $1,100 FOR FUND
408 (COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT) AND
FUND 441 (GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT) RESPECTIVELY,
TO REALLOCATE BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSES
WITHIN THE FUNDS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY / STATE
OF FLORIDA FOR TROPICAL STORM FAY EXPENSES ALSO
PAID BY INSURANCE - RELATED TO TROPICAL STORM
FAY
Item #16C15
UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY
Page 415
September 13-14,2011
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT TO
IMPROVE CURRENT ACCESS AND TO INSTALL A WATER
LINE FOR FIRE PROTECTION FOR MASTER PUMPING
STATION 312 FORA TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,
PROJECT NUMBER 72549.1 - LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EMBASSY WOODS PUD
Item #16Dl
REIMBURSEMENT TO THE GRANTOR AGENCY,
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL & COMMUNITY SERVICE,
FOR AN UNAUTHORIZED $300 EXPENDITURE FOR
MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENT AT THE RSVP RECOGNITION
EVENT - HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES HIRED A
HARPIST TO PROVIDE MUSIC FOR THE EVENT HELD ON
MARCH 24~ 2010
Item #16D2
AMENDMENT NO.6 TO THE FDEP COST SHARE CONTRACT
NO. 05COl YEARLY MONITORING COST REIMBURSEMENT
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO.6.
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT WILL RESULT IN A $300,075
REDUCTION IN CONTRACT VALUE FROM THE STATE
CLOSE OUT OF COMPLETED CONTRACT WORK - DUE TO
THE 2011 LEGISLATURE REVERTING FUNDS FOR THIS
AGREEMENT WITH THE AMENDMENT REFLECTS THE
REMOVAL OF FUNDS
Item # 16D3 - Moved to Item # 1 OL (Per Commissioner Hiller during
Agenda Changes)
Page 416
September 13-14,2011
Item #16D4
REJECT SOLICITATION (ITB) #11-5723, AND THE
ASSOCIATED PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND
AUTHORIZED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL NEW PATHWAY -FROM SR 951
TO TROPICANA BRIDGE
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR
POOL TANK REPAIR AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK
SUN N FUN LAGOON - REPLACING THREE EXISTING
COLLECTION TANKS ON SEPTEMBER 27~ 2011
Item #16D7
TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIONAL
DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETY (NDSS) FOR THE SECOND
ANNUAL BUDDY WALK AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL
PARK ON OCTOBER 22, 2011 - FOR FUNDRAISING AND,
HELPING TO PROMOTE LOCAL AND NATIONAL
AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
Item #16D8 - Moved to Item #10G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16El
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE
Page 417
September 13-14, 2011
CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE
PUBLIC'S USE OF "PRESERVE LANDS" MANAGED BY
CONSERVATION COLLIER AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Item #16E2
AWARD ITB 11-5696, "PAINT AND RELATED ITEMS," TO
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $65,000 - INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
PAINT BRUSHES, ROLLERS, ROLLER POLES AND
SOLVENTS
Item # 16E3
AWARD ITB 11-5715, "PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES,"
TO FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., AS THE PRIMARY,
PLUMBMASTER, INC., AS THE SECONDARY, AND FIRST
CLASS PLUMBING OF FLORIDA, INC., AS THE TERTIARY
FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $185,000 - FOR
THE PURCHASES OF HARDWARE AND RELATED ITEMS
USED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR COUNTY ASSETS AND
INFRASTRUCTURES
Item #16E4
WAIVE THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE PROCESS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE COUNTY AND APPROVE A NEGOTIATED
CONTRACT WITH ROBERT FLINN RECORDS MANAGEMENT
CENTER (APPROXIMATE ANNUAL SPEND: $48~000)
Item # 16E5
Page 418
September 13-14,2011
PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR THE LETTER OF INTEREST
(LOI) #11-5731 FOOD SERVICE FOR COLLIER COUNTY
FROM RUSSELL'S CLAMBAKES, JASON'S DELI, SUBWAY
CANDITO MANAGEMENT AND COUNTRY CATERERS BBQ
INC, FOR EVENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO EMERGENCIES
AND DISASTERS - FOR LARGE SCALE EVENTS OR
EMERGENCIES AND DISASTER FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
Item #16E6
TERMINATION OF CONTRACT #08-5034 TEE SHIRTS WITH
NORTH COAST IMAGEWEAR, INC. (APPROXIMATE
ANNUAL SPEND $40,000) - PARKS AND RECREATION AND
OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENT AND PROGRAMS
Item #16E7
AWARD BID NO. 11-5699, PART A, MEDICAL DIRECTOR TO
DR. GREGORY E. LEACH MD, AND PART B, EMPLOYMENT
PHYSICALS & DRUG TESTING TO ADVANCED MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC. (ESTIMATED ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT
$50,000) - THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES ON
SEPTEMBER 30. 2011
Item #16E8
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #11-5721 TO SCRIPPS
MEDIA DBA NAPLES DAILY NEWS AS THE NEWS MEDIA
SOURCE TO ADVERTISE DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE OR
PROPERTY TAXES (ESTIMATED ANNUAL ADVERTISING
COST: $90~000)
Page 419
September 13-14,2011
Item #16E9
ASSUMPTION OF CONTRACT FROM GRUELLE
CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO HONC MARINE SERVICES, INC.
D/B/A HONC DESTRUCTION FOR DEMOLITION OF
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - STAFF
WAS NOTIFIED ON JULY 27,2011 THAT HONC WOULD
ASSUME THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF GRUELLE
Item #16EI0
RENAME THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LIMPKIN MARSH
PRESERVE TO THE REDROOT PRESERVE
Item #16Ell
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S AGENT, TO
APPLY FOR FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION ANTLERLESS DEER PERMITS TO FACILITATE
PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE HUNT PROGRAM EVENTS -
USED TO MANAGE THE DEER POPULATION WITHIN THE
PRESERVE
Item #16E12
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CORKSCREW REGIONAL
ECOSYSTEM WATERSHED LAND AND WATER TRUST IN
ORDER TO FACILITATE MANAGED PUBLIC HUNTING AT
Page 420
September 13-14, 2011
CARACARA PRAIRIE PRESERVE - TO F ACILIT A TE
MANAGED PUBLIC HUNTING AT CARACARA PRAIRIE
PRESERVE
Item #16E13 - Continued to the September 27, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE USE OF
PEER REVIEWS OF DESIGNS FOR MAJOR CAPITAL
PROJECTS
Item #16E14
APPROPRIATE SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $53,188 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR
PROVIDING SPECIAL SERVICES FOR BUILDING
MAINTENANCE
Item #16E15
ARTIST'S RENDERINGS TO BE USED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BRONZE BUST OF FORMER COUNTY
MANAGER JAMES V. MUDD DONATED BY ABBAS ASLI
(LANDLORD OF THE FORMER PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE BUILDING) FOR PLACEMENT IN THE JAMES V.
MUDD EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER - THE ARTIST'S
RENDERINGS HA VE BEEN APPROVED BY THE MUDD
F AMIL Y
Item #16E16
Page 421
September 13-14,2011
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY
STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS - THE REPORTS COVER THE PERIOD OF
JULY 8~ 2011 THROUGH AUGUST 19~ 2011
Item #16E17
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, AUTOMOBILE, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER OF FYll
Item #16Fl
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS.
(IN ABSENTIA MEETING DATED AUGUST 9.2011)
Item # 16F2
AMENDMENT #2 TO THE FRIENDS OF ROOKERY BAY, INC.,
FYll TOURIST TAX DEVELOPMENT TAX GRANT
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT UNTIL
JANUARY 31,2012, CHANGE THE CURRENT FUNDING
SOURCE FROM CATEGORY C-2 TO TOURISM PROMOTION
FUND 184 AS A CATEGORY B MARKETING GRANT,
CLARIFY REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGREEMENT, AND WAIVE THE $25,000 FUNDING LIMIT
AND 80% SECOND REQUEST GUIDELINES IN THE
CATEGORY B GRANT APPLICATION FOR FY 11 AND FYI2-
Page 422
September 13-14,2011
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2011-146: FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE
FUNDING OF MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,919 AND TO APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16F4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC. IN
SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE - FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
FOOD, WATER, SUPPLIES, AND OTHER ITEMS FOR
TEMPORARY RELIEF ACTIVITIES DURING A DISASTER
Item #16F5
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FROM RESERVES IN
THE AMOUNT LESS THAN $25,000 - COVERING EXPENSES
FOR THE NAPLES DEPOT FOR MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
INCLUDING LEAKS AND ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS AND
INCLUDING ALARM PROBLEMS
Item # 16F6
Page 423
September 13-14,2011
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CONTRIBUTION OF $53,447
TO THE PELICAN BAY IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING
FUND (322), PROGRAM (50066) PELICAN BAY HARDSCAPE
TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CROSSWALK
Item # 16F7
AMENDMENTS TOFY 11 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
CATEGORY BAND C-2 GRANT AGREEMENTS TO CLARIFY
REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F8
RATIFY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH THE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF THE
EVERGLADES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 3670 -EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
AGREEMENT IS OCTOBER 8, 2011 AND WILL RUN
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30~ 2014
Item # 16F9
RESOLUTION 2011-147: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16Gl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ADOPT AND AUTHORIZE THE
Page 424
September 13-14,2011
AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND
PROMULGATE THE ATTACHED LEASING MANUAL FOR
AIRCRAFT STORAGE SPACE AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT,
AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK
Item #16G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE
AIRPORT MANAGER(S) TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
STANDARD SELF-FUELING PERMIT FOR THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK - MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE AUTHORIZED
INDIVIDUALS FOR THE DISPENSING OF FUEL
Item # 16G3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AMEND THE 2011 RATES AND
CHARGES FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT TO ADD A $1,000 NON-REFUNDABLE FEE FOR
THE AUTHORITY TO START PROCESSING A SELF-FUELING
PERMIT APPLICATION - THIS FEE REFLECTS THE COST OF
PROCESSING THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Item #16G4
Page 425
September 13-14,2011
TWO (2) ATTACHED SUB-LEASE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
GREGORY SHEPARD FOR PARCELS OF LAND IMPROVED
WITH BUILDINGS AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G5
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO IMMOKALEE
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT FOR PROVIDING WATER
SERVICE TO THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT USDA BUILDING
LOCATED AT 190 AIRPARK BOULEVARD, IMMOKALEE AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50 - FOR THE INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE
GROUND WATER LINES. AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE
Item #16G6
CONVEYANCE OF AN UNDERGROUND EASEMENT
(BUSINESS) TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR
PROVIDING ELECTRICAL SERVICE AT THE MARCO ISLAND
AIRPORT LOCATED AT 2005 MAINSAIL DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $35.50 - FOR THE
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2011 EXCELLENCE IN INDUSTRY
Page 426
September 13-14,2011
AWARDS LUNCHEON ON SEPTEMBER 15,2011 AT THE
HILTON NAPLES IN NAPLES, FL. $15 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2011-148: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, INC. - APPOINTING RENEE THIGPEN AND JIM
LAMB BOTH TO REPRESENT THE BUSINESS SECTOR OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16H3 - Moved to Item #9H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #161
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 427
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 13,2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
Proposed Budget FY 201l/2012
2) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council:
Annual Budget for FY 20 ll/20 12
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
September 13, 2011
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of6/2l/11
2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/6/10; 12/8/10; l/12/11; 3/9/11; 4/6/11; 5/4/11
3) Board of Building Adiustments and Appeals:
Minutes of 5/6/11
4) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of 4/20/11
Minutes of 4/20/11
5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 8/5/1 0; l/13/11; 5/12/11
6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 5/3/11 (Special Magistrate); 6/3/11 (Special Magistrate)
7) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of 4/7/11; 4/29/11
Minutes of 4/7/11; 4/2l/11; 5/5/11; 5/19/11; 6/2/11
8) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 5/18/11
9) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of3/16/11; 4/20/11; 5/18/11
Minutes of 3/16/11; 3/24/11 (Solid Waste Disposal Contract
Subcommittee); 4/20/11; 5/18/11 (Capital Improvement Project
Review Subcommittee); 5/18/11; 5/26/11 (Capital Improvement Plan
Review Subcommittee)
10) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5/4/11; 6/l/ll
11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of3/25/11; 4/15/11; 6/10/11
12) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of 5/4/11; 6/1/11; 7/6/11
13) Floodplain Management Planning Committee:
Minutes of 4/4/11
14) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 4/13/11; 5/11/11; 6/8/11; 7/13/11
Minutes of3/14/11; 4/13/11; 4/19/11; 5/11/11; 6/8/11
15) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 5/1 0/11
Minutes of 5/10/11; 6/14/11
16) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 6/6/11
Minutes of 4/4/11; 5/2/11; 6/6/11
17) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of5/19/10; 7/2l/10; l/19/11; 3/23/11; 5/11/11
18) Horizon Study Oversight Committee:
Minutes of 1/29/1 0; 4/30/10; 10/29/1 0; 2/4/11
19) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 3/23/11; 4/27/11; 5/25/11; 6/29/11; 7/27/11
Minutes of 1/26/11; 3/23/11; 4/27/11; 5/25/11; 6/29/11
20) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of6/15/11; 7/20/11
Minutes of6/15/11
21) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of 5/18/11; 6/15/11; 7/20/11
Minutes of 4/20/11; 5/18/11; 6/15/11
22) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 4/18/11
23) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 5/19/11; 6/16/11; 6/29/11; 7/21/11
Minutes of2/17/11; 4/2l/11; 5/19/11; 6/16/11; 6/29/11
24) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of 4/20/11
25) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5/9/11; 6/13/11
26) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of 10/20/10; 12/15/10; 4/20/11
27) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 5/4/11; 6/13/11
Minutes of 5/4/11
28) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 3/15/11
Minutes of2/15/11; 3/15/11
29) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of 4/6/1 0; 5/4/1 0; 8/11/10; 6/1/11
Minutes of 4/6/1 0; 5/4/10; 8/11/10; 6/1/11
30) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 3/3/11; 4/7/11; 5/5/11
Minutes of 2/3/11; 3/3/11; 4/7/11
31) Water and Wastewater Authority:
Minutes of 3/28/11
September 13-14,2011
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 21,2011 AND
JULY 22, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 23, 2011
THROUGH JULY 29, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 30, 2011
THROUGH AUGUST 5, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 6, 2011
THROUGH AUGUST 12, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 13,2011
THROUGH AUGUST 19,2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J6
Page 428
September 13-14,2011
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 20, 2011
THROUGH AUGUST 26, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J7
COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT
FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $32,213.21 WITH A 15% MATCHING CONTRIBUTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $4,831.98 AND THAT THE BOARD DIRECT
ITS CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING
MATCHING FUNDS
Item # 16J8
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES
PERTAINING TO SERVICES AND VOTING EQUIPMENT USED
BY THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY IN CONNECTION
WITH AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 22~ 2011
Item #16Kl
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC.
V. WILSON MILLER, ET AL., CASE NO. 10-1270-CA (FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE) - THE CONTRACTOR AND
SUBCONTRACTORS FAILED TO PROTECT THE TREES AND
ROOT SYSTEMS ALONG THE PORTION OF BERKSHIRE
LAKES WHICH CAUSED FLOODING RESULTING IN
DAMAGES
Page 429
September 13-14,2011
Item #16K2 - Moved to Item #IIA (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K3
RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN
"AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF HOPPING,
GREEN & SAMS~ P.A. - FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES
Item #16K4
SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED JENNIFER
RESSEL, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, A MINOR V. COLLIER COUNTY, A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $8,000 AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - FOR AN INJURY THAT
OCCURRED DURING BASEBALL TRYOUTS ON JANUARY 16,
2010 IN WHICH IT IS ALLEGED THAT A BENCH FLIPPED
OVER AND CAUSED A BROKEN TOE
Item #16K5
DECLARATIONS OF CONTINUED USE TO MAINTAIN
SERVICE MARK REGISTRATIONS WITH THE UNITED
STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE TO PRESERVE
THE COUNTY'S ADVERTISING, LOGOS, PHRASES AND
SLOGANS - FOR THE SERVICE MARKS INCORPORATING
THE "NAPLES MARCO ISLAND EVERGLADES PARADISE
COAST" AND "FLORIDA'S LAST PARADISE" WITH THE US
PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
Page 430
September 13-14,2011
Item #16K6 - Continued to the October 11,2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
WITHDRAWAL OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA KNOWN AS HALF CIRCLE L
RANCH PARTNERSHIP ("HCLRP") SSA #8 AND THE
TERMINATION OF THE STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA
CREDIT AGREEMENT AND THE STEWARDSHIP EASEMENT
AGREEMENT, AND THE CANCELING OF THE
STEWARDSHIP CREDITS GENERATED BY THE
DESIGNATION OF SAID STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2011-149: PEITITION CU-PL2010-166: Y AHL
MULCHING & RECYCLING, INC. - A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A COLLECTION AND
TRANSFER SITE FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY WITHIN AN
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
SUBSECTION 2.03.01.A.l.C.12 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2011-150 (DISTRICT 1) & RESOLUTION 2011-
151 (DISTRICT 2): RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS THE FINAL
Page 431
September 13-14, 2011
ASSESSMENT ROLLS, AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-
AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR PURPOSES OF
UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR
SOLID WASTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS,
SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER I AND SERVICE DISTRICT
NUMBER II, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND, AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY,
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-51, AS
AMENDED. REVENUES ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE
$18,527,700. FOR FY2012, THE TOTAL SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT PROPOSED FOR SOLID WASTE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS, SERVICE DISTRICT I IS $173.49
AND SERVICE DISTRICT II IS $165.28 PER RESIDENTIAL
UNIT. THESE ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS ARE THE SAME AS
THOSE APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN FY2011
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2011-152: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
CLOSE-OUT OF NINE (9) ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS) WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLETED
ALL OR AN INDEPENDENT PORTION OF DEVELOPMENT
PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS
CONSTRUCTING UP TO THE AUTHORIZED DENSITY
AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY
STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR SPECIFIC
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Item #17D
Page 432
September 13-14, 2011
RESOLUTION 2011-153: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
CLOSE-OUT OF FIVE (5) ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS) WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLETED
ALL OR AN INDEPENDENT PORTION OF THEIR
DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS CONSTRUCTED UP TO THE AUTHORIZED DENSITY
AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY
STAFF TO HAVE ONLY ONE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITMENT REMAINING WHICH WILL BE TRACKED
THROUGH THE COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2011-154: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
Page 433
September 13-14,2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:17 p.m.
Board of County Commissioners
~w.~
Fred Coyle, Chairman
,J ~.
ATTEsrr ",.,j;i'{;~~1
. .~iMPD c~.,,~j, ..
D~QHJ~:g:>>~-9~K, CLERK
l ;;'. ~:( .~~t:f ",; \ -: \
These minut~roved by the Board on
as presented A _ or as corrected
oc.i:o&s Ll 'Z 0 It ,
)
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 434