BCC Minutes 02/28/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
February 28, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 28, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Assistant County Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
February 28, 2012
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice - Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
February 28, 2012
Page 1
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. Rabbi Adam Miller - Temple Shalom
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. January 24, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
C. February 7, 2012 - BCC /Strategic Planning Workshop
February 28, 2012
Page 2
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 2012 as Retired Senior Volunteer Program
(RSVP) Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Steve Smith, RSVP
Project Director, RSVP Advisory Council Members and RSVP Volunteers.
Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Joseph Langkawel, Chairman, Isles of Capri Fire Advisory
Board, of a fact - finding report concerning administrative options for the
Isles of Capri Fire Department.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from David Bakalar representing Wells Fargo Bank,
requesting that the Board remove all fines assessed against the property at
6090 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples.
B. Public Petition request from Jasmine Mann representing the Shoppes at
Vanderbilt, requesting that Board grant additional temporary use days for
special events.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDA- PL20110000047: Sabal Bay MPUD -- An
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 05 -59, the Sabal Bay Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development, by amending the PUD Document, Exhibit A, to provide
February 28, 2012
Page 3
for: changes in development standards including right of way widths and
sidewalks; addition of general permitted uses to include outside storage and
telecommunication facilities; removal of golf as a permitted use; addition of
car wash, post office, docks and electric boats as allowable uses in the
recreation/village center tract; increase of preserve by 45 acres; increase in
floor area ratio for adult living facility and increase in height; removal of
affordable housing and removal of Bald Eagle Management Plan and
Gopher Tortoise Relocation Management Plan on property located south of
Thomasson Drive, south and west of U. S. 41, north and west of the
Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay intercoastal waterway in
Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and
Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 2,416 +/- acres; and providing an effective date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board.
B. Board of County Commissioners discussion of the contract of Dr. Robert B.
Tober. (Commissioner Fiala)
C. Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 75 -16, as amended, as
it relates to procedures for reconsideration of agenda items. (Commissioner
Coletta)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt the FY 2013 Budget Policy. (Mark Isackson,
County Manager's Office)
B. Recommendation to provide direction to Staff regarding the extension of the
"Early Entry" bonus Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) credit, as
provided for within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). (Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager,
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation)
C. Recommendation to revise Board Policy to increase the amount of Purchase
Assistance awards for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)
February 28, 2012
Page 4
program to the lesser of 20% of the purchase price or $20,000. (Kim Grant,
Interim Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
D. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation to consider the
Tourist Development Council (TDC) request to allow the TDC to elect and
rotate the Chairman from among the TDC members and in light of a recent
resignation to request that the Board Chairman either serve on the TDC or
designate a member of the Board to serve on the TDC in compliance with
Section 125.0104(4)(e), Fla. Stat. and Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended.
(Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
E. Recommendation to provide a Summary of the Seasonal Population
evaluation requested by the Board at their November 9, 2011 public hearing
for the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) /Capital Improvement
Element (Capital Improvement Element (CIE) update on Public Facilities as
provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development
Code. (Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Growth Management
Division/Planning & Regulation)
F. Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Express Scripts, Inc. to
provide Pharmacy Benefit Management Services to the Collier County
Group Health Insurance Plan in the amount of $5,136,334 in FY2012, a
reduction of 11.8 %. (Jeff Walker, Director, Risk Management)
G. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of a
Road Right -of -Way, Drainage and Utility Easement necessary for the
construction of intersection improvements at 18th Avenue NE and
Everglades Boulevard. Transportation Intersection Safety and Capacity
Improvement Program (Project No. 60016). Estimated fiscal impact:
$14,000. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
February 28, 2012
Page 5
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) review the Finance Committee report and
recommendations concerning Bayshore Gateway Triangle financial
outlook and provide guidance to the CRA Executive Director. (Mark
Isackson, County Manager's Office)
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) review CRA staff recommendations concerning
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Tax Increment Fund (TIF) grant
programs and provide direction as determined by the Board. (David
Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
3) This item continued from the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to Award Contract No. 11 -5 705 — Gateway Triangle
Residential Area Tertiary Stormwater System Improvements to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $1,731,977, to approve all
necessary budget amendments and authorize the Chairman to sign the
standard Board approved contracts after legal review by the Office of
the County Attorney. (Fiscal Impact to CRA: $219,500) (Sue Trone,
AICP, Project Manager, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and award RFP #11 -5697 for CEI Services to URS
Corporation for the Triangle Stormwater System Improvement Project
for the Gateway Triangle Residential Area and authorize the CRA
Chairman to execute the Agreement. (Fiscal Impact to CRA:
$175,462) (Sue Trone, AICP, Project Manager, Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA)
5) This item continued from February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle area. (3042 Cottage Grove Avenue — Fiscal Impact:
$2,235.75) (Ashley Caserta, CRA Grants Coordinator)
February 28, 2012
Page 6
6) This item continued from the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant
Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2464 Kirkwood Avenue, Fiscal
Impact $7,787.50) (David Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA)
7) This item continued from the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Landscape Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle area. (2416 Florida Avenue — Fiscal Impact:
$987.05) (Sue Trone, AICP, Project Manager, Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Black Bear Ridge, Phase 1, and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Black Bear Ridge, Phase 2, 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.
February 28, 2012
Page 7
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Black Bear Ridge, Phase 3 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.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release Utilities Performance Security Bonds to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent for Gateway Shoppes at
North Bay, Phase 4, 13565 Tamiami Trail North.
5) Recommendation to approve the release of two liens in the Code
Enforcement Actions entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Roilan Perez, Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007 -37, and
Special Magistrate Case No. 2007 - 080668, relating to property
located at 1974 46th Street SW, Collier County, Florida.
6) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Raul and Martha Reyes, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case
No. CEPM- 2010 - 0003246, relating to property located at 7893
Umberto Court, Collier County, Florida.
7) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Frank Susi., Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No.
CESD2008- 0011167, relating to property located at 606 111th Ave.
North, Collier County, Florida.
8) Recommendation to approve a Release of Lien for the Crestview Park
Apartments Phase I due to the impact fees being paid in full in
accordance with the Multi- family Rental Impact Fee Deferral
Program, as set forth by Section 74- 401(e) and 74- 401(g) (5) of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
9) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Bonness, Inc.,
for Bid No. 12 -5826 - Saint Andrews Boulevard Intersection
Improvements at East Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41), Project No. 60016, in
February 28, 2012
Page 8
the amount of $47,590.21.
10) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 5 to Contract #10-
5206, with Atkins North America, Inc., for Design Services for
Collier Area Transit Transfer Station, in the amount of $20,000, to
allow revision of plans to accommodate changes based on Board
direction to split the project into a base and alternate, and to authorize
the chair to execute the change order.
11) This item continued from the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Arthrex Commerce Park, which
has been revised from the plat which was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on December 13, 2011, approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between the Collier
County Sheriff's Office and Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County for the construction and maintenance of a concrete
wall between widened Oil Well Road and the Sheriff's substation
located on the southeast corner of the Corkscrew Middle School
property. Fiscal Impact: $15,000. Project No. 60044.
13) Recommendation to approve a Settlement and Release Agreement
between Collier County and American Traffic Solutions, Inc. for
provision of Collier County's Traffic Infraction Detector Program
(TID Program) also known as the Red Light Running Camera
Enforcement System.
14) Recommendation to extend Contract #07 -4105 with White & Smith,
LLC, Planning and Law Group, under the same terms and conditions
as the original contract, for a period of nine (9) months, ending on
December 11, 2012 (fiscal impact: time extension only).
15) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for the Supplemental Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) No. 1 providing additional revenue in
February 28, 2012
Page 9
the amount of $25,342 from FY 2011/2012 Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311 American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funding.
16) Recommendation to adopt a resolution of necessity superseding
Resolution No. 2011 -105 correcting scrivener's errors in legal
descriptions and authorizing the condemnation of those perpetual and
temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
stormwater improvements known as the US -41 Ditch segment of the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $1,787,000.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve the attached
Site Access Agreement between the CRA in Immokalee (Owner) and
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. (Contractor) allowing said Contractor to
store its materials and equipment in conjunction with the Downtown
Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Project. The site location is at
the southwest corner of South 9th Street and Main Street in
Immokalee (Folio Number 00122840009).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract #10 -5599
with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., in the amount of $427,966, for
Construction Engineering Inspection Services, for the second stage of
Phase IV of the South RO Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main
Repair, Project #70030.
2) Recommendation to accept a South Florida Water Management
District Alternative Water Supply Grant in the amount of $350,000
for partial funding of the North Collier Regional Water Treatment
Plant Reverse Osmosis Treatment Units Replacement and Installation
of Inter -Stage Booster Pump, Project #71057, and for partial funding
of the Irrigation Quality Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well,
Project #74030.
February 28, 2012
Page 10
3) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of
$586,159.60 to DN Higgins for construction tasks set forth in Request
for Quotation #08- 5011 -58, Irrigation Quality Water Sites.
4) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
advertise an amendment to Ordinance No. 2003 -18, the Collier
County Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance, to conform with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency Model Pretreatment
Ordinance as required by Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to sign one (1) release of lien and provide for an
overpayment refund for the Disaster Recovery Initiative Single
Family Rehabilitation Program since repayment in full has been
provided to Collier County.
2) Recommendation to enact a grantor approved time extension to
December 21, 2012 by amending four (4) affected subrecipient
agreements under the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Grant
Agreement # l ODB-D4-09-2 1 -01 -K09.
3) Recommendation to approve a time extension amendment through
July 31, 2012 to an existing subrecipient agreement with David
Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (DLC) to allow for completion
of a Crisis Stabilization Unit on DLL's main campus.
4) Recommendation to sign an amendment for a time extension through
December 31, 2012 and for various administrative updates to the 2010
Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Subrecipient
Agreement with Florida Non - Profit Services, Inc. (FNPS) to complete
the purchase and renovation of two homes in Immokalee.
5) Recommendation to sign the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc., dba Seniors Choices of Southwest Florida, Standard
Contract and Attestation Statement, and to approve associated budget
amendments for the FYI 2 Older Americans Act Title III Program in
the amount of $614,964 and local match funding of $68,329.
February 28, 2012
Page 11
6) Recommendation to implement the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners by amending the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Action Plans to execute program changes and authorize submission of
the revised Action Plans to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
7) Recommendation to approve a Short Sale Policy for the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program.
8) Recommendation to authorize the Library Director to submit required
grant forms for a Library Services and Technology Access Grant
"Collier Connects ", in the grant funded amount of $27,164.
9) Recommendation to approve execution of the Florida Boating
Improvement Program (FBIP) Site Dedication Instrument for the boat
ramp area at Bayview Park, at a cost not to exceed $27.50.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize the sale of Collier County surplus
property on March 24, 2012.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to the Letter of
Agreement with Quest Diagnostics, Inc. to provide follow up lipid and
A 1 C testing services in support of the Wellness Based Incentives
Program in an estimated amount of $10,410.
3) Recommendation to authorize the use of a contract issued under
Invitation to Bid #10 -5569 for Bottled Drinking Water to Nestle
Waters North America (approximate annual expenditure, less than
$50,000).
4) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12 -5846,
"Contract Laborers," to Balance Professional, as the primary, and
Abacus Corporation, as the secondary, for temporary labor services in
the estimated annual amount of $650,000, to authorize the Chairman
to execute contracts with those vendors effective March 1, 2012, and
February 28, 2012
Page 12
to terminate the existing contract with Balance Professional and MDT
Personnel, LLC ( #09 -5215) effective February 29, 2012.
5) Recommendation to award and authorize the Chairman to sign an
engineering design Contract in the amount of $419,500 to H2
Engineering, Inc., for RFP #12 -5809 — Engineering Design for
Renovation/Replacement of HVAC Systems in oldest section of the
Collier County Naples Jail Center, Project No. 53172.
6) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract #10-5486 -
Homeless Management Information System, with Data Systems
International, to clarify the term of the contract and to change the
dispute resolution venue to Collier County, Florida.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to authorize staff to develop an ordinance for future
consideration that amends Ordinance No. 2009 -23, "Regulation of
Outdoor Burning and Incendiary Devices during Drought Conditions
Ordinance," in order to allow the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to declare a burning ban on behalf of the Board in
absentia and also clarify certain provisions of the Ordinance.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, in its
capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approves the
attached Resolution replacing and superseding Resolution No. 2012-
05 (2012 Rates and Charges for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee
Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport) in order to
revise the 2012 parking fee exemptions for Everglades Airpark.
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to the
Federal Aviation Administration for construction of the South
Taxiway at Everglades Airpark, and associated budget amendment to
February 28, 2012
Page 13
fund the design and bidding required for the grant application.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Police Foundation Luncheon on February 17,
2012. The sum of $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Island Wet Paint Dinner on February 9, 2012.
The sum of $35 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
will attend the Honor the Free Press Day Luncheon on March 14,
2012. The sum of $30 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
will attend the Zoobilee 2012 on March 10, 2012. The sum of $140 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Boy Scouts of America Annual Business Meeting of the
Southwest Council at the Southwest Florida Council Conference
Center, Fort Myers, FL on February 7, 2012. $10 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) The Board of County Commissioners Office requests Board approval
for reimbursement regarding expenditure serving a Valid Public
Purpose. Bouquet of flowers to honor a proclamation recipient.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 28, 2012
Page 14
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
28, 2012 through February 3, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 4, 2012 through February 10, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PL- 2011 -2649 Recommendation that the Board of
Zoning Appeals approve a proposed land use for a dental office as a
permitted use in the Baldridge PUD (Ordinance Number: 02 -55).
B. A request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 2009 -01, as amended which created the
Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board in order to revise the
composition of the Advisory Board.
18. ADJOURN
February 28, 2012
Page 15
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
February 28, 2012
Page 16
February 28, 2012
MR. SHEFFIELD: Commissioner, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please
stand for the invocation by Rabbi Adam Miller from Temple Shalom.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
RABBI ADAM MILLER FROM TEMPLE SHALOM, NAPLES
RABBI MILLER: Thank you for inviting me here this morning
to offer the invocation. It is a special occasion, certainly, to be here
before the Board of County Commissioners and especially in this
year.
In 1962, four families gathered here in Naples, Florida, with the
vision to create a community where Jews could pray, study, and
develop their Jewish identities.
Inspired by the great visionary Theodor Hertzl, who said, "Im
tirtzu, ein zo agada ", "If you will it, it is not just a dream." They and
others set out to make their vision a reality.
Today that synagogue founded in 1962, Temple Shalom,
celebrates its 50th anniversary. Temple Shalom continues the vision
of its founders as part of a growing community, Jewish community
here in Collier County. It is a vibrant congregation; the largest in
Collier County, with more than 500 households, 200 children in the
religious school, and 100 children in its pre- school.
Temple Shalom is a proud partner with many organizations in
Collier County, Jewish organizations as well as non - Jewish
organizations, working together on a community interfaith
Thanksgiving service, supporting the work of the Harry Chapin Food
Bank, and each year gathering on Mitzvah Day to pack tens of
thousands of meals as part of Kids Against Hunger.
Page 2
February 28, 2012
Temple Shalom is a vibrant and wonderful part of our
community today, and its future is bright in part because the visionary
spirit that inspired its founders remains a part of our entire Collier
County community.
We have so many leaders, those present here in our room today
and others, who understand that same message from Hertzl that it's
important to have a vision but also to work to make that vision a
reality.
We pray on this day. Adonai oz 1'amo yitein, Adonai yivarech et
amo va'shalom., that we will all have the strength to bring to fruition
the wonderful plans that we are putting into place, and we will
continue to partner together, all of us, to building a wonderful, warm
community here in Collier County where everyone of all faiths and
backgrounds will feel welcome and a part of the work that we are
doing knowing that when we all partner together we will bring
blessings not only to ourselves but to all those who enter our
community. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
County Manager, would you please go over the changes to the
agenda for us this morning.
MR. OCHS: It would be my pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, Commissioners.
Page 3
February 28, 2012
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of February 28, 2012.
The first proposed change is to withdraw Item 6A. That was a
public petition request that is being withdrawn at the petitioner's
request.
Next change is to continue Item 9A to the March 13, 20121 BCC
agenda. That's the proposed amendment to the Sabal Bay MPUD, and
that continuance is made at the applicant's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16A 13. It will become
Item 11 J on your regular agenda. That change is made at the staff s
request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16B 1 to become Item
14138 on your regular CRA agenda. That change is made at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16C3 to become Item 11 K
on your regular agenda. That change is made at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16D6. That will become
Item 11 H on your regular agenda. That change is made at the request
of both Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala separately.
Next recommended change is to move Item 16D7. That will
become Item 111 on the regular agenda. That change is made at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
And the final change this morning is to move Item 16A16 --
excuse me. It's not to move. This is an agenda note. There's a change
in the agenda and the attached resolution. Instead of a superseding
resolution, it will become an amending resolution, No. 2011 -105.
That change is made at the staff s request.
And we have three time - certain items today, Commissioners.
First is Item 1 OB to be heard at 11 a.m., the second is Item 11 J on your
regular agenda to be heard at 11:30 a.m., and, finally, 11D is
scheduled to be heard at 4 p.m.
February 28, 2012
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll begin the ex parte
disclosure by commissioners for the consent and summary agenda.
We'll begin with Commissioner Henning this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you can bypass me for a
minute, I need to find an item that I didn't get the answers to
yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll then continue with
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Good morning. I have
no -- nothing to declare, nothing to change, but I do have one
announcement.
I'd like to introduce Marco Rubio's new aide, our senator, Zach
Zampella. Are you here, sir? Zach's office is downstairs on the first
floor. Anyone wishing to visit him, he's going to be holding regular
office hours, and we're pleased to have you here, sir.
MR. ZAMPELLA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And I have no additional
changes to the agenda, and I do not have any disclosure -- ex parte
disclosure for the consent agenda or the summary agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I have no changes to
the agenda, and I have nothing to declare on consent nor summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And Commissioner Hiller will be a little late today, and we'll get
her ex parte disclosure when we -- when she arrives.
Do I have a motion to approve today's agenda --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did want to pull --
Page 5
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: --as amended?
Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any ex parte
communications on today's agenda, but I do want to pull 16A 16,
which is a recommendation to adopt a resolution necessary to amend a
temporary easement of construction. No, that's not the one.
Nick, Norm, which one did we talk about you're going to get me
some information about the amendment?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, administrator.
Commissioner, it was 16A 16. We did send that to you. It was
sent once, and I sent it another time. Basically it gave you the
resolution on a strikethrough version. Your request, as I understood,
was to see exactly the nature of the changes.
I know I sent one copy, and I believe Barbara Chesney sent
another to you. But if you would like, obviously, you can take your
action, but we'll get you another copy, a hand -- printed copy. I don't
have that with me, but I can get that brought here fairly soon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's assume I do
have it, even though I can't find it. If you send it again, I would
appreciate it.
MR. FEDER: My apologies. I know I sent one, but I'll get a
hand copy of it to you again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you want to
pull it then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I just want to make sure
we understand the scrivener's error on the previous resolution.
MR. FEDER: The legal description.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we'll leave it as -is, and I'll
move to approve as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's no other ex parte disclosure
February 28, 2012
on anything, consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve the agenda as
amended, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 7
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 28, 2012
Withdraw Item 6A: Public Petition request from David Bakalar representing Wells Fargo Bank,
requesting that the Board remove all fines assessed against the property at 6090 Painted Leaf Lane,
Naples. (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 9A to the March 13 2012 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDA- PL20110000047: Sabal Bay MPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 05 -59, the Sabal Bay Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development, by amending the PUD Document, Exhibit A, to provide for: changes in
development standards including right of way widths and sidewalks; addition of general permitted
uses to include outside storage and telecommunication facilities; removal of golf as a permitted use;
addition of car wash, post office, docks and electric boats as allowable uses in the recreation /village
center tract; increase of preserve by 45 acres; increase in floor area ratio for adult living facility and
increase in height; removal of affordable housing and removal of Bald Eagle Management Plan and
Gopher Tortoise Relocation Management Plan on property located south of Thomasson Drive, south
and west of U. S. 41, north and west of the Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay intercoastal
waterway in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section 19,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,416 +/- acres; and
providing an effective date. (Applicant's request)
Move Item 16A13 to Item 11J: Recommendation to approve a Settlement and Release Agreement
between Collier County and American Traffic Solutions, Inc. for provision of Collier County's Traffic
Infraction Detector Program (TID Program) also known as the Red Light Running Camera
Enforcement System. (Staffs request)
Move Item 16131 to Item 14138• Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve the attached Site Access Agreement between
the CRA in Immokalee (Owner) and Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. (Contractor) allowing said Contractor to
store its materials and equipment in conjunction with the Downtown Immokalee Stormwater
Improvement Project. The site location is at the southwest corner of South 9th Street and Main Street
in Immokalee (folio number 00122840009). (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16C3 to Item 11K• Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of
$586,159.60 to DN Higgins for construction tasks set forth in Request for Quotation 08- 5011 -58,
Irrigation Quality Water Sites. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D6 to Item 11H: Recommendation to implement the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners by amending the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Action Plans to execute
program changes and authorize submission of the revised Action Plans to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. (Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala's separate requests)
Move Item 16D7 to Item 111: Recommendation to approve a Short Sale Policy for the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 28, 2012
Page 2
Note:
Item 16A16 should read: Recommendation to adopt a resolution of necessity superseding amending
Resolution No. 2011 -105 correcting scrivener's errors in legal descriptions and authorizing the
condemnation of those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
stormwater improvements known as the US -41 Ditch segment of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101) Estimated fiscal impact: $1,787,000. (Staffs request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 11j to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
Item 11D to be heard at 4:00 p.m.
2/28/2012 8:44 AM
February 28, 2012
Item #213 & #2C
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 2012 — BCC /REGULAR
MEETING AND FEBRUARY 7, 2012 — BCC /STRATEGIC
PLANNING WORKSHOP — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to the minutes of the
January 24, 2012, BCC regular meeting and the February 7, 2012,
BCC strategic planning workshop, are there any changes to these
minutes? And if not, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minutes are approved unanimously
That brings us to proclamations, County Manager.
Item #4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH, 2012 RETIRED
SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY STEVE SMITH, RSVP
PROJECT DIRECTOR, RSVP ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND RSVP VOLUNTEERS — ADOPTED 4/0
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Proclamation 4A is a proclamation
designating March 2012 as Retired Senior Volunteer Month in Collier
County, to be accepted by Steve Smith, RSVP project director, RSVP
Advisory Council members, and RSVP volunteers, and this item is
sponsored by the entire Board of County Commissioners.
If all of our volunteers would please come forward and be
recognized.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're looking at a core group of
volunteers who make our community hum with happiness. It's so nice
to have you here. Boy, do they save the taxpayer money.
MR. OCHS: Back all the way up by the dais, please. Get
everybody in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, can I say one more
thing? So many times we hear about winter residents. I bet you that
at least half of these people are winter residents. They come down
here, they volunteer their time in our community, and then they go
back up north. And I mean that, to me, is a tribute in itself. To say
that, instead of just vacationing, they come down here and actually
roll up their sleeves. And so I'm proud to know all of you. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I pass this down to you and you can
hold it in front of you to take the picture. I hope you have a
wide -angle lens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you want a chair, Lavah?
MR. SMITH: Now, everybody just stay there. I just wanted to
thank all my volunteers. I love you guys. I appreciate all the work
that you do. And God bless you.
We have many facets of the organizations that volunteer here. I
see the Bonita Beach Birds. We have SOS and CERTS.
Can you -all tell me some of the other places that you volunteer
at?
February 28, 2012
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: White House of Collier.
MR. SMITH: Home Builders, that's one of lead --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Literacy volunteers.
MR. SMITH: Literacy volunteers. Harry Chapin Food Bank.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The VA.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Veterans Park.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chamber of Commerce.
MR. SMITH: And I also have, yep, Chamber of Commerce.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All of our work goes to the
Shelter for Abused Women and Children.
MR. SMITH: The Shelter for Abused Women and Children, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: White House of Collier.
MR. SMITH: Folks, let's give these folks a big round of
applause.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITH: And I also want to thank a couple of my advisory
council members that are here. Missy from Naples Equestrian
Challenge, and Margaret -- Mary Margaret from the museum.
Thank you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you getting all this into the minutes?
Good to see you. Thank you very much. How you doing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So good to see you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are we ready to go to the next
item?
MR. OCHS: Once I get a motion, sir, to approve the
proclamation this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamation by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Page 10
February 28, 2012
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY JOSEPH LANGKAWEL, CHAIRMAN,
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE ADVISORY BOARD, OF A FACT -
FINDING REPORT CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE
OPTIONS FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY KEVIN WALSH
MR. OCHS: That takes you to Agenda Item 5A. It's a
presentation by, actually, Kevin Walsh, the advisory board member
from the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Board to present a fact finding
report concerning administrative options for the Isles of Capri Fire
Department.
MR. WALSH: Good morning. My name is Kevin Walsh. I
serve on the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Board at your pleasure.
I've been designated for the -- this is my second year of serving
on the board, and I'm here in substitution for Joe Langkawel, our
chairman, who had the misfortune of attending his mother's 85th
birthday in Northern Michigan. There's nothing wrong with attending
your mother's 85th birthday, but Northern Michigan in February is not
so good.
Page 11
February 28, 2012
In any event, I'm pleased that we have the opportunity to spend
this time bringing the commissioners up to date on, I guess, what
might be called the continuing saga of the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory
Board and fire district.
I believe you have in your packet a study that was done by a task
force. The background is a group of concerned citizens came to the
Fire Advisory Board Meeting in December expressing concern really
in two areas; one, the financial impact of the budgetary constraints we
were operating under, which everybody understands is impacting all
units of government, and the other had to do with concerns about the
administrative direction that the -- that was being provided by the
county oversight of our fire district.
And a lot of time was spent at that meeting talking about the
concerns. At the conclusion of the meeting, the fire board agreed to
designate, at the request of the citizens, a ricking (sic) task force to
look at a range of alternatives to the current structure.
A copy of that committee's report, I believe, has been provided to
you.
And Chairman Langkawel, at the conclusion of that meeting, did
notify the commissioners that the brief fire advisory board had
authorized this fact finding effort on the part of the citizen task force.
And there was a member of the Capri Fire Board sitting with that task
force so that there was a window into the process.
At the recent February meeting, the task force delivered its report
and recommendations. And, again, that's the report that I referred to
that you have a copy of in your packet dated February 3rd with
administrative alternatives for the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue
Department.
I won't go into detail in the report other than to comment that we
feel it was a comprehensive, honest effort to look at a range of
practical alternatives for our fire district.
One of the options was the clear option of remaining where we
Page 12
February 28, 2012
are, doing nothing, and there's a lot of discussion in the report as to the
pluses and minuses of that option.
A second option was to align ourselves administratively with the
East Naples Fire District. The third option, and the option that was
recommended by this task force, was to align ourselves
administratively with the Marco Island Fire Department.
There have been preliminary discussions with Chief Murphy, not
of a fact finding nature, but simply from an overall organization
structure, and they have expressed -- they, up to and including the city
council of Marco Island -- an interest in working with us to engage in
what I would call the next round of fact finding.
We're here today to, in effect, share the results of this task force
report which suggests that the next step, which we would like to take
-- and we'd like to take that with your blessing, and that is to explore
in more detail the practical issues surrounding administrative
assignment with the City of Marco Island.
As you are all aware, there has been a steering committee
meeting for at least the last three years and focusing a lot of attention
on the questions related to consolidation of the delivery of fire
services within Collier County.
There's been very little progress made. It's not a criticism of the
steering committee members, because it's the chiefs and representative
from each of the fire boards.
We think that the fact finding that we would like to engage in
would be very helpful in answering a lot of the questions that have
been raised by the steering committee, the practical questions that
have to do with how do you consolidate fire districts.
So, in part, we would be happy to engage in fact finding and to
share the results with the administrative components of Collier County
and certainly the County Commissioners. So that's the purpose of our
being here, and that's the action we're asking you to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you tell me what the limits
Page 13
February 28, 2012
are of the MSTU, the geographical limits of the MSTU?
MR. WALSH: They're the -- excuse me. They're the
unincorporated village of the Isles of Capri, and then a small
component of Mainsail Drive, the Marco Airport, and a small
component of Fiddler's Creek, basically the entry section to Fiddler's
Creek, so that's the geographic boundary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In your plans, do you intend to get the
input of all of the members of the MSTU?
MR. WALSH: Yes, absolutely. As a matter of fact, a resident of
the Mainsail Drive, which is not part of the unincorporated village,
was part of this task force that did the initial work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be -- I think --
MR. WALSH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think working out an arrangement with
Marco is a great idea, quite frankly. That's my personal opinion.
But it's important, I think, to recognize that we're not likely to
make a decision unless we have a majority of the taxpayers in the
entire MSTU who agree with the action that we would be -- would be
taking under these circumstances.
MR. WALSH: Understood, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And who was first,
Commissioner Henning or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you for being here
today. And I, too, agree that I think a fact finding mission is a good
mission. And I also wanted to ask, I had -- I had asked the question as
to how many other communities were involved in this, and I
understand 52 percent of the MSTU dollars are collected from
Mainsail, Hammock Bay, and Fiddler's, but you said just the
entryways. So does that mean none of the residents of Fiddler's
Creek?
Page 14
February 28, 2012
MR. WALSH: No, no. It does include entry -- it does include
residents. And I honestly don't know the percentage of the residents
of Fiddler's Creek. I don't know if any of our task force members
have that information. I should know. It's the first mile in.
MS. NEUHAUS: I believe it's the first mile into Fiddler's Creek.
MR. WALSH: So it definitely includes residents of -- not simply
the entryway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good, because then -- I had
misunderstood you then, because I thought you just said entryway.
And like on Mainsail Drive, we have many communities in there, and
so it would be nice if they were all represented, because they and
Fiddler's actually pay over half of the MSTU. And they -- you know,
you would want to have them included, because they're -- especially
Fiddler's, it's quite a distance away from Marco, and we would want to
make sure that they want to still be a part of it.
MR. WALSH: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, thank you for your service,
and the members of the task force. Was the Collier County staff
invited to these meetings?
MR. WALSH: The -- of course, the Collier County staff is, in
effect, represented at the Fire Board Meetings. And a member of the
fire board was included in the task force meetings. And the question
relates to the task force meetings?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it does.
MR. WALSH: Then, no, to my knowledge, there was no
invitation made to county staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you object to providing
our staff -- since it's a dependent district and we ask the county
administrator to manage the -- or I'm sorry -- a dependent district, we
ask the dependent district to manage the operations of the Isles of
Capri Fire Department, would you provide all of the documentations
Page 15
February 28, 2012
and correspondence with, example, the City of Marco representation
in East Naples Fire and Rescue Control? Could that be possible?
MR. WALSH: Certainly, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, on this task force -- did
you say you had two members of the advisory board from Isles of
Capri on this task force?
MR. WALSH: No. On the task force that completed the report
that you have a copy of, there was one designate from the -- from the
advisory board, what we call Phase 2, which we're asking your
permission to engage in, I would be the designated representative on
that task force. It's really a new task force that would do this fact
finding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't know if you really
need our permission to do what you're doing. You're just citizens
wanting to do something. So why would you need our permission to
do so?
MR. WALSH: Well, we think it would be helpful, particularly in
gaining the assistance of the Collier County staff in sharing the
information that's necessary to do the fact finding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would hope that you
would get the support of your end goal from the staff, Collier County
staff, if they're included in your fact finding mission. Wouldn't you
agree?
MR. WALSH: I have no objection to a member of the Collier
County staff participating in the fact finding efforts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The county's
involvement in this -- if you're asking the representation of the county,
that really should be coming from the advisory board through the
administration of the county; otherwise, you're just acting as citizens
wanting to seek out goals and objectives, and you really don't need our
permission to do so.
However, if you're looking for some blessing, I would suggest it
Page 16
February 28, 2012
would be appropriate to go through the administration for the Isles of
Capri Fire Control District and the advisory board that advises the
Board of Commissioners.
If you want our participation in it, that's -- to me, that's the way it
should be. I mean, I would depend on the appointments of the board
to that -- of that advisory board and their opinions.
MR. WALSH: Okay. I'm not sure I understand what you're
suggesting, Commissioner. That we -- no. We would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the best vehicle for your
goal and objectives, or this task force would be go through the
advisory board of the dependent district.
MR. WALSH: Okay. But that's -- we are here representing the
advisory board of the independent district. What I guess I hear you
saying is, you don't see any need for us to -- to include you in the loop
at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't -- I haven't seen any
correspondence from the board's advisory board of the creation of this.
And usually when that happens, we have, you know, staff members
and the advisory board involved in that process, although you did have
one.
So you're saying you went to the advisory board's meeting at one
time and asked for their blessing?
MR. WALSH: The -- yes. The citizens committee asked for and
obtained the blessing of the fire advisory board to engage in what
would be the Phase 1, the report that was dated February 3rd, which
you have a copy of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. You've
answered that.
Now, did you -- on your findings, did you go back to the
advisory board and present the findings?
MR. WALSH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 17
February 28, 2012
MR. WALSH: Yes, yes. And, again, to keep the commissioners
in the loop, the chairman of our advisory board, on December the
23rd, sent a letter to the commissioners confirming that this task force
had been created and that it would be -- there would be a
representative of the fire advisory board on the task force. So it was
an attempt to keep the commissioners in the loop and up to date in
terms of the steps that would be taken.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your
clarification.
MR. WALSH: And I would add that Leo Ochs and the rest of
the staff that the task force had dealings with were very cooperative in
the Phase 1 evaluation. So we're not implying any difficulties in our
working relationship with the Collier County staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You clarified it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- sorry.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I think it's
admirable that you would even step out and ask for our approval. I
mean, you could have just been doing this behind the scenes. I think
that's great, you know, everybody wants to just get along and see
which way they're going.
But I do have a question for Leo. Leo --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we collect the MSTU right now,
don't we, from all of these communities, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes. You levy the tax on the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So now if they do not -- if
they break away and -- you know, whatever they do, and go either to
Marco or just start on their own or whatever, but they are not part of
the county anymore, how do they get their funding? I mean, if we
collect it now, do -- do we then collect it later or does Marco collect it
or whomever they join forces with? How does that happen? What is
olm
February 28, 2012
happening?
MR. OCHS: Yeah. Commissioner, I think that's a question that's
yet to be determined. I'm not aware of any legal mechanism that
would allow the City of Marco to levy a tax outside their corporate
limits, but I'll have to work with the county attorney on that.
The other option is for you to continue to levy the tax, and if you
want some other agency to manage the operation of the district, then
you would, perhaps, enter into some kind of interlocal agreement.
That's another mechanism on which to do this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then, secondly, if -- say,
for instance, Fiddler's Creek decides that they don't want to be a part
of that MSTU anymore, what happens if they -- can they break away
and become what -- you know, have different service, or is it a
combined unit that must stay that way?
MR. OCHS: I don't believe it needs to stay that way. The
board's ordinance adopts the MSTU. So if you had a petition from a
section of that MSTU that wanted to be serviced from another area, I'd
imagine that the board would have the discretion -- and I'll let Jeff
pick up on this -- to amend their ordinance at a future date and
re- establish the district boundaries if that was something that that
group would want to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I concur.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I pose these questions,
because as they go into their discussions, I think that's something that
they need to address, you know, head on right away. And it looks
like, though, for the most part, we all have buy -in here. I don't see any
-- anybody objecting to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I only think that there has to be
some sequence of events and some structure to how you go about
doing this. And as Commissioner Fiala points out, you can't do it all
yourself. You're going to need to determine whether the people
outside of the Isles of Capri want to do this and if they're going to put
Page 19
February 28, 2012
money into it. If they're not, your options become quite different.
MR. WALSH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And as I see it, it's a waste of your time
and our time for you to proceed down a path of assuming that
everybody will participate.
So I would like to suggest that we help you. We can send letters
to all the people in the MSTU and say, here's what's being proposed
and here's what we know so far. Are you interested in participating, or
would you prefer not to do this? And then we get the vote and we look
at it, and then we give the -- you get to see the results and everybody
knows where the people stand.
The danger there is that they're making a decision on incomplete
knowledge, because you haven't completed your study.
MR. WALSH: Exactly, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if you -- so I don't feel strongly
about which happens first, but it's important that whatever we do we
make a decision on the best available information.
MR. WALSH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you're going to proceed with
trying to fill in some of the blanks about how it would be administered
and that sort of thing and then -- then we could, at the point in time
when there is sufficient information, send letters. We could sit down
and draft the letter together so that you -- everybody makes -- has
assurance that it is a fair and unbiased solicitation of information.
MR. WALSH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And send that out to all of the MSTU
members and see what they have.
Now, you know then the downside of that is if they don't like the
proposal that you came up with --
MR. WALSH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and they turn it down, you're going to
have to go back to the drawing board if you want to proceed and try to
Page 20
February 28, 2012
find another way to deal with this. If that's -- if that's okay with you,
I'm willing to proceed down that path, either way.
MR. WALSH: Yeah. I think that's an excellent suggestion. And
we have, for example, made several attempts through the association
at Fiddler's Creek to get their participation and input. It's complicated
by the fact that each of the little communities within Fiddler's Creek
have their own associations, and there's been a communication gap
there. We would be delighted to have representation from them as we
have from Mainsail Drive.
Our preference would be to take the next step, which is to fact
find in participation with the Collier County staff and the Marco Fire
Department staff, come up with a set of economic facts and
operational issues. And the MSTU is the first question of the first
meeting. There is, we think, a potential model, that is the Marco Fire
Department does administer the Goodland MSTU, which is outside
the political district of Marco Island, on a pass - through arrangement
with Collier County. So Collier County collects the taxes, and Marco
delivers the services. Ours would be a variation on that.
We would hope to preserve the MSTU rather than have to go
through liquidation and reorganization. But that's -- that's probably the
most important question that we have to deal with.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we do have some speakers to
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: We have two, but they're registered to speak
under public comments, to 7, unless you want to invite them to speak
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We've got another public petition
coming up later before public comment. We may as well have it all at
the same time.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Commissioner Henning's comments
Page 21
February 28, 2012
are very important. It will serve your purposes best if you involve the
county staff so that you're not blindsided at some point further down
the road.
MR. WALSH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And let me share my experience with
you. There is no one person in any community that can speak for that
community. We have been led down that path many times, and when
we finally get ready to make the decision, we find that the people who
were speaking for that community didn't really speak for that
community.
So although you might have a representative from Fiddler's
Creek or some of the other people, it's not given that that person is
going to bring all the votes or even the necessary number of votes with
them.
So while it's good to have some involvement in coordination with
those other communities in fleshing out the details of the proposal, the
final decision has to be done by a ballot.
MR. WALSH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just keep that in mind as you go forward
on this, okay.
Yes.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just one quick statement, if I might.
I feel I need to get this on the record.
As I read the task force report, it seemed to be primarily
predicated on some mistaken notion or belief that within the next two
years the county manager or the county administration is going to
collapse the Isles of Capri MSTU and merge that somehow,
magically, into the county's General Fund under the emergency
management department.
That is repeated throughout this report and, in fact, seems to be
the predicate for moving forward at this point in time.
I need to let the board know that the only conceptual analysis
Page 22
February 28, 2012
that's been done in that regard is done every year as part of our budget
review process. There's nothing that's been formalized or escalated to
a report from staff to the County Manager's Office let alone me
turning that around and into a formal proposal or recommendation to
the board.
In fact, you know, for the record, we can take that issue off the
table. So if there's some other reason or agenda for this moving
forward at this time, fine. But, again, as I read from the report, they
say that the Marco Island option is the only one that will allow our
MSTU to exist into the foreseeable future with no impending
consolidation hanging over our head.
So, I mean, if they're concerned that the county manager's
hanging or dangling some consolidation over their head, I want you to
understand that's not the case.
Secondly, they say in their report that Marco cannot provide the
economy of scale that the county offers, so we do not believe we
would see a significant savings in terms of our operating costs with
this option, and we'll still be facing the same challenges with respect
to reduced ad valorem revenue, so there might still be a need to look at
a millage increase or some other belt tightening to see our way
through these difficult times.
So I'm not sure what else might be driving this at this point, but
we're happy to participate in the review and look forward to that
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay.
Any questions?
MR. WALSH: None, only a comment. And, again, that was the
report that was issued based upon the material available at that time.
And in support of Leo's comment, subsequent information surfaced,
and we accept that there is no plan in place. There were studies done,
and I think it was, perhaps, a misinterpretation of the studies; not the
content of the study, but the fact that they were studies rather than
Page 23
February 28, 2012
plans. So we acknowledge that there is no plan in place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a big difference between a study
and a decision by the commissioners.
MR. WALSH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staff always does studies. They have to.
They have to stay in front of the power curve on decision making,
and they have to keep us informed. But, you know, it's a long, long
way from the study.
MR. WALSH: Yes. It was a misinterpretation of that important
difference. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last thing. When you have a
representative -- I mean, if they choose to have a representative from
the county, it might be somebody that hasn't been involved in this all
along but, you know, that maybe is from your office, like Mike or
something, so that -- you know, a new player with fresh eyes so that
they -- you know, that everybody can work together.
MR. OCHS: Well, I'd be happy to add Mike to the team,
Commissioner. But, you know, with respect, I need my professionals.
I need Mr. Summers, I need Chief McLaughlin fully engaged in this
because we're going to, hopefully, at some point actually be looking at
data and the financials and looking at the potential operational
impacts, the administrative and technical impacts of whatever this
committee wants to do. And hopefully, as Commissioner Henning
said, since this is your MSTU to govern at this point, I hope you
would allow your professional staff to be fully engaged in the
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not to say that Mike isn't
professional. It's just that it's not his expertise.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you for that clarification. He's
always professional.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Page 24
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he always knows everything
about everything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's true, that's true. Thank you very
much.
MR. WALSH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And for those who want to speak on this,
we'll get to that very quickly after the next presentation.
Go ahead. Who is the next?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Public --
MR. OCHS: -- we're moving on to -- if there's -- well, you're
going to hold the speakers till public comment, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM JASMINE MANN
REPRESENTING THE SHOPPES AT VANDERBILT,
REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD GRANT ADDITIONAL
TEMPORARY USE DAYS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS —
DISCUSSED AND REQUEST DENIED BY CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: Okay. Then we move on to Item 6 on your agenda.
6A was withdrawn, so that takes us to 6B. It's a public petition
request from Jasmine Mann representing the Shoppes at Vanderbilt
requesting that the board grant additional temporary -use days for
special events.
Ms. Mann?
MS. MANN: Hi, good morning. I'm here on behalf of Shoppes
at Vanderbilt. We're a shopping center on the northwest corner of
Airport- Pulling and Vanderbilt Beach Road. We've just recently, in
the last year, had new ownership. So I'm here on behalf of them to
Page 25
February 28, 2012
petition for additional temporary -use days.
Because of being under new ownership and things like that, we're
still working out a couple of kinks, so we were not completely well
versed with the permit process that you go through for special events
and using them for temporary -use days.
And so it being just the end of February, you received 42 days
for the year. I've used 31 of them, and I have 11 left for the remainder
of the year.
We are trying to continually do community events, charity
events, and things like that that would benefit Naples and the
surrounding areas, working closely with animal rescues. We're doing
an event with the Community Blood Bank. We're always going to be
working with the Harry Chapin Food Drive as well. So we're trying to
do different things just to encourage charity and giving to the
community.
We, at this point, are about 35 percent occupied. We have tons
of things in the pipeline, so I would say within the next two months
we're going to be more like 45 to 50 percent occupied. And as we are
getting more tenants, they're wanting to do different events to display
their businesses and what they can do in the community as well.
So I am here to petition to get at least 28 additional
temporary -use days if possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I'm going to
skip it. I think it's important to listen to the commissioner of the
district, which is not here, though. That's the only problem.
I see more and more of temporary uses that become more
permanent. And I'm not saying in your shop, but just in general.
There's a lot of activities going on to try to market that is not the
traditional way, and I understand because of the economics; however,
there's a point when we need to take a look at signage, temporary uses,
directional signs, you know, the dancing Superman, and stuff like that.
Page 26
February 28, 2012
So temporary was supposed to be temporary, and a lot of these
are becoming permanent.
MS. MANN: And I will tell you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I have concerns.
MS. MANN: -- just to speak on signage and different things like
that, we've -- what I'm speaking, of events and things. They're
one -day, three -to- four -hour gatherings, you know, at our center, not
using banners and the flying streamers and different things like that,
you know, and a lot of signage around. We do a lot of things, you
know, through fliers and things like that to get people to come to the
center, obviously shop the businesses, and just see all of the new
things that are happening at the center.
So I know that signage can be, you know, a concern. But we're
doing a lot of just, you know, small gatherings for one day, four to
five hours, always benefitting a charity, to get people, you know, to
the center to hopefully then shop and, you know, get to know us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. It's a great marketing
strategy. I understand that. But my concern is -- and going along with
Commissioner Henning and then just taking it a step further, my
concern is when you get 28 extra days -- that's a whole month --
everybody else is going to want a whole month, and then all of a
sudden we're going to have flea markets and farmer's markets and
everything all over the place, and I think things could have -- would
have a tendency to possibly get out of control.
And so I'm hesitant to go another 28 days, to be perfectly honest
with you, because it opens the floodgate.
MS. MANN: Right. And I will tell you, because we're part of
the PUD, the Pelican Marsh urban development, we do have to have
everything approved through them, and they always keep everything
very simple, very classy. We're not allowed to do flea markets or tent
sales or different things like that.
Page 27
February 28, 2012
So we always have everything approved, and it's always very pro
neighborhood and pro Naples. So we do always have everything
approved through them first. That is our agreement, you know, being
part of that neighborhood. So I think it would be -- you know,
continue to be very classy, would not be flea markets. We would
never use the 28 days consecutively. I'm just wanting them to space
out through the years, for Christmas events, you know, animal events,
children events, different things like that. Not so much used
consecutively, but maybe one day a month or two days a month just to
gather and do community events.
But everything always goes through the Pelican Marsh urban
development, so they always keep everything very clean and classy
and very pro Naples and pro neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have to agree with
Commissioner Fiala. I see a real problem with other shopping areas
wanting to compete asking for the same privileges, and pretty soon the
uniqueness of having these special days would disappear. There's
quite a few of them in there, and I think if they were probably put
together in a way that was advantageous for the center and for the
charities, possibly two or three charities might come in on the same
day so you can get everybody in.
But if we were allowing you to increase it, I think you'd probably
see a diminishing return as we go forward, because we can't refuse the
next person that comes through the door. We would have to change
the whole rules and codes and ordinances to be able to allow for these
types of events no matter where.
And the reason they were put down with the small number was to
be able to protect the merchants in that area, to be able to make sure
that those events would be extra special and be able to draw business
to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Special events, when they occur
February 28, 2012
every day, no longer are special.
MS. MANN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it -- I think it works against your
overall goal when it becomes a regular event rather than a special
event.
It does not appear that there's sufficient support on the board here
to approve additional special events.
Is there anyone who would approve -- would like to bring this
back for a full hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No. That is our normal process.
Your petition, we would -- if we agreed with your petition, we would
bring it back for a full hearing so it could be properly advertised and
everyone opposed and in support of it could speak. But there appears
not to be sufficient support by the board to bring it back for a hearing.
So, unfortunately, your petition request is disapproved.
MS. MANN: Okay, okay. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, and good luck.
MS. MANN: Thank you, thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 7 on your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the first speaker will be John Lundin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, he is.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, he is.
MR. LUNDIN: One moment. Hi. I'm John Lundin.
Page 29
February 28, 2012
Yesterday at the Tourist Development Council I did a
presentation of some tourism and economic development ideas. And
I'd like to present them to you today because they relate directly to
economic development, which is your job.
First of all -- traditionally in Collier you seem to be wanting to
bring traditional manufacturing companies here and corporate
relocation. You know, you're competing against every county in
America that wants to bring manufacturing and corporate relocation.
You know, the strength of Collier County is in tourism. So I'd
like to read to you the vision statement of Collier County to be the
most desirable and most recognized year -round tourism destination in
the world.
Unfortunately, we are not the most recognized tourism
destination in the world. Here is a map of all the theme parks in
Florida; most of them are located around Orlando. Now, if you look
at the Naples area, we don't really have any attractions now -- but we
do have the I -75 interstate highway. Every day thousands of tourists
drive through Collier County looking to spend millions of dollars, and
very few of them stop here because we really have no identifying
trademarks to attract tourists here.
So now I'd like to compare Orlando in 1975, when Walt Disney
went there and created his theme parks, to Collier County. In 1975
Orlando had a small population, a brand new infrastructure, a rural
county, and, in key, they had I -4 interstate highway exits. That's why
Walt Disney went to Orlando, because they created the I -4 theme park
corridor, and that's why Orlando is so successful today.
Now, fast forward, we are in Collier County in 2012. We have a
small population, we have a new infrastructure, we are a rural county,
and, key, we have four I -75 interstate highway exits.
So my proposal is that we develop a marketing campaign to bring
theme parks to Collier County, and I call it the Collier County I -75
theme park corridor.
Page 30
February 28, 2012
Now, it's -- all it is is a marketing campaign. And I'm not looking
to bring theme parks here like Walt Disney did in Orlando. Those
theme parks were based on 19th Century rollercoaster technology.
This is 2012. There's lots of new technologies out there. There's 3 -D
technologies and hologram technologies that could create new,
modern smaller -type theme parks.
I don't know if you noticed back in November, Universal Studios
in Orlando, they canceled the Jaws exhibit, because that's like old
theme park technology. Orlando is kind of becoming old in terms of
the theme park world.
So I have these different ideas, marketing. Here's two of the ideas
for theme parks. And here's a -- sorry. I lost my screen here for a
minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Your time has expired, Mr.
Lundin. Thank you very much.
All right. Who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jorge Lara, and he'll be
followed by Teri Newham (sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Lara?
MR. MITCHELL: And we'll use both podiums, please. So the
next speaker is Jeri Neuhaus.
MR. LARA: I'm going to turn. There we go. Good morning,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. LARA: My name's Jorge Lara. I'm a lieutenant firefighter
with the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue.
And just following up on the fire presentation that the committee
made regarding Isles of Capri possibly merging with Marco Island, I
have a statement I want to read, and it's of the Isles of Capri staff. So
with your blessing, I'm going to go ahead and read here.
Isles of Capri Fire Rescue's at a crossroads, and our faith lies in
your hands. During the past few months, a group of citizens have
Page 31
February 28, 2012
grown increasingly concerned with Collier County Government's
management of Isles of Capri Fire Rescue. These citizens have
formed an informal committee tasked with identifying an alternative
source for management.
Through their efforts, they've identified Marco Island Fire
Rescue as the alternative to Collier County Government. We feel it is
imperative that the Collier County Commissioners be clearly informed
where we stand on this issue. The fire department staff do not agree,
support, or endorse a possible merger with Marco Island Fire Rescue
or any other independent district. This is a matter far too important to
be decided by the will and passion of a few.
Today it is business as usual at Isles of Capri Fire Rescue. We're
thriving now more than ever under the management of Collier County
Government. Our department is not broken; therefore, it does not
need to be fixed or, in this case, auctioned out to the highest bidder.
Commissioners, we implore you to take a long, hard look at any
proposal brought before you in regard to this matter.
Nonetheless, rest assured and sleep well at night knowing that no
matter what the outcome on this situation, Isles of Capri Fire Rescue
will continue to operate with pride, dignity, and honor.
On behalf of my department, we would like to extend our
sincerest appreciation for allowing us the opportunity to share our
concerns. This is a pivotal moment for Isles of Capri Fire Rescue.
We look forward to continuing our relationship with Collier
County Government in an effort to provide the best possible service to
the maximum amount of people in our community.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank vou.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be followed by Matt
Crowder.
MS. NEUHAUS: Hi. I'm Jeri Neuhaus. I was a member of the
task force committee that worked very hard to come up with a
Page 32
February 28, 2012
recommendation, and I'm also a member of the new -- of the new
committee.
The commissioner's points were very well taken. Obviously, we
want input from every community. I would never -- and would never
presume to say that I represent Mainsail just because I live there. We
want input from everybody.
We want to thank the commission and Leo Ochs and Dan
Summers for bringing a couple things to our attention. This is not just
about consolidation. What happened as a result of the things that went
on with our district recently made us aware that we had not been
paying attention to the way our fire district has been managed and run.
And as a result of everything that happened, we now have a
group of people that are very concerned and want to see if it can't be
run more efficiently, more fairly. We want to reassure the firefighters
that all we've asked from you -all is your blessing and endorsement for
additional fact finding.
We have the firefighters' interest at heart. We are not asking
anybody to say, okay, give us to Marco. We're asking for support in
the fact finding for budgetary resources so that our budget officers can
talk, so that the appropriate staff can talk, and we think that the
firefighters may be operating under a misconception that they're going
to suffer as a result.
We don't have all the answers yet, and we're just asking for the
time to get those answers.
So thank you for supporting us, and we appreciate Leo and
everybody -- everybody's efforts to include themselves in the process.
We want to do this the right way, and we appreciate what you're
doing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Crowder will be followed by John
Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: I'll waive, Ian.
Page 33
February 28, 2012
MR. CROWDER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record --
MR. ROGERS: Waiving.
MR. CROWDER: -- I'm Matt Crowder.
I just want to follow up on the subject of the Isles of Capri fact
finding effort that we're going through, and I want to thank Jorge Lara
for stepping up here and speaking on behalf of the firefighters.
I would like to take a second to reassure all of the staff of the fire
department -- and there are a few of them sitting back there -- that we
have no intention at all of trying to put these firefighters' jobs at risk or
anything like that. Wherever -- whatever the fate of our fire
department will end up to be, we want those guys to come along with
us. So that is probably the most important point that I would like to
make.
And just one other point of clarification for Jorge -- and I think
everybody's aware of this, but semantics are so important here. We
are not entertaining the idea of merger or a consolidation with Marco
Island. That was not what the task force recommended to the fire
board, and that's not what the fact finding effort going forward will be.
We're looking for some mechanism to preserve our MSTU with,
perhaps, an administrative alternative. Of course, we don't have all the
answers yet, but I just wanted to make that point of clarification for
Jorge.
And, thirdly, if I could real quick, our task force has
recommended to our fire board -- and I think you'll see this happen --
that we have a number of town hall style meetings and bring the -- as
we have done several times in the past over the years, and bring in the
larger community of the Isles of Capri District to get them involved in
this.
So I think that -- I think it's fair to say you'll see that happening
as well as we go forward.
So, again, thank you for your time.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Keith Perry, and he'll be
Page 34
February 28, 2012
followed by Alex Correa.
MR. PERRY: Hi, Keith Perry. I'm a Fire Lieutenant and Fire
Marshal for the Fire District of Isles of Capri.
I, too, have a little statement that I'd like to read to the
commissioners. I appreciate your time, and thank you for having me
here.
I would like to thank the board for their time this morning and
this opportunity to express the opinions of the employees of the Isle of
Capri Fire Department. Not only are we proud to serve over 3,000
people that reside within our fire district, but we also are very proud
and grateful to be employees of the Collier County and the BCC.
As the fire marshal of the fire district, I spend substantial time out
amongst our taxpayers of the entire fire district doing -- conducting
safety /fire inspections. Over 60 percent of our taxpayers reside on the
east side of State Road 951, a large majority living in over 60 floors of
high -rise residence.
From speaking to a vast number of people in this part of our
district, which includes Fiddler's Creek, Hammock Bay, Mainsail
Drive, and Tropic Schooner, it is my assumption that the vast majority
of these citizens are more than satisfied with the current management
that the BCC provides.
The employ of Isles of Capri Fire Department do not endorse in
any way, shape, or form any proposed plans to change to any other
managing agency.
Once again, sir, ma'am, we thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker, and it's your last speaker, is
Alex Correa.
MR. CORREA: Good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to voice my opinion today.
We, the firefighters, feel it would be detrimental to the welfare
and safety of the residents of the district to serve -- sever its
Page 35
February 28, 2012
longstanding partnership with the BCC and the Bureau of Emergency
Service for the simple fact that both of these county entities have
provided extraordinary service to the taxpayers of the Isles of Capri
District.
In closing, on a personal note, I feel honor and duty bound to the
ICFD and the BCC and would in no way support a change in my
status as an employee of the ICFD and the BCC Management. Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Let's --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -34: RE- APPOINTING ROBERT P.
MEISTER, III TO THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: -- that takes us to Item 10 on your agenda this
morning, that is the Board of County Commissioners.
The first item is 10A, appointment of member to the Contractor's
Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to take the City of
Naples' recommendation and make a motion to accept Robert Meister,
III.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to -- by Commissioner
Fiala to accept the City of Naples' recommendation of Robert P.
Meister, III.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
Page 36
February 28, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No present.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10B is going to be heard at 11
a.m.
Item #IOC
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 75 -16, AS AMENDED, AS IT RELATES TO
PROCEDURES FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS
— MOTION TO MAKE CHANGES ONLY TO THE SECTION
RELATING TO LAND USE ITEMS THAT ARE DENIED —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to IOC, which is a request for
authorization to advertise and bring back for future consideration an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 75 -16, as amended, as it relates to
procedures for reconsideration of agenda items, and this was brought
forward by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And if I mav?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Go ahead.
This change will be a positive
Page 37
February 28, 2012
change for land use items. It will give us up to 180 days to reconsider
-- anyone to be able to reconsider on the commission if what we did
was a valid -- had a valid public purpose to it.
Now, I can see how some people might be a little concerned over
the fact that items could be brought up numerous times; however, for
the item to even be taken to the next level, you have to have a second,
and then you'd have to have three people vote on bringing it back at
the next meeting.
So it's not something that would be a disadvantage for the
commission as far as our operating strategy would go, and it would
allow us to make sure that we have the very best possible deal put
together for the residents of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- I just have a question.
There is also a suggestion that we allow any member of the
commission to bring something back for reconsideration, not just
those voting in the majority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir, and the
reason being is that new information can come to -- become fact that
we can consider. It doesn't matter if you're on the positive side or the
negative side of the issue; that information should be able to be shared
by the commission and reconsideration given.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Commissioner Henning?
No, I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, I have a couple
questions. In the body of this ordinance, it says -- or at least this is the
way I read it, okay.
It says, a request for reconsideration may be made only by the
petitioner, and then it goes on to say no later than 180 days from the
date. That's in Paragraph B of No. 7. Then Paragraph C it says, any
board -- any member of the board may move for reconsideration of the
action or petition at a regular meeting of the board within 15 days. So
Page 38
February 28, 2012
it says the petitioner has 180 days, but a board member has 15 days,
but you just -- you didn't just say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I know. Let me have
Jeff explain it. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could be.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The process is, currently, that your
petitioner, if the applicant is requesting the change in the land use,
must request the reconsideration. And it's currently 15 days, and the
proposal is extended to 180.
Then there's a second part to this. Within 15 days after that
request -- and that's the way we currently have this -- after the request,
a commissioner has to bring it -- bring it up to the board.
So the first step is the applicant, who was denied their request for
a land use, has to say, I'd like you to reconsider, but then a
commissioner would then need to bring that to the board within 15
days of the applicant's request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you just said -- or let me
make sure I understand what you just said. You said if the petitioner
wants to bring it back in the first 180 days, then a commissioner has
15 days to respond to that; is that --
MR. KLATZKOW: After the request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: After the request. But a
commissioner can't bring it back in the first 180 days. It must be the
petitioner; is that what you just said?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because it's their request for the land
use change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because -- I'm glad you said
that and clarified it, and I hope we all understand that, because I would
have -- I would figure if anybody could just bring it back in the first
180 days, if I were a petitioner, I would never want to petition them
again because it could become a political hot bed. And, you know,
how could they ever count on moving forward with any project?
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is only on a denial. When you
Page 39
February 28, 2012
approve something, we're done. There's no reconsideration on the
approval. It is only when you've denied an application for a land use
change that the applicant can come back within six months and say,
I'd like you to reconsider your denial of mine, and then a majority of
you would have to agree to rehear it. It's different than your normal
reconsideration. Your land use -- your land use reconsideration is
only for denials of petitions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. This is about the
Immokalee Area Master Plan. Who is the petitioner for the
Immokalee Area Master Plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: The CRA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is the Board of
Commissioners acting as the CRA?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ultimately, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who else would it be besides
the Board of Commissioners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ultimately, yes. My guess is eventually
Penny would make the request understanding that she had majority
support. But, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well it's the petitioner, being
the CRA. The advisory board -- why don't -- the commissioner that
wants to change the ordinance bring it back as a member of the CRA?
That way we won't have to change the ordinance. If we're targeting
one issue, we already have the tools to do so.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't rehear the Immokalee Area
Master Plan under your current reconsideration ordinance. It was
voted down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The -- but you said that a
petitioner could bring it back. That's what it says in our ordinance,
correct?
February 28, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Our current ordinance is a 15 -day time
limit. You've --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For any commissioner?
MR. KLATZKOW: For the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The petitioner?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your current ordinance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's complicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you sent a memo through
Nick Casalanguida -- you -- both of you worked on a memo stating the
process that it could be reheard, and one of them was to go have
another public hearing out in the community like we do on any land
use, let it go through the Planning Commission, and then to the Board
of Commissioners.
You know, I think Commissioner Fiala made a great observation,
is when does -- in this case, when does the public know that the issue
is not going to come back by changing this ordinance?
So we -- we don't allow quite a few things because of public
input. Now the public goes away for the summer, and a board
member reconsiders that. And, you know, it's a double -edged sword
when we amend. There's a -- there's an effect on both sides of the
positive and a negative.
And if we're just targeting one issue, why not go by the memo
that the -- that you and Nick did and let public input in Immokalee
have another public hearing, let it go through the Planning
Commission and then the Board of Commissioners? I thought that
was great advice to do that.
Isn't it ultimately about public input to create good law? It's my
opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
You're right; public input is everything that we're always seeking.
Page 41
February 28, 2012
That's why we go through the long process we go through. This is just
to be able to get the ordinance changed so we can bring this back to
light. And I assure you that we would have the option at that point in
time to have the necessary meetings to reach out to the public to make
sure everybody's well versed in what we're doing.
Let's give some consideration to the fact that our local
representatives at the -- at the Florida state house have gone out of
their way to try to accommodate us to try to have another chance at
this Immokalee Master Plan, and that was because of the fact that we
couldn't get five members to vote at that time. This will give us that
ability to hopefully be able to resolve that issue and be able to get to
the point that we can bring it back for reconsideration to this
commission.
But, first, to do that we have to make this minor change to this
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me make an observation here.
The problem -- the only problem as I see it with the way it's written
right now is that you really don't know that when something is
disapproved that it's not going to be back here in six months, and that's
going to apply to everything that is disapproved. And I think that sets
a precedent that would be unacceptable to most of us.
But if we -- if we're saying that we're willing to make some sort
of adjustment for this particular circumstance, then why don't we use
the language that I have suggested to both of you -- I think you've seen
it -- that essentially says it is for a special case.
It is for a case where the federal or the state government has
modified or extended the time frame for consideration of the item.
And that gives us the flexibility to make a decision on this. It applies
only to this. It doesn't affect any other decision that's likely to come
before us, so that it doesn't open the floodgates to have these things
heard over and over and over every six months.
And I would suggest that the county attorney give us his opinion
Page 42
February 28, 2012
on doing it that way. And underlying my proposal, of course, is a
change in the ordinance which would let any commissioner ask for
reconsideration whether they voted in favor or against. I think the
commissioners should have the right to have a reconsideration of
anything that is disapproved as long as they do it within the 15 days in
the current ordinance.
Now, give us your --
MR. KLATZKOW: I could change it and, at the end of the day,
you'll only use it once.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if that's the will of the board, we can do
that. As far as your other issue goes, you're not getting at the land use
issue; you're getting at the regular issue --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and we can do that -- we can do that, too,
with the approval of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Well, we recognize, I think, don't
we, that we're doing this specifically for this particular petition?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? So what's wrong with doing it
for this specific --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that if that's the will of the
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would have no problem with
that at all, because I can see there's a little bit of resentment (sic) on
the part of my fellow commissioners to follow the path that we've
come up with here. And I -- if you -- if it's legally sustainable, I'm all
for what Commissioner Coyle suggested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It, in my belief, avoids the unintended
consequences that are likely to result from a general revision of the
ordinance, because you don't know what's going to come up next. It
could be good or bad. And I'm always a little leery of unintended
Page 43
February 28, 2012
consequences when we make decisions like that. But if we're doing it
for this one situation, why don't we just recognize that, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll bring something back for the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with everybody?
Okay. Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The -- what was
wrong with the memo that you helped Nick Casalanguida put
together?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's -- you don't have that as a procedure. I
mean, we were trying to come up with a way of bringing this back
without having to go through both transmittal and adoption phases.
But at the end of the day, you don't have that as an express procedure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the state allowed six
months for the board to adopt the Immokalee Area Master Plan. They
extended that date. So it's not a -- it's not a transmittal and an
adoption.
MR. KLATZKOW: Except you denied it. You denied -- you
denied the petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And at the end of the day, what we
normally do on a denial is you have to go right back to square one
down the road. You have to have a new application and start the
process all over again. You don't have a procedure. You had no
procedure when the state all of a sudden says, okay, we're going to
increase this by six months, then you can bring it back again. You've
got nothing in your books that allows that, quite frankly.
So Nick and I were struggling on a way to get this done that
made some sort of sense. I couldn't quite fit it into your existing rules
and regulations, though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, there's a lot of
concern -- you know, my communication, going out to Immokalee and
��-- i�
February 28, 2012
continuing communication, about the elements of the amendment to
the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We all know that they have a
master plan today.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a current master plan for
Immokalee, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so -- and there's
information that was supposed to be provided by the CRA that hasn't
happened to address those concerns, such as a strikethrough and
underlined version of the present master plan and what is being
proposed. That hasn't happened.
And the more there's not cooperation and commitments, what
has been committed, people are a little bit leery of what's going to
happen. You know, there's concern about removal of concurrency out
of the proposed plan. There's concern about increasing density in the
downtown area without having concurrency, parking and so on and so
forth.
Those have not been addressed, and my concern is they won't be
addressed. This plan will come back to the board again with those
questions of the amendment of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and
making it very difficult for us.
There was a commitment to have sector meetings for the public
or the landowners in Immokalee to see how their property's being
affected. Remember that the -- we were told that the density is not
changing, the overall density is not changing; however, you have areas
of higher density, and that density has to come from someplace else.
So, you know, I want a plan that everybody has an understanding
what it's going to do and can have -- buy into it. To me the
community is split. We've had two signature petitions saying they're
for this plan because they're self - governed, they're understanding, and
another petition that says we're not for this plan.
So, you know, it's all well and good to have it come back;
however, I would hope those things can be addressed. And I would
Page 45
February 28, 2012
hope the board, unlike the last time, we didn't -- we didn't hear the
concerns of fellow board members. I would hope that we would take
our time to adopt a plan that is -- has a positive effect for Immokalee.
That's what I'd like to see when it comes back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you willing to support the
change to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm more than willing to
hear it again. But, again, let's address the concerns of everybody, not
just a few.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay. But just to set the record
straight, some of the concerns were clearly false concerns and were
accurately addressed during the hearing, and I heard them addressed
multiple times. But there were some people who just would not
accept the facts, and -- but I'm sure we'll go through that again.
But, Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala, do you
want to speak again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala's next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just had a couple of quick
questions. When it was talking about 15 days of the date, was that 15
business days or 15 calendar days?
MR. KLATZKOW: Calendar days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I often wondered why we
use calendar days when you can't do anything on Saturday and
Sunday anyway, but I guess that doesn't make a difference.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's easier to count.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leaves you 13 more days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That was my question, but I
think -- I've been -- I've been involved in the Immokalee community,
mostly on the peripheral, for, I don't know, at least 30 years, and I've
been part of their inter - agency, and when I worked for the hospital I
did a lot of work within the community.
February 28, 2012
I've had some friends there, still have some friends there, and
they -- what I've seen, what I've heard from them -- you know, I don't
-- that's not my district, so I just stay on the peripheral. I have no
business taking a leadership role in a community that isn't even mine.
But as I've spoken to people, gone to some of their luncheons and
so forth, what they're trying to do is improve the community; they're
trying to make it a better place to live. And they -- the people that
have networked with me and made calls to me and so forth are people
that feel that this master plan is a good way to move forward.
So, anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion, Commissioner
Coletta, to ask the county attorney to proceed with a revision to the
ordinance similar to the wording that I've suggested?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I may, just for a point of
clarification. We're limiting this discussion of a revision to the section
of your reconsideration ordinance having to do with land use items --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. OCHS: -- correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And only land use items that are denied.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle,
but I thought you were being site specific.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- well, it's not site specific. But,
very briefly, let me explain, because the public might be confused by
this. You could have asked for this to come back for reconsideration
under the current ordinance had you known at the time that the state
was going to extend their deadline. You didn't know that.
And after the 15 -day period expired, you were able to get the
Page 47
February 28, 2012
state to give us an extension of the time to make a decision. So it was
a very unusual circumstance. And the ability to reconsider was denied
us because we thought that our deadline had been reached, and
afterwards we found out that the state would extend the deadline.
So I'm merely suggesting that under those circumstances we have
the opportunity to reconsider beyond the 15 day limit that we impose
upon ourselves, right? You understand what I'm saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll bring it back, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it okay? I mean, do you see anything
wrong with it?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What you're doing, sir, is you can
amend an ordinance for one event, and that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, not necessarily. If something like
this happens in the future where we don't or can't bring it back because
some sort of state or federal guideline has expired and then the state or
the federal government subsequently extend the deadline, we would
have the same ability to do it under those circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So there's a motion; that is the
motion. And should I also add the other motion? Is there agreement
among the commissioners that we should let any commissioner ask for
a reconsideration no matter which way they voted? That way
commissioners aren't compelled to vote with something they don't like
merely so they can get the right to have it reconsidered later.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have a problem with that? So
I'll add that to the motion if you'll accept it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I accept it.
MR. OCHS: Limited to the section of the ordinance on land use?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. This is both sections now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Does it create a problem?
MR. OCHS: Well, I -- why would you adopt something by
February 28, 2012
majority vote and then just have a member of the minority be able to
reconsider it at the next meeting? I mean, you could get into a do loop
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, for the reason that in order to
approve the reconsideration you have to have a majority vote. If
someone brings up additional information, if it becomes available to a
commissioner who did not vote for it and they want to reconsider it
they have the option of bringing that information to the Board of
County Commissioners and say, look, I'd like to have it reconsidered
because of this information.
The majority, then, will have the option of saying, okay, we think
that's reasonable or we don't think it's reasonable.
MR. OCHS: Okay, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that including budget?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it doesn't include budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want me to bring this back again
before I advertise, or just advertise, and if you don't like it you can
pull it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do you feel about it,
Commissioners? Do you want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever we can do to keep this
thing moving forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: I could do both ways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want it to include the budget.
Nothing stays -- nothing's safe when you include everything. That's
my concern when you go beyond land use.
You know, the County Manager needs to have some assurety that
whatever the board is approving, that it's not going to come back in
180 days for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the -- and I know all of
February 28, 2012
you and the public have worked with Leo Ochs and his staff, and
they're very accommodating. So you -- the county manager has to
have some surety on issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I understand about petitions
and new evidence; however, if we find new evidence, like I found
evidence on a -- one that I wanted to reconsider -- that I will -- if we
find evidence, the county manager will always listen to us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- contrary to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If it causes a problem -- that's why I
asked if it causes a problem. If it causes a problem somewhere, please
tell me, because I'm really targeting land development, but --
MR. OCHS: Well, you know, Commissioner Henning makes a
valid point with -- to talk about the budget. If the board adopts the
budget at some point in time and we begin to execute the budget, and
four months later someone reconsiders the budget and we're --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The only change that I'm making is
reconsideration, not the land use. The non - reconsiderations -- it's
going to stay the same as far as dates go. The only change is going to
be any commissioner can ask for the reconsideration.
MR. OCHS: And only within 15 days then?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The time frame won't change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In this particular ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. The land use section I'm changing
for the federal state requirement that's changed. Your regular
consideration would simply be, rather than a commissioner who voted
in the majority asking for the reconsideration, it will be any
commissioner can ask for reconsideration.
MR. OCHS: But it must be brought forward within 15 days of
the date of the action?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Page 50
February 28, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, and specifically related to
land use --
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm getting from the board is you want
changes made both to your land use and to your regular.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. The regular, the change -- the sole
change in the regular is going to be any commissioner could bring it
back within the current time limits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So my -- because this way any of
you can bring it back, but you still need majority support, which
basically means, Leo, you can't act on anything for two weeks.
MR. OCHS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, they don't do anything for two
weeks after you make a decision anyway.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your current situation anyway. But
the land use is going to be, Commissioner Coyle, is your -- your
thought that we'd just limit it to changes in the state and the federal
rules, which is why I'm saying, rather than advertise it, let me just
bring it back one more time on consent. If anybody doesn't like it, you
can always pull and discuss it again.
that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ian has concerns about
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He doesn't have a vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I didn't think so.
MR. MITCHELL: I just -- but what about sort of appointments
you make to advisory boards? You know, are you saying that it's
going to be -- I've got to wait 15 days before we can actually appoint
Page 51
February 28, 2012
those people because, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It might be reconsidered.
MR. MITCHELL: -- it might be reconsidered?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can reconsider it now, though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No difference now.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's too bad we can't just address this
particular subject and say, let's bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, do you want to do that? If the
other issue confuses things, then let's drop it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're subject to a legal challenge because
you don't have a process to just bring it back. At the end of the day,
that's my primary concern, that, yes, if you vote to bring it back and
hear it, you're subject to legal challenge because you have no process
to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what I think Commissioner
Fiala was saying. I think she was saying let's separate this business
about changing "any commissioner can bring it back," and just stick
with the fundamental question of modifying the ordinance to allow the
Immokalee Area Master Plan to be brought back under the
circumstance which occurred.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the second recognizes its
change to the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what you were trying to say?
MR. KLATZKOW: So we're only changing the land use?
MR.00HS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, only changing the land use.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sorry, ma'am. I misunderstood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We scrapped that other part because it's
Page 52
February 28, 2012
causing too much confusion, okay.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. And it
will come back to the board on a consent agenda at a future meeting.
Okay. We're going to take a ten - minute break. We'll be back
here at 10:45. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
(Commissioner Hiller is now present.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, where would
you like to go?
Item #1 I A
RESOLUTION 2012 -35: ADOPTING THE FY 2013 BUDGET
POLICY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: This takes you to Item 11 on your agenda, county
manager's report. 11 A is a recommendation to adopt the fiscal 2013
budget policy. Mr. Isackson, from the County Manager's Office, will
present.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good morning. Mark
Isackson with the County Manager's Office.
This is the official kickoff of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget season,
although I will tell you staffs been working a little bit on this effort
Page 53
February 28, 2012
over the last few months.
The item's I IA. It's referenced on Pages 459 to 486 of your
packet. Annually we appear before you to seek direction and
guidance concerning policies that will affect preparation of the annual
budget document, specifically the ad valorem funds. We adopt the
annual budget policies as well as continuing policies from previous
years.
A housekeeping matter, we have a resolution that essentially
directs the Sheriff, Supervisor of Elections, and the Clerk to submit
their budgets on May 1 of 2012, and also part of the adoption process
this morning will be the setting of the budget workshop dates which
we're tentatively suggesting to be the 21 st and 22nd of June, and to
recognize that the public hearing dates will be Thursday, September
6th and Thursday, September 20th, 2012. Now, these dates don't
conflict with the schools' public budget hearing dates, as required by
law.
Productivity Committee reviewed the policies, the annual
policies, and endorsed those policies and provided you with a
correspondence that affect Wednesday, the 15th of February.
I will tell you that this is my fifth budget that I've orchestrated on
behalf of the county board, and I think there are five or six issues that
are worth noting. First of all, our taxable values, if we assume a 5
percent drop in the '12 tax year, which is FY 13, we will have lost
one -third of our taxable value, from 82 billion down to 55 billion.
That is not a small reduction, and it has ripple effects.
Obviously, state legislative impacts on top of that, which some
we know, some we don't know, will have a further degradation on
taxable value. And we live by taxable value. Our property tax
revenue is our primary source of operating income, and it's critical.
Unfortunately, we sit here in February to adopt budget policy not
knowing what our taxable value's going to be. We're projecting a 5
percent drop, and that's a very conservative estimate, although,
Page 54
February 28, 2012
personally, I think it will be somewhat less than that, but I think we
have to plan for a worst case scenario in which we believe it to be 5
percent.
Another noteworthy component of the budget landscape is debt
management. We have been working very hard over the last three
years to restructure our debt taking advantage of the historically low
interest rate environment that exists. We have been before you on
many occasions with refunding scenarios and, in fact, we will likely
be back before you now starting to talk about our enterprise debt and
our gas tax bond debt for potential refunding scenarios, which will
achieve some further interest rate reductions if, in fact, we can pull
that off.
Our general fund cash position is one that we've worked very
hard to maintain, and you'll see notations throughout the budget policy
where we talk about cash management and the necessity to maintain
our actual cash position in the General Fund and the Unincorporated
Area General Fund.
We talk about reserves and the necessity to maintain and grow
our reserves, and that's specifically related to our cash position.
And, finally, legislative impacts which, obviously, have an
impact on our budget. There's a potential court hearing on the 3
percent withholding. That has not been decided yet. If that gets
decided and in fact, the employees who are in FRS aren't required to
have a 3 percent withholding, then we've got a problem.
So when I talk about legislative impacts, that's just one nut of a
number of scenarios that are being proposed in Tallahassee that will
have an impact on our budget process.
Commissioners, I've got -- I've got a PowerPoint, but I'm going to
hold on that. I'm going to wait to see whatever questions you guys
might have of the policy. There's a lot of information contained in the
packet. I'd be happy to address any questions or concerns you might
have.
Page 55
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you for your
presentation so far. I think it would be worthwhile to have your
PowerPoint presented in light of the issues that you've raised. So if
you could go ahead, I would like to see it.
MR. ISACKSON: Be happy to, ma'am.
How has the General Fund budget landscape changed? We have
revenue derived through increasing taxable value has vanished;
interest income as a sole General Fund source is gone; sensitivity to
beginning cash balances in the General Fund; emphasis on capital
construction is shifted to asset maintenance; and preservation of front
line services and protecting against facility closure is a continuing
theme.
Our budget planning highlights include: Taxable value projected
to decrease 5 percent; we're proposing a millage neutral tax rate;
payment of debt and debt restructuring continues to be a top property,
as is our growth and reserves.
Reductions due to millage neutral position will be targeted based
upon need, priorities, and service levels; constitutional officer
partnership is essential; submission of one millage neutral budget for
ad valorem funds; and staff to present divisional descriptions of
reductions and the corresponding ad valorem impact to restore any
service cut.
What does a 5 percent decrease mean in ' 13? We have an $11
million reduction in the General Fund ad valorem levy, but we do
project increases in sales tax and state shared revenues from the FY12
budget which will offset the loss in property tax revenue. And the net
reduction for planning purposes right now is $9.4 million in the
General Fund.
That $9.4 million is broken down as follows: Their ad valorem
decrease of a little over 11 million; we have an increase in sales tax;
slight increase in revenue sharing; our department revenue, slight
Page 56
February 28, 2012
uptick; our transfer and other revenue will go up; our carryforward
will decrease; and then we have -- our withholding on the revenue
reserves side will jump up just slightly.
On the expense side, the operating divisions, you'll see a $3.1
million reduction, at least for planning purposes. Our road and bridge
transfer will go down by 618,000, other operating transfers will
decrease some 884,000, our constitutional officer participation and
transfers out will be down by 3.9 million, capital and debt transfer will
go down, and our reserves will drop slightly under this scenario.
The importance of reserves, it protects against unforeseen costs
associated with national disasters, mandates, general public health,
safety, and welfare emergencies.
Regular and measured growth and reserves sends a strong
message of fiscal health to the bond rating agencies and financial
community. Don't underestimate that, how important that is. We've
been before the rating agencies on numerous occasions over the last
three years, and they continually ask about our cash position and how
we're able to do that, frankly, without increasing revenues.
And we continue to point to a measured in budget management
philosophy that we've had indicating that revenues aren't the only side
of the equation. There is an expense side that we deal with and we
manage very smartly.
We established benchmarks for which budgeting cash balances
and actual beginning cash balance is calculated and realized, and we
have a tendency to speak to a greater percentage of appropriations in
budget, shrink and place pressure on the fund balance, especially if
reserves are shrinking.
Here's a little slide that we dreamt up last night. The -- I do
actually sleep at night, but sometimes when I wake up I have to get
ahold of a few people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't realize that was authorized.
MR. OCHS: It's not authorized, sir.
Page 57
February 28, 2012
MR. ISACKSON: This gives you a feel. The bar graph in blue
is our General Fund reserves over time. The bar graph in red is our
overall reserves across some 200 funds. And you'll see below there
the amount of interest income that the General Fund had been the
beneficiary of over the past few years. You can see it was a high of
34.7 million; now it's down to roughly half a million dollars.
And you can see that our reserve position in General Fund really
hasn't changed a whole heck of a lot. So what that does is it puts a
great pressure on our beginning cash position. We never had to worry
about mid -year cuts when I had $30 million in interest income coming
in.
So the shift from a natural disaster perspective or from funding a
natural disaster now goes from the General Fund to all of our funds on
a reserve basis. So that the -- that gives you a little sense of a little
perspective on what's happening with our reserves and why it's
important now, especially in the General Fund, to continue to grow
those reserves.
Methods to achieve sufficient beginning budgeting and actual
cash balances. Start with a healthy reserve. We budget around
conservative revenue estimates, which hopefully will provide for some
increasing actual receipts over budget; we monitor expense patterns
monthly; and we limit spending at a 90 percent budgetary, a
discretionary appropriations as a benchmark; and we raise additional
revenue or institute new sources as necessary or prudent.
Going forward, this concept of millage neutral, tax neutral or
revenue neutral -- I'm not going to get into all that because it really
doesn't play out. But as you go forward in '14 and '15, these concepts
may come into play, and we may have some further discussion about
those.
Finally, I talk a lot about debt and our debt position. This slide is
our general governmental debt and it's -- and the method of payment
from the General Fund and from impact fees. And you can see that
February 28, 2012
our overall debt service on our debt, which is paid by the General
Fund and subsequently paid by impact fees, you can see it sliding
down and then leveling off as we go out into the future.
But if you notice, the bar in red is the loans to the impact fee trust
funds, the blue is that debt directly paid out of the General Fund for
our revenue bond debt, which you can see is declining, and the debt
paid specifically through impact fees is in green. You can see that --
that is really a product of the amount of impact fee revenue that's
collected. So I thought that was an interesting portrayal of what's
happening with the -- with our debt that's being paid out of the
General Fund and its relationship to our impact fees, which is used as
a source of repayment but is not a pledged revenue source.
Commissioners, I'll answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Mark, could you please
address the graph that you have in your backup, the one that shows the
breakdown of the sources and uses of these funds. I'm not sure what
page.
MR. ISACKSON: Do you have a page reference, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm looking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four sixty -six or Number 5.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's Page 5 of your packet. It's the
circular graph.
MR. ISACKSON: Okay. That's -- you're talking about the
current General Fund budget and what the percentage breakdown is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The 2012 percent of
General Fund budget. Now, that -- the graph that you have -- do you
have that? Could you put it on the overhead?
MR. ISACKSON: I don't, but --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we have it here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't you have one in color that people
can see a little easier?
Page 59
February 28, 2012
MR. ISACKSON: Well, yes. If I may, you can extract this one,
boss. How about that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There you go. Looking at that
graph, when I read the notes underneath, it says that this graph does
not consider the turn-back revenue. So wouldn't, in fact, the county
manager's portion be larger by quite a bit, I mean, if 11 million was
turned back in 2010 and 8 million was turned back in 2011?
MR.00HS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the change in
percentage? What is the county manager's true revenue and
expenditure profile once you count that turn -back?
MR. ISACKSON: Most of your turn -back comes from your Tax
Collector.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. ISACKSON: So that would be -- I'd have to go back and
recalculate that. I have not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to see, because this
picture right here, I think, understates what the county manager's
portion of this total budget picture is, and I think we need to see it
more accurately depicted.
Could you do that and --
MR. ISACKSON: Sure. Be happy to, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because I'm just
wondering, what -- just approximately, do you have any idea by what
percentage the county manager's budget would grow if you factor in
turn -back?
MR. ISACKSON: I'd hate to speculate. But if the tax collector's
budget -- let's say it's $13 million and he turns back six -- so his
percentage may drop two and ours may go up two, something along
those lines.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Only that much?
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah, that would be my sense.
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the only reason I'm
wondering is because these numbers, you know, when you were
talking about the shortfall, you had mentioned 11 million and that
equating to about 5 percent of the General Fund budget.
And, interestingly, when you look at these numbers here, for
example, for Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011, the turn -back by the Tax
Collector was 11 million and 8 million, respectively. It might be a
little bit less this year, but it certainly seems to me that the county
manager's agency portion would be larger than what's being depicted
here.
And that goes to my concern as to, you know, your statement that
you are looking to the constitutionals to cut back substantially in order
to make up for this shortfall in revenues that we're anticipating. And I
have serious concerns about how much further the Sheriff s Office can
be asked to cut back from his current allocation.
We had discussions at the beginning of last year with respect to
the 2012 budget where the sheriff had made clear to us that his ability
to cut back further would be difficult with each progressive year. And
now what I'm hearing you say is, obviously, that the sheriff should be
cutting back what amounts to 5 percent. That's my first concern.
My second concern is that setting the standard for our budgeting
at a 5 percent cut across the board defies our effort to promote
efficient and effective government from the standpoint both of dollars
and operations because, quite frankly, if we have departments or
divisions, for that matter, that can be cutting back 10 percent because
of the drop in activity, for example -- and transportation, you know,
we obviously don't have the same level of activity that we have had in
the past -- you know, why aren't we targeting more substantial
savings? Why are we limiting the cutback in certain departments and
divisions to 5 percent? Why not go to, you know, cutting back as
much as we can beyond the 5 percent?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the policy document says that our
Page 61
February 28, 2012
cuts will be targeted and not across the board, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's not how it's being
expressed here, and that's not the general understanding. And it really
goes to, you know, our approach in terms of budgeting. And shouldn't
we be looking more at a zero -base type of budgeting and justifying the
expenditures rather than, you know, cutting to, you know, suit the
drop in revenues?
MR. ISACKSON: Ma'am, the chart on Page 5 is simply an
attempt to try and tell you what's the breakdown --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand.
MR. ISACKSON: -- of the ' 12 budget.
And following up on a couple of your other points, we've had
conversation with the sheriff. We know that the sheriff is a substantial
portion of the General Fund budget, and the sheriff has expressed his
concern that he may not be able to play at 5 percent. He'll play at
whatever percentage he can play at, and that level of appropriation
will be what he believes will be necessary to provide public health,
safety, and welfare in the community.
Once I get that number, then I'll make my adjustments going
forward. That's how that works. When it comes to targeted and
measured cuts, each division will be given a number. If they -- I'll
leave it up to the division administrators to cut their 5 percent.
Frankly, then we'll -- the boss and I will sit down and we'll evaluate,
are there other areas we may be able to go after our reductions in our
savings?
So I think, for example, public health, safety, and welfare, that
has always been a pressure point from our standpoint, and we're
making sure that we're funding that. I'm not cutting the transfer to
EMS, for example.
So for planning purposes, when we sit down and we talk about
this, we're in constant recognition of public health, safety, and welfare.
And I know that's a concern of yours, and --
Page 62
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it is.
MR. ISACKSON: -- I believe it's a concern of the rest of the
board also.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, you're absolutely
right, and it is a concern of mine. Because when you look at the
spending of public funds, you know, our priority is public safety, our
second priority are essential services, and our third priority are the
nonessential services.
So when you cut, you have to cut from the bottom up, not the top
down, given, you know, what our duties are.
So I'm very concerned about what I'm seeing. And I'm, you
know, listening to all of this. And I know we've made commitments,
for example, for economic incentives, and I'm hearing, you know, that
we have major, major revenue shortfalls ahead of us. So I'm very
concerned. And thank you for your presentation. You did a great job.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had similar concerns and
talked about it in our one -on -one, Commissioner Hiller, and hopefully
I'll get some historical information on the peak of the spending versus
support, such as employees and so on and so forth, to where we're at
today or being proposed and see if that all matches up. And I would
recommend that you would provide that to all the commissioners.
MR. ISACKSON: Be happy to, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. Because I
agree we need to make sure, you know, there's health, safety, and
welfare, like you said, but there's also public wants and needs; public
needs, wants.
So it's a balancing act of -- or really hitting the target of what we
need to deliver and what we want to deliver.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So thank you.
Page 63
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No limerock roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You finished?
Yeah. Mark, I think you've done a good job with this. You and I
and the county manager have gone over this in some detail, and you've
answered all of my questions.
I am actually quite surprised that you have been able to meet the
huge revenue reductions that we've encountered over the past four or
five years and still keep the millage rate at its current level. You're not
asking people to pay higher taxes.
Debt is coming down. The amount of contribution to
transportation and other departments is substantially reduced.
So I think you've done an excellent job. And our debt load
remains well within acceptable limits, as recognized by the fact that
we -- our bonds have been validated as investment grade by all of the
rating agencies, and they've been quite praiseworthy. So you've done
a great job.
There are things that we need to deal with as we go forward and,
of course, you do that every year; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to
make those mid -year reductions as necessary to get you the cash flow
you need to start off the beginning of each fiscal year when we don't
have tax revenues coming in.
So I think you've done a great job. I congratulate you and the
rest of the staff.
And it's Commissioner Hiller's -- I mean, I'm sorry --
Commissioner Coletta's time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Mark, I also am amazed at the fact that it seem likes every year
we have cuts, we manage to hold it together and still provide those
basic services that everybody's been looking for.
Just a couple questions, though. Regarding the property values,
0-.=
February 28, 2012
when they go to set it, is it -- what date is it set on? Is it for, like, a
year ago?
MR. ISACKSON: It's the prior calendar year, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: So we will already have for ' 11, the Calendar
Year '11 , we'll be using that data for the '12 tax year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Because I've been
getting reports from the local realtors about the increase of property
values. It's very, very encouraging what I'm seeing. But, of course,
we're always working one year in arrears and having to adjust to it.
So when the value comes out, what's the date for that that you get
that?
MR. ISACKSON: We will get a preliminary taxable value
number around Memorial Day, and we scurry around with our staff,
and we plug those numbers into your budget. That's distributed out to
you for your June workshop.
After you have your June workshop, then we'll get certified
taxable values at July 1 st, and those are the numbers that we use for
budget purposes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the noncertified numbers,
are they really something you can base your figuring on? Or I think
last year there was some sort of conflict and you --
MR. ISACKSON: There's not a lot of difference between your
June and July numbers, generally. It goes -- you go from June to July,
you get a recapitulation number in October, and then you get a final
VAB number. So you get four different slices of the pie. For budget
purposes, we rely on that July number as certified.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I have is
regarding the workshops that we need to have to be able to
accommodate the budget. In the past, we were able to balance the
workshops against the annual Florida Association of County meeting,
and I was wondering if that would be in the cards again this year, or
Page 65
February 28, 2012
has something changed that makes it very difficult?
MR. ISACKSON: I will tell you that the -- we'd be more than
happy to accommodate. The issue will be when your budget
document gets to you for review. If you're satisfied with a week, then
you can push your workshops up from the 20 -- what did I say -- 21 st
and 22nd to the 14th and 15th.
Because remember, I'm hamstrung by numbers that I get in at
Memorial Day or a little bit after that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. ISACKSON: Technically, that information isn't supposed
to be given out till the first of June. But we've been fortunate that the
property appraiser has been kind enough to give us that number a
couple of days ahead of time. That helps our staff. But we really
need about a week to generate all of that data and kick it back out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Why couldn't we have
those workshops on, like, the 28th and the 29th?
MR. ISACKSON: That's awful late in the cycle. We had it once.
Logistically, it posed some problems in terms of now having to turn
around and making an immediate and abrupt change with July
numbers, and it becomes a -- from my perspective, a logistical
problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're saying --
MR. ISACKSON: We can do -- whatever the board's wishes are,
we'll be happy to try to accommodate them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But rather than the 14th
and the 15th, I'm just curious why the 18th and 19th wouldn't work.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, my concern on the 18th and
19th is we've got to produce an agenda -- I'm sorry, excuse me. My
problem for the, yeah, 18th and 19th is that on the next day on the
20th we've got to spit out an agenda for your following Tuesday's
board meeting, and if we've got staff committed to two days on
Monday and Tuesday up here, we'd be hard - pressed to turn that
February 28, 2012
agenda around and get it to you Thursday morning, as you're used to
having it so you can review it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would there be any possibility
of moving everything one day ahead and having the board meeting for
that particular week on the 27th, which would be a Wednesday? Just
a thought.
MR. OCHS: Is there any interest in having the workshop on the
14th and the 15th?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd have no problem with
it. I just didn't want to raise difficulties for staff.
MR. OCHS: I would prefer that to the 18th and the 19th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'm looking at Commissioner
Coletta's calendar right now. You say the 27th and 28th would cause
you a problem. Is there any way we can move something that would
mitigate your problem?
MR. ISACKSON: We've actually had it on Thursday and Friday
early in the month, middle of the month, and late in the month. We've
done it all different ways. So it's really the preference of the board. I
just caution you, the earlier it is the less time you're going to have the
document in front of you to look at. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, when do we expect to have the
document? Why do we need the document in front of us before the
meeting in July, the --
MR. ISACKSON: We're talking about the workshops here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand.
MR. ISACKSON: It's a 600 - some - odd -page document, and I
would suspect that you all will want a few days to look at it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to explain that to me.
MR. ISACKSON: Well, if we set -- let's assume the 14th and
15th, that Thursday and Friday. So I've got -- I get taxable values that
come in, and essentially the document's prepared in advance of getting
taxable values. Now I have to turn around and redo notes, redo
Page 67
February 28, 2012
numbers and -- in our budget system, and then I would turn around
and -- maybe on the 5th or 6th turn around and give you that �s
document about seven to ten days before that 14th and 15th. That
what I'm referring to.
MR
OCHS: Commissioners, these are the workshops where all
of
the divisions and constitutional officers come in and present their
budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand. I just -- well, from
my standpoint, I could -- you know, I'd be happy to do it on the 14th
and 15th or the 28th and 29th. It doesn't make a bit of difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too. o I think 14 15 is good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me, to ,
okay So why don't we just do it on the 14th. Is tha t y with y ou?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can manage it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that okay for you?
MR. ISACKSON: I'm fine with that, yes.
MR. OCHS: We're fine with that. Henning? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Yu know, We ►re
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. unties meetings.
trying to accommodate the Florida Association of Co he same
All communities need to go through this budget process at t
time but those yahoos haven't changed their meetings, and that's
w here the problem is. It's not our budgeting schedule. It is the FAC.
I would hope that you would have sufficient time to study that
budget, our budget, moving forward, make sure that we give guidance
and hit the target for the public. That is one of the most important
meetings that we have all year. That sets up the whole process of
everything that we do besides land use throughout the whole year.
Very, very important meeting. We need to take it seriously. And the Florida Association of Counties needs to do something
of
different. You know, we shouldn't rush the most important meeting
th e year because they have failed to provide an annual meeting and a
February 28, 2012
proper time. I'm okay with what is being proposed. It gives me
enough time to study and prepare questions and feel comfortable that
-- for the upcoming year that we have good information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, given that, Mark, what would be
better for you, 28th, 29th, 24th, 25th? Would it be better to consider
combining a board meeting? We're going to do these in the evening,
aren't we?
MR. ISACKSON: No.
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. ISACKSON: No, these are during the day. I would not
suggest you layer this on top of a regular board meeting. That --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: That would not be my suggestion to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. ISACKSON: Look, we can do anything the board desires.
You know, obviously I put the 21 st and 22nd on there because it gives
us a little time. What I don't like to do is pump out a document
rushing it, frankly. That's why we set up the 21 st and 22nd date.
But that being said, you know, we can -- we'll do whatever the
board desires. But I would just think you'd want a little bit more time
to look at the document, that's all. That's why we had suggested the
21 st and 22nd date. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, 28th and 29th?
MR. OCHS: That's fine, sir. That would work as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I prefer 14, 15.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which is easier for you, Mark?
MR. OCHS: Twenty- eighth, twenty -ninth is easier. It gives him
more time. We're fine to go on 14 and 15, again, as long as the
board's comfortable that they have sufficient time, and they know that
they're not going to get the document two weeks ahead of the
workshops if we're going on the 14th, 15th. If you're going on the
February 28, 2012
28th and 29th, we can definitely have the document in your hands a
full two weeks before the meeting. But it's the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get these things five days before
this meeting, and we have to read the whole thing. I'm sure we can do
the budget.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but the budget is written in
Chinese.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have a good translator in
Mark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the pleasure of the board? I vote
for 28th, 29th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll go with 28 and 29.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's happy with 28 and 29? Any
more?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll go either one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're wishy- washy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't make any difference. I'm
here no matter what.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who would be opposed to the 28th and
29th?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Personally, I haven't studied --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what's -- I know we have a
regular meeting on that week. I'm not sure what I have on my
personal calendar, so I don't have an opinion on that week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I prefer 14 and 15. And if
the FAC is in between, I mean, we're going to lose the middle of that
next week to review anyway, so I don't see how we're going to be
having an advantage time -wise on the 28th and the 29th if, you know,
we have, you know, out of town -- that out -of -town conference, you
Page 70
February 28, 2012
know, in the middle of the next week and the end of that next week.
So I don't see the advantage to delay it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I haven't seen my schedule so I
can't even tell you what it says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, why don't you
let the commissioners view their personal schedules and forward you
their preferences, and then you add them up and see who's in favor of
what.
MR. OCHS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. First of all, I just --
just for the other commissioners' notes, it was interesting because I
asked Mark, I said, well, where are we as far as the millage rate goes
in the State of Florida? And he sent me back a report, and I thought
this was really cool.
Now, there are 67 counties -- for the audience members, there are
67 counties in the State of Florida. We're seventh from the bottom as
far as the lowest millage rate goes. And I think that that's pretty
admirable, and here we are sticking with it. I mean, it's not that it's
easy. It certainly isn't easy and, yes -- does it hurt a little bit? Yes, it
does. But I just thought everybody would be interested in that.
And then I just wanted to say -- and I mentioned this to the
county manager and to Mark -- that one of my fears is that we've been
forced to this point in time to cut back, cut back, cut back, but we have
to make sure, but -- because of the economy, but we have to make
sure that we don't neglect our maintenance and replacement.
Yes, we've prolonged it many times as far as replacements and
things go, but we don't ever want to get into the dire circumstances we
were in in the '90s when Commissioner Henning, Coletta, and I took
over at the very end of the '90s. They had neglected everything for so
Page 71
February 28, 2012
long and been so penny wise and pound foolish that then we had to
dish out so many millions of dollars to catch up on all of the stuff they
didn't do in the '90s.
And I just suggested to Mark and the county manager, we have to
make sure to keep that in mind, because we don't ever want to slip
down to those levels again so that somebody else is stuck with all the
problems that are created by not spending any money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
anything more to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I think we pretty well
covered it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. What I wanted to say was
that I echo Commissioner Fiala's concerns about the unfunded liability
with respect to the maintenance of our assets. And we still don't have
that number; that asset management analysis has not yet been
concluded. And I think that really needs to be expedited as a priority
project so we understand what liabilities we're facing with respect to
the preservation of those assets as Commissioner Fiala properly points
out.
You know, the last thing we want to do is see our current assets
depreciating to the point that they have to be replaced because they
have not been properly repaired and maintained.
With respect to our taxes and the millage, while the millage may
be low, the overall taxes per capita in Collier County are very high.
And when you look at taxation you don't look at the millage. You look
at what you're paying out of pocket. And we do pay a lot, a lot more
than in any other county.
And I was looking very quickly at the Florida Association of
Counties' website. They do have all the information. I couldn't pull it
up fast enough to give you the exact number, but I would encourage
you to go there. If I'm not mistaken, I think the -- if my memory
Page 72
February 28, 2012
serves me correctly, I think we're, you know, up there among the
second or third highest per capita taxed county in the state.
But verify that on the Florida Association of Counties' website,
and you will see the full profile of Collier County individually as
against the state, and then you can also look at other counties. So we
have a long way to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And if I could add a little
comment to that. You're right, it is, and it's a good number to work
with. But more important -- and maybe Mark could help us with this.
In comparison for an average home -- I mean, the reason our per
capita tax rate is so high is because we have these homes that are in
the multi- million - dollar range. But if we get down to the people that
we represent in 200,000 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We represent them all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do, including Commissioner
Coyle's neighborhood, by the way, in case anybody's listening from
Port Royal, and that includes the governor. Going back to the
question, if you made a comparison with the 200,000 value of a house,
which would be, I don't know, probably pretty close to what would be
representative in my district -- maybe it would be lower than that --
with, like, Lee County and other counties, how would we stack up?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, look -it, your, -- the amount someone
pays in property taxes is directly related to their taxable value. Now,
if you take a $200,000 home, that's roughly -- if you take our -- just
our General Fund levy, that's about $720.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is it in all of the other
counties? Where does that place us?
MR. ISACKSON: You really have to look at the taxable value
side of the house when you're looking at what someone pays.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, no. You're missing
the question.
Page 73
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: The point is, if you take that same $200,000 home
and you spread it across 67 counties, then 60 of those are going to
have a higher tax burden than you have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: -- because of your millage rate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly, the millage rate is
considerably higher. The lower end of the spectrum it paying for it
rather than the high end. And so, I mean, just drawing comparisons on
it, because, I mean, the average citizen out there who lives in a
$200,000 house would assume that by the comments that were made,
is that they're paying more taxes than they would be if they lived in
any other county in Florida.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, that's not correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That isn't correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely correct. You have to take
that into consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
And just going along the same lines, we all chose to come to this
community --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Choice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because it's a little nicer -- a lot
nicer, a lot better community. We chose the houses we wanted to live
in because that is the community we wanted or the price range that we
could afford, and with that comes the property value which, of course,
equates then to the taxes that we pay.
And my community, I don't -- you know, I have a lesser amount
to pay, but that's because that's where I live. And so it just depends on
where you live and what you want.
And if somebody would want a lesser tax rate, they can stay right
Page 74
February 28, 2012
in our community but just move to a house that's of lesser value. It's
just that simple. But if you notice, all along, people are always
concerned about their property values.
I don't want my property values to go down, but as their property
values go up, so do their taxes, you know. So it just depends on what
you want, baseline. And you can choose anything you want because
we have a plethora of choices in our community. So -- but we still
have the lowest millage rate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventh from the bottom.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you wanted to say
something else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I pulled some of the
statistics. I just wanted to read them for information purposes.
Total revenues per capital: Collier County, $2,838 versus the
State of Florida, $2,192.
Taxes per capita: Collier County, $1,041; State of Florida, $695.
And here's an interesting one. Permit fees and special
assessments, per capita, Collier County, $86 -- by the way, I'm not
reading the pennies -- and State of Florida 61.
Charges for services, per capita, Collier County, $761; State of
Florida, 592.
So you can see there's quite a spread. And, yes, you know, we do
have a different standard, and we do have more expensive property
values, and all of that does drive higher taxes, more revenue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about fees? Don't -- aren't
there some counties that charge fees on absolutely everything? I
mean, we don't. And we, by the way, also have one of the very lowest
garbage fees in the entire State of Florida.
But what about fees in other counties? I've never seen --
MR. ISACKSON: Ma'am, if you look at your revenue mix, we
don't have a local option sales tax. There's a lot of counties that do.
Page 75
February 28, 2012
We don't have a franchise fee. There's a lot of counties that do.
So if you're looking at it in totality, you know, that's kind of
where my world was. I mean, I deal with the amount of money that
I'm given to deal with, and I deal with it. We make a recommendation
to you, we put our best foot forward, and that's what we do. I don't --
we're not sitting here whining and complaining about the fact that we
don't have this and that, but that's just a fact of life.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I would point out that you can make
data appear any way you want it to depending upon your choice in
calculation. That's why per capita costs are the most misleading of the
costs that are portrayed in this tax watch publication that was
produced, because Collier County has a relatively low population
compared to any county of similar size, and 82 percent of our entire
county is in permanent preservation. It's owned by the state and/or
federal government. They don't pay any taxes.
So when you have a small population living in a place like
Collier County and you choose to make comparisons based on per
capita figures, it is going to be clearly biased toward the high end for
Collier County.
And the illustration that was made earlier is probably the most
accurate way of comparing. If you take a $200,000 house in Collier
County and you take a $200,000 house in Hendry County, Hendry
County -- the Hendry County property owner will be paying more in
taxes for that $200,000 house than will the Collier County taxpayer.
And that's true of just about every county in the state. So Collier
County taxpayers really get a good deal.
MR. OCHS: Sir --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we are way past our --
MR. OCHS: -- we have two time - certains stacking up. I don't
mean to rush you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know. So let's see if we can get
Page 76
February 28, 2012
a motion to approve the -- accept the budget policy.
MR. OCHS: Accept the policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to accept the budget
policy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
accept the budget policy as presented, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's opposed by Commissioner
Hiller, and we're going to go to our --
MR. OCHS: Eleven a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- eleven a.m. We are right on time.
Item #1 OB
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S DISCUSSION OF
THE CONTRACT OF DR. ROBERT B. TOBER - MOTION TO
CONTINUE INDEFINITELY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: All right, Commissioners. That would be 10B. It's
the Board of County Commissioners' discussion of the contract of Dr.
Robert B. Tober. This item was brought forward by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And my reasoning is very
simple. We had mentioned before at a couple meetings that Dr.
Page 77
February 28, 2012
Tober's contract just automatically renews. And things have changed
so much in the last 11 years, I just thought we should take a look at it
and bring it up to date. No other agenda besides that.
I was glad to read it -- by the way, I noticed there were a couple
things that probably needed to be brought up to date. For instance, his
annual compensation. And it doesn't even mention in this, Dr. Lee, I
think it is -- and I think Dr. Tober even pays him out of his wage.
And so I think the contract ought to be saying something like
that, just so that, you know, it's up to date. And, also, I just suggested
that maybe once a year we have an evaluation just so that we get to
talk with him and see how things are going and maybe make
suggestions to him if we have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was brought up in the
last meeting by two commissioners to put his -- put this contract out to
bid. So I wasn't sure what we were going to discuss today under this
item; however, the majority of the commissioners want a workshop to
take EMS and let North Naples, the administrator, let the City of
Marco do transports, Isles of Capri -- Marco do transports, so -- and
then we have the whole consolidation issue. Quite frankly, I would
like to wait until after the board's workshop with the fire departments
to find out what we're doing, personally --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know. We do have an
update on this contract, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's been some minor amendments, but
they're just minor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This contract was, what, written in
2001?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. I mean, there's been
amendments to the contract, so I don't have all the information.
Pardon me?
February 28, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: They're in your backup.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All of it is in there?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because wasn't it last year he
was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both amendments, both
amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- he was -- he wanted Dr. Lee's
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't in here. Oh, well, wait a
minute. No, the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was denied by the board, I
think.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2008.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That was denied.
MR.00HS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 2008.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And then -- yeah, 2009 was
-- well, they mentioned his assistant in here, but they were just asking
for his -- for expenses. That's what we did in 2009 was added an
expense account for his travel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I do like your idea of waiting till
the workshop so we'll know what we're doing, but I, quite frankly,
don't think we'll know what we're doing at the workshop. We've had
workshop after workshop after workshop for ten years now with the
fire districts, and we still don't know what we're doing, and I don't
think we'll know when we have the other one either.
But, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we confirmed that we
don't know what we're doing.
Page 79
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one thing. I'm inclined to
agree with Commissioner Henning. I recognize Dr. Tober and all the
contributions he made to EMS. And as far as that goes, though, I
wouldn't have a problem at some point in time, when we get this
behind us, doing a job evaluation on a yearly basis. We do it for the
county manager. We do it for the county attorney, and we do it for all
our independent employees out there.
But at this point in time is there a job evaluation that's done by
staff, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. The medical director works directly for the
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just the same as the
CRA directors or --
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- MPO or the airport director.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I would say that, you
know, we should get to that point. And I'm sure that those reviews
would probably demonstrate without a doubt that the man is doing a
tremendous job. But I do agree with Commissioner Henning that --
just wait till we get past the workshop and then bring it back and then
find a date that would be a good date for a yearly review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have concerns not only
about a review that hasn't been done but about the fact that this
contract has not been looked at for a very long time. And there are
certain provisions in it that leave me wondering if they're the best
provisions in the interest of the county. One being -- I believe it's
Section 12 of the contract, conflicting employment or contractual
relationships. It says, the consultant shall not accept any employment
February 28, 2012
or enter into any contractual relationship that would create a conflict
between such interest in the performance of his duties hereunder.
And I question how Dr. Tober is able to balance his position with
-- I believe it's -- is it the -- is it NCH who he acts as medical director
for? Because didn't we have a recent incident where there was a
problem in who was to respond as between NCH and the county, and
an individual died; am I mistaken?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think he's with NCH
anymore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is he not with them anymore?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought he was with neighborhood
health clinic. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is he not with NCH? Is he not the
medical director?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought he was the medical for
the -- who's the medical director for NCH?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay. Maybe that's different.
Maybe that's no longer an issue. His attorney could address that.
Anyway, I just need to -- I just want to be sure there are no conflicts.
The other thing that I was concerned about was the insurance.
The county is supposed to pay for Dr. Tober's professional liability
insurance but only as it relates to his duties pursuant to the county.
We should not be paying for his professional liability insurance for
any other position that he holds. So I would like to make sure that we
don't. Maybe you could answer that now.
MR. WALKER: Jeff Walker, risk management director. Excuse
me.
We include Dr. Tober as part of our overall EMS medical
malpractice coverage, and he's added at no cost. There's zero cost for
Page 81
February 28, 2012
that. We do not cover him for any activities outside the scope of that
employment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So only for what he does for
Collier County?
MR. WALKER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very important. And cost is
one issue, of course, but the liability for what he might do outside of --
is of greater concern, actually.
MR. WALKER: And we were very specific with the
underwriters with regard to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good. I'm very grad. Thank you
for being so prudent. I applaud you for that.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Might I make a suggestion that if the board is
inclined to wait to revisit this till after the workshop, I would be happy
to work individually with the board members to solicit any concerns
about specific provisions of the contract, assemble those and bring
those back to the board and share those with Dr. Tober and his
representative.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Shouldn't we do that with the
county attorney?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, absolutely. I'm working in conjunction with
the county attorney as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I prefer to work with him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have how many
speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call that one speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Mike Potter (sic).
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit here
on behalf of Dr. Tober. I just came to answer any questions you might
Page 82
February 28, 2012
have about the contract.
Commissioner Hiller, Dr. Tober is currently the medical director
for NCH but for the Wound Healing Center only.
The other thing is, I think one of your concerns, Dr. Lee was
designated by the board as an assistant medical director, and Dr. Tober
does pay him out of the fee he receives from the county on the
contract.
And one of the reasons Dr. Lee was designated is to provide
backup for Dr. Tober, and he does do a number of things. He does
in- service training, he is working with the flight medic group right
now on administration of paralytic drugs, those kinds of things. So
there is a backup component, and that's what Dr. Lee is for.
And if you've got any other questions, I'd be happy to try to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. When this is brought back,
I would like a description of what Dr. Tober is, in fact, doing for us
and, you know, how much time he's spending with staff and, you
know, how he's available to answer, you know, calls, and how many
calls he's answering to reconcile different -- you know, difficult
situations and so forth. I'd like to know exactly what he's doing.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And the second thing I
brought up at the time that I asked to see his contract was I was
wondering -- and maybe we can do this at the workshop as well --
what he's doing to get the ALS engines back up and working again.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're bringing a status report on
that whole ALS engine program to you at an upcoming agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, yeah.
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: Make sure he's here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion necessary here
to delay consideration of this, or do you want to just bring it back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So can we agree to bring this
issue back to the board after the workshop with the fire districts?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue by
Commissioner Henning. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. When you say
"indefinitely," it means that he can't bring it back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. You just don't have a specific time.
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to our next time - certain
item, 11 J.
Item #1 U
0 � it
February 28, 2012
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS,
INC. FOR PROVISION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S TRAFFIC
INFRACTION DETECTOR PROGRAM (TID PROGRAM) ALSO
KNOWN AS THE RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERA
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item I I on your agenda this
morning. It's a recommendation to approve a settlement release
agreement between Collier County and American Traffic Solutions,
Incorporated, for provision of Collier County's Traffic Infraction
Detector Program, also known as Red Light Running Camera
Enforcement System.
Mr. Ahmad will present.
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Jay Ahmad,
for the record, your director of transportation engineering.
This is a settlement and release agreement and also it's a
continuation of this program as part of this executive summary that's
before you this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry. I apologize.
MR. AHMAD: A brief history of this program -- and I'm sure
you're aware of this. Before I start, I'd like to acknowledge some of
the folks in this room that -- we have our sheriff, Sheriff Rambosk, on
this item as well, and we also have folks from ATS, Gary -- Greg
Parks and Mike McAllister of ATS, and thank you, folks, for being
here with us on this item.
The program history: We started this with the sheriff. Sheriff --
it was under the sheriff back then. Sheriff Rambosk brought to you an
ordinance. He asked you for help to approve the use of cameras to
enforce red light runners in this county as was and still is a big
problem in our county.
The board approved Ordinance 08 -22 at that meeting in April and
Page 85
February 28, 2012
directed staff, the county manager of traffic operations, to solicit bids
from providers of red light camera vendors.
We went out to bid, and the lowest responsible vendor was ATS.
And we brought you a contract in February, February 10, 2009, and
the BCC approved -- you approved that contract at that meeting.
We began issuing -- or the sheriff started issuing citations with
ATS May 13th -- I'm sorry -- April 30, 2009. That's -- the first
citation was issued, and the code enforcement back then was the -- if
there's an appeal, it goes through code enforcement.
The state's laws changed. The citations continued till May 13,
2010, when the state got into the act. They approved what's called the
Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, and was signed into law on May
13th.
So we began in discussion with ATS, together with our county
attorney and our Clerk of Court, to amend the contract that you have
with ATS, and we brought to you Amendment No. 1 on June 22nd,
which was approved at that meeting.
The law became effective in July, first of July. We start -- the
county starts issuing citations called notice of violations on July 1 st
based on the new contract and based on the law.
The first invoice, based on that Amendment No. 1, was paid in
August by the Clerk, and the Clerk discovered that he had some
concern or he had concern about this item in violation of the state law.
So the payment stopped by the Clerk to ATS since August 2010.
We've been trying to resolve this, and our county attorney has
been putting thousands -- hundreds of hours, I think -- Scott Teach is
with us here this morning as well -- myself, and thanks to also our
Clerk of Courts, Crystal. We've been trying to resolve this instead of
fighting it out.
And I think it's been successful, been talking to ATS, and today
we're bringing you a settlement agreement that we, as a county, the
Clerk, our county attorney, ATS are all -- we're all comfortable with.
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have public speakers?
MR. AHMAD: I'm sorry. I -- if you wish, I could stop here, but
I've just got a couple more slides to tell you what the settlement is and
what's going on with the program next, if you want me to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can get through it quickly.
MR. AHMAD: Okay. The settlement, quickly, is you directed
us to have a cost neutral. The county -- the taxpayers of this county
are not paying a penny into this program. The violators of this
program will pay the cost to run this program.
We have some minor administration costs, which is a job banker,
and growth management and the job banker approved but not filled at
the Clerk's Office. We, in this settlement, have a flat rate in
accordance with the state statute that the Clerk is comfortable with.
We went out to bid in a form of letter of interest. How much the
-- to have it cost neutral, if any of the vendors out there are interested
in bidding for this. And, frankly, we only got ATS as the only bidder
for this at the price that we dictated to them.
This settlement provides payment for, unpaid, since August till
December of 2011, $522,454. And, again, this payment is from
money collected from people who violated red light cameras.
Going forward with the program, we are, again, going to be still
cost neutral. The county will have a job banker, as the Clerk has an
option for a job banker. Again, that hasn't been filled today.
The agreement is for ten years, but it could be negotiated or
terminated after one year with a 30 -day notice. We're going to
continue the program based on $1,500 for approach per month, which
totals, for the 19 approaches that we have in the county, 28,500. And,
again, we're all in agreement with this.
I'm going to move quickly. The reason for this -- and I'm going
to move it to the Clerk, if you allow me to -- we have a lot of violators
in this county. To date, since the inception of the program -- and I'm
not talking right turn on red -- we have 5,422 left -turn violators.
February 28, 2012
We have over 15,000 through -- straight through movement
violations. We're averaging, for the 19 approaches -- now, 19
approaches at ten intersections, we're averaging over 750 violations
per month.
And I'm going to leave it at this. If I can ask our sheriff to come
forward and tell you why this program is important to him and to the
county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Welcome, Sheriff Rambosk.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Good morning, Chairman, members of
the commission.
Just, real briefly, four years ago the number one identified
violation was running of red lights. Our community had very clearly
indicated to me since -- at that time and since that time that this
responsibility was extremely important to them. It's certainly a labor
incentive responsibility when you look at the types of numbers that
you just saw for left turn and straight through violations of red light
running in Collier County, which -- by the way, I'd like to remind
everybody is a violation of state statute as well, and we utilize that
philosophy.
When our deputy looks at a violation, they look to determine was
there a cause of that violation, emergency vehicle, some other action,
and when there was not, and they would issue a citation if they were
standing there, they would issue this.
I can tell you that in the last town hall meetings I had there was a
question about whether we still needed this program or not. And,
absolutely, the majority of people indicated to me that they wanted me
to represent them and say, yes, we needed to continue the program.
I can tell you that the sense of traffic safety, while we still have
some violators, when I sit at intersections today, whether they be red
lighted or not, I see many more people approaching it more cautiously
and stopping, even for right turns, and that makes a big difference.
That's why this is so important.
..
February 28, 2012
And, you know, we are in a unique situation where there's no
penalty to the taxpayer for this but rather just those that don't stop for
red lights.
It is my position to support this and recommend that you approve
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sheriff Rambosk, could you answer a
question for me?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we were to discontinue this, what
would be the impact on your office as far as enforcement is
concerned?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Okay. A traffic officer full time writes
about 4,000 tickets a year. Right now you can see the numbers there.
We would have to incur the cost of four to five additional traffic
officers.
As you're aware, with the economic impact we've had over the
last four years, we are actually down in the number of traffic officers
we have. So I would be seeking ways to fund additional enforcement
at about $100,000 a piece per officer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner -- we have other speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call those speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first one is Vincent Angiolillo, and he'll
be followed by John Lundin.
MR. ANGIOLILLO: Hello, Commissioners. I am Vinny
Angiolillo, voter qualified candidate for sheriff of Collier County.
Commissioners, on May 25th I spoke before this commission
regarding the right -hand turn on red camera fiasco. I stated this failed
program would cost the county money in lawsuits and continued cost
to the taxpayers.
I would like to correct the last two speakers. Violators in this
February 28, 2012
community are still taxpayers. American Traffic Solutions, in their
quest for revenue, has caused legal problems for this county, and there
are more to come.
There is also new legislation that will be passed. American
Traffic Solutions has raped this community of money from our
hard - working citizens with no significant reductions of traffic
accidents at intersections where the cameras are active.
I am the person responsible for advising the general public in
person and through the news media of the class - action settlement that
will be ruled upon this afternoon. I have a copy of that receipt if you'd
like to see it on the documentation.
Please stop the charade masqueraded as a safety issue when, in
reality, it is taxation by citation, which now has gone beyond that in
costing the county, as just previously reported, time and money.
A positive result of this, we tried it, and it did not work in our
paradise. To American Traffic Solutions I say, I hear monetary
predators are welcome in my home state of Connecticut where
Jackson Labs went. Take your business there.
Pay ATS, Commissioners, the money that they're owed. Do no
further business with these people, and have them take their flashing
cameras off our streets, and let's run them out of town. I am watching
you for a unanimous vote on this decision.
Thank you, commissioners.
MR. LUNDIN: Hi. I'm John Lundin. I've been researching the
red light camera issue from a national situation. Many cities, counties,
and states are taking the red camera lights (sic) out, and one of the
reasons cited is the due process under the 4th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
I'd like to read the 4th Amendment right away for you so you'll
understand. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and affects against unreasonable search and seizures
shall not be violated, and no warrant shall be issued but upon probable
Page 90
February 28, 2012
cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that when a
person is driving in their car, they have the same privacy rights as
when they're in their home. Now, before we had the red light traffic
cameras, a police officer would observe someone violating the law,
going through a red light, and they would pull them over and they
would discuss why they went through the red light. That is due
process.
Ever since we've installed the red light cameras, we've taken the
due process out of the event, and now we have a camera taking a
picture, and we have someone from the Sheriff s Office 20 miles away
making arbitrary decisions about if this person violated the law.
Now, you've got to understand, when a person is in their car, it is
-- they are like in their home, and the government is not allowed to put
a camera in front of your house and take a picture of your house to
determine if you're violating some law.
So this basically violates due process under the 4th Amendment.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's -- who was first here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I was the second one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. First -- the first
question's for you, Jay. There was two issues that I've had about these
cameras from day one, and the first issue you can address now, and
that has to do with the claim that was made some years ago that this
was nothing more than a money making scheme.
This commission came out and directed the county staff to come
up with a way so that it does nothing more than just cover costs so we
can remove that stigma from the rules that we have here, and it
Page 91
February 28, 2012
wouldn't be applying to what we were doing. It would just be able to
deal with the health, safety, and welfare.
Okay. Now, we've been fairly successful since we gave you that
directive. Now, under this change to the contract, where are we going
to stand? Are we still going to be a revenue neutral proposition, is this
going to end up costing the county money, or is it going to be bringing
in a profit?
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, this is a revenue neutral contract
that we're bringing. We based our estimates of $1,500 per approach
per month based on historical citations that have been issued. And
based on that and the percentage of collections -- some pay it, some go
to court, and the county doesn't get anything when a person goes to
court -- to the court system.
The -- that $1,500 covers your costs. Is it to the exact dollar? Of
course not, but some months you'll have higher collections, some
months you'll have lower, but on an average, you -- roughly you'll be
breaking even. You'll pay ATS under the contract, you'll pay the two
job bankers, and that's pretty much it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you see a possibility the
violations could suddenly fall off and our revenue stream would
decrease to the point this would be a financial burden, or don't you see
that?
MR. AHMAD: Sir, actually, the display on the monitor there
shows the citations since the inception of this program. You could see
when you remove the right turn on red -- you no longer enforce the
right turn on red, and the statute essentially says the sheriff has to find
a prudent and careful manner before he can issue a citation.
So the sheriff elected that that's a difficult thing to enforce, so we
are no longer, since that date -- in May 13, two thousand and -- since
the law was approved, we're no longer enforcing the right turn on red,
so the citations dropped to approximately the 7,800 level per month.
You can see that on that visualizer which basically runs the
Page 92
February 28, 2012
citations that are collected.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you for that.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My next question is for the
sheriff. Thank you for being here today. I really appreciate you
coming.
Regarding the effectiveness of the cameras, that's another issue
that came up. Because one of the reasons they're there, the primary
reason is for health, safety, and welfare, and to be able to prevent
accidents; however, recently some data came up -- and I'm not saying
that the data was flawless -- that indicated there was no net gain as far
as a decrease in accidents.
Could you comment on that, sir?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: I don't have those traffic stats. That
would probably be from your transportation department; however, you
know, it's very hard to prove a negative, when something is not going
to occur.
One of the biggest questions that was raised when we were here
before you four years ago was the philosophy that installing the red
light cameras would increase rear end accidents at these locations.
That -- and your transportation department can advise me if I'm not
correct, but my understanding today is that has not occurred in Collier
County.
And, in fact, I don't know that I can stand here and tell you and
attribute to the red light cameras themselves, but a number of the
intersections I've looked at -- in fact the majority of them -- have had
less accidents overall.
So it answers the question about the rear end accidents and what
is attributable to -- you know, awareness is one of the more difficult
parts of our job. So when we can let people know in our community
that we are interested in making it safe, we use technology in addition
to street enforcement, and we do it very prudently and find that there
Page 93
February 28, 2012
has been no increase in accidents, particularly with the increase in
traffic that we've seen lately.
I'm going to say that between that and what I observe on the road
where people are driving more cautiously at these intersections than
what we would be at today if we didn't have the cameras, I believe,
makes a positive difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You believe that this is an
important part of your operations to be able to preserve the laws of
Collier County?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Without question?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Without question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Let's see. First of all, I wanted to say -- I've got all kinds of little
notes. That was very interesting, by the way, Sheriff Rambosk. I was
glad to hear that. When we had the right on red, I think we all realized
-- none of us realized that they were going to do that right on red, but
that was money grab and we quickly eliminated that. I think I was the
one that made the motion. I didn't want to see that happen any longer.
Since then I wanted to know how many deaths we'd had at
intersections with cameras. The last time that there was -- in 2006
there were two fatalities at two separate intersections, but those
intersections now have red light cameras, and there have been no other
fatalities since 2006 at any of the intersections that have red light
cameras.
That, in itself, tells me a great deal, because it's all about
protecting human life, and that's what we're trying to do now is protect
people.
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't want them, because it
certainly does make one think, I better be careful -- I better stop. That
Page 94
February 28, 2012
light's turning yellow. I better stop.
I think -- I've had many people tell me that they drive a little
more cautiously just because they know the camera's watching them.
And if that -- if that serves the purpose and it saves just one life, we're
on the right track.
I think the sheriff certainly knows better than us what's needed to
protect drivers from red light runners, and I have to -- I have to say
that, as long as you endorse it -- it was the sheriff that introduced this
to our county in the first place, he's still a believer, and he believes
strongly in it, and so I have to place a lot of faith in that.
Just the other day I was in an intersection that didn't have a
camera. I couldn't get through the intersection because the traffic was
pouring through it. Even though they had a red light, they kept right
on going through.
And so we were all sitting at a green light just waiting until they
stopped. So then one guy decides to pull out, and he's going to pull in
between them to stop the rest of them from coming through. And I
thought, oh, my goodness, that's so dangerous.
And so, you know, people know where the cameras are and
where they aren't, and it becomes -- I think they are a great safety
feature.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's a very complicated issue.
First of all, I would like to know more about how much Collier
County is going to be paying as part of this litigated settlement that is
going to be heard this afternoon.
MR. KLATZKOW: How much are we paying? It's out of the
escrow, okay. So we're not really -- out of ticket revenue we've
generated, I believe the number's around $325,000 we've agreed to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is a settlement with
Page 95
February 28, 2012
plaintiffs who are claiming what?
MR. KLATZKOW: They were, claiming that the red light on red
prior to the statute was unlawful because it violated the Uniform
Traffic Safety Law of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were there any other claims?
MR. KLATZKOW: That was the primary claim.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What were the other claims?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I'm sure there was a whole host,
unconstitutional, but that was the primary claim.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm sure that the
unconstitutionality was probably another claim that was high on their
list. Was it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I don't remember. The primary
claim was that it was in violation of state law because of the State
Uniform Traffic Law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there are a host of other such
suits that have been filed around the state?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, all of which are being settled now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my concern about the
constitutionality of these red light cameras remain. And, you know,
while I appreciate that there may be a cost to the Sheriffs Office, until
I have assurances that this in no way is unconstitutional, I find it very
difficult to support.
I looked at the numbers that were presented on this chart, and
what I did is I basically -- I took the highest and the lowest in the 2010
period, the highest being 1,054 runs and the lowest being 593. I
divided them both by 30 and then by the 19 cameras, and came out --
and I found that at the highest we had 1.85 runs per day per camera
and at the lowest we had one run per day per camera. So it doesn't
seem like the numbers are so high as to warrant that much more
staffing.
So while I am 100 percent for public safety, and I do feel it's
February 28, 2012
extremely important to save everywhere we can, if there is any
question as to the constitutionality and the rights of individuals, I have
to say that that trumps everything.
So it would be very difficult for me to support the ongoing
relationship with these red light cameras in light of how it interferes
with individual rights.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This isn't -- this is about a
settlement on past issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's my understanding it's also
about an ongoing relationship.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not an amendment to
the -- is it an amendment to the contract? Because the contract is
really the relationship.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, it's doing two things. One --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your name?
MR. TEACH: Oh, Scott Teach, deputy county attorney.
It's doing two things; one, ATS hasn't been paid for
approximately the last 18 months. They've been providing this service
with no compensation. So we went back and we negotiated payment
for those periods up through December 31, 2011.
And the second part of it is ATS was under current contract,
which was the Amendment No. 1 that Mr. Ahmad went through. And
we put out a letter of interest in 2011 and we negotiated a contract
going forward, and that's the second part of this agreement. It's a
settlement agreement and release, and it's also an agreement for
service going forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it is an amendment to the
contract?
MR. TEACH: In essence, but we're really superseding the
original agreement. It has new terms. It has a new cost, a term of
compensation. So it is an amendment, but what we did was we rolled a
Page 97
February 28, 2012
settlement agreement into an agreement for services going forward,
and there's reasons why we did that as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the agreement been
amended to remove the unlawfulness of the action in 2008? That's
when we went under contract with ATS. 2008 is when we created the
ordinance; 2008 is when we created the agreement.
MR. TEACH: Yeah -- yes, Commissioner, the contract is lawful.
I mean, the issue with the Cinquegrana case had more to do with the
fact that there wasn't a state statute providing for red light traffic
enforcement devices at the time.
Once that was passed effective July 1, 2010, then the state has
authorized through statute that you can operate these.
So, you know, we had a program that was by ordinance before.
Now we're operating pursuant to the statute passed by the Florida
legislature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Has the ordinance been
amended to be in concert with the Florida law?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir, yes. The ordinance which was amended
prior to that July 1, 2010, effective date incorporated the Florida
Statute, the Mark Wandall Traffic Act.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's quite interesting, in 2008
when we -- this was very controversial in 2008. We were told that it
was lawful because other communities in the State of Florida was
doing this. I guess we were wrong.
MR. TEACH: Well, anecdotally, across the country there's in
excess of 20 -plus state, 22 -- I know ATS is in at least 22 states
throughout the country operating in a similar fashion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't support it in 2008. And
I still don't -- I think it's still too much government. I understand it's a
tool; however, I don't think that you can answer the constitutional
February 28, 2012
question that was brought up by Mr. Lundin until it's tested in the
courts.
And, again -- I mean, nobody can stand up here and tell me that
it's lawful under the Constitution, because we were told, 2008, other
communities in the State of Florida was doing it, and that was the
reason and the justification to pass it, and obviously that was wrong.
MR. TEACH: I can tell the board that there have been some
United States Court of Appeals, the courts right below the Supreme
Court. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reviewed
these issues and confirmed the constitutionality of certain provisions
regarding red light enforcement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got a motion to approve. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Now, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Teach?
MR. TEACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, on this agreement that
we have, how long is this agreement in force? How long is the
contractual date?
MR. TEACH: Well, it's a ten -year agreement, but we can
terminate with convenience upon 30 days' notice after the first year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. TEACH: And one other issue I want to address that you
asked Mr. Ahmad about was, what if there's insufficient funding.
There's a clause in the contract that indicates if there's a reduction in
funds or -- it's subject to budget allocations. So if something came up
where people confirmed -- conformed their behavior to not run lights
February 28, 2012
and we'd be going into the red because we couldn't pay ATS, we could
still terminate upon 30 days' notice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, that gives me some
reassurance.
And I have to share with my fellow commissioners I'm going to
vote for this, and I'll tell you why. If I'm going to err, I'm going to err
in the favor of health, safety, and welfare.
Now, as far as the constitutionality goes, that's something that's
always going to be left up to the court system.
I have all the confidence in our sheriff to do the right thing, and
that's the reason why I'm going to vote for it; however, with that said, I
can tell you there's still a large amount of dissension on this different
-- on this subject. And if they -- enough people come forward and they
have expressed it -- express it to me in the future that they have some
reservations about this, I will be coming before this commission to ask
about putting an item on the ballot related to red light cameras for the
August primary.
And then we'll let the populous decide of Collier County whether
they want the protection or they don't want the protection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Not having the red light
cameras does not eliminate public protection because the sheriff will
have his deputies monitoring the intersection as they do for other
violations besides the lighting violations.
My concern remains that the problem is, is that there is a
presumption that the owner of the vehicle is the guilty party. And,
you know, it basically eliminates the presumption of innocence and
shifts the burden of proof to the vehicle owner. And that's really just a
big problem.
So public safety is not compromised by not having these
Page 100
February 28, 2012
cameras. But I think there are too many other concerns that are raised
that can't be ignored.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I can't support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3 -2 with Commissioners
Hiller and Henning dissenting.
And we're breaking for lunch now. We'll be back at 1:20.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen -- we have a live
mike?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Item #1 I B
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING EXTENSION
OF THE "EARLY ENTRY" BONUS TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) CREDIT, AS PROVIDED FOR
WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) OF THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) — MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to Agenda Item 11 B.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to provide direction
Page 101
February 28, 2012
to staff regarding the extension of the Early Entry Bonus Transfer of
Development Rights Credit as provided for within the Future Land
Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Mr. Mike Bosi will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Item No. 1,
direct staff to include the extension of the Early Entry Bonus TGR
(sic) credit as part of the upcoming EAR -based GMP amendments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve, second by --
No, it's Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta, Coletta. The
good- looking one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Motion by -- you're
sitting over there on the left, so I just figured --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It just happens to be the left.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta makes a motion
to approve staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala seconded the
motion.
Now discussion. Do we have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the public speaker, and then
we'll have discussion.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's not here.
MR. MITCHELL: Not here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he outside, Mike?
Okay. Then Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I thought that we were not
Page 102
February 28, 2012
able to do this, that we had to do this extension through a Land
Development Code Amendment.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. If you would
like to go to the speaker --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Answer Commissioner Hiller's
question.
MR. BOSI: The date is contained in the Land Development
Code as well as Growth Management Plan, and the reason why we're
-- the executive summary is framed as -- the way it is in terms of
processing new -- with the EAR based amendments as one of the
potential suggestions, is before we could amend the Land
Development Code, we would have to amend the Growth
Management Plan so there would be concert between the two.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So all we're doing today is to give
you direction to do this during that process. We're actually not
approving the extension for this TDR program right now.
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. BOSI: You would not be giving approval. You'd be giving
direction to staff to prepare the amendment to the Growth
Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To go through the proper process in
order to accomplish the amendment.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is correct, which is how it
should be done. But I just wanted to clarify that, because there was
some confusion with respect to that.
The other thing I want to address is Hacienda Lakes, because I
had received an email from staff stating that Hacienda Lakes did
qualify, and I'm not sure how that determination was made, because
when I met with the representative for Hacienda Lakes it was made
clear that they didn't qualify and that they would only qualify pending
Page 103
February 28, 2012
the amendment to the Land Development Code.
MR. BOSI: It's -- of course, the commission remembers
Hacienda Lakes, the DRI that was recently approved on 951. That
development needs TDRs to entitle the densities associated with that
development to move forward.
If they would submit an application prior to the entry deadline,
they would qualify. Every sending land parcel is eligible up until the
deadline, the March 27th deadline. If it's not extended, then that
would be -- that's their window to be able to get it in.
So they have not submitted an application to sever the TDRs as
of this date, so there's no application. So Hacienda, if they -- if the
early entry bonus was not extended and they did not submit an
application, they would never be able to receive those early entry
bonuses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But as I understand right now, the
deadline is March 27th.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so they have up until March
27th to submit their application?
MR. BOSI: And that's one of the things that we're seeking
direction from the Board of County Commissioners. Back in --
September 27, 2008, I was with the comprehensive planning, and the
deadline was approaching, the first deadline. And we, as a matter of
policy, accepted all complete and full applications till that date. We
would process beyond that date, but we would only accept to that date,
and that's one of the clarifications we're seeking from the Board of
County Commissioners.
If we received a full application that satisfies all the requirements
of the application process, that we could -- that we could process those
applications as long as they were received by Growth Management
prior to close of business on the 27th of March.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're asking is -- was
Page 104
February 28, 2012
that not what -- I guess what you're saying is before your
interpretation was that it actually had to be approved by the 27th as
opposed to submitted by the 27th?
MR. BOSI: No. The past policy -- we never sought direction on
this policy back in September of 2008.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a common practice that you followed
in the past?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're merely trying to get it
official --
MR. BOSI: Memorialized from the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, okay.
Did that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just don't understand why
the representatives of Hacienda said that they did not qualify and they
needed this to get it done, I mean, without speaking to the March 27th
date.
MR. BOSI: Well, I do know that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't get it.
MR. BOSI: -- your first public speaker has some involvement
with Hacienda, so maybe --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He can explain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Mulhere, for the record.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. What he said.
I actually was here, not necessarily on behalf of Hacienda, but I
am working for them, so I can speak to that issue.
I was here just to support staff s recommendation on -- I've had
several potential and existing clients who have interest in the rural
fringe mixed -use district call about this item, so there is interest.
Hopefully that interest will expand, and if we promote the
Page 105
February 28, 2012
continuation of the early entry bonus, that will help.
As far as Hacienda goes, it was our understanding that as long as
we submitted by that March 27th date a complete full application, then
we would be seemed to be sufficient and would qualify. I think the
concern was, what if we don't get it in by that date? We still would
support extending the early entry bonus period, and that would allow
us, after the Comprehensive Plan is approved and after the land code
is amended, to submit under that scenario.
I do believe it's the intent of my client to submit prior to the
March 27th date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a motion on the floor?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not quite yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The discussion went on so long I forgot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff points out in the second
page of the executive summary about a minimum price for -- per
TDR, which is in the Land Development Code. Do we want to give
further direction to bring it back as a potential amendment to the Land
Development Code to let the market drive the TDR prices?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say it one more time just so I
understood what you just said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now that I got a drink of water.
The TDR -- the board's set a price for each TDR for 25,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The market has changed
February 28, 2012
dramatically.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dramatically.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That development is in the Land
Development Code. Does the board want to give staff direction as
part of the motion, if you want to amend it, to give direction to amend
this part of the code to make it market driven?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the staff is saying that this is one
of the many issues explored during the structural review of the
program as recommended by 2011 EAR.
So, yeah, I would expect them to come back with some
recommendations with that, but I have a feeling that we should do that
during the public hearing.
MR. BOSI: Well -- and that would be -- and what I think what
Commissioner Henning was trying to direct within the motion was
when the Land Development Code -- clear direction that the GMP
process should start with the EAR -based amendment process to update
the -- or to extend the early entry bonus. We'd also have to come back
to this body and the Planning Commission to discuss the pushing
forward of the date related -- in the LDC.
While that $25,000 minimum price document is not in the
Growth Management Plan, it's in the LDC, and at that time we'd
proposed the amendment to eliminate the price tags, and then we can
debate the merits of it with the Planning Commission and then,
ultimately, with the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly what Commissioner
Henning was talking about.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess there's not a desire to
amend the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my only -- my only hesitation
would be I'd like to have some public input into making a decision as
Page 107
February 28, 2012
to how we should amend that. Should we have a figure at all in the
LDC, or should we just leave it out and let people decide?
I -- all I'm saying is that I am uncertain that we have enough
information right now to make a decision as to what the minimum
should be or whether there should be a minimum at all. That's all I'm
saying. I'm not opposed to the problem -- I mean opposed to the issue.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I shed some light?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Coletta, just proceed right down the line then, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, I could shed a little
bit of light on it. When that originally came up, we were at a point of
escalating land values. We had a lot of people out there that were
small landowners that English was not even their second language,
and we were concerned about the inability for them to be able to
communicate and being taken advantage of without realizing what
was taking place and selling off their right, and that's the reason why.
Now, whether $25,000 per unit -- is it? I'm trying to remember.
MR. BOSI: It's per base credit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- per base credit is even
realistic anymore or not, I couldn't even begin to tell you. I'm willing
to look at it. I'd include it in the motion to be able to bring it back to
be able to have recommendations made, because the last thing I want
to do is to make sure we don't have a (sic) -- we don't have it so
structured that this may be the thing to stop the program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you said just about the same
thing I did. That's why I was agreeing with Commissioner Henning.
You know, I don't -- I think it deserves another look.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because it was written in another
day and another time, and times aren't the same.
Page 108
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'm not saying to strike it
out this time. I'm saying to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This was raised when this issue
first came up, and it was agreed that it was going to be brought back
by staff. And I have also, independently, asked the county attorney to
look into the legality of the county setting a base price for what is
supposed to be a free market unit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's -- the motion will provide for
you to come back and make recommendations concerning that issue;
is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. BOSI: And just let me clarify in terms of the process. The
GMP amendment to modify -- to modify the language will be before
this board on the 24th of April when you hear your transmittal for the
EAR -based amendments.
It won't be until the next Land Development Code cycle that we
could get the amendment in to modify the LDC. So it would be that
next Land Development Code that we also would discuss and try to
gather the stakeholders from the rural fringe mixed -use district to gain
their input related to the $25,000 minimum price tag.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 109
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #1 I C
REVISING BOARD POLICY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AWARDS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM TO
THE LESSER OF 20% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OR $201000 —
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND
WORK WITH NABOR & CBIA TO DEVELOP APPROPRIATE
STRATEGIES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11 C is a recommendation to revise board policy to
increase the amount of purchase assistance awards with the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership program, the lesser of 20 percent of
the purchase price or $20,000.
Ms. Grant will present.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kim Grant,
interim director of Housing, Human, and Veteran Services. I do have
a brief presentation, or I can take questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make your presentation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, present.
MS. GRANT: Okay. This afternoon I'm here to speak with you
about increasing the SHIP purchase assistance, frequently referred to
as down payment assistance.
This program item is partially in response to an item that was on
your last agenda where we brought forth close to $2 million of
additional funding that's allowed to be spent under the SHIP program
and partially under prior years' programming.
Staff has spent a tremendous amount of time performing a lot of
analysis looking at what options existed that would both be fully
compliant with the statutes and also achieve our spending deadlines.
Page 110
February 28, 2012
That has included a great deal of assistance from our technical
assistance provider, Florida Housing Coalition.
What's before you today are two components of funds that need
to be spent. By June 2012 we need to spend $380,000, and by June
2013 we need to spend approximately $1.9 million.
Next I'll present the strategy that is most likely to get us to those
spending deadlines.
The staff proposal is that we will increase purchase assistance.
Purchase assistance is one of several strategies that are in the LHAP,
which the board has approved, and the increased recommendation is to
go from $3,000, which is what it is today that has an accompanying
$1,000 contribution by the applicant, to 20 percent of purchase price,
not to exceed $20,000.
Now, this proposal has not only been vetted with the Florida
Housing Coalition but also the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee in advance of bringing this to you for consideration.
One thing I'd like to mention is that the down payment assistance
can apply across various different income levels. And staff thought
that this would be a great time to do more outreach with partners in the
community that are helping people purchase homes.
So over the last week or so we have contacted several local banks
and local industry associations seeking their support or not, but they've
all provided support of this increase in down payment assistance. At
the level of $3,000, many organizations while, of course, they're
interested in helping their clients, have not necessarily found the
amount of paperwork and the time involved to be of enough benefit.
Raising the level to 20 percent or $20,000 they believe will really help
homeowners get into homes.
And they are al -- several of them have also expressed that,
should the board approve this strategy, they will help market this and
bring more people to the equation who are qualifying for traditional
financing.
Page 111
February 28, 2012
So the recommendation before you today is to approve a
purchase assistance policy increase to 20 percent or $20,000,
whichever is less, for the funds that must be spent by June 2013.
And I'd be happy to take any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have speakers, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do have speakers. How many
speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's hear from the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Ellie Krier. Is that okay?
MS. KRIER: That's correct. We were practicing the name.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm Ellie Krier, the government affairs director of the Naples Area
Board of Realtors.
And you're here talking about SHIP funds today, the State
Housing Initiative Partnership, and I just want to make sure everyone
realizes these funds come out of the Sadowski Trust Fund, which are
state monies, not federal monies. These are monies received from
stamps on real estate transactions here in Florida. And our goal is to
get our money back to Collier County and be spent on helping our
residents who need affordable housing.
The Sadowski Trust Fund is 20 years old this year. It was
supported by and put in place largely by realtors because they wished
to fund affordable housing in their own communities.
The Naples Area Board of Realtors is happy to support this
increase with a couple of comments. One, obviously, the goal of these
sorts of funds is to give as much money to as many people as possible.
And the higher you put your limit, the fewer people get it; however,
we recognize we're in a bit of a cleanup period, and there are some
deadlines imposed upon us to get some of these funds out.
So this is a cap, not an absolute, and it is a flexible tool in the
toolbox for your staff. But we'd also like to acknowledge there are
Page 112
February 28, 2012
other options for these funds, some of which may not be in place in
time for your first 380,000 that must be spent, but they include
partnering with other groups on things like home hardening, for
example, which is a benefit to the county, and many of these people in
these homes could never afford to make their homes hurricane
resistant.
So NABOR is absolutely committed to assisting your staff in any
way. We partnered with your Code Enforcement Department to do
many things for them, and we are happy to put together a NABOR
task force to get in the trenches and help make this program just as
good as it possibly can be.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is Bill Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here on
behalf of the Naples Board of Realtors. I'm the president this year.
And I want to reiterate what Ms. Krier said, that we are
absolutely behind this program. The Florida realtors had made the
Sadowski funds their number one priority for probably the last 10 to
15 years. We go to Tallahassee each year; we talk to the legislature.
We explain how important it is, because this is a segment of the
community that's usually ignored, and it's easy for those people doing
moderate housing and doing upscale housing to find places to go. But
it's really hard for the lower end of the spectrum to find people willing
to help them.
So we are very much in favor of this. I want to reiterate that we
would very much like to be involved in the process on this working
with the committee, because we have a lot of talented people at the
board that are experts in this particular area.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bill, before you go away --
MR. POTEET: Yes.
Page 113
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- I have a question, and I think
Commissioner Fiala does, too.
I think the assistance of NABOR is critical in all of our housing
programs. Could you share with everyone the circumstances that
surrounded the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that sort of
excluded realtors from participating in those transactions.
MR. POTEET: Well, when it was first brought up three or four
years ago, Marcy Krumbine came into our board and she explained
the program to us and then said at that point that no commissions
would be paid to realtors, which took all the incentive of all our
people to go out and work for the program, and we thought that was
pound foolish, because I have approximately 4,000 realtors that are
members of the Naples Area Board of Realtors who, even though they
may not get a 6 percent commission, they may get a 3 percent
commission but still would have the incentive to drive people to your
product, then you wouldn't have this problem today with 60 houses
that you're sitting on. They'd be gone.
We've -- in the last two years, we've gone from 11,000 units in
our MLS system to about 7,100, and that's with -- including adding
more inventory in the entire time.
And so we're moving product. It's just -- and most of it's in the
under 300,000 category, between 100 to 300,000. You will find under
100,000 there are some niche players out there that buy the
foreclosures, and they're usually houses that nobody could buy or
finance because they've been gutted and damaged and air
conditioning's removed, et cetera.
And so those niche players usually will pick up that market. But
between the 100 and 300,000, there's a lot of product, and we've
moved a lot of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. We -- I just wanted to
bring this up to make sure that we didn't have similar impediments
under this program, and we really ought to resolve any impediments to
Page 114
February 28, 2012
the realtor participation in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
So with that, Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for staying there.
MR. POTEET: My pleasure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you talk about the housing
and you said between 100 and 300,000, now you're talking to the
category that I think we have sadly overlooked, and that's the firemen
and the policemen; and everybody says they're building for them, but
nobody ever was. They were really building for very, very low.
And so if you participated in this, you'll make sure that it gets to
people that are -- that actually could use this money and be an asset to
them and get some of that stock off the market, and at the same time
we would be now dealing with workforce housing or even middle
income housing, right?
MR. POTEET: Well, my understanding on the SHIP funds that
can be used, there is a low income component and there's also a
moderately low income, which I'm not sure -- it's all based on the
median income of the county. And so I would imagine staff could tell
you exactly where those limits are. But if those individuals who work
for the fire departments, who work for the police departments qualify
under those limits, absolutely they should be included.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if they don't, then we're going
back to very low income again, right?
MR. POTEET: Well, you're going to that category of an
individual who lives here in Collier County and works here. I mean, it
could be a person who works at Coastland Center that's getting 12 to
$15 an hour, you know. And we're not advocating people should go
out and buy houses just to buy houses. We think they should be
qualified. And, you know, some of the shortcuts they did in the past, I
mean, they hurt our industry more heavy than the average individual,
Page 115
February 28, 2012
because we've paid for it for the last three years.
We don't want to go back there. We want to make sure people
have some type of investment in their product and be able to go
forward on this. But there's a lot of people out there that just need that
little extra effort.
The other thing you will find is when a person buys a home,
statistically they'll say $60,000 in additional sales will go into your
community for things like lawnmower, paint for the house, carpet,
whatever, that they put in there, so it adds to the economy as it goes
through.
It also -- for every house that's built you have two jobs that are
created out of that. And, you know, it's -- there's statistics out there
that also show that people that have homeownership and a vested
interest in their house, crime is down in those areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. POTEET: Neighborhoods are better kept. I mean -- and I
can get you that information from National Association of Realtors if
you need it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I've already checked that out,
and that's what I hear. They take pride in their neighborhood buying
their own.
MR. POTEET: It just makes sense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, Kim, you had said something
about we were giving $3,000, and this would boost it to $20,000,
right? Now, we giving the three -- that was the county giving 3,000,
right?
MS. GRANT: This program, correct, $3,000 in down payment
assistance through this program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not the county's money. It's money --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: SHIP money that came in that the
county's using.
Page 116
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then SHIP also gave $20,000,
right?
MR.00HS: No.
MS. GRANT: The amount of purchase assistance has changed
over the years. At one point in time it was up that high, but for the last
two, three years it's been at $3,000, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not 20,000 and 3,000?
MS. GRANT: That's correct, not both.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not both.
MR.00HS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- because I guess I got
them confused. I remember when we reduced it to 3,000 we were
having financial woes here. Okay, fine.
So this is -- what you're doing is putting it back to where it used
to be.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But these are all SHIP funds, not
county taxpayer?
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just going to make
sure. And that you say need to be spent. Now, I wasn't going to ask
this question on this particular subject, but as long as we need to spend
it -- and Bill made a note there that, you know, we had so much extra
inventory that we just couldn't even dispose of on the market and, you
know, that was part of the problem that we had; we had a glut on
housing.
Do we have a needs assessment? Do we have anything that tells
us what we really -- what the people are really looking for? Do we --
you know, I remember when we were doing an affordable housing
needs assessment, and we were estimating that we needed 1,000
Page 117
February 28, 2012
homes a year but, in fact, it wasn't anywhere close to that. And so we
were -- you know, I think that we were -- in our exuberance to help
people, we were oversaturating the market with product that they
didn't need, meanwhile not building the product that they did need.
And I think we should be taking that into consideration as we help
people to buy their homes, is to make sure that we're helping them to
-- you know, helping the people that really need to be home -- buy
homes rather than just needing to get rid of the money by June,
because then we're not helping ourselves if we have a plethora of
houses that people can't even use, you know. I'm very concerned
about that.
Okay. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, there's -- someone from the
Collier Building Industry has requested to speak if you're willing to
hear them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not willing to hear them.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on up.
MR. MITCHELL: Kathy Cur --
MS. CURATOLO: Curatolo, from the Collier Building Industry
Association.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to understand -- you have to
understand English is not his first language.
MS. CURATOLO: I see that.
MR. MITCHELL: Handwriting isn't my second subject either.
MS. CURATOLO: Fortunately it doesn't matter to me if it's
mispronounced, as it is very often. Cathy Curatolo, Collier Building
Industry Association.
We do support the policy increase and are ready to work with
NABOR and the staff on whatever task force needs are necessary.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that the last speaker?
Page 118
February 28, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. This is the type of program
that is also permitted under the NSP funding program, and this is the
kind of program, as evidenced by the presence of both the realtors and
the building industry, that will help get inventory off the market.
We don't need to be investing in programs that will build more
houses when we have a glut of unsold homes.
So I know Commissioner Coyle disagreed with me when I
recommended this kind of program under the NSP guidelines, and I
hope he doesn't disagree again with respect to the use of these SHIP
funds. This is what the legislature intended with respect to these tax
dollars, and I think we're doing the right thing by implementing your
recommendation today.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do anything with the
2013 deadline for home hardening?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely. This strategy increase that we're
asking for today does not preclude use of the other strategies under the
LHAP. And if we -- and we'd be happy to reach out and look for
partners that would bring some of those projects to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's actually one, a --
I think they're non - for - profit that's been looking for ways for a number
of years.
Kim, before you got involved in straightening out the mess in the
housing department -- and Ellie Krier does know the group.
MS. GRANT: Super.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so -- and it's a -- I think
you would agree it's a great program, what they are -- what they
propose.
MS. GRANT: I will get with Ellie, and we'll pursue that.
Page 119
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MS. GRANT: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to approve staff s
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a motion -- we'll have
discussion in just a moment. A motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve staff recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
I have a couple of questions for you. What provisions exist for
us to recover our $20,000 contribution to the purchase of these
homes?
MS. GRANT: If you'll give me just a moment, I actually have a
slide that I believe will address that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MS. GRANT: These are the terms of the purchase assistance.
Generally speaking it's first come, first served. It's a zero percent, 15
year deferred payment loan with a recorded mortgage and promissory
note, and repayment is due in full if sold within the 15 year term.
Loan is forgiven if sold after the 15 year term or sold due to a
catastrophic event.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GRANT: We will also be hearing today a potential policy
on short sale which would amend this somewhat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the executive summary has
a statement which I don't believe is true, and I'd like to confirm this.
You're suggesting that due to the requirement to spend funds on new
construction, that you've conducted outreach to the CBIA and
NABOR and the NBA.
Where is there a requirement for spending it on new
construction?
MS. GRANT: Thank you for asking that question, and I realize
Page 120
February 28, 2012
in hindsight and having people ask this question that the one word in
the executive summary "must" has led to some confusion and has been
misleading.
So I appreciate having known that this question would come up,
and I'll do my best to try to explain that.
Within the program, the program in general requires that 75
percent be spent on construction rehab and also some of the
emergency repair elements. Expenditures within that can include new
construction, purchase assistance with rehabilitation, rehabilitation
renovation to existing units or emergency repairs to existing units.
The intent of the executive summary is to indicate that in order to
meet our timeliness in particular with the June 2012 date and with the
board's general position to have steered away from rehabilitation
activities, either staff done or through subrecipients, staff and AHAC
and the Florida Housing Coalition have indicated the preferred way to
make this happen is to purchase -- is for purchase assistance on new
construction.
So the intent here is to focus on what is most likely to get us
through these spending targets. But you are correct, there is not a
statutory requirement to only go with new.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I would question the
conclusion that the best use of the funds is for new construction
because you've got to spend the money fast. I would appreciate it if
you would talk with NABOR and CBIA and validate that conclusion,
because it appears to me that the objective should be getting as many
people who are qualified --
MS. GRANT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- into an ownership position rather than
just trying to spend it all at the same time or as quickly as possible on
new construction.
Remember that we still have a lot of homes on the market that
could be purchased and taken out of the inventory, and to build new
Page 121
February 28, 2012
homes while we have all of those other homes sitting there could
result -- and I'm not saying it will -- but it could result in an
unfavorable position for the county and the neighborhoods involved.
So I would very much appreciate the motion makers to consider
working out an acceptable strategy with NABOR and CBIA and
others to address that issue so that there is a balance.
And I'll just reiterate, spending the money fast is not our goal.
Spending the money in the smartest way to expand ownership
opportunities is our goal. And so I would -- I support the motion if we
have that kind of goal in mind here.
So, Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I totally agree with every word
that you said. My comment was going to be, when I put my light on,
would the motion makers please add that they must work with
NABOR and CBIA, because I feel that that is an important aspect of
this to help us get more of that inventory off the market and get it up
to livable conditions and maybe hardened, and at the same time will
accomplish two things, and then we'll get people some homes and I
think that that was an excellent suggestion, unless, of course, you can
use the money to build a community center. Just tongue in cheek.
Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or a regional park, or limerock
roads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, limerock roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner
Coyle. I mean, it absolutely should not be limited to new
construction. So I would agree that this would have to be amended for
me to be able to approve it. And that was a good catch on your part.
That's great, Commissioner Coyle.
As far as requiring prospective purchasers to have to work with
any particular group, I really don't think that that is fair. I don't think
Page 122
February 28, 2012
we should do that or can do that. I think purchasers who qualify
should be able to work with whoever they want. If they can seek the
assistance of a realtor, that's great. But if they want to buy from an
owner or, you know, rehab independent of a general contractor and
they want to do it, you know, by owner, they should have the option to
do that and not be disqualified from the program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't the intent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The committee. Sorry, my
misunderstanding. Okay. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's her name.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's her name over here -- the
other cat -- made it -- just clarified. So, yeah, that's fine. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The encouragement to cooperate with --
or participate with NABOR and CBIA was to develop the strategies
for the program in how the money might have been used rather than
actually --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I misunderstood that. So
you're absolutely right. And cooperating with them is certainly the
way to go in terms of developing these programs, because their
understanding of the market is above and beyond anybody else's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So just before we have the vote --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they didn't make -- they didn't
amend it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to amend the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, that's what I was going to
ask you to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was what I was going to
say, and you tell me if this -- if you don't agree with it, because I don't
want this to have to come back again -- that we give guidance to staff
to work with the NABOR and with the CBIA and the real -- what
Page 123
February 28, 2012
other organizations that are out there, but it's a guideline so that we're
not locked in and you have to come back with an elaborate plan to
show how it's all going to work.
MS. GRANT: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My understanding was you
were going to work with them, and now the motion is directing you to
do so.
MS. GRANT: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not what -- quite
like what he said.
Kim, can you put that slide back?
MS. GRANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was partly what he said.
It's just clarifying what Commissioner Coyle said, and that was an
emphasis to put people in homes using these --
MS. GRANT: The other --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, new, rehabbed,
and use money for rehabbing homes and emergency repairs of existing
units; is that good, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the emphasis --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, try to make it a bit more concise
so it's understandable.
My objective was to have the motion approved, approve the
staff s recommendations, and direct staff to work with NABOR and
CBIA to develop an appropriate strategy to spend the money in ways
which gets the most people into an ownership position in a way that
benefits our overall community, which will include a mixture of all of
the things that you're planning. And the people who are experts in that
who can tell you how that impacts the market can guide you in
reaching those conclusions.
Page 124
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: I absolutely welcome the opportunity to partner
with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. In that case, we'll call the
question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #1 I E
A SUMMARY ON THE SEASONAL POPULATION
EVALUATION REQUESTED BY THE BOARD AT THEIR
NOVEMBER 9, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNUAL
UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) /CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT (CIE) UPDATE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AS
PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE — MOTION TO
APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item I I on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to provide a summary of the seasonal
population evaluation requested by the board at their November 9,
2011, public hearing for the Annual Update and Inventory Report and
Page 125
February 28, 2012
the Capital Improvement Element update on public facilities as
provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
Mr. Bosi will present.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. Mike Bosi,
comprehensive planning manager.
As the county manager had indicated, at the last year's AUIR/CIE
adoption hearing, the commission requested us to evaluate the
appropriateness of the seasonal population.
When we perform our capital improvement programming, we
have our permanent population, then we also have the influx of our
seasonal visitors. We gauge our infrastructure and our service
providers to be able to handle that influx, and that seasonal population
is designed to accommodate -- to accommodate those additional
demands that we receive.
And before I get into the specifics of the request, it does help
understand the context of this discussion knowing which of the
infrastructure providers and which of the service providers utilize
population for their five -year capital improvement programming.
The two components that do not use population, that actually use
a different metrics, are transportation and drainage canals. The rest of
your Category A facilities all would use peak season populations.
The water and the wastewater are only within their district
boundaries. For the other Category A, it's countywide. Community
parks is an exception where we use unincorporated -- the county
population to exclude the cities, municipalities.
And then as you can see with the Category B facilities, it's a mix
between peak season countywide and peak season unincorporated
county.
The one interesting point towards this is the two components of
your last -- of the 2011 CIE that had projects moving forward were
transportation and drainage, your two components that do not use
Page 126
February 28, 2012
population projections or population estimates and projections as the
matrix or a driver for the capital expansion.
And relevant to our discussion that we will get to is related to
those red stars on the screen. At the bottom it says, downward revision
to the LOS. LOS is level of service in the last three years.
The Board of County Commissioners, through some
recommendations through your advisory boards, but ultimately a
decision - making from the Board of County Commissioners, on
regional park, community parks, jails, and EMS, have lowered the
level of service based upon the demand numbers, but also I would
imagine the conversations that you've had with the various providers,
but also the constituents within the -- throughout the county.
Peak season population. Peak season population is basically --
and this was adopted in January 25th of 2007. Peak season population
is our permanent population as we receive every April from BEBR,
University of Florida Bureau and Economic Business Research
Bureau, plus 20 percent. Twenty percent is the increase to account for
the seasonal influx.
This was vetted before the Planning Commission in December of
'06, as I said; approved by the board in January of '07.
A key point is your peak season population does not represent the
peak, the greatest influx that you're going to receive at any one point
in time. Traditionally March is our busiest month in terms of seasonal
visitors. At any one point in time, in any day in March, you may be
able to say, there may be a 25, there may be 30 percent increase above
our permanent population, but we're not going to build our
infrastructure and our system capacity to be able to handle that highest
hour.
When you speak with Mr. Feder or Mr. Casalanguida about how
we program our roads, you know, they'll always say we're not -- we
don't plan for that highest hour, for the -- for when the traffic is at its
highest. That would be too inefficient, too inefficient in terms of the
Page 127
February 28, 2012
system design.
So what we try to do within our peak season population is try to
represent what the average is, what the average influx of seasonal
residents and what that influx relates to in terms of demands upon the
systems. And you can get into it -- and you get into it much more
during the AUIR/CIE and also some of the master planning program.
Each one of the infrastructure providers utilizes our peak season
population, as I allocated in the slide before, but that's just a starting
point for the methodology that they utilize so they can ensure that they
can handle those peak influxes that even are above that 20 percent.
Each one of the -- each one of those infrastructure providers have
their own methodologies for how they arrive upon that so we can --
we can safely assure that when that toilet is flushed or when that
spigot goes on that the functions that is expected is what is being
provided to the customer.
The metrics that were utilized in '06, '07 to arrive upon that 20
percent number were compared during this analysis. And you can see
from the numbers, for water -- in March and September for simplistic
purposes is what was utilized. There were some months and there's
some components that the minimum and maximum months may be a
little bit different than March and September, but just for seasonal
purposes, just for comparisons, we utilized March and September.
In '05 it was a 24.3 percent increase. In 2010 we saw a 19.83.
And wastewater is 27.84, and in 2010 it's 17.6.
So you can see there has been a decrease in terms of our seasonal
influx over the past several years. But one of the things that we have
noticed when you look at numbers is it is a consistent range around
that 20 percent. And based upon -- based upon those metrics -- those
metrics being within that acceptable range of the 20 percent, staff feels
comfortable that 20 percent still would be an appropriate number.
Other issues or other metrics are hotel occupancy and price. And
you can see between -- the difference between the delta between a
Page 128
February 28, 2012
September and a March is 105 percent in 2005. In 2010 it's 102
percent in -- for occupancy, and on price -- and I know that's kind of a
subjective, but it also is market driven and related to demand -- you
see 153 percent difference and 132 percent difference.
And, finally, your sales tax comparison. In 2005 it was a 25.84
percent increase, where in 2010 was a 13.21 increase, and in 2011, it's
risen to 15.7, which is probably an indication of the renewal of
seasonal demand within this county.
I think as the housing market begins to stabilize, as the Macro
Economic Markets -- the stock markets begin to return to some of the
levels that it was in 2006 and 2007, you're seeing a greater mobility
within the United States but also within the other portions of the world
that supplies our seasonal visitors.
And one last factor that was utilized is the census bureau. In
2005 we looked, and there's 28.3 (sic) percent homes that were held
for the seasonal or occasional use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 23.8 percent, not 28.3.
MR. BOSI: 23.8, I'm sorry. I mixed my numbers up. And in
20109 22.6 percent.
So at any one point in time we have housing units that are
designed for occasional use that's above that 20 percent mark. And
when you think about that and you think about -- you think about
some of the hotel units that are available, you factor in all those
numbers, and you -- and at least from staffs perspective, we still feel
that 20 percent is a -- is still an appropriate conservative number.
The one thing I will say is, if you do -- if you would adjust your
population -- seasonal population number downward to a lower
number, what results is a lower overall system capacity within --
within any one given system, and that -- and that evaluation would
have to be made against the numbers that we have shown in terms of
the difference between our off seasonal (sic) demands and our peak
season demands.
Page 129
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it served us well in the past,
and you're recommending that we continue to use it?
MR. BOSI: I would recommend you to continue to use it. And
the one caveat in this, it's -- I think it's a discussion we've had with the
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners since
I've been doing capital improvement programming. If you feel that
you have too much of any one commodity, if you feel that there's too
much infrastructure being provided for any one of these, lower the
level of service. This board has taken that action. The board has
lowered regional park, has lowered community parks, has lowered the
jail level of service, and the EMS level of service based upon the
demand numbers that were presented to you during the AUIR/CIE
processes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning, your light was on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
The -- there will be a fiscal impact unless we lower the level of
service.
MR. BOSI: If -- because it's 20 percent right now, it's a neutral if
we would remain at 20 percent. If we would lower the seasonal
population to 15 percent, you would receive a positive fiscal input
because you would be providing less of any one service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're saying that
there's not going to be a fiscal impact of this because we're changing
the percentage.
MR. BOSI: No. The only way that there's a fiscal impact is if
you make a recommendation to lower the seasonal population rate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But when you include seasonal
population -- and historically we only used it on water and sewer?
MR. BOSI: No. And I was going to get into this. The way that
Page 130
February 28, 2012
we used to do population, we used to have -- we used to have a peak
season population. That was our permanent population multiplied by
33 percent. We also had a weighted population. We had -- it was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a weighted, yeah.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. The weighted population was your
permanent population times 67 percent, your peak population times 37
percent, add that up, and that's your weighted population.
The way that we used to program -- and we -- the programs, our
water, our sewer, and our solid waste was at a peak season number
that was basically 95 percent of BEBR high with -- with it going out
constant, but the first five years was a hopeful 100 percent.
We had different rates for different components. And the former
DCA said, let's get in line and let's have a consistent formula. So we
have always used seasonal population for one aspect or another to
program our capital improvement programming. It's just the 20
percent was adopted in 2007 so we can have a consistent across the
board. And that's why I had pointed out the individual providers have
their own methodologies that they determined. So when you have that
spike above 25 percent, their systems still are reliable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now you're saying that
we're still going to measure roads by level of service and not by
population?
MR. BOSI: Yeah. Roads is unaffected by any decision that we
would have. The greatest expenditure would be -- is roads, and it's
unaffected by any change within our seasonal population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a Category A in our
-- and you're saying that's still going to stay the same?
MR. BOSI: That will stay the same, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're doing this
because of a cleanup? We want to be consistent with measuring --
how we measure capacity or delivery of service except for our
transportation?
Page 131
February 28, 2012
MR. BOSI: We are only doing this because the board asked us to
make sure that the 20 percent still fit. The 20 percent still fit the
demand that we experienced, you know, between February, March,
and April, our seasonal months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. That's just a report
then?
MR. BOSI: Yes, that's simply --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We're not changing anything --
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- from what we've been doing for the
past five years.
MR. OCHS: Status quo.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate that explanation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, your light
was left on from before; do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion to
approve, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is approved unanimously.
Item #1 I F
Page 132
February 28, 2012
AN AGREEMENT WITH EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. TO
PROVIDE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TO COLLIER COUNTY' S GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF $551361334 IN FY2012, A REDUCTION OF
11.8% — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to I IF. It's a
recommendation to approve an agreement with Express Scripts,
Incorporated, to provide pharmacy benefit management services to the
Collier County Group Health Insurance Plan in the amount of
$5,136,334 in Fiscal Year 2012 representing a reduction of 11.8
percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any discussion? Obviously not.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's approved unanimously.
Excellent presentation.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They all should go that way.
MR. OCHS: Best of the day; best of the day, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
Page 133
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: Gold star.
Item #1 1 G
RESOLUTION 2012 -36: AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
A ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT 18TH AVENUE NE
AND EVERGLADES BOULEVARD; TRANSPORTATION
INTERSECTION SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 60016. ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $14,000 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: I I is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
authorizing the condemnation of a road right -of -way drainage and
utility easement necessary for the construction of intersection
improvements at 18th Avenue Northeast and Everglades Boulevard,
Transportation and Intersection Safety and Capacity Improvement
Program Project Number 60016.
Mr. Ahmad is available to present or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. AHMAD: I do have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Once Mr. Ahmad puts the
necessary speeches of why we're doing this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You have 30 seconds.
MR. AHMAD: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Jay Ahmad, for
the record, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's enough.
MR. AHMAD: This is a recommendation for a resolution
authorizing condemnation of one parcel on Everglades at 18th Street.
This came from school districts. They had concerns about their
school buses making right turns and not be able to make it, so we --
Page 134
February 28, 2012
this is the location, Everglades and 18th Street.
And this is really all we're doing. We're making a large radius,
and we need that corner piece to do that.
And before you act on this, this is the stuff that I need to make
sure that you have considered. You have considered the alignment, the
public safety, long -range transportation planning, environmental and
cost. And there's a technical memorandum attached to your executive
summary that discusses these issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Coletta seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, he did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coletta to approve.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Next Item, H?
Item #1 I H
IMPLEMENTING DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS BY AMENDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM ACTION PLANS TO EXECUTE
PROGRAM CHANGES AND AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF
THE REVISED ACTION PLANS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
Page 135
February 28, 2012
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT — MOTION TO
APPROVE THE ACTION PLANS WITH STAFF DETERMINING
THE COUNTY'S NEEDS AND TO BRING BACK ATA FUTURE
BOARD MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes. Item I I was previously 16D6. It's a
recommendation to implement the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners by amending the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
action plans to execute program changes and authorize submission of
the revised action plans to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Ms. Grant?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was pulled by Commissioner Hiller.
MR. OCHS: This one was moved both by Commissioners Hiller
and Fiala separately.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you present, Kim?
MS. GRANT: Kim Grant, interim director of Housing, Human,
and Veteran Services.
I can either give a presentation or take questions, whichever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you present?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here to present to you one
of the major components of the implementation of the NSP exit
strategy that was approved in December, and that is to receive your
approval on the action plan amendments that we will submit to HUD
for their review. As a very brief reminder, the cornerstones of the exit
strategy are for Collier County to divest from property ownership for
Collier County to exit county -led rehabilitation, pass the NSP3 funds
through to Habitat for Humanity for acquisition of foreclosed homes,
and fundamentally make sure that we ensure compliance with both
programs.
Page 136
February 28, 2012
Now, again today we're talking about the action plans. The
action plans are the foundation upon which the rest of the
implementation plan works. Action plans, in general at its most basic
level, they're documents that describe how a grantee intends to operate
the program.
It's not the vehicle to transfer the property. It's not the vehicle to
transfer the funds, or to contract with third parties. Those actions
come back to you as well.
Let's see here. Amending the action plans and allowing us to
submit them to HUD does allow us to proceed up the chain here to
executing agreements. On the right -hand side, we've actually already
issued the solicitation to not - for - profits for the rental housing
partnership. That was authorized in December; that went out a few
days ago.
The other action that would be coming back to you -- our
schedule is April -- is a developer agreement between Collier County
and Habitat for Humanity. After that we would transfer the
ownership, and eventually we would monitor and operate the program.
In your backup to the agenda item you received clean and track
versions of the amended action plans. I'm going to hit just the very
high points. We also supplied to you a summary of the changes that
were made.
On the top here, under NSP 1 and NSP3, there were some
common changes. There were some general updates, department
name, other various current information items, and we modified to
explicitly designate the role of the developer and subrecipient as
applicable in the various strategies or various activities.
Specifically with NSP 1 we needed to be clear about what Collier
County had already done and what Habitat was going to do, so those
were the updates made there. For NSP3 we revised the budget, which
was the same budget that we presented to you in December.
We made a modification to target areas. What we did there was
Page 137
February 28, 2012
we removed the general area of Naples Park from the target areas, and
we amended the activities. And by amending the activities what we
were doing, Commissioners, is restricting the activities to acquisition
and land bank, which is consistent with the strategy that you had
approved in December.
And, very specifically, we removed rehabilitation as an eligible
expense to be paid with NSF funding. So, again, as a reminder, under
NSP3, Collier County will pay for acquisition of properties; Collier
County via the NSP program, their NSP funds will pay for the
acquisition of properties both for rehabilitation and land bank.
Just a quick visual here of the census tracts that remain in the
action plan for NSP3. And I've learned that the ZIP codes don't
exactly parallel census tract, but we've just provided this information
to you as a general idea.
So what we are here to do today is ask for your permission to
amend the NSP 1 and NSP3 action plans and authorize the submission
of them to HUD.
And I meant to say this earlier, but I'll use this as an opportunity
to emphasize this now, the action plan's between Collier County and
HUD.
And I'd be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I really have a problem
with this. I had a problem with this when it was brought forward. I
have a problem with it now. Can we go back to the triangle where
you show the selection and the RFPs going out -- or I'm not sure what
you're calling them -- the solicitations.
MS. GRANT: Let's see. Tell me when we get there. Here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, right there, issues for
non - profit partners and negotiate developer agreement.
MS. GRANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The problem I have with that part
Page 138
February 28, 2012
of your triangle is that it seems that Collier County has hand picked
who is going to be the beneficiary of these funds instead of going out
to the community and allowing the community to come back with
proposals from the different organizations out there.
Since that last meeting, I have spoken to the representative of
some groups who are very eager to participate in this and yet the
county has unilaterally decided to give everything away to one
developer. And I don't know who you're issuing the solicitations to,
but I would like to know because I know there are nonprofits out there
that want to participate. And as far as I know they haven't heard
anything about this.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to know what's going
on. And I really think that we need to table this and we need to wait
till we have the workshop and look at the total of these public funds
that we have available for housing and make a determination based on
what we see in total as opposed to taking this piecemeal approach.
I really have a problem with this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree totally with your
comments, Commissioner Hiller. I think we do need to take a look at
it. And as I mentioned before, another thing we need to do is take a
look at what we actually need, how much do we need, and what
categories.
For instance, if we're -- if we've got all of this money to build
something, for instance, but do we -- do we really need that built, or
do we need a balance of building or do we need different categories?
We don't even have an idea of what we need or what we don't need.
And I think that, you know, right now it's kind of like a stab in the
dark. We're trying to get rid of the money rather than do it sensibly,
and I would prefer -- being that it's all taxpayer money anyway, I
would prefer to see it go back to the original source rather than build
Page 139
February 28, 2012
something that we don't need.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner -- if I might, Mr. Chairman, just a
point of clarification, and I think this is an important point of
clarification. There is no new construction of any homes associated
with this program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the $4 million and the
$2 million?
MR. OCHS: This is rehabilitation -- acquisition of foreclosed
homes and rehabilitation of those homes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And like I -- can I speak,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. Let him finish.
MR. OCHS: That's all, sir. That's all I had.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller -- wait a
minute, Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't through yet, though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Commissioner Fiala was next.
Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I was still saying -- and I
asked if this could be used to buy land, right, and the answer was yes.
And so it was a completely different understanding than you had, Leo.
MS. GRANT: Ten percent of the funds are allocated for
purchase of land that will be land banked and developed at a future
time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh, okay. And then I had a
couple other questions. It says that you had found out what Habitat
was going to do, but you didn't tell us what they were going to do.
MS. GRANT: I'm sorry. Would you mind being a little more
specific so I could answer for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, in your presentation just now
you said that you had -- as you were going down these things, you
wanted to know what Habitat was going to do, and you also said that
Page 140
February 28, 2012
you had to remove Naples Park. I didn't realize either one. Why did
you have to remove Naples Park, and what is Habitat going to do?
MS. GRANT: Okay. We actually did not have to remove
Naples Park. What we indicated when we came in December was that
staff and Habitat would take a look at the census tracts that were in the
existing action plan that you had approved quite some time ago and
make a determination as to where properties were most available, at a
reasonable price, et cetera. And when we did that collectively, we
determined that it was probably not in the best interest of the program
to purchase homes in Naples Park. So that's part one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can just purchase them in East
Naples, yes, okay.
MS. GRANT: Well, perhaps I could remind you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. I understood
what you just said.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my last thing is, as we're
looking to see what our needs assessment actually is -- I mean, if I get
anybody to agree with me so that we actually know, if the needs
assessment says we need very low income but we only need 10
percent, we need low income and we need 20 percent, we need
moderate income but we need 30 percent, then we should make sure
that that is accomplished rather than just build all very low income
which, by the way, costs the taxpayers money all the time because
when we build very low income, they're also eligible for food stamps
and for healthcare forever.
So, I mean, we have to take that into consideration too. So
maybe if we took a better look at what the needs really are in the
community -- Habitat said they had to turn people away because they
made too much money. Well, maybe we should be looking at that
category and seeing what we can do to accommodate them instead.
Thank you.
Page 141
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kim, you went out for
solicitation for not - for - profits, the rental?
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much money is involved
in that; do you recall?
MS. GRANT: We do -- do we have that figure? We should be
able to get that for you in a few minutes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you talked to other
organizations about the purchase of homes that need to be rehabbed?
MS. GRANT: The -- according to the regulations, the NSP
regulations, a grantee, which is Collier County in this case, has
latitude to select a developer which -- for the other homes, not the
ones the not - for - profits are going to run. And so when we brought the
proposal to you in December, we were fully allowable -- fully allowed
to do that, and the board accepted that plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this is just the
implementation of it?
MS. GRANT: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was -- and we still had
objections. Are they the same objections, or are they new objections?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there's more, because, now,
you know -- may I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is absolutely preposterous that
this is not being put out for bid. We do not know that the candidate
that staff has selected to execute the program is the best qualified and
is going to deliver the results that is best for the community most
expeditiously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that was the same thing on
our agenda in December.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 142
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And in addition we haven't
considered all the other alternatives this program has to offer, and now
we're finding out they're putting out solicitations, again, cherrypicking
which institutions are going to get, you know, these homes or this
money for free.
MS. GRANT: Commissioner, if I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is not the way we should be
doing this.
MS. GRANT: If I might --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We need to go into the market.
We need to let the community out there know there are many
developers out there. There are many nonprofits out there who could
possibly deliver a better service or product for this particular program.
And to constantly -- and I agree with Commissioner Fiala. To
constantly, you know, hit on East Naples and to constantly cherry -pick
the same organizations to benefit with these public funds repeatedly is
getting -- quite frankly, a very annoying situation.
It's just totally wrong. And I wish this board would see that and
respect what Commissioner Fiala has been saying over and over again.
And for some reason it's falling on deaf ears.
And, obviously, Naples Park is a problem because the prices of
the properties in Naples Park are very high, and so people will not
qualify to buy there.
We just established this morning that -- or I should say this
afternoon. We had NABOR in here and we had the CBIA in here.
And they said, what really benefits them is the down payment
assistance program so they can move the unsold units on the market.
NSP provides for exactly that kind of program, and that is where we
should be allocating those funds, not to more houses, not to more
purchases and sales of foreclosed properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let Kim respond to the concerns, and
Page 143
February 28, 2012
then we'll go to Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. GRANT: I would actually just like to clarify one, in
particular, component that the commissioner raised.
On the right -hand side of your screen where we say "issue
solicitation to not - for - profit partners," these are for the rental
properties. That was what you'd consider to be your typical
solicitation. In advance of the solicitation, emails went out to
everybody in our purchasing database that might possibly be
connected up to this kind of work.
I think some other outreach happened, but I can't talk about that
specifically, so I don't want to state that on the record. But this is what
you'd consider to be a traditional solicitation with all appropriate
advertising, and there will be a selection committee. And it will come
back to the board for the board's decision about what one or more
organizations are going to be operating those properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And, Commissioner Coletta, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want me to go ahead before you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You go first, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's review our objectives here.
We had a program that wasn't well managed. We'd spent a lot of
money on acquiring properties, and the rehabilitations that we
managed were not done well, and it showed that we're really not
experienced enough in doing that sort of thing.
So we said, let's extricate ourselves from this and get the money
to people who are experienced in doing it.
So you've given us a plan to extricate ourselves from it, and now
we're sort of fine tuning and questioning whether or not you're making
the right decisions about who is going to be doing this.
I understand why you have made the decisions that have been
Page 144
February 28, 2012
made so far to select Habitat for Humanity to do things. Let's
remember that you weren't going out and building new homes. You
were going into neighborhoods that were suffering from blight caused
by mostly abandoned homes, and you were getting those homes back
into condition so they would not be an embarrasment to the
community, the neighborhood, and selling them. It's a wonderful
goal. You weren't contributing to more affordable housing. You were
taking the housing that existed and keeping it from becoming a blight
on a neighborhood.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The alternative is you just leave it there
and let it rot down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- just a moment.
So the issue is not more homes, more affordable housing.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's housing that already exists, and it's in
terrible shape, and we want to clean it up and make it livable.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a good goal, and it's good in
anybody's neighborhood. So -- now, I'm sympathetic to the issue of
congregating too much affordable housing in one neighborhood or one
district or one section of the county, but I am not sympathetic to the
idea that you just leave a home vacant in a neighborhood and let it be
vandalized and torn apart.
You're helping the neighborhood when you go about
rehabilitating it and getting it on the market and sold to someone who
will take care of it. So that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me respond to that, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that's where we are. Commissioner
Page 145
February 28, 2012
Coletta was next. He's been sitting here patiently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But it's in direct regard to
what you just said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I know how passionate this
issue is to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but it isn't really. What I'm
saying is, yes, we do need to get these done, and all I asked the last
time was our people were going to fix them up so that they ranged all
three categories, because -- we went all the way up to 120 percent, and
we asked the Habitat people if they would do that, too, if they would
bring it up to -- so that then we have a balance, a mix, but nobody
voted with me, except Georgia Hiller.
You guys said no, you wanted all very low income, and that's
what I'm saying is why can't we do what our people were going to do?
Give it to Habitat, let them do it, but at least get the categories -- you
know, rather than bring it to very low, give it the different categories.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think we did that, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't recall that either. But in
order to be able to bring that discussion back up, I'll have to invite
Habitat up here to be able to bring this discussion forward.
You thought you were going to be able to sit back there very
peacefully and not be disturbed, I know it.
MR. DURSO: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sorry about that, Sam. But,
listen, Sam, we're going through this thing. I go through it with this
limerock roads and I never get anyplace, so I know Commissioner
Fiala's frustration with this where it's the waits (sic) in the wilderness
speaking.
Page 146
February 28, 2012
Now, can you address some of these concerns?
MR. DURSO: Yeah. Let me make it as simple as possible.
Habitat is allowed to go to 80 percent of median income. We
normally go to 50. We can't go higher than 80. If we go higher than
80, we're not Habitat. We're not able to do it, okay.
You are lucky in this county to have the best Habitat affiliate in
the world. I have now been here for 20 years doing Habitat for
Humanity. I'm very proud of that. Regardless of what is said about
too much affordable housing in one area, I never brought poor people
into this county. I just, with Habitat help, provide decent housing for
them.
Part of the reason we are picked for this program is because we
just did NSP2 very successfully, and we bought 100 rehabbed homes,
most of them in Golden Gate City, not in Naples Manor, a new place
for us. And we're successfully rehabbing them. By September we'll
be done with 100, and we did that with only $9 million of NSP
money. So we're the most successful one at NSP.
So HUD would be very happy if Habitat is the one that enters
into this agreement with the county.
I've been here for a long time. I've heard of lots of other people
trying to do affordable housing and trying to do all kinds of housing.
You guys know what the results have been. Nobody else has done it
successfully. The numbers are very small. We've done 1,500
affordable houses in this county already. We've done 100 to 150 a
year. We'll continue doing that regardless of whether this happens or
not.
My board was not anxious for us to even do this, okay. They're
worried about all the political ramifications, okay. We would like to
do this partly because we don't want us -- the county getting in trouble
with HUD because we want you to continue to get HUD money in the
future because we're recipients of that, okay.
So this is a win -win situation. We'll promise to go up to 80
Page 147
February 28, 2012
percent of median income. That we can do. We can't go any higher
than that, though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, Sam, I can tell you that
when I arranged those meetings with HUD from Miami, they had
nothing but positive things to say about Habitat for Humanity.
MR. DURSO: We hear -- you have our -- you have my personal
guarantee, as well as this tremendous organization that I lead, that we
will do the best we can to make this successful transition and get this
done as quickly as possible, and we'll do it any way you want us to do
it, okay. But I think if we table this and go further -- what's going to
happen, you'll send the money back. If you want to send the money
back --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. DURSO: -- to HUD and not have the money go to this
county, that's a disaster. That cannot happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sam, I'm not going to -- I don't
want that to happen. I'm going to hope -- I'm going to make a motion
for approval, and hopefully we get three votes to make it happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion, and I'll
explain why I'm seconding it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgot it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala -- well, we'll
get to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. A motion by Commissioner
Henning (sic) to approve, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. OCHS: The other way around.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve and seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala?
0-I M963 9
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one other question. Regarding
the rental properties that you said you were going to solicit -- or I don't
remember the word you used -- say, for instance, you get applicants,
do you select the one that is the cheapest applicant, the lowest rate, or
do you check their background first and see what kind of rental
properties they manage, how well they manage them, how clean they
keep them, rather than how cheap they can come in on the price?
MS. GRANT: We actually did a combination of quantitative and
qualitative criteria for this procurement. And, once again, the
selection committee will go through all of that, and we'll bring back
those results to the board.
But since we are giving the properties away, it's not about low
bid, if you will, which is kind of our typical deal. It is about who is so
most qualified and what capacity they have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. So you do check into
who you're going to give them to?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because it depends on who runs it
as to -- I mean, you get some people over from another county and,
man, you have some problems.
MS. GRANT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, I'm looking
over all the material here, and Commissioner Fiala is absolutely
correct. You know, the objective of that program is not merely to
serve low and very low income housing needs. The intent of the
program is to go up to 120 percent of local area median income,
meaning low, moderate, and middle income households.
All these households are suffering today. And to once again
basically put all the eggs in this one category basket is just simply
wrong. There should be an analysis done to assess what the needs are
based on the various categories. And it is absolutely ridiculous to sit
Page 149
February 28, 2012
here and throw all this money, millions and millions of dollars, at one
category of housing without establishing that there is a demand for
this housing. It serves us no good whatsoever to put all this money
into housing, okay, into the acquisition of housing for the sale of this
housing where there is no market for this housing. Okay.
We're sitting here, we know that people are not qualifying, that
they need down payment assistance. We know that the demand in
these markets differ. In fact, what we heard over here from NABOR,
if I'm quoting correctly, was that where there is demand is in that
100,000 -plus market, 100- to 300,000. That is the market that we
need to be targeting.
To put everything in this 80 percent of median income market
makes no sense at all. It is not justified or based on any demographic
that I know of or that Commissioner Fiala knows of.
You know, we just -- we go from one bad decision to another. I
absolutely cannot support this. It is absolutely without any basis in
fact. And this is -- and, by the way, Commissioner Coletta, who did
you talk to at HUD and what meeting did you arrange?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm glad that you asked
that question. I got a call from my friend Congressman Mario
Diaz - Balart's office, and they said they realized we were having
problems with our funding here and might have to turn back, and they
asked if I'd like them to send a representative over from Miami they
personally know. And I arranged for them to come over, I met with
them several times, and this is where we are today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for asking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how was a decision made to
target this particular segment of the market and that particular
developer?
And I have no problem with Habitat receiving a portion of the
funds based on what we perceive as a particular need, but I don't see
Page 150
February 28, 2012
the justification to give them 100 percent of the funds for this segment
of the market.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that addressed to me or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To whoever wants to answer. But
since I'm talking to you, you're welcome to answer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you very much.
Once again, the most qualified person out there is Habitat for
Humanity. They're the ones that have been able to respond in the
most meaningful way for a long time. HUD recognized that. HUD
was the one that suggested we talk to them, too.
And then it's been a process that everybody's been involved on
this commission, and it's been moving forward.
It's no accident that Habitat for Humanity's been the person that's
been -- the unit that's been designated to receive this. It's by design
the fact that they're the only ones that are capable of doing it.
Now, yeah, we could recreate the wheel all over again, then we're
going to have it back here in front of us a big failed mess. You've got
an organization that's producing more than any other place in the
country -- in the world as far as this type of homes go.
They're experts at what they do. They're -- for every dollar they
get in they put back about 10 with all the free labor they get, with all
the volunteer efforts they've got. And so it was just a natural
occurrence that it would go in that direction.
Name one that you think would be more applicable to get this
than Habitat, and I would love to hear the name. What would it be?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Believe it or not there are private
enterprises out there that could do this just as well, if not better.
Let me just say this. I have no problem with what Habitat does --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not dollar for dollar, not dollar
for dollar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Habitat does a great job.
Page 151
February 28, 2012
That's not the issue. The issue is we are putting all our eggs in this
one income basket when we need to assess the needs of this market,
and we need to be focusing on being equitable across the income
ranges. We are not doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, it's directed to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I was looking at the board in
general.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, I've got to
be honest with you. The only thing you're doing here is running the
clock out so that money has to be returned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The options -- yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, now, boys and girls. Sam;
you had mentioned that out of 9 million of NSP monies, that you
purchased 100 homes or you rehabbed --
MR. DURSO: Hundred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 100 homes with the $9
million.
MR. DURSO: No. We actually purchased 100 homes with the
$9 million, and we put the money in to rehab them. So we spent
probably another 6 or $7 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's an average of
90,000 per home?
MR. DURSO: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And what is selling in
Golden Gate Estates? What is the price point for Golden Gate Estates
foreclosed homes?
MR. DURSO: We're buying them between 70- and $120,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So -- and the working
class has always lived out there. I know that's what's being purchased
Page 152
February 28, 2012
in Golden Gate.
MR. DURS O : Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And by the way, nobody has a
problem with Habitat for Humanity in Golden Gate. You know why?
They choose to educate themselves about Habitat for Humanity.
I have the floor, ladies. Behave.
Habitat for Humanity is the only organization that is in contact
with their clients once a month. Habitat for Humanity is the only
organization that educates their clients on local law that we're asking
the county manager to enforce in code enforcement.
You know, I have seen Habitat homes and their ownership. It's a
very, very good program, and it stabilizes neighborhoods. And I think
this is what this program is all about is neighborhood stabilization.
You know, can we hit, you know, homes in other areas of the
community for $200,000? Really the needs of the neighborhoods that
need to be stabilized is the neighborhoods that I just explained. They
have been devastated; Golden Gate Estates has been devastated by
foreclosures, and this program and Habitat will help stabilize that
neighborhood by purchasing those homes, rehabbing them, giving
them to a family -- not giving it to them, having a new client to learn
how to be a productive member of the public.
That's why I second the motion, because I understand it, and so
does my constituents in Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me try to put this in the
context, if I can. There are a number of housing programs we are
administering here, right? The sources -- different sources of funds --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and different objectives.
In our last discussion, in an item prior to this, we clearly made
the recommendation that staff work with NABOR and CBIA to
determine what is best for the market, the community, and the people
who want to own a home.
Page 153
February 28, 2012
In this case we have a program that's designed to buy existing
homes, and if they're in a neighborhood where the homes are 110 -,
125 -, $150,000, you're not going to go in there and renovate it into a
quarter million dollar home.
So you're taking a home that is in a neighborhood that is vacant
and you're bringing it up to the standards of the neighborhood.
Now, there's room for both of these programs here. And I
understand, Commissioner Fiala, your concern, and it's something that
has to be dealt with on an overall basis. Trying to deal with it with a
program that is designed to start with a low -cost home and get it in
condition to be occupied by somebody is not going to solve the
problem.
So what I would like to suggest -- and we've all been asking for
this for a long, long, long time, and we got sort of part way there in
developing a needs assessment by home price in Collier County.
But that's an overall housing strategy. It's not a strategy for NSP.
NSP cannot be turned into an overall housing strategy to distribute
affordable housing through other parts of the community, because it's
going to create housing exactly where the housing exists right now,
and it's not going to redistribute it at all.
So I would suggest we look at this as one component with an
understanding that staff will take the other components of our housing
financing programs and try to determine the needs on a countywide
basis and assure that we don't start concentrating too much of the
affordable housing in a single area. But that's different from this
program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I would hope that we would
proceed with this and work out these issues as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, it's not. It's not
about concentrating housing in any particular neighborhood.
Page 154
February 28, 2012
And, again, your objectives, Commissioner Henning, will be
served to the extent that there is a need.
And what is being proposed isn't that Habitat will focus strictly
on your district, okay. And the problem is, is that this program is not
helping anyone except those individuals under 80 percent of median
income.
What about the people in your community who have earnings in
excess of 80 percent of median income?
And let me just tell you, if my understanding is correct, it's about
63,000. So families that make 63,000 a year will not qualify, and
there are a lot of people in your neighborhood who actually are
making 63,000 a year. You know, the bulk of your community is not
under -- is not at 80 percent of 63 -.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know what the market rate is
in my community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're looking at people
qualifying to buy at 80 percent of median income. It's not the price of
the house. It's the income qualifier.
And so the problem is what you're proposing is something that is
going to lock out a lot of your constituents from being able to benefit
from buying these NSP homes.
So it's going to work to your disadvantage, to the disadvantage to
a lot of your constituents. And if you care about helping them, then
you want to expand the program to allow these other people to be able
to buy these homes.
You know, the other problem we have with this program is we
have had problems with administration. Now we're introducing
subrecipients into the mix. We still have all the same duties with
respect to the administration of these programs. None of that is going
to go away.
MR. OCHS: That's not correct, sir. We'll be happy to point that
out.
Page 155
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I understand.
MR. OCHS: We went through this when we first presented, but
we can do that again, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
MS. GRANT: May I just have clarification. Am I talking about
how we will handle the oversight?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the 80 percent.
MS. GRANT: The 80 percent.
MR. OCHS: No. The statement was that we're going to have all
the same administrative effort that we had through the program --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not effort.
MR. OCHS: -- when the county was doing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The issues remain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him answer.
MS. GRANT: Collier County, as grantee, maintains the
responsibility for effective and compliant operation of this program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's right.
MS. GRANT: That is absolutely correct. The good news is that
with the introduction of a qualified partner, partners -- actually
multiple by the time we're done with this -- who demonstrate that they
have the capacity, and by Collier County working very closely with
HUD, we've had technical assistance guidance with them, we will set
up a framework, a structure, a set of procedures, policies that were not
good enough the first time around.
We believe that we have a high chance of success of operating
this on a compliant basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One final question, from me at least.
What funds do you have available from any source that will permit
you to address moderate income housing?
MS. GRANT: The SHIP down payment assistance is the first
one that comes to mind. I want to just turn -- we have disaster
recovery initiative funds, but they have now been allocated to larger
Page 156
February 28, 2012
capital projects. They are also available for rehabilitation. But, once
again, we've steered a little bit away from that.
If you give me just one second. So at this moment in time, the
primary one available going up to that level would be the SHIP down
payment assistance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is how much, 600,000?
How much -- what's the total for the SHIP down payment assistance?
MS. GRANT: It's approximately -- it's over $2 million between
now and next June.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And how much are we
allocating for this program, the multiple phases of this NSP program?
It's like --
MS. GRANT: Approximately 3.8 million for the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's two parts to it.
MS. GRANT: -- for NSP3. For NSPI we are transferring the
homes, and we will not be putting any further money into
rehabilitation. We'll have some administrative costs which the grant
will bear.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much is that?
MS. GRANT: I do not have my financial model with me, but we
are allowed to spend up to -- just want to double - check. Ten percent,
including our program income? We're allowed to spend up to 10
percent on program income on the -- I mean, original grant amount
and any program income from the inception.
We actually factored in that once we ratchet down, which will
take us a while, perhaps as much as a year, year and a half, we will
need less than a half an FTE to continue to operate the program. So
251 30, $40,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was talking about how much
money we are shifting to subrecipients from the program itself
between the housing and the dollars.
Page 157
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: Okay. I do have a evaluation on the homes.
Once again -- do we have that in our FHUs?
MR. OCHS: There's 42 homes that will be transferred to Habitat.
MS. GRANT: To Habitat, that's correct.
MR. OCHS: And then with the NSP3 allocation, we estimate
they'll be able to purchase another 40, approximately 40 currently
foreclosed homes, that they would --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that, $4 million?
MR. OCHS: And they would rehabilitate those with their own
funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's $4 million for the
acquisition of properties and maybe approximately the same. So it's
about $8 million going to Habitat?
MR. OCHS: No. I don't know where you got $8 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you said -- or Commissioner
Fiala said 4 million for what's being transferred over in hard dollars.
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four million and four million?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what is it?
MR. OCHS: Hold on. There you go.
MS. GRANT: Put this on the visualizer.
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I said, $8 million.
MS. GRANT: Under NSP 1 the value of the property that's being
transferred to Habitat is approximately 2.7 million, and under NSP3 --
let's see -- it will be around 3.5 million will be the total. And we were
originally allocated approximately $8 million for NSPI.
So 2.7 plus approximately 3.5 is the value. What is that? Six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I didn't get a complete answer to
my question earlier. Are you going to get any more money for this
program?
Page 158
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: No.
MS. GRANT: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is all the money for this program?
MS. GRANT: This is all the money for this program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then tell me why you can't
allocate some of it to a higher level of housing.
MS. GRANT: We -- under NSP 1 we, just as a reminder, have
sold approximately 20 properties already, and the vast number or vast
majority of them were that 80 to 120 percent level. If Collier County
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many were up to the 120 percent
level; what percentage?
MS. GRANT: A hundred percent were up to 120 percent. The
majority of those 20 were between 80 and 120.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GRANT: Okay. We still have 60 properties. We're going
to sell 13. There are 42 going to Habitat. I do not have the
information here about those 13 and the qualified buyers for those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So a percentage of the homes that
you have purchased and rehabilitated have gone to the 120 percent
category?
MS. GRANT: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's already done.
MS. GRANT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the money that you have left
you cannot -- are you telling me you cannot use it for 120 percent?
MS. GRANT: We will not be acquiring any further properties
under NSP1, so it's moot. For NSP3, the program allows up to 120
percent. But by having Habitat enter the equation, we are not allowed
to go above 80 percent based on their requirements and guidelines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, why would you give all the
money, then, to Habitat for Humanity?
Page 159
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: Well, the -- again the strategy that was brought
forth was one that was most expedient to a partner that we thought
would be the most effective at getting this done in a timely fashion.
We also have expenditure deadlines with that program. We need to
spend 50 percent of the money by next March and the rest by the
following March. And so it was clean, simple, achieves the program
objectives fully; full compliance to the program objectives.
MR. OCHS: And we already knew that Habitat had received
their own separate allocation of NSP2 funds, so they were very
familiar with all the program requirements, and all the dollars that
went into the rehab were coming from Habitat, not from this program.
So you could leverage that investment as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What can you do with any other
programs that we have to address the market that is over 80 percent?
MS. GRANT: What I would like to do, sir, is take a look at all of
our programs and come back with a fair, thought -out comprehensive
answer for you, rather than trying to answer you here today, and we'd
be happy to do that, both ourselves and working with the partners
we've talked about today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When do you think you can do that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How about our workshop?
MR. OCHS: We'll do it before we bring back the contract with
Habitat. So you'll be able to see that before you make your final
decision.
MS. GRANT: And that is scheduled to come back in April. So
within the next few weeks.
MR. OCHS: Is that good enough?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, yeah.
That will do it for me.
Okay. Commissioner Henning, you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. What is the -- what
is 80 percent income now? I don't even know what the average is. Is
Page 160
February 28, 2012
that -- let's say for a family of four.
MS. GRANT: Which one's a family of four, Buddy? That's too
high. For a family of four, under the current chart, 80 percent of AMI
is 58,350; AMI is 72,800.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: AMI -- what was the one; I'm
sorry, I got a little bit confused.
MS. GRANT: I'm sorry. The current AIM is $72,800.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For?
MS. GRANT: That was median income, pardon me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Collier County median income?
MS. GRANT: Naples /Marco Island, MSA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's Collier County's median
income?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. I was asking the
questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand the 72,000.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventy -two thousand is 80
percent for a family of --
MS. GRANT: Seventy -two thousand is the area median income
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. GRANT: -- for the Naples /Marco Island MSA. What does
MSA stand for?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventy -two thousand is
median?
MS. GRANT: Right, $72,800.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 80 percent is 58 -?
MS. GRANT: Eighty percent for a family of four is 58,250.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I guess there are
some concerns that are valid. Why can't we split this up? I mean, let's
Page 161
February 28, 2012
divest ourselves of these homes to Habitat, the existing homes that we
have. I don't know how much money that we're actually talking about
under this executive summary, but why can't we -- why can't we
allocate half of it to Habitat and hold back the other half, solicit for
median - priced homebuilders to purchase -- for purchase of properties
and target that median income?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's -- that's where I was going
with trying to figure out how much money we had left or how much
money we could make available. I am still apprehensive about when
you restrict it to buying a home that is vacant, if you're going to be
able to encourage people to buy a home in a 100 -, $125,000
neighborhood and turn it into a 250 to 275 dollar (sic) home. I don't
know if you can do that.
But that's the problem with this program is that you're starting
with something that is, in fact, generally vacant and foreclosed, right?
Abandoned in many cases. And when you have to start with that and
that's what you've got to buy, then you're limited in what you can
rehabilitate it into. And not only that, but the neighborhood might
also restrict you on what would be salable at that price.
So it's a complex problem. But, you know, if you've got some
solution and you can give us some alternatives about that, by all
means do so, and you can get it back to us in time to make any
discussions about the contract. You think you can do that?
MS. GRANT: We can certainly do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. Again, Commissioners, we were
implementing the direction that we were given to put a program
together to get out of this program quickly, efficiently with somebody
who knew how to manage this program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: And that's what the board had voted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm one of the people who wanted you to
bylm•J
February 28, 2012
do that, and I think you've done a good job at it. We're talking about
fine tuning some things here, but I think --
MR. OCHS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that, you know, we need some more
information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the homes that we
have now that we've purchased? Is this part of this executive
summary? Can we --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. They're sitting there waiting for
something to be done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can -- I mean, those are assets
that need to be moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we move those today?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think -- may I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment.
Are you finished? Do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, were you next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I was not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm looking at the median
household income according to the U.S. Census for Collier County,
and the median household income is 58,000, which is materially
different than the 72,000. And I think what you're quoting is -- are the
numbers for maybe the City of Naples and Marco. But I'm looking at
the U.S. Census right here.
And, in fact, in the height of the market I remember that the
median household income for Collier County was about 63,000. So,
you know, if I'm looking at 63,000 even though the U.S. Census
numbers here are, you know, 58 -, 80 percent of that is 50,000. And so
we're basically saying these homes can only be sold to families whose
Page 163
February 28, 2012
income is 50,000.
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. We're saying what we just said based
on this information in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him respond to the issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You raise an issue, and you make an
accusation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not an accusation. It's a
statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and he's trying to respond to it.
MR. OCHS: I'm showing you the source of the data. I don't
know what source Commissioner Hiller has. This is from the
Naples /Marco Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area that is inclusive
of the whole area, not just the incorporated area.
MS. GRANT: And these are the guidelines that HUD provides
to us for operation of the program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm looking at the U.S.
Census.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the U.S. Census provides a
different number. And, in fact, the numbers that this county was using
in the past did tie in with the U.S. Census numbers. I remember when
the whole debate about affordable housing was going on, you know,
20055 20061 2007, the 63,000 median income number was the number
that was used. I just bring that as a fact.
With respect to making any decisions now, in response to
Commissioner Henning, I don't think we should make any decisions
until we have that workshop, and at that workshop is when Kim can
bring forward all the numbers from all the various sources and all the
ways we can use those funds from those different sources to come up
with a plan that will best serve our community in terms of its low
Page 164
February 28, 2012
income and affordable housing -- affordable -- I'm sorry, median
income -- medium (sic) income needs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a 10- minute
break now. We're way over time. We'll be back here at 3:25.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
Commission meeting is back in session.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, Mr. Durso wanted to address the
board, if that would be in order, on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DURSO: I've got a couple of comments, and then I've got a
solution, I hope, to your issue, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DURSO: One of the problems with private developers
doing what we try to do is getting conventional financing for people.
It's very, very difficult, and it's especially difficult for people in 80 to
100 percent of median income. That's why it makes it so easy for us
to do the housing, because we provide our own financing, okay.
I will make a compromise offer that I've never made before, and I
guess that's why I came today, okay. We will do -- if we agree to the
whole shebang to Habitat, Habitat will take the NSP3 funding, of
which $3 million of the $3.4 million is for buying housing, and we
will agree to spend 20 percent of that amount, which is $600,000, for
housing to be sold to people up to 120 percent of median income,
which means Habitat will still take the money, buy the rehab property,
we'll rehab it ourself, and then we will offer it on the open market to
people up to 120 percent of median income.
We will not provide the financing. We will then help them get
conventional financing, okay. And hopefully they can do it. So the
risk for us is we may have to hold those houses for a couple of years
until we can get people qualified to get conventional financing.
Page 165
February 28, 2012
But we will take that risk, because it is my strong feeling, after
talking to HUD and going through NSP2 and knowing all the
rigmarole, that if this does not pass soon, and probably today, you
might as well give the three- and -a -half million dollars back, and I
think that is a political nightmare for all of us. It's a PR nightmare for
all of us to give money back to HUD that was meant to be spent in this
county. And HUD wants the money spent on affordable housing.
So the offer, again, is that we will spend $600,000 of that money
on housing specifically for people -- you tell me. If you want it to be
100 to 120 or anything, 80 to 120, you give us the number.
And what we'll do is -- the reason I'll get away -- be able to do
this is because it will be written into the developer's agreement that we
can't get the money unless we agree to do that. And as long as that's
written into the developer's agreement, I can then be okay with the
people. You know, we're an independent organization, but we still
answer to higher people, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me ask the staff a question.
Would our SHIP funding be available to help people qualify to
purchase these houses?
MS. GRANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That might be a solution. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, in addition, we -- you still have 13
properties that -- under NSP 1 that you've purchased and renovated that
are ready for sale. We're matching up buyers with those. You know,
we can commit as well to make sure that the buyers of those 13
properties are in that 80 to 120 percent. You add that to the 20 that
you've already sold, most of those in that range, you're starting to get a
decent number of these homes in the program that are going, along
with Mr. Durso's commitment, to families in that 80 to 120 percent of
average median income range which, I believe, is what many of you
would like to see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you commit to building
Page 166
February 28, 2012
those in East Naples?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me.
MR. DURSO: We'd love to do that, but you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I'll throw in a few more for
you. But we have -- we have properties in the Bayshore area that we
purchased several years ago that we're probably going to be looking
for buyers on, so we'll probably like to build some --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But those are for middle income.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- middle income in those areas, so we
need to focus on that also. So all you people who deal with housing,
keep that in mind. Okay.
All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead, amend the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to wait for the
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I amend the motion to accept
the generous offer that Sam has given to us for Habitat for Humanity
to $600,000 be set aside for housing that will be up to a hundred --
MR. OCHS: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and twenty percent. And can
we include that this housing be built in East Naples?
MR. DURSO: I don't think you can, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't know if you can even find
any.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll just leave it
with that. What else is missing from that?
MR. OCHS: Nothing, sir, along with the commitment on the 13
homes that are still in your inventory, we will sell for that 80 to 120
percent AMI.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I include that also in
my motion.
Page 167
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: And the actual approval of the action plans.
MR.00HS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that, of course, without
saying.
MR.00HS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that -- Commissioner Henning, is
that acceptable for your second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Then all in favor, please signify
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that two?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it passes 3 -2 with
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
Item #111
SHORT SALE POLICY FOR THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, next item is six -- excuse me. 11I
was previously 16D7. It's a recommendation to approve a Short Sale
Policy for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership program. This item
was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Kim, it's your day. You can
present again.
February 28, 2012
MS. GRANT: Okay. I have a very important announcement on
speech about this. Anyone who would like to speak about this, I
recommend you say SHIP Short Sale Policy very slowly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: SSSP would be better.
MS. GRANT: Okay. So, once again, Kim Grant, for the record,
and I'm here to present a recommendation for a SHIP Short Sale
Policy.
This is an item being brought back to you from late last year.
Staff did present a recommendation, and the commission asked us to
work with the Foreclosure Task Force and gain their expertise and
then come back to you with a recommendation.
Just a brief reminder in background. There is no existing Short
Sale Policy or procedure at the local level nor does the grantor provide
such a procedure; however, the grantor has let us know that we
definitely have latitude to set such a policy should we like to do so or
should the commission wish to do so.
We have had a lot of collaboration on this. We've worked with
the Foreclosure Task Force. They actually created a subcommittee of
their task force that studied this and presented a paper to the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. And there was a great deal
of discussion there. We also sought grantor technical assistance, and
we looked at sample policies from other organizations around the state
in order to bring the recommendation to you today.
So the Short Sale Policy has two -- well, really three major
components. The first is that the recipient, as seller of the property,
shall not receive any funds from the transaction; not interested in
enriching the seller. The short sale settlement amount
recommendation is, based on the Foreclosure Task Force's
recommendation, 6 percent or $6,000, whichever is less. Staff has
added "but not less than $500," and the reason that we're making that
recommendation is that is our estimate of administrative time to
process these, so we'd like to make sure that we at least break even.
Page 169
February 28, 2012
These funds -- should this policy be accepted, these funds will go
back into Collier County's SHIP trust fund and be able to be
reallocated for other eligible activities.
The third component is that we'd like to ask the board's approval
that staff is allowed to approve the short sale and then bring back a
lien release after the fact to the Board of County Commissioners. And
the reason for that is that very frequently short sales are last - minute
transactions in lieu of foreclosure, and we'd like to be able to -- should
you choose to accept a policy, we'd like to be able to honor those and
help the people out that have requested it.
We would only be accepting it if we were brought a viable
proposal from a lender who is in the process of helping the individual.
So our recommendation is to adopt the staff administered Short
Sale Policy for SHIP purchase assistance loans as follows: 6 percent
or $6,000, whichever is less, but never less than $500.
And I'd be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. My light was on from the
previous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to -- I just want
to make sure that as we go into this process that somehow it doesn't
become a little scam, you know, where people will get the $20,000
from SHIP and then, you know, let their house go into foreclosure,
and then they only have to pay so much and they get money out of it.
I mean, a lot of things become a scam. And I don't know what you
can do about preventing anything like that from happening. But if
there's a way to do it -- you know, like it says not less than $500. So if
they only -- if they get $20,000 down payment assistance and they
only have to pay back $500, that's really money in their pocket, I
would think.
I just wanted to make sure that didn't happen. I realize that it's a
Page 170
February 28, 2012
short sale and they don't get anything on this. But so many scams
occur. And I'm just trying to tie up any loose ends. Not that that
would ever happen. I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they're not supposed to be eligible
to get any money at all under this program. That's the condition upon
which this is made, right?
MS. GRANT: They're not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The owner or seller --
MS. GRANT: Oh, that's correct. The recipient or the seller
cannot—
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Cannot get any money.
MS. GRANT: -- get any money at the short sale closing, that's
correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GRANT: So they would not be enriched by this to the tune
of, you know, $15,000 or whatever the difference was. That's correct,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But don't underestimate the ability of
people to work around things. We just have to be careful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what she's saying.
MS. GRANT: Point taken, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 171
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #1 l K
A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $586,159.60 WITH
DN HIGGINS FOR CONSTRUCTION TASKS SET FORTH IN
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #08- 5011 -58, IRRIGATION
OUALITY WATER SITES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11K was previously 16C2. It's a recommendation
to approve a work order in the amount of $586,159.60 to DN Higgins
for construction tasks set forth in Request for Quotation 08- 5011 -58,
irrigation quality water sites. This item was moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. The reason I moved this
item is because I have reviewed the bidding by DN Higgins not only
on this project but both on the Immokalee CRA tertiary project as well
as the Bayshore CRA tertiary drainage project. And what I saw that
was common to all three bids was that they were materially under
what the engineer determined was reasonable for the project. And I
really mean significantly under.
In the case of the Bayshore CRA, the difference between the
engineer's estimate and DN Higgins' bid was a million dollars. In this
particular case, they bid 586,000, the engineer's estimated 680,000,
and I think the highest bid that came in for that project was something
like 860 -.
The same with the Immokalee stormwater project where, again,
there was a material difference. And I don't have the number in front
of me but, again, I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of a
Page 172
February 28, 2012
million dollars between what the engineer's estimate was and what this
company bid.
So I have a real deep concern that we have a bidder who is
materially low bidding, and that this is going to result in change orders
and work orders above what is being presented to us here today for
approval, and that's just not going to be acceptable.
MR. CARNELL: If I could, Steve Carnell, purchasing general
services director.
Now, we've got -- Commissioner Hiller's referring to bids
associated with different agenda items. We're going to talk about the
CRA in just a moment. If I could focus on this utilities work order
project.
Let's just be clear for everybody what's happening here. This --
the pricing obtained under this price quote was through our annual
underground utility construction contract. And this is a contract that's
been in place for the better part of four years. It was created through
prequalifying competition back in 2008, and we have five contractors
under contract to provide the services.
And, essentially, each time we have a job of any magnitude, we
go and get price quotes from all five. We don't quote the rest of the
open market typically. We just go to the five under contract.
For the project in question, and specifically regarding the pricing,
Commissioner Hiller is correct that DN Higgins is the better part of
80- something thousand dollars, closer to $100,000 below the next
price quotes received.
I will make a couple of observations. One, DN Higgins is
actually closer to the engineer's estimate and to the second low bidder
than is the high bidder. So they're not probably quite as much of an
outlier as they might appear at first glance.
The second thing, I think this is more important. The work that is
being done here has to do with upgrading -- it's a follow -up. It's a
follow - through on utilities master plan to upgrade electrical and
Page 173
February 28, 2012
mechanical equipment at specific different sites. This is all part of,
essentially, modernizing your technology, better use of your SCADA
equipment so that staff is able to remotely monitor water /wastewater
production as it occurs and manage it in the field.
And I say that because DN Higgins is extremely familiar with
this kind of work. If I could, this is their wheel house. And we've had
good experiences with Higgins on these kinds of projects and
generally have confidence in their pricing and pricing acumen for
these types of projects.
The other thing I'll say to you is that I mentioned that we get
quotes from the underground utility contractors. And this is not a hard
number, but one of my staff members estimated for me that Higgins
wins about 60 percent of these. And we believe it's for the reasons I
just said.
The other thing I'll mention as well -- two other things about
change orders. And, Commissioner, I appreciate you raising the issue
because it is something that we're all attuned to, and it's a fair
question.
First thing I want to tell you is that DN Higgins has not had any
change orders on these work -- these types of work orders under this
contract for well over a year. I'm not aware of any, actually, that
they've initiated. And, specifically, they don't have a history of
seeking change orders for this kind of work.
The other thing is I'll remind you that in the event that anybody,
any party to this contract, whether it be DN Higgins or anybody else,
were to request a change order, it would be vetted by the staff, and
there will be accountability through the board, through the purchasing
policy, either if it's a smaller change order, be reported to you on your
monthly report, if it's a change order of greater magnitude, it will be
brought back to the board for prior approval. So I do believe there's
some system controls in place.
And believe me, commissioner, in light of you raising the issue,
Page 174
February 28, 2012
staff will be that much more attune -- they would be anyway -- to a
contractor trying to recover money they left on the table, so to speak.
We're already geared to do that, but we'll be all the more attuned to
that because of your questions.
But I really believe that we can go forward with this with
confidence. Can't guarantee anything. You can have -- you can have
unforeseen conditions and other things in the field happen when you
go to do the work. That's always a possibility. But I do believe that --
staff is confident that this will be a successful project and there will
not be surprise or maneuvers to try to recover cost.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And by that, of course, you mean
not only change orders but separate work orders where, you know, the
project isn't being pieced out and, in effect, the total cost is
significantly more than is being proposed here?
MR. CARNELL: That is correct. We would manage all of this
under this one work order, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that actually leaves me
concerned then. If what you're saying is that these costs are more
realistic, then I'm concerned now on the other side of the equation
with the estimates presented by the engineers. If they're estimating
too high and we're going out and requesting, you know, bids on
projects at prices that are more than they should be, then that causes
me concern as well. So can you address that?
MR. CARNELL: Well, what I can address is -- and I hope this is
understood in the manner in which it's intended. In my years of
experience with this, I don't hang my hat on the engineer's estimate.
Engineers, when they -- and I'm not disparaging them as a group. We
don't engage them to necessarily try to map out all market factors and
considerations when a pricing takes place.
It's an -- the reason that we get engineers' estimates, of course, is
to have a good budget going into the process and, obviously, to have
some ballpark idea of what we're looking at. But there can be
Page 175
February 28, 2012
variations like this, and here, again, it's a variation of about 15 percent
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. CARNELL: -- from the low bid to the estimate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: I've seen worse; I've seen better. The people
that do the best estimating in the construction world are on the bidding
side, the contractors. They live and die by getting their estimates
right.
The engineering side -- the engineer's estimates are not as vital
and, frankly, are not as detailed or as precise. And I'm just
generalizing. I'm not saying anything about Hole Montes or any other
firm when I make that comment. That's just been my observation.
I think the number here -- while there is a difference in the
pricing, I think the engineers do build in a little bit of conservatism to
their estimating as well, and I wouldn't expect the engineer's estimate
to be rock - bottom dollar.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, here's my problem, that
when you look at the other projects that Higgins has bid on, there are
three separate engineers. There's Hole Montes, there is Q. Grady, and
there is Agnoli Barber. I think Q. Grady was the one who came up
with the engineering estimate on the CRA project.
And if I remember correctly, there was -- I think the bid was 1.7
million, and the engineer's estimate was 2.7 million, for about a
million - dollar difference.
So what you say would hold true except for the fact that, you
know, you have three engineers and one contractor who is bidding
materially lower than three separate engineering companies. So I
don't know. I -- I'm very concerned about this, and I'm not really
feeling the level of comfort that I would like to have in light of this
particular bid and, quite frankly, in light of the others that are not
under consideration right now but will be.
Page 176
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Was it DN Higgins
that did Isles of Capri, that first phase?
MR. CARNELL: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because I agree,
Commissioner Hiller, you know, when you see a great deal of
difference between the first and the second, you begin to wonder.
Just so happens that I was out at Isles of Capri while DN Higgins
was working, so was everybody else on the island, and this guy with
the camera, he was filming everything they did all the time, and he
was publishing the pictures in their little newsletter, as well as they
were putting it in newspaper articles.
They were so pleased with their work. Never did they ask for a
change order, never did they up anything. So in this particular case, I
would vouch for them because they did such a great job. They didn't
get the second phase because their bid wasn't low enough, and I won't
say who ever got it, but the results weren't as good.
But, anyway, they seemed to do a great job. And I respect your
opinion, but I think in this case, I will make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by me.
And I'll tell you that I have just the opposite reaction. I get
worried when the estimate for the engineer and the estimate -- lowest
priced estimate are very close to the same. That's when I get worried
because I'm worried that somebody is in collusion or they're shooting
for a price that they've already been given.
And when you find somebody who bids dramatically lower than
an engineer's estimate, you can generally feel that they have spent
time pricing it out themselves, and that makes me feel a lot more
comfortable about these kinds of contracts.
So all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 177
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Item #14B1
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) REVIEW THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE'S FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
AND TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO THE CRA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR — MOPTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND PLAN
OF ACTION FOR BAYSHORE GATEWAY CRA — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Okay. Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14B 1
on your agenda. It's a recommendation that the Collier County
Redevelopment Agency review the finance committee report and
recommendations concerning Bayshore /Gateway Triangle financial
outlook and provide guidance to the CRA executive director.
And Mr. Isackson will present the finance committee report.
MR. ISACKSON: Mike, maybe you can help me pull this
presentation up.
Commissioners, for the record, Mark Isackson. A while back
there was a discussion at this board that the finance committee take a
look at the CRA financing in light of several matters that are relatively
uncertain within the CRA as it relates to taxable value, as it relates to
the debt that's outstanding, and it relates to the specific program going
forward.
Page 178
February 28, 2012
Thanks, Mike. That's it. That's good.
What I want to focus on, if I can is the recommendation made by
the finance committee. At this point in time, they -- we had two
meetings discussing at quite a level of detail the financial situation
within the CRA.
I don't think it's of great shock to anybody to realize that four or
five years ago their tax increment was about a million eight, and now
it's about $900,000. Well, $900,000 isn't even covering the debt
service on the loan that's outstanding.
In actuality, the finance committee a year ago had sent out an
RFP to the financial institutions trying to determine what interest there
might be in refinancing the debt.
During the discussions, the finance committee, if I can
characterize it, was extremely concerned about not only looking at the
costs that are associated with the CRA but also perpetuating its
mission. The mission of the CRA, obviously, in terms of revitalizing
the neighborhood and making sure that that is perpetuated.
One of the ways to perpetuate that is to bring some level of
certainty into the CRA's financial picture, and that level of certainty
can be achieved with this plan of action that we have on the visualizer.
The big elephant in the room right now is an $8 million bullet
payment that's due in September of 2014; 8.8 to be exact. Right now
there's about $10.5 million in principal outstanding on the loan.
It's obvious to me that -- and I think it's obvious to the committee
that attempting to try and repay that within this short window of
opportunity is going to be very difficult, if not impossible.
So under that pretense, we went out, and the finance committee
said, lookit, we need to get out in the market and get out relatively
quickly to determine if we can refinance the existing -- the existing
loan and under what conditions might we encounter from the financial
community in terms of refinancing of the loan.
Our suggestion to you is that we be given a 90 -day window with
Page 179
February 28, 2012
which to do that. That would be the first meeting in June we'd be back
before you with the results of our effort.
Now, there are some very favorable conditions that you have
with your current loan. The first and foremost in my mind is the fact
that there's no county backstop for that particular loan, not the least of
which is also a very favorable default provision, if some of you have
had a chance to look at the loan itself, the note.
So I don't hold any pretenses at the fact that there's going to be
pressure put upon by the financial community to alter some of those
conditions that are there.
The second component of the recommendation has to do with an
immediate cessation of some of the discretionary programs that exist,
at least for the 90 -day period, until we can figure out if we're
successful in refinancing.
Now, it's the committee's belief that a message will be sent when
you start paring down some of the expenses; the financial institutions
will think that you're somewhat serious.
There's another motivation for this. If you refinance, more than
likely the attempt will be to try and fix the term of the loan to match
the length of the CRA, probably in a range of 15 years, even though
there's about 18 years left in the life of the district.
At 6 percent -- because this will be a taxable issue. At 6 percent
you're looking at probably $900,000 annually in debt service
payments.
Now, with revenue coming in at 900K plus another maybe 3- or
$400,000 in other income, rents, et cetera, that only leaves about 4- or
$500,000 available for a program component under existing
conditions right now.
So I think David and some of the CRA staffers understand that
they're going to have to move into a more down -sized program at
some point in time knowing that the ultimate debt service payment is
probably going to consume still a substantial portion of their regular
February 28, 2012
operating revenues.
And the third component of the wild card in all of this is the --
are the properties that have been purchased under the auspices of a
redevelopment strategy and allowing that strategy to carry out over a
reasonable period of time.
Now, I don't pretend to tell you that you're going to be able to
have this in 90 days, but I think structuring the request for proposal,
getting out in the market, and trying to determine what we can
actually achieve for the sale of those properties all under the auspices
of a redevelopment plan, I think, is critical, and then those dollars that
are ultimately acquired for the sale of those properties could be used
to offset the debt and maybe free up some more dollars for program
purposes.
So after some careful thought and consideration, the committee
lays before you this plan of action and wholeheartedly endorses its
recommendation for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When you talk about selling
the properties, I have two concerns that probably both can be managed
or, you know, handled okay.
Number one, the properties in the Bayshore area that were
bought up were bought up specifically to reduce or eliminate crime
from those particular areas, the slight and the -- the slums and the
blight. Those were flophouses that were being operated there; there
were quite a few of them. They bought them and took them off the
property entirely, and crime went down nearly 30 percent; isn't that
right, David?
MR. JACKSON: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirty percent just by eliminating
those houses of crime.
David hasn't gone about -- he had a bid on it a while back. The
bidder -- that didn't go through just because they wanted -- they
Page 181
February 28, 2012
wanted to -- well, let me say that their plan for this area -- about this
same time the economy was going down the toilet.
And so what their plan is, to build middle income housing to
change the demographics of the Bayshore area so that it isn't all low
income housing, and hopefully, you know, get some pride in their
neighborhoods and improve the appearance of the neighborhoods.
That's number one.
So I wouldn't want to just sell it on the market and then lose that
goal of improving and upgrading the area, because that's what the
CRA has always been about.
Secondly, they had a -- they bought up the properties more or
less to control the triangle, the mini - triangle, so that then they could
have one complete plan. They didn't want things like -- like a floral
shop and a shoe shop and a horse trader shop and, you know, a shoe
repair. They wanted something, a cohesive plan, whether it be a
boutique hotel with restaurants and retail or whatever. And if we sell
off that stuff without a plan piece by piece, that couldn't be
accomplished. But if it could be grouped together and given an
opportunity to be sold to a developer who would develop that whole
triangle, you would then accomplish what the CRA has been set out to
do. Not only that, it would become the entry feature into the East
Naples community, you know, and be an example of what they want
to become.
So I'm just asking if there's -- as we look forward to your plan, if
there's something that couldn't be written in, if I get agreement with
the other commissioners, that would at least focus on the plan and the
upgrading of the community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that might be the next item
coming up if we approve these -- this particular plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This was just about the sale of the
properties, that I was talking about, that is in Mike's -- Mark's plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but Item B2 would touch upon
Page 182
February 28, 2012
some of the actions that David is planning on taking with respect to
this particular plan of action, I think. And we have had discussions
about how you keep that property together in the mini - triangle and
what you do with some of the others.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The plan was at a day
when there was anticipations of selling properties and, from what I
understand, close to what we paid for it, assembling properties and
selling it and have a unified plan; however, nobody's coming through
with that, and things change. Tell me, I know things have changed in
my life.
So I -- and in respect to David Jackson's item, I think that
sounded prudent visioning on his part; however, I think it's interim
until we know what the banks are going to offer.
So I think we should accept the finance department -- or finance
committee's report. I think we should modify David's -- accept
David's with the caveat of it be until we know what comes back from
the banks, hopefully.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ninety days?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make that motion to
accept and approve item -- was that 14132?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: B2 -- I'm sorry, B 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion and wait
for David's input.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for approval of
the plan of action by Commissioner Henning, seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you the interim CRA
chairman?
Page 183
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not. Definitely not. I don't want
to be, by the way. There you go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Discussion? Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I had the opportunity to sit in on the deliberations of the finance
committee with respect to this plan of action, and I will tell you they
were very, very considerate of all the problems facing the CRA.
Could you put up some of the financial schedules that you
presented? Because I think it very much shows the reality of the
situation, and I think -- that's actually one very good chart. The
financials, you know the template I'm talking about that shows the --
MR. ISACKSON: Are you talking about this, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah.
And I think -- and this is where -- what Mr. Isackson did is
basically present the proformas through the bullet year, which is 2014,
under the various ways we could consider dealing with the CRA's
financial problems.
And in this schedule over here where it says "no program
change," you can see that if you were to be lucky enough to sell those
properties for four point -- let's just round it -- let's say 4.5 million,
you would still have an outstanding obligation of 3.2 million. That 3.2
million obligation does not go away. That obligation would continue
against the CRA till it would be paid off, and 100 percent of any of the
revenues that the CRA would receive would go to paying that
shortfall.
Do you want to put up the other schedules? Right. Here's where
the proposal suggests suspending the CRA program until that bullet
year. And so you see the effect on the outstanding fund obligation is
now being only 986,000.
There was one more. Right. This is a reduced program which is,
February 28, 2012
I guess you might call it, a hybrid approach, and we're back to a
2- million shortfall. As I said, that obligation, unless the banks
refinance, do -- does not go away and continues to basically eat away
at all the revenues that the CRA generates.
So it is absolutely critical that we allow Mark to go out and try to
negotiate with the bank and negotiate with other banks to see if we can
restructure this debt, and if we can't, what we get for those properties
will be very, very important with respect to what the obligation of the
CRA is by the time the balloon payment is due, and it will adversely
impact the CRA going forward for quite a number of years.
Mark, can you show the projection again of the revenues. Here's
the change in the fund balance. You can see what happened. This is a
schedule of the change in revenues, and you can see how they have
dropped materially and why we're in trouble. It's a combination of
decrease in revenues as well as decrease in property values as well as
the un- salability of the assemblage that was put together.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify
-- whoops, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Control yourself, sir, will you, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll go back to sleep. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, okay. I got the hint, though.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item, Leo?
Page 185
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We have a time certain at 4 o'clock, Mr.
Chairman. So if you could turn that back to the BCC chairman for
that item, please.
Item #1 I D
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TDC) REQUEST THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE TDC TO ELECT AND ROTATE THE
CHAIRMAN FROM AMONG THE TDC MEMBERS AND IN
LIGHT OF A RECENT RESIGNATION A REQUEST THAT THE
BOARD CHAIRMAN EITHER SERVE ON THE TDC OR
DESIGNATE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO SERVE ON THE
TDC IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 125.0104(4)(E), FLA.
STAT. AND ORDINANCE NO. 92 -605 AS AMENDED — MOTION
ALLOWING THE TDC THE AUTHORITY TO SELECT A
CHAIRMAN AND VICE - CHAIRMAN — APPROVED;
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER HENNING TO THE TDC
BY COMMISSIONER COYLE (BCC CHAIRMAN)
MR. OCHS: Okay. That item is 11D on your agenda, and it is a
recommendation to consider the Tourist Development Council's
request to allow the TDC to elect and rotate the chairman from among
the TDC members, and in light of a recent resignation, to request that
the board chairman either serve on the TDC or designate a member of
the board to serve on the TDC in compliance with Section
125.0104(4)(e) Florida Statute and Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended.
Mr. Wert is here to either present or answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't -- can we deal with the
second item first, that is the issue of allowing the TDC to designate
their own chairperson? I think that's a wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We'll have two votes
-- i •
February 28, 2012
then on this.
MR. WERT: All right, sir. Fine, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we don't have to vote on
the other one because I've got the authority to appoint people for that,
don't I?
MR. WERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's -- there's a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by me. That would --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have some public comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But we do have a motion -- and I
need to restate the motion -- that the TDC will have the authority to
select their own chair and vice- chair.
MR. WERT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will not be appointed by the Board of
County Commissioners, and I think that's a very good change.
Okay. Is there a discussion concerning that, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. My light was on from before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to hear the speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Bring -- why don't we have the
speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is John Lundin, and he'll be
followed by Robert Miller.
MR. LUNDIN: I'd like to speak on the other part of this item of
you being able to appoint a member of this board to the TDC. I'd like
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend
County Ordinance 92 -60 to state that the designated member of the
Board of County Commissioners to be appointed to the Tourism
Development Council shall be the most qualified board member with
tourism experience.
Page 187
February 28, 2012
I'd also like to make a comment, I attended the February 17th
subcommittee where Mr. Jack Wert submitted Commissioner Hiller's
letter of resignation to the record. And then yesterday I attended the
regular Tourist Development Council meeting, and both Mr. Jack
Wert and the vice - chair, Mr. Henley, I think his name is, they referred
to Commissioner Hiller as being absent. And then I spoke on the
record, and I showed them Commissioner Hiller's letter of resignation,
and neither of them would acknowledge that Commissioner Hiller
resigned.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker -- the next speaker is Robert
Miller.
MR. MILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I think that
you're making a very good choice with appointing somebody for --
from the tourist board, and I think that you should extend the time
from a year to three years, because every time we get going and we
get somebody that's into a project we lose that person. And I think
that everybody that's on the board, including the commissioners, are
very qualified, but we seem to lose -- after a year we lose a point
where we've got to start with a new person with the new ideas, and I
think that what you're doing is real good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'll call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Now, I'd like to ask a question. Why is there a need to have a
county commissioner sitting on the TDC at all?
MR. KLATZKOW: Because that's what the statute says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the state statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: State statute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're required by the state statute to
do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. WERT: To appoint a member, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have the authority to
appoint a member?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, who is the lucky person? Who
wants to do this? Anybody?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but I've got a suggestion
you might just love.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll volunteer for it. I really
enjoy the tourism industry. They do a great job for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, yep. Well, I'd like to explain one
thing. I've served on the TDC before as chairman. I would be
delighted to serve again except they refuse to change their meeting
schedule. They -- and I think the only reason they've refused to do
that is because they don't want me there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that is the reason that I'm not
serving on it, because you constantly meet on the Monday before we
have a BCC meeting. And as chair of the BCC, my time is completely
taken up from the time I get the packet until the time I walk in the
meeting on Tuesday morning. And so as long as you're going to be
February 28, 2012
inflexible about your meeting schedules, you -- I would prefer not to
serve.
MR. WERT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, at least while I'm chair, which
hopefully will not last much longer.
So Commissioner Henning has kindly volunteered to share -- to
serve on the TDC.
MR. WERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I will appoint Commissioner
Henning to serve on the TDC.
MR. WERT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And thank you for volunteering.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Jack, what's the term of that, through the end of the
calendar year?
MR. WERT: Yes, it's through the end of the calendar year, that
particular appointment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That doesn't address the term of
the chair. But the TDC can re -elect the same person every year if they
want to --
MR. WERT: They can now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have some continuity. So we don't
have to take any action on that at all.
MR. WERT: That could be a policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. They can just say, hey,
we've got a chairman that is involved in something that's going to be
ongoing over the next year. We want to keep that chair in position,
and they can make that decision.
MR. WERT: All right, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. WERT: Appreciate it, Commissioners. Thank you very
Page 190
February 28, 2012
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you back now to your
Community Redevelopment Agency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to turn over the gavel to
Commissioner Coletta now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep your seat.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #14132
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) REVIEW CRA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA TAX
INCREMENT FUND (TIF) GRANT PROGRAMS AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD — APPROVED
W /STIPULATION THAT PROGRAM WILL SUNSET AND THAT
FINAL APPROVAL /EVALUATION AFTER ANALYSIS (ABOUT
90 DAYS)
MR. OCHS: 14132 is a recommendation that the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency review CRA staff
recommendations concerning Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Tax
Increment Fund Grant programs and provide direction as determined
by the board.
Mr. David Jackson will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we approved that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that was the item before that.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, executive director of the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
I'll put up on the visualizer -- this is a summary of what's in the
executive summary, and this is part of a drawdown. My
Page 191
February 28, 2012
recommendation to you is in the grant programs I felt it was prudent to
cut back the grants that had the least amount of return on investment
for the CRA. They had a lot of impact on the people that received
them that were in the area; however, the ones that I think that are
worth salvaging are the ones that give us the greatest impact.
Basically the commercial building grant program has been very
good for us. We've had six buildings been renovated, new businesses,
and 59 jobs as a result of it, so -- in those items. And this is just the
result -- this is just a result of last year. It shows basically that we
expended $240,000; we received in private investment almost a
million dollars. So that's pretty good leveraging, 4 -1. So that's what
the Commercial Building Improvement Grant can do for us.
And it also creates the jobs. We got 59 jobs. We have a potential
for another 40 or 50, depending on what happens. If those -- if the
halo continues to happen with that.
So in there, in my recommendation, is to keep three grants alive
and well, of which one of them is not using CRA money at all but
$25,000 we received as a grant from Fifth Third Bank. We would still
use that for a site improvement grant for residential. Now, again,
that's not CRA money. That's grant money, and we could use it out of
that.
And then the other one would be for -- the impact fee assistance
would be for new construction of residential property, new home
construction.
I heard the discussion earlier about building new houses. Do you
want to do that or not? But we have a lot of vacant land. And we
would like to get some of the vacant land with a building on it to
increase the TIF, the tax increment on it.
Now, I don't know if anybody will accept this and go for this
$10,000 for impact fee assistance, but they might. So it's an
opportunity out there. And remember, all these grants come back to
you to approve. I don't have approval authority. My job is to vet
Page 192
February 28, 2012
them, to staff them, and bring them to you, and then you can approve
or disapprove.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve with the
caveat these will -- programs will sunset depending on the outcome of
the loan, and I would hope that you would still continue -- continue to
receive applications for these programs that you've outlined. And I
hope that you tell them that it may not happen because of further
action of the Board of Commissioners, and on the finance --
refinancing of our loan. Just give them a little warning. It might -- it
may not come to fruition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, you're making a
motion to approve, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. It's a 90 day
-- I mean, Mr. -- I mean, our finance director's going to come back and
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we have a question or comment by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think one of the things
that has to be done is an analysis to determine the extent to which
property values are increasing with respect to the homes that are being
improved. Because, again, these investments are intended to be made
to increase the value of properties and, in turn, increase the tax
revenue stream to the CRA.
So I would like to see that kind of an analysis to show what the
return on these investments are.
MR. JACKSON: Well, ma'am, I can give you an answer right
now. Is that if somebody changes out a window in their house, their
house is not reappraised and the value does not go up.
If they fix a leaky roof or paint their house, they do not get
Page 193
February 28, 2012
reappraised and reevaluated. So there isn't a return on investment on
the residential side. You can't quantify that.
Now, the commercial side is a lot different. We can go in there
and look at the commercial side of the house, and that's a different
kind of thing, different things happen with the building. But as far as
the property appraiser goes, if there isn't a permit pulled on a certain
thing that makes a difference in the value of the house, there probably
won't be a price change or a value change on the property, but I can
try and give an opportunity.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would be interesting to see what
our in -house appraisers can tell us with respect to the appreciation and
the property values after these improvements are made. Because if we
can see a change in value in the commercial but not in the residential,
then maybe what we need to be doing is focusing these grant monies
on the commercial and not on the residential.
I mean, one of the things that I noted is that when you were
outlining the allocation of the grant funds for residential, you were
focusing strictly on the single- family. You weren't considering
rentals, you weren't considering duplexes, you weren't considering
quadruplexes.
So I'm not really sure that that is the best investment under the
circumstances because, again, the goal is to generate revenue for the
TIF, and that means tax return.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump in
front of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I would like the analysis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer's always yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I just want the analysis. I
think it's worth --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ninety days?
Page 194
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. I think that would be
valuable to have by the 90 days, and then just bring it back at the same
time so that we can re- evaluate.
Good suggestion, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. One of the things we've got
to be careful of is trying to micromanage these decisions too closely.
Let me give you an example. We've got some vacant lots in the
CRA. And if someone were to come to David and say, you know, I'd
like to build a new home on this vacant lot, maybe it's going to be a
$200,000 home or more, if I can get some impact fee assistance.
That's a pretty good investment. You're getting an increase in taxable
value which is going to benefit you over the entire period of existence
of the CRA.
So I'd hate to put so many restrictions on David's management
and decision making on these things to the extent that this kind of
opportunity would slip through the fingers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I -- can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you wait a minute?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's important -- and I'm sure David
will make those kinds of evaluations before he comes here. And if he
comes here with a recommendation to provide that kind of an
incentive as impact fee assistance, then I'm sure he will have the
financial justification for doing so at that point in time.
But let's not push him into a mode that focuses only on
commercial. You know, let him look at what has the greatest benefit
for the properties we have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything that happens should be part
of the motion.
Let's go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller can go before
me. It's okay.
Page 195
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I just want to comment on what you said, Commissioner Coyle. I
was referring strictly to the rehab grants. I wasn't talking about the
impact fees. Because you're correct, I mean, if someone wants to
build a $200,000 house on a vacant lot, that's a good thing. Nothing
wrong with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just wanted to make a
comment. I drove down there the other day again. It must have been
four grants that you gave for the restaurant, and then C -Tech -- is that
what it's called, C -Tech -- and then there was another one that was an
aluminum shop, and then -- I can't remember the fourth one. The
whole street looked so much better now that they have improved those
buildings. Are those all new businesses now coming into that area?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. You know, the difference is
night and day just with those four buildings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And more jobs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And more jobs, because now they've
got four new businesses there, and more TIF.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep, you have a motion and a
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So with that, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 196
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You got a 5 -0 on that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5 -0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why is it you get unanimous votes
and I don't get unanimous votes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Difference in personality.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, raise your hand if you want to
speak, sir.
What's the next one, Leo?
Item #14133
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 11 -5705 —GATEWAY TRIANGLE
RESIDENTIAL AREA TERTIARY STORMWATER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,7315977, TO APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE STANDARD BOARD APPROVED CONTRACTS
AFTER LEGAL REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY — MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A FOLLOW -UP
MEMO FROM STAFF AFTER COMMUNICATION WITH THE
CONTRACTOR REGARDING USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14133, sir. It's an item that was continued from your
February 14, 2012, BCC meeting. Recommendation to award
Contract No. 11 -5705, the Gateway Triangle residential area tertiary
stormwater system improvements, to Douglas N. Higgins,
Incorporated, in the amount of $1,731,977 to approve all necessary
budget amendments and authorize the chairman to sign the standard
board approved contracts after legal review by the Office of the
Page 197
February 28, 2012
County Attorney.
Sue Trone will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I didn't
mean to interrupt.
MS. TRONE: Hello. I'm Sue Trone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MS. TRONE: Why, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Hiller and then Commissioner Henning have
questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. My concern about this
contract is what I said earlier, the engineer's estimate on this contract
was about 2.7 million. This bid, which was the lowest bid, came in at
1.7 million. That is a very material difference.
The other thing that I don't really understand, you know, when
you're talking about a tertiary stormwater system, what you're really
describing is digging swales for drainage.
So, you know, one of the things I've noted over the years is that
the county has been doing that in most other communities. I mean, we
have the equipment, we have the staff. I know that the county trucks
are out there.
I'm not sure why we're contracting this out if this could be done
in -house or at least in part in- house. The other -- and I'm saying for
part of the project.
Now, the other thing that concerned me about this particular bid
when I looked over the work papers that were submitted was that
under the heading of major subcontractors, I saw, for example, three
paving contractors, three concrete subcontractors, three barricade
subcontractors.
It was my understanding -- and you can correct me if I'm
February 28, 2012
mistaken, because, you know, maybe my understanding of how
procurement is done for these type of projects is not correct. But I
thought that the contractor had to list his major subcontractor and not
list any and all possible subcontractors he was going to go out and
solicit bids from after the job was awarded. That sounds like bid
shopping to me, or at least with respect to the subcontractors.
So help me out and explain, you know, why all these subs are
listed that all do the same thing. And I guess actually I -- and why
there is such a material discrepancy between the engineer's estimate
and the bid that was submitted by Higgins.
MS. TRONE: With respect to the subcontractors, I'm going to
defer to my purchasing agent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MS. TRONE: Do you want to handle that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you put the schedule up
that I'm referring to, you know, in the big package and their response?
MR. JOHNSON: Are you referring to the bid tabulation, ma'am,
or are you referring to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm referring to the -- to
Higgins' actual bid proposal.
MR. JOHNSON: I don't have their full proposal with me. I have
a couple of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's on the backup. You can pull it
up off of the backup and put it on the overhead.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Actually, for the record, Scott Johnson,
procurement strategist from your purchasing department.
I did bring the bid schedule with me, that I'm aware of, that there
were some questions with it. I'm happy to explain a couple of things
that were asked earlier.
With regard to subcontractors, we asked for, in our general
bidding documents -- which, by the way, are changing in a few weeks
in light of some of these concerns that have come up -- we're changing
Page 199
February 28, 2012
the form in which we ask for some of these subcontractors to be
named.
I don't recall, to Commissioner Hiller's point --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just -- not to interrupt, but
it's Page 684, 685, 686, and -- yeah, and 686. So those three pages list
the contractors, the subcontractors. I'm sorry. Just to help you out.
MR. JOHNSON: While they're pulling that up, some of the -- in
the past we've asked for -- there's about five lines there, if I'm correct
in my recollection of the form, and it asks for major subcontractors.
And in the past we have not asked them to name specific disciplines,
but we asked them to name, in this particular instance -- I have it in
front of me now -- they've listed two concrete contractors and they've
listed two video contractors as part of the requirement of the scope.
And I'll lay this down on the visualizer as well.
At this particular point I would say that they are -- one is --
significant difference here, now that I'm looking at it. One of these is
an overlay contractor and the other one is curbs only. Those are very
significant differences in disciplines as well.
So I would imagine that both of those concrete companies will be
used in this project, to answer your specific question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I want all three pages
answered. So just keep flipping. Explain the pre -con video, flip to the
next page, and then the next page.
MR. JOHNSON: The pre -con video -- Commissioner, the issue
with the pre -con could be pre -video and then post -video as well to be
turned in with the as- builts. Additionally, there are paving contractors
listed here that could potentially be used at different phases for the
asphalt overlay -- and the microphone's going away -- through some
concrete piping as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Keep going, third page. No, you're
missing the back page of the first page that you showed.
MR. JOHNSON: Striping and MOT. Again, this is a fairly large
Page 200
February 28, 2012
project where they're going to be doing striping in multiple phases of
this project, and MOT would cover the entire duration of the project.
Bob's Barricades, Road Safe, and U.S. Safety could be used during the
entire project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you haven't verified this? You
don't know if that's actually the case? You're working on the
assumption that all the subcontractors listed by this general contractor
will be used on this project, every single one of them?
MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner, I don't -- the purchasing
department does not verify these. We have a relationship with the
general contractor, and their relationships with their subcontractors is
their relationship. Our contract is with them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you need to help me out. I
mean, we're using federal funds on this job, so I'm sure there are
limitations on how these bids are let.
Aren't they supposed to list the subcontractors they're going to be
using on the job? I mean, they can't be listing, you know, five
different subs and then go out, once you award the bid, and basically
put that out to bid, or can they?
MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner, my understanding in speaking
with the Higgins group -- and keep in mind, we do a lot of work with
Higgins, that they have -- they will use all of these people in the
duration of the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what they told you?
MR. JOHNSON: That's what the vice president told me, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You spoke to them about all these
subs, and they told you that they are going to use every single one of
these subs listed?
MR. JOHNSON: In a previous product, yes, ma'am, I have
asked them that question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm talking about this project.
MR. JOHNSON: No, we have not had a discussion about this
Page 201
February 28, 2012
list.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you answer the specific
question I had about how this type of bidding works?
MR. JOHNSON: Can you restate your question --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. My question was,
specifically -- again, this is a project dealing with federal funds, and
we have a contractor here who has listed multiple subcontractors all of
whom do the same work. If they have not gone out to these
subcontractors and requested bids from them in order to come up with
the 1.7 million as what they're proposing they will do the job for, do
they have the ability to go out and basically shop this after they've
been awarded the bid? I mean, is that how it's done?
MR. CARNELL: No, ma'am, let me see if I could step in and
clarify this. You saw on the screen -- I think what we have is maybe a
case of too much information here, maybe the contractor being a little
too forthright.
What they've done is, you saw paving named three or four times,
you saw striping named three or four times. It's our understanding
from me talking to the staff here that those are different aspects of
paving and striping. They broke the job -- the sub work into different
pieces, and they're naming every single -- they have multiple subs
named to do that work, which is their prerogative.
We will -- I will verify for you that there is no bid shopping
going on. I can do that in a separate conversation with Higgins. I
have no reason -- we have no indication that any shopping is taking
place. What they've done is they've just -- they've gone beyond the
minimum here and they've named all of the subs.
They've also chosen to spread the work among multiple firms,
which is their prerogative. That's not bid shopping. Bid shopping
would be after the fact changing the list or adding to it or deleting it.
There's no -- I have no evidence they've done that. This is the
opposite where they've laid out more detail.
Page 202
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, but the problem is, is if
they've laid out multiple vendors and then they go out and they
basically shop that contract to the five that they've listed and then they
use whichever gives them the lowest possible price, my understanding
is that that is not how it's supposed to work.
MR. CARNELL: And I would agree with you if that's what they
were doing. That's not the representation that we understand it to be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you talk to them about this?
MR. CARNELL: I have not talked to them about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who spoke to them? I mean, you
haven't -- who spoke to them? Who confirmed that that is not what's
going on here?
MS. TRONE: I've spoken with DN Higgins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Specifically about this issue?
MS. TRONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what did they say about this
issue of listing all the multiple -- you know, like, five paving
contractors?
MS. TRONE: They're all very different disciplines. It's all
different types of work, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they're five paving
contractors.
MR. CARNELL: Let me get you a more direct answer.
Michael?
MR. DELATE: Good afternoon, Board. For the record, I'm
Mike Delate, the engineer of record for this project from Q. Grady
Minor.
For instance, this list on concrete and pre -con video --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we go to paving,
because it's five -- go to the -- can you put it back on the overhead?
MR. DELATE: What page would that be?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think -- whichever one --
Page 203
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 686.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of what -- there were five.
Yeah, there were five paving contractors. And, you know, since you're
the engineer of record, you can also explain the material difference of
a million dollar between your estimate and their bid.
MR. DELATE: Maybe I'll just address that first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a great idea.
MR. DELATE: We were first signed up for this project, 1.
believe, back in 2008 or 2007, and did some initial work investigating
some of the water -- stormwater problems within the residential
portion of the Gateway area. The commercial portion was already
being worked on by other consultants and other staff within the
county.
We came up with a series of recommendations based on our
investigations and initial work. And out of that came a budget for
improving that area and connecting to the stormwater pond that was
being excavated at the time, and now the pumping system that's in
place.
And based on our preliminary knowledge of the drainage system
out there, we gave rough estimates based on, basically, linear footage
of roadwork of roadway that needed to have drainage system
improvements.
So we used some rough estimates, probably used numbers from
20061 2007, construction numbers at the time, which, obviously, are
lower now, and probably put in some conservative numbers, because
we didn't know what was underground there. Some of the -- that's old
asbestos concrete pipe and there could be water mains, sewer system,
so we put in some numbers for any conflicts with that. So based on
that, we got a $2.7 million estimate.
As we got into the project and were awarded the design and got
more detailed survey information and underground information
working with the City of Naples Utilities. We could refine those
Page 204
February 28, 2012
numbers and refine the detail. If you look at the bid tabulation that we
had, it's quite extensive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you -- can I -- before
you get to the bid tab, when did you refine the details and who
received the information?
MR. DELATE: Well, we prepared plans about a year ago. I'll
look at the date on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when it went out to --
MR. DELATE: 2010.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When it was put out to bid --
MR. DELATE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it contained your refined
parameters?
MR. DELATE: Well, we actually prepared construction plans.
When we did the initial estimate, it was not construction plans. It was
just a report with recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so when these contractors bid,
they bid on your construction plans?
MR. DELATE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you didn't update your budget
to reflect the construction plans?
MR. DELATE: We prepared a bid tabulation, but we did not
provide unit cost numbers for the bid tabulation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was the total for the bid
tabulation?
MR. DELATE: Well, we had 90- some -odd items in that bid
tabulation, but we did not prepare unit cost estimates for that. It's not
been for our -- at least for the work we've done in the county, in the
many years we've been working with the county it's not been normal
and customary at that point to give a new cost estimate. Obviously,
the county would have to pay us for that, and I think normally the
proofs been in the pudding in the bid that comes back in.
Page 205
February 28, 2012
And you can see the spread on the bid. There's a couple clusters
of low numbers and higher numbers.
So I think that -- back to the $2.7 million, that contained a lot of
conservative estimates, because the intent of the report was to try to go
get some grant money. There wasn't enough money in this low
income area to assess the homeowners there to pay for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you suggesting that you used
the numbers which were incorrect to procure the grant?
MR. DELATE: They weren't incorrect. They were based on our
estimates at the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which was how long ago?
MR. DELATE: I believe that was 2008.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when was this grant
submitted and awarded?
MS. TRONE: Commissioner Hiller, this -- the conceptual plan
was actually completed in May of 2009, and the grant was written in
the fall, I believe; it was submitted in December of 20 -- I want to say
2010.
So once we had completed the conceptual plan, once we had that
in our hand, it became for us a shovel -ready project. This became
something that we needed to try and get funding from the outside to
implement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I have a real
problem, because now we have a different issue, and the issue is that
you submitted a request for federal funding in 2010 using numbers
from 2008, which are --
MS. TRONE: I'm sorry, 2009.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. The engineer said 2008.
MS. TRONE: I know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: His numbers are from 2008.
MS. TRONE: 2009.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And not only that -- oh, you
Page 206
February 28, 2012
modified --
MS. TRONE: I was just looking at the stormwater conceptual
plan. It's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're not talking about the
conceptual plan. We're talking about the budget, this $2.7 million
budget.
MR. DELATE: Well, if I may speak just to defend myself, there
was nothing nefarious about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No it's not nefarious.
MR. DELATE: It was based on best available knowledge.
There's a lot of underground uncertainties that I would certainly -- as
an engineer of record, would be remiss at not budgeting money for
dealing for possible conflicts with stormwater, soft utilities, water
systems.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but, you know, 2.7 million
versus 1.7 million, a million dollar difference --
MR. DELATE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in a request for federal funding
is very material.
MR. DELATE: Well, yeah. But there are budget -- others that --
if you look at the clusters, there's some around 2.5, 2.7 million in these
bids, so we're not materially that different. It's just that we've got
somebody that's very experienced in that area. They've done a lot of
work in the Gateway area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, would you like
to make a motion of some kind?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think we need to make a
motion to continue this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, please. I really think it's
important to do so, because I would hate to see a situation where we
approve a bid that falls short of the law with respect to federal funds,
Page 207
February 28, 2012
and I don't think we want to take that risk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
continuance. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, my question was not
yet answered. I want the answer to the five paving --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. There's a motion on the
floor. Commissioner Henning had a question. He may make a
second. Give us just a second here --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to try to see where we're going with
this.
Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have the grant funding,
the CDBG and the DRI grant? Have you been awarded that?
MS. TRONE: Have I been -- I'm sorry. I didn't catch your
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the CRA been awarded the
grant -- the bulk of the money from --
MS. TRONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the CDBG funds?
MS. TRONE: Yes, sir. The grantor has approved the bid; the
Department of Economic Opportunity awarded us the grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the board approved that?
MS. TRONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. TRONE: You are the recipient of the grant, and we are
subrecipients to you.
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You applied for the grant
to the housing department, correct, through the housing?
MS. TRONE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was the one that
received all the information?
MS. TRONE: Yes.
M
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Did you lie to them?
MS. TRONE: Of course not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion fails for lack of a
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still haven't had my question
answered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I'd like to hear her answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to hear the answer
as to the five paving contractors that were listed.
If you could put that back on the overhead, I'd appreciate it. And
if you could turn all those pages in to the court reporter, I'd like to
have them included as backup, specifically, on the record, not just part
of the backup on the agenda.
MR. CARNELL: All right. The -- let's be clear what the
documents are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just the -- flip the page over to
where the paving contractors are. We were using that as an example.
MR. CARNELL: Sure. And I'm going to address all of them,
initially. The list that you're looking at are subcontractors that the
Page 209
February 28, 2012
contractor, as part of his offer, intends to use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of them?
MR. CARNELL: All of them, that's his written representation.
What we believe is happening -- Commissioner, frankly, we
haven't point blank asked the question in every case. And I'd be
happy to verify that for you separately, if -- I would assure the board
going forward that that is the intent of the contractor.
But this is not bid shopping in the sense that they are committing
to use everybody. They're not committing to go get a price among the
five later. That's not what this is. They're saying, I've got a price with
each of these guys, and I'm going to use them.
And that's his prerogative how many paving subcontractors.
There's no limit on how many. That's his business and his call. That's
what Scott's point was earlier.
But if you would like some assurance, my -- I would suggest that
the board could move forward with the motion with a follow -up from
the staff in which we'll clarify in writing back to the board by memo
what the contractor's intent is regarding each of the subs. And,
obviously, if there's something that differs from what I've just said,
we'll put the item back on for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you include that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Page 210
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4 -1, and the
dissenting vote was Commissioner Hiller.
Next item?
MR. OCHS: 14134 is a recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency to approve and award RFP 11 -56 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Don't mean to
interrupt you. We're running just a little bit late towards a break here,
and God knows how long the item will take.
So let's take a break now, and then we'll come back here all
refreshed.
MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Refreshed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's all I'm allowed by law.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Very good.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next item, sir.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know.
Item #14B4
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND AWARD RFP #11 -5697 FOR CEI SERVICES TO
URS CORPORATION FOR THE TRIANGLE STORMWATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 14B4 is the next item on your agenda. It's
a recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
Page 211
February 28, 2012
approve and award RFP 11 -5697 for CEI services to URS Corporation
for the Triangle Stormwater System Improvement Project for the
Gateway Triangle residential area and authorize the CRA chairman to
execute the agreement.
Again, Sue Trone will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to approve by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Question from Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I actually have a problem
with this. This is a firm that we're using, an engineering firm, to
supervise Douglas Higgins, which is going to add 10 percent to the
project.
Now, the engineer on the job is Q. Grady, and they also have
within their contract monies allocated for supervision and review.
This is the kind of project that can readily be supervised by our
stormwater department. And, quite frankly, what is needed to ensure
that this project is done correctly is a surveyor.
So I, quite frankly, cannot support this. I don't see any reason
why Q. Grady, in conjunction with our stormwater department, can't
supervise this project.
This is a tertiary system drainage project. You know, we're not
building, you know, a major building or a major bridge or anything
like that. This is digging swales and making sure that, you know, the
pitch is right, that the water flows in the right way.
So, you know, we should save this 10 percent on the total project
cost and, you know, let Q. Grady and let our stormwater department
work together, if needed, bring in a surveyor to spot -check this project
at the most.
But, you know, another 10 percent on top of already 1.7 million
Page 212
February 28, 2012
is, quite frankly, a waste of money for this type of project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's a statement, I guess,
rather than a question, because you can't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can't say it an answer to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's important to be stated,
and so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, well, let's do this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you already had a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's put the vote, and if the vote
doesn't come out, then we'll take another motion.
Okay. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it 4 -1,
Commissioner Hiller being the dissenting vote.
Next item?
Item #14B5
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
AREA — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This item is continued from the February
14, 2012, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation for the Community
Page 213
February 28, 2012
Redevelopment Agency to approve and execute a Site Improvement
Grant Agreement between the CRA and a grant applicant within the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area.
Mr. Jackson will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This item deals with 14B 1 and 2
that we made consensus on and guidance. I want to make a motion to
approve No. 5, and subsequent, after that, we need separate motions,
which I'm going to vote in favor for the remainder.
So my -- I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning and second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you.
Item #14B6
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING
IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA
AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE
Page 214
February 28, 2012
GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14136 was also continued from the February 14,
20121 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation for the CRA to approve
and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and a grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Next item.
Item #14B7
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
Page 215
February 28, 2012
AREA — MOTION TO DENY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This item is also continued from the February 14,
20125 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation for the CRA to approve
and execute a Landscape Improvement Grant Agreement between the
CRA and grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this commercial or residential?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's commercial.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that -- is 7 commercial?
MR. JACKSON: Residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was 5 commercial or residential?
MR. JACKSON: The first one was residential, the second one
was commercial, the third one was residential.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'd like to change my vote,
then, on 5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I understood
these were commercial. They're not?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't support --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want a reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Let me -- may I add the reason why they're on
the agenda? They were on the agenda and they were applied for by
the people while there was an approved program and a funded
program, and they put it in in good faith. You had not made a
Page 216
February 28, 2012
decision to stop anything yet, and they made those applications while
the applications were viable.
We staffed them up. We brought them to you last meeting. They
were continued to this meeting. This meeting you made a decision to
narrow down or neck down the amount of grants that will be available
and for what reasons. These were submitted prior to that decision.
So all I would be asking is that they applied in good faith, that
you in good faith would honor your approved and funded programs.
Now, it's your decision on what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the reason they were
continued -- and it was supported unanimously -- is depending on the
outcome of the finance committee, and that's what we have on our
agenda today. So my apologies to the -- Mr. Jackson and the CRA for
making a motion for approval on these items, what I thought were
commercial, except for the one.
MR. JACKSON: You have -- 14135 and 14B7 are residential.
14136 is commercial.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, is this work that's already been
done?
MR. JACKSON: No. No work has been done. They do not
commence any work until they receive approval from this board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what's the advantage of doing
this?
MR. JACKSON: Could you restate that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, to be able to carry this
forward, to fulfill this agreement, this contract, what would be the
advantage to the CRA? What's it going to do? Is it beautification? Is
It --
MR. JACKSON: One is beautification and one is health, safety,
welfare, a roof, and the commercial one is for a commercial business
to continue its business with a leaky roof.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this was all in the works before
Page 217
February 28, 2012
you came up with the --
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- economic --
MR. JACKSON: These applications were received in the
December /January time frame, and we staffed them up, looked at the
bids, worked with them through the Clerk of Courts' pre- auditing
office and brought them forward for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to allow some discussion
regarding this and then see if there's a motion for reconsideration. I
don't feel there's a need for it myself, but I want to give everybody an
opportunity to make sure they know what they're doing here.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we vote on this, 7?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we haven't voted on 7.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We haven't voted -- have we voted
on 6?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it was previous ones --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that you expressed concern on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six is the commercial building
improvement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This item that we're
discussing now, shouldn't we dispose of this before we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we can do that, sir; that's no
problem at all. Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, motion not to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to not approve, and
this is Item No. 7.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd second that.
Page 218
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
non - approval by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Hiller.
Now, discussion?
MR. JACKSON: Sir, in view of that -- your prior decision on
14B2, this would be an appropriate motion, in my belief, that this is a
landscape for residential. And since we were going to cut that off, it
would be -- in the pre - proposal you can deny that if you wanted to
continue that and say that that 14132 was in effect prior to making this
motion on this one.
My only concern was that the people in good faith had applied
while the programs were viable and the board had not decided to
curtail any of the grant programs prior to that time. So that's up for
your board discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I appreciate that, Mr.
Jackson.
Okay. Now, before I call the motion, I'm going to -- opportunity
for discussion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like, for instance, with this one --
because it's a landscape improvement, right, and I understand that they
would like to do that, but maybe we could just suggest to them that
they could come back in 90 days when we'll be dealing with those
things again. Would that be acceptable?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, if the
motion fails, you're going to make a subsequent motion to have this
continued for 90 days?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. If it's denied now, they could
bring it back in 90 days, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: We can.
Page 219
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you don't have to recreate
the whole thing from scratch; you've already got it in place.
MR. JACKSON: No. We would -- depending on what the
board's decisions are in 90 days, we would hold this in abeyance and
bring it back in 90 days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: If that's your direction, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's -- the direction isn't in the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion is to deny. There's
nothing about bringing it back in 90 days.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let's continue it for 90 days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we already have a motion to
deny, and you're the second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. We'll just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Item 14B gave direction. Mr.
Jackson clearly said these other programs really have no added value
to the CRA. The ones that he did recommend had great value. One
was the commercial -- Commercial Grant Impact Fee Assistance
Grant. The site improvement grant, which actually deals with 5, I
believe it was, comes from the Fifth Third -- Fifth Third loan, so it has
no effect.
These others -- let's face it. The CRA is underwater with these
loans. We better start cutting back on some of those items that have
no clear substantial benefit like a business expanding or building a
building in the CRA when you add TIF monies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me make sure I understand
what you're just saying. Like this one, for instance, the landscape,
even though it would make the house look prettier right now, it can be
Page 220
February 28, 2012
put off till another time because that would be in keeping with what
we wrote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the commercial building grant --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commercial, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- would be something acceptable
because it could mean not only the improvement of the building, but
then also jobs.
But then the one before then, this was their exterior roofing
repair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Definitely not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- now that's a -- that would be
health, safety, and welfare, I guess, on that on.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. That could be applied -- use 25,000
from the Fifth Third Bank agreement. It doesn't come out of CRA TIF.
Now, the landscape grant would be one that would -- one that --
as Commissioner Henning has pointed out -- and I think he's got valid
points -- I don't have any problem with you voting and denying this,
because all we'll do is we'll tell the applicant that the motion was
denied; in 90 days they can reapply and we can bring it back
depending on your decision at that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other
discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going back to 5. 1 want to
change my vote on that to no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We've got to deal with the
item at hand right now. We'll come back to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But I do want to change my
vote on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do that by a reconsideration.
Page 221
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not by reconsideration. I just
want to change my vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's finish this, and then we'll have
the discussion.
We're dealing with Item 7 now. We have a motion to deny.
Okay. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ave.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Okay. Now, reconsideration for what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to reconsider. I just
want to change my vote on 5 to no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Does anybody want to reconsider it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, I had concerns
about it until I went back to the item. It's the site improvement grant
that's coming out of the Fifth Third.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't see how repairing a
roof is a site improvement grant, and I can't imagine that Fifth Third
intended its $25,000 contribution to go to some roof repair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got to stop by there tonight.
I'll ask them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You should. But anyway, I'm
changing my vote to no on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let me put it this way.
We don't have a reconsideration, but the records do reflect the fact that
you don't want your vote to be -- you want your vote to be changed, so
Page 222
February 28, 2012
I think we are where we need to be on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we, Jeff?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm happy with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. Instead of 5 -0, it's 4 -1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next item.
vmlff ::�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE THE SITE ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CRA IN IMMOKALEE (OWNER) AND DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS,
INC. (CONTRACTOR) ALLOWING SAID CONTRACTOR TO
STORE ITS MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE DOWNTOWN IMMOKALEE STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. THE SITE LOCATION IS AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH 9TH STREET AND MAIN
STREET IN IMMOKALEE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14B8 was previously 16B 1. It's a recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners acting as the CRA to approve
the attached Site Access Agreement between the CRA in Immokalee
and Douglas N. Higgins, Incorporated, allowing said contractor to
store its materials and equipment in conjunction with the downtown
Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Project.
Site location, it's the southwest corner of South 9th Street and
Main Street in Immokalee. And Mr. Muckel is here to present or ask
-- or address questions.
This item was moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner
Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, thank you. This project has
Page 223
February 28, 2012
already been let, so it's already underway?
MR. MUCKEL: No, it has not started yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has the project been let to this
contractor? Has this contractor been approved?
MR. MUCKEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he has been selected by the
board as the contractor for this project?
MR. MUCKEL: At your February 14th meeting, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So my concern is to allow
this -- how long is this project going to last?
MR. MUCKEL: Approximately nine, maybe ten months,
depending on the wet season when it comes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So almost a year?
MR. MUCKEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you are basically going to
allow him to store all of his equipment downtown by Main Street?
MR. MUCKEL: He's going to be storing pipe, concrete pipe,
and precast concrete drainage structures.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, isn't there some location that
you could pick, you know, away from Main Street? I mean, I just
don't think it's really fair to the citizens of Immokalee. I mean, I'll tell
you, you know, if you told the citizens in the City of Naples that they
were going to have all their, you know, drainage pipes and stuff, you
know, parked on the corner of Main Street for a year, they wouldn't be
very happy, and I think we owe the citizens of Immokalee the same
type of courtesy.
I mean, Commissioner Coyle, would they -- would your residents
be unhappy if all the drainage equipment and materials --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, the City of Naples
bulldozed side yards at Broad Avenue and created swales and stored
pipes, huge pipes there for most of the season, and I was appalled.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
Page 224
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I know it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And rightfully so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Commissioner Coletta is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I can help you with this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't think it should be there.
I'm sure that an alternative site could be found. There's no reason to
burden the people for 12 months.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not burdening them. They already
have construction taking place down on Lake Trafford where they've
got the pipe and everything stored there. Everything's dug up. You
have to be able to break the eggs before you can scramble them, and
that's the case of it.
There is -- in order to be able to move it someplace else, you're
going to have an additional cost, first, of finding that location to be
able to put the pipes in place, then you're going to have the cost of
transporting it back and forth. It's going to be an unbelievable
expense. The -- it's just going to be one area you're occupying,
correct?
MR. MUCKEL: Right. Can I answer Commissioner Hiller's
question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, you may.
MR. MUCKEL: Okay. If you look at the site plan I have before
you, you see the bold, red rectangular box here. That outlines the
project area.
Just to the northwest there you'll see the CRA -owned land in
question. Sort of highlighted in yellow, that backwards L shape there.
That's the parcel in question.
The contractor is asking to store materials on that site. It's two
acres in total, and it's directly adjacent to the project area. And you
cannot see the southern end of that parcel from Main Street. It's very
difficult to see. There are mature trees blocking the view. So the pipe
and structures will be stored --
Page 225
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And hidden from view?
MR. MUCKEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, basically it won't affect
Main Street?
MR. MUCKEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not at all?
MR. MUCKEL: Not at all, not at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Is that the lake -- is -- okay.
The lake that this drainage project is tying into, has the land already
been acquired and the lake dug? Is that what that is in the corner?
MR. MUCKEL: No, ma'am. The lake is going to be dug in this
heavily wooded area at the intersection of South 9th and West Eustis.
So to answer your question, your question was, is there any other
area in the project that they can store materials. The question (sic) is
no. This is an extremely densely populated residential area. There is
absolutely not one square foot of area where they could drop ship their
structures and temporarily house them until they're put in the ground.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that black area is not vacant
land?
MR. MUCKEL: Where my pen tip is right now, is that the black
area?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, yeah.
MR. MUCKEL: It is. It's going to be cleared immediately.
When they're issued a notice to proceed, that's going to be cleared and
dug and be turned into a water retention pond.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Has that already been
acquired?
MR. MUCKEL: Yes, it has.
acquired years ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
That's CRA -owned land. It was
Oh, I see.
MR. MUCKEL: For that purpose, out of the same grant money.
So that's going to be a big hole in the ground full of water within, you
Page 226
February 28, 2012
know, six weeks of notice to proceed, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that Commissioner Hiller --
Henning's property?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUCKEL: For all intents and purposes, there is no vacant
land in the project area for them to store the materials.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning's got
his hand up here. I think he wants to volunteer some place to put the
pipe.
MR. MUCKEL: He could lease his space.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Hiller, you
could take a look at it this way; there's no benches in that area. At
least you'll have -- for the neighbors to sit on something while the
construction is going on.
But, yeah, I mean, if I owned that property, I would lease it. I
don't understand why the CRA is not leasing it to the contractor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. That's a very good
point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, he is benefitting from
this job. If I had property there, or I'm sure if anybody else had
property there, vacant land, they would lease it to him for a price of --
MR. MUCKEL: Well, the typical sequence of events in a
stormwater project is the contractor orders these precast concrete
structures from the prefabrication shop. They are ordered in bulk,
sometimes all of them; they're drop shipped to the site. They can
either be stored for maybe an hour, up to a year in some cases, until
they're put in the ground and become part of the system.
If we were not to let them use this land, they would have to order
them one structure at a time, and this project could take over a year.
By letting them use this space, it's going to streamline the process.
Page 227
February 28, 2012
They're going to order all their materials, put them in the site, and
they'll put them on the ground. They'll be in and out of there in nine
months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're going to do it the most
efficient way they can, most profitable. And they would -- I can't
imagine ordering one piece at a time and --
MR. MUCKEL: Well, they would get charged from the
prefabricator to store it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish? And storing them
on somebody's property in Immokalee. And that property owner
would benefit from it. You see it all over all the construction projects.
And ours, the one for Davis Boulevard, they're renting land from
Benderson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On Marco --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But this land is already owned by the
CRA. When you bid this out and you get the prices and everything,
everything's taken into consideration, I imagine, even where they're
going to be able to store the pipe. So if the land already belongs to
you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true. Steve Carnell's
not here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They don't own that land?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's not a part of the bid.
The bid is how much it's going to cost you to do the job. The bid
doesn't include how much the contractor's going to make.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, if it was your property -- if
it was Collier County Government's property and somebody was
building a hotel, would you come to the board with a lease contract if
they wanted to store property on -- vacant property on the
government?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about a public works project?
Page 228
February 28, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public works project on Marco
Island, they stored all of their equipment there on Veterans Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's good business sense.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why would you pay more money?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And the city had owned it,
and so they just stored it on city property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, we're getting down to the
point of being ridiculous.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the vote passes 3 -2 with
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller being in the
negative.
MR. OCHS: That concludes CRA business this afternoon, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just when I was warming up.
Go for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any other business?
Page 229
February 28, 2012
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Staff and commission general communications,
Item 15.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll make a motion we continue that to
the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one thing to talk about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not on the end, so you can't start.
Commissioner Hiller has to go first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. First of all, I would like to
say that George, during the break, gave me an analytical tool that he
uses for bid results, and I just want to walk up --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's George?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: George, our George. George,
George.
Let me just walk up to the podium. And I think Leo --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to use the
podium speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: State your name for the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioners, Georgia Hiller,
for the record. This is -- this is a really great tool --
MR. MITCHELL: Could you use the hand mic, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You guys are so mean to me.
Okay. This is really an excellent tool that George uses to analyze
bids. And I would like to recommend that Leo incorporate this in our
packages for all bid analyses. The only thing I would ask is that the
engineer's estimate be included.
In this case, this was Item 11 K. This was the project that Higgins
bid on for public utilities that we discussed earlier. As you can see,
Page 230
February 28, 2012
the standard deviation of 15 percent that George highlights on the
graph puts one, two, three, four projects right down the middle where,
believe it or not, the engineer estimates the cost for the project. So
basically at 680.
And then you have Higgins' project, which is at one end of the
bell curve, and you have M &S, which is Mitchell & Stark, well above
the other end of the curve.
So this is a great tool to show you that, in fact, while we had the
discussion and everyone was saying, oh, the engineers are off and
they're wrong and the estimates are just, you know, what they are and
so forth, that, in fact, is not the case, as evidenced by this.
So I'd like to see this same analysis done for the two Higgins
projects, the one that was let on the 14th and the one that was
approved this afternoon, basically taking the engineer's estimate and
applying the -- you know, this bell curve deviation analysis that
George has come up with.
And I'd like to suggest that this be, you know, included with all
our bid proposals, because it's a phenomenal tool. And thank you for
your great, great mind suggestion, contribution, George.
It's really fun being here.
All right. That's one thing. And then the other thing was that
Jeff received a letter via email from an attorney, Steven Brachi, which
discusses the Immokalee Area Master Plan and actually addresses the
role of the Immokalee CRA with respect to master plan development
and proposals and review, and basically what it concludes -- and, quite
frankly, having read the letter -- and I'll introduce it as an exhibit -- it
basically concludes that the Immokalee CRA is acting outside of its
jurisdiction in reviewing and approving the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, and I think that's very, very important to note. So I think we
need to take that under consideration going further.
The other thing that it points out, and correctly so, is that no
member of county staff is supposed to be on any county advisory
Page 231
February 28, 2012
board. And one of our staff members, a gentleman who works for
code enforcement, actually sits on the Immokalee CRA Advisory
Board, which is a violation, I believe, of our -- I'm not sure if it's a
county manager provision or if it's an ordinance or if it's a state statute.
You can -- it's referenced here as to what it's a violation of, but
it's not allowed by the county, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he a voting member on that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is he was a
voting member and is a voting member. I believe he abstained with
respect to one issue when this was brought out before, and I think it
was with respect to the Blockers but, otherwise, my understanding is
that he has, you know, consistently voted on the Immokalee CRA.
And, I mean, it's obvious where that could be viewed as a
conflict. We don't want our staff on our advisory boards. So I think
that's something that we need to address.
So we can bring that back, you know, as an agenda item for
future discussion and action, but I wanted you to be aware of this.
And I'll just introduce it on the record for anyone to read at their
leisure.
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I? I've got a comment on
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you wait till your turn?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I -- can I make a last
comment? Happy Anniversary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations. Twenty -nine
years. That is really remarkable. I really have to admire Mrs. Coyle
because, you know, I have to tell you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She has a lot of patience.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She really must. I mean, she
deserves it. God, I mean, a platinum medal.
Page 232
February 28, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But she's still the luckiest woman on
earth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you feel about that, Cheryl?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She'll be crashing through the door in
just a minute.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's my turn, but let
Commissioner Coletta go, because he had a comment on this, what
was being said, and I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate it, because,
you know, you get lost in the mix.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, sometimes I wonder why I'm
being nice to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's because you can't help it.
I'm just a lovable person.
Regarding the CRA acting on the Immokalee Master Plan and
acting as an advisory group, this was determined by the commission
some time ago when the Immokalee Master Plan group itself, which
approved the master plan that came before us had -- when they
reached that end point, they abolished it, and that was the end of it.
The CRA was the natural one to be able to pick up on it, and no
one challenged it. They've been doing it.
As far as the code enforcement officer that serves on there, that
was challenged one other time, and I can't remember the results of it
now.
But even without that person voting on there, that master plan
was approved by that CRA as it was to come to the Collier County
Commission without the inclusion of the Blocker issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, right now we have the
CRA's action being challenged. And with respect to an employee
sitting on an advisory board, I think there's either regulation or some
other type of law that prohibits that.
Page 233
February 28, 2012
So if that was challenged and nothing was done, I think we're
remiss not to do something about it. And it has nothing to do with the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, and this is just a matter of fact that, you
know, the law provides that no employee can sit on an advisory board.
Isn't that correct, Leo?
MR. OCHS: I believe you're correct, ma'am. In this case I don't
know if there's some superseding state statute for the composition of
this CRA advisory board, but we'll have to research that for you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you let us know.
MR. OCHS: -- and bring it back. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. May I now call Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait till it comes back to me
to do what I have to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have one item, and that
is at the last meeting we were -- we discussed Code Enforcement
Board and appointing people onto Code Enforcement Board. And
after the meeting was all over, I got notification from a Mr. -- actually,
he didn't call me. It was someone else that called me, and the other
person called to say there was a Mr. James Lavinski and -- who had
been serving on the Code Enforcement Board for six years. And Mr.
Lavinski had sent his application in seven days in advance -- and he
has all of the proof that he sent everything in and so forth, and he's got
all of the transcripts that had been received.
Somehow, even though he sent it in, it didn't seem to get to Ian.
Now, it just so happened that Ian had left that day for Christmas
vacation, so just possibly it got waylaid someplace.
And the gentleman is terribly disappointed. He said, you know,
he loves serving on the board. He's been there six years. He's had
great attendance, and he's been an integral part of it. And he felt that,
Page 234
February 28, 2012
you know, he had his things in on time, and he was hoping that maybe
we could revisit that. And so I'm bringing that to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it mean taking someone off the
board and replacing them with this person?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it would probably just mean re
-- you know, revisiting that but with -- you know, with all of the
applications in.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we've already -- from the last
board meeting, this was one of the committees where actually there
was a discussion and you -- we didn't follow the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recommendations of the --
MR. MITCHELL: -- the recommendations, and actually
someone else wasn't reappointed to the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gerald Lefebvre either.
MR. MITCHELL: We've already seated the two people. But
Commissioner Fiala is correct. I mean, all the members serve at the
pleasure of the board. So if you wanted to reconsider it, we'd
reconsider it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it would involve taking someone off
the board and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The new people probably off the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and replacing them with --
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. I mean, in fact, the reality would be
going -- sort of going back to before the last board meeting, so you
would be reconsidering the same individuals, but there would just be
an additional applicant who'd be added to the list.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, may I
help you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a process under our
rules and regulations, Ian -- and I'll be glad to provide that to you --
Page 235
February 28, 2012
for cases under this. There's a procedure, and it's not handled under
commissioner's communications.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? I'll get that to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was instructed to bring it up under
commissioner communications. So I'm sorry I didn't know, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoever instructed that, let me
know, and I'll provide them the rules which we are supposed to be
abiding by.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can you provide those to Ian so he
can get it straightened out?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we still haven't answered the
question, though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want the answer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't do this under
commissioner's communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she can use it as a way of getting it
on the regular agenda, if necessary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's not true. Any
reconsideration item, a commissioner that voted in the majority in this
case can send a communication to the county manager under a
specified time, and that's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I did not vote in the majority. I
voted in the minority because I didn't feel that the vote was good.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is this, okay, you had -- from
what I understand, an applicant sent his application in on time and for
whatever reason it didn't get to you, so you were never able to
consider that applicant in your deliberations. It falls outside the scope
Page 236
February 28, 2012
of what you generally do.
If there's majority interest on the board to bring back that entire
discussion, you can bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any item -- this item was on the
board's agenda, appointments to the Code Enforcement Board. Was it
or was it not?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was, but you did not have all -- you did
not have all the applications before you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're asking for a
reconsideration -- I've heard that three times now -- a reconsideration
of a previous board action; is that correct?
Yes, you're going to bring back that item with one addition, but
it's still coming back as the same item with one additional member. It
is a reconsideration under our ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we still within the period where a
reconsideration is possible?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: But Commissioner Fiala did not vote --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then I'll ask that it be
reconsidered.
MR. MITCHELL: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Did I vote in the majority?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, you did. Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Fiala voted against the appointments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So if Commissioner Coyle
makes a motion, could one of us second it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the process under our
law? No.
Page 237
February 28, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, you don't fall within all four
squares. I don't know what else to tell you. I mean, you never
considered this other applicant. It's a bit different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Technically, it's a reconsideration of the
people who were already appointed, not for this person, but
nevertheless.
All right. All in favor of a reconsideration of this item, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting, and we'll reconsider it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that everything, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, that's all for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I don't have anything except to
say that I have for a long, long time believed not only that we
shouldn't have employees on advisory committees but that we
shouldn't have commissioners on advisory committees. I believe that
the same problems occur when you have a commissioner as a voting
member of an advisory committee.
And if you -- if anybody is inclined to support an effort to do
something about that, I'd certainly be a supporter, but I just don't think
it's appropriate for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for a commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you're right on the money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- commissioner to sit on an advisory
Page 238
February 28, 2012
committee and influence the decisions that are being made by the
advisory committee to the other board members.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except the TDC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, which is statutorily
provided.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I object to it on the TDC, but it's
-- that's specified by state statute; that's why I asked the question
earlier today.
But I don't think it's even appropriate there. I think those advisory
committees should be completely free and independent of
commissioner influence when they're making recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we have anybody on
any advisory committees, do we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Productivity Committee,
the vice - chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a nonvoting -- it's a nonvoting
position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What else would there
be?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I guess you could -- no, you
wouldn't classify the CRA as an advisory committee, but we have had
that happen in the past.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am certain we have some. I am
absolutely certain that we have some commissioners who are sitting
on advisory committees that make recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners. How about in the MPO? Does anybody sit
on an advisory committee in the MPO?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We are all on the MPO.
Page 239
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm on the LCB. I'm the
chairman of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- local coordinating board for the
transportation disadvantaged.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's an example.
MR. MITCHELL: And then there's just the -- but I don't know if
this applies -- the Value Adjustment Board.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's statutory.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it is statutory.
So, anyway, I think you'll find that there are circumstances where
commissioners have or maybe continue to occupy positions on
advisory committees that are responsible for making recommendations
to the Board of County Commissioners.
But, nevertheless, I just wanted to make that statement in passing.
And, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Two things, if I may.
The -- both of them have to deal with Immokalee, of course.
I was wondering if we might be able to have our IT look into the
possibility of video conference for people far away as Immokalee to
be able to attend our meeting. I'm talking about the CRA and the --
oh, what other one there would it be?
Well, the CRA mainly, but also the Airport Authority. It might
be something that would be very easy to do, and they come in the
screen, and it would save them a tremendous amount of work hours
than having to be here locked in waiting for us to make a decision.
And I -- I think we've reached that level of capability. And I'd
just like to see it explored to see what is possible. I'm sure that IT
could probably give us the answer without too much difficulty. But
it's a real issue, because lots of times I see the members of our CRA
here or the Airport Authority, and they're just here for hours on end
Page 240
February 28, 2012
waiting for that item to come up, and it's extremely unproductive for
them to be here. Just a thought.
And the other thing has to do with -- Commissioner Henning
made reference to the petitions in Immokalee, and one was the
Blocker petition that was out there. I haven't seen that petition.
And I would assume since they came here with it for the hearing
that it became part of the public records, and I'd like to be able to see
the original. So I'm making a request to be able to see that, the
Blocker petition that was circulated around Immokalee.
That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you ever asked the
Blockers for the petition?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's public record here, so
I'm getting it from our records.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it was just a constituent. I
thought you might want to ask them for it.
The only thing I have is one of the only road projects we have in
Collier County, Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard, Astaldi is
doing that. They are all over that right -of -way. It's unbelievable the
amount of equipment actually running and their employees out there.
You can see advancements of that project in hours. It's truly amazing.
It's a different time from what we had before when we had -- I
think Norm and I had a little joke about renting out right -of -way to
some of these road project contractors in the past.
But this project is unbelievable and the amount of advancement
they're doing, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question about that
project? One of the issues about that project was the fact that Astaldi
-- if this is the same project we're talking about --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- bid zero for some sort of a rail
Page 241
February 28, 2012
or wall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Water, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, for that wall. And they
agreed that they would not -- that they had -- you know, they had
some alternative approach to doing it and it wouldn't cost us any more
and that they were going to hold to that zero. Because I remember
that was an issue that knocked Mitchell & Stark out of the ballpark.
And I'd like to know about that. What happened with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's all done, by the way. Well,
for the most part. There's only --
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
particular zero - dollar line item?
Yeah. So what happened with that
MR. FEDER: Remember -- for the record, Norman Feder,
administrator.
The state has a portion of that. We had the other that we did the
design on. In the state section they were allowed to come up with the
alternate. They did, which is on Davis. On 951 they committed,
based on their bid, to go forward, and they've done so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did they do? Did they --
what did they build that --
MR. FEDER: They put a temporary wall in there in a portion of
it. In the other they were able to build the drop -off rather than put in
the wall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they didn't build the wall?
MR. FEDER: The section of it was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we were not -- and we've
never had any change orders or work orders related --
MR. FEDER: No, we haven't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has that -- did that project come in
under budget?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it did -- well, it came in under estimate. It
hasn't come in under budget yet. It's not done yet.
Page 242
February 28, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I want to follow up on that.
I want to --
MR. FEDER: No problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- make sure that, you know, the
total cost of that project with that zero is, in fact, what we end up
paying and not any more, and hopefully less if we can.
MR. FEDER: As the commissioner said, the good news is we
had a very aggressive schedule for them. They were also trying to beat
the rainy season. But the commissioner's very correct, they are doing a
very, very good job in moving quickly out there. And right now
they're within budget and as structured, and we'll be happy to share
that with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you want to hear from
your staff communication?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not really.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have anything
for us?
MR. OCHS: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Are you going to second that,
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: You betcha.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We're out of here.
Thank you very much.
Page 243
February 28, 2012
* * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously (Commissioner Hiller absent) that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and/or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BLACK BEAR RIDGE, PHASE 1, 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 — LOCATED IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BLACK BEAR RIDGE, PHASE 2, 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 — LOCATED IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR BLACK BEAR RIDGE, PHASE 3 AND TO AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
Page 244
February 28, 2012
AGENT — LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6A4
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY BONDS TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER' S DESIGNATED
AGENT FOR GATEWAY SHOPPES AT NORTH BAY, PHASE 4,
13565 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH — THE UTILITY FACILITY IS
OWNED AND WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER
AS IT IS A PRIVATE PROJECT AND THE COUNTY HAS NO
RESPONSIBILITY
Item #I 6A5
RELEASE OF TWO LIENS IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. ROILAN PEREZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE
NO. 2007 -37, AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. 2007-
080668, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1974 46TH
STREET SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR NON -
PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
Item #I 6A6
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. RAUL
AND MARTHA REYES, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM- 2010 - 0003246, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7893 UMBERTO COURT, COLLIER
Page 245
February 28, 2012
COUNTY, FLORIDA — WAIVING $12,500 ACCRUED FINES
FOR CODE VIOLATIONS
Item #I 6A7
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
FRANK SUSI., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
CASE NO. CESD2008- 0011167, RELATING TO PROPERTY AT
606 111TH AVE. NORTH, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
WAIVING $45,700 IN FINES FOR A NON - COMPLIANCE
PERIOD OF 914 DAYS
Item #I 6A8
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR CRESTVIEW PARK APARTMENTS
PHASE I DUE TO THE IMPACT FEES BEING PAID IN FULL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MULTI - FAMILY RENTAL IMPACT
FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, AS SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-
401(E) AND 74- 401(G) (5) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES — THE IMPACT FEES WERE
PAID IN FULL ON JANUARY 31, 2012
Item #I 6A9
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #12 -5826 TO
BONNESS, INC., FOR SAINT ANDREWS BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL
(U.S. 41) (PROJECT NO. 60016) IN THE AMOUNT OF $475590.21
— FOR CONSTRUCTING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS
SIDEWALKS, CURBING, STRIPING AND PEDESTRIAN
Page 246
February 28, 2012
SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT SAINT ANDREWS
BOULEVARD
Item #16A10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO CONTRACT #10 -5206, WITH
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., FOR DESIGN SERVICES
FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TRANSFER STATION, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $20001 TO ALLOW REVISION OF PLANS TO
ACCOMMODATE CHANGES BASED ON BOARD DIRECTION
TO SPLIT THE PROJECT INTO A BASE AND ALTERNATE,
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE
CHANGE ORDER — FOR THE 1.2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND
WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
CAMPUS FOR THE INTERMODAL TRANSIT PASSENGER
TRANSFER FACILITY
Item # 16A 11
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 14, 2012 BCC
MEETING. RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTHREX
COMMERCE PARK, THAT HAS BEEN REVISED FROM THE
PLAT APPROVED BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ON DECEMBER 13, 2011, APPROVING THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al2
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
Page 247
February 28, 2012
COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE
OF A CONCRETE WALL BETWEEN WIDENED OIL WELL
ROAD AND THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CORKSCREW MIDDLE SCHOOL
PROPERTY. (FISCAL IMPACT: $15,000) (PROJECT NO. 60044)
— TO PROTECT SHERIFF'S OFFICE PERSONAL, STUDENTS
AT THE SCHOOL AND VISITORS AT THE SUBSTATION
Item # 16A 13 Moved to Item # 11 J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A14
EXTENDING CONTRACT #07 -4105 WITH WHITE & SMITH,
LLC, PLANNING AND LAW GROUP, UNDER SAME TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, FOR A
PERIOD OF NINE (9) MONTHS, ENDING ON DECEMBER 11,
2012 (FISCAL IMPACT: TIME EXTENSION ONLY) — HELPING
STAFF WITH LDC RELATED AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE
COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2012 -29: A RESOLUTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) NO. 1 THAT
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT $25,342
FROM FY 2011/12 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 5311 AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT
ACT (ARRA) FUNDING
Item #16A16
MOM
February 28, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012 -30: RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -105 CORRECTING
SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF THOSE
PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE US -41 DITCH SEGMENT
OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 5110 1) (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $1,787,000)
Item # 16B 1 — Moved to Item # 14B 8 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C1
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #10 -5599 WITH STANTEC
CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$427,9669 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION
SERVICES, FOR THE SECOND STAGE OF PHASE IV OF THE
SOUTH RO WELLFIELD RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
REPAIR (PROJECT #70030) — PROVIDING RELIABLE RAW
WATER SUPPLY AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Item #16C2
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY GRANT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3505000 FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE NORTH
COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE
OSMOSIS TREATMENT UNITS REPLACEMENT AND
INSTALLATION OF INTER -STAGE BOOSTER PUMP,
Page 249
February 28, 2012
PROJECT #71057, AND FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY WELL (PROJECT #74030) — PROVIDING PARTIAL
FUNDING FOR THE REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT UNITS
REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION OF INTER -STAGE
BOOSTER PUMP AND PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY WELL
Item #16C3 — Moved to Item #11K (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C4
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE AN
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -18, THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE, TO
CONFORM WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S MODEL PRETREATMENT
ORDINANCE AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION — FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AND AN ASSOCIATED DOMESTIC
TRANSMISSION AND CONVEYANCE SEWER COLLECTION
SYSTEM
Item # 16D 1
RELEASE OF LIEN AND PROVIDE AN OVERPAYMENT
REFUND FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM SINCE
REPAYMENT IN FULL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COLLIER
COUNTY — FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 703 N. 18TH
STREET. IMMOKALEE
Page 250
February 28, 2012
Item # 16D2
A TIME EXTENSION TO DECEMBER 21, 2012 AMENDING
FOUR (4) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS UNDER DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) GRANT AGREEMENT # 10DB-
D4- 09- 21- 01 -K09 — FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS:
GOODLETTE ARMS (HURRICANE HARDENING),
IMMOKALEE AREA CRA (DOWNTOWN IMMOKALEE
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS), BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA (RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS) AND COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS (SHELTER ENHANCEMENTS)
Item #16D3
A TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENT THROUGH JULY 31, 2012
TO AN EXISTING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID
LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. (DLC) TO
ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF A CRISIS STABILIZATION
UNIT ON DLC'S MAIN CAMPUS — DUE TO DELAYS WITH
PERMITTING AND PROCUREMENT
Item #16D4
A TIME EXTENSION THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 AND
VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES TO THE 2010 HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME)
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA NON - PROFIT
SERVICES, INC. (FNPS) TO COMPLETE PURCHASE AND
RENOVATION OF TWO HOMES IN IMMOKALEE — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 251
February 28, 2012
Item #16D5
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
INC., DBA SENIORS CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
STANDARD CONTRACT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT,
AND APPROVED ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR
THE FYI 2 OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III PROGRAM IN
THE AMOUNT OF $614,964 AND LOCAL MATCH FUNDING
OF $68,329 — THE 3RD YEAR OF A THREE YEAR PROGRAM
THAT PROVIDES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY'S
FRAIL AND ELDERLY CITIZENS
Item # 16D6 — Moved to Item # 11 H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16D7 — Moved to Item # 11 I (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D8
LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT REQUIRED GRANT FORMS
FOR THE LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACCESS
GRANT "COLLIER CONNECTS ", IN THE GRANT FUNDED
AMOUNT OF $271164 — FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR A
MOBILE TECHNOLOGY LAB THAT WILL PROVIDE
COMPUTER TRAINING SKILLS TO JOB SEEKERS
Item #I 6D9
EXECUTE A FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(FBIP) SITE DEDICATION INSTRUMENT FOR THE BOAT
RAMP AREA AT BAYVIEW PARK, AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $27.50 — A DEDICATION FOR A MINIMUM OF
TWENTY YEARS
Page 252
February 28, 2012
Item #16E1
SALE OF COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY ON
MARCH 24, 2012 — FOR ITEMS THAT NO LONGER HAVE A
USEFUL BUSINESS PURPOSE
Item #I 6E2
AMENDMENT #2 TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS, INC. TO PROVIDE FOLLOW UP LIPID AND
A1C TESTING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE WELLNESS
BASED INCENTIVES PROGRAM IN AN ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $105410 — FOR ILLNESS PREVENTION AND TO
MANAGE CHRONIC DISEASES BASED ON QUALIFIERS
COMPLETED BY PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEES
Item # 16E3
CONTRACT ISSUED UNDER INVITATION TO BID #10 -5569
FOR BOTTLED DRINKING WATER TO NESTLE WATERS
NORTH AMERICA (APPROXIMATE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE,
LESS THAN $50,000) — FOR VARIOUS COUNTY OFFICES
Item #I 6E4
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12 -5846, "CONTRACT
LABORERS," TO BALANCE PROFESSIONAL, AS PRIMARY,
AND ABACUS CORPORATION, AS SECONDARY, FOR
TEMPORARY LABOR SERVICES IN THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $650,000, AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH THOSE
VENDORS EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2012, AND TO TERMINATE
Page 253
February 28, 2012
AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH BALANCE PROFESSIONAL
AND MDT PERSONNEL, LLC (# 09 -5215) EFFECTIVE
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 — FOR VARIOUS TASKS AND PROJECTS
IN COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Item #16E5
AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN
ENGINEERING DESIGN CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4193,500 TO H2 ENGINEERING, INC., FOR RFP #12 -5809 —
ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR RENOVATION /REPLACEMENT
OF HVAC SYSTEMS IN THE OLDEST SECTION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES JAIL CENTER, PROJECT NO.
53172 — THE 28 YEAR OLD SYSTEM HAS REACHED ITS END
OF USEFUL LIFE OF SERVICE AND IS NO LONGER
COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT CODES AND STANDARDS
AND IS NO LONGER MAINTAINABLE
Item #16E6
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #10 -5486- HOMELESS
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, WITH DATA
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, TO CLARIFY THE TERM OF
THE CONTRACT AND TO CHANGE THE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION VENUE TO COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — A
CLAUSE IN EXHIBIT "A" IS BEING REMOVED TO CORRECT
A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS
Item #16171
STAFF TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION THAT AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 2009 -231
Page 254
February 28, 2012
"REGULATION OF OUTDOOR BURNING AND INCENDIARY
DEVICES DURING DROUGHT CONDITIONS ORDINANCE," IN
ORDER TO ALLOW THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DECLARE A BURNING BAN
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD IN ABSENTIA AND ALSO
CLARIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE —
CHANGES INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
DEFINITIONS FOR OPEN BURNING, TRASH BURNING,
OUTDOOR COOKING AND FIREWORKS SUCH AS
SPARKLERS AND OTHER INCENDIARY DEVICES
Item #16172
RESOLUTION 2012 -31: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16G 1
RESOLUTION 2012 -32: THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVES THE
ATTACHED RESOLUTION REPLACING AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -05 (2012 RATES AND CHARGES FOR
THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT) IN
ORDER TO REVISE THE 2012 PARKING FEE EXEMPTIONS
FOR EVERGLADES AIRPARK
Item #16G2
Page 255
February 28, 2012
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH
TAXIWAY AT EVERGLADES AIRPAW AND ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE DESIGN AND
BIDDING REQUIRED FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION —
MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE FAA BY JUNE, 2012
Item #16111
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO POLICE
FOUNDATION LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 17, 2012. THE
SUM OF $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB, 250
SOUTH BEACH DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND
Item # 16142
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND WET PAINT
DINNER ON FEBRUARY 9, 2012. THE SUM OF $35 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT THE MARCO ISLAND CENTER FOR THE ARTS
1010 WINTERBERRY DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND
Item # 16143
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, SHE WILL ATTEND THE HONOR THE FREE PRESS
Page 256
February 28, 2012
DAY LUNCHEON ON MARCH 14, 2012. $30 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD
AT THE HILTON HOTEL, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES
Item #161-14
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, SHE WILL ATTEND THE ZOOBILEE 2012 ON
MARCH 10, 2012. THE SUM OF $140 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
CARIBBEAN GARDENS, 1590 GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD,
NAPLES
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, HE ATTENDED THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE SOUTHWEST
COUNCIL AT THE SWFL COUNCIL CONFERENCE CENTER,
FT MYERS, FL FEBRUARY 7, 2012. $10 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
OSCAR M. CORBIN, JR. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
2200 SECOND STREET, FORT MYERS, FL
Item #I 6H6
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL
FOR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING EXPENDITURE
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; PAYMENT FOR A
BOUQUET OF FLOWERS TO HONOR A PROCLAMATION
Page 257
February 28, 2012
RECIPIENT — GIVEN TO MYRA JANCO DANIELS IN
RECOGNITION OF HER YEARS OF SERVICE
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED — NONE TURNED INTO BMR DEPT.
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 28, 2012
THROUGH FEBRUARY 3, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 4, 2012
THROUGH FEBRUARY 10, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 7A
RESOLUTION 2012 -33: PETITION PL- 2011 -2649 PROPOSED
LAND USE FOR A DENTAL OFFICE AS A PERMITTED USE IN
THE BALDRIDGE PUD (ORDINANCE NUMBER: 02 -55
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2012 -10: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2009 -01,
AS AMENDED WHICH CREATED THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD IN ORDER
TO REVISE THE COMPOSITION OF THE ADVISORY BOARD
Page 258
February 28, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:48 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
� W.
FRED COYLE, C
These minutes approved by the Board on 0A 2 20 I z ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 259