BCC Minutes 05/08/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 8, 2012
May 8, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
May 8, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller (Telephonically)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel — Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
May 8, 2012
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice -Chair
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -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.
May 8, 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. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. April 10, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
C. April 26, 2012 — BCC /EMS -Fire Services Workshop
May 8, 2012
Page 2
D. April 27, 2012 — BCC /Joint Workshop with the City of Naples and Big
Cypress Basin
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 6 -12, 2012 as Public Service Recognition
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Commissioner Fred Coyle,
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners; Jennifer Edwards, Collier
County Supervisor of Elections; Larry Ray, Collier County Tax Collector;
Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriff, Abe Skinner, Collier County
Property Appraiser; and Dwight Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Collier County. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Proclamation designating May 5 -13, 2012 as Tourism Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Jack Wert, Collier County Tourism Director.
Sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
C. Proclamation designating May 13 -19, 2012 as Salvation Army Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Captain Pierre Smith, Area Coordinator;
Mrs. Captain Louna Smith and Karole Davis, Assistant Director of
Development /Community Relations. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
D. Proclamation designating May 20 -26, 2012 as Water Reuse Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Max Guerra, Senior Engineer, Big Cypress
Basin. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
E. Proclamation designating May, 2012 as Bike Month in Collier County.
To be accepted by Michelle Avola, Executive Director, Naples Pathways
Coalition, Inc. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for May, 2012 to
Florida Weekly. Accepting the award is Shelley Lund, Publisher.
B. Recommendation to recognize Paul Nargi, Building Inspector, Building
Review and Permitting Department, Employee of the Month for April, 2012.
May 8, 2012
Page 3
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
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
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #11 A from
the April 10, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to approve the
Conceptual Plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot,
Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches along with
FY2012/13 Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan and
make a finding that these items promote tourism.
B. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #11B from
the April 10, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to approve the
short list of firms for contract negotiations for RFP #11 -5772 "Beach
Renourishment Engineering Services ".
C. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14A2
from the April 10, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Response to the Collier
County Clerk of Circuit Court's Internal Audit of the Marco Island
Executive Airport Parallel Taxiway and Apron Expansion Construction
Project and request approval of staff clarification issued by the Zoning
Manager and Planning Manager finding the Airport in compliance.
D. Discussion regarding Productivity Committee's proposed 2012 work plan.
E. Appointment of member to the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU.
F. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
G. Appointment of member to the Coastal Advisory Board.
May 8, 2012
Page 4
H. Recommendation to waive the daily charges for the lane rental fee for East
Radio Road MSTU. (Commissioner Henning)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #12 -5850, Mitigation Credits
to multiple vendors. (estimated annual expenses: $1 million) (Jay Ahmad,
Transportation Engineering /Growth Management Division Director)
B. Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Tourist Development
Council (Advisory Board) Ordinance No. 92 -18, as amended, to more
specifically conform to the statutory language in Section 125.0104(4)(e),
Fla. Stat., to include the TDC recommendation to make the language more
stringent with "experience," and to authorize staff to advertise the Ordinance
and return to the Board for adoption. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
a Resolution declaring a public purpose for the receipt and acceptance
of a $65,000 donation from CDC Land Investments, Inc. to the
Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for
the streetscape design and roadway construction costs of Thomasson
Drive and Hamilton Avenue. (MSTU Fiscal Impact: None)
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve an Extension and Second Amendment to the Lease
Agreement for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA to continue
leasing its current office space for a term of (24) twenty -four months,
May 8, 2012
Page 5
and authorize the Chairman to sign the Lease Agreement. (Fiscal
Impact: $15,576 /year)
3) Recommendation to approve a corrected employment agreement
between the CRA and David L. Jackson, Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA Executive Director, to incorporate a previously CRA Board
approved 4 -year term extension of the Executive Director's
employment and authorize the CRA Chairman to sign.
4) Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to
permit a 4 -week extension for submission of a Growth Management
Plan Amendment application affecting the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and other associated provisions of
the Future Land Use Element to the upcoming 2012 Collier County
Growth Management Plan amendment cycle.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the release of a $404,400 lien for
payment of $1,144.36, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board
of County Commissioners vs. Rolando Salazar, Code Enforcement
Board Case Number 2005 -25, relating to property located at 120
Hancock Street, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida.
2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway
and drainage improvements for the final plat of Sterling Oaks —
Phase 2B with roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
May 8, 2012
Page 6
3) 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 Lipari - Ponziane, Tract FD -3
Replat. This plat is a re- subdivision of lands within the Treviso Bay/
Wentworth Estates PUD.
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment extending an existing
Maintenance Agreement (No. 412918- 1 -72 -01 Supplemental
Agreement #2) between the State of Florida, Department of
Transportation and Collier County and approve a budget
amendment recognizing revenue in the amount of $446,900.50.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,
all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an extension for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Manchester Square subdivision pursuant to
Section 10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
6) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. l to funding Agreement
#S0539 with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
the Northern Golden Gate Estates Flow -way Restoration Plan, Collier
County Project No. 33134, extending the agreement completion date
from November 9, 2012 to January 15, 2013.
7) Recommendation to advertise and bring back for future consideration
an amendment to the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, to eliminate outdated provisions in Section 74 -205,
Developer Contribution Credit, related to time limitations for credit
reimbursements and requirements for forfeiture of credits.
8) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract #11 -5753,
Electronic Fare boxes for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) Program, to correct technical references
in Exhibit A, Scope of Services.
May 8, 2012
Page 7
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (3234 Cottage Grove Avenue — CRA Fiscal Impact: None)
2) 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. (3700 Bayshore Drive, $22,750)
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency Board
to provide after the fact approval for the submittal of a Community
Development Block Grant application to Housing, Human and
Veteran's Services Department for $701,300 in funding for the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Fire Suppression Infrastructure
System Upgrade Project.
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) to modify an existing Commercial Building Improvement
Grant Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant, by
approving a time extension and increasing the grant award in the
amount of $9,326.50. (2595 Tamiami Trail East, Revised Fiscal
Impact: $12,929.50)
5) Recommendation to provide "after- the - fact" approval of the
submission of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Application to Collier County Housing and Human Service's
Department seeking grant funding in the amount of $352,750 to
provide supplemental funds toward the construction of the First
Street Plaza in Immokalee.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Contract #11 -5794 to B.Q. Concrete,
LLC., Bradanna Inc. and Mitchell and Stark Construction Co. in the
estimated amount of $600,000 annually for construction of
May 8, 2012
Page 8
hammerheads and designated driveways in Collier County to provide
safe and proper turn- around areas on public roads.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to the State Revolving
Fund Loan Agreement through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for the Tamiami Wells 34 and 37 and
Pipeline Replacement, Project Number 701582, reducing the loan
amount by $368,002.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to Waive Formal Competition and Approve Hill's
Pet Nutrition, Inc. ( "Hill's ") as the supplier of pet food products and
pet nutrition educational services to the Collier County Domestic
Animal Services (DAS) shelters with the exception of purchasing
food from other manufacturers /vendors for other species housed at the
shelters and/or specialty food for felines and canines with special
dietary needs and authorize the Purchasing /GS Director to sign the
agreement.
2) Recommendation to approve (1) Release of Lien for the Disaster
Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation Program since no
grant funds were awarded and no work was performed.
3) Recommendation to approve (1) Modification to Lien Agreement for
the Disaster Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation Program
to reflect the true grant amount awarded.
4) Recommendation to approve one (1) Release of Lien in the amount of
$4,736.34 for an Impact Fee Deferral Agreement that has been repaid
in full.
5) Recommendation to approve one (1) Satisfaction of Mortgage in the
amount of $2,500 for a loan issued under the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP) that has been repaid in full.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
grant agreement accepting a Continuum of Care (CoQ grant award in
the amount of $104,645 from the U.S. Department of Housing and
May 8, 2012
Page 9
Urban Development (HUD) for the support of the Homelessness
Management Information System (HMIS), and approve the associated
budget amendment to recognize funding associated with the award.
7) Recommendation to approve changes in the project scope of an
existing subrecipient agreement with Big Cypress Housing
Corporation in order to utilize and expend all of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for Energy
Efficiency Improvements at the Main Street Village and Eden
Gardens apartments in Immokalee, Florida.
8) Recommendation to authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finalizing an
agreement between HUD and Collier County to accept a reduction
in HOME funding to repay HOME funds used in support of HOME
Activity # 195. (Cirrus Pointe)
9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment allocating
$203,263 of State Aid to Libraries Grant funds awarded to Collier
County's Public Libraries for operational support and the purchase of
books and materials.
10) Recommendation to approve a substantial amendment to the Collier
County 2011 -12 Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Action Plan (AP) to allow an application submission to HUD
for Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding; and to authorize the
Chairman to sign the necessary certifications and documents for
submission to HUD no later than May 15, 2012.
11) Recommendation to approve Parks and Recreation Department's
participation in the Immokalee Out -Of- School Time Initiative
(IOSTP); authorize the Chairman to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Southwest Florida Workforce
Development Board, Inc.; and approve an associated budget
amendment. Fiscal Impact: $30,375.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
May 8, 2012
Page 10
1) Recommendation to approve the River's Road Preserve Interim
Management Plan under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
2) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution #2004 -15 for the
second quarter of FYI 2.
3) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #11- 5790R,
Safety, Security and Access Infrastructure Programs and Equipment
to Commercial Electrical Systems Company on an as- needed basis
effective June 1, 2012, and terminate Contract #07 -4148, Security
Services and Equipment with Johnson Controls Inc. on May 31, 2012.
4) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
5) Recommendation to reject proposals received as a result of Letter of
Intent (LOI) #10 -5562 E- Payables and to work in coordination with
the Clerk of Courts who will solicit proposals to expand opportunities
for electronic payments and electronic payment systems to include
"Procure to Pay" programs such as E- Payables as well as other
programs designed to increase efficiency and reduce paper processing.
6) Recommendation to ratify County Purchase Orders #4500124638 and
# 4500127444 in the total amount of $192,215 and approve payment
of invoices to Miller Pipeline Corporation under a contract
competitively procured by the City of Boca Raton for work performed
on North Naples sewer laterals, Project #70043.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and St. Matthews House, Inc. in support of
Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
May 8, 2012
Page 11
2) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and American National Red Cross in support
of Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
3) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church
in support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and
manmade hazards emergency response.
4) Recommendation to recognize an insurance refund and approve the
necessary budget amendment for the Ochopee Fire Control District in
the amount of $2,665.28 for replacing a damaged portable radio.
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
6) Recommendation to authorize payment of the final invoice to MDT
Personnel, LLC for temporary labor.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve a
Sub -Lease Agreement and Rider with Three Mayhoods, LLC.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval to attend a function
serving as a Valid Public Purpose. She will attend the Leadership
Marco Program from July 25, 2012 through January 13, 2013. The
sum of $500 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He attended the Greater Naples Chamber Wake Up event at Naples
Hilton, Naples, FL on March 14, 2012. $20 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
May 8, 2012
Page 12
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He attended the RSVP Annual Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon at
the Naples Airport, Naples, FL on March 20, 2012. $15 to be paid
from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He attended the Know Your County Government Luncheon at East
Naples United Methodist Church, Naples, FL on March 27, 2012. $5
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He attended Immokalee's Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting
at the Roma Havana Restaurant in Immokalee, FL on April 4, 2012.
$10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Wake Up Naples
event at the Hilton Hotel, Naples, FL on April 11, 2012. $20 to be
paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He will attend the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Annual
Meeting on May 18, 2012 at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL.
$80 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
April 7, 2012 through April 13, 2012 and submission into the
official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
May 8, 2012
Page 13
April 14, 2012 through April 20, 2012 and submission into the
official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance No. 86 -78, as amended, that
created the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance No. 73 -17 related to
temporary permits.
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. RZ- PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. --
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, Collier County's
Land Development Code which established comprehensive zoning
regulations for unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of herein described real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning
district for a project known as SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of
Tamiami Trail East, Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
May 8, 2012
Page 14
County, FL, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date.
B. This item has been continued from the April 24, 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 Petition VAC -
PL20120000308, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
Public interest in two Conservation Easements and to replace with two
alternate Conservation Easements located in the same parcel of land on an
interim basis, originally recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, located in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A ".
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
May 8, 2012
Page 15
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please stand for
the invocation by Pastor Michael Bannon, Crossroads Community
Church of Naples.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
PASTOR MICHAEL BANNON OF CROSSROADS COMMUNITY
CHURCH OF NAPLES
PASTOR BANNON: Thank you.
Lord God, we acknowledge that you're here among us and we
thank you for blessing us with this day. Thank you in your wisdom
for ordaining governance over us. We need it, and we thank you for
these servants who have stepped up. We rejoice that you have given
them to us as your servants for our good.
So Father, I pray that you would bless this -- our County
Commissioners with wisdom and great discernment. I pray for those
who call Collier County home, that you would make us good citizens
who are working together to accomplish your purposes. So Father, be
the Lord of this meeting we pray. And glorify yourself greatly.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Please remain standing for
the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, would you like to go over the changes to the
agenda for us this morning?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Before we do
that, I believe Commissioner Hiller is joining us by telephone --
Page 2
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- and the Board will need to make a motion that
she can join the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, are you there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet. Well, we can have the motion
anyway.
Is there a motion to approve Commissioner Hiller's participation
by telephone?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Coletta for
approval, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It has been approved. So whenever
Commissioner Hiller is on line, just let us know, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Sir, these are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of
Page 3
May 8, 2012
County Commissioners' meeting of May 8th, 2012.
First proposed change is to move Item 16.A.6 from your consent
agenda to become Item 11.1) on the regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to extend a funding agreement between the Board
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. That move
is being requested by the staff.
Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.A.7 to the May
22nd, 2012 BCC meeting. It's a proposed amendment to your
consolidated impact fee ordinance. The staff is requesting that move
to work out some final language with the County Attorney's Office on
that amendment.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.6 from your
consent agenda to become Item I LC on your regular agenda. It's a
recommendation for the Board to ratify a series of purchase orders
regarding work performed on some gravity sewer lines in North
Naples.
Next proposed change is to move Item 17.A from your summary
agenda to become Item 9.A. It's a proposed rezone from property
from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district.
Commissioners, I will also note that after the petitioner was
advised yesterday afternoon that the move was being requested by
Commissioner Fiala to the regular agenda, the petitioner had asked
that the item be continued to the May 22nd, 2012 BCC meeting. And
that of course is at the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, on the move from 16.E.6 to I LC that I
mentioned just a moment ago, I need to mention that that was
requested separately by both Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Fiala.
Two agenda -- excuse me, one agenda note, Commissioners. It
was Item 16.13.4 on your CRA consent agenda. There was a
typographical error. You see it on your change sheet. The company is
identified incorrectly as STONS and it should be STRONS,
Page 4
May 8, 2012
Incorporated. And that change was identified by Commissioner Fiala.
Finally, there's three time certain items this morning,
Commissioners. The first, Item 4.E, is a proclamation that will be
heard at 11:30 a.m. And that was requested by Commissioner Hiller.
And Items 10.A and 10.B will be heard at 9:30 a.m. and 10.B
immediately following 10.A.
That's all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, question by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Just one note, sir.
16.A.6 was originally removed at my request. I made that to Nick
Casalanguida yesterday and he said he would take care of it. But I'm
glad to see it on there. But I had concerns.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Coyle had a question about that as
well, sir, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All four of us.
that.
MR. OCHS: -- we moved it.
Yes, all the Commissioners did, so you all get credit for moving
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
So much for accurate reporting.
Okay, are you finished?
Do you have more?
MR. OCHS: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just a cleanup matter.
With respect to Commissioner Hiller's telephonic appearance, the
Board needs to make a finding that her absence is due to extraordinary
circumstances. This would avoid any potential inquiry into it later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala
May 8, 2012
to clarify that the motion to permit Commissioner Hiller to participate
by telephone is due to extraordinary circumstances.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
It's approved unanimously.
MR. KLATZKO W : Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll go now to Commissioner Fiala for
any further changes to the agenda and ex parte disclosure for the
consent and summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
First of all, with ex parte, on the consent agenda I have no
disclosures. On the summary agenda, which would be 17.A, that is
now being pulled and asked to be continued to the May 22nd meeting,
so I guess there's nothing then to declare at this time on that particular
item.
Also, I wanted to mention two things: Number one, just to
clarify item number 16.H.1, which was my request for -- actually,
they're for classes with the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce,
they're called Leadership Marco. And it's not one event, the agenda
said it was to attend an event. Well, it's actually a series of classes
under Leadership Marco for citizens to -- all citizens to -- and they're
invited, by the way, to see the inner workings of the Marco
government for a better understanding of how the City of Marco is
run. I felt honored that they invited me to join that, and so that's what
Mw
May 8, 2012
that allocation is for.
The second thing is I wanted to ask if we could reconsider, and I
don't know if this is the time to do that or not, reconsider the variance
that we voted on the last time for the Wahl, W -A -H -L boat lift
variance. I've had a lot of requests from the -- from people on Isles of
Capri saying that they don't have all the facts and they asked for a
further study on it. And so I'm asking if the Board would want to
reconsider that variance. It's up to you guys.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a small suggestion,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A little warning ahead of time
would have been great, you know, just to be able to think about it. I
don't have a problem myself, but could we bring it back under
comments? Does this have to come back at the next meeting -- I just --
so I got a minute to go back and check my notes on that? Would that
raise a problem?
Right now I really don't see a problem with reconsidering it, to be
honest with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry I didn't give you any
back -up but, you know, this all really came -- Leo -- I guess I called
Leo at 8:30 this morning. I've been getting calls during the evening,
been trying to call other people and reach them to get comments to --
but so many out of town right now. But the consensus that I've
received so far was that they asked that it just be reconsidered.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under those circumstances, I
wouldn't have a problem reconsidering it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this the right time to do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it now, you can do it later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's do it now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
Page 7
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Just two things, Commissioner Fiala. Do you want to continue
17.A or do you want to hear it today? You're pulling it from the
regular agenda. The applicant wants to continue it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's his item, so as far as I'm
concerned, if he wants to, continue it. It left so many questions in my
mind, and so if he wants to start to explain those things, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you for that
clarification.
The next thing is, our ordinance is clear on reconsideration items;
a memo is supposed to be sent to the County Manager. Are we
changing the ordinance --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, land use is not quite as clear.
Commissioner Fiala could send Leo an e -mail now and then we can
bring it back later. We could do it that way as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm very supportive of
Commissioner Fiala. I supported you because it was in your district,
and I will support you on the reconsideration once we go through the
process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll -- during my break I'll run
out and send the County Manager an e -mail requesting it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have his e -mail address?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir, she certainly does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, we'll take care of that.
I have no additional changes to the agenda, and I have no ex
parte disclosure.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
With moval (sic) of 17.A to the regular agenda, I have no
disclosures and I have no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes, further
changes to today's agenda, and no ex parte communication.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think Commissioner Hiller's
on line now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good morning. And thank you,
Commissioners, for your understanding.
I have no changes to the agenda and I have no ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much,
Commissioner Hiller.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I do have to ask to move
one more item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. We
have a minor clarification but we need to get it on the record. That
would be 16.D.7. It will become 11.E on your agenda this morning. I
apologize for that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Now can we approve the request for continuance of item number
17.A, which has become item number 9.A in the same motion with
approval of the agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we don't need separate motions,
all right.
Very well, I'll accept a motion to approve the agenda as modified
to include approval of continuance of Item 17.A, which was moved to
Item 9.A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- made by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Page 10
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 8, 2012
Move Item 16A6 to Item 11D: Recommendation to approve Amendment Number 1 to funding
Agreement No. 50539 with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Northern Golden
Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Plan, Collier County Project No. 33134, extending the agreement
completion date from November 9, 2012 to January 15, 2013. (Staffs request)
Continue Item 16A7 to the May 22, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to advertise and bring back for
future consideration an amendment to the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, which is
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, to eliminate outdated provisions in Section
74 -205, Developer Contribution Credit, related to time limitations for credit reimbursements and
requirements for forfeiture of credits. (Staffs request)
Move Item 16E6 to Item IIC: Recommendation to ratify County Purchase Orders 4500124638 and
4500127444 in the total amount of $192,215 and approve the payment of invoices to Miller Pipeline
Corporation under a contract competitively procured by the City of Boca Raton for work performed on
North Naples sewer laterals project 70043. (Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala's separate
requests)
Move Item 17A to Item 9A: 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. RZ-
PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the
herein described real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district for the project known as
SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of Tamiami Trail East in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Commissioner
Fiala's request)
*Petitioner, after being advised of the move, has requested a continuance of this item to the May 22, 2012 BCC
Meeting.
Note:
Item 16134 Recommendations portion of Executive Summary should read: That the CRA Board approves
and authorizes the CRA Chairman to modify and execute the Commercial Building Improvement Grant
Agreement between the CRA and Ronald Fowle, Sr. owner /senior partner of STONS, STRONS Inc. (2595
Tamiami Trail East) by approving a 6 -month time extension until July 10, 2013 and increase the grant award
in the amount of $9,326.50 for a new grant award of $12,929.50. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 4E to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
Item 10A to be heard at 9:30 a.m., immediately followed by Item 10B
5/24/2012 11:53 AM
May 8, 2012
Item #213, #2C and #21)
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 10, 2012 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING;
APRIL 26, 2012 — BCC/EMS -FIRE SERVICES WORKSHOP AND
APRIL 27, 2012 - BCC /JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND BIG CYPRESS BASIN — APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that brings us to approval of
minutes for the April 10th, 2012 BCC regular meeting, April 26th,
2012 BCC EMS fire services workshop, and April the 27th, 2012
BCC joint workshop with the City of Naples and Big Cypress Basin.
Are there any changes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approval unchanged
by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations. County Manager?
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ITEMS
#4A THRU #41) — ADOPTED
Page 11
May 8, 2012
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 6 -125 2012 AS PUBLIC
SERVICE RECOGNITION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; JENNIFER
EDWARDS, COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS;
LARRY RAY, COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; KEVIN
RAMBOSK, COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF; ABE SKINNER,
COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; AND DWIGHT
BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLIER
COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we're pleased this morning under
proclamation 4.A to designate May 6th through May 12th, 2012 as
Public Service Recognition Week in Collier County. To be accepted
by Commissioner Fred Coyle, Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners, Jennifer Edwards, Collier County Supervisor of
Elections, Larry Ray, Collier County Tax Collector, Kevin Rambosk,
Collier County Sheriff, Abe Skinner, Collier County Property
Appraiser, and Ms. Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director for the Clerk of
the Circuit Courts of Collier County representing Clerk Dwight Brock.
And this item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners. If you'd all please --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've already been presented the --
MR. OCHS: Well, we'll bring it up --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- award by Ian Mitchell --
MR. OCHS: If you'd all please step forward and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- it can't get much better than that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Come on forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Page 12
May 8, 2012
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5 -135 2012 AS
TOURISM WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JACK
WERT COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM DIRECTOR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Item 4.13 is a proclamation designating May 5
through the 13th, 2012 as Tourism Week in Collier County. To be
accepted by Jack Wert, Collier County Tourism Director. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
Jack?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By the way, Commissioner Hiller's light
is on. Is that something --
MR. MITCHELL: That was to alert you that Commissioner
Hiller was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Should I turn it off now?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the Board for
this recognition of tourism as our largest private sector industry in
Collier County. Some 30,600 people are employed in this industry.
It's certainly a big part of our economic story throughout Collier
County. So again, thank you so much for this recognition. And we
will present this at our annual tourism awards luncheon this Thursday
at the Marriott Hotel at noon. So thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 13-1% 2012 AS
SALVATION ARMY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
Page 13
May 8, 2012
BY CAPTAIN PIERRE SMITH, AREA COORDINATOR; MRS.
CAPTAIN LOUNA SMITH AND KAROLE DAVIS, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT /COMMUNITY RELATIONS —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating May 13th
through the 19th, 2012 as Salvation Army Week in Collier County.
To be accepted by Captain Pierre Smith. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITH: I just want to say thank you to all of you. And
you can count on the Salvation Army.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20 -26, 2012 AS WATER
REUSE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MAX
GUERRA, SENIOR ENGINEER, BIG CYPRESS BASIN —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.1) is a proclamation designating May 20th
through the 26th, 2012 as Water Reuse Week in Collier County. To
be accepted by Max Guerra, Senior Engineer, Big Cypress Basin. This
item is sponsored by Commissioner Diller.
(Applause.)
MR. GUERRA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
supporting this, a great program, on behalf of Big Cypress Basin and
Clarence Tears. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.E is going to be heard at a
time certain at 11:30 a.m., so if I may have a motion to approve items
Page 14
May 8, 2012
4.A through 4.D.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamations by
Commissioner Coletta, second by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR MAY, 2012 TO FLORIDA WEEKLY.
ACCEPTING THE AWARD WAS SHELLEY LUND, PUBLISHER
—PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this morning,
Commissioners. 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County Business
of the Month for May, 2012 to Florida Weekly.
Accepting the award are Shelley Lund, Cory Higgins, Nicole
Ryan and Aaron Hubert.
(Applause.)
MS. LUND: I just wanted to thank you. This is a tremendous
honor for Florida Weekly on behalf my staff. Thank you. We
appreciate it. We love Collier County.
Page 15
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We love having you here. Thank you.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING PAUL NARGI, BUILDING INSPECTOR,
BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DEPARTMENT,
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS : Item 5.13 is a recommendation to recognize Paul
Nargi, Building Inspector from Building Review and Permitting
Department, as the Employee of the Month for April, 2012.
Paul, if you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Paul, if you'd stand there and get a picture while I
read a little bit about you.
Commissioners, Paul's been an employee with the county for
almost 15 years working in our Building, Permitting and Review
Department. He's responsible for performing plumbing, mechanical
and gas inspections. He's a very active member and past officer of the
Florida Association of Plumbing, Gas, Mechanical Inspectors. This is
a nonprofit group of industry officials who meet to provide continuing
education to promote safe building practices and to benefit our
community with charitable services.
In that regard Paul has donated numerous hours of his time and
that particular group has provided over $11,000 in scholarship money
to the Wes Ashby's name, and Paul's contributions have added greatly
to their success. He's a dedicated employee, a selfless member of our
community, and very, very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, I'm pleased to present Paul Nargi, your
Employee of the Month for April, 2012. Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Page 16
May 8, 2012
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have no public petition this
morning, so we'll move to Item 7 on your agenda, which is public
comments on general topics.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we have several people who want to
speak today. The first one is Linda Valentine.
MS. VALENTINE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Linda Valentine. I live at 110 Cypress Way East, here in Naples.
And I am your former purchasing card administrator.
I'm here today to address some comments that were made
regarding LOI 5562 for E- payables and Commerce Bank from last
week -- not last week, the last meeting that you had.
First I'd like to say that I come back here as a pleasure. I am not
a disgruntled employee. I enjoyed my time here and I enjoyed the
associations I made here. And I absolutely enjoyed the education that
you gave me. And I would like to share that education with you now.
Commissioner Coyle had suggested that he wanted to investigate
the process by which that contract went through. And to that end, I
sent each of you an e -mail yesterday with my concerns about it and
with documents pertaining to the contract. I do not wish to go into all
of that today. All I wish to do today is to correct some misstatements
that were made last week -- the last meeting.
It was stated that Commerce Bank submitted a contract that was
non - responsive or for a different product that was solicited. This was
not true. Commerce Bank submitted a contract that was called a
purchasing card contract. While the contract itself does not involve a
plastic card, it is still nonetheless a purchasing card product. Visa
makes that determination, or Bank of America or Mastercard or
Discover or American Express. It is a credit card product, just simply
Page 17
May 8, 2012
without the plastic.
The Clerk objected to the fact that their initial contract initially
had a -- an option to offer plastic as well. When the Clerk objected,
we agreed and the bank came back with that option removed. But
plain and simple, it has always been the same contract. The
nomenclature was changed to accommodate the Clerk from
purchasing card to E- payables, but the product never changed.
There was also some concern by Commissioners Hiller and
Henning that this service should be contracted by the Clerk. Now, I
work in private industry now, and in private industry those services
are actually contracted by the accounting department. In some
communities where there's not the Clerk's oversight, cities and charter
organizations, they have the option to do that.
But just like while if you were to go for your own credit card,
you would have an opportunity to go for your credit limit and
whatnot; someone else can't do that for you, okay.
There was a suggestion that the LOI was flawed because the
revenue share percentage was not the primary criteria. The primary
criteria is ultimately the cost to the county. The revenue share
percentage that's bid is minimal, hundredths of a percent between
banks. The cost to the county, depending on the services that the bank
will provide, are great.
And I do have some concerns that the bank seemed to have been
misrepresented last week that they were trying to do something
underhanded. And it's not so. That vendor bent over backwards to try
and accommodate us. And should you rebid this effort, I don't think
you'll get a better result. I think you'll add more cost to an already
expensive situation. And I do have concerns that we have a situation
now where we have an organization that's supposed to be our
independent auditor now negotiating our contract.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the time is --
MS. VALENTINE: That's all I've got to say.
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, it would appear that since we moved the
timing equipment to North Naples, the sound system's not working on
it. So visually it's there, but not the sound system.
The next speaker is Janet Vasey, and she has six minutes, having
been ceded time.
MR. OCHS: So Mr. Mitchell, that means for the people that are
speaking at the podium, when they see the yellow light come on --
MR. MITCHELL: It tells them they've got one minute --
MR. OCHS: One minute remaining in their remarks.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
MS. VASEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Janet Vasey, and today I'm speaking for the Collier Community
Alliance. And we're an organization that looks at issues from the
citizens' point of view, and we've been working to determine what is
the best fire and EMS service for Collier residents and the most
economical for taxpayers.
Previous consolidation proposals, fire consolidation proposals,
were not in the best interest of the public. But what is in our best
interest is stopping the turf wars between fire and EMS because they
undermine our safety and welfare. With 36,000 medical calls each
year, we have to make the right changes.
In 2010, in every fire district the voters said yes to fire
consolidation. A total of 72 percent approved it, ranging from districts
with a low of 60 percent, which is still pretty high, a high of 74
percent. Voters get it, but no one has changed anything.
Speaking for the Collier Community Alliance at the fire /EMS
workshop, I presented all the reasons to consolidate fire districts and
organize them under a public safety office under the Sheriff, providing
combined fire, medical, and police services.
I explained why fire consolidation under a single large
independent district is not in the best interests of the public. And I'm
Page 19
May 8, 2012
not going to go over all that again, you heard it.
But as we've seen in the past a separate tax rate just for fire leads
to higher taxes than necessary and that money is then wasted on
excess pay and benefits. For example, last year, if North Naples Fire
District had paid at the same rate as the City of Naples, the North
Naples taxpayers would have saved $4 million. And comparing City
of Naples to East Naples, they would have saved $2 million last year.
So there's definitely something out of whack with the independent fire
districts.
The fire commissioners have had their chance to consolidate over
the last five years since you offered to give them EMS, and nothing's
changed. Many don't want to consolidate themselves out of a job, but
the voters said yes, and it should be done right. And it actually can be
done now. So let's present the issues to the public and let them vote
on whether they want to abolish the fire districts and create a public
safety authority under the Sheriff.
The Collier Community Alliance is proposing a ballot question
for the Primary election August 14th. If language can be approved by
you before June 8th, then it can happen. To meet the Supervisor of
Election's deadline, a full discussion of the issue and approval of
ballot language would need to occur at the next BCC meeting on May
22nd. We'd like to get the ball rolling with the language that you can
now see on your screen.
It says: Would you support consolidation of the Collier County
Emergency Medical Service with the five independent fire districts
and two dependent fire districts into a single public safety authority to
be administered by the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
If voters support this concept in the August Primary, then you
and our legislative delegation can feel confident that you're executing
the will of the people by enacting legislation to make this change.
Then we can combine the three public safety functions of fire, EMS
and police to get better and more consistent emergency response
Page 20
May 8, 2012
county -wide.
Thank you for your attention. I'd be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Janet, I think this concept you
come up with is worthy of consideration. I know there's going to be a
tremendous amount of interest from our local fire departments. I see a
number of them here today. And I received a phone call from a North
Naples commissioner last night that came pretty late and I couldn't
return it.
Obviously you struck a nerve. This may be a doable situation,
and it may not be a doable situation. However, with that said, there is
two ways: One, the Collier County Commission could entertain the
idea of putting this on the ballot at the next meeting or you could go
the long way, the petition method out there where I think you have to
garnish I think it's three percent of all the voters in Collier County,
which would be a daunting effort, but not impossible, if it came down
to it.
I for one would like to have this come back. I think that it's
worthy of consideration.
MS. VASEY: And that really was our suggestion, to have full
debate next meeting. And there would be plenty of time to get it on
the Primary. And we chose the Primary because we understand that
the November ballot is really crowded. That could still be done too,
but we thought we'd try for the Primary first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think it was Bill 192 or
194,1 can't think of Senator Bennett's bill number, but it states a
petition method, a citizens' petition method, you must have 40 percent
of the registered voters, not three percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be impossible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it also states it should have
a transitional white paper on how that's going to happen.
Page 21
May 8, 2012
To ask the voters the same question over again, I believe it was in
2008 that we asked the voters should we consolidate the -- shall the
fire districts be consolidated, and they were very supportive of it. My
concern is when the County Commissioners are asking the voters
basically the same question, they get kind of angry and wanting to
know why it didn't happen.
I think a better way to ask the voters something of similar nature
is to work with our legislators to find out what needs to happen to get
something on the ballot that they can support. I'm really interested in
what they -- our legislative delegation, what they consider -- what
would be the proper method. And they might tell us that you need
some kind of a transitional paper so the citizens have a clear
understanding the cost and the implementation of a -- this would be an
independent district under authority?
MS. VASEY: I don't think that the new legislation of 192 would
fit this. That would be for one fire district merging with another. But
here we have to go back to the old procedures for consolidation where
you have to first abolish the old independent fire districts and then
reconstitute them. So I don't think the 192 would work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, makes sense.
Any indication of what any of the legislation delegation members
MS. VASEY: No, we haven't actually talked to them. We felt if
we did have a ballot language, and this one would be pretty different,
the whole idea of single command and control under a public safety
authority. So it's not exactly the same kind of thing as was asked
before. But we felt that if the public after debate -- I mean, there will
be plenty of talking about it -- if they said that that was a good idea,
then that would be a very strong motivation for the legislative
delegation to carry out what the people voted that they wanted to do.
So that's how we were approaching it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 22
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree with Commissioner
Henning about, you know, I'd like to get the input from the legislators
and see how they feel about that.
The second thing is, I have trouble wrapping my arms around
combining health and crime prevention. You know, the Sheriff has
been so good about protecting us and concerned with our safety, and
that's a wonderful thing. And to me health care is a completely
different bailiwick. So I think that if -- you know, I think the public as
well as myself needs to have a better understanding why would you
want to wrap health care under the Sheriffs safety procedures? But
maybe that will all come out as well.
I actually like the idea of a public petition even. I think that that
might be the way to go. That way then everybody gets to weigh in and
maybe they'll have a better understanding of what we're even talking
about, all of us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, we have five more
speakers on this same subject. Would you prefer to wait until they
speak before you make your comments or would you want to make a
comment now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I could ask Janet a few quick
questions, that would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Janet, good morning. Have you
had occasion to speak with the Sheriff about whether he would want
to head up such a consolidated organization? And if you have, what's
his position on it?
MS. VASEY: Well, I have spoken to the Sheriff, but I think he
should actually speak for himself. He -- after the workshop one of the
reporters did contact him, and I believe he said that there were several
plans in the works, but he's open to anything that would benefit Collier
County. So anything beyond that I think would have to be, you know,
Page 23
May 8, 2012
from the Sheriff himself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he didn't say specifically that
he would be agreeable to overseeing such a consolidated organization
at this point?
MS. VASEY: Well, I actually didn't ask him. I was telling him
what we were thinking about, and he didn't shoot me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's positive.
I think it's really important to have the Sheriff s input on this.
You know, I go back to the analogy of the military. And again, I think
the best person who can speak to that is Commissioner Coyle because
of his experience. But Commissioner Fiala makes a very good point
and that is combining these services may be problematic for many
different reasons, which is why the military has the Army, the Navy,
the, you know, Air Force. So I'm not sure that consolidating these
services under the Sheriff is necessarily is the best approach.
With respect to the question of consolidation, Jeff, does the
Board of County Commissioners have the legal ability, does the Board
have the jurisdiction to consolidate the independent fire districts by its
actions?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I don't think that's what Janet's asking,
though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to clarify. So can
you from a legal standpoint explain to us what our role is with respect
to furthering the consolidation of the independent fire districts?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, just specific to what Ms. Vasey is
asking, she's asking for the Board of County Commissioners, I think,
to do a straw ballot with that question on it. You do have the
legislative authority to do that.
You do not have the legislative authority to simply disband the
independent fire districts. That's going to have to be an act of the
legislature.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that is an important
Page 24
May 8, 2012
distinction. And I raise that point because I think it's very important
for the taxpayers of the county to understand that we as a board do not
have the ability to force the fire districts to consolidate. And yes,
you're absolutely correct, the question that would be on the ballot
would be actually nothing more than a straw ballot question.
But I have no issues with bringing this back. I think it's worthy of
the discussion. But I think we have to act within our limited
jurisdiction and get feedback directly from the Sheriff and from our
legislatures (sic) and have the question supported by a white paper in
order for the taxpayers to be properly informed before they could vote
on any straw ballot question related to this matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, why don't we call the next
speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Duane Billington. And I
should point out that we now have a sound system, so I'll be indicating
with the bell.
MR. BILLINGTON: Just whistle. For the record, Duane
Billington.
We're not asking you to dissolve the fire districts, we're simply
asking you, as Commissioner Hiller helped clarify, that this be put on
a straw ballot to the people and be specific to having it consolidated
under the Sheriff.
There's a group of us who have been working together and we've
been identifying monetary savings. That work is a work in progress.
Janet just mentioned $4 million from North, $2 million from East
Naples if they had been operating under the same wage and benefit
structure as the City of Naples. Those are serious dollars. Those are
taxpayer dollars. And this doesn't need to go on. These monies can be
better applied in either other areas or better applied by delivering
expanded services.
I know this is an election year and some commissioners are
running for office. We are asking no more at this time than this be put
Page 25
May 8, 2012
on a straw ballot. And if commissioners who are running for office
don't have the courage to let the people be heard, then maybe those
commissioners shouldn't be reelected. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Dr. James Horner.
DR. HORNER: Good morning. I'm Jim Horner. I live in Island
Walk, a community of 1,856 homes on the east end of Vanderbilt
Beach Road. I'm on the Community Alliance.
And after reviewing several optional organizational possibilities,
structures, and looking at preliminary cost benefit analysis, I'm
strongly in support of consolidation. And I really urge you as
commissioners to at least gauge the sentiment of the public with a
straw ballot, straw vote. Thank you very much for your consideration.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Murray Hendel.
MR. HENDEL: Good, morning Mr. Chairman, good morning,
Commissioners. I'm not going to be as strong as Duane, but I want to
just comment on the issue.
I am the president of the Collier Community Alliance, CCA.
And the reason we were formed is to address issues in the county.
And we have a conglomeration of people from all over the county. We
have Duane and we have other people and we have a cross section,
and we have been unanimous on this issue.
We have discussed it and we feel that this is the proposal, to
consolidate fire and EMS in an office of public safety under the
Sheriff. So my organization and I urge you to support a straw ballot to
measure public sentiment of this plan. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll pass.
MR. MITCHELL: Then the final speaker is George Danz.
MR. DANZ: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is George
Danz, 813 Charlemagne Boulevard, Naples, Florida. I'm also a
Commissioner for the East Naples Fire District, newly appointed.
I came from Broward County. I seen a similar system. But I
Page 26
May 8, 2012
guess my concern is, and I think a couple of you have touched on it, as
I understand -- or as I voted for the language in the election that they
-- is always brought up that the voters approved, it said do you
approve of consolidation if it's more cost effective and efficient. I
guess that's the bottom line. You can put that on the ballot every
election you have and I will vote for it.
But to date I haven't seen a cost analysis that has outlined
whether that is that effective. I think the people need to know what
they're voting for when they vote for it. And that certainly is going to
take some study and some figures. If some of these groups -- I read
articles in the paper weekly and some of them are filled so full of
holes you could use them as a sieve. But I think we need to know
what the facts are and what the cost is and what the impact would be
to the citizens before we vote on anything. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Two things come to mind.
Number one, if there is a cost analysis, it would be interesting to see
two cost analyses, one from each side. Because let's face it, a cost
analysis could say anything you want it to say. And I would like to see
two of them.
Secondly, here we are talking about courage and no courage
because you're running for office, and nobody's even asked the Sheriff
if he wants to do this. Not only that, the Sheriff is also running in an
election. It would be difficult for him to say no, I don't want to, if he
feels uncomfortable about it; he's going to have to say what's
politically correct, whatever's best for the community. I think it's not
fair to him to go about getting community support for something he
might not even feel comfortable with.
He's the Sheriff. He's in charge of protecting the citizens. And
he's never in any of his job capacities dealt with the health and
ambulance service. And I just feel that it would be very difficult for
Page 27
May 8, 2012
him to be put in that position.
So I think maybe somebody ought to -- and the poor guy, I feel
so sorry for him, somebody ought to actually say do you even want to
do this. And if you don't, will we replace you because we want you to
do this. It's a very tough thing for the Sheriff. I've heard some
background information about this as far as his feelings on this go, and
this is a tough time to do this to him.
But anyway, those are my feelings, that first of all, we -- rather
than push everybody and say they don't have courage if they don't do
it, you ought to ask the guy if he even wants to do it. And secondly of
course as I said -- well, I've said enough, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, right at this point in time
we only have two commissioners that want to bring this back that I've
heard from. I think it's worthy of consideration.
As far as the Sheriff goes, the Sheriff is just like us, he serves at
the pleasure of his constituents. He's here to do what the constituents
want. The day could come where we have a petition come before us
that might want to do away with single member districts and return to
commissioners being voted at large. We should entertain that too if
we ever had a group of people that thought it was worthy of
consideration.
But by bringing these back in an open forum and having an open
and honest discussion to be able to see where it's going to go -- mind
you, we have an election cycle that comes up every two years. If this
item was to be able to be on the August Primary, it would be two
years before we'd be able to do anything as far as the state legislative
body authorizing an at -large vote that would have real meaning for the
doing away of independent districts. It would be quite a complicated
procedure to go through.
But this is a simple process just right now just to be able to see if
it's worthy of exploring. We can kick this can down the road and then
Page 28
May 8, 2012
two years from now somebody else could bring it forward and we can
talk about it again or we can at least entertain it at an open forum at
the next meeting where we can see if this is a plausible thing to put on
the ballot. It's a straw ballot. And it's going to give direction to
everyone that's out there, including our state legislative body, how to
be able to react and where to go with it.
Right now they can't on their own go forward. Why would they,
they don't know what the true will of the people is. We said we want
-- everybody said they wanted consolidation the last time around, but
they never were specific what they wanted. This gives the direction.
At least get the thing before us so we can talk about it and then
decisions can be made at the next meeting.
But we're lacking one nod of the head to be able to bring it back
for consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not quite sure why you think I
hadn't nodded my head one way or the other. I just said I wanted two
cost analyses if we did something like this and we ought to check with
the Sheriff first to even find out if this is something he feels
comfortable about doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the Sheriff has not indicated
he isn't comfortable with doing -- he hasn't come out and spoken
against it. Keep that in mind as we go forward.
But once again, the Sheriff serves at the pleasure of the
electorate. But it looks like it's a dead issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd just like to make a comment.
The first step in getting a sense of what the legislators are willing to
support is to present them with the results of a referendum by the
public.
The five of us going to legislators is not likely to create any great
urgency in solving this problem, because we've been interested in
solving it now for at least a decade or longer. But if you want to get
the legislators on board, it seems to me that a vote is essential to us to
Page 29
May 8, 2012
do that.
The other thing is it dovetails very well with things that we're
going to be considering even today. The Productivity Committee has
asked us to provide them guidance about what we would like for them
to focus on for improving productivity. And one of the things they
listed is an analysis of the consolidation of the fire districts. It
dovetails perfectly with the interest in proceeding with the
referendum, because that could be the white paper.
Now, as far as getting more studies of consolidation, how many
have we already seen? How many times have the fire districts met
about consolidation? How many times have they studied this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many years?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, and for how many years?
Do we really expect anything different? Absolutely not. I can tell
you right now, the fire districts will produce a report that says no, it's
not possible to achieve any efficiencies. And the Productivity
Committee will find that it's much more cost effective to do this. So it
depends upon what the voters would decide at that point in time.
So I think it's -- I don't know if we can make a final decision any
time soon on the consolidation, but at least we can begin the process if
we want to get the legislators' support. And we can do that by a
referendum. I have no confidence, absolutely zero, that any fire
district will make a proposal to eliminate commissioners, multiple
commissioners in every district or to eliminate top -heavy management
in every district. They're just not going to do that. And we've asked
them and we've asked them and we've asked them and they haven't
taken on that challenge, and they're not going to do it in the future.
So either we take action to begin the process or we don't do
anything at all, just as -- and we'll fail just as we failed every other
time we've taken this up for consideration. So I for one will support it.
But I don't think it causes any harm to any of the commissioners who
are running for the election. I think it merely says look, we've tried.
Page 30
May 8, 2012
We've done our best to try to get the fire districts to move on these
issues, and they simply haven't done it.
And the question really comes down to one thing: Do you want
fire districts administered by a physician? The answer is no. Do you
want emergency medical services administered by a firefighter? The
answer is no. And the only way you can solve that is to put them into
a single organization that has someone else in charge. And so let's
explore it is my argument. It's important that we take a look at it to
see what we can do with it.
But nevertheless, I'll call the question. All in favor of bringing
this back for a full public discussion, please indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got -- and those opposed,
by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We apparently have a vote of four in
favor and one against, Commissioner Henning dissenting.
And to make it clear, we're bringing it back for a public hearing.
Because I'm considering this the same way we would for a public
petition, we're bringing it back for a public hearing. And if -- and any
information we can provide at that public hearing which will help the
public understand the issue more clearly, I think we should make an
attempt to do so.
But it passes 4 -1, and that's it. Thank you very much, everybody.
MR. OCHS: Any more public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: No, that was the final comment.
Item #I OA
Page 31
May 8, 2012
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST ON ITEM #11 A FROM APRIL
109 2012 BCC MEETING: THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE
FY2013/14 BEACH RENOURISHMENT OF BAREFOOT,
VANDERBILT, CLAM PASS, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES
BEACHES ALONG WITH FY2012/13 MARCO SOUTH BEACH
RENOURISHMENT /STRUCTURE REBUILD PLAN AND MAKE
A FINDING THAT THESE ITEMS PROMOTE TOURISM -
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM #10A AND BRING BACK AT
A FUTURE BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a time certain hearing at
9:30 a.m. this morning. That is Item 10.A on your agenda. It's a
request for reconsideration by Commission members -- excuse me,
reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item I LA from the
April 10th, 2012 BCC meeting titled recommendation to approve the
conceptual plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot,
Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore, Naples beaches, along with FY
2012/13 Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan, and
make a finding that these items promote tourism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under items of reconsideration
per our rules there shall be no discussion under items of
reconsideration. You know, I'm bringing this back because of public
comments and a need for better understanding what is proposed and
also is there a better way to renourish the beaches in the next year
fiscal cycle. So I'm going to make a motion to reconsider Items 10.A
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning makes a
motion to reconsider Item -- well, in I LA he's asking for
reconsideration. And it's seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
Page 32
May 8, 2012
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have public speakers on this one?
MR. MITCHELL: We do, but Commissioner Henning's just
made a statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, he is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But Jeff, is there any prohibition
in the reconsideration for public comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just the Board doesn't have
any discussion.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can have discussion. It's a limited
discussion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we're going to
potentially discuss it --
MR. KLATZKOW: At a full public hearing later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- at a future meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. How many speakers do you have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have four speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski.
I appreciate Commissioner Henning's interest in bringing this
back. I noticed in today's agenda packet that there's a report that's
been following the beach renourishment program on Marco Island
over the years, and it included from different engineering firms the last
seven or eight years or so. And it had a lot of really interesting
relevant information that maybe now requires you to fine tune your
understanding and our understanding of the whole project. And this
report is more recent, I believe, than the one we were looking at last
time, which was like a 260, very thorough 260 -page report on all of
Page 33
May 8, 2012
the beaches.
So I would think it would be prudent to bring this back again and
to reevaluate it. Apparently the beach renourishment -- the beach on
Marco has been shifting back and forth but not necessarily losing,
actually some areas are gaining sand and others are losing it. So to
revisit this would be a good idea.
Also the expenditure of the funds. We want to be careful and be
sure we're doing the right thing when we apply to that. So I'll just
leave it at that and say I hope that you'll bring it back and we can look
at it some more, because it's pretty complicated, and would like to see
it more. Thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy.
And I wasn't sure if you were going to be having discussion, so I
just wanted to sign up in case. But it sounds like you aren't so I'll
reserve any comment or feedback for when you bring this back.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Mick Moore.
MR. MOORE: I would like to use the power point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's quite a stack of slides. You know
you only have three minutes, don't you?
MR. MOORE: I do, Commissioner. Actually, Mike Watkins
from the Naples Beach Hotel has ceded me his time as well, but I'm
going to be real brief.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mick Moore, and
my family owns the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, which is a very small
hotel on Vanderbilt Beach. We've been in business for over 50 years
and I'm the third generation to operate the hotel.
Vanderbilt Beach was renourished in 2006 and it was supposed
to be renourished again in 2012. The county collected TDC funds for
six years from our hotel guests and many others in the county, but the
Page 34
May 8, 2012
county's now late in renourishing. And Mr. McAlpin told me last
week it will be about a year and eight months under the current plan
before we are renourished at our location.
The beaches are the number one reason why people visit Collier
County. And I really don't understand why you're addressing this
issue so late in the game. If we had followed the plan, the beach
would be renourished this year and I wouldn't be standing here in front
of you.
We are just asking the beach be renourished the way it was last
time, which did last for six years. We're not asking for extra sand for
a 10 -year renourishment, which is what the plan provides.
I'm really here today because we can't wait a year and eight
months. The erosion is severe at our property, and you need to
consider a renourishment before then. And secondly, you should
reconsider the proposal to renourish from south to north, because the
north beaches are in critical need and the south are not.
And you don't need to take me at my word, all of my slides today
are pictures. And if Leo would put up the first picture. The first three
were taken when the cold front came through about a week and a half
ago. This is at Vanderbilt Beach at our location. You can see there's
no beach left.
You can go ahead with the second one.
That was our guests and the public. That was their little slice of
paradise that day. You can see there's almost nothing there. This was
the view from our seawall with the water all the way up to the dunes.
Now I'm not an engineer or scientist and I don't understand all the
specifics in the beach concept plan, which is quite long. But it does
say that you'll start renourishing in Marco and end in the north near
Vanderbilt Beach. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to do that.
But I want to make two points in particular. First, I know that the
county pays an engineering firm to monitor the beaches on a scientific
basis. And it's my understanding that that engineer does not agree with
Page 35
May 8, 2012
the engineer who prepared the concept plan. When you're paying two
experts to look at this and they disagree, it's worthy to bring it back for
reconsideration to find out why.
Second, I visited a number of beaches yesterday in Collier
County. I basically drove from Vanderbilt Beach down to Marco
within a two and a half hour period, stopping at almost every public
beach and taking some pictures. Because although I'm not a scientist,
I do have eyes and I can take just common observations that
everybody can make.
Now, each picture that I'm going to put up here is date and time
stamped. I've got about nine pictures. And I really want you and the
public to see firsthand exactly what these beaches look like, because
then you can draw your own conclusions and it's not based on reading
a 270 -page report.
So Leo, if you'll put up the first picture. This was taken on
Vanderbilt Beach on a perfectly calm day right in front of our
property. And it's date stamped yesterday 3:48 p.m. And you can see
that the water is coming almost up to the beach chairs. There's not a
whole lot of beach left, but it certainly looks better than when the cold
front was there.
Okay, go ahead with the next one.
This is Horizon Way in Park Shore. Obviously much better than
Vanderbilt Beach.
The next one is the Park Shore via Miramar Beach access point.
Again, you've got a lot of beach there. You can see the people on the
beach. That was at 4:09 p.m. So I didn't dilly - dally, I was basically
going right up the beach, stopping at Every spot taking pictures.
This is Lowdermilk Beach, the City of Naples. Obviously no
problem with people finding real estate on the beach there to park
themselves for the day. Quite a nice beach there.
The next spot was the Naples Beach Hotel. I was a little
surprised. They're experiencing significant erosion as well, almost as
Page 36
May 8, 2012
bad as our hotel.
The next spot was First Avenue South. Again, quite a large
beach. No immediate issue there for people finding a place to sit on
the beach.
This is the Naples Pier. Of courlse, again, lots of people enjoying
the beach, plenty of beach real estate.
Now, this picture, this is Marco. I went down to Marco. This is
Marco right near the Seafarer Hotel. There's a public beach access
point. I took this picture yesterday at 5:39. I almost fell on the floor
when I walked down the stairs for that beach access point. Their
beach is huge. And that's -- I'm not overstating it. I mean, it is a
beautiful huge, huge beach. In fact, it was so big it took a long time to
walk down near the water.
Then the final picture was taken from the south Marco public
beach access. Again, the beach is huge. You can barely even see the
water from the access point.
Commissioners, it's very simple. Looking at these pictures,
common sense tells you, you need to renourish the beaches that need
the sand the most first and not start on Marco Island. And to the
extent that the current concept plan contemplates renourishment of a
huge beach in Marco Island that doesn't need sand, it's simply out of
touch with reality. I don't know what science they're using, but it
doesn't make any sense to a normal guy like me.
So I ask that you reconsider the concept plan, bring it back for
discussion. Let's hear why this other expert doesn't agree. My time is
up. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
And sir, Commissioner Hiller asked me to introduce into the
record an e -mail from her regarding the proposed versus needed beach
renourishment material discrepancies noted. And I'll see that this is
put into public record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Page 37
May 8, 2012
And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you have one more
speaker yet?
MR. MITCHELL: No, that's the final speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you said four speakers, but
we had Bob Krasowski, Nicole Johnson and Mick Moore, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Michael waived his time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's right. Okay, thank you
very much.
Yes, my question was -- and I saw the beach on Marco, and
you're right, there's a huge beach there. But I was -- we were told at
the last meeting that at the south beach it was in critical condition
according to FDEP. But the pictures didn't show that. Well, I guess
we could discuss that under reconsideration as well. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further comments, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You finished? Then I'll call the
question. There was a motion by Commissioner Henning for
reconsideration, it was seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #I OB
May 8, 2012
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST ON ITEM # 11 B FROM APRIL
109 2012 BCC MEETING: THE SHORT LIST OF FIRMS FOR
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP # 11 -5772 "BEACH
RENOURISHMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES" — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next time certain item is Item
10.B. It's a request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of
Item I LB from the April 10th, 2012 BCC meeting titled
recommendation to approve short list of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP Number 11 -5772, beach renourishment
engineering services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve the request for reconsideration of Item I LB.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's already seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I call the speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob's not here.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 39
May 8, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OC
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST ON ITEM #14A2 FROM APRIL
109 2012 BCC MEETING: RESPONSE TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT'S INTERNAL AUDIT
OF THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT PARALLEL
TAXIWAY AND APRON EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT AND REQUEST APPROVAL OF STAFF
CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE ZONING MANAGER AND
PLANNING MANAGER FINDING THE AIRPORT IN
COMPLIANCE - MOTION TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE
BCC MEETING — FAILED
MR. OCHS: Item IO.0 is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14.A.2 from the April 10th, 2012
BCC meeting titled response to the Collier County Clerk of Circuit
Court internal audit of the Marco Island Executive Airport parallel
taxiway and apron expansion construction project, and request
approval of staff clarification issued by the Zoning Manager and the
Planning Manager finding the airport in compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, this is just a
small piece, and that's where the Board deemed it consistent with our
Growth Management Plan. Talking to our administrator for growth
management and the County Manager, I think they -- Leo, correct me
if I'm wrong, that we can kind of clear this up and make sure that we
don't set precedence in the future.
But I'm very supportive of our staff s Land Development Code
amendment recognizing the agreement and taxiway within the ST
CON. So in my opinion, it would be a good item to discuss so we
Page 40
May 8, 2012
don't set precedence in the future. So I'll make a motion that we
reconsider item -- what was that, former Item 14.B or --
MR. OCHS: 14.A.2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 14.A.2.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not quite sure what you mean by
precedence at the Marco Island Airport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's the precedence of
having a master plan and an agreement of the settlement agreement
within the Growth Management Plan, and that gives it the right for
land use. Similar would be in my opinion the -- that storage pods in
Golden Gate Estates is allowed, because it's silent within the Golden
Gate Estates land use district.
Now, in essential services it is silent for runways, taxiways
within the CON ST district. So it's -- somebody mentioned it to me
over the weekend that it would be a similar thing. Just because you're
allowed zoning density within a land use map does that mean you
automatically get your density? And no, it doesn't, it's when you get
your zoning.
So I just hope that you would indulge me to have this
reconsidered and we can vote on it later on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Reconsideration of this item itself has resolved itself or being
resolved. The issue that you're looking at is how we handle
everything in the future. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't
think it's this item itself that we need to bring back. We need to bring
back the process that we need to get there to make sure that we have a
way to be able to handle it in the future. There's the only suggestion
I'll make.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not as clear either on exactly what it
Page 41
May 8, 2012
is we hope to do. What we promised that we would do is to take
whatever actions were necessary to remove any doubt about the
legality of building a taxiway at an airport. So that is being resolved.
Now, you apparently have a concern about the way it is being
resolved. And if you reconsider it and we take weeks or months to
resolve it, I don't think that that necessarily meets our commitment to
the Clerk to do this very, very quickly.
So I'm not sure, if you could elaborate on the potential impact of
that, I would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you look at the back -up
material, there is a Land Development Code amendment coming
through and it is to recognize the MOU between the airport authority
and different stakeholders that in Conservation Collier lands that the
taxiway is allowed.
And I think that's -- actually, it's essential services, and it clarifies
in your book. That is the process we've done in the past. What was
stated in our -- in discussion since the Land Development Code is
silent, that you refer to the Growth Management Plan.
And I would hope that we wouldn't have somebody stating to us
later in any certain zoning district, well, it's silent in the Land
Development Code and your Growth Management Plan somewhat
allows it. I don't want to go down that road and -- however, this Land
Development Code amendment will fix the concerns of the payment
and allow the taxiway within a CON ST zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how long will that take?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're going to do it at the
same time. As Leo and I were talking about this yesterday,
reconsideration, it's the second meeting. So that will be in June. I can
tell you I'll probably reconsider this item until the same meeting that
we have this Land Development Code amendment before us.
MR. OCHS: Staff advises we may have the Land Development
Code amendment in front of the Board perhaps by the second meeting
Page 42
May 8, 2012
in June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that will satisfy your requirements,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And I'm going to work
with the County Manager and Nick to make sure that this happens at
the same time.
There is a concern out there that this is precedent setting for other
considerations through a public petition or whatever that, wait a
minute, that's silent in the Land Development Code, so if it's silent, it
must be allowed. So it's just a matter of cleaning up and not setting
any precedents.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that the staff s interpretation of the
action we're taking?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, for the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Growth Management.
We've talked to Commissioner Henning. I think with the Marco
ST when we brought you the staff clarification, there was a lot of
back -up information that came with that. I think Commissioner
Henning said, what if a gentleman brings forward some back -up
information and they say I want to challenge the LDC because it's
silent and I want to refer to the Growth Management Plan. Well, I
think you'd have to have a level of proof both through the County
Attorney's office and our Comprehensive Planning staff. So I'm not as
concerned, but I understand his point that you could open up that
people could say well, it doesn't reference it in the LDC so I want to
argue it over the GMP review.
I think the level of scrutiny is pretty high. I think you have to
bring some documentation forward to the Board to challenge the LDC
being silent. So I'm not as concerned as he is but I understand that
ramifications of something like that could bring that item forward
from an individual.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Page 43
May 8, 2012
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just have a little confusion
here. Why would you bring up the Marco Island Executive Airport
which has been done, it's voted on, it's built, people are using the
taxiway, if we're not really talking -- are we talking about the Marco
Island Airport or are we talking about Immokalee? I mean, I want to
just get this straight. Because it sounds like you're talking about a
different airport to me.
And if so, then we should be maybe talking about not recalling
the Marco Airport, but talking about making our -- I don't know if you
should say Land Development Code or rules and regulation or
whatever, more clear.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. For clarification, this is strictly
the Marco Airport we're talking about.
What you've said and the staff clarification is, the LDC does not
reference this use, so therefore you went to the GMP. The GMP
referenced an airport master plan and an MOU. Based on those we
issued a staff clarification that Board approved that said you have
enough information, and also we've done some work in the interim as
well, to prove that a lot of these uses were intended through the GMP
but not clarified in the LDC. We went through a survey process that
we discussed as well too to determine how much of that was actually
in the ST. Not very much at all.
So I think you brought a good amount of information to the
Board to uphold staff s clarification.
The discussion I've had with Commissioner Henning is will other
people, private parties, petition to Board to say, well, it's not in your
LDC so can we use the GMP? And what I'm telling you is it's hard to
do that because you have to give an abundance of information. We
have an MOU, we had an airport master plan, you know, thousands of
dollars were spent on that; those are documents that were published.
So someone, a private entity would have to provide that information
Page 44
May 8, 2012
as well too and show the conflict. But I can understand where
someone may do that, and that's his concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she was just speaking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick, I'm very reluctant to bring
back something that we went so hard to be able to move forward. My
understanding is that Clerk of Courts and everyone else is in line with
this being a doable deal.
Can we bring this back -- this discussion back when we review
the different parts of our Growth Management elements?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's more procedural, sir, I think
is what Commissioner Henning is discussing, that -- you know, the
staff clarification process, how it's done. You've given me direction
that any time we do this we take it to the Board anyway, so it's not
done at the staff level, period. I don't think it's part of the EAR or any
other process review, it's more of a procedural issue that we're talking
about here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, can that procedural issue
be handled separately from the Marco Island item?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it could. You've given me
direction not to -- you know, to avoid these type of issues. But yes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for doing that. I do not want
to bring back the Marco Island item. Something could go wrong and
next thing you know the Clerk will be asking for a refund.
Why tempt fate? We finally got something being resolved.
Commissioner Henning's concerns are valid, but let's approach it from
a more realistic position where we give the direction to staff to bring it
back, then we go through the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do you have?
0--m" "
May 8, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: It's Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson
here on behalf of The Conservancy.
And The Conservancy hadn't participated when this initially
came forward, but in looking back, we were one of the MOU
signatories, and it was actually The Conservancy that drafted and
worked very hard on that MOU.
We never considered the MOU to be an actual rezone document.
And so I think there is a concern that if the LDC is silent and you go
to the GMP and in the GMP there's ar. airport master plan reference,
does that mean that everything in that airport master plan or the
Golden Gate Master Plan or any master plan reference is then implied
as a rezone action de facto?
So this is a serious issue that I think needs to have some
consideration to it.
And also another point that I wanted to bring up, because we had
not realized this when you initially heard this, that MOU has some
requirements attached to it that should have been done over a decade
ago and they weren't. No one really caught it, so we are working with
the airport authority to make sure that those requirements including a
conservation easement, vegetation management plan; we were
supposed to be able to review the mitigation plan for the taxiway,
none of that was done. Everyone dropped the ball, not laying blame
anywhere. But those things do need to be done, it's over a decade
overdue. So we are working on that.
So just to conclude, I think that this issue that Commissioner
Henning brought up does need to be addressed, whether it's brought
back as an item. I don't think that bringing it back would necessarily
delay anything, because the LDC is coming forward that provides the
proper way to clarify this. And I don't believe that the ST is going to
Page 46
May 8, 2012
be coming forward at your May meeting. So there may be a time
where you can wrap all this up in June. So I would just ask that you
consider that. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So as I understand it, anything
that we want that is either mentioned or not mentioned in the Growth
Management Plan must be specified in the Land Development Code.
If you incorporate an airport master plan into the Growth Management
Plan, the proper time to debate that issue is at the time it's
incorporated. If we fail to do that, there's no amount of regulatory
guidance we can offer to make sure that never happens again.
So I don't really see the issue. It's like trying to swat mosquitoes
with a baseball bat. But if the majority wants to bring it back, I guess
we'll bring it back and talk about it again.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have -- and all opposed by no.
No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have -- the motion fails 2 -3,
with Commissioners Fiala, Coyle and Coletta dissenting.
And we're going to take a 10- minute break. And where will we
start when we come back?
MR. OCHS: Start at Item 10.D, sir. It's the Productivity
Committee proposed work plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Be back at 10:39 a.m.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need one more. Somebody want to
volunteer to be a commissioner for five or 10 minutes? The pay is
fantastic.
Page 47
May 8, 2012
Okay, the Board of County Commission meeting is back in
session.
Item #I OD
DISCUSSION REGARDING PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED 2012 WORK PLAN - MOTION TO DENY THE 2012
WORK PLAN, TO CONTINUE WORKING ON BUDGET
REVIEW, AND FOCUS ON THE INTENT OF THEIR CHARTER
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, this is Item 10.1) on your agenda this morning.
It's a discussion regarding the Productivity Committee's proposed
2012 work plan. And your Productivity Committee Chairman, Mr.
Steve Harrison, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've seen your list. You know my
preference.
MR. HARRISON: Well, we can do this one a couple of ways. I
can either give you an overview of what's behind these six items, or if
you want to ask questions, take your pick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got the list.
MR. HARRISON: We've got the list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, for the audience out there, we
have six items that the Productivity feels would be of interest to
everybody and very timely. As I looked through them, and they were
all excellent, boy --
MR. HARRISON: Perhaps Mr. Sheffield could put it on the
screen?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's a good idea.
Meanwhile I thought, you know, it's a lot of work here, so I was
May 8, 2012
wondering if we could take it like maybe three projects at a time and
focus on three projects at a time. And you had one on here that I
thought was just outstanding and that was the contract management
functions. And it went on to talk about practices in place in the
purchasing department, purchase to pay cycle, processing of invoices,
any contract extensions and final payment.
And as you know, we have been struggling with that all year, and
I think that if you would study that, to me that should be top priority,
because maybe we can get this to run a lot more smoothly and in line
with whatever is needed and required from the Clerk's Office. And I
think you guys would be best suited to do that.
Also, very much needed is item number three, which I would
consider too on my list of things that I would love to see you -- love to
see you tackle, and that's asset management. And I think over the past
10 years it says predictive and preventive maintenance strategy. You
know, that's a wonderful thing. And I don't know that anybody's ever
done that for us before. I think that would be a great thing to do. And
right now our staff is so limited that they don't have time to study
these things. But if you could and give us some of your results, I think
that that would be a great asset to us.
And thirdly, if we would take three at a time, I would suggest
that the county -- projected 2014 county income and expenses and
estimate the extent to which additional revenues are needed and then
from what sources. To me those are really the top three.
MR. HARRISON: That's really related to the number one item
on the list. But when you're done I'll give you a thumbnail on each
one, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if I would choose -- if I would be
the only decision maker, I would suggest you tackle three, and those
would be the three that I would suggest that you tackle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 49
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Hiller's
light's on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I would really like to
hear what Mr. Harrison has to say as his summary of the work plan. I
have some concerns specifically about the question of Productivity
reviewing the consolidation of the fire districts under the Sheriff,
which is beyond the scope of the Productivity Committee. So I have a
very strong concern about that and I'd like to hear his comments about
the other plans.
The other thing I'd like to address is what Commissioner Fiala
said with respect to the processing of contracts and payments. We
hired an attorney a while back to give us an opinion, and after he
presented it was agreed that there would be further discussion between
the Clerk and that attorney and that would be brought back so we
could have some clear direction on what we legally can and can't do as
far as setting policy with respect to purchasing and the resulting
contracts. And I think that needs to come back.
So I would like to see that. And I'm not sure that that's an issue
for the Productivity Committee. That's an issue that's already being
addressed that we have not received answers to. So I would like to
hear Steve's comments as well.
MR. HARRISON: Any other questions before I respond?
(No response.)
MR. HARRISON: Let's start with the consolidation of the fire
and EMS for just a minute. And Commissioner, you're exactly right,
our enabling ordinance only extends to places where this Commission
has budget oversight on county funds. So we are outside of that scope
when it comes to dealing with independent fire districts.
You're shaking your head, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't agree, sir. When you're
talking about the whole total picture, we control two districts and we
May 8, 2012
have EMS, so we're definitely a player in this.
MR. HARRISON: Right. I was speaking with respect to the
independent districts.
Just to size this for you, the budgets of these districts including
EMS is roughly $71 million. You've heard from Mr. Billington an
estimate of what he believes is the cost of the top heavy management.
You've heard from Ms. Vasey what she calculates to be the difference
in pay scale between the entities. There's at least three more major
operational areas that may have significant savings.
One is dispatch. We've all seen the number of vehicles that
respond to a fender bender. We may be spending $5,000 to respond to
$2,000 worth of sheet metal damage because every entity that is
anywhere close is responding to that accident. If you had a
centralized dispatch with a triage type function, you could definitely
have an impact on over - response to traffic accidents.
Another one, each of these entities is a full -blown business in the
sense that it has an accounting department, an HR department for
doing benefits work, an IT department of some size. Maybe it's a
part -time job, but you've got all of these functional activities being
duplicated one to the other. We took a look at that six or seven years
ago as you may recall. That's another area. So I think if we were to
undertake that cost study we would kind of layer it in terms of how
much each of these issues is adding into that 71 million a year figure.
The last one is more long term, and that is collocations of
facilities, which we brought up a few times. Now we have each of
these entities deciding when and where they want to put the next
facility. There have to be savings in collocation.
What we would do in this item if you ask us to proceed with this
is pull all the budgets of all the entities, all the org. charts, to study the
spans of control, the cost of these different functions, the cost of each
response to see how much is possible to save of the 71 million.
Commissioner Fiala, you've talked about multiple cost studies. I
Page 51
May 8, 2012
think perhaps what would satisfy your desire is to see bit by bit what
each one of these current decisions is adding to the cost. Because
obviously if people don't want to entertain any changes in the current
organization or structure, you're not going to have any savings. The
whole point is that you do need to address those issues to get at the
savings. And the public wants them.
Let's go to the purchasing study for a minute. This arose in part
from a discussion I recently had with the Clerk. We've had a long
history in the county of the Clerk's Office taking exception to invoices
when they hit the finance department. This may not be the most
effective way of satisfying his audit requirements.
We also have issues with the process itself, the number of people
involved, questions of who is ultimately accountable for a project or a
purchase. You can pull open a file and there might be 10 signatures
from operating department people signing off on a purchase.
What we've suggested we do is work with the Clerk. He can look
at his audit requirements. I would propose to look at the processes to
see if they can be streamlined, if they're sufficient, if they're able to
meet the Clerk's requirements at an earlier point than when a final
invoice is presented that doesn't look like what was in the purchase
order, to see if we can't clean up this process all the way from the
point of the originators of purchase orders right through to the finance
department. Yes, we could start on that right away.
Commissioner Fiala, you talked about revenue sources, 2014 and
beyond. The ad valorem tax base is about to take another small dip.
It's actually going to be right at the level that I stood here and forecast
for you six years ago. It's going to be in the mid 50 billion range
down from the mid 70 billion range.
You tasked us to look at budgets every year. The last couple of
years we're having to go and carefully scrub reserves to find the cash
to cover the budgets. That's happening again this year.
So we need to do two things, in my view: The first project on
Page 52
May 8, 2012
your list is called activity based costing. The County Manager
supervises approximately three million man hours a year with 1,500
employees. The question this would attempt to answer is what is he
getting for those three million man hours? Restated, is he getting what
he wants to out of those or are there things incurring man hours today
that maybe relate to yesterday's priorities. So if we've got to find
ways to get today's priorities done, we have got to look at what can we
redeploy in terms of man hours.
We would also put salary data, not actuals but just salary change
data next to an analysis of how people spend their time so we can get a
sense of how much are we spending on different activities, including
things like the management structure of the county, how much of our
budget is going to the direct delivery of services to the public, as
opposed to supervising that activity. Is it the right number. This
would equip the County Manager with several analyses that ask those
types of questions.
So in a tight budget world you have to keep looking at where
you're spending your time and your money. And that leads directly to
the one you asked about, Commissioner Fiala. Our ad valorem
revenue has dropped to a level that at some point we're going to have
to address making up some of that difference. What are our options?
Do we go back with a higher millage .-ate on ad valorem? Do we go
back to franchise fee like you had us look at with the medical
company? But at some point we're going to get to look at what level
of services the public wants and how are we going to pay for them if
our revenue base keeps shrinking.
I would put that on a more distant time table than looking at the
activity based costing, because that could provide short -term relief for
the budget exercise we're going through.
Which one have I missed?
MR. OCHS : Just asset management, Steve, that's the only one.
MR. HARRISON: The Utilities Department is installing now a
Page 53
May 8, 2012
piece of software to do this predictive preventative type maintenance
on the utility plan. It's well proven that this approach to maintenance
where really the asset tells you when it needs money spent on it, it's by
far the cheapest way to maintain plant and equipment.
The county has between three and $4 billion worth of fixed
assets, including roads, sewers, everything. The cost of maintenance
of that is probably two or three percent a year. But that's like 60 to 80
million. In a constrained budget environment the temptation is to say,
well, what can we put off? That's not the cheapest way. So we really
should be giving some thought to some segregation in the budget of
items that are maintenance related so that we find the cheapest way of
maintaining our capital assets, rather than allocate what we have left
over to their maintenance.
Just going back to the projected revenue for a minute and relating
that to the activity based costing. It appears from the paper we have
some new initiatives coming at us, like possibility of funding more in
the economic development arena. We have all kinds of things that
are, you know, clamoring for resources, and we really have to weigh
those against where we're putting the resources today. So if you're
going to add some of those activities, we have to look at that in the
context of where can we save money and where are we going to get
the revenue to fund it.
That's all I have.
But I concur that we have such an ambitious list here that we
probably should time sequence some things so that we don't get
bogged down. We could start with purchasing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Harrison, if you could
be so kind, the Productivity Committee is composed of volunteers.
Would you tell us a little bit about the Productivity Committee, I
mean, for the benefit of the audience, so they understand exactly what
this advisory element is and how it serves the county?
Page 54
May 8, 2012
MR. HARRISON: Back in the Nineties an ordinance was
prepared for the county to take advantage of at the time the retired
talent that's in Naples, people with extensive business experience that
could bring to the county at no cost the benefit of the things they've
learned in industry to efficiently operate. And that's the basic thrust of
what we do.
So it's 11 people, most of whom, you know, have lots of
education and industrial experience. And we look at things kind of
with a private sector eye as well as a taxpayer eye on how do we help
the county get the maximum benefit for every tax dollar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you have saved us millions
of dollars over the years. I can remember interplaying many different
times and bringing us from decisions that we were heading towards in
a totally different direction that were totally cost savings. And I'm
sure that when you apply yourself and your committee's efforts, that
we will be able to resolve a lot of these problems that we're talking
about today.
However, with that said, what I'm going to make is a motion to
approve this work list and leave it up to the discretion of the
Productivity Committee to implement it with the resources they have
on hand at the best possible time that they think it would be
advantageous to run it, rather than to try to micromanage it.
There may be some issues here that are very, very timely and
need to come forward. There's other issues that we can put a little bit
in the background. You may have resources where you can divide up
to handle three or four issues. I don't know. That's going to be up to
you and the group to decide.
One of the elements of the Productivity Committee that the
public needs to know is they have a right to refuse to work on a
particular item just because they don't think it's in the county's best
interest. They're volunteers, they're not paid by the county. They're
free agents. They do it outside of the political spectrum of what we
Page 55
May 8, 2012
normally know as Collier County government.
So my motion is to approve the list as is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion dies for lack of a second.
Now, let me make some observations, if you don't mind.
The list leaves the impression that nobody is doing any of these
things. And that is clearly false, okay, that's my problem with the list.
As far as conducting activity -based costing analyses, that's been
Kim Grant's full -time job for many years now. And as a result, the
county has achieved substantial efficiencies and reduced our overall
staffing by 24 percent because of reductions in revenue. That doesn't
happen because somebody doesn't look at the organization to decide
where you can eliminate people and shift workloads and do things
more efficiently.
The county has also consolidated two major divisions and
achieved huge increases in performance and service to the customers.
The county's Public Utilities Department has been working on
the asset management system for some time. They're already deeply
involved in implementing it. And I see no point in trying to introduce
another group of people in that process other than to, as you point out,
serve as a liaison with some of the other departments. I see no need
for an independent county infrastructure asset management plan.
The projection of county income and expenses and estimate the
amount and source of the fundings is something we do every year. In
fact, we do it pretty much on a monthly basis. We have tasked our
financial people with doing exactly that. We have asked them for
sources and uses of funds. We want to know exactly where the money
is coming to pay our debt. And they have done that, and it has been
very clearly identified. And they did it at a time when we were
looking at reductions in revenues of 12 to 15 percent per year. Now
we're looking at reductions of maybe two or three percent per year and
we're getting very close to leveling out.
So I've seen nothing that indicates that we are in great danger of
Page 56
May 8, 2012
not being able to pay our bills here. But you have an opportunity, the
Productivity Committee has an opportunity to review that every time
you look at our budgets. And you do that every year for us and you
do a wonderful job. I see no need to launch on a separate project of
doing that, that's something that should be done as a part of the budget
review.
Reviewing the contract management functions and administrative
policies involves an agency outside of our purview too. And I do not
think it's inappropriate that you do that. I think that somebody needs
to grab hold of those processes and try to make sure that they mesh
properly from both ends.
Now, the Clerk has an option of saying no, I don't want you
rummaging around in my processes. But we can certainly ask if he
would be interested in participating that way.
But we also recently received a commitment that the Clerk would
look at the legal impediments to working closely with the county to
resolve some of those issues. As soon as those legal impediments are
resolved, it might be appropriate that we do that.
But the only thing in my estimation that has a pressing time
schedule is the integration of county -wide fire and EMS services.
And unlike others who feel that the Board of County Commissioners
don't really have responsibility for health, safety and welfare, I think
we do. And I think health, safety and welfare encompasses an entire
range of services. And if they are ways we can contribute
county -wide by interacting with other agencies, I think we should do
that. And I don't see any impediment to do it.
All of the information we need to do that is in the public domain,
to the best of my knowledge. And if those other agencies would refuse
to work with you, which I think would be unprecedented, but if they
refuse to work with you, that sends a eery, very clear message to the
public.
So I think that based upon our motion, our decision earlier today
Page 57
May 8, 2012
that we'd like to take something to a referendum, we've got to produce
something about the implementation of this consolidation program.
We don't have an option. Who's going to do that if we don't do it?
And who better than you would be qualified to do that?
So I go back to -- you don't say to a manager I want you to do
everything all at the same time, okay?
MR. HARRISON: I hope I wasn't saying that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not saying that you did. What
I'm saying is let's concentrate the Productivity Committee's resources
in the area where you can get to the high priority projects first and let's
pick one. Let's pick one. My pick is the organizational integration of
county -wide fire and EMS services, because we're going to have to do
it if we're going to put something, a referendum, on the ballot. We
have to do that.
So let's get it done, let's get started. And that would be my
solution. And then of course incorporate Commissioner Coletta's
approval of the list. But let's prioritize one item, and when you finish
that one item we'll go on to something else, okay. Because the
management of your time is just as important as the management of
our time. Okay?
MR. HARRISON: Still work on the budget, of course.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely, continue to
work on all the things. The budget, you do a fantastic job on the
budget --
MR. HARRISON: Free resources are in great demand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I know they are. And that's why
I'm saying, let's trim it down a little bit and focus. And you've got
budget review and the integration of county -wide fire and EMS
services.
MR. HARRISON: I already have teams in mind to tackle the
organization of the fire and EMS and the purchasing. The rest we can
deal with in another time period.
OEM
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, budgeting, don't forget the
budgeting, budgeting review.
MR. HARRISON: We have budget reviews coming up in June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I know.
Okay, who was next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning was
next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you hear a second here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've used up my time allocation for the
day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a promise?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Steve, I don't know why you're
coming to the Board of Commissioners for your work list. It's not in
your charter that I see. Am I wrong about that?
MR. HARRISON: No, it is not in the charter. We just do it as a
courtesy to make sure that we're all working together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I think this is
worthy of reading what is the duties, powers and functions of the
Productivity Committee.
The committee shall evaluate departments, divisions of Collier
County government under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Commissioners, determine those departments and divisions and
operating at appropriate level and efficiencies and effectiveness to
meet the expectation of the people of Collier County. Not the Board
of Commissioners.
Without limiting general of the foregoing, the committee may
analyze and review existing structural organization of staff
management functions, business practice and procedures of any of all
departments and divisions under the Board of Commissioners.
And the committee also -- committee may also conduct budget
Page 59
May 8, 2012
reviews as appropriate and county -based governmental entities or
office of budgetary or other major financial oversight is discretion
under the Board of Commissioners.
The object of the county taxpayers, that all options to conserve
taxes are being explored.
And I think really what it's saying here is not that you have -- the
Productivity Committee has a fiduciary duty, but it's the -- the goals
and objective of the Productivity Committee is to find ways of
efficiencies within Collier County government. I don't see anything
on your bucket list that says anything different, okay.
MR. HARRISON: I do agree we need to time phase these things,
because it's on overload list and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's up to you. You don't
have to come to the Board of Commissioners. I appreciate it but I
don't see where we need to approve anything.
I mean, I support the Productivity Committee and I appreciate the
work they do. I don't always agree. However, you're speaking as a
citizen at a different level, or I would say a higher level than us up
here, because we serve you. You don't serve us.
MR. HARRISON: Just a final comment. I'm well aware of Kim
Grant's work. I was one of the people that encouraged that she be put
on the payroll. In no way did we attempt to suggest that she has not
made a huge contribution here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I cannot go along with the
motion only because Janet's been a long, long, long -time friend,
believe me. But in this case she being -- serving on this committee,
who has one target and that is consolidation and getting it under the
Sheriffs rule, and she's naturally been speaking to us and writing us
letters and writing letters to the editor and so forth. We do know
there's a bias there. So how can you come up with any other
Page 60
May 8, 2012
conclusion but the one that she's already pushing? So I could tell you
what your conclusion is before you even begin on that one.
So I don't believe that that's something that you should even
tackle at all. Her group is already tackling that from the community
side. She's got a number of people serving on that committee.
So to me, to reiterate what she's already doing on the other side
would not make an impact on me at all, because I know where she's
already going. And I say that out of friendship. I don't mean that to
be unkind. It's just that I don't think that that would have -- it would
not have any validity in my book.
I still think we really -- if you want to tackle these things, we
really do need help with the policies and processes as far as our
purchasing and our invoices and so forth. Because we really want to
do abetter job there. It's not that we don't always do a great job, but
we -- most of the time we do, but we still have places where we stub
our toes. And we want to do the best we can to make all of our
citizens proud of us. And to me that's where you could focus your
attention and make a difference.
MR. HARRISON: Whoever does the consolidation review needs
to put the budgets side by side with the org. charts. Ms. Vasey does
quality work. She's doing that outside of the Productivity Committee.
But if you want that review to be done independently, that's fine.
But somewhere I've seen a statistic that in Florida 71 percent of
the residents live under a public safety type of arrangement --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'm going to remove my
second and support Commissioner Henning's position that the
Productivity Committee is an entity in itself and they don't have to
come to us to be able to receive permission to work on these items,
and leave it to their discretion. I believe that's what Commissioner
Henning was saying a moment ago. Maybe he'll clarify it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's their charter. They don't
Page 61
May 8, 2012
have to come to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then I support what you're
saying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that right, Jeff? Is that how
you read it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not.
MR. KLATZKOW: Normally I would agree with that; however,
I think Commissioner Hiller brought up a point that perhaps review of
the independent fire districts is outside the scope of the ordinance. I
think you can direct them to look at that, but I don't think they could
do that on their own. Everything else they can do on their own.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll tell you, if that's the case and
you start showing up in every organization in Collier County and
interrupting their work and their organization and interfering with the
decisions of the County Manager, I'm going to vote to eliminate every
one of you when you come up for renewal on your terms. Because
that is an insane way to operate. The Productivity Committee should
never interfere with the decision - making responsibilities of the Board
of County Commission or the County Manager. And that implies that
you get permission to do those kinds of things.
MR. HARRISON: It does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right. So I think that is a
crazy, crazy suggestion. But if that's what the Board wants to do --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I'm not done. I'm not
done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm trying to reach some sort of
agreement here.
We all know that without this element from the Productivity
Committee we're not going to be able to ever get to where we need to
be. They're a group that's set up, they're recognized for their
Page 62
May 8, 2012
efficiency.
Collier County government has a stake in this whole thing with
the EMS and two fire departments. If they don't do it, the entity that
will do it will drag this out, there will be another study that will go
into infinity until they tire everybody out and everything comes to an
end, just like it has in every single study that has taken place in the
past. If they don't do it, I don't know who is going to do it, which
leaves a big element missing from it and we're right back to where we
were before.
I have no problem directing them, if they need direction. Is that
is what you're saying, Mr. Klatzkow, that they need a direction,
specifically when it comes to the fire /EMS consolidation? Or they
don't?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think that would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Helpful or they absolutely have
to have it or they don't have to have it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think they need that. They're going outside
the four corners of the ordinance.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Commissioner Hiller would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me add, they can only do that if they
go to the fire districts and ask them for the information and ask the fire
districts to participate. If the fire districts say no, they have the right
to get any public information they wish to get to analyze it to
determine if they can make recommendations about improving health,
safety and welfare for the entire county. There is absolutely nothing
that prohibits them to do that.
MR. HARRISON: Asa citizen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As a citizen. That's exactly right.
Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I'd like to say that I really appreciate everything you said,
Commissioner Coyle. I think you made some excellent comments.
Page 63
May 8, 2012
And for all the reasons -- and I'll address the fire consolidation
question separately. For all the reasons that you said in your remarks
that staff is already addressing or has addressed the issues that
Productivity is proposing to address, I believe there is no reason for
Productivity to look at the same things that staff is doing a really great
job on.
With respect to fire, I agree with Jeff to a point and that is, you
know, fire consolidation is outside of the scope of this ordinance, and
so I don't believe that legally the Productivity Committee can address
what relates to any activities, financial or process -wise, that don't fall
under the Board of Commissioners, and more specifically the County
Manager. And that goes also to looking at the processes adopted by
the Clerk of Courts.
So quite frankly, based on that, supporting your comments on the
other items, and with respect to extra jurisdictional subjects of the
Clerk and fire, I can't support anything except the budget review,
which as you already pointed out is already being done as part of the
Productivity Committee's work plan on an annual basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, I'll make it one. I make
a motion that we deny the proposed 2012 work plan as presented and
as ask the Productivity Committee to go back and really focus on
developing a work plan that addresses the intent of their ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Hiller to
reject the -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I just need to restate the motion to
get it on the record. Just a moment.
A motion by Commissioner Hiller to deny the work plan and to
approve the Productivity Committee to continue working on the
Page 64
May 8, 2012
budget reviews and to prepare a work plan that conforms to their
charter; is that correct, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yup.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Okay, Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question about the
motion and the comment. As far as the work plan, are you saying that
we need to approve the work plan in the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm saying that the work plan
as they had presented it is not a good one. And I'm not saying that
these are not good subjects, they're just not good subjects for the
Productivity Committee to address because these are -- they're studies
that are being currently done by staff in just about every division of
the county.
And Commissioner Coyle said it perfectly. I mean, to take an
example, asset management, utilities is developing an asset
management template in order for us to be able to determine the extent
of our unfunded liability, or for that matter funded, you know,
potential costs. And transportation is going to be working with
utilities to tailor that program for themselves. It's being done.
Productivity's involvement would not add any value to what staff is
already doing very efficiently and effectively. And we're looking
forward to their results.
And that's just one example. I don't want to repeat everything
Commissioner Coyle said. He's absolutely right, he articulated it
properly, and I just don't think it makes any sense for Productivity to
be addressing projects that staff has underway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, let me read their
charter --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I heard it, you already read it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- one sentence --
a U 6 I
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think not to confuse a
group of citizens willing to volunteer to assist the Board of
Commissioners, we need to clarify what we meant when we said for
the committee to analyze and review existing structure organization,
staffing, management functions, business practice and procedures of
all departments and divisions under the Board of Commissioners. I
think we need to clarify that if we want to -- because I would be very
confused if I sit on that -- this committee and listening to the Board of
Commissioners have a discussion. Work under your charter but don't
do what the County Manager is doing now. It just does not make
sense to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me try to draw a parallel. If you
were to read the organization and responsibilities of our Parks and
Recreation Department, one of the responsibilities is to build parks
and conduct recreational programs. But they don't go out and do it
without our guidance and priorities. We guide them. It's their
responsibility to do that but it's all subject to our approval and
guidance. Otherwise why do we bother to appoint them as a
government committee? We just ought to say, hey, come on in and
start doing things here.
But, you know, I can't even believe this debate. But I want to get
it over with so we can get on to some worthwhile business. So I'm
going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to respond to that. I think
it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's important if we need
to approve the work plan to put it in the ordinance. I mean, don't we
work -- do we work by feelings or whims or something? You know,
all these committees, if we're going to change what they're supposed
to review, if we're going to say you have to come to us first before you
Page 66
May 8, 2012
give your time, then let's put it in the ordinance, because these people
might have better things to do, or they might think it's a great idea. I
don't know.
But to do something on the fly like this is -- just doesn't make
sense.
MR. HARRISON: Commissioner Coyle, we come to you
because we respect your authority and that of the County Manager.
And how foolish it would be for us to ignore that authority. Our
objective in any of these topics is simply to facilitate or accelerate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. And you understood that.
MR. HARRISON: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think every member on that committee
understands that. There is no confusion for most of us here. But the
idea that you can put down in writing, in regulations every decision,
thought and action that is expected of everybody who interacts with
the government is just completely naive. That's why people have the
authority to make decisions. They call them County Commissioners.
And we make decisions.
So I know Commissioner Fiala's been waiting to speak. Go
ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is only a simple comment, not
much more than that.
I remember when I first became a commissioner and I heard of
the Productivity Committee and I thought that they dealt in
productivity. And I remember writing them a note and saying maybe
could you look into, and I named a department that I felt really could
use help with being productive and maybe streamline their efforts.
And they said well, we mainly deal with budgets, we don't really deal
with productivity committee (sic). And I said, then why don't you get
called the budget committee? Do you remember all of that going on,
yeah, years and years back?
I think that what they want to do is -- I don't blame them.
Page 67
May 8, 2012
Whatever they feel needs to be addressed by the Productivity
Committee, whether it has to do with productivity or whether it has to
do with saving taxpayer dollars, I don't think we should be telling
them what to do in the first place. So whatever it is, I cannot vote for
anything, just let them do it and come back to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So Commissioner Fiala, you
withdraw your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, which one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller's, Commissioner
Hiller's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Hiller's, yes.
Repeat that one for me, would you please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller made a motion to
reject the work plan but to approve that the Productivity Committee
would continue working on budget review and would produce a work
plan that falls within their purview.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's just about what I just
said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. So the element for the
EMS and fire is contained in here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's disapproved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then, okay, I can't vote for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
99 =_ e�,
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3 -2 with Commissioners
Coletta and Henning dissenting. And I voted for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I voted for it because it's the only way
people are going to learn what happens when you manage that way,
okay? So good luck to you. Have a lot of fun.
Item #I OE
RESOLUTION 2012 -078: REAPPOINTING GEORGE E. FOGG
TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MSTU
— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Sir, 10.E is appointment of a member to the Forest
Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve George Fogg.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconded the
appointment of George Fogg. Motion was made by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 69
May 8, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OF
RESOLUTION 2012 -079: APPOINTING CYNTHIA HARROLD
IN THE ANIMAL ACTIVIST CATEGORY (SERVING THE
REMAINDER OF A 4 -YEAR TERM EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2015)
TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IO.F is appointment of member to the Animal
Services Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I propose the approval of Cynthia
Harrold.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coyle for
Cynthia Harrold, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OG
APPOINTING LINDA S. PENNIMAN (REPRESENTING THE
CITY OF NAPLES) TO THE COASTAL ADVISORY BOARD
Page 70
May 8, 2012
o relli 0 01
MR. OCHS: IO.G is appointment of member to the Coastal
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make the motion to accept the
candidate that the City of Naples has submitted, Linda S. Penniman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion by Commissioner Fiala
to approve the appointment of the City of Naples' recommendation
Linda Penniman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OH
WAIVING THE DAILY CHARGES FOR THE LANE RENTAL
FEE FOR EAST RADIO ROAD MSTU - MOTION TO APPROVE
THE WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE AND DIRECTING THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO AMEND THE POLICY AND TO
WAIVE THE FEES FOR COUNTY PROJECTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10.1-1 is recommendation to waive the daily charges
for lane rental fee for East Radio Road MSTU. This item was placed
on the agenda by Commissioner Henning.
Page 71
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioners, what is
happening now, Michele Arnold is budgeting in her budget lane
closures fees, and that's even with the maintenance of medians and
paying the county a separate entity a -- that fee. And then it's going
back in the general fund.
It appears that me that we can probably do this a little bit better.
The whole deal for the lane closure fee is people doing work within
the roadway is to try to get them out as soon as possible. That's the
deal with the fee. However, as far as instead of swapping monies
from one pocket to the other, I think a better way is for the alternative
transportation mode to work with the contractor to get them out of the
way as soon as possible instead of charging a fee.
And Nick, I think you're supportive of that and bring something
back at a later day?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, Commissioner. We discussed
this. You actually raised a good point. If the county or county agency
is doing the enhancement within the right -of -way to better the county,
we're charging ourselves a lane rental fee. This was actually brought
up by former County Manager Mr. Mudd.
When we have a private contractor who is not doing that, we
want to get them out of the right -of -way as quickly as possible. We
don't control that. But when it's a county project, I discussed this with
Attorney Klatzkow, it's an enhancement the county's doing, we're
charging ourselves a lane rental fee, it's kind of, you know, silly in a
sense.
So I agree with the Commissioner, we'll bring that forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we -- to waive the charges for lane rental fee for East Radio Road
MSTU and give direction to the County Manager to amend the lane
rental fee incentive program to accept the county's -- for county
proj ects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
Page 72
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
We have an 11:30 presentation?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we have a proclamation at 11:30 to
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have something you can do in two
minutes? How about Commissioners' correspondence?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. OCHS: No, Commissioner, I really don't believe I have
one.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the recipient of the proclamation is here,
if you wanted to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's only one recipient here? Okay.
Commissioner Hiller, is it okay if we proceed with this item
now? It's 11:29 here, we're one minute early.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, go right ahead. I wish I was
there for you, Michele.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she's here, so we're going to invite
her to come up and —
Item #4E
Page 73
May 8, 2012
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY, 2012 AS BIKE
MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MICHELLE
AVOLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAPLES PATHWAYS
COALITION, INC — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: This is item 4.E on your agenda under
proclamations today. It's a proclamation designating May, 2012 as
Bike Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Michele Avola,
executive director of the Naples Pathway Coalition, Incorporated.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
Please come forward, Michele, to accept the award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll shake your hand twice, one for
me and one for Commissioner Hiller, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, may I get a separate motion to
approve that proclamation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
And Michele wants to make some comments.
Page 74
May 8, 2012
MS. AVOLA: Thank you very much. Michele Avola with
Naples Pathways Coalition.
We are really appreciative to the city and the county for all its
progress made toward making our community more bicycle and
pedestrian friendly. And we're really excited to hear about the Collier
County Sheriffs Office partnering with Florida Highway Patrol this
week to work on a safety campaign aimed towards cyclists and
pedestrians. We've reached out to offer some assistance, some free
bike helmets, that kind of thing.
Bike to Work Week is next week. We're encouraging anyone
who has the opportunity, if you don't live too far from work, to try
biking to work. If there's not a very safe route the whole distance,
perhaps you can drive part of the way, bike part of the way, enjoy
some physical benefits as well as saving some money at the gas
pumps.
We are encouraging people to just think a little bit differently,
especially this month. If you're going to go out and get some coffee,
why not ride your bike up there. If you're going to go take a friend out
for lunch, why not try to ride a bike there instead of getting in your
car.
Thanks so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Michele. And that's a good
idea, by the way. Thank you. It's a good program.
Item #1 I A
INVITATION TO BID 912 -5850, MITIGATION CREDITS TO
MULTIPLE VENDORS. (ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENSES: $1
MILLION) - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF' S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE ORDER —
APPROVED
Page 75
May 8, 2012
MR. OCHS : Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item I LA on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to award invitation to bid 12 -5850,
mitigation credits, to multiple vendors. Mr. Jay Ahmad, your
Transportation Engineering Director, will present or answer questions.
It's the pleasure of the Board.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jay Ahmad,
your Director of Transportation Engineering. I'm available to answer
any questions or I can have a short presentation of about three slides.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I make
a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I'd like to make a
motion to deny this request. I asked staff to give me a list of the
projects that they had coming up in the next year and what their needs
would be with respect to mitigation credits, and it was minimal. In
fact, if Mr. Casalanguida is there, he can present what information he
sent me. I see no reason to do what's being proposed.
When we need those mitigation credits, the few that we will
need, if the projects that are being proposed do in fact advance, we can
buy those few credits by bid at that time. But to commit to -- you
know, to put this out to bid for this many credits at this point just
makes no sense. I don't think there's any reason for this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you want Mr.
Ahmad to respond to Commissioner Hiller's question first before you
speak, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I could do that, but I also
have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll come back to you.
Jay, do you want to address Commissioner Hiller's concern?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. We have -- Commissioner Hiller asked
us for what projects we foresee coming up in the next couple of years.
What I provided to her is our program for the next five years. And
Page 76
May 8, 2012
the project that comes to mind is -- that is crucial that you act on this
item today are the bridges on Golden Gate Boulevard. You approved
a couple months ago the design/build contract for two deficient
bridges on Golden Gate Boulevard. And we have a contractor that
started the design aspect of the design/build project. And we hope to
-- in order to get our permit is to move ahead and purchase these
credits that are shown, approximately $264,000 worth of mitigation
credits. And we would use this contract to purchase those units, versus
the last year's contract, which is for panther mitigation alone is $200
more per unit, which we would pay even if we paid for the -- based on
the current contracts, $200 more per unit for those.
And the chart I just put on display is the historical prices or bids
we've gotten through the years, and they have been going down due to
economy. We used to pay in 2006, $2,400. And in 2010 bid came in
to 925. And today before you this contract is $725. So I would
strongly urge you to approve this contract, simply for the deficient
bridges that we have, and we must attend to those bridges.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What contract? I don't see a
contract in my agenda.
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner Henning, we came before you to
approve the design/build contract two months ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're asking us to approve
a contract today?
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's -- I don't have it in --
it's not in any back -up material. I don't know how long this contract is
for. You know, we are working on trying to create our own mitigation
bank. Does it comply with the time line on the anticipation of our
mitigation bank? I don't know, because that is not in here. We don't
-- I don't have it in my back -up material. No contract is in the back -up
material.
Page 77
May 8, 2012
MR. AHMAD: The contract for mitigation is before you today.
The -- purchasing may have -- may need to include it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have it in my back -up.
Does anybody else have it in their back -up material?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director.
Commissioner Henning, the contract at the time will be issued
through a purchase order. So these prices will remain firm for a year.
And it's a renewal contract every year for the next three years after
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're approving purchase
orders under a contract? Don't we have to have a contract in order to
let purchase orders?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we don't?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: No, sir. Generally speaking, you either
use a contract, which you see oftentimes for fixed term arrangements.
In this case a purchase order is all that's necessary to buy these
mitigation credits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. But -- so is this
purchase order a time frame? Is this purchase order open for one
year?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Generally not, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then if it's renewed, who
renews it? Staff?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Generally not, sir. A purchase order is
opened for a particular number of credits. Once those credits are
purchased, then the purchase order generally is closed.
If Mr. Ahmad has another project, we'd open up a second
purchase order and that second purchase order would be used for that
certain number of credits. The purchase order carries with it the
county's terms and conditions associated with this solicitation.
Page 78
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I need more information,
because I have no idea what staff is -- how long staff is asking us to do
this. There's nothing here.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hiller did put a
motion forward to deny, so it needs a second or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller has made a motion
to deny. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Quite frankly I would like some
more information. I'm not going to second the motion. I would like to
make a substantial motion myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies for lack of
second, Commissioner Hiller.
I think it's worthwhile to explain the invitation to bid process. It's
the invitation to bid that establishes the parameters upon which you
select the bidders. And you're asking us to approve your selection of
the bidders who will provide these services in accordance to your
invitation to bid.
So what -- of course you haven't included this invitation to bid so
there's nobody -- no one really knows what the terms of the invitation
to bid really were. But if you could explain that to everybody and tell
us whether or not you're obligated to accept anything from these
people for a period of time. If they've committed to provide these
prices for a specified period of time and they're locked in for that
period of time, those are the kinds of things that might make some of
the Commissioners feel more comfortable with this.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Would you care for me to respond, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please, go ahead.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: The invitation to bid carries with it all of
the specifications that in this case Growth Management has identified.
We don't know when we might need to use various mitigation
credits. So what we put out for general bid is a series of credits. In
this case there were eight categories identified. So that when project
Page 79
May 8, 2012
work commences we have in essence a series of -- in this case we had
-- I think we're awarding six different bidders.
So when Growth Management or Public Utilities or any other
department identifies a case where they need to purchase a credit, we
can go ahead and use this fixed term contract. These prices are
secured for us for the next year. There are three renewal year options
that we can exercise at a later date.
But we would call up the service or issue the service using a
purchase order with this pricing. We are not obligated any dollar
amount at this point, it's only as needed when we call it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Page 182, financial impact,
there is no financial impact. Mitigation will be purchased on a
project -by- project basis. Funding will be identified in each individual
project budget.
So we do get to see this thing coming back. But I have questions
that go past that, if I may.
Regarding the possibility of the county getting their mitigation
credits, and I understand where Commissioner Hiller is coming from.
She would like to wait, hoping that the county would be able to come
in and the mitigation credits would be able to save some money.
Just on the outside, how far away are we looking at? Can
anybody take a guess at it? Or is it one of these things that we've
never done before and we have no idea?
MS. HENNIG: Principal Environmental Specialist Melissa
Hennig.
Our best guess is a year for the wetland credits. The panther
credits, we are one step closer with negotiations with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service on our trust agreement. We've sent them revisions.
We have no control when they'll respond if they'll accept the
revisions, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to make sure, these credits
May 8, 2012
we're looking for on the different county owned lands, is this going to
in any way impact the uses of that land by our citizens?
MS. HENNIG: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. It was just a side
question.
Okay, now that we established that fact that we're a year, maybe
a year and a half away, I guess the next question would be, the
mitigation credits that we have listed here, are we obligated to buy
them?
We're not obligated to buy them. So in other words, if the credits
came forward from the county's land, we could immediately start
using them for anything new that comes up; is that correct?
MR. AHMAD: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That goes for these projects that
you already mentioned to put on the screen that you can't fully
identify because they're still in the works.
MR. AHMAD: Absolutely. Those projects are on the books.
And if we get our mitigation credits through Starnes' property,
Caracara, a bank, or Pepper Ranch, we certainly will use those first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the mitigation credits, is
there a likelihood that we'll never use all the mitigation credits that the
county will be able to generate when we do actually get them?
MR. AHMAD: From transportation perspective, which I can
speak to, those are the projects that I can see. I'm not sure if
Purchasing can speak --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm saying is is that these
mitigation credits don't expire. They stay active way off into the
future. So we're going to be using every single one of them that we
can generate on future projects.
MR. AHMAD: That's right. For Pepper Ranch or Caracara
Ranch, when they get approved, those --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now Commissioner Hiller's
Page 81
May 8, 2012
motion of course has died, so I'm going to make a motion to approve
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we approving what was
said, fixed term contracts?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're approving the staff
recommendations that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
approve staff recommendations to award ITB number 12 -5850 to the
identified firms on a primary /secondary basis to provide mitigation
bank services pursuant to the issue of a standard county purchase
order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it's a purchase order,
not a contract.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It said fixed term contract, so
I'm trying to still find the contract. But it's purchase orders.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, the purchase order is the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For how long? How long are
these purchase orders? Can we just say that we don't want these
purchase orders anymore, we're going to close them out?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. For --
MR. OCHS: They're project specific, I believe Ms. Markiewicz
said. They only get requisitioned on an as- needed basis. And they're
only good for those credits that are requisitioned in the purchase order,
and then they -- then if we need additional credits we have to
requisition a separate second purchase order. So we don't have to do
that, we -- if our banks come on line in the interim, we could
immediately begin to use the credits on the county mitigation banks.
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Item #1 1 B
AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL (ADVISORY BOARD) ORDINANCE NO. 92 -18, AS
AMENDED, TO MORE SPECIFICALLY CONFORM TO THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN SECTION 125.0104(4)(E), FLA.
STAT., TO INCLUDE THE TDC RECOMMENDATION TO
MAKE THE LANGUAGE MORE STRINGENT WITH
"EXPERIENCE," AND STAFF TO ADVERTISE THE
ORDINANCE AND RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR ADOPTION
- MOTION TO BRING BACK THE ADVERTISING FOR THE
ORDINANCE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I LB is a recommendation to
approve an amendment to the Tourist Development Council
Ordinance No. 92 -18 as amended to more specifically conform to the
statutory language in Section 125.01.04(4)(E) Florida Statutes to
include the TDC recommendation to make the language more
stringent with experience and to authorize staff to advertise the
ordinance and return to the Board for adoption.
Page 83
May 8, 2012
Mr. Wert, your Tourism Director, is here to present or to respond
to questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do you want to say something, put
something on the record, Jack?
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jack Wert, Tourism
Director.
The outline that Mr. Ochs gave I think adequately says why we
are here. This change in the ordinance is to more clearly conform to
the State Statute 125.01.04, which we are always trying to mirror the
best we can. And the -- these changes would do so.
There is one word change here that has been requested
unanimously by the Tourist Development Council and that is to
change the word to experience instead of interest in the tourism
industry. That is the only change. They felt in their discussion that
that would help get folks who really do have some experience related
to the tourism industry to serve on this board.
As we all know, and you've all served on the TDC, it's a very
hard - working board, really does deal directly with tourism and it does
help to have folks who have that kind of experience on the board.
That was the unanimous feeling, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: First speaker is Mary Lou Smart.
MS. SMART: Good morning. Still morning?
I'm here today to discuss the proposed change in the tourist
development ordinance calling for more stringent requirements in
regards to experience.
Is there really a great need to make the wording on this ordinance
more restrictive? The Florida statute gives counties broad power in
creating the tourist development ordinances for good reason. In one of
May 8, 2012
Florida's largest counties you should be looking for wide - ranging
experience on any board that has a say in how money will be -- how to
spend money that will promote something as important as tourism.
It's the job of the people on the board to follow provisions of the
ordinance. And I'm not sure that tourism experience is really the best
qualifier. The ordinance, for example, specifically states that the
funding of beach facilities is definitely a permitted expenditure. The
TDC board members who vehemently oppose the funding of the
beach facility that will be built in North Naples were the hoteliers.
Meanwhile, beaches all over Florida and all over Collier County have
beach facilities that are well loved by repeat visitors. And visitors to
our areas.
This amenity will benefit tourism and therefore benefit our local
economy. And the ones who would supposedly have the greatest
tourism experience voted against it.
Tourism is much more than hotels. And I question the wisdom of
painting yourself into a box dominated by the same people with
self - serving interest who do nothing more than chant the advertising
only mantra. These public funds should be used to promote tourism in
Collier County but they were never intended to be an advertising
subsidy for private businesses.
If you're reviewing the ordinance, someone might like to note
that there's no place in the Florida statute or the Collier County
ordinance that says that the busiest hotel with the highest room rates
should have a permanent seat on this board, as was recently suggested.
The state statute mentions drawing representation from tourist
accommodations that are subject to the tourist tax. And that can be
interpreted in many ways. Instead of more stringent wording, please
keep your options open to be able to choose appropriate representation
from the entire county and to include varied types of tourism business.
Everglades City, for instance, does a fantastic job of promoting
itself as an ecotourism destination. Why don't you consider an
May 8, 2012
Everglades City tourism professional for your next opening? Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Emily Maggio.
MS. MAGGIO: Good morning. For the record, Emily Maggio.
It was in November of 1992 that the voters of Collier County
approved the levy of the tourist tax by a margin of more than two to
one, in spite of a very vigorous campaign by local hoteliers opposing
this tax. The resolution calling for the issue to be placed on the ballot
tells us the governing ordinance was approved by the Commission
before the election took place. Thus the voters knew exactly what
they were approving. This wasn't just a concept blanks and details to
be filled in later, it was a specific law. And the Florida statutes
required that it not take effect until and unless the voters approved it.
That ordinance put Category A as the top priority, being beach
renourishment, beach park facilities and maintenance, pass
maintenance, et cetera. It also allocates the largest share of revenue to
it. These projects all take place on property that belongs to the public,
on public trust lands and they are intended to benefit all of the public.
Who collects the tax or who collects the most tax doesn't change the
fact that the money belongs to the people of Collier County. And by
voting to approve that ordinance in 1992 they said exactly how they
wanted that money to be spent. The citizens of Collier County are the
most important stakeholders in this endeavor.
And with what all they have -- all we have at stake, it seems
more than appropriate that the Tourist Development Council maintain
the diverse membership that has existed for 20 years. With no legal
imperative to make this proposed change, it seems the perfect situation
for that pearl of common sense wisdom: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, I'm Bob Krasowski.
I know Emily, but I've never met the first speaker, and I think she
91-M.
May 8, 2012
said it perfectly well. I totally support her. In my own little way the --
and reading the documentation, where it's now as it exists, you want
people that can demonstrate an interest in tourism to make a part of
the nine - member Tourist Development Council.
This is where some want to change it to people with experience
in the tourist development industry. I don't agree with making that
change at all. And I hope you don't do it. We should be going in the
other way, to diversify the input you get through the Tourist
Development Council so they can have a greater mix of ideas and
thought processes before it's brought to you for your evaluation.
I would suggest that you have a slot there maybe for a
community artist or for a designer, someone who's a professional
designer, an engineer or an architect. We have some architects on
some of our boards that are very much in tune to design and they think
differently. And we need a broader scope, not a concentration, as Ms.
Maggio has pointed out. A broader scope of thinking and -- because
it's starting to show when we have too strong of a singular
representation than a broader one. And I would think maybe you
would want to add maybe at a later date, maybe not for this
discussion, an element where you keep the council within its budget
and not come up with exorbitant projects that spend everything they
have and look to the future for more revenue so we can manage things
a little more sensibly over a period of time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, let me take just a
moment and share with you some thoughts.
I don't feel that the ordinance addresses the kinds of things that
seem to be disturbing the Commissioners at our last meeting. For
example, I don't know why Marco doesn't have a permanent seat. And
I don't know why it doesn't -- we don't give the City of Marco the
May 8, 2012
option of appointing one of their members of the council to the TDC.
Because here's what's going to happen: The statute says we've
got to give one to the most populous city -- municipality. Now, that's
the City of Naples. But that's likely going to change in a couple of
years and you'll be rotating that position between Marco and Naples,
depending upon who gets a little over 20,000 or so. Marco's at
17,000, close to 18,000 permanent population and 40,000 during
tourist season. And I would be willing to bet that is greater than the
population of Naples during season. And we don't want to get into
that battle, I don't think.
And I would like to see if we can't evaluate some ways of solving
that problem, to give the municipalities the right to designate a
member of their councils.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This ordinance does it. This
suggested ordinance does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's -- no, not the revised
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The revised ordinance does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it doesn't.
MR. WERT: I'd --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you have to ask Jack,
who worked with the County Attorney's Office to develop this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't get that out of this
ordinance. I see nothing in this ordinance that does that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: The ordinance change that we are suggesting
today, as I said before, mirrors the state statute. It says that the
council will be made up of two municipal elected officials, one of
which would be from the largest municipality.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. And the other would be
rotated.
MR. WERT: It doesn't say that. No, it says another
aff-M,
May 8, 2012
municipality. So it could be any of the others.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but it has been our practice to try to
rotate that between Marco and Everglades City.
MR. WERT: That is correct. In fact, we have an ordinance
amendment in place currently that we are suggesting changing that
actually says that, that every other time it would rotate between Marco
and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, that's not what I'm talking about.
MR. WERT: That's what we're asking to amend.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, I don't think that should happen. I
don't think Marco should lose their representative just because you
want to give one to Everglades for awhile. I think they both should
have one. I think it's a relatively simple change.
And the other point that has been made by one of the speakers is
that this -- the original two percent tourist development tax was passed
by the voters because they were told it was for financing beach
renourishment and maintenance and to promote and advertise tourism,
okay? And then the third cent was added by vote of the Board of
County Commissioners specifically for beach renourishment.
MR. WERT: Correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then the fourth cent was added
specifically for advertising.
MR. WERT: Marketing and advertising.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you look at that, then 50 percent of
the funding goes to beach renourishment and 50 percent of the funding
goes to advertising and tourist promotions.
But I understand there's other divisions there, okay. But what I
don't see on representation for the TDC are people who can advocate
for beach renourishment. You know, I don't see that happening here.
I see operators of hotels, but I don't see people who advocate for beach
renourishment. And they sometimes can be different. That is, they
can have sometimes different interests.
May 8, 2012
So what I'm suggesting is that we reject this particular plan and
implement a change which will give Marco and Everglades City the
right to appoint a member of their councils to a position on the TDC,
and that we leave the other -- I think there would be two remaining
positions; is that right? Am I counting it right, Jeff?
MR. WERT: I don't believe you can do that by the state statute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think you can, okay. You haven't
taken that law recently, have you?
MR. WERT: No, sir, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor have I.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are nine seats. One of the
Commissioners has one seat. Two of the seats are elected officials.
One of the elected officials has to be from the most populous
municipality. That leaves you with six seats. I don't have an issue
with the third municipality appointing a member to those other six
seats. They would have to either be interested in tourism or they'd
have to be an owner - operator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And that would be left up to the
governing body of the municipality, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it could be a member of their
council.
MR. KLATZKOW: If the council meets those parameters, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If they meet those parameters, just as
well as we meet those parameters --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, you are on the Board of County
Commissioners, you automatically --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know that. But I've never seen a
municipal council that wasn't interested in tourism and wasn't involved
in it in some way.
MR. KLATZKOW: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it seems to be very simple that they
Page 90
May 8, 2012
could have a person identified from that category to represent their
municipality. You keep three owners and operators just as they are
right now, and that leaves you with two more people who can be
appointed by us essentially at large, provided they meet the
requirements that they are interested in --
MR. KLATZKOW: Or owner - operators.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or owner - operators, yes.
MR. WERT: And Mr. Chair, if I might, just for clarification, if
they were an elected offic -- if you had an elected official from Marco
appointed and you had an elected official from Everglades City, one
of those two would need to serve not as an elected official officially
on the board but filling a seat as an owner - operator collecting the tax
or -- you can't have more than three elected officials. According to
state statute, if I'm -- maybe I'm reading it wrong.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got two seats for elected officials.
What Commissioner Coyle is saying is reserve one of your other six
seats for the other municipality to appoint.
MR. WERT: As long as they didn't serve as an elected official --
MR. KLATZKOW: You could serve as an elected --
MR. WERT: You could not serve as an elected official --
MR. KLATZKOW: You could. There's no -- but you're not
serving on the TDC as an elected official, you're serving on the TDC
as perhaps an owner - operator.
MR. WERT: Yes, that's what I'm saying, you're filling a seat of a
non - elected official.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. WERT: That's the only clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been trying to say this all along
and I'm going to butt right in. I've got it all figured out here. So yes,
we're going to have one county commissioner on there. We should
have one permanent one from City of Naples, one permanent one from
the City of Marco Island. That takes care of our elected officials. And
Page 91
May 8, 2012
one representative from Everglades City. They can make their choice
-- the city council can make their choice, but I firmly believe it should
be somebody in the tourism industry. We've got people down there in
Everglades City that could do that.
We should definitely have two hotels on there, because that's
essential to this thing. And then three others from the industry,
whether it be tourism, chamber, restaurants, attractions or whatever.
That way then you have all aspects of it.
Because when you think of it, the duties of the Tourist
Development Council is to decide where the dollars are going to be
spent. And for advertising how they're going to be spent, for beach
renourishment, for tourism enhancement such as museums, parks, et
cetera. And also for -- especially, by the way, beach renourishment,
because almost half the dollars go right to that thing.
And you don't need an expert in running an attraction to figure
out how to run a beach renourishment. So I feel that those three from
the industry can be accommodated every which way. But I think that
way then we could give everybody a balance and everybody would
have a chance and all aspects would be covered, plus the expertise that
we would need in where to spend the dollars. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree. I don't have any problem with
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agreed with everything you said,
by the way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question on Commissioner
Fiala's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was Commissioner Henning first,
though? I've got to make sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could support what
Commissioner Fiala said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then go ahead, Commissioner
Coletta.
Page 92
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to make sure I understand,
so you're saying that Everglades City, they could appoint somebody
either from the city council or from the population -- I love it. I'll tell
you why, because Everglades City has a problem with the fact their
city council's working people, and that would give them the ability to
be able to reach within the community. And they could be either
directly related or have an interest.
I'm for it. Commissioner Fiala, you're pure genius.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Today I am, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could support Commissioner
Fiala's recommendation of guidance to change the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then let's try to put that into a
concise --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Commissioner Hiller would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: ON I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you.
Jeff, aren't three owner /operators required by statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: Statute says three or four.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because Commissioner Fiala said
two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I said two hoteliers, but then
three other positions from the industry, whether they be restaurants,
attractions, tourism, whatever. Tourism from the chamber of, you
know, other -- but those -- you'd of course with the restaurant owner
or with an attraction owner or whatever, you would then fill that third
slot. But I didn't want to say they should all be from hotels because
then that isn't fair to the rest of the industry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, how do you -- how is
owner /operator defined?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Person who collects the tax.
Page 93
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in that case it can't be anyone
from the industry, we have to have three owner /operators. So the only
people that collect the tax from an industry standpoint are the
hoteliers. The restaurants don't collect the tax. None of these other
groups collect the tax. So I don't think that you can have less than
three hoteliers.
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be anybody who collects the tax.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I'm saying, the only
people that are collecting the tax are the hoteliers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they can be private individuals who
are renting out their apartments or homes or any other short -term
rentals. So they're --
MR. KLATZKOW: RV parks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: RV parks and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then what we'll have is two of
the three, we'll have two hoteliers and one non - hotelier
owner /operator?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think that's it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Owner /operator being defined as
who collects the tax.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Everglades City could easily
appoint someone who owns the hotel down there or one of the hotels
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and even one of the
council people who said they had an interest.
MR. WERT: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, currently
Bob Miller from Everglades City is a restaurateur, is on the Tourist
Development Council. So he is an Everglades City business
representative already in a current term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he considered an owner /operator?
MR. WERT: Well, I guess he could because I believe he also
owns a motel in the area. And so that is a possibility, that he could fill
Page 94
May 8, 2012
that seat.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, he did make a statement that he was an
owner /operator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: McBeth has already been
appointed. So, I mean, could we do something through attrition when
this thing comes up? When does the other member of Everglades City
term run out?
MR. WERT: Bob Miller's term would be -- I have to double
check, but I believe it's in two years. I think he has two years to run.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we can come up with some
sort of attrition, because, I mean, to throw somebody off at this point
in time would do a disservice. I have no problem with the ordinance,
you know, being there at that point in time we recognize the fact that
MR. WERT: You could have Bob Miller be an owner /operator
as a fourth owner /operator, technically.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Miller's current term expires on the 21 st
of April, 2015.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the thing is, right now the way it
sits, after the end of this month Rick Medwedeff -- well, your motion
had been to eliminate him. And so then we have four people on there,
nobody from Marco Island who's a big share of tourism industry. And
I don't think that that's fair at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with you, Commissioner
Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me try to restate the motion and we'll
see if we can't get this finalized.
The motion is to have one member of the County Commission,
Page 95
May 8, 2012
one member from the City of Naples, and one from the City of Marco,
and one representative of Everglades City and -- appointed by
Everglades City, and it would be their choice. We would have two
representatives for hotels, and three that are industry tourism related to
include restaurants and attractions. And those would be appointed by
the Board of County Commissioners, of course. But -- so that's the
motion. And it was seconded by --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's illegal.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got -- you need three interested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: You want, if I understand, two hotel
operators, and you want a third person who also collects the tax, not
necessarily a hotel owner, all right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's six. Then you have the two -- you
have your Marco seat, your Naples seat and your Board seat for the
nine. That's my understanding of your discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I think that's correct, yes.
Does everybody understand the motion? Commissioner Coletta,
you have anything more to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I think I understand the
motion. It doesn't address about the fact that there's two people from
Everglades, one appointed, one just at large.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can we say it becomes applicable
as people rotate off the current TDC?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll bring your ordinance back and you could
decide whether or not you want to keep the same people on there or if
you want to -- because they serve at your pleasure -- or if you want to
move people around --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, because we need to discuss
composition of it. Not on this, not on this, because now we're making
Page 96
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you make sure that if
there's any vacancies that come up that the first one would be for
Marco?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could do that when we bring back
the ordinance --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I mean, to make sure that
we cover that element.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me advertise the ordinance. The
advertisement will be substantially what you pass and then you can
tweak it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, I think we have to
address what Commissioner Fiala said, which is the reappointment of
Mr. Medwedeff. That was intended to happen I thought at this
meeting. I could be mistaken. And I think that we need to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it's very important, because
we have no representation from Marco Island now. They're all
eliminated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, could you
make a motion to reappoint him for his term?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have to find out where he's
-- where we're going to reappoint him -- what position we're going to
reappointment him to.
Page 97
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't, because he's the second
hotelier.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need to do it this meeting, we'll
come back to you --
MR. WERT: You can do it at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because he's serving till the end of
this month, right?
MR. WERT: At the end of this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, he's -- just for
clarification, we need two hoteliers and he is the second one. Because
at this point in time Clark Hill would be the only hotelier on that board
if Mr. Medwedeff is not reappointed.
Secondly, if Mr. Medwedeff is not reappointed, we have no
Marco representation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian Mitchell was supposed to
have something on this agenda explaining and correcting the issue
with Rick Medwedeff. I don't know if you're going to do that in the
future or is that just --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I was asked to do that at the next meeting
when Mr. Medwedeff s term expires, so that it becomes part of the
total.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we voted. It passed 4 -1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
And we're breaking for lunch. We'll be back at 1:15. Thank you
very much.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioner meeting is back in session.
Okay, that takes us to 11.C. Is that correct, County Attorney -- or
County Manager?
May 8, 2012
Item #1 1 C
RATIFY COUNTY PURCHASE ORDERS 44500124638 AND
#4500127444 IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $192,215 AND
PAYMENT OF INVOICES TO MILLER PIPELINE
CORPORATION UNDER A CONTRACT COMPETITIVELY
PROCURED BY THE CITY OF BOCA RATON FOR WORK
PERFORMED ON NORTH NAPLES SEWER LATERALS,
PROJECT 970043 - MOTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE
BIDDING UNDER $200,000 WITH ALL LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN BY COUNTY ATTORNEY —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I LC is a recommendation
to ratify county purchase orders in the amount of $192,215 and
approve the payment of invoices to Miller Pipeline Corporation under
a contract competitively procured by the City of Boca Raton for work
performed on North Naples sewer laterals, project 70043. And Ms.
Price, your Administrative Services Administrator, will briefly
present.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The emphasis was on briefly.
MS. PRICE: Briefly. I can be as brief as you like.
I believe that the executive summary provided you all of the
details. What we have here was some process errors. In fact, if we
had done everything exactly the way we should have, we would have
started at the same place, we would have ended at the same place. It
was the pieces in the middle.
We had some miscommunication among staff and we didn't
handle the execution properly. But the intent was there from the
beginning to piggyback from another contract, because we needed to
add three items, and we believed then and we continue to believe now
May 8, 2012
that it was more efficient for us not to go out for a separate
solicitation, which takes a lot of time and effort, for just three items
when we could go down the road and add those into the next
solicitation when it expired.
Boca Raton contract was extremely competitive. In fact, we've
analyzed their contract against ours and had we used their contract for
the main project that was done, the gravity main project that we did,
we would have saved some money.
So their contract was competitive. What we did wrong was that
we issued the purchase order first and we did so against our own
contract. What we should have done was had the purchasing director
review everything, issue the purchase order after that and reference the
piggybacked contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said if you had done it you could
have saved money. Did you save money anyway by piggybacking on
the Boca Raton contract?
MS. PRICE: We got very competitive pricing. But since we
ourselves never went out to bid for those three items, I can't tell you
that we might have gotten a better or a different pricing from the two
vendors that do that work. I can tell you that when they bid on our
contract and when they bid on Boca's contract the pricing was very,
very close, but yet Boca's contract was just slightly better. So we're
convinced that it was competitive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't purchases have to come
to the Board if it's over $50,000?
MS. PRICE: If there's a contract in place then we generally don't
have to. According to our purchasing policy, on a piggyback contract,
so long as there is a budget in place, because it has been competitively
bid by another agency, we operate as though it had been competitively
bid by this agency, and we generally do not have to come back to the
Board for those approvals.
Page 100
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it the purchasing policy is not
clear, is that why you're saying generally?
MS. PRICE: I'm -- there are times when we come to the Board
for a variety of reasons, whether or not we absolutely have to.
Sometimes it's for visibility. Sometimes it's because it's a project that
you've asked us to come back for. That's why I say generally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Policy three says
purchases that do not exceed $3,000 may be approved by purchasing
director without informal or competitive by means of purchase order
or purchase card or formal agreement.
And that's what you have done, right?
MS. PRICE: Correct. But this was -- we used a different part of
the purchasing policy for this, the part that allows us to do piggybacks
on another competitively bid contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it doesn't exceed --
MS. PRICE: That's not actually what our policy says. Our
policy says so long as there's a budget in place there's no need for
additional Board approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you can purchase on a
piggyback for a million, two million, 10 million or whatever? That's
what you're saying to me.
MS. PRICE: If the budget was in place for that project. Now,
generally speaking, on a project that size we don't use a piggyback.
That's for smaller type projects. But in accordance with our policy, if
it's been competitively bid and you've budgeted for the project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We budget every budget
meeting -- or every year we budget. So if we budget $10 million for a
particular project, you're saying you could piggyback without even
coming to the Board of Commissioners. That's what you're saying.
MS. PRICE: Under that policy. I also would tell you we would
not do that on a project that size. We would not award a contract that
size without bringing it back to the Board.
Page 101
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what is the limit then?
What's the policy on the limit?
MS. PRICE: The policy does not provide for a limit if the budget
is in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We're circling around.
You're not answering my question.
MS. PRICE: I'm trying to answer your question. As a matter of
fact, if you give me just a second, I will pull up that aspect of the
policy and read it to you verbatim.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've read that policy. But I think
you need to read the whole policy in general. I think this action is the
Board ratifying the action. That's not -- the question is what are we
going to do in the future. Clearly says here in informal competitions,
purchases that exceed $3,000 but not greater than $50,000. There's a
policy for that.
So taking one section of the policy and applying it, I understand
what you're doing, but I think the most imprudent thing is the action
that you're asking us for today. I'm asking what are you going to do in
the future?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're going to apply the policy
thresholds that we have for procurements going forward, just like we
intended to do in this one. But --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate it, Leo, I really
do. But your staff is not answering the question. And you're assuring
me that this is not going to happen in the future?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I respect that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have something happening with the
mics somewhere. What's going on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wind.
MR. OCHS: May be Commissioner Hiller's connection.
Page 102
May 8, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: I think -- Commissioner Hiller, did you want
to speak?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, I think all the points you make are spot
on. And I would like the same question answered.
Crystal, is there any way you can clarify for us what has
happened and what the policy provides, and what law provides?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel.
I think that's why this item is before the Board. Len has brought
it back. When we received the pay request there was a question of
going off contract because the county had a different contract. I think
this executive summary and agenda item resolves that. You have the
legal options as articulated by the County Attorney and the Clerk's
Office, you know, based on the Board making a determination and a
finding that they could do this.
It's under the statutory limits. And if it had gone beyond this
amount, there might have been some other statutory regulation or
implication, but this falls within a Board policy item. So if the Board
has the finding, then it can be processed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I still want the -- well,
actually, two questions. One is the question that Commissioner
Henning has asked as to piggybacking without limit with respect to
Board approval. And secondly, what you just raised as to the statutory
limit.
MS. KINZEL: Okay, I think in answer to the first question, what
Leo has said is that they will follow these thresholds. And perhaps in
the rewrite of the purchasing policy, that should be more closely
connected, which we are working on with staff. And obviously that's
been raised as a condition --
Page 103
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about the statutory
threshold --
MS. KINZEL: Right now I don't believe there is a limit on the
piggybacking provision. They've applied it differently. But having it
raised by the Board, I would think that they will make that
clarification in the revamp of the purchasing policy so that everyone
understands those limits more clearly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the statutory limits?
MS. KINZEL: Statutory is 250 T believe, for this type of
construction. But I would have to go look --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have the ability to --
MS. KINZEL: -- I would have to go look it up, but I think it's
250.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we would have the ability to
through our policy set a lower threshold, which hasn't been done, and
statutorily there's a limit to up to 250,000 without Board approval as it
stands right now for piggybacking?
MS. KINZEL: No, it isn't a statutory limit for piggybacking, it's
a statutory limit requiring a bid for this type --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For this type of project.
MS. KINZEL: -- for this type of construction. And that's why it's
very particular to each type of construction that you might enter, either
utility, vertical, you know, the CCNA has totally different categories
and constraints. So when it's worded back, you have to apply it to
each of those types of construction, according to statute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or alternatively to the threshold
that we have established by policy --
MS. KINZEL: Correct, which could be lower than statute.
Absolutely. And we would implement audit according to the most
restrictive policy procedure or statutory limit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you and the Clerk's Office
and the County Manager's office are working on correcting the policy
May 8, 2012
to consider these limits?
MS. KINZEL: We're working on clarifying them between both
our office and purchasing so that it's very, very clear to staff what the
expectation is so that we hopefully in the future can avoid some of the
issues that have arisen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the Clerk's Office has no
problem at this time with the Board approving this after the fact?
MS. KINZEL: Well, you know, obviously it isn't the way we
prefer, but we agree with the legal considerations that have been put
forward, and the recommendation of the Board needs to be articulated
according to the legal recommendations that have been made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you articulate the legal
considerations and I'll incorporate that into a motion for approval.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the -- it's in the recommendation itself
that the Board of County --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But just can you read it for the
record?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. That the Board of County
Commissioners waive the competitive bidding and ratifies county
purchase orders 4500124638 and 4500127444 in the total amount of
$192,215 under section 14.13 of the purchasing policy and approves
the payment of invoice numbers 292701 and 290697 in the total of
$141,112, Miller Pipeline Corporation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I make a motion that the Board
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, under a contract procured by the City
of Boca Raton for work performed on North Naples sewer laterals
Project 470043.
MS. KINZEL: Actually, I would like to put on the record, Jeff, I
think that particular piggybacking contract at Boca has expired, so I
don't think that is necessarily an important part of that provision. But
the Board can waive the competitive part under the 200,000 and we
Page 105
May 8, 2012
can move forward and pay the item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I make a motion that we may
waive the competitive bidding under that 200,000 limit and
incorporate the legal considerations presented by County Attorney
Klatzkow as part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve staffs
recommendations with a second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on the work
performed.
I don't understand what lateral lining is. What is -- what does
wastewater consider lateral?
MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik for the record.
Lateral lining -- a lateral is the pipe that goes from a residence to
the gravity main that's in the street that normally goes from manhole
to manhole. The lateral is the pipe from the house. And in this case
the laterals were brittle clay pipe, old pipe, and a lining -- a flexible
lining is put inside, expanded and cures in place, and that seals it and
makes it stronger.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're responsible for the
lines going to the house?
MR. CHMELIK: Only to the cleanout, which is on county
property within our easement. Beyond the home we do not line. The
cleanout to the home we do not line, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The cleanout, I guess, is right at
the house then.
MR. CHMELIK: It's at the right -of -way, at the division between
the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anything right -of -way from
May 8, 2012
the cleanout, that's what we did is the laterals. The laterals are in the
right -of -way, they're not on private property; is that what you said?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, they extend beyond -- they extend
beyond the right -of -way.
Just a moment on the visualizer, if I could, please.
MR. OCHS: I think what he's saying is the only portion that we
touched was the portion that is county owned and responsible within
the county right -of -way. The balance going to the home on their
private property is the private property owner's responsibility.
MR. CHMELIK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand it.
MR. OCHS: Okay, never mind, he's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I understand it. And then
the -- then my last question is this is the area to be studied that was
recommended a few meetings ago to spend part of that $32 million for
MR. CHMELIK: It's a similar area. It is -- in this case we
repaired 44 laterals in the original scope. There's about 3,700 laterals
in this whole area. So it was just a small pilot portion to work with
this new technology.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, did we have
Page 107
May 8, 2012
a second on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Sorry, I didn't hear that. I
just wanted to be sure for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #1 I D
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO FUNDING AGREEMENT #S0539 WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR THE NORTHERN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES FLOW -WAY RESTORATION PLAN, COLLIER
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 33134, EXTENDING THE
AGREEMENT COMPLETION DATE FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2012
TO JANUARY 15, 2013 - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO PREPARE AND BRING BACK
A TIMELINE WHEN COMMISSIONERS WILL RECEIVE
ANALYSIS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is I LD, which was
previously 16.A.6 on your consent agenda. It's a recommendation to
approve amendment number one to funding agreement number 50539
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the
Northern Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration plan, Collier
County project number 33134, extending the agreement completion
date from November 9, 2012 to January 15, 2013. And Mr. Jerry
Kurtz will present.
MR. KURTZ: I'm here to answer any questions you have on the
item. It was for an extension of the duration of the funding agreement
with DEP.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was the one who raised the question
Page 108
May 8, 2012
about this, and I'll just ask my question.
I'm concerned with what happens after this. I don't agree that
what happened at this meeting was what is expected or anticipated by
this particular executive summary.
Now, I've looked at the minutes and they are summary minutes
and they don't really include the full discussion. But I recall
specifically suggesting that we go with the Belle Meade project first,
because it would be simpler, there would be fewer condemnations. It
would be less costly to get the right -of -way.
And then Nick said -- everybody seemed to agree with that. And
then Nick had a presentation and he said well, we're already involved
in the planning for the North Golden Gate Estates area and we are
very close to completing the plan. And then Nancy Payton got up and
said yes, but the costs for condemnation are going to be a lot higher
and will take much, much longer to resolve than they would in the
Belle Meade area.
So it was my expectation that what the staff would do is weigh
the various alternatives that we had discussed at that meeting and then
come to us for final prioritization of where we're going to go with that.
And I'm concerned that if we approve this item we're going to just
start spending money on it and leave the other question unanswered.
Now, I don't mind proceeding with this one as long as the staff
intends to evaluate the other potentially less expensive and faster
option. But I don't see any indication or recognition of that fact. So
how do we resolve this problem?
MR. KURTZ: Commissioner, your approach is exactly the
approach we're taking. This project is one of five projects that's meant
to take the stress off the canal system that currently we know hits its
maximum capacity after small storm events. So this is exact -- what
you described is exactly the approach.
This particular project is underway and funded by two grants that
we have, and this is merely just an extension of the deadline of the
Page 109
May 8, 2012
DEP funding agreement.
But our approach and our prioritization methods and concepts
haven't changed. The Northern Belle Meade is right up there with
Henderson Creek diversion, Northern Golden Gate flowway
restoration, a culvert upgrade at 28th Avenue Southeast, as well the
District has a Miller Canal control structure number three modification
they're proposing too.
So that map that I put up showing the areas where the canals are
in distress and the four or five projects that surround it, it addresses all
these issues, and we are in the process of prioritizing. And until we
get further along on the conceptual study phases of these projects and
begin looking at the actual preliminary construction designs, then we'll
get better with our cost analysis and we'll be able to tie down our real
benefit to cost analysis and the priority project will rise to the top.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll get another shot at this when
you complete the studies --
MR. KURTZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and you'll come back and say, okay,
here are the pros and cons of each alternative, which do you want to
do, right?
MR. KURTZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have that opportunity. Okay, that's
all I wanted to assure.
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, I just want to make sure that
you heard me there, thanks.
Yeah, I agree with you, you know, at that meeting it was clearly
concluded that we wanted a cost benefit analysis of all these projects,
and not only that, we also wanted a comprehensive analysis
integrating all the various governmental entities' contributions towards
Page 110
May 8, 2012
water management. And we need to get that. And that is supposed to
be done in conjunction with the District.
What I would like to know is how soon we can get that. And I'm
going to make a motion to approve this and ask that staff come back to
us with a timetable of when we are going to get both those analyses,
so we can put it on our calendar and know when to expect it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's a motion, as I understand it
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve the staff s
recommendations with a timetable to be communicated to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala seconds it.
And now Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
And I also asked for this to be pulled for a different reason. The
issue I had is that the flowway will provide, says here, aquifer
recharge, water supply protection, water quality improvements, habitat
improvements. There's no mention anywheres in there about flood
protection. So my question to you is will there be a decrease or an
increase regarding flooding if this doesn't go, this project?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, Commissioner Coletta, there will be
definitely -- anything proposed will decrease or be meant to decrease
the flooding. In fact, from the original project objectives it says
develop preliminary engineering plans that will provide localized
flood reduction. It's number four on the four objectives. But I failed
to mention that in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You didn't.
MR. KURTZ: This will be like adding a surge tank to a
wastewater treatment plant. We're going to find more areas where we
Page 111
May 8, 2012
can divert water to other than the canal system. Because we know the
canal system maxes out and gets too much water too fast. So this is in
effect finding the natural surge tank area of the Estates that's out there
through our modeling and our analysis, putting in extra culverts and
guiding the water to where we can attenuate them when we get too
much rain too fast. And when it backs up the canal system it backs up
water onto the private property. That's the flooding that you're so
concerned about and we all are. So this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the modeling would be able
to deal with this, we'll be able to see it --
MR. KURTZ: Absolutely. Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I appreciate that very
much. And thank you.
MR. KURTZ: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And once that's determined
and then the solution is obtained and it's actually implemented, does
that mean then that these people might be able to apply for a lower
insurance rate --
MR. KURTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- flood insurance rate?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, all the adjustments we'll be doing over time
to the canal system and the water system. I think the modeling cycle
is every five years, so all the improvements we make to various
crossings, structures, diverting flows, that will be considered when
FEMA does their next cycle of modeling and looks at the insurance --
or the flood level situation again.
And I just wanted to add one thing. The watershed management
plan initiative number one did prioritize projects and does have a
benefit to cost analysis. Now, that's -- that's -- we'll freshen that up
and update that. But that prioritized project list that was included in
the watershed management plans is a benefit to cost analysis. And of
Page 112
May 8, 2012
course Golden Gate flowway restoration was prioritized as number
one, Belle Meade number two and so forth. So we have it done, but
we'll continue to update that as we leave the conceptual area and move
to preliminary engineering designs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'm going to call the question. But
I want to just make a brief comment. You seem to have developed
some benefits for the various alternatives. But please remember that
the thing we focused on at that meeting, and I specifically stated, that
because the South Florida Water Management District and Big
Cypress Basin had achieved a 34 percent reduction in outflows on the
Golden Gate canal, there still was no evidence that there had been any
improvement whatsoever in water quality in Naples Bay.
Now, to the extent that we are spending taxpayer money on
diverting that water for that purpose, we need to have some indication
that there will in fact be a positive effect on the water quality of
Naples Bay. And I find it strange that the flows have been reduced 34
percent but there has been no measurable improvement in the quality
of water in Naples Bay. So that has to be cranked into your
justification and cost benefit analysis.
And the other point that is implied or actually stated in the
motion is that you will provide us a timeline with respect to when
these things will be available for our final approval --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and prioritization, okay?
MR. OCHS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 113
May 8, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously, thank
you.
Item #1 1 E
CHANGES IN THE PROJECT SCOPE OF AN EXISTING
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING
CORPORATION IN ORDER TO UTILIZE AND EXPEND ALL
OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
(ARRA) FUNDING FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MAIN STREET VILLAGE AND
EDEN GARDENS APARTMENTS IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA -
APPROVED W /CHANGE
MR. OCHS: Takes us to -- we have 11.E is your next item,
Commissioners. It was previously 16.D.7. It's a recommendation to
approve changes in the project scope of an existing subrecipient
agreement with the Big Cypress Housing Corporation in order to
utilize and expend all of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act funding for the energy efficiency improvements at Main Street
Village and Eden Gardens apartment in Immokalee, Florida.
Commissioners, we have a very minor revision to one of the
amendments. I actually should have just had this noted on your
change sheet and I failed to do it, so I've asked Kim to come and show
you the very minor revision.
Ms. Grant, if you'll go ahead --
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Kim Grant for the record.
Just making one minor change to the legal -- can you hear us?
Kim Grant for the record. We're just making one minor change
to the legal description in the very first paragraph, adding these
Page 114
May 8, 2012
underlined words. Changing the statement to say and Collier County,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, to be referred to as
county. That's the only change we needed to read into the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
You need to say something, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: No, I was going to say for Commissioner Hiller's
benefit, because she can't see this I don't believe unless she's got a TV
on, we just added the phrase -- it used to say Collier County, Florida,
now it says Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida. That was the total nature of the change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item # 14B 1
RESOLUTION 2012 -81: A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE
RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A $65,000 DONATION FROM
CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC. TO THE BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
(MSTU) FOR THE STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND ROADWAY
Page 115
May 8, 2012
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF THOMASSON DRIVE AND
HAMILTON AVENUE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14 on your
agenda. 14.13.1 is a BCC item, so you do not have to go into session
as the CRA. 14.13.1 is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approves a resolution declaring a public purpose for
the receipt and acceptance of a $65,000 donation from CDC Land
Investments, Incorporated for the Bayshore beautification municipal
service taxing unit for the streetscape design and roadway construction
costs of Thommason Drive and Hamilton Avenue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I speak to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller, just a
moment.
Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I'm a little confused on this, because my understanding is that
Thommason Drive is not part of the MSTU. I'm not sure if the
boundary extends to Hamilton Avenue. But I did not think that
Thommason was part of the Bayshore beautification municipal
services taxing unit. Can someone clarify that for me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. David Jackson, Executive
Director of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU.
Thommason Drive and Hamilton Avenue are within the MSTU
boundaries except for a small segment outside of our boundary that
meets up where the Sabal Bay improvements to Thommason Drive
was made back in 2004, I believe it was.
Page 116
May 8, 2012
And this contribution or donation is to provide for the design and
construction documents for that portion of road that is outside the
MSTU boundary, so that the MSTU funds will not be expended on a
portion out there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And where will the
construction costs be funded for, for the improvement of that
segment?
MR. JACKSON: The construction costs will come from the
Bayshore Beautification MSTU fund 163. There is a program in place
or to be in place and is worked on currently by MSTU staff to expand
the boundary to include the area outside of the existing MSTU
boundary.
If the boundary is not expanded, the boundary is not expanded,
then the funds will not be allocated out of the MSTU to improve that
section of road. The funds that are being used by the Sabal Bay
contribution is for design and planning only. It is not for expenditure
of funds outside of the boundary. It's for planning only.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the proposed costs or the
anticipated costs for the improvement to that segment will be how
much?
MR. JACKSON: We won't know that until the design is
completed. And when the design is completed, then we'll be able to
get the engineering cost estimates.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you don't have a preliminary
idea of what that will be at this point.
MR. JACKSON: No, ma'am, because the -- we are only in
conceptual design at this moment with two options, and those options
have not been narrowed down to one. So it would be inappropriate at
this time to give you a guesstimate, a wild guess on what it would be.
When we get the final conceptual design down to a final project and
then we go to construction, then we will have a better definition of
what the amount of funds will be. And that will all come back to you
Page 117
May 8, 2012
as the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the major board for
the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to the representative of
Collier Enterprises about the improvement of Thomasson and that
segment of Thommason, and they felt that it really wasn't necessary,
that they didn't care either way whether it was done or not.
My concern is while I appreciate the donation, isn't the donation,
that was part of the developer contribution agreement, wasn't it, or
not?
MR. JACKSON: It was not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was not, okay. Then I'm
thinking of a different contribution.
My concern is that, you know, we are making an improvement
that Sabal Bay doesn't claim that it needs, and we are going to be
burdening the MSTU with additional costs for a project that I'm not
sure is needed at this time. So expending the -- or accepting the
$65,000 and expending it towards the design should be clearly
understood as not being the basis for the requirement to improve that
portion of Thommason.
And Collier Enterprises needs to understand that the Board can
very well find that at this point in time, you know, increasing the
burden to the taxpayers of the MSTU to improve a segment that
doesn't need to be improved now could very well be the result, and
their contribution could be for naught.
MR. JACKSON: I have no comment on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If this since the right time, when is
the right time? Who decides --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When we have more funds
available, you know. To engage in an improvement, a beautification
improvement when we're fiscally constrained in the Bayshore area
Page 118
May 8, 2012
certainly is something to be considered. You know, at this point in
time we've got major financial limitations. The property values in
Bayshore have decreased precipitously --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but this isn't the Bayshore
CRA, you're talking about a different amount of money all together.
This is MSTU, this is not CRA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, yeah, and they're not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. And MSTU is
taxpayer money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is. They have voted
themselves to put their money into that MSTU fund. They voted
themselves to -- because they wanted a beautification process in place.
And I tell you this, it's long overdue. Maybe this isn't is the right
time, maybe it should have been five years ago, but this is the first
time we've gotten a chance at it. And I think we need to go ahead, and
I am totally in support of this motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One additional clarification,
Commissioner Hiller, is that there's nothing here that authorizes the
MSTU to go beyond the design for this particular area. So what could
happen is that if we accept this gift of $65,000, the MSTU would
proceed with the design contract and it would submit it to the Board of
County Commissioners for approval by January the 1 st, 2015.
If it is presented to the Board of County Commissioners, then we
have met our pledge. We do not -- we're not obligated to begin
construction unless we have appropriate funds necessary to do it. And
if we don't submit the final design to the Board of County
Commissioners by January the 1 st, 2015, this pledge from the
developer will expire.
So it's not like we're going to lose anything here, and it's not like
we're going to be obligated to try to do something if we don't have the
money to do it and if the MSTU doesn't want to do it.
Page 119
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask just a clarification on
your comment there?
If the 65,000 is used towards the design, however we decide,
even if the funds are there, not to allocate those funds to this particular
project, are you saying that we're obligated notwithstanding if we use
these 65,000?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm saying we're not obligated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So even if the funding is there,
we're not obligated to proceed with the expansion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or improvement, I should say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct. The $65,000 -- and I'll
ask the County Attorney to validate my statement here in just a
moment -- but if we accept the $65,000, the only obligation is that the
final design, design contract be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners by January the 1 st, 2015. It does not commit us to
proceed with construction, but hopefully we would like to do that if
the money is available.
Am I correct, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what the resolution says, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask one more question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the order of how
this would proceed, given that this $65,000 donation is for a section of
road that is not in the MSTU, shouldn't we first be expanding the
MSTU and then accepting the donation? Or alternatively making this
donation contingent upon the approval of the expansion of the MSTU
to include that roadway?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could respond to that. That would
delay the process considerably. It could be that the creation or the
expansion of the MSTU would take some period of time. And what I
believe the staff is trying to do is to get the design done with this gift
Page 120
May 8, 2012
of $65,000 so that they will be ready to go if in fact they are
successful in expanding the limits of the MSTU and getting more
money there to make the improvements that are required.
If we don't take the action that staff is suggesting, it means we
don't even start on the design until after we have expanded MSTU.
And that could substantially delay the entire process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask a question of Jeff?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. And thank you for your
explanation, Commissioner Coyle.
Jeff, can we legally accept a donation to do work for a portion of
the MSTU -- or a portion of roading that's not part of the MSTU, can
we legally do what Commissioner Coyle is describing as the, you
know, expected course of events?
MR. KLATZKOW: You essentially escrow it until all these
conditions are met. So, I'm okay with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I make a motion to approve
it, can we include that this money sha? 1 be escrowed until all the
conditions, you know, precedent to moving forward with the use of
these funds are met, like the approval of the expansion of the MSTU
to include this roadway?
MR. KLATZKOW: All you're doing here is approving this
resolution and the terms set forth in the resolution. And as
Commissioner Coyle has stated, if the final design contract is not
approved by you by January 1 st, 2015, then you've got to return the
money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But again, the
MSTU is accepting funds for a roadway outside of its boundaries, to
do work, design work, with respect to a portion of road that is outside
its boundaries. Can an MSTU accept funds to do work on something
that goes beyond what it -- you know, beyond its legal limits?
MR. JACKSON: Commissioner Coyle, may I chime in here?
Page 121
May 8, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: The 65,000 is to pay for the area of work that
is outside the MSTU boundaries. The area within the MSTU
boundaries is being paid by the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. We cannot expend any money on the
construction side of the house outside of our boundary until we
expand the boundary. This is just for design work.
For instance, I'll just give you a quick example, we've done two
studies on stormwater, and we know that the Triangle floods and
Bayshore has got some problems also, but we just don't look at the
area within the CRA boundary, we have to look at where is the water
coming from outside the boundary. And then as we deal with the
water inside us, we have to figure out what happens to the water
outside of our boundary.
So when you do the study, you have to look at it more than just
through a straw, you have to look at it from a 30,000 -foot view and
you have to take everything into account.
Now, what the MSTU wants to do is to continue banking money
for this project. They currently have enough funds for their area to go
ahead and design their section, use the 65,000 for the section outside
of the road and then expand the boundary when the time comes to go
to construction.
Ma'am, what we're trying to do here is we're trying to get the plan
in place now with the vision of where they want to go and then be able
to bring the rest of it so that when we start putting shovels into the
ground outside the MSTU boundary, that the boundary expansion has
happened and we are all legal with what we have to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can I make a suggestion as a
possible solution to what I see as a problem here? Why don't we
accept the 65,000 donation for the design of the road segment outside
of the MSTU directly to the county? Then it eliminates the question
Page 122
May 8, 2012
of whether these roads are within the MSTU or not and whether the
MSTU can actually be doing work on, you know, a portion of road
that's not currently within its limits. And that just eliminates that
whole discussion and we can have the same time frame and the same
conditions with respect to the expansion of the MSTU and satisfy the
legal requirements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the MSTU is going to be hiring
the design firm, right?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they want to continue with the
same design firm to design even the part that isn't in the MSTU. So if
you have all the funds then you can pay for them out of this pot, that's
why you're joining them together; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. And that is the reason for the
criteria that the company put in there that we had to complete this
design within a certain amount of time. They know time is of the
essence. They don't want their money to be lingering out there, they
want to see progress in where we're going. They know that we are
banking funds for this.
And in answer to Commissioner Hiller's suggestion that this be
deposited with the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of
County Commissioners is the MSTU. So this goes directly into the
fund 163, which is governed by the Board of County Commissioners.
This is not going to the CRA. So the MSTU is synonymous with
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm saying that it should go to the
general fund until the MSTU decides to expand its boundaries and
then let, you know, with the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That seems to make it more
difficult, Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- restriction that it be -- because
again, I don't want to create the presumption that these roads are
Page 123
May 8, 2012
already within or shall be within the MSTU, that, you know, down the
road --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call for the question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the taxpayers within the MSTU
aren't told, well, you know, we've expended these design fees and we
really need to expand this road because it needs to be improved.
And again, I will repeat that the representative from Collier
Enterprises told me that they didn't really see the need for the
improvement of the Thommason corridor and didn't care either way if
it was done.
So I'm really not sure, you know, what the rush is to do this again
when we're so fiscally constrained in the Bayshore area. I mean, it's
very nice that they're making the donation, but I think it needs to be
kept separate from the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll call the question again, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you have
anything further to add? You made the motion, Commissioner Fiala
seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
Item #14B2
Page 1.4
May 8, 2012
AN EXTENSION AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT FOR THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
CRA TO CONTINUE LEASING ITS CURRENT OFFICE SPACE
FOR A TERM OF (24) TWENTY -FOUR MONTHS, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE LEASE
AGREEMENT. (FISCAL IMPACT: $15,576 /YEAR) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item is 14.B.2. You go into session as the
CRA Board, please. It is a recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency to approve an extension and second
amendment to lease agreement for the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle
CRA to continue leasing its current office space for a term of 24
months, and authorize the Chairman to sign the lease agreement.
Mr. Jackson will present or answer questions.
(The Board is now acting as the CRA Board)
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners, David
Jackson, executive director of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
This will be a continuation of the existing building that we
currently operate out of. We operate not only the CRA but the two
MSTUs, the Bayshore Beautification MSTU and the Haldeman Creek
MSTU out of this building, which completely staffs the work that we
do at that location.
I would like to note that when we first went into this location we
were paying $43,000 per year, which was the market rate back in
2007. We negotiated the price to be at the first opportunity to be half.
We went from $20 a square foot to $10 a square foot, for a total of
$23,000 per year. This year with the renewal of our contract we
renegotiated again and we have also reduced the rate down by 20
percent. And with this next two -year contract, we will increase -- we
will receive a savings of $7,470 over the last two years for the next
two years from where we're at.
So we're looking for a motion and second for approval. This has
Page 125
May 89 2012
been reviewed by both MSTU advisory committees and the Bayshore
Advisory Board and they both approved it and recommend the
approval.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We haven't got a report on the
renewal of the loan or what we're going to do with the loan. And I
know when we had that discussion, there was a discussion about even
doing away with the MSTU -- or I'm sorry, the CRA. And this
contract is due June 30th?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
And if I may add, you may have missed it, but we added a new
section here where either party, tenant or landlord, may terminate the
lease within 30 days of written notice. So if something goes astray
after June when you see the loan document come in with written
notice, we can terminate or move out of the building with no recourse,
financial recourse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With no financial recourse.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. So that term was put in there,
envisioning that we have the refinancing the loan coming up. We're
well aware of where we're at. So we wanted to stay in place, we didn't
want to arbitrarily move twice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. No, I agree. I appreciate
your guidance.
I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion on the floor and a second to
approve this item.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I can't support this. We have so Ynuch empty office space in the
county. Again, the CRA is fiscally very constrained. Under the
Page 126
May 8, 2012
circumstances, till the CRA's financial position stabilizes, it makes
more sense for the CRA to use vacant space that the county has
available and not incur this additional expense. So I can't support this
motion.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 4 -1 vote, with
Commissioner Hiller opposing.
We go on to the next item, which is item number 14.13.3.
Item #14B3
A CORRECTED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CRA AND DAVID L. JACKSON, BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TO INCORPORATE
A PREVIOUSLY CRA BOARD APPROVED 4 -YEAR TERM
EXTENSION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S
EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN - MOTION TO DENY AND REVISE CONTRACT —
FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's a recommendation to approve a
corrected employment agreement between the CRA and David L.
Jackson, the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director, to
incorporate a previously CRA board approved four -year term
extension of the executive director's employment and authorize the
Page 127
May 8, 2012
CRA chairman to sign.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners, David
Jackson, Executive Director for the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
I don't know if this falls under the term of scriveners error, you'll
have to ask the County Attorney on that point, but essentially this was
directed by the Board in March to come back in the first meeting in
May, and was to make an amendment to the extension agreement to
make the language reflect what it should have, which was based off
what the motion was. So this is back to you as an administrative
approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may speak, Commissioner
Coyle?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner
Fiala, I'm sorry.
It's not really just an administrative action. I mean, this is an issue
where what the Board approved is actually different than what we're
approving today.
The Board's motion back when this contract was originally
approved continued to include your services as the executive director
for economic development. I'm not sure if that's the exact title that
was used. And your salary was based on those two functions, both as
executive director of the CRA and director of economic development.
What we are -- and what we have done, I should say, but what we
did not vote on, is that you would not any longer serve as director for
economic development. As such, your salary of 125,000 is not
justified.
Secondly, the other issue with re3pect to the four -year term, that
was indeed a scriveners error. And in light of the fact that we are
bringing back this contract, I would submit that a four -year term
extension under the circumstances where we don't even know if the
CRA will be able to continue its operations for four years, given the
Page 128
May 8, 2012
financial problems it's facing, isn't reasonable.
I would like to make a motion to deny and to revise the contract
to reflect an adjusted salary for the services that in fact are being
rendered now, limited to simply CRA director and not director of
economic development and of the CRA and to change this to a
month -to -month contract until such time as we find out whether or not
Fifth Third will extend the term of the loan.
And as far as the salary goes, I think we need to have some
discussion on what the salary ought to be, given the reduced services.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning -- or
do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning
seconds it.
MR. JACKSON: Commissioner, may I -- well, if Commissioner
Henning's going to speak, I'd like to follow him, please.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree we should hold off
until we know what's going to happen with the CRA and with a
month -to -month contract. However, I don't agree with a salary
adjustment based upon a short -term contract. To me, it's not fair and it
doesn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, the salary adjustment is
based on his reduced services. He was being paid 125,000 to be both
the head of the economic development initiative as well as director of
the CRA. Our motion did not consider the fact when we voted on this
contract that he would no longer prospectively be the economic
development director. So we're actually reducing that.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, he was
getting paid the same salary long before he had the added
responsibility of economic development. There was no change in
salary. He said he would do the same thing for the same amount of
Page 129
May 8, 2012
salary. So although you're trying to reduce it because you're
eliminating that job, that wasn't what the circumstances were at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My recollection is that his salary
went from 80,000 to 110,000 and then jumped to 125,000 --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, excuse me
just a minute, Commissioner Henning was still having the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, I just can't see, because the
screen --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, that's why I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll have to issue 4G
telephones with screens.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or little buttons from the telephone,
right, that they can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's not do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I really don't have any other
comments or any questions, but I think it needs to be clarified what
happened at the time when we had Mr. Jackson as the dual role and
what his salary was. Because that isn't what I understood.
MR. JACKSON: Commissioners, and Commissioner Hiller, I
tried to go over this once before. This is about the third time you and I
have had this discussion here in this venue.
The correction is that when I was the executive director back in
2010 my salary was 124,927. And I volunteered to assist the County
Manager and the county and the people of Collier County in the
economic development field.
We amended my current contract to assume these duties for the
remainder of that contract, which happens to be 18 months at no
increase in salary and to perform the duties, 50 percent CRA, 50
percent economic development.
When I renewed the contract, we just struck that other additional
duties from that contract to continue with what I was doing originally
Page 130
May 8, 2012
for the previous six years, which is the CRA executive director and of
course the two MSTUs that came along after I came on board Collier
County.
So Commissioner Henning, you're correct, we need to correct the
record for all to hear and all the viewing TV audiences that there was
no increase in salary when I assumed additional duties. That was
voluntarily, and I voluntarily stepped aside and everything remained
the same except the work that I was doing.
Now, you've got to also remember, CRA Board, you have a legal
and binding contract in place right now for four years. And the
County Attorney made that relatively clear back in March when we
were talking about that. And the minutes reflect that when
Commissioner went back and reviewed the minutes, and I've got the
minutes here in which she says, oh, yes, he does have a four -year
contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I was referring to four years
versus one year, and not for whether or not it was a legally binding
contract. And then after that I reviewed it more closely and saw that
the motion we made was to approve you in your joint role as
economic development director and CRA director.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Continue, David, please.
MR. JACKSON: Well, ma'am, I don't have any more. I don't
want to get into a tussle, a word battle with Commissioner Hiller. But
it's all in the record, it's already -- it's all there. Her interpretation is
hers. But the record states as I have stated it, that my CRA contract is
in place. The motion was to agree to amend the contract or to extend
the contract for another four years, extracting the additional duties.
And that was the motion.
And the reason that this is coming back to you is because during
your last discussion was that a segment was omitted from the
amendment and the County Attorney worked together to bring it back
to you to make that correct. And this is just a correction of an
Page 131
May 8, 2012
approved agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, may I
comment?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just a minute, please.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is the motion?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion was to deny. And
Commissioner Henning seconded that motion.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Whether or not his -- whether or
not his contract was for economic -- you know, originally for both
economic development services and as CRA director, I will say that to
pay Mr. Jackson $125,000 to in effect manage about $400,000 in
grants and two employees is unacceptable. And there is no way I can
support this.
And I do not agree that we have a contract in place in light of the
fact that what we approved was not what we intended, and as such
there really was no meeting of the minds, if you will, at the time that
the contract was voted on. So I, you know, stand by my motion --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and find that, you know, unless
the salary is reduced to some reasonable level and is basically a
month -to -month term, there's no way I can support this.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, the motion is on the floor and
seconded. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify -- yes, David?
MR. JACKSON: Ma'am, I have a question, if I can clarify. If
this motion passes, does that mean I do not have a contract?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it means you have a
month -to -month contract.
MR. JACKSON: Haven't agreed to that and I haven't signed any
Page 132
May 8, 2012
documents as such. No one has asked me if I agreed to that. A
contract is between two consenting parties, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you're right.
MR. JACKSON: So if this motion passes, do I have a contract?
Am I no longer employed here? So I'm asking the question, maybe
we can get some legal advice or a legal determination.
I currently believe that back in September, 2011 there was a
contract and you agreed to it by motion, it's just that it had an error in
the amendment. So my question is, and I just would like to know, do I
go back to my office and get my pencils and paper and stapler and
walk or do I show up for work tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's our stapler.
MR. JACKSON: Darn it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jeff, do you want to answer that?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is where I hate being both the County
Attorney and representing staff sometimes. It's my belief that Mr.
Jackson has a four -year contract.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Okay, all those in favor of the motion to deny this item and put
Mr. Jackson, even though we have not voted to do that, on a
month -to -month basis, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's one. All those against?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Okay, that's 4 -0 -- 4 -1.
Okay, do I have another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have motion to approve by
Page 133
May 8, 2012
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 3 -2 vote.
Thank you, David.
MR. JACKSON: I'll show up for work tomorrow.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry that you're the target for
so many barbs, I truly am.
MR. JACKSON: It's okay. It's what happens --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, if I may
comment?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's inappropriate for you to say
that there are so many barbs. These are the facts and these are how I
see the consequences of the facts. And by no means are they barbs.
You know, we have to be fiscally responsible. And paying somebody
125,000 to administer 400,000 in grants and two employees and to
give them a four -year contract when we don't even know that the CRA
is going to survive beyond the next year makes no sense at all. So it is
what it is. But I would appreciate if you would not personalize this.
Item #14B4
Page 134
May 8, 2012
A 4 -WEEK EXTENSION FOR SUBMISSION OF A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
AFFECTING THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED
PROVISIONS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE
UPCOMING 2012 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE - APPROVED
W /ADJUSTMENT
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Item number 14.B.4.
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioners. Actually, you will go back
into session as the Board of County Commissioners for this particular
one.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know if I want to give up this
gavel.
MR. OCHS: You'll have the wrestle the --
COMMISSIONER COCLE: I'll let her have it. She can keep it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Should I say that the CRA board
meeting is closed?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: You get your hand out of the way or
I'm going to slam it. There, CRA meeting is closed.
MR. OCHS: Item 14.B.4 is a recommendation to direct the
County Manager or his designee to permit a four -week extension for
submission of a Growth Management Plan amendment application
affecting the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle redevelopment overlay and
other associated provisions of the future land use element to the
upcoming 2012 Collier County Growth Management Plan amendment
cycle. And Ms. Jourdan will present.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. Jean Jourdan.
In addition, I'd like to add one more item for consideration to this
item. Currently there's an application fee of 16,700 plus all associated
Page 135
May 8, 2012
legal add fees. CRA staff did meet with Comprehensive staff and they
approved that if we wanted to bring this forward and ask for the fee to
be adjusted based on their per man hours that they spend on the
application and then associated legal fees, that that would be okay
with them. Because they didn't feel that they would need to spend as
much time on this application as they normally did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that 16,000 is the top but it could
be indeed a lot less.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board of County Commission
meeting is back in session.
MS. JOURDAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve with the
adjustment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. JOURDAN: I think next time I'm just going to put tape on
my mouth and I'm going to wait until someone removes it, then I'll
know it's time to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a good idea for all the staff.
Page 136
May 8, 2012
MR. OCHS: I knew that was coming, you tee'd that one up,
Jean. Thank you.
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, takes us to Item 15 on your staff,
staff and Commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: I just have one quick update, as long as it was
mentioned earlier today. Just want to let the Board know that this past
Tuesday, the 1 st of May, the County Attorney and Mr. Brock and I
and representatives of our staff had a very long and what I thought
was a very productive meeting to go over some of the issues of mutual
public interest and concern over our procurement policies and our
contract administration practices, and I was encouraged. I think we've
been making some good progress. And I know Commissioner Hiller
is looking forward to that final report that we're bringing back. And
we're going to do that in concert with both the County Attorney's
Office and the Clerk's Office.
Mr. Brock and Ms. Kinzel are also working on a document that
will give our staff additional guidance that will hopefully make our
practices and procedures even more sound than they are. So I just
wanted to let the Board know that we had not forgotten about that
important topic.
That's all I had, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just one brief matter. Earlier in the
meeting Commissioner Fiala brought up possible reconsideration of a
variance we had at a prior meeting. I asked Mr. Teach to double
check our reconsideration ordinance. He got with Nick's staff. It's our
Page 137
May 8, 2012
opinion that the way our reconsideration ordinance is structured, land
use items cannot be reconsidered unless they had been originally
denied. So that under the current structure of the ordinance, ma'am,
we simply can't consider it at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
First of all, Leo, thank you so much for addressing the issue
regarding purchasing policy. That was in my notes to address under
comments. I am looking forward to you bringing back what you have
been working on. And I do know that it's been going very, very well.
Hopefully that will result in a lot fewer items on the agenda, both
general and consent --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and will help us in our meeting
planning.
And with that, I want to talk about meeting planning. You know,
I've been mentioning to Leo over time that I have consistently felt that
our agenda packages have been really too much for the limited time
that we have to address many complex issues. And I have to also
thank Commissioner Coyle on this point because I know that he works
with Leo on the agenda, and it has progressively been getting better
and better and better. And I want to say that today's agenda has been
the most reasonable so far.
And we only had -- I actually took notes on it. We had three
items for reconsideration which involved no discussion, we had three
appointments, which again also involved no discussion. We had one
minor change, which was 11.E that you brought forward, Leo, and
even that could have been avoided, which only left 10 items to address
today with no land use issues and no controversial issues. And so we
were able to get through this agenda very expeditiously and, you
Page 138
May 8, 2012
know, with great ease.
And so I want to thank you, Leo, for really putting together a
nice packet this week, making it, you know, very manageable. And
Commissioner Coyle, for doing the same. And I want to thank you all
for your consideration to allow me to call in this week.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Hiller.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, first of all, I hope that all is
well with your family, Commissioner Hiller, and that things go very
well for everyone.
And actually, I have nothing else to talk about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The look of glee on your face was
wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm totally shocked. But anyway, no, I'm
just kidding.
I have nothing else. Commissioner Hiller, please convey our
regards and best wishes to your father. And we'll go on to
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, I have two items.
I'd like to call Penny Phillippi up, please. This is regarding the
Immokalee Master Plan and when it's going to come back before us.
We had a little bit of a conflict going on with the fact that on the
26th, is that correct -- no the 27th we have our Commission meeting.
Wait, I have my calendar here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 26th of June.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The 26th, June 26th, there was a
-- at that time there was planned right on top of that a Politics in the
Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's the 26th of June, Commissioner
Page 139
May 8, 2012
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of June, right, excuse me, 26th
of June.
What happened was is that they're very busy now trying to find a
different date to put it into. The reason being is it would be very
difficult for us to be able to end our meeting at 4:00 -- before 4:00,
3:30 and be able to make it there.
What we were looking at is we would like to be able to bring
back the Immokalee Master Plan for consideration. We'd like to bring
it back in Immokalee at the high school so that the residents of
Immokalee can participate. We'd like that to start at 7:00 in the
evening and it would probably be about a two -hour meeting max, I
would imagine. And then just be able to do it within the sunshine of
the people of Immokalee who this plan means a lot to. And I hope
that my Commission can agree to do that.
Penny, I'm sorry I didn't get to talk to you about the issue of the
Politics in the Parks resolving itself, but it sounds like it is.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay. That agenda item won't show up until
May 22nd on your regular agenda, the request to bring the master plan
back. I mean, it's in SIRE, but it won't show up until May 22nd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, speak up just a little
bit, Penny.
MS. PHILLIPPI: The item will show up on May 22nd on your
Board of County Commissioner agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, but we did have -- going
into this day until about noon we did have a major issue as far as how
we were going to schedule everything to make it work. But it looks
like that's resolved itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, did you
mean that you wanted to then finish our meeting here and then go to
Immokalee for a 7:00 meeting that same evening?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That same evening. I think that
Page 140
May 8, 2012
would be -- the other way it could be done is we could do it on that
Monday, the 25th. In other words, start the Commission meeting there
with the Immokalee Master Plan in the evening and then continue the
meeting to the 27th here. But whatever the pleasure of this Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a calendar in front of me,
but tell me about -- we're meeting on Tuesday the 26th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you want to have an all -day BCC
meeting and then you want to break and go to Immokalee for a
meeting at 7:00?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you think it's going to be over in
three hours?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would hope that it will be over
in two hours. Penny's been doing a lot of work within the community
briefing people on what to expect. The presentation has been put in
much simpler terms so that the average person can understand it.
What do you think, Penny?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I can't even imagine. I would recommend you
start at 6:00 or 6:30 and anticipate being done by 9:00. But that's my
best guess. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, trying to start at 6:00 may
be difficult. I'm worried about finishing up here and then the travel
time to get to Immokalee. And also for the Commissioners to grab a
quick bite to eat. That's why 7:00 I thought would be the best time to
work with. But once again, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We might all be tired. Because that's
going to be a really long meeting is the meeting before we go into a
July break. Why don't you do it the night before? You said the 25th.
And so then you'd have the meeting on the 25th just for that particular
item and then we come back the next morning and do the Commission
meeting, and that's not all in one day and people won't be so tired.
Page 141
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. That might be the
best way to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we thinking out loud here,
is that what we're doing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's an open discussion to
be able to find out how we can make this work best.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can we legally move the seat
of the county to a different location?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can hold your meetings in Immokalee,
that's fine. But I think this discussion really needs to take place at the
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But I just wanted to try
to -- to get some sort of consensus from the Commissioners. Going
into this today there was a real issue about the date. We'll have both
dates available to you for consideration when we come back. So that
takes care of that one issue.
The other issue --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't mind, let me ask you one
other question. What's wrong with Wednesday evening rather than
Tuesday evening?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I believe on the 27th, if I'm not mistaken, you
have a debate planned. A League of Women Voters, I believe.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, it's the League of Women
Voters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not debating anybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The rest of -- the three of us, and it's
a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Politics should not play a factor
in trying to get things done. Let's end this discussion and you guys
Page 142
May 8, 2012
work it out, put it on the agenda, like Jeff said, and let's decide.
Did you come all the way from Immokalee for this discussion?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I didn't want to miss this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She really wanted to have lunch
with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a reason to come to
Naples.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have one other issue. I'd
like to be able to talk for just a little bit on the clarification of the BCC
direction from the EMS fire workshop. And it was given to the staff
and what to bring back.
In light of the fact that we have a lot of different things in play
now, including the Collier Community Alliance, looking at this whole
issue, do we really want to look at the -- that one option standing alone
as far as fracturing up the EMS across the districts?
It was a concern and I just thought I'd bring it up at this point in
time. Because staff has been giving their marching orders what to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's let Leo Ochs address that issue.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, the direction I believe I
heard at the workshop was for me to work with the various fire
districts over the next six months to evaluate service delivery options
and come back with a report of our results. I didn't hear that I was
directed to focus on any one specific recommendation.
And please, you know, the Commissioners, correct me if I was
hearing that wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you're absolutely right. That's
exactly correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you define service, the
options? Just give me a rough idea. Because I did thought (sic) they
were kind of limited. Does that also include consolidation?
MR. OCHS: I think everything, based on what I heard,
everything and anything is on the table.
Page 143
May 8, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: Now, whether that can be done in six months, you
know, and frankly, I've been here for 26 years and we've gone around
and around on this probably every five years since I've been here. But
that notwithstanding, that was what I heard I was directed to do. If the
Board wants to put some further parameters around that, I'm all ears.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, at the time I didn't
know the consolidation was something to be considered in your
evaluation. But that would be consolidation several different ways, I
would take it?
MR. OCHS: Well, I'd prefer the direction from the Board. If
you want something specific analyzed, please let me know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so you don't have clear
directions on that?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The issue is what is going on at the ground floor level, how is the
system functioning versus the administrative structure of that system.
And what we gave Leo direction to pursue is a dialogue with the
various service providers, which includes both the Sheriff, who
operates 9 -1 -1, and fire that provides both BLS and ALS services for
-- and of course the county's EMS services to all work together to look
at the existing system and figure out what can be done to best improve
that system.
We were given the example of -- for example, the example of
Seattle. The Seattle model has independent fire districts providing
BLS services and regions that provide ALS services. They have
consolidated taxation under the county. They have one medical
director and a separate medical director under that one director for
each of the various ALS regions. That's one example.
Page 144
May 8, 2012
Another example that was suggested was the Broward model,
again, with the focus being on how to provide the highest level of
EMS care.
And then only after that, after Leo brings back to us what needs
to be done for him to be able to provide the highest level of EMS care,
by collaboratively working with the sheriff and the various fire
districts can we address what the administrative structure should be.
And what I had said at that workshop is that, you know, form
will follow function. And we need to address the functioning of this
system first, and then from there decide, you know, what type of
administrative structure would allow that system to operate most cost
effectively.
So really there are two issues, you know: The issue of EMS
operations, which is what we're asking Leo to address. The separate
issue of fire consolidation is really an administrative question and
should follow up after Leo comes back to us and says, you know, we
can best operate to provide EMS services as follows, whatever he
comes up with. And let him look at the various options, let him
consider what options would work best in conjunction with the others
and present a proposal to us.
I think Dan Summers and Chief Kopka are, you know, very well
versed in these kind of issues, far more so than we are. And I think we
need to rely on the experts in the field on all sides of the equation to
come back to us with a recommendation that is systems oriented. And
that is what the focus was.
And I think we need to take this in two steps. I think we're biting
off more than we can chew by addressing both EMS services and fire
consolidation at the same time. They are two very different things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me summarize a little bit. We
have had multiple meetings concerning this. In fact we have jointly
designed a complete administrative organization similar to the public
safety organization which we have all discussed, even down to the
Page 145
May 8, 2012
point of deciding who would be on the board of directors or who
would be in the management chain, how it would all be put together,
who it would report to. And we did that in coordination with the fire
districts over a period of six to eight months. All of that's been done.
And the fire districts had input to it. The chiefs from Marco and
North Naples strongly endorsed that concept. And it was our
expectation that we would go somewhere with it. And then the next
thing we hear is North Naples wants to create their own organization
and go in a different direction. And then the East Naples and Golden
Gate fire districts have decided that they, you know, didn't want to
merge with North Naples. And it just keeps going in different
directions no matter what we do.
And today we've already made a decision to bring back the idea
of a referendum on this issue. And if we follow through with that, we
are obligated to provide a study which outlines the pros and cons of
proceeding in that direction.
So as I see it, it is best to let the County Manager proceed with
his current rather vague guidance until we make a final decision on the
referendum issue. Because if we make a final decision on that and we
want to put something on the referendum, he's going to have to go
about putting this study together that will become a document which
would be used by the public to form opinions among all the other
opinions that are going to be thrown at him.
So quite frankly, I don't know what you tell him under these
circumstances. Everything is up in the air.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are two issues. The one
issue is the system. And by that I mean the EMS system and what we
need to do to provide the highest level of care. The question is, are we
doing the best we can to save lives? And that is what needs to be
addressed first.
Page 146
May 8, 2012
Addressing how, you know, dollars can be saved has to come
second. Until we address what we need to do from a systems
perspective we really shouldn't be addressing the cost. We have to
make sure we're doing everything possible to achieve the highest level
of service, which is the fastest response times for ALS and BLS. I'm
not sure we're doing that. And that is not through any fault of EMS.
But we do have fiscal constraints. EMS is fiscally constrained.
We in my opinion don't have enough ambulances. I'm not sure if we
have enough staff. We are dependent on back -up from fire in order to
achieve our level of service standard. And I think it's really important
in order to build the best relationship possible for the county staff to
work with staff of the fire districts and the police to look at the
operations of the EMS system.
Very, very different than looking at how to achieve cost savings
on an overall basis, you know, whether there are, you know, too many
chiefs or too many Indians or whether there's enough functional
consolidation, whether the interlocal agreements, you know, are
achieving the level of savings they should. But that's a very, very
different question than the question of providing EMS services.
And I think giving staff the opportunity to, you know, without
any judgment and without any constraints, to sit down with their
counterparts who they depend on to make the system work to tweak
that system will go a long way to giving us some guidance in terms of
what ultimately will be the best administrative structure on all sides of
the equation, you know, police, fire and within the county -- within
the county's EMS.
So there certainly can be no harm. And it will hopefully produce
some very positive results. We got input put from Seattle, which was
really interesting. We got input from, you know, on Broward, which
was also very interesting. We're very different than both those
communities. Maybe a little bit of each might work for us. Maybe
there's another system out there like Toronto that could, you know,
Page 147
May 8, 2012
teach us something also. We just need to move forward with
advancing the system to save as many lives as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner, we're going to terminate
this discussion. But the thing that -- perhaps you haven't had the
history to understand this, but there is only one thing, just one thing
that will satisfy the fire districts, and that is to turn over EMS to the
fire districts. That is the game plan and that is the only thing that they
are going to be satisfied with. And we don't have the authority to do
anything about it.
So we'll just have to see how this works out. But I think Leo
knows what he has to do and so I guess he'll go do it until he gets
further guidance from us, right?
Commissioner Henning, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Hiller, my
prayers are with you and your father. You know, I'm such in awe that
you would participate in this meeting knowing that your father's sick.
Recognizing that we all have family obligations and family must come
first. So thank you for participating.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. By the way, I just
want you to know, it was when I started my meeting, it was -- see,
what time was it, 6:00 in the morning. And I was up at 4:30 to make
calls to get ready. So I just want you to know I have more of a day
left than you guys. So I can't tell you how happy I am. I get to go
back to the hospital.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Make good use of your time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, I really do appreciate
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll talk with you next time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to adjourn, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala. And we are adjourned. We'll see you in August.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like that. Can you say that
Page 148
May 8, 2012
again?
* * * * Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Coletta
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
RELEASE OF A $404,400 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $11144.369
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. ROLANDO SALAZAR,
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NUMBER 2005 -25,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 HANCOCK
STREET, IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
WAIVING $403,950 IN ACCURED FINES
Item #I 6A2
RESOLUTION 2012 -74: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF STERLING OAKS — PHASE 2B WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #I 6A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LIPARI- PONZIANE,
TRACT FD -3 REPLAT. THIS PLAT IS A RE- SUBDIVISION OF
LANDS WITHIN TREVISO BAY /WENTWORTH ESTATES PUD
— DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
Page 149
May 8, 2012
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #I 6A4
AN AMENDMENT EXTENDING THE EXISTING
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ( #412918- 1 -72 -01 -
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #2) BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COLLIER COUNTY AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $446,900.50 —
FOR A 3 MONTH EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE
OUTSOURCING RFP AND AWARD THE CONTRACT
Item #I 6A5
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MANCHESTER
SQUARE SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05
B.I I OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE — PREVIOUS EXTENSION EXPIRED ON MARCH 28,
2012
Item # 16A6 — Moved to Item # 11 D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6A7 — Continued to the May 22, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE,
WHICH IS CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF
Page 150
May 8, 2012
LAWS AND ORDINANCES, TO ELIMINATE OUTDATED
PROVISIONS IN SECTION 74 -205, DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION CREDIT, RELATED TO TIME LIMITATIONS
FOR CREDIT REIMBURSEMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
FORFEITURE OF CREDITS
Item #I 6A8
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 11-5753, ELECTRONIC
FAREBOXES FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS)
PROGRAM, TO CORRECT TECHNICAL REFERENCES IN
EXHIBIT A, SCOPE OF SERVICES — CHANGES WILL NOT
AFFECT THE COST OF THE CONTRACT
Item #16131
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT THAT IS
FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY A FIFTH THIRD BANK GRANT
AWARD BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT
WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (3234
COTTAGE GROVE AVENUE — CRA FISCAL IMPACT: NONE) —
TO REPLACE EXISTING ROOF
Item #16132
A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
AREA. (3700 BAYSHORE DRIVE, $22,750) — CONVERTING
THE PREVIOUS GROCERY STORE INTO A NURSERY
Page 151
May 8, 2012
Item #16B3
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
APPLICATION TO HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERANS
SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR $7019300 IN FUNDING FOR
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA FIRE
SUPPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM UPGRADE
PROJECT — APPLICATION WAS DUE ON APRIL 16, 2012
Item #16134
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA
AND A GRANT APPLICANT BY APPROVING A TIME
EXTENSION AND INCREASE THE GRANT AWARD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,326.50.(2595 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,
REVISED FISCAL IMPACT $12,929.50) — REFLECTING THE
ENTIRE COST AND INCLUDING A 6 MONTH EXTENSION
FROM THE ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE OF JULY 10, 2013
TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PERMITTING AND
INSPECTION ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE 2 WORK
Item #16135
"AFTER- THE - FACT" APPROVAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF
THE ATTACHED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION TO COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICE DEPARTMENT SEEKING
GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $3525750 TO
PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS TOWARD THE
Page 152
May 8, 2012
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST STREET PLAZA IN
IMMOKALEE — APPLICATION WAS DUE BY APRIL 16, 2012
Item # 16C 1
CONTRACT #11 -5794 TO B.Q. CONCRETE, LLC., BRADANNA
INC. AND MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION CO. IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $600,000 ANNUALLY FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF HAMMERHEADS AND
DESIGNATED DRIVEWAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY TO
PROVIDE SAFE AND PROPER TURN - AROUND AREAS ON
PUBLIC ROADS — FOR WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLES AND
LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLES
Item #I 6C2
AMENDMENT ONE TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND
LOAN AGREEMENT THROUGH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
THE TAMIAMI WELLS 34 AND 37 AND PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 701582,
REDUCING THE LOAN AMOUNT BY $368,002
Item # 16D 1
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE HILL'S
PET NUTRITION, INC. ( "HILL'S ") AS THE SUPPLIER OF PET
FOOD PRODUCTS AND PET NUTRITION EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES (DAS) SHELTERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PURCHASING FOOD FROM OTHER
MANUFACTURERS /VENDORS FOR OTHER SPECIES
Page 153
May 8, 2012
HOUSED AT THE SHELTERS AND /OR SPECIALTY FOOD FOR
FELINES AND CANINES WITH SPECIAL DIETARY NEED
AND THE PURCHASING /GS DIRECTOR TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT — HILLS HAS BEEN PROVIDING FREE SCIENCE
DIET FOOD FOR THE SHELTER SINCE 2006 FOR THE COST
OF SHIPPING AND HANDLING
Item #I 6D2
ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY
INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM
SINCE NO GRANT FUNDS WERE AWARDED AND NO WORK
WAS PERFORMED — PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4537
FLAMINGO DRIVE, FOLIO #32488600003
Item #16D3
ONE (1) MODIFICATION TO LIEN AGREEMENT FOR THE
DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY
REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO REFLECT THE TRUE
GRANT AMOUNT AWARDED — PROPERTY LOCATED AT
287535 TH AVENUE NE, FOLIO #39898920004
Item #I 6D4
ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,736.34
FOR AN IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT AS THE
AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL — PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 671 12TH AVENUE NE
Item #16D5
Page 154
May 8, 2012
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29500 FOR A LOAN ISSUED UNDER THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) AS LOAN HAS
BEEN REPAID IN FULL — PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5369
CATTS STREET, NAPLES
Item #I 6D6
A GRANT AGREEMENT ACCEPTING A CONTINUUM OF
CARE (COC) GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1049645
FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE
HOMELESSNESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
(HMIS), AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING THE FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
AWARD — REQUIRING A 25% MATCH FOR THE HMIS
PORTION OF THE FUNDING
Item # 16D7 — Moved to Item # 11 E (Per County Manager during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16D8
A LETTER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT FINALIZING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HUD AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ACCEPT A
REDUCTION IN HOME FUNDING TO REPAY HOME FUNDS
USED IN SUPPORT OF HOME ACTIVITY #195 (CIRRUS
POINTE) — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6D9
Page 155
May 8, 2012
A BUDGET AMENDENT ALLOCATING $203,263 OF STATE
AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT FUNDS AWARDED COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
AND THE PURCHASE OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS
Item # 16D 10
A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
2011 -2012 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ACTION PLAN (AP) TO ALLOW AN
APPLICATION SUBMISSION TO HUD FOR EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) FUNDING; AND THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS AND
DOCUMENTS FOR SUBMISSION TO HUD NO LATER THAN
MAY 15, 2012 — FUNDING USED FOR HOUSING VOUCHERS
AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO ASSIST IN RE-
HOUSING HOMELESS CITIZENS
Item # 16D 11
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE IMMOKALEE OUT -OF- SCHOOL
TIME INITIATIVE (IOSTP); THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, INC.; AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT.
FISCAL IMPACT IS $301375 — FOR 50 CHILDREN TO
PARTICIPATE IN SUMMER RECREATION CAMP AND
TUTORING
Item # 16E 1
Page 156
May 8, 2012
THE RIVERS ROAD PRESERVE INTERIM MANAGEMENT
PLAN UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM — CONSISTING OF 76.74 ACRES
OFF OF RIVERS ROAD AND MOULDER DRIVE, EAST OF
COLLIER BLVD
Item #I 6E2
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND /OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004 -15 FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER OF FYI 2
Item #I 6E3
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #1 1-5790R SAFETY,
SECURITY AND ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
AND EQUIPMENT TO COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
COMPANY ON AN AS- NEEDED BASIS EFFECTIVE JUNE 15
20125 AND TERMINATE CONTRACT #07 -4148 SECURITY
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT TO JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.
ON MAY 313, 2012 — CONTRACT TERM FOR AN INITIAL 2
YEARS WITH TWO ADDITIONAL 1 YEAR RENEWAL
PERIODS
Item #I 6E4
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD OF MARCH 22, 2012 THROUGH APRIL 18, 2012
Page 157
May 8, 2012
Item #I 6E5
REJECT PROPOSALS RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF LETTER
OF INTENT (LOI) #10 -5562 E- PAYABLES AND TO WORK IN
COORDINATION WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS WHO WILL
SOLICIT PROPOSALS TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND ELECTRONIC PAYMENT
SYSTEMS TO INCLUDE "PROCURE TO PAY" PROGRAMS
SUCH AS E- PAYABLES AS WELL AS OTHER PROGRAMS
DESIGNED TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY AND REDUCE PAPER
PROCESSING
Item # 16E6 — Moved to Item # 11 C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE, INC IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY
RESPONSE — TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE
TIME OF A DISASTER
Item #I 6F2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS IN
SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE — TO COORDINATE RELIEF
EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A DISASTER
Page 158
May 8, 2012
Item #16F3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND SHEPHERD OF THE GLADES LUTHERAN
CHURCH IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE
HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE — TO COORDINATE
RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A DISASTER
Item #I 6F4
AN INSURANCE REFUND AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $205.28 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REPLACING A DAMAGED PORTABLE RADIO
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2012 -75: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12
ADOPTED BUDGET — BA # 12 -261, FUNDS FROM SUMMER
FOOD PROGRAM GRANT
Item #16F6
PAYMENT OF THE FINAL INVOICE TO MDT PERSONNEL,
LLC FOR TEMPORARY LABOR — FOR WORKERS NEEDED
THE WEEK OF MARCH 5, 2012 FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES
Item # 16G 1
Page 159
May 8, 2012
SUB -LEASE AGREEMENT AND RIDER WITH THREE
MAYHOODS LLC — FOR 2 ACRES OF LAND AT. 10 (TEN
CENTS) PER SQUARE FOOT PER YEAR, TERMINATING ON
MARCH 31, 2022
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER FIALA' S ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION
SERVING AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE WILL
ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP MARCO PROGRAM FROM JULY
253 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 13, 2013. THE SUM OF $500 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
— A TEN SESSION COMMITMENT THAT WILL MEET FROM
AUGUST 8TH THROUGH DECEMBER 5TH
Item #I 6H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER WAKE UP EVENT AT NAPLES HILTON,
NAPLES, FL ON MARCH 14, 2012. $20 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #I 6H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE RSVP ANNUAL
VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION LUNCHEON AT THE NAPLES
AIRPORT, NAPLES, FL ON MARCH 20, 2012. $15 TO BE PAID
Page 160
May 8, 2012
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT 500 TERMINAL ROAD
Item #161-14
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE KNOW YOUR
COUNTY GOVERNMENT LUNCHEON AT EAST NAPLES
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, NAPLES, FL ON MARCH 27,
2012. $5 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #161-15
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST MEETING AT
ROMA HAVANA RESTAURANT IN IMMOKALEE, FL ON
APRIL 4, 2012. $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #161-16
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAKE UP NAPLES
EVENT AT THE HILTON HOTEL, NAPLES, FL ON APRIL 11,
2012. $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Page 161
May 8, 2012
Item # 161-17
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ANNUAL MEETING ON
MAY 185 2012 AT THE RITZ CARLTON GOLF RESORT,
NAPLES, FL. $80 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 2600
TIBURON DRIVE
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 7, 2012
THROUGH APRIL 13, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 14, 2012
THROUGH APRIL 20, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16K I
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NUMBER 86 -78 AS
AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - THE
COMMITTEE DOES NOT MEET AND HAS NOT MET FOR
MANY YEARS
Page 162
May 8, 2012
Item #I 6K2
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NUMBER 73 -17
RELATING TO TEMPORARY PERMITS — RELATING TO
TEMPORARY USES AND SIGNS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN
THE LDC
Item #I 7A — Moved to Item #9A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2012 -76: PETITION VAC- PL20120000308, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN TWO CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS AND REPLACED WITH TWO ALTERNATE
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS LOCATED IN THE SAME
PARCEL OF LAND ON AN INTERIM BASIS, ORIGINALLY
RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A"
Item #I 7C
RESOLUTION 2012 -77: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED
BUDGET — BA #12-260, TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO
ADMINISTER THE SUMMER FOOD GRANT PROGRAM FOR
2012
Page 163
May 8, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
FRED W. COYLE, airman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT,iP . ,B`Rdt CLERK
sx n r„
These minutes a proved by the Board on 12,
20 2
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 164