BCC Minutes 05/22-23/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 22-23, 2012
May 22 -23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
May 22 -23, 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
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 22, 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 22, 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. Reverend Charles McCracken - Naples Alliance Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. April 24, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
May 22, 2012
Page 2
A. EMPLOYEE
1)
25 Year Attendees
a) Maura Kraus, Parks and Recreation
2) 30 Year Attendees
a) Marilyn Matthes, Library
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 20 -26, 2012 as International Association of
Insurance Professionals Week in Collier County. To be accepted by
Samantha Rodriguez, President, Insurance Professionals of Collier County.
Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
B. Proclamation designating May 20 -26, 2012 as EMS Week in Collier County.
To be accepted by Walter Kopka, Interim Chief, EMS Operations.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation designating May 2012 as Internal Audit Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Allison Kearns, Megan Gaillard, Ronald
Dortch, Pat Blaney and Bruce Brister, Internal Audit staff. Sponsored by
Commissioner Fiala.
D. Proclamation designating May 2012 as Foster Care Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by Nadereh Salim, CEO, Children's Network of
Southwest Florida; Aimee McLaughlin, Director of Communications and
Development, Children's Network of Southwest Florida; and David Brown,
Director of Programs, Children's Network of Southwest Florida. Sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
E. Proclamation designating May 2012 as Trauma Month in Collier County. To
be accepted by Dan Robbins, Justin Woodbury and Lisa Schwartz.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
5. PRESENTATIONS
May 22, 2012
Page 3
A. Presentation of the PHOENIX AWARD to recognize those EMS
Paramedics, EMT's, Firefighters, Sheriff s Deputies and Police Officers, who
through their skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life
individuals who had died.
B. Presentation of trophy for Best Tasting Drinking Water in Florida by Florida
Section American Water Works Association to Collier County Water
Department.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Robert Weber requesting that the Board allow
Auto Shredder Residue (ASR) from outside Collier County to be used for
daily cover at the landfill.
B. This item to be heard immediately after Item #14B1. Public Petition
request from Pam Brown requesting that the Immokalee Area Master Plan
amendment be brought back before the Planning Commission.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item continued from the May 8, 2012 BCC Meeting and has been
requested by the Petitioner to be further continued to the June 12, 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. 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.
May 22, 2012
Page 4
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.
B. Recommendation to adopt an amendment to the Ordinance No. 92 -18, as
amended, (Tourist Development Council) specifically Section Three
"Composition of Membership," to provide for municipal officials from the
City of Naples and the City of Marco Island; provide for appointment of a
member recommended by the City of Everglades City; and provide for a
membership guideline of two members being owners or operators of motels
or hotels, and one member who is otherwise qualified as an owner /operator.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Airport Authority Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Contractors Licensing Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory
Board.
E. Advisory Board Vacancies press release May 16, 2012 with a deadline of
June 5.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. 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. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal
Zone Management Director)
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #11A.
Recommendation to approve short list of firms for contract negotiations for
RFP No. 11 -5772 "Beach Renourishment Engineering Services ". (Gary
May 22, 2012
Page 5
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,237,212.62 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. and reserve $109,894 on the
purchase order for funding allowances, for a total of $1,347,106.62 for ITB
No. 11- 5718RR - "Oil Well Road Bridge Replacement ", Project No. 66066.
(Marlene Messam, Transportation Engineering /Growth Management
Division Project Manager)
D. Recommendation to approve a proposed ordinance establishing the Collier
County Public Safety Authority, direct the County Manager to formalize
stakeholder endorsement and authorize the County Manager to advertise the
final ordinance for subsequent Board adoption. (Dan Summers, Bureau of
Emergency Services Director)
E. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation to direct the Collier
County Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum on the
August 14, 2012, ballot for the Primary Election concerning consolidation of
the Collier County Fire Districts and Collier Emergency Medical Services in
Collier County Under a Public Safety Authority Administered by the Collier
County Sheriff's Office. (Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office Business
Operations Manager)
F. Recommendation to approve a Resolution accepting a proposal from Branch
Banking and Trust Company (BB &T), per ITB #12 -5829 Radio Road
MSTU Fixed Term Loan, to provide a fixed term loan to finance cost for the
Landscaping and Irrigation construction project within the Radio Road, East
of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), approving a loan
agreement in an amount not exceeding $649,000, with a maturity date for
the Note no later than ten (10) years from the date of issuance, and
authorizing such note to be payable from ad valorem taxes in an amount not
to exceed .5 mills on all taxable property within the MSTU. (Michelle
Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director)
G. Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5878 for "Radio Road, East of Santa
Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard
Municipal Service Taxing Unit Landscaping and Irrigation Project" to
Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., in the amount of $467,914.63.
May 22, 2012
Page 6
(Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director)
H. This item continued from the May 8, 2012 BCC Meeting and is being
withdrawn by staff at this time in order to restructure the executive
summary to address any and all conflicts existing between the
Ordinance and past and potential future Developer Contribution
Agreements (DCA). 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 and provide that
any future reimbursement of excess credits be subject to annual
appropriation. (Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager)
I. Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for contracted services
with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for Traffic Infraction Detector
Program (Red Light Running Camera Enforcement System) support. (Fiscal
Impact: $171,000) (Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management
Administrator)
J. Recommendation to approve a Resolution in Support of Supplemental
Agreement #2 to the Maintenance Agreement between the State of Florida,
Department of Transportation and Collier County, which was approved by
the Board at its May 8, 2012, meeting. (Nick Casalanguida, Growth
Management Administrator)
K. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to engage outside
counsel for representation in the Multi- District Litigation relating to
damages incurred as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. (Jack
Wert, Tourism Department Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
May 22, 2012
Page 7
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) This item to be heard at 9:45 a.m. Recommendation that the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners review CRA staff
recommendations concerning the proposed plan of action for
community education and request for reconsideration of the GMP
(CP- 2008 -5 - the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Immokalee
Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map) amendment petition in
accordance with the revised Ordinance 75 -16 for reconsideration of
land use matters; and include as part of the vote a date and time
certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered.
2) Recommendation to provide "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 $1,324,738 to
construct a plaza at the corner of 9th and Main Streets in Immokalee.
3) Recommendation to authorize a Resolution to extend the Immokalee
Interim LDC Deviation Process for an additional two years.
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to authorize the Executive Director to advertise a Request For
Proposal (RFP) from development or investment companies interested
in participating in a Gateway Triangle "mini- triangle" catalyst project
that includes any or all CRA -Owned land; and return to the Board
with staff reviewed proposals.
5) This item continued from the March 27, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) consider authorizing the CRA Director to publically
advertise for offers to purchase one or more of the twenty -three (23)
CRA owned residential lots to build single - family homes and bring
back any offers for CRA Board review, approval or rejection.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
May 22, 2012
Page 8
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Horse Creek Estates and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Securities to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve an agreement for the acquisition of a
drainage easement which is required for the construction of a portion
of the US -41 Ditch segment of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project. Fiscal Impact not to exceed $9,050. Project No.
51101.
3) Recommendation to approve a supplemental agreement and time
extension to the Florida Department of Transportation Local Agency
Program Agreement No. 426836 -1 thereby increasing design -
construction funding from $814,000 to $864,500 and extending the
project end date from June 29, 2012 to December 31, 2013; and, to
award RFP #11-5695 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for a design -
build contract in the amount of $864,500, to produce an experimental
wildlife crossing under Immokalee Road per the scope of Agreement
No. 426836 -1.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an extension for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Artesia Naples subdivision pursuant to Section
10.02.05 B. I I of the Collier County Land Development Code.
5) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$143,244.47 for payment of $694.47, in the Code Enforcement Action
May 22, 2012
Page 9
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. George Cirabisi and
Vickie Lea Cirabisi, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case
Number 2007090337, relating to property located at 1935 Empress
Court, Collier County, Florida.
6) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$9,712.56 for payment of $562.56, in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Homesales, Inc., Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Number CESD20110003257,
relating to property located at 1074 Illinois Drive, Collier County,
Florida.
7) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of $38,813.80.
8) Recommendation to recognize FY 2011/2012 Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311 additional revenue in the amount of
$17,666 to Collier Area Transit Fund (426) and authorize all
necessary budget amendments.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute the attached Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Green Effex, LLC, a Limited Liability Company permitting them
to continue operating a commercial and residential landscape service
on CRA owned property located at 1991 Tamiami Trail East, in the
Gateway Mini - Triangle.
2) Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to approve a one year extension to a Right of First
Refusal Agreement and Right of Entry with Bayshore Cultural and
Performing Arts Center, Inc. in consideration of a potential future
purchase of CRA owned land; and approve the Chairman to sign.
Fiscal Impact: None.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the execution
of a Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of
May 22, 2012
Page 10
Transportation ( "FDOT ") and Collier County, Florida, to obtain
partial project funding from FDOT in an amount not -to- exceed
$61,947, for the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing
Unit project known as "Main Street Improvements" and approve all
necessary budget amendments.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions of
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee.
Fiscal impact is $67 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize the purchase of
VX456, chemical solution for use at both the South and North County
Water Reclamation Facilities, in the estimated annual amount of
$120,000.
3) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid Number #12 -5873 and
the issuance of a purchase order for the Purchase and Delivery of
Membrane Filter Elements for the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant Membrane Replacement Project Number 71057, to
Toray Membrane USA, Inc., in the amount of $556,150.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Library automation software
maintenance agreement with Innovative Interfaces, Inc., in the amount
of $50,040 annually.
2) Recommendation to approve an after - the -fact donation of $2,346.60
in red clay for a little league field located in Everglades City and
authorize payment to Tate's Trucking for purchase and delivery of the
clay.
3) Recommendation to approve four (4) Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO) Disaster Recovery Enhancement grant
subrecipient agreements for hurricane hardening projects, where
funding was previously accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), and modify the associated grant agreement to
May 22, 2012
Page 11
reallocate funds from acquisition to sidewalks for the approved
Immokalee Area CRA Stormwater project. No new fiscal impact.
4) Recommendation to approve after - the -fact submittal of a request for
proposal application for the Community Care for the Elderly, the
Home Care for the Elderly, and the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative
Programs for a 6 year contract period with Senior Choices f/k/a Area
Agency on Aging for SWFL and authorize the Chairman to execute
all related documents including the necessary budget amendments for
continuation of services. (Fiscal Impact: $830,245)
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement with the District School Board of Collier County for
transporting summer camp program participants at an estimated cost
of $56,000.
6) Recommendation to approve reprogramming of Community
Development Block (CDBG) Grant funds in the amount of $15,000,
and to approve a subrecipient agreement with Goodwill Industries,
Inc. providing the reprogrammed funding to Goodwill in order to
install a voice activated fire alarm system at the Roberts Center in
Immokalee, Florida.
7) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the
Community Care for Elderly and the Older Americans Act Title III
Standard Contract amendments and Attestation Statements, both with
the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc., dba, Senior
Choices of Southwest Florida, for Collier County Services for Seniors
program and approve the necessary budget amendment. (Fiscal
Impact $0).
8) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a Memorandum
of Agreement between the Florida Department of Children and
Families (DCF) and Collier County (County) for Limited County
Access to the FLORIDA System in order to facilitate review of
Medicaid billings.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
May 22, 2012
Page 12
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the cancellation of
current taxes upon a fee - simple interest Collier County Water -Sewer
District acquired by Warranty Deed for public use and without
monetary compensation.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to accept an awarded Volunteer Fire Assistance
Matching (50150) Grant from the Florida Division of Forestry for the
purchase of a portable skid unit and authorize the necessary budget
amendments. (Fiscal Impact $9,800)
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, authorize a refund to Mr. John Ranweiler in the
amount of $495.58 for hangar rent at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation designating May 25, 2012 as National Missing
Children's Day in Collier County in support of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children's take 25 Campaign. Proclamation
will be mailed to Ed Russo, Florida Chapter. Sponsored by the Board
of County Commissioners.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 2012 Annual
Dinner on May 18, 2012. The sum of $80 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the 10th Annual Paradise Coast Awards Luncheon on May
May 22, 2012
Page 13
M 2012. The sum of $31 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the CBIA Real Estate on the Rise Event on May 17, 2012.
The sum of $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Know Your County Government Luncheon at the East
Naples United Methodist Church, Naples, FL on March 27, 2012. $5
to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the 10th Annual Paradise Coast Tourism Star Awards
Luncheon at the Marco Island Marriott, Marco Island, FL on May 10,
2012. $31 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Golden Apple Awards event at the Waldorf Astoria,
Naples, FL on April 11, 2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in BCC office until approval.
2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in BCC office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
May 22, 2012
Page 14
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
21, 2012 through April 27, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
285 2012 through May 4, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval to designate the
Sheriff as the official applicant and point of contact for the U. S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
FY2012 Local Standard grant, authorize the electronic submission of
the application, accept the grant when awarded, approve associated
budget amendments and approve the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to receive and expend 2012 JAG Standard grant funds.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$1,543,000 in revenues and expenditures in the Sheriffs FY2012
General Fund budget.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal an unnumbered ordinance codified as
Sec. 2 -1 (Purchases from state division of corrections) in the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County.
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal an unnumbered ordinance codified as
Sec. 2 -26 (Franchises generally) in the Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Collier County.
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
May 22, 2012
Page 15
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. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Collier County Ordinance
No. 2009 -44, the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the
Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing
Unit (MSTU) Ordinance, to remove the six -year sunset provision and
provide for the dissolution of the MSTU upon recommendation by the
MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carryforward, 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 22, 2012
Page 16
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please stand for
the invocation by Reverend Charles McCracken of the Naples
Alliance Church.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVEREND McCRACKEN: Lord God Almighty, you've said
in your living and life manual that we call the Bible that righteousness
exalts a nation, but sin's a reproach. Lord, in this county we would far
rather be seen as righteous than reproached. So we ask you to guide
those who lead us. Guide our commissioners and their staff; give
them patience to listen.
You've told us in that manual that to answer a matter before we
hear it is a falling in shame, so help them be able to listen before they
decide. Give them discernment to see into things, to understand what's
really going on, and maybe to see things that really even can't be seen.
And then Lord, help them have the courage to do righteous,
regardless of the effect or the reproach or reward that comes. They
are your servants, they are our leaders, and we thank you for them and
we ask you to guard them. In the name of your son Jesus, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the pledge of
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, would you please go through the changes to the
agenda this morning.
Item #2A
Page 2
May 22 -23, 2012
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes, Board of
County Commissioners meeting of May 22, 2012.
First proposed change is to move Item I LJ from your regular
agenda to become Item 16.A.9 on your consent agenda. This item was
inadvertently placed on the regular agenda. It's a resolution
formalizing a previously approved board contract extension for
highway maintenance between the county and the Florida Department
of Transportation.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.B.3 from the consent
agenda to become Item 14.B.6 under your CRA regular agenda.
The next change is to move Item 16.D.2 to become Item I LL on
your regular agenda today.
I have a couple of agenda notes this morning, Commissioners.
The first one is that Item 6.B will be heard at 9:45 a.m., to be
immediately followed by Item 14.B.1. Those are the two items this
morning relating to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Previously those
items had been scheduled to be heard in reverse order. The correct
order now will be 6.B at 9:45, immediately followed by 14.B.1. And
that is reflected in the time certain changes and strike - throughs on the
bottom of your change sheet.
And the final note is one correction in a word that Commissioner
Coletta had pointed out to us yesterday related to 16.D.6. It's going to
be an installation of a voice evacuation fire alarm system at the
Roberts Center in Immokalee, not a voice activated fire system at the
Roberts Center in Immokalee.
In addition to the two time certains that I mentioned a moment
ago, we also have Item I LA scheduled for a time certain hearing at
Page 3
May 22 -23, 2012
10:45 this morning, immediately followed by Item 11.B. And the
final time certain hearing scheduled is at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon.
That is Item 11.E on your agenda.
Those are all the changes I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. And we will begin
with the commissioners for any other changes and ex parte disclosure
for the consent agenda this morning. And we'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication on today's summary or consent agenda, and I have no
further changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have no changes to the
agenda, and I have no disclosures to make.
Two things that I'd like to point out. One, today I expect we'll
finish well before 6:00, but at 6:00 p.m. I will have to leave for a
meeting that's been scheduled. And I assume that we'll be done well
before then. If not, we could continue the next day.
The other thing I want to make sure on the record, we had this
reverse we just did with the petition regarding the Immokalee Master
Plan. The minute I found out that there was an order of reversal, I
contacted the County Manager's Office and objected to it. There was
some misconception with some people out there that I'm the one that
tried to orchestrate that reversal to take away the right of somebody to
speak. It was just the opposite.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and I have no additional changes
to the agenda and I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I too have no changes to the agenda
Iff u
May 22 -23, 2012
and no ex parte disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no ex parte disclosures, but
I do have one thing I'd like to address on the agenda. At a previous
Board meeting the Board voted that as a separate agenda item at this
meeting we would bring back the vote to decide the reappointment of
Mr. Medwedeff to the Tourist Development Council. And I don't see
it identified as a separate agenda item on today's agenda. It's my
understanding someone thought that it could be addressed as part of
the discussion of the amendment to the TDC ordinance, but that is
actually inappropriate. So I think we need to vote on the
reappointment of Mr. Medwedeff first and then address the
modifications to the ordinance as a separate item. So I'd like to add
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there any discussion
concerning that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just -- I was going to -- thank
you very much for saying that. That's exactly what I was going to do
was introduce that at the time. I've spoken with many people on
Marco Island, and including Mr. Medwedeff. And so thank you for
mentioning that. That's exactly what I plan to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I understand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to make basically a
motion to amend the agenda to add an additional item, which is the
voting on Mr. Medwedeff s reappointment to the TDC, to precede the
agenda item addressing the modification to the TDC ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is, and as we stated at the
last meeting, we wanted to have the ordinance change reviewed and
approved before we begin appointing people, because the ordinance
change affects appointments. One can't make appointments and then
change the ordinance that would result in the appointment being
inconsistent with the ordinance. So the ordinance change must occur
Page 5
May 22 -23, 2012
first.
I would have no objection to any discussion concerning Mr.
Medwedeff s appointment following the ordinance change, but the
point is it has not been advertised. And to do that at a time --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What hasn't been advertised?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The appointment of Mr. Medwedeff,
discussion has not been advertised. When we appoint people to
advisory boards of various kinds, we have that as a separate agenda
item. And we specifically asked last meeting that we deal with the
ordinance first and then deal with appointments.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's why I was going to bring
it up during that conversation about the ordinance, because Mr.
Medwedeff s last day is this week. And so we needed to reinstate him,
or continue him, actually, as the representative for the hotels in order
for him to continue to serve. Because May is the last time, according
to the vote previously. So that's why I was going to introduce it at that
time.
Is that something that can be acceptable?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was actually continued is what
happened. We continued it -- basically we extended his term to now
and continued voting on the reappointment to this meeting. So it was
advertised. And we basically continued the vote to today and
extended his term to today to allow for the vote to be held today.
With respect to the issue of the discussion of the ordinance ahead
of the vote or the other way around, I actually had opportunity to
discuss the proposed wording with the County Manager, and quite
frankly what clearly is going to have to happen is that the
appointments, in order to satisfy covering the City of Everglades,
Marco and Naples, will require that some individuals in effect have
two hats. Like for example, be an owner /operator and represent
Marco, or a non - owner /operator and represent Everglades. Because
May 22 -23, 2012
there's no other way to accomplish it without doing so.
So again, you know, we can have the discussion on the ordinance
ahead of the vote, but quite frankly at the end of the day it's not really
going to make a difference, because it will satisfy the requirement
either way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's see what the County Attorney
has to say, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm most comfortable with your having your
discussion on the ordinance, and following your decision on the
ordinance you can then decide what you want to do if anything with
any candidates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, it doesn't matter to me.
You can have it the other way around. But it does need to be a
separate item. And it has been announced.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if that's the direction of the Board,
that item would become Item 10.F on your agenda as a consideration
of an appointment of Mr. Medwedeff to the TDC. And that would be
heard I imagine immediately following the discussion on your
ordinance adoption, which would be this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As long as the ordinance issue is
considered first, I'm fully supportive of that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 10.F would be heard immediately
following 9.B on your agenda, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 10.F would be what?
MR. OCHS: That's the consideration of the appointment of Mr.
Medwedeff. And that will be heard immediately following 9.B, which
is the consideration of the amendment to the TDC ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One quick question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
Page 7
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to support the
appointment. My whole concern is the fact that we don't get into a
problem as far as the lack of advertising.
Mr. Klatzkow, are you comfortable with the direction we're
going?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well, then we will entertain a
motion to approve the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion made by Commissioner Coletta,
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: The motion passes unanimously.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 22, 2012
Move Item 11J to 16A9: Recommendation to approve a Resolution in Support of Supplemental Agreement
#2 to the Maintenance Agreement between the State of Florida, Department of Transportation and Collier
County, which was approved by the Board at its May S, 2012 meeting. (Item was inadvertently placed on the
Regular agenda)
Move Item 16133 to Item 14116: Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the execution of a
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation ( "FDOT ") and Collier
County, Florida, to obtain partial project funding from FDOT in an amount not -to- exceed $61,947, for the
Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit project known as "Main Street Improvements" and
approve all necessary budget amendments. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D2 to Item IIL: Recommendation to approve an after - the -fact donation of $2,346.60 in red
clay for a little league field located in Everglades City and authorize payment to Tate's Trucking for purchase
and delivery of the clay. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Note:
Item 6B to be heard at 9:45 a.m., immediately followed by Item 14131
Item 16D6 Executive Summary title should read: Recommendation to approve reprogramming of
Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant funds in the amount of $15,000, and to approve a
subrecipient agreement with Goodwill Industries, Inc. providing the reprogrammed funding to Goodwill in
order to install a voice aetivated evacuation fire alarm system at the Roberts Center in Immokalee, Florida.
(Commissioner Coletta's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 14131 to be heard at 9!45 a.m. immediately following Item 6B
Item 6B to be heard immediately following 7tem ' 4RI at 9.45 a.m.
Item 11A to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 11B to be heard immediately following Item 11A
Item 11E to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
5/22/2012 8:40 AM
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 24, 2012 — BCC/REGULAR MEETING
— APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, is there a motion to approve the
April 24th, 2012 BCC regular meeting minutes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ave.
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 #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: EMPLOYEE
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to service awards.
County Manager.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Commissioners, if you would be kind
enough to join us in front of the dais, we're honored to have two
employees with significant years of county service this morning that
we'd like to recognize.
May 22 -23, 2012
For 25 years of service with Collier County government, from
your Parks and Recreation Department, Maura Kraus.
Maura?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: We'd also like to honor today 30 years of service as
the director of the Collier County Library, Marilyn Matthes.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards this morning,
sir.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS (ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS) — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20 -265 2012 AS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE
PROFESSIONALS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY SAMANTHA RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE
PROFESSIONALS OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 4 on your
agenda this morning. It's proclamations. 4.A is a proclamation
designating May 20th through the 26th of 2012 as International
Association of Insurance Professionals Week in Collier County. To
be accepted by Samantha Rodriguez and Danielle McGoff. This item
is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
If you'd please come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
Page 10
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26,2012 AS EMS
WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY WALTER
KOPKA, INTERIM CHIEF, EMS OPERATIONS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating May 20th --
designating May, 2012 as International Audit Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Allison Kearns, Megan Gaillard,
Ronald Dortch -- I'm sorry, I'm on C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're on the wrong one.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, 4.B. Senior moment there,
Commissioners.
4.B is a proclamation designating May 20th through the 26th,
2012 as EMS Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Walter
Kopka, Interim Chief of EMS Operations. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
Chief?
(Applause.)
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, Walter Kopka, Interim Chief of your EMS
Department.
During National Emergency Medical Services Week we
recognize the tremendous role that EMS practitioners make to
improve health, safety and welfare in communities across the nation.
Your EMS department is an around - the -clock group of 181
committed professionals responding to over 36,000 9 -1 -1 calls during
2011.
Emergency care professionals are committed to strive for
seamless care from the field to the emergency room to the trauma
center. Their commitment to ensuring that patients receive the best
medical care available anytime and anywhere is instrumental to
Page 11
May 22 -23, 2012
advancing the health, safety and wellbeing of citizens in Collier
County.
EMS is an essential part of building a resilient health care system
that functions efficiently and effectively every day and is capable of
responding to disasters, accidents and health emergencies.
All our efforts at the county level are aimed at supporting the
men and women on the front lines of the health care system. The
dispatchers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs and
paramedics who come together to provide the best possible care when
personal or community tragedy strikes.
Please join me during EMS Week in thanking the dedicated
professionals in Emergency Medical Services for the critical work
they do to improve the health of the residents and citizens of Collier
County. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2012 AS INTERNAL
AUDIT AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY ALLISON KEARNS, MEGAN GAILLARD,
RONALD DORTCH, PAT BLANEY AND BRUCE BRISTER,
INTERNAL AUDIT STAFF — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Okay, now I'll move on to 4.C. We're so anxious to
recognize the audit team I could hardly contain myself.
Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating May, 2012 as Internal
Audit Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Allison
Kearns, Megan Galliard, Ronald Dortch, Pat Blaney and Bruce
Brister, internal audit staff. This item is sponsored by Commissioner
Fiala.
(Applause.)
Page 12
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 4.1) is -- oh, excuse me. Go ahead.
MR. DORTCH: Just real quickly. Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is Ron Dortch, and on behalf of the Clerk's
internal audit staff, I just want to say thank you for recognizing May
as the Internal Audit Awareness Month. I'd especially like to thank
Commissioner Fiala for sponsoring the proclamation. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2012 AS FOSTER
CARE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
NADEREH SALIM, CEO, CHILDREN'S NETWORK OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; AIMEE MCLAUGHLIN, DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT, CHILDREN'S
NETWORK OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; AND DAVID BROWN,
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, CHILDREN'S NETWORK OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4.1) is a proclamation designating May, 2012 as
Foster Care Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Nadereh
Salim, CEO, Children's Network of Southwest Florida, Aimee
McLaughlin, Director of Communications and Development,
Children's Network of Southwest Florida, and David Brown, Director
of Programs, Children's Network of Southwest Florida. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
MR. SALIM: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I
could, Nadereh Salim. Our CEO apologizes for her absence today.
I just want to thank you all very much for the recognition of our
foster parents. We have over 60 foster parents in Collier County who
do an amazing job every day.
Page 13
May 22 -23, 2012
I think most importantly the 88 children today that are in foster
care thank you for this recognition. It's really significant that these
children, the experiences that they've have, that they are able to go
into a loving and caring home in our community. So thank you very
much for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for the service you provide.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2012 AS TRAUMA
MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY DAN
ROBBINS, JUSTIN WOODBURY AND LISA SCHWARTZ —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation designating May, 2012
as Trauma Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Dan Robbins,
Justin Woodbury and Lisa Schwartz. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
Please come forward, accept your award. No? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
proclamations as presented.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve the proclamations, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. He
did it first. He was just a second ahead of you.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 14
you.
May 22 -23, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
That brings us to presentations, County Manager.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE PHOENIX AWARD RECOGNIZING
THOSE EMS PARAMEDICS, EMT'S, FIREFIGHTERS,
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES AND POLICE OFFICERS, WHO
THROUGH THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAD DIED — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Item 5.A is a presentation of the Phoenix
Award to recognize those paramedics, EMTs, firefighters, sheriffs
deputies and police officers who through their skill and knowledge
have successfully brought back to life individuals who had died.
Commissioners, I'd like to present Captain Les Williams who
will read the names of all the awardees this morning.
Captain?
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS: Good morning, Commissioners.
Captain Les Williams, Collier EMS for the record.
The following personnel from agencies all over the county have
done a fine job in representing EMS, and here on EMS Week. So I'd
like to bring them up and recognize them. And we'll hold the applause
till everyone gets there.
From our partners in North Naples Fire Department, Paramedic
Alex Wagner, Lieutenant Brian Wertz, Engineer Michele Delaney,
Captain Bob Smith and Lieutenant James Pelkinton.
From Naples Fire Department we have Engineer Steve Kofski,
Page 15
May 22 -23, 2012
Engineer Joe Fetzer, Paramedic Christian Bice, Paramedic Carl
Rambosk, Paramedic Cesar McCay and Paramedic Eric Savedra.
From Marco Island Fire Department we have paramedic Albert
Munoz and division chief Donny Jones.
And from Immokalee Fire Department we have EMT Cody
Rogers.
East Naples Fire Department we have Engineer Clay Wilroy,
Paramedic Joe Crato, Lieutenant Dan Ernst, and EMT Chris Citak.
And from Collier County EMS we have Paramedic Gabriel
Acosta, Paramedic Andrew Stegger, Lieutenant Neil McLority,
Paramedic Todd Fiala. Lieutenant Jolene Apocela, EMT Shawn
McNichols, Paramedic Katie Card, Lieutenant Art Wolf, Paramedic
Miguel Tajeta, Lieutenant Guy Speed, Lieutenant Sam Pool,
Battallion Chief Steve Rocky, Lieutenant Paul Passaredi, Paramedic
Tim Redzides, and Lieutenant Pam Williams.
And we just had some newcomers I may not have checked. We
had three more latecomers. They were out running calls this morning.
(Applause.)
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS: And Dave Thomas from Isle of Capri.
Sorry, Dave.
Did I miss you? And Paramedic Jay Hartcher. Sorry. Couple
more coming up.
Commissioners, the citizens and visitors of Collier County have
truly received consistent countywide care due to the dedication, desire
and determination of local law enforcement, fire department and EMS
personnel.
It is my -- I'm proud to present today's meeting and I'm honored
to present today's heroes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to explain what
Phoenix Award means?
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS: The Collier County EMS adopted the
Phoenix presentation some 20 odd years ago. And the Phoenix is a
Page 16
May 22 -23, 2012
mythological bird that died and rose renewed from its ashes. And we
adopted that to honor all the first responders in the county some 20
years ago to -- these people truly found somebody in cardiac arrest,
did their job in a professional manner, and today those people were
discharged alive from the hospital. And that's what the meaning of
these awards mean. So they've done a fine job together working as one
team.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a few minutes for
everyone to get out of the room.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's proceed with the agenda,
County Manager.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF TROPHY FOR BEST TASTING DRINKING
WATER IN FLORIDA BY FLORIDA SECTION AMERICAN
WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION TO COLLIER COUNTY
WATER DEPARTMENT — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Next item on your agenda, Mr. Chairman, is Item
S.B. It's a presentation of trophy for the best tasting drinking water in
Florida by Florida Section of the American Water Works Association.
Presented to the Collier County Water Department. Mr. Mattausch
will begin the presentation.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Collier County Water
Department.
I would like to introduce Rick Ratcliffe to you. Rick is the chair
of the Florida Section American Water Works Association. And he
will be making the presentation.
Page 17
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. RATCLIFFE: Good mornng. I'm Rick Ratcliffe, Chair of
the Florida Section American Water Works Association, Florida
premiere association of water professionals. The Fourth Section was
founded in 1926 and has over 2,300 members. Our mission statement
is to ensure present and future generations of Florida sufficient supply
of high quality drinking water.
Chris Stewart, please come up. Chris is our chair for Region V,
which is the Collier County -- which Collier County is part of. Back
in February we started a taste contest for State of Florida. The Florida
section has 12 regions. Three weeks ago in Orlando we had the 12
finalists come to Orlando to find out who had the best drinking water
in the State of Florida.
I'm proud to say that Collier County was deemed the best
drinking water in the state. And the criteria was color, taste, odor and
clarity. We're proud that the Collier County utilities will be
representing Florida Section AWWA at our conference in Dallas next
month in June at the ACE. This is the first time Collier County has
won this award.
I'd also like to acknowledge Paul Mattausch for being the past
chair for Region V down here, and Chris has taken over the duties this
year. But it's a very prestigious award. I don't want to say that you
can bottle that. But remember, Commissioners, only tap water
delivers. Day in, day out, 24 hours a day. We take water for granted.
And if we don't have water, we don't have businesses, we don't have
hospitals, we don't have people existing here in this community.
I do want to say congratulations again to Collier County people.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. RATCLIFFE: At this time I'd like to present -- this is kind
of like the dancing trophy at the dancing contest. But I don't want to
drop this. But I'd like to present the silver ball. It's a rotating trophy
once a year. So you've got it for a year. Please maintain it, please
Page 18
May 22 -23, 2012
dust it. But again, congratulations, and we'll see you out in Dallas for
the big one. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we get you up in front to take a
picture of that?
MR. OCHS : Paul?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah, I would like to, if I may, just
quickly introduce the people that made this all happen and made this
all work. They're the ones doing this every day.
From the audience's left to right, Pam Libby. Pam is our
Operations Manager for the Department.
Donna Bergeron. Donna is the Operations Analyst for the
department.
James Price. James takes care of our IT support and our
Facilities Security.
Diana Dueri. Diana is the Manager of the Well- field, the Raw
Water Source for the County Water Department.
Howard Brogdon. Howard is the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant Manager.
Next to him is Randy Lewis. Randy is the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Manager.
Anthony DiMeglio. Anthony is the Distribution Manager, takes
care of all that infrastructure, 900 plus miles of pipe, getting the water
from the treatment plant to the tap.
Liz Woods. Liz is the Compliance and Chemical Analysis
Manager. She makes sure that the water is in compliance.
And then our project management team. I'd like to introduce to
you our Principal Project Manager, Mark Sunyak.
Alicia Abbott is Senior Project Manager.
And I wanted to get one of my fellow directors up here too, Tom
Chmelik. Tom is the Director of the Planning Project Management
Department. They help us with all the capital projects to make all this
work.
Page 19
May 22 -23, 2012
But I wanted to introduce this management team to you because
they are the people that made this work. I'd also like to get Dr.
Yilmaz up here. George, if you would come forward, please. And
we're going to make room for you in the middle there. And Dr.
Yilmaz is the Division Administrator for Public Utilities Division.
And this is the team. For one year we have the bragging rights
we have the best tasting drinking water in the State of Florida.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY ROBERT WEBER REQUESTING THAT
THE BOARD ALLOW AUTO SHREDDER RESIDUE (ASR)
FROM OUTSIDE COLLIER COUNTY TO BE USED FOR DAILY
COVER AT THE LANDFILL — DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to public petitions this
morning. Item 6.A is a public petition request from Robert Webber,
requesting that the Board allow auto shredder residue from outside
Collier County to be used for daily cover at the landfill.
MR. WEBBER: Good morning. My name is Robert Webber.
I'm President of Garden Street Iron & Metal.
I have a little information that if I could to give it you, it has
some photos included of the material that we're talking about. Also
there's a letter from Bill Krumholz, who's one of the engineers with
the Florida DEP, who is very supportive of this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. WEBBER: As I stated in the petition, we're looking -- I
know Collier County currently has a policy of not accepting any
material at the landfill from outside of the county. However, we as a
by- product of our processing of the scrap metal and everything at our
auto shredder, we generate this material which we have been currently
Page 20
May 22 -23, 2012
using in other landfills for daily cover.
With us opening our new expansion here in Naples two months
ago, we have a significant number of trucks coming empty to Collier
County that we would like to be able to utilize that versus having to
transport it up north where we've been hauling it currently.
The other issue, what the soil will do is be used to replace the
virgin soil that's being hauled in and used for, you know, daily cover
now. This material can either be mixed with the ground -up
horticulture like they do with the soil or it can be used independently,
as Bill Krumholz outlined in his e -mail he sent me.
So I've spoken with different people about this, you know, the
solid waste directors and the people at the landfill. They're in
compliance with it. They said it's up to the County Commissioners to
be able to approve the acceptance of material from outside the county.
It will not have any effect on filling the landfill any faster or anything
like that. It's just being used in lieu of fresh soil.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Back in 2000 we had the worst
stinking landfill in Southwest Florida -- or the State of Florida. It was
Jim Mudd and Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta and I made
that one of our top priorities of making sure that we have the proper
cover, the proper ventilation.
This material is porous, unlike dirt, and we don't have a problem.
It's not broken. Let's not fix it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, can I have George come to
the -- Dr. George?
Dr. George, can you comment on whether you think we should
bring this back? Would you like to explore this further as an
alternative to what we're doing now? And, you know, would there be
a cost savings and would we be able to maintain the current standards
Page 21
May 22 -23, 2012
that we have achieved?
DR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Commissioner, as Commissioner Henning and other
commissioners indicated, we went through number of technologies
and assessment, and where we are today compliant operations. Our
current recommendation, given all the facts, is that continue with
current operations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you determined whether or
not what's being proposed here would be able to, you know, suppress
the odor the same way? What material are you using now to cover the
landfill?
DR. YILMAZ: We are using a combination of clean soil, yard
waste, and also inert material to make sure that everything is covered
on a daily basis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, the material that's being
proposed by Mr. Webber would be combined with the soil. It's not to
eliminate the soil, it would be in addition to, so it would be
supplemental to the soil. Would that create a problem?
Would it allow -- would the combination of the material that Mr.
Webber is proposing with the soil cause the odor to leak through?
DR. YILMAZ: Short answer is my assessment and our
collective assessment is that it's experimental and that one of the
guiding principles we have is that we only apply proven technologies
and proven solutions. And what we have at the landfill is a proven
solution coming from decades of pilot programs and pilot projects,
and that we have a SCADA system monitors the off -site odor
emissions.
So we have looked at all the details, we have looked at what if,
then scenarios. Again, our assessment is that the current mode of
operation is proven, approved by FDEP, and therefore we don't want
to get into experimental pilot programs where we have found proven
Page 22
May 22 -23, 2012
technology that meets the guiding principals issued by this Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Unless we find something that
serves the same objective at a lesser cost.
Mr. Webber, a question to you. You said that this is being used
elsewhere. When it has been used elsewhere, has it eliminated the
odor? And what are the cost savings for what you're proposing over
what we're doing?
MR. WEBBER: Okay, unlike most ASR, which would be all
different sizes, this material has all been run through a three- eighths
inch screen. It's very fine. It basically consists of sand. So as far as
being porous and letting the air through, that will not happen. We've
been using it at Highlands County.
My issue is I'm sending trucks from Fort Myers to Highlands
County at a considerable freight rate, and when I'm running empty
trucks right here to Collier County.
DEP has investigated this stuff for the last three years. They're
very familiar with it. I've got full support of DEP. I've included a
letter there with his phone number, and he's more than willing to give
you all the technical --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But what I would need to
know to be able to support moving this forward is will it preserve our
current standard, which is no odor, and will there be a cost savings
over what we're doing now? Because if there's no cost savings, then I
agree with Dr. George, I mean, why change it. But if it maintains our
standards and there is a cost saving then I think it's worth exploring
further.
MR. WEBBER: Okay, on that respect, currently you're paying
for soil, you're paying to have it trucked in. I would be paying the
county to dispose of this, though it would be below what your normal
gate rate would be for solid waste, but I would be paying a fee to the
county.
It has been proven to be successful in sealing the top of the -- for
Page 23
May 22 -23, 2012
the daily cover. It's not for permanent capping material, it's just for
the daily cover, which would be blended in with the ground -up
horticulture and everything like they're doing now. Or, as Mr.
Krumholz has indicated, it can be used sole, as by itself as a
standalone daily cover.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what would the savings be to
us? What would we not be paying for if we turn around and bring in
this material?
MR. WEBBER: I don't know the county's current cost of what
they're paying for the soil that's being hauled in. I just know whenever
I'm down at the landfill working I see a steady stream of dump trucks
coming in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So would we need would be need
less soil because we would be able to mix your material with the soil
and as a result the savings would be whatever soil we don't have to
buy?
MR. WEBBER: It's not even necessary to mix it with the soil. It
can be, you know, directly applied or blended with the horticulture.
Either way it's the same as what you're doing with the soil now. So
yeah, it would offset the purchase of the soil that you're currently
hauling in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we would have no odor.
MR. WEBBER: You would have no odor, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what DEP concludes.
MR. WEBBER: DEP has -- like I said, they've been watching us
for the last three years in Highlands County. They're very happy with
it. They would highly recommend it. They've approved it for Collier
County. It has been -- it's in their -- your landfill permits as an
acceptable use for daily cover.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Many years
ago, as Commissioner Henning alluded to, we did have a major
Page 24
May 22 -23, 2012
problem with the landfill. I can remember that previous commission
that sat at this dais was telling us -- and this is all the way into East
Naples and all the way back down to Golden Gate City, all that area.
They said well, you've had that problem forever, that's the reason why
your land is so cheap.
Well, it wasn't the case. It was a case that -- it came over a
period of time as the dump built up and it wasn't taking the
precautions they needed to be able to cover it. They were trying to
cover it to save money on the soil with nothing more than a big large
tarp every evening. And every day they'd lift it up and the small
would go through.
So I can assure you that some of the residents that have been here
for a long time still would have some concerns with toying with an
idea, if something that works as well. And of course we have one of
the lowest tipping rates now already in Collier County. Not that it
doesn't deserve consideration to try to save more money. I can't argue
with that case.
But my question to you is you're in Lee County. Lee County has
landfills. I believe you got one in Hendry and one in Lee County.
Why aren't they using this?
MR. WEBBER: Lee County has the incinerator, which they end
up with ash. They don't have to put daily cover on top of it so they
don't have a use for the type --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they haul their ash to
Hendry County, if I remember correctly. So there is a landfill there.
And they use that as a landfill when they can't incinerate at a rate that
they need to.
MR. WEBBER: Right. They use the ash --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So why don't they take your fill
material there?
MR. WEBBER: They use the ash to cover -- when they're not
operating the incinerator they use the ash to cover the garbage that
Page 25
May 22 -23, 2012
they got. They've got an overabundance of material. That's why Lee
County's not interested in it. Their incinerator, now that they have the
three burners, they very seldom have down time where they're not
burning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand what you say.
What would happen -- here's a question, sir. One of the things that we
won't have to be concerned about, but probably in two generations
now there will be this recycling of the present landfill pit that they
have out there now. We've done it several times in the past. When it
gets to be about 20, 30 years old, they go in there, they take
everything out, they reuse the dirt and the fill and everything. And I'm
not too sure what we're going to be dealing with if the fill has been
diluted with this material that we may have a problem at that point in
time. We've got to think for the future.
Now, you know, I just -- just because of the fact we got
everything running fine, I'm very reluctant to try to change it just to
save a couple thousand dollars down the road. So right at this point in
time I'm afraid I am not supportive of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally agree with
Commissioner Henning on this. I understand that the composition of
this has ground -up automobiles and ground -up refrigerators and so
forth. There's a lot of metal in this. You're saying no, it isn't?
MR. WEBBER: No, ma'am, all the metals are extracted either
through magnets, eddy currents or ISS systems. There's no metals, no
metallics in this material. We've -- it's been tested. Again, like I said,
DEP is very familiar. This material primarily consists of dirt and
sand. The only reason it can't be taken to a clean area and used for fill
is simply because of the process from which it came. That's the only
reason it must be input in a landfill.
If you look at the pictures, you'll see it has the consistency of
sand and dirt, very small particles of anything, all the material in there.
Page 26
May 22 -23, 2012
It's not fibrous, it doesn't float through the air. It's unlike dirt where it
doesn't create a lot of dust. We've been moving it up there. Like I
said, if anybody was to talk with DEP you'll find they're very
supportive of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we tried -- back in the
Nineties we tried to do many, many things in order to save money at
the landfill, including grinding up wallboard, which stunk like crazy
when it got wet. And we had so many problems. We finally found --
not only did we find the answer, but then they've improved upon that
answer over and over and over again, too, to tell you we have I think
one of the finest landfills.
Now, I take tours up to the top of the landfill, so I'm really in
tune with how good it is and how little there's any odor to it
whatsoever. And I'm really not inclined to change that. When you've
found a winning process, don't change it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks to me like we've got three
commissioners who do not want this to happen. So Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The last comment I will make is I
am reading the letter here from the state and the state does say that it
could be used or mixed with soil. They recommend the combination
of the two. And they specify where, as an alternate initial cover on the
interior slopes of the landfill -- Class I landfill within the district.
What I would like, regardless of how this vote goes, is to know
how much we are spending on fill to cover -- I'm sorry, on dirt to
cover the landfill. What I would also like to know is if this material
was used in combination with the fill for the areas that DEP would
allow, what the savings would be. And then what I would like is for
someone to visit the Highlands landfill and see what the odor is. I
mean, it's very easy to see if it works or not. Highlands is doing it. If
there is no odor, then we know it works. And if there is an odor,
clearly we shouldn't look at it. And that really ought to be the first
Page 27
May 22 -23, 2012
step.
So I would like that information because, you know, soil is
expensive. How much -- do you have any idea how much we're
spending, George?
DR. YILMAZ: We'll give you the information, ma'am, as
requested. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I will -- what I will do is I
will support what the Board wants today, which is to turn down this
petition, and then I will work on putting together the analysis. And if I
find that there is merit to this proposal today, I will bring it separately
as an agenda item at a future meeting and make an independent
proposal that I will develop with you, Dr. George, based on what we
evaluate as the merits of what's being proposed.
DR. YILMAZ: Appreciate that, ma'am.
And one other piece of information I want to make sure is on the
record is that as you know, we do have turnkey design/build operate
agreement with Waste Management, Inc. And that contract is
performance driven. And performance is based on no off -site odor
emissions, no off -site dust emissions, no off -site fugitive dust
emissions, H2S emissions. And there are many other performance
measures that the contractor is evaluated on.
So given the contractual terms and conditions, we have asked our
turnkey design/build operator, and asked them as the private sector
industry working for us what their assessment is. And they have
looked at it and they came back with letter of response as far as
utilizing these automotive shredded residual materials being used in
the form recommended. And we will make this letter available to the
Board members.
For the reasons stated, Waste Management, Inc. proposes that
ASR not to be considered as a viable alternative daily cover or soil
cover at the Naples landfill, given the contractual terms and conditions
and the performance measures that they are bound by. And they are
Page 28
May 22 -23, 2012
the permit holder.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you introduce that on the
record.
And could you introduce your letter from DEP and your exhibits
on the record also.
MR. WEBBER: Okay. Can I have your copy?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you can have mine back. I
can just retrieve it as a public record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff is going to provide the
information necessary to Commissioner Hiller. And all the
commissioners, as a matter of fact.
So the next item -- thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you don't, if there's not a motion.
MR. OCHS: No action.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're right.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY PAM BROWN REQUESTING THAT THE
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT BE
BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION -
PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, your next item is a time certain
9:45 a.m. It's Item 6.13 on your agenda. It's a public petition request
from Pam Brown requesting that the Immokalee Area Master Plan
amendment be brought back before the Planning Commission.
MS. BROWN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Brown. I'm speaking on behalf of the Immokalee Civic
Association and concerned citizens of Immokalee.
Page 29
May 22 -23, 2012
I'm a fourth generation Immokaleean. My father was a farmer
and rancher, and my great grandfather immigrated to Immokalee from
Bristol, England in the 1870's.
At the turn of the century, Immokalee was known as Gopher
Ridge or Allen's Place. My great aunt was instrumental in
Immokalee's establishing its current name. I've seen Immokalee go
through good times and bad times. And what the plan is trying to do
to Immokalee is bad. They are forcing us to become a cookie cutter
urban community and be like the other 24 RLSAs that the Collier
County stakeholders desire, not the will of the people.
As stated in Ms. Phillippi's self - evaluation, she works with code
enforcement to do sweeps in Immokalee. Immokalee has been
inundated with code enforcement. Immokalee has been a rural
community and was a part of Lee County before it became a part of
Collier.
In the past Immokalee had a railroad for the timber and shipping
watermelons that was harvested in the area. There was a period when
oil production was an economic engine, and the last 70 years it has
involved into a rural agriculture community with farms and cattle
ranches.
The Board and county staff are the ones that wants to change
Immokalee. We have succeeded and survived not because of
government but in spite of it. NAFTA and our county government has
been unkind to us. Federal government policies affecting the global
market for fresh vegetables have resulted in 2012 being the most
devastating year in the history of our community.
Today Immokalee stands as a virtual welfare sink. Forty percent
of the real estate in our area is off the tax rolls and generates no tax
revenues. As an unpaid elected fire commissioner who is intimately
familiar with the tax rolls, we have to ask the people of Immokalee to
approve a millage rate increase in order to maintain basic fire service
to our community. They understood the importance of the service to
Page 30
May 22 -23, 2012
our community and voted for the increase.
Our fire district also covers the Town of Ave Maria where the
university buildings and the homes owned by the university are also
off the tax rolls. If this trend continues and the CRA and the Board of
County Commissioners continue to subsidize and promote nonprofits
to our community, we will have to be subsidized by the county and
put the burden on the taxpayers on the entire county.
Declining property values coupled with removal of the property
from the tax rolls threatens future funding for the CRA, as well as
other basic government services.
The amendment does not address the fact that we are an
agriculture community. Agriculture was the second largest income
producer to the county's economy, yet is it ignored.
The amendment does not address the fact that the University of
Florida Ag. Center, IFAS, which is a research component related to
agriculture, is located in Immokalee.
We do not know what economic impact the RLSAs will have to
our county, but we do know what agriculture has done for our area. It
is imperative that we encourage and acknowledge agriculture and
related businesses as the economic engine and the major employer in
the Immokalee area.
We can compare agriculture to fuel. We are becoming dependent
on foreign countries for both sources. Other countries are
acknowledging the importance of agriculture land and are imposing
protection for it. We are turning our backs on agriculture and chasing
dreams of grandeur. We are planning on drilling for oil in the country.
Unfortunately common sense is not so common.
The proposed strike -all amendment will wipe out our existing
plan and all of our past efforts. The 900,000 that the county has spent
is not the will of the people and property owners of Immokalee or the
taxpayers of Collier County.
Proponents of the plan have provided false information regarding
Page 31
May 22 -23, 2012
the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan. At the last public
information meeting, both Mr. Mulhere and Mrs. Phillippi stated that
the existing master plan is 20 years old. This is not true, as the existing
plan was adopted in October of 1997. In 2003, without a request from
the people of Immokalee, staff proposed an update to this plan. Over
the years, the plan has been regularly updated, with the last update in
October of 2008.
This has resulted in the current strike -all amendment before you.
Or is this the one that is on the Immokalee Today website that is dated
April 4th, 2012? Where is the will of the people, Commissioner
Coletta, if you allow this to happen? Don't you want to hear the will of
the people and not targeted groups who are easily influenced?
At the workshop, Ms. Phillippi told us that Immokalee looked
better than LaBelle and that one day we will be this lovely walking
community with beautiful parks. Pretty is nice, but it doesn't pay the
bills. Very few jobs have been created in Immokalee through
government in the last 20 years.
Mrs. Phillippi recently boasted that 14 new jobs had been created
in Immokalee. She failed to mention that two agriculture businesses
had laid off over 100 people in the last month.
The workshops are ongoing and yet Ms. Phillippi's requesting the
BCC bring it back for a vote in June. Why is there an urgency to
bring it back before it is vetted and issues be addressed before it is
approved?
There are a few policies that encourage affordable housing.
Policy 2.2.1, Expedited Review, within two years expedited programs,
specifically including affordable, gap and farmworker housing.
Immokalee does not need more affordable housing. Immokalee needs
middle class housing for our teachers and our firefighters. Policy
3.3.1, Housing Grants. Policy 3.3.2, Affordable Work Force and Gap
Housing Incentives. These policies need to be addressed and parts
stricken.
Page 32
May 22 -23, 2012
We are already oversaturated with mostly vacant affordable
housing. Farm Workers Village is a county operated nonprofit
low- income housing subdivision that appears to be 90 percent
abandoned. The men's dormitory, built at a cost to the taxpayers and
valued at $2 million, is closed because of imposed county regulations
on the migrant workers that choose personal freedom.
Private sector rental housing is slowly decreasing and public
government sponsored low - income housing is being encouraged, with
the advent of Habitat for Humanity and Esperanza Place as examples.
Commissioner Fiala, at the September 23rd, 2008 Board meeting,
the housing portion of the master plan amendment was being
discussed, and you stated: I think I've listened and I agree with
everything everybody said, but as long as you don't provide another
type of housing, you're always going to be the catch -all for Big
Cypress, for Ave Maria, for all the low- income housing. As long as
you're the only catch -all for low - income housing and you don't
provide middle income, you're not going to attract businesses there,
number one, to have high wage job because there's no place for them
to live, and secondly, you're not going to have any buying power to
attract business. What is the incentive for a retail business to come in
and locate there? They're going to locate in Ave Maria and Big
Cypress because there isn't buying power. So I hope when you're
doing your plan you're taking into what type of housing you'll need in
order to incentivize this plan.
Commissioner Fiala, I'm asking for your help. The result of these
policies will be to further reduce the tax base of Immokalee, requiring
yet more government subsidy. No provisions exist in the plan for
middle class housing.
Policy 2.2.3 regarding home occupations. This policy should be
the Immokalee LDR and not the Collier County Land Development
Code. The intent was for Immokalee to have its own land
development code. All land use pertaining to Immokalee should be in
Page 33
May 22 -23, 2012
one document.
New traffic lights and crosswalks will lower our level of service
on our roads. I'm demanding that you strike the policy. The proposed
State Road 29 bypass will kill the central district, further eroding the
tax base. When the civic association asks how will a State Road 29
bypass likely affect the property values in current downtown
Immokalee, Mr. Mulhere's response was, it should be noted that a
detailed analysis regarding the potential impact on property values
associated with the State Road 29 bypass loop road was not conducted
as a part of the proposed IMAP. However, the IMAP advisory board
strongly supported the bypass loop road and a lot of potential impacts
resulting from reduced traffic through the downtown.
The advisory board does not have one member that owns
property in downtown Immokalee. I spoke to four of the major
property owners, and not one of them was asked what their opinion
was. It appears the advisory board thinks that the bypass loop is better
than even -- even though they did not take people's property rights into
consideration.
The pedestrian crosswalks are lowering the level of service on
Main Street and are extremely hazardous.
I go on?
Policy 4.4.1, Clean Immokalee Plan. Collier County will
develop a Clean Immokalee plan to improve the physical appearance
of the streets and lots through education, enforcement and clean -up
activities by 2011. This is another move of Collier County that slaps
of Naples elitism. The people that live in Immokalee are the ones who
maintain your property in Naples. It appears that we are the bedroom
community for you. There is no one left for our yard work at the end
of the day.
According to the recent press release of Commissioner Coletta,
Code Enforcement's already executed fines in excess of $10 million as
part of their carrot and stick routine in Immokalee. A very small
Page 34
May 22 -23, 2012
carrot and a very large stick, it seems.
The mobile home park issue has not been addressed. There are
plans that are being developed with county staff, but according to the
press release, these issues will not come before the Board until
November. This plan does not address the single mobile home set --
or on property lots that is not zoned properly now but was at that time
it was put on the property. And due to the fact the county staff does
not have all the records, the burden of proof lies on the owners of the
property.
The plan remains totally unfunded. The funded portions only
include catch -up stormwater projects and the construction of a plaza.
The real cost of developing eight million square feet of commercial
industrial land use are ignored. The cost of developing thousands of
acres of residential commercial industrial surrounding Immokalee are
ignored. The stock answer provided by the consultant was that we
will fund when we find the money does not meet the requirements of
Florida law. Mr. Mulhere said that some of this will be paid with
impact fees which pays for the new growth only and other
assessments.
As Mrs. Phillippi stated in the 5/9/12 public meeting, historically
they --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Brown, your time has expired.
MS. BROWN: -- huge unfunded mandates are created by the
plan.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta I think is first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I do appreciate
it. And I want to one more time make sure everybody knows that
when this order got reversed and you were supposed to follow the
master plan hearing as far as the item goes, I was the first one to object
to it and called up to express my misgivings to the County Manager.
Page 35
May 22 -23, 2012
So if there's any thoughts in your head that I did anything to try to
eliminate anybody's free speech is totally incorrect.
But one of the -- couple of things. And I'm glad you're here
today, because this gives us a chance to do a little exercise on what the
Collier County Commission has done for Immokalee over the years.
And we're not going to go through the list because the list is a hundred
plus items.
But out of the over hundred some actions that have taken place
that have come from different committees within Immokalee, different
items that Immokalee citizens have brought forward and whatever,
and different issues they brought forward, MPO, whatever, there's
been over a hundred. There's only about three of them that have ever
been rejected by the Collier County Commission in the last 11, 12
years. Only three of them. Everything else has gone through.
The will of the people of Immokalee is the thing that's at question
today. And, I mean, you're here with a number of supporters who are
opposed to a master plan that you served on. But like you mentioned,
you were only there for about four meetings, but you expect the rest of
the public to show up when you can't make it. The final vote, you
should have been there to be able to express your misgivings. I don't
know if you were or you weren't, I haven't had a chance to research
the records. But it's been an open proZess that you had the ability to
play a role in, but you chose not to.
Now, when they voted, they voted a couple of times. They voted
as a master plan committee to move this forward. At that point in time
I told everybody at the table, whatever you want is what I'm going to
support, I'm here to support the will of the community. Well, the vote
was, I think it was one opposed to it and everyone else was for it.
Well, there was some questions in the community over the
fairness of the whole thing. The master plan committee had run its
course, and then at that point in time they were retired. And so they
asked the CRA to look at it one more time. The CRA went and
Page 36
May 22 -23, 2012
reviewed the whole thing from beginning to end, heard everybody's
arguments, and once again they came out, the will of the people. And I
told them one more time, again, make sure that you put it together the
way you want it, because I'm going to support the will of the
community. This was the people from Immokalee, it was not county
staff. In fact, they went so far in Immokalee, and I supported them, to
be able to spend some CRA money, to be able to hire their own
people, to be able to make sure they constructed it the way they
wanted it.
Now, I understand that your petition today is to bring it back so
that the Planning Commission can hear it. And that would be a noble
gesture, except for the fact you've got the same plan they've already
heard twice. They heard it once at transmittal, and they heard it once
at adoption. They went through it line by line. And it would just be
hearing the same thing all over again. If you had objections, that was
the time to be able to raise it.
However, with that said, we are still going through a process here
and I do appreciate you being here today. Thank you very much.
MS. BROWN: Commissioner Coletta -- can I not address his --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not a debate, Ms. --
MS. BROWN: So he can attack me but I can't say something
back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already attacked him. You've had
10 minutes of attack --
MS. BROWN: No, sir, I have not. No, sir, I still have three
more minutes and I have my public speech.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please stay at the podium, Mrs.
Brown -- Commissioner Brown, forgive me.
I'd like to comment on what Commissioner Coletta just said.
Because, quite frankly, what he said was completely inaccurate.
Page 37
May 22 -23, 2012
First of all, we are not looking at the same version of the
Immokalee Area Master Plan today that was presented here at the
adoption hearing. In fact, by my count there are five versions of this
Immokalee Area Master Plan strike -all amendment in circulation.
So to address your petition, Commissioner Brown, with respect
to what has the Planning Commission reviewed and what should they
review, because that is what is before us right now, they have not
reviewed what will be coming back before us. And the law provides
that, and it's a special act, that the Planning Commission must review
anything related to land use before it becomes before the Board.
We have five versions of the Immokalee Area Master Plan
strike -all amendment in circulation today. And I have requested from
staff as a public records request a copy of each of those versions with
a reconciliation of the differences between those versions and an
explanation as to why there are those differences and how they are
supported by law.
And just so everybody else understands, the amendment that's
being proposed does wipe out more than 10 years of work by that
community. And the state reviewed it, and I believe this was back in
2010, and what the state said was doesn't conform with the Growth
Management Act and is inconsistent with the Growth Management
Plan.
You've got major problems with what's being proposed. And
yes, the law has changed. There are still major, major problems with
that plan. And when the state gave us the extension, the state
specifically provided that the two issues that they raised, which, by the
way, are two issues with A, B, C, D, E, F, G, et cetera, under each of
the issues, must be answered. So staff went back and amended the
amendment to provide that response. And then the Planning
Commission amended the amendment. And then the CRA amended
the amendment. And the Board amended the amendment. Do you
know how many versions are out there? I don't even know what's
OM E961
May 22 -23, 2012
being proposed today.
And by the way, the points you made about the roads, do you
know what FDOT said? Numbers don't support the transportation
design that's being proposed. One road alone, one road alone, the loop
road alone would cost between 100 and $150 million. Okay? Now,
Immokalee does not have the tax base to pay for that. So you know
who's going to pay for it? You all. All of you out there. Okay, that's
just one, one thing.
And the question is, does Immokalee need it? And guess what?
The statistics don't support it. The demographics don't support it. So
are we building another road to nowhere. Is this another Oil Well
Road?
What did the Regional Planning Council say? Commissioner
Brown, you said there's a problem with housing. Well, guess what?
The Regional Planning Council said the same thing. Not only that, we
don't have another Farm Worker housing. And yes, it is absolutely
tragic that our federal government is not supporting our agricultural
industry. And it is disgusting that our Collier County Commission is
not supporting our agricultural industry. Okay?
MS. BROWN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do we do? They make us all
this money when times are good and when times are bad we just turn
our back on them and say okay, let's pretend they don't exist and go
find another group we can get money out of? No, that's not the way it
works. They deserve support. They have my support. I hope they
have your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I support bringing this back to
the Planning Commission because it is required by law. And so thank
you for your petition. And I'm going to make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion. Commissioner
Hiller has made a motion to bring this back before the Planning
Page 39
May 22 -23, 2012
Commission even before we've heard it. Interesting.
Is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it has to come before us before
we -- it has to go to the Planning --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you can't make a motion now to do
it because it's coming before us in the next item.
So Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
Commissioners Brown, thank you very much for your service.
The -- you mentioned something about on the CRA website dated
April 14th, 2011.
MS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is that?
MS. BROWN: It looks like a different version. There's been
some strikes. There's one paragraph, I don't remember the exact page
number. There were some strikes of course for the dates. But there
was this paragraph. And also it said in the bottom --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that part of the master plan
that it's been further revised, is that what you're saying?
MS. BROWN: Yes. And it says April of 2012 was when it was
revised, and there was text that the advisory board used and they
superceded the Planning Commission's text.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But I'm not sure if that's
what we're hearing, but it sounds like if this is the CRA advisory
board's amendment to the amendment, that should be heard along with
the amendment. Because if we don't, that's not the will of the people.
MS. BROWN: That's what I would think. And also the other
issues that are being looked into.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I understand your
concern about the transportation concurrency issue on 29. But I think
a lot of these issues can be addressed during the Immokalee Area
Master Plan adoption hearing.
May 22 -23, 2012
And you had several questions. The problem and concern that I
have is I'm not sure if we can address your questions in three minutes
at the adoption hearing. But I think that we really need to take time
and listen to concerns and see how that we can fix those.
You know, the problem that we had during the December
hearing, we didn't have a discussion up here. It was quickly dismissed
so we can move on to another item. And I hope that we slow down as
the Board of Commissioners to address all the issues within the
policies and goals and objectives within the Immokalee Area Master
Plan amendment.
So are you going to be a public speaker --
MS. BROWN: Yes, I am. I have more to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- after this?
MS. BROWN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So maybe we can find out what
the CRA has further done to the Immokalee Area Master Plan
amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion to bring this back for
full public hearing or to make a decision on it how has died for a lack
of second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not my motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was not my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, that was not my motion,
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your motion was to take it -- make sure
that it went before the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct, that it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is based upon Ms. Brown's
allegations concerning multiple changes. We haven't heard the
petition from the people who are going to be providing that
Page 41
May 22 -23, 2012
information and conducting the public; meetings. Do you not want to
have public meetings on this? I thought that was our purpose.
And so let's have a public meeting and approve the scheduling of
public meetings in Immokalee and elsewhere to have this discussed.
Are we going to listen to one person who makes a public petition to
make a decision on it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, may I -- may I respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we're going to proceed now with the
presentation by staff. We've heard the public petition.
Item # 14B 1
REVIEW OF CRA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION FOR
COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE GMP (CP- 2008 -5- THE
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN, AND THE IMMOKALEE
AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP)
AMENDMENT PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REVISED ORDINANCE 75 -16 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
LAND USE MATTERS; AND INCLUDE AS PART OF THE
VOTE A DATE AND TIME CERTAIN ON WHICH THE ACTION
OR PETITION WILL BE RECONSIDERED - MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ITEM #8A FROM THE BCC 12/13/2011
MEETING — APPROVED; MOTION FOR THE IAMP MEETING
TO BE HELD AT THE IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL
AUDITORIUM ON JUNE 18, 2012 AT 6 P.M. — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that item is 14.B.1. It's a
recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners review CRA staff recommendations concerning the
proposed plan of action for community education and request for
Page 42
May 22 -23, 2012
reconsideration of the GMP CP2008 -5, the Immokalee Area Master
Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map
amendment petition in accordance with the revised ordinance 75 -16
for reconsideration of land use matters, and include as part of the vote
a date and time certain on which the action or petition will be
reconsidered.
Ms. Phillippi, your Executive Director of the Immokalee CRA,
will present.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Penny Phillippi. I'm the Executive Director of the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency in Immokalee.
And as you see by the executive summary that we put before
you, we put a detailed chronology of the history of the Immokalee
Area Master Plan and amendments to it.
And as you know, we had a meeting in Immokalee with
Commissioner Henning. And the public were there and some really
good suggestions came to us from both the public and Nick
Casalanguida and our County Commissioner Henning.
So what we put together was a recommended plan of action.
And that action basically says that we will make a concerted effort to
reeducate the public on the master plan, its policies and procedures.
And we have implemented that. We've had many meetings in
Immokalee with smaller groups of people, 10 to 35, depending on
where we would go to their jobs and everything.
And then the second piece of it was to conduct three public
meetings, one of which has already happened, another one is
scheduled for the 23rd and another one on the 30th, where we would
have Commissioner Coletta present, as well as our consultants, to
address any questions that came up. And we are documenting all the
questions that we receive and are posting them to the website.
The 14 questions that were sent to us by the civic association
were answered and are already posted there. We were going to
Page 43
May 22 -23, 2012
display the current IMAP and the current FLUM on our website with
the proposed IMAP and have text boxes that highlight what the
changes are on another IMAP.
And then we were asking the Board of County Commissioners to
meet in Immokalee, preferably June 26th, and have a time certain for
the public in Immokalee to be present to discuss all of their issues with
the plan and rehear this petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so you're proposing additional
public information meetings in Immokalee, right?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And let me ask you a question. If
there are substantial changes, would it be appropriate in your opinion
if the Board considered at that point in time whether or not it needs to
go before the Planning Commission?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Absolutely. Commissioners, we are here at
your pleasure. We created this strike - through version of the master
plan at your request. So as far as we are concerned, the CRA staff has
done exactly as we were expected to do by the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- yes, go ahead,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say that you were hoping to
have a meeting on June 26th with the Commissioners?
MS. FILSON: That's a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me just go one step further.
That of course is a regular Commission day. It's going to be a long
day because it's the last day we have before the end of July, so a lot of
things have to be covered. Are we then supposed to finish the meeting
here and then drive to Immokalee for another couple hours?
Wouldn't it be better if we did it like the day before or the day
after when we could tackle it and be a little more rested? Because
after you've had a grueling day on the Commission, you know, you
May 22 -23, 2012
deal with so many emotional problems, and then to get in your car and
drive an hour there and have a two -hour meeting and then drive back
another hour, I don't know that you'll have as receptive minds there as
you would if you held it the day before or the day after.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might not even have receptive
bodies there, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather, the day before, the 25th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the 25th is going to be a bad time
because you're going to be -- this isn't going to be done in two hours.
If you're going to go to Immokalee, you may as well take your cot,
because you're going to be there for a long time. So what's wrong with
27th?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the day -- I hate to tell you --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, the 27th isn't available
because the room that was going to be used in Immokalee isn't
available on the 27th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And apparently --
MS. PHILLIPPI: High school auditorium. We were going --
thinking about the high school, because that's really the only place to
accommodate the parking. There's other large buildings, such as
I -TECH, but it doesn't have the parking that the high school has.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I will be available whenever it is
convenient for the majority of the Commissioners. So you just tell me
when I'm supposed to be there, and if it's midnight on Wednesday
night, I'll be there on midnight Tuesday night. So let's just do it.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To have it that week, or even
suggest that week is absolutely absurd. That is the last meeting prior to
our break. And I know our staff is working on getting a lot of things
done to get on our agenda. It may be a two -day meeting.
Furthermore, we have budget workshops that week. We need to
prepare for these items. We also need to prepare for the Immokalee
Page 45
May 22 -23, 2012
Area Master Plan.
So again, to do it that week is just absurd to even consider that.
We either do it in July or we do it the week before. Ms. Phillippi,
have you worked with Ian Mitchell to try to set something up?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir, and we worked with the advertising
portion of it as well. We have 45 days. So we are prepared at this
moment to adhere to whatever schedule works best for the
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mitchell, what days have
you suggested to Ms. Phillippi? Hopefully not the week that we have
budget hearings and a BCC meeting.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we arranged the advertising so that once
you'd made your decision today, the ad could start to be processed
today so that it would give us more time. The week before is open.
The advertising meets the requirements. So the week commencing the
18th of June is available to you.
And again, it can be any day that week except the Wednesday.
That's the one day that the auditorium isn't available.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what would be my
preference. But I want to continue on this whole process.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I will mention that all the Commissioners
have their calendar for June in front of them, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Brown
mentioned about the advisory board did some further amendments to
the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Actually, they didn't. There's three
recommendations that they're bringing back to the public hearing to
the master plan. But also on the website at your last meeting we did
agree to look at some language to clarify certain items. So there's one
item that is different than the document that you saw. You saw the
same document in April, May and this December. The document has
not changed since December.
Page 46
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you mean clarify? Is
that a part of the language of the proposed area master plan
amendment that's on your website?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're clarifying certain
language --
MS. PHILLIPPI: And our consultant did put a one -line
clarification to try to clarify a zoning issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I got a phone call this
morning that said there is -- that the Immokalee Area Master Plan on
your website, that has changes -- proposed changes by the Planning
Commission in green, and I think proposed changes from the CRA
advisory board in red or yellow or something like that. Is this the
same document we're talking about?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. And that's the attempt to highlight all the
pieces that -- for example, the Planning Commission did want us to
strike through an entire section. So it's highlighted as such. And that I
can easily remove. I can pull that off the web page. But it was a
living document to keep it rolling forward so that we didn't lose any
suggestions that anybody wanted to make to the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it sounds like a recent
document dated this year --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- April. And if that's the will of
the people, then we should consider that. That should be a part of the
amendment.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, it may be. We don't know until it's heard
and we're able to present it to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to present that?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to present at
the proposed Immokalee Area Plan amendment some time in June?
Page 47
May 22 -23, 2012
How many documents?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We plan to submit exactly what you saw in
December.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the addition of this April,
2012?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, sir, with the recommendations that have
come from the community, and that's what you're seeing in that
document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to present that
also and including?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We're going to make you aware of that at that
meeting, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm confused. Are you
going to advertise this April, 2012 as a part of the Immokalee Area
Master Plan amendment --
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, we're going to advertise exactly what you
saw in May and in December --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if that's not what the
advisory board's recommending, that's not to the will of the people.
MS. PHILLIPPI: That is exactly what the advisory board
recommended. What we've tried to do is keep a running tally of
everything that everyone suggested as a change, and that's all that is.
That will be available for you to see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have that with you
now?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, sir, I do not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, the -- what was
your purpose of -- you have several items on the agenda today. You're
going to be here later on for those items; is that correct?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was your purpose to be on
the board's meeting time certain first thing this morning?
1M
May 22 -23, 2012
MS. PHILLIPPI: I requested that this item be spoken to exactly
after the public petition so that if some other persons in the public
wanted to talk about bringing the master plan back to Immokalee, then
they could do so at that time and be free to go back to work early in
the morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that wasn't what was
given to the County Manager. You wanted it to be heard before the
public petition.
MR. OCHS: No, Commissioner, I need to clarify on Penny's
behalf. She sent me an e -mail essentially saying what she stated. In
working with the Chairman and the County Attorney, I was trying to
figure out what was the best order so that the Board would have the
ultimate flexibility. So Penny was not involved ultimately in which
item was first or second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have -- we're going to take a
10- minute break and then we'll be back. But let's focus on the
meeting. And I like the idea of having it the week before, if that fits
the advertising schedule. But the Florida Association of Counties'
meeting I think is on the Thursday and Friday of that week. And so
you're limited then to Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. So can you
during the break work out something and let's get a date and get it
done now?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have another time certain item
coming up right after the break, so we need to get this done, okay.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have some procedural matters.
And then we have public speakers. We have 15 public speakers.
That's going to take us at least till 11:30 for public speakers. And then
we've got another time certain item we're going to have to deal with
somehow. So we might have to break this particular meeting once we
May 22 -23, 2012
hear from the public and take up another item, time certain item and
then come back to this one for a final vote.
But there are two votes that we're going to have to make on this
particular issue. Number one is a vote to determine whether or not we
in fact approve of a rehearing for the Immokalee area Master Plan.
And then we're going to have to decide upon a time and hopefully a
place for that meeting.
So we have a couple of Commissioners who want to speak and
then we need to get to the public speakers as quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we acting as the CRA or the
Board of Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it is the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was just a CRA item, that's
all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know, but the reconsideration
issue I think is a Board of County Commission issue.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is the first item that we have to
resolve is the determination as to whether or not we're going to have a
reconsideration.
Now, let me ask the Board, do you want to have a vote on
reconsideration now? Because if the reconsideration fails there's not
much point in having an hour or more of public comments. But I'll do
whatever the Board feels is appropriate with that.
What are your comments concerning that? Do you want to have
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have a real concern about
this whole discussion about reconsideration, based on what Penny just
said. And my concern is that I see a manipulation. Manipulation is that
Page 50
May 22 -23, 2012
we are going to supposedly hear exactly what was presented at the last
meeting so that there is no variation, if you will, thereby bypassing the
Planning Commission. And what will be presented at that
reconsideration hearing is a list of proposed changes.
So we're not going to receive an amendment that has been
amended based on the input of other people, but an amendment that
remains the same, subject to revision by the Board. That's
unacceptable. That's not the way it works. Okay?
So I have no problem with rehearing this, but I want any
proposed change to be incorporated into the plan and go before the
Planning Commission for review and then come to the Board for a
reconsideration vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I have a real concern. Because
I see what's going on.
So the answer to my question, what are all the versions out there,
the answer's going to be, oh, there are no versions out there. Oh, no,
no, because what we have is we have -- what we presented, that isn't
going to change and here we have the list of all the stuff that you're all
going to vote on. No. That's not the way it's going to work, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And by the way, just for the
record, for the benefit of the public, I have -- because I had to educate
myself on all of this, you know, to understand what was going on, and
I completely understand if it's going to be hard for you to understand
what's going on, because here are the two books, okay. Here's the
Immokalee Area Master Plan that exists and the amendment that's
being proposed. Okay? And I wish the Naples Daily News would
properly describe what's being proposed as what it is, which is a
strike -all amendment. So anybody that wants to come and see this, it's
yours. Just come and take a look at it. Any part you want of it, we're
happy to provide copies.
Page 51
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now, let me get to the issue here.
Ms. Phillippi is asking for permission to conduct several public
meetings in Immokalee to include three public meetings to provide
information and solicit public comments, document all public
questions and responses and post them on the website, display the
current Immokalee Area Master Plan with the current Future Land
Use Map in a manner to provide a comparison between the current
and the proposed, display them with boxes that show the changes
made to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and then when all of that
public comment has been obtained, provide for the BCC a meeting to
reconsider adoption of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the
changes that have resulted from these public meetings.
Now, I thought I heard that the public wanted to be involved. I
thought there was confusion about what the Immokalee Area Master
Plan was supposed to do. And Ms. Phillippi is trying to schedule
meetings to get that information to you. And we are -- we have
Commissioners who are resisting the public input --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, I'm sorry --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that is strange to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No one is resisting public input --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you do not have
the floor. You've made your allegations and I am providing some
facts.
So the thing that is being requested right now is for Ms. Phillippi
to conduct several public meetings to answer people's questions and
get their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't made one, but do you want --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm asking, do you want a
motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The meetings are already taking
Page 52
May 22 -23, 2012
place, so I'm going to make a motion for the CRA, now we're acting as
the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then somebody else has to do this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have to do the reconsideration.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, and you're doing that as the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. So the question before us is
whether or not we should or will reconsider the item before she goes
out and has these public meetings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can I have the floor,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion. But
however, my aide found what's on the website. And this is what I want
to be heard in next month. And it's a document, on the bottom it says
IAMP, Immokalee Area Master Plan, version date April 4th, 2012. In
the box it says existing Immokalee Area Master Plan proposed to be
completely replaced and strucken (sic) through the entire document,
and therefore is considered a new revision to the significant portion of
the existing text of the corporation -- incorporated within this version.
The text in box red is provisions reference in the existing goals
and objectives and policies carried forward and modified in the
proposed plan. The text in yellow proposed represents the CRA
advisory board's recommended language.
Actually, the whole document is the recommended language of
the CRA advisory board. These are further revisions to the Immokalee
Area Master Plan. And that is the will of the people. And that's what I
am making a motion to bring forward for the Board's consideration on
adoption in June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask for clarification? Would
that include any input from the people during these public meetings
Page 53
May 22 -23, 2012
that Ms. Phillippi is planning to hold?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would not? Then that means we
ignore the public input.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said it's two processes.
You said reconsideration under the Board and then public meetings
under the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you have a document that you have
read from that you say that is the only thing we can reconsider. We
can't reconsider anything that changes that document based upon the
public's input during the meetings that are proposed to be held in
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll include that in my motion,
thank you. I think that will be a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion for
reconsideration of the Immokalee Area Master Plan to include any
changes and public input concerning the plan to be gathered during the
public meetings that are going to be scheduled in Immokalee. Is that
clear? I mean, is that the correct restatement of the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And responses to those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And responses, of course, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we could. I'm sorry, I don't
want to speak out of turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And this is just pure procedure. Ultimately
you'll hear what you want to hear. Pure procedure. You voted -- you
presented the Immokalee Area Master Plan and adoption hearing. It
failed to get sufficient votes, okay. This is a motion that you want to
Page 54
May 22 -23, 2012
reconsider it. What you will be initially reconsidering, what they will
be bringing back to you is the same plan, word for word, that did not
pass.
Now, during the public hearing process, after that if there want to
be changes made to it, at that point in time, like in any adoption
hearing, you will listen to the public and make any changes you want.
If the changes are so great you think you need the Planning
Commission to review it, at that point in time you can ask that it be
sent back to the Planning Commission for their review.
But the motion you need to make here is whether or not you want
to reconsider the item that was initially failed to pass back in your
December meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we're back to Commissioner
Henning's basic motion, first motion. Is that correct? Is that the one
that failed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, this is what the will of the
people want. They further refined it. But I don't know why we can't
hear this new document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can't.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're going to. This is very -- all
Penny's asking you to do is to reconsider. At that point in time you'll
have public hearings, there will be changes made, including that
document there, at which point in time you can consider those
changes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: But she's bringing back to you initially what
she brought to you back in December that failed to pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And it is not what Commissioner
Henning is referencing.
MR. KLATZKOW: After that, during your public hearing
process we can get to Commissioner Henning's concerns, yes.
Page 55
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the motion at the present time cannot
be from the document he has just read from.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. You're just here to -- whether or not
-- it's a very narrow issue: Do you want to reconsider this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Henning, are you prepared
to modify your motion accordingly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, bring back the -- what we
heard back in December, along with other revisions of the master plan
that the CRA advisory board has recommended subsequent to the
December meeting.
MR. KLATZKO W : That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And all public recommendations
for amendments. So I think that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you include the Planning
Commission, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll make a determination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't want the Planning
Commission to hear it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that determination will
be made at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. I think we need to see what's
changed and how much will change if there's changes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If there's enough changes, very
possibly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now there was a second by
Commissioner Fiala. Do you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And now that motion can go
through. Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't see you very well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you take those things off
there or else slide them down to the end --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll temporarily move them so
Page 56
May 22 -23, 2012
Commissioner Fiala can see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. Now we can see him.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're fine, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we have a motion and a
second. Now, is there -- there are Commissioners who wish to speak
about things. Would you like to hold up until we have the public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had one simple question from
before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's pretty simple. Everybody
keeps referring to the will of the people. No matter which person you
say or you hear from or which side you hear from, it's everything is
the will of the people. How do you know? If there are two sides that
have directly opposing views and each side says we're the people, you
know, I just sometimes wonder who the people are. That's all my
question is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, call the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I've been waiting to
just -- just very briefly, if we could, if we could come to some sort of
understanding, it's very important. We have a number of speakers.
And we don't want to draw it out to the point where we have to break
for lunch and these people have to get back to work. A lot of them
have gone out of their way to be here today.
So what I'm hoping is we can hear speakers without any
interruptions. People take notes and we'll ask the questions
afterwards. But if we continuously interrupt every speaker, this
process is going to go on, we're going to break for lunch and a number
of these people I know are not going to be able to come back in the
afternoon. And I really do want to hear their voices before we
conclude this session.
Can we agree to that?
Page 57
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can. I'll keep my mouth shut.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will, too.
Okay, call the first speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we'll use both podiums. The first speaker
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've got one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, stop. Stop. Commissioner Hiller
wants to speak now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Jeff, thank you very much for clarifying. So what's going to
happen is the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment as was
presented at the last adoption hearing will be re- presented to the Board
for reconsideration. And at that point in time anybody and everybody
can present what they believe ought to be how this plan amendment
ought to change.
And based on the recommended changes, to the extent that they
involve land use, that plan amendment will go back to the Planning
Commission for review as required by law, and then would end up
coming back to us subsequent to the Planning Commission's review
for adoption, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Not necessarily. It depends -- it depends
how much is changed and what your feeling is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm talking about land use changes,
to the extent that whatever is brought back --
MR. KLATZKOW: During adoption proceedings the Board
typically makes minor changes, okay. We typically do not bring that
back to the Planning Commission. If there are substantial changes
being made and the Board's not comfortable at that point in time, the
Board can kick it back to the Planning Commission.
I'm not going to be able to give you an answer, ma'am, whether
you should or you shouldn't until we're there.
Page 58
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understand. But let's talk about
major land use changes. Let's say there are provisions which will be
modified which will have a material change on the proposed Growth
Management Plan amendment. Those would have to be reheard by
the Planning Commission. We can't bypass the Planning Commission
on land use issues.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd like to reserve my opinion whether it
should go back to the Planning Commission or not based on the
changes that the Board's considering. It's a matter --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you do agree if there are
material land uses it does need to go back to the Planning
Commission.
MR. KLATZKOW: If there are substantial changes made, I
would agree, it should go back to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I just wanted to make
sure that everyone understood that.
And also to clarify for the record the incorrect statement that
Commissioner Coyle made regarding my position as to public
meetings. It is absolutely essential that we have them. As many as
possible. And educate everyone who will be affected, not just the
residents of Immokalee, but the taxpayers of Collier County. Because
they will be materially affected as well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so I completely support public
meetings to address this strike -all amendment to the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. And always have. In fact, I encouraged it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. We'll be looking forward to your
positive vote for Penny's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what, you have it,
you have it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, call the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just move on.
Page 59
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the first public speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: We will be using both podiums so I'll call two
names. The first speaker is Tim Nance, and he'll be followed by Max
Griffin.
MR. NANCE: Good morning, Commissioners, Tim Nance.
900,000 taxpayer dollars have been spent since 2008 to develop that
book over there, which is a document to replace the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. It is complex, with huge potential impacts.
The plan is linked to many other complex plans, including the
Immokalee Airport and industrial lands, the Rural Land Stewardship
Area Plan, the Florida Department of Transportation loop road and
bypass, and development plans of the large eastern landowners.
Division in the Immokalee community is not related to the social
elements of the amendment. The social element goals are lofty and
optimistic and all support these ideas and aspirations. They're good.
In my opinion there are also good environmental elements that
are innovative and integrate well. The controversy and conflict with
the amendment revolves around its failure to address the economic
realities of the Immokalee that exists today. A brighter future for
Immokalee is 100 percent dependent on a strong economy, and today
that is agribusiness.
Remarkably, the May issue of Gulf Shore Business Magazine
right here, which I hope all of you read from time to time, includes a
big article that features agribusiness in Southwest Florida, including
Collier County. According to the United States Department of
Agriculture and the University of Florida IFAS data, Collier County
agriculture employs 43,000 full and part -time employees and has a
compound economic impact to Collier County of $2.2 billion. Let us
be clear, Collier agriculture is Immokalee.
The Immokalee business community sees a totally new plan as
uncertainty in how it affects their properties and investments, more
government and regulation. They fear the associated costs and are
May 22 -23, 2012
worried about protecting current property rights.
The current business owners of Immokalee, those that have the
most invested and most committed, those that employ the most
people, and those that have the most at stake I do not believe support
this amendment in its current form.
The amendment should not be reconsidered without evaluating
the full economic impact on the Immokalee business community and
agribusiness in Collier County. Let's not have another Jackson Lab
situation where the community is not on board with a large
commitment. This is a recipe for failure.
The Immokalee Master Plan amendment needs revision and full
vetting before it is reconsidered and brought to a vote. Thank you
very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Griffin will be followed by Magda
Ayala.
MR. GRIFFIN: Hello, my name is Max Griffin. And I just want
to say I'm happy with the plan we got. We already have a master plan
and I'm happy with it. I'd like to stick with it. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Miss Ayala will be followed by Robert
Davenport.
MS. AYALA: Hi, I'm Magda Ayala. I've been a lifelong
resident of Immokalee. I am a homeowner, property owner, business
owner. And everything I've heard so far seems that people like to
speak for everyone else, and that's not the case.
What I am here for was number one, which I'm glad you guys
agreed to, is the reconsideration of the plan that was brought forward
before. Plus I would like for you to consider having this meeting in
Immokalee so that you can see that everyone in Immokalee that is for
the plan can be there, not just the people that can afford to come here
or the people that can afford to take the time off come here.
I think Mr. Coletta is right, he is in Immokalee, he attends our
events, he meets with the people of Immokalee. He -- with all of
Page 61
May 22 -23, 2012
Immokalee, not just a group that does not want this to pass.
I'm here because I want you to come to Immokalee so that you
can see how many people want this, how many people want a new
economic growth plan, how many people -- yes, we are agriculture,
we have been agriculture. But agriculture is just a minimum wage job
provider. We need something else, something that has better paying
jobs for our children, our grandchildren. And I have both. And that's
what I want for them. Yes, agriculture is fine, and we've had that
forever. I worked in the fields. I've done that job. It's very hard and it
doesn't pay well. And you don't have benefits, and you don't have
insurance and you don't -- it's hard work and you're around chemicals.
And that's not the only thing. There's room for more, there's potential
for more, and that's what we want.
So please consider coming out and listening to everybody else,
not just a certain group that can be here all the time. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Davenport will be followed by Randy
Johns.
MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, my name is Robert
Davenport.
Back in December the Board of County Commissioners abrupted
-- abruptly stopped the discussion about the mobile home park issues.
Our mobile home park issues have not been resolved. I've been
working with staff and we've scheduled meetings, and they have
meetings planned, but it's never going to hit the Planning Commission
till November. So I would recommend that you stop the master plan
until the mobile home park issue is resolved. I have a big interest in
the mobile home park issue. It's my livelihood and my retirement.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Johns will be followed by Jerry Blocker.
MR. JOHNS: Good morning. I'm Randy Johns. I've got many
concerns, but to list a few: The State of Florida has told you guys that,
you know, there's no funds available for this large plan. So with no
Page 62
May 22 -23, 2012
funding, why are you going to bring this forward? It's going to
become a problem for all the taxpayers. So why do this?
Next question is: Why is enforcement enhancement part of the
future land use?
Third: Is the enhancement of code enforcement to remove the
landowners and their vested property rights with no compensation?
Four: There are no written studies done to show the long -term
effects this plan will have on one of our most valuable resources,
agriculture. This plan has no incentives to promote agriculture
business or future ag. land uses.
The CRA has been empowered to rewrite the master plan as a
total strike - through, with no one on the board who had the credentials
or knowledge to do this.
You're told this plan is for long -range planning. Why is
transportation going to be accelerated when there's no need or funds
available? This will be Oil Well Road all over again.
If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. These are the
words of Jim Coletta. The lie is this is what the community wants.
Jim has repeated this so many times he now believes it's the truth. The
facts tell a different story. The sign -in sheets at the CRA show that
the property owners and business owners have not been in attendance,
it's been the county staff, the planners and engineers, the big
landowners. This is what they want. This is not the will of the
community.
I've attended public meetings where the purpose was to address
community concerns. When the community would speak up
regarding their issues, you and your staff would redirect the questions
and continue to sell your rewrite, even though no one was buying. At
the last meeting, more than half the attendants were against the
community plan.
The more they learn about this plan the more the community
realizes this is not what they want or need. These public meetings are
Page 63
May 22 -23, 2012
nothing more than a political circus and its only purpose is to meet the
legal and technical obligations so you can move this plan forward
without the community support.
We were told this would go back to the planning. Why not?
You say the community is for it. Which version? There's at least five
in circulation out there today.
For years we have complained that the mobile homes were being
illegally targeted. Now you want to change the language to correct it
for some but not for all. Why? Why should we trust you to make the
right decisions when history shows poor judgments like the purchase
of Pepper Ranch for $33 million. You leave the TDRs on the table.
East Naples affordable housing, we all know how that one turned out.
And don't forget Oil Well Road, we're still paying for that one.
Well, last but not least, the Jackson Labs, we can thank our lucky
stars that some on this board had the courage to block them or we'd be
paying hundreds of millions with no return on that one. This master
plan is Jackson Labs on steroids. So please use good judgment and
not pass it as it's written today. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Blocker will be followed by Larry
Wilcoxon.
MR. BLOCKER: Good morning, Commissioners. It's hard to
follow what Randy just spoke there and what Pam has talked about.
It's very important to pay attention and listen to what's all the details in
this plan. I would like to add --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's your name?
MR. BLOCKER: Jerry Blocker, for the record.
There's a new release come out of the Collier County
government's website and I'd like to put that on the screen, if I could.
Basically what that's saying is there was a property owner out
there by the name of Salazar had mobile homes on it. Code
enforcement cited him, run up the fines to $405,000 and forced him to
remove his structures. According to Jim Coletta it's what he wants to
���- ail
May 22 -23, 2012
see everybody do. He commends them people to doing that, you
know. So I would like to just put that on the record.
Here's the pictures of what it looks like now today. There's no
tax base there.
If you guys were really thinking about sincerely changing and
addressing the issues that people are bringing up today, you would
have changed it way before now, not the eve of a vote of a master -- of
this amendment.
I would like to add, I've got a problem with a mobile home park
that I own, but that's besides the point. The problem I got is it's
always been manipulated. Nobody knows this as strong as I've -- I've
been put through more than just about anybody could ever imagine
being put through. But the thing about it is is the issues could have
been addressed a long time ago, would have saved the taxpayers tons
of money. But instead the county has stated publicly if we let the
Blockers get away with their trailer park issues, then the county will
not be able to accomplish what they want to for their goals in
Immokalee. That's bull crap.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. BLOCKER: That is bull crap.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I see that press release?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you pass it down then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You finished, Mr. Blocker?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, sir. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, please.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Wilcoxon will be followed by Pam
Brown.
MR. WILCOXSON: For the record, Larry Wilcoxs6n.
And Commissioner Fiala, I am the people.
First of all, good morning. I didn't come over ever for the friends
and to make a big fuss about the hoopla concerning the Immokalee
Page 65
May 22 -23, 2012
Master Plan. I'm here because I'm so sick and tired of all the delays,
all the changes and the influential folks having a say -so who shouldn't
because they don't know Immokalee. It's like the immigrants that
came over to our good country. Once you got here, you had to be here
a while before you could make a huge impact or even vote on what's
going on in our country.
This master plan has turned so personal for some of the folk
living in Immokalee. I have my ears to the streets and I hear a lot of
things. I even hear them across county lines, as I am running for Clerk
of Circuit Court. It's like I'm living in the reconstruction era or the
Civil War all over again. And we all know the Civil War wasn't based
on race or slavery, it was based solely on money.
In Immokalee it's brother versus brother, friend versus friend,
business versus business. And I'm tired of it. You have a town that's
completely torn.
Commissioner Henning, you was out there, you see one side this
way, one side another way. I love the people. I love everybody in my
home town. I mean, that's the reason why I came back here. Otherwise
I would have stayed in Houston.
Recently a business owner just recently told me the CRA, which
my acronyms are Cronyism Ruled Agency, they stopped to discuss the
plan. What the person failed to do was ask the property -- the business
owner who owned the property or if they lived in Immokalee, better
yet, Collier County. If you have a job, I expect you do it beyond
expectations so there's no room for failure.
Commissioners, I have nothing personal against any of you. I
know some of you personally, some more than others, except for
Commissioner Coyle, because I never see him out. But
Commissioners, it's up to you five to get this right. And the only way
I say to get it right is really to ask the people of the township of
Immokalee, and that's the landowners, not the businesses or not the
people who have something vested elsewhere, but the landowners of
Page 66
May 22 -23, 2012
Immokalee.
And honestly, I just heard Ms. Magness (sic), when she was
speaking about the agriculture and everything else. I mean,
Immokalee, let's be for real, people. It's a town. You have less than
two percent that has a college degree. Half of the town can't speak
English. I mean, agriculture is what builds this town, it's what built
this county. It's a lot of money come through there. I just want us to
get it right and get it right now.
Left here, what, 1996 before I got my first degree and I come
back to the same 'ol same 'ol. I'm 33 now. This has been going on 16,
17, 18 years. Is it going to keep going on till I die? I hope not. I ask
all of you, let's get it together and let's get it right now.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Brown will be followed by Dean
Blocker.
MS. BROWN: Good morning again.
Commissioner Fiala, I think the will of the people phrase came
from Commissioner Coletta, and we keep on hearing this at several
meetings so that's why we keep on addressing that.
Approximately out of the 12 members that are on the CRA
advisory board, only three of those people live in Immokalee, and
none of them are property owners or business owners in Immokalee.
What is ironic is that the planner the CRA board employed to
write the amendment, Robert Mulhere, has been employed by Collier
County. And after his employment with the county he's been hired by
several large stakeholders, the BCC, the Bayshore CRA, the
Immokalee CRA, the Greater Naples Chamber and worked for the
EDC. He's lobbied for all of them with the exception of Immokalee.
In March of 2007 Mr. Mulhere was employed by Jerry Blocker
in reference to his mobile home park in Immokalee. The County did
not acknowledge his opinion but in June he was hired by CRA staff to
rewrite the amendment. In Immokalee we call this a conflict of
interest.
Page 67
May 22 -23, 2012
The amendment means more government, not less government.
The amendment creates a windfall for the owners of property needed
to expand the airport by upzoning the property prior to purchase or
condemnation. The amendment creates a windfall for the owners of
property outside the immediate Immokalee urban area by overlaying
thousands of acres in agriculture land with potential industrial,
commercial and residential zoning. There is no corresponding
commitment on the part of those property owners to provide any
infrastructure or pay any taxes. The overlay dilutes the taxable value
of existing zoned industrial, commercial and residential and property
in Immokalee and drives property values down.
The plan was developed by urban planners who work with the
RLSA property owners and developers. They apparently have no
concept of rural town designs or were directed by county staff to do an
urban town design with the public realm element, not the citizen
taxpayers of Immokalee. The plan fails to respect the property rights
of existing landowners who would be forced to abandon their existing
uses or go through expensive and time - consuming rezoning site
improvement plans or litigation to protect their property rights.
This is an equivalent to eminent domain by code enforcement
and rezoning. This is a violation of Florida Constitution, the United
States Constitution. The proposed strike -all amendment proposes
urban removal at its worst. The amendment will in fact do great harm
to the people of Immokalee. We request that the CRA review the
existing master plan with the assistance of a planner with experience
in planning rural communities.
It is interesting on how so much of county staff time has been
invested in making rules for the improvement of Immokalee and
practically nothing has been accomplished except for non - profit
affordable housing and spending all of our road funds to four -lane Oil
Well Road. If the county sincerely wanted the growth of Immokalee,
there would have been a four -lane road put into Immokalee where the
May 22 -23, 2012
Seminole Casino is located, which is one of the largest economic
engines and a contributor to the county coffers.
It is interesting on how the county wants to -- us to be a little
version of Naples, and you're not willing to fund it. But yet the people
of Immokalee have never asked for this. We are proud of our
agricultural community. We ask that the amendment not be brought
forward at this time until all issues are fully vented and written into
the amendment. Thank you.
MR. BLOCKER: Dean Blocker, for the record --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Blocker will be followed by Kim
Blocker.
MR. BLOCKER: Pam, do you need to speak again? I'll pass.
They said everything I want to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did you say? I didn't hear
you. Can you come back? I didn't hear what you said, I'm sorry.
With all the rustling around, I missed that. What was that? That was
too fast for me.
MR. BLOCKER: I said they've said everything I want to say, so
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's your position?
MR. BLOCKER: Dean Blocker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To throw the agreement out the
door.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
amendment is what you're saying.
MR. BLOCKER: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
missed it.
So you don't support the
Okay, thanks. That was so fast, I
MR. MITCHELL: Kim Blocker will be followed by Ken
Blocker.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's a hint. If they're wearing a
May 22 -23, 2012
red shirt, they're against the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Unfortunately our stenographer
does not have the ability to report that whoever is at the podium is
wearing a red shirt. But for the record, there are a ton of red shirts in
the audience.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, I have one.
MR. BLOCKER: For the record, I'm Ken Blocker. It's a Blocker
family. We've been in Immokalee for many years. We've invested
our whole life there. And no one from the CRA has ever come and
asked us what we thought. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Clara Ayala.
MS. AYALA: Hello, my name is Clara Ayala. I'm a property
opener in Immokalee, a business owner. I have -- I was raised in
Immokalee. I know all the Blockers who are all present here today.
And we've several times been on opposite sides. Again today, I guess.
I actually sat on the CRA board. And we invited everyone at the
community to come at those times and none of them ever showed up.
So they didn't speak because they didn't want to. Because they were
invited. It's community effort and everyone's invited.
I am here to ask you to come out to Immokalee to do some of
these meetings. I know that there are people willing to come that have
interests. My family is also in agriculture, so we did help build this
community too. All of us, you know. And I can speak for my family
and say that we want you to come to Immokalee, we want your
assistance. I am totally behind our master plan. I think that we have
as a community worked for it. I sat on the board, I worked toward that
also. So in you putting that up there and making it a laughing matter, I
don't agree with that at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's not laughing.
MS. AYALA: I think what you did there was pretty
unprofessional and shows your character. Because you really do not --
you've looked at it from your legal perspective and for what you might
Page 70
May 22 -23, 2012
have to gain and for what people that are on your side might have to
gain. But some of us don't have those things to gain, you know. I
don't have anything that I feel, you know, is -- that I'm going to gain
from being here except that maybe Immokalee will get a little bit of a
word in, you know, a word in for a change.
So I just would really, really want you to consider to take the
time to come out there. And as Mr. Coletta does, come and visit the
area and talk to the people and see what the real people, the middle
class people, as they want heard, you know, have to say. And you
have to do that when they can come to the meeting, not a 9:00 in the
morning on a Wednesday or a Tuesday when everybody's working to
maintain that middle class. So thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Pedro Romero.
MR. ROMERO: Hi, my name is Pedro Romero, and thank you
for allowing me to speak.
And first we need some meetings of the County Commissioners
in Immokalee in the evening when people at large can attend. And the
meetings are in the mornings here weekdays, and a lot of the workers
there cannot make it to Immokalee, don't have transportation. A lot of
them don't have even documents so they cannot get a driver's license.
We need you people to come to Immokalee and at least listen to us,
listen to the people there.
We need the master plan because we need improving Immokalee.
And is need -- I mean, Immokalee always been treated as the
illegitimate foster child or stepchild of the county. We need
Immokalee to be taken seriously for all the people there. Not only for
-- I hear the will of the community. Who are they talking about, the
will of the community? They're talking about the one percent, they're
not talking about the other 99 percent. The community is 100 percent.
So you people need to listen to everyone. When you have this
meeting, you're not listening to the working class there.
I heard about the taxpayer. The taxpayers are not only the
Page 71
May 22 -23, 2012
owners of properties, it's also the people renting are paying taxes
indirectly. The working people are paying taxes too. So it's not only
the property owner.
I heard about stop Habitat for Humanity building more houses
and other agencies. Yes, Immokalee needs middle class housing, but
also needs low income housing. And Habitat for Humanity, I don't
live in any of them, I'm renting apartment now, but Habitat for
Humanity and the other agencies, governmental and nonprofit
agencies, help these people to acquire ownership of the houses instead
of paying.
Have you been in any of the -- some of the trailers there where
people live like sardines, they got eight, 10, 12 people paying
exceedingly high -- altogether high cost of rent there. So we need
some of these low- income housing for the people there so people can
own the houses.
Yes, we need the agriculture, but we also need to create other
jobs that pay higher wages than the agriculture is paying to the
workers. Because the agriculture workers historical are being
exploited. It started with the former slaves, then it was moved to the
people running away from the dust bowls, the okies, some poor white
people who work in agriculture. Now agriculture depends mostly on
foreign labor, and they all pay very --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired.
MR. ROMERO: -- very low wages. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Victor Grimaldo.
And Evelyn Prieto is going to translate for Mr. Grimaldo.
MR. GRIMALDO: Translate fo. me, please. Buenos dias.
THE TRANSLATOR: My name is Victor Grimaldo. I'm from
the association of campecinos. I been living in Immokalee for 20
years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait for her to translate before you start
Page 72
May 22 -23, 2012
speaking again, okay?
THE TRANSLATOR: That I believe that we have to find the
means to come -- all come together because all of us live in
Immokalee. One way or another we need to find the progress of our
community together, all together. And I believe if there were no farm
workers, agriculture, that is the base of the great things in our
community.
And also the people that provide habitat and all the necessities
that these people that work in the farm need. They need to be healthy,
they need to be careful of pesticides, for them to be always healthy
and accomplish that our county, that our Immokalee -- for Immokalee
always to grow.
Altogether we need to find everything that we need to grow
instead of looking into only what's good for businesses and the abuse.
The powerful men that has the money is not better than our city, our
Immokalee.
Please, I ask for Immokalee, instead of all being against, we need
to find something. Thank you.
MR. GRIMALDO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Evelyn, does the next -- the speaker is Adan
Labra. Adan Labra.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And who's the next one after that?
MR. MITCHELL: Anne Goodnight.
THE TRANSLATOR: His name is Adan Labra, L- A- B -R -A,
with the Farm Worker Association of Florida.
I'm the organizer of the area. We need more opportunities in our
community. We look out for the people, for migrant workers and their
families. We come here to this country with a dream to find better
opportunities.
I believe that this plan that we're talking about right now, it's
better for us to bring more opportunities to our community, and that
Page 73
May 22 -23, 2012
we can all be part of this plan, and that we can all work together.
I'm talking representing all the farm workers, because they
cannot be here today, they cannot be present. But I do keep in contact
with them and I keep them updated of everything that's going on. And
that if everything goes well today, everything will benefit from it. He
thanks everyone for giving him the opportunity. That's it.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. The last speaker is Anne
Goodnight.
MS. GOODNIGHT: Good morning. My name is Anne
Goodnight, for the record. I'm a resident of Collier. I'm not a resident
of Collier County, I'm a resident of Immokalee in Collier County for
57 years. My family moved here and has been in agriculture and we
were in the agricultural business until the early 2000's.
I'm not going to belabor anything. I support the motion that's on
the floor and I look forward to you coming to Immokalee and hearing
what our residents say. Because it's very important that you
understand that there are certain people that are saying they're
speaking for people, and those people are not speaking for me and the
people that I associate with. Because after I once heard it I went and
asked and they said no.
So I just want you to come and hear for yourself. Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. We have a
motion on the floor. 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 74
May 22 -23, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes.
Now, your task is to get a schedule for -- at least for the Board of
County Commission meeting and the meeting before our last meeting,
week before our last meeting in June. Have you come up with
something?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We're proposing June 18th. And staff believes
we need to come at 4:00 in the afternoon as opposed to 6:00.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sounds more reasonable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What date?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The 18th of June.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that would work for me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know that we need a motion for
setting a schedule. But if the 18th is okay with everybody, then let's
do it. Now, if we're going to set it for 4:00, we need to make sure that
that's the time when the people will be able to attend. We're doing it
for the people in Immokalee's convenience, not for our convenience.
So we need to make sure it's late enough in the day that the people can
get there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're giving them a month to
get off of work early.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, but still, that doesn't make
much difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a suggestion, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, one of the things we ought
to do is, because a lot of people won't get off till 5:00 and I'm not
going to ask them to lose an hour's pay, is that we could start our
Page 75
May 22 -23, 2012
meeting with the necessary legal aspects of what we're dealing and
deal with the speakers at 5:00, or slightly after. And that would give
us the advantage of that extra hour for the people in Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem you have is whatever
discussions we have will not be available to them and then they will
be asking questions that might have been already covered earlier in the
discussion. I would rather have the meeting start later and still will --
1:00, 2:00 in the morning, if we have to. Let's make sure that people
can be there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me for what
I'm about to do, sir, but I'm going to do it anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to forgive you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How many people here prefer
5:00?
How many would be okay with 4:00?
THE AUDIENCE: 6:30, 7:00.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, you didn't give them a
choice of 6:00.
How about 6:00? How many people would prefer 6:00? Oh, it
was red shirt people, no, no.
6:00 then? Does 6:00 sound okay for everybody?
THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would work better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's do it at 6:00 and we stay as late as
we need to stay, okay.
THE AUDIENCE: Red shirt wins.
MS. PHILLIPPI: At the High School auditorium.
MR. OCHS: Immokalee High School auditorium?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, Immokalee High School. And
actually, they just e- mailed me to confirm that we have made the
reservation for the 18th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 76
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can we make that by motion, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can we make that by motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make the motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the date is established --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by motion, and motion is made by
Commissioner Coletta, 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's done.
Okay, now, you wanted to have a comment, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I do. I have a couple of
comments. There are certain things brought out by the public
speakers that really leave me concerned. One comment made by Mr.
Davenport with respect to the mobile home park issues, and that was
only going to be heard in November.
I agree with Mr. Davenport, I think this is one of the central
issues in this amendment, and it is absolutely essential that these
mobile home park hearings be held prior to the reconsideration
hearing of the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment. So I would
ask that that be made a part of the motion, or may be made as a
separate -- or I'll make it as a separate motion, and that the results of
those hearings be brought forward at that reconsideration hearing so
Page 77
May 22 -23, 2012
we can consider that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This could be part of the master
plan, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This fix could be part of the
master plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It might be fixed before that by staff. I
don't understand, there was some discussion going on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what Mr. Davenport
said --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I understand that, but let's listen to
what Nick has to say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For clarification for the record, Nick
Casalanguida. I'm working with Mr. Davenport. The Board gave me
clear direction to work with the owners of the mobile home parks to
develop an LDC amendment. It's not part of your master plan issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could make it part of the
master plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could add language to the master
plan that addresses that. And what we're doing right now is bringing
forth LDC amendments. But I don't think it would delay or otherwise
confuse what you're going to hear on June 18th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I do have a problem with that,
because there is a trailer park component to this amendment which has
been controversial. And so I would like the issues addressed in such a
manner as to go to the heart of the trailer park provision --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your trailer park provision --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that is being brought forward.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- in the master plan, again, I don't
have it in front of me, was a very broad statement. Your LDC
amendment was more procedural. Again, your Comp. Plan and your
Growth Management Plan is what you do, your LDC is how you do it.
May 22 -23, 2012
And so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So I'm not as
concerned with the LDC, I'm concerned with the Comp. Plan and
what's being provided for in that Comp. Plan. And we have to have
the discussion with the community as to the trailer parks before this
comes forward, not to delay it and bury it under some Land
Development Code amendment through some other hearing in
November.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's certainly not an intent to bury it.
We've actually been proactive. Mr. Davenport I think will tell you
we've been really working well with the mobile home community in
terms of the LDC amendment. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He said it stopped suddenly back in
December.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
MR. DAVENPORT: The meeting with the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you led me to believe that the
discussions with the staff stopped.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. No, we're actually engaging right
now in reviewing that LDC amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then what's the relevance of the
meeting ending abruptly in December?
Are you working with him to resolve this issue?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you making any progress?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DAVENPORT: Our challenge in the mobile home park
industry, back to my comment in December, I went through the Site
Improvement Plan. I did my work in 1987. It became illegal. I had to
spend $30,000 to do -- comply with the Site Improvement Plan.
Page 79
May 22 -23, 2012
Unfortunately I'm not necessarily trusting what the -- we're having to
do.
I've been working with Nick Casalanguida to resolve this, but
Collier County allowed us to build a lot of parks. Now they're
requiring us to spend a bunch of money. That's the issue right there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's actually a very significant
issue, because the only parks that are being required to conform with
these site improvement standards are the ones in Immokalee. They're
not imposing the same standard on trailer parks throughout the rest of
Collier County. And it's putting people out of business. I don't know
how you're affording it, Mr. Davenport.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you address that, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We -- there's a special section in the
Immokalee Area Master Plan that deals with specifically trailer parks.
But our Land Development Code applies to trailer parks throughout
the county. There's a compliance section in the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. Carolyna was kind enough to bring it forward to me.
You already have an existing element that you're going to discuss
on June 18th that states: Existing mobile home parks that have an
approved SDP or SIP as of the effective date of this policy are allowed
in all subdistricts that allow residential development.
And then the direction I received from the Board last time, sir,
was to work with them to modify and eliminate that date that I believe
expired in 2003 to say anybody could come forward if they wanted to
and set almost their own schedule by settlement agreement.
So I think what the Commissioner's asking is can we hear this?
Well, it's already part of your master plan consideration.
Does the LDC amendment have to be heard at the same time? I
would say you're trying to combine two different procedures. And
we're working that LDC amendment cycle, so I think we're going to
keep working with the community and I don't think it will get
convoluted on --
991-IM
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're finished with this item.
Now let's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I finish my comment --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I have to put some
historical perspective on this whole thing. And it's not meant to insult
anyone. But when this Commission came aboard we were very
concerned about the substandard housing in Immokalee. At that time
it was close to 50 percent or over. It's now close to five percent.
Now, did some people have to make changes along the way?
You better believe it. Gone are the trailers that people were separated
by pieces of plywood. Gone are the trailers where you have hoses
going in there where they got their water, and their waste product went
right on the ground. And if I'm ever going to apologize for those
things happening, you're not going to hear it from me. I am proud of
what this Commission has accomplished.
But also too on the same light, we have gone back over and over
again. We stopped where we were going. We tried to backtrack to be
able to make everybody come into compliance over a period of time.
This has been more an item of compliance rather than enforcement.
And this is the way it's been forever, and that's why it's taken so long.
And that's because of the consideration that's being given to existing
businesses.
But I think everybody in Immokalee wants to have a pristine
environment to the point that they're not ashamed of their town. And
they got every right to be proud now, because there's been a lot of
improvements made. Not all because of this Collier County
Commission, which played a small role in the whole thing, but it's
because of what the citizens of Immokalee have come forward with
and what they have wanted.
And, you know, there's some people would like to go back to the
good 'ol days where anything goes and you can pack them in, you
0=1111
May 22 -23, 2012
know, 10 to a trailer and go ahead and just keep right on trucking. But
the truth of the matter is Immokalee is a much better place because of
the rules that have been put into place.
Now, when this comes back before us to review, keep all this in
mind. Do you want to return to the good 'ol days or do you like where
you are now and you want to improve upon that? Thank you.
Item #1 I A
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 APPROVE CURRENT PROJECT FOR MARCO
SOUTH BEACH - APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE A
MODIFICATION TO THE PERMIT TO INCLUDE TRUCK HAUL
PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCIES ON NAPLES BEACHES AND
MOTION TO APPLY FOR ACTUAL LOSS AT THE BEACHES
TO THE 2006 STANDARDS, RENOURISH TO THOSE DESIGNS
MODIFY THE PERMIT TO GET GOING IN 6 MONTHS, FOR AN
8 YEAR LIFE INSTEAD OF A 10 YEAR LIFE — NOT
CONSIDERED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND; MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO BRING
BACK THE ESTIMATES AND DETAILED PLAN GIVING A
START AND FINISH DATE AND TO INCLUDE THE HOT
SPOTS THAT NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to 1 LA now. We have a
time certain that is 45 minutes late, almost an hour late, so we need to
move ahead. We don't want people holding over lunch.
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it's a 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 Marco South Beach renourishment structure
rebuild plan and to make a finding that these items promote tourism.
Mr. McAlpin will address.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the reason why we
shouldn't have time certains. It always gets messed up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's convenient for some people, if they
get started on time and finish on time.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
I'm going to give a short overview presentation and I'll be
followed by John Sorey, who's the chairman of the CAC, and Burt
Saunders who's representing the City of Marco Island.
Commissioners, there's been some confusion about these two
projects. They're the main Collier County beaches, which is
approximately eight and a half miles worth of beaches that include
Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples and also the Marco Island project.
They are not the same project. They're completely independent.
They're completely separated. They're not related in any way, shape
or form.
The Marco Island project will be done this year, if it is approved
by the Board of County Commissioners. We'll start that sometime
after November of 2012 and we will be complete by April, 2013.
That's the beginning of turtle nesting season.
The main Collier County beaches will be done in '13 , fiscal year
'13, September 15th, and will be complete in ' 14.
So what we're looking at with the Collier County project is that it
will require permit modifications. The permit will be a second -- the
permit modifications at a minimum will be the second renourishment
event and it will also have to address the biological opinions. We will
May 22 -23, 2012
need an amendment for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And we
expect that the permits for the first phase of this would be done in
early calendar year 2013.
We will have to negotiate with the government on a federal lease.
There will be environmental studies for that. Last time we did this,
the lease and the work required to get the lease from BOEM, which is
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, was 12 months. We expect
that we'll be able to do that in nine months this year.
We will also -- these projects will use completely separate
equipment. The main beach project will use ocean -going dredges. It
will have an 80 -mile round trip to the sand source, it will have a
different contractor.
And most importantly, or one of the important issues was that the
turtle nesting determined the timing and the sequencing of work. We
worked with The Conservancy to minimize the impact on turtle
nesting. We identified for this project that the Naples Beach was the
least dense in terms of turtle nesting. If we start on the Naples Beach,
we have to relocate a minimum amount of nests. That's why we're
starting south to north and that's why we're looking at the construction
duration would be an additional two and a half months outside of
turtle nesting season. So we're looking at eight and a half months
beginning on 9/15 and ending on -- and ending in ' 14, 6/1/14.
We're not asking you for -- to approve an option. We're not
asking to you approve a plan or a design, but rather we're asking you
to approve an approach. We're asking for a 10 -year permit. A
10 -year permit preserves the flexibility that we need to have going
forward so that we could determine the scope, get all the costs
identified through the bidding process and get all of our funding in
hand.
You've directed us to continue to work on funding sources and
identify cost reductions. We're moving forward with that right now.
We need to approve an engineering consultant. Time is critical, time
I
May 22 -23, 2012
is of the essence. We need to get in and start working these permits
and the extensions with DEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
We need to start working the land -- the sand lease with the federal
government. We have set the renourishment date on 9/13 to 6/1/14.
And so that's what we're asking you to do today. We're not
asking you to approve an option that says put so many cubic yards of
sand on the beaches. You'll have plenty of opportunity. As we move
forward, we're going to bring these back to you, you'll get a number of
bites at the apple to identify what the scope will be, what the
sequencing will be and what the cost will be.
And again, we have worked with the community and we have set
the start and the finish date and the sequence of work.
Now, there's been some concern about our beach design. Well,
you know, what we -- we have taken direction from the Board of
County Commissioners and you've asked us to maximize the interval
between beach renourishments. We've had extensive history
throughout the State of Florida that has a lot of successful 10 -year
beach renourishment projects. So we could provide them when it's
appropriate to the Board and they could look and review those.
So a 10 -year beach renourishment project is definitely a reality
and has been successful. We've established design standards for
Naples, Park Shore and Vanderbilt beaches. Either 100 total footage
of beach width for Naples and Vanderbilt, and 85 for the Park Shore
beaches. The reason Park Shore is a little bit less is because of the
concern the agencies had with near shore hard bottom.
We don't design our beaches just by volume. Nobody really cares
how much volume we put on the beaches or how many cubic yards we
put on the beaches. What they really care about is the width of the
beaches. Right now you have 76 percent of the volume remaining on
your Collier County beaches, but you have 51 percent of the beach
width remaining. What we will do is we'll take the -- we'll move the
sand, we'll bring the sand back up to the standards, the total beach
Page 85
May 22 -23, 2012
width standards that we have. We'll look at the hot spots that we have.
We'll design the hot spots. We'll bring them up to the current
standards. And then we'll take the -- and then we'll build it so that we
have 10 years worth of advance renourishment.
So that when we -- at the end of 10 years from now the Naples
Beach or the Vanderbilt Beach will still have 100 foot of usable beach
width. And that's the standard that we have used, that's the standard
we have used in the past, and that's the current standard that the
agencies are requirings us to do.
So we design for advance renourishment, we design for the hot
spots. We don't design for the averages of volume losses that have
been in there, and we bring it back to standards.
We also in this design are going to look for -- look monument by
monument. We're going to do a specific individualized design. One
of the things we said, if we could build this project higher and wider,
and if we have the funds for it, and if it's approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, that's what you have directed us to do. We'll
bring that design back to you, but we'll design specifics into this. This
design will not have uniformity. In the past we just put sand over all
the beaches. We'll have a specific design. If we don't need an area
where we need sand on the beach, we're not going to put sand on the
beach. We're going to use that sand and put it someplace else where
we actually need it.
And lastly, you have very experienced design professionals in
county staff, very successful in doing this in the past and continue to
be -- and we will continue to be successful in the future.
Marco South Beach renourishment, the high points associated
with this is we're going to build this this year after turtle nesting
season. It's going to be done with a small cutterhedge dredge. And the
sand source is local. The sand source is less than a half a mile away.
We have a biological opinion, that's the only thing that's outstanding
right now from a permit point of view.
May 22 -23, 2012
We've looked at the critically eroded segment. And the critically
eroded segment is not the whole width of the beach. Marco Island has
been accreting to the north and eroding to the south. If you look at 147
down to monument G2, that area, by the last monitoring report that
was completed by Humiston & Moore, is a 80 -foot beach width loss
and 52,000 cubic yards of material loss. So that's the area that we're
going to focus our attention on; that's the area that we will renourish.
We've looked at what's right for that. It's 104,000 cubic yards.
We looked at that, getting that design in a couple of ways. That will
allow us to maximize the design life to 10 years. And that was the
direction from the Board.
This has been reviewed by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the CAC and the City of Marco, and all of
these -- those agencies have concurrence with the design, have
approved the design.
Critical to this whole thing is the existing seawall that you have
down at the south, right at the point, right in front of the Belize
condominium. That seawall is starting to erode -- excuse me, the sand
on that seawall is starting to erode. When that sand erodes, you'll get
a higher erosion rate. That higher erosion rate will increase the
erosion that you see northward on the beaches. That's happened in the
past. It's historical. We could expect that.
One of the things we want to do in addition to putting --
renourishing the sand back where that seawall is, fronting the seawall,
is we want to rebuild the erosion control structures. There's five
structures out there. If we build those five erosion control structures
back, it will reduce further erosion.
Lastly, we have a FEMA authorization that has been extended to
June 30th of this year. It's for one million dollars. We have to -- June
30th of'13, excuse me, it's for one million dollars. Extensions are
getting harder and harder to get. We don't want to put that money in
jeopardy. And so we want to move forward with that. We also
Page 87
May 22 -23, 2012
believe that moving forward with this project and getting it complete
by 'l 3 of this year (sic) will give us a lot of credibility in terms FEMA
for the major Collier County beach renourishment project.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to John Sorey and he's going
to give his perspective from the CAC.
MR. SOREY: Yes, still morning. Good morning. I'm John
Sorey, Chair of your Coastal Advisory Committee.
And I appreciate the previous approval. And hopefully with the
communication, the questions that's been asked, we've answered a
number of those. And Mr. McAlpin brought you the facts about what
we're doing. I'm not going to go through all the details again other
than the fact that this County Commission and the City Council of
Naples charged the CAC with coming up with a 10 -year plan. We've
done that. We've worked with The Conservancy and others to make
this the most effective plan we can so that, A, we maximize the dollars
that we have to spend and, B, we do it in the most efficient and
effective way.
One item that Gary did not tell you that's critical as you think
about the timing, we cannot continue to push this out. The current
permit that we have we're getting a modification of that permit. That
permit expires January 1 of '15. If this gets pushed out much at all,
we're going to be in a situation where we'll have to have a new permit
with all the current requirements and it will be several hundred
thousand dollars more than the modification.
So in summary, the City of Naples supports this plan, it's time to
move forward, and I ask for your reapproval so we can put a plan
together, bring back to you the details, which you'll have an
opportunity to vote up or down, each of those details as we scope
manage this plan. Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS : Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you
for giving me the opportunity to speak for just a few moments. My
name is Burt Saunders with the Gray Robinson Law Firm, for your
May 22 -23, 2012
record. I am serving as the city attorney for the City of Marco Island.
And in the audience is City Councilor Wayne Waldack, who is
here to show his support for the Marco Island portion of the project.
I'm going to focus just on the Marco Island portion of the project.
On the visualizer, hopefully you're able to see on the screen the area of
the beach on Marco Island that is to be renourished. When you voted
to reconsider the beach renourishment item, quite frankly you had a
good basis for that. There was a lot of confusion. And I've discussed
this with all of you individually, but I want to just emphasize just a
couple of little points on the Marco Island portion of the project.
You were shown a photograph of a very wide portion of the
beach on Marco Island in front of the Marco Island Marriott. Quite
frankly, you almost have to take a bottle of water with you to get from
the hotel to the beach to the water there, it's so wide. But that's not
where we're talking about renourishing. We're talking about
renourishing at the south end of the beach. And here's a picture of
that. You can clearly see that that beach has eroded tremendously.
In your Humiston monitoring report that all of you have in your
packets today, it talks about the -- from the point, the marker R147
South, which is what we're talking about renourishing, in the
Humiston report it says that not only have you lost over 54,000 cubic
yards of sand over the last five years but you've lost over 80 feet in
width of beach. And that beach width right there is what we're talking
about.
So one part of the confusion was where was the beach
renourishment project going to be. This is very important to the City
Council and the citizens of Marco Island, but it's also very important
to the citizens of Collier County off the island. You have a beach
parking lot right at the public access point that leads to this beach, and
so you have a county facility there. This is a very heavily used
portion of the beach.
Another area of confusion I believe was the issue of funding.
May 22 -23, 2012
The placement of sand on this beach will cost about $1.8 million.
FEMA will pay $1 million of that. So that the hit to the tourist
development fund is about $800,000. Now, there are also control
structures that have to be fixed and that will cost about $1.2 million.
So the total cost will be $2 million ultimately to the tourist
development fund. Over 23 percent of the TDC funds come from
Marco Island. And this is the project that they're asking you to move
forward with. So I think there may have been a little bit of confusion
about the cost of that project.
The other confusion I think is the timing. You have two separate
projects. You have the Marco Island project and then you have the
main project along the coast of Naples and north. The timing of the
Marco Island south project will in no way impact the timing of the
major project. Whether you do the Marco Island project or not has no
impact on the timing of the big project. And I think that was a bit of
confusion.
So Commissioners, I think we have a strong argument for
renourishing the south beach on Marco Island. And as a
representative of the City of Marco Island, I would ask that you move
forward with that project as quickly as possible. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller was first.
Excuse me, how many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have nine public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to begin by saying
that I agree with Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Saunders that the Marco
project has nothing to do with the renourishment of the Collier
beaches, specifically being the Vanderbilt, the Park Shore and the
Naples beaches. And as such what I would like to ask the Board to
consider is dividing the question of the Marco beach renourishment
from the renourishment of the Collier beaches, because I don't think
they should be blended as one issue. We're dealing with a totally
different fact pattern, we're going to be dealing with a different source
May 22 -23, 2012
of funding. I'm going to build on what Mr. Saunders said. So I would
like to ask that we separate those two when we go to discussing them
and voting on them.
Would that be agreeable to everyone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm all in favor of the
Marco Island project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. So can we begin by a
discussion -- do we want to hear all the public speakers first before we
start discussing this and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people want to speak on
behalf of the Marco Island project?
One.
And the others are speaking on behalf of the rest of Collier
County; is that correct?
Wait a minute, I'm only getting one hand up here. Where are
these 15 speakers?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have two speakers on
Marco? Because we want to separate the issue. So do you want to talk
to both?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we save nothing. All right. If you
want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We only have two speakers on
Marco.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Has anybody called you?
MS. CRAVENS: No, I'm sorry, I just thought I was being told to
come up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a new chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many times have you been here?
We're going to have the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: In any particular order?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just the Marco speakers first?
Page 91
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just the Marco.
MR. MITCHELL: Just the Marco speakers?
Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, Bob Krasowski. I wanted to speak on
the whole issue, but didn't want to separate Marco out and not get the
comment on that, so I'll be back again for the other part --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can have one and a half minutes
now and one and a half minutes later, okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You're so tough, man, I tell ya. I'm such a
flawed guy to come up here and expose myself to your wrath, it's like
it's almost unbearable.
Look, just in terms of Marco, I like this idea of separating it out.
And I had a question about it, and I'll be real quick with this because I
do want to speak later. Is the million eight that the Marco project will
cost, is that for the sand or does that also include the cost of
mobilizing the dredge?
Maybe Gary -- Gary was busy there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's total cost, I think.
MR. McALPIN: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: The million eight identified as the cost for
the Marco project, is that just for the sand or does that include the cost
of mobilizing the dredge? And I'll sit down.
MR. McALPIN: That includes the cost to put the sand on the
beach, which is mobilizing the dredge. It includes the cost of
spreading it and includes the engineering, anything associated with the
beach renourishment.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker, if she dares come up,
Marcia Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: I dare.
Hi, I guess it's morning. Just turned afternoon. Marcia Cravens.
And I am authorized to speak for the Sierra Club Calusa Group. So I
will be speaking on behalf of those members who value our outdoor
Page 92
May 22 -23, 2012
areas.
I am in support of the Marco project. I'm going to have to say, I
was at the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting last week and it was
almost heartbreaking to see this contingent of people from Marco
Island who were begging for some funds for the area -- another area of
Marco Island near Hideaway Beach. They were so desperate to get
some assistance with taking care of that beach area that they were
requesting that it be done through catastrophic funds.
And I'm only just going to touch on the issue of the whole project
is that if you go with this massive project, the massive design, you
can't take care of all these really needed projects on Marco and other
places. And doesn't it make more sense to go with something a little
bit more modest where you can take care of all these critical needs that
are being requested?
And I have one more question particular to the Marco one. Is
that going to be a redo of prior engineering plans that seem to work
pretty well for what, a good five years? I mean, do we have to pay for
and reinvent the wheel every time we do renourishment? Why aren't
we using engineering plans that we've already paid for? I mean,
what's wrong with them? And that's all I have to say, thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: There's no more Marco speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we address the Marco issue
now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So Gary, would you like to
answer that first? And then I have some comments.
MR. McALPIN: When we -- the state, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps require you to go
through for each permit, for each notice to proceed, for each dredging
event to survey the beaches, to come in and get the exact same
quantities that need to be replaced, develop a design for that and then
Page 93
May 22 -23, 2012
bring that back to them. So it is a permit requirement that we -- every
request is based on the erosion that's happened from the previous time.
So we've got to go through that exercise.
They also have to go back and check that the biological opinion
is okay, and we're dealing with critical species issues. So yes, we
have worked with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to streamline the permitting process on repeat projects.
And that is -- they're working that through as we speak right now. We
take advantage of that as much as we can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. So after the last
meeting, Mick Moore produced this picture of Marco Island that
looked lavishly full of sand. And I was amazed at that. How could the
state say it's badly eroded when it looked so beautiful? So I quickly
called the city manager and I said I need to come out and see the
beach. I hadn't seen it myself.
So I went out and took a look. I had a few people, including
Gary McAlpin. I said, you know, he's recommending it, I wanted him
to be there too and see for himself, and I of course was believing the
picture that I had seen. When we got down there I was amazed at how
badly it was eroded, especially -- your picture didn't show it at all,
Burt, but when you went a little further past those rocks, there was no
beach whatsoever. It was only rocks and rip -rap right there. And that
was when the tide was out not even when the tide was in. And I could
see then what they were talking about. And not only that, but the
structures that needed to be rebuilt. I was quite amazed.
And we don't have to worry about turtle nests, there was no sand
to nest in anyway, so -- but we're going to obey the turtle nesting
season and go with that.
So I would like to make a motion for us to approve the south
beach renourishment plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be the Marco Island beach
renourishment plan. I second the motion.
Page 94
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to second that but I
would like to second it with a qualification, if I may.
Can I speak to what Commissioner Fiala just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can. I've also already given her a
second without a qualification. You pick your second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the qualification is
important, because it goes to the issue of funding and the funding
sources and what's going on. And also consideration for the source of
sand.
The issue with Marco, I want to address a few of the public
comments first. Commissioner Fiala is right, the 1.8 million is not
only for the mobilization in sand but it's also for the repair of the
groins. And that would account for about 1.2 million -- I'm sorry?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it doesn't?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
MR. McALPIN: Ma'am, the $1.8 million is for renourishment,
$1.2 million is to repair the five existing T- groins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 1.8 million is renourishment?
MR. McALPIN: It's for the renourishment. And $1.2 million is
for the repair of the five existing groins. The total price would be $3
million. We have a FEMA grant on the renourishment portion of the
project and we estimate that to be $1 million at this point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I want to go to issue. So
actually, the total project then is a $3 million project. So the answer to
the question is, it's a $3 million project with the breakdown between
the groins and the sand.
I went back and I revisited where the erosion was, which was at
the south end. And basically between two markers you had about
20,000 cubic yards surrounding one marker and about 30,000 cubic
yards surrounding the other, giving a total of about 50,000 cubic
yards. That does not affect where the primary public beach is. And
Page 95
May 22 -23, 2012
can you put this on the overhead?
I'm not taking away my support, I'm just explaining a few things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we were led to believe that it was
ready to be approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But it's important. Because
what I found was very interesting. Where the public access is and
where the primary public beach is, what you'll see, where the yellow
square is, is where the public parking is. And then you walk over to
the beach. And what you'll see is you've got 100 feet of dune and 200
feet of beach. To put it in perspective, the beaches to the north once
renourished are at 100 feet. So we basically have double the width of
the beach where you have the public beaches down in Marco, which is
why the photographs that Mick Moore put on display are accurate.
At the very south end where the seawall is, there has been
erosion. And again, that's what I was talking about around those two
markers. What I found was really interesting, and it goes to the issue
of the funding, that that erosion is primarily attributable to Tropical
Storm Fay. So all the funding that we get for Tropical Storm Fay that
relates to erosion to that beach should go to that beach.
Now, I'm not sure how you came up with only $1 million. Can
you explain that? Because that's my concern, I want to make sure --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need a break for 10 minutes, don't
you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make sure --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What we thought was going to be a
quick approval of Marco Island and then a focus on the rest of the
beaches is certainly not true. It seems we're going to be here a long,
long time. So we're breaking for lunch now and we'll be back at 1:14.
Thank you very much.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in
session. We will continue where we left off.
Page 96
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. OCHS : Continuing with Item I LA, sir, consideration of the
conceptual plan for the South Marco Beach improvement and the
conceptual plan approval for the Naples -- greater Naples Collier
beach renourishment project to begin in fiscal year '13 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller was talking
about concerns about the Marco beach renourishment project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Can I continue where I left
off?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
My concern is not specifically about the renourishment but really
about how much we should renourish and the funding source. And the
reason I bring that up is because we have limited funds, and I'm very
concerned about the problems that we're facing at Hideaway Beach. If
we use up all our funds to over - renourish beyond what we need to do
to restore it to where it ought to be today, then we're not left with any
monies to work on the groins to protect Hideaway Beach.
And I think I have a solution to how we can actually build up the
reserves for what I'm hearing will be an emergency project related to
Hideaway, and at the same time renourish the Marco beach to where it
ought to be, which is at the 2006 standard.
So my proposal is to basically take your recommendation that we
renourish the Marco beach for what was lost, which is 50,000 cubic
yards. That -- and what I also discovered was that predominantly that
loss was attributable to Tropical Storm Fay. Fortunately those groins
are working well. They do need to be repaired, that's very important
without a doubt. So I completely support that. But the actual erosion
on the beach isn't due to natural erosion because of wave action and
that the groins aren't working. In fact, they are protecting. It was that
isolated storm that caused the damage. And that beach should have
already been restored by now. It should have been restored a long
time ago. Tropical Storm Fay was in 2008.
Page 97
May 22 -23, 2012
So essentially what we need to do is 100 percent of that money
from the feds for Tropical Storm Fay, that should go to restoring the
South Marco Beach to where it was in 2006 is exactly what should be
done. That would bring us back to where it was. We need to get the
maximum FEMA dollar, the FEMA dollars should not be diverted to
any other project, because the loss of that beach is primarily
attributable to Fay.
And the balance of the money, the balance of the TDC dollars,
which will amount to hundreds of thousands that will be saved as a
result needs to be earmarked in a reserve for the Hideaway groins in
order to do what's necessary to continue to protect what sounds to me
from what I'm hearing is, you know, potentially catastrophic erosion.
So we need to maximize the return on the dollar and this would
accomplish it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly do need some input from
the experts, the people who actually are the engineers for this. I do
know that the groins have been a great problem there, and without
them being built back up, we're going to continue to have a major
erosion. So they must be done, period.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as far as the beach sand
renourishment, you're talking about putting less on there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're talking about renourishing it
for exactly what was lost. So what was lost was 50,000 cubic yards,
30,000 around one marker, 20,000 around the other. And again, the
loss was attributable to the storm, not due to the fact that the groins are
not working. We must repair the groins. In fact, there's no question
that the groins are working great, because since the storm the amount
of erosion has been minimal.
And like I said, take the balance of the TDC money that we're
saving as a consequence of renourishing back to the 2006 standard and
earmark that money. Because quite frankly, otherwise that money's
M •l
May 22 -23, 2012
gone. And then we're not going to have the money. We must protect
Hideaway Beach.
I'm hearing concerns. I've spoken to people in the community
and I am left -- in fact, the point that Marcia made that essentially
overdeveloping this project beyond what's clearly evidenced as needed
will end up stripping the TDC fund and leaving us exposed where we
have emergency renourishments that need to be done or emergency,
you know, structure repairs that need to be done. We're going to be in
a very sorry state.
My concern is that we have not earmarked funds for Marco out
of TDC dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, now let me ask you this: Say
for instance this would work, and I don't know, because I haven't
heard from our experts yet. But say for instance that would work and
we put aside, I don't know, $800,000 for Marco -- for Hideaway
Beach, right, because they are desperate --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the groins, for the structures
there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they need it terribly. I was over
there, it's amazing what was happening there. And say for instance
the TDC says no, we don't want to spend it that way at all, we're not
going to spend it there and we've got it stationed there, we've got it for
that thing, and they say no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a Board decision. You
know, how we ultimately decide the expenditure of the funds is a
Board decision. The TDC does review it, the TDC would have the
opportunity to review this project and make the determination that the
expenditures of those funds, you know, does fall within the parameters
of the statute. But we can sit here today and say, you know, this is
what we want, this is how we want to earmark these funds. We do not
want to over - renourish and leave Hideaway with no money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. You're absolutely right. At
Page 99
May 22 -23, 2012
the same time we have to make sure that we're going to be
renourishing it enough, because that is a public beach, and there's only
two public beaches, the only one isn't real good, on Marco.
And so I want you to tell me if that would work, if this plan
would work that Commissioner Hiller has just suggested.
MR. McALPIN: If I understood what Commissioner Hiller just
said is that we would take and we would only renourish 50,000 cubic
yards of material on South Marco Beach, 50,000 cubic yards of sand
on South Marco Beach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is the actual loss.
MR. McALPIN: Couple of points with that. 50,000 cubic yards
of sand would only provide -- would bring it back to the 2007 level
and would not provide any advance renourishment. So it would
provide five years worth of design before you get back to where you
are right now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true --
MR. McALPIN: -- that's the first point. If I could make a couple
points.
The second point would be that 50,000 cubic yards of material
would not add any material between the two groins, and that's the area
where that was very highly eroded.
So between the groin -- if I could put this up, Leo. This is the
south end of Marco Beach. This area -- this blue line, if you could see
it right in through here, is where we renourished to in 2007. This dark
line is where we're at right now. So if we -- and this is the area that
we're talking about between 147 and down to G2 and going down to
G4.
So what we're talking about, if you renourish this area right in
through here, then you would not get any renourishment between
these two points, and that's where the area is that was critically eroded
in the past. You would it bring it back to there. It would be for a
five -year renourishment cycle as opposed to a 10 -year renourishment
Page 100
May 22 -23, 2012
cycle.
And the other thing that would happen is that you have a FEMA
authorization for 77,000 cubic yards of material on the beach right
now. So you wouldn't be utilizing that entire FEMA renourishment.
We'll do whatever the Board of County Commissioners directs,
but I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to speak on this item. If
you look at your monitor, okay, you see on the south end those -- in
the water, those three structures. That was all one, okay? That was
one. That needs to be restored.
The second thing is whatever we do down here, if you want to do
something different, whatever we do in the Naples and North Naples
area, whether it be a 2006 renourishment standard or a 10 -year
standard, that's what our ultimate goal, if we can get the funds, is do a
10 -year beach. We should do the same thing -- if we're going to do a
10 -year beach, we should do the same thing down here. However, we
don't have the funds to do the 10 -year. We do the six -year in the City
of Naples and North Naples, we should do the same down here. You
would have some funds.
But what Gary has explained to me, your cost is not in the sand,
your cost is in the mobilization, okay. So you're not going to get that
much savings --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we can do is direct county
staff to do the same kind of renourishment down here as we do in the
north end, whether it be a 10 -year or whether it be a six -year, tell us
what the cost savings is. But Gary needs to move forward with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from Burt and maybe
from the Councilman Waldack.
MR. SAUNDERS : Commissioner, I'm not exactly sure what the
question is, but I will say that in terms of the beach renourishment
Page 101
May 22 -23, 2012
project, first of all, obviously this is a very important project for
Marco Island. And timing would dictate that the Commission needs to
make a decision today on that particular project because of the FEMA
funding that is available.
I think what Commissioner Hiller is suggesting is that staff use
every effort to maximize the FEMA funding and not put any more
sand on the beach than is needed. Right now they've got a 10 -year
design. And I think what we could ask the Commission to do, because
time is of the essence, there's a motion and a second to approve the
project as is. We would make a commitment to work with staff to see
if we can reduce the project to a size that would be more compatible
with some of the concerns raised by Commissioner Hiller and see if
there's a way to maximize FEMA funding. And if we're able to
reduce that project and save some money, then we can ask the Board
to set that aside for the structures that would need to be reconstructed
at Hideaway Beach.
But I think in terms of today's meeting, I think we do need to
move forward and then we can make that commitment to see if we can
reduce the project, increase FEMA funding and also perhaps set aside
some money for the structures on Hideaway Beach.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have a second that says that. A
second that has no qualifications, we approve the project as it is now,
and the guidance that Mr. Saunders has suggested is guidance that the
staff uses on every project they pursue. You know, they don't just go
out and throw money away, they try to do it in the most effective way
they can. So you've got a second to do that. If you want to call the
question, then we can vote on it and get moving.
MR. SAUNDERS : And then we will make that commitment to
work with Commissioner Hiller to do what I've said --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the motion.
Page 102
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You could work with me too,
please, that's my district --
MR. SAUNDERS : With the entire Commission and the staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion made by
Commissioner Fiala to approve the current project, seconded by me,
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: Okay, the motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's with the commitment that
you will try and take some money that you can to then focus on the
structures at Hideaway Beach.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, the second part of that was to ratify
the selection of the selection committee to move forward to ratify
Coastal Engineering Consultants as the design consultants so that we
can move forward with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The design consultants for which project
MR. McALPIN: For Marco South --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only for Marco South --
MR. McALPIN: Only for Marco South is all we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to comment before we
move to that next item, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am very concerned about the
misrepresentation you made, Mr. McAlpin. Because to say that the
Page 103
May 22 -23, 2012
projection based on the current erosion would result in the need for the
sand that you have quantified is not a true statement when you know
the majority of the erosion in Marco is attributable to Tropical Storm
Fay, and that you know since Tropical Storm Fay the amount of
erosion has been de minimis. And therefore, to extrapolate in effect
the loss due to the storm is completely incorrect, which goes to the
amount of renourishment that's needed. You are simply wasting
money.
Now, Commissioner Henning, the statement that Mr. McAlpin
made to you with respect to the mobilization cost, out of this entire
$33 million project, okay, and I'm talking about the general
mobilization, you're talking about $3.7 million, which is the same
regardless of the option used.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is both of the projects are
you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Well, no --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it just Marco Island?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I'm just looking at the -- no, I'm
looking at the general. I don't know what the mobilization cost for
Marco is. I don't have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what we're talking about
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But I'm showing you as an
example. Because you're talking about general mobilization and what
the impact on the project is. What is the cost of the mobilization for
Marco?
MR. McALPIN: To mobilize a dredge on Marco would be in the
range of 250 to 400,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go on to the Naples project
now. No, you want to approve the committee selection.
MR. OCHS: Why don't we finish up with A, then we'll go to B,
Page 104
May 22 -23, 2012
that's the engineering for both of those projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought. I don't know why
we're separating that part.
Okay, let's go to the Naples project.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we'll answer any questions. We
made our proposal -- our presentation. We'll answer any questions
you have on Naples.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
What the misunderstanding is, Gary, and help me, is the way
they're going to proceed with the renourishment. They're starting to
the south because that historically is an area with less sea turtle
nesting; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, if we started from the
north and worked our way south, would that change -- what changes
would that do to the schedule?
MR. McALPIN: Well, you would start on the north, but what we
would have to do with that, there's traditionally more nests on the
north end, so that we would have to relocate more nests. And that's
where we've had discussions with The Conservancy. They're against
relocating those nests on the -- starting on the north end and relocating
those nests because of the negative impact at turtle nesting season.
So we have their support right now moving forward with the
major project that would be -- that would start on 9/15. If we changed
the sequencing and the timing relative to that, we would have to go
back and work the support of The Conservancy moving forward,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, and I'm sure we'll hear
from Nicole later on that.
Now, the second thing, I have a real concern. I went down to
Page 105
May 22 -23, 2012
Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Beach Club. There's very little beach
there. And in fact part of the back -up that the Board was given on the
front cover for Vanderbilt Beach, and Leo and I talked about this, you
can see a lot of people condensed on a small beach because that's
where they go, and the beach width is not as much.
So Gary and I were talking, and to address the concerns up in
Vanderbilt and address the concerns at Naples Beach Club, which is
both of them are the hot spots, one of the two -- two of several hot
spots, is that we can give direction to Gary if needed, or change the
permit in case there has to be an emergency renourishment. Okay?
Gary, am I on target with that? I should say Mr. McAlpin.
MR. McALPIN: If directed by the Board, that is correct, we
could add that to the permit, to the permit modification that we're
getting the ability to do an emergency truck haul project as an option,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And because we're
talking about a beach renourishment that's going to happen in
September of 13, okay, so we have a whole season we don't know
what's going to happen to the beach during the wintertime of next
year. And these hotels depend on that beach to sell their product. It's
very important. And our residents and our visitors depend on
Vanderbilt Beach because of the capacity of the parking over there.
So that's one thing that I would like to do is modify that direction to
proceed.
But I do have a question for Mayor Sorey.
MR. SOREY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My staff found a
correspondence that you directed Coastal Planning to give to three of
the Commissioners. And it was about the beach renourishment. And
also the greenway. Is there any particular reason that you wanted to
direct it to three Commissioners instead of the whole board?
MR. SOREY: Absolutely. I think that that document is a public
MIME
May 22 -23, 2012
record. In discussion with those three Commissioners the question
came up, so I sent them a document so that they would have the
document that we were referencing in our discussion, so that's why it
was sent to the three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was before the discussion
on the beach renourishment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does it say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's talking about --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you say who it was sent to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was sent to Commissioner
Fiala, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is it about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's about the beach
renourishment down on Marco, the City of Naples, North Naples, the
whole plan, and the -- and the greenway entrance to the zoo parking
lot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what does it say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to read the whole
thing, it's two pages and I want to move forward. I will provide this to
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want it now.
MR. SOREY: The fact that it's sent to one commissioner is a
public record, and any other commissioner is welcome to it.
This is a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just looking for the
majority.
MR. SOREY: This was a draft of a magazine article and it
articulates the thoughts I had about the two issues. And I've talked
with the three commissioners about that. So it was a document to
document what we talked about in a verbal discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to continue
working with you, Mayor. The City of Naples opinion is very
Page 107
May 22 -23, 2012
important to me.
MR. SOREY: Thank you, I'd be glad to work with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is going quite a long
direction. If I remember correctly, John, was it the fact that the three
commissioners that received it were the ones you got to meet with?
MR. SOREY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the discussions we had
probably left a hole in our understanding, so this helped to fill it in.
Why didn't you meet with Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller?
MR. SOREY: Well, historically the meetings with
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller have not been
particularly productive so I thought it was more -- better utilization of
my time to meet with the three commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? You've never met with
me. You've never made an appointment to meet with me in my office.
MR. SOREY: That is correct. Based on past observations at
commission meetings and TDC meetings, I didn't think it would be a
good utilization of my time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you're within your rights to
be able to communicate to any one or all commissioners if you like.
MR. SOREY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'd like to comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask staff a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. McAlpin, could you come
back to the podium.
You indicated that there's a permit in place that's going to expire
MEMO,,
May 22 -23, 2012
when, in 2015?
MR. McALPIN: It will expire in January of 2015, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does that permit that's
currently in place allow for?
MR. McALPIN: It allows for to renourish the beaches as we did
in 2005, 2006, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to bring it back to the standard
that was established back then.
MR. OCHS : Correct.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct. It would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we wouldn't need to hire any
engineers, because we actually have a permit that's in place that allows
for renourishment to occur immediately.
MR. McALPIN: We would have to get a permit modification,
because there's a couple of things that have changed since that permit
was put in place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What has changed?
MR. McALPIN: The -- first of all is that the -- we have hot spots
right now, and if we wanted to go in and deal with those hot spots, we
would need to get a minor permit modification for those in several
locations.
The second thing is they've changed their standards relative to
biological monitoring. And what we would have to do is look and get
the permit modified for their new standards for biological monitoring.
And that's a major concern for us because the biological monitoring is
very expensive and we need to work through that biological
monitoring component right there.
We would also need to modify the permit to go for a second
renourishment under this exact same permit, and with that they would
still need to see, like I said earlier, design plans and specifications, the
profiles of the beach, what we were trying to accomplish. And it
would not be the same as what we did in 2005/2006 because the
Page 109
May 22 -23, 2012
beaches aren't the same as what we did in 2005/2006. So there would
be some -- there would be engineering work associated with a permit
modification moving forward to implement the 2005/2006 design.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it would be very limited.
MR. McALPIN: It would be reduced but we would still have it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it would be limited, very
limited.
MR. McALPIN: It would be reduced. I don't know to say
limited. It would be a reduced permit modification, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so basically it wouldn't delay
the start of the renourishment that from my understanding already
should be taking place.
MR. McALPIN: It would. Getting the permit modification, a
small permit modification, would take a minimum of six months,
okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in six months we would be able
to begin renourishing.
MR. McALPIN: In six months we would be able to then go out
and bid the project, select the contractor associated with that, and then
we would potentially start to be able to do the renourishment.
However, we hit a window so that we're in with turtle nesting season
and we would not be able to -- if we were not -- if we were during
turtle nesting season we would not be able to renourish.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the good news is, is six
months from now puts us beyond turtle nesting so we would be
outside of the turtle nesting period, which is actually super.
The other thing that I think is very positive about discovering that
we actually have a full permit in place to go forward with the
renourishment to bring the beaches back to the 2006 standard is that
that 2006 design was very successful. Because when I look at what
the overall erosion is, and I did actually go back and look at how much
sand we would need to bring the eroded beaches back to where they
Page 110
May 22 -23, 2012
ought to be, I discovered that it was one -half, okay. Not talking just
about overall net loss, but specifically restoring to where there is
erosion, including factoring in the emergency renourishments, the
three that you did in the interim. It's half of what's being proposed by
Coastal Planning and Engineering. So let me just continue.
This is very, very significant, because funding is a critical issue,
okay. We have enough money in the bank. In fact, if we go for
renourishing in the near future, we've actually already extended the
life of what the existing design was intended to serve, which was six
years, we're actually moving into seven years. Actually, we will be
moving towards eight years during the course of the renourishment.
We will be able to do it, so we have now not 10 but eight.
Reducing -- and by the way when I say one -half, that is
extrapolating to eight years, based on what the current actual
renourishment needs are based on actual losses, not just net volume.
We will still be able to do it with all the money we have in the bank
today with money left over for reserves for those emergency
renourishments.
I actually really like the fact that the concept plan by CP &E
considers the inlet management projects. I think that's great. Because
they do need to be considered. But considered separately. And once
those plans are implemented, like Wiggins and like Doctors Pass, go
back and renourish based on what the loss is and based on what you
dredge out of those passes. And the same with Clam Pass.
In fact, to give you an example, Clam Pass, where you have just
pulled a permit, is going to draw 22,000 cubic yards of sand as a
consequence of that dredge out of that pass. And the actual loss is
30,000 cubic yards.
So go forward with that separately, permit the 2006 plan to
reestablish it to the 2006 standard, accounting for the loss through
now, because quite frankly you cannot renourish without
reestablishing what the actual loss is as of now. Your numbers, your
Page 111
May 22 -23, 2012
CP &E numbers are based on what happened in 2010. So it is a
win/win for all. So that is what I would like to propose.
And I'm going to make a motion that we approve the
renourishment based on the actual loss to restore to the 2006 design
standard, that we separate the inlet management plans to be separately
dealt with and accounted for based on the sand drawn from those
inlets, as well as the reduction in erosion that will be a direct result of
the inlet management plan programs, and thereby leave reserves in the
tourist development account for emergency renourishments. And we
will be able to do that, like I said, by my projection, and that's
extrapolating two years beyond the 2006 design.
So actually looking at in effect an eight -year design based on
what we have seen as the actual erosion, you need about 250,000
cubic yards of sand. And that even is high because it's not accounting
for the diminished erosion as a result of the plans that are being
proposed.
So just -- that's really where we ought to be, not 500,000 cubic
yards of sand. And we will get to where we need to be today. And
I'm delighted that you brought forward the fact that we have a permit
in place, because it's going to save us a boatload of money and get us
where we want to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do you have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there's seven speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Dan Waite, and he'll be
followed by Frank Cavella.
MR. WAITE: Hello. For the record, my name is Dan Waite and
I'm the Area Director of Human Resources for Waldorf Astoria Hotels
and Resorts.
And I came here basically to say that there's 30,000 employees in
the hospitality industry that are really dependent upon our beaches.
And I represent about 600 of those between our two hotels. And as
Page 112
May 22 -23, 2012
beautiful as our facilities are, people don't come for the facilities, they
come for the beaches. And so the beach revitalization project is huge
for us.
Clam Pass was once one of the top beaches in the United States.
It's now, if you go there, there's like 30 feet of beach in some areas.
And, you know, for our employees and the tourists that come here, it's
vital that the Commission come to some decision on what we're going
to do, and also the next issue of having a long -term strategy and not
just a short-term fix. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Cavella will be followed by Mick Moore.
MR. CAVELLA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you
for the time here. My name is Frank Cavella, for the record. I'm here
as a citizen but also I must disclose that I'm the director of sales and
marketing of the Waldorf Astoria Naples and also the Edgewater
Beach Hotel, formerly the director of sales and marketing and regional
vice president of the Ritz - Carlton Resorts of Florida and the
Caribbean. And the tourism industry has been with me for 30 years.
I'm also a father and a homeowner here.
I'd like to talk first about my son. When I raised him and I
brought him down to Clam Pass beach, the first thing he said is
Daddy, where's the beach gone? And I said, well, it's down at the
Marriott Marco, they're actually doing better than we are down there.
Kidding aside, he said, just make sure there's enough sand left for
the turtles to lay their eggs.
One important thing is I think I'd rather be anywhere here than --
I'd rather be at the beach than here right now. I'm sure there's a lot of
you that too would like to be there, because we've spent a lot of time
on this. So just from an economic input, you know the business of
tourism is very paramount to what we do.
I look at it even deeper than that. The schoolteachers are here
because of the beaches. I came down because of the beaches. I
bought my house because of the beaches. And I don't think anybody
Page 113
May 22 -23, 2012
here is questioning whether we should invest in them further. You can
debate back and forth the timing. I would just suggest that we focus
immediately on as much beach as we can, because if you do look at
the Marco Beach, it's a benefit to any customer or guest when they see
the breadth and depth of that.
I'd just like the same thing. I'm sure the Ritz - Carlton, LaPlaya
and my friends at the Naples Beach Hotel would like a similar wide
beach. So I would encourage you to invest as much money back into
our most important resource, because that impacts the circle of life. It
brings back more turtles, it brings back the estuaries, it brings back the
guests who spend money in our businesses, who buy more land, who
retire here and who take advantage of the opportunities we have to
live in this great Collier County. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Moore will be followed by Nicole
Johnson.
MR. MOORE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Mick Moore and my family owns the Vanderbilt Beach Resort on
Vanderbilt Beach.
Mike Watkins from the Naples Beach Hotel has been so generous
again to donate his three minutes of time to me, hopefully giving me a
total of six minutes.
Last week I showed the Commission various pictures of erosion
up and down the beaches of Naples. This is one of the pictures I
shared of Vanderbilt Beach during a storm. And this is Vanderbilt
Beach on a good day.
Commissioner Fiala, the pictures I took in Marco were taken
directly standing on the public access points, including one by the
Seafarer and one by South Marco.
I'm going to introduce all these pictures in the record. I wasn't
making any attempt to somehow distort the true picture but rather to
give everyone a true picture. And Commissioner Fiala, I doubt you've
Page 114
May 22 -23, 2012
been up to visit my beach on Vanderbilt.
The beaches are the number one reason people come to Collier
County, that they're one of our most valuable assets as a community.
And this Commission is supposed to act as a good steward of those
assets. Vanderbilt Beach in particular is one of the most popular
beaches in the county, and I would say it's the primary beach used by
county residents outside the City of Naples. It's also heavily used by
tourists, with three major hotels.
It was renourished in 2006 and it was supposed to be renourished
again right now in 2012, but the county is late in renourishing. And
according to the current proposal, it will be another year and eight
months until Vanderbilt Beach is renourished.
I simply do not understand why this commission has not been
better stewards of this critical asset of our community. You knew that
the beaches would need to be renourished in 2012. You should have
applied for a permit or had these discussions or filed these applications
or considered these plans a year ago. Yet here we are now in the
middle of a crisis. You have everybody telling you that their beach is
disappearing and the pictures do back it up.
So as a result of poor planning and leadership or for whatever
other reason, we're now being told we need to hurry up and approve a
conceptual plan that drastically departs from the prior plan and almost
doubles in cost so that we can get a permit to start next September.
Well, unfortunately I think the plan is a little heavy on science and
light on common sense.
The plan says that the renourishment will occur from south to
north, and this is where Mike Watkins and I disagree. I understand the
reason that was said about the turtles. It doesn't change the fact that
some of the most critically eroded beaches are in Vanderbilt Beach in
the north. I very much appreciate Commissioner Henning's
suggestion that this Commission consider emergency beach
renourishments, especially since I learned after the last meeting that
Page 115
May 22 -23, 2012
three such emergency renourishments occurred in the beaches of Park
Shore and the City of Naples over the last two years, presumably,
Commissioner Henning, without any special permit modification. So
I don't know why any would be necessary to do an emergency beach
renourishment right now on Vanderbilt Beach or in front of the Naples
Beach Hotel. I simply don't understand that.
The plan says that we'll do a 10 -year renourishment when
previously we did a six -year renourishment with very good results. I
would not be standing here right now if you were renourishing the
beach this fall as had been planned. The cost is going to be
approximately double the cost of the original renourishment. And it's
money that we don't have. The executive summary that I read today
says we have approximately 16 million or will next year. To
renourish to the 2006 standard would cost about 19 million, but to
renourish to this 10 -year standard is going to cost in the 30 millions.
We don't have the money. It makes me wonder what's going on.
Is the county going to use the artificial shortfall in beach
renourishment funds to justify raising the tourist tax by one percent
from four percent to five percent? The effect of that, as my hoteliers
will tell you, would be a detrimental effect on tourism, especially for
the larger hotels, the conventions hotels, which does not include mine.
Simply put, we don't need a 10 -year renourishment plan that adds
extra sand, costs twice as much. We need better stewardship, better
leadship by this Commissioner and by the county staff so that the
county can follow its own plan. If the county had followed its own
plan, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Commissioners, I urge you to consider renourishing to the
2005/2006 standard, with modifications made to deal with the hot spot
areas. Everybody agrees, including myself, we need to do something
and we need to do it right away. But do we need to do a twice as
much sand plan, twice as much expense plan adding in all of these
inlets? That is not something that in my opinion we should be
Page 116
May 22 -23, 2012
pursuing at this time.
Now, if we go forward with the renourishment in a similar
fashion that we went to last time, we'll have the time then, it won't be
an emergency anymore, we'll have the time to consider having a much
longer renourishment next time. But unfortunately because this wasn't
addressed till now, we've got a lot of areas that are crisis areas. We've
put ourselves in this position.
We also need to talk about funding, but I know the TDC is
coming up on the agenda later on in this Commission meeting.
So thank you very much. I urge you to act but I urge you to go
with a more modest plan that will allow some extra money to take care
of emergencies if need be. And I urge you to look seriously at the
Naples Beach Hotel and Vanderbilt for an emergency renourishment
before the next season. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Nicole Johnson will be followed by Dick
Lydon.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy.
And certainly you have a myriad of considerations that you need
to work through today as you're readdressing this issue. How much
sand, what locations need sand, at what cost and what funds are
available.
The Conservancy focused specifically on the issue of sea turtle
nesting when we looked at this very complicated issue. And I do need
to again correct for the record, The Conservancy does not support
having the renourishment be partially in turtle season. We've taken a
position of non - opposition through a compromise that we've made
with staff. And this isn't just semantics, there's an important
difference between the two. Because the best thing for sea turtles is to
stay out of sea turtle nesting season. It's been done in the past, that's
what you have been doing, except for those occasional emergency
renourishments.
Page 117
May 22 -23, 2012
But there's a new federal and biological opinion that does now
allow certain areas, Collier County included, to do renourishment
during turtle season, and it was because of that that we worked with
staff to say if Collier County proceeds forward and does this during
turtle season, you at least need to protect those key nesting months,
June, July, August and the first part of September. That was the focus
on my comments to you in April. And because I didn't have too much
time I focused on that.
But I think that there was another component of that that really
needs to be brought out, and that is the location of dredging, where it
starts and how it moves. Because our position of non - opposition
really hinged on both the timing and where that renourishment started,
starting specifically from Naples to the south and moving north. And
it's important because nests will have to be relocated wherever this
project starts.
And we took a look at the county's data and we saw that the
Naples beach has the lowest density of turtle nests between the Naples
Park Shore and Vanderbilt Beach, the lowest density of turtle nests
and the lowest density of nests that were laid after about July 7th.
We're talking the difference between 15 in Naples, 21 in Park Shore
and 27 in Vanderbilt. And that is a significant difference when you
consider that once these nests are relocated, they do have a lower
success rate of hatching. And when only one in 1,000 sea turtles lives
to adulthood, it's something that is very important.
So we really wanted to focus on making sure that if this was
done, it happened in that proper sequencing, south to north. If the
county wants to focus on hot spots and erosional areas where you
really need to have sand, you can always do the whole project outside
of turtle season and then you don't get into these complicating issues
of turtles. But if you do want the project to begin and end and
potentially infringe on the turtle nesting season, The Conservancy's
non - opposition hinges on both staying out of those critical months and
Page 118
May 22 -23, 2012
doing it in that sequencing pattern.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before she leaves, can I ask her a
question? Just a simple one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. No, I'm waiting till the
end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nicole, I was just wondering, with
turtle nesting, would you have as many turtle nests in front of a busy
hotel, for example, especially when it doesn't have much beach left
versus other areas? I would think with all the people there you
wouldn't, and maybe we could start on the hot spots.
MS. JOHNSON: I would defer to -- I don't know if Maura Kraus
is here, so I'm not sure. The county does a very good job of making
sure that even in front of busy hotels that lights are out and that all of
the furniture is brought in. So I'm not sure the difference in the
nesting activity at the beaches versus other areas.
MR. MOORE: They lay their eggs at night.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, you can't speak from there. You'll
have to come up and get on a microphone.
MS. JOHNSON: So the success rate between -- and as Mike had
said, they do lay their eggs at night, and there's not a lot of activity on
the beach, so the differences in that I defer to county staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question of Nicole
also?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nicole, what we heard just a few
minutes ago shows that we would be able to proceed within six
months, which would take us outside of nesting season, which is really
great.
Now, considering the scope would be very different, and quite
frankly, my projections, adding two years to that 2006 design still
Page 119
May 22 -23, 2012
brings us at one -half of the sand that is being proposed, quite frankly,
under the 2006 design. I believe that the timing could be
accomplished at a much faster rate than what is being proposed so
that, you know, as you go through the year you wouldn't even move
into the next nesting season.
If it is evident that that would be the case, which is what I'm
gathering from everything that I've heard here today on the record, it
would seem to me it wouldn't matter whether it's north to south or
south to north because the turtle season would not be affected.
So if I could ask you to restate your position as being for so long
as turtle nesting season is not impinged upon, your position is what it
is. Because south to north only matters to the extent that there's an
infringement on turtle nesting, which, quite frankly, I'm seeing could
be avoided.
MS. JOHNSON: Correct. If it's outside of turtle season, then we
don't have a turtle issue --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then it doesn't matter which
direction. Exactly. Then it doesn't matter if it's north to south or south
to north. And then what we really need to do is prioritize based on the
most critically eroded to the least critically eroded.
And by the way, the Naples Beach Hotel -- there you are, Mike.
I was conditioned to look at you out there, but -- which is one of the
very critically eroded as is the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, among others
-- among other northern beaches, so yeah.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that the last of our speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, Dick Lydon, and he'll --
MR. LYDON: I waive.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. And then the last speaker was going to
be Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You gave up your time, Mike.
MR. MOORE: I was just going to say that turtles lay their eggs
Page 120
May 22 -23, 2012
at night.
MR. LYDON: You can have mine, Michael.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just for the record --
MR. MITCHELL: You've already spoken --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because Mike didn't speak in --
MR. MOORE: I was just going to say they lay their eggs at
night, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we understand, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you hear that for the record
that the turtles do lay their eggs at night?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Bob Krasowski. I just wanted to
say, I appreciate you. Commissioner Henning brought this back
again. It gave me time to read through all the reports and to process
the information to a great extent.
I think this report prepared by Mr. McAlpin and the staff is just
excellent in terms of the information provided that identifies the
coastline and where hot spots are and where we might do one thing or
another.
I don't know so much about the suggestions they make or the
scheduling, but it was very helpful to get a picture of what is -- what
the situation is.
My main concern is with the environment, with the turtles and
stuff. And in reading this report, I see that if we move forward with
the number two, option number two, that is to build the beaches back
to 2006, that we don't need -- my understanding is we don't need
permits.
I spoke to the DEP yesterday, to the gentleman in charge of
beaches for this area, and it was an interesting conversation. I mean,
you've heard much of the stuff. But he told me that the existing permit
is good until January of '15.
And hot spots, I'll tell you, if you have a permit to renourish the
beach, I don't think it much matters if it goes in a little bit here or a
Page 121
May 22 -23, 2012
little bit there or it's out a little bit here, you can build up to the
template that your permit allows.
Now, I would suggest that we take that action to move on that,
and that allows you to start now. I mean, of course you'd have to
figure out how you want to do it. But it would allow us next
November after turtle nesting season to begin. So I'm really going
along with a lot of what has been suggested from the public and
otherwise in terms of using option number two.
And another thing I want to touch on, because I'm limited in
time, is no one has really looked very closely from an outside point of
view at the methodology of this beach renourishment. Like the
dredges go out to a sand source and they fill up with sand and then
drop -- they float 30 miles, 32 miles off the beach and then pump the
sand back in. I would suggest that we should look at using barges or
other floating devices to ferry -- alternately ferry the sand. It would
cut the operation time way down. This is something I'll have to talk
with Mr. McAlpin about, and I know there's some background
knowledge about this, but I think a strong analysis of that aspect of
this project needs to be made.
And I'll have further comments in the next section when we go to
11.13 which talks about hiring the scientists and analysts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that was our last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Cravens asked to speak again to this
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CRAVENS: Thank you.
First off, I just have to comment that advance nourishment and
the supposition that you can keep sand somewhere for 10 years is
almost foolish. There is nothing that keeps that sand in place. We
have been lucky that we have not had severe weather and hurricanes
in the last few years, because that can decimate your beach, no matter
how well you plan it. And you're going to have erosion on those
Page 122
May 22 -23, 2012
beaches regardless.
And another thing that has not been explained to the public or the
Board here is that the dredging activities of the inlets also significantly
impacts the movement of sand. And so when you have expanded
dredging of inlets, particularly this so- called advance dredging where
a borrow pit is created, which is supposed to be a sink to collect sand
with the idea that you're going to extend your interval, is exactly what
was proposed for Wiggins Pass many years ago and it failed. It failed
miserably. We found that the exact opposite happened. When you
excavated to a greater extent, it filled in faster. You had accelerated
erosion of the adjacent shorelines. We lost so much of Barefoot
Beach and it's going to be so expensive to repair that. Those are
things you need to consider.
The 2006 -- the other thing that I'm amazed, I didn't know we had
an active permit. You mean to tell me we have an active permit? We
could be renourishing beaches right now with an active permit and it
would only have to be tweaked to survey what the actual current
conditions of the shoreline are in order to restore it to the design
template? I'm amazed that we're not doing it. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's still some
misunderstandings, Gary. We can't renourish now because we're in
turtle nesting season, correct?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already had your time,
okay?
And so if the permit is activated, it's still in effect until January,
2013--
MR. McALPIN: '15.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: ' 15, okay. So it doesn't need to
be modified, we can do hot spots.
Page 123
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. McALPIN: It would have to be modified to do any
additional work. Any additional renourishments we'd have to get a
modification to the existing permit to do another renourishment. We'd
have to get a modification of the permit to deal with the other things I
talked about earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right, thank you. Appreciate
it.
The next thing is, the whole idea to do a 10 -year renourishment is
not so it will last 10 years, it's to widen the beach and hope that it
would last for 10 years or more. And to consider renourishing the
beach in two years doesn't help those hot spots. They need to be done
when needed.
And again, I'm very concerned about the Vanderbilt Beach area
and the Naples Beach Club. The whole idea to renourish the beach to
a 10 -year is if we get monies from the state, Gary; is that right --
MR. McALPIN: It's a good question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we could maximize the
intervals when we renourish.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, correct. We are trying to deal
with two additional funding sources right now. It's FDEP's cost share
and FEMA Tropical Storm Fay for the major beach renourishments.
If we are successful in one or two of those, we will get additional
funds in which will allow us to do more work, we'll have more money
to do more work associated with that. So yes, you're right on that end.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we don't get the money,
according to the discussion the first time this came, the Board is just
going to renourish the beaches for the monies that we have.
MR. McALPIN: That's why, Commissioner, we're asking for
you to approve an approach. And the approach would be that we look
at a 10 -year beach renourishment permit modification, which would
allow us the maximum. We could always scale back from that. You
asked us to look at that the last time we had this. We did. And we
Page 124
May 22 -23, 2012
forwarded that information to the Board. So we -- I know that
Commissioner Hiller has some concerns about the quantities. We
have time to go through that, explain it all, work through a scenario
that works for the Commission and that we could afford.
But what I'm asking for right now is not to decide on option two
or option three or four but approve an approach which will allow us to
move forward with the permit modification that has to happen. We
have to do a permit modification no matter what, okay, and then select
an engineering consultant so we could start to develop these things to
bring them forward. You'll have plenty of opportunity to review the
scope and the quantities and the design and the timing. And if you
have other issues, we could work those with the community on
technique and dredging approach. But we need to move forward with
that and that's what we're asking now, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And the only thing that I
would like to change, and I know Commissioner Hiller's going to be
different than where I'm going, is that we provide an opportunity to
put sand in in the meantime when we do our major renourishment, put
sand on the beach on those hot spots.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I respond to Commissioner
Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. There's something that
needs to be made a bit more clear here.
The reason -- one of the reasons that we're talking about a
10 -year permit is because every time this comes up we and the staff
have the same questions. Why must we go back and do the same
things to get permits every five years or six years? Renourishment of
beaches is something we know we'll be doing for the rest of our lives.
Why must we go in so frequently and apply for permits to get it done?
It's a waste of time and money. And we never know how long it's
going to take us to get the permits. They can be delayed for lots of
reasons at bureaucracies that are above ours.
Page 125
May 22 -23, 2012
So we try to get a permit for as long a period as possible, so when
we put in the sand and we have a problem, we can go back and correct
it. We can renourish without having to repetitively have all of these
complex engineering processes completed every time we go out to
have a renourishment project.
So there is some logic to doing this on a 10 -year basis, even
though we might only have enough money and sand to renourish it for
a five or six -year period of time.
So Commissioners Henning, is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I already made a motion. I made a
motion earlier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did not hear a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't call for a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, does anybody here know that you
have to have a second for a motion before you have to call the
question?
Okay, you made a motion. Was there a second to Commissioner
Hiller's motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to repeat the motion that
I made, and I'm going to clarify Commissioner Henning's very serious
misunderstanding and the adverse consequence to the beaches to the
citizens of Collier County and to the hotel industry as a consequence
of your --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get to the motion, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: --incorrect conclusion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion again is given that we
have an active permit that allows us to restore the beaches to the 2006
standard, and given that what is being proposed is far in excess of
what is needed to restore to that standard, even when projecting out to
when the renourishment would occur, which would be six months
from now as opposed to almost two years from now if we go in for a
Page 126
May 22 -23, 2012
plan amendment, that we number one survey the beaches currently to
determine what is needed to restore to that 2006 standard and that we
renourish for what the actual loss is under that 2006 design, and do it
as quickly as possible. Modify the permit to get going in six months
and renourish out of turtle nesting season.
We will save millions of dollars, and we will accomplish what is
intended. It in effect takes the cycle to what amounts to an eight -year
cycle as opposed to a 10 -year cycle or, if I may say, in case you care
about money at all, which happens to be an issue, for instead of $19
million, about $13 million for an eight -year life versus what's being
proposed is $31 million for a 10 -year life.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's the motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would second it. However, if
we did that, extend it out to an eight -year life --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a renourishment from 2006,
we wouldn't start renourishment until 2014, and these beaches need to
be done prior to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, what I'm saying -- you
misunderstood. They were renourished in 2006. By the time they start
the renourishment, which is six months from now, we're already in a
seven -- right today we're at seven years. By the time you start the
renourishment you're at seven and a half years. We're already beyond
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're at 2012 and my math
shows it at six years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the renourishment was done in
2006. 20075 20089 20099 20109 20115 2012. Okay, no, I've got 2012
as seven years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got six times six is 12. And if
you want to wait for two more years, that's 2014.
Page 127
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You obviously didn't hear what I
said. I said we need to apply immediately based on the actual loss,
which puts us at the start of renourishment in six months, based on the
representations made by staff. The actual monitoring will tell us how
much sand we need. At that -- that is what we are restoring to. We're
restoring to the 2006 template based on the actual loss as of the time
that we receive the permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second to this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. The motion dies for lack of a
second.
Does anybody have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're leaving no money in the
bank for any emergencies. I'm --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Let's go
back to square one. My understanding -- who's going to work with
me? There he is, Gary.
My understanding with this whole thing was is that we got a
10 -year window, we got the flexibility to be able to come in and do
what's right at the right time, to be able to react as far as to what the
needs are, to be able to react as to what the funds are that are there,
and this is an ongoing thing. We may need some three or four years
from now a whole different situation than we have at the moment.
Am I wrong about this particular direction?
MR. McALPIN: You asked us to come and give you --
maximize the time between beach renourishment cycles. That would
be a 10 -year beach renourishment. We have an existing permit that is
going to expire in 2015. We can modify that permit as we speak right
now to do a 10 -year renourishment. So this renourishment that we
would do would give us the most flexibility. We have plenty of
opportunity to modify that.
Page 128
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And I understand that.
Now, one issue that keeps coming up, and we seen it up on the
screen, was the issue of Vanderbilt Beach and the erosion that took
place there. Will this address that issue?
MR. McALPIN: We will address Vanderbilt Beach in either an
'06 renourishment or a six -year renourishment or a 10 -year
renourishment. The issue becomes this, is how much sand would we
put on Vanderbilt Beach. Under a 10 -year renourishment we would
try to take it to make it higher and wider so that we would put more
critical mass on the beach so it lasts longer. It would be less if we did
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what we're working
towards, if we got the money and everything.
I'll make the motion that we go with staff s recommendation on
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Does that
include modifying the permit and taking care of any hot spots, if
needed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. OCHS : Commissioner, we're going to have to -- if we do
that, obviously we're going to have to bring that back with cost
estimates and then tell you how that impacts the budget going
forward. But certainly we can do that as part of the motion that you're
working on right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to include that in the
motion, because we have to evaluate whatever we're going to do
anyways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're not going to be approved to
spend any money on anything.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely not. But I'm just saying --
Page 129
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This does not authorize you to spend a
penny.
MR. OCHS: No. No, it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You have to come back with a
detailed plan to tell us and the public what you're going to do and how
much it's going to cost and when you're going to start it and finish it.
This is a concept approval, that's all it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the concept -- can I ask you this?
If we -- they say that they're going to start in two years, actually, to
start putting the sand on the beach. But if you have an existing permit
already, could you speed that up at least for the hot spots, for the two
hotels who really pay into the tourist development tax dollars, and at
least get those things going before they lose the people that come to
their hotels?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if the Board would like us to
evaluate those hot spots right now, we can certainly do that. We'll
approach them just like we have the other hot spots, do the analysis,
bring you back the project scope and give you a recommendation on
the schedule and the cost and you can decide if and when you want to
do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would that happen within this
motion?
MR. OCHS: Well, that's I believe what Commissioner Henning
was trying to add to the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta said he
would modify his motion, if I remember correctly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did. What about the second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, second's okay with that.
Okay? All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 130
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 4 -1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
How are you doing on time, you doing okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just yell if we start going too
long, okay?
Item #1 1 B
SHORT LIST OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
FOR RFP NO. 11 -5772 "BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ENGINEERING SERVICES" - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: The next follow -on item is I LB, and that is the
engineering services contract awards to allow us to move forward with
the two elements of the concept plan that you just approved.
MR. McALPIN: And if I may, what we're asking specifically to
do was for the Board to ratify the recommendations of the selection
negotiation committee. We did a formal RFP for both of these
projects. They were evaluated by staff. I was not part of the
evaluation for that. The staff looked at it and ranked the proposals.
Eight firms responded to them. They ranked all the respondents with
the most qualified.
And their recommendation is that Coastal Planning and
Engineering be awarded the -- be approved to enter into discussions to
come up with a contract for the major beach project. And then the
Coastal Engineering consultants for the Marco South, the same item
Page 131
May 22 -23, 2012
for the Marco South project. And that's what we're asking for approval
with today, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve staff s
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the two public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Bob Krasowski and he'll
be followed by Marcia Cravens.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi. Bob Krasowski.
I wish I would have seen the RFPs. I didn't think of looking at
them for this.
But back to what I was saying earlier, there's just a standard
method that's being used here, although it offers some options. But if
we could just bring the sand from the borrowing location, which is 3 0
miles -- 33 miles away off of Sanibel. If we could get that here
quicker, right, then we could cut the time by that factor, by that much.
So I'd really like to see, and I think there's still room for this, that
when the staff negotiates with -- if you decide to go ahead with this,
otherwise just start over again and ask for some innovative ideas and
put in some incentives for people to be innovative, because we're
doing it the old way and there's no need for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, are you sure you know how we're
doing it?
MR. KRASOWSKI: I have a -- yes, I do. And I checked into
that. It's -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would suggest that you talk with the
staff to find out what they have in mind with respect to that. And I
think you'll tend to agree with them.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Look, I know that. I've read these reports,
I've spoken to Gary McAlpin, who's offered to get together with me,
Page 132
May 22 -23, 2012
and I appreciate it, I'm going to take him up on it. But also I've
spoken to people in the state and had it clarified. Because I was
amazed that they pump the sand, put it on the dredge and move the
whole thing off the beach and then dump it. That whole time, the time
period it takes for the dredge to get from one part to another and then
hook up again, it could be better facilitated with other vehicles, you
know.
Hey, Space X went up yesterday, and I don't mean to get
Gingrich on you, but the whole concept of checking out new
opportunities and doing things differently should be looked at in this
regard. And I've been here before and mentioned things like this and
it's worked. So I don't think it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Hi. So I guess I'm going to speak on the
money that we weren't going to spend, huh?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The money we just wasted.
MS. CRAVENS: My understanding, it's like over a million
dollars for the engineering for this process of moving forward, of
preparing and submitting engineering plans for a permit that would
allow up to the maximum design to be permitted.
And by the way, the cost of the permit and the cost to get that
permit approved is significantly greater for doing it this way. And so
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at the Coastal Advisory
Committee meeting Friday, Gary was recommending that they
approve another 400 and something thousand dollars on top of the six
hundred and something thousand dollars for the engineering for this.
And your last item, you were just told that this wasn't going to be
a cost right now moving forward, but yet it is. It's just beyond me.
When you've got an existing permit. It just really doesn't make any
sense that you're adding this cost.
Page 133
May 22 -23, 2012
And I would like to just add on one thing. I can clarify some
fallacies that were just asserted to this Board by your staff about that
plan and what it does and how it moves sand. And I would very much
like to talk with you about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marcia, if I may, could you put
that in writing and send that to all the Board members?
MS. CRAVENS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And anybody else that's interested,
you know, let Marcia know and she'd be happy to provide that.
MS. CRAVENS: You have some technical reports that your own
staff did. You had a grant that was provided to Environmental
Services. There were a series of technical reports that were done in --
starting in the Eighties, into the Nineties, and they very clearly
identified how the barrier beaches were affected and what the widths
of the beaches were and how they were affected by erosion and so
forth.
And all that seems to be getting discredited. We've got revisionist
history kind of stuff, and again, it just doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to proceed this way. It just seems like an awful waste of money.
One last thing. You know, this Board had a preference for local
firms. It was a really laudable thing that was done for contracting for
services. And yet at least two of the firms on that short list in the first
three, out of the first three of that short list of firms, I believe two of
them are not local firms. And I really don't understand how that keeps
happening.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
Commissioners, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 134
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
You had something --
MR. OCHS: Just very quickly, u point of clarification on that
last statement. The reason it's not happening is because for CCNA
contracts, they are specifically excluded from local vendor preference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because that's a state law.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir. I just wanted to get that on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we have been working all
day on two time certain items that started at 9:45 this morning, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got one more time
certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, where are we going?
MR. OCHS: Do you want to take 10 minutes for your court
reporter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to stop now? Okay, we'll
take 10 minutes, we'll be back at 2:47.
MR. OCHS: We'll come back for our 1:00 p.m. time certain
hearing, which is Item I LE.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to be going to
Item I LE, which is time certain for 1:00, so we're right on time.
Page 135
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #1 1 E
DIRECT THE COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS TO PLACE A STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM
ON THE AUGUST 14, 2012, BALLOT FOR THE PRIMARY
ELECTION CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS AND COLLIER
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN COLLIER COUNTY
UNDER A PUBLIC SAFETY AUTHORITY ADMINISTERED BY
THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - MOTION TO
APPROVE — FAILED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, right on schedule.
This is a recommendation to direct the Collier County Supervisor
of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum on the August 14, 2012
ballot for the primary election concerning consolidation of the Collier
County fire districts and Collier Emergency Medical Services in
Collier County under a public safety authority administered by the
Collier County Sheriffs Office.
Mr. Sheffield will present and introduce the item.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Commissioners, on the visualizer you will
see a draft ballot referendum question prepared jointly by the County
Manager's Office and the County Attorney's Office based on your
direction from the May 8th meeting.
As you recall, on May 8th, Janet Vasey brought forth the idea for
this draft ballot referendum. Tim Durham is here from the Supervisor
of Elections Office. And I've been told by Mr. Mitchell that you have
19 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Better call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker Pam Brown, and she'll be
followed by Chuck McMahon.
MR. OCHS: We'll use two speakers, Mr. Mitchell -- or two
Page 136
May 22 -23, 2012
podiums.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: So I've called two speakers. No, they're not
here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, they're here.
MR. OCHS : Mr. McMahon is here.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Brown, I'm the Chairman of the Fire Service Steering Committee
of Collier County. And we met last night, and I have a letter to read to
you.
Dear Commissioners: This evening the Collier County Fire
Service Steering Committee voted to oppose the suggested straw
ballot vote to consolidate the independent fire districts under the
Sheriffs Department. During the 2011 legislative session, the County
Commission supported legislation that would make it easier for the
independent fire districts to consolidate. That legislation passed, and
some of the districts are currently exploring the ramifications and
possibilities of consolidation.
Immokalee and Corkscrew Fire Districts have implemented
functional consolidation. The fire commissions of North Naples, East
Naples and Golden Gate a couple of months ago instructed their staffs
to review and update the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association June
2008 study of consolidation and make recommendations on the
feasibility of possible consolidation.
Now out of the blue comes another recommendation to conduct a
straw vote regarding the placement of the independent fire districts
and EMS under the Sheriff. There doesn't appear to be an analysis,
study or plan for such a move, yet the Commission's been requested to
conduct the vote.
Those who were in favor of the vote advocate there would be a
cost savings of 10 to 15 percent to the citizens of Collier County.
Where do those cost estimates come from? Have you seen any such
Page 137
May 22 -23, 2012
analysis? In some cases advocates have not even addressed or talked
to the fire commissions or the fire districts or their staffs; thus the
calculations are suspect at least.
In the past couple of years the fire districts have made drastic
cuts in their budgets and operations. They're no longer flush with
money, nor do they have excessive number of chiefs hanging out
waiting for someone to make a claim they could be let go at a cost
savings.
The independent fire districts are independent units of
governments, just as the county commission. We answer to the
citizens of our districts. Please let us do our jobs without having to
answering to those who think they are better fire service experts. If
they feel their expertise is superior, let them run for a commissioner
position in their respective districts.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the County Commission
refrain from putting on the ballot any straw vote until such time as
specifics are developed to inform the citizens as to what they are
actually voting for and how it will impact them.
MR. MITCHELL: Chuck McMahon will be followed by Eliseo
Chao.
MR. McMAHON: Commissioners, can you hear me? Okay. I'm
here today as Chuck McMahon, and I know it's hard to separate
Chuck McMahon as me and Chuck McMahon as a fire commissioner.
But today I'm speaking as a citizen and I'm speaking to my
Commissioners.
And, you know, over the years we've had differences and we've
talked about things. Couple years ago we had one person come to the
podium here under public comments and talk about a straw ballot.
That straw ballot eventually was voted on by the public. It stated
pretty clearly that the general public was all right with consolidation
of the independent fire districts if it was cost effective and more
efficiently run. Okay, we've looked into that over the years and we're
Page 138
May 22 -23, 2012
still looking at it trying to find out how to make that happen.
That was also brought under terms of independent district. It
wasn't talked about bringing it in under the county. Now we stand in
front of you and you're bringing it up again with a different circle
around the end to put it under the Sheriff. That's not independent,
that's under the county.
So why is it always that it seems that the County Commissioners
are trying to circumvent local government? I vote for my
commissioner because he has to deal with county issues. I vote for the
sheriff because he deals with law enforcement issues. And I vote for
fire commissioners because they are the fire district and deal with fire
and life safety. You have these groups and these committees that keep
coming at you as county commissioners, but yet they don't come to
the Golden Gate or the other fire districts, to the fire districts. I don't
understand why everybody wants to circumvent the system.
I ask you today to let the fire commissioners do their job and for
you to continue doing the job that you do. We've elected you for that.
In all honesty, when it comes to life safety, I have to give credit to
Commissioner Henning because he's the only one up there that
actually knows about fire districts because he's been a fire
commissioner. The rest of you, I don't know how you could make a
decision on life safety fire district business when you're not fire
commissioners or never have been.
Let the fire commissioners do their job. Our job is to keep our
community safe independently, and we're an independent district for a
reason. Maybe you better look back at the history at what the county
did and they lost the fire district area because it was lack of the county
support that caused independent districts to come about. And I see
today with all the ho -hum going on a got of cluelessness is still there.
So I support independent fire districts. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Eliseo Chao will be followed by Victor
Ortino.
Page 139
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. CHAO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Ramon Eliseo Chao, I'm with the Big Corkscrew, I'm one of the fire
commissioners out there.
It's going to go on for a while, so I'm -- basically what I'm here
trying to say is the reason why the districts came about was because
the county wasn't able to provide the service. And it's been I don't
know how many decades already, and we still to date find ourselves as
the firefighters out in the commission, in the district waiting 25
percent of the time sometimes for ALS engines -- for ALS to show up
in our district. So we're still falling short. And then to think that you
would take the fire districts, put them underneath the county again,
then where are we going to wind up?
The reason it's -- we're being asked to go underneath the same
reason why we were created, and we're 50, 60 years back and we're
still short. I understand the groups that are coming up to you, and
there was one group that did come to our board and spoke to us.
There's other groups who we haven't had spoken to them. And they're
going to be coming and they have a plan. And, you know, we've all
got plans that we set up. But the plan hasn't been looked at by you
guys, let alone by us, who are -- we're the ones with jurisdiction,
where you guys don't have jurisdiction over the fire departments.
And I don't mean it in a prideful or hurtful way. We were built to
fill a void that the county didn't fill and we're just asking to allow us to
do our jobs. We were elected by the people, as yourselves, to do our
jobs. And when you guys get one of these groups, they need to be
directed to the appropriate department.
And all our information is on the websites. Our chiefs, you guys
have all our chiefs' contact. That's a simple fact is giving it to the
people who -- your guys already, your hands are full, and you guys
spent how many hours just on the sand thing. Thank God we don't
have to deal with the sand and the turtles. As much as I love the beach
and the sand, but it's just, you know, that's what we were brought in
Page 140
May 22 -23, 2012
for. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Ortino will be followed by Murray
Hendel.
MR. ORTINO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Victor Ortino, and I'm a Republican candidate for Collier County
Sheriff. And as Sheriff, I do not endorse this consolidation, especially
under my control. And let me explain why.
First of all, the current Sheriff is not capable of handling the
merger of these three units. Collier County Sheriffs Office has a
budget of $131 million. And just to put this in perspective, Lee
County, who has double our population, has a budget of $140 million.
That's $9 million difference and they have twice our population.
We in Collier County have a command staff 33 percent larger
than Lee County. This right here is Collier County's command staff.
And this right here is Lee County's command staff. Less than 30 days
ago you had a proposed budget of $131 million submitted to you by
the current Sheriff. Today I believe on your agenda he's asking for
another $1.5 million blank check.
This plan is very similar to what they do in Broward County, and
called the Broward Plan, where the sheriff has total control. In 2007
the Sheriff in Broward County was arrested for corruption charges.
You cannot have that much power under one particular person.
Four years ago I came to you guys and I spoke to you in front of
you for the first time discussing the red light cameras, how I was
against them, how I stated to you that they were unconstitutional, they
would create major lawsuits and they did not reduce accidents. Well,
today, four years later, four years later we have hundreds of thousand
dollars in lawsuits, and our roads are no safer, the intersections are no
safer.
Please take this in consideration, okay? Please listen to me. I
don't think it's a good idea. I will not endorse it if I am elected as
Sheriff. And I pray that you guys make the right rational decision,
Page 141
May 22 -23, 2012
and for a situation that I think is very important to the Sheriffs office.
I don't see the Sheriff here right now. So thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Janet Vasey.
And he's asked to speak after Janet Vasey.
Janet has nine minutes. She's had time ceded to her.
MS. VASEY: Thank you. I have my IT guy with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who ceded time? So we keep track of it.
MR. MITCHELL: Dr. Jim Horner and Gina Downs. The other
two speakers, you're not going to be able to speak a second time.
MS. VASEY: Well, may I have them now then?
MR. MITCHELL: So that gives you another six, so that's 15
minutes.
MS. VASEY: I won't take that long.
MR. MITCHELL: Marvin Easton and Bob Naegele have all
ceded time to Ms. Vasey.
MS. VASEY: Let me get started while -- are we up? Okay.
Thank you.
I'm Janet Vasey, speaking for the Collier County Community
Alliance.
The 2010 straw ballot on fire consolidation was approved by 72
percent of voters. The voters wanted improved efficiency and more
cost effective use of tax dollars. We can actually get that, but it's
going to take some consolidated work.
Earlier this year voters spoke again. East Naples and Golden
Gate voters said no to fire district tax increases. Maybe they were
thinking we told you to consolidate and save money, not increase
taxes.
The Collier Community Alliance recognizes those voter
decisions because we're a citizens group and we look at this issue as
citizens. We want to make things work better and save tax dollars.
That's what I was talking about, that first thing.
And as you may remember when we started our review, we
Page 142
May 22 -23, 2012
considered several options. We considered functional fire
consolidation, partial and full consolidation with the five independent
fire districts, two dependent districts and EMS. We looked in most
detail at fire consolidation with EMS under an independent fire district
and with full consolidation with EMS under the Sheriff.
Okay. Under the independent fire districts we found that there
were a lot of problems with consolidation in this manner. And that's
with their own separate millage rate managed by fire commissioners.
When property values were high enough, residents in districts were
overtaxed and fire commissioners did not control costs. This
happened in North Naples Fire District and East Naples Fire District.
Property values were high, fire commissioners taxed at their millage
cap and pulled in more money than they needed. Rather than reduce
taxes to the citizens, they negotiated excessive salaries and benefit.
In FYI 1, the average paying benefits were so high that North
Naples and East Naples taxpayers paid millions more in taxes than
they should have, when you compare to the average pay and benefits
of other places like the City of Naples and Marco Island.
Historically, the fire districts have fought constantly with EMS,
trying to assume more of the pre- hospital medical program. Previous
fire consolidation studies conducted by the fire districts could not find
significant cost savings. This is not what the public is looking for.
Last year fire districts' sponsored consolidation plans made it to
the Florida legislature. Unfortunately, they would have increased
taxes, not decreased them. This type of consolidation is not in the best
interest of citizens or taxpayers.
And you heard Commissioner Brown say that the fire districts are
looking at fire consolidation again. Well, they didn't do that until the
night before we came to you at the workshop with our plan. They
weren't going to do anything this year, they were instead going to try
to fragment EMS service. So I just want to get the record straight.
Okay, under the Sheriff. We spent a lot of time evaluating full
Page 143
May 22 -23, 2012
fire consolidation with EMS under the Sheriff. And we like this
concept because of the one central organization that has police, fire
and medical working together. And that's for the daily calls, for
hurricanes and natural disasters and for the potential plane crash,
school incident, hazardous materials spill or terrorist event. One
command and control system ensuring the right response to any
emergency. We can see better efficiency and service streamlining the
organizations and getting uniform delivery of emergency response.
Consolidation would benefit the underfunded fire districts, those
with the small tax base that is not always sufficient to meet their
needs. Fire service should be countywide, just like police and EMS.
And I believe the consolidation effort that I've heard about so far is
just for the big three. I haven't heard that the other districts are
involved, although they may be.
One of the most important benefits is getting fire and EMS under
one roof. Everyone knows fire and EMS don't work well together.
There's constant friction at the top, not at the lowest levels. Too many
vehicles arrive or there are long waits because fire and EMS are both
at the same call and no one is left to respond quickly to the next call in
that area. We now have too medical directors and EMS is fragmented.
Over 90 percent of emergency fire EMS calls are medical. So
whatever happens, we can't afford to damage that essential part of our
public safety net. We can see a solution to these problems with the
Sheriff in charge.
And finally, implementation of the Blue Ribbon panel's
recommendations would be a breeze under a centralized organization.
About half of the recommendations were trying to get fire and EMS to
work together to get the best medical outcomes for pre - hospital
treatment and transport. Consolidation under the Sheriff would resolve
all of those issues.
Okay. We spent some time looking at different organizational
models from Sarasota, Martin, and Broward Counties and we're
Page 144
May 22 -23, 2012
confident that there are savings from fire consolidation. No, we
haven't gone out to it with everyone, but we are only recently
completing our analysis. We figure that there's plenty of time before
the straw ballot to get to everyone and get input to fine tune a plan.
We said 10 percent to 15 percent reduction. The 10 percent is a
conservative estimate of tax savings from consolidating the fire -- the
seven fire districts. That savings is primarily in management and
administrative support personnel reductions. And it doesn't really take
too much to understand how that would be. We have five active fire
chiefs now because two of the districts don't have their own, so you go
from five to one. So you have extra people there. When we looked at
other models like Sarasota, they have a much smaller management
staff. There are savings at that level. If you put administrative
functions like budget or human resource management under the
Sheriff, you would need to augment his staff a little bit, but you
wouldn't need all the separate ones that you have in all these districts.
Those are very obvious savings that the fire districts did not find in the
past.
A savings of 15 percent is probably achievable, considering other
factors. Management of equipment and sharing fire stations can avoid
future capital costs. We haven't estimated the potential savings for
merging fire and EMS yet, but it should be substantial. The actual
savings would be sensitive to the specific organizational design.
If you approve the straw ballot, we'll offer to work with the
Sheriff to develop the organizational structure that would meet his
vision of a public safety authority. The Sheriff has already provided
an initial statement of the issues that need to be considered. And as
you'll see when I do the timeline, there's plenty of time to address all
of those issues.
We should also get stakeholders involved, and we certainly
would, and work to get a more precise estimate of the total savings
and tax savings. Clearly this is the option we support, fire and EMS
Page 145
May 22 -23, 2012
under the Sheriff in a public safety authority.
We initially thought we could put this question on the primary
ballot in August to avoid a congested November ballot. That isn't the
best course of action for Collier County residents. We recognize that
low turnout would be a problem in the primary; many people are gone
in the summer and wouldn't hear the public debate before voting. We
want strong voter approval of this change so that you and the
legislative delegation will be able to support it. The public safety
issue is important to Collier County and deserves informed
consideration by the largest number of voters possible. So that's why
we want the November ballot.
While the independent district merger rules have been revised,
the approval process applying to our consolidation effort is essentially
the same procedure that the fire districts used last year in their
consolidation attempt. We will need your BCC vote supporting the
fire /EMS consolidation proposal in November after the straw ballot
election results are known. Then your request to our local legislative
delegation to sponsor the special act to dissolve the independent fire
districts and consolidate them under the Sheriff. Then the legislative
delegation would pass the special act by the end of their legislative
session next spring. And finally an official referendum would be held
for voters in each affected district to approve consolidation.
This referendum would be included in the next scheduled
countywide election. If that's January, 2014 or later in fiscal year' 14,
then the earliest consolidation could be implemented is FY15. So
there's a long time to resolve any outstanding issues.
We thought the consolidation could be phased in over two years,
during which personnel adjustments would be made and savings
would be realized. During this period taxpayers in each fire district
would continue to pay taxes at their current millage rate. Then after
we've achieved the savings at the end of two years, full consolidation
would occur and a uniform countywide tax rate would be established
Page 146
May 22 -23, 2012
at the start of FYI 7.
The first step in this whole process is gauging public sentiment
using the straw ballot.
Why should you get involved in this? Because this is probably
one of the most important public safety issues that Collier County will
face. And two of the three components, Sheriff and EMS, are funded
by you. By your efforts voters can decide if this consolidation is in
their best effort or not -- in their best interest or not.
You have before you our proposed ballot language. We have
added the acronym, EMS, because that's the way a lot of people know
the county's Emergency Medical Services Department. And I'm sure
you've seen the letter from the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
supporting our efforts.
Please approve the straw ballot language for the November
ballot. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Murray Hendel, and he'll
be followed by Jim Gibson.
MR. HENDEL: Murray Hendel. I'm president of the Collier
Community Alliance, CCA. I am very proud of our committee, Janet
Vasey, Dave Trecker, Duane Billington and Jim Horner.
Consolidating the fire districts /EMS into the Sheriffs office
makes sense. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: After Mr. Gibson it will be Dave Trecker.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am speaking in
support of the fire /EMS consolidation referendum question.
Consolidation is badly, badly needed. The economic downturn has
served to highlight what I consider to be the profligate spending and
deficient fiscal management practices of the independent fire districts.
Two examples. During the three years of economic contraction,
the East Naples District gave out 20 percent cumulative salary
increases and then turned around and asked the voters for a 33 percent
increase, which was defeated, as was previously mentioned. During
Page 147
May 22 -23, 2012
the same period, North Naples District gave out 12 percent in salary
increases while other governmental agencies, including the County
Manager's Office, the Clerk of Court, others were actually having to
lay off employees.
So these examples in my mind are in stark contrast with the
responsible approach taken by this Board, the County Manager, the
County Clerk, the County Sheriff, whose fiscal staffs have done what I
consider to be an outstanding job of financial management during this
constricted economy.
Again, I think consolidation is badly needed. The first step is to
allow the voters to express their interest via the referendum. Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELL: Dave Trecker will be followed by Steve
Harrison.
MR. TRECKER: This proposal is not a modest one. This is not
nibbling at the edges. This is a big bite. This is a -- this is a bold
move that we're proposing here.
The committee that undertook this study started with a blank
piece of paper, considered a number of different options and came up
with a proposal that Janet Vasey laid out for you. We think it's a
supportable plan. It maximizes public safety, in our view, it saves the
taxpayer money. How much isn't clear, but it is clear there will be
substantial savings.
One of the earlier speakers asked to see the information, and
there's certainly no reason after we get these numbers sharpened why
they can't be shared. We certainly wouldn't hold these secret in any
way.
Also, as was mentioned, and I think this is an important point, the
proposal helps some of the underfunded fire districts to the east.
Solves a lot of problems, has a lot going for it, we think.
One of the points I want to make here is that this is really just the
beginning. The straw vote would really just start the process. We
Page 148
May 22 -23, 2012
would want to engage the public. We'd want to involve many of the
stakeholders, this is important. These are early days, we haven't done
this yet. That's a critical stage that we'd want to go through.
Then, assuming there is a positive vote through the straw ballot,
we would have to go through a number of prescribed steps. Janet laid
these out. There has to be legislative approval, and finally a binding
public referendum on this.
So we're just starting down this road. We urge you to support the
proposed straw ballot. Let's move on with this, and let's get the public
fully engaged in this very important subject. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Steve Harrison will be followed by Dennis
Vasey.
MR. HARRISON: And I'm speaking as a citizen today,
Commissioners, thank you.
If there's a potential here for a 10 or 15 percent improvement,
according to one camp, then according to another camp with obvious
biases there's no savings, it seems like we're back to where
Commissioner Fiala made a comment two weeks ago, that you need
an objective analysis here, something independent. And it doesn't
have to go to the nth detail to make it a reasonable proposition to put
before the voters. Because if you're talking of something in that
range, you don't have to put that fine a point on it.
So I just would encourage an independent analysis and let the
chips fall where they may. But let the voters decide if they want the
savings.
MR. MITCHELL: Dennis Vasey will be followed by Eloy
Ricardo.
MR. VASEY: I'm Dennis Vasey and I enjoy living in Collier
County. Fire, police, medical, consolidation. We need to have this
public discussion. Everyone knows the fire and EMS conflicts have
reached the point of where now at least one fire district is talking
about fragmentation. Can anyone really think that fragmentation is a
Page 149
May 22 -23, 2012
good idea? There are clearly cost savings from consolidating small,
inefficient organizations. Each of you lives in a fire district. Are you
okay with what's been done?
Commissioner Hiller, do you approve taxes at the rate they are
right now? Commissioner Fiala, do you approve your taxes?
Help us change them. Let's have this public debate and let us
vote. This is our public health and safety, and what could be more
important.
The independent fire district system made sense 30 years ago but
it doesn't any longer. The efficiencies of consolidation can be
substantial. And the constant battling between fire and EMS is
jeopardizing the medical safety of Collier County residents. I support
consolidation and thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Ricardo will be followed by Christopher
Spencer.
MR. RICARDO: Good afternoon. When I hear some of the
comments that I hear, I feel that where has the report been studied for
real? The BSO, the Broward County model, has numerous medical
directors -- actually has one medical director and an associates
medical director. They have multiple chiefs. Which if we mirrored
ours today, we would probably be three or four chiefs short. They
have a good foundation on a regional delivery of service on serving
opt -in services.
But I ask, are the cities involved in this? Are the cities involved
in this report, or do we have two dependent districts by statute or are
they really MSTUs?
Because the term dependent district that's in that forum there,
there's only a certain millage cap you could be that are independent or
dependent by Florida State statute. The MSTUs that were created
with their own advisory council, it's different.
There's a lot of things that come into play. From being on the
road and being the person on the street, these issues that people are
Page 150
May 22 -23, 2012
saying that EMS and fire have problems, we don't have problems.
This issue is a philosophy issue from above us. We will continue to
respond and provide service. Whatever model comes to the future,
we're still going to be here.
But here's the reality: We have our independent former
governments. These districts' commissioners were elected by their
electorate. These reports that they're presenting to you should be
presented at each district meeting and then voted upon. The new laws
that passed with the fire district merger which we helped support
hasn't been in effect. It starts July 1 st.
So to correct that we -- that they just got together after, no, the
law is in effect July 1 st. There is a process that just passed last
legislation and we're not even allowing that to happen. And that is
one of the biggest confusions.
Some of these models that we're talking about, why are multiple
units going to calls? Well, your EMS ambulances are staffed with two
people. Two people. You go to the BSO model, they have three.
Some areas have two, but depending on call volume. Two people can't
pick -- if I fell out, two people from a EMS unit are not going to pick
me up by themselves. That's what people need to understand, why the
fire truck. I've been -- for 12 years I've been working in Collier
County, for 12 years I've had to explain that same answer, and it's the
same political rhetoric. We're there because we respond, we're there
to help the public, and we will continue to help the public.
But the lies that come out, because they're lies, and when you go
venture around and see different systems, you start seeing yes, maybe
the system is underfunded countywide. That's what this -- that's what
a study's going to tell you.
You should be proud of your emergency workers, EMS, fire,
your Sheriffs office, because they do a lot. They do a lot when people
are sleeping. The things that you don't want to know that happens in
this town we see every day. Thank you.
Page 151
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Christopher Spencer will be followed by
Bonnie Keen.
MR. SPENCER: Good afternoon. My name is Christopher
Spencer, and some of you know me from North Naples as a
representative of the firefighters up there. But today I'm speaking as a
taxpayer here in North Naples.
I also am speaking as an individual who I pride myself on the
way that these districts come about, the way that they get people
elected to office. And I'm proud that I stand here as a Republican.
And the mantra that I live by is less government, less taxes, more
freedoms. And this plan right now, because six, maybe a dozen
people have gotten together, they want to take away the fact that 50
years ago, a vote I still support, all these people had voted to secede
from the county, become their own independent district.
So you want to take that away from me. You want to possibly go
with a merger consolidation thing. I know, because I've done some
research when I started hearing this talk, that right if you pick up a
book, which you could, probably I could get for you by the end of this
meeting, you find out Broward County, the model that everybody
talks about, Broward County? Broward County, it's 2.5 mills plus
$190 per household. Do the math, you're paying a lot more money.
There is no savings.
So less taxes, you've increased the government, and more of a
responsibility. Which, by the way, as I've been sitting here watching
all the issues about the beaches and the conversations, you've got
enough work to deal with. I would deal with that alone and don't go
there. I don't see people come to these meetings scream and yell and
saying the service we're getting from the EMS Department is bad, the
service we're getting from your firefighters is bad, the service we're
getting from your Sheriff is bad.
On the contrary, it's really good. As a matter of fact, it's so good
I challenge anybody to go to these Commission meetings anyplace
Page 152
May 22 -23, 2012
else and you'll find that out. I'm like one of the few guys that will go
to an East Naples meeting occasionally or a Golden Gate meeting
occasionally, and all the North Naples meetings. I don't see these
other people, this committee that have gotten together that are trying
to change the language and trying to increase more government,
increase my taxes and take away my freedoms.
This is America, God bless it, and I do not support this in any
way, shape or form underneath the county government.
MR. MITCHELL: Bonnie Keen will be followed by Duane
Billington.
MS. KEEN: Hi, I'm Bonnie Keen. I'm representing myself in
Immokalee. I've lived and worked in Immokalee since I was four
years old. The fire commissioners in Immokalee, I've just joined the
Board just this last year, and they worked very hard to get through
really tough times, they made some tough decisions, they followed
through with them. I have a higher appreciation for all the fire
commissioners now that I didn't know before. I wasn't on the board
before. I have a higher appreciation of my community. I'm very
proud of Immokalee. I'm very proud of our community. And they
elected the people to be in the position of fire commissioners.
We had talked about consolidation way before the workshop. I
don't know where the information came from that we hadn't. I'm
against consolidation in any form. And I'd just like to say that I wish
you all wouldn't put us under the pressure that we may have to get rid
of our boards. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Duane Billington. Mr.
Billington is your last speaker.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington. I'm a
member of the CCA, on the committee so I'm primarily speaking here
for myself.
What you're being asked to do today is not to examine with a
magnifying glass all the tenets of what we're proposing. What you're
Page 153
May 22 -23, 2012
simply being asked to do here today is give the people an opportunity
to be heard on whether or not they have objections to consolidating
fire and EMS under the Sheriff.
There have been a number of statements here that say it's -- well,
they're statements that it's going to be consolidated under the county.
That is an untruth. The Sheriff is a constitutional officer. In fact, if
the county doesn't approve his budget, he can appeal it to Tallahassee.
He is very, very independent of the county, except the county is the
source of his funds.
The Broward County model, there's nobody that's proposed that
we copy the Broward County model as a template for what we're
doing. The Broward County model was cited simply because it is an
example of a sheriff successfully running fire and EMS. Our Sheriff
has had experience at doing that. In fact, years ago he and Diane
Flagg started the engine program, ALS engine program. And EMS got
national recognition for having done that. So he is experienced.
I understand Mr. Ortino doesn't have that experience and he
would not qualify because of his lack of that kind of experience. But
that just goes to show how much we're blessed by having the sheriff
that we have.
And just one last statement. This was almost unanimously
endorsed by the CCA. And it's comprised of people from all over the
county. I appreciate the time. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by me.
Discussion? Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think it's really -- it's really
a very difficult issue. I am all for putting questions on the ballot
where people can make an informed decision. And I really like what
Page 154
May 22 -23, 2012
Steve Harrison said. Where are you? Are you still here? Yeah, way
in the back there. And he basically said we need an independent
financial analysis to determine the merits of what's being proposed.
The other analysis we need to look at is how any structural
change, whether it's EMS, sheriff or fire, any combination of the
above affects the level of service that the residents of Collier County
have come to expect, that we as a Board have set as a standard.
And one of the things that I had gotten in an e -mail from a
gentleman by the name of a Mr. Chandler, who's a very intelligent
man, and he told me to support putting this on the ballot. And my
question back to him before hearing what Mr. Harrison said was, well,
can you please show me the financial analysis and help me out on that
question. I also had questions about how it would all work with
respect to the unions. What I didn't talk about was how is the level of
service going to be affected, and what had they determined based on
that. And he told me no analysis had been done.
So my concern is I completely support putting any question on
the ballot where the taxpayers are informed as to what they're voting
on. I supported putting Jackson Labs on the ballot. And the reason I
supported putting Jackson Labs on the ballot was because there was a
quantitative analysis that was done that showed that it would be a loss
to the taxpayers and there would be no return in any form that was
positive. So putting that question to the taxpayers, they had empirical
independent evidence that showed what the consequence would be if
they approved it.
Now, they still can approve it. Anyone can approve whatever
they like. They might say, you know, we make decisions that don't
necessarily have financial savings. I mean, we support libraries, and
libraries don't make money. But we all agree collectively that libraries
are a very good thing. So it's not always about money.
But in this particular instance the drive for the ballot is not about
service, the drive for the ballot is about money. And the state, as Mr.
Page 155
May 22 -23, 2012
Ricardo pointed out, just adopted a statute which for the first time
allows these independent districts to go to their voters and consolidate.
And what that statute provides is that before it can be placed on the
ballot, you need that financial analysis.
So I would support putting it on the ballot if you come up with
that independent, and I mean independent of the county, independent
of any advisory committee, independent of any of the groups that are
affected to show the taxpayers, you know, these are the consequences
financially.
I would also like an analysis to show what the consequences are
with respect to the level of service. I think that's extremely important.
So I would certainly support it, but as long as the voters are
informed. Because anyone can say yes, I think it's great. You know,
if someone put something on the ballot that says would you agree to
lower taxes and keep the level of service the same, I mean, who would
say no?
The other issue that concerns me is, as Mr. Ortino pointed out,
the Sheriff is not here today. I happened to find out that he was out of
town so he could not attend. I'm very uncomfortable with putting
anything on the ballot without having the Sheriff at the podium telling
me that's what he wants to do, that if the numbers support
consolidation that he would be willing. Because he is an independent
constitutional officer.
So if you -- I would support this wholeheartedly if the Sheriff is
there and tells me not in abstract terms but yes, I would do it, and you
come back with the numbers that support whatever your respective
arguments are. And then I certainly support putting it on the ballot.
But I cannot support putting anything on the ballot where I have no
knowledge that the Sheriff does support this or doesn't, and where I
have nothing to inform the voters that the savings will be X or Y,
which is what the state statute requires, and how the level of service
will be positively or adversely affected. Or maybe not affected at all.
Page 156
May 22 -23, 2012
So I mean, I agree, I think, you know, exploring this is the right
thing to do, definitely. Let's look at the evidence and then based on
that put it on the ballot and let's put the question to the people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not today. Not without the
evidence, not without the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to ask the motion maker
and the second, if it fails, if a straw ballot fails, what are you going to
do then? Are we going to do anything? Are we going to end this
topic? Because we support it and the voters supported a question
about saving money on consolidation and nothing has happened since
then.
Now we have another question. We're assuming it's going to
save money. I don't know. So if it fails, are we going to drop this
subject? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you asked that
question. You know, I'd give you some answers what could possibly
happen but I can't tell you what the outcome is going to be.
The issue that was on the ballot before was to test public opinion.
That led to where we are today where somebody's come up with a
more creative way to get there. Is there more than one way to get
there? I'm sure there is. But no one has come forward with anything
that's a working model.
This is something that go before the voters. It has to go through a
two -year process before it's ever going to come back for a vote. At
that point in time you're going to have a lot of input into the whole
thing. You may even see this as the catalyst that will make all the fire
departments come together under a consolidation of their own in very
short order.
So it's not the fact it may fail or it may succeed. I mean, I'm sure
that the people that are involved with it right now feel very strongly
that it will succeed. But then again, too, you want to test public
Page 157
May 22 -23, 2012
opinion. This is an idea that's time has come. So let's let the voters
make that decision and take the next step then.
I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer, Commissioner
Henning, because I don't know what the future will bring.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate that. But I -- we're
asking -- I think that a statement needs to be made to the voters, if you
vote this down we're not going to deal with this issue anymore. And if
you vote for it, what are we going to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: An ultimatum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, what are we going to do?
I mean, first of all, there has to be a financial analysis on the
assets and the debt of these independent districts. I'll tell you, there's
one fire district in Golden Gate that has a fire station that they're only
paying interest on, okay. You can -- I bet you if you take all the
salaries of the fire chiefs you still couldn't pay the debt on that
building. So I don't know if that's -- I'm just -- what I'm saying is I
don't know if it's a savings or not, because all they're doing is paying
interest right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I respond or do you want
to respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you know, I guess Commissioner
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm asking what information
are we taking to the public so they can make an informed decision?
And if it's not going to be before, who's going to do that afterwards?
After this straw ballot?
And quite frankly -- where's Duane Billington? I know he's going
to hate me for saying this, but it's true, he recognized that. In fact, he
didn't want to talk to me about it anymore, the legislators under a
special bill, on a special act, our legislators will carry forward.
However, if there is one legislator that votes against this, there is no
special act. All right?
Page 158
May 22 -23, 2012
And there's a lot of people here that will probably make that
happen. So where are we then? I think the public would be very upset
at the Board of Commissioners for not making it happen. And I'm not
trying to make an alternative. However, personally I feel the best way
to do it is let's collect signatures under the law on consolidation and
then take that to the legislators and make it happen.
You know, there's a lot of things that if -- the voters would want
to know. Is it going to save me any money? You're going to have two
different opinions out there. That's a problem. And nothing has been
put together for an exact asset and debt analysis to tell them what it
would do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What comes first, the chicken or
the egg? We could argue about that all day long. What you're doing
by putting this on the ballot is the same thing as you did last time,
you're getting permission to take another step forward to be able to
look at it.
If the public comes back and they say we love our independent
fire districts, we have no problem with our tax structure, we love the
service we got, at that point in time they're going to speak very loudly
and very clearly. They're going to say no, don't go forward.
But they may also come back and say with the same 72 percent,
was it, that they would like to see something done. At that point in
time in order to be able to justify it going to the next step, you'll have
everybody and his brother putting together the numbers and
everything to try to be able to steer the ship in the direction it needs to
go. But how can you more forward with in -depth studies that are
going to take forever?
Now, do I object to the fact in that studies have to be done as you
go forward towards the process? In other words, I wished it was on
the August primary, but I can understand how you'd want to go for
Page 159
May 22 -23, 2012
November. November comes and the item passes, before you can go
to the next step you're going to have to get all that information
together.
But we have seen this happen time and time again where we've
had consolidation efforts take place over the last 20 years and what
happens is, is that they're always brought down to details to the point
that they fail to function any longer. So you've got a chance to be able
to seize the moment.
And you're right, what happens if the motion fails? Well, I
assume what would happen is what's happening already is there's
going to be a concerted effort to divide up EMS into smaller pieces,
have everything broken up in the county so it's even worse than it is
today. All I can hope for is the very best, Commissioner Henning, and
that's why we're here is to try to make the difference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My response to the question is that the
only decision that we have to make is whether or not we're going to let
the people have a voice on this issue. We've done that once before.
Some circumstances have changed. It's worthwhile giving the public
the opportunity to say yeah, we think this is a good idea.
To do nothing is essentially accepting the fragmentation of a
good system. It's not consolidated anymore, there is no single
standard. There is no single medical director. And the movement of
the fire districts is in the direction of taking it over and fragmenting it
for the benefit of their own districts, not for the entire county.
And if -- so we've got a choice. We can just continue to just
break it up and throw it out there into the various districts and let
somebody else deal with the issue or we can give the taxpayers an
opportunity to maybe say once more we want this thing consolidated
and we don't want it fragmented. And I think that's the only decision
we can make. Because if we try to second guess the decision that the
voters make before we even give them the opportunity to make it, it's
a worthless exercise.
Page 160
May 22 -23, 2012
But I say when the time comes, when the voters have spoken and
they've told us what they want to do, then we give some consideration
to what our next step is. But to just say I'm not going to take this step
unless I know everything about the future I think is taking it a bit too
far. But in any event, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Before I begin, because I have
a few things, Tim Durham, you're standing there waiting patiently.
Did you want to speak to us from the elections office?
MR. DURHAM: Thank you, ma'am. I wasn't quite quick
enough getting up front.
Our office has just a very narrow issue that we'd like to share
with the Commissioners that you may not be aware of. It's a very
practical narrow thing. Doesn't go to the merits, the consolidation in
any way.
And I think you know and other governmental entities know that
when they put something on the ballot we work very hard to work
with the governmental entity and do the best job possible.
We're looking at an unusual situation for the 2012 general. If
you remember in the 2010 general election we had a three -page ballot
for the first time. And that ballot, what made it so large was there
were six state amendments, one non - binding referendum and of course
we have federal requirement to put that in English and Spanish. So
that pushed us to a three -page ballot.
Going into the 2010 (sic) general there will be 11 amendments
from the state --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's 2012?
MR. DURHAM: That's the upcoming 2012 general. Two of
them, Amendment 2 and Amendment 8 are longer than anything I've
ever seen on a ballot before. So what that does for our office, and our
chief and only concern of course is administering the election and
doing a good job. There is a possibility of being pushed to a fourth
page or sheet on that general election ballot.
Page 161
May 22 -23, 2012
And in addition to the direct cost of purchasing the additional
ballot paper, when you think about like our early voting sites, for
example, Orange Blossom Library Headquarters, number one early
voting site in the state. With a fourth page what you end up with is a
BOD printer for each voter that processes through, printing a sheet
independently, then the voter voting it and then each one being
scanned. And that's going to happen about 60,000 times during early
voting.
So when you think about how that stresses the whole election
operation, waiting time, so on, and so forth. So I can't honestly say
that this single item, if it was put on the general election ballot, would
push us to a fourth page, but I'm very certain after very careful review
that we have three full pages with content on both sides. And I don't
know if this item would push us to a fourth. It may not. I can't
honestly say one way or the other. But you could see why our office
would be concerned about going to a fourth page.
If we have to do a fourth page, so be it, we'll do it to the best of
our ability. But it will have an adverse impact on voting and
additional expenses. I just wanted to share that because you might not
have been aware of the content in the general election ballot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tim, just put this one on the first page
and let somebody else worry about the fourth page.
MR. DURHAM: I feel your pain, Commissioner. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for letting me
interrupt our speaking.
Second question I have is Jeff, when we talked in my office, you
were mentioning that there has to be a merger plan in place before
something like this can even be considered, or at least that's the way I
had understood it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before you can have a -- well, the
legislation gives you a blueprint on how to get there. Part of that
blueprint requires a merger plan. And we've been talking about it with
Page 162
May 22 -23, 2012
the financial analysis that's part of your merger plan. So you're going
to have to have one. Whether you do this before your straw ballot or
after your straw ballot I don't know, but it's going to be a prerequisite.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I wanted to
know about that.
The second thing Mr. Ortino mentioned, if he were sheriff, and
being that the other sheriff isn't here I'm going to just figure that no
matter who's sheriff, because sheriffs change all the time because of
elections -- not all the time, but, you know, they don't always stay the
same, let me just put it that way. What if the Sheriff doesn't want to
do this? Wonder if the Sheriff feels that it's just more than he could
cope with. He's already dealing with road patrol, crime, detectives,
Homeland Security, 9 -1 -1, court bailiffs, jail. Does he really want to --
that's all safety related. That's all Sheriff related. Does he want to
really deal with the health of the community as well as the rescue of
the people in the community?
I just think that, you know, he seems to be focused on safety and
crime fighting, the Sheriff; and EMS and fire safety being focused on
health and rescue. You know, quite frankly, that works out pretty
well, especially with the numbers of people working in each one. If
the Sheriff had to take all of the people in all of these departments,
he'd have a monumental number of people to oversee. I just think that
that's asking too much of the Sheriff, to be perfectly honest with you.
And then is there anything either verbally or in writing that says
that the Sheriff even wants to accept something like this? We haven't
heard that at all. Nobody's said anything about that.
And then I had one more -- oh, well, no, that's it. Okay, I think
that's it. That was too many questions in my mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't understand, something's missing
here. I got a letter from the Sheriff saying if this is what the people
want, I'm willing to step up and do it. I would think that anyone who
is the sheriff would say the same thing. If they're not willing to do
Page 163
May 22 -23, 2012
what the people want them to do, then they shouldn't be running for
sheriff. So it's an important issue, Mr. Ortino, you know, when you
have people voting and saying that we want you to do this sort of
thing, I'd certainly like to have a sheriff who says okay, I'll do it, I'll
take it on.
So in my opinion I have seen this document and I don't know
why all the other Commissioners haven't seen it. But in any event, I
just wanted to make that comment because it does exist. We're not
having a debate; this isn't a campaign.
MR. ORTINO: No, I understand. I made a statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't talk from this --
MR. ORTINO: Can I come up here then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you can't. Sit down, please.
MR. ORTINO: You made an allegation that's not true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sit down, please.
Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the question of what can we
do now regardless of the straw ballot is really what we should be
asking. And there is something that we can as the Board do today and
bring it back, you know, for consideration that is under our
jurisdiction. We do not have only two -- you mentioned, Mr. Ricardo,
that we have two dependent districts which -- well, hang on -- which
you said basically consisted of two MSTUs. And I'm going to correct
you. You know where I'm going. We actually have three fire districts
in Collier County, and people are not aware of this. Just a few years
ago, about one or two years ago Collier County decided to turn its
EMS division into a full fire department. And quite frankly, we have
our medics now who are dual certified. I think we have 70 medics
who are dual certified as paramedics and firefighters.
Now let's talk about consolidation under the Board of County
Commissioners that we can effectuate. We can consolidate the two
dependent districts and our third dependent district, which is labeled
Page 164
May 22 -23, 2012
EMS but is actually a fire department, and have one fire
department /EMS service under the Board of County Commissioners.
So let's eliminate the duplication of services under the Board of
County Commissioners and let's test the effect of consolidation right
now today under the Board within what is our jurisdiction. We can do
that.
We can all agree right here right now to ask Leo to bring back a
proposal. Let's consolidate today under the Board within the
jurisdiction of what the Board can effectuate. Let's put our money
where our mouth is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be delighted to do that,
Commissioner Hiller, but that isn't the topic that we're discussing. If
you want to bring the topic back on a future agenda, I'd be delighted to
discuss it. But right now our decision is are we going to approve this
straw ballot or not. That's the only thing we have to make a decision
on.
Commissioner -- who's next, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm ready, I'm ready
to vote on that. You know, it's -- it doesn't -- the question doesn't
consolidate fire districts the same way the previous question did not
consolidate the fire districts. This one won't either. So I just wanted
to make that point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE- Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, the only thing I'm
going to add, then we can take the vote and get on with life, it's a
straw ballot. It's to gain input from the public. It's not to form an
opinion, it's to gain an opinion from the public to be able to guide
other people to be able to go forward. There's nothing else out there
that's going for us at this point in time to bring about that desired
results. If this doesn't go forward, we're right back to square one and
that's where some people would like to see us be. So let's take the
vote and then we can get on with the meeting.
Page 165
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, just a point of
clarification for the election supervisor's benefit particularly. The
motion and second as I understand it includes the recommendation in
your executive summary which calls for this straw ballot on the
primary election. So if that's not your intent --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I personally like the option of the
general election, as long as supervisor of elections will put it on the
first page.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's a moot point either
way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you have more people on the general
election. People are away from here in the summertime.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner I'm not arguing, I'm just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why I think the general election is
the best thing to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was the motion, wasn't it?
MR. OCHS: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, the motion was for approval of the
staff s recommendation. But the presentation Ms. Vasey made was to
say they would prefer that it go on the general election for all of the
reasons they said --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I was just looking for clarification of intent
by the motion maker and the second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, well, that's good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll clarify the motion than it's
the general election.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that will be my second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 166
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it fails with a vote two against
three opposed. The three opposed are Commissioners Hiller, Fiala,
and Henning. So it fails.
Where do we go from here now?
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Sir, we go back to item 7 on your agenda which is
public comments on general topics.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, we missed that one by a
few hours.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What can you say, Murray? You know,
sometimes it just --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Mitchell, do we have any public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, we do.
The first speaker is Kathleen Robbins.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She went home hours ago.
MR. MITCHELL: The second speaker is David Galloway.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He also went home hours ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why didn't you go home hours ago?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He was just having too much fun
here.
MR. MITCHELL: The third person is Dick Lydon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's you.
MR. LYDON: It says here good morning. That's a long time
ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just wait a few hours, we'll be back on
Page 167
May 22 -23, 2012
schedule.
MR. LYDON: By the way, Mr. Galloway and the other lady
said I could have all the time I wanted as long as it didn't go beyond
what they had already passed on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, give him a minute and a half, Ian.
MR. LYDON: My name is Dick Lydon, and I'm the Vice Chair
of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU.
We talked a lot about beaches, and I'm here to talk about
beaches. I'm talking about the beach access signs at Vanderbilt.
In the past 25 years I have come before you on behalf of the
many advisory committees on which I've served, as well as the
community organizations I've had the honor to chair. In almost all of
those appearances I have been supportive of your affirmative actions.
Today is a 180.
In June of 2001 our MSTU was formed for, I quote,
beautification and maintenance of public areas within our borders. I
have been a member of that committee since its inception. After
hiring Wilson- Miller to give us some great ideas -- we didn't want to
really look like Fort Myers Beach -- and several resident meetings, we
set our course to bury utility lines. Thankfully I'm happy that that's
going forward. And following that we have some other ideas as to
how to beautify our area.
On December 9th -- or December, 2009 county staff appeared at
our regular meeting and asked for approval of signs to be placed at the
entrance of our beach accesses. We agreed that those should be
marked. But we felt that the sign looked more like the post for a
streetlight and was not compatible with any signage on Gulfshore
Drive. We asked them to come back with a better design and more
modest sign for our approval.
Nothing further was presented to our committee by county staff
until May 4th, 2012, 30 months later. Staff appeared not to get us to
approve anything, they just came as a courtesy to tell us they're going
May 22 -23, 2012
to put up these signs with numbers on them, the same signs we told
them that we didn't like, and that they were going to be installed in
accord with a settlement agreement that the BCC had made with
residents, none of whom have ever been on our advisory committee at
the MSTU, and they related to three, not eight, beach accesses.
We were not privy to the details of that settlement until the
morning of that meeting. Efforts to negotiate that monstrosity, and I
think -- did you pass out my pictures? He's going to pass out my
pictures. Efforts to negotiate -- I've got more time -- have been
fruitless, except for a two -foot reduction in height.
We have looked hard and we have found no signs as obtrusive
and ugly on any street or beach in Collier County or in the City of
Naples.
Our residents pay voluntary taxes of nearly a million dollars a
year to beautify our neighborhood. We strongly believe serious input
on this and other beautification projects by our committee is in order.
As I speak, ladies and gentlemen, the plans to install these signs
go forward. Please help us by reconsidering. Thank you. I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I requested that the traffic
department make the beach signs, but nobody supported, they wanted
something better besides the back of a stop sign that says beach access
number one.
MR. LYDON: I gave you some handouts today but I'm not much
of a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one do you like?
MR. LYDON: The printer -- the machine I have at home, that
printer don't work all that good. But I did manage to cobble those up.
The one on your left, the little white one, has been installed at one of
our beach accesses, and we think that's just fine. The one on your
right is the one that presently exists at the entrance to Bluebill and at
the entrance down on the south end at Vanderbilt Beach. That
Page 169
May 22 -23, 2012
monstrosity in the middle is the one that was designed in 2009 by a
lady who is no longer a member of your staff. But that has never been
-- contrary to what we asked, we never got anything that looked
different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the one that is currently at Vanderbilt
Beach access is okay for you?
MR. LYDON: Vanderbilt Beach access?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At Bluebill. Bluebill.
MR. LYDON: Bluebill. We can live with that. We'd rather have
the little one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'd rather have this one right
here?
MR. LYDON: The little one is that one right there, yeah.
And these things mark an area, gentlemen and ladies, that's not
that wide. We don't really need something that's seven or nine or 11
feet tall that looks like it ought to have a streetlight on top of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want this other information,
open dawn to dusk and then all the things that are prohibited on the
beach?
MR. LYDON: No, that sign is now and presently on the other
end of the beach access. So you get -- here's the beach access, you got
that little white sign that says here's the beach access. Then you get
over a little ways and here's that other sign says you can't do these
things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're going to have both of them.
MR. LYDON: You gonna have -- either have both of them or
have one consolidation that somebody I'm sure could design that looks
attractive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager --
MR. LYDON: It's got to be brought back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- give us a solution.
MR. OCHS: Let's back up for a minute. When my friend Mr.
Page 170
May 22 -23, 2012
Lydon refers to our beach accesses, he's speaking about your beach
accesses, the public beach accesses.
MR. LYDON: Right.
MR. OCHS: Same ones that are on the beach where we talked --
they were so crowded at the beach ends that you can't hardly fit
anybody in there anymore. Part of that is because you've got six or
seven other beach access points along Gulfshore Drive that are not
very well identified and most members of the public probably couldn't
find them if they wanted to.
The sign that we are proceeding as the staff, we're proceeding on
by direction of this Board that was part of a settlement agreement that
was entered into by the Board with representatives of the homeowners
association down there. That exact sign was the attachment to the
settlement agreement. I don't believe that I should as your manager at
this point have the discretion to deviate from that.
Now, if the Board wants to direct me otherwise, I'll certainly take
your direction. But I was proceeding on my last direction by the
majority vote of this Board. Those signs are essentially modeled after
the beach access signs that run along the access points on Bonita
Beach Drive along Bonita Beach where the public accesses are
marked with those kinds of signs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the sign in the middle, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The smaller signs that we've tried in the
past have been knocked down repeatedly and pulled out of the ground
and there's people down there that --
MR. LYDON: Leo, Leo --
MR. OCHS: -- don't want the public to know that those accesses
are there.
MR. LYDON: -- our residents are not in charge of police action.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I agree with you.
MR. LYDON: The fact that these are 11 feet high, which means
that there's a seven -foot height, does not keep people from spray
Page 171
May 22 -23, 2012
painting it. So I'm not convinced -- and I agree. I agree with Leo.
Leo and I have gone back a long, long way. And I agree that what Leo
read into that settlement agreement gave him the go ahead to do this. I
just don't believe that he understood that, first of all, the people who
are party to that settlement agreement were three or four families.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this is a question for the County
Attorney, so let's let the County Attorney address what our legal
obligations are here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, one, the settlement agreement's with
the property owners, because these were easements, all right, and the
property owners were disputing our rights to these easements --
MR. LYDON: No, it never happened. The easements have
already existed for a long time --
MR. KLATZKOW: You know -- sir, sir. This has nothing to do
with your organization, okay.
This has been a 30 -year dispute we've had over these public
access points where these residents have taken down the signs from
time to time, and have disputed our right to be there, all right. So we
got into a settlement agreement.
I don't believe the settlement agreement had pictures as exhibits.
What they had was the signs would be larger and 26 inches wide and
30 inches tall. But I don't think there were any designs that were in
contemplation at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. There was no -- my
understanding is the same as Jeff s, that there weren't any exhibits that
specified, contrary to what Leo's interpretation is, that these -- this
proposed sign that you show us as the middle picture was part of the
agreement.
MR. LYDON: That was part of the agreement as we saw it for
the first time when it was presented to our committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, so I think that's where the
mistake is.
Page 172
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we provide guidance to both the
County Attorney and the County Manager?
MR. KLATZKOW: The settlement agreement is contemplating
that we use the same type of signage for that access point as we use
throughout the area --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're not in compliance with
the settlement agreement then.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- what the settlement agreement says, I
don't know what staff is planning on doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's what they've already
done. But -- can we just provide guidance to the staff including the
County Attorney to get together, sort this out and find out what we
should or should not be putting there?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And come back to us if necessary and
we'll get it done.
MR. LYDON: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, we negotiated,
and the same sign after negotiation, the same sign that you see in the
middle, the top was reduced by two feet. That was the negotiation.
The settlement agreement does not say anything about numbers
on that sign. The settlement agreement says minimum height. I can't
believe even negotiated at nine feet that that's minimum height.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we're going to get the right
answers from the County Attorney and the County Manager.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this settlement agreement
goes a lot farther than the signs. There was concessions that were
made, and those concession were major. You couldn't have a delivery
of people by buses, which loses the ability for people to park at some
remote location and be bussed in. There were several other things in
there too that limit the county's ability or people's ability to reach it. I
think parking comes into play too.
Page 173
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, this is such a small issue,
what are the signs supposed to look like, that quite frankly it never
occurred to me to define in the agreement what the signs are supposed
to look like. But it bothers the local residents, and I think the County
Manager and I could work with the residents to get a sign that
everybody agrees with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry, I got just one
more thing. The sign we're looking at over on the far left is very easy
to grab ahold of, pick up and carry off with you.
MR. LYDON: No, it's built in a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it is?
MR. LYDON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like the specifics, on it when
you come back, please. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you.
(Chairman Coyle is absent from the Board room.)
MR. LYDON: Is there a direction? I did not hear a
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you know, we gave
direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The direction --
MR. LYDON: Which said?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For you to work with staff to
achieve what the neighborhood wants, which is in conformance with
the settlement agreement. Because --
MR. LYDON: We've already done that, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words, what you want
is --
MR. LYDON: Some direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to look at a sign that makes sense and it is not ugly,
contrary to what is now proposed.
Page 174
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not take the existing -- the
sign that says existing entrance number -- it doesn't have a -- whatever
the sign is currently at the existing entrance, it's labeled existing
entrance on the exhibit, and design it to the minimum specifications
proposed by the agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have access points all over the county.
We'll come back with something substantially similar to all of the
county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. It shouldn't be dissimilar in
size or design.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call any directions like that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the chairman and I agree
with ask the County Attorney and the County Manager to get together,
see if it conforms with the settlement agreement and if there's anything
that we can do to work with the residents. And you got my nod.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so we're there.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the next item on the
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next speaker?
MR. OCHS: I don't know if you have any more public
comments.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is John Barlow. Mr.
Barlow has 15 minutes. And Gina Downs, Russell Budd, Arthur
Shanklin and Jim Burke have ceded their time to him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they here to waive their
time, Mr. Mitchell? I don't see some of those people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ian, are they here to waive their
time?
MR. MITCHELL: So Gina Downs? Yes, Gina Downs is here.
Russell Budd? No.
Page 175
May 22 -23, 2012
Arthur Shanklin?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: So he's there. And Jim Burke?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are they in the hallway?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Burke did give me this, but I don't know
whether he's in the hallway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, nine minutes.
MR. MITCHELL: So it's nine minutes.
(Chairman Coyle is back in the Board room.)
MR. BARLOW: I was going to say good morning. Good
afternoon and probably good evening. We're not quite there yet.
But for the record, my name is John Barlow, former vice
president of the nonprofit HOME.
On May the 9th, I finally received a Clerk of Courts audit of
HOME. Why am I here and what do I expect to achieve?
I'm here because I don't have any other recourse. I think it's
important for you to be aware of the administrative nightmare this has
become. I have personally in excess of 100 hours in this audit. A lot
of hours were spent to produce an audit that makes unsubstantiated
allegations. Although I am the founder of HOME, I did not have any
input into the draft audit. I find that difficult to accept, since I have
access to all of the HOME records since inception.
The audit fails to clearly identify who is responsible for the stated
deficiencies. Is it HOME or Housing or a little bit of both? This audit
that I received on the 9th from the Clerk of Courts is completely
unacceptable and disappointing to me. Let me tell you why now.
On December the 7th, 2011, I received an e -mail from the Clerk's
auditor indicating that everything appears in order, you will be hearing
from me soon. 154 days later is not soon in my book. The audit
alleges unable to fully reconcile program generated income. That's a
government term for profit on their investment into a nonprofit.
The facts are that the CDBG grant was closed out on June 5th,
Page 176
May 22 -23, 2012
2010. Housing declared there was no program income generated. On
July the 22nd, 2011, the grant compliant office verified there was no
program income. The Clerk requested all invoices from HOME rehab
and other operating items, not just invoices that pertain to grant funds.
They wanted access to all invoices.
HOME questioned the Clerk's authority to review private internal
documents for the nonprofit. We waited but never received a
response. Nevertheless, HOME provided all requested documents,
over 700 pages, similar to what you saw this morning from
Commissioner Hiller put on the dais in terms of size.
The audit also alleges that ineligible program expenditures are
noted. During the course of an audit there are expenses that are
defined as eligible and there are expenses that are not. So yes, we did
provide them all. And yes, there were some eligible ones in there and
there were some ineligible. Like, for example, a board lunch would be
an ineligible expense. So we did comply 100 percent in June of 2010.
The audit alleges that we're unable to validate the distribution of
final assets, which was accepted by Housing and subsequently
deposited. HOME provided a balance sheet with a check dated June
the 9th, 2010, for all of HOME's remaining assets, cash assets. The
amount of the check was $644.37.
The audit alleges that the grant close -out procedures did not
include coordination of deed restriction transfers to the county, liens
recorded for properties by HOME to Collier County without the prior
knowledge of Housing staff. The statement is absolutely false.
HOME was an active company in June of 2010 when the grant
procedures were closed out. In April and May was the period of time
where the audit was conducted or the close -out process took about 60
days to get done. Housing discussed with HOME what would happen
if a homeowner defaulted on a mortgage while we were still in
operation. If they defaulted, what happens to the money we collect?
And then we got involved into reprogramming with Marco, getting
Page 177
May 22 -23, 2012
back to your authority if we could spend it back to another
low - income project similarly cast.
In October, 2010, HOME notified its lawyer to file for
dissolution. The market had deteriorated to such a point and the banks
are having a difficult time making loans to lower income people. We
didn't see an opportunity to go out there and do our mission, so we
filed for dissolution. In October, 2010, the same month, HOME
notified Housing. Housing then turned to the County Attorney's
Office to start drafting mortgages for the transfer of those documents.
I think her name was Jennifer White.
In December, 2010, HOME was dissolved. I received a copy of
January 6th, 2011 e -mail indicating that the mortgages were being
pulled from the BCC agenda. For what reasons, I don't know. CDBG
grant procedures and HOME legal documents both require that the
mortgages be transferred to the county.
I waited three months, or HOME waited three months, from
December, 2010 till March, 2011 for the BCC to approve mortgage
transfers. After consulting with our counsel, I recorded the mortgage
to ensure that the county would receive any recaptured grant funds. I
don't know what HOME being dissolved would do with the mortgage.
We can turn that over to legal people.
The audit alleges that there was a lack of proper documentation,
process coordination and compliance with the result to the grants. The
facts are HOME received tremendous oversight and guidance from
Housing staff during the life of this project. With their help we
documented, coordinated and complied with all requirements of the
grant. At no time did HOME take any action without Housing's
knowledge.
On May the 16th, just a few days ago, I made a public request for
the audit work papers, which once they produce it you're able to do. I
am very keenly interested in reviewing them as soon as I get them.
The audit alleges from the records maintained, it is difficult to
Page 178
May 22 -23, 2012
determine the use of funds. Consequently grant funds could have been
used and then replaced with donations, which would constitute a
violation of the grant award and contract.
I've been around a few audits in my life but I don't think I've ever
seen one that said, could have been used. Either they were used or
they weren't used, one or the other. So I don't think could have is a
very valid concept.
The audit states it is relevant for the reader to note this program
was a one -time endeavor, an unusual one. It's highly unlikely we
would undertake such a program in the future, especially one that
involves private contributions to the project. Whoever made this audit
comment apparently wants to abandon private leadership and funding
for the public good of Collier County, just because the county cannot
establish proper accounting protocols and adapt to an innovative
program. Do we believe in continuous --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Barlow, how much more time do
you have? Your time has expired about 30 seconds ago.
MR. BARLOW: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much more do you have?
MR. BARLOW: I've got 30 seconds to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
MR. BARLOW: The Clerk of Courts writes in its 2011 CAFR,
the concept of reasonable assurance recognizes the cost of control
should not exceed the benefits to be derived and the evaluation of
costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments. I don't think the
HOME audit by the Clerk of Courts resulted in a proper relationship
between audit costs and judgments of management.
I find the HOME audit from the Clerks of Court's finance and
internal audit team disappointing and unacceptable. The audit
contains highly subjective and irrelevant statements, lacks precision,
accuracy and relevance. Quite frankly, I expected much better.
Thank you.
Page 179
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker on public
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where does that take us now --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me, Commissioner Coyle, could I
respond to a couple of items? I think it's important to put it on the
record.
First of all, we appreciate Mr. Barlow's comments. We met with
Mr. Barlow on Friday. We offered him the opportunity to review all
of the work papers; they were presented for him to review. He did not
choose to review them. He certainly is welcome to come back and
review those work papers at that time.
Some of the comments that he's referred to as audit comments
were in fact the Housing Department's response. For example, they
would not anticipate in the endeavor for a future program of this
nature. That is a response from county staff to the audit.
Part of the problem, and one of the issues that you see throughout
the audit, he is absolutely correct in saying some of it was not
definitive, primarily due to our inability to get the records that we
required for such a long period of time. We provided a timeline based
on staffs indication they were puzzled why it took so long to do this
audit. So we felt it important to include the timeline to completely
define the issues that we did have getting the documentation.
And I did just want to put that on the record. Mr. Barlow's
certainly welcome to come and look at the additional records. If he
has additional information that he feels was not provided, we certainly
would review that information in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said something that was interesting.
You said he's certainly welcome to come and take a look at the
records. Are you telling me you won't give him the audit report?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner, he specifically requested to
look at the records prior to our producing them because of the volumes
May 22 -23, 2012
and the dollar amount that would be associated with that. So we
provided them for him to choose which documents he would want.
He was provided today with some of the items that he had selected for
reproduction. So we're giving him the opportunity. Certainly if he's
requesting all of the documents, we can certainly copy those and have
them available for him.
MR. BARLOW: What I received today had nothing to do with
HOME whatsoever. It was all related to other matters recorded. The
time was about 4:15 or 4:30 on late last Friday afternoon. The books
were there. I subsequently, after talking with Allison, have come back
and identified specifically what I wanted by item and will submit that
to Bob tomorrow.
MS. KINZEL: That would be fine. And we'll produce those
records.
But he was given that opportunity. And that was the only reason
I said, Commissioner, review and select. That was his request
initially.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, Commission, who was first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Crystal, could you identify how
many homes HOME purchased?
MS. KINZEL: According to the initial records, there were 13
homes that were purchased. Mr. Barlow's indicated one of the homes
that he purchased was prior to the actual grant award so that would
reduce it to 12 homes purchased during the time of the grant period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how many were sold to
private individuals?
MS. KINZEL: We believe there was one -- in other words, all of
them were sold to private individuals except one which was referred to
a trust. That was subsequently removed from the HOME grant.
HOME did refund to the county some of the funds that they had
Page 181
May 22 -23, 2012
gotten to SHP associated with that trust transfer, but that was one of
the issues that we identified in the audit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of the funds they
returned?
MS. KINZEL: Well -- and part of our problem was, and it is
associated with program income, and we sat down with Mr. Barlow
and tried to go through. Whenever you use grant funds to purchase a
home and then you resell that home for a profit or for an additional
cost, those funds become program generated income funds that have
to be used similarly to the program. That was what we had the
difficulty in tracking how those funds went through those accounts
that Mr. Barlow had.
Originally we had one account. We've subsequently -- I think
over the weekend he sent us additional information that we will be
glad to review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many bank accounts were
associated with the HOME program?
MS. KINZEL: Right now I think there were two, and then there
was a third identified as a transfer item. But we are just in the
beginning stages of reviewing those bank accounts to go through that
information. So we really haven't identified anything specifically at
this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way that you can
identify the benefit to any of the officers of the not for profit? I mean,
if you could get the information.
MS. KINZEL: I believe we have reviewed the 990's and there
was no officer compensation associated with the 990 tax return as it
was provided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get all the statements
out of these banks?
MS. KINZEL: No, sir, we don't have all of the bank statements
associated with multiple accounts. We received the majority of
Page 182
May 22 -23, 2012
information. And that was part of the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you cannot verify what was
on the 1099.
MS. KINZEL: I have our auditor here who is more familiar with
the exact detail. I guess the Commissioner's question is did we have
sufficient detail provided on the bank account statements to validate
that the 990 was submitted properly and reconciled to the ledger?
MS. KEARNS: For the record, Allison Kearns from the Clerk's
Office.
We didn't -- I would say the 990's are prepared by a reputable
CPA firm. There's no way that they could put zero on the officer
compensation lines. There would have to be payroll taxes filed
quarterly and things like that. So I don't think there is any concern,
there was no compensation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just need to know where
that house went to in the trust.
MR. BARLOW: May I answer that question, Commissioner?
That house that you're referring to did not have any federal funds.
We purchased that from HOME's internal generated funds. The
money that Ms. Kinzel referred to had to do with replacing an air
conditioner. And through discussions with Buddy Ramsey at the time
and Marcy, we were told that if we replaced that $3,000 for that air
conditioner, we could sell that house to anyone that we choose to
because it wasn't touched by any federal money whatsoever, zero.
And that's the instructions that we received and so did so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Barlow, our listening
audience is just picking up bits and piece of all this. They don't know
the history of what took place in the beginning. This all took place
during the time when there was a tremendous demand for affordable
housing and local agencies were not able to pick up the slack. It was
-- businesses were coming forward. Everybody and his brother was
Page 183
May 22 -23, 2012
trying to get into affordable housing to try to meet a need. Problem is
they weren't all getting into it. The need was absolutely tremendous.
You formed this group on your own to be able -- as a nonprofit to
be able to help the community, plain and simple. Now, this venture
went fine at first, you had a tremendous outpouring of support from
the local developers. You -- very impressive group of people worked
with you on this. You had numerous donations of materials to try to
hold down the cost and to put together homes that were above the
norm for affordable. I've seen the product and it was really
remarkable.
So now we're at the point where everything's being closed out
and there's questions about -- I'm a little bit nervous about this, but
they seem to be questioning your integrity in the direction that you
were going. And I'm not comfortable with that at all. Basically it
comes down to that premise that let no good deed go unpunished.
Crystal, please explain to me exactly what we're dealing here as
far as the ability to be able to solve this situation simply, or is this
something that's going to drag out for years to come?
MS. KINZEL: No. Actually, Commissioner Coletta, let me
make something very clear. This audit was not a question of Mr.
Barlow's integrity. This audit was an evaluation of the Housing
Department and this particular program and the funding that was
provided to this program, as well as the documentation and the process
that was followed in this HOME award of CDBG funds.
The items that you see within the audit were accounting- related
issues regarding our ability or inability to track transactions through
this process. We have identified the issues that we had, county staff
has responded to those issues, and we are done with this audit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you're done. There's no
more issues left --
MS. KINZEL: This audit has been issued. Well, this audit has
been issued with the items identified in the audit outstanding. If the
Page 184
May 22 -23, 2012
Commission has additional questions or if Mr. Barlow has additional
information to process, we'd be glad to review that information. But
at this point we've issued our audit report for staff and the
Commissioners' review. It's done -- you know, the audit is complete.
MR. BARLOW: I have a few questions I was going to pose to
you through the public records request, just for my personal
satisfaction, because quite frankly, Crystal, in my business career I
have never had an audit that came close to this perspective. And I live
my life with a high level of personal integrity and credibility in our
community here and wanted to give back to the community some
things that I had been fortunate to get done in my job -- in my career.
After going through this one, I question my objective. And I just
hope that the county will want to have public - private cooperation in
the future. Because there's a lot of opportunity for that here. And
there's a lot of need here. And we need to marry those together.
Maybe we don't have the right protocols today. Let's find them before
we produce an audit that looks like, feels like it's a shot. That's the
way I feel.
MS. KINZEL: John, I think the one good point that you've made
here is that it's probably a lesson learned. However, I would go back a
step further. I think some of the issues at the very beginning, the
contract, you know, that was an issue when you initially started. I
appreciate that this was your first endeavor into this.
Grants, as I tried to explain in the very beginning of this
endeavor, are complicated. They have a lot of rules and regulations.
We simply try to monitor to those rules and regulations, and we try to
garner from the information that we're provided primarily from the
county departments what we can say about an audit. And that's the
information that we used.
We go through the department. You indicated that perhaps there
was some additional information. We told you we'd be glad to look at
that, if it's available. And we'll be glad to provide you with the
Page 185
May 22 -23, 2012
additional information you've requested.
MR. BARLOW: Allison asked for some information at the 4:00
afternoon meeting and to the best of my knowledge I provided it the
same night to her. Now, how long it takes you for checks and bank
statements and ledger, you know, ledger stuff. I'm not good at this
stuff. I've never been a CFO before. But I'm learning a hell of a lot
quick.
And I will tell you right now, the HUD document, I just found
this out, the HUD document, CDBG Grants, is 14,000 pages in length.
Similar to the Affordable Health Care Act. And John boy here was
the single person that did all this stuff. Because other people that were
on our board were working, just like Russell Budd had to leave
because he had a client to talk to today.
But I don't mind standing here from 8:30 until 4:30, if that's what
it takes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service --
MR. BARLOW: I feel like I got run over by a truck, as I
mentioned Friday afternoon. Thank you very much for your time. I'm
going to go home and see Gail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Thank you. We're going to
take a 10- minute break. We'll be back here at 4:46. And then we're
going to go to item 9.B.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2012 -18: AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ORDINANCE NO. 92 -18, AS AMENDED, (TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL) SPECIFICALLY SECTION THREE
"COMPOSITION OF MEMBERSHIP," TO PROVIDE FOR
MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES AND
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND; PROVIDE FOR
Page 186
May 22 -23, 2012
APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER RECOMMENDED BY THE
CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY; AND PROVIDE FOR A
MEMBERSHIP GUIDELINE OF TWO MEMBERS BEING
OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF MOTELS OR HOTELS, AND
ONE MEMBER WHO IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED AS AN
OWNER/OPERATOR — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission is back in session. We're going to go to Item 9.B
now.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to adopt an
amendment to the ordinance number 92 -18 as amended, the Tourist
Development Council. Specifically section three, composition of
membership, to provide for municipal officials from the City of
Naples and the City of Marco Island, provide for appointment of a
member recommended by the City of Everglades City, and provide for
a membership guideline of two members being owners or operators of
motels or hotels and one member who is otherwise qualified as a
owner - operator.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, second, except that I wanted
to talk about the advisory committee recommendations. And here's
one where they wanted a change -- demonstrated an interest to
something else, experience instead. But did you want to --
Commissioner Coletta --
MR. WERT : That was not --
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that's not in the current version. It
remained as it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It remained as it was? Okay, fine,
thank you.
Page 187
May 22 -23, 2012
Okay, second Commissioner Coletta's motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we have two people. Who was
first, Commissioner Fiala or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what? As long as
we're just doing it, let's just move on. I don't need to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll wait to speak after the public
speakers speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because we're going to talk about -- why
would we do this again? We've already had public speakers all day. I
mean, are you going to talk about something different this time?
Okay, call the -- how many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the first one.
MR. MITCHELL: Burt Saunders. He's gone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens. Marcia?
And she'll be followed by Rick Medwedeff.
MS. CRAVENS: The Tourist Development Council is
something that I think is a terrific council. I have not attended many
of their meetings, but I do watch them on television. So there's
probably quite a few people in the community who do as I do with
interest to see what kind of activities are going on and how those bed
tax dollars are being proposed to be spent, and hopefully that it's being
done in a responsible way.
You know, I can understand how the City of Everglades should
have representation on that. And I'm certainly in favor that there be a
regular representative on there. I'm in favor certainly of the City of
Naples having their representation, in favor of Marco Island having
their representation, the owner - operators of motels or hotels and
someone else who's otherwise qualified.
aff-Mm".
May 22 -23, 2012
But I've got to ask this, because I always feel that the contributors
of the taxes need to have a voice and need to provide their guidance
because they're the ones who understand the tax base, so to speak.
North Naples is kind of the redheaded stepchild a lot of times,
even though one of the largest contributors, you know, the
Ritz - Carlton exists in North Naples. And I would just ask if there isn't
some way that the North Naples area could please have a regular
representation on the TDC. It would seem a fair thing to do. And
that's all I have to say about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wouldn't that be Clark Hill from the
Hilton Naples? He's on there.
MS. CRAVENS: Is he on there? I think he's on there as an
owner - operator but not as a representative of North --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of a hotel, of a hotel.
MS. CRAVENS: Yeah, of a hotel, but he's -- he's because North
Naples is not a city, so to speak, it's a district, it doesn't have that
municipal entity representation. And I'm asking, is there some other
way that there could be a member at large, so to speak, from that area?
I don't know. You know, there is a president's council with a lot
of representation there, and that might be a good pool to draw from.
It's just a thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just merge with Naples and you get it
solved.
MS. CRAVENS: We tried. Didn't work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Form your own city and then
you've got it solved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, there you go. That's another one.
MR. MITCHELL: After Mr. Medwedeff will be Bob Naegele.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Naegele.
MR. MITCHELL: Naegele. Naegele, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Got to use proper English.
MR. MEDWEDEFF: For the record, my name is Rick
May 22 -23, 2012
Medwedeff. I'm the General Manager of the Marco Island Marriott
Beach Resort and Spa and a member of the Tourist Development
Council.
I'm here today to respectfully request that you consider
eliminating the additional language that is proposed in this executive
summary under section 3.C.
My request is for the following reason: The three seats that make
up the owner - operator category of the members of the Tourist
Development Council are designated for collectors of this tax. The
only industries that have the responsibility and, yes, burden of
collecting this tax are the home, time share industry and the
recreational and mobile park industry, of which the hotel industry in
Collier County collected 9.7 million or 73 percent of the 13.3 million
collected last year, and the recreational and mobile park industry
collected 152,000 or one percent of the total tax.
I use the word burden when talking about collecting this tax as no
other industry that benefits from tourism in this county like
restaurants, retail, entertainment venues, transportation, et cetera, have
this added tax that impacts their pricing of their product.
Commissioners, the Naples MSS`, hotel rates in 2011 ended the
year 12 percent down from the year 2008. I submit that prices for
restaurants, retail, entertainment and transportation, and for that matter
pretty much everything else with the exception of real estate have not
been so negatively impacted by the economic collapse as our industry
has.
As for the real estate collectors of the tourism tax, the
overwhelming majority of these individuals do not rely on this rental
income as their primary income source.
As such, the recommendations on how much tax is collected and
how that money is spent made by the Tourist Development Council
should be represented by the industry leaders that have a critically
vested interest in this subject matter, holding the three owner - operator
Page 190
May 22 -23, 2012
seats. This additional language seems to want to restrict the access of
those individuals.
Commissioners, I respectfully request that you do not restrict the
owner - operator seats to only two industry impacted positions. Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELL: And the next speaker after will be Steven
McIntire.
MR. NAEGELE: Mr. Chairman and members of the BCC, thank
you. My name is Bob Naegele, living at 7993 Via Veccia, in Pelican
Bay.
And although I don't represent the two anchors, commercials in
Pelican Bay, which are both the Waldorf Astoria and the Ritz, and not
far away from us is the LaPlaya and of course the Turtle Club just
north of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
But it just seems to me with the points Rick Medwedeff made,
that the folks with the skin in the game here are the hotels and the
motels. And although neither Hunter Hansen nor Ed Staros are here
today, I'm certain that they would support Rick Medwedeff s take on
taking away the three, taking it back to two and then trying to give an
equivalence of something called how do you define that? And one
member who is otherwise qualified as an owner - operator, how would
you ever define that?
I mean, you either are an owner - operator or you aren't. What is
the -- what kind of morphodite is in between?
So I fully support his position for going back to the original
language. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Steven McIntire will be followed by Mick
Moore.
MR. McINTIRE: Good afternoon. Steve McIntire. I'm
president of the Collier County Lodging and Tourism Alliance. I
represent all areas, aspects of tourism here in Collier County.
We also support Rick's position on this. And I would further
Page 191
May 22 -23, 2012
suggest that maybe some of those on the TDC, Tourist Development
Council, should not be recipients of the tourist tax dollars. It seems
like there's one or two who are on the boards of various entities that
receive tourist tax dollars. And so I would like for just you to take a
look at that and better evaluate these people. It is to develop tourism.
And again supporting Rick's statement, I think we do spend our
own money in order to represent and promote Collier County. The
last numbers that Jack came up with was $7 million is what the local
hotels put into this. And I think we should have representation,
because we do have our own personal dollars invested in tourism as
well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask you a question, please?
I'm a little confused about what you said, that there are some
people on the TDC --
MR. McINTIRE: I understand that Mr. -- and I always get his
name wrong, Mr. Olinski (sic), is he not involved in Parks and Rec?
And doesn't Parks and Rec receive tourist tax dollars?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not aware of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ski Olesky? He owns the -- he
owns the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He owns the marina at Lake
Trafford.
MR. McINTIRE: I understand that. And he --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What he's trying to say is Parks
and Rec's beach access and beach access improvement, that the Parks
and Rec here receives tourist tax dollars.
MR. McINTIRE: Right. Number one. Number two, he is on the
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's on the Parks and Rec board
and he's on the Tourist Development Council. So he has a voice,
that's what you're saying, on tourism issues.
MR. McINTIRE: Number one. And the Parks and Rec receives
Page 192
May 22 -23, 2012
dollars from the bed tax.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the citizens do. You're
trying to say he has a voice on the Parks and Rec board that decides
what beach improvements -- beach facility improvements. And he sits
on the TDC and makes decision --
MR. McINTIRE: On revenue issues as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. McINTIRE: And how those dollars are being spent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically you're saying there's
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do the hoteliers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. McINTIRE: I'm just saying we question people whom we
appoint, are they involved in an entity that receives these dollars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if we did that, wouldn't we be
excluding every hotelier? Because every additional dollar that the
TDC recommends to be allocated to advertising affects the advertising
budget of some of the hotels. Isn't that true?
MR. McINTIRE: I would suggest that those dollars by the hotels
would have been spent anyway. I think the marketing helps those
dollars go further. I think Jack has made several statements along
those lines that, you know, because we do join and partner with the
Tourist Development Council by spending our dollars on marketing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the more money you get from the
TDC to advertise the less you have to spend on marketing. But I don't
-- I don't --
MR. McINTIRE: I'm just -- you know, it's my understanding
that Mr. Olesky was on the Park and Rec, and Parks and Rec receives
dollars from the bed tax, that's all I'm saying. If I'm wrong, then
please correct me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I help clarify that? I think
what you're saying is where the decision as to what government
Page 193
May 22 -23, 2012
projects should move forward for TDC funding is being approved by a
committee over here. To have the same person sit on the TDC board
to approve for the funding for a project he just approved on his
government committee is where you see a conflict.
MR. McINTIRE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a very big difference
between having the TDC board make the decision with respect to, you
know, an expenditure conforming with the statute and being a needed
expenditure for outside of, you know, for -- it's not directly for their
personal benefit. It's their --
MR. McINTIRE: Oh, no, it's not their -- it's that what entity that
they're on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the conflict is is that I sit on a
board over here, I approve this project. Then I sit on the board over
here and I approve the funding for the project that I approved on the
other committee. We have the same problem with the Coastal
Advisory Council, same type of issue. I mean, you really do want
independence between the Coastal Advisory Council and the TDC and
you want independence between Parks and Recs and the TDC.
Because you basically want a second pair of eyes, not the same person
endorsing the same project through these various organizations.
Which raises the other issue of something that really concerns
me, that relates somewhat to what you say, and that is we asked Doug
Finley to step down from the Coastal Advisory Council when he ran
for office and lost him and his valuable input on the Coastal Advisory
Council as a consequence. And yet when Mr. Sorey ran for a position
with the city government as Mayor, we did not ask him to step down
from the Coastal Advisory Council and we did not ask him to step
down from the Tourist Development Council, contrary to our law.
So quite frankly, we should have. And he shouldn't be on either
of those two boards. And his -- I think his position, is he being
replaced by Penneman now?
Page 194
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get back to the
ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a big deal. And the point is
that you're raising a lot of issues that need to be considered in light of
the changes to this ordinance.
MR. McINTIRE: Well, I can't speak to that. What I can say is in
our industry the person who does the billing doesn't also receive the
check.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course. Exactly. And that's
exactly the problem you have when you have the same board
members on two county decision - making bodies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's next? Do we have one
after this one?
MR. MITCHELL: No. Well, sir, you want to say who you are?
MR. MOORE: Mick Moore from the Vanderbilt Beach Resort.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I just want to agree with Rick
Medwedeff. I'm fine with the language in the ordinance change
relating to a representative of the different localities, Everglades City,
Marco Island, City of Naples.
What troubles me is the language that suggests that the three
members who could be hotel operators, that it's going to be limited
potentially to two or that the suggested composition is limited to two.
That language is not necessary, and I believe it's detrimental to
an effective TDC, which could have up to three hoteliers on it, who
again are the people who are probably most directly impacted and
involved in the collection of the money. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just about everybody's light is on.
Who hasn't spoken recently? Is it Commissioner Coletta or
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I've been talking all day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
Page 195
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm the one that talks very
little.
I can't support the motion. I can support what the public has been
saying is to have three persons that either are in the hotel /motel
business or own it or something like that. So if the motion maker
would change that, I'd love to support the ordinance as presented with
that one change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may, I really don't
feel comfortable changing it. You know what I would be willing to
do, because I'm concerned about getting a balance of people on there,
you know, from across all spectrums, is that if you like, I would have
no problem increasing the membership by two people. One of them
could be an additional hotelier, and then we could have the other one
be something else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have nine of them
now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then you go to 11. The only
thing is --
MR. WERT: We would like not to go to 11, sir. The State
Statute says specifically nine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think hotels make a
tremendous contribution. Put three of them on there and there's going
to be a balance switch. I'm going to leave the motion where it is, at
two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another thing, we talked about
some people that I've spoken to in the community is there's nobody
from the beaches represented. And yet that's where by law part of this
money must go. And we don't even have representation. So if we're
going to change this around, maybe that should be the one that's added
instead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a Coastal
Page 196
May 22 -23, 2012
Advisory Committee that's all about beaches.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, I know. But what I'm
saying is on this committee that receives the money for the beaches,
shouldn't there be somebody on there representing the beaches? I
mean, if we're going to start changing composition of this thing,
because there's -- you know, owner - operator isn't a beach, nor is City
Councilmen -- nor are City Councilmen, excuse my English.
So I mean, I don't know, I would just prefer to see it go as it is
and hopefully -- I don't know when beaches ever are represented, but
hopefully people are fair enough that they do represent the beaches.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the requirement -- I'm so
glad you put this up. You know, the composition of the TDC is
statutorily defined. So we can't do more or less than what the statute
provides, okay.
It says not less than three nor more than four shall be owners or
operators of motels, hotels, recreational vehicle parks or other tourist
accommodations in the county and subject to the tax. So not less than
three nor more than four shall fall within that category.
So I have a problem if we only have two that are hotels. The
total board is made up of nine members. Is that correct, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a nine - member board, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the balance of -- in fact, if you
take three hoteliers and reduce it down to two hoteliers, then quite
frankly what you've done, you have been grossly unfair to the
taxpayers, because they're the ones who are paying. And they don't
even -- I mean, they don't even come close to a majority. Now you're
eroding their say that much more? I think that's really problematic.
I can't support this ordinance unless there would be a
modification to restore three hoteliers on the board and basically
conform to what the statute intends.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jeff, is the recommended ordinance in
Page 197
May 22 -23, 2012
conformance with the statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't mean you can't tweak it, but yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it meets the minimum requirements
of the statute.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 3 -2, with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still have one comment. And the
comment was about the hoteliers. We do have other hoteliers on
there, but we're not saying how big or small they are. Doesn't Bob
Miller represent a hotel? He has some rental properties or something
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's got a restaurant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know he has a restaurant but I
thought he also had hotels -- or a small hotel or something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rental properties, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rental properties?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ski Olesky has rental properties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah, but they're not large. I
didn't know if, you know, if that was supposed to make a difference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: From my perspective it's very
clear the way this Commission is going. I see how you spend money
May 22 -23, 2012
-- or I should say, I see how you waste money. I see how you don't
want taxpayer representation so you can control your, you know,
agendas. And quite frankly I find it very, very disappointing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, I was just
trying to say that I thought we were trying to somehow fill that gap
with the hoteliers by the guy in Everglades City. That way --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, you cast your
vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any pleasant items
on the agenda?
Item #I OF
RESOLUTION 2012 -86: REAPPOINTMENT OF RICK
MEDWEDEFF TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,
PYPIRINCY nN APRII, 21. 2016 — ADOPTED
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, I don't know if you want to
get to the issue of Mr. Medwedeff right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would like to just do that,
because now we have to -- the Tourist Development Council is going
to be reshaped, and I just wanted to nominate Rick Medwedeff. He
was already -- he's been on there, and this is his last month unless we
renominate him for another four -year term. And I'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to second it, but I have a
question.
This is not taking somebody off that's on there now. He's filling
the position that he currently has and continuing it. I second the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or at least that's the way I see it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, can we do that or -- we
Page 199
May 22 -23, 2012
haven't advertised it, can we do it?
MR. WERT: Yeah, it's been advertised.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also too, I'm sorry if I
caused a lot of grief with some of my suggestions. I do realize that
this man has all the talent that we could ever hope for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no reason we can't do that. But
we're going to have to make some adjustments.
MR. WERT: You are going to have to make some --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're going to have to reclassify
someone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Medwedeff qualifies for a
hotel /motel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Owner - operator. But that gives you nine
people already and Everglades City doesn't have a nominee unless you
take Mr. Miller and make Mr. Miller the Everglades City nominee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought they did.
MR. WERT: You have an Everglades elected official currently
that you've appointed. McBeth has been appointed to the board. So
you now have your complement of elected officials on the TDC, the
three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go through the people for me.
MR. WERT: It would be -- from the County Commission you
would have Commissioner Henning. You would have John Sorey
from the City of Naples. And you would have McBeth Collins from
Everglades City. Those would be your three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go through the rest of them.
MR. WERT: Okay, then if you accept Rick Medwedeff, he
would be one owner- operator. The second would be Clark Hill. And
the third would be Ski Olesky.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But isn't now this new ordinance
that we just voted in said you have to have one elected official from
Page 200
May 22 -23, 2012
the City of Marco and one from the City of Naples? The other one
from the City of Everglades doesn't have to be an elected official, it
can be anybody that the City of Everglades wants to nominate.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you're going to need to
reconstitute this board after the ordinance becomes effective on filing
in Tallahassee. But I believe Mr. Medwedeff will qualify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Medwedeff will qualify. He's not the
issue. Your issue's going to be the City of Marco and City of --
MR. WERT: That's the one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the question. Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have already done that part. What
we haven't done is decide how you're going to appoint the people to
meet --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We didn't vote on Mr.
Medwedeff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, didn't we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I thought we did, excuse
me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are you in agreement that all of
the people are slotted? I'm not objecting to Mr. Medwedeff, what I'm
suggesting to you is my counting under the new ordinance indicates
that we have to reclassify somebody in order to meet the requirements
of the new ordinance.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have 10 people -- you will
Page 201
May 22 -23, 2012
have 10 people for nine slots --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I'm saying.
MR. OCHS: You're going to have to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what are you going to do?
MR. OCHS: Someone is going to have to leave in order to get an
elected official from Marco Island appointed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't this gentleman from Marco
Island?
MR. WERT: But he's not an elected --
MR. OCHS: He's not an elected official.
MR. WERT: He is filling an owner - operator seat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I thought he was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he's a hotelier.
MR. WERT: He is filling the owner - operator seat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then that does raise a problem.
Because I know what's going to happen now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we see a list of everybody
that's on -- whatever we've done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, put that list up on the --
MR. WERT: That will help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: The only difference here, Commissioners, is you
don't have three owner- operators, based on your last action. You have
two owner - operators and an owner - operator not otherwise classified.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks to me like you've got three
owner - operators.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we don't have a City of Marco
MR. WERT: You don't have the City of Marco elected official
at this point.
Page 202
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That is the problem.
MR. WERT: And in order to make room for that, you would
have to take someone out of that elected official category.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the way to do that would be to have
Mr. Robert Miller be the Everglades City designee, since it doesn't
have to be a counselor.
MR. WERT: And technically he already is. He's a restaurateur in
Everglades City and has been sitting on the board as a
non - owner - operator. So he technically is in that seat already. You
haven't designated that specifically under the new ordinance, but yes,
he could continue to fill the seat that he's in as an Everglades City
representative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Representative. But that would mean
that Councilman McBeth Collins --
MR. WERT: Could not serve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- could not serve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may offer something.
Would you tell the Marco Island person that was appointed by the
council they couldn't serve or the City of Naples that was appointed
by their council? So in other words, we're --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I wouldn't do that. But you see, in
order to get to where the Board seems to want to go, you've got to get
rid of somebody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you do. And the
problem I'm having is, is that we're targeting Everglades City, or a
little while ago it was Immokalee. And I'm feeling very nervous about
this whole situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Commissioner Coletta, we
already have Bob Miller, he is from Everglades City. We already
have Ski Olesky, he is from Immokalee. And if we replace McBeth
Collins with the City of Marco so that we have an official from
Page 203
May 22 -23, 2012
Marco, because we have to do that -- I mean, let's face it, they're one
of the biggest contributors in our TDC funding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll tell you, I have to object
to Councilman McBeth from Everglades City who is the appointee
from the council being the person and then telling the City of
Everglades that Robert Miller is now their appointee. That's just not
right. You wouldn't do it to the City of Naples or the City of Marco.
Put aside the fact that, you know, we do have considerably more
people living there. There's got to be a fairness to this whole thing. I
mean, if you're going to do something, at least give Everglades City
the right to be able to make the call on it. I mean, if they have to
choose--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so just say they have one
person there and let them decide who it's going to be; is that what you
want to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know any other choice.
But I'm very reluctant to override Everglades City choice. This is the
first time that I've known in the past 10 years that they had an elected
official serve on the TDC. Trying to get one on the MPO has been
difficult enough.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, the ordinance you just
passed authorizes the City of Everglades City to give you a list of
potential appointees. So Commissioner Coletta, yes, you're right, it
will be the City of Everglades' choice who they want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I'm not happy about
having to choose between the two. It's just that I really think that we
owe it to the City of Everglades to make that call.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me. Just so that we
still have our City of Marco representative and we have our hotelier
from Marco.
Page 204
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, and
Jeff, if I'm correct, the Everglades City representative, the way the
ordinance has just been passed does not need to be an elected official.
It could be a non - elected official designated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. But it's still a
choice --
MR. WERT: And if the City of Everglades City did agree that
that's the position he would fill, then I guess you would need to
change the designation of Bob Miller from a non - owner - operator to an
owner- operator.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then you'd have 10 people on
there.
MR. WERT: No, you would have four people collecting the tax
is what you would have, which is --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. What I think we're going to
have to do, Commissioners, and you're going to have -- Ian's going to
have to get with you, Jack. City of Marco Island now is going to
supply a list of applicants for that seat. City of Everglades City will
supply you a list of applicants. I think it's -- and you'll have to choose.
I mean, it's going to be -- those seats are either going to have to come
from Miller's seat, Becker's seat or Murray Hendel's seat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah, and I -- let's
concentrate on the City of Everglades making their choice and we'll
go from there. That's the only thing I can think of is please, let them
do it rather than us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And rather than presenting us a
list of people, I would prefer that they present us their selection for us
to ratify.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of these two people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of anybody they want --
Page 205
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you're right. Okay. I
would assume it would be one of those two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, they would always present us with just a
single candidate, because they're both representatives of like the City
of Naples, the City of Marco, so it will go through their council
meetings and they'll nominate somebody and then send me the
nomination and you confirm it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what's really going to happen here is
that we will from this list of people, if it's the Board's desire to have
Mr. Medwedeff reappointed, then what we'll do is have to remove one
person from this list and that leaves a vacancy for Marco to designate
their person, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, Marco will have to designate their
person. And I would suggest --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's a councilperson --
MR. WERT: It does need to be an elected official.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest that Mr. Medwedeff s term,
in order for everybody to be staggered, would run to April 21 st, 2016.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, one question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At some point in the future, the
way this is set up, it doesn't mean that if a person from Everglades
wants to apply for a position and they're not the appointee from
Everglades City Council they would still be eligible to be able to
apply. It's not limited to one person.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. That's right.
Okay. Are we all right? Now let's do this one at a time, please.
Let's vote on Mr. Medwedeff s appointment.
All in favor, please signify -- with a staggered --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, April 21st, 2016.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. For a term that would expire
Page 206
May 22 -23, 2012
April 21st, 2016. 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: Okay, Mr. Medwedeff is reappointed
unanimously.
And we now will direct staff to communicate with Everglades
City and obtain their designee for -- communicate with Everglades
City and Marco Island and obtain their designated representative for
the TDC appointment.
MR. WERT: And we'll come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you come back to us and we will
ratify those people.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you need a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't need a motion for that.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, I'll take care of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're finished with this one.
Item #1 I F
RESOLUTION 2012 -87: A PROPOSAL FROM BRANCH
BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY (BB &T), PER ITB 412 -5829
RADIO ROAD MSTU FIXED TERM LOAN, TO PROVIDE A
FIXED TERM LOAN TO FINANCE COST FOR THE
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WITHIN THE RADIO ROAD, EAST OF SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD TO THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND
DAVIS BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
Page 207
May 22 -23, 2012
(MSTU), APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT
NOT EXCEEDING $64950005 WITH A MATURITY DATE FOR
THE NOTE NO LATER THAN TEN (10) YEARS FROM THE
DATE OF ISSUANCE, AND AUTHORIZING SUCH NOTE TO
BE PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED .5 MILLS ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY
WITHIN THE MSTU — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Mr. Chairman, if we might go to Items 11.17 and G
having to do with the Radio Road MSTU.
We have some members of the public here that are waiting on
that and I thought as a courtesy to them if the Board would be willing
to take those items up for consideration now? Is that okay, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay with me.
MR. OCHS: Item 10.F (sic) is a recommendation to approve a
resolution accepting a proposal from Branch Banking and Trust
Company, BB &T, per invitation to bid number 12 -5829, Radio Road
MSTU fixed term loan. To provide a fixed term loan to finance cost
for the landscaping and irrigation construction project within the
Radio Road east of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of
Radio Road and Davis Boulevard municipal service taxing unit.
Approving a loan agreement in an amount not exceed $649,000 with a
maturity date for the note no later than 10 years from the date of
issuance, and authorizing such note to be payable from ad valorem
taxes in an amount .5 mills on all taxable property in the MSTU.
And Miss Michelle Arnold will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any -- how many public
speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we do. One.
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One? Who is the speaker?
Do you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Floyd Chapin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you?
MR. MITCHELL: Floyd Chapin.
MR. CHAPIN: I pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least temporarily, Commissioner
Henning wants to take exception to it, I think.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michelle, thank you for the
extra information provided. Now, you're recommending a loan
amount of 550.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not what's in the agenda, what
the motion is?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the agenda identifies what the ballot
question was, which says an amount not to exceed, so it can be
anything less than that. And our recommendation is for an amount of
550.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what we're approving or
are you going to do that some other time in the future?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we actually have to actually execute a
closing. You're approving with this to go through that process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it will come back on
the agenda then.
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So somebody -- some staff
member is going to approve how much we borrow here; is that right?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, that's part of what she was going to present
to you with this item.
MS. ARNOLD: So the amount that we're recommending for the
Page 209
May 22 -23, 2012
closing that's going to occur after you all approve utilizing the process
through BB &T is 550,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's what the motion to approve
should say.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not necessarily. But that's
a good assumption. Okay, you're going to have your expenses for the
first obligation of payment is in 2013. That payment is 21 -- or
$91,000. When is that due?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, as soon as we close, I think we have what,
a month after -- and I'm going to turn to you -- three months? Okay,
three months after the closing is when our first payment is due. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Help us out, please. Just
stand right up there.
MR. FINN: Good afternoon. Edward Finn, OMB staff.
Principal and interest were due one month following the closing.
So there's going to be two or three payments this year. That's all I
wanted to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it will be fairly soon the first
payment is due.
MR. FINN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that makes sense. So that's
why you need a fund balance of 108.
MR.00HS: Yes.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir. We need some cash flow for this. And we
do need some reasonable reserves. There's still some uncertainty on
the taxable value which direction that's going to move and exactly
how much is going to be generated there. So our goal is to ensure that
the fund has adequate reserves so we don't have a problem,
particularly with the note.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can tell the citizens in the
MSTU that we're not borrowing as much money as anticipated,
Page 210
May 22 -23, 2012
approximately $100,000 less.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm good with that.
MS. ARNOLD: They're anxious to get their project started.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a second, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's already a second on
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, who was the motion second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was the second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta was. All
right.
Commissioner Hiller, you need to say anything about this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. This is actually a very
important agenda item in that it serves to educate all the other MSTUs
about an option that has not been put forward before, and that is the
ability to go out to the voters within the MSTU and by referendum
make the decision to borrow funds rather than save and then spend.
As long as there is enough of a margin, as our OMB staff explained,
that we have adequate reserves, this allows MSTUs to move forward
with projects today without being at financial risk.
And staff, because I've gotten so many requests about MSTUs
and how they're structured and how they can get funding, put together
a brochure at my request, because I didn't think it was an optimal use
of time for myself or any of the other commissioners or staff for that
matter to repeat the same story over and over again, which I would
like to introduce in the record. They did a really, really nice job,
which talks about the steps to creating an MSTU or MSBU, and all
about the advisory committees and the voter referendum as well.
So I'm going to introduce it into the record as an exhibit. And I'll
pass it down to -- so Leo, let staff know and Michelle that everyone
Page 211
May 22 -23, 2012
did a really, really nice job on putting that together and boiling it
down to syrup so citizens without a government background can
understand the process.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you so much. We had a lot of assistance
from a lot of different people. So I'll pass the word along.
MR. OCHS: We appreciate your suggestion on that,
Commissioner Hiller, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This isn't the first time that an MSTU
has borrowed money and financed their capital improvements.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We had one that was started in the
Nineties that just completed some work.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. Yeah, the Forest Lakes MSTU did
a bond --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's say in the history of young
people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's a very short time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want you to know, two
minutes ago Commissioner Coyle was in the back there choking on a
cookie asking me .if I would do mouth to mouth on him, okay, so I
don't want -- don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not really the way it worked.
MS. ARNOLD: Too much information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She first volunteered to use a fire
extinguisher to help me breathe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true. He said that -- he
even said maybe that would make me ask questions less.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's true.
Okay, are we ready?
MR. OCHS : You have a motion and a second, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
Page 212
May 22 -23, 2012
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: Okay.
MR. OCHS : Commissioners, thank you.
Item # 11 G
BID #12 -5878 FOR "RADIO ROAD, EAST OF SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD TO THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO
ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PROJECT"
TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $467 914.63 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: The next item is related. It's the recommendation to
award the Bid Number 412 -5878 for the Radio Road east of Santa
Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard municipal service taxing unit landscaping and irrigation
project to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Incorporated in the
amount of $467,914.63.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I proudly make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 213
May 22 -23, 2012
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. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Michelle, for your
hard work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta would like to get
a couple of things done quickly. Do we have people in the audience
who need to get out of here earlier?
MR. OCHS: No, I think we're okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would you like to do,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have a -- 6:00 I have to
depart. And there's two items on here and that's the -- trying to find
the numbers here now. 14.F and H, the -- having to do with CRA in
Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can't be 14.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The after - the -fact approval of a
grant?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, the recommendation to
approve a resolution -- no, maybe I got that one wrong. Yeah, for the
grant for the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What number?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Let me get it right up
here. Here it is. Items 14, the recommendation to authorize a
resolution to extend the Immokalee interim LDC deviation process for
an additional two years.
Page 214
May 22 -23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 14.13.3. Let's take that one first.
MR. OCHS: You want to go into session as the CRA board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should have did that this
morning.
(The Board is now in session as the CRA Board.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Penny, you're
presenting?
Item 4 14133
RESOLUTION 2012 -88: EXTENDING THE IMMOKALEE
INTERIM LDC DEVIATION PROCESS FOR AN ADDITIONAL
TWO YEARS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, this is 14.13.3, it's a recommendation to
authorize a resolution to extend the Immokalee interim LDC deviation
process for an additional two years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a
second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The LDC -- it's actually the
Immokalee LDRs, Land Development Regulations, they're written.
There's no reason why we can't approve them. Jeff, from our
discussion there's nothing stopping us from directing them to bring
those forward for approval? Has to be in the LDC cycle. My
understanding that Planning Commission is set to approve that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I don't know what -- hold on, I'm not
sure what the hold -up's been, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it can't be the master plan
Page 215
May 22 -23, 2012
because it has --
MR. KLATZKOW: These were interim, and we're supposed to
have a comprehensive Immokalee overlay LDC amendment. I don't
know if we're waiting on the IMP or what.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need to wait for the
IMP.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I don't know why we're waiting.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Commissioners, Penny Phillippi for the record.
This is the interim Land Development Code that was approved
two years ago. It was in place until such a time as the full set of LDRs
were written for Immokalee and allowed for certain deviations from
landscaping and those kinds of things, various -- there's a list of the
codes that allows you to deviate from.
The permanent set of land development codes for Immokalee
have been written but were predominantly based on the Immokalee
Area Master Plan, as proposed, the amendment as proposed. So as we
started looking at it, the Land -- the CCP -- the Planning Commission
has not yet seen those. We pulled them out of the review process
because if the Immokalee Area Master Plan isn't passed then that set
of land development codes become like a skeleton because there's so
many things that have to be pulled out of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's telling you this?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, we know it by reading them and the
reference back and forth to the amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this going to be a standalone
ordinance?
MS. PHILLIPPI: This one or the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The LDRs. The Immokalee
LDRs.
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, they'll simply be incorporated into the
Collier LDRs. That's my understanding.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your Land Development Code has an
Page 216
May 22 -23, 2012
Immokalee area specific section. I think the intent was for the -- as
the Immokalee Area Master Plan was adopted, that they would have
that section of the Land Development Code be amended to reflect
those.
And you're correct, sir, you could either ask staff to bring these
full adoption, or my recommendation is just to extend them and then
wait to see what happens at the hearing. And then I think they'll have
a combination, depending on what happens at the Immokalee Area
Master Plan, of either incorporating these or incorporating these and
some of the changes they want to include with or without the
Immokalee Area Master Plan. Because I think they intended to have
some separate LDRs referencing the Immokalee Master Plan.
So for instance, let's say the IAMP does not get adopted. I think
they're going to want to have these plus some other ones to be added
to these. So that's why I say do this as an interim. And then depending
on what happens with the Immokalee Area Master Plan add to these or
revise the whole set that comes forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard in the information,
there was a video out of your last meeting is, you know, you plan on
amending it again after we approve it. So there's no reason why we
can't do the LDRs now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not the full set that they have built up.
Those reference the IAMP. So I think they would have to do like a
tweak to those to be consistent with whatever is current for their
master plan. Again, I don't think they're at risk either way. I think if
you extend them as interim and then the IAMP gets adopted, they'll
come in with the full LDRs --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't need two years
then, because that's going to come back --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you could probably do it for 12
months and be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so -- I mean, the LDRs is
Page 217
May 22 -23, 2012
where the rubber meets the road. That's where they're going to be
built. But if you have a staff member that just sits on something for
two years, there's no benefit to the Immokalee people or future
businesses.
So, you know, extending it out two years, I don't think it's
acceptable, because there's no guarantee it will come back after a
decision is made about the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I'll
amend my motion to read one year, but it will come back for an
update in October. So by then we'll have put the Immokalee Master
Plan to bed one way or the other or be proceeding on a new one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about the next Land
Development Code cycle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When would that be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be in the fall.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What month? October? Or just
say the Land Development Code cycle. And then whatever ones that
are applicable we could bring back. Sure, why not.
MS. PHILLIPPI: We do have a full set drafted currently based
on those policies in the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan so we
would have to work on those. This interim code was used several
times, for example, with Florida Specialties. They used this for
deviations from their landscape requirements, 10 percent reduced. So
it's been used by several businesses in Immokalee who were trying to
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, we're going to vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait. No, the motion -- redoing
it over just to try to make it work so it's going to flow it a little easier
is that we'll bring it back at the first amendment cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fall amendment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Next scheduled cycle. I don't have the
scheduled date, but the next cycle.
Page 218
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And whatever ones are
applicable at the time and then we'll go from there. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. I didn't know we were calling
for the vote. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a lull there. I thought
I'd get a --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm the Chair, I forgot.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. That
motion is carried.
Next one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would be number four.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: And number four?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, excuse me, that's the
Gateway Triangle. And I might even be able to stay for most of these.
But I just wanted to make sure I got through the Immokalee ones.
MR. OCHS: Sir, you have two more that are Immokalee- related
under the CRAs --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two?
MR. OCHS: -- 14.B.2 and then you had an add -on item from
your change sheet today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Number two.
Page 219
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #14B2
"AFTER- THE - FACT" APPROVAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
APPLICATION TO COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AND
HUMAN SERVICE DEPARTMENT SEEKING GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,3245738 TO CONSTRUCT A
PLAZA AT THE CORNER OF 9TH AND MAIN STREETS IN
IMMOKALEE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14.13.2 is a recommendation to provide
after - the -fact approval of the submission of the attached community
development block grant application, the Collier County Housing and
Human Services Department, seeking grant funding in the amount of
$1,324,738 to construct the plaza at the corner of 9th and Main Streets
in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a wonderful good news
item. We've been talking about it forever.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Excuse me, Commissioners, it is a good news
item, but we were not awarded the grants, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what happens now, this item
is just pulled?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, it isn't pulled. We still need approval to
have applied at all. And if down the road at some point in time they
should have some extra money, they may consider this once again, but
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion and second to approve.
Any -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Penny, do you have any project
Page 220
May 22 -23, 2012
managers that understand and have training in -- of construction
matters like this?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, we do, actually. We have a project
manager with a degree in construction management. And we have a
landscape architect on board now, as well as a licensed planner. So
yes, we have very experienced staff in construction management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do, I have a question.
Since we're not getting this grant, everything that was proposed was
predicated on a grant. So how are you going to fund this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is just an after - the -fact
approval for application.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, we're not getting the grant
funding. This project was predicated on this finding coming from this
grant. So now that we don't have the funding, this project isn't going
forward.
MS. PHILLIPPI: That's true. Not immediately. But it will go
forward as we develop funds to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Weren't you planning on getting
the grant funding to pay for the land?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, we already owned the land. CRA owns the
land --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But how did you pay for that?
MS. PHILLIPPI: With TIF funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought that was going to be paid
for from the grant funding. It was part of the application --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Maybe you're getting confused with the First
Street Plaza. The First Street Plaza was funded with CDBG grant
funds, that was the $810,000 grant. This is a parcel that we bought a
year or so ago on Ninth Street for the purpose of creating those
Page 221
May 22 -23, 2012
book -end plazas at each end of the downtown.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is the parcel that the pipes
are sitting on?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And was the CDBG funding for
the other book -end approved?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. We did purchase that land. We closed
April 12th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But was the funding
approved? And that land is the land owned by the Ayala family;
correct?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have a grant to develop
that parcel but not to develop this other parcel that we bought earlier?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why was the decision made to use
the funding of that grant towards that parcel versus using it to develop
the parcel that we already owned?
MS. PHILLIPPI: There were a couple of reasons. It was part of
the big public realm town design plan to create two book -ends. So
when the opportunity came to purchase the other book -end, we went
ahead and moved forward with the First Street Plaza. And the other
piece of logic that went with that was it creates an entryway into
Immokalee as you drive up. From any direction there's an entryway
into town where you will have a central location as the square for
downtown. That was predominantly the reason.
The Ninth Street Plaza, we had a for - profit restaurateur offer to
assist us to construct it, and they did some other projects instead. So
we're constantly looking for ways to fund the construction of that
plaza.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 222
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, B.6.
Item #14136
RESOLUTION 2012 -89: THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("FDOT ") AND
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO OBTAIN PARTIAL
PROJECT FUNDING FROM FDOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO-
EXCEED $61,9475 FOR THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT PROJECT KNOWN AS
"MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS" AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am -- or yes, sir, 14.B.6 was previously
16.B.3 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution
authorizing the execution of a joint participation agreement between
the Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County, Florida
to obtain partial project funding from FDOT in an amount not to
exceed of 461,947 for the Immokalee beautification municipal service
taxing unit project known as Main Street Improvements and approve
all necessary budget amendments.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to give us a presentation?
MR. MUCKEL: If you'd like. It's -- you know, I have the entire
Page 223
May 22 -23, 2012
project file with me, I can give you the budget information. It can
show you plan sheets with the proposed improvements on them. Or
whatever you'd like.
Sorry, Brad Muckel, for the record, M- U- C- K -E -L.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was the one who pulled it. I
would like an explanation of what this is for and what's being done.
MR. MUCKEL: Okay, I can show you the plan sheets on the
overhead. One of the plan sheets, anyway.
This sheet --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You only have 10 minutes, otherwise
you're going to start losing Commissioners. So you need to move
along pretty quickly.
MR. MUCKEL: This sheet you have in front of you here shows
a demolition plan on this side. And below it is proposed
improvements. The subject project is for improvements to the
medians and the shoulders to Main Street in Immokalee, also known
as State Road 29, from Jefferson Aveilue to Ninth Street.
This is the intersection of Fifth and Main. This is representative
of the improvements that will occur at every intersection in the project
area. The grade -out area on the demolition plan here shows areas to
be demolished on the corners and in the median. There are large
planters here that you see just barely underneath the hatched out area.
They're probably about three, three- and -a -half feet tall and have
landscaping in them that impede the view of traffic coming onto Main
Street that sit at the stop bar here and look to their left to view
oncoming traffic. So those planters will be demolished and the
intersections will be reconfigured in their entirety with permanent curb
and low foliage instead of large planters.
In the medians you have what's referred to as quick curbing.
This is a photograph of what quick curbing is. It's a very -- a
temporary situation, bolt down plastic curbing with these fiberglass
bollards that when they're hit they break away and they can impede
Page 224
May 22 -23, 2012
traffic. Those will be removed and replaced with permanent two -foot
separated concrete islands.
And so FDOT has agreed to -- they had plans to do some
reconfigurations anyway. They have now agreed, the resolution and
agreement in front of you is to accept funding from them to help offset
the cost to construct these improvements along Main Street.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the overall cost of the
project?
MR. MUCKEL: The project has not been bid yet. The design is
at 90 percent. So once the design is completed to 100 percent level, it
will be vetted through your county purchasing department. It will go
out for bid. I can't estimate at this point what the overall cost will be,
but it will certainly more than the 60 -some plus thousand dollars
before you here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I guess my issue is is
why is this being handled through an MSTU?
MR. MUCKEL: This is an MSTU project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The road improvement is an
MSTU project --
MR. MUCKEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, to me this sounds like
transportation.
MR. MUCKEL: It's a transportation- related project within the
MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, I mean, it's not the kind of
project -- you know, the MSTU is supposed to be for supplemental to
basic -- I mean, to me this is like a regular transportation project --
MR. MUCKEL: I think the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as opposed to an MSTU
supplemental transportation project. I'm not really sure I understand
why this is being --
Page 225
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. MUCKEL: The purview of the MSTU was increased I
think last year to include not just beautification items but all
infrastructure - related items including transportation, drainage,
landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks, crosswalks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess I have a problem with this,
because I really think this is the kind of -- you know, all those things
that you're describing, I mean, you don't have the staffing to deal with
transportation, drainage and so forth, you know. So me, I just -- Nick,
can you come up here?
And maybe this is not a good example. But looking at this item,
it doesn't make any sense to me. It really doesn't. And I can
understand supplemental, the intent of the MSTU is for supplemental
projects, you know, above whatever the county provides for, you
know, the basic transportation or drainage needs. And to me what this
is saying is now you're going to need additional staffing to do these
projects through this MSTU as opposed to having transportation do it.
MR. MUCKEL: No, we have the staffing. We have a dedicated
project manager just for the MSTU in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That has the qualifications to deal
with stormwater, transportation, all that?
MR. MUCKEL: Absolutely. Yes, yes. He's a registered planner
and he's also a landscape architect, so yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick, what's your take on this? I
mean, I may be -- this may be a small example and may not be a good
example, but I've got concerns about what's going on out there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, you've done this
before with the Bayshore CRA. You're basically taking an area and
saying they're going to coordinate well with us, make sure we provide
technical assistance.
County Manager set up a conference call with both Penny and
Mr. Jackson to make sure that any items brought forward for the
MSTUs are coordinated with us and our engineers review it and
Page 226
comment on them --
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
May 22 -23, 2012
So you don't have a problem with
this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. As long as they bring
these things forward through us for review, that's fine.
Now this is tied into a state road. And what's happening is part
of what you approve today is that all the state roads are being taken
off our roles and responsibilities of maintenance. The state is
outsourcing them starting in the fall.
I'd be more concerned if it was something we were going to be
still maintaining. But at this point in time it would be a state road,
they process the permit. Actually, a permit is not required on this state
job. And since we're not maintaining them, the risk and liability to the
county drops I guess quite a bit.
Notice even as the CRA board you are Collier County signing
this agreement. And as the County Manager pointed out, these
MSTUs take on these responsibilities. That means they assume all
risk and liability with these projects, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it doesn't shift over to you at
some point when it goes wrong.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And Brad and Penny made,
you know, good faith effort, and we're going to make sure that we talk
about these projects and if they need our help we'll help them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're not going to have to
increase staff in order to do what's being done. I don't want to --
basically I don't want to see a duplication of staffing to achieve these
projects.
And again, this is a small example. But let's assume like the
bigger projects, like the drainage projects.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. If there are times where I think
the MSTU needs our technical assistance, we could on a per charge
basis if they said they want to hire some of our CEI folks or engineers
Page 227
May 22 -23, 2012
to do in -house design, we can do that. And Penny and I've have talked
and said we'll reach out to each other. When we need the help then
we'll do that.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a
second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 5 -0. Thank you very
much.
Item 414B4
ADVERTISING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FROM
DEVELOPMENT OR INVESTMENT COMPANIES INTERESTED
IN PARTICIPATING IN A GATEWAY TRIANGLE "MINI -
TRIANGLE" CATALYST PROJECT THAT INCLUDES ANY OR
ALL CRA -OWNED LAND; AND RETURN TO THE BOARD
WITH STAFF REVIEWED PROPOSAL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, while I have you here. If you don't
mind taking the other two CRA items up, Mr. Jackson has got another
appointment tomorrow, so I'm hoping to get these done in case you do
Page 228
May 22 -23, 2012
continue it to tomorrow.
14.B.4 is a recommendation for the Community Redevelopment
Agency to authorize the executive director to advertise a request for
proposal, development or investment companies interested in
participating in a Gateway Triangle mini triangle catalyst project that
includes any and all CRA owned land and return to the Board with
staff reviewed proposals.
Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners, David
Jackson, Executive Director of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
This item and the item that follows this one, which is a
continuance from a previous item in March, the 27th, I'd like to give
you a quick background. This will be real quick. It's a refresher.
You've seen all this stuff before but I want to set the stage for approval
for this project.
As you can see here, the plan of action that was submitted by the
finance committee, there was three things that we were supposed to
do, and this was approved by the Board on February 28th. I was
supposed to come back and report to you in 90 days, and we are at the
90 -day period.
The very first one there was issue the RFP. The RFP is currently
in process, and you should see that later on this month and poss -- not
this month but in June immediately to eliminate discretionary
programs. We started that program and we presented that to you
about a month ago in which we downgraded some of the CRAs and
grants and stuff and you approved that.
Today we're bringing in the third part of it here, immediately
issue RFPs for the next phase of revitalization.
At the last meeting, you asked for us to go ahead and do a CRA
land disposition plan. We put that together. We've vetted it through
the County Attorney. And which we have a plan. It shows a lot of
detail in here, but basically it's a step -by -step process of which we're
Page 229
May 22 -23, 2012
going to go through for the three catalyst site projects that we have
currently going on.
And what is the purpose of the RFPs to go forward is to expedite
the catalyst programs, to attract immediate development. We know
that the economy is turning around and things are getting better. We
want to facilitate rezoning and incentivize growth and put the property
back on the tax rolls at a higher value.
The next item is, for those who are not familiar with the CRA,
this is a location map of where the projects are going to be. The one
we're talking about today is up here, the 5.27 acres in the mini
triangle.
Also the following item that we'll talk about is the 17 lots at this
location and the six lots at this location. That's following this. I'm just
doing it now so we can talk about it. And there's a mixed use project
at this point.
I won't go through the projects in detail, but the current project
that we're looking at is, and this item has to do with the commercial
lots in the Gateway Triangle. This is a request for proposal that if you
approve that we will start the proposal in June, 2012 to be completed
in September, 2012. And the reason for the process that we have going
on with it is that while you're on summer recess staff can be working
on this and bring back some proposals.
The main thing I would see is the question that you would have is
why. And I know that's sitting right on the tip of tongues of a couple
of you. Why? Well, it's because I've had people come in and ask me
what are you doing with this property and when are you going to do
it? I had two gentlemen unannounced walk in with a contract, a
contract for millions of dollars for this site of land but I had to refuse it
and I couldn't accept it so I had to return it back to them for these
millions of dollars that they wanted to do a project on the site.
If we don't advertise it, we won't know. An opportunity arrives
every day coming through the office either for the residential
Page 230
May 22 -23, 2012
properties or for the commercial properties. And what I'm trying to do
here today is to say what is there to lose by putting out an RFP for you
to go out and say we have these properties available, they're zoned as
such, we have certain criteria that they have to apply for, and bring It
back to you and you can accept or reject or go to negotiations if it
meets your needs.
Only the CRA board knows what the best needs are of the CRA.
For Immokalee you know what the needs are. All of you together
look what the best needs are for the CRA and Gateway Triangle.
So in quick summary, the question is why not. I have
opportunities coming through my door. And as Andy Rooney from 60
Minutes said, don't worry about the opportunities that you miss,
someone else will get them. And that's what I'm afraid of, is that
there's opportunities as the market's coming around as people are out
there, that we look at each of the proposals. And in the proposals we
will staff them up, and when you come back in September, October,
we will present them to you for you to review, to accept, reject or to
negotiate.
And the same process will happen, not only with the commercial
properties but the residential properties that are on the next item that I
hope that you would approve. And on June 12th you will be receiving
a mixed use rezone application for 20 acres in the Bayshore area for a
multi -use project on a cultural center. And after you approve that in
June, what we will do is we will immediately RFP for it for a project
for someone to come in and build either on phases or wherever they're
going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Do I have -- anybody want to speak? Was that your button on
there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it is.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Were you first?
Page 231
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, why don't you give us an
update on what's going on with the loan?
MR. JACKSON: Ma'am, I think that would be inappropriate for
me to step in and give you my opinion. I have seen the RFP returned.
That is something that the finance committee and budget office
through the County Manager is processing. I could give you my
opinion, but then again for me to speak, I think it would be out of turn.
It needs to go through that process and be brought to you as directed
by you for the finance committee to review that and bring it back to
you.
I have an idea what's going on in there and I have an idea what
may happen. Your options on that RFP is to accept or reject. But in
any case, whether you accept or whether you reject an RFP on this
property, it will not close out until September, October, and you will
have already resolved whatever the results are for the refinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know what the results
are.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, that item is scheduled for review
by your finance committee on June the 1 st. We've received one
response to the RFP. That will be discussed and then brought back on
the subsequent June board meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know what the response
is now. And you know what it is. I'd like to know what it is. I'd like
to be informed before I make a decision on this.
MR. OCHS: Could you elaborate, ma'am, response?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To the RFP.
MR. OCHS: There was one response from Fifth Third Bank, and
I do not have all of the terms and conditions in front of me on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I haven't got any documents yet, ma'am.
Page 232
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're making a decision where
we know we've gotten a response on the RFP and we're not factoring
that into our decision - making process here?
So we have the information and I'm not able to get it, to factor
that into the decision of whether we should put these properties up for
sale, change the zoning, cut deals? Really?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I think you just heard Mr. Jackson
say that he will bring back all of these proposals and you have every
opportunity to reject them all out of hand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I want to know what's going
on with the financing. I have a CRA that has a very substantial
obligation. And the last I heard there was no bank that was willing to
restructure that debt and we were not able to pay the balloon on
maturity.
So in order for me to make a decision about what we should sell,
how we should sell, what we should rezone or not rezone, I want the
total picture.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: But Commissioner, we don't even --
we're just saying go out and see what you can do about selling it. We
don't know if you should sell or shouldn't sell. But that what he's
willing to do anyway is sell the property in order to help pay back the
loan --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no problem considering it
once we get back the proposal from the bank.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, your button's not on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light's on? No, that must
have been from before.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We don't have a motion on
this, do we?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Page 233
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. JACKSON: Yes, we do.
Commissioner Fiala, my response is that the loan refinance and
the property are related, but they're not dependent on each other.
They're separate issues and separate items. If the land gets sold, then
that goes toward the payment of the principal and we move on with
that. If the land doesn't have an opportunity, you go from there. So
they're related but not dependent --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got it. We understand it.
We understand it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that passes 4 -1.
Item #14B5
THE CRA DIRECTOR TO PUBLICALLY ADVERTISE FOR
OFFERS TO PURCHASE ONE OR MORE OF THE TWENTY -
THREE (23) CRA OWNED RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO BUILD
SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES AND BRING BACK ANY OFFERS
FOR CRA BOARD REVIEW, APPROVAL OR REJECTION —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14.B.5 was an item that was continued from the
March 27th, 2012 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency consider
authorizing the CRA director to publicly advertise for offers to
purchase one or more of the 23 CRA -owned residential lots to build
Page 234
May 22 -23, 2012
single- family homes and bring back any offers for CRA Board review,
approval or rejection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, let's go to 10.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: That concludes the --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are we done with the CRAs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, the CRA meeting is closed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And before we move to the next
item, I would like a copy of the response from the bank. I want to see
what Fifth Third proposed with respect to -- as a response to the RFP.
So Leo, if you could e -mail me that response, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I'll send it to all Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're going -- let's get -- we're going
to be losing commissioners. Let's get something easy out of the way.
Let's go to 10 and see if we can't get those appointments done.
Page 235
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -90: APPOINTING KARL H. GENG TO THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve committee
recommendations of Carl Gene. And I'd like to make a comment. We
have on there another person that was passed over. She's in
Immokalee, and Magda Alluvia (sic) --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ayala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ayala. She's bilingual, she's got
a master's degree. She's been a business owner for 18 years in
Immokalee. And the reason I'm bringing it up is that I think that she
would be quite qualified, although I defer to the committee's
recommendations here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. 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 passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to know what's going
on with Floyd Cruz.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. Is he supposed to give us
periodic reports or what is he supposed to do?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is is that he was
-- he had applied to this and that he could be considered for this.
Page 236
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked Mr. Curry that question, since I
know he was an alternate. I was told that Mr. Cruz did not apply.
Item # 1013
RESOLUTION 2012 -91: REAPPOINTING THOMAS X. LYKOS,
TERRY P. JERULLE AND RICHARD E. JOSLIN TO THE
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then that brings us to IO.B.
MR. OCHS: Appointment of members to the Contractors
Licensing Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve the
reappointments of Tom Lykos, Terry Jerulle, I'm sorry if I really
murdered that name, and Richard Joslin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
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: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Item #I OC
RESOLUTION 2012 -92: APPOINTING RAYMOND CABRAL TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
Page 237
May 22 -23, 2012
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IO.0 is appointment of member to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Mr. Raymond
Cabrelle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
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: Mr. Cabrelle is appointed unanimously.
That brings us to IO.D.
Item #I OD
RESOLUTION 2012 -93: REAPPOINTING MAURICE
GUTIERREZ AND APPOINTING MICHAEL SHERMAN TO THE
BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA ADVISORY BOARD
— ADOPTFf)
MR. OCHS: Appointment of members to the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle CRA Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendations, Maurice Gutierrez and Michael Sherman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
Page 238
May 22 -23, 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: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OE
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES PRESS RELEASE MAY 169
2012 WITH A DEADLINE OF JUNE 5 - READ INTO THE
RECORD BY IAN MITCHELL, THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER
TO THE BCC
MR. OCHS: 10.E is advisory board vacancy press release May
16th, 2012.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we currently
have two vacancies on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
and a vacancy also on that committee for someone to act as an
alternate.
The Animal Services Advisory Board has one vacancy, and this
is for a veterinarian or vet technician.
The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle local Redevelopment Agency
Advisory Board has one vacancy.
The county government Productivity Committee has two
vacancies.
And the Development Services Advisory Committee has one
vacancy.
The Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals has two
vacancies.
Page 239
May 22 -23, 2012
And the Environmental Advisory Council has one vacancy for a
technical member.
The Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one
vacancy.
And the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has three
vacancies for terms to expire in June, 2015.
Ochopee Fire Control District has one vacancy.
And the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee has one
vacancy for a term to expire in March, 2016.
And those are your current vacancies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you said we were going to stop at
6:00. Once again, we're right on time.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, sir, please, we have an attorney here
who's been waiting all day, has to go back to Tampa. Would you be
willing to take one more item?
(Commissioner Coletta has left the board room.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would, but we're going to have to do it
quickly.
Item 41 I K
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE
OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR REPRESENTATION IN THE MULTI -
DISTRICT LITIGATION RELATING TO DAMAGES INCURRED
AS A RESULT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: It is Item I I.K. And it's a recommendation to
authorize County Attorney to engage outside counsel for
representation in the multi - district litigation relating to damages
incurred as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Mr. Wert will
present.
Page 240
May 22 -23, 2012
This item -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is staff s recommendation to select
this attorney and you're merely asking that we approve it?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve, the second -- by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by who?
Commissioner Hiller, did you second it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The first question is is what are we
asking for in the way of damages? What are we claiming we've lost?
MR. WERT: The claim to BP was a combination -- first of all,
Jack Wert, Tourism Director, for the record.
It was a combination of losses, first of all. Tourist development
tax loss of 281,706 back in the summer of 2010 as a direct result of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And the emergency promotion dollars
that we used to overcome the misinformation in the marketplace
totaling 108,718.21. That's a total of $390,424.21.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought the monies for the
emergency advertising far exceeded the number you're quoting. I
thought the basis for the budgetary adjustment was more like a million
dollars or something along those lines, or two million.
MR. WERT: What we did, Commissioner Hiller, was the dollars
that we could absolutely attribute to the oil spill totaled the amount I
just stated. We were also in an economic crisis and we used additional
dollars, that's true, to bring us back to some level where we were
before, before the worldwide recession.
So we were able to document through some pretty extensive
research the dollars strictly attributed to the oil spill, and that's what
we have claimed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there's no losers pay? It's a
Page 241
May 22 -23, 2012
full contingency?
MR. HINKLE: I'm Don Hinkle, H- I- N- K -L -E, from actually
Tallahassee.
It is purely contingent fee. If there's no recovery, the county has
no obligation. And we have forensic economists and accountants that
will look at your budget and apply the economic analysis to determine
what all the losses are. Because I think some of the other revenues
were impacted as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9A
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
Page 242
May 22 -23, 2012
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 - MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 12, 2012 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, one more housekeeping item, I'm
sorry. 9.A was listed and advertised as an item that was continued
from the May 8th meeting and being further continued to the June
12th meeting. But if I could get a motion and a vote on that, since it
wasn't indicated on your change sheet --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning for
approval, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we are -- we're going to be in recess
until tomorrow morning at 9:00.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much more do we have left?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have five more items.
Page 243
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd be willing to do those five
items, because I don't think they'll take a long time. Or do you -- or do
you need --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be happy to leave it for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, one of them is not going
to definitely pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, it will take too long.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can start earlier too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we can't. I have to get my
children to school.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9:00 tomorrow morning.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
(A recess was taken at 6:15 p.m. until the following day, May 23,
2012.)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. by order of
the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
Page 244
May 22 -23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
May 22 -23, 2012
(Day 2)
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle (Absent)
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
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 245
May 22 -23, 2012
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. This is a
continuation of the May 22nd, Collier County Commissioner meeting.
We'll begin this meeting like we do all meetings, with the Pledge of
Allegiance. Please stand.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you and good morning.
Leo, where did we leave off?
Item #1 I C
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$11237,212.62 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. AND
RESERVE $109,894 ON THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR
FUNDING ALLOWANCES, FOR A TOTAL OF $1,3475106.62
FOR ITB NO. 11- 5718RR - "OIL WELL ROAD BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT" PROJECT NO. 66066 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we left off on Item I LC on your
regular agenda. It's a recommendation to award construction contract
in the amount of $1,237,212.62 to Quality Enterprises, USA,
Incorporated, and reserve $119,894 on the purchase order for funding
allowances for a total of $1,347,106.62 for invitation to Bid Number
11- 5718RR, Oil Well Road bridge replacement, Project Number 6066.
Mr. Jay Ahmad will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jay Ahmad,
your Director of Transportation Engineering.
I have a presentation with me I can present, or if you wish, I can
answer questions.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a question, sir. This
bridge is a much needed facility. I have no question about that. But
would box culverts be less expensive? Has that been looked into?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. We have -- during the design process
Page 246
May 22 -23, 2012
we've looked at all options, including box culvert.
I'm going to put something on the visualizer that just kind of help
me answer this question.
What we looked at, we looked at the box culvert and we looked
at the -- what we call a cons -span, which is on the visualizer, and that's
the project's design as we went to bid.
The difference between a box culvert and a con -span, a con -span
is actually a box culvert with a curvature on top and no bottom. Some
box culverts, they are four - sided; some of them actually three- sided.
The factors that get involved in deciding what type of bridge is cost,
the site conditions, constructability during the construction, and
traffic.
The engineers and ourselves looked at all these factors, and the
best design was for a con -span. We used this con -span at the
Northbrooke Bridge on the north side of Immokalee, and the
construction went very well. The actual construction is just
foundation on the bottom. These things come -- the con -span panels
come on a truck and from a truck they get lowered down. We block
the canal on either side. And if we time it right during non -rainy
season, non - hurricane season, we can get in and out pretty quickly.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sorry, sir, I heard your
answer but I'm still -- I really didn't quite understand how the cost
difference was. I don't think you really explained that. Is this more
economically feasible or is box culverts less or box culverts don't hold
up or are they a problem with water management installing them?
Those are the kind questions I should be asking.
MR. AHMAD: Right. The cost is a factor. This is a lot cheaper
because it takes less time to construct. And the site conditions here is
conducive to having this type of design.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That answers my question. I
was just trying to find what was the better price to go with.
Commissioner Hiller?
Page 247
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you make the presentation,
please?
MR. AHMAD: Sure.
Okay, this is Item 11.C. It was 1 LA earlier on when we did this
presentation. And today is May 23rd. It's carried over from the
previous meeting, of course.
Just a little bit history of this project. This bridge is on the FDOT
annual inspection. They do biannual inspections every two years and
they come up with a recommendation or a score. The score for this
bridge is 48 out of 100. Anything less than 60, they claim -- or they
consider critical. So this bridge is on their critical watch list.
The reason for this low score, there's issues with the structural
and safety of the project -- the bridge. The bridge got struck three
times in the past couple years by trucks due to narrowness. And its
existence is just east of 29 on Oil Well Road, so as people -- as trucks
mainly make that turn, they strike this bridge.
And you can see some of the -- that's a photo of a truck struck
that bridge. And as I mentioned, it was struck three times in the last
couple of years. And you can see the deck itself got damaged and
there's some problems with the deck. There's some problems with --
the pile supports that holds this bridge is made out of wood. It was
built about 61 years ago and it reached a life that it needs to be
replaced.
We designed it. We had a consultant design it, Stanley
Consultant. And we went out to bid and we got a bunch of bids, and
the low bidder is Quality Enterprises, which was about two percent
below engineer's estimates. The bids were very close between the low
bidder and the second and the third, and with engineer's estimates.
So we are -- this is what we're building. We're adding a right turn
lane and we're replacing the bridge with the con -span bridge that you
saw and the similar bridge that we built on Northbrooke. And we're
recommending the award to Quality Enterprises.
MEM
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you go back to the lane
design. Can you explain what changes are being made?
MR. AHMAD: Yes. The bridge is 24 feet wide and we're
expanding the width of the bridge to add a right turn lane and make a
throat width to accept those trucks turning wider. And if I can see, it's
36 plus 15 is 51 feet wide from 24 feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're doubling the size of the
bridge.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that necessary?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, ma'am. The primary reason why this
bridge has been struck a few times is, as you can see, it's just east of
29, State Route 29, and as trucks make that sharp turn, they end up
striking the abutments, as was shown on one of the photos that I
presented. And it is necessary to have that throat width to accept
those turning trucks.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jay, did we ever get
reimbursement for the damage that was done by these trucks?
MR. AHMAD: I don't know the answer to that. Usually an
accident -- normally we do when a crash report gets filed and, for
example signs or signals. I am not sure specifically if we got
reimbursed for this one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many crashes have we had?
MR. AHMAD: The -- my -- what I know about the damage to
the bridge from road maintenance, three major crashes that caused --
you could see those things that on top, the barricades protecting, you
know, or warning the traveling public not to be close to the railing
because the railing is not going to hold a vehicle if it gets hit again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many lanes go into the
bridge?
MR. AHMAD: The bridge is two lanes wide currently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How wide are the roads going into
Page 249
May 22 -23, 2012
the bridge, like going in and going out on either end? How wide are --
or how many lanes are the roads on either side of the bridge?
MR. AHMAD: Route 29 has I believe five to six -foot shoulders
on either side. It has 12 -foot lanes. So I would say 12, 15 -- 35 to 40
feet wide roadway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Oil Well, how wide is Oil
Well going into the bridge?
MR. AHMAD: 24 feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's going to remain 24 feet?
MR. AHMAD: No. As you can see, if you look on Oil Well on
the west of the intersection, it's -- we're having the pavement marking
a little bit wider. It will be from 24 feet to 51 feet or 50 feet or so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that portion of Oil Well is
going to be expanded?
MR. AHMAD: Just the -- no, ma'am. Just the pavement
marking. And if you could look to the west.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. AHMAD: It's currently -- you see where the dotted lines,
that's existing. It will be widened just the area of the intersection just
slightly to accept those lanes that we build. Not the whole roadway,
just maybe about 100 feet or so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. And on the other -- I see the
State Road 29 intersection. I'm talking about the other side of Oil
Well.
MR. AHMAD: West of the intersection.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, east and west of the
intersection. So what's -- you've got the bridge and then I'm assuming
that Oil Well continues to the east and to the west. So what's going on
with the road on either side of this bridge?
MR. AHMAD: Just on the other side of the bridge we're just
tapering back to the existing conditions of the two lanes that exist.
We're just improving the bridge and just --
Page 250
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it continues to stay as a
two -lane road on the other side of that bridge?
MR. AHMAD: That is correct.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I could, Jay, too, this bridge,
will this be compatible if they four -lane 29?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir, this bridge with the radiuses that are
designed will accommodate any future improvements on 29.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve
by Commissioner Fiala. And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Thank you
very much, Jay.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome. Thank you.
Item #1 I D
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY AUTHORITY, DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO FORMALIZE STAKEHOLDER
ENDORSEMENT AND THE COUNTY MANAGER TO
ADVERTISE THE FINAL ORDINANCE FOR SUBSEQUENT
Page 251
May 22 -23, 2012
BOARD ADOPTION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11.1) is a recommendation to
approve a proposed ordinance establishing the Collier County Public
Safety Authority, direct the County Manager to formalize stakeholder
endorsement and authorize the County Manager to advertise the final
ordinance subsequent for adoption.
Mr. Summers, your Director of the Bureau of Emergency
Services will present.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and
Emergency Management.
Nothing too elaborate in the presentation this morning, just to
highlight with you the considerations.
If you'll recall back in January of 2011, the Citizens Blue Ribbon
committee brought a discussion forward about the formation of a
public safety authority. With an enormous amount of work and I will
lightly say both compromise and healthy discussion and reasonable
consensus, we have this draft for you for consideration to establish the
public safety authority.
I think there are two critical components in this discussion that I
wanted to make you aware of. Number one is that as we have had in
the fire /EMS discussions, we all have different masters, different
boards, different elected officials. So while we may have a lot of
committee work and operational discussions, if we don't get
endorsement from those independent governing bodies, it is hard to
make change.
One of the caveats in this is that should you support the public
safety authority ordinance concept as that would direct the County
Manager to write these agencies such as the City of Marco, Naples,
the independent fire districts, the Sheriff, the hospitals, et cetera, to get
an endorsement or a resolution or something from them that would
Page 252
May 22 -23, 2012
formalize their participation in the public safety authority so that the
public safety authority could have some direction and influence on the
recommendations and coordination provided by the public safety
authority.
So I think seeking that formal support to some degree, and that
might be by letter, by resolution, or even if necessary at some point
maybe even an interlocal might be agreed upon. But at this point as
we're trying to get this started, we wanted to make sure you're aware
that we need that formal support from these elected bodies.
And finally, this does sunset the EMS policy group. So this
would replace the EMS Policy Board. I'm a little worried that this is a
large group to manage with the membership, but let's give it a shot.
So we'll work through that.
And also the group agreed in a number of the meetings that we
had to be self - billing or self - supporting, if you will, meaning to solicit
those organizations for a small amount of money to handle
administrative matters, clerical issues, mailing, minutes taking and
that kind of thing. So we have some work to do there that we'll have a
future discussion, if you agree.
So this is for discussion and direction. Then we would
communicate to those agencies. Don't know how long that would
take. We'd ask them to be time sensitive to do that. And then of
course bring back the formal ordinance ratification process to you.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Summers, a question
regarding the direction how we got to where we are today. Is this a
spin -off of the Chamber of Commerce and the community's Blue
Ribbon panel?
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. The Citizens Blue Ribbon
group was a component, if you will, or under the umbrella, so to
speak, of the Chamber, that's correct. So it took quite a while and a lot
of discussions and meetings and e -mails to get this ordinance draft to
the position that it is today. And we've had two or three stakeholder
Page 253
May 22 -23, 2012
meetings in this discussion, as well as correspondence.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does this direction pretty much
follow the original Blue Ribbon panel?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, it does. Members of the Blue Ribbon
committee were in fact in our stakeholders meetings and as we went
through these various drafts and reiterations on this. So they were part
of that. Most of those folks -- obviously the Blue Ribbon committee
has its sunset. They have made their comments and moved on to other
projects, or the Chamber's moved on to other projects. But this does
very much follow the theme provided by the Blue Ribbon committee.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The objective is to bring some
sort of uniformity to the response and treatment?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, it does. It does. It does do that. And
what I hope it will also do is bring -- while I think the EMS
component is on solid ground, I hope it also brings what I call a
master planning concept to the fire service delivery as well. So I hope
that it stays somewhat unified and helpful in those areas.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to hear from
Commissioner Hiller first.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. Could you please begin,
before I ask my questions, by a presentation so the public understands
what's being proposed.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. Just briefly, the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a diagram that shows
the members of the organization and where it would fall within, you
know, the hierarchy of the county and other districts?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, I don't have a diagram per se.
I have the roster of the -- on Page 4 of 8 and Page 5 of 8 is the roster
of the attendees. And honestly, I think that structure really simply is
as an ordinance this becomes an advisory board, and the goal here was
Page 254
May 22 -23, 2012
to simply --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put the roster on the
overhead.
MR. SUMMERS: Let's see. We may have to do this in two
sections because there is a definition behind the roster. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can just read off all the
participants so everybody in the audience can know who will be a
member of this.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is a 17- member advisory
board. The membership includes the Collier County EMS medical
director; medical director of each non - transport agency holding a class
three certificate of public convenience and necessity; an active
emergency department physician representing the collective campuses
of Physicians Regional Medical Center; an active emergency
department physician representing the collective campuses of the
Naples Community Hospital; a senior staff representative from the
Collier County Sheriffs office as recommended by the Sheriff;
representative from one of the municipal fire departments -- excuse
me, police departments, as recommended collectively by such police
departments; a representative from the Collier County Fire Chiefs
Association chosen from -- by the association from among the
municipal dependent or independent fire districts; the chief or
designee from Collier EMS; a full -time Florida certified and actively
participating EMT who is not a member of Collier County EMS; a
full -time Florida certified and actively practicing EMT who is a
member of EMS, designated by the County Manager; full -time Florida
certified and actively participating paramedic who is not a member of
county EMS; and a full -time Florida certified actively practicing
paramedic who is a member of EMS; a hospital administrative
representative from each of the local hospital corporations. At this
time that's Physician Regional and Naples Community Hospital. And
finally, three citizen representatives whose applications will be
Page 255
May 22 -23, 2012
reviewed by the authority and then brought to the Board of County
Commissioners for recommendations for appointment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to that list, the two
comments I want to make is it should be clear, for example, in number
seven that the selection will be made by the Fire Chiefs Association.
It doesn't state so in that sentence. Even though that's what you said,
that's not what it says.
Now shall be -- it says such fire service or shall be chosen from a
municipal dependent or independent fire district by the Collier County
Fire Chiefs Association. It doesn't say that. It just says that there will
be a representative from the Fire Chiefs Association to represent these
groups. So that individual will be selected by the Fire Chiefs
Association. So that needs to be a correction.
The other issue is on number 13, just like we have the medical
directors from each of the hospitals, we should have the administrators
from each of the hospitals. To rotate between the two hospitals is
going to cause a problem, because there are a lot of administrative
issues associated with, you know, handling what is being proposed.
And so I think they each need to sit on this board.
And you can keep the number the same and instead of having
three citizen representatives, have two, since, you know, one and two
seems to be the number of individuals representing each of these, you
know, various entities. I think two citizen representatives would be
enough and then add the Physicians Regional and Naples Community
Hospital as administrative representatives.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we agree. And that is in fact what
was intended by that language. It says from each, not either /or. So in
fact that's why we added a third citizen representative, so we'd have an
odd number. We initially had 15 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, because it doesn't look like
that.
MR. OCHS : We will clarify that. But that is certainly the --
Page 256
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It actually does say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. But it doesn't --
because it says respective organizations. So what I would do is
change the presentation for purposes of the ordinance to say 13, you
know, a hospital administrator from Physicians Regional; 14, a
hospital administrator from Naples Community.
MR. OCHS: We're happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because it just doesn't read clearly.
And again, wherever it doesn't say so now, that those
representatives are being selected by those respective entities. So the
assumption isn't that it's the Board that will be appointing them.
MR. OCHS: It's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And quite frankly, in all fairness of
the citizen representatives, I mean, if you want to be fair, all three
should not be appointed by the Board of Commissioners. One, should
be appointed by fire, one should be appointed by police and one
should be appointed by the Board. And then you've got three citizen
representatives represented by the three service agencies.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, all I can tell you is we spent a year
with the stakeholders on this. I think they all felt, and that included all
the stakeholders, that by giving the authority through its membership
the opportunity to vet the applicants and make recommendations to
the Board, that was satisfactory to them. Because ultimately it's your
advisory board, not the fire districts' or the sheriff s or the hospitals'.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was really my next question.
Who is this board intended to serve? And you just answered that. It's
really only answering to the Board of County Commissioners. So it's
an advisory board that doesn't have any legal authority other than to
advise the Board on how they would like to see EMS services
administered in the county.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The intent as the Blue Ribbon
committee recommended was to get all the stakeholders involved in a
Page 257
May 22 -23, 2012
public safety authority that could review pre- hospital emergency
medical services, treatment and transport. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but there's a big difference
between being an independent authority that reviews and sets policy
with respect to EMS services as compared to merely an advisory
board answering to the Board --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of County Commissioners. And
my understanding is that the Blue Ribbon committee wanted the
former, not the latter, not what you're proposing here in terms of
scope.
MR. OCHS: Again, the consensus from the stakeholders was
that over time this may be developed to the point that that would be a
follow -on recommendation not only to this Board but to all the other
local government organizations that are represented here by the
stakeholders, that this may at some point develop or evolve into an
independent authority.
In fact, you'll note that all the terms of office are all the same
four -year term, not staggered, because there could be a likelihood that,
you know, before we reach that four -year period that this organization
will become an independent authority instead of an advisory board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it will be governed by
Sunshine?
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And public records?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And will be purely advisory in
nature, meaning none of the decisions made by the board will be
binding?
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And everything will be subject --
everything recommended by this board will be subject to approval by
Page 258
May 22 -23, 2012
the Board of Commissioners?
MR. OCHS: Yes. And the fire districts will ultimately have to
sign on as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you
still want to speak?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I didn't know
Commissioner Hiller was through.
Are you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you mean that the fire
districts will have to sign on as well?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this is the challenge all along. You
have multiple stakeholders all reporting to separate elected bodies
trying to work collaboratively to agree on protocols and training
regimes and drug kits and you name it, what kind of vehicles, what
dispatch protocols. They are all well intended. I think we're all
wanting to work collaboratively to improve the system.
But at the end of the day all we can do is appeal to that
collaboration, because each department is ultimately governed by a
separate elected body.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think the clarification is
essential, and that is that nothing that this advisory board recommends
can be binding on any of the other independent agencies, be it the
Sheriff or the fire districts, and that the -- whatever recommendations
are made to the Board and adopted by the Board are only those
recommendations that the Board has jurisdiction to decide.
MR. OCHS: That's fine. I mean, that's why we are setting this
up to come to you for initial conceptual approval, then to go back and
get endorsement by all these stakeholders. If they have some
objection at this point, we will certainly learn that through the request
for an endorsement. If they give you the endorsement, that's clearly
an indication that they're ready to move forward under the terms of the
ordinance.
Page 259
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, what I'm describing is your
understanding of what the intent of this ordinance is?
MR. KLATZKOW: The intent of the ordinance, as the County
Manager stated, is this is a first step in what will hopefully be a
process of having an independent authority. I think you're going to
see numerous changes to this ordinance as it evolves over time, which
is why we didn't stagger it. The hope is that within a four -year period
everybody will be able to get together and create something that's
more permanent.
So this is -- I guess it's experimental when you come right down
to it.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely. I mean, it's --
MR. KLATZKOW: And it requires everybody's good faith and
everybody's volunteer efforts to make this a productive committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And with respect to the
jurisdiction of this advisory board, it's again limited to what I said,
advisory in nature --
MR. KLATZKOW: They don't have any independent power.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No independent power. And
whatever their recommendations is with respect to the Board of
Commissioners, the Board's jurisdiction remains limited to what it has
been today.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The fire districts are still independent.
They can either take these recommendations or not. The Board -- it's
a purely volunteer organization that the Blue Ribbon committee hope
would evolve into something that's more than this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because my understanding from
having read the Blue Ribbon committee was not an advisory services
board but an independent services board that, you know, would have
taxing authority, policy setting authority, et cetera.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. And the hope is that this will
evolve into that.
Page 260
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood.
The only last question I have is on the funding and your
statement that it needs to be self - funding.
MR. SUMMERS: It was an agreement, ma'am, that there would
be clerical and administrative costs for things like minutes and
publications and records and those type of things. And this large
group with probably a large agenda would be very unfair to tax the
available staff within EMS to do that. There was consensus among
the group that we would develop a minimal operational type budget,
that the agencies would contribute to one fund under a budget process
with our OMB and Clerk so that those minor bills could be paid for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they didn't have a problem
with that?
MR. SUMMERS: No, ma'am. Among the stakeholders that met
with us, they thought that that would important not to let this be
punitive, the administrative component, the minutes, et cetera not be
punitive to any one agency that may for the Chairman as an example.
So that we would have that readily available, be able to turn those
documents in a timely manner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which would obviously involve
the Clerk.
MR. SUMMERS: Right. And once we get that, we'll bring that
process back to you all, figure out to, with the board's support, Clerk,
figure out how to bill, assess, collect and distribute just our minor
operating costs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll pass.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just had one concern and that
was number six is saying a representative from one of the municipal
police departments, City of Naples or City of Marco Island. Do you
Page 261
May 22 -23, 2012
think that could be a problem? Because I would suggest that possibly
both cities would want to be represented.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
MR. OCHS: Well, again, ma'am, we spent a lot of time, that's
why it took a year to develop this. And believe me when I tell you, the
municipal representation was strong and not shy in any way. But they
acknowledged that we already have a 17- member group that were
trying to keep the size of the organization manageable but still
representative.
Fire chiefs agreed to a rotating appointment through their
association, the municipal chiefs agreed to the same thing. They
seemed very comfortable with it.
Again, my suggestion is that when we go back for endorsements,
if there is those kinds of changes requested, then we can certainly
bring those back. But I think the municipal departments represented
by their chiefs are comfortable with the language that we have in here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They both stated that; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have not spoken to them. But I
just -- you've got such a fair committee set up here. Cumbersome, but
fair. But that was the only one that didn't have both represented. So I
was just -- but you say that that's good with them.
MR. OCHS: Yes. And again, if there's a change of heart, we'll
certainly find that out through the endorsement process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that it's a public meeting, they
all have the privilege to be there anyway.
MR. OCHS: Oh, sure. And I think, you know, for what it's
worth, the fact that the room is not filled with these agencies
protesting, I think it sends some sort of signal that we have spent a lot
of time and there's been a lot of collaboration and I think good
cooperation on the ordinance.
Page 262
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's an advisory group of
how many people again?
MR.00HS: Seventeen.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sounds more like a parliament
than an advisory group, but I think it's a great adventure and I wish it
the best of luck and --
MR. SUMMERS: I'm suggesting hazardous duty pay,
Commissioner. But no, frankly, I think -- I'm very proud of the group,
I'm very honored to work with them, and I think it will be very
productive.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I have one more question?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get the second first, then
we'll come back for the question.
We have a motion from Commissioner Fiala, and a second --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- from Commissioner Hiller.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we go back to -- and I actually
missed that it was or with respect to the cities. Again, the solution is
very simple. Since you have three citizen representatives, if it turns
out that the cities both want to be represented, you switch that to two
and then bring both of the cities in as opposed to one or the other and
you still maintain that odd number.
How many votes out of the total group represent the county or
county appointments?
MR. OCHS: I'm counting four out of the 17 members, unless
you want to include the three citizen representatives.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you have seven out of 17
representing the county?
Page 263
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Well, you have seven out of 17 depending on
which citizens you pick. You have the EMS director, the medical
director and one paramedic and one EMT from Collier EMS.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Plus the three citizens.
MR. OCHS: Plus whoever three citizens the Board selects.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, with that, all those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4 -0.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
Item 4111
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES
WITH AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS (ATS) FOR TRAFFIC
INFRACTION DETECTOR PROGRAM (RED LIGHT RUNNING
CAMERA ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM) SUPPORT. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $171,000) - MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED WITH
NO MAJORITY
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to 11.I on your
agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment for contracted services with American Traffic Solutions
for traffic infraction detection program support. Fiscal impact,
$171,000. Mr. Casalanguida will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida --
Page 264
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you start, can I ask a
question? How's your arm?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, please, I need --just
push your button if you would, please. I want to keep some order to
the whole thing. Then I'll recognize you, then you speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Can I speak?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, please
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
How's your arm?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm very sorry. I meant to ask you
yesterday. I hope you're recovering. And thank you for continuing to
work, notwithstanding your injury.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Leo wouldn't have it any other way,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for giving me
permission to speak, Commissioner Coletta.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, as you know, this has
obviously been a controversial subject, but what you have in front of
you hopefully is not. The Board heard from the Sheriffs office in
May. You talked about the red light camera program and you
approved the settlement agreement with ATS. This is a budget
amendment we should have done at the time. We did not.
We worked with the county Budget Office to make sure that we
had the funds. And we do. We have approximately $1.6 million in
the account, general fund from revenues, fees collected. About
321,000 is left in contingencies for liability with class action. And
with this budget amendment it will leave about 1.1 million in fees
generated in this account.
Paragraph 22 of your contract states that if we ever expend more
money than we collect, we can terminate the contract. So I think
Page 265
May 22 -23, 2012
we're in good shape. And the Board always has the ability to get out
of this if this thing doesn't go well and it costs us money.
The Sheriff still supports the program, so this is just a budget
amendment to enforce that contract -- actually fund that contract with
the Board approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any
other discussion?
(No response.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The vote fails by two to
two, the opposing votes being Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Interesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask why?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think there's still a
constitutional issue with it. You had one court said it is
unconstitutional, you had one court that said it's constitutional.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the red lights?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, but we're not voting on
whether we should have red lights, we're voting on whether we should
pay them the money that we owe them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it is illegal, it would be
an illegal payment, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 266
May 22 -23, 2012
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you are definitely in a
quandary now.
MR. OCHS: No, sir, the motion dies, it doesn't pass. So we'll --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's that simple, so let's
move on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you don't pay them and then
what do they do, sue us because we owe them money?
MR. OCHS: We'll bring it back to the next meeting and try back
again.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so next item, let's move
on.
What's the next item, sir?
Item 411L
AN AFTER - THE -FACT DONATION OF $2,346.60 IN RED CLAY
FOR A LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD LOCATED IN EVERGLADES
CITY AND PAYMENT TO TATE'S TRUCKING FOR
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE CLAY - MOTION TO
CONTINUE ITEM TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: It's I I.L. It was previously 16.D.2. It's a
recommendation to approve an after - the -fact donation of $2,346.60 in
red clay for a little league field located in Everglades City. Mr.
Carnell will present.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning. For the record, Steve Carnell,
your Interim Public Services Administrator.
Staff has brought an item before you requesting authorization to
pay for the purchase of clay that was donated in a cooperative effort
with the City of Everglades and the Holy Catholic Church in
Everglades City. And simply put, there was a need to create a practice
field for the kids in Everglades City who are playing in our little
Page 267
May 22 -23, 2012
leagues across the county right now.
The games are played in East Naples but there's no place for
these kids to practice. So we were approached by the city and by the
Catholic Church down there to look at the opportunity of creating
jointly a practice field.
At this point we would -- in looking through this item, we did not
create a formal agreement between the city, the church and the county
to address this donation, and staff would ask that this item be
continued and that we be given the opportunity to come back in June
with an interlocal agreement that would just simply identify what the
agreement's for and provide assurances regarding the usage and
continued availability of the field in the future.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can remember this back some
time ago, and this was all coming forward. We may have missed a
step along the way. But when you say the donation, who's the
donation from?
MR. CARNELL: Donation -- the county purchased clay. It's
from the county. And we placed the clay on the field as part of the
effort of making the field available and --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was a wonderful effort. It's
the word donation in there that's got me a little bit confused. In other
words, we put it on there, so it would be a donation from the county?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, because it's not the county's field, sir.
The field is actually church property. And there was some confusion.
We thought originally we were donating to the city and didn't
understand that the property belonged to the church. So what we want
to do is put an agreement together that captures exactly what's
happening here and make sure the county's interests are protected.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're asking for a
continuation.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, I am. And we'd bring this back with the
agreement.
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to continue from
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion? Commissioner Henning, you're light's on,
do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I just wanted to make a
motion.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. All those in
favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why are we continuing it?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I didn't see your light
on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't understand, why are we
continuing this?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're continuing it to be able
to get the information we need to be able to make a decision.
MR. CARNELL: We want to formalize the donation, ma'am, so
that the county's interests are protected so that the intended use, the
intended purpose of the donation, which is to create a practice field,
that that will be sustained and maintained, and that there's a clear
understanding among the parties. That's all.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4 -0.
Page 269
Item #15
cT e RF ANn C OMMTSSION G
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMUNICATION
MR. OCHS : Commissioners, that takes you to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, start with you, Leo.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I just have a couple of items. The
first one is just to let the Board know that I've been approached by the
City Manager of Marco Island requesting that we provide a proposal
to them to provide building inspection and permitting services to the
City of Marco Island under a contractual arrangement. We just had
some preliminary discussions at this point, but I just wanted to let you
know in case you hear anything that we are in fact evaluating that, and
if it makes sense for the Board and for the city, we will bring that
interlocal agreement back for your consideration.
And the second item is Mr. Casalanguida has an item that we'd
like to speak to you about quickly regarding the capital improvement
project that's going on at The Conservancy and some of the requests
that we've received from The Conservancy to try to expedite that
project.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning, Board members.
The Conservancy has right now about a $30 million expansion
going on, as you know. Unfortunately, one of their architects about
halfway through passed away, so they had to restage their project a
little bit and have their engineer do some work to get caught up to
speed. So they're falling behind. And we went out of our way to help
them, to keep them moving, as we do with any projects, Florida
Specialties, I know we worked with Community School, things like
that.
Your House Bill 503 that takes effect in July states that all
Page 270
May 22 -23, 2012
federal and state local permits are not contingent on local permit
approval. So that means we wouldn't be waiting on any other permits.
Right now your Land Development Code says I can't release a site
development plan or a site development plan amendment until they
get their South Florida Water Management District approval.
Well, I spoke to South Florida, they are reviewing the project,
they said they have no issues with the site development plan
amendment. Mr. Waters, their lead reviewer said it's in flow, they'll be
issuing their approvals within a couple of weeks.
I asked Andrew, look, if we want to speed this up, because right
now every time they're delayed a day they have contractors standing
by. I've got a site development plan amendment that they have in our
office. And I said look, Andrew, just as long as you assume the risk,
if I release this SDPA and the District says you've got to change
something, you'll come back in and re- permit that. I'll bring an item to
the Board next meeting, getting the Board to ratify that. And I may
not need it because I think the District may come through in the next
week or two with their approval.
So what I would like to let you know is if it's okay with the
Board, get a couple nods, is to release that SDPA with the
understanding that Mr. McElwaine has sent me a note saying he
understands the risk of that SDPA and that he goes forward to keep
this project moving. And I've got the note from the District that says
they expect no problems. So I think there's minimal risk here.
And with House Bill 503 two months away taking effect anyway,
I think it's not really much of an issue. But I did want to get a couple
nods from the Board and get some comfort level before I did that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's 503?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a bill that was introduced and
being signed -- I think it was signed. It takes effect in July. Basically
says no local government can withhold an approval pending a state
and federal permit or other permit from another agency. Little bit of a
Page 271
May 22 -23, 2012
challenge for us, because we like to get the Water Management
District to get their sign -off on their site plans first. Because what
they sign off on as conservation land water management affects our
site plans. We've got a way to handle that that we're prepared to deal
with. But I think this is a good example of I think why they're putting
that bill forward and that bill was brought forward. So I just wanted to
inform the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want two nods, right?
MR.00HS: Three.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I need three, I guess.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll nod three times. There we
go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm on.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nodding.)
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, you're all set. What else
you got, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a question.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: See, now I have my light on. I
was waiting to see how long it would take Commissioner Coletta to
recognize me and he didn't even notice it.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought the light was on from
before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it wasn't on before, I
interjected without my light on.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now it's off.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now it's off.
Jeff, is it okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
Page 272
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we have four nods.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't need it. I'm just going
to do nothing.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to join the group and
nod once?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I want to do exactly what I'm
doing.
Okay.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go, you have four
nods.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: See, we are making progress.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now you have four bobble heads.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that conclude what you
have, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, it does, sir.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the County
Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have nothing, sir.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow. Well, let's start with the
ladies first.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do have a question. I saw an
article in the -- I think it was The Miami Herold, and it was about our
Property Appraiser, and some of the Property Appraiser's staff, a Mr.
Stokes, is that his name?
MR. OCHS: There is a Mr. Stokes that works for the Property
Appraiser, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyway, but essentially what --
and I don't remember, maybe that's not the right name, so I stand
corrected if that isn't the case. But essentially, the long and short of it,
Page 273
May 22 -23, 2012
this article seemed to suggest that the Property Appraiser's Office was
involved with instances of improperly appraising properties to the
benefit of the property owners, and that the consequence was that, you
know, taxes that should be paid are not being paid. And that was the
allegation in the article, or so it seemed.
So, you know, I haven't heard anything about it. Nothing has
come up. I haven't seen anything in the Naples Daily News.
This is a serious issue. It directly affects the revenues that we
collect. I want to know what's going on. And I would like a full
report as to -- you know, I'll send you a copy of the article and you can
look into it, and I would like a full briefing as to the representations
made in that article, and, you know, what controls are in place that we
know that the appraiser is properly appraising properties and that as a
consequence we're getting the taxes we should be getting to pay for
the public services and capital improvements.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, you're
always right to be concerned about revenue, and whenever you hear
information that comes down that's of a negative nature and could
have an impact financially on the county. That's one of the
responsibilities we have as Commissioners.
However, with this you've got to remember that we are dealing
with an election cycle and there is an opposition. And the reason there
probably isn't an overabundance of response from some of the
agencies is because of the fact that it is an election cycle and there's
probably two sides to the story.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I want to hear the other side.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. But I don't
know if our staff could be an investigating arm to be able to get to
where you want to go. What I would suggest, if transgressions have
been made against the county, why not just ask the local prosecutor to
look into this. That would be the most logical way to go. That's their
job, to be able to uncover these types of things and to be able to take it
Page 274
May 22 -23, 2012
to the next level. It's not ours.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. And you know, I think you're
right. I think you make a very good point. So I'll do that. I'll turn it
over --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I would suggest that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll turn the article over to the State
Attorney and to the Sheriff and I will ask them to look into it and
come back to us with a full report.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you are, that's the way to
do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really appreciate you suggesting
that. I think you're right on the money.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Very good recommendation.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I just think it's such a
peaceful calm morning and I really enjoyed being here with the three
of you.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I won't take it to the
next step. We'll go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, a while back we had somebody
come up during public petition I think it was or something along that
line just saying, they were talking about the park, if you will, that we
own, it's a 99 -acre park right next door to Naples Lakes and across the
street from what used to be Assembly of God thing, now First Baptist.
Anyway, they said the park is named LASIP Mitigation Park.
And they were wondering if they could give it a better name, you
know, or something that would look a little bit better --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I saw that. It was ridiculous. I
mean, LASIP.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because nobody understands what
LASIP Mitigation Park is.
Page 275
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, you have my
complete nod on that, okay. I've never seen anything so dumb in my
life. Why don't we call it the --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we call it Leo Ochs
Park?
MR. OCHS: They already reserved the restroom for me, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually we had kind of given a nod
to them to come up with some ideas. So they did. They came up with
-- Naples Lakes residents came up with a bunch of ideas that are really
nice. It's really not named after anybody, but then upon checking we
found that the park really has never officially been named, we were
just calling it that.
So I was wondering if you would permit me to either have a little
contest with it -- they've already given us a whole bunch of names --
to just let them -- let them figure out which they think is their favorite
or I can ask staff --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you pick a name.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or I could do it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you just pick a name of
what they've recommended and why don't you suggest it right now
and let's give you the nods and let's rename the park. And then you
can have a ceremony commemorating the naming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a suggestion. Just take
down the sign. Just take it down and there won't be an issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is no fun.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, we own land all
throughout Collier County, there's no name associated. There's
numbers associated. It's got a tax I.D. number, which is not taxed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here are some of the names that
they suggested which are awfully nice. Natures Way Park, or the
Page 276
May 22 -23, 2012
Secret Garden, Peace Park, Park of Tranquility. Some really nice
names that they've given it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What one would you like?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So there are a number I like. But if
it's okay with you, I'll pick one out and I'll present it at the next
meeting. Is that all right with you?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go. Just bring it
forward and make sure it doesn't have too many syllables in it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As long as we're all invited to the
party, that's all that matters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, that's a good idea, we
should have a naming.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and a ribbon cutting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, a ribbon cutting.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Invite all the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's going to bake the cake?
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure Commissioner Fiala
will bake a cake, many cakes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could bake a cake, yeah. I've
baked some pretty good cakes. But I bet they would even do that.
And they would probably have a little celebration from Naples Lakes
and invite us.
But thank you very much for letting me go ahead with that.
That's it for me.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have one item.
I'm going to ask Nick to come up to the podium for just a moment.
This is concerning the access road and the lake up there in Orangetree
which will be the Big Corkscrew Regional Park someday in the very
near future, depending on what near is, but hopefully very near future.
We have an opportunity, and I would like to explore it a little bit
with Nick and my fellow Commissioners. We're going to be putting
Page 277
May 22 -23, 2012
in a road hopefully in the next six months to maybe a year, depending
on permitting. We have the funds available for it to be able to get up
to this area that's Big Corkscrew, Island Park, but also first to access
the lake. Later on this road, you'll have the recycling center, you'll
have the park going in. And this road here is one of those things that's
going to be needed to take the first step.
In order to hold the cost down for that road and that point in time
that they do build the park, I would like to be able to see if we can get
some core samples taken around the lake to see what kind of resources
are in the lake as far as lyme rock goes. The lake is dug very
irregular, right to the bedrock. You probably have an average depth of
about four feet. It could go deeper and be a better habitat for fishing.
And at some point in time when we open it up for the public, we're
going to have to put the gradients in there four to one on the shore.
And rather than even have to consider buying fill or whatever, it
would be great to be able to bring it right from this site.
And it can be done in a way that would not disturb the lake to the
point that it would become less than a habitat than it is now for
fishing. In fact, we're looking to improve it. We'd work with the
federal -- with the State Fish and Wildlife to be able to make sure
everything is done right.
But Nick, could you talk a little bit about what the process would
be to identify what the resources are that are there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, actually a real
good news item. To get the Board a little more familiar with the
location, this is east of Immokalee Road, north of Oil Well Road right
where the three schools are and we have the county project where Dr.
Yilmaz is looking at the expansion site.
So we've got a shallow lake. And in discussion with
Commissioner Coletta I said, you know, why don't we do what the
developers do. Whenever we got shallow lakes they permit the
material as much as they can to do site construction.
Page 278
May 22 -23, 2012
So geotech is a very simple function. We go out in probably a
contract less than $20,000. We actually survey the lake bottom, the
edges of the lake. We take some borings. And then if there's material
that's good for purposes for any site construction in that area for us, for
county benefit, we would permit to pull the material out of the lake
and then reshape that lake to be what it's intended to be eventually, a
county park.
It's cost effective. I don't know what's in there in terms of
material. It's what I would call just an exploratory analysis with some
geotech. I'd say less than $25,000, probably less than 10 but I'm just
getting a feeling for it.
We may find out that in the future when George goes to develop
his site or we build the park that there might be enough material in
there that we can use it and not have to buy it from anybody else. That
will actually benefit the lake and benefit the county.
It would be done, all permitted through the appropriate agencies.
But it's a real good item, I think, and to get a couple nods to the
geotech would be a good thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this -- are you going to solicit
bids or are we picking political paybacks?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is just a work order, sir. I pick
off one of the annuals that's -- a company that has geotech capabilities
just to get me that information. So this is strictly just to find out if the
rock's worth anything there. And I do a work order to do that, because
it's less than the amount that's prescribed by the purchasing contract.
We own the lake.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So wouldn't this be mining?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, because if it's on a unified site it's
not a commercial excavation. You wouldn't be taking that material
and taking it off site, you'd be saying for the park, for Dr. Yilmaz's site
that he owns to the north, or to build the access road into the park.
Typically when we do that, we raise it to a certain level, you've got to
Page 279
May 22 -23, 2012
bring in fill for site construction. We buy that from somebody.
And what a developer does, and this is why I actually brought it
up with the Commissioner on one of our one -on -ones, is when they do
their site, they try and do a site cost neutral, just like when we do a
road. When we did Santa Barbara extension, we went back and value
engineered digging the lakes deeper and taking that material and
putting it on Santa Barbara rather than buying it from somebody else.
So it's one of those where if we find out the material's good,
when we actually go to do work there as part of a unified site plan we
would permit to dig that material out and place it where we need it on
our site. We have no intention to sell it to anybody. It's county owned
property. So this would benefit the county to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's not considered mining.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mining is only commercial, in
other words, selling it to someone else?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. You're just permitting
that lake to a certain depth. So it's not mining to the extent that we're
going to sell it to anybody, it's strictly for county benefit. Rather than
buy it for somebody else, and we know who the people are, we'd
rather buy it for ourselves, I guess, than buy it from somebody else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The question I have is why are you
bringing this to us when you do so much of this type of work, this type
of testing or, you know, preliminary design work where you use work
orders, you know, through shelf contracts? Why would you bring this
particular item to us as opposed to all the other items where you deal
with issues like this all the time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm bringing it to you, not
Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had a discussion one -on -one,
M
May 22 -23, 2012
because I was asked if we could do a roadbed that went in there. And
I said, Commissioner, this is the discussion we had, simply we don't
have the money to allocate to a roadbed -- you know, road
construction I said. But interesting thought might be is to permit our
own excavation of that site in one unified project. And the first step is
to actually do some geotech.
Now, I have no basis to do geotech right now because I have no
project. Typically, you're right, I would not come to the Board and
say do a work order to do geotech if I'm doing a road project. That's
part of the process. But since this is outside of the scope of what I
typically do, discussion I had with the Commissioner was this is
probably I want to get not just a couple nods to get to do this because
it's really outside the road of scope work (sic).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain this road to me
again?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. On the west side of Immokalee
Road there's an existing access, the road that goes into the fairgrounds
that will ultimately lead into Dr. Yilmaz's site. And then we're trying
to connect from that south into that lake that we already own as well
as eventually maybe tying back into Oil Well Road, so that this park
has access from two locations. Which is good. We don't want them
taking access from just one site.
That would require construction of what I would call a county
road; not necessarily a public road but potentially an access road. So
understanding that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much would this road cost?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Have no idea, ma'am. I just know that
we would be exca -- we would need fill to raise the road up. And then
as well as site construction for Dr. Yilmaz next door if he does his
pads, whatever fill he'll need. I know that we have enough projects
that are within the confines of Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road
that would be one unified plan, so we wouldn't be hauling material
Page 281
May 22 -23, 2012
from out of the location.
The reason it's coming up and it would never normally come up
is that it's not something I typically do. I don't do geotech or
something like that. And I'm willing to look at it because I'd be
working on the project. If it's something that turns out that I would get
reimbursed from the other departments, if it's something that they
would benefit and not the road program, could simply do that geotech
or something we routinely do. And I said we're happy to do it. So
that's why.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're building another limerock
road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No pun intended.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's no pun, there's no fun
or pun intended with lyme rock roads. That's a serious business with
the people out in Golden Gate Estates. And I don't appreciate making
light jokes of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but it sounds like that's what
-- but my concern is, and this is -- here's what I'm hearing, that you are
proposing another Lyme Rock Road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then where are you finding
the money to build this road if there isn't any money to build the other
roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not a road like a public road, it's an
access road to two facilities the county owns. When they build those
facilities, they will have to pave those accessways. And so the
discussion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who will pave the accessways?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Whoever builds it. If it's Dr. Yilmaz
first or if it's the Parks and Rec, Steve Carnell's group that does it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's all public money and we
don't have the public money.
Page 282
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood, ma'am. In preparation to
doing that, what I'm saying is we'll know if we can permit the material
to come out of that lake to use that for our own construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When they're ready.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When they're ready. So geotech up
front will let us know. They would have to do geotech then. So it's --
I think it's a good idea that we're doing it as a unified kind of planning
tool. We would have done it if it was a county project without coming
to the Board. But because it's not a county road project, I'd said,
listen, you know, before I go forward and just run geotech, someone
may ask why is Nick's department running geotech on a lake, a future
county park lake. And I said I'd rather just be full disclosure up front
as to why, and that's the reason we're here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate your candor. But
again, I just -- I mean, if you want to test it to determine if someday
maybe it can be used for road construction, that's fine. My concern is,
you know, you're proposing what seems to be a very costly project
that none of us have contemplated ahead of this simple testing. And I
don't think this testing should be construed any way as being
indicative of being supportive of anything else.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. I think you already have
-- the county's site to the north has already been approved and gone
through PUD, so you have contemplated that, Dr. Yilmaz's site.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Steve Carnell I believe has -- and I
could be wrong, they already have some budget to do the access road
that's coming into the park site, because that is contemplated as a park,
that lake area. So I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it hasn't been approved as a
park.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it has.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have we already approved that?
Page 283
May 22 -23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Years ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what we approved a --
okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. So that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is the big park that's going to
be out there and that Canola (phonetic) has been working on out there
with all the Golden Gate Estates residents, the much needed park, by
the way.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Orangetree, Waterways --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was on the Brian Paul property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. So you're all familiar
with the location. I would -- you know, I love my fellow
administrators, but I'd probably charge them back for the work done.
We're doing it ahead of time. And we have a lot of experience in
geotech, so that's why I thought, you know, a good amount of money
we could save if we can just excavate this lake a little deeper, you
know, five, 10, 15, 20 feet deeper. So I think it's a good opportunity
to save money is what it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. I understand. So basically
what you're saying, these are already pre- approved projects, and this
would be a means to save, not that we're creating new projects with
new costs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, then it makes sense.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we got that put to bed.
Thank you very much, Nick, for that.
One question, though, I got, who would be a political payback
that you would give this contract to? Because that got me a little bit --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, that's --
VICE- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because I want to make sure
you wouldn't do any political payback, okay. You wouldn't, would
May 22 -23, 2012
you? I mean, you know, I don't want you to get any crazy ideas now.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'll requisition one of your
contractors that's been pre- approved by this Board under your term
contract.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pick somebody out that really
hates us so there won't be any kind of political paybacks.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a couple of things,
observation while visiting the beaches. I don't -- I'm really not a beach
person, but I went up to Vanderbilt Beach and parked in the
Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. I walked out of the garage and right
across the street was a convenience store where you can buy a
sandwich, a soda or a bottle of water. So after visiting the beach, I
stopped in the store. One more observation, the water was cheaper in
that store than the vendor that is on the beach, the county beach.
And I was heard about this restaurant or concession, Ray's
Concession on Vanderbilt Beach. You know, people need a more
reasonable venue to provide for their kids, you know, food and all
that. So I just wanted to tell you my observation up there. Sometimes
the private sector can do it a lot cheaper than government.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't a county vendor,
though, was it? That was the Dan the Man or whatever they call him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He has the concession for
Vanderbilt Beach. He has an agreement with the Board of
Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: We don't set his prices.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we don't. Yeah. Yeah.
And Leo, I just wanted to -- I know your staff is heavy in budget
and I know you are too. And I just want to tell you I appreciate
working with you, and for your staff to continue doing the
extraordinary job that they do.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, thank you very much.
Page 285
May 22 -23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, for the citizens,
obviously.
MR. OCHS : Thank you. Appreciate that on behalf of the staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we are adjourned.
Thank you very much.
* * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR HORSE CREEK ESTATES AND AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITIES TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH RANGE 25 EAST
Item #I 6A2
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
PORTION OF THE US -41 DITCH SEGMENT OF LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 51101 (FISCAL
IMPACT NOT TO EXCEED $9,050) — TO RESHAPE AN
EXISTING DITCH AND INSTALL CULVERTS UNDER
EXISTING DRIVEWAYS IN THE NAPLES MANOR AREA
AT ,ONG THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF US -41
ME=
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #16A3
A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND TIME EXTENSION TO
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCAL
AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. 426836 -1 THEREBY
INCREASING DESIGN- CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FROM
$8141000 TO $864,500 AND EXTENDING THE PROJECT END
DATE FROM JUNE 29, 2012 TO DECEMBER 319 2013; AND,
AWARDING RFP 911-5695 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA,
INC., FOR A DESIGN -BUILD CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$86455001 TO PRODUCE AN EXPERIMENTAL WILDLIFE
CROSSING UNDER IMMOKALEE ROAD PER THE SCOPE OF
AGREEMENT NO. 426836 -1 — THE AGREEMENT COVERS ALL
EXPENSES INCLUDING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND CEI
SERVICES WITH STAFF MANAGING THE 2.5 MILE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Item #I 6A4
EXTEND COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARTESIA NAPLES SUBDIVISION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05 B.11 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE — THE DEVELOPER'S
ENGINEER REQUESTS AN EXTENSION TO THE EXPIRATION
DATE FROM AUGUST 26, 2011 TO AUGUST 26, 2014
Item #I 6A5
RELEASE A $143,244.47 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $694.479 IN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. GEORGE CIRABISI AND
Page 287
May 22 -23, 2012
VICKIE LEA CIRABISI, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER 20070903375 RELATING TO
PROPERTY AT 1935 EMPRESS COURT, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — FORECLOSURE PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE BY THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
PRIOR TO THEIR TAKING TITLE ON AUGUST 5, 2009
Item #I 6A6
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $95712.56 FOR
PAYMENT OF $562.561 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. HOMESALES, INC., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER CESD20110003257, RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1074 ILLINOIS DRIVE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — RELATING TO AN UNPERMITTED
FENCE THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
MARCH 6, 2012
Item # 16A7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,813.80 — FOR
THE COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS PROGRAM, TRAFFIC
IMPACT STUDY REVIEW, PUD MONITORING /TRAFFIC
COUNTS AND PUD MONITORING /FAIR SHARE
Item #I 6A8
RECOGNIZE FYI 1/ 12 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 5311 ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
May 22 -23, 2012
$179666 TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FUND (426) AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
USED TO OFFSET FIXED ROUTE OPERATING EXPENSES
FOR IMMOKALEE CIRCULATOR ROUTES 8A AND 8B
Item # 16A9 - Moved from Item # 11 J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2012 -82: A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #2 TO THE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER
COUNTY, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT ITS
MAY 8, 2012 MEETING (ITEM WAS INADVERTENTLY
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA)
Item #16B 1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH GREEN EFFEX, LLC, PERMITTING THEM
TO CONTINUE OPERATING A COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE SERVICE ON CRA OWNED
PROPERTY AT 1991 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN THE
GATEWAY MINI - TRIANGLE — AMENDING THE LEASE TO A
MONTH -TO -MONTH TERM AND NOT EXCEEDING TWELVE
MONTHS OR MAY 31 2013
Item #16132
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO A
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AGREEMENT AND RIGHT OF
Won
May 22 -23, 2012
ENTRY WITH BAYSHORE CULTURAL AND PERFORMING
ARTS CENTER, INC. IN CONSIDERATION OF A POTENTIAL
FUTURE PURCHASE OF CRA OWNED LAND; APPROVING
THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT (FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE) — EXTENDS AGREEMENT TO MAY 24, 2013
Item #16133 — Moved to Item #14136 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16C 1
EXECUTE AND RECORD SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT
FEE. FISCAL IMPACT IS $67 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN — FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIOS:
FOLIO #227210800025 FOLIO #76210880002, FOLIO
#61840440102 FOLIO 900258964309 AND FOLIO #22623600001
Item #16C2
WAIVE COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF
VX456, A CHEMICAL SOLUTION USED AT THE SOUTH AND
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES, IN
THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $120,000 — USED TO
MITIGATE ODORS PRODUCED AT THE FACILITIES
Item 416C3
AWARD ITB #12-5873 TO TORAY MEMBRANE USA, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $556,150 AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER
FOR PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF MEMBRANE FILTER
ELEMENTS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
MEMO
May 22 -23, 2012
#71057 — USED IN THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PROCESS TO
TREAT BRACKISH LOWER HAWTHORNE RAW WATER
Item # 16D 1
LIBRARY AUTOMATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT WITH INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $50,040 ANNUALLY — FOR THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2013, AND WITH
PRICE INCREASES NOT EXCEEDING 5% PER YEAR OF THE
YEARLY MAINTENANCE AMOUNT
Item # 16D2 — Moved to Item # 11 L (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6D3
FOUR (4) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY (DEO) DISASTER RECOVERY
ENHANCEMENT GRANT SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR
HURRICANE HARDENING PROJECTS, FOR FUNDING
PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND MODIFY THE ASSOCIATED GRANT
AGREEMENT TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM ACQUISITION
TO SIDEWALKS FOR THE APPROVED IMMOKALEE AREA
CRA STORMWATER PROJECT. (NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT) —
FOR THE FOLLOWING SUB - RECIPIENTS AND PROJECTS:
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY'S FARMWORKER
VILLAGE — HURRICANE HARDENING, MULTI -UNIT REHAB;
KIPLING CAPITAL, L.P. (BROMELIA PLACE) — HURRICANE
HARDENING, GENERATOR; FL NON - PROFIT SERVICES, INC.
— FLOOD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS & IMMOKALEE
CRA — FLOOD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 291
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #I 6D4
AN AFTER - THE -FACT SUBMITTAL OF A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR
THE ELDERLY, THE HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY, AND
THE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE PROGRAMS FOR A
6 -YEAR CONTRACT PERIOD WITH SENIOR CHOICES F /K/A
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SWFL AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS
INCLUDING NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF SERVICES (FISCAL IMPACT: $830,245) —
THE CONTRACT PERIOD IS JULY 1 2012 THRU JUNE 30 2018
Item #16D5
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT
WITH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR
TRANSPORTING SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $56,000 — THE AGREEMENT IS
EFFECTIVE FROM JUNE 11 2012 THRU AUGUST 10 2012
Item #16D6
REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
(CDBG) GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000, AND
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES, INC. PROVIDING FUNDING FOR GOODWILL
TO INSTALL A VOICE ACTIVATED (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
EVACUATION FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AT THE ROBERT'S
CENTER IN IMMOKALEE — THE SYSTEM IS BEING
REQUESTED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL
Page 292
May 22 -23, 2012
Item #16D7
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR
ELDERLY AND THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III
STANDARD CONTRACT AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENTS WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., DBA, SENIOR CHOICES OF
SWFL FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAM AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT (FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — THE AMENDMENT
BECAME EFFECTIVE APRIL 16 2012
Item #I 6D8
A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) AND
COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY) THAT ALLOWS THE COUNTY
TO ACCESS LIMITED DATA ON THE FLORIDA SYSTEM IN
ORDER TO FACILITATE REVIEW OF MEDICAID BILLINGS —
TO CONFIRM AND VALIDATE SERVICES FOR PAYMENT
Item # 16E 1
RESOLUTION 2012 -83: AUTHORIZING THE CANCELLATION
OF CURRENT TAXES ON A 5.3 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND
THAT WAS DONATED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -
SEWER DISTRICT FOR A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL
SITE AND ACQUIRED BY WARRANTY DEED
Item #16171
Page 293
May 22 -23, 2012
ACCEPTING A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE MATCHING
(50/50) GRANT AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF
FORESTRY USED TO PURCHASE A PORTABLE SKID UNIT
AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
(FISCAL IMPACT: $9,800) — THE UNIT CONSISTS OF A TANK,
PUMP AND HOSE -REEL THAT WILL BE MOUNTED ON THE
DEPARTMENT'S F -250 TRUCK TO HELP FIGHT BRUSH FIRES
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2012 -84: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16G 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TO AUTHORIZE A REFUND TO MR.
JOHN RANWEILER IN THE AMOUNT OF $495.58 FOR
HANGAR RENT AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT —
REQUESTED BY THE RANWEILER' S BECAUSE THEY
THOUGHT THE LEASE WAS WITH AN AIRPORT IN SEBRING
Item # 16H 1
A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 255 2012, AS
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY TO SUPPORT NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING
AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN'S TAKE 25 CAMPAIGN.
THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO ED RUSSO
Page 294
May 22 -23, 2012
WITH NCMEC' S FLORIDA CHAPTER. SPONSORED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — ADOPTED
Item #16142
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE 2012 ANNUAL DINNER MAY 18, 2012; $80 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT 2600 TIBURON DRIVE NAPLES
Item # 16143
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 10TH ANNUAL PARADISE
COAST AWARDS LUNCHEON ON MAY 10, 2012; $31 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #I 6H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE CBIA' S REAL ESTATE ON
THE RISE EVENT ON MAY 17,2012; $20 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #161-15
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 295
May 22 -23, 2012
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE KNOW YOUR COUNTY
GOVERNMENT LUNCHEON AT EAST NAPLES UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH ON MARCH 27,2012; $5 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item 416146
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 10TH ANNUAL PARADISE
COAST TOURISM STAR AWARDS LUNCHEON AT THE
MARCO ISLAND MARRIOTT ON MAY 10, 2012; $31 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16147
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, HE ATTENDED A GOLDEN APPLE AWARDS
EVENT AT WALDORF ASTORIA, NAPLES; APRIL 11, 2012;
$10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
RI JDGF,T
Item # 16I
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 296
May 22 -23, 2012
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN BCC OFFICE UNTIL APPROVAL
Item 41612
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES AND AGENDAS TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN BCC OFFICE UNTIL APPROVAL
Page 297
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 22, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District:
Special District Facilities Report March 19, 2012
2) City Gate Community Development District:
FY 2011 -2012 Meeting Dates
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
May 22, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of 10.19.11; 1. 18.12
Minutes of 10.19.11; 1. 18.12
2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 2.9.12
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.3.12 (Special Magistrate); 2.17.12 (Special
Magistrate); 2.23.12; 3.2.12 (Special Magistrate)
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of 2.16.12; 3.1.12; 3.15.12
Minutes of 1.26.12; 2.16.12; 3.1.12; 3.15.12
5) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 2.15.12
6) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of 11.9.11 (Public Utilities Capital Projects Review
Subcommittee); 11.16.11; 1. 18.12
Minutes of 11.9.11 (Public Utilities Capital Projects Review
Subcommittee); 11.16.11; 11.29.11 (In- sourcing/Out- sourcing
Subcommittee); 1. 18.12
7) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 2.1.12; 3.7.12; 3.19.12 (Land Development Regulations
Subcommittee)
8) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of 2.1.12; 3.7.12
9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 2.8.12; 3.14.12
Minutes of 1.11.12; 2.8.12
10) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 11.8.11; 12.13.11
Minutes of 10.11.11; 12.13.11
11) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 1.3.12; 2.6.12; 3.5.12
Minutes of 1.3.12; 2.6.12
12) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of 2.15.12
13) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.3.12; 2.16.12
14) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 2.16.12; 3.15.12
Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.16.12
15) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of 2.15.12
16) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 1.10.12 (Landscape Water Management Subcommittee);
2.1.12; 2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 3.7.12; 3.26.12; 4.11.12
Minutes of 1.10.12 (Landscape Water Management Subcommittee);
2.1.12; 2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 2.21.12 (Clam Bay
Subcommittee); 3.7.12
17) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 2.13.12; 3.19.12
Minutes of 1.9.12; 2.13.12
18) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Minutes of 2.1.12
19) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 3.1.12
Minutes of 2.2.12
May 22 -23, 2012
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 21, 2012
THROUGH APRIL 27, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 28, 2012
THROUGH MAY 4, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
nFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF
OFFICIAL APPLICANT AND POINT OF CONTACT FOR U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS,
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE EDWARD BYRNE
MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) FY12
LOCAL STANDARD GRANT, AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC
SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION, ACCEPT THE GRANT
WHEN AWARDED, APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO
RECEIVE AND EXPEND 2012 JAG GRANT FUND
Item #I 6J4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $1,543,000 IN
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES IN THE SHERIFF'S FY2012
CTENER AL FUND BUDGET
Page 298
May 22 -23, 2012
Item 416K 1
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN UNNUMBERED ORDINANCE
CODIFIED AS SEC. 2 -1 (PURCHASES FROM STATE DIVISION
OF CORRECTIONS) IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6K2
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN UNNUMBERED ORDINANCE
CODIFIED AS SEC. 2 -26 (FRANCHISES GENERALLY) IN THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2012 -17: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2009 -44,
RADIO ROAD EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO
THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS
BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
ORDINANCE TO REMOVE THE SIX -YEAR SUNSET
PROVISION AND PROVIDE DISSOLUTION OF THE MSTU
UPON RECOMMENDATION BY THE MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL BY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2012 -85: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
Page 299
May 22 -23, 2012
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12
ADOPTED BUDGET
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL.
FRED W. COYLE, C airman
ATTEST:
DWIQHTTrE. BROCK, CLERK
e,
t. A4 Cn# 1 roo I
These minute pproved by the Board on .� d 2 20� 2 , as
presented or as corrected
_76 1--
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 300