BCC Minutes 06/12/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2012
June 12, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 12, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
"t'i7�
LA
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
June 12, 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.
Page 1
June 12, 2012
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 -53569 (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. Father Tom Gillespie - St. Ann Catholic 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. May 8, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 22 - 23, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
June 12, 2012
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
1) 5 Year Attendees
a) Ms. Christine R. Sutherland, Flooplain Mgmt. Committee;
Mr. Michael V. McElroy, Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee; Mr. Tom Briscoe, Haldeman Creek Maint.
Dredging Advisory Committee; Mr. Roy A. Wilson Haldeman
Creek Maint. Dredging Advisory Committee; Mr. Larry J.
Patton, Haldeman Creek Maint. Dredging Advisory Committee.
2) 10 Year Attendees
a) Mr. Stephen J. Hruby, Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee; Mr. Randy Anderson, Board of Building
Adjustments and Appeals; Mr. Michael Boyd, Contractors
Licensing Board; Ms. Susan M. Becker, Tourist Development;
Mr. Joe Swaja, County Government Productivity Committee;
Mr. Gerald J. Lefebvre, Collier County Code Enforcement
Board; Mr. Charles H. Gunther, Bayshore /Gateway Triangle
Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
3) 15 Year Attendees
a) Ms. Doris J. Lewis, Library Advisory Board
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Edison State College
serving the Southwest Florida community and designating July 24, 2012 as
Edison State College Day. To be accepted by Dr. Robert Jones, Collier
Campus President and Chris Vernon, Edison State College Trustee.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating June 16, 2012 as Mother Annie Mae Perry Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by Vaughn Young, President, Mother Perry
Youth Empowerment Project and Frank Cummings, Vice President, Mother
Page 3
June 12, 2012
Perry Empowerment Project. Sponsored by the Board of County
Commissioners.
C. Proclamation recognizing Lennar Homes for its contributions to the
installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Southwest Boulevard
and US 41 East. To be accepted by Russell Smith, Vice President of Land
Development, Lennar Homes. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
D. Proclamation designating June 16 -21, 2012 as Youth Leadership Collier
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Youth Leadership Collier Class
of 2012; Erin Morton, Vice President, Leadership Collier Foundation;
Patrick Philbin, Tiffany Lehman, Mike Giusto and Jennifer Tears,
Volunteers, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for June 2012 to
Hodges University. To be accepted by Dr. Terry McMahan, President; Dr.
Aysegul Timur, MBA Program Chair; Dr. Gerald Franz, Assistant Director,
Library; Dr. Nancey Wyant, Dean, Johnson School of Business; Anke
Stugk, Adjunct Professor; and Davor Pranjic, Teaching Assistant.
B. Presentation by Kate Donofrio of Florida Power and Light (FPL), of an
Energy Saving Incentive Rebate check to the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners under the FPL Business Heating, Ventilation, and
Air - Conditioning Program for the Building "K" Chiller Replacement and Ice
Storage Expansion Project in the amount of $256,320.
C. Presentation by Liesa Priddy, Commissioner for the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, presenting "First Florida Turkey"
certificates to youths who harvested their first Florida turkey in Collier
County.
D. Recommendation to recognize Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner, Land
Development Services, as the Employee of the Month for May 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 4
June 12, 2012
A. Public Petition request from Vincent Raymer regarding the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Recommendation to consider PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts
Village at Bayshore MPUD, 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 the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the
Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial
Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC) and the Neighborhood
Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District
of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC) and the
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use
Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District to a Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be
known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, to allow
construction of a maximum of 40 residential dwelling units and up to 48,575
square feet of commercial land uses, up to 84,000 square feet of parking
garage and a 350 seat theatre in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 17.89 + /- acres; and providing an
effective date.
B. 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. Recommendation to consider RZ-
PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. -- An Ordinance of the Board of
Page 5
June 12, 2012
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No.
2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described
real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district for the
project known as SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of Tamiami
Trail East in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date.
C. This item to be heard at 5:05 p.m. Recommendation to consider an
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance number 04 -41, as amended, The Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
regulation for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section
Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more
specifically amending the following: Chapter Two — Zoning Districts and
Uses, including Section 2.01.03 Essential Services, to add aviation uses as a
permitted use in the Conservation Zoning District on lands adjacent to the
Marco Island Executive Airport; Section Four, Conflict and Severability;
Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and
Section Six, Effective Date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of a Marco Island City Representative to the Tourist
Development Council, removal of Everglades City Councilman McBeth
Collins from the Council, and acknowledgment that Everglades City has
confirmed Mr. Robert A. Miller, who is currently a member to Council in
the Interested Persons Category.
C. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.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 support for the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future
Land Use Map, and continue the advertised June 18, 2012 adoption hearing
Page 6
June 12, 2012
to the regular Board of County Commissioners meeting on September 11,
2012. (Commissioner Coletta)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to review
options and provide direction regarding the existing approved contract with
American Traffic Solutions, Inc., (ATS) for the Traffic Infraction Detection
(TID) program and approve any necessary budget amendments (Fiscal
Impact: up to $171,000 in FY 2012). (Nick Casalanguida, Growth
Management Administrator)
B. Recommendation to prepare an amendment to the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance (FDPO) to address: (1) Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)'s recent determination that the County's FDPO is not in compliance
with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
(2) recent amendment to the Florida Building Code; and to advertise it for
subsequent Board adoption. (Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management
Administrator)
C. Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which Collier
County would be reimbursed up to $1,176,120 for the construction of
sidewalks in Naples Manor and to authorize the necessary budget
amendment (Dan Hall, Project Manager Senior, Growth Management
Division/Construction & Maintenance).
D. Recommendation to approve current policy on use of resident beach parking
permits, adopt an annual pass option for non - residents at Sun -N -Fun
Lagoon, and approve current policy on use of beach parking /garage. (Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director)
E. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9C This item
requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members
Recommendation to consider ST- PL20120000900: Collier County
Government Airport Authority - A Resolution approving Petition ST-
PL20120000900 requesting a Special Treatment development permit to
construct a parallel taxiway on the west side of an existing runway as well as
an apron expansion within the Conservation- Special Treatment Overlay
Page 7
June 12, 2012
(CON -ST) for a project known as the Marco Island Executive Airport
Expansion located in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Chris D'Arco, Land Development Services, Growth
Management Division, Environmental Specialist)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency
reject the lone bid received from Fifth Third Bank under Invitation to
Bid (ITB) #12 -5877 which was issued in an attempt to refinance and
restructure the current Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Series 2009
Term loan under more favorable financing terms and at the lowest
overall financing cost.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for The Quarry Maintenance Facility and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
Page 8
June 12, 2012
designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for The Quarry, Phase IA and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for The Quarry Beach Club and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to an easement agreement
for the purchase of a drainage easement (Parcel No. 173DE) which is
required for the Naples Manor US -41 Ditch portion of the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project (No. 51101).
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
authorize the Clerk of Courts to release Performance Bond No.
08821642 which was posted as a development guaranty for work
associated with the Shops at Eagle Creek.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Lipari - Ponziane, Tract GC -4
Replat. This plat is a re- subdivision of lands within Treviso
Bay /Wentworth Estates PUD.
7) Recommendation to grant final approval of the public roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Horse Creek Estates with
the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained
and authorizing the release of the maintenance security and
acceptance of the plat dedications.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 9
June 12, 2012
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an extension for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Audubon Country Club, Unit Three subdivision
pursuant to Section 10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Naples Mazda, 6381 Airport Road North, and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Northside Medical Plaza, 1985 Veterans Park
Drive, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to
release any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or
the Developer's designated agent.
11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 4A
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
12) 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
acknowledge a Statutory Deed between Collier County and Citygate
Development, LLC. as recorded in Official Record Book (OR) 3985,
Pages 3420 through 3422, and to authorize the Clerk of Courts to
make notation on the original plat of the recording of the deed.
13) Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which
Collier County will be reimbursed up to $448,800 for the construction
of sidewalks on White Boulevard and to authorize the necessary
budget amendment.
Page 10
June 12, 2012
14) Recommendation to approve the release of a $13,113.07 lien for
payment of $1,563.07, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board
of County Commissioners vs. Philip R. Bradley IV and Nancy F.
Bradley, Code Enforcement Board Case Number
CEPM20100010050, relating to property located at 4945 Barcelona
Circle, Collier County, Florida.
15) Recommendation to approve the release of two liens with a combined
value of $44,804.67 for payment of $7,604.67, in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Adriana and Jose Arizmendi, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate
Case Numbers CEAU20110000019 and CEPM20110000018, relating
to property located at 1991 48th Street SW, Collier County, Florida.
16) Recommendation to accept staff s progress report for locating a
potential All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) site and that the Board adopt the
proposed Resolution establishing the Collier County ATV Park Ad
Hoc Committee, which Resolution also appoints the initial members
to this Committee.
17) Recommendation to approve and execute the FY2012/13
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Trip /Equipment Grant
Agreement with the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD) in the amount of $679,971 with a local match
of $75,538 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement and
required budget amendments.
18) Recommendation to approve the selection and hiring of Wilcox
Appraisal Services (Alan Wilcox MAI, SRA), without competitive
bid, for the appraisal of two complex right -of -way parcels on the US-
41/SR-CR951 Intersection Improvement Project. (Project No. 60116.
Fiscal Impact: Not to Exceed $26,725). (Project No. 60116)
19) Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which
Collier County would be reimbursed up to $245,520 for the
construction of sidewalk on Golden Gate Parkway from Sunshine
Boulevard to Collier Boulevard and to authorize the necessary budget
Page 11
June 12, 2012
amendment.
20) Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which
Collier County would be reimbursed up to $138,629 for sidewalks on
Bayside Street, Calusa Avenue and Caledonia Avenue.
21) Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
(LAP) Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) in which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $600,000
for a signal communications fiber optic network extension on portions
of Golden Gate Parkway, Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard,
respectively, and to authorize the necessary budget amendment.
22) Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for FY 2012/13, and budget
amendments to recognize grant revenues in the amount of $928,057
and $5,000 in local funding.
23) Recommendation to authorize a counteroffer of $2,500 to the business
damage claim made by Floridan Foods, LLC, for Parcels 157DE and
157TCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. L & R Ram, LLC, et
al., Case No. 12 -CA -1828 (U.S. 41 Ditch/LASIP Project No. 51101)
(Fiscal Impact $2,500).
24) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-5906: Five
Year Cost Benefit Analysis of the Ave Maria SRA (Stewardship
Receiving Area) to Munilytics for a cost of $15,560.
25) Recommendation to approve the Workforce Investment Act Second
Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for the Southwest
Florida Job Training Consortium.
26) Recommendation that the Board authorize the Chairman, as a member
of the Southwest Florida Job Training Consortium, to approve the
Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Inc., proposed FY
2012/2013 budget as provided for in the Workforce Investment Act
Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for the
Page 12
June 12, 2012
Southwest Florida Job Training Consortium.
27) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing a speed limit
increase from forty -five miles per hour (45 mph) to fifty miles per
hour (50 mph) on Oil Well Road from one -half mile west of Oil Well
Grade Road to one -half mile east of Ave Maria Boulevard, County
Project No. 60044, approve reducing the roadway from six -lane
striped section to a four -lane striped section.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to accept a Utility Easement from the Audubon
Country Club Foundation, Inc., a Florida non - profit corporation, to
the Collier County Water -Sewer District for installation of a
monitoring well and for access on, over and across a parcel adjacent
to Audubon Drive at an estimated cost not to exceed $100. (Project
Number 74401)
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 12 -5828, "Additional RML
Pumps at South County Water Reclamation Facility," to Mitchell and
Stark Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $816,599, for
project No. 70089 South County Water Reclamation Facility
Compliance Assurance Project.
3) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal #12 -5839,
Loan/Grant Acquisition and Compliance Services, to Angie Brewer &
Associates, LC, in an estimated annual amount not to exceed
$300,000.
4) Recommendation to accept the Water System Audit Progress Report
and to approve adjustments to specific water /sewer accounts to correct
previously billed water /sewer charges.
5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment of $615,000 to
move funds from Project No. 70087, Vanderbilt Drive Water Main
Rehabilitation, to Project No. 71055, Water SCADA Improvements.
Page 13
June 12, 2012
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a time extension amendment to the sub
recipient agreement with Immokalee Non - Profit Housing, Inc. d/b /a
Immokalee Housing and Family Services (IHFS) to provide for
sufficient time to complete the project, with no change in funding
level and to allow for minor administrative changes.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to the 2009
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing (HPRP) subrecipient
grant agreement with Legal Aid of Collier County, a Division of
Legal Aid of Broward County in the amount of $33,200, in order to
expend the remaining funds.
3) Recommendation to accept a donation from the Collier County 4 -H
Association and approve a University Extension Trust Fund budget
amendment in the amount of $9,286.28 recognizing revenue and
appropriating expenditures for the 4 -H Outreach Programs managed
by the Collier County University of Florida/IFAS Extension
Department.
4) Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling $9,748.47
to recognize revenue from the collection of co- payments and
contributions from the Housing, Human and Veteran Services,
Services for Seniors program.
5) Recommendation to approve the Amended Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Florida Communities Trust and Collier County on
County -owned property.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$19,756 and recognize revenue generated from case management and
case aid from the Medicaid Waiver program.
7) Recommendation to to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$77,889 for continuation of services of the Retired Senior Volunteer
Program (RVSP) from the Corporation for National and Community
Service.
Page 14
June 12, 2012
8) Recommendation to approve an improvement to the land leased to the
Naples Zoo by the Collier County Board of Commissioners that will
provide an access road, water, electric, and sewer to the northern
section of the property to support current Zoo operations.
9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Agreement No. 12CO1 for funding with Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal
Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance program for Collier
County Monitoring.
10) Recommendation to approve a homeowner insurance check
endorsement policy for all borrowers assisted with purchase assistance
and /or rehabilitation housing program funds and authorizes Board
Chairman or Vice Chairman, in his absence to endorse two
homeowner insurance claim checks.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a contract with Ecological Consulting
Solutions Inc., to receive up to 28 gopher tortoises relocated from the
Gordon River Greenway Park Project Site to the NW Hackletrap Long
Term Protected Gopher Tortoise Recipient site in Hendry County for
the estimated amount of $22,400 and to approve the payment of a
$7,100 mitigation contribution to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC).
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment 91 to Agreement #10-5491
for Fiber Optic Installation, Maintenance and Repairs modifying
Exhibit "A," Scope of Services, Item [i] ( "Materials Not on Bid "), and
approve retroactive payments on pending invoices.
3) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
4) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to License
Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex- Officio
the Governing Board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District
Page 15
June 12, 2012
and Gulf Coast Citrus Caretaking, Inc.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and United Way of Collier County in support
of Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
2) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Greater Marco Family YMCA, Inc in
support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and
manmade hazards emergency response.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement between Collier County and the Florida Division of
Emergency Management accepting a Grant award for $105,806 for
Emergency Management Program Enhancement and approve the
associated budget amendment.
4) Announcement in accordance with Florida Statute 259.032(10)(b), of
two public meetings and one public hearing, to be conducted by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida
Forest Service and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
Management Plan Advisory Group. These meetings are to take public
comment on the management of the Okaloacoochee Slough State
Forest.
5) Recommendation to authorize the on -line auction with Public Surplus
of a 1997 brush truck and return the sales revenue to the Isles of Capri
Fire District MSTU fund.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement accepting the annual Emergency Management
Preparedness and Assistance Grant (EMPG), in the amount of
$96,848 for emergency management planning, response, and
mitigation efforts and to authorize the necessary budget amendment.
Page 16
June 12, 2012
7) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
8) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager to reorganize
certain functions within the County Manager's Agency to align
strategic goals, optimize resources, and combine expertise under a
balanced organizational structure.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its official capacity as the Airport Authority, award Bid No. 12 -5822
USDA Immokalee Building Build Out in the amount of Two Hundred
Ninety Six Thousand Ninety -Nine Dollars ($296,099) to One Source
Construction Company & Builders, Inc., pending USDA approval.
2) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of an Easement to Lee
County Electric Cooperative for providing electric service to the
Turbo Services Inc. leased site at the Immokalee Regional Airport
located at 190 Airpark Boulevard, Immokalee at a cost not to exceed
$27.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding a function serving as a Valid Public Purpose. Paid to attend
the Naples Press Club Luncheon on April 26, 2012. The sum of $20 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on May 17,
2012. The sum of $18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 17
June 12, 2012
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of May 5,
2012 through May 11, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of May 12,
2012 through May 18, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of May 19,
2012 through May 25, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) To present to the Board of County Commissioners the 2012 - 2013
State Revenue Sharing Application for approval by the Board, and to
obtain the Chairman's signature on the application.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing carry
forward from FY 2011 for the Legal Aid Society Fund (652) in the
amount of $27,398.44.
2) Recommendation to authorize an increase in the purchase order for
Carlton Fields, P.A., in the case of Collier County v. John Reynolds &
Sons, Inc., et al., Case No. 10- 6658 -CA (South Reverse Osmosis Raw
Water Wellfield Pipeline Project No. 70030)(Fiscal Impact an
additional $200,000).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
Page 18
June 12, 2012
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider a Resolution of the
Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition
Number ZLTR- PL2012- 0000661 approving martial arts instruction as a
permitted use in the White Lake Industrial Corporate Park Planned Unit
Development. The subject property is located in Section 35, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance Number 86 -78
as amended, which created the Citizens Advisory Committee for the
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance Number 73 -17
relating to temporary permits.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
Page 19
June 12, 2012
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is in session.
I know this is going to be a really, really great day because for a
change I see a lot of friendly faces in the audience today.
We will begin with an invocation by Father Tom Gillespie of St.
Ann Catholic Church.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION GIVEN BY FATHER TOM GILLESPIE FROM ST.
ANN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH
FATHER GILLESPIE: Good morning. Let us pray.
God, Lord of the universe, we praise and glorify you. Thank you
for this part of the universe that we are blessed to live in, Collier
County.
We ask you to bless this gathering of all and all who take part in
it. We ask you to bless especially the leadership of this conference,
this gathering, chosen by the residents of the county to serve the
people of the county. I think of Jesus' words, "I come not to be served
but to serve." Bless their discussions of all the people that are here, the
deliberations, and their decisions.
May what is decided be for the good of all the people of this
wonderful county, this part of your universe. May it be for the benefit
-- betterment of all, and especially empower the leadership to imitate
you in their concern to respect and care for all your creation, both
human and nonhuman.
This blessing is asked believing this is the way you would have
us act for the betterment of the citizens and of the environment in
which we live.
Again, praise and glory to you and thank you for the -- for this
part of your universe and being privileged to be residents living in this
Page 2
June 12, 2012
universe. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Father Gillespie.
Will you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, I know that it's
unlikely that there are any changes to the agenda today, but would you
please cover that item for us.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board.
These are your Proposed Agenda Changes for the Board of
County Commissioners' Meeting of June 12, 2012.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16A 16 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11 G.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16A24 from your
consent agenda to become Item l OH on your regular agenda.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16C4 to become Item
111 on your regular agenda.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F8 that will become
Item 11 F on today's regular agenda.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16G1 from the
consent agenda to become Item 14A 1 under your community
redevelopment regular agenda.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16G2 from your
consent agenda to become Item 14A2 under your community
redevelopment area regular agenda.
Page 3
June 12, 2012
And the final proposed change is to move Item 16K2 from your
consent agenda to become Item 12A under the county attorney's
regular agenda. Those moves have been requested by Commissioner
Hiller.
We have one agenda note, Commissioners, this morning. Under
Item l OC, the resolution has been revised to more clearly state that the
straw ballot will be presented solely to the voters within the
boundaries of the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan. Copies of
that revised resolution have been supplied to the commission
members.
Commissioners, we have three time - certain items this morning --
excuse me -- today: Item IOC will be heard at 11 a.m. this morning;
Item 9C is an advertised public hearing for a Land Development Code
amendment, required to be heard at 5:05 p.m.; and that item will be
immediately followed by Item 11 E on your agenda.
Those are all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. KLATZKO W : No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll go to the commissioners
now for changes, any other changes to the agenda as well as any ex
parte disclosure relating to the consent and summary agendas. We'll
start with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda. And
with respect to ex parte, 9A, the staff report; 913, the staff report; 11 E,
meetings, emails, and phone calls. And with respect to the remainder
of the items, no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No changes or no corrections
on the agenda. And as far as the consent and summary agendas, I
have no disclosures at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
June 12, 2012
And I have no additional changes to the agenda, and I have no ex
parte disclosure for the summary or consent agendas.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning, sir.
I have no changes to the agenda. And I have no disclosures for
the summary or the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Consent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: --consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes to
today's agenda. I want to thank the county manager and staff for
providing the necessary information for today's agenda.
I have no ex parte on today's consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Then I'll accept a motion to approve the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion to approve is unanimous.
With respect to the minutes of the May 8, 2012, BCC regular
meeting, are there any changes to those minutes?
Page 5
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 12, 2012
Move Item 16A16 to Item 11G: Recommendation to accept staffs progress report for locating a potential All
Terrain Vehicle (ATV) site and that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution establishing the Collier County ATV
Park Ad Hoc Committee, which Resolution also appoints the initial members to this Committee. (Commissioner
Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A24 to Item 11H: Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) 12 -5906: Five Year Cost
Benefit Analysis of the Ave Maria SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area) to Munilytics for a cost of $15,560.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16C4 to Item 11I: Recommendation to accept the Water System Audit Progress Report and to
approve adjustments to specific water /sewer accounts to correct previously billed water /sewer charges.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F8 to Item 11F: Recommendation to authorize the County Manager to reorganize certain
functions within the County Manager's Agency to align strategic goals, optimize resources, and combine expertise
under a balanced organizational structure. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16G1 to Item 14A1: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in its official
capacity as the Airport Authority, award Bid No. 12 -5822 USDA Immokalee Building Build Out in the amount of
Two Hundred Ninety Six Thousand Ninety-Nine Dollars ($296,099) to One Source Construction Company &
Builders, Inc., pending USDA approval. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16G2 to Item 14A2: Recommendation to approve the conveyance of an Easement to Lee County
Electric Cooperative for providing electric service to the Turbo Services Inc. leased site at the Immokalee Regional
Airport located at 190 Airpark Boulevard, Immokalee at a cost not to exceed $27. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16K2 to Item 12A: Recommendation to authorize an increase in the purchase order for Carlton
Fields, P.A., in the case of Collier County v. John Reynolds & Sons, Inc., et al., Case No. 10- 6658 -CA (South
Reverse Osmosis Raw Water Wellfield Pipeline Project No. 70030) (Fiscal Impact an additional $200,000).
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 10C: Resolution has been revised to more clearly state that the straw ballot will be presented solely to the
voters within the boundaries of the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan. Copies of the revised Resolution have
been supplied to Commission members.
Time Certain Items:
Item 10C to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 9C to be heard at 5:05 p.m.
Item 11E to be heard immediately following Item 9C
6/12/2012 3:39 AM
June 12, 2012
Item #2B and #2C
BCC /REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 8, 2012, AND
BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 22 -23, 2012 —
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Accept May 8th regular --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- meeting agenda -- or meeting
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also accept May 22nd regular
meeting minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty- second, 23rd, right. Okay. We'll
take them both at the same time.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the minutes, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ave.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #3A1
SERVICE AWARDS - ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS — 5 YEAR
MW
June 12, 2012
ATTENDEES
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to service awards for
advisory board members.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to honor several members of your
advisory boards this morning. If the board will join us in front of the
dais this morning, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: We'll call each recipient up individually to receive
their award from the commissioner and get a photo.
Commissioner, we'll begin by recognizing those members of
your advisory board for five years of service credit, the first recipient
is Ms. Christine R. Sutherland from your Floodplain Management
Committee. Is she here this morning?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: The next five -year recipient is Mr. Michael V.
McElroy from the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: The next five -year recipient is Mr. Tom Briscoe
from the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory
Committee. Is Mr. Briscoe here this morning?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: The next recipient, Mr. Roy A. Wilson from the
Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: And Mr. Larry J. Patton, also five years of service
with the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory
Committee.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we'll make sure that they get those
awards.
Page 7
June 12, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: I'll send them out.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could have done all that from up
there.
Item #3A2
SERVICE AWARDS - ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS —10
YF,AR ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I know. I'm sorry about that. Well, moving
right along, now we'd like to recognize advisory board members with
10 years of service to the county.
The first 10 -year recipient is Mr. Stephen J. Hruby from the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
MR. HRUBY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: The next 10 -year recipient is Mr. Randy Anderson
from the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals. Is Mr.
Anderson here?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: The next 10 -year award is Mr. Michael Boyd,
Contractors Licensing Board.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: The next 10 -year recipient is Ms. Susan M. Becker
with the Tourist Development Council.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Your next 10 -year recipient is Mr. Joe Swaja
representing the Collier County Productivity Committee. Joe?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We truly appreciate your
June 12, 2012
service.
MR. OCHS: Ten years of service, Mr. Gerald J. Lefebvre,
Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Good to see you.
Thank you very much.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Ten years of service, Mr. Charles H. Gunther with
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for your service.
(Applause.)
Item #3A3
SERVICE AWARDS ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS —15 YEAR
ATTENDEE
MR. OCHS: Finally this morning, Commissioners, recognizing
15 years of service with your Library Advisory Board, Ms. Doris J.
Lewis. Doris?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards this morning,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to proclamations, County
Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #4
am
June 12, 2012
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ITEMS
#4A THRU #4D — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
OF EDISON STATE COLLEGE SERVING THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA COMMUNITY AND DESIGNATING JULY 245 2012
AS EDISON STATE COLLEGE DAY, ACCEPTED BY DR.
ROBERT JONES, COLLIER CAMPUS PRESIDENT AND CHRIS
VERNON, EDISON STATE COLLEGE TRUSTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Item 4A this morning is a proclamation recognizing
the 50th anniversary of Edison State College serving the Southwest
Florida community and designating July 24, 2012, as Edison State
College Day. To be accepted by Dr. Robert Jones, Collier Campus
President; Mrs. Ann Berlam, Chair of the Edison State College
District Board of Trustees; Mr. Chris Vernon, Trustee of the Edison
State College District Board of Trustees; and I believe also we have
Mr. Dudley Goodlette, the Interim District President of Edison State
College. If you'd all please come up and accept your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who gets this?
MS. BERLIN: I'll take it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll take it, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: New day is coming, isn't it? This is
wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You need to get a -- you
can't talk until you get a picture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of the agreement.
Page 10
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the price you have to pay.
(Applause.)
MS. BERLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, fellow
commissioners. On behalf of the Edison board of trustees and the
Edison family, I graciously accept this proclamation, and I would like
to tell you that on July 24th, the day that you've proclaimed Edison
State College Day, the board of trustees will be meeting here in
Collier County, so we will officially present this to the board of
trustees members on our day.
Thank you so much. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 16, 2012 AS MOTHER
ANNIE MAE PERRY DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTED
BY VAUGHN YOUNG, PRESIDENT, MOTHER PERRY YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT PROJECT AND FRANK CUMMINGS, VICE
PRESIDENT, MOTHER PERRY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating June 16,
2012, as Mother Annie Mae Perry Day in Collier County. To be
accepted by Vaughn Young, President, Mother Perry Youth
Empowerment Project, and Frank Cummings, Vice President, Mother
Perry Empowerment Project.
This item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have something to say?
(Applause.)
Page 11
June 12, 2012
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To the
commissioners, we appreciate you kindly. We are proud to say that
the Mother Perry Award -- the Mother Perry Foundation has made it
another year honoring the life of Mother Perry.
We wanted to let it be known a lot of people pay a lot of -- put a
lot of emphasis on how great she was as a midwife, but the foundation
actually pays more attention to the fact that she was somewhat of an
educator and a pioneer in our communities. We would like everybody
to understand that although she was that great midwife, her walk to
see minorities and lower -class people have education, proper
education, that's our key focus.
With that being said, we look forward to doing things outside of
the educational system in Collier County school boards and things of
that sort. We actually know that we have to -- excuse me -- we have
to kind of share the responsibility of making sure that the kids in our
community are educated, you know. We have to go through
unconventional ways of teaching these kids. That's our focus, and we
thank you for giving us the opportunity to operate right here in Collier
County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. You're doing good work. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING LENNAR HOMES FOR ITS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWEST
BOULEVARD AND US 41 EAST, ACCEPTED BY RUSSELL
SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH
LENNAR HOMES — ADOPTED
Page 12
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation recognizing Lennar
Homes for its contributions to the installation of a new traffic signal at
the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 East. To be
accepted by Russell Smith, Vice President of Land Development of
Lennar Homes.
And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
(Applause.)
Thanks for all you're doing.
MR. SMITH: Well, thank you very much for this.
I just want to let you know that we're moving forward with this
project absolutely as quickly as we can. The permit is with FDOT
right now. So as soon as we get through that process, we're going to
start construction on it.
And, you know, I was driving down 41 late last week, and at that
location I saw a woman standing in the median pushing a stroller with
her toddler sitting right next to her crossing six lanes of traffic. So it's
obviously a situation that is overdue for being remedied, and we're
glad that we have the opportunity to do it, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 16 -21, 2012 AS
YOUTH LEADERSHIP COLLIER WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTED BY YOUTH LEADERSHIP COLLIER CLASS OF
2012; ERIN MORTON, VICE PRESIDENT, LEADERSHIP
COLLIER FOUNDATION; PATRICK PHILBIN, TIFFANY
LEHMAN, MIKE GIUSTO AND JENNIFER TEARS,
Page 13
June 12, 2012
VOLUNTEERS, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Item 4D is a proclamation designating June 16th
through the 21 st, 2012, as Youth Leadership Collier Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Youth Leadership Collier Class of 2012,
Erin Morton, Vice President, Leadership Collier Foundation; Patrick
Philbin; Tiffany Lehman; Mike Giusto; and Jennifer Tears, volunteers
in Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
If you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you all for being here today.
This is great.
Look at the proud mom sitting over there, huh?
(Applause.)
MS. MORTON: Thank you very much. It's great to be here.
On behalf of Leadership Collier Foundation and the Youth
Leadership Collier Program, we just want to tell you how honored we
are to receive this proclamation. And a youth program's about to kick
off on Saturday, so the students are very, very excited. Thank you so
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a great service you're offering.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could get a motion to approve
the proclamations this morning, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamations by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 14
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2012 TO HODGES UNIVERSITY,
ACCEPTED BY DR. TERRY MCMAHAN, PRESIDENT; DR.
AYSEGUL TIMUR, MBA PROGRAM CHAIR; DR. GERALD
FRANZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LIBRARY; DR. NANCEY
WYANT, DEAN, JOHNSON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS; ANKE
STUGK, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR; AND DAVOR PRANJIC,
TEACHING ASSISTANT — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS : Commissioners, that moves us to Item 5 on your
agenda, presentations. Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for June 2012 to Hodges University. Award to
be accepted by Dr. Terry McMahon, Hodges University President; Dr.
Nancey Wyant, Dean of Johnson School of Business; Dr. Aysegul
Timur, MBA Program Chair; Dr. Gerald Franz; Anke Stugk; Davor
Pranj ic; Joe Turner; Earle and Thelma Hodges; Mr. John White; Dr.
Jeanette Brock; Dave and Susan Rice; and Dr. Joe Pepe.
Commissioners, this award is particularly timely in that August
18th of this year there'll be a 50th anniversary celebration honoring
Earl and Thelma Hodges for all the work that they've done for the
community over the past 50 years.
Page 15
June 12, 2012
Congratulations, everyone.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is minding the university? Who
gets this?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Dr. Timur.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There you go. Get it up front so we can
get in the picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'd also be remiss if I didn't
personally thank the university and Dr. Timur, in particular, for the
work she's done over the last couple of years, at no cost to this county,
through the comparative county study evaluating the economic
development programs across the country and around the state, and
the very wonderful report that she produced that hopefully will be a
guide to all of us in this community as we move forward and struggle
with diversifying and improving jobs in our local economy.
So thank you to all of the university. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY KATE DONOFRIO OF FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT (FPL), OF AN ENERGY SAVING INCENTIVE
REBATE CHECK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE FPL BUSINESS
HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR - CONDITIONING
PROGRAM FOR THE BUILDING "K" CHILLER
REPLACEMENT AND ICE STORAGE EXPANSION PROJECT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $256,320 — PRESENTED
Page 16
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5B is a presentation by Kate
Donofrio of Florida Power and Light of an energy- saving incentive
rebate check to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
under the FP &L business heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
program for the Building K chiller replacement and ice storage
expansion project here on the government center. This check is in the
amount of $256,320.
Hank Jones will make a brief presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Comes at a good time.
MR. JONES: Good morning, Commissioners. Hank Jones,
facilities management.
As part of the U.S. Department of Energy Recovery Act, the
administrative services division received a grant in 2009 for several
projects involving improving efficiency of our operation and saving
energy. The largest single portion of that administrative services grant
was for energy- efficiency improvements in our central chiller plant,
which provides chill water to the entire government complex center.
The project consisted of replacing one of our oldest, least
efficient chillers, existing chillers, with a brand new high efficiency
chiller, adding additional automation and flow control to the plant to
make it more efficient in operation and, the reason we're here today,
increasing the energy storage, ice storage, that we make during
off -peak hours to save money that allows us to make enough ice off
peak that we could go all day during the hottest time of the day
without running electric chillers by just melting the ice.
As a result of these actions, we're able to document the following
improvements from our Fiscal Year '09/10 bill, electric bill, to our
Fiscal Year ' 10/' 11 bill.
In terms of energy, we've reduced our average on -peak demand
by 20 percent, which is very significant, 304 kilowatts. We've
reduced our total consumption of kilowatt hours by 4 percent, or
450,000 kilowatt.
Page 17
June 12, 2012
In terms of dollars, what this means is that we've reduced our
annual electric bill by nearly 10 percent and about $81,000 a month --
excuse me -- a year. That would be even better.
And the reason we're here today is this improvement also
qualified us for a Florida Power and Light business HVAC,
energy- saving incentive program, that qualified us for a rebate in the
amount of $256,320.
In a few week's time, facilities management will be back here in
front of you asking for authorization to reinvest these funds in
additional energy- saving programs in the plant, which could further
qualify for additional, and probably will qualify for additional
energy- saving rebates through Florida Power and Light.
With us today to present this check to the commissioners, to the
board, is Kate Donofrio, our governmental account manager, and
Richard Brooks, FP &L's energy manager specialist.
Accepting the check on your behalf will be the project member
team that work together with Mr. Brooks to make this project the great
success that it is. Our team members will be John Clements, who will
not be with us this morning. He was working with us as a project
manager at the time; Hemantha Ranatunge, our senior HVC plant
operator; Kelly Campbell, our system supervisor and energy guru;
Josh Thomas from the grants office; and Dennis Linguidi, our
facilities manager.
First I'd like to introduce Kate Donofrio, who has a few words.
MS. DONOFRIO: Thank you.
Thank you, Hank.
Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. DONOFRIO: Thank you for letting us share this with you
this morning.
On behalf of Florida Power and Light, we thank you and the
project team not only for your participation in the HVAC program, but
June 12, 2012
also for the forward- looking approach to energy efficiency.
Projects such as this have long- lasting positive impacts not only
for the region environmentally, but also for the county financially.
We are very pleased to be here to give you this. We're
committed to addressing your energy needs and work to support the
ongoing success of the county's operations.
So with that, I'd like to assemble --
MR. JONES: All right. Let me ask the team members to join us
at the podium.
MS. DONOFRIO: -- the team.
MR. JONES: Hemantha, Josh.
MS. DONOFRIO: Here it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's wonderful.
MS. DONOFRIO: They worked very long and hard for this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is delightful.
(Applause.)
Item # 5 C
PRESENTATION BY LIESA PRIDDY, COMMISSIONER FOR
THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION, PRESENTING "FIRST FLORIDA TURKEY"
CERTIFICATES TO YOUTHS WHO HARVESTED THEIR FIRST
FLORIDA TURKEY IN COLLIER COUNTY — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5C on your
agenda this morning. It's a presentation by Liesa Priddy,
commissioner for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, presenting the first Florida turkey certificates to youths
who've harvested their first Florida turkey in Collier County.
MS. PRIDDY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Liesa Priddy. I'm here on behalf of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Page 19
June 12, 2012
Conservation Commission.
And as part of my presentation this morning, I'd like to kind of
intertwine a little bit of Collier County history. Certainly we're not a
hotbed of history like Boston or New York, but the turkey in Collier
County has long been an important symbol.
I know when my grandmother first came to Collier County in
1908, most of the people that lived here ate what they could either
catch fishing or what they could kill hunting, and turkeys were a very
big part of that food source.
On the screen you can see that Collier County has as part of their
official symbol the wild turkey, and that was accepted in 1923, and in
1962 it became part of the county seal.
Most of us are familiar with the wave, kind of indescript wave
symbol that we see on all county vehicles, but historically, if you
haven't been in Collier County that long, all county vehicles had this
Collier County turkey symbol on it.
As you know, a couple of years ago Conservation Collier funds
were used to purchase the Pepper Ranch Preserve over in Immokalee.
And one of the programs that has taken place in Conservation Collier
is a hunting program, which is something that Collier County had
never handled before. It was a big step for us to do on public
property. But it's been a very successful program.
Pepper Ranch consists of about 2,500 acres. And over the last
several years, we've had quite a few successful hunts out there. This is
a picture of one of the larger hunts. We've had hog hunts, deer hunts,
and turkey hunts out there.
You can see that the ranch is very well located right there north
of Lake Trafford, and it's proven to be a great resource for other nature
lovers, people that like to hike, bike, and so forth.
This morning I am going to present some certificates to youth
hunters. These were kids that are under 16 years old. Some of them
took their first turkey on Conservation Collier property at Pepper
Page 20
June 12, 2012
Ranch Preserve. The others did take their turkeys in Collier County.
I'm not sure that Maggie Williams is here this morning. Okay.
So I'd like for Maggie Williams to come up. Okay.
(Applause.)
MS. PRIDDY: The next hunter is Mark Spilker.
(Applause.)
MS. PRIDDY: And I think the other hunter that was able to join
us this morning, Clay, did take his turkey on Pepper Ranch Preserve.
If Clay would come up.
(Applause.)
MS. PRIDDY: The two hunters that weren't able to join us this
morning, Max Csenger and Dustin Allen.
I'd also like to recognize the outstanding job of one of your
employees that works with the Conservation Collier program, and
that's Melissa Hennig. And I think she was going to say a couple
words about the success of the hunting program out at Pepper Ranch,
specifically the youth hunts.
MS. HENNIG: Thank you, Liesa.
Melissa Hennig, principal environmental specialist with
Conservation Collier.
And, yes, not only do we have turkey hunts, we have hog hunts
and deer hunts. We've completed six youth hunts at the ranch to date.
And I just want to let everyone know there are three more this season.
We may have a deer hunt, depending on surveys, and a hog hunt and
another turkey hunt.
FWC has been so helpful with getting this program going. If you
all remember, back in April 2010 we had our first hunt. It was, I
think, in January that we sought their help. And within that short time
we were able to set up a hunt, and there were 15 kids at our first hog
hunt. It was amazing.
And all these hunts are run by volunteers. And the kids, they put
in. Collier County kids get preference, and then other kids from other
Page 21
June 12, 2012
counties can come out and hunt also.
But I want to thank the volunteers that have been instrumental in
these youth hunts also. It's all done with volunteers. So thank you.
And if anyone out there is listening, please put in for a hunt.
Also, any landowners -- this is also available for private landowners.
What you do is you lease your land for those three days to FWC, they
cover the liability, and then you can have these kids enjoy the land and
the hunt.
And I just want to say one more thing. We're teaching these kids,
too, it's not all about the harvest. Today it is, it's about your first
turkey harvest. But you'd be amazed at just how much they enjoy
getting out in the woods. And it's nice to see kids out there without
TV. We try to keep their phones away from them, but -- for the most
part, it's a great outdoor experience. Thank you.
MS. PRIDDY: That's right. The hunts, it's not just showing up
one day. Most of the kids get out there on a Friday night with their
parents. They're able to camp, eat out. The hunt guides are volunteers,
and then they're accompanied by their parent as well. So it's a really
good family function.
The National Wild Turkey Federation donated some gifts for
these first -time turkey hunters, so I wanted to recognize them. And I
also wanted to give something to the commission as a reminder of
how important the wild turkey has been to the history of our county.
So, Chairman Coyle, I'd like to present you with this photograph
of an Osceola wild turkey, and hopefully somewhere in the
administration building you'll be able to find a place to hang it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about my office?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, could we invite all of the recipients
to come forward for a picture with the commission, please, and your
parents, if you'd like, come on up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, that is beautiful. Fred
Thomas take that?
Page 22
June 12, 2012
MS. PRIDDY: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get a picture of that?
MR. OCHS : It's like the red carpet. Great.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much for all you're
doing for these kids.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually, that was from
the prior presentation, but I do want to -- you know, Ms. Priddy's well
versed on the historical way of life here in Collier County and being
on the Fish and Wildlife Commission. I hope she got the resolution of
support of the change of the net ban rules so we can create some jobs
for long -time generations of mullet fishermen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Wow, this is a great day. I think you commissioners can
remember back when we were forming Conservation Collier and
about how I kept putting the plug in. We had to find -- we had to be
able to include in there the rights to be able to hunt and fish in
properties where appropriate. And it took a little bit to get that
through.
Then when the opportunity came up for Pepper Ranch, this
commission was very supportive to bring it into the fold. And one of
the things we wanted in the management plan was the rights for
hunting, and youth hunting, especially, was our primary focus.
The part that's pretty amazing was the fact -- remember we went
through with the fact that we had the hogs on the ranch that were --
before they allowed the hunting and the hogs were causing all sorts of
damage, and they were ready to hire some professional hunters to
come in? Well, this commission rallied around my idea to make sure
Page 23
June 12, 2012
that we opened it up for the youth hunt.
And I made the first youth hunt. I was there with my grandson,
and it was a wonderful experience. He didn't get a hog, but he had a
tremendous experience. The amount of time that the FWC spends
with these kids and what they do with them, showing them in the
woods what to look for and what to be aware of, and just things you'd
never see if you didn't have some experienced person showing you the
way, it was truly remarkable.
I think it's come along way. I've attended a number of these
hunts, joined them in the afternoon to be able to take a tally of how
they were doing and talk to the kids that were participating. I would
recommend my fellow commissioners avail themselves of that
experience. It's a tremendous one.
And I really would like to extend my appreciation to Liesa
Priddy for trying to grow this to other areas. There's a lot of leased
land in Collier County they use for hunting, but a lot of that leased
land is never actually hunted. Even though people hold a lease, they
don't get a chance to do it.
So by taking that resource that is there and allowing our youths to
be able to hunt on it is a tremendous, tremendous advantage for them
to be able to get that experience.
Thank you very much for all that you're doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just wondering if you
have any classes out there that -- to teach young people these safety
measures of handling a gun and how to clean it and all of that stuff as
well as maybe the protocol that's involved, when you're not on a hunt
or something.
MS. PRIDDY: Again, Liesa Priddy. There is a requirement that
youth hunters pass a safety -- hunting safety program; however, to
encourage hunting, there are exceptions if they're accompanied by an
Page 24
June 12, 2012
adult that's a licensed hunter.
There is a hunt master always on site when these hunts take
place. And as Melissa alluded to, you know, there's a lot of learning
that goes on, you know, just being out there with other people that
have experience and with the parents. And, you know, they're closely
monitored, and the people that are experienced just love to share their
knowledge and their -- you know, their love for the outdoors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. PRIDDY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to recognition of
our Employee of the Month, County Manager.
Item #5D
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE MARCIA KENDALL,
SENIOR PLANNER, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AS
THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY 2012 —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 5D on your agenda this
morning. It's a recommendation to recognize Marcia Kendall, Senior
Planner with Land Development Services, as the Employee of the
Month for May of 2012.
Marcia, if you'd please come forward. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's a letter of appreciation, a little
token of our appreciation. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Marcia, while you're getting your photo, I'll read a
few things here to embarrass you, since you brought your own fan
club here this morning.
Page 25
June 12, 2012
Commissioners, Marcia, excuse me, has been an employee of the
county for almost 17 years working in our comprehensive planning
section of the land development services department. Her
responsibilities cover a wide range of activities.
As the lead planner of the administration of our transfer of
development program, she also coordinates all of the advertising
activities for the section and is a project manager for all of our
community development district administration.
She's also assumed several functions outside of her formal job
responsibilities, including being a lead player in the development of
our new permitting and land -use software system, and also
representing the section and working with our IT department on web
page management. She is certainly a go -to person in the division,
always provides exemplary assistance to others, and her commitment
to superior customer service is often noted by our customers and
visitors to the department.
Marcia is an asset to our county and is certainly a dedicated
employee who is very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Marcia Kendall and
recognize her as our Employee of the Month for May of 2012.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM VINCENT RAYMER
REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
PROGRAM — MOTION TO BRING BACK AT THE JUNE 265
2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6, public
petitions. Item 6A is a public petition request from Vincent Raymer
Page 26
June 12, 2012
regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
MR. RAYMER: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
for hearing my petition.
I was a contractor for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program,
which, my opinion, was a good program. It did what it was supposed
to do; stimulate the economy, provide jobs, and provide people with
affordable housing.
But there seemed to be one snag to the problem -- the project. It
seemed like the Clerk of Court didn't like the project and managed to
sink it.
Since I put in the petition, I understand there's progress being
made about reinstating our contract so we can finish the work. But
one thing's left to be done is I still haven't been paid for work I've
completed, which has been almost a year now. And that's why I'm
here trying to get some help as far as getting paid for the work that's
been completed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want us to respond now?
MR. RAYMER: If you could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, how about
bringing us up to date on what we can do to help Mr. Raymer.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we have a couple of homes that Mr.
Raymer was contracted to renovate for us, and the work is not
complete. We have been working closely with Ms. Kinzel in the
clerk's finance department and with Mr. Raymer to try to get this work
completed so that we can precisely identify the precise value of the
work and make final payment. That has taken some time.
I don't know if Ms. Kinzel would like to provide any update, but
I know she and Mr. Carnell have been working most recently with Mr.
Raymer to see if we could close this out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel.
Commissioner, I'd like to put a couple of things on the record.
Page 27
June 12, 2012
And Mr. Raymer, number one, I know that in his letter to the board
and in the statement that he just made to the commissioners, he seems
to think that it is the clerk's fault or the clerk's issue regarding his
program. So I brought with me some photos and some additional
information.
The simple reason Mr. Raymer was not paid is that he did not
perform the work for which he billed. I'll give you just one quick
rundown. On the pool that you see in front of you on the visualizer,
the pool specification was to return it to a healthy and serviceable
condition, hire subcontractors to clean it, make repairs to the finish,
some other things, chlorine the pool, remove all debris and weeds and
return the pool to a new like -- a like -new condition. I think from
anyone's estimation this pool hardly was raised to that level.
We have additional pictures. If you could just run through those
Alison.
Mr. Raymer billed for 95 percent of his contract as being
complete. We discovered that, even though those bills were submitted
for payment, including removal of debris from the yard -- as you can
see, there's actually a commode still sitting in the yard. Screens were
in disrepair. We have numerous pictures.
The Clerk's Office found that this was the condition based on the
billings. Yes, we did not pay those bills. The work, most obviously,
was not done.
I believe several of the commissioners have seen these photos
before. I believe, Commissioner Coletta, you may have even taken a
tour of the property at the time. There were missing items. There were
police reports. There was other information not provided, and yet Mr.
Raymer billed for those items as if they were completed. We did not
pay for those items.
I understand that housing has been working on resolution of the
issue, working with the grantor agency to come up with a
methodology of agreement that either Mr. Raymer be able to complete
June 12, 2012
the work for which he billed or that another contractor analysis be
performed to come up with a value of such work.
But until the clerk is presented with a clean invoice where the
work has, in fact, been performed, we're unable to legally pay Mr.
Raymer. And that's the clerk's position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there pictures of the current
situation, the current condition of the project?
MS. KEARNS: This is the current condition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is the current condition of the
project?
MS. KINZEL: Mr. Raymer has not completed any work since
the time of these photos, I don't believe.
MR. RAYMER: I was not let back on the project to complete
anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RAYMER: I was told not to go back on the job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RAYMER: I'd kind of like to respond to that. Okay. When
the program first started, all right, one project in particular, there was
two water systems installed and two water systems stolen. So the
housing supervisors at that time put into place a policy where we
could buy the equipment, not install it, bill for it, and right before the
end of the project, install the equipment, and they would hold the
check until everything was done. And that was the policy for almost
two years.
MS. KINZEL: And, Mr. Raymer, when we asked to come and
see the stuff that you claimed to have stored in your garage, you did
not agree to that.
MR. RAYMER: You didn't ask.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, we did, and I have it in meeting notes with
another person in my office that you were, in fact, asked to produce or
show us that equipment.
Page 29
June 12, 2012
MR. RAYMER: The equipment's still in my garage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where are we now with respect
to getting this resolved?
MR. RAYMER: Well, there's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no. It appears to be a problem
with either the county staff getting appropriate paperwork to the clerk
or the clerk taking action on it. So it's -- as far as I can determine, the
delay isn't yours; is that right?
MR. RAYMER: Well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't been allowed to do
anything?
MR. RAYMER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So --
MR. RAYMER: But on the other hand, there's been plenty of
work that is complete that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't been paid for?
MR. RAYMER: Haven't been paid for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. RAYMER: I can understand the problem they have with
the way that was handled and, you know, their policy as far as what
they did in submitting the invoice without installing equipment, okay,
but that wasn't my decision. That was county staff decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Steve, give us some clarification
on this.
MR. CARNELL: Sure. For the record, Steve Carnell, your
public services administrator.
Just -- I think we all need to understand -- and I'm kind of the
new guy in the debate here, but I understand the frustration of all the
parties. And where we are is, this is -- this has protracted. Most
recently -- not anything the clerk's done. It's had to do with staff
getting agreement with HUD in terms of what the appropriate
resolution of this problem would be, and we think we got an answer
Page 30
June 12, 2012
from HUD a couple weeks ago.
And we're in the process now of we want to sit down with Mr.
Raymer and with Crystal and see if we can frame this out. Crystal has
said to me in good faith that if -- and you jump in here and correct me
if you don't agree with what I'm about to say. But Crystal's assured me
that if the payments are legal and that we're in good standing with the
grantor to do what we propose to do, that the clerk is agreeable to
paying.
Now, we may have to work out some details to make sure Crystal
gets a proper preaudit and proper verification of the work being done,
and we'll work with her to do that. But we think we're very close.
The issue -- part of the problem right now is Mr. Raymer has
several payable items. It's three different houses involved. And the
total value of the work's about $71,000, and there's about 60,000 of it
that hasn't been paid at this point.
And the problem is you're got several line items where some of
the work's done but not all of it's done. So it's difficult to pay Mr.
Raymer -- to make partial payments when the line -- even within those
individual line items when some of the work's done and some of the
work's not done. We don't have a way of breaking out the value.
But we think we can resolve that with Mr. Raymer and the
finance department and some follow -up discussion, and we're ready to
have that. I think we're going to try to meet with Mr. Raymer
tomorrow and have that discussion and then follow up with Crystal,
and we'd like to -- what we're going to propose to the board is that the
contract that Mr. Raymer was engaged under -- it was a fixed -term
contract. It has expired, so we think we're going to bring back a
separate contract that will bring all the pricing forward from the old
agreement and all the scope forward, put a new schedule for Mr.
Raymer to complete the work and a clear method of validating
payment and an administrative process behind it that we'll validate as
well.
Page 31
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how quickly can you do that?
MR. CARNELL: We'd like to try for the June 26th meeting, if
we can get Mr. Raymer's cooperation, and then Crystal is prepared to
work with us. I'm sure we'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Give us a report at the 26th
meeting, and I presume you'll have something on the agenda for
approval.
MR. CARNELL: We're hoping for a solution at that point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Who was first,
Commissioner Hiller or Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Commissioner Henning go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your statement that the clerk
killed this program is not true. It was the Board of Commissioners
who killed this program because of what I -- at least what I witnessed
-- I'm sure the others did, too -- of the fraudulent claims of work being
performed that clearly wasn't performed.
I was under the impression that we gave these houses over to
Habitat for Humanity, so I think this is, what, the third year, Leo, that
this house has been sitting, no -- no air conditioning?
MR. OCHS: I believe you're right, sir. This is one of the first
half dozen that were in the program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do we have a buyer for it?
MR. RAYMER: There was a buyer for it.
MR. OCHS: We'll get an answer for you.
MS. SONNTAG: Good morning, Commissioners. Kristi
Sonntag, housing, human, and veteran services.
The properties that Mr. Raymer needs to complete are part of the
13 properties that you agreed for the county to sell as we had started
rehabilitation on those properties. And, yes, two of the properties do
have an intended buyer. They're not under contract because they're not
finished.
Page 32
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not under contract?
MS. SONNTAG: No, they're not. They just have buyers
identified for those properties, and they're waiting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have they been prequalified for
financing?
MS. SONNTAG: Yes, they have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everything is in?
MS. SONNTAG: They're just waiting for us to finish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure we're going to
hold a second, a large second like we've done the others?
MS. SONNTAG: Yes, we need to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a real liability for these
properties to be in the state that they are. I'm -- it's going almost -- no,
it is a year since we gave direction. It's been a year since we gave
directions to get out of this program. Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. If I understand correctly,
Mr. Raymer, you billed for 95 percent of the contract and, yet, the
pictures that we're seeing today as the current condition is, obviously,
not 95 percent. Is this your final product?
MR. RAYMER: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why did you bill 95 percent?
MR. RAYMER: I just explained that. There was -- housing had
a procedure in place where we bill for the -- because so much
equipment was getting stolen. They didn't want the equipment
installed until after --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not talking about the
equipment. I mean, there are basic repairs to the home that you were
under contract to do. It's very clear you didn't do them, and this has
nothing to do with equipment. So, again, can you explain?
MR. RAYMER: No. The pool was clean at one time until, you
know, it started raining again. The pool filled back up. If you'd have
Page 33
June 12, 2012
saw the condition of the pool and the deck before I started, you would
see what a difference there was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. I see. And you consider
the picture that we saw here today a completed project?
MR. RAYMER: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if it's not completed, then
you're not entitled to the payment, because you're only entitled to
payment upon completion.
MR. RAYMER: That I agree with. But what I'm saying is, the
reason I billed for it is because of the policy they had in place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the policy in place?
MR. RAYMER: They -- that you can buy the equipment, not
install it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm talking about the services
provided, the repairs. You've got repairs, improvements, the tile, the
drywall, the windows.
MR. RAYMER: Those are all done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's all done?
MR. RAYMER: That's all done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't look like it based on
those pictures. That's --
MR. RAYMER: Which ones are you talking about not done?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put the pictures back up.
MR. RAYMER: As far as the pool, yeah, I can understand that
one, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the pool was done. You did the
pool, didn't you?
MR. RAYMER: Well, I cleaned out the pool. It was full of
vines and moss. The whole back lanai was full of vines and moss and
cobwebs. That was all cleaned up, and it was ready to go. I was
going to move forward --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, according to your staff, when
Page 34
June 12, 2012
they inspected the property, the determination was made that what we
see here is 95 percent done?
MR. OCHS: That I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, by the way, was the property
inspected by your staff before the invoice was submitted as being
okay to the clerk?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'll have to go back and check. It
certainly should have been. I believe that it was inspected. And I
think Ms. Kinzel is telling me as well, confirming there was an
inspection.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioners. One of the project
managers who's no longer with housing, he did do an inspection and
validated that based on the condition in the photos you see that we
should have made payment. It came to our attention that, obviously,
many of these things were not done. They do not all relate to the
equipment or the potential for missing equipment.
I think if you look at the pictures of the bathrooms, the kitchen,
the commode in the yard, screens, many other detailed items that were
not complete as part of this project, that raised the issue of the entirety
of the payment in the picture. And to date we do not have revised
invoices or any other information submitted to the Clerk's Office that
would present for payment.
As Mr. Raymer's explained, they are working to try to get a way
for him to finish the work. So at this time the clerk has nothing
pending to pay Mr. Raymer that's been validated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly, 95
percent of the work has not been done notwithstanding that that was
what was invoiced, and Mr. Raymer has been given the opportunity to
complete the work to satisfy the requirements of the contract; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, that's our hope. That was the word we were
waiting for from HUD, ma'am, is could we, in fact, allow him to go
Page 35
June 12, 2012
back on the property and finish the contract. And we have that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why do you need HUD's
permission to allow him to finish the contract?
MR. OCHS : Steve?
MR. CARNELL: Because they are the grantor of the funds, and
we don't want to be crosswise or at cross purposes with HUD in terms
of the situation. So we had asked HUD -- we had a -- we explained
that the circumstance originally was we had a contractor who had
billed and been paid for work that hadn't been completed. And,
effectively -- I'm giving this to you in short form -- we asked them,
what are our options here. And I'm simplifying it for you. And HUD
came back and said, well, obviously, you want to get him to finish the
work, if possible. That's the choice of -- first option preference. So
that's what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how long ago did you ask
HUD this question?
MR. CARNELL: You know, I don't know. It's been within the
last couple of months. The answer was received the very beginning of
June.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So HUD said, yes, he can go
forward and make the repairs, but you haven't allowed him to make
the repairs notwithstanding HUD has given you an affirmative
response?
MR. CARNELL: Well, HUD's response -- yes, within -- HUD's
response was received within the last two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought you said June.
MR. CARNELL: June of 2012.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, 2012.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. And it took -- when was
he stopped? When did you last work on that project?
MR. RAYMER: October.
Page 36
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: October. And it's taken from
October to June for staff to get an answer from HUD?
MR. CARNELL: No, no. There was much more going on than
that, as I understand it. The clerk was doing a full audit of all the
properties. That audit was completed at the end of February, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that shouldn't interfere with
your ability to ask HUD as to whether or not he can --
MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- complete his work.
MR. CARNELL: We also had conversations with Mr. Raymer
and his attorney back in February, and we were, at that time, looking
for information from them as well as gathering more data ourselves.
Now, beyond that, if you want a more complete timeline, I can
give that to you offline, but I'd have to get more information from the
staff.
MS. KINZEL: And just to clarify for the record, Commissioners,
actually the audit was issued in September of '11, but I believe
housing met, perhaps, with Mr. Raymer.
Our office has not met with him since last summer, and we issued
the audit in September. But I know Steve's new to this, so that's the
timeline.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, Leo, it seems to me --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need a solution, so let's quit
rehashing history.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, there's a real need to rehash
history, because Mr. Raymer has made accusations which are
unfounded, and we need to get to the truth of what's going on as to
why he isn't being paid. And now we're finding out that he billed for
work that wasn't completed and, for whatever reason, staff delayed
getting confirmation from HUD to allow him to go back to complete
that work till two weeks ago.
Page 37
June 12, 2012
MR. CARNELL: I'll be happy, as part of the follow -up, Mr.
Chairman, to give you a full chronology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We went through all this a long time
ago, and that's the reason that we decided to get out of this business,
because we did not think the staff was administering it properly, and
the county manager has made substantial changes and replaced people
so that we don't make these mistakes again in the future.
So we very clearly understand that the primary problem here was
the staff s failure to administer the program properly, end of story.
So we need to get it resolved quickly so Mr. Raymer isn't
adversely impacted any longer. He was doing what he was told to do.
So trying to blame Mr. Raymer for the fact that he hasn't been paid is
simply the wrong thing to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Mr. Raymer is not being
blamed. Mr. Raymer didn't complete the work and billed for work
that wasn't completed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he's explained that.
MR. RAYMER: That was 19 -- the total right now I'm owed is
$33,000; $19,000 of that is complete, okay. Yeah, there's a few
invoices that I guess, in hindsight, I shouldn't have submitted, like for
the outside equipment, okay. But there's work there that's been
complete that I should have been paid for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask Jeff a question?
Jeff, does this contract provide for partial payment or for progress
payments?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have the contract in front of me,
ma'am, but if we can bring this back at our next meeting, we can go
through all these issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would be worthwhile. I'd
like to make a motion that we bring this back.
MR. RAYMER: It provides for line -item payments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to bring this
back for the next meeting, a second by Commissioner -- motion by
Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta, you have anything to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala's before
me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I was. But it's kind of like a
sideline. And I was wondering if we, the county, have anything in
place when equipment or new products are taken out to fix a home or
whatever, because we've still got a few left, I guess, to do. How do we
stop the theft of the stuff that they've just brought out? Because that
seems to be a deterrent with -- if he's already had two systems stolen,
so then he had to put a third one in his garage, you know, I wonder, is
there anything we can do about that, other than, of course, getting out
of business?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which we're --
MR. RAYMER: I wasn't the one that had the system stolen. It
was another contractor, but that's why they put that policy in place is
to hold off on installing equipment, bill for it, and then once installed,
they'll release the check to us. Nobody was really -- not me, anyway.
I never got paid for anything I didn't do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just wondering if we
had anything for any other properties or things that we're working on.
Do we have something to prevent theft or nothing?
MR. RAYMER: Well, they started putting in theft - deterrent
systems like fences around the equipment and stuff.
MR. OCHS : We put cages on it, around the equipment, bolt
them to the concrete pad.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
Page 39
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: That's an attempt. It doesn't always work. They'll
come in with bolt cutters or something. But that's one of the security
measures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just attach some high- voltage lines to it,
and that will solve the problem pretty quickly.
MR. FLOOD: Can I take a brief minute to address?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it our policy to allow more than one
speaker in a public petition?
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. RAYMER: That's my attorney.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to bring it back.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we're bringing it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's going to come back for a full
hearing, and then we'll have all the facts. We'll have, hopefully, a
resolution for you. We can get it resolved at that point in time.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. RAYMER: But some of the stuff I'm getting rejected for is
just minute details.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we understand that. That is our
life here, yes. That is the way things work here, unfortunately. But
nevertheless.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
This is an isolated property that's at the end of an estates street.
It's set back quite a ways from the road. You can't see it from the
road. If you go to the property, you don't view any residents nearby.
This is one of those -- these kind of properties just that attracts people
that want to steal equipment or piping or whatever it is.
There had been a good -faith effort to make everything work. The
pool, if you take a look at the picture, had been cleaned. I mean, it's
still bright as can be right down to the water line. How can you
maintain that pool if you don't have electric power and water at the
U =,'
June 12, 2012
place? You can't.
So it only stands to reason that, you know, work has been done.
Now, you know, where the work has been done and where the line is
drawn on it still has to be determined. That's why we're going to bring
it back. But I agree about it -- agree that we should bring it back for
further consideration.
But one thing I think we need to discuss is we need to get this
monkey off our back. Why are we going through this whole rigmarole
that we've got to restore the property to a certain condition in order to
be able to sell it? Why not just sell it as -is, pay off the contractor for
what he legally has coming, and just end the whole thing? And I hope
we can take that into consideration when this item comes back again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's the problem. How do you
establish a value for the work that has already been done as opposed to
the work that hasn't been done when it wasn't specified at the
beginning of the contract? That leads us into an entirely different
debate with the clerk about whether or not we've established
appropriate values for the work that was performed and not
performed, and it will take us another six months to go through that
argument.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But meanwhile we have this
thing sitting out there that's -- no air conditioning, as Commissioner
Henning just asked the question. The property is deteriorating. It's
going to keep going downhill to the point -- it reaches a point that it's
not going to be salvageable. The whole thing's going to have to be
torn down, and we're going to be stuck with the cost of removing the
building and keeping the lot up or selling the lot.
So now is the time to sell the thing for whatever we can get out of
it and put this behind us and deal with the contractor post mortem.
There's no reason why we have to hold onto this house until that point
in time that we settle with the contractor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, can you bring us back
Page 41
June 12, 2012
some solutions to the thing next meeting?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Get with Mr. Raymer and
work this out quickly. Let's expedite this. Let's not waste any more
time, okay?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle, I need to make one
other statement on the record. For example, the clerk doesn't write the
bid specs, the clerk didn't create the agreement. The clerk didn't do
any of those items on the contract with Mr. Raymer. All we do is
administer to what you have approved as a board and what is
identified by staff as having been done and complete that we can
validate, and we will do that moving forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would hope so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
MR. RAYMER: Well, we can -- I mean --
MR. OCHS: Done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. It will
be brought back at our next meeting, and hopefully we will have
resolution for you, Mr. Raymer.
MR. RAYMER: Okay, thank you.
Item #7
Page 42
June 12, 2012
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Okay. Commissioner, next item is Item 7 on your
agenda, Public Comments on General Topics.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker today, Mr.
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bob Krasowski.
I'd like to start by thanking Mr. McAlpin for meeting with me
and discussing some of the issues that I have, and also the chairman of
the Coastal Advisory Committee has offered to get together with me.
I understand that your proposed beach nourishment plan is a
work in progress. After reviewing all the documents that I'm familiar
with, and including the coastal planning and engineering document,
the main ones that we've all seen, and the federal Fish and Wildlife
Service biological opinion, and speaking to a few of the agency
representatives, I've developed four items for your -- to be considered
by you to be addressed during the discussion at your next meeting on
June 26th.
Number one is sand volume. The -- at the Tourist Development
Council, your most recent one, there was a motion by Mr. Medwedeff
and Mr. Hill to have Mr. McAlpin -- to delay passing what's going to
be presented to you on the 26th and have Mr. McAlpin come back
with a full assessment of cost of the project if it was limited to the
2006 strategy.
This was a really good idea, although I didn't support the delay.
But I think that Mr. McAlpin is well within his ability to look at that
and provide you, on June 26th, with an assessment of the comparative
analysis, 2006 program, the 10 -year program, because as far as I
understand him saying is that you still want to keep all your options
open.
Page 43
June 12, 2012
Number two is the Marco Cape Romano sand and dredge.
You've approved to move forward with the Marco Island program,
which will -- the Marco Island program, which will give you the beach
renourishment there.
What I'm suggesting, and I'd like to hear from Mr. McAlpin and
others, if that dredging in Marco could also -- we'll use that time frame
to accomplish the Naples Beach, so Marco and Naples Beach. That
way we get a lot of the job done before the half -- the second half of
'13 and going into '14, and that allows you to avoid nesting season
because you'll have plenty of time to do all the work.
Also in the document, the Coastal Planning and Engineering
document, it shows that there's a lot of sand potentially there to be
used for that. I'm going to run out of time, so I can't elaborate on that.
The third thing, importantly, is the biological opinion that's being
used to suggest that we can actually work within turtle nesting season.
The number one criteria -- and may I have a couple of more
seconds? Thank you. The number -- and I'm paraphrasing. The
number one criteria under that biological opinion to be able to work in
the nesting season is that you do everything practicable to avoid
working in the nesting season.
And I looked up practicable, and it means doable. And if you
shift things around a bit, I think it's doable, and we certainly should
investigate what options we do have as far as moving the work around
and the kind of equipment.
I wish you'd do something to free up the Conservancy so they
could involve themselves. They really know what they're doing.
They've got a lot of people involved. And the biological opinion has a
process in it that would allow them to address everything they've
already addressed and agreed on so we could do it at a later stage and
benefit from their work.
later.
I have a comment about the bell- shaped curve. I'll save it for
June 12, 2012
The fourth and final thing is our -- you're going to be -- the
request is going to be made to modify the FDEP existing permit, the
Department of Environmental Protection, to allow for working in the
turtle nesting season. If you move forward with this, I hope that you
will maintain the situation where you can move forward with the 2006
plan without the modification so that we can still continue pursuit of
both things, and then we have to watch closely the RFP development.
Thank you for the additional time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Mr. McAlpin spent some
time explaining in detail at our last meeting why they're proceeding
with the schedule as it is outlined. I'm sure he'll share that with you,
because he does have some good reasons for doing it the way it is
currently scheduled. But if you will meet with Mr. McAlpin, I'm sure
he will go through that with you in some detail.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I'm sorry. I know I kind of stutter
and I'm not very clear all the time, but I've met with Mr. McAlpin, and
these ideas are coming out of that meeting and my familiarization with
the project.
Mr. McAlpin has a certain perspective and a style and an
approach, and I respect it. It's not as sensitive as I think we can be in
regards to protecting the nesting season and economically affecting
our beach nourishment program to protect our land resources and also
to provide our tourism industry with the beach they need.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there are no more public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -105: REAPPOINTING JOHN P. RIBES TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD —
Page 45
June 12, 2012
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Commissioners -- that takes you to 1 OA on your
agenda this morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Appointment of member to
the Parks and Recreation Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move to appoint John Ribes, who
is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- who is recommended by the
committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to appoint John Ribes, the recommendation of the committee,
seconded, I believe, by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to make a comment, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First I wanted to ask Ian, how many
members are actually lacking on this board, after this?
MR. MITCHELL: Currently, excluding this one, there are three
other members required.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. This fills that. Okay, fine.
They had four others on here, but for some glitch, they were never
notified to be at the meeting to be interviewed. But as I was reading
their backup material, we had some great candidates here, so I look
forward to them being interviewed quickly so we can get that
committee functioning again.
MR. MITCHELL: I believe the advisory committee have done
that. There was a change in their staff liaison, and that's the reason
why, I think, the people weren't notified.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to IOB.
MR. OCHS: IOB --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we vote?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
Thank you.
Item #I OB
It passes unanimously.
RESOLUTION 2012 -106: APPOINTING GERARD M. GIBSON
TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND
CONFIRMING ROBERT A. MILLER REPRESENTING
EVERGLADES CITY TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IOB is appointment of a Marco Island City
Representative to the Tourist Development Council, removal of
Everglades City Councilman McBeth Collins from the Council, and
acknowledgment that Everglades City has confirmed Mr. Robert A.
Miller, who is currently a member of the council, in the interested
persons category.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve both candidates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Page 47
June 12, 2012
Commissioner Fiala. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it. Okay. Seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
And we have Commissioner Hiller who wishes to speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ian put together a schedule which
shows who will be filling which slot to satisfy both the ordinance and
the statute, because there was a great deal of confusion. So as a result
of what we're doing today, you now see what the proposed
membership and how the various municipalities and businesses are
represented on the TDC.
So, Ian, thank you very much for doing it. I think you clarified a
lot of confusion that was brought up at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, were
you next, or Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Ian, are you going to
follow up with the Everglades City Council for affirmative action of --
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. I spoke to Everglades City
yesterday. Their council's in recess. And so whilst they're in recess,
the mayor does -- I have the authority to make these
recommendations. Then when the council comes back into full
session, which is in August, any of his decisions will be reviewed.
And I'll follow up at that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That was my question.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to make a note
in the fact that I appreciate the fact that Mayor Sammy Hamilton
understood what was taking place and want to make it known that this
doesn't preclude anyone from Everglades City or any other place in
the county for ever putting in for open positions of the TDC. We have
N. i
June 12, 2012
had numerous contributors from the Everglades City area before serve
on it, and I'm sure we will again in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, what can we do
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All in favor.
MR. OCHS: Have a vote, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
We've got to quit talking after a motion's made. We've got to
take the vote immediately; otherwise, I'm going to forget.
What do you have we can do in six minutes or less? Or we'll
take a break now.
Item #1 I A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) TO REVIEW OPTIONS AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE EXISTING
APPROVED CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN TRAFFIC
SOLUTIONS, INC., (ATS) FOR THE TRAFFIC INFRACTION
DETECTION (TID) PROGRAM AND APPROVE ANY
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #1 — APPROVED
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: No, I think we can do 1 IA, sir. It's a
recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to review
options and provide direction regarding the existing approved contract
with American Traffic Solutions, Incorporated, for the Traffic
Infraction Detection Program and approve any necessary budget
amendments.
Mr. Casalanguida, your Growth Management Administrator, will
present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is going to take an hour and a half
to get through this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir.
You approved the contract on February 28th with a 3 -2 vote. It
calls for a one -year contract with a 30 -day notice to terminate after
that first year. On May 22nd we had a split vote that effectively
denied the budget amendment to effectuate that contract.
Those two motions conflict with each other or actions by the
board. We provide you two options, board members, to look at and
review, and I think they're pretty clear.
The sheriff supports the program. This is not ad valorem dollars.
It's fee -based dollars. The program has about $1.3 million in the
fund, and with the 171- for FYI 2, it leaves about 1.1. Easily cover
FY13.
So with that, I'll answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. My objections was that I
thought it was unconstitutional until the U.S. courts rule on it, that I
was going to always vote against it; however, Jeff Klatzkow
forwarded the Board of Commissioners an email that the court ruled --
Page 50
June 12, 2012
the U.S. court ruled that it is not unconstitutional.
So with that said, I have no objections.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. I -- let me
look at the recommendations first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What would staff recommend?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would be recommend No. 1.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would be approve the
necessary budget amendment for 171,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve recommendation -- staff recommendation No. 1,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Do you have something we can do in four minutes?
MR. OCHS: I believe I do, sir.
Item #1 I C
RESOLUTION 2012 -107: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
AND EXECUTE A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Page 51
June 12, 2012
IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP
TO $1,176,120 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IN
NAPLES MANOR AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Item 11 C is a recommendation to approve and
execute a local agency program agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation in which Collier County would be
reimbursed up to 1,176,120 for the construction of sidewalks in
Naples Manor and to authorize the necessary budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, let me make the motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll third it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Fiala for approval, seconded by Commissioner Coletta
and Henning. And, Commissioner Coletta, I think you were first this
time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I certainly was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. That was for the
item before.
off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then I'm turning your light
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Turn mine off.
Congratulations.
All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 52
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Now, what can we do in three minutes?
MR. OCHS: Well, I'm going to look at Mr. Klatzkow and see if
his item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the audience, I ought to tell
them that these are for much needed sidewalks in the Naples Manor
Community, that we've been wanting to do this for quite some time,
and this is going to be very helpful to them. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Sir, Commissioner Hiller had moved Item 16K2,
and I don't know how long she intended to speak on that issue,
Commissioner. Would you like to take that up now or wait till --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is it now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 12A now, but it was moved from
16K2.
Item # 12A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE
PURCHASE ORDER FOR CARLTON FIELDS, P.A., IN THE
CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN REYNOLDS & SONS,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 6658 -CA — APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 12A?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That was the recommendation to
authorize the increase in the purchase order for Carlton Fields.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Essentially what we're
doing here is we're doubling the budget of what we had expected to
spend. I believe it was 200,000 initially, and now we're spending
Page 53
June 12, 2012
400,000. This is a very large piece of litigation.
And, Jeff, I'd like you to explain, you know, what's going on and
why we're spending so much more on this case.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, when this originally came to you,
ma'am, we originally said it would run about 8, 9 percent of the -- that
the legal fees would wind up to be around 8, 9 percent of the claim,
which is 9 or $10 million.
Instead of asking you at that time to approve $700,000 in legal
fees, we've been taking it off in small bites. This is just another one of
those bites. We're still nowhere near the 8 or 9 percent we expect to
ultimately pay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you expect that at the end of
the day we're going to be spending a million dollars on this litigation?
MR. KLATZKOW: A little bit less than that, maybe 700,000.
Having said that, the contract provides for reimbursement of attorneys
fees if we're successful, and we believe we're going to be successful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And where are we right now in the
case?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're still in the discovery. It's been hotly
contested because you've got everybody doing this (indicating
pointing fingers), basically, between the engineers and manufacturers
and people who laid the pipe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for the recap.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller, I think. Is that right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 54
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
We're going to take a 10- minute break now. Thank you very
much. You did well, County Manager.
MR. OCHS : Thank you, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioners is back in session.
Where are we going to go?
Item #1 I B
RECOMMENDATION TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE (FDPO) TO
ADDRESS: (1) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY (FEMA)' S RECENT DETERMINATION THAT THE
COUNTY'S FDPO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM (NFIP) AND (2) RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE; AND TO ADVERTISE FOR
SUBSEQUENT BOARD ADOPTION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS : Commissioner, we will go to Item I 1 B on your
agenda this morning. It is a recommendation to prepare an
amendment to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to address,
number one, Federal Emergency Management Agency's recent
Page 55
June 12, 2012
determination that the county's FDPO is not in compliance with the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and, number
two, the recent amendment to the Florida Building Code and to
advertise for subsequent board adoption.
Mr. Casalanguida will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Nick. Go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, thank you.
The FDPO, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, is a required
document for FEMA. It allows us to get reimbursements, insurance
discounts, federally backed mortgages, and federal grants. So it is a
must -have document in order for our community to have those
programs in place.
Amendments to the FDPO will occur often in order to meet state
and federal requirements, Florida Building Code, state model
ordinance updates, FEMA updates, and map updates. So I will be in
front of you quite a bit to tweak this document as we go forward.
We have submitted this to FEMA about a year ago and as well as
to the state, and its approval by the board this spring. Again went
through FEMA review and they said, well, no, we want some more
changes. So they gave us about 30 days to get that done. I said,
Robert, that's not possible. We set up a conference call with Brad
Loar from Atlanta explained the situation, that they had the document,
they reviewed it, and they found it compliant earlier and, you know,
what the issue was. He understood and gave us till August 16th to
complete that.
We met prior board guidance that you have all stated in the past,
minimally required, as required by FEMA and state. Don't do
anything above and beyond without letting us know. So, basically, we
sent a letter to them saying we only want must -dos in terms of your
review of the FDPO.
They replied to us. What you have in front of you is a document
that only changes things that are required by FEMA in order to be
Page 56
June 12, 2012
within the program. No more, no less.
Your Floodplain Management Committee was -- reviewed it on
June 4th and approved it. DSAC was briefed, understanding that these
were must -dos. They took no action but heard the item. Some of the
changes that we have, we're referencing the new Florida Building
Code; exemptions for review have been eliminated at FEMA's
direction; blanket exemptions for historical structures have been
eliminated at FEMA's direction; the definition of lowest floor versus
lowest finished floor adjustments throughout the document; and V
zone accessory structures with a minimum height of 5.7. And de
minimus was eliminated from this as well, too. So it's been reviewed
by the County Attorney's Office. We have FEMA's blessing.
With that, I'll entertain any questions the board has.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, I have real
concerns. Something that came to my attention as a consequence of
the incorrect flood maps that have been presented is that certain homes
now that otherwise would be able to be rehabilitated in full are now
being limited as a consequence of being designated in the flood zone.
And the reason that they're being limited is because of an error on the
part of the county. And the only way that they would be able to then
build to the full extent that they would otherwise be permitted is if
they got a LOMA.
Now, that becomes a very expensive process, and I don't believe
it's something that the citizens should have to pay when it's the
county's fault that these maps are incorrect. So what are we going to
do to address that?
And then my second concern is -- with respect to this issue is the
flood maps for Marco Island. And I think we need to get those done
because, as I understand, they haven't been done yet.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right, ma'am, to address your first
one in terms of incorrect maps -- let's make sure, for public
Page 57
June 12, 2012
consumption, they're -- not that they're incorrect. You have more
accurate maps that have more detail in the latest LiDAR that we
submitted.
I believe you were here when we brought this item forward. I
met with the county engineer at the time, and we said -- you said,
Nick, we've got more accurate LiDAR maps. We're adopting these
maps based on 2003 LiDAR. We have flown new maps. They're more
accurate. They have better information. We came in front of this
board and, appropriately so, this board took action, appropriated funds
and said, move it expeditiously forward, get these maps updated.
We're able to get two basins done with this adoption. We have 10
more to do. Robert has the exact timeline, including the different
locations.
But we've done everything right in terms of moving this as
quickly as we can. The consultant's onboard getting it done; I can't
change what exists between the two updated maps that are more
accurate versus the ones that are less accurate. We have to live with
that with what's there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, but I have a concern
because again, you know, I know you like to say that, you know, we
have more or better information, but the reality is that that's -- I don't
really see it like that. I mean, my understanding is that, you know, an
error was made, those maps had to be corrected, and we took
properties that were not based on historical and better information in
the flood zone based on these incorrect maps -- or these -- whatever
information you relied on -- and not you. I'm talking about the royal
you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The maps were revised to put
properties in the flood zone, and now with the information you have,
they're back out of the flood zone. And in this intervening period,
we've got homeowners who would like to improve their properties and
June 12, 2012
are limited, because if they want to -- if they're now in the flood zone,
they're only limited to improving it up to 50 percent of the value of the
property; otherwise, they have to bring the entire property up to code,
and that wouldn't be the case if they weren't in the flood zone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have -- you know, we have
imposed as a consequence of what has happened a tremendous burden
on this population segment that is now under the cloud of these
incorrect maps. Is there any way that we can do something to
alleviate this burden? I've actually heard of sales falling through
because a homeowner is unable to, you know, assert to a potential
buyer that they can improve their homes to the extent that they want
without, you know, expending costs, you know, at double or triple of
what they would have to otherwise.
So it seems to me that somehow we have to provide some sort of
remedy to alleviate the burden that goes beyond telling them, look,
you know, go out and buy your own LOMA and proceed accordingly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're shifting a burden that I think
is our responsibility.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the things, if you looked at, we
presented last time when we brought this forward, was a development
that was built after 2006 did not show up in the LiDAR back in 2003.
So the more accurate maps now pick that up and place them out of the
flood zone.
While this is a federal program, we administer it locally, I have
no way, no ability -- and I don't think this board does -- to -- unless
you're going to fund these LOMAs with General Fund or something to
that effect to assist them. They'd have to comply with the FEMA
requirements that are in this flood damage prevention ordinance using
the older maps.
Now it's a delay. And so the question is, as our consultant brings
Page 59
June 12, 2012
these new maps forward in basins, our goal as staff is to bring them for
adoption as we complete them. So as soon as more basins are done,
we'll bring them to the board, get them adopted into the map system.
We had a program that took us about 18 months to do, so we're
looking sometime in 2013 to be completed. And so they may be
delayed, and they're impacted, but I have no ability to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying -- and this is a
very important point. Are you saying that we will have all the maps
corrected by 2013? All the basins corrected by 2013?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When's the exact date? Just tell me the
date.
Well, Robert just informed me they want us to do this is one
swoop. They're not going to let us do basin by basin, which is my
frustration with FEMA, if you can't see it in my face.
Ma'am, Robert's telling me, as soon as the maps are all done,
sometime in Calendar Year 2013, they'll be completed, then FEMA
will review them, so we're probably looking sometime in early 2014
before they'll accept them where in the past they said they'd consider
maybe a -- you know, a phases adoption. Now I'm being told they
want to see them all in one lump sum, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this will be essentially a
two - and -a -half year adverse impact on property owners that have been
incorrectly placed in a flood zone?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, incorrectly placed is a matter of
time. You know, again, the LiDAR that was shot at one period of
time, if that didn't catch the new structure or the new pad, they would
be -- they wouldn't be there. So, yes, in that sense they'll have to wait
until the map gets adopted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any possible research that
you could do to come up with a solution in the interim for these
homeowners that are adversely affected that want to make
improvements beyond 50 percent?
Nfflm
June 12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, I don't think there's
anything I could do, because it's a federal requirement. The only thing
we can do is -- again, I'll get on the horn with FEMA and Atlanta like
I did just about a month or two ago and express the County
Commission's concern that a full adoption versus a phased adoption as
we remap hurts our folks --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and ask them to consider a phases
adoption, and we'll see what we can do with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- and if you could explain to
them that the hurt is to the homeowner --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- who wants to make their own
improvements to the potential sale of a property where a buyer would
like to make substantial improvements and to the construction industry
that now is going to be held back from the opportunity to do work that
they otherwise would be proceeding with now but for the error.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, with -- it's an additional cost.
They can still proceed. They can do LOMA. They can prove to
FEMA that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's a very expensive
process. My understanding is a LOMA is, at a minimum, $16,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, ma'am. I've processed,
myself, LOMAs. Yeah, the application's free. You pay for the work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much are they?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends. I mean, I've done them for
as little as $500 to as much as $2,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like that information as to, you
know, who's providing LOMAs for that price, because I spoke to a
realtor most recently who got a quote, and it was in the range that I
just described.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can meet with you offline, and I can
Page 61
June 12, 2012
say surveyors will come up to a single - family home, for instance.
They'll take a benchmark. They'll carry it to the house. They'll
provide the sketch map survey, shows the lowest floor elevation, the
surrounding grades. And if they're telling someone $16,000, they're
not getting work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, that's what I heard.
And so, I mean, if that's the case, is there any way you could put the
information on your website and explain to people how to go about
the LOMA process and, you know, what the range of cost ought to be
so they're assured that they're not being overcharged?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't put a range of cost only
because it is specific to how far the surveyor has to go. I would just
say that, you know, make sure you shop around.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's reasonable. I can
understand why you couldn't do that. But if you could post the
information as to what the alternative is to, you know, escape that
label so that they can proceed with construction, I think that would be
beneficial.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, ma'am. Will do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just -- Nick, you know, it's disturbing to
me that this is being characterized as the staff presenting inaccurate
information, okay. You really have not addressed that clearly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, would you please address it
clearly --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and remove all the -- I have been
involved in this for 12 years trying to get this project completed. I
want to make sure that you have used correct data.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, so for the public and
for this board's view, it's not that it's incorrect data. It's always been
Page 62
June 12, 2012
correct data. It's a time function, so we're clear with the public, so that
at the time that the LiDAR was flown in 2000, it was accurate data.
And development occurs over time, and new LiDAR gets flown and
gets better data. So it's not incorrect. It is up to date, more up to date.
So if that, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is a modification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What happens is you fly it in 2003.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get LiDAR information, elevation
information.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In 2004 somebody builds a new house.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They bring in fill.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they place that fill there and they
build their house at the proper elevation that's not shown on the 2003
LiDAR flight because it wasn't there then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't mean that you have
provided incorrect information.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you fly it in 2007, you pick up
those, but in 2008 when somebody builds another house and they put
more fill on their property, that's not going to be on that map.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Whole developments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what we want to tell property
owners is that, look, if you've built a place since the last LiDAR map
was flown and you want to adjust your property elevations, you can
hire a surveyor to do that. You don't have to come to the county and
have us spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new LiDAR
Page 63
June 12, 2012
map, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Whole developments are not
there in 2003 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- have -- would be in that situation
you just described. The whole development that was built in 2005 and
then the LiDAR flown three years earlier, that whole development
may be shown in a flood zone where, in fact, in the new maps, they're
not going to be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not going to be flood zone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. But there are remedies in
place for doing all that sort of stuff.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, there are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, I think, was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe the Planning
Commission made recommendations on this. Is this going to go back
to the Planning Commission also?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: At this time table, no, sir, we will not
have time. We can probably brief them as we've done with everyone
else. What we have in front of you is a must -do list from FEMA not
really up for debate, you know, with the Planning Commission. I'd be
happy to take it through as an FYI, I mean, put it on the agenda so
they can understand it and ask questions.
We will be coming back probably in the fall, I would say
September, probably with the state's model Florida Building Code
version, and we will be going through the Planning Commission with
that one. We told staff that at that point in time we will definitely vet
everything through. Under this time table, I think we're in a little bit
of a crunch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
1 ail
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I have two questions. Being that you're really short staffed, do --
and I know you are -- is there -- do you think it's possible to get this
done?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, in terms of us going
forward, because right now we're using an outside consultant to do the
maps themselves. So we've got -- as a matter of fact, we've got two or
three more of our staff that have been certified as flood managers, and
we encourage that. So we've got a couple more folks that are --
actually have that certification. Jamie French being one of them, our
operations director. So we're staying on top of it, and we're going to
get it done, yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And my second
question is, what happens if we send it in and they don't accept it and
we've got that short time frame and they don't accept it, then what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This one here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This one has been sent to them. And
Attorney Klatzkow made it very clear in our discussions, before we
take this to the board, make sure they see it and they're okay with it,
because we've got a narrow window, which is advertise now, come
back, and if there's a glitch, we've got one meeting in July, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've already met with them, already
met with FEMA, and this is suitable for them and the state right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you very much.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
Page 65
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Clarification on the explanation
Commissioner Coyle gave.
I can understand with respect to new development. That makes
sense. But my understanding is the properties that are adversely
impacted are not new projects but projects that existed and now,
because of the way, you know, the LiDAR was used, have been
placed in the flood zone.
I mean, in my neighborhood there are older homes that have been
there for decades that apparently are now in a flood zone, and there
was no fill added to the site. They weren't elevated since the time the
last LiDAR was shot.
So I understand the explanation in part, but I want an explanation
for those properties that are not new properties falling in that flood
zone.
And help me also with my understanding that this was discovered
as a consequence of a number of properties in the county that were
being used by the -- I believe it was the Red Cross for hurricane
shelters suddenly being discovered to be in these flood zones, and I
believe that's an example of some preexisting properties, and all of a
sudden Red Cross saying, no, we can't use these as hurricane shelters
now because you've now designated them as flood zones.
So help me with this angle.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And maybe my understanding is
incorrect, so your clarification would be beneficial to me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
A majority of the inconsistencies are due to new development
changes. A minority are due to the new modeling that changes as
well, too, when new development comes online as well. Because if
you can imagine, if you've got an area that's in a flood zone and then
I'
June 12, 2012
you built up a pad and now they're remodeling it and they're running
the new model scenarios, that new large development that now takes
up surface area also affects adjacent developments that may not be
there as well, too.
So the more accurate maps -- remember, we went from a plus or
minus 1 or 2 feet down to 1 foot or even less of accuracy with the
LiDAR; that has an impact. So, someone that was plus or minus a
foot and then the old maps showed them not in a flood zone, but then
when they re -did them, the accuracy to that foot level, better with the
LiDAR, brought them into a flood zone. That also,
So a majority is a discrepancy between not being caught in the
maps, and a minority is exactly what you described, some that are just
being anomalies that were not picked up with the new modeling are
now showing up in a flood zone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Incorrectly. So the modeling is
incorrect?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because these properties are not in
the flood zone and, in fact, they're being reversed. They're properties
that preexisted. There's no surrounding development that has in any
way adversely affected their situation vis -a -vis any sort of, you know,
future flooding, and now these properties are incorrectly designated,
are going to be re- designated as not being in the flood zone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I'll use, in your district, for
example, along the coastal area. Your V zone, your velocity zones,
there's a couple maps -- and I'm going off of memory -- where the red
velocity zone, due to wave action, the new model shows it going in
and hitting three more homes that it didn't hit before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let's use Pine Ridge.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Pine Ridge as well. I think we
looked at a couple of maps in Pine Ridge, when they remodel that.
Page 67
June 12, 2012
There are changes and that is the modeler from -- that we hire, and
then FEMA has their own modeler, and they go back and forth and
run these model scenarios and say, okay, this is the updated model that
we have. And a home that was not in there before on the minority
scale could be in there now based on an adjustment on that flood
elevation. And that's not county staff, and that's not really FEMA
staff. Those are two consultants going toe to toe on the model and
arguing and finally adopting a model and saying, that's it, and where it
comes out is where it comes out. So we have no --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the elevation is -- is what it
is. I mean --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not just the elevation, though,
ma'am. It's what happens surrounding the elevation and then rainfall
amounts. They took historical rainfall amounts and said, okay, even if
it was -- Elevation 10 never changed, and then they run the rainfall
scenarios and, on the coast they run the velocity scenarios. New model
may say, well, we believe, based on everything in the new model that
it's 10.5, and yet that home was at 10. So that home would all of a
sudden jump into a flood zone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my understanding is they're
going to be reversed out of the flood zone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So has the modeling changed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no.
MR. OCHS: That's not guaranteed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, more homes will benefit from
the updated maps, a majority. We estimated 20,000 in the two we did.
Some homes will not. If I was to throw a percentage out, and I'm
going to be wrong, I'm going to say 90/10, 80/20. You know, 90
percent, 80 percent of the people in Collier County will benefit from
the new maps, and there'll be some that will say, this makes it worse
for me even with more accurate information, and that's just the
June 12, 2012
function of the model.
You had another question, and I missed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marco Island.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be done with the rest of the
maps, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That will be coming up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item #I OC
RESOLUTION 2012 -108: RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT
THE COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO
PLACE A STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM ON THE AUGUST
145 2012 BALLOT FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION
CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA
MASTER PLAN AND THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER
PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND CONTINUE THE
ADVERTISED JUNE 18, 2012 ADOPTION HEARING TO THE
REGULAR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11 2012 — ADOPTED
.9_. �•
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to your 11 a.m.
time - certain hearing this morning. It's Item l OC on your agenda. It's 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 support for the Immokalee Area
Master Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use
Map, and continue the advertised June 18, 2012, adoption hearing to
the regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting on September
11, 2012.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And there's good reason
for doing this, and I appreciate the indulgence of my fellow
commissioners as we go forward.
This is an item that's been on our plate now for eight years, about
a half million dollars spent trying to find the will of the people in
Immokalee. We've been very successful up till recently. The whole
engine driving this has been staffed mainly by Immokaleeans who
even hired their own staff to be able to move this forward and had a
true say in what was taking place.
To try to move it forward to the next step, we instituted three
meetings within the community of Immokalee to be able to give some
ideas to the population exactly what the master plan was and, more
importantly, what it is not; however, with that said, we had this
element that kept arising at these meetings, mostly from nonresidents
within Immokalee, who basically took over the discussion points.
At the last meeting I was very disturbed by the fact the few
people in the crowd that were willing to speak in favor of the master
plan moving forward were talked over continuously during their
presentation. And I realize that what we were up against was a
population that was being put down to the point they could not express
Page 70
June 12, 2012
their opinions in a likable fashion.
I was very concerned how it was moving forward, so this is the
reason why I'd like to have it on as a straw ballot so that we can take a
true measurement of the people that mean the most, and that's the
residents of Immokalee. That would exclude, of course, Ave Maria,
which has basically the same precinct. They use the same precinct,
but they have a different number. And it would be very simple
language, which is before you today, to be able to move it forward.
Now, what I'm going to propose at this point in time, rather than
try to counter a whole bunch of claims that have been made out there
that are totally false, I'd like to have the speakers come forward and
talk, and at the end we can have a discussion among us commissioners
and then make a motion and go forward from there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first speaker. Use
both podiums.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Pam Brown, and she'll be
followed by Fred Thomas.
MS. BROWN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Brown. I'm a citizen of Immokalee. I've lived there all my life.
And until last week I wasn't sure why Commissioner Coletta has been
pushing the strike -all amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Since the plan was rejected by the board of last year, we've had
four public meetings to address our concerns about the plan.
Commissioner Henning held a meeting in Immokalee to listen to our
concerns. He recognized that the community was divided.
The Board of County Commissioners directed that three
additional meetings be held to address concerns and obtain citizen
input. All those meetings, all citizens' objections, and policy changes
were summarily rejected. Now, in fact, the same amendment's being
sent out for a straw ballot on the rejected amendment without any
Page 71
June 12, 2012
changes to address our objections or concerns.
And I finally found the answer as to why the original plan is
being pushed so hard. The answer is very simple. Commissioner
Coletta does not care about the citizens of Immokalee. He is bought
and paid for by the big eastern landowners and special interest groups.
These public record emails show the members of Mr. Coletta's
Re- election Finance Committee and other supporters. Here are just
five of the members.
These public record emails show the members of Mr. Coletta's
Re- election Finance Committee and other supporters. Here there are
five: Bill Barton, ex CEO of WilsonMiller, consultant to Collier
County and the big eastern landowners; two, Richard Spilker, vice
president of Collier Enterprises; three, Blake Gable, CEO of Barron
Collier Companies; four, John Passidomo, counsel for Eastern Collier
County owners; Bob Mulhere, consultant to both Collier County
Eastern Property Owners, author of the Immokalee Area Master Plan
Amendment, as well as the Master Mobility Plan.
Commissioner Coletta's sold us out to special interest groups and
has obviously had no personal ethics and no professional standards.
Cancel the straw ballot. Keep the scheduled meeting in Immokalee.
Send the plan back to the commission, please.
And, Commissioner Coletta, maybe you should resign your seat
after this.
Here are the other two. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Thomas will be followed by Richard
Rice.
MR. THOMAS: Don't start my time yet, please, because what I
just heard has got me so disturbed right now it's going to take a minute
for me to get together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get closer to that mike so we can all hear
you.
Page 72
June 12, 2012
MR. THOMAS: I adopted Immokalee as my home, come from
other places in the country, and a lot of things I just heard just really
got me disturbed.
Now, there's a lot of split within our community of Immokalee of
what to do, because they haven't focused on some major changes that
have happened at the state level.
In the old days -- and the master plan we're operating on right
now go way, way back to the '80s. The only way we could change it
was to go through a whole lot of state loops and hoops and jumps and
what, da dat, da dat, da dat a. And we couldn't make any changes.
Now we have it such that once we get a master plan in place, we
can change it easily, flexibly right here in this room. The biggest
problem a lot of folks out here have is zone -- not zoning. Code
Enforcement and codes. We can change the codes, because
everybody here's got to understand, if you can't produce everything
you want and need in your community, you've got to be able to
communicate with the rest of the world and sell something out to them
to get stuff that you want. We used to be able to do it with fresh
vegetables in this community, but because of NAFTA we can't do that
anymore. So we've got to start bringing industry back, something
back where we have something to sell to the rest of the world to get
the things we want that we can't produce here in this country. And we
need more flexibility. We don't need a Naples code. We need a code
that's good for industry out there so the industry will stop leaving and
going to Hendry County and places like that where they welcome
having something to produce that the rest of the world needs so you
can get what you need here. You understand?
Commissioner Coletta's doing a good job. This is not a political
need. It's about moving ahead and finding a way to get in Collier
County some things coming to us so that we have something to pay
for it with. You can't do it with money. Ask Greece. They'll tell you;
you can't do it with money. You've got to be able to produce
Page 73
June 12, 2012
something that the rest of the world needs. Now, we're not producing
anything out here. Nothing. We've got to get back to that.
Another production is tourism, producing happiness for folks, so
if -- we've got a code that helps encourage tourism. Now, a lot of
folks on the coast are, funny looking people, funny looking people,
but they go to San Jose, Costa Rica. And in San Jose, Costa Rica,
every store has an armed guard in front of it. You don't need that in
Immokalee.
Or they can't wait to go to New Orleans on Mardi Gras; the
murder capital of this country. They're okay with that, those funny
looking people in Immokalee? Excuse me. If we build it as tourist
zone where you can get a taste of Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, and all
those places without having to have a passport, they've still got good
drinking water, why not? But we have to get a more flexible code that
works for our county for community so we can begin to produce
something that the rest of the world will come to get or let us export it
to them to get the things we want. So unless you're going to start
building automobile industries, farriers, and all the stuff that you may
want and desire to make it here in your community.
I hope you understand this. Let us do the ballot, find out where
everybody wants to come through, and we'll be okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Rice will be followed by Jerry Blocker.
MR. RICE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Richard
Rice. I'm a member of the -- was a member of the Immokalee CRA,
past Executive Director of the Eastern Collier Chamber of Commerce.
I speak in favor of this. This process has gone on and on and on.
It has followed the law. Meetings were held; meetings were
publicized. People were serving on the committee who voted in favor
of it who now oppose it. I wonder why?
I'm asking you to give us the opportunity to govern ourselves.
County Commission, virtually every meeting you have some item that
Page 74
June 12, 2012
comes up that changes an ordinance that was passed at some time in
the future (sic). This plan allows us to do that, to make changes as is
necessary. Just give us the opportunity to govern ourself.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Blocker will be followed by Randy
Johns.
MR. BLOCKER: Good morning. Jerry Blocker for the record,
Property owner in Immokalee, been there all my life.
We've got a few people that's talking about the plan here that
wasn't born and raised there, doesn't have anything vested there. I
don't understand why everybody's in support of this plan such as the
up- heavers have been talking today. It doesn't make sense to me.
As much property as we own in Immokalee, I just can't see no
one -- no one coming to me, such as Jim Coletta, my commissioner,
coming to me and says -- trying to get me to buy into this plan. It's
something that has been pushed and pushed behind the scene, and it
shows a very, very -- very, very clear what's happening.
We've had our three meetings out in Immokalee. Three meetings
didn't go very well for Mr. Coletta, so I guess he figures out our best
way to do it is to try to take it out of the public's eyes and, you know,
bring it to a straw ballot, which has got to come back in front of the
County Commissioners anyway.
The plan hasn't changed. There was no -- every piece of input
that was put into that plan at the meetings was not heard. Jim --
Commissioner Coletta says that the people that was speaking were
being over - spoken. The only people being over - spoken was him at
the meetings. No one liked his ideas. No one cared what he was
talking about.
So with all this said, I would ask you commissioners to look at
this plan very, very dearly. We've got two commissioners that,
obviously, have looked at this plan; three others have not. Look in the
detail of it. It's not a good thing.
Page 75
June 12, 2012
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Johns will be followed by your last
speaker, who is Mike Facundo.
MR. JOHNS: Good morning. I'm Randy Johns.
I got one question, I guess. If we're going to bring this to a straw
ballot, are we going to change the process of all these land uses, if --
every time we have a land use, you're going to bring it to a straw
ballot before we can get an answer on it? You're bringing it to a
community that does not understand land uses. And on the other side
of that, if I get a -- if I get a vote from you guys I don't like, can I go
out and do my own straw ballot and then come back and change the
land use, even though that -- you guys say I can't have it?
I just think the straw ballot, putting it out to people that don't
understand the land uses and what's really going on out there, is the
right way to handle this.
And the other thing, you know, are we going to take it to all of
Collier County, or are we just going to leave it to Immokalee?
Because all of Collier County's going to be paying for this thing
before it's over with. It's going to be a failed deal.
Commissioner Coletta, you were quoted in the paper yesterday as
saying as -- people were being intimidated. I'd like to see the facts
behind those intimidations, because the only thing that's been done in
these meetings is people come out and speak against you when you're
there, and you're the one that's trying to shut them up. None of the
things that we brought forward to the CRA has been introduced for the
changes, and now you want to do a straw ballot without having any of
our changes added. I don't understand that.
People also need to know that this straw ballot you're wanting to
bring forward was not voted in a positive way by this board. It was
turned down, but now you're going to send it on as it has been
approved. I just think what you're doing to all of us is not right.
Thank you.
Page 76
June 12, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Facundo.
MR. FACUNDO: Hi.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Name?
MR. FACUNDO: Michael; Michael Facundo. Sorry I'm late.
It's been a busy morning.
Well, how can I commence? I guess I will go back to the -- my
experience, I guess, in the last community meeting that I had there
with the CRA and the owners and concerned citizens that were --
attended the meeting.
The impression that I walked away with was -- what I witnessed
was very, I think, unscrupulous in the sense that I think it was more of
the insults, and the words that were being said out loud was very
immature. Nothing was ever discussed within the context of the
provision other than one individual.
And I'm not here speaking against or for any commissioner other
than what is right. Other than one gentleman I thought had a very
legitimate question in regards to his trailer park that I felt like, okay, it
was -- now we're moving somewhere.
And when you ever have a discussion without any context, it's
going to lead to a lot of people chasing rabbits and false assumptions
and speculations. And I think it's a -- related to ignorance and also
related to having people not understanding really what is happening.
It's a function that is -- I felt at some point sometimes was out of order.
What is the solution? I don't have all the answers. But one thing
about voting, it takes away any type of intimidation, any type of
judgmental view that someone may have towards you. It's a practice
that we are going to put -- implement and experience coming here in
this new election year.
And so it allows, truly, those who are registered to vote to be able
to speak. And one of the things that I find in the community that I
developed is there is a common people which is -- given the way our
country and the change we're going through and the discussions of
Page 77
June 12, 2012
immigration, I find it to -- that even our people, regardless of their
race, the poor, the immigrant, the foreigner, needs to have a voice.
It's one thing when you keep someone of that magnitude
oppressed and there's no one to speak on their behalf -- and this is
what this board is called to do, by the way, is to be a spokesman not
only to the landowner, developer, but the person that's below that that
has no voice.
I don't know why this thing is beeping.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It means your time has expired.
MR. FACUNDO: Well, please allow me another minute or a
few seconds.
But that requires people to be vocal and I think that it's much
needed out there. And let's not be afraid in trying something
knowingly know within a conviction that you may have of what is
right and give the Immokalee people that opportunity and where they
can freely, in disclosure (sic), be able to vote.
I understand and I know that people may sneer at me for making
that comment, but so be it. I'd rather be a man that stands for
something than a man that falls for anything, and that's my conviction.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, thank you.
And I thought this was very, very interesting, and I want to thank
Pam Brown for her unqualified endorsement. We can smile about
these things, can't we, Pam?
MS. BROWN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The truth of the matter is, there's
a couple of things that I need to bring up. Thank you very much for
sharing a premature list of some supporters I have throughout the
county, which is my financial committee, which has about 20 people
Page 78
June 12, 2012
on it. The list is now 150, ma'am. I'm sorry you didn't display that
one. That would have been even more impressive.
At these campaign meetings that we had, at no time did we
discuss the Immokalee Master Plan. They were strictly fundraising to
do within the legal aspects -- the parts of being a campaign and
running a campaign. But they are impressive names. I think you'll
agree with me on that. And I appreciate you bringing that up.
There's a lot of things that are misleading. Pam Brown, by the
way, is a resident of Immokalee; so is Fred Thomas; so is Mr. Rice, so
is Michael that just spoke; however, Mr. Blocker is not a resident of
Immokalee, and neither is Mr. Johns, interesting point.
Do you notice the correlation between the people that are in
opposition to it and the owners of trailer parks and their friends?
Now, this commission has been very proactive over the year, and
people are trying to exhort their pound of flesh at this point in time.
We have taken it, and I'm very proud of this. Pam Brown said I never
did anything for Immokalee. That part that she doesn't like is the fact
that we have, this commission, working very closely with public
health, and our code enforcement, have taken a situation that was
extremely deplorable with a 50- percent substandard housing rate
within Immokalee and reduced it down to 5 percent. Congratulations
for all your hard work.
We got sued a couple times along the way by some of the people
that are in this room or related to people within this room. We lost a
little bit of headway along the way, we got back into it, and we made a
big difference.
My involvement in Immokalee, Mrs. Brown -- but you weren't
involved in those organizations -- goes all the way back 25 -plus years
when I got involved with Immokalee Developmental Services,
working with challenged adults in Immokalee. Sixteen years, Paul
Midney, and I worked with him. I was the Vice President; he was the
President.
Page 79
June 12, 2012
We did amazing things at getting them jobs, a part of the
population that was totally ignored within Immokalee. Got them jobs,
got them places to live, and in two cases even got them driver's
license.
From there we turned the operation over to an outfit out of Cape
Coral, sold the assets in Immokalee because we couldn't raise enough
funds to keep it going, and turned that over to Special Olympics.
Catholic Charities, I became the President of Catholic Charities,
and the first thing I did when I did that, I expanded their operation into
Immokalee and brought Guadalupe Social Services under their
umbrella.
My involvement in Immokalee is extensive if not even more
extensive than yourself. The organizations I've been involved with
were well respected, well known, and have made a difference. And
I'm sorry if somewheres along the way it's caused you some
discomfort.
A couple of the things that we need to go over; One, this is not a
closed primary that you heard. This is an open primary. And it's not
just because this item will be on the ballot. There's also -- the tax
collector's going to be on there. That's a closed primary. So it's going
to be coming up in August. The tax -- the appraiser, property
appraiser, and the Clerk of Courts will also be on the ballot. Plus, the
Democrats have a runoff in the Senate race, the state Senate race. That
will be on the ballot.
So this idea, you know, that we're going to be reaching a very
limited crowd of Republicans only is a complete farce. This is an
open primary. Now, what's going to happen when this hits the ballot, I
have absolutely no idea. But let's go back to square one.
When this master plan was working through the schedule and the
first time it came before the master plan committee for approval to be
moved on to the Planning Commission, I was there. And I had -- I
gave a little speech to the members of that committee, and I says,
June 12, 2012
whatever you want, I'll back. I said, I might not personally approve of
some items, but I'll back you on whatever your decision is.
And the vote was -- I think it was -- not unanimous. There was
one person that voted against it. And then the -- there was some issues
over it. There was people that questioned the validity of the ballot.
Meanwhile, we had disbanded the Master Plan Committee. And so
what we did is we took it back to the CRA, which had some of the
same members plus some new faces on it. They heard all the evidence
to be heard, and they passed it, and I think it passed with just two
people dissenting out of the seven people that were there.
And, once again, I read the speech to them. I says, whatever you
want, I'll support, and I'll be there to back you on it.
So here we are again. All sorts of mixed feelings out there, what
appears to be mixed feelings. Put it on the ballot. Let the people of
Immokalee come up with whatever determination they have. They
want to go with the master plan the way it is or they want to go back
and start it over from scratch and to be able to bring it forward.
Either way, I'm supportive, and I'll back them on it. But we've
got to be careful that we hear from the people that live in Immokalee,
not the people that are from outside trying to protect a special interest.
And with that, I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Fiala, I think you were next on the speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was. Yes.
I have to tell you that when I -- when people come up to the
podium, I expect them to address the issue, not bash people. I didn't
hear the issue at all from three of the people. All I heard was bashing,
and that doesn't go well with me, because I don't believe in bashing
somebody. I think that that's just wrong.
I've heard this group say, more than once, we, the people. We,
Page 81
June 12, 2012
the people, are speaking. Well -- and I've asked, who is the people? I
haven't really gotten a good answer except that they say no one wants
this.
And so Commissioner Coletta is saying, okay, if you say no one
wants it, let's give them a chance to vote. They have an opportunity to
say whatever they please, not in a crowd where they're bullied or
intimidated and not being spoken for. They get to speak for
themselves in their own community for what they want in their own
community, and I feel we must give them a chance to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Well, Commissioner Brown, you were correct when you said the
purpose of those public meetings was to do two things. One was to
answer the questions of the people as to clarify their understanding
about what this plan was about, and the other was to get their input as
to what changes they would like to see made to that amendment.
And I had the opportunity to receive the summary of the -- what
was done with respect to the first question, the information given back
to the people to answer their questions. I don't for the life of me see
how the citizens of Immokalee can decide whether or not they support
this plan based on the answers that I am seeing here in the book that I
received yesterday.
Let me give you an example. At one meeting -- and this was the
May 9th public meeting. I'm sorry. Was it the 9th -- sorry -- yeah. It
was the May 9th -- no sorry, the May 23rd meeting.
Question No. 1, where does it speak about agriculture in the
Immokalee Area Master Plan? And here's the response: Numerous
locations and several policies. Well, if anyone can make a decision
based on that response, I applaud you, and I would like to know what
your secret is. There is no answer that was provided by staff. How
can anyone make an informed decision or vote based on such an
answer?
0,•- l
June 12, 2012
Let me give you another answer. At another meeting, Question
No. 7, how much additional commercial -zoned property will be
created by the plan? And the answer is: Again, the Immokalee Area
Master Plan does not create additional commercially -zoned property.
And now let me get to the operative part of the answer. The
master plan does, quote, slightly increase areas designated as
commercial on the FLUM, and then it goes on to give further wording
without any specificity.
Then there's a chart, and the chart is a chart of the difference in
acreage. When you're talking about an increase in commercial
intensity, it's not about the acreage. It's about the square feet.
And, remember, the answer said there is a slight increase. Well,
here's what's proposed by the amendment, and that's not in the answer.
There is a change from five million square feet to eight million square
feet. That is a 60 percent increase.
Now, was that disclosed to the people? Not at all. That's just
two examples. How can the people of Immokalee vote when staff has
deprived them of the truth, of the information that they need to make
an informed decision? This straw ballot, no matter how it comes
back, is not coming back from an informed people, and that is
fundamentally unfair.
You're also correct when you said that this question has to be
asked of the rest of Collier County, because we all will be affected.
There was another question in here that went to the question of
funding. How is this going to be funded? Would you like to know
what the answer was? Guess. Let me help you. Taxes and fees. Are
you serious? Is that the answer you give people on which they are
supposed to make an informed decision?
This is an absolute manipulation. This is tantamount to
push - pulling. This is where you take a question without giving the
proof, without giving the basis upon which these people can make an
informed decision. You are trying to steer them to answer a certain
June 12, 2012
way. This is fundamentally unfair to the citizens of Immokalee.
We committed, as a board, to have a public meeting on the 18th
of June where the citizens of Immokalee were going to come back to
us and tell us what changes they wanted to see in the amendment. And
it is my understanding that there are a lot of changes that people want
to see made.
When I received that report yesterday, Ms. Phillippi, I didn't see
those changes recommended by the people included in your summary,
and I asked for them, and I want to see them. Because to put
something before the people where so many people want to see
change, again, is not fair.
I fully support putting questions to the people where the people
are fully informed to make independent informed conclusions.
That is not what is happening here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some questions for
Commissioner Coletta and Mr. Klatzkow.
Commissioner Coletta, let me understand this, and I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you provided an answer. If
the voters turn it down, you want to start all over again on amending
the plan, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not necessarily, sir. If voters
turn it down, we'll have to go back to the community and try to find a
direction from them. It would be the only logical way to do it. The
idea is to try to come up with something that's going to have a buy -in
from the vast majority of the community and how we're going to get
to that point.
I wouldn't say that we have to start over at that point in time at
square one. Let's get -- at that point in time, if we do lose, then we'll
approach it with a community meeting, seek out directions, and then
find out. They might want to sit back for a while and wait on it. They
June 12, 2012
may want to go forward immediately. I'm not going to speak for
them. I want to hear from them when the time does come, but thanks
for asking that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Fred Thomas is under the
impression that we can't amend the code to -- so it's not like the
coastal code. I think he's referring to the Land Development Code.
Is it your understanding that we cannot amend the Land
Development Code without amending the Comprehensive Plan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My understanding, we can
amend some things without amending the master plan. It's almost
(sic) my understanding that the master plan will give us more validity
as far as being able to go forward with those changes, and there are
some changes that really need the support of a master plan to be able
to go forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last question for you, sir, is
we -- at our last meeting we committed to the public that we're going
to have a meeting in Immokalee. You have agreed to listen to the
public's potential amendments for consideration to put in the plan.
Are you saying that we're not going to have a meeting -- we're not
going to consider the public's amendment to this plan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. You mean the
meeting in Immokalee, are we referring to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've held many meetings
in Immokalee. Some of them you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next Monday night it is on the
Board of County Commissioners' calendar -- I'm sure it's been
advertised -- that we're going to be out there to consider adopting the
plan and consider other amendments that people submit.
Are we having the meeting in Immokalee on Monday night to
consider other amendments to the plan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, until the time the
June 12, 2012
commissioner gives direction to the county manager to the vote,
agenda item before us, we're having the meeting in Immokalee;
however, is the meeting really necessary if we're trying to get the
opinion of the people in Immokalee?
Remember, the informational meetings we held were three, and
the idea with this meeting was to be able to go forward to be able to
approach the public and come up with a final consensus and go
forward, but the final consensus is not there. It's a very elusive animal,
and that's the reason for the suggested ballot.
I would suggest -- now, two things that are open for discussion.
If you think we should hold the meeting in Immokalee and have the
ballot item, I'll go. I'm more than happy to. I think it would be more
appropriate to have that meeting after the ballot item where -- at this
point in time, the agenda item calls for it to be held here, I'd be more
than willing to hold it in Immokalee, and I hope that everybody would
be able to attend, but that's up to this commission to decide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Klatzkow, I sent you an email on some Florida Statutes, and
I appreciate your working with me on the proposed resolution. It was
a countywide resolution. And I'm glad we got that clarified.
Now, a few years ago the legislators says, we -- the government
can't expend any monies, any public funds on questions on the ballot.
Would that include the CRA, they cannot expend funds for this
purpose?
MR. KLATZKOW: The legislative authorization for the item
before you was Florida Statutes 125.01(1)(Y), which authorizes Board
of County Commissioners to conduct a straw ballot to gain general
sentiment. You are legislatively authorized to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. My question is -- and I
sent you the email -- Statute 106.113. And what I get out of it, any --
anything on the ballot -- and it says, including referendums, that the
government cannot -- local government cannot expend any dollars.
June 12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. That may be a general rule,
but you have a specific authorization for a very narrow type of ballot
issue with this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. But what they're
talking about here is a campaign, mounting a campaign. I understand
that we can put it on the ballot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you can't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So any campaign
mounted we can't use any public funds.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. If you're talking about the
local government trying to influence, no, you can't; you cannot use
local funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Or educate.
MR. KLATZKOW: You should not use local funds one way or
the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay.
Now, there is another statute, 101.161, okay, and I'm not sure if
they're talking about just the constitutional amendment, but it says,
whenever a constitutional amendment or any other public measure is
submitted to the voters of the public, it goes on to say that there shall
be a fiscal impact statement.
Now, my research on just one of the items -- and that's adding the
105 acres to the airport -- is going to cost the taxpayers millions of
dollars.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a nonbinding question you're
submitting to the voters of Immokalee. Irrespective of what they say,
you can sit down and vote for it, vote against it, or amend it at that
time. It's nonbinding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we're -- we're
going to have people come up at the adoption meeting, whatever the
outcome is, and say, the people have spoken. You need to do what the
people have said. However, I know there's a lot of language in here
Page 87
June 12, 2012
that will cost the citizens of Collier County millions of dollars, and I
have to take that into consideration.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have the fiduciary responsibility to do
what you think is best for the people of Collier County, all right, that's
why this is nonbinding, all right, at the end of the day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this resolution, I
would much rather it say, instead of the ordinances that was
considered by the board in December, to say the Immokalee Area
Master Plan continue working with the public to provide a good
product for the people in Immokalee. I'm told -- I'm not sure if it's
true -- there's three residents on the CRA Advisory Board three
residents from Immokalee, the rest of them live outside of Immokalee.
So, you know, with that said, are we really getting the will of the
people who submitted the amendments, or are we getting
government's submittal to change the plan? That's what I would like,
is to have all considerations and of course, I don't know if we're going
to have a meeting on Monday night in Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, this is the first I've
heard that the CRA had any intention of lobbying the community
using public dollars to promote their perspective on this. That
concerns me to no end. And there absolutely should be no use of
public funds, nor should the CRA staff or advisory board be involved
in any sort of lobbying for or against this proposal if it's going to be on
the ballot to preserve the ability to voter -- for voters to vote without
feeling under pressure.
Secondly, what's very clear, as Commissioner Henning pointed
out, the fiscal impact of what's being proposed is astronomical,
astronomical to Collier County. And the Regional Planning Council
made very clear that the only way this extremely expensive plan can
June 12, 2012
be funded is if the county shifts funding priorities within the county. I
am very, very concerned.
I just want to read one statistic to you to tell you how outrageous
this plan is. The projected population, the peak population in 2020 in
the Immokalee area that's being considered is 48,636 people. This
plan, if built out at the proposed density, the maximum population
with bonuses is 314,168 people. That is how over the top this plan is.
The fiscal impact analysis, which I reviewed, which was
separately paid for as part of this study for about 40,000, was one page
and amounted to nothing. The actual cost hundreds of millions.
The Immokalee Airport would cost $150 million. That one loop
road would cost almost $150 million. That's $300 million. Who and
how is that going to be paid for?
What's being proposed here today, to ask the voters to the vote on
something they absolutely know nothing about based on all the
information that has been omitted from the responses that is owed to
the people is akin to what Nancy Pelosi said. I can replace Nancy
Pelosi with Commissioner Coletta and say the following: We have to
pass the plan so you can find out what's in it.
I will support this question going to the people of Immokalee and
tell them they should vote no because they don't have all the facts, and
they wouldn't be making an informed decision. This plan proposes to
take from the poor and give to the wealthy land barons. This plan
proposes to destroy agriculture in Immokalee and does nothing to
preserve it.
I can't support it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question, but
I'd like to clarify a couple of things. This is a vote on placing
something on the ballot. It has nothing to do with authorizing
expenditures for anything. It will not replace public hearings
necessary for adoption of any master plan for Immokalee. You'll go
through the same process. It's just that you get a sense of the voters
June 12, 2012
before you waste all the time to go through the process. It's a much
more logical way to proceed.
And if we -- if we get a sense that the voters want to proceed,
then we'll continue to have the informational meetings that we have,
and we'll continue to have the board meetings where these things are
publicly advertised and will be debated.
So there's nothing about this vote that authorizes expenditures of
money to do anything. There's not a single word in this resolution that
authorizes the money to be spent for lobbying or supporting the vote
or anything else. It's just an attempt to get the voters to tell us what
they really have in mind rather than having someone come into this
room and pretend that they speak for all the voters in Immokalee.
So I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion to place this
on the ballot, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, the advertised meeting
for June 18th, is it the board's desire to continue that to the first
meeting in September or continue to hold it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would continue indefinitely until we
find out the results of the vote. I mean, that would be my preference.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what the motion indicated
was the fact that that meeting would not take place. Am I right, Mr.
Page 90
June 12, 2012
Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just clarifying for the record, because
we have an advertised hearing. So it's my understanding that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And if I may, sir, I want
to apologize for anybody that was inconvenienced by it, the plan to
attend that meeting. We need to get the word out expeditiously and
we need to be able to have somebody posted there so if somebody
shows up they don't find an empty room, and they can explain to them
what happened. I got a feeling -- Immokalee's a small family
community. The word travels very fast. I'd be surprised if more than
two or three people actually showed up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we answered that question,
didn't we?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It has been done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to have that -- I'd like
the question bifurcated because, quite frankly, I absolutely want that
meeting on the 18th and can't vote to cancel that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well -- do you want to make a
motion to reconsider?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can have a vote on bifurcating the
question, can we not? Since -- the actual resolution said nothing about
the meeting this Monday night.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding of the motion -- and this
is 20 minutes ago or whatever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Was that the motion was both to authorize
the straw ballot as well as to continue the meeting. That was my
understanding of the motion. I just wanted to clarify that because I
know the public --
Page 91
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say continue it, means to
postpone it, not --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, continue it to a date certain to your
first meeting in September. You're under time frames here where if
you don't hold this adoption hearing, it's going to be moot anyway.
MR. OCHS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're suggesting that we continue it
until a date certain.
MR. KLATZKOW: That was the motion. The motion was, I
believe, a date -- or what the executive summary asked for, which was
the date certain to your first meeting of September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was that your intent?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've already taken a motion
-- a vote on the motion, and that's what the motion said.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. There seems to be a little bit of
misunderstanding is what I'm getting at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then how do we legally
address that issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's already been addressed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it's been addressed. Okay.
Thank you very much.
What can you do in nine minutes, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, I think we can -- I see Mr.
Curry in the audience, and he had a couple of items moved to the
regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to take a long time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: The easement for Turbo Services? Okay. Well,
how about --
Page 92
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When it comes to anything in
Immokalee, it's going to take a long, long, long time. It's political
season.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll break for lunch right now.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. I'm not sure there's anything I can get you
through in eight minutes here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll be back at 1 p.m.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. We've got nine minutes
extra.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I have a live mike? Let's get this
done before Commissioner Hiller gets back.
MR. OCHS: Well, you need four votes to approve anyway, sir,
so eventually you're going to have to get four of them up there.
Anyhow, let's go ahead.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2012 -21: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER
PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, THE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT
BAYSHORE MPUD, AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -415 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
Page 93
June 12, 2012
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE
MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL
CONVENIENCE ZONING DISTRICT (C- 2- BMUD -NC) AND
THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE
BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (C- 4- BMUD -NC)
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF
THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF
THE MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CULTURAL ARTS
VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD, TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 40 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 48,575 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL LAND USES, UP TO 845000 SQUARE FEET OF
PARKING GARAGE AND A 350 SEAT THEATRE IN SECTION
14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 17.89 + /- ACRES; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9A. This item requires ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. All participants are required to be
sworn in. It's a recommendation to consider PUDZ- PL- 2010 -592. It's
the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, an ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, amending
Ordinance No. 2004 -41 as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established comprehensive zoning
regulations for an unincorporated area of Collier County by amending
the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from the
neighborhood commercial subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive
Page 94
June 12, 2012
mixed -use overlay district, of the commercial convenience zoning
district, and the neighborhood commercial subdistrict of the Bayshore
Drive mixed -use overlay district of the general commercial zoning
district, and the neighborhood commercial subdistrict of the Bayshore
Drive mixed -use overlay district of the mobile home zoning district to
a mixed -use planned unit development zoning district -- I'm on a roll
-- for the project to be known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore
MPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 40 residential dwelling
units and up to 48,575 square feet of commercial land uses, up to
84,000 square feet of parking garage, and a 350 -seat theater in Section
14, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 17.89 plus -or -minus acres, and providing an effective
date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It takes longer to read it than it does to
vote on it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All persons who are going to give
testimony in this petition, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We're going to accept ex parte
disclosure from the commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received emails from the CRA
staff and the Planning Commission's packet, agenda packet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, skip over me for just a
minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have received emails also,
and I have reviewed the staff report on this particular item.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails, calls. I've even sat in on different meetings.
Page 95
June 12, 2012
So I've had a lot of contact with a lot of people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I provided my representations in
the morning. They're on the record, and they can be incorporated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well.
We'll go to Commissioner Coletta now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
And I have had emails, meetings, and it's all in my package here
if anyone wants to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that concludes the ex parte
disclosure.
Okay. Staff?
MR. OCHS: Should we hear from the petitioner?
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon, Jean Jourdan with the
Bayshore /Gateway Community Redevelopment Agency. I'd like to
present to you Chris Pizzuti -- I mean Chris Wrenn. He's with the
Pizzuti's Companies, and he wants to give you a brief presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Chris.
MR. WRENN: Thank you very much, Commissioners. As Jean
said my name's Christopher Wrenn. I'm planning manager with the
Pizzuti Companies here and working as agent on behalf of the CRA
through our Pizzuti Solutions division, presenting on the Cultural Arts
Village of Bayshore rezoning application.
The intent of this project is consistent with the heart and the
intent of the Bayshore Cultural Arts District. The project is a vision
to, at buildout, act as a southern focal point for the City of Naples and
a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization in the Bayshore /Gateway
CRA and kick off area -wide redevelopment that will help the CRA
redevelop and grow organically over time.
And the graphics, the plan, the architectural conceptual rendering
that we'll show you are created to help increase the identity and the
culture of the district.
June 12, 2012
And we've seen the site, the 17 acre CRA owned site, as the seed
of the neighborhood. So what we see here and what we plan for here
is what we'd like to see happen here as well through redevelopment
efforts in the overall CRA.
Pizzuti Solutions was hired in 2009 as development advisor and
project manager to help oversee a multi - disciplinary design,
engineering, and consulting team. Their logos are shown here on the
screen. We have Pizzuti Solutions as the overall development advisor;
BellomoHerbert as the landscape architect and participated in the site
planning; Banks Engineering as the head planner and the engineer on
the site; Schenkel Shultz Architectural as the architectural consultant;
Thomisson- Graham Group as the arts consultant; Project for Public
Spaces as kind of the public realm, public participation, and
place- making consultant; Dexter Benner & Associates for
environmental; and TR Transportation for transportation work.
Just for a little context, you're looking at the overall CRA. You
can see here -- pardon me while the mouse is getting ready. The
location of the 17 -acre site is central to the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle CRA, somewhat equidistant between U.S. 41 and Thomasson
Drive, and you can see here its proximity to the Naples Botanical
Garden.
A little closer in, you can see the site's relationship to Sugden
Park and some of the surrounding uses, primarily residential, mobile
home, and to the east, again, Sugden Park. And to the west, more
mobile homes and also the entrance to the Windstar neighborhood.
And a little further in still you can see the existing conditions on
site. There are three general large upland areas that we have targeted
for development. The remainder of the site is primarily water bodies,
exotic vegetation, and there's a couple of upland strands here through
the central eastern portion of the site that we've utilized in the site
design.
Where we are in the process is, you know, obviously, today we're
Page 97
June 12, 2012
here in front of the Board of County Commissioners. We began this
process in 2009 with a lengthy project visioning effort and a market
study to help us understand what the site might yield from a
development standpoint. There was also a pretty strong community
outreach program that was spearheaded by Project for Public Spaces
back in July and August of '09 that involved stakeholder interviews,
stakeholder input, as well as a place making workshop wherein we
engaged residents in the CRA and interested parties to help us
understand what kind of project would draw in the attention and
activity that the CRA desires.
Following those workshops, we went through a series of
conceptual plan renditions and refinement, ultimately resulting in the
plan you see before you today that was approved by the CRA advisory
board on March 2nd of'010. And the rezoning petition was approved
by the advisory board on March 23rd of '010.
Through the entitlement process, we reached sufficiency and held
our neighborhood information meeting on January 18th of 2012. We
appeared before the Collier County Planning Commission on April
19th of 2012 where we received unanimous approval by the Planning
Commission, and we are here before you today.
So through our community outreach, the question was, what
makes a great place? What's going to bring residents, bring
merchants, bring activity to the site? So here we just highlighted some
of those -- some of those factors in the site design such as uses and
activities; cultural facilities to help celebrate the arts, entertainment
and recreational opportunities, give people a place to go on the
weekends; retail restaurants and marketplace to give residents a
location for daily needs; educational opportunities to help engage,
again, the arts and educational communities in Collier County;
community resources, needed community resources in the CRA; and
also residences to help bring feet to the front door.
Image and identity for site, keep it small and manageable. Again,
June 12, 2012
we see the site development happening over time organically,
consistent with what would happen within the overall CRA, green
spaces and gardens to celebrate some of the open space and minis (sic)
that we have on site as well as a focus on water to celebrate the
prominence of water we have on site, and using a Florida and
architectural style that you'll see some examples of later in the
presentation.
A place to increase sociability for residents of the county, a place
for locals to meet, community event space, a casual atmosphere, and
then the opportunity to provide some social services such as, you
know, the CRA office, post office, Sheriffs Office, et cetera, medical
clinic, et cetera.
And access and linkages, part of what drives the site plan is a
connection to Sugden Park, increase in transportation options. We
have a site plan that is multimodal. Works well for pedestrians,
bicyclists, as well as automobiles, and can, at build out, provide ample
parking to support all the programming that we have on site.
So here is our master concept plan. As I had said before, we
have three distinct upland areas that we have targeted for
development, and we'll get in a little more detail on these. But,
generally, it's the artist's live /work village, which is kind of the
mixed -use component of the site design; the public performance and
participation area, which is more of the community arts driven portion
of the site; and the community services building, which is a two- story,
11,000 square foot office building that could house commercial,
office, or community uses.
The public performance and participation area includes a 350
seat black box theater, also with studios, classrooms, and
administration space.
There is a planned programmed parking garage that could be two
or three levels, depending on the ultimate parking needs of the site.
There is a grand lawn open space for outdoor events and amphitheater
0-Ml.
June 12, 2012
as well as a water access area, again, where we can get in and start to
celebrate some of the water features that we have existing on site.
The artist live /work village, again, it's more of the mixed -use
component of the site, planned 30 to 40 residential units on the second
floor over retail, commercial space. You can see in this detail that
there's a lot of interplay between the buildings and the hardscape and
open space in this portion of the site. There's water features, a palm
court sculpture, potential interactive play fountain, supportive parking
for these uses all happening here in the northwest portion of the site.
There's a recreation area that's part of one of the fingers that
reach over to the Sugden Park. This is a passive recreation area that's
shown with trellises, gazebos, and primarily a pathway and boardwalk
that connects to the east of Sugden.
And then, again, the commercial community building, about
11,000 square feet of potential community office /community service
spaces.
And just for reference, this is the submitted concept master plan
just showing the various tracts on the site so you can see how that
relates to the illustrative master plan we just discussed.
And I just wanted to show some quick architectural examples.
This is work that was performed by Schenkel Shultz Architecture just
exhibiting the Florida vernacular architectural style that we have
envisioned for the project. This is an elevation of what would be
facing Bayshore Drive looking to the east at the live /work artist
village.
This is a perspective of the same portion of the site looking north,
same portion of the site looking south. This is a quick snapshot of the
interior courtyard of the artist village, so you can see some of the
intimate, casual enclosed space that we're trying to provide for
intimacy.
A bird's eye perspective view of the grand lawn, amphitheater,
and performing arts center, and a view of the interior courtyard
June 12, 2012
looking at the palm circle and architectural features that are there,
showing what would hopefully be a typical, you know, late afternoon
or weekend scene of what might happen in the live /work artist village.
And with that, that concludes this presentation, so I'd open up
any questions --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. WRENN: -- that you might have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
First of all, I was wondering -- I'm sorry -- why the CCPC
reduced the residential units from 40 to 20. Does anybody know?
MR. WRENN: I can answer that. At staffs request we included
a provision in the application that required us to build 40 dwelling
units to be able to build the entire amount of retail square footage that
is in the live /work village.
The intent was to require us to produce a mixed -use
development, since we are submitting as a mixed -use development.
And I -- you know, we have seen this in other places, and there's just
different forms of how this can happen. The problem with that
solution is we have 40 dwelling units over the program of commercial
space, so we can't build all of the dwelling units unless we build all of
the commercial space. So there's a market - demand issue at stake, and
we can't -- you know, the developer can't guarantee that they will
build all of this retail space just to support the 40 dwelling units of
apartments.
So the overall development intensity remains at 40 dwelling
units, but it would happen in, potentially, 20 dwelling unit increments
instead of requiring all 40 to happen at once. Again, part of the intent
of the site was to keep the building small and manageable so that they
could be taken down and built over time in a phased sequence rather
than all at once.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what most developments do
anyway; they go for the whole thing, but then they just start out and
Page 101
June 12, 2012
move forward as they can and as the market decides for them to do.
I was -- I read every word of this. There's a lot of pages here, and
I read every word of them. But one of the things I really liked was,
number one, you had an information meeting, neighborhood
information meeting, and 37 people came. We don't ever see that.
We see two, five, whatever. Thirty -seven people attended the
information meeting and with very positive results.
And the second thing is, we have 46 letters in here. Only one
was negative. The other 45 were glowing, and they each wrote their
own thing. It was so nice, because they weren't form letters. They
were -- you know, they each wrote what they thought, and they were
from different areas around the area.
And the one negative only said she would really like to have
more flora and fauna and bugs and bunnies in the area rather than
development. And, you know, most people say that, you know, that
are into that stuff. So that was -- that was all.
I just got such a positive response. And when the time comes,
after everybody's had a chance to talk, I would really like to make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that when the time
comes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I've already got a second.
MR. WRENN: And, Commissioners, I would credit the CRA
staff and their hard work to keep community involvement up in the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion for approval
by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And Commissioner Coletta is speaking next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In this -- I'm going to
address this to Commissioner Fiala. How long have you been
involved with this project?
Page 102
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Since 1991.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, it's been a long,
drawn -out project. You personally have been involved with it. You
know what the sentiments of the community are. Do you have any
concerns over any of the suggestions that was made by the EDC or the
Planning Commission as far as changes go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't. I thought that the
Planning Commission's suggestions -- other than the 40/20; I think it
should still be 40. But I think the Planning Commission's ideas were
great. I think that they probably added a little something to it that
wasn't there before, and it even made it better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the 20/40, is that -- do you
think 20's going to be enough residents?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's why I'm saying, I'd
really like to see it go to 40, but I can understand that they're going to
just start with 20.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the thing is, you're going
to have to come back and get approval to be able to go to 40.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, if you approve it at 40, you
don't have to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. I thought you
were going to approve it at 20, and I was going to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second is for 40.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. WRENN: Yeah, just to -- just to clarify. There's still forty
units planned for the site. The issue is just that we wouldn't have to
build all 40 to start off with. You could do it in phases.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand now. I
thought they limited it to 20.
MR. WRENN: No.
MR. OCHS: The language in the executive summary wasn't as
Page 103
June 12, 2012
clear as it could have been, sir, so I'm glad we've had this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. This is property that's
owned by the county, correct?
MR. WRENN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's going to develop it? Who
are you designing this plan for? Because I thought we were going to
be selling this. So why are we doing this ahead of a known seller that
would want to develop it this way? Why are we going through this
formalization? I can understand you developing a concept plan and
presenting it to a potential purchaser as something that they might be
interested in building.
But I don't understand why we're approving this type of a change
here today when, you know, we don't have a buyer and we don't really
know what the market wants with respect to this property. I mean, I
know that there are few people in the community that are interested in
having a cultural arts center. And I'm not sure that the community as a
whole can support another cultural arts facility. I would hope it can,
but I'm not sure that it can.
So I guess I don't understand why we're here today discussing
this at this point, particularly in light of the financial crisis that the
CRA is in and the discussion we've had that we want to sell these
properties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I jump inhere and just say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in kind of an answer? Because
this is going to be the focal point, the driving force to rebuild the area.
But if they didn't permit to what they want it to be, it could be
anything, and somebody could can come in and put a manufacturing
plant there or something that would be detrimental to the community.
So they wanted to design it so that it will -- but give them plenty
Page 104
June 12, 2012
of opportunities to move and so forth but yet at the same time to
enhance the property and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How can it be currently
developed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the current development
rights on the property? What is currently allowed?
MR. WRENN: There's a commercial use in the western side, and
then the remainder is -- which, yeah, could be any commercial use
allowed under C I and C2. The other is mobile homes.
So, one of the positive elements of this rezoning is that we're
removing the mobile home component, since the site is located in the
Coastal High Hazard Area and I understand there's an increased
numbers of mobile homes in the coastal high hazard. Those are being
removed out of the development rights for the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And instead, you're substituting
the residential and you're narrowly defining what the commercial will
be; is that my understanding?
MR. WRENN: We're only narrowly defining as much as we're
required to. I mean, we think we have still delivered, as development
advisor to the CRA, a somewhat flexible and market -based
development program; however, this site has both public and private
components, so it's not entirely a private development driven project.
It's also a public project with the inclusion of the cultural arts
facilities, the performing arts center.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you suggesting that the county
is going to pay for that?
MR. WRENN: I am not suggesting that at this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a public facility. My
understanding, if you consider a building a public facility, then it
would be funded by tax dollars?
MR. WRENN: That's not what we're suggesting.
Page 105
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No talk of it either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, I think it's just too specific
and too tailored. And I can understand, I think, Commissioner Fiala,
your objective of trying to preserve and protect that area as a future
catalyst for, you know, the overall improvement is a really good one,
and I understand why you would want to have some sort of restriction
on that property. I just think this is too restrictive and too limiting.
I mean, I think it's a very nice design, and there might be a
developer out there that might like it but, you know, another developer
might want to come in and do something completely different and
then, you know, we have to go through this process all over again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this way we'll have it in place so
this is -- the developers will know what's expected of them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, one of the things, because
we own the property, is we have the right to say, you know, we're
going to sell it, but this is what we want developed on it. So we don't
have to go through this process in order to make that happen.
I just -- I think this actually inhibits our ability to effectively
market the property. You know, presenting this as an option to a
prospective buyer, I think, is a great idea, but adopting it now and, you
know, making this the plan when someone might come forward with
something that could be better and then we have to go through this all
over again, I would rather wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd rather do that, I'll tell you, then
take a chance and then have somebody come in, tell us it's going to be
one thing, change it to another.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they can't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, they can. They can come
up here and make promises. This is what I want to -- I can't tell you
how many times people come up and they paint this grandiose picture
Page 106
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why we have a county
attorney to protect us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but there's nothing in place to
stop them if they want to build a grandiose mobile home park or
something, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they can't because we own --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we're not going to argue,
because I'm not arguing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we own the land.
Jeff, we own the land, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say, it gives them a
criteria for which to build on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We own the land. We control
what can be developed on it. We can -- if someone wants to develop
it one way or another, I mean, at that point in time we can actually
change the zoning or the uses on it, you know, to be --
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, you're both right on this. What
you're saying is that we're limiting our marketability. What
Commissioner Fiala is saying, but this is what we want to do. So
you're both right. It depends what you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I need your support on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd love --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The community needs your support.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would love to support you on it,
but I would say, I think we leave the plan in place and wait till we get
an offer from a developer that would buy into it, then tweak it exactly
the way it would work both for the developer and us and then enact it.
Give us the -- you're not hurting us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then it's going to cost them a lot
more money, because they'd have to go through all of this process,
too. And this way -- and you don't know that there isn't somebody
sniffing around out there.
Page 107
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's exactly the problem,
that if we enact this now without tweaking it to a prospective buyer,
then the problem we've got is that that person will have to pay to get it
modified. And so by holding off, I think we allow for the maximum
flexibility and the maximum opportunity to sell the product.
And this is a great selling tool. I think it's a phenomenal concept
that should be used as a selling tool to draw someone in and say, guess
what, the government has already done this. This is actually a savings
to you, because we've spent the money to develop the concept. But I
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- think it's premature to etch it in
stone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't. We've been working on this
so long, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. WRENN: If I may suggest, as a development advisor and
as a developer for an at risk development company, I would suggest
that the process we've gone through and what we're here today
presenting will help the county market this project to potential
developers and buyers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. That's true. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the table.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MOM
June 12, 2012
MR. WRENN: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2012 -109: RECOMMENDATION TO
CONSIDER RZ- PL20110001572: SSP ASSOCIATES, INC. -- AN
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A C -3
ZONING DISTRICT TO A C -5 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS SSP ASSOCIATES, INC. REZONE
LOCATED SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1.75 +/- ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO DENY —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 9B on your
agenda. This item was continued from the May 8, 2012, BCC
meeting. This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. All participants are required to be sworn.
It's a recommendation to consider RZ- PL200110001572, SSP
Associates, Incorporated, an ordinance of the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No.
2004 -41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code which
established the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the
Page 109
June 12, 2012
Unincorporated area of Collier County 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, Incorporated.
The rezone is located south of Tamiami Trail East in Section 32,
Township 50, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
1.75 plus -or -minus acres, and by providing an effective date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all the people who are going
to testify in support of this or concerning this petition, please stand
and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, we'll start with
Commissioner Henning this time for ex parte disclosure on Item 9B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had the item on the agenda
before. We have the Planning Commission's summary. And I am
going to stand to take Commissioner Fiala's lead on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also agree with Commissioner
Fiala's lead on this. Quite a bit of power we're giving to you.
The only thing I've done is reviewed the Planning Commission
summary and talked to staff about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I've reviewed the staff
report. And I'll wait to find out what Commissioner Fiala's lead is
before I commit myself to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could lead you to a body of water
to go swimming for that matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I should take a long walk off a short pier,
right?
Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We had a staff report. We've
also had -- I've also had meetings, correspondence, emails, calls,
talked with staff members, talked with CCPC members. I've done a
Page 110
June 12, 2012
lot of homework on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I provided my disclosures in the
morning, and they can be incorporated by reference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready to go.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez, representing S SP Associates. This is a rezone from C -3 to
C -5. It's for a small parcel. It's an infill parcel of 1.75 acres. It's -- the
owners actually own over 4 acres but have only pursued rezoning the
300 feet of depth of the property to the C -5 district.
This item was unanimously approved by the CCPC. We had a
NIM, and there was one person that showed up to that NIM. We had a
conversation. Their concern centered on the property that was actually
adjacent to ours and as the entrance to Treetops Drive.
This parcel is, again, C -3. We're looking to go C -5. To the
south, all that acreage or -- that is 900 feet of frontage -- is all C -5. To
the north the uses in the Treetops commercial PUD go C -3, C -4, and
C -5 up to 100 feet of height.
The height limitation in the C -5 district, of course, and being
proposed for this parcel is only 35 feet.
Of significance, in our meeting with the CCPC, they made
numerous recommendations, but probably the most significant
development standard that they proposed was a limitation on outdoor
storage. For the first 150 feet there is none. So any outdoor storage
would be limited to the rear of the 300 feet.
The subject parcel does not abut directly any residential. The
closest would be the Treetops property, and there's about 100 feet of
depth to the closest building, and that area is in a conservation
easement.
The second thing that the CCPC did that was very significant is
we went through and established a long significant list of items that
would be precluded from that district.
Page 111
June 12, 2012
And the -- we agreed to that list. And since then -- and I'll put
that list up now. Since this we've augmented that list after our
discussions with Commissioner Fiala. We've added removal of adult
videos and also gambling that would otherwise be allowed as games.
Not as true gambling, but in games. So those items have been
removed additionally from the list.
And as you can see, it's a fairly extensive list of items that have
been removed, including conditional uses that it already doesn't have
entitlements for.
With that, if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like a clarification on something.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Perhaps on two things. The two items
you've added, video store, adult only, and gambling, gambling related
only, does that mean that something -- a video store that sells adult
movies, or whatever they sell but sells something else in addition to
that, would be permitted?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. That's not my understanding. In
talking to staff, this is what they've done in the past to remove any sale
of adult videos so that you could -- if you had a video store, let's say a
Blockbuster, it would be prohibited from selling or renting adult
videos.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff, could you verify that
interpretation and tell me why it is phrased the way it is.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner
in zoning. I'm sorry, can you rephrase the question? We were
discussing it; I didn't hear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The category says video store
(adult only). Why wouldn't you just say video store (adult), is
prohibited? You're saying these are prohibited things. Are video store
(adult) prohibited, or is it a video store adult only is prohibited, but it
can be a combination of a bigger video store?
Page 112
June 12, 2012
MS. DESELEM: If I understand the distinction you're asking me
about, for example, a Blockbusters would be allowed because it
doesn't just do adults -only video rentals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: But another unnamed -- I don't know the name
of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's suppose that Blockbuster had
a section that had adult videos in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know that.
MS. DESELEM: By this, I don't know that that would be
precluded from occurring.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, that's --
MS. DESELEM: This just is for a video store that only sells
adult videos. That would be what would be prohibited by this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But some other kind of facility that
would otherwise be permitted if it sold adult videos, under this
phrasing, it would be permitted in this district.
MS. DESELEM: As I understand it, that's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't think that's your intent, is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -uh.
MS. DESELEM: You could tighten up the wording to make it
exclude whatever you wish. You know, I might suggest any business
that sells adult video or something. That way --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be even better. And if you
applied the same thing to gambling -- because I can see, particularly
some of these arcade games that are cropping up around. I mean, you
could have a sandwich shop or a bar attached to that, and it wouldn't
permit (sic) it. It wouldn't prohibit it, I'm saying.
MS. DESELEM: In discussions with the petitioner on the video
store, we've come up with that because that's oftentimes one of the
typical prohibitions that the Planning Commission adds, so we thought
it would be --
Page 113
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'm just concerned about the
phrasing you've used here. If you were to say any facility that sells
adult videos or magazines or anything of that nature would -- you
know, you're looking for a prohibition against those things, aren't you?
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. That -- you could tighten it up to, you
know, say whatever you wish and prohibit whatever you think is
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm just trying to do what the
people would like to do. And, Commissioner Fiala is -- it's her
district, so I'm just offering some advice.
MS. DESELEM: And that's where I'm coming from as well. We
had offered it to the petitioner to be consistent with what the CCPC
has historically been doing, although this issue did not come up CCPC
for this petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Hiller was
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, this is in your
district. Can you explain to me what your feelings are about this and
what your concerns are?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
My biggest concern is we're asked to upgrade or to upzone this
for a more intensive use, but we don't know what the use is. We don't
know what it's going to be. They say they're going to sell it. Well,
how can we say -- there's questions all through here about
compatibility and so forth. How can you say it's compatible with -- if
you don't know what it's going to be. That's my main concern.
And the C -3 -- he was mentioning the C -3 and C -4, C -5 are
already there. This was done a long time ago before they started
building Treviso Bay, before Trail Acres started really improving.
They've got some nice homes in Trail Acres now, and they're trying to
Page 114
June 12, 2012
improve. In the neighborhood, they're really trying to take a step up.
And, you know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you concerned --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if I knew what this was going
to be, then I'd be able to make a judgment. But with it just hanging
out there, and you don't know what it's going to be, you can't approve
it and say that it's compatible, or at least I cannot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And staff was not able to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, staff talked -- same with CCPC.
They all talked about it, and they -- the representative said he doesn't
know because they're going to flip it. Well -- and I understand that,
you know, but how do we know who he's going to flip it to? You
know, I just feel very uncomfortable with it myself.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd like to interject in that our client has --
his family has owned this property for -- since 1985. They've owned
it for a significant period of time. They're looking to position the
property to the market that they under -- as they understand it which,
you know, they've got C -5 on one side, they've got C -5 permitted uses
on the other side.
Two things. One is that people that have approached them are
looking for C -5 type uses, and the second thing is is that this would
give them an opportunity to aggregate. So, in other words, that would
allow the greatest potential for redevelopment of the property because
it's like zoning, and that would allow somebody to build one larger
development, let's say, with a singular building, so it would be easier
to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a buyer on the
property?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we do not. And, again, it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there is no contract that
Page 115
June 12, 2012
provides conditional upon approval of this type of zoning by the
board?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am, none whatsoever. And, again,
they've owned it, but they've had inquiries into how to best use the
property. And there's uses there that have been there since, you know,
before they purchased the property.
They would like to position it so that they can get some
economic gain out of it. It just hasn't done well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So wouldn't it make more sense to
-- I mean, since you've already done the work, when you do have an
offer, you know, come back to the board and say we have someone
that, you know, wants to acquire the property, and this is what we
want -- or what they want to put on it and get the specific approval for
their benefit at that time, as opposed to leaving Commissioner Fiala
and the community concerned that it's open- ended?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, right now it's open -ended in that it's
C -3. What they've had is inquiries that come back and say, you know,
I'd like to do this use or this use, but it's not allowed in C -3.
You know, in this economic climate, buyers are few and far
between. If they had C -5 in place, they likely would have been able
already to develop it or to develop it for the end user.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what are the differences
between C -3 and C -5 specifically as to this parcel?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, there --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the difference? What are
you adding in C -5 that you don't have in C -3?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well -- and it's a fairly long, extensive list,
and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are your buyers asking for?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the ones that are more prevalent tend
to be contractor related and storage related so that -- you know, in
terms of building materials and so forth and also storage, and those
Page 116
June 12, 2012
were the primary, and that's in our cover letter that we submitted that
that was primarily the intent.
Now, I would also tell you that right now we can do C -3, and it
would allow for a 50- foot -high building, or let's say five stories under
the C -5 zoning district. That would be reduced to 35 feet. Now, 35
feet is much easier to buffer with landscaping and shrubs. And, of
course, the architectural design standards would apply to this
1.75 -acre parcel.
So we believe it's much easier to buffer; it's much more
compatible, if you will, with the neighborhood, especially given that
C -5 is already next door. And what we've done beyond that is
removed probably the issue that -- the development standard that
would allow storage out front. We've basically, with the Planning
Commission, worked out that the first 150 feet there's no outside
storage, which basically means you're going to have parking and
buildings out front. So, -- and architectural standards and the
landscaping.
Now, the other thing that this will do -- these -- the list that I've
just put up there are uses that are currently permitted in the C -3
district, and these have been removed from the list of permitted uses
with this -- if you approve this. That list includes homeless shelters,
soup kitchens, mixed -use residential, commercial, music, amusement
and recreational services outdoor, and then there's a list of drinking
places that serve alcoholic beverages, and that's a fairly extensive list;
bars, beer gardens, bottle clubs, et cetera.
So these will be removed from the current -- it currently could
have any one of those items, and now those will be removed. And my
understanding is that those are some of the more -- or would be the
more objectionable ones that you would find in either the C -3 or C -5.
So, we think that this is -- makes this rezoning more compatible.
I agree with Commissioner Fiala, going from a C -3 to a C -5 doesn't
give you anything, but with these additional limitations and
Page 117
June 12, 2012
restrictions and with the additional development standards that require
further setback and buffering, I think she's getting, the community's
getting what it desires if it rezones this from C -3 to C -5.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still don't know what it would be.
I still don't know if it's going to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Here you've got a gorgeous community coming up.
Would this detract from that? Well, it's right behind it, for goodness
sake, right behind Treetops. Would people want to buy there? Would
they want to upgrade this community? I don't know what you're
building.
I tell you, because I don't know what you want to build, I just
don't think it's appropriate to even approve this. If I knew what you --
but if somebody comes in and wants to buy it and upzone it or
downzone it or whatever they want, then at least we know what we're
dealing with.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So you're more comfortable with C -3 uses
that it already has?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not -- yeah, I am; I am, as a
matter of fact. It's not as intense. I'd rather -- I mean, look at the
property as it is. It's rather disgusting. And, I mean, if they've -- you
know, they've never even improved the property or made it look good,
and it makes me think that they would sell it to somebody who would
keep it in that same condition. And I tell you, I just cannot vote for it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: But it's not an economically viable use as it
is. And, again, what I'm telling you -- suggesting to you is that by
removing that list of C -3 uses that you could do today, you're getting a
much better deal.
And in terms of intensity of development, I would also suggest to
you, you know, our analysis and transportation's analysis is that we're
Page 118
June 12, 2012
reducing the amount of intensity. You can do more intense uses on
this property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you say I'm getting a better
deal, but I'm voting, and I'm saying no, I'm not. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mentioned some height limitations.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you summarize those once again?
You said something was 150 feet?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sir, the Treetops PUD, the commercial that
-- immediately adjacent to us is 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hundred, okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The commercial to the other side is C -5,
and that can be done to 35 feet. Currently, we could do five stories and
50 feet on the C -3 property as it exists today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I would tell you, you know, the
owners, again, have been here since '85. It's a hardship for them. And
they're looking to find a viable use or to have the ability to readily
aggregate it to the adjacent property owners so that they do end up
with an economically viable investment in this economy that we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner - --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Fiala makes a motion to deny;
Commissioner Henning seconds it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 119
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The denial is unanimous.
Item #1 1 D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CURRENT POLICY ON
USE OF RESIDENT BEACH PARKING PERMITS, ADOPT AN
ANNUAL PASS OPTION FOR NON - RESIDENTS AT SUN -N-
FUN LAGOON, AND APPROVE CURRENT POLICY ON USE
OF BEACH PARKING /GARAGE - MOTION TO MAINTAIN THE
CURRENT POLICY ON RESIDENT BEACH PARKING
PERMITS — APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF BEACH
PARKING /GARAGE — APPROVED; MOTION TO BRING BACK
FEE REVISIONS AND A POLICY REGARDING NON-
RESIDENTS PURCHASE OF ANNUAL PASSES AT SUN -N -FUN
LAGOON — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you back to county
manager's report, Item I ID. It is a recommendation to approve
current policy on use of resident beach parking permits, adopt an
annual pass option for nonresidents at Sun -n -Fun Lagoon, and approve
the current policy on use of beach parking facilities.
Mr. Williams, your parks and recreation director, will present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
Commissioners, I'm just here before you -- at the April 10th
meeting you asked for several items to be brought back before you for
consideration, and I wanted to do that today for you.
And, Mr. Chair, if it's okay, what I'd like to suggest is just take
Page 120
June 12, 2012
one by one and have, perhaps, some discussion about each one, and
then moving on to the other.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Whatever will be more expedient.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me just see if I can get the laptop going
here.
Commissioners, the first item that was requested was a look at
our current policy related to beach parking. And I've attached in your
backup some information related to the current policy.
The policy, simply stated, allows for people who have a Collier
County -- proof of Collier County residency, full -time residency or
pay ad valorem taxes to be issued a free parking permit.
And we had a situation that came to our attention regarding two
individuals that lived in a modular home, a modular community,
rather. And one of the individuals was a full -time Collier County
resident and was eligible for the sticker. The other gentleman,
however, was a seasonal resident and was not eligible and, thus, the
question emerged about the properties that these two gentlemen lived
in.
Both of these properties -- and it's fairly typical in Florida in
terms of modular communities where people may own the modular
home but they do not own the land underneath it.
So in this instance, you had one gentleman that was eligible for
the sticker. He was a full -time resident, thus that criteria was met. The
other gentleman was not a full -time resident and did not own property
tax -- or did not own property in Collier County, so he was not
eligible.
So Parks and Rec Advisory Board looked at this issue, reviewed
the current policy, and made a recommendation to endorse the current
policy, and that's our recommendation to you as well. But, again, we
would want to ask if there were further direction you want to give us
Page 121
June 12, 2012
on this policy; certainly, we'd be available for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does anybody want to give him
further guidance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just wanted to ask a question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the other two. I don't have
any questions. And with this one I just wanted to make sure that I
understood what you just said, just to -- and if we have any people
listening out there in modular homes, then they would hear it as well.
So if they live here full time but the space underneath them is
leased -- and some of them, boy, are really hefty, some of the leases
on these properties -- anyway, so the lessor pays the taxes on it, they
do not, but they live here full time, they're still eligible for a beach
pass; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. If they live full time --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Full time.
MR. WILLIAMS: If they're renting an apartment, doesn't matter.
If they're living here full time, they're eligible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my next one, how about
apartments. Okay, fine. So if anybody lives here full time even
though they don't own the property underneath them, they're still
eligible for a beach pass. I hope everybody hears that. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: With the proper IDs; that's all.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, is it okay to move --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. I think Commissioner
Hiller has a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree with Commissioner
Fiala. I think the clarification is in order. And we had talked about
that, and I'm very glad that you're making the correction.
Tangentially, people have a beach pass now and they go to the
beach park parking facility but they don't go to the beach, how are you
controlling who's going to the beach and who's not? And, you know,
Page 122
June 12, 2012
can you actually put a prohibition on people parking in the parking
garage if, in fact, they're not using the beach? Or what if they're using
the beach in part and doing something else for the remainder of the
time while they're parked at the beach park facility parking garage?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That is another item, and I'd like
for you to take that up in just a moment. But let's clear off this
particular issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve
Number 1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're going to approve the
maintaining our current policy on the issuance of beach parking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Resident beach parking permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Okay. Now, let's go to Commissioner Hiller's issue.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the item that
Commissioner Hiller speaks of reflects a current ordinance that exists
that was passed that basically stipulates that people that park in the
beach parking garage, the one beach parking garage we have, and
beach parking access points, that they use those parking spots solely
for the purposes of going to the beach. And, of course, that is because
of the access issues that we're dealing with.
Page 123
June 12, 2012
Your question is a very good one. How do we patrol it? And,
honestly, I asked our staff prior to today about have we cited anybody
for this issue, you know; are we having any issues? And for the most
part we've not cited folks. We do use the ordinance to educate the
public. We do have instances where people have used beach parking,
in particular, the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. They'll park in the
garage. They'll leave -- there's a point where you can leave and go to
the beach, but then there's a point where people come back to where
the entrance is, and if they're dressed as if they're going to work, we'll
stop them and educate them about the policy.
So we've not had a big issue with that. It's not something in
terms of -- we're not looking to enforce it or patrolling the garages
looking for people and checking to see what they're wearing, but it is
pretty obvious to us when we do see people who are using the parking
areas for that reason.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: And just to -- again, Parks and Rec Advisory
Board looked at this issue, and they recommended keeping the current
policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the
staff keeping the current policy?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala makes a
motion to accept the staff s recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 124
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go onto the third item.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the third item simply is, again,
a request that we had gotten from a constituent. It was a person who
had lived in Collier County and who had enjoyed an annual pass at
Sun -n -Fun Lagoon.
In Collier County you're eligible to buy an annual pass. It's very
affordable; $190 for as many people in your family. And it's very
popular. And so the person that lived in Collier County moved to Lee
County and questioned, if you live in Lee County, would not it be
possible to establish such a pass for folks that live in Lee County or
people outside the county.
Again, the Parks and Rec Advisory Board looked at this. We did
some analysis on the current utilization of memberships or the annual
passes, family passes. Our best estimation is that it amounted to less
than one percent of our total folks that came in the gate.
The Lee County folks we're able to identify, folks associated with
Lee County through their ZIP code. We know the number of people,
and we made an assumption on the number of people that might buy a
family pass.
We don't think that you'll get a lot of tourists buying a family
pass. We do think there is a number of Lee County's that might buy
one, and staff, as well as Parks and Rec Advisory Board,
recommendation was to establish such a pass.
And we also -- part of the recommendation was to look at it as
the same price point as we have priced our admission. Our admission,
as you're aware, if you're a Collier County citizen, you get a -- what
amounts to a 16 percent discount from the $12 fee. It's very
affordable. With that, with our 190 price point for Collier County
Page 125
June 12, 2012
residents, what we're suggesting is a price point of $228.
If this was something the board was interested in, what this
would require would be for us to come back to you with a fee - policy
adjustment, and so we could bring this back to you with further data,
further analysis if that would be what you'd be interested in doing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Make a motion to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My light was on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it would be additional analysis
to -- you know, are you comfortable with this price, or do you want --
do you need to study it further?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think we'd like to take the time to look at it.
It does appear to be a good price point, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Hold on a minute. We have a
motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala, but
Commissioner Coletta was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, forgive me, but I couldn't
hear the motion. It was just a little bit -- to what?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Too quiet?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To bring it back. He would like to
study it a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they want to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's talk about it just a
little bit. That's fine, because right now the usage at the water parks --
well, no, we're coming into our prime season.
MR. WILLIAMS: We've got two seasons, tourist season and
then summer with the locals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's talk about this just for a
minute. We have this thing about trying to make sure we're going to
Page 126
June 12, 2012
break even with the water park. The people that buy these passes, a
lot of them are going to buy them just because of the convenience to
be able to go through the line without having to do it.
If they stick around to be able to get the full value of their pass
and use it, what is it, what did you figure, about five times?
MR. WILLIAMS: Right now we see with passes come back
about eight times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But from as far away as
Lee County or --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Lee County in terms of a pass, they're
not eligible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, of course we don't. But the
whole thing is is that this is guaranteed money up front that we're
going to have that we don't have now, number one. Number two,
when these people come here to Collier County, they're also going to
spend additional money at the park on the concession stand, and
possibly on the way home they may stop at a restaurant and one of our
businesses, so I think it's a great commercial aspect of this that we
shouldn't pass up.
The motion -- I think the motion should be considered to approve
it, and then we get some data as we're going into how many people are
really taking advantage of it and what the economics of the whole
thing is as far as it goes. I think we're going to be ahead dollars to
begin with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They already have how many
people are coming --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and how much money we're
getting. He would just like to take -- he's saying that he'd like to sell
passes to Lee County. We already are taken care of, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that, but this is Lee
County I'm talking about, or whatever county. I think we can capture
Page 127
June 12, 2012
more dollars. And if we put this off to study it some more, we're
going to be past our prime season, and we're going to have to deal
with it at another time.
I -- we probably won't hear about this, when, until we get back
for our -- September?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I think I'm hearing the board
supporting the idea of a family pass for non - county residents. We've
vetted that, including the suggested price point with the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
What Mr. Williams was explaining is because you have a fee
schedule for your park and recreation facilities that's set by resolution;
we would need to bring that resolution back to get it current with the
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't catch that.
MR. OCHS: We could do that at the next meeting --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That would be fine if we
could. I just wanted to be able to take advantage of this season.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's make sure that the motion is clear.
The motion is to approve the issuance of a nonresident annual
membership pass and to bring back at our next meeting a --
MR. OCHS: Your fee resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- fee resolution that modifies the fee
schedule.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's -- that's okay with the
motion maker and the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I stand corrected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to talk to you about
lacrosse in the near future.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, love to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. It's your turn.
Page 128
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, we're not -- I'm done.
I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're done, okay.
Commissioner Hiller wants to say something again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
Barry, one of the things that we were working on before Marla
left was looking at how we could help disabled vets and allow them to
use the park amenities at no cost, and you had been -- or I should say
staff was working on a study of how many, you know, disabled vets
were using our facilities and whether that was something we could do.
I know you didn't bring it forward in the various motions that
you're asking us to approve today, but I would appreciate if you could
get that done and bring that back to the board so we can add that to the
improvements that you're making at this point.
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. We'd be happy to bring that data
back, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS : Commissioners, Item 11 E will be heard
immediately after 9C this evening.
Item #1 I F
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
Page 129
June 12, 2012
MANAGER TO REORGANIZE CERTAIN FUNCTIONS WITHIN
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENCY TO ALIGN STRATEGIC
GOALS, OPTIMIZE RESOURCES, AND COMBINE EXPERTISE
UNDER A BALANCED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: So that would take us to Item 11F, which
previously was Item 16F8 on the consent agenda. It's a
recommendation to authorize the county manager to reorganize certain
functions within the county manager's agency to align strategic goals,
optimize resources, and combine expertise under a balanced
organizational structure.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller.
Ma'am, I don't know if you would like a presentation or if you
have specific --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is exactly what I would like.
I think it's very important that the citizens of the community
understand how the county will be reorganized. You've made some
very good strategic moves that I think will allow for more efficient
operations, and I want the citizens to understand, you know, where
these people will be moving to so that they can find their way around
the structure.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity.
Commissioners, briefly, each year, as we begin our budget
preparation process, I meet with the senior leadership team, and at that
same time we assess our organizational structure, you know, with the
view of making sure that our various departments and business units
are strategically aligned and optimally aligned so that we can achieve
the goals and objectives as the board has laid out for us in their annual
budget.
In doing that over the past few months, we have come up with a
series of recommendations to make some minor alignment changes to
Page 130
June 12, 2012
the organizational structure, again, with the eye towards maximizing
our talent and combining like functions. And I'd like to just go
through those briefly, if I might.
The first recommended change is to establish a Development of
Natural Resources within your Growth Management Division. This
department would combine existing Coastal Zone Management
functions and selected portions of your current pollution control
department. The department would oversee all aspects of
environmental protection, provide habitat protected species
preservation, manage all your water resource management programs,
including flood control, stormwater planning, water quality
management, and water quality monitoring.
Several members of the board over the last couple of years have
suggested and urged us to try to combine all of our surface water
management programs, and we thought this was a good opportunity to
do that and also add some of the environmental protections that have
previously been provided either through your Pollution Control
Department or Coastal Zone Management Department.
The second recommendation is that we re- establish the position
of zoning director, also under the Growth Management Division. That
would be something that would be a natural off shoot from the new
Department of Natural Resources.
The third recommendation is to reassign the remaining
components of your pollution control staff that deal currently with
hazardous waste management issues and combine them with your
existing program in Solid Waste Management. They have an existing
environmental compliance hazardous waste program. We think by
combining those two small sections, we will optimize our resources
and also potentially save some dollars in the process.
And the next recommended change is to consolidate the two
sections of impact fee management that currently exist in public
utilities and growth management. I'm recommending that we combine
Page 131
June 12, 2012
those staffs and have them report through your Office of Management
and Budget. We think this will give us a good opportunity to establish
process standardization across the entire agency and also strengthen
our internal controls at the same time.
The next recommendation is that we realign and reassign our
three- member Conservation Collier Program staff to move them with
Parks and Recreation and your public services division. The primary
rationale for this, as you know, Commissioners, we are beginning to
come up on the final year in FYI 3 of the Conservation Collier
program. In the early years it was primarily a land acquisition
initiative. Now it has basically moved into a land management
function, and this is the kind of work that Parks and Recreation does
on a routine basis.
So we thought moving them over there to help with the land
management for passive recreation and conservation purposes is a
smart move.
I'm also recommending that we reassign the public transit system,
your CAT operation and MSTU management, to our public services
division to recognize the strong identity there with the focus on
providing citizen assistance.
We also think that we can optimize some opportunities for joint
ventures and value added services with other customers that frequently
use public service division programs and services, including our
veteran and human services functions, our parks and museum
operations, et cetera.
Another recommendation is to realign our two- person -- we're
down to a two- person capital project team in Parks and Recreation. I
would like to move that two - person team and merge them in with our
facilities management capital program. I think that gives us
consistency in our capital project delivery throughout the organization
there and also allows us to optimize what are now fairly scarce
resources in our Parks and Recreation capital program.
Page 132
June 12, 2012
I am also suggesting that we -- that we maintain the landscape
operations from our transit program and keep them with our growth
management road and bridge department. That maintains the
alignment of programs with similar service responsibilities, and I think
we can leverage the talents of those two staffs.
Then, finally, I'm recommending that we reassign our bureau of
emergency services from a direct report to me and the County
Manager's Office to become a part of our administrative services
division. I think this will provide additional management, support,
and oversight for that bureau, also improve their access to the
important support and logistical services that they need certainly when
they activate during an emergency.
There's a lot going on in the bureau. When I was the deputy, I
had an opportunity to work with them almost on a daily basis. Since
we don't have a full -time deputy county manager any longer, I think it
would be prudent that we give this organization some additional
management support that Ms. Price and her logistical team can give to
Bureau of Emergency Services.
So in a nutshell, that's a quick summary of the realignments that
I've recommended to the board, and I would ask for your endorsement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
With the number of FTEs you're talking about, are you -- you're
not really suggesting these are 231 additional FTEs?
MR. OCHS: No, not at all, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you give us the net?
MR. OCHS: These numbers are the existing complement of
employees in these areas, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've just realigned them; you haven't
changed the total number up or down?
Page 133
June 12, 2012
MR. OCHS: No, sir. No increase in total head count at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any decrease?
MR. OCHS: No decrease either at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just a realignment of
responsibilities?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Since you say that the realignment
of emergency services is because you don't have a deputy
administrator, why not?
MR. OCHS: Why do I not have a deputy?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh. Maybe it would help
organizationally if you did have a deputy to assist you in
administering as much as you have to administer.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, I appreciate that. And, again,
that's part of the assessment that I do every year as I begin to prepare
my self - appraisal for this board.
When I took the job in 2009, of course, we were in the depths of
the recession, and I was trying to lead by example, if you will,
knowing that we were going to have to make some hard decisions on
FTE count over the next few years.
Frankly, if we begin over the next few years to see an upward
tick in activity and growth, and if I believe that that's something that
will benefit the board in my ability to manage the organization, I'll
certainly bring that back to you for consideration. But I appreciate the
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing Leo didn't mention is
Len Price has a background in emergency management at her former
job.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you for mentioning that,
Commissioner. Len was the highest ranking civilian in the El Paso
Page 134
June 12, 2012
Police Department for several years before she came to Collier
County; very familiar with the bare military, fire, and police
operations, and I think she'll do a very good job supporting Dan and
the staff there at the bureau.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Item # 11 G
RESOLUTION 2012 -110: RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT
STAFF'S PROGRESS REPORT FOR LOCATING A POTENTIAL
ALL - TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) SITE AND THAT THE BOARD
ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
COLLIER COUNTY ATV PARK AD HOC COMMITTEE, WHICH
RESOLUTION ALSO APPOINTS THE INITIAL MEMBERS TO
THIS COMMITTEE - ADOPTED W /STIPULATIONS
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11 G, which was previously
16A16 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to accept staffs
progress report for locating a potential all - terrain vehicle site and that
the board approve the proposed resolution establishing the Collier
County ATV Park Ad Hoc Committee, which resolution also appoints
the initial members of this committee.
Page 135
June 12, 2012
This item was pulled at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I pulled it is because
this is an issue which is dear to the hearts of many Collier citizens, and
then there are many citizens who feel that it isn't a good idea. So I
thought it was very important since you have made some progress in
identifying potential sites that you present the information publicly so
people have an idea where you're going, both for the proponents and
opponents.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, for the record Nick
Casalanguida, with Growth Management, Commissioners.
As you know, this is one of those projects that was -- county
manager, and so the board members asked if I would participate with
-- to look at with our land development background understanding of
what sensitive land's in the rural lands area.
So we partnered with the parks and rec, and we started back in
September and had a public meeting. Very well attended, and we took
back some criteria in what they were looking for, roughly a thousand
acres.
We threw some ideas to the board. Barry Williams attended
along with Marla at the time. We put up a board and marked down
everything that the community was looking for.
At that point in time, we started -- we hired a consultant, came
back to the board and said, we're not going to spend more than a
hundred thousand dollars. I think to date we haven't gone over 20 or
30 thousand dollars just to map out areas that were sensitive, you
know, versus non - sensitive and had enough land mass contiguously
that will provide a park. Then we sent out notice to the property
owners, about 200 parcels and 73 property owners.
We had a second public meeting on March 29th. It became
evident to me that -- this topic's been hot in the community, so we
discussed with Leo and also the county attorney, we need to get some
public involvement in this, because at the end of the day, whether
Page 136
June 12, 2012
we're successful or not, there's a lot of mistrust that's taken place over
the several years that this has been going on. And I say "several," a
decade since this originally began with the Water Management
District as well as county staffs efforts.
So I said the only way we're going to be able to convince folks
and ultimately -- either ultimately be successful with a park or come
back and say we can't find one is to get the community involved.
So I met with the folks that are doing the notice. I said, before
we respond to the letters that are starting to come back from the
property owners, I'd like to get the board's concurrence that an ad hoc
committee participate so they can see what we're doing, listen to the
proposals, and report back to the board to say, indeed, your county
staff is making a good effort.
And, again, to add to that, I think some of the ideas we received
from some of the people that have come to public meetings have been
very good, and I think getting them to participate in buy -in is what this
item's about.
So it's to establish an ad hoc committee, kind of not do anything
else right now until that ad hoc committee is onboard. That way when
we come back with ultimate recommendations, we have the public
involved in a committee that's actually representing their interest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you have already identified
some sites, haven't you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not specifically. We just --in areas
that would qualify, not like a -- you know, that particular site over
another. Because one other option is to take several small sites and
connect them by trails. That might mean, you know -- I don't want to
say condemnation, but we'd have to find right -of -way to connect
smaller pieces, because they clearly expressed that something under
600 acres would not be -- meet their needs. So that's a big challenge
when you start talking a large parcel of that size, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you share which areas?
Page 137
June 12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, everything we're looking at is
primarily northeast Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Northeast?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And then we've looked at the
East Trail. But that's 6L's parcel that -- I wouldn't expect them to want
to participate with something like that.
So, you know, right now the letters are out, and we're starting to
get some, you know, people who would like to sit down with us, but I
don't think, without having that committee present, I'm going to get
buy -in from the community that we're actually putting our best foot
forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead. Who was first, Commissioner Coletta or
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things, you know, we
have to draw some comparables here of what's taking place so that our
expectations are realistic. We know that we're going to have to
overcome a certain amount of resentment from parts of the
environmental community, unless we find that perfect site.
We also know we're going to have to accommodate residents that
may live in the immediate area. In order to be able to give guidance
and present a more complete picture, I wish that we could post the
eight sites that we've already looked at, because the assumption is, is
that we've never done anything.
When you go right down to it, we, originally -- we're looking for
Page 138
June 12, 2012
the spoils area next to Lake Trafford, consider -- it's considerable cost
prohibitive (sic) due to the cost of taking care of the environmental
concerns over the arsenic and solidium in the soil.
Originally we were looking at a temporary site outside of
Immokalee, and then we started that, and the caracara birds were
obstacles. Then, of course, you know, we joined forces with our
counterparts in Miami -Dade to get the jetport, to be able to have that
turned into it. We went forward with that, but that was stopped by the
environmental community.
Oil Well Road site owned by Bonness; we looked at that. Was
cost prohibitive, $25 million. Site owned by a private developer at the
Lee /Hendry /Collier line. That site, he's doing a private development
for ATV use. Site development -- a site was identified by water
management in Hendry County. We all went out and looked at it;
however, the permitting issues could not be overcome.
Site identified outside of Immokalee, but much of it was
mitigated land and unable to ride. Site identified in Hendry County.
Then Lee County had received funding but then turned back due to a
changed plan from ATV to dump site.
Now, I think it's important that we show that there's been a pro
forma here. While it hasn't been successful, there's been serious
attempts to try to make this work --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- many times. Not only the
Collier County Commission, but members of our state legislative
body. Mike Davis was a tremendous support of this, and he entered
into many of these things early on.
And we also have had -- we've support from a lot of other
entities. The problem is is we're still trying to get past that hard point
of coming up with a balance between the environmental demands and
the residential demands to be able to find that place.
Now, not impossible. But I think you need to be able to put that
Page 139
June 12, 2012
up there so that there's an understanding of where we've been so that
when people are looking at the future, they can understand what kind
of decisions have to be made to get to where we need to be.
Now, are you going to have more people come aboard on the
ATV committee?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. We have five right now that
have applied. There's two more spots open. We're recommending a
group of seven. So, you know, we've said we'll bring them on as they
apply. Word's getting out. I mean, we're almost doing a little -- you
know, our own reach -out to say to the community, do you know
anybody else who's interested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. May I suggest, too, that
-- I don't know. I think we'd probably have to approve it here. But
could we even consider two alternates so that we always have a
working number at the meetings?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a lot to ask people to come
to evening meetings, and they might not be able to make everyone.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if I'm hearing you correctly, sir --
we have a website. We can post on the website actions taken to date,
and we do have that, a little bit, already. We can add what you've
noted on as well as the Hendry County correctional facility we looked
at as well, too.
And then, you know, get these five folks --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right. I forgot about the
Hendry Correctional Institute. I'll have to add that to the list.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So then we'll start with the five, and
then we'll see if we can get a couple more with a couple alternates. I
don't have heartburn with that. I think -- I'm anxious to get them
seated with us to start talking and start getting some of their feedback.
So it's fine with me, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nick.
Page 140
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's got to be five or 10
acres out there next to state land that we can use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get ready, get set, go, you're out
of the land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I noticed a couple applicants are
employed by the county. That's not going to be any problem with
them voicing their opinion, would it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think so. They're employed by
the county or -- I think there were two that were -- one that was
employed by the county. I don't think that would be a problem if
they're just providing feedback, unless the board feels uncomfortable.
They're ATV folks, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I feel comfortable. I hope
that, you know, whoever they're working with feels comfortable with
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity. We're going to have seven
regular members and two alternates; is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to see that. I would
hope that would be made part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't part of the motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: That wasn't part of the motion; that's why
I'm --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's ask the motion
maker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the motion maker was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who was the motion maker?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: --Commissioner Hiller.
Page 141
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's the second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're going to modify the motion to
include two alternate members of the committee.
MR. KLATZKOW: And members on the committee can be
county employees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As far as I'm concerned. I don't
care. Great, anybody who's interested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the second was?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Item #1 I H
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB)
#12 -5906: FIVE YEAR COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE AVE
MARIA SRA (STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA) TO
MUNILYTICS FOR A COST OF $159560 - MOTION TO REJECT
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION — APPROVED; MOTION TO
ACCEPT THE FIAM REPORT AS PRESENTED, FINDING THE
Page 142
June 12, 2012
PROJECT "FISCALLY NEUTRAL" AND DIRECTING STAFF TO
CLARIFY THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PROCESS USED
FOR THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item I I was previously 16A24
on your consent agenda. It's a recommendation to award an invitation
to bid No. 12 -5906, five -year cost benefit analysis of the Ave Maria
Stewardship Receiving Area to Munilytics for a cost of $15,560.
Mr. Bosi will present.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As dictated within
the Executive Summary, this has been an issue that has been around
for a little bit of time. It started in 2010 with the requirement of the
Ave Maria SRA to provide a five -year fiscal analysis to establish
fiscal neutrality or a positiveness to the county. Submitted in June of
2010, reviewed by staff with some slight modification, presented to
the board in -- December 14th of 2010, directed by the Board of
County Commissioners in 2010 to be studied, reviewed by the Clerk's
Office in February of 2012, that the clerk made their findings to the
Board of County Commissioners that were inconclusive. They said
they were unable to make a final determination because of the
anomalies within the review.
At suggestion of Commissioner Henning and the full
endorsement of the Board of County Commissioners, directed staff to
seek an outside firm to provide a cost - benefit analysis regarding the
five -year review that was submitted by the SRA.
This executive summary is the end result of that direction from
the Board of County Commissioners.
We issued an intent to bid; received two proposals. The lowest
bidding firm, Munilytics, Fort Lauderdale, was the lowest submitted
bid that we felt qualified to perform the analysis. Traditionally, within
the purchasing policy, that would be something that we would execute
without board approval, but because of the sensitivity of the nature of
Page 143
June 12, 2012
the item and the time that it's been around, we -- under the direction of
the county manager, we brought it to the Board of County
Commissioners for authorization.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My recollection of what the board
-- I'm sorry. My recollection of what the board directed is not what
you described. And what you have in the executive summary is that it
should be noted that the solicitation did not request fiscal modeling as
required for a new SRA in the rural lands stewardship area, RLSA, but
rather requested a cost - benefit analysis of the fiscal analysis provided
by the Ave Maria SRA as well as recommendation for best
management practices. We never discussed best management
practices.
The law, which as the LDC requires, that a FIAM model be
completed by the SRA so that we know whether or not the SRA is
fiscally neutral with respect to the county, that the SRA is not a tax
burden to the county, and that could not be established because of the
problems found in the model and in the assumptions made in the
model.
And the intent was to hire a professional to run the numbers to
give us the determination based on the exceptions identified by the
clerk as to whether or not the SRA was fiscally neutral. We still don't
have that question answered, and this does not do that at all.
MR. BOSI: Commissioner, I have to respectfully disagree with
you that the direction was provided by Commissioner Henning, and it
was very clear. He said if we could just have a cost - benefit analysis of
the report that was submitted --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does the cost - benefit
analysis of the report mean? There's no such thing. You don't do
cost - benefit analyses of the reports.
MR. BOSI: This -- the five -year review is to assess whether the
cost in the expenditures of the individual development has been
Page 144
June 12, 2012
neutral or positive or negative to the county.
Fiscal modeling is not a practice that is traditionally associated
with reviewing the input and the output of the expenditures of an
individual development.
One of the reasons why staff had suggested the best management
practices is within the LDC -- the LDC is clear -- is unclear in terms of
what is to be utilized for this five -year review, this fiscal analysis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's very clear, and that was
established in the presentation by the clerk. It's the FIAM. I mean,
there was no -- there was no equivocation about that.
MR. BOSI: The --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, in fact, that's why Mr.
Fishkind --
MR. BOSI: And the FIAM is a fiscal modeling tool and what
we're not looking for. We're not looking for a fiscal model. We're
looking for whether the expenditures by the county have cost the
county a negative in the development.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the way that determination --
the way that determination was made is by using the model to run the
numbers to determine whether there's neutrality.
So the FIAM is the model that is supposed to be applied to
determine whether or not there is fiscal neutrality.
MR. BOSI: And the applicant has submitted their fiscal - analysis
model. The staff has reviewed it and determined that it -- it was a
neutral to positive.
The board directed a third -party review by the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk's Office was unable to reach a final determination. The
direction of the board on the 14th of February was to provide another
third party firm to provide another arbitration on the cost benefit
analysis of the SRA fiscal analysis that was submitted by the
applicant, not to run a new fiscal analysis.
And I will -- I will have to pull the minutes for you, but it was
Page 145
June 12, 2012
pretty clear and explicit of what we were being requested to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I -- Commissioner Henning is
next, but I agree with Commissioner Hiller.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my whole point was to
find a cost benefit. During the presentation it was clear to me that the
FIAM model is really not the model that we should be using.
So you're going to find out two things, whether Ave Maria is
fiscal neutral, and is there a possibility to have a model out there to
shortcut -- shorten the process? In other words, get there at -- you
know, have certain inputs and outputs. And some of those things in
that fiscal model didn't make sense, shouldn't have been a part of the
equation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that is the problem. It was part of
the equation. And if we find that the fiscal model indicated there was
a net cost to the county, then the developer has an obligation to pay us
the difference. The developer was instructed to use FIAM. They did
that.
Now, you can't go off and use another method of accounting and
hold them responsible for any shortage that you might uncover
through this unauthorized audit process, because we specified that you
use the FIAM.
MR. BOSI: And the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the FIAM was presented to us. And
for every week since we have been talking about an RFP, I have asked
and been told by the county manager that the objective was to verify if
the FIAM model indicated at least a break even for the county.
MR. BOSI: And that is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's what -- and you're telling me
something that is different, because you're saying this is an accounting
that doesn't require any experience with FIAM, and this company does
not have any experience with FIAM.
Page 146
June 12, 2012
There, apparently, was no requirement that the bidders have
experience with FIAM, which I think was a big mistake. I have been
saying this weekly for a month and a half or two months.
And, quite frankly, I think we're spinning our wheels and wasting
a lot of taxpayer dollars on this process. No, I'm not convinced that
FIAM is the best thing to use, but the point is that's what we told them
to use. That's what they were contractually obligated to use.
Now, my proposal is let's just get over it. The staff -- the clerk's --
clerk's audit was inconclusive and, quite frankly, inept. It took over a
year to get to a point where you say I don't really know.
And there is no point in trying to get a company that has no
knowledge of a FIAM and paying them $15,000 to give us another
opinion. The staff has already told us there is no net cost to the
government or the taxpayers. The staff is happy with the FIAM
results. I say, let's approve and accept the FIAM report with the
understanding that there is no net cost to the taxpayers and task the
staff with taking a look at what we're going to do for the next period
for review, okay, whether it's going to be FIAM, it's going to be some
other kind of thing, and then bring it to us, and we will consider it.
So rather than spending $15,560 of taxpayer money, let's just get
over it. There is no net cost to us. Nick, you've said that time and
time again. You are happy with the costs and the impact fees and all
of the issues that were raised as accusations during the clerk's
presentation, and you have shown that there is no need for concern
there; is that true?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I'm comfortable with the
transportation fiscal analysis; absolutely true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue that's been brought up is
what the LDC says, and with respect to the FIAM you have to use it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to go on with what you've stated,
Page 147
June 12, 2012
when you do the audit and use a model, you can't get there because
you're dealing with some fluctuations in there. As the clerk has gone
through the process -- and it was a yearlong going back and forth and
he said, I can't -- I can't define that.
So I went to a basic cost -to- benefit analysis of the transportation
impacts and said, they don't owe us for anything more. As a matter of
fact, we're going to get more money than they're going to pay over
time with that.
The only benefit I saw in this was that someone else was going to
recommend a better way to build the mousetrap, and that's the only
benefit I saw to the $16,000. And we can do that, certainly, with staff
over the next couple years is to work with ourselves and maybe Cutter
or some of the research university firms, come up with a better cost to
benefit or fiscal impact analysis, because what we have right now,
quite frankly, sir, is problematic, the FIAM, as it sits right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the FIAM has been used in
numerous counties throughout Florida for the same purpose, and they
seem to be happy with it. I'm not saying it's perfect; I'm not saying
that if somebody's looking for something wrong they can't find it. But
the point is, I want to make sure that the staff is comfortable with the
fact that there is no net cost to the taxpayers as a result of this
development.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm comfortable they don't owe us any
money for the roads over time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then my motion is let's accept
the FIAM report and move on and see if we can't find a better way of
monitoring this process for the next reporting period, okay.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller.
99-_ M
June 12, 20.12
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I respond?
No pun intended; this is highway robbery. The audit done by the
clerk clearly showed that there were altered formulas and sales, that
incorrect assumptions were used. And when just minor modifications
to what was input in the model were made, it showed that the
developer owed millions.
So, quite frankly -- and the question was how much did the
developer owe the county. And the reason that couldn't be determined
is because the developer wasn't giving the clerk all the information
necessary in order to be able to run the model to determine what that
deficiency was.
So the statement that you just made, Commissioner Coyle, is
wrong, and the taxpayers of Collier County are being hosed. And the
model does need to be run and needs to be run correctly with the
correct assumption.
And the bottom line is the DCA makes it very clear that that
road, you know, is a function of the impact fees and the other
contributions by that developer. There are several agreements.
There's the interlocal agreement as well as that -- what's known as the
DCA, that developer contribution agreement.
At this point in time there should have been about 6,000 homes
built, and there's only 400. And, clearly, the impact fees from the
unbuilt homes is what's owing the county and is, in part, the
deficiency.
So -- and not to mention, you know, you've stripped surrounding
impact -fee districts of their impact fees to fund the construction of Oil
Well Road. Those districts should get their money back so they can
make the improvements that those developers in those districts have
affected the infrastructure in those districts by.
So I'm actually very disappointed to hear what I'm hearing today,
and there's no way I can support what you're saying or your motion,
Commissioner Coyle.
Page 149
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you've only taken one side of the
argument. You, apparently, closed your mind to the response to the
clerk by the economist who designed the FIAM. He addressed all of
those issues and showed the numerous errors in the clerk's
assumptions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- well, of course you do, but that is
the truth. And you can review the tape if you wish.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know if the public
got hosed yet or not. If we don't move forward with it, that question is
always going to be out there.
Remember, the delays and delays and delays of Golden Gate
Boulevard is because we don't have the funds coming in, and all the
funds coming in is going to Oil Well Road, and that's what's in the
public's mind. So if we don't resolve this, some of the public is
thinking they're getting hosed, and their funds are going to Oil Well
Road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I think, and I'd like
to see proof to the contrary by numbers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- okay. The -- are you going to
take a position on this? Are you going to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, the FIAM is not -- a FIAM
analysis isn't going to show where the money goes to, which road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the last AUIR --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know that. You'd mentioned Golden
Gate Boulevard was delayed because of money being put on that. Jeff
and I had this discussion -- I'm going back to when I started here.
When this agreement was brought to the board and approved, we said
this could be the only road we out build there. As a commitment, they
Page 150
June 12, 2012
build the town; we build the road. It's always been that deal.
The first time the developer was -- last AUIR said, we understand
we slowed down. Without doing a deal amendment, we'll allow what
you're showing, the construction of Golden Gate Boulevard at the
intersection of Wilson, to proceed in your five -year capital program
outside of this agreement. And they just said, we just want to pose
that. And that was a discussion we had at the AUIR.
So Golden Gate Boulevard is back online, that intersection, and a
little bit to the east.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not the whole thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not the whole thing, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember pushing it out
further and further.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I'm talking about.
That's what some of the citizens are -- is in the back of their mind that,
you know, they're being put in the -- on the back burner because of Oil
Well Road.
An independent review of it would show whether Ave Maria is
paying their fair share or not, and that question will always be out
there until we resolve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the point is that the independent
review will not show that legally, because we said, you've got to use
the FIAM. That's our contract with them, okay. You can't then say,
I'm going to use some other method and I'm going to assess you a
penalty and you're legally obligated to pay me. What do you think
they're going to say? They're going to say, oh, no. We gave you the
FIAM. FIAM shows that it's neutral or better. You don't have a legal
basis for enforcing this so- called new accounting review from this
company.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mike Bosi said that is
reviewing the FIAM model.
Page 151
June 12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The numbers.
MR. BOSI: This proposal is only to review the FIAM that was
submitted by the SRA application in 2010.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what you just finished telling
us 15 minutes ago. You said it's a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said on the contrary, it's not
using the model.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So, you know, that's what I've
been trying to get you to do now for the whole time is to get
somebody who would give us a second opinion on the FIAM model
and, apparently, the RFP didn't even require that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, under the description of work --
I'm going to read it out of the RFP. It says, the county is interested in
receiving bid response and contract with a firm for the performance of
a cost -to- benefit analysis of the Ave Maria five -year fiscal analysis
report and provide best practice for the future financial reports by the
rural land stewardship overlay.
In other words, in the FIAM the model that's there they provided
data, inputs. Review those inputs and provide a cost -to- benefit to see
if they owe us money.
Now, as done by the clerk's review of the FIAM, as well as us,
it's a model. And I keep stressing this over and over and over again.
There's variables in that model. So if I give that to the consultant to
run the model again, we're going to be arguing about those variables
again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My point exactly. Let's get over
it, okay? You've got a problem with what it is that you want to have
reviewed.
If you don't have confidence in the FIAM, let's go find something
better than that for the next review, but you can't change a contractual
commitment with somebody in midstream and allege that they owe
you money.
Page 152
June 12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir. And what Mike -- I had
Mike read the meeting minutes, and that was a challenge. Several
times he came to me with this executive summary and the proposal.
And I said, Mike, we've got to be consistent with what the meeting
minutes were, I said, because it's going to come up again.
And at that time it talked about a cost -to- benefit analysis using
the information within the FIAM. So now I go to the detailed scope of
work, and it says, review and provide independent cost -to- benefit
analysis of the Ave Maria SRA at the project's five -year anniversary
of approval, June 2010, utilizing the numbers provided for in the Ave
Maria stewardship receiving area Fiscal Impact Analysis Model,
five -year review.
So that's what I'm stuck with, sir, and I understand where you're
going with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The clerk did that.
MR. OCHS: Well, yes, sir. And that's why we made sure that
we were not introducing a new model into this contract, because the
commission is right that we're required under the LDC to use the
FIAM.
What we were directed to do was to try to do some third -party
cost -to- benefit analysis of the data that went into that FIAM. We're
not sure we'll get anything new, frankly, but we're trying to respond to
the direction from the board without getting outside of the
requirements of your LDC to use the FIAM as the model.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're asking somebody to do it
who, apparently, has no experience at using the FIAM before.
MR. OCHS: Well, we said they have competency within the
field of fiscal analysis as well as fiscal modeling. Now, I don't know
if they've used FIAM, but they've used financial models before.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that doesn't qualify you for any
specific fiscal model.
Page 153
June 12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What would happen -- I don't think
there's any way they're going to come up negative because, again, they
don't -- the agreement that we structured many years ago provides that
they build the town, they pay their impact fees, we build the road. So
to qualify that they own the whole road is -- we've discussed before.
The west -hand portion of the road is almost fully for the benefit
of Orangetree with a partial pass - through to Ave Maria, and then the
eastern portion has more trips to Ave Maria. And as the road network
develops, it will become less as you go forward.
So they're only proportionally responsible for that road, and that's
that analysis we provided last time. And I should have spent more
time on that, because I think if I had, it would have cleaned up a lot of
the misconceptions of Oil Well Road.
That said --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're not going to clarify anything
about that because there is a reason why people are saying that there's
a problem with paying for Oil Well Road. It is a political issue, and
they'll keep telling people that until after the election, okay. So there's
a reason that people are saying that. And they just keep saying it. But
anyway, who -- the whole board is left. Who wants to speak now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been on for a while. I have
no idea who's first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Well, you haven't spoken in a
while. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, I haven't. I don't
speak enough, and I should speak more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're absolutely correct.
Nick, thank you very much for so elegantly bringing up the fact
that we're talking about an issue that we're trying to make the forefront
for a political campaign that has no basis in fact. Tell me, Nick, when
we build the road to Immokalee, the four -lane road that's going to
Page 154
June 12, 2012
connect to Immokalee Road, what's it going to be, Immokalee Road or
is it going to be Oil Well /Camp Keais Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's Oil Well. It's in our long -range
plan as that Randall bend into Immokalee -- Oil Well Road, and then
going up into Camp Keais up into Immokalee. That's what's on our
long -range plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the long -range plan, and
that's what it's all about. So when you factor this out as to the value --
so far today what I've heard is the people in Immokalee are incapable
of any kind of decision as far as what comes before them for land
uses. I've heard that they're not worth the value for -- to be able to
spend the money to be able to bring around their wishes and dreams,
and now I'm hearing the fact that they call this the road to nowhere is
because it goes to Immokalee.
I have had the people and the residents of Immokalee insulted all
day long here, and I'm really getting to the point I'm resenting it. So
let's get down to brass tacks so when it does come up, I'm going to
bring it up every single time.
This road was planned way before Ave Maria.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everything's been on the books.
There's been a lot of planning. It couldn't go Oil -- Immokalee Road
to connect to Immokalee because of the Corkscrew Sanctuary. We've
been told by Department of Transportation, state Department of
Transportation that Corkscrew would stop us if we ever tried to put a
four -lane road into Immokalee that way, so we went the least
obtrusive way that also tied in Ave Maria, which offered tremendous
employment opportunities with Arthrex going there, which wouldn't
have gone there if there wasn't going to be a four -lane road. So, I
mean, we're playing with numbers here.
Now, also, Nick, isn't it also true, I mean, we just ran out of
money when it came to Golden Gate, the boulevard. It's been a
Page 155
June 12, 2012
passion of mine for a long time, and I was one of the people holding
signs up there years ago when it was two -lane back from 951 going to
Wilson saying, we've got to four -lane this road now, and that thing did
open up when we became commissioners, and we did push it, and we
pushed it many different directions to get it done. We did have it on
the books, we were ready to go, and then we just plain ran out of
money.
So the reason we went to Oil Well Road is because of the fact
that, one, the land was donated, we got money up front from the
Collier Company there for impact fees, and we also got a special grant
from the state, if I remember correctly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Six million dollars, sir, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, $6 million that could only
be applied on that particular road. So, I mean, we're getting all these
comparisables (sic). And what my competitor is trying to do, through
at least one commissioner here, is trying to convince the residents of
Golden Gate Estates that they got hosed. Inappropriate term. A
person that can't even run her own district is trying to run my district,
and I'm really getting to the point that I'm being pushed on it. I'm
getting tired of being polite about it.
Call it for what it is. It's nothing more than a political ploy to try
to discredit all the work that this commission has done over the years
and how we got there. And every time this comes up we're going to
go through all the facts again till that point in time there's no more
issue. Because, like Commissioner Coyle said, after August 14th, this
will no longer be an issue, like a couple of others of them out there.
But the public needs to know the only hosing you're getting is
from that end of the dais. And if you trust this lady to be able to get
you where you need to go, you're going to find yourself shortchanged,
just like a lot of her friends have found. If you don't believe me, ask
Reinhold Schmieding from Arthrex and ask some of the other people
that considered her a close ally.
Page 156
June 12, 2012
Now that we've got that out of our system, why don't we take a
break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We're going to take a 10
minute break. Our court reporter is looking fatigued.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have the floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Yes, I just had two
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get off the floor and get into your seat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're too early, George. Sit
down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking about the next
review. You mentioned that a couple times. When is the next review?
MR. BOSI: The LDC requires that every five years, until it's 90
percent built out, that every SRA submit a fiscal analysis. So it would
be 2015.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three more years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that the FIAM was in this
contract, is it in all of the contracts?
MR. BOSI: The FIAM is expressed within the Land
Development Code as the official modeling tool approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. We would have to modify the Land
Development Code if we found an alternative that was acceptable to
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's in the LDC.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we can't do that if there's -- can
Page 157
June 12, 2012
we add to it if there's a better way to -- I mean, not that this is wrong
or anything, but if they feel that there's a better way or if there's two
versions that would -- you know, one verify the other or something, is
there a way to do that?
MR. BOSI: It's -- the way that the LDC is currently written, it
says the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model approved by the Board of
County Commissioners or another deemed acceptable. The one thing
I will say is I believe that the original constructs of the LDC language
was a little bit off, and that's one of the reasons I was hoping for the
best management practices is I'm not sure why it was suggested to use
a modeling tool to do a fiscal analysis of the expenditures and the
revenues of a project.
To me that is more of a straightforward accounting process and
not in need of modeling, but the LDC is what the LDC is, and what we
have to deal with, and that is the utilization of the FIRM.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But when that was created, it was
probably a different time, a different place. So possibly we could get
in there and -- I mean, as long as we have time, and adjust that
because whatever works for all -- any SRAs that would have to do the
analysis on, we probably ought to try and get it right.
So maybe -- I'm not asking you to do that now. I'm just saying
maybe we should consider something like that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I fully intend --
seeing the issues we have with the FIAM, before 2015 comes around,
I'll be back in front of this board with staff with some
recommendations. I -- you know, we're going to reach out to some of
the universities and make sure that we're independent, Cutter, and say,
look, you know, we can't be the only community in Florida or the
country that wants to look at the fiscal neutrality of a large project.
So give us something simple, something that's accurate,
something that's predictable with the word "model" out of it. We'll be
back before 2015 to do that, whatever action you take today.
Page 158
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just so that it's fair. It's all we want
to know is whatever is fair. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to respond to
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I should hope so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can do so very simply. I have one
thing to say. Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when the water runs out of the
bathtub, we'll see who's been swimming naked.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We won't want to see that. Keep it full.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't support the motion. I
think that Barron Collier deserves clearance. This is always going to
be hanging over the community that a big developer got favoritism.
And, you know, I think Barron Collier Company does a good job, and
this leaves a lot of question in a lot of people's mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with you, Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll call the question. All in favor
of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Before you do,
restate the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was to accept the FIAM
report and the staff s position that there was fiscal neutrality and go on
to the next review period by refining our method of determining
financial neutrality.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the option to that would be
if we wanted to do a comeback?
Page 159
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you mean a comeback? You
can spend $15,000 for a company that, apparently, has never had any
experience with the FIAM --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and have them come tell us something,
which will -- no doubt, I'll promise you, will result in more
controversy, and we'll be at 2015 before we resolve this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think in the motion you need
to state to reject this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of your motion is that you
want to reject this item, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess we could. Do you want to do
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be a little easier to
understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then I would -- I make a
motion that we reject the staff s recommendation to award this
contract to Munilytics.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA- Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3 -2 with Commissioners
Hiller and Henning dissenting.
Now I'll make another motion that we accept the FIAM analysis
submitted by the Barron Collier Company and instruct the staff to
Page 160
June 12, 2012
refine the method of fiscal accounting for neutrality in time for our
next reporting period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you want to put an item
on the agenda so the public can participate --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in this? Well, that item was
on our agenda a long time ago. The FIAM was on our agenda to
accept it. Now you want to approve it without there even being an
agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the heck with the public and
public input.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, just the heck with your
opinion. So that's all I'm saying.
So all in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is always going to continue
until we change the chairmanship.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's all right with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it is, and I think we can
do better to the public by being a little bit more civil.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think we can, too.
So all in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me understand the motion
one more time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is that we accept the FIAM,
we not continue to go out for bids to find somebody to give us another
opinion on the FIAM. We've already debated that, and we -- and in
my opinion we have found -- we have not found any organizations
who, in my opinion, have the experience to do the job of reviewing the
FIAM, okay.
Now, having exhausted our opportunities to take a more effective
look at the FIAM, I am suggesting we accept the staff s determination
Page 161
June 12, 2012
of fiscal neutrality -- they have been firm on that from the very
beginning -- and accept that FIAM and instruct the staff to proceed to
refine the financial accounting process for the next reporting period so
that it will be ready in time for the report for 2015.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I was
questioning too. Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that is the motion, and it was
seconded by Commissioner -- well, Commissioner Fiala (sic)
seconded the first time around.
So all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Who seconded the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you really?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll take credit for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll let him take credit for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let the record be corrected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 3 -2 with Commissioners Hiller
and Henning dissenting.
Okay. Let's go to the next item.
Item #111
Page 162
June 12, 2012
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE WATER SYSTEM
AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT AND TO APPROVE
ADJUSTMENTS TO SPECIFIC WATER/SEWER ACCOUNTS TO
CORRECT PREVIOUSLY BILLED WATER/SEWER CHARGES
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item is 111. It was previously 16C4. It's a
recommendation to accept the water system audit progress report and
to approve adjustments to specific water /sewer accounts to correct
previously billed water /sewer charges.
Dr. Yilmaz will present.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, our county manager. For the record
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This was pulled by Commissioner Hiller.
Do you want a full presentation, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think it's essential.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, for the record, George Yilmaz, Public
Utilities Administrator. I have very short briefing in lieu of
presentation just to focus on some highlights, sir, in being sensitive to
the time.
Moving along, today I'm very pleased to inform you that we
initiated and reached substantial completion of the proactive plan for
water meters that started in August of 2011 and will continue with
next 10 -year cycle as a continuous process so that the lessons learned,
which was part of your package, has been incorporated as part of our
enhanced process improvement and moving forward knowing our
infrastructure better than we have done before.
As presented in your executive summary, Part A, which is on
your Page 1672, I'm also pleased to report to you that we have
completed. Part A portion of the audit at 99.4 percent of 53,409
meters in the ground field verified. Part B has been completed at 67.5
Page 163
June 12, 2012
percent of the meters, which is 10 percent stochastically randomly
selected by our independent engineering firm, all been tested and in
the process of completion, as indicated on Page 1673.
This report, part of your executive summary, was dated May 17.
And as of today, I'm pleased to report to you that the execution rate is
80 percent.
Part B 1 has been completed at 99.4 percent, and the meters under
B 1, all 1,698 meters as indicated on Page 1674, has been completed at
the rate that I just mentioned.
All completed, everything I have indicated above, less 10 months
under independent engineering firm's oversight, as well as our county
attorney's direct involvement and assistance, and special legal counsel,
their assessment, involvement, and assistance in the process so that
we're moving forward, not only from an engineering standpoint but
from a legal standpoint as well as engineering business practices
standpoint, as good as we can.
Therefore, our recommendations are that the -- without repeating
what is in the executive summary, well written, all recommendations
we have listed in your executive summary, A through C, we are
requesting that you approve those recommended action items.
Furthermore, we are requesting authorization for staff to make budget
amendments as needed, where needed, as moving forward so that we
don't have to come back to you for budget amendments due to the fact
that we have the full disclosure today in terms of financial impact and
dollar amounts.
With that, I'm ready for any questions and answers you might
have. And thank you very much for the opportunity.
And one more point I want to make. Our chief executive officer,
our county manager, has been -- has been very direct in terms of his
general guidance and has been very generous in terms of general
authority and general guidance and discretion he has given me that,
with freedom of mind, we were able to put all our brain power
Page 164
June 12, 2012
together.
In our opinion, we came up with something that is exemplary not
only in the State of Florida, but in the nation moving forward. We'll
be an example and benchmark, how to go after our meter accuracies
and have a plan in place proactively so that we don't end up with
where we are today.
With that, Commissioners and my county manager, we're ready
for Q and A's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have a concern. I mean,
what happened was, that during the course of your audit you
determined that there were defective meters. And I understand that
you're currently working on finding an outside product liability, is that
correct, attorney to represent you with respect to the defective meters?
And that as a consequence of these defective meters, there were
overcharges and undercharges with the net obligation of the county
now to the taxpayers of Collier County of somewhere in the
neighborhood of $2 million or just under $2 million.
Can you explain that?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. We are, in the process, under
special legal counsel as well as our deputy county attorney's direction,
going through discovery, not only internal /external documents, and we
are getting close to 75 percent.
And once we have all the data, facts, and findings, we're looking
at no more than 90 days time frame for us to be able to get our hands
around; that includes interviewing in -house team members and maybe
bringing vendor and third parties, work with vendor, also into
discovery and fact finding -- fact finding malt (sic), and that process is
going to take at least 90 more days.
Once we have all the facts, ma'am, you're right, it is on the table,
not off the table, that we will go after third -party liabilities where they
are found to be solid for us to move forward for potential litigation.
Page 165
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the over billings --
you had told me there were overbillings as well as under billings.
What's the total overbillings and what's the under billings to give us
the net of $2 million, or the 1 million nine?
MR. YILMAZ: We're looking at --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that 1.9 million is just the
net obligation; isn't that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. The number you have in your
executive summary is that credit and all reimbursements due to our
customers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the actual reimbursement?
MR. YILMAZ: And /or credit to our customers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the 1.9 is for the
overbilling?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much did you under bill?
MR. YILMAZ: So far the data we have indicates that the -- we
have about $1.3 million related to potential liability for under billing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now we're looking at about 3.3
million in revenues that, but for this product defect, we would not see?
MR. YILMAZ: Going through discovery process, the number
might grow, depending on the time and investment we have made and
recovery and revenue lost and rate studies. It is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this -- go ahead.
MR. YILMAZ: If I might, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. YILMAZ: It is multidimensional, and that we're going after
every single avenue to make sure that first we collect the data, we
collect the facts, we collect all the internal information under special
guidance and county attorney's direction so that there is no
prediscovery. Like I said, within 90 days we will have very good
understanding, if not earlier, what we're going after.
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the statute of limitations is
how far, three years back for us, four years back?
MR. OCHS: Four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the billings that you're repaying
to customers that have been overbilled is going four years back, and
any other customer that was overbilled prior to that will not be able to
recover.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't know that they were overbilled.
One of the issues, ma'am, is that you may have had a meter that,
initially, was very accurate, but over a period of time deteriorated. It's
just an assumption that they've been inaccurate for four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So that calculation 1.9
million, is that a hard number? I mean, is that based on a review of
the billings related to specific meters, or is it potential that the liability
owed to customers is substantially more?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, it's limited --
MR. YILMAZ: I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. It's limited to those 438 meters, all
two -inch meters that were reading inaccurately, both over reading and
under reading. Four hundred thirty -eight --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's one vendor?
MR. OCHS: One or two vendors, I'm not sure. But I believe it's
primarily one. There may be a second vendor as well, and those
meters have been in the ground somewhere between three to 10 years,
roughly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how did you identify that
those meters specifically were defective as compared to the other
meters? What was the problem?
MR. OCHS: They actually went out in the field and field tested
every single 2 inch meter that we have in your water /sewer district,
because when we did the initial random sample, we found that the
2 -inch meters were a problem where the other categories of meter
Page 167
June 12, 2012
readings for three quarter, one inch, inch - and -a -half, were primarily
all within the tolerance.
So it's isolated to those 436 (sic) 2 -inch meters that we found in
the field that were defective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. But you don't have -- you
don't really have a hard number at this point?
MR. YILMAZ: If I might, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yeah. Go ahead, George.
MR. YILMAZ: Ma'am, as far as executive summary goes, the
numbers we have provided you in executive summary under Part B 1,
Part A, as well as Part B itself, those numbers are account specific,
and those are the numbers that we think we need to credit and /or
reimburse our customer base.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maximum liability.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What will be the cost to replace
these defective meters or repair these meters?
MR. YILMAZ: We are in the process of replacing 2 inch meters,
and we're over 60 percent in terms of replacing those meters, even
though approximately over 25 percent show inaccuracies; however,
when you have statistically significant -- given the stochastic
assessment and brack (sic) analysis, we have decided to go and change
all 2 inch meters for us to have confidence in our infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much will that cost?
MR. YILMAZ: They vary depending on the -- depending on the
vendor moving forward, but we will provide you with the actual
numbers as we have. That's also part of, as I indicated,
multidimensional discovery process, and a decision was made by me
to replace all 2 inch meters given the data I have. We just cannot wait
longer for them to fail further.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you going back to the vendor
who provided you these defective meters and having him replace
June 12, 2012
them?
MR. YILMAZ: That's part of our discovery process in
coordination with our special legal counsel, engineering firm, as well
as our County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when will you come back to us
with a total cost of replacing these meters?
MR. YILMAZ: We're targeting for 90 days, if not earlier.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you so much.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Item # 14A 1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AWARD BID NO. 12 -5822 USDA
IMMOKALEE BUILDING BUILD OUT IN THE AMOUNT OF
TWO HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND NINETY -NINE
DOLLARS ($296,099) TO ONE SOURCE CONSTRUCTION
Page 169
June 12, 2012
COMPANY & BUILDERS, INC., PENDING USDA APPROVAL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS : Commissioners, that takes you to Item 14 on your
agenda. 14A 1 was previously 16G 1. It is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners, acting in its official capacity as the
airport authority, award Bid No. 12 -5822, USDA Immokalee building
build out in the amount of $296,099, to One Source Construction
Company and Builders Incorporated pending USDA approval.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm concerned about
moving forward on tenant improvements. I know this board approved
the lease with Mr. Salazar, and I see that he's in the audience, so
maybe he'd like to come up and answer a few questions I have in order
for me to feel comfortable about what's being proposed here.
Thank you so much. Mr. Salazar, one of the requirements of this
grant is that you employ 25 people to work from your business at that
site. How many employees do you currently have?
MR. SALAZAR: One of the requirements is --
MR. CURRY: Where's that requirement, Commissioner Hiller?
MR. SALAZAR: Yeah, where's that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's my understanding.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director of the airport
authority.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are there any requirements with
respect to employment?
MR. CURRY: There is requirements based on the Rural
Business Enterprise Grant, and it says that the private business must
have less than 1 million in revenues and fewer than 50 employees.
That's the requirement.
Page 170
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was my understanding that there
was a requirement to have a minimum number of employees, that we
would not be able to do this -- if he, for example, had two employees,
we couldn't be making you, you know, an investment of this size in
that business.
Jeff, can you verify that and get the information back to me as to
what the employment requirements are, if any, for this grant?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to -- not to be facetious, ma'am,
if you want to continue this item, I could.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, then I'd like to make a
motion to continue this, because I think it's very important. The last
thing I would like to see, Mr. Salazar, is that there is some requirement
that you have a problem meeting and that we go through and make all
these tenant improvements specific to you and then it turns out that,
you know, you're unable to, you know, be the tenant in that building
because of, you know, these grant obligations, and it wouldn't be fair
to you.
So, you know, it's not to say no. It's to say, let's be prudent and
find out really what the -- how many employees do you have at this
time?
MR. SALAZAR: We have, like, 14.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fourteen. And that's out at your
facility in LaBelle?
MR. SALAZAR: Yes, combined.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And are you going to be moving
all your employees from LaBelle here, or what are you going to do?
MR. SALAZAR: You know, what I see so far, in my experience
with Collier County, it's very discouraging to me as a business owner.
I -- it's unbelievable what I see here happening, and it's -- my wife
always tells me, just keep cool, just focus. But you know what, as a
businessman, it's like a circus. Very disappointing. I mean, I started
out with nothing --
Page 171
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. SALAZAR: -- working out of a truck. It's been -- and I
have been very successful in what I do, to the point that I had to go to
Hendry County and get a 20,000- square -foot facility there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I remember. In fact, I remember
talking to you at the chamber --
MR. SALAZAR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when you were looking for
property.
MR. SALAZAR: Well, yes. I had to do something because
Collier County was not there for me, okay. I try -- I try to work, I try
to make things -- you know, try to work with the county and try to
stay in Immokalee. Immokalee is -- has been good to us. I was raised
in Immokalee, raised my kids in Immokalee, I had my business in
Immokalee, but I feel like I'm being pushed out, and I resent that. I --
if it's not one thing, it's another, and it's very -- I'm very disappointed.
I guess the last time that I was here there was an issue as, can I
afford rent. You know, let's look at his -- you know, is he able to
afford to pay the rent? I'm like, seriously? And now it's like, I have to
employ 25 people?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, these are requirements of the
MR. SALAZAR: I mean, I just -- I don't know where it's coming
from.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the requirement of the grant.
MR. SALAZAR: I need to see it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the financial requirements
are grant requirements.
MR. SALAZAR: No, but the employees? I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had heard that, and that's why I
wanted to have the county attorney verify.
MR. CURRY: That's the problem.
Page 172
June 12, 2012
MR. SALAZAR: That's the problem, that's the problem, people
is, "I heard that," "somebody said this," or -- you know, come on. Get
your facts together, get them right, and whatever it is, let's move on.
I'm exhausted with you guys, I am; I really am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I --
MR. SALAZAR: It's very, very disappointing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- think Collier County has been
very generous to you. They basically built -- how much is the value
of the building, a million dollars?
MR. SALAZAR: First of all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it a million dollars?
MR. SALAZAR: I don't know what it is. But first of all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it a million- dollar building?
And now they're -- and they actually were going to -- they were going
to require you to make the tenant improvements, and they've gone out
of the way, Chris went out of the way to get this grant to make tenant
improvements for you. So you're getting more than most private
businesses, which is very positive.
MR. SALAZAR: Oh, my goodness. This is really -- I'm getting
more --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Point of order. This is
ridiculous.
MR. SALAZAR: I can't take this anymore.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't either.
MR. SALAZAR: This is just border -- I mean, this is borderline
ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's where the term "job killer Hiller"
came from, you know.
MR. SALAZAR: I don't know this lady personally. I really
don't, I mean, and I respect her. She's a commissioner of Collier
County. I mean, I respect you, you know. But, you -- I'm being put in
Page 173
June 12, 2012
a corner, and I -- and when I'm put in a corner, I come out fighting.
I'm trying to work, trying to be -- trying to continue growing my
business in Immokalee, but you guys are really --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. SALAZAR: -- putting me in a bad spot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second, okay.
We have a motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve, second
by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And an apology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is the public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Courtright.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I waive based upon Mr. Salazar's position,
and I apologize to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just don't know how much of this we
really need to get into. But this isn't about you, Mr. Salazar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Honestly, it is not about you. It's about
keeping anything from happening in Immokalee or the Immokalee
airport for political reasons. That's all -- that's what it's all about.
MR. SALAZAR: That's sad.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I apologize that you're being treated
this way. We welcome you in Immokalee. We want you in that
building as quickly as we can possibly get you there, and we'll do
whatever is reasonable and fair to accomplish that.
You have to endure the abuse, unfortunately, because that's just
the way some people handle these kinds of things. But nevertheless, I
hope you will have a majority support of this board when all this
Page 174
June 12, 2012
rhetoric is finished.
Commissioner Henning, you were second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Curry did -- at the December meeting stated that there will
be interior improvements, and those improvements are estimated costs
of $340,000 that was going to be done by the airport or a part of this
grant.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Now, Mr. Salazar said
he's going to do, you know, approximately $200,000 of additional
improvements on top of that. And I think you indicated that you need
-- you needed more office space, you needed more storage. And you're
still going to do that?
MR. SALAZAR: Yes. I mean, I believe in planning and -- for
the future growth of my business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. SALAZAR: And I have -- I mean, there's -- I mean, it's like
-- I'll -- I need to do whatever I need to do to, you know, to have a -- to
do the things that I need to do as a businessman. It's business, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. SALAZAR: Are you asking me something, are you making
a statement, or what is it that you're --
COMMISSIONER HENNING- I'm making a statement. Now
I'm getting to my questions. I wanted to clarify that on the record that
that was the whole intent; this grant was a certain amount of money;
the building was built; there was money left over.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was stated that we're
going to do interior improvements. And it also was stated -- and
maybe that's where the confusion of the interior improvements are
going to be, that you're going to do 200,000 -- we were just going to
build a shell, and you're going do 200 -, but that isn't what it says.
Page 175
June 12, 2012
But what -- there are some things, and I guess there was some
discussion at the airport authority that I just want to clarify what we're
doing with the -- with this contract. Okay.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The signs. What -- we have
panel signs we're doing?
MR. CURRY: No. These are monument type signs that, of
course, has the electrical that runs to it, and it also allows the addition
of, perhaps, five other businesses to be added to that sign. We have
maintained all along --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sign will be on the outside
of the airport?
MR. CURRY: It's going to be on the outside. It's going to be on
the north or the south side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CURRY: We have maintained all along that the
improvements that we're paying for as the county is good for the
authority in general and for anybody to use the building.
Mr. Salazar's improvements are strictly those for his personal
benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For his business?
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now, it also said about
removing concrete. Is this a part of the building that we just built, that
we needed to remove concrete?
MR. CURRY: Which bid alternate are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's two -- there's two tabs,
and I think that was in Section 104.25. And you know what, I'm not
going to go through it. Are we removing anything that we just built to
accommodate anybody?
MR. CURRY: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My last question. You're
Page 176
June 12, 2012
going to put sprinkler systems in there, and that makes sense. The
building needs to have a sprinkler system. But you're going to have
fire extinguishers on top of that? I mean, I would think that would be
-- I mean, it's a very small item, but those things can walk away. Are
you having fire extinguishers installed also?
MR. CURRY: I'm not exactly sure about fire extinguishers. I
didn't necessarily look at that particular item. The Immokalee airport
manager was more closely related to the project. But that was such a
minute part of this whole project that I didn't pay specific attention to
a fire extinguisher.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your understanding of
what we're going to be doing on the interior?
MR. CURRY: Well, we're basically going to install bathrooms,
we're installing some flooring in an office space that's near the south
side, we're enhancing the light system that's better used for business,
and there's some other smaller items that's located under the bid tabs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The fire extinguishers
just a small item. I just would think that we'd install the sprinkler
system and let the tenants worry about fire extinguishers, because then
they have to be maintained. But it's not really worth talking about
again.
MR. CURRY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE- Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not even sure why you're
standing up there.
MR. SALAZAR: I don't know why I'm here. I'm supposed to be
working.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would rather you be working,
too. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason for you to be here.
This is a -- it's a nonissue, and I apologize for the fact some people
created an issue out of it.
And I know what you're going through with some of the elements
Page 177
June 12, 2012
within Immokalee, and I feel sorry for you. It's the same elements that
drove my son -in -law, who was at the Immokalee airport, out of the
airport and a business that he was ready to create there in the way of a
flight school, is no longer ever going to be there, he'll never come
back to Immokalee airport because of the way he was treated, not by
the management, by a couple of the people within town and a couple
of the tenants.
And, I mean, it's unconscionable that people will do that to their
neighbors. And they're trying to drive everything down to make it
unworkable, to make it ineffective, and then they're going to be able to
come back and say, see the problem that this commission, especially
Commissioner Coletta, created?
Sir, I'm there for you all the way, and I always will be. Thank
you for being here today, and accept my personal apologies for what
you have to tolerate. And I hope you extend this personal apology to
me for what I have to tolerate, too.
But in any case, thanks for being here. And as far as I'm
concerned, you can go sit down, and there's no reason for you to have
to be called back up again to be interrogated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not yet, not yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet. Commissioner Fiala wanted to
speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more little thing. I
remember when you first started your business, and didn't you get,
like, some award because you were, like, growing new business in
Collier County?
MR. SALAZAR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness. I thought that
was so cool, and you had that great smile on your face, and then we
watched your business grow.
MR. SALAZAR: Yes.
Page 178
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we watched your new
inventions, and then we got to see more awards coming up. And, you
know, I felt like we had a part of it because we were -- we were there
to see it all.
MR. SALAZAR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so -- and I wanted to say that
this building will stay, but I think it was already pretty well said. The
building is going to stay within the airport property, and it will be on
-- as Mr. Salazar grows again and again, and he'll have to move out of
there, then maybe it can be used for someone else. So the money is
well placed.
And not only that, but you'll get some good rent, too, and that's a
wonderful thing. It will all help to support that airport and help it to
grow.
And, again, it's good to have you here. I heard you're working on
a new invention. I won't say what it is.
MR. SALAZAR: Yes, that's okay. If you guys will allow me,
last week there was an article in the Naples Daily News in the
business section. It talked about the shortage of labor. And about
three years ago, just about when we got that building in Hendry
County, I really felt very strongly in working on this system, so I
sacrificed pretty much my past three years, my wife and I, in putting
the system together.
And we just -- we tested it. We tested the system a couple
months ago, and it worked very well. I was very impressed. And it --
again, I saw the need that was going to come in the future, and that
was the shortage of labor.
And what this system that we developed was, it enhances the
labor where you're able to harvest more of your product with less
people because we're -- you know, we need to do something about
that. So we came up with a design, and it worked very well, and we're
very excited about it. And that's why this building plays a role in our
Page 179
June 12, 2012
future growth in what we want to do for -- in our hometown.
I mean, that's all I want. I just want to -- just give me a place to
work so that we can continue manufacturing and do the things that we
want to do for -- to help our community and our county and our state
and our country.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last note.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that we commissioners really
need to start working toward creating a more business - friendly
atmosphere that will welcome businesses and really give them special
attention and treatment to encourage them to come here, to stay here,
to make the processes easier.
I know Nick is working pretty hard over there trying to create a --
you know, a more streamlined process, and I think most all of our staff
members are working along that same line, and we just need to work
at it from the top as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last note.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Mr. Courtright would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's not going to waive after all, huh.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I had turned in two, but we ended up
addressing, and I didn't get a chance to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE- Hold on just a minute.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I took the time to drive out
to LaBelle and see the prototype. And, believe me, it was extremely
impressive back then when you were building it.
I don't know when you're ready to go public with it, but when
you do, I'd like to have you come here and make a presentation to the
commission and the world --
MR. SALAZAR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- about what it is, and we'll put
�M �
June 12, 2012
up some pictures on the screen. And if you need somebody to drive it
for demonstration purposes, I'm more than happy to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He'll break it. Don't do it.
MR. SALAZAR: I'll give all you guys a ride on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Courtright.
MR. SALAZAR: Thank you.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Marvin Courtright, resident of Collier
County. We won't go beyond that, okay.
Chris, I want to apologize to you; this is twice today. I made a
comment to you quite some time ago when you were hired that you
were sure stepping into a bucket of worms, and I think you would
agree with me that it has been a bucket of worms.
And a simple little thing like today -- the subject of the signs.
I've been on the airport now for many, many years, and I experienced
a very uncomfortable situation just wanting to put a sign up. I went to
Theresa Cook, asked her what I had to do, and she said, well, make
sure the sign meets the code.
I made the sign. I had a company in Naples build the sign; two
thousand later, I've got signs. One to go out at the entrance to the
airport. Fit right in that little niche very nice. I had another one that I
wanted to put over where Mr. Hester has his drag strip sign, a four by
eight, or whatever the dimensions were. I was refused permission to
put it over there.
Ultimately, the bottom line is, you need to figure out a sign
program that benefits all of the operators on the airport because, if you
notice, there's not one sign on any business at the Immokalee airport
that either has been permitted or authorized or identifies any of our
businesses. And there's like -- well, there's at least seven of us
survived still. Some of us have been run off.
But I would like to make that recommendation that perhaps Mr.
Curry -- I'm sorry, Chris, look into what we have to do as business
owners to utilize that beautiful entranceway, whatever you call it, a
Page 181
June 12, 2012
holder for a sign, and let us all get in on this.
We're going to build a nice sign for Mr. Salazar. Let's build one
for all the other businesses on the airport or share his, have it to where
we can all put our signs in there. That's one subject. That's one
subject.
The other one was the -- well, I probably shouldn't even go there.
Yes, I am, the subject of fire extinguishers. And, again, Mr. Coyle,
you have commented a few times about when I wanted to put in the
museum, and you said, it sounds to me like you're just forming a
flying club or wanting to have a flying club.
Well, I've taken your advice. I filed the papers. I now have a
licensed flying club in Immokalee. I have the permitting. I've leased
the building part of -- anyway, it required fire extinguisher inspection
and a permit from the fire department before they would even talk to
me.
So it may only be a hand -held one, but if you don't get the fire
inspector over there on that building, you're going to have a lot of
problems. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a monument sign you're
having there, correct?
MR. CURRY: It is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where multi signs can go, right?
MR. CURRY: Well, it can, but the -- there's several buildings
before you even get to Salazar's location. So if it was at the very front
as a monument sign, yeah, maybe it can serve the building that's right
behind it. But the traffic pattern that tractor trailers will be entering
and exiting, Mr. Salazar's new location requires both of those signs in
that place for directional purposes as well.
But, again, after 10 years, which is the lease you guys approved,
if Mr. Salazar moves out, we may very well separate it into five bays
for five individual businesses and then add to the monumental sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's what the
Page 182
June 12, 2012
discussion at the Airport Advisory Board was talking about.
MR. CURRY: No. They just questioned the cost of the signs
and why they were needed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's -- there is no
monument sign out there at the airport identifying what businesses are
inside, correct?
MR. CURRY: That's correct. For the buildings that were built
years ago, there are none.
MR. COURTRIGHT: There was one. It was taken down. I
think you'll find it in one of the T hangars over there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to get too far
off the topic. It was my understanding this sign is going to be a
monument sign outside of the airport to tell the people what's in the
airport.
MR. CURRY: No, not at the front. It's going to be in the front
of that particular building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One is needed.
MR. CURRY: Well, I'm sure it's needed for all of the buildings.
But at some point we'll go back and we can address that. But from
this point forward we're trying to make things better and right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For -- never mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Mr. Salazar --
Page 183
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- good luck to you.
MR. SALAZAR: Thank you.
Item # 14A2
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONVEYANCE OF
AN EASEMENT TO LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO THE TURBO
SERVICES INC. LEASED SITE AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT AT 190 AIRPARK BOULEVARD,
IMMOKALEE AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is 14A2. It was
previously 16G2 on your consent agenda. It is a recommendation to
approve the conveyance of an easement to Lee County Electric
Cooperative.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I 4B 1
June 12, 2012
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REJECT THE LONE BID RECEIVED FROM FIFTH THIRD
BANK UNDER INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12 -5877 WHICH
WAS ISSUED IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFINANCE AND
RESTRUCTURE THE CURRENT BAYSHORE /GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA SERIES 2009 TERM LOAN UNDER MORE
FAVORABLE FINANCING TERMS AND AT THE LOWEST
OVERALL FINANCING COST — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item, Commissioners, is 14B 1. I believe you
will be acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, so it would
be appropriate for Commissioner Fiala to take the Chairmanship.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA board will come to order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this our last item?
MR. OCHS: Yes, it is, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can't believe this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to have to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not.
MR. OCHS: He means before the time - certain.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before the 5 o'clock.
MR. OCHS: Yes, we do have a time - certain.
This is Item 14B 1. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners, acting as the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Agency, reject the loan bid received from
Fifth Third Bank under Invitation to Bid 12 -5877, which was issued in
an attempt to refinance and restructure the current Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle CRA Series 2009 term loan under more favorable financing
terms and at the lowest overall financing cost.
And Mr. Mark Isackson will present.
Page 185
June 12, 2012
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you Mr. Ochs, Mark Isackson with the
County Manager's Office.
Commissioners, this packet item begins on 879. And about a year
ago in May I was up here talking about rejecting a proposal submitted
by Regions Bank on this same topic.
Subsequent to that, we came back before you at the request of the
board through the finance committee with an analysis of the Bayshore
CRA financial situation. And, obviously, first and foremost on that
was the term loan that's outstanding.
We went out to bid again. We've got one bid back. That was
from Fifth Third Bank, the current noteholder of record.
On Page 880 of this -- of the executive summary, we talked about
some of the objectives that we were trying to accomplish with this --
with this invitation to bid. A couple of the primary ones was we
wanted to try and maintain the standalone CRA credit with no county
backstop, we wanted to secure a fixed taxable interest rate to achieve
some budget certainty, and we wanted to try and match up the
maturity with the remaining life of the CRA. But we accomplished
none of that with this proposal.
You've got 26 months left before the balloon comes due. The
landscaping and the financial arrangements of the CRA could change
next fiscal year.
What Fifth/Third was asking for, frankly, in my opinion and in
the opinion of the finance committee, was -- borders on outrageous.
The fact that we would even give up our CBA credit should eliminate
any need for a revenue -- or a debt service reserve and a debt service
fund. That's a million four. The fact that they added a $10,000 bank
counsel review fee, in my view and I think the view of the finance
committee, was ridiculous.
The fact that they're asking for certain financial reporting
requirements, again, bordered on absurdity.
So the recommendation before you is to reject this proposal but
�. -- i1
June 12, 2012
to keep the lines of communication open as we go forward closer to
the balloon payment date on 9/1 of 2014.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to reject this proposal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve the
rejection by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any comments, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And the CRA
board meeting is closed.
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do communications?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. There's no reason we couldn't.
MR. OCHS: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with you,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing.
Page 187
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have nothing.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pushing your luck.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow. And just when we needed to fill
an hour and six minutes.
MR. OCHS: Well, I have one quick item, but it certainly won't
take more than 30 seconds, but I need to get this done if I could, Mr.
Chairman.
On the -- on today's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, I do have one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or I can come back. I'll speak after
Leo. We have an hour to kill. I might as well fill it with something of
interest.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am, I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It certainly won't be Leo that has
anything of interest to say. Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: No. Commissioner, on your consent agendas, you
approved Item 16174. It was a request for the board to make
announcement in accordance with Florida Statute 259 -032 on behalf
of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and
the Florida Forest Service and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
Management Plan Advisory Group, that they have scheduled two
public meetings and one public hearing to be held on July 11 th and
12th, and we are required, I'm told, not only to have that approved as a
matter of the consent agenda, but we have to publicly announce those
meetings. So I'm doing that for the record to satisfy our requirements
under the statute.
::
June 12, 2012
Good enough, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Good enough.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing else?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will take a recess for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about Jeff?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- an hour and 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make one comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, it was very interesting
to see how the votes went today and, you know, the manipulations
involved in trying to get things through that were very clearly against
the public's interest, and it goes back to this email that Pam Brown
Bruce produced this morning from Jim Coletta where he highlights his
finance committee.
You know, while it was pointed out this morning that the Barron
Collier Company and Collier Enterprises are a part of his finance
committee, what I didn't realize was that Pete Salazar was also. And,
quite frankly, I think that says it all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, it doesn't, because the
truth of the matter is, Pete Salazar never made a meeting that we had.
He was listed because he had an interest in it. And the truth of the
matter is, it's none of your business who's on my finance committee,
and it's about 150 people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a public email.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's a public email that
somebody sent into the county. But I mean, if -- why don't you make
an information request for additional updates from my campaign and
see where that takes you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not really interested.
EMU
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you very much.
Your comments are very much appreciated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to be in recess for an
hour and eight minutes.
(A recess was had.)
MR. OCHS : Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
We're going to go to Item 9C.
Item #9C
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATION FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION
TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER
TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION
2.01.03 ESSENTIAL SERVICES, TO ADD AVIATION USES AS
A PERMITTED USE IN THE CONSERVATION ZONING
DISTRICT ON LANDS ADJACENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE — FIRST HEARING
DISCUSSION; APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO A SECOND
Page 190
June 12, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE
BOARD'S JUNE 26, 2012 MEETING
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a 5:05 p.m. time certain.
Recommendation to consider an ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No.
04 -41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulation for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for Section 1, recital;
Section 2, findings of fact; Section 3, adoption of amendments to the
Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following:
Chapter 2, zoning districts and uses, including Section 2.01.03,
essential services, to add aviation uses as a permitted use in the
conservation zoning district on lands adjacent to the Marco Island
Executive Airport; Section 4, conflict and severability; Section 5,
inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section
6, effective date.
And Mr. Michael Bosi will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi,
comprehensive planning.
Before I get into the specifics of the LDC amendment and just for
the information of the board, this is a night meeting because this Land
Development Code amendment is proposing a land -use change. One
meeting is required to be held after 5 o'clock so, therefore, the 5:05
start time.
But before I get into the specifics of the land -use code, just a
housekeeping item. It's just -- at the Board of County Commissioners'
April 10, 2012, BCC meeting under Agenda Item 14A2, the BCC
accepted staffs clarification and determination that the construction of
the Marco Island Executive Airport taxiway and apron expansion
project was consistent with the county's zoning requirements.
Page 191
June 12, 2012
And I want to be clear that that action was the only action
necessary for compliance on the matter, but it should be pointed out
that in recognition of the Clerk of Court's concerns over the
authorization of payment for the outstanding payment of debt to
DeAngelis Diamond, county staff agreed to process the ST permit as
well as the Land Development Code amendment to clarify the specific
essential service use.
And that brings us to what the proposed LDC amendment is
today, and that LDC amendment is narrowly focused to allow for
aviation uses related to the memorandum of understanding between
Collier County and the various parties of the MOU related to the
modification of the Deltona settlement.
The specifics of the amendment are contained within the
executive summary and the attachments. I would ask the board if they
had any questions regarding those specifics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I like this much better than
what we did the other day, and it clearly states that it's allowed in the
ST. The -- you know, when the Growth Management Plan is silent
and we made that determination, my fear is somebody's going to use
the same process, that it doesn't state anything, and I think you share
those same concerns.
Yeah, thank you. No, thanks for this language. I think it really
clears it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 192
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have one more hearing on
this, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes. On the 26th of this month, we will present this
as well. It will show up, I believe, probably on the consent agenda.
But it's a requirement for each LDC amendment to be heard twice
before the Board of County Commissioners and have final approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Thank you so much
for that.
Item #1 I E
RESOLUTION 2012 -111: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER
ST- PL20120000900: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
AIRPORT AUTHORITY - A RESOLUTION APPROVING
PETITION ST- PL20120000900 REQUESTING A SPECIAL
TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
PARALLEL TAXIWAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF AN EXISTING
RUNWAY AS WELL AS AN APRON EXPANSION WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION - SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (CON -
ST) FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT EXPANSION LOCATED IN SECTION
26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to Item 1 IE.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is a companion item. It requires that
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Page 193
June 12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll start with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Disclosure made this morning;
incorporated by reference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Sorry, I I'm still
looking.
11 E. Yes, it looks like I had meetings, emails, calls, and a staff
report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I didn't have any of that. How
about that. Nobody talked with me about this, except I did read staff
report.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. County attorney --
talked to the county attorney, airport director, and reviewed the staff
report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received the staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we also need to swear in anyone
who's going to give testimony.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Anyone who's going to provide
testimony for this item, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Who's
going to present, or --
MR. OCHS : Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director, Collier County
Airport Authority.
At the direction of the board, the airport authority started the
process of complying with the requirements to -- for the ST process.
As such, we went through the EAC. That was the first meeting that
we had. And there were three items that the EAC said that we needed
Page 194
June 12, 2012
to do in order to comply with the MOU. One was that we needed to
contact all of the signatories in the Deltona agreement, which was
about nine.
The second item that was there was a vegetation management
program that must be established. The airport had established a
vegetation management program, but the part that we were unsure
whether was in compliance or not was that the Audubon Society had
to provide comments related to that plan.
Going back through the airport files, we found the vegetation
management plan and correspondence that indicated it was mailed to
them, but nothing that showed that they made any comments in
reference to the plan.
The third item was a conservation easement that was to be
developed and prepared by the Conservancy and then recorded by the
airport.
The second meeting we went was the CPCC (sic) meeting, and
basically they were in agreement with the -- with the EAC that we
performed those three functions to comply with the MOU.
Since that time we've had one additional meeting with the EAC
to provide them an update on where we were in the process, and we've
also had a meeting with the Conservancy and the County Attorney's
Office. So the process is moving along.
The next meeting that involves all of the signatories will be July
16th. At that time we will also do a site visit at the Marco Island
airport and see what needs to be done to comply with the other two
requirements mandated by the EAC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, is your
light on from before, or do you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Is there a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
Page 195
June 12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have nothing left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wanted to stay around a little
while longer, fellows.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Never mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go into recess for another
hour, and then Commissioner Fiala is coming back to talk with you.
So please stay tuned.
MR. OCHS : That's all we have, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING- Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned. Thank you.
* * * **
* * * * 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 * * * *
Page 196
June 12, 2012
Item # 16A 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE QUARRY MAINTENANCE FACILITY
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #I 6A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE QUARRY, PHASE IA AND AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF HAS FOUND THE FACILITIES ACCEPTABLE
Item #I 6A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR THE QUARRY BEACH CLUB & AUTHORIZE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — WATER UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTED BEYOND THE MASTER
METER IS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER
Item #I 6A4
AMENDING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A
Page 197
June 12, 2012
DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PARCEL 173DE) REQUIRED FOR
THE NAPLES MANOR US -41 DITCH PORTION OF LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 951101 — AMENDS
THE 2011 AGREEMENT WITH EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT TO EXTEND THE 90 -DAY CLOSING
DEADLINE THROUGH JULY 12,2012; THE REMAINDER OF
THE AGREEMENT REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
Item #I 6A5
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE BOND
NUMBER 08821642, POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT
GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHOPS
AT EAGLE CREEK — POSTED BY KITE EAGLE CREEK, LLC
TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO ACCURATELY
REFLECT FINAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STAPLES
STORE IN THE EAGLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
US -41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) & CR951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD
Item #I 6A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LIPARI- PONZIANE,
TRACT GC -4 REPLAT; RE- SUBDIVISION OF LANDS IN THE
TREVISO BAY /WENTWORTH ESTATES PUD
Item #I 6A7
RESOLUTION 2012 -94: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF HORSE CREEK ESTATES WITH ROADWAY
& DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
June 12, 2012
AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND ACCEPTING PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #I 6A8
AN EXTENSION FOR THE COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH AUDUBON COUNTRY
CLUB, THE UNIT THREE SUBDIVISION, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10. 02.05 B. I I OF COLLIER COUNTY'S LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE — DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING A
3 -YEAR EXTENSION FROM THE PREVIOUS EXPIRATION
DATE OF FEBRUARY 3, 2011 TO FEBRUARY 3, 2014
Item #I 6A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR NAPLES MAZDA, 6381 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH, AND
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTED
BEYOND THE MASTER METER IS OWNED & MAINTAINED
BY THE OWNER
Item # 16A 10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR NORTHSIDE MEDICAL PLAZA AT 1985
VETERAN'S PARK DRIVE AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — ON -SITE WATER
Page 199
June 12, 2012
AND SEWER UTILITIES ARE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER
Item # 16A 11
RESOLUTION 2012 -95: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VERONAWALK PHASE 4A WITH ROADWAY
& DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND ACCEPT THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16Al2
RESOLUTION 2012 -96: ACKNOWLEDGING A STATUTORY
DEED BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CITYGATE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC. RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD
(OR) BOOK 3985, PAGE 3420 THROUGH 3422 & AUTHORIZE
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO MAKE NOTATION ON THE
ORIGINAL PLAT OF THE RECORDING OF THE DEED
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2012 -97: EXECUTING LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT FPN #429901-1-58-01 WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
REIMBURSES COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $4489800 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ON WHITE BOULEVARD
AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
— A BID AWARD WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR
APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULED TO
BEGIN IN THE FALL OF 2013
Page 200
June 12, 2012
Item #16A14
RELEASING A $13,113.07 LIEN FOR A PAYMENT OF $1,563.07
IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. PHILIP R. BRADLEY I V AND
NANCYF. BRADLEY, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE
NUMBER CEPM20100010050, RELATING TO PROPERTY AT
4945 BARCELONA CIRCLE, COLLIER COUNTY, FL — FOR
FINES SURROUNDING AN UNMAINTAINED POOL PAID BY
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION WHO
SECURED TITLE IN JANUARY, 2012 VIA FORECLOSURE
Item #16A15
THE RELEASE OF TWO LIENS FOR A COMBINED AMOUNT
OF $4404.67 FOR A PAYMENT OF $75604.67, IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. ADRIANA AND JOSE ARIZMENDI, CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER
CEAU20110000019 & CEPM20110000018, RELATING TO
PROPERTY AT 1991 48TH STREET SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — FINES RELATED TO UNMAINTAINED PROPERTY
VIOLATIONS AND PAID BY FEDERAL NAT'L MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION WHO SECURED TITLE VIA FORECLOSURE IN
NOVEMBER, 2011
Item # 16A 16 — Moved to Item # 11 G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2012 -98: MEMORIALIZING THE FY2012/13
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TRUST FUND
Page 201
June 12, 2012
TRIP /EQUIPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA'S
COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
(CTD) IN THE AMOUNT OF $679,971 WITH A LOCAL MATCH
OF $75,538 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT & REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS — USED
TO COVER A PORTION OF ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
FOR THE COLLIER AREA PARATRANSIT (CAP) PROGRAM
Item #16A18
TO SELECT AND HIRE WILCOX APPRAISAL SERVICES
(ALAN WILCOX MAI, SRA) WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BID,
FOR THE APPRAISAL OF TWO COMPLEX RIGHT -OF -WAY
PARCELS FOR THE US- 41 /SR -CR951 INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: NOT
TO EXCEED $26,725) — FOR PARCELS 108FEE & 108TCE
(CIRCLE K STORE /GAS STATION) AND PARCELS 116FEE,
116TCEI, 116TCE2 & 116TCE3 (CVS DRUG STORE) ON THE
CORNERS OF THAT INTERSECTION AND LIKELY TO GO TO
TRIAL BECAUSE OF THEIR COMPLEXITY
Item # 16A 19
RESOLUTION 2012 -99: EXECUTING LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT FPN #429903- 1 -58 -01 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
REIMBURSES COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $2455520 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ON GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY FROM SUNSHINE BOULEVARD TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT — A BID AWARD WILL BE PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO SCHEDULED
Page 202
June 12, 2012
CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING IN THE WINTER OF 2014
Item #I 6A2 0
RESOLUTION 2012 -100: EXECUTING LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT FPN #429915- 1 -58 -01 WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
REIMBURSES COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $1381629 FOR
SIDEWALKS ON BAYSIDE STREET, CALUSA AVENUE AND
CALEDONIA AVENUE — SIDEWALKS ON BAYSIDE INCLUDE
US -41 TO SHADOWLAWN ELEMENTARY; CALUSA AVENUE,
FROM ANDREW DRIVE TO AIRPORT ROAD & CALEDONIA
AVENUE, FROM ANDREW DRIVE TO AIRPORT ROAD
Item #I 6A21
RESOLUTION 2012 -101: EXECUTING LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT FM #430870- 1 -58 -01 WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT REIMBURSES
COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $60000 FOR A SIGNAL
COMMUNICATION FIBER OPTIC NETWORK EXTENSION
ON PORTIONS OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD TO I -75), IMMOKALEE ROAD (COLLIER
BOULEVARD TO OIL WELL ROAD) AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (MANATEE ROAD TO ISLES OF CAPRI
BOULEVARD), RESPECTIVELY, AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — THE LIFE SPAN OF A
FIBER OPTIC NETWORK IS ESTIMATED AT 30 -YEARS
W /MINIMAL TO NO REPAIR COSTS; A BID AWARD WILL BE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL OF 2013
Page 203
June 12, 2012
Item #I 6A22
THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
(MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR FY 2012/13, AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $928,057 AND $5,000 IN LOCAL FUNDING — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6A2 3
A $2,500 COUNTEROFFER TO A BUSINESS DAMAGE CLAIM
MADE BY FLORIDIAN FOODS, LLC, FOR PARCEL 157DE
AND 157TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
L & R RAM, LLC, ET AL., CASE NO. 12 -CA -1828 (US -41
DITCH /LASIP PROJECT NO. 5110 1) (FISCAL IMPACT: $2,500)
— ALLEGED DAMAGE REGARDING CONDEMNATION OF A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT BY OWNERS OF THE GREEN STORE FOOD
MART ON THE CORNER OF US -41 EAST AND BROWARD
STREET
Item # 16A24 — Moved to Item # 11 H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6A2 5
SECOND AMENDMENT AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA JOB
TRAINING CONSORTIUM PER THE 1998 WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT ACT — DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR
AND COMPOSED OF THE CHAIR FROM PARTICIPATING
COMMISSIONS, OR AN ELECTED COMMISSION DESIGNEE;
INCLUDES COLLIER, CHARLOTTE, GLADES, HENDRY AND
Page 204
June 12, 2012
LEE COUNTY
Item #16A26
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN, AS A MEMBER OF THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM, TO
APPROVE THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC., PROPOSED FY 2012/2013
BUDGET AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT ACT SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM — CONSISTENT WITH
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS APPROVED BY HB 7023
INTENDED TO PROVIDE GREATER TRANSPARENCY TO
THE BUDGET PROCESS AND INCLUDES NEW REVIEW
PROCEDURES IN THE COMPANION TO THIS ITEM (#16A25)
Item #I 6A27
RESOLUTION 2012 -102: AUTHORIZING THE SPEED LIMIT
INCREASE FROM FORTY -FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH)
TO FIFTY MILES PER HOUR (50 MPH) ON OIL WELL ROAD
FROM ONE -HALF MILE WEST OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD
TO ONE -HALF MILE EAST OF AVE MARIA BOULEVARD
AND REDUCING THE ROADWAY FROM A SIX -LANE
STRIPED SECTION TO A FOUR -LANE STRIPED SECTION
Item # 16C 1
UTILITY EASEMENT FROM AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB
FOUNDATION INC., A FLORIDA NON - PROFIT
CORPORATION TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER
Page 205
June 12, 2012
DISTRICT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A MONITORING
WELL AND ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PARCEL
ADJACENT TO AUDUBON DRIVE AT AN ESTIMATED COST
NOT EXCEEDING $100 FOR PROJECT #74401— REQUIRED BY
FDEP FOR PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
Item #16C2
AWARD BID #12 -5828, "ADDITIONAL RML PUMPS AT
SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY," TO
MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $816,5999 FOR PROJECT #70089 SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE PROJECT — FOR INSTALLATION OF PUMPS,
PIPING, VALVES, VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES AND
FLOW METERS AT TREATMENT BASINS AT THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Item #16C3
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #12 -5839, LOAN /GRANT
ACQUISITION AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES, TO ANGIE
BREWER & ASSOCIATES, LC, IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000 — TO ASSIST STAFF
WITH LOAN /GRANT ACQUISITIONS, COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS, LOAN CLOSE -OUTS AND AUDITS
Item # 16C4 — Moved to Item # 11 I (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C5
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $6155000 TO MOVE FUNDS FROM
Page 206
June 12, 2012
PROJECT #70087, VANDERBILT DRIVE WATER MAIN
REHABILITATION, TO PROJECT #71055, WATER SCADA
IMPROVEMENTS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16D 1
TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH IMMOKALEE NON - PROFIT HOUSING,
INC. D /B /A IMMOKALEE HOUSING AND FAMILY SERVICES
(IHFS) TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT, WITH NO CHANGE IN FUNDING LEVEL AND TO
ALLOW FOR MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES —
EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT THRU SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
DUE TO DELAYS BECAUSE OF STAFF TURNOVER THAT
RESULTED IN PROJECT DELAYS
Item #I 6D2
AMENDMENT #2 TO A 2009 HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
AND RAPID RE- HOUSING (HPRP) SUBRECIPIENT GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH LEGAL AID OF COLLIER COUNTY, A
DIVISION OF LEGAL AID OF BROWARD COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3352005 IN ORDER TO EXPEND THE
REMAINING FUNDS — TO ALLOW LEGAL AID ADDITIONAL
FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF THEIR GRANT FUNDS
Item #16D3
A DONATION FROM COLLIER COUNTY 4 -H ASSOCIATION
AND APPROVE A UNIVERSITY EXTENSION TRUST FUND
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95286.28
Page 207
June 12, 2012
RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING
EXPENDITURES FOR 4 -H OUTREACH PROGRAMS
MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA'S IFAS EXTENSION DEPARTMENT — PROVIDING
THE COMMUNITY ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION ON
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Item #I 6D4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT TOTAL $9,748.47 TO
RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM THE COLLECTION OF
CO- PAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HOUSING,
HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES, SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAM — FUNDS USED FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES,
MEALS AND CASE MANAGEMENT FOR OLDER COUNTY
RESIDENTS TO HELP THEM MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE
Item #I 6D5
AMENDED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
BETWEEN FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST AND COLLIER
COUNTY ON COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY — ALLOWING
THE COUNTY TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF PROPERTY
CURRENTLY LEASED TO NAPLES ZOO
Item #I 6D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,756 AND
RECOGNIZING REVENUE GENERATED FROM CASE
MANAGEMENT AND CASE AID FROM THE MEDICAID
WAIVER PROGRAM — FOR FEES BILLED TO MEDICAID FOR
CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF
June 12, 2012
10/ 1 / 11 THROUGH 4/19/12
Item #I 6D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $775889 FOR
CONTINUATION OF SERVICES OF THE RETIRED SENIOR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) FROM THE CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE — FUNDS OF
$541522 REQUIRING A $23,367 MATCH FOR THE FIRST YEAR
OF A 3-YEAR GRANT PERIOD OF 7/l/2012 TO 6/30/2013 AND
WITH THE TOTAL AWARD OF $163,5663
Item #16D8
IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND LEASED TO THE NAPLES ZOO
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THAT WILL PROVIDE AN ACCESS ROAD, WATER,
ELECTRIC, AND SEWER TO THE NORTHERN SECTION OF
THE PROPERTY TO SUPPORT CURRENT ZOO OPERATIONS —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D9
AGREEMENT # 12CO I FOR FUNDING WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH
MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR
COLLIER COUNTY MONITORING — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D 10
Page 209
June 12, 2012
HOMEOWNER INSURANCE CHECK ENDORSEMENT POLICY
FOR ALL BORROWERS ASSISTED WITH PURCHASE
ASSISTANCE AND /OR REHABILITATION HOUSING
PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD
CHAIRMAN OR VICE - CHAIRMAN, IN HIS ABSENCE TO
ENDORSE TWO HOMEOWNER INSURANCE CLAIM CHECKS
— AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E 1
A CONTRACT W/ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS
INC., TO RECEIVE UP TO 28 GOPHER TORTOISES
RELOCATED FROM THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK
PROJECT SITE TO THE NW HACKLETRAP LONG TERM
PROTECTED GOPHER TORTOISE RECIPIENT SITE IN
HENDRY COUNTY FOR THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$229400 AND APPROVE PAYMENT OF A $7,100 MITIGATION
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC)
Item #I 6E2
AMENDMENT # 1 TO AGREEMENT # 10 -5491, FOR FIBER
OPTIC INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS;
MODIFYING EXHIBIT "A," SCOPE OF SERVICES, ITEM [I]
( "MATERIALS NOT ON BID") AND APPROVE RETROACTIVE
PAYMENTS ON PENDING INVOICES — TO DELETE A
CONTRADICTORY TERM IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
Item #I 6E3
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED
Page 210
June 12, 2012
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR
THE PERIOD OF APRIL 11, 2012 THROUGH MAY 23, 2012
Item #I 6E4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY
AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND
GULF COAST CITRUS CARETAKING, INC. — REDUCING THE
ACRES LEASED BY GULF COAST CITRUS BY DESIGNATING
4 -ACRES THAT WILL BE USED BY PARKS AND REC FOR
THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK PROJECT
THAT WILL BEGIN CONSTRUCTION AUGUST 1, 2012 AND
14 -ACRES THAT SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT WILL USE
FOR THE NORTHEAST RECYCLING CENTER PROJECT
SCHEDULED TO START AUGUST 1, 2013
Item # 16F 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY IN
SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Item #I 6F2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE GREATER MARCO FAMILY YMCA, INC.
IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Page 211
June 12, 2012
RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Item #I 6F3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY & FLORIDA
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACCEPTING A
$105,806 GRANT AWARD FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND APPROVING THE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT — AGREEMENT
# 13- BG- 06 -09- 21 -01 -011 AND COVERING THE ONE (1) YEAR
GRANT PERIOD OF 7/l/2012 THROUGH 6/30/2013
Item #16174
AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA
STATUTE 259.032(10)(B), OF TWO (2) PUBLIC MEETINGS
AND ONE (1) PUBLIC HEARING, TO BE CONDUCTED BY
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
CONSUMER SERVICES, FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE AND
THE OKALOACOOCHEE SLOUGH STATE FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP. THE MEETINGS
ARE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE OKALOACOOCHEE SLOUGH STATE FOREST — HELD
AT THE DALLAS B. TOWNSEND AG CENTER, 1085 PRATT
BOULEVARD IN LABELLE WITH MEETINGS ON JULY 11TH
AND JULY 12TH AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 11TH
Item #16175
AN ON -LINE AUCTION WITH PUBLIC SURPLUS OF A 1997
BRUSH TRUCK AND RETURN THE SALES REVENUE TO THE
Page 212
June 12, 2012
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT MSTU FUND — TO DISPOSE
OF THE TRUCK WITH A MINIMUM OPENING BID THAT'S
NOT ALLOWED AT THE ANNUAL AUCTION
Item #I 6F6
ANNUAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS
AND ASSISTANCE GRANT (EMPG), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$965848 FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING,
RESPONSE, AND MITIGATION EFFORTS AND AUTHORIZE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — AGREEMENT
# 13- FG- 09 -21 -01 -078 AND FOR THE PERIOD JULY 15 2012
THROUGH JUNE 30. 2013
Item #I 6F7
RESOLUTION 2012 -103: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FYI 1- 12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 161`8 — Moved to Item # 11 F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16G 1 — Moved to Item # 14A 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16G2 — Moved to Item # 14A2 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE
ATTENDED THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB LUNCHEON ON
APRIL 26, 2012. $20 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
Page 213
June 12, 2012
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION'S LUNCHEON ON MAY 17,2012.$18 PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 5, 2012
THROUGH MAY 119 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 12, 2012
THROUGH MAY 18, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 1% 2012
THROUGH MAY 25, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J4
PRESENT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE
2012 -2013 STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION AND
Page 214
June 12, 2012
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION — REQUIRED
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ANY FUNDS DISTRIBUTED
UNDER THE REVENUE SHARING ACT AND APPLICATION
MUST BE SUBMITTED ANNUALLY BY JUNE 30
Item # 16K 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
FROM FY2011 FOR THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY FUND (652) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $27,398.44
Item #I 6K2 — Moved to Item # 12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 7A
RESOLUTION 2012 -104: PETITION ZLTR- PL2012- 0000661,
APPROVING MARTIAL ARTS INSTRUCTION AS A
PERMITTED USE IN WHITE LAKE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE
PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #I 7B
ORDINANCE 2012 -19: REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER
86 -78 AS AMENDED, THAT CREATED THE CITIZEN'S
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2012 -20: REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER
73 -17, RELATING TO TEMPORARY PERMITS
Page 215
June 12, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
a
FRED COYLE,
ATTEST
DWIC ZOCK, CLERK
r _
of
0641
These minutes approved by the Board on 2 201 2
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 216