BCC Minutes 07/24/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 24, 2012
July 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
July 24, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
July 24, 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
Page 1
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Richard Rogers - Unity of Naples 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.)
Page 2
July 24, 2012
B. June 12, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. June 26, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 Year Attendees
a) Edwin Barroso, Parks & Recreation
2) 25 Year Attendees
a) Patrick Webb, Facilities Management
b) Steven Ritter, Transportation Engineering
c) Ramiro Ponce, Road Maintenance
d) Richard Noonan, Building Review & Permitting
e) Willie Bullard, Traffic Operations
3) 30 Year Attendees
a) Joseph Chirico, Road Maintenance
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating August 10th, 1 lth and 12th as Spirit of '45 Days in
Collier County. To be accepted by event chairs Lois Bolin and Myra
Williams and Veterans Peter Thomas, Greg Garcia, Homer Helter, Helmie
McCardy, Don Tallon and Pappy Wagner. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 3
July 24, 2012
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for July 2012 to
Wynn's Market. To be accepted by Jeff Wynn; Peter Seyez, General
Manager; Larry Landberg, Store Manager; and Evelyn Dickerson, Executive
Bookkeeper and Wynn's employee for 57 years.
B. Recommendation to recognize Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Operations
and Regulatory Management Department, as the Employee of the Month for
July 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and Item 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
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
amending Development Order No. 85 -4, as amended, for Petition DOA -
PL20100001550, The Parklands Development of Regional Impact (DRI), by
providing for Section One: Amendments to the Development Order
including amendments to the Findings of Fact section to reflect changes in
acreages for various components of the project and removal of conversion
table; reducing the number of dwelling units from 1,603 to 850; increasing
the preserve area to 341 acres, deleting golf course as a permitted use and
adding a build -out date; amendments to the Conclusions of Law section
amending the following subsections: Education subsection to provide for
dedication instead of donation of a school site; amendments to Fire
Protection subsection to remove requirement of fair share contribution to
capital and operating expenses and replace with payment of impact fees;
amendments to the Fiscal subsection to remove the requirement that the
construction of a segment of Logan Boulevard will be at no cost to the
County; amendments to the Transportation subsection to reflect removal of
proportionate share requirements for off -site road segments and removal of
traffic monitoring report; removal of Wastewater Management subsection;
amendments to Water Supply subsection to identify water supply;
Page 4
July 24, 2012
amendment to re- number the Leapfrog Development subsection;
amendments to the General Considerations subsection to make minor
language changes and change reporting to biennial; removal of the Water
Management subsection; removal of the Environmental Considerations
subsection; removal of the Transportation subsection; removal of the
Utilities subsection; removal of the Mosquito Control subsection; removal of
Parks and Open Space subsection; removal of exemptions to subdivision
regulations; Section Two: Findings of Fact: extending the buildout date to
January 22, 2026; Section Three: Conclusions of Law; Section Four: Effect
of Previously Issued Development Orders and Transmittal to the Department
of Community Affairs; and Providing for an Effective Date. The subject
property is located east of Quail West and south of the Lee - Collier line in
Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This
is a companion Item to #913, #111 and # 12A.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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 regulations 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 1 —
General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter 2 —
Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning
Districts, Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural
Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three — Resource Protection, including
Section 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection
and Preservation, Section 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected
Vegetation, Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, Section 3.06.06
Regulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields, Section
3.06.12 Regulated Development; Chapter Four — Site Design and
Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards
for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.04 Standards for
Cluster Residential Design, Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for
Development in the ST and ACSC -ST Districts, Section 4.02.17 Design
Standards for Development in the BMUD- Waterfront Subdistrict, Section
Page 5
July 24, 2012
4.02.18 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD- Residential
Subdistrict (RI), Section 4.02.19 Design Standards for Development in the
BMUD- Residential Subdistrict (R2), Section 4.02.20 Design Standards for
Development in the BMUD- Residential Subdistrict (R3), Section 4.02.21
Design Standards for Development in the BMUD- Residential Subdistrict
(R4), Section 4.02.35 Design Standards for Development in the GTMUD-
Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD), Section 4.02.36 Design Standards for
Development in the GTMUD- Residential Subdistrict (R), Section 4.05.02
Design Standards, Section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section
4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements
for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights -of -Way, Section 4.06.04 Trees and
Vegetation Protection, Section 4.07.02 Design Requirements; Chapter Five —
Supplemental Standards, including Section 5.03.02 Fences and Walls,
Section 5.03.06 Dock Facilities, Adding Section 5.03.07 Portable Storage
Containers, Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards,
Section 5.06.00 Sign Regulation and Standards by Land Use Classification,
Section 5.06.02 Development Standards for Signs within Residential
Districts, Section 5.06.03 Development Standards for Signs for Institutional
Uses, Section 5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential
Districts, Section 5.06.05 Exemptions from these Regulations; Chapter Six —
Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements,
including Section 6.02.01 Generally, Section 6.02.03 Transportation Level
of Service Requirements, Section 6.06.01 Street System Requirements,
Section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements; Chapter
Nine — Variations from Code Requirements, including Section 9.03.02
Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities, Section 9.04.02 Types of
Variances Authorized, Adding Section 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment;
Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision - making Procedures,
including Section 10.01.02 Development Orders Required, Section 10.02.00
Application Requirements, 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site
Development Plans, Section 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for
Improvements Plans, Section 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits,
Section 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures,
Section 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC,
The Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the EAC, and the
Historic Preservation Board, Section 10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures;
Appendix A — Standard Performance Security Documents for Required
Page 6
July 24, 2012
Improvements; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six,
Effective Date.
B. 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 an Ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, for Petition PUDA-
PL201000015 5 1 , by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from
a Planned Unit Development zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the
Parklands RPUD, to change the PUD by reducing the residential dwelling
units from 1,603 dwelling units to 850 residential dwelling units, increasing
the preserve to 341 acres, deleting golf courses as a permitted use, revising
development standards requesting deviations from the Land Development
Code, and eliminating a 7.23± acre park on property located east of Quail
West and south of the Lee - Collier line in Section 9, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 642.34± acres;
providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 03 -42; and providing an effective
date. This is a companion Item to #8A, #111 and #12A.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Presentation by Jerry Van Hecke and guests of the E.T. Brisson Detachment
#063 Marine Corps League to this year's recipient, Commissioner Jim
Coletta, District 5 for the "Good Citizenship Award." To be accepted by
Jerry Van Hecke, Nick Marsit, John Marsh and Bob Kemp.
B. Appointment of member to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Page 7
July 24, 2012
Agency.
E. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
F. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
G. Advisory Board vacancies, press release dated July 23, 2012.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Recommendation to accept
modifications identified by the Gordon River Greenway Stakeholders
committee to pursue Option D (modified on July 10, 2012) for the re- design
of the entrance to the Naples Zoo /Gordon River Greenway Park. (Steve
Carnell, Interim Public Services Administrator)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing Proposed Millage Rates
as the Maximum Property Tax Rates to be levied in FY 2012/13 and
Reaffirm the Advertised Public Hearing dates in September, 2012 for the
Budget approval process. (Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and
Management Services Director)
C. Recommendation to review and provide direction to the County Manager or
his designee regarding the payment of Collier County's Medicaid backlog
(retrospective bills). (Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and Management
Services Director)
D. Recommendation to approve the award of Request for Proposal (RFP) # 12-
5864 Annual Roadway Contractors to multiple firms for an estimated
average annual amount of approximately $2,000,000. (Nick Casalanguida,
Growth Management Division Administrator)
E. Recommendation to approve the Collier County One Year Action Plan for
FY 2012 - 2013 for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Programs; authorize the Chairman to sign the approved resolution,
Department of Housing and Urban Development Certifications, and SF 424
Application for Federal Assistance, and authorize transmittal to the United
Page 8
July 24, 2012
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Kim
Grant, Housing, Human and Veteran Services Interim Director)
F. Recommendation to approve the Category "A" Tourist Development Grant
applications for Beach Park Facilities for FY 2012/13 in the amount of
$365,500; authorize the Chairman to sign necessary agreements following
County Attorney approval; and make a finding that the expenditures will
promote tourism. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
G. Recommendation to approve Category "A" Tourist Development Council
Grant applications from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and
Collier County for FY- 2012/2013 in the amount of $6,798,820 for Beach
and Pass Maintenance projects; authorize the Chairman to sign grant
agreements following County Attorney approval; and make a finding that
these expenditures will promote tourism. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone
Management Director)
H. Recommendation to award Request For Proposal (RFP) #12 -5836 Not -for-
Profit NSP Affordable Rental Housing to the Foundation for the
Developmentally Disabled and Community Assisted and Supportive Living,
Inc. d/b /a Renaissance Manor and authorize the Chairman to execute
agreements for the transfer of six properties on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners. (Kim Grant, Housing, Human and Veteran
Services Interim Director)
I. Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement (DA) between the
developer of Parklands PUD, Parklands Associates I, LLLP (Developer) and
Collier County (County) to fund, design, permit, and construct Logan
Boulevard North. This item is a companion to Item #8A, #9B and #12A.
(Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Administrator)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled
G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. v. Collier County, a political
subdivision of Florida through its governing body, Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Case No. 09- 2451 -CA, filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and authorize
Page 9
July 24, 2012
the Chairman to execute the Settlement Agreement. Companion to Items
#8A, #913 and #11I.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
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) 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 Runaway Bay Replat,
Application Number PPLA- PL20120000266, approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
2) Recommendation to approve award of Contract #11-5751 to Agnoli,
Barber and Brundage, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for the
"Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP): 1) County
Barn Road, 2) Wingsouth, and 3) Project Close Out" pursuant to RFP
#11 -5751, in the amount of $599, 148 to Agnoli, Barber & Brundage
Inc, Project #51101.
Page 10
July 24, 2012
3) Recommendation to reject submittals for RFP #11-5631R for
"Design -Build Naples Manor Sidewalk Improvements" construction
project in the amount of $750,000 and direct staff to develop final
consultant design plans for bidding the construction of sidewalk
improvements, Project No. 69081.
4) Recommendation to award a contract for Bid No. 12 -5881, "Bus
Shelters Repairs," to Southern Signal and Lighting, Inc. in the
anticipated amount of $56,065.
5) Recommendation for approval to remove posted load restrictions of
"Single Unit Truck; 31 tons" and "Combined Truck; 34 tons" on
Bridge Numbers 030138, 030139, 030140 and 030141 east of S.R. 29
on Immokalee Road, Project Number 66066.
6) Recommendation to approve an Adopt -A -Road Program Agreement
for Weber Boulevard South from Golden Gate Boulevard to White
Boulevard for the volunteer group, North Naples Country Club.
7) Recommendation to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Lee
County related to the lease of a bus to be used for the public transit
route between Lee and Collier Counties.
8) 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 Twineagles Grand Arbors
Replat of Tract "H ", "I" and Block 107, Application PL20120000696,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
9) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$37,317.61 for payment of $2,717.61, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Stan Spence and
Nancy Spence, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Number
CEV20090004289, relating to property located at 139 Andrea Lane,
Collier County, Florida.
Page 11
July 24, 2012
10) Recommendation to approve the release of two liens with a combined
value of $12,382.07 for payment of $2,732.07, in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
James S. Loucy, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Numbers
CEPM20090010278 and CENA20090010129, relating to property
located at 237 Burning Tree Drive, Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$11,244.08 for payment of $1,194.08, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Neal and Mary
Sweeney, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Number
CEPM20100009663, relating to property located at 1319 Barnstable
Court, Collier County, Florida.
12) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$192,080.57 for payment of $50,080.57, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Edward M.
Harris Jr. and Tammy Harris, Code Enforcement Board Case Number
CESD20090018220, relating to property located at 5730 Cedar Tree
Lane, Collier County, Florida.
13) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$18,067.19 for payment of $1,517.19, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Danny L. Nairn
and Marie E. Nairn, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case
Number CEPM20110004681, relating to property located at 753 93rd
Avenue N., Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5884 "Installation of Wireless
Detection System" for installation of Intelligent Transportation
System wireless detection equipment along Airport- Pulling Road
from Clubhouse Drive to Golden Gate Parkway including the
intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Bear's Paw Trail to
American Lighting and Signalization, Inc. in the amount of $249,730
(Project #33165).
15) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearinj be held on this item, all
Page 12
July 24, 2012
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Copper Cove Preserve Unit 3,
PPL20120000116, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
16) Recommendation to receive and approve the Collier County
Floodplain Management Plan 2011 Progress Report.
17) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and direct
the County Manager or his designee to negotiate continuing contracts
with the top five (5) ranked landscape architectural firms including:
McGee & Associates, Inc., Richard Tindell d/b /a Greenwork Studio,
Johnson Engineering, Inc., Goetz & Stropes Landscape Architects,
Inc. and Windham Studio, Inc. for Request for Proposal (RFP) #12-
5892 Fixed Term Landscape Archtectural Services.
18) Recommendation to approve Request for Proposal (RFP) #12 -5895
Impact Fee Study final rankings and direct the County Manager to
negotiate a contract for final Board review and approval.
19) Recommendation to provide direction to the County Manager or his
designee to amend Resolution #97 -431, as amended, which
established the general requirements and procedures for amending the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).
20) Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement between SFI
Naples Reserve LLC ( "Developer ") and Collier County ( "County ") to
advance funding for improvements to US -41 from Collier Boulevard
to San Marco Road. This Item is a companion to Item #I 7J.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve the shortlist of engineering firms for
Request for Proposal (RFP) #12 -5863 Construction Engineering
Inspection (CEI) for the Immokalee Downtown Stormwater
Improvements Project and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations
Page 13
July 24, 2012
with the top ranked firm.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area.
3) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
appoint L. Jean Jourdan as Interim Director for the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA and the Bayshore Beautification and Haldeman Creek
Dredge Municipal Services Taxing Units.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving Special
Assessment Hardship Deferrals for certain Sewer Special
Assessments for the 2012 tax year.
2) Recommendation to accept a Donation Agreement and a Utility
Easement from the Foxfire Community Association of Collier
County, a Florida non - profit corporation, to the Collier County Water -
Sewer District for installation and maintenance of a monitoring well
and for access on, over and across the Foxfire Golf Course, at an
estimated cost not to exceed $100, Project Number 74401.
3) Recommendation to approve a work order under Request for
Quotation #08- 5011 -64 in the amount of $469,607.85 to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., for Underground Utility Contracting Services
for the Wastewater Pump Station Technical Support Project No.
70046.
4) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and enter
into negotiations with Hole Montes, Inc., for a contract for Request
for Proposal No. 12 -5867, "North County Water Reclamation Facility
Construction Engineering and Inspection Services for the Aerated
Sludge Holding Tank/Flow Equalization Tank Construction," Project
Page 14
July 24, 2012
Number 70091.
5) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #12-5902, "Sewage
Hauling," to Dixie Drainfields, Inc., and Southern Sanitation, Inc., in
the estimated annual amount of $75,000, to be shared between
referenced vendors, effective August 1, 2012; and, terminate
contracts procured under Invitation to Bid #09 -5300, "Sewage
Hauling," to Dixie Drainfields, Inc., and Southern Sanitation, Inc., on
July 31, 2012.
6) Recommendation to approve a time and materials contract in the not -
to- exceed amount of $265,888.25 with Q. Grady Minor for Request
for Proposal No. 11 -5708, "Construction Engineering and Inspection
Services for Master Pumping Station 312 Rehabilitation," Project
Number 72549.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Adam J. Piskadlo
and Barbara K. Piskadlo for the purchase of property at a cost not to
exceed $71, 500 for the relocation of sub - master pumping station
300.06, Project Number 70046.
8) Recommendation to negotiate the reallocation of tasks for Phase Two
and Three of Contract No. 10 -5447 with EMA of Minnesota, Inc.,
with authorization to prepare a Request for Proposal for the purchase
of Enterprise Asset Management software, in support of "Public
Utilities Asset Management," Project #71012 and #73165, as well as
other future projects identified within the County Manager's Agency.
9) Recommendation to award Bid Number 12 -5913, "Naples Mobile
Estates Water Main Rehabilitation" in the amount of $644,619.20 to
Kyle Construction Inc., to rehabilitate the potable water distribution
system that serves the Naples Mobile Estates, Project No. 71010.
10) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and enter
into negotiations with Johnson Engineering, Inc. for a contract for
Request for Proposal No. 12 -5919, "Utility Design Engineering
Services - U.S. 41 from C.R. 951 to Greenway Road," Project
Page 15
July 24, 2012
Numbers 70045 and 73045.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve fourteen (14) satisfactions of mortgage
in the amount of $145,222 of owner occupied dwelling units that have
satisfied the terms of assistance.
2) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Criminal Justice,
Mental Health and Substance Abuse (CJMHSA) Grant Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between Collier County and the Florida
Department of Children and Families (DCF) for required clarifications
and updates and to approve submittal of an updated budget worksheet,
match commitment forms and approve amendments to the associated
subrecipient agreements.
3) Recommendation to approve proposed changes to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee Ordinance (Ordinance No. 91 -65) and
direct the County Manager, County Attorney or their respective
designees to advertise for ordinance changes to be approved by the
Board at a future meeting.
4) Recommendation to approve two Releases of Lien for the Disaster
Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation Program since the
recipients of these two awards have deceased.
5) Recommendation to approve (2) Modifications to Lien Agreements
for the Disaster Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation
Program to reflect the grant amount actually utilized.
6) Recommendation to approve seven (7) releases of lien totaling
$134,917.86 for impact fee deferrals on owner - occupied land where,
ultimately, construction failed to occur.
7) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage in the
amount of $5,000 for repayment received for the balance owed on a
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan.
Page 16
July 24, 2012
8) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage to Big
Cypress Housing Corporation for a State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP) loan repayment issued to Collier County.
9) Recommendation to approve a modification to Disaster Recovery
Initiative (DRI) Grant Agreement # l ODB-D4-09-2 1 -01 -K09 between
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and Collier
County to add two (2) new projects made possible from
reprogrammed funds of an under budget project, approve new
associated subrecipient agreements and amend a current subrecipient
agreement to accommodate these changes with no additional funds.
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an amendment to the Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP)
Grant FWC Contract #08079 amending the grant compensation and
scope of work for the Bayview Park Improvement Project Phase I.
11) Recommendation to approve an amendment to a Subrecipient
agreement between Collier County and David Lawrence Center
(DLC) to operate the Collier County Drug Court Program and
authorize the County Manager or his designee to request an extension
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Drug Court Grant.
12) Recommendation to appoint Stephen Y. Carnell, Interim Division
Administrator for the Public Services Division, to execute the Federal
Transit Administration's (FTA) annual certifications and assurances
for Board approved grants and grant applications through the FTA's
Transportation Electronic Award & Management ( "TEAM ") system.
13) Recommendation to approve the short-list of design professionals
pursuant to RFP #12 -5868 and to enter into negotiations between
Collier County and Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., for "On-
Call Construction Engineering and Inspections (CEI) and Related
Services" for Gordon River Greenway Park, Goodlette -Frank Road
and Golden Gate Parkway.
14) Recommendation to approve an after - the -fact donation and
Agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
Page 17
July 24, 2012
Everglades City, and the Holy Family Catholic Church in order to
support the County's donation of $2,346.60 in red clay for a little
league field located in Everglades City and authorize payment to
Tate's Trucking for purchase and delivery of the clay.
15) Recommendation to approve after - the -fact Community Care for the
Elderly, Home Care for the Elderly, and Alzheimer's Disease
Initiative 2 year contract with Senior Choices f /k/a Area Agency on
Aging for SWFL and approve budget amendments reflecting the
difference between estimated and actual funding for FYI 2-13 State
General Revenue Seniors Programs (First Year Fiscal Net Impact:
$3,916).
16) Recommendation to accept assets donated to Collier County for
exhibition at the Naples Depot Museum and authorization for the
Chairman to sign the required documents to transfer ownership of the
1941 Tumblebug Swamp Buggy and the 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air to
Collier County.
17) Recommendation to approve: (1) a one -time exception to the Local
Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) on SHIP program guidelines, (2)
two satisfactions of mortgage in the amount of $77,000 and $5,500
issued to SHIP recipient Mary Mackey for the demolition and
construction of a new affordable "green" home, (3) acceptance of the
deed of the property for the purpose of resale, and (4) future resale of
the property to an income qualified person/household.
18) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution repealing all previous
resolutions establishing and amending parts of the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor Areas
License and Fee Policy and establishing the policy anew to include a
discount rate for Collier County veterans and a free rate for Collier
County veterans with a 100% service connected and/or permanent and
total disability rating at aquatic facilities.
19) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and enter
into negotiations with the top ranked firm, Victor J. Latavish, P.A., for
a contract for Request for Proposal No. 12 -5923, "Professional Design
Page 18
July 24, 2012
Services - Eagles Lakes Community and Fitness Center," Project
Number 80184.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and execute an Agreement to provide the
Collier County Library Department funding for an exterior sign at the
Golden Gate Estates Library which is located at 1266 Golden Gate
Boulevard West in Golden Gate Estates, in an amount not to exceed
$20,000.
2) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement and accept an
Access Easement from Hideout Golf Club, Ltd, a Florida limited
partnership for access to the Conservation Collier Nancy Payton
Preserve, at a cost not to exceed $1,300.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the Second
Amendment to the Starnes Cattle Lease Agreement and a US
Department of Agriculture Control of Agricultural Land Agreement.
4) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval for the attached
Assistance to Firefighters Grant application that was submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purchase of three
replacement ambulances for Emergency Medical Services in the
amount of $575,850.
5) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
6) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Collier
County and Lee County for Emergency Medical Services.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and The Moorings Presbyterian Church in
support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and
Page 19
July 24, 2012
manmade hazards emergency response.
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Federal Emergency
Management Agency Assistance to Firefighter's Grant Application in
the amount of $81,400 for the purchase of new mobile and portable
radios for the Ochopee Fire Control District.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Volunteer Fire
Assistance Grant Application in the amount of $2,112 to purchase
Class A Foam for the Ochopee Fire Control District.
4) Recommendation to authorize Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager
Pelican Bay Services Division, to execute an Army Corps of
Engineers Permit Application to perform berm maintenance within the
Pelican Bay Water Management System.
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Wake Up Naples
Breakfast at Hilton Naples on June 13, 2012. $20 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Annual Arlington Founders' Independence Day
Celebration on July 3, 2012. The sum of $50 to be paid from
Page 20
July 24, 2012
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement Authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have
Traffic Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the Valencia
Lakes Subdivision.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 9,
2012 through June 15, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 16,
2012 through June 22, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 23,
2012 through June 29, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 30,
2012 through July 6, 2012 and for submission into the official records
of the Board.
6) Submission of the investment status update report for the quarter
ending June 30, 2012.
Page 21
July 24, 2012
7) Pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(b) the Clerk of the Circuit
Court is required to report the amount of traffic infraction surcharges
collected under Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a)(1) to the Board of
County Commissioners.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal an unnumbered ordinance codified as
Sec. 78 -28 (Sale of canned goods) in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County.
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal an unnumbered ordinance codified as
Sec. 98 -1 (Expenditures for lighting) in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County.
3) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance to repeal an unnumbered ordinance codified as
Sec. 46 -5 (Fee for alimony payments and collection) in the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign an Engagement
and Contingency Fee Agreement with Hinkle & Foran, P.A., et al., for
representation in the Multi- District Litigation relating to the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
Page 22
July 24, 2012
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 approve Petition VAC -
PL20120000348, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
Public interest in an unopened and unused portion of Production Boulevard
(60 -foot wide Public Road right -of -way) located just north of Exchange
Avenue and the dead end portion of Exchange Avenue (60 -foot wide Public
Road right -of -way) located just east of Production Boulevard as originally
recorded in the Plat of Collier County Production Park, Phase 1 -B, Plat
Book 15, page 8, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in
Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida
being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A ".
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC -
PL20120000927, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
Public interest in part of the Conservation Easement originally recorded in
Plat Book 42, pages 36 through 41, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, located in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A ".
C. Recommendation to approve amending Ordinance No. 02 -42, changing the
name of the "Tuscany Reserve Community Development District" to the
"Talis Park Community Development District ", pursuant to Chapter 190,
Florida Statutes. Companion to Item # 17D.
D. 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 County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, renaming
Tuscany Reserve Drive to Talis Park Drive, which street is located in
Tuscany Reserve subdivision, located in Sections 7 and 12, Township 48
South, Ranges 25 and 26 East, Collier County, Florida; providing for an
Page 23
July 24, 2012
effective date. Companion to Item #I 7C.
E. 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 the WineLoft of
Naples, a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida relating to Petition Number ABW- PL20120001079 granting a
waiver pursuant to Section 5.05.01 .A.6. of the Land Development Code
concerning an establishment selling alcohol for on -site consumption and
deriving less than fifty -one percent of their sales from food items and having
a minimum separation distance of less than 500 feet from other such
establishments which are located in the Mercato Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to approve a resolution designating the Close -Out of
eleven (11) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which have fully
completed development pursuant to their development orders constructing
up to the authorized density and /or intensity and have been found by county
staff to be compliant with their specific developer commitments.
G. Recommendation to approve a resolution designating the Close -Out of four
(4) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which have fully completed
all or portions of their development and have constructed up to the
authorized density and /or intensity, and have been found by county staff to
have only one relevant transportation commitment remaining.
H. Recommendation to approve a resolution designating the Close -Out of the
adopted Audubon Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) which
has fulfilled all of their commitments within their development orders except
for one transportation commitment remaining which will be tracked through
the Commitment Tracking System.
I. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Ordinance Number 2009 -22,
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) time limits and time limit extension
requirements as found in Section 10.02.13.1) of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC).
Page 24
July 24, 2012
J. 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 PUDA- PL2011-
1168, The Naples Reserve Golf Club Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD), An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 07 -71, The Naples Reserve Golf
Club Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to remove a golf
course from the RPUD; providing for amendments to permitted uses;
providing for amendments to development standards; providing for
amendments to master plan; providing for amendments to list of requested
deviations from LDC; providing for amendments to list of developer
commitments; and providing an effective date. Subject property is located
one mile north of US 41 and 1 -1/2 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1)
in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
consisting of 688 +/- acres. This is a companion to Item #16A20.
K. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
Page 25
July 24, 2012
July 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
COUNTY MANAGER LEO OCHS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioners meeting is now in session. Will you please stand for
the invocation by Reverend Richard Rogers of the Unity of Naples
Church.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the County Manager will
substitute.
MR. OCHS: Let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this
Board of County Commissioners. Guide them in their deliberations,
grant them wisdom and vision to, meet the trials of this day and the
days to come. Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier
County and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of
all citizens and be acceptable in your sight. These things we pray in
your name. ` Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
Page 2
July 24, 2012
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
County Manager, would you please review the changes to the
agenda this morning?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. These are your proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners meeting of July 24 2012.
First proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.H. 1. It was
actually duplicated on your agenda. It remains at 16.I.1 on your
agenda. That's miscellaneous correspondence.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.J.1 from your
Constitutional officer consent agenda to become Item 13.A.1. It's
regarding a request from the Sheriffs Office for traffic control at
Valencia Lake subdivision. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
Commissioners, the next three items asked to be continued are all
PUD close -out items on your summary agenda. They are Items 17.F,
17.G and 17.H. These items are being requested to be continued to
the September 11, 2012 meeting at staff s request, in conjunction with
the County Attorney's Office.
Commissioners, we have two time certain items today. The first
item is Item 1 LA; will be heard at 10:45 a.m. And then Item 9.A will
be your first advertised public hearing item to be heard, and that is at
1:00 P.M.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney, any changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with commissioners for
any further changes and ex parte disclosure for the consent and
summary agenda only. We'll begin with Commissioner Hiller.
Page 3
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda. As far
as 8.A goes, I reviewed the staff report; I had a meeting with the
owner, and emails.
For 9.B, meetings again, emails again, reviewed the staff report,
and again meeting with the owner's representative.
On the consent agenda, no disclosures for 16.A.1, 16.A.8,
16.A.15. And for the summary agenda, 17.A, no disclosures for any
of them except J where again there were meetings, emails, reviewed
staff report and a meeting with Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
On the con -- by the way, I have no changes or corrections or
additions to the agenda. And on the consent agenda I have -- excuse
me for just a second here -- only one to disclose and that's 17.J, which
is the Naples Reserve. And I met with Rich Yovanovich and James
Culles, and also I met with Rich and Don Meres. And that's the only
-- those are the only disclosures I have for the consent and summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And I have ex parte disclosure for Item 17.A. I had a meeting
with Mr. Will Dempsey concerning that item. And I also had a
meeting on 17.J with Mr. Rich Yovanovich. And I have no further
changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, no changes to the
agenda. And the only thing I have to declare is under the summary
agenda, 17.J, I reviewed the staff report and I met with Mr.
Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte on today's
consent or summary, just on the regular agenda. And I have no
changes to the agenda. Thank you.
00- �
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the agenda
as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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 agenda is approved unanimously.
Page 5
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
July 24, 2012
Withdraw Item 16H1: Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed. Document(s)
have been routed to all Commissioners and are available for review in the BCC office until approval.
(Staff's request, this item was inadvertently entered two times)
Move Item 1611 to 13A1: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement Authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have Traffic Control Jurisdiction over
Private Roads within the Valencia Lakes Subdivision. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Continue Item 17F to the September 11, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a
resolution designating the Close -Out of eleven (11) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which
have fully completed development pursuant to their development orders constructing up to the
authorized density and /or intensity and have been found by county staff to be compliant with their
specific developer commitments. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 17G to the September 11, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a
resolution designating the Close -Out of four (4) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which
have fully completed all or portions of their development and have constructed up to the authorized
density and /or intensity, and have been found by county staff to have only one relevant
transportation commitment remaining. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 17H to the September 11, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a
resolution designating the Close -Out of the adopted Audubon Country Club Planned Unit
Development (PUD) which has fulfilled all of their commitments within their development orders
except for one transportation commitment remaining which will be tracked through the Commitment
Tracking System. (Staff's request)
,f
Time Certain Items:
Item 11A to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 9A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
7/24/2012 8:35 AM
July 24, 2012
Item #213 and #2C
BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, 2012,
AND BCC /REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 26,
2012 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll go to now the approval or any
changes for the BCC regular meeting for June the 12th, 2012 and the
BCC regular meeting minutes June 26, 2012.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala, seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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, and the
minutes for those two meetings are approved.
That brings us to service awards. County Manager?
Item #3A1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 20 YEAR ATTENDEE
July 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if the Board would be kind
enough to join us in front of the dais. We're pleased to have several
awards this morning for long -term dedicated service to county
government.
Commissioners, our first service award this morning is
recognizing 20 years of service with the county for Edwin Barroso
from Parks and Rec. Ed?
(Applause.)
Item #3A2
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're pleased this morning to
recognize several employees celebrating 25 years of service with
Collier County. Our first awardee is Patrick Webb from Facilities
Management.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, celebrating 25 years of service
with our Transportation Engineering Department, Steve Ritter. Steve?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS Twenty -five years of service with our Road
Maintenance Department, Ramiro Ponce. Ramiro?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 25 years of service with Building
Review and Permitting, Richard Noonan.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Twenty -five years for service in our Traffic
Operations Department, Willey Bullard.
(Applause.)
Page 7
July 24, 2012
Item #3A3
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 30 YEAR ATTENDEE
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our final service award this
morning, recognizing 30 years of service in county government,
Joseph Chirico from Road Maintenance.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that concludes our service awards
this morning, thank you.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING AUGUST 10TH, 11 TH AND
12TH AS SPIRIT OF '45 DAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY EVENT CHAIRS LOIS BOLIN AND MYRA
WILLIAMS AND VETERANS PETER THOMAS, GREG
GARCIA, HOMER HELTER, HELMIE MCCARDY, DON
TALLON AND PAPPY WAGNER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 4 on your
agenda this morning. It's proclamations.
Item 4.A is a proclamation designating August 10th, 11th and
12th as Spirit of '45 Days in Collier County. To be accepted by event
chairs Lois Bolin, Myra Williams, and Veterans Peter Thomas, Greg
Garcia, Homer Helter, Helmie McCardy, Don Tallon and Pappy
Wagner. This proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
If you'd all please come forward and accept your reward.
(Applause.)
MS. BOLIN: Commissioner Coyle and Collier County
Commissioners, Mr. Ochs, Mike, we thank you so much on behalf of
the World War II veterans and home -front workers for extending this
July 24, 2012
proclamation for the third annual Spirit of '45.
On August 14th, 2010, Congress passed a resolution making the
second Sunday of August the 45th day of remembrance of America
for America's greatest generation who endured the Great Depression,
they preserved our freedom and went on to rebuild a shattered world,
which is why we have such great economic development right here in
Collier County. God bless our veterans. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JULY 2012 TO WYN'S MARKET.
ACCEPTED BY JEFF WYNN; PETER SEYEZ, GENERAL
MANAGER; LARRY LANDBERG, STORE MANAGER; AND
EVELYN DICKERSON, EXECUTIVE BOOKKEEPER AND
WYNN'S EMPLOYEE FOR 57 YEARS — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda this morning, presentations.
Item 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the
Month for July, 2012 to Wynn's Market. To be accepted by Mr. Tim
Wynn.
(Applause.)
MR. V�TYNN: I just would like to thank you for the award and
providing us such a great community to be part of and supporting us
for the last 74 years. Not me personally, I've had some help from the
older generations.
But anyhow, it is great to be blessed to be in Collier County, one
of the few places that you can build a business and have such great
success because everybody supports each other. Thank you very
much.
Page 9
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Tim. We're happy to have
you here.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING JUDY PUIG, OPERATIONS ANALYST,
OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
JULY 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5.B is a recommendation to
recognize Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Operations and Regulatory
Management Department, as the Employee of the Month for July,
2012.
Judy, please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Stand up there while I embarrass you for a minute.
Commissioners, Judy's been an employee of county government
for over 24 years. As an operations analyst, Judy touches almost
every aspect of our growth management division in one way or
another. She has a wide range of knowledge and experience about the
various sections and departments in the division and she's always
willing to step in and help others whenever needed.
She is the division manager for all of our agenda central items.
Additionally, she coordinates many tasks for the Collier County
Planning, Commission and your Development Services Advisory
Committee. She always offers a constant smile and positive attitude
in all of her interactions with her colleagues and her customers. Judy's
truly an asset to the division, a dedicated employee and very truly
deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my great pleasure to present to you Judy
Puig, your Employee of the Month for July, 2012. Congratulations,
Page 10
July 24, 2012
Judy.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could backtrack just briefly and
get a motion to approve the proclamation under 4.A. I apologize for
the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the proclamation
under 4.A.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the proclamation, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
And by the way, there is a notice in big red letters on my agenda
that says motion to approve after the proclamations.
MR. OCHS: It's the same note I have on mine, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have never noticed it or done anything
about it in the three years I've been chairman.
MR. OCHS: I usually rely on Commissioner Henning, he keeps
me straight on that one, helps me out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: Thank you, sir.
Item #7A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 11
July 24, 2012
MR. OCHS : Takes us to Item 7 this morning on your agenda,
public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many comments do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker, but someone's
deferred to him, so it's Bob Krasowski, and he'll be speaking for six
minutes. It was deferred by Jan Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKL• Good morning, Commissioners. And
hopefully I won't need the six minutes but it sure makes it more
comfortable when you're not up against the three - minute clock.
For the record, my name is Bob Krasowski. I'd like to address a
couple of things regarding your beach renourishment program, as I
have taken an interest and as well as other people in the community.
I wanted to be sure that you were notified about the upcoming
FSBPA annual conference and speaker program that will be here
September 26th through 28th. And this is the Florida Shore and
Beach Preservation Association.
And what it is, it's the industry's collection -- conference on
beach renourishment. So I hope you all can be there. I wanted -- they
have a website, it's pretty easy to find, and it lists the activities over
the three days. And it's really going to be very interesting.
I note that the opening welcome at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday will
be given by Mayor John Sorey, and our Chairman Fred Coyle will be
speaking as well, to kick off the events as a cordial welcome.
They have a shoreline newsletter where you can read all about
their intentions on beach renourishment. And my comment to this is
they're very much -- it's all about beach renourishment and there's very
little activity from the environmental side of it. There's no speeches
about, you know, how to integrate beach renourishment with turtle
protection or hard bottom, which is the productive ecosystem right off
of the coast in various places. Of course our coastal development
department is well aware of all these variables and situations, and
they're developing through the permit process a position for you.
Page 12
July 24, 2012
Also I wanted to point out, and I can't find this, it's eight pages,
but this is a new law that just went into effect July 1 st. And in there it
says that counties can use permits twice for beach renourishment.
And it requires that the agencies that are reviewing the applications for
these permits, that they are required to ask specific questions and set
up specific criteria so that when an application's made, if it is
submitted satisfactorily, then the permit will go through.
We've had a problem with that in the past, I know. But this is
something some of you were talking about maybe organizing an effort
to go up to Tallahassee and see what all the delays are about, being we
already have permits. But I think you should review this legislation, it
might give you what you already want.
Let's see. So I guess that's about it. I know we have a specific
issue coming up later about the funding of some of your programs,
and I'll have some questions in that regard.
And in my conversations with you, I found that there's a lot of
really good ideas floating around that might be able to help us pull off
the beach renourishment projects without interfering with turtle
nesting season. And that's my main focus, logistics and designing the
program so that we don't interfere with the environment and natural
resources. And I and others I know of will be participating in the
permit process and we'll be hoping to defend the natural resources
while helping you and everybody else accomplish what we want.
And then one last thing: If we were to go to the basic beach
renourishment, it would simplify our applications for permits now,
and we'd be able to achieve them sooner than later. Although it's taken
us so long to get to where we are now, we're kind of really squeezing.
We've got to -- we're squeezing, you know, the time line to get
something done so that we can get into the -- like from November to
February of this year.
Okay, thank you very; much for your attention to my comments
and for your time.
Page 13
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bob, thank you for bringing this to
our attention.
Could you give the information on the conference to Ian Mitchell
so he can email it to all the commissioners so we can calendar it?
Could you also give him the cite to the bill that you were
referring to? You do that after, please. And have him actually send us
the full copy of the bill so that we can read it?
I think you raised several very interesting points, and that is that
the state identifies the requirements. As you know, there are certain
items on the agenda today that are going to be talking about funding
for the beach renourishment permit, as well as the Wiggins Pass
dredging.
You raise a very good point. Because the engineers have cited
that we need all sorts of data. But really, what we need is a statement
from the state as to what we need, and merely comply with that and
nothing more. And to the extent we can, rely on the existing
monitoring reports which are done annually and paid for and another
item that will be approved today. So I think you raised a very, very
important point.
And I would appreciate that when this agenda item comes up --
the two agenda items come up later this afternoon, if you could come
back to the podium and readdress what you said this morning so it's
incorporated with those agenda items for future reference.
The other issue is what you said about avoiding renourishment
during turtle nesting season. I would ask you to go back to the backup
for this afternoon's agenda item on that matter specifically. In the
backup it provides that we are actually paying a premium to be able to
renourish in turtle nesting season. And I'd like to talk to you about that
after and before the meeting and maybe we can talk to staff about that
Page 14
July 24, 2012
together. Because I'd like more information. Because it seems that
we're doing very much the opposite of what you just described.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's very, very complex and complicated,
and the more options you want to entertain, the more balls you keep in
the air, the longer it's going to take. But I think we are moving
forward, but it's so complicated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Unnecessarily so.
MR. KRASOWSKI: That could be said, yeah. It's a point of
view, right? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #I OA
PRESENTATION BY JERRY VAN HECKE AND GUESTS OF
THE E.T. BRISSON DETACHMENT #063 MARINE CORPS
LEAGUE TO THIS YEAR'S RECIPIENT, COMMISSIONER JIM
COLETTA, DISTRICT 5 FOR THE "GOOD CITIZENSHIP
AWARD." ACCEPTED BY JERRY VAN HECKE, NICK
MARSIT, JOHN MARSH AND BOB KEMP — PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that brings us to IO.A, does it?
MR. OCHS Yes, sir, IO.A, Board of County Commissioners.
It's the presentation by Jerry Van Hecke and guests of the E.T. Brisson
Detachment #063 Marine Corps League to this year's recipient,
Commissioner Jim Coletta of District 5, for the Good Citizenship
Award. To be presented by Jerry Van Hecke, Nick Marsit, John
Marsh and Bob Kemp.
Good morning, gentlemen.
MR. VAN HECKE: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we have Commissioner
Coletta go down in front to --
Page 15
July 24, 2012
MR. VAN HECKE: That sounds like a good idea.
My name is Jerry Van Hecke. These gentlemen here are
members of the Marine Corps League here in town. Thank you for
allowing us to do this at the commission meeting to interrupt the
proceedings here a bit.
We are the E.T. Brisson Detachment of the Marine Corps
League. We have been in business here for -- since the Fifties. Our
namesake, E.T. Brisson was an early road builder in Collier County;
built many of the roads in Collier County that we drive on today.
We are an organization that is chartered by Congress. We have
-- we do many things in the community. One of the many things that
we do in the community is we present a good citizenship award to
every -- well, we try to do it to every Eagle Scout. We don't hit every
Eagle Scout when they make Eagle Scout.
And it's a national award recognized by the Marine Corps League
nationally, but it's given out by the local detachments. It's in
recognition of the difficult work that it takes to become an Eagle
Scout and the dedication that it becomes (sic) an Eagle Scout.
Also when we do this, we present a challenge coin. It's a
detachment challenge coin. It's a Marine Corps tradition. Maybe the
Army's got the same tradition. It's given out to Marines when they do
something exceptional, something above and beyond what's expected
of them. And a lot is expected of Marines, by the way, as Army
people.
We have -- John Marsh and I were at a Eagle Scout presentation
a while back and Commissioner Coletta was there participating in this.
And it was because he's an Eagle Scout. And when we looked at this,
John and I looked at each other and said man, we're a little bit tardy on
this here, about 50 years too late for Commissioner Coletta, but we
can correct this.
The challenge coin, for those of you who don't -- have not -- are
not familiar with it, one of the things -- it's cherished and collected by
Page 16
July 24, 2012
Marines. And one of the things that Marines do with it is when you
go someplace where they serve strong spirits, some Marine will get up
and say challenge coin or something similar to that, and everybody
gets out their challenge coin, and whoever doesn't have a challenge
coin gets to buy a round of cheer for everybody.
We would like to give one of these challenge coins to each one of
the commissioners and to Leo Ochs, the County Manager, today. And
we've checked with the lawyers; we've checked with the county
lawyer, and he says it's okay. Believe me, there's not a lot of
monetary value to it. It's all good feelings.
So today we would like to present Jim Coletta with the Good
Citizenship Award. And I guess since I've got_ it right here, I better get
it out so we can give it to him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Jerry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's so beautiful.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we get the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These are beautiful.
MR. VAN HECKE: I forgot to mention that the reason why
we've given that to the County Manager is because it's got to be a
particularly challenging situation for him to have five bosses at one
time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought it was because you knew
he would forget it at home when we were all out together --
MR. VAN HECKE: Oh, that could be too. I didn't realize that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And he'd have to pay. That's the
part that I like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's going to save you a lot of money,
Leo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the opposite, it's going to cost
you.
MR. OCHS: I thought that was the chairman's --
Page 17
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Either that or maybe it's like a war
zone here.
MR. OCHS: There you go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, this is beautiful.
Item #1013
RESOLUTION 2012 -131: APPOINTING FREDERICK G.
ROGERS TO THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item IO.B this
morning. It's appointment of member to the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Frederick G. Rogers,
the committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay,` motion by me to approve
Frederick G. Rogers, seconded 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 carries unanimously.
Item #I OC
RESOLUTION 2012 -132: APPOINTING STANLEY P.
Page 18
July 24, 2012
CHRZANOWSKI TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.0 is appointment of member to the Development
Services Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation, Stan Chrzanowski.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
recommend Stan Chrzanowski, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is approved unanimously.
Item #I OD
RESOLUTION 2012 -133: APPOINTING CRISTINA PEREZ TO
THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.1) is appointment of member to the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Cristina
Perez.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Motion by Commissioner Coletta
Page 19
July 24, 2012
to approve Cristina Perez, the committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala. And
Commissioner Henning has a comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, I know
Cristina, and I know what happened to the former Code Enforcement
Board (sic) sitting on an advisory board. I think it becomes very
challenging for that employee. I would hate to see happen with
Cristina what happened to Kitchell Snow.
I would hope that we can amend this ordinance to separate
government from advisory positions. I think it would be a very
prudent -- we've done that in the recent past. I think that Jeff, this is
the only ordinance that allows for county employees to sit on?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to go through my memory now.
We have the Flood Water Management Committee that has some
employees on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all over with.
MR. KLATZKOW: But as a rule we do not allow employees on
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your board, right? That's
not the board's board.
MR. OCHS: It was a County Manager committee sanctioned by
the Board for flood plain management, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I think it serves a real
purpose to have this code enforcement individual on there. Firsthand
knowledge coming to that organization and them being able to
exercise some discretion on how it's applied. I think it's appropriate.
Page 20
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the -- any concern with respect to
changing the ordinance would have to be done under a different
agenda item and at another meeting. If -- Commissioner Henning, if
you'd like to bring that back for a future hearing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we can certainly put that on the
agenda. But in this particular case -- Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And when you bring it
back, Commissioner Henning, bring it for all advisory committees. It
doesn't matter which one, whether it's a CRA advisory committee or
this one, I don't think any employees should --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anything else you'd like me to
do?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well,, no, I just think if you're
doing it -- you don't want me to duplicate the effort, do you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you make him a list and send it
down to him?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for the suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a great suggestion, I'll
do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question.
Can you tell me what district she's in?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She doesn't live in a district.
MR. MITCHELL: No, she represents -- it's actually part of the
state requirement that the local -- there's a sheriff is represented and
also -
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you don't --
MR. MITCHELL: -- there's a requirement --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- need to put the district on there?
MR. MITCHELL: No, because the recommendation comes from
Page 21
July 24, 2012
code enforcement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's a state requirement?
MR. MITCHELL: I think so, sir, yes. But the County Attorney
will adjudge on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, no, it's not in the Florida
statutes, it's for the CRA to have that representation, not an advisory
board. Otherwise we'd have it for both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have that discussion later on.
All in favor of the appointment of Cristina Perez to the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency, 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, the motion carries 4 -1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Item #I OE
RESOLUTION 2012 -134: APPOINTING BRIAN DOYLE TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.E is appointment of member to the
Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Brian Doyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did I hear a second from Commissioner
Page 22
July 24, 2012
Hiller? Okay.
Brian Doyle is suggested by Commissioner Henning and
seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Fiala
dissenting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: IO.F?
Item #I OF
RESOLUTION 2012-135: APPOINTING LENICE DELUCA AND
MARY J. BILLS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IO.F is appointment of members to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation, Lanise DeLuca and Mary Bills.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve committee recommendation for Lanise DeLuca Mary J. Bills.
Seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 23
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #I OG
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES, PRESS RELEASE DATED
JULY 23, 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: IO.G is advisory board vacancies, press release
dated July 23rd, 2012.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we have a
number of vacancies. We issued a press release yesterday. The
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has one vacancy for a full
member and one vacancy for an alternate member. I should mention
that for the Affordable Housing Committee we are looking as well for
someone to -- who resides in Immokalee. That is a requirement of the
ordinance.
The Animal Services Board has a vacancy for a veterinarian or
vet technician.
The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board has one vacancy.
The Board of Building Adjustment and Appeals has two terms
that are expiring in August.
The Development Service Advisory Committee has one vacancy.
The Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has a vacancy.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has two vacancies.
And this is -- we added this from the agenda. The Immokalee
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has a term that's expiring
in September, so there is a vacancy on that board.
Page 24
July 24, 2012
And the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee has
one vacancy.
And the Floodplain Management Planning Committee has two
vacancies.
That's the vacancies as they stand at this moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. That brings us to item
number I LA; is that -- no, 1 LB; is that correct?
Item #1 1 B
RESOLUTION 2012 -136: ESTABLISHING PROPOSED
MILLAGE RATES AS THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX
RATES TO BE LEVIED IN FY 2012/13 AND REAFFIRM THE
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING DATES IN SEPTEMBER,
2012 FOR THE BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS — ADOPTED;
BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING DATES WILL BE SEPTEMBER
6TH AND SEPTEMBER 20TH AT 5:05 P.M.
MR. OCHS: 1.1.13, sir, yes.
I LB is a recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing
proposed millage rates as the maximum property tax rates to be levied
in fiscal year 2012/2013, and reaffirm the advertised public hearing
dates in September, 2012 for the budget approval process.
Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial Management Services, will
present.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Mark Isackson with the County Manager's Office.
July 1 we received certified taxable values from the Property
Appraiser, and that signifies and starts the long process of approving
the final millage rates and final budgets which will culminate on
September 20th with your final public hearing.
The trim process will culminate on October 14th when we submit
Page 25
July 24, 2012
our final trim package.
Before you is a resolution which establishes the maximum
property tax rates to be levied across all family of Collier County
funds, including the general fund and the unincorporated area general
fund.
Also in the resolution is a notification which verifies once again
the public hearing dates in September as September 6th and
September 20th, 2012, both being at 5:05 p.m.
The notice that goes out from the Property Appraiser, the trim
notice which goes out from the Property Appraiser will be the hearing
notice for the first September hearing, which is September 6th.
Commissioners, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded 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: And it deserves repeating, that the
property tax rate will remain unchanged.
MR. ISACKSON: Yes, sir. For the general fund and
unincorporated area general fund.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Okay, thank you.
Item #1 I C
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
Page 26
July 24, 2012
REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY'S
MEDICAID BACKLOG (RETROSPECTIVE BILLS) - MOTION
TO ACCEPT OPTION #3 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.0 (sic) is a recommendation to review and
provide direction to the County Manager or his designee regarding the
payment of Collier County's Medicaid backlog. Mr. Isackson will
present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't pay 'em.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, County Manager Ochs.
Again, for the record, Mark Isackson with the County Manager's
Office.
As the Board is well aware, the legislation that was passed this
most recent session compels counties to make a backlog payment.
And that backlog payment essentially is for a period of time from
September of 2001 up until the current March 31 st, 2012 period.
In your executive summary there are a couple of dates that are
integral and that the Board should be aware of. First is the Agency for
Health Care Administration will require a certification of that backlog
dollar amount on August l st, which is why we're before you today.
The backlog amount was originally over $3 million. And in
conversations that we've had with the State Agency for Health Care
Administration, Sherry Pryor in our office has been instrumental in
conversations with AHCA.
That amount has been reduced. There's been action by the
Governor in an attempt to try and streamline some of this. I think also
probably in recognition of a lawsuit that's pending with 53 other
counties. That backlog amount has been reduced to a little over $2
million. That is the maximum amount of money, backlog amount that
we could expect to owe under the legislation.
Now, I will tell you that there are still conversations going on
with my staff and with AHCA, and that amount may be --
Page 27
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is AHCA?
MR. ISACKSON: AHCA is the Agency for Health Care
Administration, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. ISACKSON: That amount may be further reduced. So this
will be the maximum amount of dollars in terms of the backlog that
we're looking to satisfy the legislation.
We've laid out three options for the Board. County Manager's
trying to throw those up on the visualizer. Our suggested option is
option three. The first component of that option is the prepayment of
$800,000 which we will do in fiscal year 2012. The second
component of that will be taking the 15 percent discount off that $2
million, bringing the number down to -- after the prepayment down to
about 954,000. And the third component of that is spreading the final
backlog payment out over five years, through 2017. And in fact that
would be budgeted annually within those respective fiscal years.
The option three suggestion requires that the Board approve that
option and then we would in turn convey that framework, as I might
call it, to AHCA and we would proceed going forward then.
Be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What Medicaid money do we
receive from the state? We don't.
MR. ISACKSON: That's probably why I was pausing, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's true. So it's clearly
a unfunded mandate by the legislators. And that's very disappointing.
They're actually -- when you have unfunded mandates, you're actually
raising the taxes on our existing citizens, because they're using those
funds that were paid for with something else. And it just needs to
stop.
Where are we with that lawsuit with the Florida legislators and
Representative Hudson's Bill 508?
July 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: At this point in time the lawsuit continues.
I'm getting the feeling that the Florida Association of Counties may
decide to settle it, though, in light of some of the conversations with
the Governor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you do that, we're
setting precedence so they can just do it over and over again.
Do we have -- you don't have that slide showing their historical
budgeting, do you?
MR. OCHS: The state's budget?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: No, we don't. That's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if --
MR. ISACKSON: That's the one I -- is that the one I provided
you, Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. ISACKSON: -- the full budget?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if they provided it
to my colleagues, but you can see the State of Florida's historical
budgeting has pretty much been flatlined to where -- and if you
compare to our county, our budgeting has been -- revenues have been
going down. And, you know, I would imagine it would be fair to say
that would be for all the 67 counties in the State of Florida, comparing
it with ours. Our revenue has been going down, but the state has been
staying the same. And they've been doing the cost shifting over and
over again.
You know, Medicaid is a federal program that was shifted down
to the states, and now the state is shifting it down to the local
government. We have no reason -- the only thing that we can do is,
you know, shift it to our citizens. Anyways, it's frustrating.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad that you've made a point
Page 29
July 24, 2012
of saying this publicly and so reporters can hear it and so forth. And it
even extends beyond just this item. We have seen a number of
unfunded mandates handed down to us over the recent years. And it
makes it more and more difficult all the time for us to deal with our
budget when this is something we had not counted on until the state
hands down further requirements. And I say that word meaningfully,
that we pay other items that they're not going to pay.
And we do our very best, and I think we do an outstanding job,
considering the fact that we also have our own things to deal with and
less dollars coming in. But it's important that you've brought this to
everybody's attention and I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me make sure that I clearly
understand the issue here. And you stop me or correct me if I'm
wrong.
If a Medicaid recipient who lists their residence as being Collier
County goes for medical treatment in Miami and is treated under the
Medicaid program, we are allocated the costs for that person because
they say they are -- they reside in Collier County; is that correct?
MR. ISACKSON: That's my understanding, sir.
MR. OCHS That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so the state in many cases has not
even verified whether that person is a resident of Collier County or
whether they're a resident of Miami or anyplace else, but yet they
want to charge this money to us based upon the mere statement that
the person is a resident of Collier County, without any consideration
being given to when that record was changed or the residency was
changed.
So the assessment of funds to us is in my opinion erroneous, and
past experience has shown that, when we've tried to balance these
things out, that the amount of money that the state says we owe turns
out not to be the amount of money that we really owe because of
incorrect state records pertaining to this -- the location of residency.
Page 30
July 24, 2012
So my question at the present time is how much do you believe
we really owe under this program, and do we have any way of proving
that what the state has allocated to us is not the correct amount?
MS. GRANT: Good morning, Commissioners, Kim Grant,
Interim Director, Housing and Human Veteran Services. Hopefully
what I'm about to say will help in this conversation.
One of the premises of the new process that AHCA has set in
place is a determination of one database and one database only that
we'll be using for addresses and that is the database maintained by the
Department of Children and Families.
They recently came for their business, they went to all the
counties around the state and they brought us a sample of
approximately 100 clients, if you will, and they showed us the DCF
database address and they showed us other records such as our
property appraiser information here to validate that address.
And their attempt was to have us review those records and see
whether we thought in general the integrity of the DCF database was
sufficient going forward. 1
We have completed that review and we have a few questions that
we've sent back up to AHCA. But I will tell you that we surprisingly
felt that the database was more accurate than not accurate. So we're
not completed with that review but that actually is the foundation of
their entire new process that they have gone to greater lengths to
validate the address that's being utilized for the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So out of the total amount of
money that's being assessed to us, the total amount of charges that are
being assessed to us, what percentage do you think we really owe?
MS. GRANT: Well, if I use the sample of 100, we have
approximately 10 questions. We don't know yet what the resolution of
those questions will be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mean 10 cases that you have a
question on?
Page 31
July 24, 2012
MS. GRANT: Correct, thank you very much.
So if I just use that for a ballpark at this point in time, I would say
that our sample showed that 90 percent was solid, 10 percent we have
questions on. And I think before we move all the way forward with
this, we will need to get those questions answered and be able to rely
upon that.
Because the other choice I have procedurally, which is not
exactly what you're talking about, is on a going forward basis I have
the procedural choice to have a staff member go through our own
validation of all those addresses, which is what we have been doing
for years and that's why we have disputed charges.
So if we are really comfortable that there's a really high
percentage of accuracy, like 99 percent, we will have to decide
whether we also put staff time on it. But right now we're still trying to
determine our confirmation of whether we feel that the process they're
using in that database is valid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the option you're providing us
today represents a recommendation to pay more or less than what the
state wants to charge us?
MR. ISACKSON: The state right now has told us that our
certified amount is $2,046,1 -- whatever that number is, $2,046,126.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two million, 064.
MR. ISACKSON: I'm sorry,, yes. I got a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I can read that without glasses.
MR. ISACKSON: What I'm telling you is what will be our
maximum exposure. I believe it will be lower than that based on some
conversations that we're still having. In other words, there's bills that
have been paid that haven't been recognized in that amount of money,
and I think that number will be significantly lower than that, as much
as $400,000 lower than that number.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, and the significance of all this
from a timing standpoint is you really have two choices today, and we
Page 32
July 24, 2012
need direction on which choice you'd prefer.
The first option is to pay that fully, 100 percent of that certified
number when it's finalized, ' and reserve your right to then appeal to
AHCA for adjustments on or before September 1 st, which we won't
meet again until after that. So this is why we're dealing with this
today.
The second option that's provided in the legislation is that you
can take a 15 percent discount off of that certified backlog payment
amount. When you do that, you waive your right to appeal at that
point. And that is the recommendation that the staff is making today,
based in part of what Ms. Grant just said, if historically we're
disputing about 10 percent of the bills, this second option discounts
that backlog by 15 percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's option three, not option two.
MR. OCHS: Well, the only difference between option one and
three is that we're recommending if we take three that we make an
early partial payment to reduce our going forward liability sir. You're
right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if we approve option three,
based upon the research you've already done, we are likely not to be
paying more than we should be paying; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you waive your right to
challenge.
MR. ISACKSON: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For how long?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're waived.
MR. OCHS: You waived it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forever?
MR. OCHS: Just for the backlog.
MR. KLATZKOW: For the backlog.
Page 33
July 24, 2012
MR. ISACKSON: For the backlog.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this solves the backlog problem?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's a one -time waiver.
MR.00HS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, if they come back and charge us
something next year, we can still oppose it, can't --
MR. ISACKSON: That's a --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. ISACKSON: -- different mechanism.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're settling a disputed debt is what we're
doing. What the County Manager is saying is that maybe the state is
10 percent off, but you're getting a 15 percent discount.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. That's what I wanted to get
to.
MR. ISACKSON: Well, the other thing, keep in mind that part
of the legislation on the retrospective piece also impacts a revenue
sharing money. By doing this, we're dictating what source of money
we're using to pay this backlog. The state's not telling us to do it. So
there's another advantage to this approach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. OCHS Commissioner, finally, on the going forward
prospective billing, every month we have the opportunity to audit and
challenge that invoice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
Okay, who was first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How long has this backlog been
occurring? What is -- how old is -- how far back does this go?
MR. ISACKSON: It stretches from November of 2001 to March
Page 34
July 24, 2012
of 2012.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And if we did nothing,
we'd be liable for the full amount and they'd, what, sue us for it or
they'd take away what services?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, what we would do is if there is a -- if
we challenge, then what you have is, number one, you better have a
basis for the challenge. We're telling you that while we're still in
discussions that the basis for that challenge below this two million 064
number probably is not going to prove to be an economic win for the
county. So that's why we're suggesting you don't challenge, you take
the discount and you move out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to take a blow like this
and just have to roll with it. I don't know, there is no other choices. I
mean, if we don't do it then we're going to be liable for the full
amount. They would what, bring suit against us, take us into court?
MR. ISACKSON: No, we would just avail ourselves of the
challenge process, that's all. At some point in time we're going to be
paying some backlog amount.
MR. OCHS: We would file the appeal, if you chose to do that.
You would have to then -- they would take that out of your revenue
sharing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, there's
no way you can win this.
MR. OCHS: No, no, no, they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They got us. We just can't
move. I mean, they got us boxed into a corner here. We either pay
now or we pay later. We'll pay more later if we don't pay now. That's
what I'm hearing from you.
And then if we challenge it, the chances are what, we got a 10
percent -- we got 10 percent of the items that are in question that we
wanted to bring some questions up, but I guess the questions we bring
up might be insufficient to be able to change the direction we're going;
Page 35
July 24, 2012
is that what we're saying?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The historical error rate is around 10
percent, in our experience. This discount is 15 percent. And that's
why we believe that even if you chose to pay the full certified amount
and then appeal, you're not likely to do better than the 15 percent
discount.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The state still has some
restrictions too as far as what we can do as far as raising the ad
valorem; is that correct? I mean, we don't plan to raise it --
MR. OCHS: You just have a statutory millage cap of 10 mills.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, is there any other ones
where it takes -- I know for a while there the state legislative body put
on some restrictions, if you wanted to raise your millage, not that
we're going to raise it.
MR. ISACKSON: It's just a majority vote, two- thirds vote and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So on one hand they place
restrictions on what we can do for raising money, and then on the
other hand they hand us the bills that they've been traditionally paying
for us to have to take care so they can remain solvent. It's a little
difficult to work with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you left out the third component.
They also sponsor constitutional amendments that reduce your ability
to tax and reduce tax revenue. So they put the squeeze on both ends,
but yet their budget really doesn't change much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you comment?
MR. KLATZKOW: To put it very, very simply, what we're
doing here is settling debt, all right? And the 15 percent discount is
substantially more than the amount you'd be able to prevail on if you
administratively challenged it. That's what I'm getting from the
County Manager.
Page 36
July 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: And again, that's based on our historical review of
the error rate for these billings that we've received.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the source of funds?
Where is the 800,000 coming from?
MR. ISACKSON: Ma'am, we regularly true up from the June
workshop to actual values. And the submission of the tentative budget
on July 17th, which you received, we regularly true up our revenue
sources. In the can on the property tax side I have an additional
$900,000 that I didn't have in the June budget but I had in the July
budget based on reviewing our reports and the receipts that came in.
So that's where we're getting the $800,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do you prefer option one or
option three?
MR. ISACKSON: Our recommendation is option three, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I make a motion to approve
option three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion, by Commissioner Hiller to
approve option three, seconded 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: Okay, the motion passes unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all we can do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
Page 37
July 24, 2012
Item 411 D
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12 -5864 ANNUAL
ROADWAY CONTRACTORS TO MULTIPLE FIRMS FOR AN
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
APPROXIMATELY $2,000,000 - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
SEPTEMBER 11 2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10.1) (sic) on
your agenda this morning. It is a recommendation to approve the
award of Request for Proposal No. 12- 5864, Annual Roadway
Contractors to multiple firms for an estimated average annual amount
of approximately $2 million. Mr. Casalanguida will present.
I'm sorry I I .D. What did I say?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You said 10.D.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, old habit. Sorry.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Never correct your boss. I think I
learned that lesson the hard way.
Good morning, Commissioners. Just answer questions for you.
This is an annual contract we put out. It's for one year plus three
one -year extensions. It's only for $200,000. It's for typical work that
we do within the right -of -way median work sidewalks. Anything over
$200,000 goes out to bid. There were two representatives from public
utilities on the selection committee and one from facilities.
This contract is open to all division agencies within the County
Manager organization.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first, Commissioner Hiller or
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the selection process,
Nick, is it different than it has been in previous years when we worked
July 24, 2012
on this contract and had the people come before us for your selection
committee?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not to my knowledge, sir. But I can
as far as the selection process, I'll probably defer to purchasing on
that. I just -- we'll talk about why we need the contract and what we
do. So if you have a question about the process, I'll --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a matter of fact, I do. I just
want to have it confirmed that what we're dealing with is a process
that's been in place for a long time or has it been modified from the
last time we did it?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, the Interim
Purchasing Director.
The process is very similar to the predecessor contract,
Commissioner. Although that predecessor contract expired about 18
months ago, so over the last 18 months we've been competitively
soliciting each and every roadway project that Mr. Casalanguida's
departments have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, in this process, how much
of the criteria is based upon price, the value of the materials we're
getting or --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: In this request for proposal process price
was not considered. Experience was. From this point forward, these
four companies that we're recommending will be asked to submit a
price proposal for each and every job.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Experience being number of
years, performing and their number of years doing jobs for the
county?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Previous performance was one criteria.
The staff and subcontractor, credentials was another one, the business
themselves, their experience themselves, how many jobs they've done
in the past for not only county but for other work as well, and their
references.
Page 39
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And was it taken into
consideration whether it was a local vendor or a vendor outside of the
area?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir, local vendor preferencing was
considered. And there would have been 10 points assigned to any
Collier County or Lee County supplier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to ask the question, I
have to. Joe Vanesse has been doing work for the county for many
years, local vendor. What's so dramatically changed from the last
time as far as that one contractor went from -- when he went through
this process before and this time? Was it bad reports, higher prices, or
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Sir, the process before had three
contractors. Better Roads was a part of that, Vanasse Quality
Enterprise was a part of that. The selection criteria would have taken
in past performance here at the county. There were some concerns
raised by some of the selection committee members and some of the
other departments here at the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Their concerns related to the
different vendors?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not the process but the vendors.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Not the process, correct, correct, but past
performance`.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much for
explaining that to me.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, with respect to the contract,
the $2 million is not per vendor, it's for the totality, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Repeat the question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The two million is total to be
Page 40
July 24, 2012
allocated among the four members?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an estimate, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of -- not to exceed two million?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an estimate, ma'am. It's not -- it's
approximately $2 million. We put in a dollar amount that says what
we expect to spend based on historical, you know, workload we put
out. It is not just for one division, as I stated before.
So if -- give you an example. If we have a problem with six or
seven medians and we put them out and we may exceed that, or in any
given year we may go less than that. So the contract is approximate.
We just give the Board a feeling for what we've been spending
historically and what we expect to expend in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in effect this is an open -ended
contract?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, each individual work
order comes forward. So it's not -
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we'll approve individual work
orders?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're giving the staff the
authority to enter into work orders below $200,000. Above $200,000
we go out to bid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, to give you an example, I
could enter into work orders for 199,000, you know, eight times over
and --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does it work?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If purchasing or the County Attorney
or even finance thinks that we're putting out multiple contracts at 199
for the same work, that throws a flag up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not for the same work, obviously,
but for different projects.
Again, I just -- I don't see the cap. I don't see the limit. And to
Page 41
July 24, 2012
the extent that you can approve up to 200,000, it would be very easy
to hand out very substantial work orders and exceed a limit. It doesn't
take a lot in this county to get up there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, just so I'm clear, I'll take
you through the process of an average project and what we do.
Medians on Immokalee Road have to be modified, so we would
request a quote from all four of those vendors. We would look at the
quote and look at the lowest bid and obviously adjust the work
accordingly to meet that. But we wouldn't bid out multiple projects.
In other words, it would be one project at a time that would come
forward on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
if it's under 200,000.
But it wouldn't come to the Board
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. And that's been typical.
Because otherwise we wouldn't be able to get a lot of projects done
quickly if every time we had to go do an advertisement, a solicitation
for minor repairs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There has to be a cap.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it is at 200,000.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you budget for this, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your cap. You give an annual budget
for this type of work. That's his cap.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, each project will be solicited to all
four of those vendors every time, so there will be competition on
every single --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand.
MR. OCHS: -- work order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern is how far can we go?
I mean, how big is the budget for this particular type of maintenance?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Top of my head, because the budget
reads for swale work, it's approximately $3 million. But it's not --
Page 42
July 24, 2012
some of these will be bid. Because some of the work we will put out
will be over $200,000.
This is if we get a situation where a crosswalk is -- you know,
we've noticed accidents there and we've got to put in a handicap ramp.
We can put this out to four contractors, get quotes quickly and be on
the job, you know, in a short order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I appreciate that. But again, I
think there needs to be some sort of a cap not to exceed and then, you
know, the budget obviously is in excess of two million. So, you
know, based on this estimated average annual amount of
approximately, you don't have a cap. Which means you could go up
to three million if the budget is three million.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, ma'am. And the number
that's put on there is to get the contractors a feel as well for what
amount of work and volume are coming out of the county. So they
know if they apply for this, we put out about $2 million as a county
manager agency in this type of work. It could be facilities doing an
improvement where they have to do a quick modification to a
driveway entrance. So we put that dollar amount based on historical
spending.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, can you comment on this?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, we've reviewed this item, and the
statute does allow for policy decisions. This is a board policy
decision. And then we would review each of the pay apps in
conjunction with that decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So based on the wording here,
you're not going to have a problem when Nick authorizes a work order
that's going to be in excess of two million.
MS. KINZEL: No, he cannot do one work order over 200,000.
There are statutory limits to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But up to 200,000. If the
Page 43
July 24, 2012
cumulative total is in excess of, you know, the two million he
addresses here, you're not going to have a problem with that?
MS. KINZEL: It says approximately or an estimated two
million. So if the Board wants it a' hard fast not two million without
coming back to you under this agreement, then that would be a policy
decision of the Board and we would monitor to the two million.
Otherwise, as he said, it can go up to the budget constraint and
you've also given some policy authority and guidance to budget which
staff can amend slightly without coming back to the Board.
So it is a policy decision on the caps that you wish to set in this
particular case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand your objective,
Nick, and I appreciate where you're going. I would recommend that
we have a cap up to $2 million, and if you need more you just come
back and say we want to raise the cap. But at least that way we have a
governor so that we know the totality of the expenditures under
200,000 that you're approving are limited within that range.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't tell you today, ma'am, if that
will have an impact on what we do, but I don't think it will be a
problem to come back to the Board well in advance of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two million is a lot of money for
the type of projects you're describing. I mean, you can readily come
back. We meet often enough.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we've got your budget cap.
Whatever you decide is a budget, if you want to be more strict than
that. I don't frankly see the need for it, but that's a Board decision
ultimately. That's why you go through your budget each year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ultimately what it would mean,
you know, based on what you're saying is that, you know, for all these
transactions the cumulative total could be three million or whatever
amendment you make to that particular budget.
I think that to the extent that we're delegating this, you know,
0-M.
July 24, 2012
discretionary decision - making, if we legally can, then it should be
limited to two million and then just come back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, that's fine. I would ask that
maybe we just report to the Board as we approach the two million and
if we go over just give reason why. I mean, I don't think it would be
to amend the contract. The contract wouldn't be amended, you're just
giving me guidance (sic) to let you know and keep you informed so
you're aware if that's the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you already executed these
contracts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, that's the next phase after
you approve them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what difference does it make
about saying not to exceed two million?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As the County Manager said, it's a
policy decision. I can work with it either way. So whatever you folks
decide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it just keeps it simple. And
that way we know, you know, that there's a limit and you just come
back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things: Previously, say the
last five years, has the two million, the approximately -- or
approximate amount that you mentioned, is that about what we spend
every year anyway?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It fluctuates, because if we have a job
that's over 200,000, we bid it out of that same budget. So if we have a
historical budget of $3 million and I do three or four large projects, I
won't get to the two million because I'm going out to bid on a lot of
these things for the discretionary under 200,000.
If I'm doing a lot of small projects, it can creep up. That's why
when I read the executive summary I had them put in estimated annual
Page 45
July 24, 2012
amount, because it does fluctuate several hundred thousand dollars,
but historically about $2 million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second question is, say for
instance, now we're going to be on a recess until approximately the
middle of September. What happens if say for instance we have a
hurricane, we have -- or some major problem that we have to go in
and immediately fix and we're not even in town, we can't vote on
anything, and number one, it's above the $200,000 figure. Then what
do we do? Especially if it needs to be taken care of immediately.
And then the second part of that same question is if it's below
200,000 and you want to just -- you know, say for instance a truck
explodes or, you know, catches on fire and you have to fix that
sidewalk or median or whatever immediately, how can you go about
doing that? Will a cap be detrimental to you or can you work with it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can work with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we have emergency powers if
something comes up that's, you know, above and beyond. We have a
purchasing policy that allows that. I'm not going to exceed the two
million over the summer. It's something we can just monitor through
our finance section. So I can work with it if the Board so wishes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, here's what's confusing.
Generally our cap control comes through the budgeting process. Now,
you are soliciting work for the purpose of doing road construction,
intersection, turn lane, sidewalks and pathway improvements.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you said that your budget is three
million, but you're asking for authority to initiate this contract for the
expenditure of what you estimate to be two million, but it could go to
three million, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you just have a $3 million
July 24, 2012
maximum, which is consistent with your budget approval, so that if
you need to go above your budget approval, that is our cap, and that
way we can govern it rather well.
The only thing that bothers me about that is that you obviously
have other work that you want to do that you haven't identified here.
That's where this gets very confusing to people who are looking at it
externally. It's easier for you, but I believe it probably is possible for
you to issue 30 $10,000 contracts without ever coming back to the
Board on this project. You see what we're talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there has to be some assurance that
this just isn't an open checkbook. And if this is a specific project, if
you can lump these things into a project and that project budget is $2
million, then that gives us some assurance that we'll have an
opportunity to review any substantial deviations from that.
But if the project is -- if the budget for these projects is $3
million, we ought to have that as the cap, okay? So what do we do
about that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would prefer the budget cap, because
that's what you approved. These are just two mechanisms to execute
the budget you've approved. I'll give you an example, maybe it will
clarify for the viewers and for you, Mr. Chairman.
If I go into Golden Gate City and I make a modification to a
drainage project or a swale or things like that, I've budgeted for those
and I've listed those in my budget. How we execute that contract
depends on the dollar threshold. If it's over 200,000, I go out to bid.
If it's less than $200,000 on that project and it's something we want to
do quickly, if a road collapses in because the drainage system is old
corrugated steel, we move quickly and we initiate one of these work
orders.
So my preference would be the budget. And I can identify that
and we can go back and give you the exact dollar amount. If the
Page 47
July 24, 2012
Board wanted to limit a smaller amount, I can work with that.
So hopefully that clarifies that. I'm not exceeding what I
presented at the budget. I'm doing work that was presented to this
Board at the budget. These are just mechanisms to execute the
contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand. I understand from
your standpoint it is easier to do that. But it is confusing if you have a
budget of $3 million, you want to spend $2 million on these projects.
You haven't identified what you're going to spend the other $1 million
on.
If you proceed with this, you really could run up to the $3 million
budget ceiling without ever coming back to us and then you say well, I
had all these other projects I wanted to do and I don't have money to
do it so I'm going to need some money transferred into the budget.
I think what we would, at least I would, like to see and I think
some of the other commissioners would like to see is a little bit more
precision with respect to operating within the budgeted amount.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the request for
proposals, you have specific quantities and qualities?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's our control
right there. That's one thing.
And I would have to agree, you know, if we can -- if you want to
continue this item till later on, give us an exact number you want to
work with. Otherwise, you need to come back and amend this
contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd say motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to do a
motion to continue. Come back with a solid number during this
meeting so we can -- so we' know what the exact amount is going to
be.
21M
July 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for clarification, when you say a
solid amount, remember your public utilities division could take
access to this, so could facilities. So if you want a number not to
exceed, I think I can work with the other agencies and say look, based
on what we're doing I don't think we'll exceed this number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. No, we -- contracts
should have time and amount. You know, not to exceed a certain time
and a certain amount. So if we're not sure what that number (sic), then
let's get a number that would work a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Nick --
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, sir. Nick?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we don't have a contract for
these small jobs right now. So I would like to see us approve it today
but later on when -- if that number is $2 million, fine, but not an
approximate.
MR. OCHS: Well, it's a term contract, Commissioner. And the
nature of that is you don't know going into the contract the exact
amount of work you might do under that contract in a given year, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, but on the total expenses
under this contract, it's not going to exceed $2 million, correct?
MR. OCHS: I don't know that, sir. As I said, the cap is your
budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA And we're talking about how many
departments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, here's the dilemma. You're
estimating $2 million. You've already said it might go higher than
that. It can go higher than that in increments of let's say $50,000 per
additional work order. You can do 10 of those, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And now you've got $2.5 million into
this and not once do you have to come back to the Board to review
that and to approve it. You can go right on up to $3 million, which is
0=_ •
July 24, 2012
the budget cap. And what I would suggest to you is that if that $3
million is designed, is budgeted for a lot of different things and you've
just taken a few things and you want to spend $2 million on, then I
would suggest you modify the budget so that you've got $2 million for
these things that you've identified here and you've got a million dollars
for these things that you expect to do in addition to that. And if you
expend -- and that way you would have a budget cap for each category
of contracts. And that way the Board would feel more comfortable
that we would get to take a look at something when it starts exceeding
those budgeted limits. Does that make sense?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we would not exceed the budget
limits in any event. As Commissioner Henning said, we've been doing
these on individual work orders for the last 18 months. This term
contract is a recommendation for us to be more efficient in the way we
procure these services.
We could keep going without the contract and just manage to the
budget like we always do. I think we've hopefully established a
record here over the last few years that we're not looking to spend
money that doesn't need to be spent. We're just trying to get repairs
done that are needed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not saying that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, one approach would simply
be to change it rather than estimated amount of two million up to but
no more than two million. Just fix it, give him a cap. If he has to go
over two million, he comes back to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's what
Commissioner Hiller said a long time ago. But I just want to make
sure that number is -- if County Manager is okay with that number.
MR. OCHS: Well, sir, I'd like to continue it on that basis and
then go back and check with all the divisions and get a precise count
as I can historically on the amount that we spend on these kind of
repairs.
Page 50
July 24, 2012
Because as Nick said, there are multiple departments using this
term contract. So I need to gather all of that information so we can
present a complete package to the Board. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- if we could continue this till the September
meeting and then we'll just continue in the meantime working off of
individual work orders, if that's what the Board would prefer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
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: We continue this until September, okay?
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is time for a break. So we'll be back
here at 10 :40.
MR. OCHS: Sir, you have a 10:45 time certain if you'd like to
just come back and take that one; give yourself a little extra time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mean we're going to take a
15- minute break?
MR. OCHS: Well, we're not going to be able to get this next
item done in five minutes. But that's up to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to take a 15- minute
break. We'll be back at 10:45 for the time certain item.
Page 51
July 24, 2012
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Item #1 I A
MODIFICATIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE TO PURSUE
OPTION D (MODIFIED ON JULY 10, 2012) FOR THE RE-
DESIGN OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE NAPLES ZOO / GORDON
RIVER GREENWAY PARK — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is your 10:45 a.m. time certain
hearing. It's Item I LA on your agenda. It's a recommendation to
accept modifications identified by the Gordon River Greenway
Stakeholders committee to pursue option D modified on July 10th,
2012 for the redesign of the entrance to the Naples Zoo Gordon River
Greenway Park.
Steve Carnell, your Interim Public Services Administrator, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have four speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Steve.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board. Steve Carnell.
Pursuant to the Gordon River Greenway project improvement,
we've all been known and aware for some time now that we would
need to make modifications to the entrance of the Naples Zoo.
And you'll remember that the stakeholders committee for that
Page 52
July 24, 2012
project had identified six possible options to consider, which we
presented to the Board back in June, at which time the Board
discussion led us to narrow our focus down to option D. And there
were some questions about the details of option D and some proposed
modifications that were still being discussed about option D as we
came forward to print and the agenda presentation last month.
So the Board, you'll remember, tasked the stakeholders
committee with reconvening and reevaluating the modifications to
option D so that we could finalize the direction and bring that back to
you, and that's what we're prepared to do today.
Those modifications have been identified in your executive
summary, and I'm going to ask Michael Delate who's the engineer of
record for the access road portion of this project with the zoo to come
forward and explain those options to you, the modifications.
MR. DELATE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
it's Michael Delate with Q. Grady Minor and Associates.
As Mr. Carnell alluded to, we had maybe prematurely discussed
option D modified at the last meeting, and then subsequent to that we
had a couple of stakeholders meetings. We had a technical group that
met, just a few engineers, and then the fuller stakeholders group met to
discuss the options in modifying option D to I guess satisfy and come
to consensus.
In that regard there were a number of points that were brought up
by some of the stakeholders and that were discussed at the
stakeholders meeting. I guess a general consensus was reached on
these following points. I'll briefly describe them to you.
All three ponds, so to speak, would be connected by road over
pipes. Three ponds again would be the existing pond that would
remain on the east side, and then the two new ponds, quote, unquote,
on the south and north side of the entry.
There's an existing reclinata palm there that's rather large and that
we'll have in the plans and specifications to remove and replant that
Page 53
July 24, 2012
along the new pond on the north side of the entry road. There would
be some acknowledgment that the plant may not survive but that it
would be the full intent to remove it professionally and replant it.
As well it was consensus that the lilies, the coy and the turtles
would be maintained or at least removed and then replanted back into
the pond once they were fully established.
Again, there's some biological challenges that may not allow
some of those species or critters to survive.
The east banks of the two ponds will have native plantings from
the road to the water's edge. That will be to mask or hide the
pavement there, soften the pond view from Goodlette Road.
The road to the north we agreed and confirmed that the -- none of
the narrowing trees would be removed during construction of that
road. Part of that clearing is already commenced and once this
Gordon River project is under full construction, the rest of that road
clearing would be done.
There's also consensus that there would be a natural wood bridge
effect as you cross the entry into the zoo area. Both the north and
south sides of the road, the entry there would have what we called
historic or faux - looking bulkhead and railing, but not -- I guess what
they don't want to have is an appearance that it was modern looking or
that it was there for a while. So that's the intent of the natural wood
bridge effect. We'll get into those full details later as we go into
design.
Again, it will be -- on the north and south side of the entrance
road will have a bulkhead. That bulkhead probably will be about four
feet tall'. From the water's edge to the road surface there will have to
be some barrier there, but we'll use that natural wood effect to soften
that barrier so it looks historic.
We also looked into the potential for adding bulkhead along the
west side of the ponds, both the north and south ponds, to give a
greater water surface area. ' And there was consensus with the
Page 54
July 24, 2012
committee that as long as there was not a guardrail or handrail needed
because of the presence of the bulkhead, that we would not -- that we
would use a bulkhead there.
And then there would be an increased landscape buffer on the
north road and zoo fence to buffer the zoo from the north road.
I think a general consensus was reached on all these points, and I
believe that went in front of the zoo board for further consideration,
and I'll let them -- defer to them on that.
The estimated project cost, increased cost over option A was
about $138,000 for adding all these modifications to option D. Still
under the original option D number, because we've removed much of
the bulkhead and crash barrier because of the design changes.
Here's a rendering of the final outcome, we believe, based on the
consensus design items that were reached. As you can see, the bridge
would have a -- excuse me, the entry would have a faux bridge
appearance. And when I use the term faux, I use that loosely. We'll
try to make that look as historic as possible but still functional.
There was general consensus on a cobblestone paver appearance
going in to give it an old look. And then the pond appearance, we
would have a meandering littoral area to kind of soften the edges of
the ponds, both on the north and south sides of the roads. But we
would also have a little bit of bulkhead along the east and west sides to
increase the water surface area.
One of the challenges I guess would be to keep the water up at
the right elevation, and fortunately we were able to utilize the existing
well that's out there now to keep that water surface up and keep the
ponds full looking.
This is probably a little bit difficult to see on the overhead, but in
essence we're looking at about 76 feet maximum water surface across
the pond as if you're looking from Goodlette Road across to the east.
That would be on the north side.
On the south side the pond would be a little bit narrower, simply
Page 55
July 24, 2012
because we would be saving the existing ficus there. And it necks
down a little bit where we'd have a viewing platform along the south
side of the road. We tried to incorporate, based on the committee's
input or the stakeholders input some areas where public would be able
to come from the south from the new zoo entry area to view the fish
and the turtles and the lilies, and that would be mostly on the south
side of the entry on the south side of the pond.
Further, though, because of the use of the bulkhead along the
west banks or along the Goodlette side banks of the lakes, or the
ponds, anyone walking along Goodlette Road would be able to enjoy
the view across the ponds as they walk -- use the sidewalk.
Just for reference, I incorporated the existing parking area and the
existing entry on the bottom portion of this visual. That view there
shows the existing parking, just to give you an idea of where the new
ponds would be located and where the existing pond crosses the road.
So we'll bisect that existing pond, basically re -dig new ponds, both on
the north side and the south side of the road. And I think based on the
consensus, hopefully this is the final outcome of the pond areas.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to elaborate on them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you've done a marvelous
job. I think it's absolutely fantastic to see what consensus building can
produce.
This is a beautiful entrance. And I think it will tremendously
benefit the zoo as well as the community. So I'd like to make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and by Commissioner
Henning.
We have public speakers. Does anybody want to speak in
Page 56
July 24, 2012
opposition to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anyone want to speak at all?
Is there just one person? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Do you want to come?
MR. CABRAL: Corey Cabral, and I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today in front of the commissioners.
The main purpose quite frankly is to just thank everybody that
was involved in this process. I realize that at times it was an
emotional process, there was a lot of people involved, a lot of opinions
involved. But I think we proved here today that when fair - minded
men and women get together for the best interest of the community,
that we can build a consensus on compromise. And today we have
before us quite frankly what I consider to be a grand new entrance.
We've proven that a better idea is never too late. And I wanted to
thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Anyone else who is registered who wishes to speak on this issue?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe Mr. Barton.
MR. BARTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bill Barton.
I want to take just a moment to commend Ellie Krier. Ellie's out
of town today. And in her absence -- as you well know, she's
executive director of the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust.
And Ellie has assisted greatly in bringing this consensus to a
conclusion. And I just wanted to make note of that, that from my
perspective she did a great job on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so did you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say, it was you
that walked up here that day. We hadn't even heard from you before
and you came up with such outstanding ideas, Bill, that, you know, we
Page 57
July 24, 2012
-- I think we were all really impressed. And I really want to thank you
for all you did to take part in this and bring us to a wonderful
conclusion. Thank you.
MR. BARTON: Well, thank you. And I'll exercise what I've
learned through the years, when an elected body appears to be moving
in a good direction, don't talk and snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good advice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
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: The motion passes unanimously.
And it's a wonderful accomplishment, and congratulations to all
who contributed to the solution.
(Applause.)
Item #1 I E
RESOLUTION 2012 -137: THE COLLIER COUNTY ONE YEAR
ACTION PLAN FOR FY 2012 - 2013 FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS; THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE APPROVED RESOLUTION, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATIONS,
AND SF 424 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE, AND
Page 58
July 24, 2012
TRANSMITTAL TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - ADOPTED
W /STIPULATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11.E on your
agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to approve the Collier
County one -year action plan for fiscal year 2012 -2013 for community
development block grant, home investment partnerships, and
emergency solutions grant programs; authorize the Chairman to sign
the approved resolution, Department of Housing and Urban
Development Certifications and SF -424 application for federal
assistance, and authorize transmittal to the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Ms. Kim Grant, your Interim Housing Human and Veteran
Services.
MS. GRANT: Good morning. Kim Grant again for the record.
Commissioner Hiller, you looked at me like you were going to
say something. Do you want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she can't say anything because her
light is not on.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually I'm going to be really
bad. I'm going to break the law here. I'm going to tell you how happy
I am that you're here presenting today. I can hardly wait to hear what
you're going to announce for next year.
MS. GRANT: Well, thank you. And with that opening, I
actually am very happy to be here today. This is a good news item.
We are here for our annual action plan for the entitlement funds. And
this is the second year of our five -year consolidated plan.
And we have a brief presentation for you today, just hitting on
the high points of the projects that you will be -- that are on your slate
for voting today.
Page 59
July 24, 2012
So I'm going to turn the presentation over to Margo Castorena,
your manager of these grants, and she will go through briefly what the
projects are, and then we'll be happy to take any questions.
MS. CASTORENA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record Margo Castorena, Grant Operations Manager.
As Ms. Grant said, we are here for the Collier County action plan
for H.U.D. for the fiscal year 2012 -2013.
Entitlement funds for the community development block grant
are $2,496. Home initiative partnerships program, the HOME
program, $456,777. And the emergency solutions grant, or what we
call ESG, in the amount of 168,745. Total allocation for federal grants
is $2,630,018.
I'm going to give you just a highlight of some of the projects that
we are funding this year. One, we are very enthusiastic about funding
a grant to Youth Haven. This will do campus improvements, roof,
security upgrade, cameras, fencing, hurricane windows, backup
generators, hurricane doors. Again, to bring this facility so that it is
safe and secure and welcoming to youths all through the county.
We are also projecting to fund David Lawrence Center. They are
building a structure for physical fitness. This is an attempt to assist
their clients who have mental and substance and alcohol abuse. And
this will be basically to help them create new good habits in lieu of
previous bad ones.
We are also proposing the funding of City of Naples. City of
Naples is an entitlement city, and therefore we pass through their
funds to them. They are proposing to do a land acquisition to provide
more green space and extra parking for the Carver Center in the River
Park area of Naples.
One of the other programs that we will be funding is the
Immokalee CRA. This is their business incubator, and they are having
-- they will be assisting small businesses in the Immokalee area to start
their businesses and create jobs for low and moderate income citizens
July 24, 2012
in the Immokalee area.
Some of the public service projects will be for the Shelter for
Abused Women and Children. We are going to assist them with legal
assistance to victims of domestic abuse.
Some of the other public service projects are to the Housing
Development of Southwest Florida. They will be doing their
SHFTING program. That is Saving Housing and Foreclosure Through
Intervention, Negotiation and Guidance. This provides guidance and
legal assistance to homeowners who may be near or at the point of
going actually into foreclosure and to help them negotiate and settle
their foreclosure issues.
Also, they will be presenting credit and budget counseling. This
will be everything from how to maintain a checkbook, how to open
credit, how to maintain credit, how to get a FICO score.
And for those people who are approaching the point of buying a
home, it will teach them what they need to have in order and what
they should expect as they go through the home - buying process.
For our HOME initiative projects, our HOME projects are
basically to the Collier County Housing Authority. We will be
assisting with tenant -based rental voucher. These will help people
who are actually homeless to be rehoused in apartments.
And the administration will be for salaries to carry out those
prof ects.
Lastly, the Emergency Solutions Grant. We have yet to
determine the agencies that will be awarded this grant. H.U.D. has
recently changed their guidance, and it has become a much more
competitive type of solicitation.
H.U.D. recently did a second supplementary funding of the 11 -12
year for ESG. It was due to H.U.D. 5/12. We did get our application
in. It was received by H.U.D. And as soon as we get our funding for
11 -12, we will again continue the process for the 12 -13 year.
Our recommendation is to approve the Collier County one -year
Page 61
July 24, 2012
action plan for FY 12 -13, authorize the chair to sign the approved
resolution and 424, and authorize staff to transmit the action plan to
H.U.D.
Lastly, I do have to give -- any questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- I've been working
with staff and I think, Kim, you're aware of my issues.
The community development block grants can be used for
enhancements of communities such as Immokalee, River Park, and I
know there are areas in Golden Gate that income qualifies, and all we
need to do is seek out the information. Naples Manor. And I'm sure
there's other communities where we can use these monies for
infrastructures such as sidewalks, lighting, stormwater, things of that
nature. Parks.
And I know one of the ,issues in Immokalee is neighborhood
parks. So since there was application for these projects, I don't have a
problem with it.
However, sometimes, and we've seen it over and over again,
these monies are given back to the county. So -- but in the future, I
would like to see the county apply these CDBG monies for
community needs such as sidewalks, lighting, stormwater, so on and
so forth. Because these issues are old. And we all have them in our
district that we don't have the funds to do it. So why not use these
funds?
So, you know, I'll make a motion to approve and give staff
guidance to -- for the following year. And if there's any turnback
money to -- let's put it on projects within those neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. But maybe
you'll have to modify after I get my turn to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine.
Page 62
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve with
guidance that if any of the money is turned back it will be used for
specific neighborhoods. Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When I was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, first let me find out how many
speakers we have.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When I look at the total of the
CDBG funding that will be awarded to us per your application, it's $2
million. And I'm just rounding for discussion purposes. And I
appreciate you going over all the specific projects and explaining to us
what will be done with that money.
But of that two million, there is one amount that we haven't
discussed and that is 400,000 out of the two million, which is
approximately 20 percent.. That represents administrative costs. It's
my understanding that 400,000 is going to be going to housing, to
your department?
MS. GRANT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I have a concern
about that. Because I have spoken to representatives of nonprofits that
have benefited from these grant applications, and it appears that there
doesn't seem to be the value for the money given in support services to
these nonprofits. And I understand the department has gone through
transition and you're the new interim head of that department. I
believe it was also a comment that was made by the external auditors
that there was a concern as to, you know, what hours are actually
being allocated by staff to the administration of these grants.
And further, there are a lot of problems with the administration of
these grants that should be resolved by housing with the sub - recipient
before payments are requested. And this problem has been ongoing for
Page 63
July 24, 2012
years.
So I have a request, and that is that with that 400,000 -- and this
we can bring back for future discussion at a later time -- that there be
accounting of the time allocated by staff to the sub - recipients to do
what the county is being paid for with respect to the administration
and to the assistance that is intended to be provided to the
sub - recipients to eliminate all the problems that we're having in our
ability to pay them. The proper monitoring, the proper
communication with the sub - recipients as to what they're doing, as to
what they intend to do and as to the documentation that they're
providing, supporting. What they have done and what they believe
they're entitled to as with respect to repayment will go a long way in I
believe eliminating the criticisms the external auditor has with our
housing department and grant administration.
So I want to point out that the county is also benefiting; the
county as in county staff. And the county's budget is also benefiting
by way of this grant award to the tune of 400,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE': Okay,, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA Yes, three comments.
First, I'm so glad you're giving some money to Youth Haven. I
went over there and took a look at the place. Actually, I went through
the whole place and walked the grounds and everything. And they
certainly do need that money and they provide such a great service,
and I don't think they're recognized often enough. So I just wanted to
underscore, that was a great suggestion.
Secondly, I have to agree with Commissioner Henning,
especially with regard to lighting. I think one of the things that we do
not do enough of, because we don't have the money, and that is
putting lights in the high crime areas. Those I think we should be
concentrating on first.
I've talked with FP &L. They said as long as we pay for it, they'll
pull it in. But that doesn't help us any. I've talked to us, we don't have
Page 64
July 24, 2012
any money to put it in. And yet those are the places that should be
lighted first. So I agree with Commissioner Henning.
And lastly, my third comment is I got a call just a few weeks ago
from a gentleman who took his grandson over to Eagle Lakes
Community Park to play, except when they got there they found there
was no playground equipment there. And the guy called me and he
said there's a sign that says it was supposed to be replaced by March,
and he said they took it out in February and there's still no playground
equipment for these children. And it's summertime and they have no
place to go. That's the same park that doesn't have a community
center, the only Collier County community park in the system who has
no community park, so they have no summer programs or anything.
Anyway, going a little bit further, I quickly got ahold of staff,
another gentleman called me as well and said when are you going to
put that in. Staff said oh, it's going in right away. And so they said
they removed it because it was rusty and in disrepair and really
couldn't be left there any longer.
What they put in there was one set of bars that had four swings, a
smaller set of bars that had two infant swings, and the smallest little
climbing thing I've ever seen ever in there.
And I said when is the rest of the stuff coming in, and they said
that's all that's going in there. ,
Now, I'm making a point of visiting every single park in the
system to see how that compares with other parks. But I can tell you
that here's a park where the kids don't even have playgrounds in their
backyard, much less a swing set. And we provide no playground
equipment. And I think that this money ought to be dedicated to
providing for playground equipment -- much needed playground
equipment, I will add -- for an area where the kids come from a lower
income area. And if we could do it right now, that would be
wonderful. I don't know if we can.
But again, according to what Commissioner Henning said, we
Page 65
July 24, 2012
ought to be taking a look at some of this stuff and instead of just, you
know, training somebody how to fill out forms, and that's very nice,
we ought to be giving stuff that is desperately needed: Lighting in
crime areas and playground equipment for kids that don't have
anything to play on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, there's a lot of needs out
there that have to be fulfilled. This money can only be used in certain
areas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Like roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, Lime Rock Road
money wouldn't apply to it. But thank you for bringing that up and
giving me the segue to go into Lime Rock Road. No, I won't do that
to you.
But the truth of the matter is, whatever we do is going to have a
cause and effect someplace else. Whenever you move funds, there's
going to be an effect at the other end of the equation. It's something
we're going to have to study.
But if we could come up with some funds in the coming year to
be able to dedicate to some of the park facilities, especially in
Immokalee -- my Corkscrew Regional Park that's very dear to my
heart and I know I got the support of this commission on wouldn't be
eligible for these funds because it isn't in a low income area.
But of course if the money was diverted to other parks in other
areas, they would free up funds to be able to come back and be able to
help my park, Corkscrew Regional Park, get underway. And that's
something that's very important to the people in Eastern Collier
County.
But I do support looking into using some of these funds for street
lighting, for sidewalks and especially for parks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: It's Rosanne Winter from Youth Haven.
- o
July 24, 2012
MS. WINTER: Thank you for this opportunity to address you.
As executive director of Youth Haven I am the member of the
Coalition of Care that is part of Collier County's nonprofits and other
agencies who are dedicated to serving those in our community who
are in greatest need. And it is that group that came together to discuss
what are the greatest needs, and one of the ones they decided that we
needed to focus on was runaway and homeless teens. And we're
talking children as young as 14 up to age 24 who have no place to go
and are not always graduating from high school and getting good
employment.
This coalition is made up of a number of organizations, including
the Sheriffs Department, the county schools and the Homeless
Coalition. They came to us at Youth Haven and said you are perfectly
positioned to help us fulfill a great need.
In addition to this need we are also seeing more and more
children who are being brought to us as part of human trafficking, and
they are getting older, more intensely disturbed, have greater needs,
and fewer and fewer places for them to be placed. The need for extra
security, extra housing and the ability to serve this growing number of
children has become critical in our community, and these funds will
open the door for us to position our facility to welcome them into a
safe and secure environment.
And with other funds that we are seeking, we will be able to
develop a very strong program to serve them, not only in their teen
years to make sure that they transition into adulthood with a graduated
-- good diploma from the schools and a job and a place to live.
So we are raising citizens that will help us meet the needs of
other citizens.
Thank you for your consideration and your help in this endeavor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, all in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 67
July 24, 2012
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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question on that motion. Say
for instance they readdress now their -- what the money they haven't
found that there could -- that it could be used a little more wisely. Are
they able to move that money around now?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, what we'll do, as the Board
has directed, is if there are remaining funds in existing grants, just like
we've done on your consent agenda today, we will come back with
recommendations to reallocate those to other eligible projects, and
obviously those projects will be prioritized based on the guidance that
the Board just gave us this morning. We just have to make sure
they're eligible and that we establish with the grantor that they're
eligible expenditures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And for next year, focus ought
to be on those community needs.
MR.00HS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, takes us to 11.F?
Item 91 I F
CATEGORY "A" TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES FOR FY
2012/13 IN THE AMOUNT OF $365,500; THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN NECESSARY AGREEMENTS FOLLOWING COUNTY
July 24, 2012
ATTORNEY APPROVAL; AND A FINDING THAT THE
EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE TOURISM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I LF is a recommendation to approve the
Category A tourist development grant application for beach park
facilities for fiscal year 2012/13 in the amount of $365,500. Mr.
McAlpin, your Coastal Zone Management Director will present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
Coastal Zone Management.
Commissioners, the five projects that we are advancing to you to
be funded with TDC Category A grant funds, that's Fund 183, are a
result of a workshop, the public workshop that we held, the Parks and
Rec Advisory Board held, to discuss all the needs and opportunities
within Parks and Rec.
They felt that the projects that they had -- were positioning, the
five projects were the absolute minimum that they would like to see
funded this year. They represent what they believe are needs as
opposed to wants.
These projects were approved unanimously by the Parks and Rec
Advisory Board and they were approved unanimously by the Tourist
Development Council. And we're looking for authorization to
approve these funds.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
Gary, the Clam Bay Bridge repair, I see that you have 60,000
allocated. And I reviewed the backup material. I see that the Coast
Guard cited the county for having failed to maintain the bridges
operational.
When do you intend to make those repairs? Because I saw that
there was also a daily penalty that would be incurred in the event that
these repairs were not made.
July 24, 2012
MR. McALPIN: Those repairs were made using emergency
funds. They were done to get the draw bridge in operation so that it
could -- if someone would call in they could bring the bridge up.
The money that we're asking for here supplements the repairs that
were made and makes those permanent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to wait till the public speaker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just forget it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. Bob Krasowski.
Looks good to me. Got to spend money to make money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion 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.)
Page 70
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #1 I G
CATEGORY "A" TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GRANT
APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY- 2012/2013
IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,7989820 FOR BEACH AND PASS
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS; THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
GRANT AGREEMENTS FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVAL; AND A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES
WILL PROMOTE TOURISM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I LG is a recommendation to
approve Category A Tourist Development Council grant applications
from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County
for FY 2012/2013 in the amount of $6,798,820 for the beach and pass
maintenance projects.
Mr. McAlpin will present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager.
Commissioners, these projects are broken down into four areas.
The first is regulatory and permit compliance. These are required by
DEP and the other regulatory agencies. And we're looking for
$375,000 which would allow us to comply with their statutes that
include sea turtle monitoring, beach tilling and physical beach and
pass monitoring.
The beach maintenance program for the City of Naples, Collier
County and Marco Island, along with the vegetation, repair and
maintenance, we're asking for $341,420 to do that.
There's administration there which is made up of project
management and administrating of the projects. That's $478,000 for
Page 71
July 24, 2012
my staff, which includes six individuals; five individuals which would
be funded from this account. Indirect costs to support the county
functions and a tax collector fee.
We're also asking for projects to be approved this year which
would include the construction. This establishes a construction budget
of $1.7 million for Wiggins Pass. It supplements the budget that was
already approved for the major beach engineering by adding 490,000.
It supplements the budget that was approved for Marco South by
adding $100,000 to that. It authorizes and establishes a budget of $3
million for Marco Island beach renourishment and the erosion control
structures.
And then lastly there's an item in here for laser grading the north
Marco beach.
I'll answer any questions you have at this time.
And I would also state that this has been approved by the Coastal
Advisory Committee and also by the TDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to wait till after the
speakers, Commissioner Henning, or do you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- want to go now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. For the record, Bob Krasowski
again.
This item is much more complex. I tried to read all the backup
material. Some was available on the web. I don't think all of it was.
But like what I'm seeing here, and just as I was walking up, they
scrolled the administration. I don't know if Gary referred to that. But
anyway, I have a couple of basic questions.
Page 72
July 24, 2012
The Wiggins Pass project is part of a matrix of projects that's
included with the overall beach renourishment project. And so to the
extent that the Wiggins Pass project is complicated, it complicates the
entire effort to get permits for the overall beach renourishment
program. So a simpler Wiggins Pass project could imply a quicker
and easier permitting. And I'd like to hear Gary, what he has to say
about that.
Then also, my question would be with this scope of work and the
monies allotted, is this like a preliminary assessment of the potential
costs for these which will be adjusted when in fact you decide the
overall program? You know, so are we locking into committing these
amounts of money or is this still flexible as so much of the rest of it
seems to be?
And then there was a comment about included in this there was
an increased payment for any work done in turtle nesting season,
which one of your permits is -- with the Florida DEP is going -- is
potentially going to ask for to operate in turtle nesting. But there's
something in here which I didn't see, so I'm a bit confused, but I'd like
clarification, that the turtle -- that any work done in turtle nesting
season is more costly and would actually -- it's identified to cost like a
million dollars more. So, I mean, if that's the case, how are we saving
money by working in turtle nesting season when it's costing us more
and it's taking us more time to do some of the more elaborate work
which is pushing us into turtle nesting season? You know, so that's a
big question. I'd sure like to understand that better. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee.
I'd like to speak on this item. In particular, in the grant
application is an expenditure of $1.73 million for Wiggins Pass. And
of course I live up in that area. I've spoken through the years on this
area.
Page 73
July 24, 2012
Millions of dollars have been spent on the pass over the years. In
1999 and 2000 there was a major capital project somewhere in the
neighborhood of two to $4 million. We dredged out the mouth of the
pass, we took out some rock and we deepened that, I'll call it the pit in
front of the mouth. And from then we have proceeded each year or
every other year to dredge the pass.
In essence we've spent probably eight to $10 million on the pass.
Today you have in front of you 1.73 million. But I've seen estimates
three and four, $5 million for the actual capital project. So I don't
know exactly what this -- you know, is this only half the project?
Okay.
You have a process that's going on. Right now I'm not aware that
the Wiggins Pass inlet management plan, the new one, has been
brought to you adopted, so you have some funds that are being
allocated but I don't know where we're at in the process.
We've had canceled sub - committee meetings for the Wiggins
Pass. I know that there's a CCPC hearing coming up for the
consistency. I will attend that.
I feel strongly that the project as proposed is not consistent with
your GMP, your LDC and your zoning maps, okay. There's plenty of
evidence and written documentation from the State of Florida agencies
which casts doubt on the success of this project. Questions I would
have is how much will subsequent dredges be? We'll spend 1.7 million
today. What will we need in the future? How often will that be?
What if the dredging does not work? What then? What are we going
to try? What happens if the project creates new and increased erosion
in the Barefoot and Delnor- Wiggins State Park area; will the county
be on the hook for lots of money in the future?
And I've said this before, I believe that the amount of money that
we have spent over the past 12 years, which probably is $10 million
plus, that could do a lot of renourishment on our beaches that would
actually benefit many more tourists who may not even be using the
Page 74
July 24, 2012
pass itself.
Those are basically my comments, and I appreciate your
consideration. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Joe Moreland.
MR. MORELAND: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Joe
Moreland. I am president of the ECA, Estuary Conservation
Association. I'll be speaking to you in that capacity. I'm also however
the chairman of the Coastal Advisory Commission sub - committee on
Wiggins Pass.
I've been involved in this issue. You've heard me so many times
so you obviously know what my message to you is.
We have a constant drumroll of objections brought up mostly at
the last minute when we reach to the decision points by people who do
not attend many of the working committee meetings.
But speaking of those working committee meetings, let me point
out something very important. This process has been going on for
four to five years. There have been several work groups that have
addressed this. It started out with a great deal of lack of unanimity
among the community. That lack of homogeneity has been done
away with, except I think I just heard with an exception, which is
rather typical of that exception.
The Conservancy is fully in support of this. We've had positive
reports in all aspects as to the community's support for doing this.
We've also pointed out the economic considerations in doing this.
The safety factor of the Wiggins Pass navigation capability for
boaters, whether you like boaters or you don't like boaters, whether
you like big boats or you don't like big boats. Boating is dangerous.
Do you know that as we stand here the Coast Guard has issued a
warning to mariners concerning that pass. Do you know what that
does to the image of the boating community, the recreational
community?
And ultimately and not so far into the future, it's occurring now,
Page 75
July 24, 2012
is the impact on the waterfront properties for the boating community
which is 1,700 slips in that immediate estuary of waters area.
Now, I know I heard my warning. What more can I say about
this that you can't remember my having said before? There's not
much left to be done. You're going to always get the nay sayers. And
often they are exactly the same people, and often they raise exactly the
same kind of rather obtuse objections, that what if, what if, what if,
how much will, what's the future hold? God only knows,
Commissioners. But what we do know is what we could accomplish
here today, which would be an expenditure of funds to improve that
navigational channel to hopefully stabilize some of the erosion that is
costing us money and would allow us then to twicket (sic), we hope,
to do -- to make the corrections.
These things about going back to historical bad dredging, yes, we
all conceded early on the major portion of the problem of that, needing
to be repetitive dredging, was the result of poor dredging engineering
at the very offset.
But now with the state of the art such as the state of the art is,
what a dangerous phrase to use, but the state of the art, the modeling --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, your time has expired.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, sir, so am I.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last --
MR. MORELAND: May the Lord give you the wisdom to do as
we direct. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need all the help we can get, Joe.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Gary, some questions have been
raised. Will you -- do you want to try to answer them?
MR. McALPIN: I would be happy to.
The Wiggins Pass project is an inlet navigation project. It stands
completely alone, separate and distinct from the major beach
renourishment. The permits for the Wiggins Pass do no way impact or
Page 76
July 24, 2012
is tied to the major beach renourishment project.
There was a preliminary budget that was established. We've had
an opportunity now, based on the direction that we have received from
DEP, direction we have received from the Corps, the engineering
work that we've done in terms of the surveys and the core soundings
out there to come back with a revised budget, a straight budget that
deals with the dredging of the pass.
This $1.7 million is the best estimate that we have right now
without going out and bidding this project. This $1.7 million is
consistent with the direction that the Corps has given us and DEP has
given us, direction the Board has given us and the permit application.
I know of no increased payment at all or increased activity of
turtle nesting to turtle nesting -- during turtle nesting season. There
was a figure that was mentioned of $1 million. I have no identification
of that whatsoever. That's never come out from your staff, Mr. Chair.
If we do in fact do the major beach renourishment during turtle
nesting season, there may be some nests in the very beginning that
will have to be relocated. We think that those nests are in the range of
15 to 20 nests. That relocation cost is covered by the item that you will
approve today or hopefully will approve today with the sea turtle
nesting program protection -- with the sea turtle nesting program of
$160,000. So I don't know of any other items that are there with that.
The - it was -- nobody can give you a 100 percent guarantee that
the dredging that we are proposing straightening out the pass will
work 100 percent. We have identified that we're dealing with Mother
Nature and there's risks associated with that. It's the best knowledge,
the best information that we have.
The permit will be issued by DEP. They are 100 percent
supportive of what we're doing and have reviewed everything. The
inlet management plan has been reproposed and has been submitted to
the EAC. It will go to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission review and approval will be required before a letter of
Page 77
July 24, 2012
consistency is written.
This program will not be moved forward unless it is consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and all other environmental
regulations that the county has.
I think that those are the bulk or all the questions that were
addressed, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I heard from Doug
Fee is the same concerns that this Board has had, at least certain
members. We've spent a lot of money on Wiggins Pass. And we've
talked about hardening the sides of Wiggins Pass. This is not
hardening, it's just stride hitting (phonetic).
So there's no guarantee, Mr. Moreland, that we're going to be
spending more money, okay? It's simple as that. Until we start
hardening it, Commissioner Coyle has said it and I agree, we're going
to keep on putting more money into it. So I think Mr. Fee's comments
were spot on.
The question that I have on the proposal, the construction of
Marco Island renourishment and erosion control structures, is that just
for south Marco?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, that is just for south Marco. That is the
beach renourishment and rebuilding the five erosion control structures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the design and permitting
for hot spots. After Debbie, Tropical Storm Debbie, I don't find an
area that is not hot spot.
MR. McALPIN: It is the design and the permitting for that
project, Commissioner. Okay? And the hot spots were included. If
there were any hot spots down on Marco, it was included there.
If you're speaking of the hot spots that we have on the major
beach renourishment, we do have -- it is part of the design of the
project that you approved at the last board meeting.
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, what's this half a million
dollar hot spot for? Is that just for Marco? No. Didn't say that.
MR. McALPIN: I'm sorry. Oh, the 490,000?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. McALPIN: That's for the -- the estimate for the engineering
is one million -- all the engineering associated with this, including
preconstruction surveys and post- construction surveys and
post- construction biological monitoring is $1,090,000.
In previous years you have approved a budget of 600,000. This
is the balance required to be authorized next year, next year's budget,
which would allow us to fund the project up to what we believe is the
estimated cost for all the direct engineering and related engineering
activities, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For what area?
MR. McALPIN: That was for the 'main beaches: The
Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what area is not a hot
spot?
MR. McALPIN: The hot spot solutions was to look at -- when
we looked at this, we regionally engineered it and looked at it and said
okay, these are areas that are receding more. What can we do? Do we
need to put additional fill material in there, do we need to remove any
upstream groins, do we need to add a structure in there, and that work
was done in the conceptual survey, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were you next or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to take it section by
section. The first is the regulatory and permit compliance. You've got
the sea turtle protection program, beach tilling, physical beach and
pass monitoring for 160,000, 15,000 and 200,000 respectively.
With respect to the monitoring, we have been doing monitoring
Page 79
July 24, 2012
annually. And yet when you go and put together the details of what
the design permitting requirements will be for the major
renourishment and the Marco renourishment, you're requiring all this
additional studying, which is very expensive.
I don't understand why if we've got funding for monitoring and
we have these monitoring reports that those reports cannot be used and
tweaked to the extent necessary as opposed to redoing or doing new
work that seems to be unnecessary.
And this goes back to my earlier comment this morning and that
is we should be requesting of the state specifically what reports they
need and tailoring the assignments accordingly. We are basically
proposing a laundry list of very expensive services, very expensive
reporting that I'm not sure is necessary. So I have a concern about
that.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, can I -- go ahead, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I highlighted under this
section to point out that we are paying $200,000 a year for monitoring
reports. And it was those monitoring reports that I referred to that
were most recently done that put into question the amount of
renourishment that we need under the existing permit. And as a
consequence puts into question the amount of nourishment that's
needed under the 10 -year design template, which is what you're
funding under the next project section.
Doesn't reconcile. The numbers are materially inflated.
So go ahead, you can comment on that and I'll move to the --
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, thank you. And thank you for
bringing that up.
We typically do -- we do a monitoring every year so that we can
understand where the beaches are and we could also have a base line
for any significant changes that we have.
We are doing exactly what you suggested. We are going to use
the monitoring that is required, the yearly monitoring that is required
Page 80
July 24, 2012
for next year to be the benchmark that we will establish the design by.
Let me say that again so it's clear: We're going to use the yearly
monitoring for next year to be the benchmark that we'll use to
establish the detailed design by.
So it's not a question that we're doing the work twice. We're
using -- we're going to be doing that monitoring, and that will form the
basis of our design basis that we will look for in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: However, we have a monitoring
right now and a permit in place right now that provides that we need
one -half of what you are proposing. And it just doesn't make any
sense.
So I don't know, number one, why there is a delay and number
two, why the numbers that are being used to advance these contracts
that you are funding with these proposals here today are so much
more. But let me continue.
The question about beach tilling and beach grading, I've heard a
lot of concerns about the raking of the beaches. And it appears that by
constantly raking the beaches, the sand can't remain compacted. And
to the extent that the sand isn't compacted, there is more erosion than
we would otherwise be suffering.
So I'm not sure whether it's under the beach tilling or the beach
raking that this is occurring, or -- I'm sorry, the laser grading, or if
there is some other maintenance that you are doing through your
administrative services that is causing this repeated maintenance to
soften the beaches. But I would ask that you look into it and report
back to us how often you're raking the beaches and what effect that is
having on erosion.
MR. McALPIN: If I may, Commissioner, is that first of all,
tilling is required to break up the sand on the beaches and make it less
dense so that the turtles could come in and dig their nests. So the state
requires us to go in and till certain areas that are for five years after
renourishment. And we do that to -- so that the turtles can nest.
July 24, 2012
Raking of the beaches is what we perform on a weekly basis. We
will typ -- and it's part of our maintenance program for the beaches,
we go through and we rake debris. Could be seaweed, could be
cigarette butts, could be cups and plastic and issues, and we remove
them off the beaches so that the beaches are safe and attractive.
To the best of my knowledge there has never been anything that
has said that beach raking hardens the beach. Because it fluffs it up
and makes it more susceptible to beach erosion. But I could certainly
look into that, Commissioner, that's something --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate that.
MR. McALPIN: -- I don't know about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really appreciate that.
And as far as the tilling, that should be limited strictly to the
period of time when the turtles are nesting and that's not going on at
any other time.
MR. McALPIN: It is done right before turtle nesting season
begins, Commissioner, and it is only done once on the beaches, okay,
once a year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:` And that's appropriate.
So it's really the raking that's the issue. And it may be that it
doesn't have any impact on the erosion, but I would like to know
whether or not it does and whether or not -- you know, how we're
doing it has an adverse consequence. So if you could report back to us
and let us know, I'd appreciate it.
MR. McALPIN: Be happy to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The next issue is projects. And I'm going to beginning with the
Wiggins Pass channel straightening.
Mr. Fee is correct, that million -seven is by no means the total. In
fact, when you presented to us and when I spoke to the engineer, the
total cost was going to be between three and $5 million. And when I
look at the detailed budget that you're presenting over here, what I
July 24, 2012
don't see is where is the renourishment of the beaches. I don't see that
included in here.
And the other concern I have about this budget is you've got a
400,000 mobilization and demobilization. But in fact this number was
included in your overall beach renourishment. And we already had a
number for mobilization and demobilization for the dredge included in
that total project. So there seems to be some double counting, and I
would appreciate if you could clarify.
MR. McALPIN: I'd be happy to.
The mobilization is for this specific project. It would be for a
very -- it would be for a 14 -inch cutter head dredge, which would be
significantly smaller and would be only for Wiggins Pass. We could
not use the same equipment that we're using for the major beach
renourishment to use at Wiggins Pass, because the economy of scale is
so much different.
I've put up on the visualizer an estimate, an engineer's estimate of
what we believe the -- based on the quantities that we would be
dredging from Wiggins Pass, what we believe the actual cost would
be. It's $1.7 million, Commissioner.
What this does, it takes 38,000, thereabouts, of sand and it builds
the ebbtide shoal and it puts some of that sand on Barefoot Beach to
the north. It does not -- and the reason we're only using 38,000 cubic
yards is because we're taking the sand out of the pass and it's all the
sand that we have. So we are taking that and we believe that putting it
on the upside on Barefoot Beach will help grow the ebbtide shoal and
start to repair the beach there.
But it doesn't do a complete beach renourishment of Barefoot
Beach because that would take an additional sand source to the tune of
200,000 -- in the range of 200,000 cubic yards. We could either do
that on the major beach renourishment, which is one option that we're
looking at, or we can come back and do that, that the material that we
dredge out on the pass on a yearly basis over a 10 -year period, rebuild
July 24, 2012
Barefoot Beach over a 10 -year period.
So if the Board chooses to approve the Barefoot Beach on the
major beach renourishment, we would renourish Barefoot Beach with
that, or we could renourish it over a 10 -year period through the
maintenance dredging.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Included in this budget you've got
about 220,000 for contingencies. So the budget is actually about a
million -five, approximately.
Again, my understanding, this total project, based on my
discussion with the engineer, is between three and five million. So I'm
really concerned that this doesn't represent the full project cost and
what we have to deal with prospectively. And I don't want to start
something where we don't know -- and we don't know if we have the
money to bring it to its proper conclusion. So I have concerns about
this.
MR. McALPIN: This is _a construction budget, Commissioner.
We will go out and bid it and at that point in time we will know
exactly what this project will cost. And at that point in time we will
have -- we will know what the -- 'what it is. And if we have enough
funds, we can move forward. If we don't, we'll take an alternate
approach.
But that activity will be brought back to this Board for their
review and approval. So we would not start any work unless we had
funds available to do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm also very concerned about
what you said about the renourishment of Wiggins Pass beach. I
mean, that beach is critically eroded. And any thought of delaying
renourishment to be done over a 10 -year period, in light of the critical
erosion that that beach is currently suffering, is extremely concerning.
Could we go to the next item? Can we go back to your other
schedule so I can address the next item?
Okay, the next item is the 490,000 for the contract award. That
Z_!=
July 24, 2012
was approved by this Board at the last meeting to Coastal Planning
and Engineering for the overall beach renourishment.
And as you pointed out, that 490,000 is only a partial of the total
project cost which you have now identified as about 1.1 million.
Again, that is something I cannot accept for the reasons that I
stated in all prior meetings where this matter was discussed.
The next item that you have is the Marco Island renourishment
and control structures, as well as the design and permit for a total of
three million -one.
In our last meeting we agreed that what was going to happen is
that that Marco beach was going to be renourished to the extent of the
erosion, which was 50,000 cubic yards, not 107,000 cubic yards.
Because those beaches are expansive beaches and they haven't
suffered critical erosion. In fact, they are about 300 feet wide, with
the exception of that southern point, which is quite frankly a point I'm
not sure that you want the public accessing since it's, you know, right
down there by the inlet and by those breakwaters.
And again, the erosion as I understand it is about 50,000 cubic
yards, not 107,000 cubic yards.
And we agreed that that money that wasn't used would be put
aside to help with Hideaway Beach. Clearly that's not going on here.
So that's an issue there.
Also, with respect to the comment made by Bob Krasowski, there
is an additional cost for doing this erosion -- this renourishment in
turtle nesting season. You're going to be doing biological monitoring
reports that you would not otherwise have to do. The cost of doing it
during turtle nesting season will be more. How much more, I don't
know. But very clearly this could have been avoided, it could be done
outside of turtle nesting season and should be done outside of turtle
nesting season.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary, do you have any comments?
July 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this item was already decided by
the Board, as you mentioned at a previous meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: So if there's another question related --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And my position is --
MR. OCHS: -- to this item, we'll be happy to answer it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is that for the reasons that I said
before, and I will state again, I can't support what's being proposed
here today because of my very serious concerns about A, how the
numbers were calculated, and B, how the contract was represented by
staff with respect to the services. I certainly don't understand how Mr.
McAlpin and Mr. Sorey could stand here before this Board and say
remodeling the beach design for a 10 -year renourishment, delaying the
renourishment of these critically eroded beaches can cost exactly the
same and that there would only be a $20,000 difference between doing
it with the existing permit in place and given the monitoring reports
that we have readily available. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
And so for those reasons, I can't support it.
And with respect to Marco Island, it isn't what the Board
approved. We agreed that there would be a revisitation and it would
only be done to the extent necessary with the balance going to
Hideaway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE- Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
When we were talking about turtle nesting season, I just wanted
to clarify to make sure that we all are on the same page. What we're
going to do is just go on the cusps, both sides, of the turtle nesting
season rather than all throughout the turtle nesting --
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- season; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure so in case
July 24, 2012
any audience members are listening, I don't want them to think that
we're going to be doing this year round. We are not. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've heard this numerous times.
I trust the committees that we have together, they're reviewing this.
Do I think the data and everything that we have heard today is
absolutely flawless? I doubt it. It never is going to be. But the truth
of the matter is, it's the best effort that we're putting forward, it has all
sorts of safeguards in place, and if it hasn't been done, I'll make a
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
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 HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 3 -2 with
Commissioners Henning and Hiller dissenting.
That brings us to lunch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, let's --
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got these gentlemen here
from the disabled group regarding neighborhood stablization. Let's
hear them because they've been sitting here all day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't mind.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Mr. Chair, may I thank you and the other
Page 87
July 24, 2012
commissioners and Mr. McAlpin for answering my questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No? Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we go on, can I ask one
question?
Mr. Moreland, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard alert that you
received for Wiggins Pass?
MR. MORELAND: On Channel 16.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not something you received in
writing?
MR. MORELAND: No.
Item #1 I H
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP):12 -5836 NOT - FOR - PROFIT
NSP AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING TO THE
FOUNDATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
AND COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTIVE LIVING,
INC. D /B /A RENAISSANCE MANOR AND THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER OF SIX
PROPERTIES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that takes us to I LH; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's a recommendation to award request
for proposal 12 -5836 Not - For - Profit NSP Affordable Rental Housing
to the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled and Community
Assisted and Supportive Living, Incorporated, doing business as
Renaissance Manor, and authorize the Chair to execute agreements for
the transfer of six properties on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners.
aff-M.
July 24, 2012
Ms. Grant will very briefly present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MS. GRANT: I'm Kim grant, for the record, Interim Director of
Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
We would actually be happy to take questions or we can do a
very brief presentation, whichever is your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I like questions.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I got a phone call from St.
Matthews House. They wasn't (sic) aware of this RFP. They have an
existing facility in Golden Gate, apartment complex that's maintained
very well. I don't understand why they didn't have the opportunity to
do that.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director for the county.
Commissioner Henning, on December 22nd, before we formally
advertised the solicitation, we notified approximately 15 different
email addresses, sent a letter out to them indicating that we anticipated
this solicitation being posted. Specifically from St. Matthews House.
We did have an email address. So again, approximately 50 different
not - for - profits were notified.
And then when we eventually formally posted the submittal, well
over 300 different companies and not - for - profits were notified.
MR. OCHS: St. Matt's is on that original notification, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't know why -- I
had a conversation with a director saying we knew nothing about it.
MR. OCHS : I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a copy of the email going to
St. Matthews House?
MS. GRANT: We do.
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'd suggest you give that to
Commissioner Henning, he can give it to that director, and the director
can take it up with that staff person.
MS. GRANT: Will do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it valid? Is it a valid email?
Was it kicked back.
MS. GRANT: There were certain addresses that were kicked
back, and we tried to follow up on them. But the one to St. Matt's
House -- I'm just going to double check -- we're just double checking.
I don't think that was the one that was kicked back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. GRANT: It was not kicked back, it went through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
I'll tell you, we have exhausted this thing. We've brought it full
circle. We've come up with a wonderful solution to be able to meet a
community need. The disabled adult association is going to be able to
put this to use in good order. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion of approval by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, you want to wait till after the public
speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, I'll wait, and then I'll bring
up a few comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first speaker. The only
speaker, I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The speaker is Susan Suarez.
MS. SUAREZ: Thank you. I'm Susan Suarez. I'm the Executive
Director of Eden Autism Services.
And while I'm very happy for the Foundation for the
Developmentally Disabled, and I'm sure they'll put this to a wonderful
Page 90
July 24, 2012
use, we also were not notified. I received a call from Georgia Hiller
letting me know about this. We would have been more than happy to
apply, but I had no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Can you stay up
there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Susan, I called you this morning to find out if you had heard
about it, because I had heard that organizations throughout the county
had not been notified. And in fact as part of my review of this agenda
item, I communicated with staff to find out who they had shared this
offer with. And I found that it was a very limited list. And it was a
very selective list. And I found that that broader list when they did the
general RFP out to the community, it included, yes, about 300 entities
or individuals that wouldn't in any way be interested in this at all. It
was just, you know, whoever has ever signed up to be notified
received.
I am very concerned about the process as to how the
organizations were selected for notification. And it's the process that I
think we need to focus on with respect to this bid award.
I personally support the Foundation for the Developmentally
Disabled. I go every year to their event. I think the work they do is
outstanding. I also happen to think the same of Eden. I think the
same of many other organizations out there that assist individuals that
need housing. And this is exactly the type of program that allows, you
know, for fulfilling that need.
However, what we have here is an unfair process. And I cannot
support the award to the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled
because of how the process was handled by purchasing.
Now, I will say that at the end of the day if all these nonprofits
are notified and all have the opportunity to present, it may be that the
foundation for the developmentally disabled will again rise to the top
Page 91
July 24, 2012
and be the number one candidate.
But what happened here and I found out that Eden, who I happen
to know has a tremendous need for this housing, just like the
Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled -- in fact, it was at the
banquet for the Developmentally Disabled that we met together with
Joe and found out that Eden had the similar need, and yet they were
never notified, had no idea, were never given an opportunity.
So I am left very, very concerned. We have to be fair. The
process has to be fair. And I don't believe it was.
The second issue that I have is with respect to the manner in
which the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled was then
allowed to assign this award to three limited liability companies.
These are nonassignable grant awards. And you can't come in and bid
in the name of one entity and then turn around and accept the award in
the name of three other entities.
Now, I spoke to -- or I should say I communicated with the
County Attorney's Office, with Mr. Klatzkow, and Mr. Klatzkow said
that Mr. Teach had asked the same question and that the response was
well, they're one in the same as the foundation.
Well, that representation alone isn't enough to satisfy myself that
that is the case. We need to know that in fact they are one in the same.
But again, even if they are one in the same, you can't assign these
awards.
So I completely support the foundation, just as Mrs. Suarez
indicated, you know, they're really a well - deserving organization. But
the process is flawed and I can't approve this based on a flawed
process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So I am going to vote for this,
but some good points are being made. I think two in particular.
Number one, I think we need to update our email list. So many
times emails change and possibly people don't get them, or employees
Page 92
July 24, 2012
change, they've left the facility or whatever. And the email gets there,
but being that the employer isn't there any longer, it just goes into
oblivion or into the wastebasket. And so possibly -- I don't know how
often you update your list that might be something. And I know we're
short- staffed, I understand that. But it possibly is something that we
really need to do.
And secondly, the process I think definitely, if we're not
including everyone -- and you know me, I'm always about fair is fair.
If we're not including everyone, then we need to update our lists to
make sure they're all inclusive. Thank you.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioner, I would like to respond, if
I may, please.
It's very customary for the county to electronically send out
emails for notification on solicitations. That's very customary.
In addition to that, for approximately 30 days this was available
for anybody who came into the purchasing site to look for this
solicitation.
Thirdly, this is different in that we went above and beyond what
we typically do and notify not - for - profit agencies prior to posting the
solicitation.
And fourthly, let me remind you, this was a topic of conversation
at the Board meeting. It was well publicized that we were going to
advertise for these six homes. So in this case this was a very well
advertised solicitation.
I do understand your comment about emails changing. We
cleaned the vendor database and the email database in December of
this past year to try to eliminate old email addresses and
bounce- backs, kickbacks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning was before me.
Page 93
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, all these properties are in
Golden Gate City; is that correct?
MS. SONNTAG: Kristi Sonntag, Housing, Human and Veteran
Services.
Yes, Commissioner, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And so is it true we have
three different LLC's but they're the same entity? Is that what it is?
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, Scott Teach with the County
Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Hiller raised the issue, and I did look at it before
the item even was put on the agenda. All three LLC's under Sunbiz's
Department of State Department of Corporations are all owned by the
Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled. So all these LLC's, I'm
not sure the reason why they were formed. Maybe tax purposes,
maybe liability purposes. But they're all owned by the vendor that was
awarded the bid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And is that the bids that
you -- how many bids did your -- how many responses did you get?
MS. SONNTAG: We received three responsive bids.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- you know, this is my
community and I would like to see this organization get something.
However, and this is -- has a little stink on it.
Are :these all properties the same or similar? Are they duplexes,
are they multi- family?
MS. SONNTAG: They're all two- bedroom multi - families.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so they're duplexes.
MS. SONNTAG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's six of them.
MS. SONNTAG: There's a total of six, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what's wrong with
granting a third of them and then let's send the others out instead of --
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that would be good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we have -- you know,
we have in Golden Gate some of the people coming out of St.
Matthews House, they don't have a place to go. And the facility they
have in Golden Gate is filled. In fact, they're having to turn them
away.
So you want to resolve some of these issues, here's some of the
resolution to that. The Eden House I don't know anything about, but,
you know, I do know that the diversity that we have in Golden Gate in
some of these organizations work well.
So, you know, I would hope you wouldn't support the motion as
it is. I would hope that we would divest ourselves of a third of it and
let's seek some solicitations from others like Eden House and St.
Matthews House.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA Yeah, this is troublesome, you
know. I think county staff has performed admirably. You've covered
all your bases. You're told now that you tried to pull a fast one. I
don't know how it could possibly be. I mean, why would you favor
one agency over another?
You went through a bidding process, you posted the bids, and
here we are the 1 lth hour trying to move forward and we're coming up
with all sorts of delays again.
There is a lot of needs out there in this county, and we will try to
meet what we can as we go forward. But we went through the process
and here we are today and now we want to reinvent the wheel. Let's
get on with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Mrs. Suarez, could you come
up to the podium and share with us what Eden does?
MS. SUAREZ: I'd be happy to.
Eden Autism Services serves people of all ages with autism. And
Page 95
July 24, 2012
for adults we have a group home in Naples on County Barn Road and
we have an adult day training program which serves other adults who
live in the community.
We also have a school on County Barn Road. And many of those
kids are who are about to age out of school really don't know what
their next step is. There are many of those students who are very high
functioning with autism and could live in a situation like this with
some supportive staff coming into the living facility.
These types of accommodations are really what organizations
like ours are looking for. Rather than institutionalizing people, rather
than large group homes, a small two - bedroom apartment where
someone can live with a roommate and staff and services can be
brought in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is exactly the same need
that the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled have and why
the two of you work together and I think are in agreement on this issue
here today.
MS. SUAREZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion 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, the motion passes 3 -2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
Mf=
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve the staff s recommendation.
MR. OCHS: I know it's late, you want to get to lunch, but you
had the one move from Commissioner Coletta on the Sheriffs item,
and that's the only staff item you have before we get into your
advertised public hearings.
Mr. Hedberg is here from the Sheriff s Office. I don't know that
this will take too long, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it will, but I
definitely have some questions.
If I could, is the person --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, let him get to the podium
if you're going to ask him questions.
Item # 13 A 1
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
VALENCIA LAKES SUBDIVISION - MOTION TO CONTINUE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: And this is 13.A.1. It's a recommendation to
approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement authorizing
the Collier County Sheriffs Office to have traffic controlled
jurisdiction over private roads within the Valencia Lakes subdivision.
It was moved at Commissioner Coletta's request to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Hedberg is the only one, right?
MR. MITCHELL: No, we have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, in addition to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, could we run this in
Page 97
July 24, 2012
reverse and get the public speaker first and see if we can get a
dialogue going to try to find out if there's an easy solution to this?
Would you call the speaker, please?
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Adrienne Gagliardo.
MS. GAGLIARDO: Good morning. My name is Adrienne
Gagliardo. I'm a resident of Valencia Lakes.
And I'm here to voice my strong opposition to the County
Commission granting the HOA the authority to allow police to patrol
within the private streets of our community.
Initially my initial opposition was that it was a waste of taxpayer
dollars because it's a private community, gated community, we really
don't need it.
Just yesterday I was informed actually by a person with the
county commission, not even by our HOA, that these patrol dollars --
that this patrol is actually going to be paid for by our HOA dollars.
There was apparently some type of back door deal that our HOA
manager negotiated to use our private HOA dollars to fund these
proposals.
As a background, our HOA is currently still owned by the
developer because it hasn't turned over yet to the residents, so we have
a management company. It's scheduled to turn over in 2014, but
we've had problems with our HOA manager sort of informing our
residents of various decisions that are being made.
And we as residents were never informed that our HOA dollars
would be funding these proposals. They talked about the traffic
enforcement, but nobody was under the impression that our HOA
dollars were going to be funding these patrols.
And I attend every HOA meeting, I read every newsletter, I'm
very involved in the neighborhood, and I'm adamant at the budget
meetings and everything. This was never listed as a line item, it was
never put out to any of the residents.
Yesterday I spoke to our social director who publishes the
July 24, 2012
newsletter. She was like, she had no idea that our HOA dollars were
supposed to be funding these traffic patrols. In fact, through her I'm
going to be putting something in our community newsletter that will
go out this upcoming August so that our residents can actually have
some type of say on how our HOA dollars are going to be spent.
I know -- I was able to talk to a couple of my fellow neighbors
last evening, although like I said we just found out literally yesterday
that this was supposed to be funded by our HOA dollars. And I know
some of them wrote emails in opposition; there's some more emails
coming. Once we put it in the newsletter, we'll put - we'll get some
more opinions so that at least the residents have the opportunity to
have a say on how our HOA dollars are going to be spent.
Since this item was not budgeted for in our HOA, it's likely going
to cause an increase in our HOA dues, and we've had no say. And --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to give you a chance
to catch your breath. I'm going to ask you a couple questions.
MS. GAGLIARDO: I'm looking at the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're fine. I'm going to ask
some questions that will take us to where we need to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if we not approve it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, please,
I've got the floor.
What I need to know is where did this information come from
within the Commission office? Was it --
MS. GAGLIARDO: When I was talking to Paula Springs.
Because I called yesterday because I wanted to be able to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So she found out the
information for you?
MS. GAGLIARDO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now the next thing is is I
got to ask the County Attorney, are you familiar with this process at
all? And how does the Commission play into something between the
Page 99
July 24, 2012
Sheriffs Department and --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm very familiar with it. In fact, my
community does the same thing. We have an agreement with the
Sheriff s Office for patrols that comes out of our HOA dues. We have
a residence run HOA, which I think is the distinction on this one here.
Apparently it's still a developer run HOA.
The statute authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to
approve an agreement such as this. I mean, Mike would have a better
number than I have, but I'm sure we have scores of these throughout
the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, I mean, we do have the
right to be able to reject it if it hasn't gone through the right process
within the community.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's -- well, there is no process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why do we have it before
the Collier County Commission?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what I'm saying is that your
distinction here is -- my community went through a process, because
my HOA had this on their agenda and we voted for it.
What I'm getting from here is that the developer still runs this
HOA, so the residents were bypassed. I don't know if the majority
want this or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, based
upon that, I do want to hear from the Sheriffs Department.
I'm going to make a motion to continue this sometime into the
future until the community can have some meetings. I'll lead the
meetings, I'll get you in front of where we get all the people together
so that we can find out what the sentiment of the community is, we
can find out everything.
We can't settle this today even if you agreed on it. Because I
have received numerous emails that were in opposition to this taking
place.
Page 100
July 24, 2012
With that, I would ask the Chairman's permission to have the
Sheriff deputy come forward and explain how the role of the Sheriff s
Department is in this, if he'd like to, and maybe shed a little more light
on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you're going to continue it, can't
we do that at the time it's heard --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for discussion? Because we're not
going to make a decision no matter what anybody --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue this until a
community --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still would like to hear the
Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion with --
but I have a fast question. Even if everybody in the community voted
against it, being that they have no right to say anything on the HOA
because it's developer run, will it make any difference?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can say no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can say no. We're the voice of the
community, not the HOA.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion to continue by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You seconded it. Okay, Commissioner
-- who was first, Commissioner Fiala or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm -- I asked my question, I'm
done
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: Good morning, Commissioners -- I
guess it's afternoon now.
I can try and answer some of the questions for you in regards --
Page 101
July 24, 2012
we have numerous agreements of this type. Some of the communities
that have them do enter into a special detail agreement to have a
deputy come in and do special traffic enforcement. That's not the
general rule. We do enforcement -- or patrol throughout the county.
Agreements such as this type, if the community doesn't want the
special detail, we would do traffic enforcement just like anywhere else
in the county. So it's up to the community whether there's some
additional expenses to them or not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But traffic enforcement on private
roads?
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: For civil traffic infractions to be issued
by a law enforcement officer on a private road there has to be an
agreement such as this in place.
So if we were just doing routine patrols, we still have criminal
jurisdiction regardless of the private property or not. In order to issue
a civil traffic infraction, there would have to be an agreement like this
in place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this relates only to the civil
traffic infractions which is speeding.
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: Speeding, red light running, stuff like
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or careless driving. Would that be
considered --
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- but otherwise all the other
possible driving violations fall within criminal and would still be
enforceable by you within that homeowners association boundary.
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: DUI, suspended license, all those
criminal --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the reason I --
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: -- violations still would be enforced.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I wanted you to speak
Page 102
July 24, 2012
is to bring that out to make that clear. Because there is a likely
misunderstanding that somehow you don't have the right to go on that
property for criminal acts if such an agreement is not entered into,
which is not the case.
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This only increases your
jurisdiction by a very limited amount. You still have the ability to
patrol that area for criminal conduct.
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: That's correct. And we don't solicit
these agreements. We generally get them as a result of a homeowners
association or a group of homeowners coming forward asking for this
type of jurisdiction.
There's a process where an evaluation has to be done about the
signage and things like that, to make sure it meets FDOT standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I wanted the speaker to
understand that if the Board denies this agreement, you're not keeping
the police out of your community.
MS. GAGLIARDO: Right, that's not the point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not the point. The point --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But I want to make
sure that's on the record, because some people might think that.
MS. GAGLIARDO: No, that's not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to speak into the mic.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, could I ask you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we have this
conversation after?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, all in favor of the motion please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed --
Page 103
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by like sign, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's very important that this
is on the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes --
MR. MITCHELL: Could you identify yourself --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passed, vote 3 -2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting. So it's continued. And
we will have this discussion at the time --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did I actually dissent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't dissent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you vote in favor of it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't give me the opportunity
to finish my sentence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I called the vote and you didn't say
anything.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm saying yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are you saying? You're saying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That we're continuing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passed 4 -1 to continue, with
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Okay, we are --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, for the record could you just identify
yourself, please?
CAPTAIN HEDBERG: For the record, my name is Captain
Mike Hedberg from the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we are in recess until 1:25 this
afternoon.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Page 104
July 24, 2012
Commission meeting is back in session.
I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we begin, can I just make
this announcement?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Depends on what the announcement is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's pretty simple, pretty great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner -- oh, my, oh, my
goodness, Commissioner Fiala has a very important announcement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a wonderful announcement. I
just want to say that this morning while we were holding our meeting,
I couldn't attend, I really wanted to, but the director for the airports
received an award this morning for general ,aviation airport project at
the Marco Island Airport. Got this wonderful plaque, and it was
presented to him there from the Florida Department of Transportation.
And I'm just so proud of him and all the work that they've done
over there at the airport, I just wanted to announce it at an open
meeting.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS : Excellent, excellent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good job, Chris.
Okay, County Manager, we have a time certain item.
Item #9A
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04 -41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF
Page 105
July 24, 2012
FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 — GENERAL
PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS;
CHAPTER 2 — ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING
SECTION 2.03.01 AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION
2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER
THREE — RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION
3.05.02 EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR
VEGETATION PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, SECTION
3.05.05 CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL OF PROTECTED
VEGETATION, SECTION 3.05.07 PRESERVATION
STANDARDS, SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS,
SECTION 3.06.07 UNREGULATED WELLFIELDS, SECTION
3.06.12 REGULATED DEVELOPMENT; CHAPTER FOUR —
SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN, SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC -ST DISTRICTS,
SECTION 4.02.17 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE BMUD- WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICT, SECTION
4.02.18 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE
BMUD - RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R1), SECTION 4.02.19
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD -
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R2), SECTION 4.02.20 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD -
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R3), SECTION 4.02.21 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD -
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R4), SECTION 4.02.35 DESIGN
Page 106
July 24, 2012
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD -MIXED
USE SUBDISTRICT (MXD), SECTION 4.02.36 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R), SECTION 4.05.02 DESIGN
STANDARDS, SECTION 4.05.04 PARKING SPACE
REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.06.02 BUFFER REQUIREMENTS,
SECTION 4.06.03 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
VEHICULAR USE AREAS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY, SECTION
4.06.04 TREES AND VEGETATION PROTECTION, SECTION
4.07.02 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER FIVE —
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.03.02
FENCES AND WALLS, SECTION 5.03.06 DOCK FACILITIES,
ADDING SECTION 5.03.07 PORTABLE STORAGE
CONTAINERS, SECTION 5.05.08 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 5.06.00 SIGN REGULATION
AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION,
SECTION 5.06.02 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS
WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 5.06.03
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS FOR
INSTITUTIONAL USES, SECTION 5.06.04 DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SIGNS IN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
SECTION 5.06.05 EXEMPTIONS FROM THESE
REGULATIONS; CHAPTER SIX — INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.02.01
GENERALLY, SECTION 6.02.03 TRANSPORTATION LEVEL
OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.01 STREET
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.02 SIDEWALKS,
BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER
NINE — VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING SECTION 9.03.02 REQUIREMENTS OF
CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMITIES, SECTION 9.04.02
Page 107
July 24, 2012
TYPES OF VARIANCES AUTHORIZED, ADDING SECTION
9.04.08 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT; CHAPTER TEN —
APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION - MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.01.02
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED, SECTION 10.02.00
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, 10.02.03 SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS,
SECTION 10.02.05 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS PLANS, SECTION 10.02.06 SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, SECTION 10.02.07
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY, SECTION 10.02.13 PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCEDURES, SECTION
10.03.05 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
BEFORE THE BCC, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE EAC, AND THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, SECTION 10.08.00
CONDITIONAL USES PROCEDURES; APPENDIX A —
STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE — APPROVED AMENDMENT
AND /OR CONTINUED AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEXT LDC
MEETING
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we're going to take Item 9.A, sir. It's a
recommendation to consider an ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance 04 -41
as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive Land regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida.
Page 108
July 24, 2012
And Mr. Casalanguida will begin the presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
About 18 months ago, almost two years ago, County Manager
asked to work for CBIA -- for staff to work with CBIA, look at
efficiencies and improvements within the Land Development Code.
That started approximately a 12 -month process that they're
culminating now, coming in front of you, where we're taking some of
those recommendations to the Board, with staff recommendations and
adjustments as well as your Planning Commission.
I have behind me Caroline Cilek, who's been with the county for
over a year. She's currently a job banker, and I'll let you -- have her
tell you a little bit more about herself. But she's done a phenomenal
job as recognized by CBIA and County Attorney's Office and staff.
So with that, I'll have Caroline begin this process and we'll go
from there.
MS. CILEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you, Nick,
for that nice introduction. My name is Caroline Cilek and I am a
Senior Planner with the Growth Management Division.
I graduated from the University of Iowa with a Master's in urban
and regional planning last spring. I'm currently a job bank employee
and I've enjoyed my first position as a planner coordinating the current
Land Development Code amendment cycle.
I have worked with dedicated staff, advisory committees, the
Planning Commission and the public to prepare over 50 amendments
to this code. These amendments have all been publicly vetted through
the formal process. The binder provided to you with LDC
amendments also includes a summary sheet which identifies the
comments, the dates of approval and the nature of the vote for
recommendation by the advisory boards and the Planning
Commission.
Today we will present the majority of amendments in the cycle.
Page 109
July 24, 2012
We are scheduled to return in September to conclude our presentation.
Following our presentation in September, the growth management
division will bring forward an administrative code for your
consideration. The administrative code combines the procedures for
developing property in the county into one single easily understood
and user friendly document. Our goal is to bring forward the
administrative code for your consideration by the end of the year.
As identified in the executive summary for the LDC amendment
review, there are several types of amendments. And Nick spoke to
them, but I'll go into a little bit more detail.
First, several amendments propose corrections or clarify glitches
which were inadvertently omitted or changed during the recodification
of the LDC in 2004.
Second, several amendments originated from the County
Manager's invitation to the Collier Building Industry Association,
known as CBIA, in late 2009 to suggest possible amendments to the
LDC that would spur economic activity without sacrificing high
quality --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to hold up
just for a minute. We don't have a quorum here by any means, so
we'll just wait just a minute until everybody gets back and --
What's going on, Donna, why did everybody disappear?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I think everybody saw
us and left.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We really can't conduct the
meeting without a quorum of four commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Crystal and Georgia never
came - back in the first place. So I think we've lost them all. Some -- I
heard a door.
Here comes one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is everybody else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're waiting for four. We've
Page 110
July 24, 2012
got to have four for a quorum to keep going.
There we go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't declare a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we're functioning.
(Commissioner Henning is absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can continue.
MS. CILEK: So I'll begin with the second set of amendments
which originated from the County Manager's invitation to the Collier
Building Industry Association, known as CBIA, in late 2009 to
suggest possible amendments to the LDC that was for economic
activity without sacrificing the high quality development in the
county.
As a result, CBIA established an advisory committee made up of
professional consultants to identify areas of the LDC which they
believed could be improved upon. Recommendations were then
forwarded to staff.
Staff has reviewed and discussed the proposed changes with
CBIA, and those that were not staff supported have been removed
from this cycle. Those remaining, while initiated by CBIA, are staff
sponsored and considered staff sponsored amendments coordinated
with CBIA requests.
The third group of amendments in the cycle are proposed
changes to improve efficiency within the LDC.
And the fourth group of amendments are those that were
prepared at the direction of the Board.
I can proceed with the agenda, we can start at the top with
glitches?
(All Commissioners are now present.)
MS. CILEK: The first amendment is 1.08.02, Definitions.
Omission of rural subdivision. And following the County Attorney's
review, we'd like to continue this amendment to September. There's a
couple of things we need to work out. So that one slide right back.
Page 111
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want motions on each of these
individually?
MS. CILEK: I think that would be best, but not for this one.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that would be best, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a continuation, I presume. Is it
the only continuation in the group?
MS. CILEK: No, there are several more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are others, okay.
MS. CILEK: There are four in total.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. CILEK: The next amendment is 2.03.01, Agricultural
Zoning Districts, and 4.02.01, Dimensional Standards for Principal
Uses in Base Zoning Districts. In here we are proposing to reinsert a
modified provision regarding side setbacks for nonconforming lots in
the Estates district which are nonconforming due to inadequate lot
width.
Staff understands this definition was inadvertently omitted during
the recodification. And if you will take a look at your amendment,
which is the second in the binder, on Page 3, following the review of
the County Attorney's Office review on last Friday, we'd like to make
one correction and that is to remove the word "legal" on line 15 before
the word "nonconforming ".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Remove that word?
MS. CILEK: Yes, please. And we have just a few of these
corrections following Friday's review.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the benefit of our viewers, can
you put those pages on the overhead and point it out as well so that
everyone can see what you're referring to.
MS. CILEK: Yes, certainly.
We're proposing to remove the word "legal" in D, line 15. And
for consistency, it's also found above in the page on line three. And
that's simply because the definition in the LDC doesn't include the
Page 112
July 24, 2012
word "legal" before definition of nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or illegal.
MS. CILEK: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Need a motion or --
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
How many public speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have six public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are they classified as to which one of
the LDC revisions or provisions they want to speak at?
Is there anyone registered to speak on this particular item?
MR. MITCHELL: 305? No -- some of them -- the majority of
them don't detail. But no there's nobody for this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes, it is approved.
MS. CILEK: Great.
The next one is 2.03.08, Fringe Zoning District. This one's pretty
simple. There's a typo, the word "from" needs to be added to the
section. And this was unanimously approved by the Planning
Page 113
July 24, 2012
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any speakers for or against this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is passed unanimously.
Is that 4.02.01?
MS. CILEK: Yeah, 4.02.01, Dimensional Standards for
Principal Uses. The word principal is misspelled. And that is on lines
one and six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a tough one. We need to discuss
that for a while.
MS. CILEK: I don't know if there's any speakers on that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If they are, we're going to cut off all the
speakers.
Was that a motion to approve, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning said aye, I'll
Page 114
July 24, 2012
second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning's motion for
approval, Commissioner Fiala seconded it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: The next one is 4.02.04, same error. Principal is
misspelled. And that is at the bottom of the page in the table.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Next one is 5.03.02, Fences and Walls, Excluding
Sound Walls. And here there's a reference to an illustration in the
code that does not exist. We'd like to strike it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's another easy one. Motion to approve
by Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 115
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those things you go nuts over
trying to find.
MS. CILEK: The next one is appendix, Appendix A. And here
we are proposing to update the letter of credit form. And the proposed
changes also allow for the county to present a draft or demand on this
letter of credit in Florida rather than out of state. And this also
received a unanimous vote of approval by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. CILEK: And that concludes our category of glitches.
Page 116
July 24, 2012
We can continue on through the agenda or there are several
public speakers here, if you'd like to review those amendments next.
It's at your decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That probably would be easier. Let's
call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Jeremy Frantz, and he'll
be followed by Bruce Layman.
MS. CILEK: I believe they're speaking in reference to a certain
amendment. So we can use those amendments first and then they can
follow with their comments?
MR. MITCHELL: So Jeremy Frantz is going to speak to
4.02.14.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he the only one speaking on that item?
Is anyone else speaking on that particular item, 4.02.04?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what we'll do is take the public
speakers. Then we'll go to the item that they're speaking to and then
we'll vote on it.
MS. CILEK: That sounds like a plan.
MR. FRANTZ: Hi, Jeremy Frantz, representing The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Just generally, I'd like to start off by saying that we've been
participating in this LDC cycle since the very beginning, and we've
had no shortage of questions and concerns that staff has always been
really helpful in preparing information for us or getting our questions
answered. And it's been a really easy process though long process to
get through with them. And it's been a good experience.
I know that a couple of Commissioners have contacted us and
asked us if we had any concerns, and at that time we did not. The
amendment 4.02.14 was just brought to our attention yesterday.
The concern that we have is in subsection H. There's a small
addition that expands the public hearing exceptions to the entirety of
Page 117
July 24, 2012
the ACSC. Our understanding is that it's essentially a clean -up item
for staff in that it is basically how they've been applying this part of
the code already. However, it does bring up a concern for us because
it does allow some impacts. However limited they are, it is still a
concern for us. And so we ask you to take a look at that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You say 4.02.08?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, 14, I think.
MR. FRANTZ: 14.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 4.02.14.
MR. FRANTZ: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you suggesting a specific change in
the language?
MR. FRANTZ: Well, if it was being focused on the urban
designated areas that the rest of the amendment is focused on, I think
that could just be added in that it would be the urban designated areas
in the ACSC ST.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what's staff s response?
MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. For the record, Stephen
Lenberger, Growth Management Division.
Staff prepared an update to this amendment realizing that it was
quite old and outdated. And the provisions of this code are unclear as
opposed to which ones relate to the area of critical state concern
special treatment overlay, and which ones relate to just the special
treatment overlay. It's very confusing. And often the section of the
code just references ST for both of them.
So what we did is we clarified when specific things apply to the
just area of critical state concerns, we identify that specifically. Where
it applied to both, we actually put both down. And this is just a
clarification. That's how staff has applied the exceptions from public
hearings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This does not create a special situation.
Is this a provision that is equally applied through all zoning
Page 118
July 24, 2012
designations?
MR. LENBERGER: It's applied to all ST areas, regardless of the
zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You feel that addresses The
Conservancy's concerns?
MR. LENBERGER: I think The Conservancy is just unclear of
how the provision of the code was applied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay, does that answer your
question?
MR. FRANTZ: That is how I understood it. It was just our
suggestion that maybe it be limited to the urban designated area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what is staff s response to
that?
MR. LENBERGER: If the exceptions were limited to the urban
area, then minor revisions that would fit the exceptions criteria such as
single - family dwellings or hunting camps in Big Cypress Preserve, for
example, would all be coming to the Board for approval. What staff
currently does is review them administratively for the area of critical
state concern site alteration criteria and approve them
administratively.
CHAIRMAN COYLE All right, thank you.
Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Question by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's clarify this, because this is
one of the issues we've been dealing with for some time in this county.
Out in the Big Cypress there's a number of units that are out there that
are very remote, very difficult to ever get to inspect. So what does
this do to that in the way it's set up right now, the way it's worded at
this moment in time?
MR. LENBERGER: It will have no effect on how those hunting
camps are reviewed currently.
Page 119
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. That's what I
wanted to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, this actually was
brought to my attention separately by another constituent. And I just
don't think I fully understand the application. For any development in
Copeland and Plantation Island. What does this mean? What does the
change being proposed mean?
MR. LENBERGER: For Copeland, there's clarification and a
change. For Copeland and Plantation Island, there's a separate review
and approval process, which is done administratively. And we've tried
to clarify that in the amendment because the code was very confusing
as written.
We also, there is a separate agreement, as you know, between the
Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Board allowing
alteration of mangroves and other wetland vegetation in Plantation
Island in order for the mobile homeowners to build -- put in their
mobile home.
The reason is because strict application of the area of critical state
concern regulations basically makes a lot unbuildable, if you have a
wetland lot in Plantation Island. So the Board entered into an
agreement with DCA. And the agreement is the variance for the state
to allow that.
What the county did when that -- when the code was amended is
that we created a separate variance procedure for that in the LDC. But
what staff is proposing instead of having these mobile home owners
apply for a variance and spending $2,000 and going through a long
process of coming to the Board to put their mobile home on, allow that
process to be done administratively by staff when we review the
building permit.
Currently the process for Copeland and Plantation Island is the
building permits are reviewed for compliance with the area of critical
Page 120
July 24, 2012
state concern regulations at the time they're submitted. There is no
special treatment permit application required for those single - family
dwellings in the urban areas.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I can clarify, what you're
proposing here is that the developments in Port of the Islands,
Copeland and Plantation Island will not have to submit a site alteration
plan or site development plan approval?
MR. LENBERGER: They're not required to submit an
application for a special treatment permit and they're not required to
go through the formal public hearing process for approval of that
special treatment permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's only with respect to the
special treatment permit?
MR. LENBERGER: The special treatment permit, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But otherwise -- and I'm just
reading directly from the modifications that's on Page 5.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It says development within the
urban designated areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall not be
required to go through the process for filing a petition for site
alteration or site development plan approval pursuant to 4.02.14.G and
not be required to follow the procedures for site alteration plan or site
development plan approval pursuant to 4.02.14.E, F.2 and F.3.
MR LENBERGER: And these areas, the 4.02.14.G is the
submission for applying an application. And the 4.02.14.E F.2 and
F.3 are the public hearing process for approval of that. In other words,
they're allowed to do that administratively. Which is how staff has
applied it all this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But any other development
anywhere else has to submit a site alteration plan or site development
plan.
So while I understand that they're in this particular area of critical
Page 121
July 24, 2012
state concern, I'm still not sure I understand why they are being
exempted from a requirement that everybody else has to conform
with. Is it because there is -- I mean, why can it be done
administratively for them and not for everybody else?
MR. LENBERGER: I was told this when I started with the
county about 19 years ago, that the Board at the time did not want the
mobile home owners in Plantation Island and Copeland to have to go
through the process of filing for an ST permit and to go through the
public hearing process. So the code was changed. That was before I
came here actually, and that's what I was told.
Your earlier question, development orders, they are required to
go through chapter 10 if they're site development plans. It doesn't
exempt them, site development plans, if it's not a single - family
dwelling. This is only for the mobile home owners, single- family
dwellings, Copeland and Plantation Island.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this applies only to the mobile
sites? Because that's what's struck from this paragraph. It eliminates
mobile home sites. So it seems to me to include everything now.
MR. LENBERGER: Mobile home sites is a general term that
you'll see for Plantation Island. And that comment, we coordinated
that with David Weeks of the comprehensive planning section, and
that's really incorrect to say mobile home sites. In the Comp. Plan, it
says just Plantation Island. So that was a correction from comp.
planning staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Port of the Islands, Copeland
and Plantation Island have more than mobile home sites, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Correct --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But by striking this from this
section, you're making this provision apply generally to be on mobile
home sites. And I think your intent is to limit this to mobile home
sites.
MR. LENBERGER: The zoning for Plantation Island is mobile
Page 122
July 24, 2012
home --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. So that would follow the underlying
zoning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
the Islands?
What about Copeland and Port of
MR. LENBERGER: I would have to check the zoning map, but
whatever the zoning map is would prevail. And as far as Port of the
Islands, that has multiple type zonings. I believe it even has PUD
zoning in Port of the Islands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again, by eliminating -- so
what you're saying is, the mobile home sites only refers to the
Plantation Island --
MR. LENBERGER: Right --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- mobile home sites. I
understand. So then what you have added here applies to all of the
three, to Port of the Islands, Copeland and Plantation. And again, it
seems to suggest that these three areas will not be required to have a
site alteration plan or site development plan approval. Unless I'm
misunderstanding.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, on line 17 it says development
within the urban designated areas of Copeland and Plantation Island.
So we're limited to just Plantation Island and Copeland. And it doesn't
exempt the development from the site development review process,
which would be starting on line 26.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But go back to 23.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or if you want you can actually
start at 20. Like from 20 to 25.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay. I'll read that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's separately from --
MR. LENBERGER: Development in the urban designated areas
Page 123
July 24, 2012
of Copeland and Plantation Island should not be required to go
through the process of filing a petition for site alteration or site
development plan approval pursuant to 4.02.14.G. That's the ST
permit process. And not be required to follow the procedures for site
alteration or site development plan approval pursuant to -- and again,
that was 4.02.14.E F.2 and F.3, which is the public hearing process,
for the special treatment permits.
Then it says: This development does not exempt -- this does not
exempt development orders required pursuant to chapter 10 of this
code, which would contain the submittal requirements for site
development plans, plat construction plans, planned unit
developments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess, again, why are we
exempting this particular group and not other groups that are affected
by ST overlays?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, it was at the Board's direction that
they wanted the mobile -- the single - family units in Plantation Island
and Copeland to be done administratively. They didn't want --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. That's what you
had explained before. But I want to understand why. I mean, I can't
understand why we're applying, you know, disparate treatment to
similarly situated properties. I mean, I've got an ST overlay up in
Vanderbilt.. They would have to go through all of this stuff. But the
people in Plantation and Copeland don't. I mean, if they don't have to,
why do we ?'
Jeff, can you answer that? And maybe I'm not understanding. I
mean, it is very complicated wording, but I just don't understand why
we're treating these properties differently.
MR. KLATZKOW: We've been treating these properties for 20
years like this, right? I can't tell you, ma'am, why the Board did this
20 years ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we legally do that? Can we
Page 124
July 24, 2012
legally treat similarly situated properties differently in this regard?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was signed off on 20 years ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't care, I mean, we have -- can
you --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not going to change it, though. It's
something signed off 20 years. It's been the way we've operated for 20
years with no challenge, so I'm okay with this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it legal? So is it okay that
Vanderbilt --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, it was signed off on 20 years ago,
we've had this process for 20 years. I'm not going to second guess my
predecessors or the predecessor board on this. It's
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the Vanderbilt ST has to go
through this but Copeland doesn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Apparently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Again, I think Commissioner
Fiala is going to come back too with about the same answer.
Plantation Island, Copeland, they've been around forever. This
was created way before we got into our Land Development Codes to
the level we do now. Special exceptions were made for special
reasons. It was just wouldn't fit. There's all sorts of restrictions as far
as what you can build in those areas.
In Copeland, and Commissioner Fiala will elaborate on this, I'm
sure, there's all sorts of overlays that are over through those properties
as far as conservation overlays and everything. It's restrictive enough
as it is. You have some very -- you have people there that are of
limited economic means. So it was provisions that were made a long
time ago.
You know, why at this point in time do we feel compelled to try
to make them the equal of everyone else in Collier County. It's one of
Page 125
July 24, 2012
the mistakes we make not only with this area but with Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, same zoning throughout
Collier County. Don't we have exceptions for geographical areas, you
know, such as hurricane evacuations, health, safety and welfare issues
that you can have exemptions for certain areas?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have many differences throughout the
county, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're health, safety and
welfare issues.
MR. KLATZKOW: Some of them, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how you can treat them
differently?
What's the exceptions for unequal --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, you say unequal but
you've got -- I mean, zoning itself is the large part of legislative
decision where you're going around and you're making decisions,
okay, you can do four units an acre, you could do two units an acre.
Well, why does one guy get to do four units an acre and another gets
to do two units an acre. The whole point of zoning is we're treating
everybody disparate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that isn't my
understanding. You have a base density of four units per acre except
for in the high hazard coastal area. I think that's where you're
referring to --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm saying we do PUD's all the time
where we're giving people different densities. I mean, some areas of
the county you can do industrial, some of the areas of the county you
can't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING; That's a --
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm getting at is zoning is just -- it's a
legislative decision to carve up the county for different uses.
Page 126
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have straight zoning here.
What we have --
MR. KLATZKOW: In parts, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the Land Development Code
we have straight zoning. Correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we have straight zoning in parts of the
county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Code. It gives you --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
No, in the Land Development
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It gives you criteria for asking
for a PUD.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can -- and that comes
through the Board of Commissioners You know, we can make some
exceptions.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But straight zoning, all your
commercial districts, there's no exceptions; is that a true statement?
MR. KLATZKOW: As a general rule if, your example,
commercial zoned two, you get certain uses throughout the county,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's unified.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other examples
where there's exceptions except for like the coastal high hazard area, it
has a lower density?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we want to treat
everybody equally?
MR. KLATZKOW: But we don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give me other examples. That's
Page 127
July 24, 2012
what I'm trying to get at. Where do we have examples where we're
treating people differently, giving them a higher zoning or giving a
higher use within the same zoning district?
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying,
Commissioner, all right, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a question.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying, but you
can create exceptions within your own zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the same zoning you can
create unequal --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a Board decision, it's policy. All zoning
is policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's how we can prohibit some people
from building pawn shops and tattoo parlors and adult book stores in
one area and other people with the same zoning get to keep those
rights. So that happens all the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like examples of that. I
know that we do that by district, and that was challenged by the -- it
was a Constitutional challenge, so we had to set up certain criteria
where they can locate within certain zoning districts, okay. That's
why we did that, because it was a Constitutional challenge.
Your land use matters. The people of property rights is in with
the -- in the Constitution. So you want to create whatever law, zoning,
whatever, that is equal. Especially zoning. Protecting property.
People have a right to defend their property.
MR. KLATZKOW: We draw lines all the time. One side of the
line you can mine, one side of the line you can't mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a conditional use, it's not
zoning by right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or it's part of your Comp. Plan or -- I mean,
we've got layers upon layers upon layers of land use between what the
feds let you do, what the state lets you do, what we let you do.
Page 128
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. And you have
zoning districts. And that's the point. This is a zoning district. It's a
state critical area of concern or ST. So I'm just trying to figure out
where our other exemptions are except for health, safety and welfare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might be dreaming here, but I
seem to remember 109 11 years ago when we, sitting here, discussed
Plantation. And at the time staff was having some concerns about the
mangroves and so forth. And what I remember it being determined is
that nothing could be built on Plantation Island except mobile homes
because it was a condition where you just couldn't build a house, and
that was when they had to relax some of the restrictions there in order
to be able to allow people to bring their mobile homes in.
And I can't remember too, too much more about it. But
Commissioner Coletta I believe was working on that at the time. With
Copeland -- I wasn't on this commission, but with Copeland, the
people there, it's located in such a distant area, doesn't impact anyone
at all, obviously. They can only -- well, the people there, it's a 70
percent, by the way, 70 percent unemployment in Copeland. So most
of the people can't even get to a job if they had one. And so I think
they relaxed it just because their area is so completely different than
any other urban areas. So they're kind of like located at the beginning
of the Everglades, right?
So that's all I can say is just these two areas are just not like any
other areas in Collier County. So it's hard to paint them all with the
same brush is what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are the costs associated with going
through the approval processes in Copeland that are required in every
other place in Collier County? Do you know?
MR. LENBERGER: For the building permit -- I mean, I would
assume it would be similar for everyone unless they had to impact the
mangroves. If they had to go through the variance procedure with the
Page 129
July 24, 2012
Board, the fee is 2,000, plus they'd have to go through the public
hearing process.
I pulled up the zoning. I put it on the overlay, it's mobile home
zoning in Plantation Island. I guess maybe I just put this in
perspective for you, it's all -- it's an unrecorded subdivision, but it's all
divided into small lots.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are tilting at windmills here. The
issue, and I'm trying to put myself in the position of the Board back at
that point in time, the lots are small, the living units are very low
priced. The people are poor. And imposing oppressive government
regulations on them and charging them high fees to go through
approval processes or variance procedures essentially makes their
property unusable, because they can't afford to do that.
So I am certain that the Board of County Commissioners many
years ago recognized that just as we should recognize that today, and
said look, you can't take bureaucratic action that deprives somebody
from using the property they own. And they made it easier, but with
very difficult restrictions on what they could do beyond that, okay.
So let's deal with this issue, and if somebody has a problem with
our zoning process, let's consider it some other time, okay?
Commissioner Fiala, have you finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say one more
thing. I just drove around Plantation Island about two weeks ago.
And you're right, it's completely different than any other place in
Collier County. And I can see why the restrictions are there. You're
right, it's a very poor area. And I think that you have a good question.
It was why they are being treated differently. But yet they aren't the
same at all. But that you have to just visually see.
And so maybe that's why they put them in place, because these
places didn't quite conform to the rest of Collier County. That's all I
can think of. But we're all guessing. All you can do is guess.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, one thing you can do is make a
Page 130
July 24, 2012
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, if economics is a basis for
not bringing something to the Board and allowing for administrative
change, then I think there are many areas in the county that suffer
similarly, especially in this economy. So why aren't we eliminating
these type of requirements, you know, wherever there is some sort of
an economic burden? I mean, if we can't have regulations that would
impose an economic burden and that economic burden would prevent
the development of the property, then I think we need to apply that
policy uniformly. And I think staff should come back in September
with more of this, but throughout the county.
If that can legally be done, and 'I don't know if it can, according
to Jeff Klatzkow, it can. And we're talking about process. We're
talking about the process of the administrative review and the
requirement to submit a site alteration plan or site development plan
being waived, or -- is it waived or merely just administratively
reviewed?
MR. LENBERGER: Administratively reviewed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we going to delegate that to
staff in other areas? And if not, why not? And I guess that's my
question.
So we can bring that back in September and review other
geographic areas. I mean, maybe there's an income threshold or a land
value threshold, or an ability to pay threshold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, why don't you bring that back for
future consideration? All in favor of -- is anybody here to speak in
support or against this particular section? Is that a yes or a no?
Page 131
July 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: It's Mr. Hall. Could you just identify yourself
for the --
MR. HALL: Yes, sir. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall
and Associates.
I'm not here representing any clients, but we have done work for
people out on Plantation. And a couple of things that make that area
different from the rest of the county is the entire lots are included in
the ST overlay. I'm not aware of anywhere else in the county where an
entire property is actually included in an ST. It's usually just portions
of that.
The other thing is a lot of these lots are in like long -term
ownership. The people have owned them for 30, sometimes 40 years.
And the overlay was put on after they had purchased them and had the
expectation of what they wanted to do, you know, later on. People
had these for retirement places where their plan was to come down
and put the trailers.
With this amendment, it becomes I guess easier for them to
undergo that process, but it's only within limits. My understanding is
that you still have to keep your impacts below 2,500 square feet. If
you don't, you have to go through the whole ST approval process and
come through the public hearings and so forth. There is a limit on
there, it's just not you can go in and clear the entire site.
So it was an attempt, the agreement with the DCA and all, was an
attempt to allow people to use their properties in the manner in which
they had that expectation when they actually acquired them. And I'm
in favor of the staff s attempt to actually codify that and make it easier
to understand for them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, the land
rights are -- I think it's blind to how much jingle you have in your
pocket. But if we have lots that are similar in nature where they're
Page 132
July 24, 2012
small and the impacts are small, like 2,500 square feet or what it says
in here, we should be treating all those people the same way.
However, I don't know if we have any similar situations
throughout the county in either ST or state critical area concern. That's
what we should be doing instead of picking and choosing. And I
agree what you're trying to do, it doesn't make sense to go through a
big process for a small lot. But we don't know how many other small
lots are out there. That's what I would like to know. As long as we're
treating everybody equal, makes sense.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, for the area of critical state concern, I
can't comment on all of it. The urban areas were identified separately
in the Comp. Plan because they are such small lots, and the original
settlement areas. In the Big Cypress area -- Big Cypress Preserve,
most of the lots out there that are left as inholdings in the preserve are
four acres. Some of them a little less. But usually about four acres.
But the impacts are still limited to 10 percent of the site or 2,500
square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand that. But if
you would strike through the identifications of properties and just say
that if you have - I think these are less than half an acre, or half an
acre or less.
MR. LENBERGER: They're pretty small. I'll put the zoning up
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're smaller than half an acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's the criteria you
want to set out for processes. It's not an economic issue. You can't
give rights under economic issues. But it is an economic issue for
everybody if they have a small lot and you have to go through a larger
process than somebody has 100 acres that wants to impact an ST area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me ask you this: With the
mobile home park, if you're building a mobile home park, they're all
smaller lots. So then would that be included in all mobile home parks
Page 133
July 24, 2012
throughout Collier County?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, lots.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, the problem, you know
-- we're not going to solve this problem today. We're focusing on one
Land Development Code paragraph. That's all we're focusing on.
This is far more complex than anybody has revealed today.
We've got compatibility issues if we start picking spots
throughout the county to provide similar kinds of exemptions. This is
a unique situation where everybody in that community is in exactly
the same situation. There is no compatibility issue here. And it is a
case where the property was owned by these people in almost all cases
before the ST overlay was ever applied to it. So it makes a lot of
sense to make a decision to exclude this.
So I'm going to call the question. All in favor of approval of
staff s recommendation please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
And if any Commissioner feels that there is any inequity in
making this decision, please feel free to introduce that at a Board
meeting, we'll advertise it and we'll debate it. Okay?
Let's go on to the next one.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bob Mulhere. And he's
interested in Section 3.05.07. Native Vegetation.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere.
There are several other speakers who have signed up for this item
Page 134
July 24, 2012
but we discussed briefly before I came up that probably all those other
speakers don't need to speak unless the Board has specific questions.
By way of background, the proposal is to eliminate a prohibition
on the use of exotic vegetation for mitigation in the ERP process that
only applies in the rural fringe mixed use district. It doesn't apply in
the other areas of the county. And as the lead planning consultant for
the county during the process, I do not believe that was ever the intent,
to treat the rural fringe mixed use district property owners differently
in that ERP process.
Now, there are also legal questions and permitting specific
questions. Again, there are speakers that can speak to those issues.
But we would support staff s recommendation to eliminate this. And
if you have any questions, we can certainly bring those other experts
up to talk the specific matters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who are the other people who signed up
to speak on this item but do not feel it necessary to speak now?
MR. MITCHELL: There was Bruce Layman and Tim Hall.
MR. MULHERE: And Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so they are waiving?
MR. MITCHELL: Rich Yovanovich?
MR. MULHERE: Unless you had specific questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So those three speakers have waived
their time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would actually like to hear from
them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind, I'll -- Rich Yovanovich
for the record -- kind of summarize what everybody was going to say.
As the lawyer for this team, I was going to point out that it's very clear
under the Florida statutes that the UMAM process is an exclusive
process for determining what mitigation is to be applied to wetland
impacts.
Bruce Layman was going to go into the detail of how it would be
Page 135
July 24, 2012
very difficult for the county to get into establishing its own
environmental review process that would be different from the state's
process, although in my opinion it would be illegal for the county to
do that. He was going to get into the practical effects and what it
would cost the county to do that.
And finally, Tim Hall was going to get up here and talk from a
scientific standpoint as to there's really no scientific basis for treating
these group of wetlands differently than wetlands out in the
stewardship area, wetlands in the urban area.
So basically it would be -- in this case I would agree with the
earlier discussion, it would be an improper treatment of similarly
situated wetlands. There was a great deal of discussion about that
specific issue from a scientific basis. So there was no legitimate legal
basis, not scientific basis, for the provision that currently exists in your
code. And we're simply asking that you follow staff s recommendation
to take that out as well as the Planning Commission's recommendation
to take that prohibition out and treat all of Collier County's wetlands
the same.
If you want to hear it in greater detail, I can, but that's basically
what they were -- the summary of what they were going to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 136
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there's only one other speaker registered.
That's Tim Hancock. I don't know whether he --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's here.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I appear before you today as the chairman of the
government affairs committee at Collier Building Industry
Association, also a board member. Our immediate past president Mr.
Tom Wegwert is also here.
First of all I'd like to thank the County Manager, Mr. Ochs, and
his staff in particular for reaching out to CBIA back in late 2009, early
2010. And the basis for Mr. Ochs reaching out was quite simple. He
asked us to help focus on matters that inhibit economic growth and
prosperity for Collier County. That's really why we're here today.
That was our focus, it's what Mr. Ochs requested.
His staff, led by Nick -- and I also want to compliment Caroline
Cilek. You talk about coming out of school and getting thrown into
the fire. You know, come out of planning school, next thing you
know you're sitting across the table from folks like us saying take this
out of the code, you know. And so -- but Caroline handled it with
class and we greatly appreciate her and all that Nick has done and his
staff.
It's taken us a while to get here. And there's a lot of reasons for
that. And my purpose is not to complain about those, because many
of them were necessary. Some of them, such as a kaizen event which
Nick and his staff underwent, actually served to set the table for
improving some of the development processes and the reviews. And
quite candidly, in many cases that is the enemy to economic growth
and prosperity is when we spend too much time in review and review
and review. And that has gotten better. And we encourage Nick and
his staff to continue working on that with us.
While this started in 2010, it took us a while to get here. Quite
Page 137
July 24, 2012
honestly, what you have before you is really mostly the low hanging
fruit. These are not the really tough ones. A lot of these are ones that
really we thought could be tackled fairly easily and fairly quickly and
get them done and then move on to some that I think have a little more
substance to them.
So what I'm here to ask of you today is two things, and I'll say
three things. One is to congratulate your County Manager and his
staff for their tenacity and for the desire to make things work better.
That's important to all of us. But I'm going to ask that you give
direction at the conclusion of these proceedings in two different
manners. Number one is that you direct your staff to continue to work
with CBIA, bringing back to this body in a period not to exceed 12
months that next tier of items, while fewer in number, more
substantive in nature that still stand before us and are inhibiters to
growth and prosperity.
The second item is something we discovered going through this
process that I think we knew intuitively but became very obvious is,
there are elements of our Growth Management Plan that actually stood
in the way of making amendments to the Land Development Code
that made sense. And it was a sentence that was inserted 10 years ago,
or a sentence that was inserted six years ago, seemingly innocuous,
but it stood between changing your Land Development Code to make
it make more sense.
So I'm going to ask also that you direct staff to work with CBIA
and anyone who's interested to look at those elements of the Growth
Amendment Plan for the next cycle so that we can attack those and get
those hurdles out of the way also.
Thank you for your time. And again, thank and applaud your
County Manager and his staff for a job well done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to thank you, Tim. Could
Page 138
July 24, 2012
you stay up there a moment? It's funny because my light went on
before I knew you were going to come up with the recommendations
with the same idea in mind.
I think it's essential that private industry come back to the county
and share with the county where you see the problems and what needs
to be eliminated. We have to get rid of deadwood regulation without a
doubt. It's very costly.
One of the things that also would be beneficial is if that all
regulation includes a sunset provision in it, so that automatically these
regulations will fall off the books unless we see the need to continue
them. So I'd ask that that be brought forward when you come back in
a year from now. And I'd like to make the motion that we direct staff
to work with the CBIA and bring back some serious modifications to
the Land Development Code to eliminate unnecessary regulation.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner. I did want to
mention, there were well over 1,500 volunteer hours from members of
our organization over this time that went into the product you see here
today in addition to obviously countless hours of staff time. But if
you put a dollar figure on those 1,500 hours it would be quite
staggering.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for the donation,
because that is very significant to the county.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. We believe in your management
team. And we appreciate them. And we certainly will do whatever we
can to help get Collier County back on track again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would be nice is if we could
also have, you know, at least a minimum number of regulations that
we could -- you know, substantive regulations that we could eliminate.
And I would ask that you work through that number with county staff
and say agree to eliminate maybe 100 serious regulations that really
are inapplicable today but become very costly to review for
compliance.
Page 139
July 24, 2012
MR. HANCOCK: Well, why don't we just agree to make sure
the Land Development Code gets no thicker ever than it is today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like that. Actually, I'd like to
make it a lot skinnier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Tim.
That was our last speaker, right?
MR. MITCHELL: That was your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta. Didn't we just do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To direct staff to work with the
CBIA to come back with the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've got that -- you've had that
guidance for years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it hasn't happened, and I
think it needs to be formalized.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it has happened, that's how you got
here. That's what happened.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It just happened with Leo. I think
the reason we have the abundance of regulation that we have is
because before Leo, that wasn't the case, it was opposite. In fact,
regulation was growing by leaps and bounds, and it's really only in the
very, very recent past that we have begun to see the change.
So I think it's essential that we memorialize what Mr. Hancock
requested. He requested it for a reason. And I respect his request, I
think he's absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean to keep it the size book it
is now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, to put it on a diet.
Page 140
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what we're doing now.
It's great to see us doing this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've been doing it for years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know we have. I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This didn't come up last week or last
month, it's been done for years: You don't put that much time and
effort into it over a weekend. It's been going on for a long, long time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't hurt to reaffirm it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. There's nothing wrong with
reaffirming the direction to continue working with CBIA about
simplifying our code, okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Real simple. Okay, all in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The most important part of that -- let
me just underline what we're doing here. The most important part is
that again, we're trying to do everything we can to encourage business,
making it easier for people to conduct business in Collier County by
streamlining all of our codes and laws.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And our organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which is exactly what has been done in
our organizational structure to make things better for everybody as far
as the permitting process is concerned.
So that's -- so there's a motion to continue doing that. All in
favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 141
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to the next item.
MS. CILEK: And I believe Tim Hancock was here to also
support this next amendment which came up here, which was 1.08.02,
Definitions, Usable Open Space. And I got to work with Tim on this
one.
This amendment came to staff as a recommendation from CBIA
and research also shows that there was direction from the Board in
2007 for this amendment.
This amendment seeks to address the concern that private yards
are not identified in the definition of usable open space; therefore,
they have not been uniformly included in the calculation of usable
open space requirements identified in the code
This amendment adds a private residence required yard and
removes the usable open space definitions elsewhere in the code to
create consistency when applying the usable open space provision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It pass unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we pick up where you left
off. We have no more speakers on any specific items, so we can
Page 142
July 24, 2012
continue right through.
MS. CILEK: Well, if you want to go back to the top of the
agenda, those are environmental amendments. And I will let Steve
take it from here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is one we didn't get a
motion on. Mr. Mulhere's amendment wasn't a motion and a second.
On the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the uniform application of the
credits for the preserves, for the wetland preserves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, for the mitigation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to move that
forward.
MS. CILEK: And the motion I believe was made after Mr.
Yovanovich spoke for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we vote on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought we did, yes.
MR. OCHS: I've got it recorded as you did, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. My apologies.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think I made the motion to
approve it when he was speaking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe it was a 5 -0.
MR. OCHS Go ahead, Steve.
MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment -- for the record,
Stephen Lenberger.
Next one would be 3.05.02.1), Exemptions from Requirements
for Vegetation Protection and Preservation, scriveners error. This is a
-- applies to the rural fringe. It's basically a vesting criteria that was in
the Comp. Plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was the scriveners error?
MR. LENBERGER: It was a misnumbering when it was put into
the code.
Page 143
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by me, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ave.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment, 3.05.02.E and
3.05.05 have to do with mangroves. And we had discussions with the
County Attorney's Office this morning. We'd like to continue that
amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Because I was going
to comment on that. And --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just some direction. You're
going to bring this back, correct?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING There should be a process if
applied equally to everybody that if you're only impacting a small
amount of clearing, that should be an administrative process. It's
common sense.
Page 144
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that makes so much sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. You know, there's a lot
of things that I hope we can give direction to staff. When you have
common sense issues that come to staff, allow them to do that. Even
though it might be contrary to our law, make those decisions, put it on
our consent agenda for us to ratify that.
Would you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. Because that's one of
the hangups sometimes, people because they don't have the permission
to do that, staff members, it has to be dragged through the process
when it would be ever so simple to just -- something small like that
that wouldn't upset anything or change the price of rice, might as well
just administratively approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff s looking at me really
weird; he's got something going on in his mind.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I could see staff making a decision
and the Board disagreeing with it, which is the problem with that. I
know Nick's coming back to you with an administrative code. And I
think that's probably where your idea probably fits in, some sort of
process with criteria on these things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's criteria -- yeah, I think
that's great. If it has criteria in it, then you're giving them ability to
make things happen.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but it will be Board - directed criteria.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a big difference between
removing a little bit of brush here or there on a lot and removing
mangroves along the shoreline. So if you try to specify it by the
amount of area that's being cleared without giving consideration to
species, it becomes a risky call by staff.
So you have to give a lot of consideration to how you're going to
do that. There's nothing wrong with considering it. But keep in mind
there's always unintended consequences to those kinds of decisions.
Page 145
July 24, 2012
6TIM
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want a motion to
continue?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, there's a motion to continue,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously to continue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, I just want
to give staff -- I received some good comments on those sections from
a member of the public and I just want to convey them to you so you
can consider them in your review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. LENBERGER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're welcome.
MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment on the agenda is
exemption from requirements for vegetation protection preservation.
It's four criteria, criteria for removal of vegetation, trees and
vegetation protection and development orders required. And basically
all these boil down to clearing and filling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the numbers?
MR. LENBERGER: They are 3.05.02.G, one through seven;
3.05.05; 4.06.04.N.01.02.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you summarize very quickly the
impact to the change?
Page 146
July 24, 2012
MR. LENBERGER: The amendment was basically a
restructuring of the clearing and filling section of the Land
Development Code. It was very confusing as written so we
restructured it and revised a couple of the requirements. We did
eliminate a few which we felt were kind of unnecessary. And we
made some revisions. That's it in a nutshell.
We had to have -- there were four sections dealing with clearing
and filling, at least the references, so we had to amend four sections.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first?
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In 3.05.05, you know the
definition of reasonable efforts, what does that mean?
MR. LENBERGER: Which line was that?
Oh, you're talking in the opening paragraph, the County Manager
or designee may approve an application for a vegetation removal
permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken
in the layout and design of the proposed development to preserve
existing vegetation and to otherwise enhance the esthetic appearance
of the development by the incorporation of existing vegetation in the
design process.
It's general language that was there. I can't give you a definition
for that. All's I can tell you is staff would go by the code as far as
vegetation protection. And vegetation protection would follow the
criteria in the Land Development Code for preservation of native
vegetation. It's also in the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I think the issue is is that
there is no definition for what reasonable is. And so obviously people
don't know what to do to satisfy, you know, what is apparently now a
subjective standard. So I think there needs to be some articulation of
what constitutes reasonable at a minimum so that they can be
compliant.
MR. LENBERGER: We could reword that and make it in
Page 147
July 24, 2012
accordance with criteria of the Land Development Code and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just insert UN in front of reasonable.
Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was from before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Going back to the
clearance, there's exceptions, there's this, there's that, but what about
Golden Gate Estates, how is that affected by this?
MR. LENBERGER: It's not. When the clearing filling section
of the LDC was first crafted, there was a voice from the community
that it didn't want it to be applied to the Golden Gate Estates. But that
exclusion was never included in the actual code, so we inserted it.
And I can point you to the line, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would.
MR. LENBERGER: It's on Page 6, line 25. It says: The
following shall not apply to the Golden Gate Estates subdivision.
Page 6, line 25.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so if you're clearing
pepper hedges or whatever, you don't have to get a permit?
MR. LENBERGER: That's different. This has to do with
clearing and filling for preparation of a home. The exotic removal
would be a whole other criteria for vegetation removal 3.05.05. And
if you have prohibitive exotic vegetation, you can get a permit to
remove those.
The current criteria in the fee schedule is that you would get a
clearing permit if you wanted to mechanically remove it, because staff
would have to check for wetland vegetation, things of that nature,
make sure you're not going to violate any regulations regarding
wetlands. But if you remove the stuff on non - mechanical means, like
chain saw, then you don't need a permit to remove exotic vegetation
from your property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, sir, thanks for clarifying
July 24, 2012
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 4 -0, with Commissioner
Hiller being absent.
MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment on the agenda is
3.05.02.G.8.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MR. LENBERGER: We've already done the area of critical state
Page 149
July 24, 2012
concern, so we will skip one and go to 10.02.06.D. Basically this is a
scriveners error.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we can't regulate farming.
That's what this means?
MR. LENBERGER: Under the Right to Farm Act, you can only
do an ag. clearing notice, you can't require an ag. clearing permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh -huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment, the last of the
environmental in this section, is Submittal Requirements for Permits,
10.02.06.E.
This amendment is basically an update to the clearing violation
section. I looked at it with code enforcement staff and they were very
helpful. It showed some of the sections were outdated and not given
at all the recent changes that have occurred to the environmental
sections, particularly last cycle. So this is attempting to update that,
which we did.
It's also changing the monitoring requirements. We're trying to
make it a little simplifer (sic) -- simplify it, I'm sorry, and only require
a time zero monitoring report as opposed to two follow -up monitoring
reports. It will be easier to demonstrate compliance.
Page 150
July 24, 2012
And there are a few other smaller changes, minor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it was approved unanimously by
DSAC and CCPC, right?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, everyone's approved these.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coletta.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign'.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 4.02.01, right?
MS. CILEK: 4.06.03 actually follows the one that we previously
approved, for usable open space. We're on to the next one. So that's
4.06.03, Landscaping Requirements for Vehicle Use Areas and Rights
of Way.
This amendment follows direction from the Board given on
September 27th of last year to modify this section. And the
amendment originally originated from the Economic Recovery Task
Force with the goal to grant a new property owner or tenant a greater
period of time to occupy a vacant property before being required to
bring the landscaping up to code in a vehicle use area.
This amendment pertains to the existing landscaping which does
not comply with the current standards of the code, when a structure
Page 151
July 24, 2012
has been vacant for a period of 90 days. The Board directed that this
would be modified to a period of one year.
The next part of this amendment is a staff proposal to change the
4.06.02 buffer requirement section. Similarly to the last section,
there's a time period for discontinuance of use where the structure has
not been in use for 60 days, and for consistency we'd like to propose
one year as well.
Then the last proposed change is to Section 9.03.02,
Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities. And this section
provides for the nonconforming uses, which is the use that was
allowable when it first originated and identifies that when a
nonconforming use ceases, a nonconforming use has a period of 180
days to return. We'd like to change this to one year, again for
consistency. So that's dealing with uses.
And then the next part of that same section on Page 5 is dealing
with site features. And you have 90 days following a cease of a
structure or use before you need to bring your site features up to
conformity. And we'd like to change this to one year as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just for clarification. So now
we're going to let the building be vacant for one year rather than 90
days, and they don't have to improve the landscaping for one whole
year?
MS. CILEK: In these certain sections. So if they weren't quite
up to code they could maintain the landscaping they had in the vehicle
use area for the first part of this amendment, and they'd have a
one -year grace period. And then after that if they moved in, 167 days
later they would have to bring the landscaping in that area up to code.
Page 152
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For one whole year. So my concern
is, especially for the other businesses or homes, businesses around it,
if they don't have to fix their property up for a year --
MS. CILEK: That's a really good question. And we actually
reached out to NABOR and CBIA to see if this would be a balanced
approach if one year is reasonable for their neighboring properties
before they came up to code. And they agreed that one year was a
balanced approach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still have concerns about that, you
know, because businesses want to be located next to businesses that
maintain their property, and they don't want it to be reducing the
appearance of their property because of somebody else. And I just
wonder if this is going to backfire on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask a clarifying question. You're
not talking about allowing them an entire year for not maintaining
their property, you're saying they don't have to come up to code. So if
you have a business property that is not up to code and it's vacant for a
year, they have to maintain the existing vegetation to an acceptable
level, but after one year they've got to replace that vegetation and
come up to the current code; is that what you're saying?
MS. CILEK: Yeah, the landscaping would need to be
maintained, and then if they move in following the year grace period
they would need to bring it up to current code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just have seen buildings
who put in the very cheapest landscaping they can put in. It dies
within the first three months after they're in the building. They don't
fix it up. How many times we've had to have code enforcement go
out. So then they finally sell the business, somebody else moves in
but they don't have to improve it or upgrade, just maintain it as it is,
and then it affects all the properties. I'm having a little problem with
that one.
MS. CILEK: Is that in regards to the one that was in Section
Page 153
July 24, 2012
4.06.03? Because that one comes from Board direction. The other
two are staff proposed. And maybe we can move forward with one
but not the other two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or maybe the first one could be six
months rather than a year, and see if that works out. If it doesn't
backfire, if other businesses aren't affected in a negative way in six
months, then maybe we can extend it to a year. But I don't want to
have to resign somebody to have to live with something a year if
they're really terribly unhappy with it.
MS. CILEK: Board could recommend a six -month period. I will
just say that there is some --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if the other members
would agree with me, you know, don't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's a long time to allow something
to sit there and not be improved. But theoretically, and I hope we do it
this way, even if it is vacant and a tree dies, they're obligated to
replace that tree to the level of the code that existed at that time. So
the challenge is to make sure code enforcement stays on top of this
stuff to get those things replaced promptly so that they don't languish
for long periods of time.
I don't have a strong concern about six months; that wouldn't
bother me too much. But code enforcement still needs to stay on top
of it in order to make sure it's maintained properly during the period of
time it's vacant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about the other
Commissioners? Commissioner Henning isn't here so we need a four
vote on this. Would you accept six months and give it a trial?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I mean, I think what you
have to refer back to is the comments under fiscal and operational
Page 154
July 24, 2012
impacts on Page 4 that explains. You do understand this is strictly for
these vehicular areas --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the landscaping requirement for
vehicle areas. And these are for buildings that are unoccupied.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so what they're explaining is
that you've got properties being acquired and the new owner walks
into a building that is unoccupied, and what they are doing here is
basically giving that new owner the opportunity to build up the
tenancy in the building so that they can get the revenue to pay for this
landscaping requirement for these parking lots.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand. I just worry
about the surrounding businesses and I worry about that person. You
know, if you have a year to fix it up, especially if the landscaping has
deteriorated, and that's the first impression somebody gets of a
property and they've just bought it. Now, maybe they would just fix it
up, and who knows, I mean, because they know that that's the first
impression anybody gets. But they really don't have to do it for a
year. And I just felt - I mean, according to this. Now it's three
months. So I would prefer to give them six months, that's still giving
them double the time that they have, and yet there are some guidelines
to follow.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. That's not unreasonable.
The problem is that these people, because they're acquiring a building
that's vacant, don't have the revenue to make these upgrades that the
prior owner, for example, failed to satisfy. So they still have the
requirement to maintain the property. We are talking about parking
lots. We're not talking about the general maintenance of the building,
we're talking only about the vegetation in the parking lot, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And what I was thinking of
at the time is, because I understood that very well, is how many times
Page 155
July 24, 2012
shopping centers themselves will look so rundown because they
haven't kept up their parking lots.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to speak into the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I am so sorry, okay. I'm sorry,
yes. They haven't kept up their parking lots so it looks really bad.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have a lot of issues like this
out there? I mean, do we have a lot of commercial buildings ?'`
Can -- Jamie, you're nodding your head. Can you come up here
and share that with us? Because if we have this, I mean, you all are
bringing this forward, you're saying you're agreeing with what
NABOR and Mr. Poteet have said but now you're nodding your head
saying that in fact we have a bigger problem, as Commissioner Fiala is
pointing out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Drive down 41 East.
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon. For the record, Jamie French.
I'm your Director of Operations and Regulatory Management for the
Growth Management Division.
Commissioners, my group is responsible for intercepting all of
these applications that come forward. What happens is that we don't
necessarily look at the minimum code that was required at the time of
construction. We look at the current minimum code. So if you have a
building that was sitting for six or eight months, what happens is that
this is a burden that's now been placed on this new property owner to
bring up all of their landscaping requirements. Doesn't exempt them
from meeting the code at the time of construction, it simply says guess
what, now that your building has been unoccupied you now have to
meet the current code.
What has happened is that the industry, NABOR, as well as the --
not the CBIA but the industry as a whole has said is there any way we
can be exempt from this. We agree we may have dead vegetation that
needs to be replaced when the project was originally finished. But
now we have to bring up the vegetation requirement because of the
Page 156
July 24, 2012
new code.
What NABOR has come back to say and what they have told us
is that the average property sits vacant for about a year. Currently
they have about 90 days. So if they've been vacant for more than 90
days, we have to bring them up to the current code. It makes it a little
hard for a realtor, I guess, to move that property that quick.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It makes it very hard. Sothis
doesn't exempt them from the requirement of being up to code based
on how they were permitted.
MR. FRENCH: At the time that that project was finished, they
would have had to have met the minimum code. And if they're not
meeting the minimum code, that would --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Trigger the new code --
MR. FRENCH: Trigger a code enforcement action and code
would ensure, or they should ensure, and they would, that they were
meeting the code at the time -
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That they were permitted --
MR. FRENCH: -- that that property was C.O.'d.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, sorry, C.O.'d. No, you're
absolutely right.
This absolutely doesn't make any sense at all. So essentially
merely because a property sits vacant, the property owner is penalized
and is required to upgrade their vegetation?
MR. FRENCH: That's correct. And we track that based off of
the occupational license. So if there's not been an occupational license
assigned to that property, what happens is that indicates to us that that
business or that building is sitting like a shell.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But by contrast, another building
which is fully occupied, which has vegetation from the previous code
doesn't have to upgrade their vegetation to the new code --
MR. FRENCH: So long as there's an occupational license tied to
that parcel ID, no, ma'am.
Page 157
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why are we requiring a vacant
building to upgrade their vegetation and their parking lot?
MR. FRENCH: I believe many, many years ago so many of
these buildings were built maybe in the Seventies or in the Eighties,
and there was no vegetation requirements. And as there was
improvements done throughout the community and the restrictions
became a little bit more heightened for community improvement,
many of these had wanted to get away from an industrial feel and put
more of a vegetation look to these buildings. So it was -- there was a
big enhancement, there was a plus back to the community.
But what's happening now is that some of these buildings, they've
just gone into bankruptcy, they've switched owners, and there hasn't
been -- Commissioner, you're dead on right, Fiala, Commissioner
Fiala, is that they've allowed the maintenance of these properties to
fall to the wayside and they're not even meeting the minimum code at
the time they were C.O.'d.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There is an exception here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this has nothing to do with
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there is an exception. In my
district we have a lot of older properties. And when they were
permitted back then, the requirements were totally different. And I'm
going to give as an example the mini - triangle, mini, the first 14 acres.
But they had properties that were strip or were swirled around. There
were no straight property lines at all. If they had to meet minimum
code now they couldn't fit the landscaping into the parking lot unless
they took the building down.
So what we've had to do is modify that for older buildings that
cannot meet the requirement regardless, because of the shape and so
forth of the lot, then we approach that differently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand exactly where
you're coming from, Commissioner Fiala. But this particular
Page 158
July 24, 2012
regulation, now that it's clarified beyond what I read, makes no sense
at all. Merely because a building sits vacant, and it could be a brand
new building, has nothing to do with age or size or location, because it
sat vacant for 90 days, that they would have to upgrade their
vegetation is nonsensical. I mean, it just doesn't make sense at all. I
mean, I couldn't support this under any circumstance. I don't know
even why this is in here.
MR. FRENCH: Currently the code is 90 days
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Well, I'm saying the code
shouldn't -- I mean, this whole provision --
MR. FRENCH: This was directed -- this was directed by the
Board on your September 27th meeting, as Caroline's indicated, to
bring it back with a one -year time frame.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're punishing an owner of a
building by having vacancies -- by requiring them to upgrade their
parking lot vegetation to the new code standard?
Honestly, I can't support this. I mean, I understand why you're
making a change to one year --
MR. FRENCH: Well, currently, ma'am, the code is 90 days --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, yeah, if you don't
approve the change, you're punishing them --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. I understand. I'm going
to approve the change and ask that you bring this back to eliminate it
altogether. Because it doesn't make any sense. I mean, why would
you punish someone that has a vacant building by requiring them to
upgrade landscaping in a parking lot? I mean that's what you just
described is what this means.
I mean, the requirement to meet whatever their standard was
when they were C.O.'d is not being changed in any way, regardless of
the occupancy. But to force them to upgrade landscaping occupancy
-- based on occupancy.
MR. FRENCH: The code doesn't change. Right, but the code
Page 159
July 24, 2012
doesn't change that often. This is just simply a balanced approach to
what the industry has asked for and what staff feels --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I'm asking -- I'm going
-- my motion for a year stands. And I'm going to add that please bring
this back to eliminate this requirement altogether. Because this is
nonsensical. If I'm understanding you correctly, this absolutely is a
ridiculous burden on business.
MR. FRENCH: Ma'am, if that's the direction of the Board, then
we'll --
MS. CILEK: It would be vetted through the formal process in
the next cycle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think anyone understood
that this meant what you just described. And if people did, I guarantee
you, no one would support it.
MR. FRENCH: Your question of me was how often -- do we
have a lot of these. Yes, we do. We have a lot of applications that
come forward where new businesses are trying to move into vacant
properties, and this is a determination as to whether or not they'd lease
or purchase this property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is -- I can see why that
would be a big problem. And it's an unfair burden. There's no nexus
between vacancies and, you know, new code requirements for parking
lot vegetation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think the amendment
would say if you have an approved site plan for whether it be vehicle
-- vehicular landscaping or landscaping that -- what I'm hearing my
colleague say, that is sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment, Commissioner
Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, go ahead.
Page 160
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I don't want to hold
anything up. But I feel six months is a more reasonable time frame.
But that's still my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we have to be forward looking.
Our objective of course is to make sure that our community always
maintains good standards.
MS. CILEK: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there are certain occurrences in
terms of not only private homes but commercial structures where we
demand that they be brought up to current code. Because if we didn't,
as things get older they deteriorate, and they're never brought up to
acceptable codes, and there's no trigger that allows you to require
them to come up to current codes.
So the challenge to us is to find a trigger that makes sense. It's
not to eliminate all opportunities to require that they upgrade, it's to
find a trigger that is reasonable. And that's where the disagreement I
think lies. There's some commissioners who are saying we shouldn't
ever have a trigger and you could keep that old vegetation code in
place forever and ever and ever. And others who say you are to keep
it consistent with the neighborhood as it continues to improve. So
we're at a dilemma here. So I don't think we've got four votes to go
either way here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just add one more thing that
we haven't spoken of at this point and that is these properties are
vacant properties, that also means they don't have an impact fee to
pay. And they can use that impact fee to fix the property up and bring
it into code compliance, if it's reasonable. If the property cannot be
brought up to code because of the size or configuration of the lot, well
then we would address it in a different manner.
But I think that, you know, luckily that money there that they
don't have to pay out in impact fees can then go to upgrading the
property inside and outside. Thank you.
Page 161
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'm not sure how impact
fees relates to this at all. We're not talking about development, we're
talking about a fully developed building. This also has absolutely
nothing to do with residential. It has nothing to do with single- family
homes or mobile home or quite frankly public utilities ancillary
systems and dwellings on individually platted lots. It has nothing to
do with that. It strictly has to do with vehicular areas and
rights -of -way relating to these commercial buildings.
I almost think that this constitutes a taking. Because when these
buildings were C.O.'d, they were required to satisfy a certain level of
landscaping. They satisfied that requirement and must continue to
satisfy that requirement or they face a code violation. To require them
to upgrade and do additional landscaping merely because they are
vacant for six months makes no sense at all.
So, you know, I can understand we all want this community to be
beautiful, but we cannot unfairly burden business, you know, merely
because they don't have a tenant. They are code compliant if they
maintain their landscaping based on the landscaping that was
approved pursuant to their permit application for construction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've heard everybody's opinion.
Why doesn't somebody make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I'm going to make a motion
to approve as presented. And then I would like to -- and this is
separate from my motion, but I'd like this brought back to be removed
completely. But for right now I'm going to make the motion to
approve as presented.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion by Commissioner Hiller
to approve as submitted by staff, which is the 12 -month vacancy
provision, and seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
Page 162
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll say aye, but I'm not in favor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'll say aye, but I don't think
it's legal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I think we have a unanimous vote.
I think I'll say no.
No, it's -- the motion passes unanimously. But it seems that we're
going to get a chance to argue this again shortly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make another suggestion?
That we just continue it and have legal work with staff to review
what's being asked and talk with the community again and then bring
it back in September? I mean, that's another way to deal with it. I'll
change my motion. I've got one "'nod. I see Commissioner Fiala
nodding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm nodding. But I don't think we
can already --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we? I mean, we can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to reconsider the vote, which
we can certainly do, reconsider the item. If there's a motion to
reconsider, let's hear it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would anyone like to -- how many
nods, before I ask for a reconsideration? Can I poll the
Commissioners publicly?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for reconsideration of a super
majority vote has to be unanimous, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does it have to be unanimous?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. It's 0 -3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do we have to do, Jeff?
Page 163
July 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we have some discussion first
as to -- well, can we have some discussion as to whether this should be
reconsidered to allow for --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, your issue is the vacancy,
that one clause?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So why don't we go with the one year and
staff can bring it back in September for discussion after vetting with
the community whether they want to get rid of that one clause of the
vacancy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, I don't know that we can
legally require anyone to do more than what was required of them.
They're grandfathered in by law. You have --
MR. KLATZKOW: But your current ordinance requires them to
do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: `I understand. But the question is
whether that's legal. I mean, you've got -- these are legally
conforming grandfathered properties, and we're providing that if
they're vacant, they're now all of a sudden nonconforming and only
have a certain amount of time to come up to the new code that never
applied to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've heard it all. We've heard it all four
or five times now. The only question I have, we're going to have to
have a break for the court recorder. But the concern I have is you've
got, what is it, how many days, 90 days now?
MS. CILEK: Yes, it is currently 90 days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got 90 days. That's what people
understand. We're going to give them 100 for a couple of months and
then we're going to consider taking it away. That causes more
confusion than I think it's worth.
Page 164
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why I say maybe -- I'll
make a motion to reconsider and to continue this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reconsider this motion and to bring
it back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In September --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For further consideration, yeah.
So okay, the motion by Commissioner Hiller is to reconsider. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're delaying potential
properties to be unoccupied because it's not affordable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then we'll leave it the way it
is. I think you make a good point. Then we'll just leave it the way it
is and bring it back in September. Except I still don't think it's legal,
period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's another day for another
argument.
So you're pulling your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm leaving it. I mean, we
already voted - yeah, I'm pulling my motion for reconsideration. I
don't want to hurt these businesses any more than they already are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to give the public a
15- minute break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to do that, but we're going
to finish this first, okay? We've had our vote, it's not going to be
reconsidered. The one -year provision was approved, and we are going
to take a break. We'll be back here at 3:11, because it's almost 3:06
now. So we'll be back here -- oh, no, 3:16. Okay. 3:16, we'll be
back.
Page 165
July 24, 2012
(A recess was taken.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to have to get
underway here now. Commissioner Hiller's going to have to leave
here at 3:45. So we need to finish up as much of this as we possibly
can. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Keep going.
MS. CILEK: Great. The next amendment is 5.06.00. I'm just
going to read off the first on the list in this section. This amendment is
for sign regulations and standards by land use classification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:, Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, may I say something on
this. This is the sandwich board that they're allowed on the sidewalk,
that's one of the things. And the whole emphasis -- part of the
emphasis was to get people out of our right -of -way as dancing around
with the sign. Okay? So we're going to get those dancing people out?
MS. CILEK: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
MS. CILEK: This does not address --
MR. OCHS: Not this one.
MS. CILEK: This amendment does not address hand -held --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I know this amendment
Page 166
July 24, 2012
does, but just the dancing signs.
MS. CILEK: I'm going to let the County Attorney's Office --
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have an ordinance that prohibits it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. What's the next
one?
MS. CILEK: All righty. The next amendment is 10.02.07.0 one
through two, Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public
Facilities Adequacy. This amendment was Board directed and
removes specific references to the amount of estimated transportation
impact fees required to be paid to obtain a certificate of public facility
adequacy.
These provisions are contained in Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, also known as the consolidated
impact fee ordinance. And these provisions are subject to change at
Board discretion. And this amendment will prevent any conflicts
between regulations and Board direction in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning. Seconded by okay, Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that was for the last time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's for the last time.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Okay.
Page 167
July 24, 2012
MS. CILEK: The next amendment is 10.02.13.F, Planned Unit
Development, PUD, Procedures. And this amendment follows Board
direction provided on September 27th of last year and proposes to
allow property owners to file a PUD report for only the portions of a
PUD which are not built out. Property owners who own portions of
the PUD which are built out will not need to file a report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not sure I really understand
this, because obviously to the extent a portion of the PUD being built
out, I mean, what would have to be reported on with respect to a
portion of the PUD that is built out?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The way your code's written now,
Commissioner -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida.
And I'll give you an example how it happens so that it will
answer your question. A developer for Heritage Bay does the planned
unit development and then sells portions off to different developers.
When that certain section gets built out, because there's development
intensity left within the PUD, all owners are reporting, but yet there is
one section of the PUD that's completely built out. So whoever the
person is that's still left building and owns those development rights
has to do the reporting.
And for the county's purposes, we still review every commitment
with that one report. So we don't skip a beat making sure that they're
still compliant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: However, the problem is -- oh,
okay, so you're -- so this is not going to eliminate the -- how are you
going to track the commitments, the general commitments and the
Page 168
July 24, 2012
infrastructure commitments?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're in our commitment tracking
system. I think I'd sent you a link on the website. But when our
annual monitoring report comes in our PUD commitment coordinator
reviews all of those commitments. Right now we're getting multiple
reports, and that's kind of redundant for us if one section's built out.
So if you own development rights, you're still submitting that report.
And then we annually check those commitments to that report as well
too. So if you're a section that's built out, you don't submit a report. If
you own some development rights, you submit a report and then we
do that commitment check annually.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I have built out -- if I buy,
let's say, take Grey Oaks and I buy a section of Grey Oaks and I build
that section out, if there are outstanding commitments for the
development as a whole, you're tracking that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the only reporting you're
talking about not tracking is the actual unit developments.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unit development report. And right
now they report, they still --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or unit developed, I mean.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. They still report on their
commitments. But typically an HOA will say I don't know what the
commitments are, and we're built out and we're the, you know, master
association. The property owner who owns the development rights
still submits a report. But regardless of who submits, I want to assure
this Board, we still review the commitments annually.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the infrastructure
requirements.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the infrastructure requirements.
That's done at site development plan approval and annually, two
times.
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I'm okay with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: The next amendment on the agenda is 10.01.02,
Development Orders Required.
This proposed amendment follows Board direction following the
Florida Specialties Project in 2010 to generate an LDC amendment
which would grant other business the option for an expedited review
process, similar to the Florida Specialties Project. The early
construction authorization permit would allow for limited and
specified construction prior to full SDP approval. However, the SDP
would be reviewed by staff and comments posted before it would be
allowed to continue with the process of construction.
Some of the criteria that would need to be met prior to the
construction permit include the zoning would need to be in place to
allow the use. As I said, the SDP would need to receive its first set of
review comments and identify if there are any fatal flaws. And if
there were, would go back through a traditional process as well as the
building department and the fire department would approve the work
for the permit and the part of the construction to be authorized.
A bond would also be provided by the developer, approved by
Page 170
July 24, 2012
the county and based on the cost to return the site to pre- condition
standards. Once the SDP as proved, the bond would be released.
This received unanimous support from the Planning Commission,
after working with them on this amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, now, once again, this
came from what direction, this particular --
MS. CILEK: Following the Florida Specialties Project in 2010,
that process and project came with the need to address the concern for
an expedited review process. So that one came through and they, like,
well, let's follow with an LDC amendment to allow similar projects --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then this is that process that
we got to put into place.
MS. CILEK: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will cut down on the time and
the cost of doing business.
I want to make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great. The next amendment is 10.08.00,
Conditional Uses Procedures. And this amendment follows Board
direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
Page 171
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great, not a lot of explanation needed on that one.
The next category amendments are growth management division
staff sponsored and coordinated with CBIA requests. And the first
one is 3.05.08.H. I .E. And I'm going to let Steve present this
amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nice presentation.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Anything that has to do with archeology, he's going to approve.
He's the oldest guy up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The most mature, not the oldest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 172
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the next one.
MS. CILEK: Thanks, Steve.
The next amendment is 6.02.01, generally and 6.02.03,
Transportation Level of Service Requirements.
Let me just jump to this one. This amendment proposes several
changes which originated from the recommendations of CBIA. First to
clarify that projects require real time concurrency. So it lists out those
that are under that provision so there will be no confusion in the
future. And that is on Page 3.
Secondly, Section 6.02.03.1) outlines the time frame for
construction of required capital improvements. And this section was
recommended by the Planning Commission to be removed from this
amendment. This changes the time frame from two to three years for
the schedule -- work schedule of work for the Collier County and
FDOT. And staff also supports the Planning Commission's
recommendation to remove this amendment. I can go into further
detail, if needed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, give us some clarification on the
impact of that.
MS. CILEK Sure. Yes, I'll let Nick speak to it, he's the expert.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I think for
clarification, give you a little history. I think going back to 2000 and
approximately 7 or 8, I think this Board switched it from three to two.
There was concern on this Board that there was too much of a time
gap between when a development order gets approved and when the
concurrency comes into place.
CBIA said, you know, things are doing a lot better, we'd like to
go back to three years. It was a policy decision to go from three to
two. And I expressed to CBIA and the folks that it would be a policy
decision to go back to three.
We do have adequate capacity right now. Our construction
schedule is not as aggressive as it was before. We usually have one
Page 173
July 24, 2012
project every year or two years. So you've got a little leeway.
Planning Commission felt similar to what staff felt, if it's not broken,
don't fix it. We're not saying no to anybody right now. So I think
Planning Commission said don't change it.
The rest of the amendment other than that is clean -up items, so if,
depending on where the Board goes, I would suggest that other than
the date change that you recommend keeping the other clean -up
language in there, because it's things that we don't do anymore. So
that's a little background. And I can answer questions if you need to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're suggesting that we accept the
recommendation of the CCPC?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm comfortable with that, yes, sir, I
am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you think everything is going to be
okay if we do that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. It's consistent with what your
policy is right now.
MR. OCHS: Two years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve.
And it's seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great. The next amendment is 6.06.01, Street
System Requirements, and 6.06.02, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and
Page 174
July 24, 2012
Pathway Requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great. The next amendment is 4.06.02, Buffer
Requirements.
And this proposed amendment creates a new provision to allow
for flexibility and creativity of a buffer between two like uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion 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 HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're doing fine, keep going.
Page 175
July 24, 2012
MS. CILEK: If I can turn my page faster. 10.02.03.13.1, J
through K, Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans.
And this is to address the Collier County FDOT right -of -way
permit process, making it so that permits may be submitted following
SDP approval at or before the county preconstruction meeting. This is
just to clarify the procedure and some clean -up on Section 10.02.05.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great. Next one is 10.02.0.3.13.4.13, Submittal
Requirements for Site Development Plans. And this is to amend the
site development plan extension provision and allow for SDP's to
apply for two two -year extensions in place of the current one one -year
extension.
There's also a clean -up item on the following section that is an
error in the number of years that an SDP is valid for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
Page 176
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to ask about that. So
does that mean that they automatically have four years, or why are
there two two -year extensions? What -- subject to what after the first
extension?
MS. CILEK: The process to request the extension would be the
same as it currently is. The idea here is to give them a little bit more
time during that extension process before they have to come back. A
year time frame to get up and rolling is just a year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't just give them a
four -year extension?
MS. CILEK: Well, the idea was that they needed to come back.
And they may not need it. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they have to request it?
MS. CILEK: They do; request both of the extensions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not automatic as a matter of
right, they have to be granted it?
MS. CILEK: I believe that the amendment identifies -- in the
code section, let me just jump to it. 10.02.03.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They do have to request it. It's not
automatic.
MR.00HS: Right.
MS. CILEK: Right, line 32 and 33.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's intended as an incentive to get them
to move more quickly if they can. If they can't do it then they have
Page 177
July 24, 2012
another shot at it.
MS. CILEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coyle -- Henning. Okay, Commissioner
Henning.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Okay. The next amendment is 10.02.05.13. And
similar to the last one, this is to amend the site improvement plan SIP
extension provision for approved construction plans and plats and
allow for two two -year extensions in place of the current one one -year
extension.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All if favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 178
July 24, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great, the next amendment is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just -- let me go back. We
are then approving the CCPC recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. CILEK: Next amendment is 10.02.07.C.13, Submittal
Requirements for Certificate of Public Facilities Adequacy. And
following the County Attorney's review, we found a mistake and we'd
like to take it back to the Planning Commission and bring it to you in
September.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue till September by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. CILEK: And this is the fourth of the four we'd like to
continue for the next amendment, which is 4.05.02, Design Standards,
and 4.05.04, Parking Space Requirements. And again, there's just one
thing we need to discuss with the County Attorney's office. And we'd
like to bring it back in September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to bring it back in September.
Page 179
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Great. We're moving into the last category on the
agenda, complex amendments. And the next amendment to discuss is
4.02.01.1), Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning
Districts.
And this amendment seeks to codify a staff clarification, 07.01 to
allow air conditioning units that must be elevated in order to meet
flood elevation requirements to encroach into a yard setback, provided
that the minimum building separations are maintained. And this is
consistent with the staff clarification. And this received a vote of 8 -1
by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING- What's the number on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 4.02.01.1).
MS. CILEK: It's the second to last amendment in your binder.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, second to last. That's
allowing the elevated air conditionings to be in the side yard without
being sucked in b the building or whatever.
b g y g
MS. CILEK: Correct. They could encroach into the side yard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could support that.
MS. CILEK: And that would then be elevated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
0-1-ml
July 24, 2012
Henning for approval --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:. Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Is there a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I did have a question.
Remember that development who wanted to take the air conditioner
off their roof and put it on the ground and we had to refuse them? I'm
talking to Nick, excuse me. Maybe you don't remember. That was a
little while back. Would this then have applied to them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the reason we're doing this, it's
because of FEMA requirements. Your mechanical systems have to be
elevated. So they couldn't put it on the ground if they were in a flood
zone and the base flood elevation, let's say for argument's point was
this high. The air conditioner would have to be above that, it's a
mechanical unit. So you had your three choices, the roof, the rear
yard or recessed. And those are all expensive and not desired by the
public. So this is meeting that base flood elevation mechanical system
requirement that FEMA requires.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CILEK: And our last amendment on the agenda today is
5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards. And this one is a
little bit unique. It did not receive a vote by the Planning
Page 181
July 24, 2012
Commission. It was not reviewed. And what we'd like to do is staff
would like to request Board direction to review the entire section,
5.05.08 with the authoring committee that put forth the entire section a
couple years ago in 2004.
There is a recommendation from DSAC, which is to look at these
proposed amendments, but staff really recommends taking these
amendments forward, putting them through the whole review process,
and coming back during the next cycle, propose amendments to the
entire section.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like that -
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's a continuance, really, isn't it?
MS. CILEK: We would like Board direction to review the entire
section --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so you're looking for a motion to
review the entire section and bring it back for consideration at a later
date.
MR. OCHS: Through the normal vetting process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Through the normal vetting process.
MS. CILEK: Including the authoring committee. But yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who is making a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm seconding it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala made the
motion, Commissioner Hiller seconded it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the intent to go back to the
applicability of the architectural standards? And the reason why, give
some, a little bit of history and go back to basics? Is that --
MS. CILEK: Yes, we'll be looking at applicability during the
review, certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's good. I'm glad.
Page 182
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. And we got it finished before
Commissioner Hiller has to leave.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got five more minutes. All in
favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
MS. CILEK: Thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously. Great job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make one comment? With
respect to this last one, the 5.05.08, it reminded me of the Toys R Us
issue and fronting on Airport and the debate we went through with
that. So I think this has to be very carefully considered when you're
doing your re- review on that.
MS. CILEK: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I have an
item under Commissioners comments that I'm afraid if we don't have a
full board here, it's going to get a split decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have to leave at 3:45?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was told you had to leave.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Maybe we won't have a split.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why would I leave? Is something
coming up that you would like me to leave so you can speak without
me present. It would be my pleasure.
Page 183
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was just wishful thinking, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what, if you keep
wishing, maybe your dream will come true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we're doing real well today, so we're
making good progress.
Okay, where do we go now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you want to bring something
up, Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do it now, or if
Commissioner Hiller's going to be here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, if we've got a full board, I'll
wait. We've got some highly powered people here being paid. I want
to get them out of here.
Item #8A
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2012 -01 /RESOLUTION 2012 -138:
AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 85 -49 AS
AMENDED, FOR PETITION DOA- PL20100001550, THE
PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI),
BY PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT ORDER INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION TO REFLECT CHANGES IN '
ACREAGES FOR VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT
AND REMOVAL OF CONVERSION TABLE; REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,603 TO 850;
INCREASING THE PRESERVE AREA TO 341 ACRES,
DELETING GOLF COURSE AS A PERMITTED USE AND
ADDING A BUILD -OUT DATE; AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SECTION AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS: EDUCATION SUBSECTION TO
PROVIDE FOR DEDICATION INSTEAD OF DONATION OF A
July 24, 2012
SCHOOL SITE; AMENDMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION
SUBSECTION TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT OF FAIR SHARE
CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENSES
AND REPLACE WITH PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES;
AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL SUBSECTION TO REMOVE
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SEGMENT OF LOGAN BOULEVARD WILL BE AT NO COST
TO THE COUNTY; AMENDMENTS TO THE
TRANSPORTATION SUBSECTION TO REFLECT REMOVAL
OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF -SITE
ROAD SEGMENTS AND REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC
MONITORING REPORT; REMOVAL OF WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT SUBSECTION; AMENDMENTS TO WATER
SUPPLY SUBSECTION TO IDENTIFY WATER SUPPLY;
AMENDMENT TO RE- NUMBER THE LEAPFROG
DEVELOPMENT SUBSECTION AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS SUBSECTION TO MAKE
MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES AND CHANGE REPORTING
TO BIENNIAL; REMOVAL OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT
SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF THE
UTILITIES SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF THE MOSQUITO
CONTROL SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE SUBSECTION; REMOVAL OF EXEMPTIONS TO
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF
FACT: EXTENDING THE BUILDOUT DATE TO JANUARY 22,
2026; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; SECTION
FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS AND TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
Page 185
July 24, 2012
EAST OF QUAIL WEST AND SOUTH OF THE LEE - COLLIER
LINE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the remaining items on the agenda
have to do with the proposal for the Parklands DRI and PUD
amendment and related developer agreement and settlement
agreements with GL Homes. So if you don't mind, we'll just take
them in the order that they come in your agenda.
First item is Item 8.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members and all participants are required
to be sworn in. This is a recommendation to consider a resolution
amending development order number 85 -4 as amended, for petition
DOA- PL20100001550, the Parklands Development of Regional
Impact DRI.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll have ex parte disclosure by
Commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Mr. Ratterree, Mr.
Anderson and a resident from Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and I spoke to the same
people, except for the residents of Big Cypress.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have spoken with Bruce Anderson
and Mr. Ratterree.
And Commissioner -- are we going to handle these in sequence,
or are we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to be real quick, hang
on to your seat.
MR. KLATZKOW: You could do them in sequence but they're
all tied together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to do them all at one time.
July 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: You could if you want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's do ex parte disclosure for the entire
section. Is your ex parte disclosure the same, Commissioner Henning,
for all of the items involving this petitioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta, is that also
true for you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's also true for me, Bruce Anderson and
Kevin Ratterree, I have met with concerning this petition.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That holds true for me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have had meetings, e- mails. I
reviewed the staff report and I met with Mr. Ratterree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're ready to go.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law
firm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Wonderful presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is unfair. You know, you -- you
didn't even give Commissioner Hiller a chance to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The question I wanted to ask is
how much did you just lose in legal fees by us approving this so
quickly? And I really think it's unfair.
MR. ANDERSON: Thankfully I'm not paid by the word.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to summarize, we're
removing density, it's a smaller imprint. We're increasing preserves.
And it's kind of a global fix throughout that whole system up there.
So I appreciate GL Homes working with the concerned groups to
make things happen.
Page 187
July 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, I agree. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to approve and seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
And Commissioner Fiala wants to say something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I was just going to make the
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you were going to make the motion,
okay.
Then all in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. OCHS: No, hold on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got some more to do, I think.
MR. OCHS- That was just 8.A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve 11
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2012 -30: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
July 24, 2012
FOR PETITION PUDA- PL201000015511 BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PARKLANDS
RPUD, TO CHANGE THE PUD BY REDUCING THE
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,603 DWELLING
UNITS TO 850 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,
INCREASING THE PRESERVE TO 341 ACRES, DELETING
GOLF COURSES AS A PERMITTED USE, REVISING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUESTING DEVIATIONS
FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
ELIMINATING A 7.23± ACRE PARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED
EAST OF QUAIL WEST AND SOUTH OF THE LEE - COLLIER
LINE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 642.34±
ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 03 -42;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm sorry, we still have 9.13 to do. It's related to
this as well. It's the PUD amendment for the Parklands RPUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the swearing in and ex parte
disclosure is the same.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was global.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it was global.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve 9.B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve 9.13, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
NUMM
July 24, 2012
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #111
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (DA) BETWEEN THE
DEVELOPER OF PARKLANDS PUD, PARKLANDS
ASSOCIATES I, LLLP (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
(COUNTY) TO FUND, DESIGN, PERMIT, AND CONSTRUCT
LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, next related item is item 11.I on
your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve a developer agreement
between the developer of Parklands PUD, Parklands Associates One,
LLLP, developer and Collier County to fund, design, permit and
construct Logan Boulevard north.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 190
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #I 2A
SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II, LTD. V. COLLIER
COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF FLORIDA
THROUGH ITS GOVERNING BODY, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 09-2451 -
CA, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next related item, Commissioners, item 12.A under
your County Attorney's report, it's a recommendation to approve
settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled GL Homes of Naples
Associates Two, Limited, versus Collier County, a political
subdivision of Florida through its governing body Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, case number 092451 CA, filed in the
20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and authorize
the Chairman to execute the settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And commissioner Hiller has a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. I want to make sure
that if impact fees go away, and are replaced by a mobility fee or a fee
Page 191
July 24, 2012
by some other name that incorporates an impact fee, that the developer
will get those new credits in lieu of the impact fee credits and will be
used as an offset.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that isn't stated in the
agreement. And I spoke to Jeff about this. And I just want to be
absolutely certain that that's the case. Because quite frankly, it would
be unjust enrichment otherwise.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. If we bring back, and we
plan to, a multi modal fee, it still will be a roadway impact fee. And
as part of recodifying the consolidated impact fee ordinance, we
would make reference or cross - reference to those fees to make sure
that they're consistent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, since that hasn't come up
yet, I would like it incorporated in the settlement agreement that if the
impact fee is replaced by any other fee that incorporates an impact fee
or similar to an impact fee, that that is a consideration.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think you need it, I think,
because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to be sure. Because
otherwise, again, I think, you know, we know it's coming, the
developer doesn't know it's coming. And it could result in unjust
enrichment on our part. And I would hate to see us go back into some
sort of disagreement with the developer. So we might as well just
address it now and make sure that, you know, everybody is on the up
and up. They don't know what you're contemplating.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For reference, ma'am, I have probably
eight to 12 agreements already that reference impact fee credits one
way or another. So they all would have to be amended consistent with
the impact fee ordinance as well. They wouldn't have this change that
you're recommending. So I'd put the county in default and have a lot
of lawsuits unless I, when I update the impact fee ordinance, I don't --
Page 192
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What you've done in the past is
really irrelevant. I mean, I'm aware of it. Now that the developer is
here, I think it needs to be clarified accordingly. I can't address what
you've done in the past. I personally did not know you were going to
be coming forward with this mobility fee and substituting the impact
fee -- or that you were going to propose this. And I don't know that
the Board is necessarily going to accept it. But in the event that
happens, I'm very concerned that this agreement provides that. And
again, we know it, I know it, you know it. Jeff knows it. But the
developer doesn't. And that is really not working from a fair deck.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know it either.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We talked about it when we presented
that. You approved direction on the master mobility study, you said
come back with a multi modal fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but you didn't say anything at
all about eliminating impact fees.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. Clarification. Road
impact fee will not change. ' You will still have a road impact fee. The
flexibility to use it will be different. I will not be proposing to this
Board to eliminate impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'd hate to see our taxes going
up here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, absolutely not. You're
going to get a little more flexibility if the Board adopts a multi modal
fee. That's all you would get. It's a multi modal road impact fee.
Same thing. So I'm not going to propose to this Board eliminating
impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's going to take a lot of
discussion. Plan a half a day.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What might help, Commissioner, if
the Board gave direction if we're going to bring back a multi modal
fee that it includes an update and cross- reference to the impact fee.
Page 193
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to have Mr. Anderson
come to the dais and propose what type of wording would be
appropriate to ensure that you don't come back and say we didn't
know and this is unjust enrichment or whatever you want to call it.
MR. ANDERSON: It would be something to the effect that in
the event that road impact fees are no longer collected, that the impact
fee credits would be applied to whatever replacement fee or tax were
to be imposed for road improvements necessitated by growth.
MR. KLATZKOW: I crafted the settlement agreement based on
your current ordinances. And I understand where you're getting at,
Commissioner Hiller, and I promise you should Nick come back with
a mobility fee this will be taken care of in that ordinance.
But the documents before you, the DCA, the settlement
agreement were crafted in strict compliance with the ordinance. And I
don't know what the Board's going to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, but that's the problem, that if
the Board changes the impact fee and doesn't provide that the impact
fee is, you know, one and the same or is basically included within this
new mobility fee, then these developers are out of luck.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I help you out?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have other DCA's similar to
this as Nick mentioned. That's separate and alone from any other
ordinance that we create. We need to bring each one of those
agreements back for. And there's two parties to an agreement. Maybe
sometimes more than two parties. They have to agree to it. Similar to
we adjust impact fees. However, we have right now $68 million of
prepaid impact fees. Those are not affected by the change of impact
fees, either up or down, because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a different issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm trying to give you
comparable --
Page 194
July 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but I understand. But again, I
understand your point. The point is we know now, you're before us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never supported the mobility
thing, so I don't know how many votes it takes. This Board is going to
change over. I don't know if the new Board is going to be in favor of
it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're absolutely right. My
only concern is since we know that it is going to be brought to us, we
don't know what the vote will be. We have a developer in front of us
right here right now. I don't want a situation where we have
information that the developer doesn't have and we knowingly enter
into an agreement that provides for something that may leave him high
and dry. Because that would just be -- I mean, we can't do that
legally.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I'll tell you right now, the
ordinance that comes forward, whatever form it is, is going to be
structured in such a way that it does not expose the county to
litigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if I were the developer, I would
find a lot of confusion. All of a sudden this is being brought up, you
know, am I supposed to wait before I bill because the fee is going to
be different or should I pay my impact fees. Of course, they've
already done that. They've already built their road. Wonder if I don't
get the amount back.
I think we cannot put anything today in any kind of form that we
vote on. We have to know what we're even going to come up with in
the first place. And there would be no reason we wouldn't treat every
person fairly, because this is money they've put forward. We've got
the attorney who tells us it's going to be fair. I just don't think we
ought to be doing --
MR. KLATZKOW: And as an aside, part of the settlement
agreement is if we don't live up to this, they can recommence the suit
Page 195
July 24, 2012
against us, that's specific in paragraph 13.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. Except that what the
counterargument would be, Jeff, as you and I spoke about, would be
that they would come back -- or you would come back and say, well,
we said impact fees and there are no more impact fees, so you're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have we ever done that before?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we haven't, so why would we
start now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to ask a question of
the developer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He agrees with you, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got 4 -1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I haven't voted yet. Developer?
It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would you like? I mean, are
you comfortable? If you're comfortable with this settlement
agreement based on what I've said here, then by all means I'll vote to
support it. But I believe in full disclosure. We have to be fair. We
can't have information that you don't have and use that against you.
MR. RATTERREE: For the record, Kevin Ratterree.
R- A- T- T- E- R- R -E -E. I think I got it right. Vice president with GL
Page 196
July 24, 2012
Homes.
I appreciate Commissioner Hiller's comments. Certainly I think I
have heard enough from the County Attorney and from the other
board members and from staff that if there were a change proposed to
the impact fee ordinance to go to a mobility fee that there would be
language put in it that would protect those of us that have a preexisting
developer contribution agreement that establishes an impact fee credit
for improvements that were made on behalf of the developer.
I also concur with Mr. Klatzkow's comment that Section 13 of
the agreement does afford GL the legal remedy in the event that that
representation does not come to fruition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate your comments, I'll
vote to support it.
MR. RATTERREE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Three consecutive unanimous votes. That is unprecedented here.
MR. OCHS: Who's counting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four. Four of them.
MR. RATTERREE: I'm going to leave while I'm ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's because Bruce was
representing this group, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE- Okay, what do we have now, County
Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Sir, we're on to Item 15, staff and commission
general communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow. That's great. Okay, we're going to
Page 197
July 24, 2012
start with -- we started with Commissioner Henning on ex parte, we'll
start with Commissioner Hiller on staff communications -- I'm sorry,
we'll start with County Manager.
MR. OCHS: I have no communications today, sir, except to wish
the full Board a productive recess and look forward to seeing you back
in September. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, don't say ditto to me, because
I've got stuff.
First thing is that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already said this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that, but there were people
that might not have been listening. So I have to just say it one more
time. I'm very, very proud of our airport director. He received this
marvelous award from the Florida Department of Transportation for
the 2012 general aviation airport project. That is the taxiway at the
Marco Island airport. And it gives him all kinds of accolades as to
achievements in esthetics, safety and service. And so I just wanted to
say congratulations one more time. Not only to Chris Curry but to the
airport staff and to the residents who get to use it. This is a wonderful
thing.
The second thing is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And wait a minute. And for those
people who missed her last two announcements of this fact, she's
going to be back on television at 7:00 p.m. tonight to tell you again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the last thing is we met at the
same airport, by the way, Marco Island airport, and Nicole Johnson
was kind enough to write this out for me.
Page 198
July 24, 2012
After speaking with my staff at The Conservancy I learned that
our GIS expert had the capability to plot the Marco airport's
boundaries and compare them with the agreed -upon limit of
development. Her mapping shows that the limit of development is
indeed greater than the boundaries of land under the county's
ownership. While the limit of development is directly against the
western boundary of the airport's property, on the eastern side, the
development area extends for a number of feet into state lands. This
map confirms there is no land available for a conservation easement
since an easement was to cover property owned by the county outside
of the limits of development. I hope this gives you a visual of this
issue.
She says it is now a non - issue. So I just wanted everybody to
hear that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you. And that's it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it. Have a good summer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I just wish to -- wish everybody a
happy summer.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I've got about 12 items
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to be here by yourself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we're getting out a day
early. I didn't think we'd get out until mid -July.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we've got to be here tomorrow
morning at 8:00 to dedicate that building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What building?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What building? Norm's building?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The transportation building, at 8:00
tomorrow morning. Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In this building?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, but it's at the transportation, yeah.
Page 199
July 24, 2012
But you've got to be there at 8:00 tomorrow morning. So you're not
getting off.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. I'm not going any place
anyway. I've got an election --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to deal with. Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ma'am, I do too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to remind everybody
that before we meet again, August 30th will roll around and John
Norman will be gone. John Norman is retiring and August 30th is
going to his last day. So make sure before you leave the building, you
go in there and you say hello to him and wish him the best of
everything.
I've got a feeling that even though he's retiring, he's not going to
disappear from our lives, and What he's going to end up to doing is just
working for nothing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're going to miss the chocolate
covered peanuts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We sure are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And all of the other goodies, huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to step down to the
podium, but I want to pass out a certified copy of the public record. I
want to give you this visual of what the Board approved in 2008 and
for the audience to also -- Item 9.A, appointments of members of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
(The following video recording was played.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS.• "Motion to approve Donna J.
Reed - Caron, and -- that reappointment. And reappointment of Brad
Page 200
July 24, 2012
William Schiffer for District II,
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And Commissioner Halas, as I
spoke to you earlier, does that include --
COMMISSIONER HALAS.• Donna Reed - Caron, three-year term,
and Brad Schiffer, a four year term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And could I also nominate Mark Strain
for reappointment? I would like to also suggest that Mark Strain be
given a lifetime appointment to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And to waive the requirement -- but we
have to appoint three members, so that will round out to three
members, so this is not in any way in conflict.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included in your motion,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS.: Yes, that's included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would include the waiver of
the ordinance requirements on the restrictions for number of terms.
Okay, good, thank you. "
(End of video recording.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason I -- and I also
wanted to provide, and I think that you have it, in the record it states
that this motion carried unanimously, and the term limits waivers was
Page 201
July 24, 2012
for Commissioner Mark Strain, Planning Commissioner Mark Strain.
So if anybody wants to do anything different, I think somebody needs
to bring an item up to the Board that removes that waiver. Okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When is this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, when is his next term up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It isn't. It's unlimited.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, he will have served four
years in addition to this appointment as of what time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it was unlimited, that's your
question, it would come up October this year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Since I made the motion to give him -- to
waive the limits for him, I'll also be happy to bring up a motion in
October to remove the limits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have another
ordinance that deals with that, sir. And that ordinance states a
limitation on when you can reconsider. So I'll give this information to
Ian.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Is that all? Do you have more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we don't have to come back
tomorrow?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you've got to come back tomorrow
morning at 8:00.
MR. OCHS: 8:00 a.m. at the Horseshoe Drive building.
Page 202
July 24, 2012
* * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
RECORD .THE FINAL PLAT OF RUNAWAY BAY REPLAT,
APPLICATION NUMBER PPLA- PL20120000266, APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A2
AWARDING OF CONTRACT # 11 -5751 TO AGNOLI, BARBER
AND BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN
SERVICES FOR THE "LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP): 1) COUNTY BARN ROAD,
2) WINGSOUTH, AND 3) PROJECT CLOSE OUT" PURSUANT
TO RFP # 11- 5751, IN THE AMOUNT OF $599,148 TO AGNOLI,
BARBER & BRUNDAGE INC. (PROJECT #51101) — THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
PERMIT #SAJ- 2002 -2436 (IP -MJD) ISSUED ON JULY 285 2005
WILL EXPIRE ON JULY 25, 2015, AND DICTATES THAT ALL
WORK MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE GIVEN DEADLINE
Item 416A3
REJECT SUBMITTALS FOR RFP 411-563 1 R FOR "DESIGN -
BUILD NAPLES MANOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS"
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75000
Page 203
July 24, 2012
AND DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP FINAL CONSULTANT
DESIGN PLANS FOR BIDDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 6908 1) — SIX
MONTHS IS EXPECTED FOR THE DESIGN PROCESS WITH
RE- SOLICITATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: BROWARD STREET (US 41 TO
CAROLINA AVENUE); TRAMMEL STREET (FLORIDIAN
AVENUE TO TEXAS AVENUE); FLEMING STREET
(FLORIDIAN AVENUE TO TEXAS AVENUE); GILCHRIST
STREET (FLORIDIAN AVENUE TO TEXAS AVENUE) AND
CAROLINA AVENUE (TEXAS AVENUE TO MCCARTY
STREET)
Item #I 6A4
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 12 -5881, "BUS
SHELTERS REPAIRS," TO SOUTHERN SIGNAL AND
LIGHTING, INC. IN THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF $56,065
— REPAIRING FOURTEEN BUS SHELTERS THAT INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES: BIKE RACKS, TRASH
RECEPTACLES AND BENCHES
Item #I 6A5
REMOVE POSTED LOAD RESTRICTIONS OF "SINGLE UNIT
TRUCK; 31 TONS" AND "COMBINED TRUCK; 34 TONS" ON
BRIDGE NUMBERS 030138, 030139, 030140 AND 030141 EAST
OF S.R. 29 ON IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NUMBER 66066
— PER A NOTIFICATION LETTER FROM FDOT DATED JUNE
13, 2012, SAYING THEY APPROVED THE NEW LOAD
RATINGS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF MOVING FREIGHT &
GOODS
Page 204
July 24, 2012
Item #I 6A6
AN ADOPT -A -ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR WEBER
BOULEVARD SOUTH FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
TO WHITE BOULEVARD FOR THE VOLUNTEER GROUP,
NORTH NAPLES COUNTRY CLUB — HELPING TO KEEP
COUNTY ROADS FREE OF LITTER
Item #I 6A7
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY
RELATED TO THE LEASE OF A BUS TO BE USED FOR THE
PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTE BETWEEN LEE AND COLLIER
COUNTIES — THE NEW BUS PURCHASED WITH GRANT
FUNDS WILL BE LEASED TO LEE AND IS EXPECTED TO BE
DELIVERED IN NOVEMBER 2012
Item #16A8
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF TWINEAGLES GRAND
ARBORS REPLAT OF TRACT "H", "I" AND BLOCK 107,
APPLICATION PL20120000696, APPROVING OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVING OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A9
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,317.61 FOR
PAYMENT OF $2,717.61, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 205
July 24, 2012
VS. STAN SPENCE AND NANCY SPENCE, CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER
CEV20090004289, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
139 ANDREA LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR AN
UNLICENSED VEHICLE ON THE PROPERTY, FOR A PERIOD
OF 744 DAYS, WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
ON DECEMBER 21,2011, BY THE NEW OWNER SUNCOAST
CREDIT UNION
Item 416A 10
RELEASE OF TWO LIENS WITH A COMBINED VALUE OF
$129382.07 FOR PAYMENT OF $2,732.07, IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. JAMES S. LOUCY, CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBERS
CEPM20090010278 AND CENA20090010129, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 237 BURNING TREE DRIVE,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR AN UNMAINTAINED
POOL AND FOR MISSING SCREEN PANELS ON THE POOL
ENCLOSURE, FOR A PERIOD OF 52 DAYS, WHICH WERE
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON NOVEMBER 12, 2009
Item # 16A 11
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,244.08 FOR
PAYMENT OF $1,194.085 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. NEAL AND MARY SWEENEY, CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER CEPM20100009663,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1319 BARNSTABLE
COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - FOR AN
Page 206
July 24, 2012
UNMAINTAINED POOL FOR A PERIOD OF 42 DAYS, WHICH
WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON MARCH 25, 20115 BY
THE COUNTY
Item #16Al2
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $19200.57 FOR
PAYMENT OF $509080.57, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. EDWARD M. HARRIS JR. AND TAMMY HARRIS, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NUMBER CESD20090018220,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5730 CEDAR TREE
LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - FOR AN
UNMAINTAINED POOL AND FOR MULTIPLE UNPERMITTED
STRUCTURES, FOR A PERIOD OF 451 DAYS, WHICH WERE
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 13, 20129 BY
THE FORECLOSING BANK
Item #16A13
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,067.19 FOR
PAYMENT OF $19517.195 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. DANNY L. NAIRN AND MARIE E. NAIRN, CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER
CEPM2011000468I, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
753 93RD AVENUE N., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - FOR
AN UNMAINTAINED POOL, FOR A PERIOD OF 68 DAYS,
WHICH WERE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, BY THE COUNTY
Item #I 6A 14
Page 207
July 24, 2012
AWARD BID #12 -5884 "INSTALLATION OF WIRELESS
DETECTION SYSTEM" FOR INSTALLATION OF
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WIRELESS
DETECTION EQUIPMENT ALONG AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD
FROM CLUBHOUSE DRIVE TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
INCLUDING THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY AND BEAR'S PAW TRAIL TO AMERICAN
LIGHTING AND SIGNALIZATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$249,730 (PROJECT #33165) — THE SYSTEM WORKS USING
SENSORS EMBEDDED IN THE ROADWAY THAT WILL
COMMUNICATE WITH A ROADSIDE COMMUNICATION
HUB, THAT WILL SEND THE INFORMATION TO THE
SIGNAL CONTROLLER AND THEN TO THE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CENTER ALLOWING FOR COORDINATION
OF TRAFFIC FLOW THROUGH THOSE CORRIDORS
Item # 16A 15
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF COPPER COVE PRESERVE
UNIT 3, PPL20120000116, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #16A16
RECEIVE AND APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 PROGRESS
REPORT — APPROVE THE PROPOSED ACTION PLAN FOR
2012 AND INSERT IT INTO THE FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Page 208
July 24, 2012
Item # 16A 17
APPROVE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
NEGOTIATE CONTINUING CONTRACTS WITH THE TOP
FIVE (5) RANKED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS
INCLUDING: MCGEE & ASSOCIATES, INC., RICHARD
TINDELL D /B /A GREENWORK STUDIO, JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., GOETZ & STROPES LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS, INC. AND WINDHAM STUDIO, INC. FOR
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12 -5892 FIXED TERM
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES — FOR SITE
MASTER PLANNING, SELECTION AND DESIGN OF
PLANTING AREAS, DESIGN, MAINTENANCE, AND
REFURBISHMENT OF NEW AND EXISTING LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION FOR M.S.T.U. AND M.S.T.D. PROJECTS,
AND MISCELLANEOUS LANDSCAPING PROJECTS FOR
VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Item # 16A 18
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12 -5895 IMPACT FEE
STUDY FINAL RANKINGS AND DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR FINAL
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL — TINDALE OLIVER &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Item #16A19
PROVIDING DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE TO AMEND RESOLUTION 97 -431, AS
Page 209
July 24, 2012
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) -
HOUSE BILL 7207 WAS PASSED DURING THE LEGISLATIVE
SESSION OF 2011, INITIATING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO
THE FLORIDA STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING A
WIDE VARIETY OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
PLANNING REGULATIONS, REMOVING RESTRICTIONS
UPON THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENT CYCLES ALLOWED
FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN, AS WELL AS ALTERING SPECIFICS OF THE PROCESS
OF AMENDING THE GMP. UPON APPROVAL STAFF WILL
PRESENT THOSE OPTIONS TO THE VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
INPUT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Item #16A20
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT BETWEEN SFI NAPLES RESERVE
LLC ( "DEVELOPER ") AND COLLIER COUNTY ( "COUNTY")
TO ADVANCE FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO US -41
FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO SAN MARCO ROAD. (THIS
ITEM IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #I 7J) — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16B 1
SHORTLIST OF ENGINEERING FIRMS FOR REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL (RFP) #12 -5863 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION (CEI) FOR THE IMMOKALEE DOWNTOWN
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
Page 210
July 24, 2012
THE TOP RANKED FIRM — THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
MET AND RANKED THE FIRM'S PROPOSALS IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER: URS CORPORATION WAS CHOSEN;
AGNOLI BARBER & BRUNDAGE; Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES; AND CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES
Item #I 6B2
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT THAT IS FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY A FIFTH
THIRD BANK GRANT AWARD BETWEEN THE CRA AND A
GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AREA — FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3180 CALEDONIA AVE., NAPLES
Item #16133
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPOINTS L. JEAN JOURDAN AS INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA AND THE
BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION AND HALDEMAN CREEK
DREDGE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNITS — THIS
INTERIM APPOINTMENT WILL BE AS AN AT -WILL
EMPLOYEE, EQUIVALENT TO A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR' S
POSITION WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENCY
Item # 16C 1
RESOLUTION 2012 -123: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN
SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2012 TAX YEAR
Page 211
July 24, 2012
Item #I 6C2
A DONATION AGREEMENT AND A UTILITY EASEMENT
FROM THE FOXFIRE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY, A FLORIDA NON - PROFIT
CORPORATION, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER
DISTRICT FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A
MONITORING WELL AND FOR ACCESS ON, OVER AND
ACROSS THE FOXFIRE GOLF COURSE, AT AN ESTIMATED
COST NOT TO EXCEED $100, PROJECT NUMBER 74401 —
LOCATED IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48S, RANGE 25 EAST
Item #16C3
A WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #08-
5011-64 IN THE AMOUNT OF $469,607.85 TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER PUMP
STATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROJECT NO. 70046 — FOR
THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING PUMPS, EXISTING
DETERIORATING PIPES, ELECTRICAL PANELS THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE UPGRADE, AN EMERGENCY
GENERATOR WITH AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH TO
ALLOW FOR OPERATION DURING POWER OUTAGES
Item #I 6C4
APPROVING THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH HOLE MONTES, INC.,
FOR CONTRACT #12-5867, "NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
Page 212
July 24, 2012
AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE AERATED SLUDGE
HOLDING TANK/FLOW EQUALIZATION TANK
CONSTRUCTION," PROJECT NUMBER 70091
Item #16C5
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #12 -5902, "SEWAGE
HAULING," TO DIXIE DRAINFIELDS, INC., AND SOUTHERN
SANITATION, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT
OF $755000, TO BE SHARED BETWEEN REFERENCED
VENDORS, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2012; AND, TERMINATE
CONTRACTS PROCURED UNDER INVITATION TO BID #09-
5300, "SEWAGE HAULING," TO DIXIE DRAINFIELDS, INC.,
AND SOUTHERN SANITATION, INC., ON JULY 31, 2012 —
BOTH COMPANIES WILL BE ON A MONTHLY ROTATION
WITH THE FIRST MONTH BEING AWARDED BASED ON A
COIN TOSS
Item #16C6
A TIME AND MATERIALS CONTRACT IN THE NOT -TO-
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $265,888.25 WITH Q. GRADY MINOR
FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11 -5708,
"CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR MASTER PUMPING STATION #312
REHABILITATION" (PROJECT NUMBER 72549) - ENSURING
PROPER ADHERENCE TO CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THAT
WILL RESULT IN SERVICES THAT ARE A HIGH - QUALITY,
BEST -VALUE PROJECT, THAT IS RELIABLE, SUSTAINABLE
AND REGULATORY COMPLIANT
Item #I 6C7
Page 213
July 24, 2012
AN AGREEMENT WITH ADAM J. PISKADLO AND BARBARA
K. PISKADLO FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $71,500 FOR THE RELOCATION OF
SUB - MASTER PUMPING STATION #300.06 (PROJECT
NUMBER 70046) — BRINGING THE OUTDATED UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT
COUNTY STANDARDS, MEETING DEMAND, PROTECTING
PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDING PROACTIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Item #16C8
REALLOCATION OF TASKS FOR PHASES TWO AND THREE
OF CONTRACT NO. 10 -5447 WITH EMA OF MINNESOTA,
INC., WITH AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF ENTERPRISE ASSET
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, IN SUPPORT OF "PUBLIC
UTILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT," PROJECTS 71012 AND
731655 AS WELL AS OTHER FUTURE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED
WITHIN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENCY — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6C9
AWARDING BID NUMBER 12 -5913, "NAPLES MOBILE
ESTATES WATER MAIN REHABILITATION" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6445619.20 TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION INC., TO
REHABILITATE THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE NAPLES MOBILE ESTATES,
PROJECT NO. 71010 — WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY FORTY
YEARS OLD WITH PIPES THAT HAVE REACHED THE END
Page 214
July 24, 2012
OF USEFUL LIFE; INCIDENTS IN THE SUBDIVISION AFFECT
MORE RESIDENTS FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME, DUE TO
A LIMITED NUMBER OF ISOLATION VALVES IN THE AREA
WHICH LIMITS OPERATIONAL CONTROL DURING
MAINTENANCE OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Item # 16C 10
APPROVING SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR A CONTRACT FOR REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL NO. 12 -5919, "UTILITY DESIGN ENGINEERING
SERVICES - U.S. 41 FROM C.R. 951 TO GREENWAY ROAD"
(PROJECT NUMBERS 70045 AND 73045) — FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE RELOCATIONS
Item # 16D 1
FOURTEEN (14) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1459222 OF OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING
UNITS THAT HAVE SATISFIED THE TERMS OF ASSISTANCE
— LOUISE CARTHON (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), VERN
HENDERSON (CDBG /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), PEARL BAILEY
& ELMER BURRELL (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), IRENE
ORTIZ (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), DAVID YBARRA &
VIRGINIA PRAY (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), LEONARDO
& LYDIA ADAME (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), JUAN &
GREGORIA NIETO (HOME /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), ST JEAN
& YVROSE BREME (CDBG /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), GRACIE
GROFF (CDBG /RESIDENTIAL REHAB), ELDIKET &
MARIATA BOSS (HOME /PURCHASE ASSISTANCE), JAMIE C.
LOPEZ - HERNANDEZ & BRIGIDA C. SAALAZAR
Page 215
July 24, 2012
(HOME /PURCHASE ASSISTANCE), MICHELLE D. THOMPSON
(HOME /PURCHASE ASSISTANCE), VANESSA L. CRAWFORD
(HOME /PURCHASE ASSISTANCE), AND ROSALINE B.
JOCURIN (HOME /PURCHASE ASSISTANCE)
Item #I 6D2
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE (CJMHSA) GRANT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOR REQUIRED
CLARIFICATIONS AND UPDATES AND TO APPROVE
SUBMITTAL OF AN UPDATED BUDGET WORKSHEET,
MATCH COMMITMENT FORMS AND APPROVE
AMENDMENTS TO THE ASSOCIATED SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENTS — WITH COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER, AND NAMI OF
COLLIER COUNTY INC.
Item #16D3
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 91-
65) AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER, COUNTY
ATTORNEY OR THEIR RESPECTIVE DESIGNEES TO
ADVERTISE FOR ORDINANCE CHANGES TO BE APPROVED
BY THE BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING — AMENDING THE
FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE AS
WELL AS AMENDING THE DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT
HEAD
Page 216
July 24, 2012
Item #I 6D4
TWO RELEASES OF LIEN FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY
INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM
SINCE THE RECIPIENTS OF THESE TWO AWARDS HAVE
DECEASED - THE RECIPIENTS OF THESE AWARDS,'
ZADOCK MURRELL (DIED FEBRUARY 25, 2012) AND ANNIE
KING (DIED NOVEMBER 1, 20 10) HAVE PASSED AWAY THE
LOANS ARE TO BE FORGIVEN AND THE LIENS RELEASED
Item 916D5
TWO (2) MODIFICATIONS TO LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR THE
DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY
REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO REFLECT THE GRANT
AMOUNT ACTUALLY UTILIZED - ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 A
SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
AGREEMENT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR $30,000.00, THE
REHABILITATION WORK WAS CONTRACTED FOR
$199400.00, THIS MODIFICATION TO THE LIEN AGREEMENT
IS NECESSARY TO REFLECT THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT
WAS AWARDED TO THE HOMEOWNERS JUAN &
EVANGELINA HERNANDEZ
Item #16D6
SEVEN (7) RELEASES OF LIEN TOTALING $134,917.86 FOR
IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS ON OWNER- OCCUPIED LAND
WHERE, ULTIMATELY, CONSTRUCTION FAILED TO OCCUR
— ROBLES (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 83, TRACT 111)
MORETA (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 62, TRACT 83)
HILDEBRANDT (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 79, TRACT 12)
Page 217
July 24, 2012
MOORE (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 42, TRACT 66) CDJ
INVESTMENTS, LLC (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 79, TRACT
40) CDJ INVESTMENTS, LLC (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 47,
TRACT 23) ALAOUI (GOLDEN GATE EST., UNIT 70, TRACT
94) ALL FOR THE DEFERRED AMOUNT OF $19,273.98
Item #I 6D7
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 FOR REPAYMENT RECEIVED FOR THE BALANCE
OWED ON A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP
(SHIP) LOAN — LOUISCA VASOR & LAURETTA CINEUS (SHIP
SECOND MORTGAGE)
Item #I 6D8
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE TO BIG CYPRESS
HOUSING CORPORATION FOR A STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) LOAN
REPAYMENT ISSUED TO COLLIER COUNTY — FOR 79
RENTAL HOUSING APARTMENTS FOR VERY -LOW AND
LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS AT THE MAIN STREET
VILLAGE APARTMENTS, THE CLERK'S FINANCE
DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT AN INTEREST PENALTY
WAS DUE IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE TERMS OF THE
NOTE. ON MAY 305 2012 PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$291686.00 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE BIG CYPRESS
HOUSING CORP., SATISFYING THE MORTGAGE TERMS
Item # 16D9
MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI)
Page 218
July 24, 2012
GRANT AGREEMENT # l ODB-D4-09-2 1 -0 1 -K09 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ADD TWO (2) NEW
PROJECTS MADE POSSIBLE FROM REPROGRAMMED
FUNDS OF AN UNDER BUDGET PROJECT, APPROVE NEW
ASSOCIATED SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS AND AMEND A
CURRENT SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT TO
ACCOMMODATE THESE CHANGES WITH NO ADDITIONAL
FUNDS — MODIFICATION #5 TO THE DRI FOR THE
BAYSHORE CRA AND THE NEW SUBRECIPIENTS,
IMMOKALEE HOUSING AND FAMILY SERVICES AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Item #16D10
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE
FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FBIP)
GRANT FWC CONTRACT #08079 AMENDING THE GRANT
COMPENSATION AND SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE BAYVIEW
PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE I — A CONTRACT
WAS AWARDED IN 2010 TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC.,
DURING THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THE INVOICE FOR
GRANT REIMBURSEMENT A CONFLICT WAS DISCOVERED
BETWEEN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ACTUAL
GRANT, THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT WITH WHAT WAS
INTENDED, FINANCIALLY COVERED, AND THE INTENDED
SCOPE OF WORK. THE GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTED
COMPENSATION OF ALL PRE - AWARDED DESIGN
ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING FEES AND THE SCOPE OF
WORK SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING SEAWALL
CONSTRUCTION. WHEN THE GRANT WAS FINALLY ISSUED
Page 219
July 24, 2012
IT OMITTED THE FULL CONTENT AND INTENT OF THE
GRANT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN THE INITIAL GRANT
APPLICATION
Item # 16D 11
AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE
CENTER (DLC) TO OPERATE THE COLLIER COUNTY DRUG
COURT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) FOR THE DRUG
COURT GRANT — THE CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE IS
SEPTEMBER 30, 20125 IF THE GRANT EXTENSION IS
APPROVED IT WILL BE EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
Item # 16D 12
APPOINTING STEPHEN Y. CARNELL, INTERIM DIVISION
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, TO
EXECUTE THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S
(FTA) ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR
BOARD APPROVED GRANTS AND GRANT APPLICATIONS
THROUGH THE FTA'S TRANSPORTATION ELECTRONIC
AWARD & MANAGEMENT ( "TEAM ") SYSTEM - TO REPLACE
MR. CASALANGUIDA AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE THAT WOULD PERFORM THE
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTION
AND AUTHORIZATION, TO EXECUTE ANNUAL
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES ISSUED BY THE FTA
ON BOARD- APPROVED GRANT APPLICATIONS, GRANT
AWARDS, AND AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE TEAM
Page 220
July 24, 2012
SYSTEM
Item # 16D 13
APPROVAL OF THE SHORT -LIST OF DESIGN
PROFESSIONALS PURSUANT TO RFP #12 -5868 AND TO
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., FOR "ON-
CALL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
(CEI) AND RELATED SERVICES" FOR GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY PARK, GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD AND
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY — AUTHORIZING CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES,
P.A.
Item # 16D 14
AN AFTER - THE -FACT DONATION AND AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, EVERGLADES CITY, AND THE HOLY
FAMILY CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE
COUNTY'S DONATION OF $2,346.60 IN RED CLAY FOR A
LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD LOCATED IN EVERGLADES CITY
AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO TATE'S TRUCKING FOR
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE CLAY
Item #16D15
AFTER - THE -FACT COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY,
HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY, AND ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE 2 YEAR CONTRACT WITH SENIOR
Page 221
July 24, 2012
CHOICES F /K /A AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SWFL AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS REFLECTING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL
FUNDING FOR FY 12 -13 STATE GENERAL REVENUE
SENIORS PROGRAMS (FIRST YEAR FISCAL NET IMPACT:
$35916) IN ORDER TO CONTINUE PROVIDING SENIOR CARE
CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Item #16D16
ACCEPTING ASSETS DONATED TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR
EXHIBITION AT THE NAPLES DEPOT MUSEUM AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF
THE 1941 TUMBLEBUG SWAMP BUGGY AND THE 1955
CHEVROLET BEL AIR TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D17
APPROVING: (1) A ONE -TIME EXCEPTION TO THE LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP) ON SHIP PROGRAM
GUIDELINES, (2) TWO SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $77,000 AND $5,500 ISSUED TO SHIP
RECIPIENT MARY MACKEY FOR THE DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AFFORDABLE "GREEN" HOME,
(3) ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEED OF THE PROPERTY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESALE, AND (4) FUTURE RESALE OF
THE PROPERTY TO AN INCOME QUALIFIED
PERSON /HOUSEHOLD — FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4023 RD STREET SOUTH, IMMOKALEE
Item # 16D 18
Page 222
July 24, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012 -124: RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL
PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING
PARTS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR
AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND ESTABLISHING THE
POLICY ANEW TO INCLUDE A DISCOUNT RATE FOR
COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS AND A FREE RATE FOR
COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS WITH A 100% SERVICE
CONNECTED AND /OR PERMANENT AND TOTAL
DISABILITY RATING AT AQUATIC FACILITIES
Item #16D19
APPROVING SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANKED
FIRM, VICTOR J. LATAVISH, P.A., FOR A CONTRACT FOR
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12 -5923, "PROFESSIONAL
DESIGN SERVICES EAGLES LAKES COMMUNITY AND
FITNESS CENTER" (PROJECT NUMBER 80184) — LOCATED
AT 11565 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES
Item # 16E 1
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE COLLIER COUNTY
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT FUNDING FOR AN EXTERIOR SIGN
AT THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LIBRARY WHICH IS
LOCATED AT 1266 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WEST IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$20,000 — USED TO ADVERTISE SCHEDULED EVENTS HELD
AT THE LIBRARY
Page 223
July 24, 2012
Item #16E2
A DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT AN ACCESS
EASEMENT FROM HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB, LTD, A FLORIDA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR ACCESS TO THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER NANCY PAYTON PRESERVE, AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,300 — PROVIDING A SMALL
PARKING LOT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS
Item #I 6E3
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STARNES CATTLE LEASE
AGREEMENT AND A US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AGREEMENT — MR.
STARNES HAS RECEIVED FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE CATTLE OPERATIONS THAT INCLUDE:
FIREBREAK CREATION, PRESCRIBED BURNING, PASTURE
BRUSH MOWING, HEAVY USE AREA PROTECTION,
UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT, WELL /SOLAR
PUMP FACILITY INSTALLATION, WATERING FACILITY
INSTALLATION, AND WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE
INSTALLATION
Item #I 6E4
AN AFTER- THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTERS GRANT APPLICATION THAT WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE
REPLACEMENT AMBULANCES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $575,850 — REPLACEMENT OF
THE AMBULANCES IS SCHEDULED FOR THE FY 13
Page 224
July 24, 2012
BUDGET, WITH TWO ADDITIONAL AMBULANCES
SCHEDULED FOR REPLACEMENT AND TWO SCHEDULED
FOR REFURBISHMENT IN FY 14
Item #16E5
ACCEPTING THE REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR
THE PERIOD OF MAY 24, 2012 THROUGH JULY 6, 2012
Item #16E6
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES — FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL /EQUIPMENT
REQUIRED TO BRING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION UNDER
CONTROL OR ASSIST IN RESCUING LIVES
Item #16171
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE MOORINGS PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE
HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE - FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER, SUPPLIES, AND /OR
OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF ACTIVITIES IN A
RELIEF /DISASTER SITUATION
Item #I 6F2
A FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Page 225
July 24, 2012
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER'S GRANT APPLICATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $815400 FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW
MOBILE AND PORTABLE RADIOS FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT — THE CURRENT EQUIPMENT HAS
REACHED IT'S LIFE EXPECTANCY AND IS NO LONGER
COMPLIANT WITH FCC REGULATIONS AND NEW DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
Item #16173
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,112 TO PURCHASE
CLASS A FOAM FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT — FOR BRUSH FIRE CONTAINMENT DURING
BRUSH FIRE SEASON
Item #I 6F4
AUTHORIZING KYLE LUKASZ, OPERATIONS MANAGER
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION, TO EXECUTE AN ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERFORM
BERM MAINTENANCE WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY WATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM — FOR AN EXISTING 4,450 LINEAR
FOOT BERM AND SWALE LOCATED ALONG THE
WESTERLY EDGE OF THE PELICAN BAY
Item #I 6F5
RESOLUTION 2012 -125: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 226
July 24, 2012
Item #I 6H 1 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. 'DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN THE BCC OFFICE UNTIL APPROVAL
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; HE ATTENDED THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAKE UP NAPLES
BREAKFAST AT HILTON NAPLES ON JUNE 13, 2012, $20 IS
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #161-13
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; SHE ATTENDED THE ANNUAL ARLINGTON
FOUNDERS' INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION ON JULY
3, 20125 THE SUM OF $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT LELY RESORT, 8060
GRAND LELY DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 227
July 24, 2012
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 228
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
July 24, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Water and Waste Water Authority:
Legal Notice 4.20.12 for Adoption of the 2012 Price Index Factor
2) Mediterra North and Mediterra South Community Development
Districts:
Interlocal Agreement 5.3.12
3) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.10.12
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
July 24, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of 10.10.11; 1. 9.12
2) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of 4.24.12
3) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 3.7.12; 4.4.12
4) Bayshore /GatewayTriangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of 2.7.12; 4.3.12
5) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of 5.16.12
6) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 3.8.12
7) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 4.6.12 (Special Magistrate)
8) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of 3.6.12; 4.5.12; 4.13.12; 4.19.12
Minutes of 3.6.12; 4.5.12; 4.13.12; 4.19.12
9) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 3.21.12; 4.18.12
10) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of 1.18.12; 2.15.12; 3.21.12
Minutes of 1.18.12; 1. 18.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review
Subcommittee); 2.15.12; 2.22.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review
Subcommittee); 3.21.12; 3.21.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review
Subcommittee); 4.10.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review
Subcommittee)
11) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 4.4.12
12) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of 1.20.12; 4.13.12
13) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of 4.4.12; 5.2.12
14) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 3.20.12
15) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 3.5.12; 3.29.12 (Budget Workshop, No Quorum); 4.2.12
Minutes of 3.5.12; 3.29.12 (Budget Workshop, No Quorum); 4.2.12
16) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of 1.26.12
17) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of 2.15.12; 3.21.12
18) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 5.23.12
Minutes of 4.25.12
19) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of 5.16.12
Minutes of 4.18.12
20) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of 5.16.12
Minutes of 4.18.12
21) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 3.15.12
22) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 4.9.12
23) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of 1. 18.12
24) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 3.2.12; 4.11.12; 4.16.12
Minutes of 2.21.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 3.7.12; 3.26.12
(Budget Subcommittee); 4.11.12; 4.16.12 (Budget Subcommittee)
July 24, 2012
Item # 16J 1 — Moved to Agenda Item # 13 A 1 (Per Agenda Change
Sheet)
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE % 2012
THROUGH JUNE 15, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 169 2012
THROUGH JUNE 22, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 235 2012
THROUGH JUNE 29, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 309 2012
THROUGH JULY 6, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J6
SUBMISSION OF THE INVESTMENT STATUS UPDATE
REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 — THE
Page 229
July 24, 2012
BOARD IS BEING UPDATED ON THE STATUS OF THE
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO FOR THE THIRD QUARTER
Item #I 6J7
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(B) THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REQUIRED TO REPORT THE
AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION SURCHARGES
COLLECTED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(A)(1) TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — THE
SURCHARGES COLLECTED FOR THIS QUARTER $304,172.77
Item # 16K 1
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING
BACK AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 78 -28 (SALE OF CANNED
GOODS) IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
COLLIER COUNTY — IN THE LAWS OF FLORIDA IN SECTION
ONE FROM CHAPTER 65 -1026, A LOCAL LAW WAS
CREATED AUTHORIZING THE DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS
TO SELL CANNED GOODS TO JAILS AND STOCKADES IN
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6K2
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING
BACK AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 98 -1 (EXPENDITURES FOR
LIGHTING) IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
COLLIER COUNTY — IN THE LAWS OF FLORIDA IN SECTION
ONE FROM CHAPTER 63 -713, A LOCAL LAW WAS CREATED
Page 230
July 24, 2012
AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO EXPEND FUNDS FOR LIGHTING PUBLIC PARKS AND
PLAYGROUNDS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6K3
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING
BACK AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 46 -5 (FEE FOR ALIMONY
PAYMENTS AND COLLECTION) IN THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY — IN THE LAWS
OF FLORIDA IN SECTION ONE FROM CHAPTER 67 -701, A
LOCAL LAW WAS CREATED AUTHORIZING A FEE FOR
EACH PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT UNDER DECREE OF SUPPORT OR
ALIMONY IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6K4
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN ENGAGEMENT AND
CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT WITH HINKLE & FORAN,
P.A., ET AL., FOR REPRESENTATION IN THE MULTI -
DISTRICT LITIGATION RELATING TO THE DEEPWATER
HORIZON OIL SPILL — FOR THE COUNTY'S CLAIM OF LOST
TOURIST TAX REVENUE AND ADVERTISING EXPENSES
Item #I 7A
RESOLUTION 2012 -126: PETITION VAC- PL20120000348, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AN UNOPENED AND UNUSED
PORTION OF PRODUCTION BOULEVARD (60 -FOOT WIDE
Page 231
July 24, 2012
PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY) LOCATED JUST NORTH OF
EXCHANGE AVENUE AND THE DEAD END PORTION OF
EXCHANGE AVENUE (60 -FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT -
OF -WAY) LOCATED JUST EAST OF PRODUCTION
BOULEVARD AS ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN THE PLAT OF
COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTION PARK, PHASE I -B, PLAT
BOOK 15, PAGE 8, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE
SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A"
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2012 -127: PETITION VAC- PL20120000927, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PART OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 42,
PAGES 36 THROUGH 41, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT
"A"
Item #I 7C
ORDINANCE 2012 -27: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 02 -429
CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "TUSCANY RESERVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" TO THE "TALIS
PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT", PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 190, FLORIDA STATUTES (COMPANION TO
ITEM #I 7D
Page 232
July 24, 2012
Item #I 7D
RESOLUTION 2012 -128: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RENAMING TUSCANY RESERVE DRIVE TO TALIS
PARK DRIVE, WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN TUSCANY
RESERVE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 7 AND 129
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGES 25 AND 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(COMPANION TO ITEM #I 7C)
Item #I 7E
RESOLUTION 2012 -129: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER ABW- PL20120001079
GRANTING A WAIVER PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.01.A.6.
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING AN
ESTABLISHMENT SELLING ALCOHOL FOR ON -SITE
CONSUMPTION AND DERIVING LESS THAN FIFTY -ONE
PERCENT OF THEIR SALES FROM FOOD ITEMS AND
HAVING A MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE OF LESS
THAN 500 FEET FROM OTHER SUCH ESTABLISHMENTS
WHICH ARE LOCATED IN THE MERCATO MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #I 7F — Continued to 9/11/2012 (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CLOSE -OUT OF ELEVEN
(11) ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS)
WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT
Page 233
July 24, 2012
PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS
CONSTRUCTING UP TO THE AUTHORIZED DENSITY
AND /OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY
STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR SPECIFIC
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Item #I 7G — Continued to 9/11/2012 (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CLOSE -OUT OF FOUR (4)
ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS) WHICH
HAVE FULLY COMPLETED ALL OR PORTIONS OF THEIR
DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE CONSTRUCTED UP TO THE
AUTHORIZED DENSITY AND /OR INTENSITY, AND HAVE
BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY STAFF TO HAVE ONLY ONE
RELEVANT TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENT REMAINING
Item #I 7H — Continued to 9/11/2012 (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CLOSE -OUT OF THE
ADOPTED AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH HAS FULFILLED ALL OF
THEIR COMMITMENTS WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS EXCEPT FOR ONE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITMENT REMAINING WHICH WILL BE TRACKED
THROUGH THE COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
Item # 17I
ORDINANCE 2012 -28: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2009 -22, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) TIME LIMITS AND TIME LIMIT EXTENSION
Page 234
July 24, 2012
REQUIREMENTS AS FOUND IN SECTION 10.02.13.1) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
Item #I 7J
ORDINANCE 2012 -29: PUDA- PL2011 -1168, THE NAPLES
RESERVE GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD), AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07 -71 THE NAPLES
RESERVE GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD), TO REMOVE A GOLF COURSE
FROM THE RPUD; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO
PERMITTED USES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENTS TO LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM
LDC; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO LIST OF
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONE
MILE NORTH OF US 41 AND 1-1/2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 95 1) IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING
OF 688 +/- ACRES (THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #16A20)
Item #I 7K
RESOLUTION 2012 -130: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 235
July 24, 2012
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
‘; ' W. Co-Akk
FRED W. COYLE, Ch irman
ATTEST:
" „
�_ fI' ;:
DWIGHT E,.BROCI CLE '
tbk . f) ,i, 7, qp
,A_ _ 1.46.. ..:- 4- ,#) ; P -*:.-
A•,CeS4 as 't0' !►
Ognaturf .gin
These minutes ap roved by the Board on S e�J 11 , 2012,
as presented or as corrected
1
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 236