BCC Minutes 10/09/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2012
October 9, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 9, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta (telephonically)
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Director
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager.
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
II
ztostio
r l
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
October 09, 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 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 1
October 9, 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. Father Tim Navin - San Marco Catholic Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. September 11-12, 2012 BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
October 9, 2012
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing October 2012 as Fire Fighter Appreciation Month
for the fundraising efforts for Muscular Dystrophy Association #516. To be
accepted by Becky Goodlet, MDA Representative and representatives from
fire stations in Collier County. Sponsored by the Board of County
Commissioners.
B. Proclamation recognizing October 2012 as Blindness Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Kathleen Peck and David Weigel of
Lighthouse of Collier, Inc. Sponsored by the Board of County
Commissioners.
C. Proclamation designating October 2012 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Executive
Director, the Shelter for Abused Women & Children. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year
2012 from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented
to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark
Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services.
B. Presentation recognizing the valiant lifesaving efforts of two off-duty
firefighters from the City of Marco Island Fire Rescue Department: Engineer
Paramedic Dustin Beatty and Engineer Paramedic Al Munoz.
(Commissioner Donna Fiala)
C. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for October 2012
to Naples Airport Authority. To be accepted by Cormac Giblin, Chair;
Sheila Dugan, Deputy Executive Director; and Ted Soliday, Executive
Director.
Page 3
October 9,2012
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Liz Pfunder requesting reimbursement for
damages related to a sewer backup.
B. Public Petition request from Tim Hancock requesting that the Board
establish a separate Growth Management Plan Adoption Cycle for Petition
CP-2012-2 (Princess Park PUD, Airport-Pulling Road).
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. To obtain the Board of County Commissioners approval for naming the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project, currently identified as the LASIP
Mitigation Park, as "Serenity Walk Park." Commissioner Fiala.
B. Appointment of members to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
C. Press Release dated September 28, 2012 for Advisory Board vacancies.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve and adopt a Resolution approving the Pay and
Classification Plans for the Board of County Commissioners and County
Attorney effective October 1, 2012, and providing for a Cost of Living
Adjustment of 2.0% effective on October 6, 2012, the first day of the first
pay period in FY13. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
B. Recommendation to adopt resolutions authorizing the condemnation of the
land and easements necessary for the construction of capital improvements
Page 4
October 9, 2012
at the intersection of US 41 and Collier Boulevard. (Project No. 60116.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $13,500,000. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation
Engineering Director.)
C. 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 a resolution finding
Petition Number ST-PL2012168 for a special treatment development permit
to dredge and fill on state-owned property in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass
consistent with the Agricultural and Conservation Special Treatment
Overlays (A-ST and CON-ST) and issue the permit. The project is located in
Sections 17, 18 and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Stephen Lenberger, Growth Management Division Senior
Environmental Specialist)
D. Recommendation to award Bid Number 12-5915, "South County Water
Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) Odor Control Facilities Upgrades," to
Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of$1,378,681
for SCWRF Compliance Assurance Project Number 70089. (Tom Chmelik,
Planning and Project Management Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item continued from the
September 25, 2012 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to discuss Item
#11E from the Board's September 11, 2012 agenda regarding "Wastewater
Basin Program" contracts.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 5
October 9, 2012
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Better Roads,
Inc., for Bid No. 12-5937, Industrial Boulevard (Radio Road to
Mercantile Ave) Roadway Improvements Project No. 60188.4 funded
by the Naples Production Park MSTU, in the amount of$473,312.96
plus a ten (10) percent contingency of$47,331.30 totaling
$520,644.26.
2) Recommendation to approve Agreement No. 4600002607 with the
South Florida Water Management District in the amount of$240,000
for the continued collection of surface water quality samples in Collier
County.
3) Recommendation to approve the Vanderbilt and Naples Beach
Emergency Beach Renourishment Resolution, make a finding that
these beaches are critically eroded and TDC funds can be used for
renourishment, allow an expedited competitive process to renourish
these beaches, authorize the County Manager or his designee to
approve the contract but not issue the Notice-to-Proceed until contract
ratification by the Board, authorize the expenditure of up to $650,000
Category A Tourist Development Funds, and approve all necessary
budget amendments.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution authorizing a public hearing to consider vacating a
Page 6
October 9,2012
portion of the southerly 5 feet of an existing 10-foot utility easement
located in Lot 1, Block I, Gulf Acres, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page
111, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. - Application
No. VAC-PL20120001426.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Bid No. 12-5909, "Collier County Landfill
Household Hazardous Waste Facility," to Compass Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of$833,777 for construction of the Household
Hazardous Waste Facility at the Collier County Landfill, Project
Number 59005.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Interlocal Agreement with Everglades City in order to provide
funding assistance in the amount of$5,000 to Everglades City for
improvements to the McLeod Community Park.
2) Recommendation to approve four agreements to allow participation in
alternative intergovernmental transfer programs (IGT): Two between
the County and Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), and
one each between the County and Physicians Regional Medical
Center and Naples Community Hospital. The County's total financial
commitment is $2,097,484 which is currently budgeted.
3) Recommendation to approve an agreement in the amount of$225,759
with the Agency for Health Care Administration and an agreement
with Collier Health Services (CHS) to participate in the Medicaid
Low Income Pool Program. Participation in this program will
generate $308,329 in Federal matching funds that will provide
additional health services for the citizens of Collier County.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign Memorandums of
Understanding with The Southwest Florida Workforce Development
Page 7
October 9, 2012
Board, Inc. for the delivery of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers swimming skills and drowning prevention programs "Miracle
Plus 1 and Miracle Plus 2 program."
5) Recommendation to authorize the necessary budget amendments for
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget as approved in the HUD Action Plan
for entitlement funds and authorize the Chair to sign the standard
HUD Agreement forms upon arrival. The receipt of funds is for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) for
continuation of services. Project start dates and timely use of federal
funds is dependent on this acknowledgement of funding.
6) Recommendation to approve Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-5918 "Boat
Ramp Repair" for the Port of the Islands Marina Project#80215 to CB
Construction Services Corp. and to authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached contract and authorize the necessary budget amendment
in the amount of$98,747.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and provide after the fact
approval for the submittal of Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital
Equipment Support Grant in the amount of$70,000 to the Florida
Commission for Transportation Disadvantaged for the procurement
and installation of a Call Center Software Telephone System and
Certification Module for the paratransit system and authorize the
Chairman of the Board to sign the grant and all applicable documents.
8) Recommendation to approve the Collier County University Extension
Department's request for funding from the Collier County 4-H
Association in the amount of$71,350, approve subsequent acceptance
of requested funds, authorize the Chairman to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with Collier County 4-H Association to fund 4-H
Outreach Coordinators and the enhancement of outreach activities
managed by the Collier County University of Florida /IFAS Extension
Department, and authorize the subsequent Budget Amendment.
Page 8
October 9, 2012
9) Recommendation to approve Amendment 2 to Contract No. 11-5753,
Electronic Fareboxes for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) Program, and approve the Software
License Agreement between Fare Logistics Corporation and Collier
County.
10) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached Multi-year
Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) through Federal Pass-through 49 U.S.C. §
5311 funding under Contract Number AQR01 providing public
transportation services in Collier County's non-urbanized areas in the
amount of$272,797 as well as a FY 2012/2013 local match in the
amount of$272,797, and approve the necessary budget amendments.
11) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application for
the 2012/2013 Congestion Management System/Intelligent
Transportation Stakeholders (CMS/ITS) Box Funding in the amount
of$276,000 through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Transportation Electronic Award Management (TEAM) System.
12) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment between Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and Area Agency on Aging
for Southwest Florida, Inc. which reflects additional grant funding for
senior meals of$27,262 and county match of$3,029.11 in the
aggregate amount of$30,291.11 for the FY12 Older Americans Act
Program Title III, and authorize necessary budget amendments.
13) This item continued from the September 25, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
Resolution repealing Resolution No. 2009-296 and a Resolution
establishing a revised Collier County Public Library Fees and Fines
Schedule.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the acceptance of a
Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant Award in the amount of$2,112 to
Page 9
October 9, 2012
purchase Class A Foam for the Ochopee Fire Control District and
authorize all necessary budget amendments (local match $1,056).
2) Recommendation to authorize sole source purchasing of equipment
and services for the 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System.
3) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget
amendments appropriating approximately $3,085,820.51 of Fiscal
Year 2012 carry forward for approved open purchase orders into
Fiscal Year 2013 for operating budget funds. This is a Companion to
Item #17B.
4) Recommendation to retroactively (effective September 26, 2012)
request a waiver of competition to authorize fuel purchases and
payments under the State of Florida Contract (405-000-10-1) to
Mansfield Oil Company LLC to fill County owned fixed fuel tanks at
the Fleet Management Operation; to add "tank wagon" services to
Contract #10-5581 Motor Oils and Lubricant with Combs Oil; and
authorize purchases and payments to Mansfield Oil Company LLC for
County owned fixed fuel tanks at the Fleet Management Operation
and to Combs Oil for "tank wagon" services.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
Resolution authorizing signature of Joint Participation Agreement No.
AQR24 with the Florida Department of Transportation, to accept a
grant in the amount of$35,312 for the design, permitting and bidding
of Runway 17-35 pavement restoration at the Marco Island Executive
Airport, and to authorize associated budget amendments.
Page 10
October 9, 2012
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Participation Agreement
No. AQR22 with the Florida Department of Transportation, to accept
a grant in the amount of$39,642 for the design, permitting and
bidding of Runway 9-27 pavement restoration at the Immokalee
Regional Airport, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
Resolution authorizing execution of Supplemental Agreement One to
Joint Participation Agreement No. AQ122 with the Florida
Department of Transportation to provide additional funds in the
amount of$6,121 for security system upgrades at the Marco Island
Executive Airport, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Parkinson Association Luncheon on September 12,
2012. The sum of$11.48 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Monthly Breakfast
Meeting at Roma Havana Restaurant in Immokalee, FL on May 2,
2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Monthly Breakfast
meeting at Roma Havana Restaurant in Immokalee, FL on August 1,
2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 11
October 9, 2012
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) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 8, 2012 through September 14, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 15, 2012 through September 21, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
3) Tax Collector request for advance commissions in accordance with
Florida Statute 192.102 (1) for FY2013.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Termination of Interlocal Agreement
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
the Collier County Airport Authority for the Immokalee Business
Development Center.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution formally electing the
Medicaid Settlement Option set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Amended
Stipulation Providing for Dismissal of Some Parties and Abatement of
Case for Remaining Parties filed in Alachua County, Florida et al v.
Elizabeth Dudek, et al; Case No.: 2012-CA-1328, Second Judicial
Circuit, Leon County, Florida, as it relates to litigation challenging the
constitutionality of Chapter 2012-33, Laws of Florida (HB 5301) and
authorize the chairman to sign the Medicaid Payment Plan Agreement
with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA).
Page 12
October 9, 2012
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution setting forth its intent to
terminate the Employment Agreement with the Executive Manager to
the Board of County Commissioners.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Collier County Ordinance
No. 91-107, as amended (The Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
Municipal Service Taxing Unit), to incorporate provisions to facilitate the
construction of roadways and roadway improvements within the MSTU
boundaries.
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget. This is a Companion to Item #16E3.
C. This item has been continued to the October 23, 2012 BCC meeting.
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required
to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20120001606,
to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the Public interest in a
portion of State Road No. 29 (a.k.a. Copeland Avenue South) a 200-foot
public road right-of-way, being a part of Section 23, Township 53 South,
Range 29 East, Collier County Florida being more specifically shown in
Exhibit A.
Page 13
October 9,2012
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 14
October 9,2012
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session.
Would you please stand for the invocation by Father Tim Navin
of the San Marco Catholic Church.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
FATHER NAVIN: Good morning. Let us pray.
Oh, God, our creator, from your provident hand, we have
received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You
have called us as your people and given us the right and duty to
worship you, the only true God.
We ask you to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious
liberty, give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our
freedoms when they are threatened, give us courage in making our
voices heard on behalf of the rights of your church and the freedom of
conscience of all people of faith.
Grant we pray, oh, Heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to
all your sons and daughters so that with every trial withstood and
every danger overcome for the sake of our children, grandchildren,
and all who come after us, this great land will always be one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Grant your grace to us to respond as faithful citizens in our
community. We ask for eyes of faith so that we might see each other
as brothers and sisters, one and equal in dignity, especially those who
are victims of abuse, violence, deceit, and poverty.
We ask for ears that will hear the cries of children unborn and
those abandoned; men and women oppressed by violence and justice.
We ask for minds and hearts that are open to hearing the voice of
Page 2
October 9, 2012
those, including these commissioners, to lead us all to the common
good.
We pray for discernment so that we might choose leaders to hear
your word, live your love, and keep to the ways of your truth. Guide
us in these and all things to the ways of your kingdom of merciful
justice, sublime truth, and lasting peace.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Father Navin.
Will you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
FATHER NAVIN: You're welcome, sir.
Item #1B
DECLARATION OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO PARTICIPATE BY
TELEPHONE — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This morning Commissioner Coletta will
be joining us by telephone subject to the approval of a motion to be
made by any of the board members to approve his participation by
telephone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve his participation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll need a finding of extraordinary
circumstances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should I say that in my motion,
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Page 3
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Due to extraordinary
circumstances.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to approve participation by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there a second?
I will second it.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask what the extraordinary
circumstances are?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's out of town and has a schedule
conflict, and I verified with the County Attorney that that qualifies as
an extraordinary circumstance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's the opinion from the Attorney
General, and it's a Legislative finding by the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That if you're just out of town we
can go ahead and vote on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: If that's the will of the board, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he there, Ian?
Page 4
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You can't talk right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't hear me, I take it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we can hear you Jim, everything's
okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will proceed with the agenda now.
County Manager, will you please tell us about changes to the
agenda this morning.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners' meeting of October 9, 2012.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 13A to the October
23rd --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-fifth.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: -- to the October 23, 2012, BCC Meeting. That
request comes from the Clerk of the Court's Office.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16D9 from your
consent agenda. That request is made by county staff.
And the last change is to continue Item 16K1 indefinitely, and
that request is made by the Executive Director of your Immokalee
CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 5
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Those are all the changes I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I have a question about the
first one. What is the problem with Item 13A?
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure. You have to ask the Clerk
Representative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is at least the second time this has
been postponed.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get an explanation?
MS. KINZEL: Sure Commissioner, Thanks.
For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk's Office, we had
another meeting with staff yesterday. We had some other fact finding
to do, and so we agreed in that meeting with staff that we would
continue it one more time, and we'll come to one resolution to bring
back to the board at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you tell us what the problem
is and what facts are missing?
MS. KINZEL: County staff was going to review both the video
and the bid -- not bid -- the solicitation meeting of the ranking
schedules.
Our office had gone through the CCNA review. I think we're
okay on that as far as the ranking, but we are looking at the scope
change that was brought up as an issue on the contract and whether
that scope change alters the proposal or the solicitation that was put
out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the scope change was the reason it
was originally delayed. Why does it take four weeks to make a
decision on a scope change?
MS. KINZEL: Well -- and, Commissioner, I'd like to put on the
record, the original item that was brought back in March that had
nothing to do with the clerk's office review. Our first request for
review or that the board had some issues with the item was the
Page 6
October 9, 2012
September 11th meeting, and so it has taken us a little bit to get staff
together on those meetings. But going back to the original issue from
the March, to bring it back to September, was not a Clerk of Courts
issue.
So I'm not familiar with all of the nuances to that one. But since
the September 11th vote and the request that there were some issues
that they wanted the clerk to look at, we've been working with staff
since then to resolve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, have you had any
trouble getting staff together to address this issue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager?
MR. OCHS: County Manager?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or County Manager, I'm sorry.
MS. KINZEL: I don't want to indicate there was trouble
Commissioner, there's no trouble.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute, you know, these things
happen too frequently. They take too long. You might be right; there
might be a problem, but it should not take us months to resolve these
problems.
And we need to get to the bottom of these things because people
are waiting to be awarded a contract. So can you shed some light on
this?
MR. OCHS: Well, sir, first of all, the contracts have been
awarded, but we've agreed to withhold issuing any notice to proceed
or work orders until we have this review completed.
My staff is available and have been working right along with the
Clerk's staff and the County Attorney's Office. We're anxious to move
this forward to resolution.
And, again, I don't know, outside of what Ms. Kinzel just
presented, that there's anything that our staff is not available to resolve
at any time. We've been available, and I think it's just taken some
time to work through some of the questions.
Page 7
October 9, 2012
But, frankly, next meeting, if we don't have any resolution, it
would be my recommendation to the board that we just move ahead
and execute the work orders for the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me ask you a question. Are
you aware of any information that the clerk needs from you that you
haven't provided?
MR. OCHS: Unless there is something new that came out of
yesterday's meeting -- of course, I had one-on-one meetings with the
commissioners, so I wasn't privy to that meeting. But I know that all
of that is part of the record, and I'm going to ask Crystal for some
clarification.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner, I do want to clarify. It isn't
as though staff is not providing information. We are working through
a rather complicated bid process -- and I keep saying bid, I'm sorry --
solicitation process, so there are nuances that have been brought up at
different meetings that we're trying to make sure we've crossed all the
T's and dotted the I's so we can promptly make payment.
And that, we thought, was the request of the board, and that's
why we continue to work to resolve it. But there's no indication on
our part that staff is not providing information or unwilling to meet,
but we -- it's taken longer than the last agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, let me just say to you that from the
staffs perspective, we believe we have a valid enforceable contract
that meets the clerk's pre-audit requirement. We haven't heard
anything from the County Attorney to the contrary or to the Clerk,
frankly, at this point. They're still evaluating it.
But we don't have anything else, I don't believe, to offer beyond
what we've provided so far. And, again, we support the continuance
for one more meeting, but one meeting only.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have anything to add to this,
Page 8
October 9, 2012
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to add a comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Yeah, I -- for purposes
of explaining this to the public, this was a contract that came before us
for almost a hundred million dollars; 96 million, actually, is what the
total project would have been; 36 million in engineering for 60 million
in construction, which I found unacceptable.
Obviously, the engineering costs seemed excessive in light of
$60 million in construction costs, and that was back in March.
Then this contract came forward after the selection of the -- or
the ranking of the various candidates, and it was re-presented two
meetings ago -- was it one meeting ago? One meeting ago,
September 11. It was represented September 11th, and all of a sudden
that project which, in total, engineering plus construction, would have
been 96 million and change to just under 50 million, okay. So as a
consequence of saying, "no, that's not acceptable," we have a $50
million change.
But the contracts -- this -- it didn't go back out for bid. So the
question came up, is the CCNA being violated? Because, obviously,
it sounds like there is a material change in scope.
Well, yesterday, for the first time, new information was presented
as to how this contract was, in fact, changed. How what was to be
done was changed, and there are material changes in what is going to
be done by these engineers.
And as a consequence, how these engineers were evaluated
against what is being done would also have changed. And that, to me,
is the question.
Now, secondarily, it appears that while staff represented to us
that this contract was going to reduce from 96 million in total to just
Page 9
October 9, 2012
under 50 million doesn't seem to be the case. So what's going on
here?
Now, as a taxpayer of Collier County, I would think that you
would want this board to be prudent and ensure that it is absolutely a
legally let contract when we are dealing with tens of millions of
dollars.
So rushing a contract through when so much is at stake, I think, is
irresponsible, and it should be done properly, correctly, with all the I's
dotted, all the T's crossed, and then the work should proceed further.
There will be no adverse effect on the system. There will be no
adverse effect on the services provided by that system as a
consequence of the request for additional information and further
analysis by the Clerk of Courts in conjunction with the county
attorney. So I support both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have any
comment to that?
MR. OCHS: Only that I believe the contract was not rushed
through. It was legally entered into by the board, and no one has
presented any evidence to me at this point to the contrary, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we will find out. As a
consequence their analysis, we will see if that is, in fact, the case.
And that is what I am looking for validation. I'm not casting
judgment, but I want assurances that it is being done in the correct
fashion, because, you know, literally, a change of $50 million and
changes in scope where it, in the beginning, says we're going to do all
basins to we're only going to do 8 percent of the basins, when we're
going to do all pumps 100 percent to where we're only going to --
which is, like, 119 pumps, to where we're only going to do 20 pumps,
100 percent raises big questions in my mind.
MR. OCHS: Sir, again, this is our Engineering Services, not
Construction Services that enter into --
Page 10
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood, and --
MR. OCHS: -- the type of engineering review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. OCHS: The type of engineer design work, as I understand
it, is similar whether you do 10 pumps or a thousand pumps. So that's
-- I suppose that's what we're going to iron out here over the next two
weeks, and I'm going to have this in front of you for final resolution in
two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any changes to the agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And today we'll start with
Commissioner Henning for ex parte disclosure for the summary and
consent agendas and for any other changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes to today's
agenda. I do have ex parte communication on 17C; received the
Planning Commission's and staffs report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. And I have no additional
changes to the agenda. And as far as ex parte disclosure's concerned, I
have none.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes or
corrections to the agenda. On the consent agenda, I have no
disclosures. On the summary agenda, 17C, I read staffs report and
also of CCPC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
On 11C, I received staff report, I had meetings, emails, and calls;
on 16A4, no disclosures; and on 17C, no disclosures.
With respect to the agenda, Leo, the item regarding the recycle
Page 11
October 9, 2012
facility, the hazardous materials recycle facility --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. 16C1 on your agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, could you move that to the
general, please?
MR. OCHS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, also, the item related to Mr.
Mitchell's severance, could you also move that from consent to the
general, the resolution on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And where are those going to go?
MR. OCHS: 16C1, Commissioners, will become Item 11E on
your agenda, and 16K3 will become 12A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the 16K3 that has
become 12A, Commissioner Coletta, I believe, had a request to hear
that at a time-certain. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Leo.
I have an appointment I have to go to from 12 to a little bit after
2, and I would appreciate very much if my fellow commissioners
would put a time-certain on the 12H (sic) there for the morning hours.
MR. OCHS: It's 12A, sir. Mr. Chairman, 10 a.m. or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. Is 10 a.m. going to be too
early?
MR. OCHS: Eleven a.m. Let's try it for 11. Will that work for
the board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can do that, yeah. Let's try it for 11
a.m.
MR. OCHS: Eleven a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait just a moment.
Commissioner Coletta, your appointment conflict is at 12 o'clock,
starting at 12 o'clock?
Page 12
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twelve o'clock until 2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There might be the possibility
this will go longer than that. Why don't we try at 10?
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What time?
MR. OCHS: 10 a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 10 a.m., okay.
MR. OCHS: 12A will be heard at 10 a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then do we have a motion to
approve the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't made my disclosures
yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No disclosure on the consent or
summary agenda and no changes to the agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we could have just skipped that
entirely, couldn't we?
Okay, thank you.
Is there a motion to approve the -- today's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve today's regular,
consent, and summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the agenda as
amended by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
Page 13
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Page 14
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 9,2012
Continue Item 13A to the October 23,2012 BCC Meeting: This item continued from the September 25,
2012 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to discuss Item 11E from the Board's September 11,2012
agenda regarding"Wastewater Basin Program"contracts. (Requested by Clerk of Courts)
Withdraw Item 16D9: Recommendation to approve Amendment 2 to Contract No.11-5753,
Electronic Fareboxes for the Collier Area Transit(CAT)Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)
Program,and approve the Software License Agreement between Fare Logistics Corporation and
Collier County. (Staffs request)
Continue Item 16K1 Indefinitely: Recommendation to approve the Termination of Interlocal Agreement
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Airport Authority
for the Immokalee Business Development Center. (Requested by the Immokalee CRA Executive Director)
10/9/2012 8:36 AM
October 9, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 11-12, 2012 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to the minutes of the
September 11th and the 12th, 2012, BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve as written by
Commissioner Fiala. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2012 AS FIRE
FIGHTER APPRECIATION MONTH FOR THE FUNDRAISING
Page 15
October 9, 2012
EFFORTS FOR MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION #516.
ACCEPTED BY BACKY GOODLET, MDA REPRESENTATIVE
AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM FIRE STATIONS IN COLLIER
COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The first proclamation is 4A, a
proclamation recognizing October 2012 as Firefighter Appreciation
Month for the fundraising efforts from Muscular Dystrophy
Association No. 516. To be accepted by Becky Goodlet, MDA
representative, and Jason O'Conner (phonetic).
This item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
Please step forward and receive your award.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to get this? That's yours. If
you'll stand up here in the front, we'll get a picture of you.
Congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for what you do. Thanks a
lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry to sit down. I didn't mean
to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. How much did you
raise?
MS. GOODLET: This year they've raised $1.3 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great, thank you.
Item #4B
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2012 AS BLINDNESS AWARENESS
MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY KATHLEEN
PECK AND DAVID WEIGEL OF THE LIGHTHOUSE OF
Page 16
October 9, 2012
COLLIER, INCORPORATED — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4B is a proclamation recognizing October 2012 as
Blindness Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by
Kathleen Peck and David Weigel of the Lighthouse of Collier,
Incorporated.
This item is sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
Please come forward.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Kathleen, why don't you take that.
David, good to see you.
MS. PECK: Hi, I'm Kathleen Peck with the Lighthouse of
Collier, and David and I would like to thank the Board of County
Commissioners, and we'd also like to thank the fine staff at the Collier
County -- Collier Area Transit and Para Transit. We deal with a lot of
the staff, but we deal with them on a regular basis, and they help bring
clients to our center so we can help them remain independent with
their vision loss.
So, again, thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for the good work you're
doing.
MS. PECK: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2012 AS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY LINDA OBERHAUS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND
CHILDREN; SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK; AND ASSISTANT
STATE ATTORNEY RICH MONTECALVO — ADOPTED
Page 17
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4C is a proclamation
designating October 2012 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, executive
director of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children; Sheriff Kevin
Rambosk; and Assistant State Attorney Rich Montecalvo.
This item's sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Job well done.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Linda, you want to say something?
MS. OBERHAUS: Thank you, Commission and -- for your
support and also, Chairman Coyle.
I just -- my name is Linda Oberhaus. I'm the executive director
of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children. And I also want to
thank both the Sheriffs Office and the State Attorney's Office for their
support on a day-to-day basis ensuring that victims in Collier County
are safe and that perpetrators of domestic violence are held
accountable for their crimes.
Also, during October is National Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. There'll be a variety of activities throughout Collier County
just trying to raise awareness about this issue.
And as part of that effort, all the law enforcement agencies and
our EMS agency as well will be promoting awareness through
magnets that they'll be putting on each of their vehicles, all of their
fleets. So you should be able to see information to raise awareness
throughout the community.
Also, for those interested in participating in some of the events
during October, you can visit the shelter's website at naplesshelter.org.
Thank you so much.
Page 18
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Linda.
(Applause)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I can get a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
proclamations as presented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamations by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED BUDGET
PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET. ACCEPTED BY MARK ISACKSON, DIRECTOR OF
CORPORATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND
THE BUDGET STAFF — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation -- a distinguished budget
presentation award for Fiscal Year 2012 from the Government
Finance Officers Association presented to the Office of Management
Page 19
October 9, 2012
and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson, director of corporate
financial management services, and the budget staff.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job. You guys do a great
job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good work, guys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this all your staff, Mark?
MR. ISACKSON: This is it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're really overstaffed. You only have
to do the budget one time a year.
MR. OCHS: Not the way he does it.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Father Tim is still here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, good.
MR. ISACCSON: Commissioners, if I may, just a couple of
comments. I want to thank the board, first of all, for their leadership
and guidance as we go through these annual budget processes. I want
to thank the county manager for putting up with myself and my staff
for all these years.
The constitutional officers certainly are acknowledged for their
work and participation in the process as well as their fiscal staff, our
division administrators and their fiscal staff and, finally, our office. It
is quite small, but these faces are pretty familiar. They've been around
for a long time. Susan Usher, Therese Stanley, Sherry Kimball, Ed
Finn, and Randy Greenwald are all part of our process, and they make
my job a lot easier. So thank you again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mark.
(Applause)
Page 20
October 9, 2012
Item #5B
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING THE VALIANT LIFESAVING
EFFORTS OF TWO OFF-DUTY FIREFIGHTERS FROM THE
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT,
ENGINEER/PARAMEDIC DUSTIN BEATTY AND
ENGINEER/PARAMEDIC AL MUNOZ — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation recognizing the valiant
lifesaving efforts of two off-duty firefighters from the City of Marco
Island Fire Rescue Department, Engineer/Paramedic Dustin Beatty
and Engineer/Paramedic Al Munoz.
And Commissioner Fiala will take it from here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Come on up fellows.
And if you don't mind, I want to read this before I stand up.
But you know what, I've known Dustin since he was a little boy.
Isn't that something? He and my son used to water ski together ever
so long ago.
On September 18th at approximately 10 a.m., while traveling
from an off-duty training course, Engineer/Paramedic Dustin Beatty
and Engineer/Paramedic Al Munoz witnessed a vehicle roll over on
I-75 into a wooded area. They immediately stopped to render aid
prior to the arrival of any emergency personnel.
The two approached the overturned truck and found the driver
unrestrained, lying against the dashboard windshield of the
upside-down vehicle. They quickly realized the hazards present and
the condition of the patient and took action to remove the patient from
the vehicle.
To accomplish this, they removed the windshield from the
severely damaged vehicle to gain access to the patient, removed the
patient from the vehicle, and began assessing the patient's injuries
prior to the arrival of FHP, Collier County EMS, East Naples, and
Page 21
October 9, 2012
Golden Gate Fire Resources.
Treatment was further provided upon arrival of the responding
fire and EMS units. The patient questioned the EMS personnel asking
who removed him from the vehicle. An EMS supervisor advised him
it was two off-duty firefighters from Marco Island.
The patient expressed his sincere gratitude. The captain from
East Naples was so impressed that she immediately called Marco
Island Fire Rescue department stating that their personnel did an
awesome job and should be commended for their valiant lifesaving
efforts.
This incident reflects the quality of all Collier County fire rescue
personnel no matter what department they work for and that no matter
what time, on or off duty, they are there for our citizens and the
citizens of this county.
Let's give these guys a big hand.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the city council do the same
thing for you?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow, that's great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so proud to be able to present
this to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait. You have to have a picture.
MR. BEATTY: Thank you.
MR. MUNOZ: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2012 TO THE NAPLES AIRPORT
Page 22
October 9, 2012
AUTHORITY. ACCEPTED BY CORMAC GIBLIN, CHAIR;
SHEILA DUGAN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; AND TED
SOLIDAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5C is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for October 2012 to the Naples Airport
Authority. To be accepted by Cormac Giblin, chair; Sheila Dugan,
deputy executive director; and Ted Soliday, executive director.
Congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How are you? You may as well take
this, huh?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One more.
Okay. Somebody want to say something? Okay. Cormac, good.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman,
County Manager. I'm Cormac Giblin, Chair of the City of Naples
Airport Authority. We thank you and the Chamber of Commerce for
this special award.
Just a few brief words about the City of Naples Airport. We're a
certified air carrier airport, home to flight schools, air charter
operators, corporate aviation, and non-aviation businesses, as well as
fire resources services, mosquito control, car rental agencies, and the
Collier County Sheriffs Aviation Unit.
All funds used for the airport's operation, maintenance, and
improvements are generated from activities at the airport or at other
airports around the country through federal and state grants. The
airport receives no property tax dollars.
During the 2011 fiscal year, we accommodated more than 84,000
takeoffs and landings, and the Florida Department of Transportation
values the airport's economic impact to the community of Collier
County at more than $273 million a year.
Page 23
October 9, 2012
I've been on the board now for a little over five years, and during
just those five years, we have put over $20 million back into the
economy of Collier County and Naples through various capital
improvement projects, including repaving, building new buildings,
remodeling buildings, paving our safety areas, water management,
painting, plumbing, everything, and we're very -- as a board, we're
very happy with that to put the people of Collier County back to work,
again, by investing over $20 million just in the past few years.
I'd like to invite everyone watching here and at home to --
October 18th we're hosting the Chamber of Commerce's Business
After Five event out at the airport. Please come out and see us. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Cormac.
(Applause)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM LIZ PFUNDER
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGES RELATED
TO A SEWER BACKUP — MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR A
FORMAL HEARING AT THE NEXT BCC MEETING —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 6, Commissioners, on your
agenda this morning, public petitions. 6A is a public-petition request
from Liz Pfunder requesting reimbursement for damages related to a
sewer backup.
MS. PFUNDER: Hello, good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. PFUNDER: My name is Liz Pfunder. I live in Collier
County since 2000. And I had -- on February 14, 2012, I had a sewer
backup which flooded my house. And I called a plumber. It was at
Page 24
October 9, 2012
night. The plumber ran a high-velocity check through the cleanup,
and afterwards he put a camera into the pipe.
He said there was a large hump or inward dent in the six-inch
city pipe roughly 40 feet out from my property. He told me to call --
that's the city's problem, and I should call the city the next day, which
I did.
A representative arrived at my property around 12 p.m. I was
asked if I'm flowing, and then the person left. He said that the city
will take care of the problem and the pipe.
Two days later I called the city again because nobody checked
the pipe, and I didn't know what was going on. And I called the risk
management safety manager, Mr. Jerry Thorp. He asked questions.
He wrote a report. He took pictures of the damage. And, also, two
trucks arrived at my house to check the pipe. They also ran a camera
in and saw that hump or bump or inward dent.
On February 23rd I was contacted by John Power, the claim
adjustor for John Eastern's Company. Again, I told him how it
happened and how -- the details on how it happened.
On March 2nd I received a letter from John Eastern claiming --
saying that my claim has been formally denied due to lack of notice
and lack of opportunity to respond and inspect.
I was, obviously, not supposed to call a plumber at night. I was
supposed to call the city, and I didn't know that.
So on March 6, I contacted an attorney, and he sent another
request, you know, to the insurance, which was denied in June again
for the same reason.
I have paid $8,800 for the initial cleanup only to extract the water
and get the carpets out. And the cleanup continued for three days.
They had to take out drywall three feet from the floor. The floors, the
vanities, the closets, everything.
I have an estimate from Dry Zone, $46,288, which I paid 42-
already out of my pocket. I had to cash in my 401(K) and borrow
Page 25
October 9, 2012
from friends and family -- borrow money from friend and family.
I don't know what to do; that's why I came to the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could I ask a question? Ms.
Pfunder has talked about calling the city.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're the county, of course. Did you
mean that you called the county?
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It wasn't the City of Naples.
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah, sorry. I mix it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is in our Water/Sewer District,
is it?
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
MR. WALKER: For the record, Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director. Yes, sir, it is in our District.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Do you have a response?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. What I would say, initially, is that Ms.
Pfunder is represented by counsel. We have received a letter of
representation by counsel, and in those letters it does indicate intent to
begin litigation against the county.
So my recommendation to the board is that, obviously, we need
to be circumspect in the way we handle the matter, and it may be
proper for this matter to be handled through the court system because
of potential litigation. I can respond if you would like me to, but it
would be brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's hear a brief explanation.
MR. WALKER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't quite understand why it has
gotten to this point.
MR. WALKER: Okay. The event occurred on the evening of
February the 14th, late in the evening. Ms. Pfunder called Wastewater
Page 26
October 9, 2012
on the 15th, the morning of the 15th at about 11 a.m., Crews
responded at that time and checked the customer's cleanout, and it was
clear and flowing; in other words, they didn't find anything that was
out of order in terms of the cleanout.
Ms. Pfunder stated that she had a plumber clear the blockage
before the crew arrived, and the plumber told her to call the county.
At the time that the staff went out on the morning of the 15th,
there was no indication that there was damage to the home. The
reports that were given to us is that there was nothing said about
damage to the home at the time.
Ms. Pfunder called us again on the 17th, as she said.
MS. PFUNDER: Well, can I say something? Nobody came the
next day to check the pipes. It was two days later.
MR. WALKER: And, again, it's because they came out on the
morning of the 15th, and they found it clear.
MS. PFUNDER: No, nobody checked on the morning of the
15th.
MR. WALKER: Well, what I will tell you is the reports we have
from the collection staff is that they checked our collection side.
MS. PFUNDER: No.
MR. WALKER: They didn't camera it that day, okay, but they
did check the collection side, and it was flowing and running.
MS. PFUNDER: It's not true. That person was in front of my
door and said, are you flowing, and I said yes, and then he left.
I said, what do you mean with flowing? You want to come in
and see the damage? And he said, no, that's -- I will report it to a
different, you know, office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If an item is under litigation, our
policy is we'll ask questions but we will not discuss the item. If it's
under litigation, we --
MS. PFUNDER: It's not. My lawyer told me to come here and
do this in front of here.
Page 27
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But if the lawyer -- if you have a
lawyer who's working on this issue, then --
MS. PFUNDER: We haven't done anything yet, just asked the
insurance to pay the damage. Nothing else. There was nothing else
done so far.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, what is your advice
concerning this?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I know as much as you do now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if they just secured counsel
just to write a letter or if they intend to sue.
MR. WALKER: Well, the letter we received from counsel,
Michael Brown, states in the letter that they intend to pursue the
litigation if the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that ends it then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, then that ends it. I'm sorry,
it sounds like -- I understand your problem, I really do, but we are at a
point where we really cannot intervene in this process if there is
litigation, so --
MS. PFUNDER: I'm not even working with that lawyer
anymore. He just said if -- you know, if you don't get the money
back, we have to go to court; that's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PFUNDER: There's nothing going on with litigation. It was
just said that we might pursue through the court.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we have a letter from your lawyer, he
is clearly representing you.
MR. KLATZKOW: One approach is staff brings this back next
agenda with a recommendation. If, indeed, there's pending litigation,
the recommendation will be that we do nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion we do that.
Page 28
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To explain to you what happens, under
these kinds of petitions, we seldom, if ever, make a decision while
you're here making the presentation, okay. The reason for that is, it
takes us time to gather the information so that we can make a proper
decision.
So our normal process is to make a decision, do we want to hear
this at a formal meeting and get all of the information presented, or do
we want to discard the issue?
In your case, the motion here is to have this scheduled for a full
public hearing at the next meeting -- I would hope we could do this at
the next meeting -- and hopefully then we will have all the data we
need to make a decision, and we will try to make an equitable decision
at that point in time.
Do you understand --
MS. PFUNDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what we're doing? Okay.
So there's a motion by Commissioner Hiller to bring this back for
a full hearing. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Question, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. From what I can determine
from the lady's presentation, what she's asking for is to let the
insurance company know that they should be paying for it. She's not
asking us for money. She's asking for the insurance company to pay
for it, right?
MR. WALKER: Well --
MS. PFUNDER: County --
MR. WALKER: -- Commissioner, we are self-insured,
Page 29
October 9, 2012
obviously. This is going to come out of taxpayers' funds.
And, again, let me finish my presentation, because I didn't get all
the facts in. When we were contacted again on the 17th, a
representative of our office went out. That line was scoped and a
camera was put in it. They did not find a defect in that line. There's
no hump. There's a slight dip, but the report was that it was
serviceable and not in need of repair, okay.
The plumber claims that he came out, could not find the cleanout
on the house, which we find very difficult to understand. Our
representative went out there and found the cleanout in five seconds.
He proceeded, as he said, to go into our side of the cleanout, which
he's not supposed to do.
What ended up happening is by the time we scoped that pipe and
we looked at it, there was no defect and no blockage found in that
pipe; therefore, we cannot confirm liability, and we can't assume
liability because we can't find causation.
If we can't determine causation, we don't have a legal basis to pay
the claim. So we're talking about a $50,000 check, essentially. That's
the situation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait till it comes back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
All in favor of the motion to bring it back for a full hearing,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
Page 30
October 9, 2012
It will come back for a full hearing at next meeting, and we will,
hopefully, resolve the issue at that point in time.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just one thing I'd like to ask that both of
you do. I would like to see presented at that point in time the invoice
for the repairs that you have done and a report from the person
preparing the invoice what work was done and the reason for the work
to be done.
MS. PFUNDER: Okay. I'll have it all here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you could present us with all that
information the next time -- provide it in advance so we'll have a
chance to look at it before the hearing.
MS. PFUNDER: May I leave it here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may, yes. It will become part of the
official record. You have copies of that, I hope?
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll see you next meeting. Okay.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM TIM HANCOCK
REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISH A SEPARATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTION CYCLE FOR
PETITION CP-2012-2 — MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR A
FORMAL HEARING ON A SEPARATE GMP CYCLE (DATE TO
BE DETERMINED); STAFF TO BRING BACK MODIFICATIONS
TO GMP PROCEDURES RESOLUTION — APPROVED
Page 31
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 6B is a public-petition request from Tim
Hancock requesting that the board establish a separate Growth
Management Plan adoption cycle for Petition CP2012-2. It's the
Princess Park PUD.
Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have a question now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I completely support what you
want, and the reason I support it is because the law has changed,
which does allow us to hear these Growth Management Plan
amendments when we want to hear them. And I think that our local
ordinance needs to be changed to mirror the statute.
So I understand what your petition is, and I'm going to make a
motion that we bring it back, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that we allow staff to come
forward at the next meeting to propose -- and I'm sorry that Jeff isn't
here, so I'll include Jeff in that when he returns -- to propose a change
to the ordinance to allow for this on an ongoing basis. This shouldn't
be just for you. It should be for all developments out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Can I offer a friendly amendment
that might make it even better?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely, and especially the
friendly part. I like that, you know. We're moving in the right
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an unusual motion for me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Listen, there's still hope for
Commissioner Coyle. He obviously has potential for improvement,
and I'm going to encourage it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Will you help me, Tim?
Page 32
October 9, 2012
MR. HANCOCK: All I can say is there's life after the dais.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now you're starting to sound --
well, I'm not going to go there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This will not be the only petitioner who
will ask for this sort of thing to happen. And rather than scheduling
multiple meetings throughout the year for changes to the Growth
Management Plan, I'd like to see the staff communicate publicly that
we would like to have anyone who seeks a change to the Growth
Management Plan and try to put them on one or two agendas during
the next year, and that will give us at least two cycles.
And we'll try to deal with a number of these at the same time
because, clearly, one of the problems here is that we have details in
the Growth Management Plan that probably shouldn't be in the
Growth Management Plan. And we've been trying for years to try to
rectify that problem.
And my understanding in reviewing some of these is that it's
some of the older PUDs that are troubled by some of those details.
And if there is a way that staff can find to do a general change in the
Growth Management Plan provisions, it might save everyone a lot of
time and money, including us.
And I would just like to, as part of the motion to ask staff to
come back to us with recommendations as to how is -- how we can
most efficiently deal with this rather large problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. I think what we
should do is add a provision that just sunsets the entire LDC and start
again. Makes it easy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a Growth Management Plan.
MR. HANCOCK: Can I ask that in a separate motion, please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Sorry, sorry. Just sunset it,
right? I was talking about the LDC.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I don't want
to get in the way of a speedy thank you and a swift kick out the door.
Page 33
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: But if you would kindly ask staff to make
sure that this particular petition be placed on a separate cycle, we're
trying to avoid having to get lumped in and going to the Planning
Commission and all the advertising costs associated with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: So as long as, within your motion, this is set
aside, if you will, for a separate cycle -- and it could be determined
later as to what that cycle is -- that would be important for us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The issue for him is that he's
awaiting an official interpretation from the staff, and the change to the
Growth Management Plan might not be necessary if he gets the
appropriate official interpretation.
So all he's trying to do is get a placeholder for the
Comprehensive Plan modification that he would use then only if he
didn't get the right official interpretation, so -- but I think
Commissioner Hiller's motion will adequately deal with that, and
maybe we could just clarify it for staff, that we create a new cycle, a
single cycle, for this item as well as others that might come up in the
interim period, and then we'll solve this problem, and hopefully we
can solve some other problems at the same time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may. I would like the county
attorney to validate that we can actually do what Commissioner Coyle
is suggesting under what our current law is, because I wasn't sure that
we actually could do that. Aren't we -- I mean, I don't know -- can we
MR. KLATZKOW: Specifically --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- do what Commissioner Coyle
says, which is bring this project back without modification to anything
fora --
MR. KLATZKOW: You used to have a requirement on the state
statute where you would amend your Comprehensive Plan I think it
Page 34
October 9, 2012
was no more than twice a year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's gone away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So after that how many times you want to
hear it is now up to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my question is, do we have a
local ordinance that mirrors the old statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a resolution, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what I'd like to ask is that you
verify what our governing law is locally now. It may be in conflict
with the statute, but it's more restrictive, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's more restrictive. It's not in conflict.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my point is, if it doesn't allow
us to deviate from that, then we would have to amend either the
ordinance or the resolution to allow that change to go forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And I've had this discussion with
Mike in the past.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, interim planning zoning director.
The resolution that governs the Growth Management Plan cycles
is 97-431, I believe, and it says there's one cycle per year, and at the
board's direction a second cycle can be added.
You're correct, Commissioner, 72.07 has now made the Growth
Management Plan unlimited at will, so to speak. We are a little bit
more restrictive with our current resolution. There's been discussion
with David, David Weeks, the comprehensive planning manager, to
basically bring back options.
And what I'm hearing from the Board of County Commissioners,
it sounds like you would like a system of two cycles per year with the
opportunity at will to add an additional cycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my suggestion was that we try to
stay away from having many, many cycles during a year every time
Page 35
October 9, 2012
someone comes in and says, wow, I need a new cycle. I'd like to get
my project in there for consideration.
I would like to see us try to manage it more effectively and
accomplish these things as efficiently as possible. And so if there are
numerous petitioners who want to seek a growth plan amendment, and
there are certain provisions that are troublesome, that we find it
appropriate to remove from the Growth Management Plan and put it in
our zoning ordinances. Then it makes it a lot easier for everybody.
People don't have to pay to go through that process then, and we will
have had a public hearing to consider those changes, and we'll get
them done at one time.
Now, I know that we're not smart enough, I'm not smart enough,
to know what all of those things are. It's going to make a little work,
and -- but bottom line, let's try to do it efficiently rather than handling
it individually for every organization that comes up here, and we'll set
up a new cycle. That just doesn't make sense to me, but -- okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, may we bring that back at your
November meeting? I don't know that that creates any hardship for
the petitioner.
MR. HANCOCK: Currently, the Planning Commission, I
believe, is scheduled for November 1.
MR. BOSI: And November 1, the 2012 cycle which Top Hat
Auto would be associated with, is going to the Planning Commission.
But that doesn't -- that would -- that wouldn't prevent the Board
of County Commissioners from directing staff to -- if that OI
determination with -- I spoke with David Weeks. He believes at the
end of this week we will be done completing the OI, and we'll make
the determination as to whether the Growth Management Plan
amendment is even necessary for the Top Hat Auto.
But at that time, if it does -- if it is required, at that time the
Board of County -- when we bring back the updated resolution that
removes our current restrictions, the board would be at their leisure to
Page 36
October 9, 2012
be able to direct this second cycle to be able to accommodate the Top
Hat Auto and any --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is your timing for the growth plan
amendment -- your desired timing for the growth plan amendment in
the event it is necessary?
MR. HANCOCK: In the event it's necessary, it would be
triggered within 30 to 60 days of now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: And so my request would be at this point --
and maybe we can bifurcate this into two issues. One is that on the
next board agenda we ask that you simply take this particular item and
place it on a separate cycle, dates to be determined. That would keep
us from getting wrapped into the November 1 Planning Commission
hearings and then the larger issue which you've asked staff to address,
give that a couple more weeks to occur, and that can determine those
dates in which this would then come back through, along with any
others that may at the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I would ask the motion maker
if we could bifurcate the motion into those two sections.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And with respect to the second
part of the motion, which is how often we should address this cycle, I
think we ought to change the resolution or the law to mirror the statute
and say not less than three hearings annually.
MR. KLATZKOW: There is no statutory number now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's what I'm saying, that
we should have a resolution that mirrors that says -- that basically says
we can have as many as we want but not less than three a year.
MR. HANCOCK: You could include that in your administrative
code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what we could do is do any
Page 37
October 9, 2012
additional one by vote of the board, that if we have a majority vote of
the board if a unique situation comes up, that we have the ability to,
you know, do it off that cycle of three.
But I think six months is too long. I mean, delaying businesses
from being able to move forward with what development they need
just because we have amendment cycles only twice a year is -- I mean,
six months is a long time. But three times a year, you know, you're
starting to move into a more reasonable time frame.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, thank
you. That was my concern is, you know, the public has a right to
address their government.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they're doing this and
paying a heck of a lot of money doing it. It should be set upon staffs
time to review. If they have time to review, just like a land-use
change, they should be able to address their elected officials.
So that's what I would like to see. I don't want to limit it to any
specific cycles.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's going to be a lot of
cases out there -- hopefully, there will be a lot of cases where we are
going to have to take action for the betterment of the community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. And should be no less
than three, and we should be able to do it as much as is needed, and
we can vote on that, whether, you know, something is so pressing that
it should be done at the point in time as presented in this case or wait
to that next cycle, which might be, you know, four months off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's no different than a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, it really isn't.
MR. BOSI: And the state statutes, as we've said a number of
times, we can make that adjustment to the resolution to have it open
Page 38
October 9, 2012
ended, and then the number of cycles that we would process on a
yearly basis could be a matter of policy or the direction of the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it seems -- it seems very inefficient
to decide in advance how many cycles you're going to have, and then
you schedule those cycles without knowing how many are needed.
That's the problem. So let's -- let's do what we said we were going to
do, which is bifurcate this motion into two motions. One, to set a
cycle for -- a separate cycle, date to be determined, for this specific
project. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then what was the second part of
the motion that you wanted? That was pretty much it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The second part of the motion is --
no. The second part of the motion is to direct staff and the county
attorney to come back with a modification to the ordinance or
resolution that exists with respect to the timing of these hearings to
parallel the statute by giving us the unlimited ability to hear when we
want but to consider efficiencies by saying at least no -- at least three,
and we're, you know, guaranteed three or more, if needed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can debate that when it comes back,
so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to -- I'd like to hear from
Bruce. Bruce, you know, you represent so many developers, and you
practically know, you know, what makes sense and what doesn't. And
I agree with Commissioner Henning. I mean, staff is there to serve the
public, and we shouldn't do anything to impede your ability to come
forward and present to us.
What would you like? I mean, what was -- and the only reason I
ask you at this point -- because we're not making a decision. We're
asking staff to come back to us with recommendations, but your input
would be invaluable.
Page 39
October 9, 2012
MR. ANDERSON: I think three is a good number to work with,
certainly. Tim asked me to make this point, that most of these will be
coming as companion items to PUD amendments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is the point that
Commissioner Henning made.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. So when you decide on timing for
different ones, it's going to affect the zoning portion as well, not just
the comprehensive plan part.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, actually, you're making me
think about a different perspective, and that is if they all come at once,
it puts a tremendous burden on staff because all of a sudden you have
this cluster of, you know, large issues facing staff at one time;
whereas, if they actually are scattered through the year, then you have
a more even work flow, and it's less burdensome, because the staff
will be able to give, you know, each project its proper attention as
opposed to competing with other projects on time.
Is that your thought, too, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So these are just ideas for
discussion purposes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got two motions. One
motion is to create a separate cycle date to be determined to hear this
project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The other part of the motion is to
have staff come back to the board with recommendations concerning
how best to handle Growth Management Plan amendments under the
new guidelines, state statutes, and to recommend the resolution of any
conflicts between the state statutes and our own regulations here in
Collier County. Is that a fair restatement?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, that's a fair restatement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 40
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, I haven't had an
opportunity to speak at all, so I'm going to just say now, because
everybody's done it right, and I'm just -- I'm in total agreement. And I
want to say that this looks like what we're wanting to achieve.
Number one, business friendly. We're trying to let the business
community know we're responsive and, secondly, to encourage
economic development. We've done both of that with both of these
suggestions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who seconded my motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you? Okay, thanks. I just
wanted to be sure -- for the record to make sure we had that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a time-certain?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, you have a time-certain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we vote on the second part of it
or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was all together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2012-188: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
Page 41
October 9, 2012
RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH ITS INTENT TO TERMINATE
THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE EXECUTIVE
MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: This is Item 12A on your agenda. It was previously
16K3. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution setting forth its
intent to terminate the employment agreement with the executive
manager to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, you wanted
this pulled?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Now, the reason I wanted
this pulled -- I had a very, very nice meeting with the county attorney,
Mr. Mitchell, and the head of payroll from the Clerk's Office to
address the contract so I could better understand, you know, what was
happening and what could be done and, you know, how the severance
payment could actually get paid. And I want to share with you a little
bit about what was discussed in that meeting so you understand what I
know and where we are at this point in time.
When Mr. Mitchell presented the executive summary related to
his position in his evaluation on Thursday prior to the last board
meeting, what the executive summary presented was a request for a
raise. And, in fact, what Mr. Mitchell wanted -- and I'm sharing with
you exactly what we talked about, and you'll see where I'm going with
this.
What Mr. Mitchell wanted was for his base pay to be increased
from what it was to a different grade, which basically would change
his base pay from -- Jeff, can you help me with this? I believe it was
-- his current pay is, like, 67,000, and it would raise him to about
83,000.
Basically, a $15,000 increase, and he also included his
evaluations, which were part of this whole request, and those
Page 42
October 9, 2012
evaluations showed that, you know, he had done well, and all of us,
the entire board, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning,
Coyle, Fiala, and myself, all gave him, you know, very positive
evaluations.
Now, I came into the meeting expecting to vote on the approval
of his evaluations and, of course, as you know, I had recommended
that we defer any decisions about pay raises and contract extensions
till the new board was seated, but I had done the evaluation portion
because that was due at this time, or at that time, I should say.
And while I thought there was going to be some discussion on
the part of the other commissioners about this pay raise of 15,000,
instead what happened was Mr. Mitchell read a memorandum that said
he wanted, in effect, to be terminated and that as part of that
termination he also wanted severance. He also said he was able to do
his job, and he also recognized that he had received good evaluations,
which raised concerns by the county attorney as to whether, as a
consequence of what had transpired, the clerk could legally pay what
Mr. Mitchell expected to be paid.
And just for purposes of the record, there is a debate as to what
that payout should be. The Clerk's Office has determined that the
payout should be -- the payout in total would be about 75,000. HR, by
contrast, has come up with a different number. Their number is about
48,800. So there is a difference in opinion as to what that payout can
be.
And there still remains a question as to whether that payout can
be legally made, but that -- you know, that's an issue that the clerk has
to determine, obviously, because he's responsible to, you know,
determine that the payment being made is, in fact, legal.
And Jeff raised that point in our meeting, and he made it very
clear that he felt that the clerk was going to have issues with making
this payment and there would be a problem.
If Ian resigned, his payout would be about two thousand five --
Page 43
October 9, 2012
somewhere in the neighborhood of about $2,500. If Ian was to leave
and it would be part of a settlement agreement, then Florida Statute
limits the payout to about six weeks of total pay, which would be
significantly less than the 75,000 per the clerk's calculation.
And if he was to be terminated for cause, what's the payout, Jeff?
Sixty --
MR. KLATZKOW: If he's terminated for cause?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's six weeks also, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. If he's terminated for cause, he doesn't
get anything.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So if he's terminated for
cause, he gets nothing; if he resigns, he gets about 2,500; if he is
terminated with a settlement agreement, it's six weeks; and if he is
terminated without cause pursuant to the terms of his contract, he gets
about 75,000.
So when Ian and I were talking, you know, one of the issues for
me, based on the discussion that we had here at the dais, was, you
know, what happened between Thursday and Tuesday? Because on
Thursday he was asking for a raise, and everything was, you know,
great. And then all of a sudden on Tuesday he wanted to be
terminated and receive a payout.
So I had a very difficult time reconciling those facts in my mind.
And, you know, I asked him if it had anything to do with me. And, of
course, he was very kind and said, no, Commissioner, you know,
we've had a wonderful relationship. And we've had -- we have had a
wonderful relationship. Ian and I have had a very positive working
relationship the entire time he has been here.
And he said, no, it has nothing to do with you, Commissioner.
And I said, well, you know, what I'd like to know is why are you
doing this. I mean, I couldn't understand why he wanted to resign.
And he said, Commissioner, I can't tell you. I cannot tell you.
I'm sorry, but I cannot share that information with you.
Page 44
October 9, 2012
And I said, wow, that's difficult.
And now, earlier on I had spoken to Jeff Klatzkow, our county
attorney, prior to that meeting after Ian had made his announcement
and we had the discussion we had at the board. And Jeff had indicated
to me that he believed he understood why or knew why Ian was doing
what he was doing and why things had evolved as they had on the
board, but then in that meeting Jeff indicated he also didn't know why
Ian was doing what he was doing. And he also reiterated in that
meeting that he didn't believe that the clerk would legally be able to
pay this money that was being contemplated.
And also, just so you know, it was made clear, while Ian at one
point did say he wanted to treat this as a settlement, Jeff reminded
him, you know, this -- if you have a settlement, you're not going to get
the full money, you're only going to get six weeks, to which he
responded, well, then that's not what I want. So it, you know, went
back to the full amount but, again, you know, with that caveat that the
clerk would have a problem with it.
So I am in a really difficult position because I don't know.
Now, one other thing I will say that happened in that meeting is I
was told both by Jeff and by Ian that something was going to happen
on Friday, and neither one of them would tell me what was going to
happen on Friday. So whatever was supposed to happen on Friday, on
Monday Jeff told me did not happen but was going to happen, and
then they tried to suggest that somehow it wasn't related to this
termination, but in the context of bringing it up in this meeting, it
started to sound to me like it had a lot to do with this termination or
resignation or whatever it is, because right now I really don't know
what we're talking about. And, quite frankly, I'm being kept in the
dark.
And so it's very difficult for me to approve something when I
don't know what is going on. And I have been told that I will not be
told.
Page 45
October 9, 2012
So while I am a commissioner and a member of this board, I
don't know what's going on, and there are others who do know what's
going on.
And I'm going to ask the board. I mean, Commissioner Henning,
do you know what's going on? Do you know why Ian is doing what
he's doing, and can you explain to me what's happening here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I feel like a mushroom.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You feel like a mushroom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hidden in the dark and fed
compost.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, that's a notable quotable.
Okay. How about you? I mean, I take that as a -- you don't
know either?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I asked for something in writing
and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- didn't receive it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I learned more today than I knew
when I walked into the meeting today. I have no idea. In fact, I was
terribly surprised when he first announced it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I agree with you. I was
too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I was just taking him at his word.
I don't know anything else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, right.
How about you, Commissioner Coyle, do you know why he's --
what's going on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he explained that at the last board
meeting.
Page 46
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. He made it clear that was not
the reason. He said that there was something that happened, and he
made the comment that 10 minutes can make a difference. So it -- it
isn't as you represented or as you portrayed, and I think we really need
to understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How about you -- Commissioner
Coletta, how about you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. It wasn't
as what I portrayed. What did I portray?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the record speaks for itself.
We don't have to repeat --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. What did I portray?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's okay. We'll -- let me just
continue.
Commissioner Coletta, did you -- did you -- do you know what's
going on? Do you know why Ian is doing what he's doing? I mean,
are you aware of it, or are you in as much of the dark as I am?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's pretty obvious.
He explained it to us at the last meeting, and it's been evident for
some time.
The pressure on him and different members of staff has been
inexcusable. He just got to the point where he can't take it anymore,
and I think he's been pushed past the limits. And I do think we should
agree to his termination.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know, Commissioner
Coletta, thank you for your words; however, that is not what he told
me, the county attorney, or the head of operations and payroll for the
Clerk's Office. I mean, he made it very clear that he could not tell us
what was going on and why he did what he did, but he had reasons
that he could not disclose to us.
Page 47
October 9, 2012
So I think it's really important that we know what is going on.
And, Ian, I would be very grateful to you if you could -- I mean, if you
want to, talk to the county attorney, I mean, if this is something we
need to discuss. I mean, I was -- you know, I was -- I didn't even want
to bring this forward today because I was hoping that, you know, you
and the county attorney could continue talking and that somehow, you
know, whatever the specific issue is that occurred between Thursday
and Monday or, sorry, Thursday and Tuesday could be addressed and
somehow resolved because, obviously, there was a material change
between those two days.
So you know, as you know, I --
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- want the right thing to happen --
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and I want to work with you that
MR. MITCHELL: -- I made a statement --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but I need to know what's going
on.
MR. MITCHELL: at the last board meeting. Would you like
me to read it out again?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you want to.
MR. MITCHELL: And the thing about it is you -- I was going to
have a meeting with you, and then I found when you called the
meeting, you'd invited the county attorney. When I turned up at the
meeting, not only had you invited the county attorney, but you'd
brought a Manager from the Clerk's Department.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The payroll Manager.
MR. MITCHELL: The Payroll Manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To address the contract,
absolutely.
MR. MITCHELL: But the thing about it is, that -- to ambush me
Page 48
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it wasn't an ambush. We were
there to help.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, it was absolutely an ambush.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not at all.
MR. MITCHELL: It was absolutely an ambush. It gave me no
professional courtesy. You called me into a meeting. I turned up at
the meeting and was surprised to find the meeting constituted people
that I had no idea were going to be there, and the subject was not
going to be what it was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no.
MR. MITCHELL: Now, we can debate this all the time, but
there's a clause in my contract that says that if the board, by three
votes, decides to terminate my contract, it can do so.
And I would also like to remind you that you, yourself, have
taken advantage of that proviso in my contract, because we terminated
-- we terminated Commissioner Halas' aide without cause because that
is what was written into my contract, the ability of commissioners to
do that individually with their aides. And so you've taken advantage
of that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But -- hang on a second. Let's just
take one thing at a time. First of all, you did know that the purpose of
the meeting was to discuss your contract, and you did know Jeff was
going to be there because --
MR. MITCHELL: I knew Jeff was going to be there, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you had emails. And the reason
that the clerk's representative was there was because Jeff told me that
the clerk was going to have a problem paying it; and I wanted, as you
know -- and by the way, you know, Jeff and Robin can clearly
describe it, it was no ambush. It was very positive, and the whole
purpose of the meeting was to try to figure out how this could be done
legally.
Page 49
October 9, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: And I think the county attorney said to you
that if we went through the proceedings today, then there's two weeks
before it's enacted on the 23 -- on the 23rd of October, and suggested
to you that we could go through whatever procedures you wanted, and
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. No, in fact --
MR. MITCHELL: And, Commissioner Coyle -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Coyle. I'm not -- this is -- this is just more of the same.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you share --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we all have a pretty good idea of
what's been happening here, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the executive
summary as written --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Item --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for Mr. Mitchell's
termination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, your
motion is to find cause based upon what Ian said at the last meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion is to follow the
executive summary as it's outlined as far as the termination of Mr.
Mitchell.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the termination is based
Page 50
October 9, 2012
upon what Mr. Mitchell said at the last meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's based upon the executive
summary just as it is. And I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it now on my
computer so I could read it to you. Give me a minute, and I'm sure I'll
find it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't specify any cause. Right,
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: It requires a legislative finding that Mr.
Mitchell remains willing and able to perform the duties of executive
manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just want to know why
-- what the -- my colleagues are thinking. Commissioner Coletta made
a motion, and I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it for discussion,
Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but my question is -- I've got my
button on anyway, so I'll -- it's, in part, answer to what you said. I
wanted to discuss it because we don't really know -- from what
Commissioner Hiller has brought up, we don't even know what
amount we're talking about. I was waiting to here --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're not going to determine that
today, anyway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. Clerk said, you know,
almost twice as much as what our HR said. And, you know, I -- that
doesn't sit really well. Six months wouldn't be at all that much, and I
don't know where that's coming from.
So I think we need to -- that's why I was asking Commissioner --
Commissioner Coletta to, you know, be more succinct in his motion,
because I'd really like to know exactly what this motion constitutes,
and that's why I seconded it for discussion.
Page 51
October 9, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that the motion is to
adopt the resolution. No more than that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to adopt the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you read the resolution for the
record?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what's the findings?
MR. KLATZKOW: Findings is that although Mr. Mitchell has
indicated that he remains willing and able to perform the duties of the
executive manager to the Board of County Commissioners, it is the
feeling of the board that it no longer wishes to employ the service of
Mr. Mitchell and, accordingly, the Board hereby states its intent to
terminate the employment agreement as Executive Manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you read the whole
resolution, please?
MR. KLATZKOW: It might be easier for everybody if I just put
it on the monitor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make sure everyone
hears it. I want it in the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. A resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, setting forth its intent to
terminate the employment agreement with executive manager to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Whereas, on May 25, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners,
board, entered into an "Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners Employment Agreement" with Ian Mitchell, a copy of
which is attached hereto; and,
Whereas, Section 6 of the employment agreement entitled
"Termination in Severance Pay" requires the following two-part
process in order for the board to terminate the employment agreement.
In the event the county desires to terminate employee during such
time that employee is willing and able to perform the duties of
executive manager to the Board of County Commissioners, county
Page 52
October 9, 2012
may do so only in the following manner:
One, a resolution of intent to terminate employee shall be
adopted by an affirmative vote of three-fifths majority of the entire
membership of the board only if the said resolution is placed on the
agenda of a regularly scheduled board meeting and where said agenda
item has been included as part of the published agenda for the board
meeting, which is what we're doing today.
Two, upon adoption of a resolution of intent to terminate
employee, the board may consider the adoption of a resolution to
terminate employee at a regularly scheduled meeting of the board not
less than 14 days thereafter. The resolution terminating employee
shall require an affirmative vote of three-fifths majority of the entire
membership of the board for adoption.
In the event of termination, such termination shall be effective at
such time and upon such conditions as may be set by the board in the
resolution entitled "Terminating Employee."
And, whereas, although Mr. Mitchell has indicated that he
remains willing and able to perform the duties of executive manager to
the Board of County Commissioners, it is the feeling of the board that
it no longer wishes to employ the services of Mr. Mitchell and,
accordingly, the board hereby states its intent to terminate the
employment agreement with the executive manager.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that notice is hereby given
of its intent to terminate the executive manager of the Board of
County Commissioners employment agreement with Ian Mitchell.
The county attorney's hereby directed to prepare and bring to the
board at its next regular meeting a resolution to terminate Mr.
Mitchell. This resolution is adopted after motion and second, majority
vote favoring same, this 9th day of October, 2010 -- 2012.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Well, may I? I mean, I, for one -- you know, Ian got great
Page 53
October 9, 2012
evaluations. Ian was asking for a raise. I personally have always had
a very positive working relationship with Ian, as he has admitted, and
I -- I can't recommend termination for someone who has good
evaluations across the board and who has said he is able to do his job.
I mean, I just -- I don't see how I can do that. And you know --
MR. MITCHELL: But, Commissioner, that's exactly what you
did when you became a commissioner and you did not want
Commissioner Halas' aide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Actually, that's not quite the
case.
MR. MITCHELL: I think that's exactly the case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it isn't. Commissioner Halas'
aide was not able to perform. When I started, the first thing she did is
she took vacation for I don't know how many weeks, and she came
back for a couple days and announced that she was going to go on
vacation again for a certain number of days or weeks, which you were
approving. So, actually, when I started I was left without an aide.
In the short time that she was there, she didn't demonstrate the
skill sets necessary for the position, although she was, like, a really
nice person.
And so, as I consequence, on your recommendation, we went
ahead and we advertised for a new person.
And she actually was not terminated. She was moved to the
switchboard, and she worked on the switchboard for quite some time
before she left. And --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that's all documented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. I -- I don't
agree with the resolution because I don't want to terminate Mr.
Mitchell. Where it says the board wishes -- no longer wishes to
employ the services of Mr. Mitchell, I don't agree with that.
Page 54
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- if there was -- that's why I
was trying to look for a cause by the motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He wants -- he wants to
terminate the employment of Ian Mitchell and his services. So I can't
support that; I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no cause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This does not say -- now, we
didn't approve -- we didn't approve a raise or anything at that meeting,
so he would still be terminated at the salary he's at right now.
And I think that -- you know, I think he's been under an extreme
amount of pressure, and I know that that -- and there's been a lot of
tension -- tension in our office, and possibly it's taken its toll on him.
And maybe that's one reason. He hasn't really stated -- you had said
something about something happening on a Friday or -- I don't know
who was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, he was -- he and Jeff, in that
meeting, both said something is going to happen Friday. I had the
meeting with them on Thursday. And it was really to try to work this
out. I mean, we were trying to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you have a personnel issue
pending in your office with one of your aides. Mr. Mitchell has told
me that that has nothing to do with his decision today; is that correct?
MR. MITCHELL: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: So I really don't want to talk about a
personnel issue with one of your aides when it has -- when Mr.
Mitchell is saying it has nothing to do with this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's interesting you say that,
because when I brought up this -- or when you brought the issue up in
Page 55
October 9, 2012
our -- my meeting, you made it very clear that you couldn't tell me,
you know, what was going to happen on Friday. So now we know it's
a personnel issue related to an aide.
Now, I will say this, Commissioner Fiala, you know, what you're
talking about, the office. That office has had enormous problems for
years. It was under the county manager's control going back years.
Big problems with that. That was when Sue Filson was made the
office manager, and it was separated from the county manager because
Mr. Mudd was very happy to get rid of the problems.
Then there were huge problems under Sue Filson. There was
tremendous, tremendous turnover, you know. And then Sue -- there
were problems, and Sue Filson -- I don't know what happened to her --
I don't know if she was terminated or what happened there. But there
was a, you know, major problem there.
And then in 2010, Ian was brought in to replace Sue Filson
because of all the problems with the management and the turnover of
that office, and -- well, you know, we can look to the time that he was
there and see what happened. Now you're telling us that there are
further problems with an aide and some termination issue with respect
to some aide so, obviously, there are further problems.
So I think -- one of the things I have done is I asked Jeff and I
told Ian, I said, one of the things I would like to do is look through the
personnel files of the aides for the current term that Ian has held, from
2010 to the present, to see, I mean, you know, is there an issue there?
I mean, you talk about cause, Commissioner Henning. I mean,
maybe there is a cause issue there. There is a cause issue under the
contract; there is a provision under the contract that provides -- do you
have that provision, Jeff? Do you want to read the cause provision,
the reasons for termination for cause? Which also allows for pay, if
you will, but not -- you know, it would be six month's pay as opposed
to --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You can terminate him for cause.
Page 56
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the reasons?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's convicted of a felony, of any crime
involving moral turpitude or dishonesty, he's using illegal drugs, or he
commits any act or acts that harms the county's reputation, standing,
or credibility with the community.
If you terminate there, other than what he's accrued, he's entitled
to nothing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, possibly C would be a
reason for cause. I mean -- but that would give him compensation,
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. He only gets compensation if he's
terminated by you without cause.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you read C again?
MR. KLATZKOW: Employee commits any act or acts that harm
the county's reputation, standing, or credibility within the community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Which I believe he
did when he read that statement, but that's an aside.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think we need to wrap_this up.
But I think since we've apparently taken a lot of time trying to tell the
public what each of our opinions are, I think I'll take a moment to tell
you what my opinion is.
This job, by the way, is probably the toughest job in Collier
County where an office manager, Mr. Ian, Mr. Ian Mitchell, is
responsible for managing employees who are aides to commissioners.
He doesn't really have charge over them. He's told who to hire;
he's told who to fire. If he inappropriately evaluates an aide, the
commissioner jumps all over him. If anything goes wrong in the
office, the commissioner is holding that person responsible.
There's nothing tougher than trying to supervise an office under
those circumstances. And it doesn't make any difference who you put
in charge. The concept is simply bad, because if you have one
commissioner telling an office manager to do one thing that might be
Page 57
October 9, 2012
politically motivated, by the way, other commissioners are going to
get upset and angry about that, and they're going to say, why did you
do that? It's constant.
The manager feels like a ping-pong ball, quite frankly. And the
termination process gives us an opportunity to resolve this particular
issue once and for all. We should -- and I hope we will -- set up
administrative offices individually for the commissioner. That doesn't
mean more offices or more aides or more staff.
But our legislative representatives here in this building have an
office, and they have an aide. There is no one manager that supervises
all of those aides for our legislators. Can you imagine what a mess
that would be?
So I'm hopeful that we will go to that model, and we will have
one aide per commissioner, and we will not have a need for a
receptionist for the entire office. We probably would save office
space and costs. We wouldn't need a manager, and we would better
control issues such as the Sunshine Law so that when you don't have --
we're all in the same offices back here. When people talk, you can
overhear things. Shouldn't be the case.
So if we move to individual offices and individual aides, we
eliminate many of the problems that have plagued managers of this
office for years and years and years.
But I'd like to close by saying to you that never have I seen the
service to constituents adversely impacted by any problems that
happened to occur in this office. This office, in my opinion, has
worked very efficiently, and my aides have always been highly
appreciated, they've always done a good job, and I have no complaints
about Mr. Mitchell's management of the office, nor do I have any
complaints about Ms. Filson's management of the office.
But, bottom line, they were both forced out by unhappy
commissioners who just badgered them to death, and they just said,
that's it. That's enough.
Page 58
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who were those commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, I'm sorry. That's not true.
That is completely false. In fact, very much the opposite. Mr.
Mitchell -- I can't speak for Commissioner Henning.
Mr. Mitchell and I have had a very positive relationship, and I,
under no circumstances, have -- in fact, I ask him for virtually nothing.
I barely even have dealt with him because I'm always either out in the
field or visiting with constituents who live in the north end at the north
office. So I'm sorry, you're completely wrong, and your statement is
false.
Now, I will say if you feel that certain commissioners have
badgered him, you need to state whom, and it certainly isn't me, and
that is a fact. So you need to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you have an amazing ability to
misrepresent the facts, but nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm sorry. That's not true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've heard your excuse. That's enough.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. You have an amazing
ability to misrepresent the facts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead. Go
ahead, Commissioner Henning, your turn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian, is -- what Commissioner
Coyle is stating is true? You feel that I'm badgering you?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I'm not prepared to answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's an admission that
it's true then. You know, I -- I don't ask Ian Mitchell for anything,
Commissioner Coyle. And if you have any evidence of that, you
should lay it out. That is a -- just a statement --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't want me to go through the
evidence, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I do.
Page 59
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do not, because I wasn't talking
about commissioner -- Mr. Mitchell. I was talking about Sue Filson,
okay. We talked about two people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sue Filson's not on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't evade the issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now you're just saying that Ian
Mitchell's decision has to do with me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's my belief.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not true. It's completely
false. In fact, Mr. Mitchell made it very clear, not once but
repeatedly, in my discussions with him with the county attorney and
with the head of operations for the clerk that it had absolutely nothing
to do about me. In fact, we've had -- and he confirmed and admitted
that we've had a very positive relationship.
I happen to really like Mr. Mitchell, Commissioner Coyle, and I
gave him a really good evaluation because I thought he deserved it.
And I was prepared to consider whatever his request was with regards
to pay when the new board was seated.
Now, you turned around and you made stuff up and circulated
stuff, but it was completely false. And you're making false statements
again. You can have your opinion, but you are wrong.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think your evaluation of him was
probably the lowest of any of the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it wasn't. I rated everybody
the same way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got it right here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I rated everybody the
same, one, two, three, so everybody was comparable. I gave him
nothing but twos and threes. In fact, of all the evaluations I gave, I
gave him the highest and shared that with him.
Page 60
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you will look at the page --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In fact, my evaluation was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you've talked
about a lot of things that haven't been substantiated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My evaluation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got the evaluation, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My evaluation was higher than
Fiala's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what you have done is totally
misrepresented what you've done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's right here in the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's in the record, and I put it
on the record. My evaluation was even better than Commissioner
Fiala's. And like I said, I totaled it based on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it wasn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- one, two, three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it wasn't. Commissioner Fiala
knows it, I know it, and anybody who looks at the record will know it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Same way I evaluated --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But in any event, all in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner (sic) Klatzkow --
Mr. Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 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.
Page 61
October 9, 2012
And we'll take a 10-minute break for the court reporter.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Chairman, you have a live mike.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner Coletta, are you still with us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm still with you. Thank you for
asking.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a quorum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is it? There's just you and me,
babe. Oh, him too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Henning -- Hiller is here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Item #7A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman that will take you to Item 7 on your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two. The first one is Bob
Krasowski.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You dressed up for us today.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Let me start. Does the overhead work?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Do you want to use the portable mike,
make it easier?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, here's the portable. That might work
better. Just switch it on.
Page 62
October 9, 2012
Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Nice to see you again. I'm here to -- my
name is Bob Krasowski, for the record. I'm here to share some
documents with you and some material I found that I've been -- come
across in my search to better understand the beach nourishment
program and also to help for me to understand our joint understanding
of this. So I have some friendly comments to make.
And I've labeled these pages I'm going to put on the overview, so
at the end of my presentation if you want to revert back and ask some
questions, it will be easy to do that.
So here we have -- that way, okay -- is the cover page for the
application for joint funding -- for funding contribution from the state
on our beach renourishment program.
Now, this was submitted September 18th to meet a deadline and
could have been shown to you at your last meeting on the 23rd but just
was brought up, I believe, yesterday or the day before it was sent out
to you.
What I find important here -- and this circle, the part I have
circled, is the criteria of material that's supposed to be included in the
application. Then right on Page No. 2 here, you can see that the
identification of the volume of sand -- originally, the total volume that
you approved, 421,000 cubic yards, down at the bottom of this, the
consultant says they might be looking for as much as 515,000 cubic
yards.
I think these guys are becoming a loose missile and kind of
pursuing their own agenda and not respecting the limits you put on
them.
Here's a map they provided to the DEP, and that's not a very
good map. But look here at the next page, Page 4. The map that they
submitted with this application is the old map. This doesn't show the
places where they're not going to renourish, you know, those spots
Page 63
October 9, 2012
where it was unnecessary. So what are -- I mean, we're paying these
people good money, I remember, and I'm surprised they don't have
current information that actually relates to what they've presented to
you as far as being the parameters of the project.
Over here an issue Commissioner Hiller brought up at the last
meeting is the cost analysis. And you can see in this column here
there's a federal cost of $5 million. Now, where's that -- where's that
coming from, going to, and then the shared state cost and then --
excuse me -- our local costs.
Of particular interest, the federal money -- I heard a pretty
important person say the other day that he was not going to be
borrowing and paying for things with federal money that required us
borrowing that money from China, and this, to me, might be related to
that, being that we really don't need the five million, you know. So
you understand where I'm getting at there. We have to be frugal, the
economy, and all of that.
I have a couple of more pages. This here is an email that was
distributed by Mr. Ian (sic) that mentions that he -- it was asked by
Bill Lorenz to provide you with that document because it was
important that you see it.
Now, this is after they've submitted it, and it has all that material
that's contrary to what you directed in it. And it says here -- I have it
underlined -- that the DEP had notified the county that their
applications are sufficient. But here are the applications I downloaded
yesterday. I'll go to the first one which is sufficient, the Marco Island
project, although down on the bottom you can see under supportive
documents, under regional coordination -- excuse me just for a second.
I have a couple more pages -- that the note on the bottom there is that
the interlocal agreement is a draft.
The document must be signed prior to acceptance. The bureau
needs to determine whether projects as far apart as Marco -- or Collier
County and Long Boat Key can be regionalized. And that's where you
Page 64
October 9, 2012
get points, and that's where you get money, and -- you get points for
regionalizing projects, which is something they've been trying to do.
On this next exhibit, this is the government funding request
efficiency checklist for the Naples Beach, and this is deficient. It's not
-- it's not sufficient. It's efficient, still, as of yesterday. And the
problems here are there was a note -- not a problem, but a note, please
submit maps in larger scale.
And I would suggest when they do submit the maps in large
scale, that they're accurate maps that coincide with what you
approved.
And then the -- on the bottom here it says, please provide a
signed and executed interlocal agreement indicating the dedication of
Long Boat Key and Collier County to construct a regional project. So
that interlocal agreement has to be part of the application to participate
for the shared funding.
I think the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray, right?
So this 10-year plan/option that we were considering at one point was
a good idea, but it should have been held off till the next cycle,
because it really threw our permitting applications way off.
And here's evidence, though. An article from August 12, 2011,
that shows that the City of Naples and Mr. Sorey were anxious to do
the collaborative work before we lost a lot of that money.
But it gives you some of the motivation for their pursuing that,
you know, and there's a lot more that can be said about that.
One other -- another thing, the biological opinion, that you've
been told gives license to the county to renourish year-round, has
qualifications in it, and the Army Corps of Engineers' number one
position in regard to that is that turtle nesting season be avoided to the
maximum practicable, and you have that document.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate, between
your beach renourishment advocates and what you're trying to move
towards. And it's really frustrating in the greater sense to pinning
Page 65
October 9, 2012
down what we're actually going to do.
And I guess -- I guess that's it.
I still have the request that the April 1st to June 1st period of
turtle nesting season be removed from our options. But, you know,
we really -- we had a workshop on all this, and it didn't have, like,
biologists coming up and explaining the different values of doing it
here, there, or where and when, and that will have to go to another
time, because I'm kind of out of time and appreciate the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're way, way, way over time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Way out of time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Way out of time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I said friendly, so I thought that
would buy me something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next time you speak you're going to
have to come up there and be silent for four minutes 50 seconds.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I appreciate that. I'll try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One second. I'd like to address
some of the comments that were made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Thank you so much for bringing the information forward. You
know, I did finally receive a copy of what Coastal Planning and
Engineering submitted to the state, and I believe it was, like, October
8th that we got the email when these attachments were included.
They were submitted to the state September the 18th, and we
adopted a resolution prior to that, and it was with the caveat and the
promise on the part of Mr. McAlpin that these would be presented to
the board, because we adopted a resolution without seeing the budget,
the resolution that we accepted the budget, as staff was intending to
present, with the understanding that we would get to see it, obviously,
Page 66
October 9, 2012
before it was submitted.
Now, on September the 17th, I had a meeting with Mr. McAlpin,
with Mr. Klatzkow, and Mr. Casalanguida the day before these
documents were submitted to the state.
And the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the beach
renourishment budget and the change in design from the 10-year
template to the six-year template. And during the course of that
meeting, I reviewed the budget, and I have since looked at what was
submitted to the state in comparison, and they're not the same. And
that was the day before.
Now, obviously, staff didn't prepare this document within 24
hours, okay, from the time of the meeting. During the course of that
meeting, also I asked about partnerships, and I wanted to know who
we were going to be pairing with. And I mentioned Captiva, and the
staff looked at me like I was talking about China and couldn't
understand how I knew about Captiva, and I said that I had seen,
actually, the same website that you saw.
They never mentioned Long Boat Key. They never mentioned
that this was going to be submitted the next day. And, again, they
showed me a budget that was very different.
I actually found out about this after it was posted to the state
website and it became publicly available for everyone to see. And I
also question that $5 million in federal funding, because they already
knew at that time that, you know, we had that issue with the
de-obligation, that $11 million de-obligation.
So I had very serious concerns. I mean, I have very serious
concerns as to why, Leo, you didn't give me this in that meeting. I'm
very concerned, Nick, why you didn't give it to me. I'm very
concerned, Mark Isackson, why he didn't give it to me. I mean, they --
and, by the way, I'm sorry. I meant Mark Isackson was in the meeting
with me. It was Leo, Nick, and Mark Isackson, again, to go over the
budget.
Page 67
October 9, 2012
So my concern about this $11 million de-obligation continued to
grow, and it -- at the last meeting you may recall that the staff
presented -- Mr. McAlpin came to the board, disclosed that the
de-obligation had occurred, there was a gentleman from the state.
And there was a request made that we appeal it, and the decision was
made by the board that we would appeal it.
Is that correct, Jeff? So we're in the process of appealing that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Staff is in the process of working with the
state is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To appeal -- to basically challenge
FEMA's decision; isn't that correct, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. You want to come up and
tell us a little bit about that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: While Bill's coming up, I'd mention that in
this document I was referring to at first, there's quite a bit of
information about Long Boat Key.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Yeah, and -- yeah,
absolutely there is, and that was the first I ever heard of Long Boat
Key, which was after that meeting. And what I don't understand is,
how did staff submit a budget, you know, on the 18th when I met with
them on the 17th? And when I was talking about partnerships, Long
Boat Key wasn't even mentioned, wasn't even brought up.
And when I asked about Captiva, they looked at me like -- you
know, as if I was talking about some unknown fictional place.
So, Bill, tell me about the de-obligation.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director.
Staff is in the process of working with the state officials to
provide that appeal. That appeal is due the 10th, tomorrow. We have
-- our consultant prepared very specific technical information that we
presented -- that we prepared -- we sent to the state so they would use
Page 68
October 9, 2012
in their appeal so we would meet that appeal deadline of the 10th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. And that's the first appeal?
MR. LORENZ: Well, this is where I started -- some questions. I
believe this is the second appeal. Is it the first -- it's the first appeal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, let me help you.
MR. LORENZ: It's the first appeal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's what?
MR. LORENZ: It's the first appeal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the first appeal. Let me help
you. It's the third appeal, okay? It's the third appeal. And I have it all
here.
And, in fact, FEMA has denied two appeals to Collier County,
and Collier County has known for months and months and months.
And I can't see how far back, but I know that at least going back into
-- I know that at least going back to 2010 the county was already
appealing this and had already been notified by FEMA.
In fact, I'm looking at a letter here from FEMA which talks about
-- this letter is in response to a January 24, 2011, appeal from your
office, transmitted -- which transmitted the referenced second appeal
on behalf of the Collier County Public Services Division, the
applicant. And at that point in time they were talking about $9 million
as the de-obligation.
And here's what's really concerning. The county has known for
what now seems to be at least two years based on the documentation I
have here that this de-obligation was occurring.
Now, the county also knew that FDEP had made clear to them
back in 2006 that we wouldn't be able to do the 10-year design
because it would encroach on the hard bottom and, yet, there was this
long debate and discussion about doing the 10-year design this time
around and, yet, you knew that -- and I don't mean you, because
you've only recently been involved, but the general staff -- you knew,
Leo, that that was going to be an issue because of the encroachment
Page 69
October 9, 2012
on the hard bottom.
But, more importantly, even if there was some way to deal with
that by different sand -- because I talked to the engineers, and they
were going to come up with some alternative, although that was never
presented, nor was it ever disclosed that the state was in opposition to
it from back in 2006.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to mention this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just interrupt. You know,
none of us know what's going on here. Bob Krasowski came up and
just gave a public petition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we bring this back so we all get
some information to look at --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I don't have anything to
look at.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you know what? Absolutely,
and here's why, because meeting after meeting where evidence should
have been brought forward where the county knew about this
de-obligation, I just found out about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's bring this back rather
than just keep badgering away at this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Found out that you had --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's get us all some information so
we have something to look at.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when I say I just found out
about it, I just found out that you-all knew about it for the past two
years. And we are on our third appeal, not our first appeal. And
notwithstanding this issue about coming forward and debating a
10-year design and a $34 million budget, all impossible. Just like the
representation of $5 million in federal funds to the state is not true.
Page 70
October 9, 2012
This is really concerning.
I'm going to introduce what I have here, what I read, into the
record. I'll make a copy, and I'm going to give it to all of you on the
board because, you know, Leo, I want a real explanation for what's
going on here. And not now.
I agree with Commissioner Fiala. She's absolutely right. I bring
this out because I just learned of this. I did not know what you were
going to talk about. I did know you were going to talk about
beach-related issues. I didn't know, specifically, all the points you
were going to address. I just got this, and I can't believe what I'm
reading.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, one last question I have.
How does this affect the disclosures to the clerk of courts and the
financial disclosures with respect to contingent liabilities? And I want
to know if the clerk was aware of this. Because, you know, we're
talking about a very large amount of money here, you know, between
9 and 11 million dollars, and whether you, in the prior years, were
aware that this appeal was going on.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I haven't researched prior-year
records for this issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this was not brought to your
attention?
MS. KINZEL: No, this was not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you know about it --
MS. KINZEL: -- brought to our specific attention that I'm aware
of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you aware of these appeals?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And that's a problem, too.
How come the county attorney was not aware?
So I really -- Commissioner Fiala, thank you. You're absolutely
Page 71
October 9, 2012
right. I just found out about this. This is brand new information to
me. I am bringing it to you as I have received it. And I do want to
bring this forward.
So I will make a copy of what I have here for all the
commissioners. I will make a copy for the record. I will make a copy
for the county attorney. I will make a copy for the Clerk's Office.
And I now have serious concerns about what has been submitted to the
state in addition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The danger here, County
Manager Ochs, is that when allegations like this are made and then
you're told not to respond right now, that people will take away from
that that all of these things are true. Is there anything you want to say
at the present time, or would you prefer to bring it back later?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'd be happy to bring it back later in
detail. I will only say that the appeals referenced are for different
events, and I'd like to bring the rest of that information forward --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's more? Wait, wait. Are
you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's going to bring it back, and we're
going to have a full discussion of the facts, not allegations. We're
going to discuss the facts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's more?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Right? Is that what you're
saying?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify one thing. Is
there -- we know that there's an 11 million de-obligation. Are you
telling me that this is in addition to that 11 -- it's in addition to that
challenge, that we have another challenge going on here?
Page 72
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. So that the total is actually
not 11 million, but nine -- or 20 million?
MR. OCHS: No, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because this is from the
consultants.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your August 22, 2012 -- well --
wow.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'll bring it back, provide the detail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Good, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're ready for the next public
speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next public speaker is Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning, Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. And I've come before you to ask
clarification of the motion that you passed two weeks ago directing the
Planning Commission to review, fully review, the proposed settlement
agreement with the Hussey family.
My understanding of the motion was that county has a strong
interest in settling, but in the best interest of the citizens and
commissioners, that you were forwarding the proposed settlement
agreement to the Planning Commission for full review, and that was
the term that was used, "full review," and that you did not want to
limit the Planning Commission from coming back with something
different from the proposed settlement agreement, which I may
wrongly have interpreted, along with others, that that gave broad
latitude to the Planning Commission to weigh the merits and the
implications of the settlement agreement in the broadest sense.
At Thursday's Planning -- last Thursday's Planning Commission
Page 73
October 9, 2012
meeting, Planning Commissioners asked for some clarification as well
as to what their responsibilities were when they received this proposed
settlement agreement, and staff responded that we have a settlement
agreement and that the Planning Commission is to look at what it
ordinarily looks at, the sites, compatibility, and consistency with the
Growth Management Plan and the LDC, and to that very specific
settlement agreement, they can add some recommended stipulations.
But it was very clear that the board is not looking -- and I'm
quoting now -- looking for the Planning Commission to weigh all the
merits and implications of the settlement. It is typically do what
comes before you. Don't look at the whole deal.
Well, I thought your motion did allow them to look at the whole
deal. The implications to the integrity of the Growth Management
Plan, the environmental resources of North Belle Meade, to go back
and look at the history as to how we got to this point. The big picture
I thought was where they would start and work down to, could they
come up with some recommendations that they were comfortable
with.
So I'm asking you -- and, clearly, the Planning Commission
needs some clarification as to how broad or how narrow their mission
is as they review the planning -- the proposed settlement agreement
with the Husseys, and also the public needs to know so that we can
properly respond to the broad or very narrow focus that the Planning
Commission is going to have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know exactly how you get
one answer out of the four of us or five of us here. I'll start out by
giving you my impression. There are certain responsibilities that the
Planning Commission has, and they're well known and well
documented, and they're very, very good at doing what they do, but
negotiating a settlement agreement is not one of those. That's the
responsibility of this board.
We have to weigh the things that affect a decision on a settlement
Page 74
October 9, 2012
agreement. And while we appreciate input from the Planning
Commission we, obviously, have the right to make contrary decisions.
MS. PAYTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And from my standpoint, I didn't want to
convey to the Planning Commission that they were to be the people
who decided whether or not a settlement was appropriate and, if so,
what the terms might be. Their recommendations on issues are greatly
appreciated.
And with that, I'll just start from the left with Commissioner
Henning, and we'll go right across and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was my motion that
passed unanimously, so let me clarify it.
During the meeting David Weeks stated this is a, essentially,
Growth Management Plan amendment, and those actions are viewed
by the Planning Commission. That was my intent, for them to look at
it as an application of a Growth Management Plan amendment.
Furthermore, in the settlement it talks about a conditional use.
The Planning Commission gives recommendations to the Board of
Commissioners of conditional uses. That was my intent, to look at the
overall settlement and not limit it to just the settlement. They are our
planning agency. That planning agency or that -- I should say that
settlement agreement is all about planning or land use. So they need
to take a look at it that way and give us recommendations.
I know the Florida law allows us to do this under the Bert J.
Harris Act; however, without it being publicly vetted, I don't think
we'll be doing justice to this proposed settlement agreement.
I want as much information from our staff and the planning
agency, which is the Planning Commission, on that. And they have to
have the history of it.
So can you assist the Planning Commission, County Manager --
County Attorney?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 75
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, do you want
to weigh in on it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally agree, and that's how I
felt, too. Nobody had seen the settlement idea, criteria, and I wanted
to hear from the Planning Commission, as our planning advisory
board, to see if they would evaluate and feel it was a good decision, if
they would want to tweak it any before I made a decision, so I was
really happy that Commissioner Henning made the motion. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Commissioner
Henning.
Nancy, does that satisfy -- does that clarify your concerns, or are
you left with additional concerns? Is there something that you want
that has not been expressed here?
MS. PAYTON: I think it would be helpful to the Planning
Commission, who was struggling with what their responsibility was,
what their charge was, and also the public to try and understand,
because we have limited time to make our case, make our points, and
we want to do it the most effectively -- most effective way.
I think there ought to be something in black and white that just
bullet points what they can and can't do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could the county attorney possibly
develop some sort of a rubric for what the Planning Commission can
and can't do, as Nancy suggests?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning put it very
well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Show them this video. Take this video
clip and show them the video.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Could you reduce what he
said to writing and --
Page 76
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't require anybody to interpret
it or anything else. They'll hear it themselves.
MS. PAYTON: So it's upon the public's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not, Nancy. It's not. The
county attorney has just acknowledged that he will basically
summarize what Commissioner Henning has said and will provide it
to the Planning Commission and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would like to see that summary
before it goes.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be verbatim.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make sure Commissioner Henning
sees it, because he was the one that put it together.
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be verbatim, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I said it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I appreciate that, and
if you could provide Nancy with a copy and the members of the
Planning Commission.
MS. PAYTON: That's fine. Thank you, appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask one quick question,
Nancy, unrelated to the settlement, but just tangentially related, if you
will? Have you seen the article or did you see the article in Fort
Myers Press about fracking?
MS. PAYTON: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In Collier County?
MS. PAYTON: It was in Sunday's paper.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I think that's
something that everybody needs to get up to speed with.
And, Commissioner Fiala, probably you haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was a very interesting article just
this past, I guess it was, weekend on fracking. And I can go ahead and
send you all a copy of that article. And I think everybody needs to be
Page 77
October 9, 2012
informed about the potential for fracking in Southwest Florida and in
Collier County in particular and what that might mean on many
different levels, hut -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anymore speakers, Ian?
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. That was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the next item.
Item #10A
NAMING THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED AS THE LASIP
MITIGATION PARK, AS "SERENITY WALK PARK." —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item is 10A, Board of County Commissioners,
to obtain the Board of County Commissioners' approval for naming
the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, currently identified
as the LASIP mitigation park, as Serenity Walk Park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller. Second by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.
Page 78
October 9, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By the way, Commissioner Fiala
came up with that name.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, the people did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the people did, endorsed by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With her help and direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2012-189: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM J.
DEMPSEY, PATRICIA A. HUFF AND SHARON KENNY TO
THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10B is appointment of members to the Historical
Archeological Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation of William Dempsey, Patricia Huff, and Sharon
Kenny.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Three seconds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to approve the committee recommendations, seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 79
October 9, 2012
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 carries unanimously.
Item #10C
PRESS RELEASE DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 FOR
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES - READ INTO THE RECORD
MR. OCHS: 10C is the press release dated September 28, 2012,
for advisory board vacancies.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, this was a press release issued on
September 28th, and it goes through October 15th.
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has a vacancy for
an alternate, and this alternate should reside in Immokalee.
The Airport Authority Advisory Board has a vacancy for a term
that will expire on August 10, 2013. The Animal Services Advisory
Board has a vacancy for a veterinary or vet technician. The Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board has one
vacancy.
The Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals has two terms,
and in the categories licensed engineer and licensed plumber.
The Collier County Planning Commission has two terms that
expired on October 1, 2012; one representing District 2 and one
representing District 5.
The Consumer Advisory Board has one vacancy for a term
expiring on December 1, 2013, and two vacancies for new terms to
expire on December 1, 2016;
Page 80
October 9, 2012
The Development Services Advisory Committee has five
vacancies for terms expiring on December 4th -- that will expire on
December 14, 2016, representing a general contractor or trades
contractor.
The Environmental Advisory Council has one vacancy for a
technical term that will expire on July 28, 2013, and one vacancy for a
technical alternate with a term expiring on July 28, 2015.
The Floodplain Management Planning Committee has two
vacancies.
The Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee has
two terms that will expire on December 31, 2012. The Golden Gate
Estates Land Trust Committee has one vacancy, and the Haldeman
Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee has one vacancy;
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has one vacancy, and
the Isle of Capri Control District Advisory Committee has three terms
that are expiring on December 31 this year.
The Library Advisory Board has three terms that are expiring
December 31, 2012, and the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee also has three vacancies.
The Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis
Boulevard Advisory Committee has two vacancies, and the last is the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has two
vacancies.
And the date that -- the deadline is October 15, 2012.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County manager's report?
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 2012-190: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLANS FOR THE BOARD OF
Page 81
October 9, 2012
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY ATTORNEY
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2012, AND PROVIDING FOR A COST
OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF 2.0% EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER
6, 2012, THE FIRST DAY OF THE FIRST PAY PERIOD IN FY 13
— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 11A is a recommendation to approve and
adopt a resolution approving the pay and classification plans of the
Board of County Commissioners' employees and the county attorney's
employees effective October 1, 2012, and providing for a
cost-of-living adjustment of 2 percent, effective on October 6, 2012,
the first day of the first pay period in Fiscal Year 2013.
Ms. Len Price will present.
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Len Price, administrative services division administrator.
The pay plan that is before you is a market competitive pay plan
with no changes to the pay ranges. As you know, the staff of the
county manager's agency has not seen a general wage increase since
October 2008, during which time FRS contributions increased from
nothing to 3 percent, the insurance premium contribution has
increased, as well as general cost of living based primarily on the
increase in fuel.
This pay plan provides for meeting your goals of providing
professional services to the general public, and it conforms with the
board-approved budget.
I'm here to answer any other questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to insert a little
something, if you don't mind, because I don't think it's clear for
anybody in the audience or reading audience who happens to see it. It
Page 82
October 9, 2012
says pay and classification plans for Board of County Commissioners.
And I just want to let everybody know, we're not part of this getting a
raise. It's for the employees serving under the Board of County
Commissioners but not for us. And so just in case anybody is curious
about that, I wanted to clear that up.
And also I think our employees have done a yeoman's job and
never complain that they haven't gotten a raise or that they haven't
gotten any cost of living, because they understood the limitations we
were under and that we all had to pull together to work for the
betterment of our community, of the taxpayers, and they were happy
to do that.
And I'm really pleased that we now at least can give them -- and I
think all of the other constitutional officers as well will be following
suit in one way or another, whatever they call it, to make sure that
their employees at least get a cost-of-living raise. It's not a raise for --
you know, in salary. It's a cost-of-living increase.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was it Commissioner Hiller or
Commissioner Henning next?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll go with ladies first.
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, first of all, Commissioner
Fiala, what you said about the constitutional officers following suit,
you know, the constitutionals were asked by the Board of County
Commissioners and the county manager to cut their budgets, and their
budgets do not include pay raises.
And I don't know where they're going to find the money to award
these pay raises, because we asked them to cut their budgets. So how
these constitutionals are going to follow suit when we told them they
had to cut is something I don't see happening.
And that creates a fundamental inequity because, you know, we
Page 83
October 9, 2012
basically have all the constitutionals, which involves, you know, all
the sheriffs deputies and officers, the clerk's employees, the tax
collector, the property appraiser. They didn't budget raises for the
upcoming year.
And, like I said, we asked them to cut their budget. So there's an
inequity there that's problematic. What's really problematic for me,
though, is that -- and I go back to the last meeting, because I'm still
very, very disturbed by this. You know, we're asking these employees
who have worked so hard to accept a 2 percent raise when the county
manager himself took a 10 percent raise.
Now, I just don't think that's fair. I don't think the county
manager deserves 10 percent and the employees only deserve 2
percent. I don't believe it's fair that the county employees deserve 2
percent, the employees of all the constitutional officers deserve zero.
This is a very disconcerting proposal because there are so many,
you know, really, apparent inequities in adopting this. And I think this
should be continued and should be reevaluated in light of the
constitutionals and in light of Leo's raise. I mean, it just doesn't seem
fair. It just doesn't seem fair.
Now, just talking about since 2008, just as an aside, I do want to
mention that, as I understand, the state hasn't given their employees a
raise in over six years.
So, you know, we are in very hard economic times. We are
finally constrained. I do feel good work should be rewarded, but it has
to be done in a fair and equitable way. Ten percent for the county
manager, you know, 2 percent for the county employees, zero for the
constitutional employees doesn't work for me.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Very briefly, I spoke with each of the constitutional
officers last week. With the exception of the clerk, all of them that I
talked to indicated that they were going to follow the lead of the board
Page 84
October 9, 2012
and provide that 2 percent cost-of-living or some equivalent within
their current budget allocations approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think what you need to do
is give them all 2 percent more to their budgets, because now what
you're doing is you're taking away from their budgets. They budgeted
operationally at a level that they committed to when they sat before
us. Now you're asking them to take away from that budget we
approved to give a 2 percent raise. No, it's just not fair.
You basically provided a budget that was going to consider this.
You did not give them the same opportunity. We owe them 2 percent
back to allow for the employee payment adjustment. I'm not going to
allow these constitutionals to eat into their existing budget when their
existing budget is what they need for operations. So whatever the
value is for the raises they intend to give their employees, we should
give back to them from the General Fund, because that is only fair.
And what I don't understand, Leo, is why didn't you tell me when
I had my meeting with you yesterday that you had communicated with
the constitutionals? And why didn't you talk to the clerk?
MR. OCHS: I was communicating with Ms. Kinzel on the
clerk's intention. And, frankly, the board directed me last meeting to
talk to all the constitutionals about this, so I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then why didn't you bring
that back before the meeting and let us know that you did and what the
feedback was when I was with you in our review?
MR. OCHS: I'm doing it right now, ma'am. I wanted the whole
board to benefit from the statement, not just one commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So nobody knew before just us
now?
MR. OCHS: No. I'm giving you that information right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm the only one -- ore we all --
you didn't tell any of the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just learned about this.
Page 85
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you knew about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Okay.
You're right, Commissioner Coletta, we've been ignoring you. Go
ahead, but then it's going to be Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well -- and I thank you, sir, for
allowing me to step in and chime in on this. One of the things we've
got to draw parallels with is the fact that the county manager's been
without a pay increase since he's taken the job. There's quite a big
difference between that and the four years, the time that he has spent
waiting in the wings. He's paid below par for other county -- other
people within the system as far as school administrators, even fire
department chiefs, for what he does, and his job is much more
involved than many of the other ones out there that are receiving
considerably more pay.
We're going to go back to the days when the county employees
were leaving en masse. And I can remember that when we first
became commissioners. I think Commissioner Fiala can recall it and,
Commissioner Coyle, you came in towards the tail end of it, when we
were having an exit rate at close to 30 percent a year. We couldn't
keep up with the local economy. People were ready to bolt for the
door because we were holding back on pay increases for a number of
years, and they left, and we had to re-hire people from all over the
area to be able to fill all those positions, and it became very difficult.
So I think we're following the right path. I think the county
manager's done a wonderful job, and I appreciate the fact that he
shared the news with us about his meeting with the clerk and other
people.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what needs to be
Page 86
October 9, 2012
addressed is the -- is there any disparities between like jobs with the
constitutional officers and the Board of County Commissioners'
employees. I think that's really important; however, for some
government employees to receive and others not -- of course, you
have to talk to Crystal Kinzel about that.
Do you have an answer, or is there any anticipation of --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, at this point the clerk's not made a
decision. It was pending what the board does with county employees
at this time, and then we'll have to go back and re-evaluate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me ask. The
at-will employees, do they receive comp time?
MS. PRICE: Some of them do. It's really -- it's at the discretion
of the director whether they're going to pay them overtime. And we're
talking about hourly employees? It's at the discretion of the director
whether it's going to be comp time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No salaried. At-will --
MS. PRICE: Salaried can get -- under our procedures, they can
get comp timed. It's generally not on an hour-for-hour basis. So if an
employee works, you know, several hours, they might put in for that
but not necessarily every single hour, and they don't track it on the 15
minutes or et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: And their comp time -- if they don't use it by the
end of the year, their comp time goes away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I saying it right, at-will
employees? Do you know who they are?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not salaried.
MS. PRICE: At-will employees would be all of our employees
who are not on contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are not on contract.
MS. PRICE: Right. Would be at-will employees. And then
Page 87
October 9, 2012
FLSA differentiates by exempt from overtime or not exempt from
overtime. So your hourly employees are not exempt from overtime
rules, and the salaried employees are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The salaried employees,
that's your supervisor, manager, directors?
MS. PRICE: Generally speaking, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are -- the salaried employees
have -- do they have comp time?
MS. PRICE: They can earn comp time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One thing we should be aware of, there
is no equity in salaries between us and all of the constitutionals. They
receive benefits in many cases that our employees do not receive. So
to make it appear that what we're doing is somehow discriminating
against all of the other constitutional employees is really a distortion
of the facts.
For example, the sheriffs agency has a fully paid insurance
program. We require our employees to contribute up to 20 --
MR. OCHS: Twenty percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 20 percent for their insurance
coverage. That's a fairly sizable difference.
So to make it appear that somehow we're all going to get paid
under the same guidelines and at the same levels ignores a lot of facts
associated with this. First of all, there are not many comparable jobs
between Collier County and the sheriffs agency, as an example. It's
just not possible to do that. They do a different kind of work, and they
get paid for it. We also have labor union employees who have a
different compensation program.
So this idea that we're all going to have the same salary
opportunities and that sort of thing just is not -- it's a distortion of the
actual circumstances here.
But in any event, we're dealing with the Collier County
Page 88
October 9, 2012
compensation program and plan here today, and we are able to do
what we're doing for our employees because we have done a lot of
things to improve efficiency. We've consolidated divisions, we have
eliminated overhead, we have trimmed out a lot of personnel. And as
a matter of fact, probably 400 people we trimmed out over the past
four years.
So that means that we're able, at this point in time, to pay our
employees a little bit to compensate for the additional costs to them,
which include not just the cost of living, but costs that were imposed
on them by the state government.
So we're hoping to make them whole, and we hope that they're --
that the constitutional officers will be able to do the same sort of thing
in the same manner that we've done it.
So, Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
So many things. First of all, I believe, and I'm pretty sure I'm
pretty accurate on this, that when the county manager first asked
everyone to take a 5 percent cut, he was given projections. That was at
the beginning of the year. He was giving a projection that we would,
again, have a decrease in our tax dollars coming into the county.
Lo and behold, as the months wore on and we got near April and
closer, even, to May, he found that, well, indeed, it wasn't going to be
such a dramatic tax cut again. We were actually going to be pretty
flat.
And since then, even after we deliberated, we found that more
building is going on, more businesses are moving forward, so our
economy is, indeed, changing, not -- you know, we are always
affected a year after everybody else. It takes us a little bit longer to
catch up.
But that is why I think the county manager, then -- and I don't
mean to put words in your mouth, but I think that's why he said that
we need to do something for our employees who have stuck with us
Page 89
October 9, 2012
this whole time and never let us go.
And then Crystal said something to me, she says, yeah, well, you
guys get a raise, but our people don't. And I said, oh, no, no, no. I
think this is for everyone. You know, they're not singling out one
agency and saying, you don't get any. I said, they want everyone to
have this -- well, I did have this conversation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe you, but that's not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I said, they want everyone --
you know, however you want to decide it, whether it be insurance or
whatever, but what's fair is fair. And you know I say that all the time,
what's fair is fair, and it should be.
And so we want to see everyone benefit, because all of these
employees -- I don't care what agency they work for, all of these
employees have worked diligently, diligently, to support this county
government while we've been in the throes of a recession.
And now -- I mean, we're not going to be giving them any great
raises or anything, but at least a cost-of-living is appropriate. Okay.
That's the end of that subject for me.
And then I want to say to the county manager, I was surprised,
Leo -- when we were deliberating on your contract, I had no idea that
you made less, by $20,000 almost, than the county attorney, and that
you made the same as the city manager in Naples. I didn't --
MR. OCHS: On Marco Island, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On Marco Island, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Less.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, yeah, less than the city
manager in the City of Naples, and you manage, what, is it 1,800
employees? And I thought, my goodness. You should at least be
brought up to some kind of a fair wage to compensate for all of the
employees that you have to manage. So that's why I voted for the 10
percent.
Thank you.
Page 90
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
I want to address some of the points that Commissioner Coyle
made regarding, you know, different benefits. The sheriff does have
different benefits with respect to health. The other constitutionals do
not.
We're not talking about a comparison of benefits. We're talking
about a COLA adjustment, a cost-of-living adjustment, which goes
directly to base pay, and you don't not give someone a COLA or you
do give someone a COLA because they do or don't have certain type
of benefits. This is a cost-of-living adjustment.
The second statement he made was with respect to the state
imposing burdens on these employees that the county -- what he was
referring to was FRS, the contribution that the employees are making
now towards their own pensions, and that was a 3 percent increase that
they were required to contribute.
And that's true for all the other employees, the clerk, property
appraiser, tax collector, all are equally burdened. That is actually
litigated as of today. And the Supreme Court just heard the case. It's
a $15 million liability that the county has already reserved for because
we believe that is going to have to be repaid, and we believe that's
what the outcome of the Court's decision will result in, a repayment of
that 3 percent loss or cost, if you will, back to those employees.
So both those arguments, as presented by Commissioner Coyle,
are incorrect.
Crystal, I really need clarification from you. As an example, I
mean, you're the only constitutional present here to discuss this issue.
Page 91
October 9, 2012
Did your budget contemplate a COLA adjustment?
MS. KINZEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Your budget contemplated
what it was going to cost you to operate this year based on the budget
guidelines, correct?
MS. KINZEL: Correct. We only took a 2 percent cut, not the
entire five.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where would you -- you would
have to take away from operations to be able to give that 2 percent,
which means you will have to cut back on services somehow in order
to provide that 2 percent adjustment.
MS. KINZEL: That's what we're looking at right now, how
could we do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. How could you do that?
Because you're already operating on a shoestring budget. And the
same holds true for the other constitutionals; they are in the same boat
as the clerk is.
And talking about comparable salaries for the same type of work
performed, Commissioner Henning, you made an excellent point;
there is a problem with that. There is a problem where you have an
accountant who's working at the Clerk's Office and an accountant
who's working at the county doing exactly the same type of work
receiving much higher compensation at the -- on the county side,
which is an issue that definitely has to be addressed.
If the staff is entitled to a COLA, the staff is entitled to a COLA,
but so is the staff of the other constitutional officers, and we cannot
force the other constitutionals to cut their level of service to the public
when it was not budgeted for and not expected. We have to treat them
fairly.
This is not about comparing benefits or who gets more or less
one way or another. This is a COLA adjustment.
So I really have a problem with this. I mean, I want our staff to
Page 92
October 9, 2012
get the COLA they deserve, but it also has to be done that the other
constitutionals get the COLA without adversely affecting the budget
that we adopted -- because we fund them -- that didn't contemplate
that.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just to refresh the board's memory
real quickly. I don't want to belabor this, but the sheriffs budget came
in flat, no reduction from the prior year. The clerk reduced by 2
percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not by five?
MR. OCHS: Correct. The property appraiser and tax collector
came in marginally lower, just slightly, from the prior year, and I think
the supervisor of elections took the 5 percent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how much did your departments
take?
MR. OCHS: Five percent on the operating side and tried to
move any other savings into reserves to build up our reserves.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So is it fair to say that you are the only
agency in Collier County that took a 5 percent reduction?
MR. OCHS: No, I believe the supervisor of elections did --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the supervisor of elections.
MR. OCHS: -- also, sir. And I'm not complaining about that;
don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to correct information. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
Okay. We have a motion.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 93
October 9, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No opposition, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm going to bring this back to
address the constitutionals and their budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I support 2 percent going to
these employees because it is a COLA adjustment; however, I don't
agree with the way the constitutionals are being treated. I don't agree
with the way their budgets are being treated. It is going to
compromise the level of service to the public. The employees deserve
to be treated fairly. The public deserves to be treated exactly as they
expected based on the budget hearings we had.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion passes unanimously.
County Manager, where do you go from here?
Item #11B
RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF
THE LAND AND EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
INTERSECTION OF US41 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD —
MOTION TO CONTINUE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The next item on your agenda is Item
11B. It's a recommendation to adopt resolutions authorizing the
condemnation of land and easements necessary for the construction of
capital improvements at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Collier
Boulevard. Estimated fiscal impact, $13,500,000.
And Mr. Jay Ahmad, your transportation engineering director,
will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I am Jay Ahmad, your director of transportation engineering, for the
Page 94
October 9, 2012
record.
This is a recommendation to adopt a condemnation resolution, so
we must place a few things on the record, and I'll be brief.
And I have my staff here if you have any questions that you may
have, and we'll answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you need to tell us?
MR. AHMAD: The few slides, the four slides that I -- that
follow is exactly what I need to tell you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: We made changes to the agenda since it was
printed, and the changes are placed on your visualizers, and those
changes were made because, after we completed the appraisals, some
legal descriptions -- we tweaked some parcels slightly, and legal
description were changed. So the compensations were changed due to
this update of the appraisals.
MR. OCHS: All reduced.
MR. AHMAD: And they were all reduced, yes, sir.
The Packet Page 218 changed from 46,250 to 45,900. Packet
Page 233 changed, 56,245 to 55,800. Packet Page 277 changed from
1,114,000 to 1,104,000. Packet Page 297 changed from 401,000 to
394,000. Those total changes amount to about $17,000 less than was
originally estimated.
The project -- this project has been before public meetings. I
know Commissioner Fiala attended several of them. I've been at
many HOAs presenting this project.
It's an intersection improvement project that realigns the
intersection at U.S. 41/951. As you can see on your display, the
intersection as you come south now exists with a skew angle. It's a
severe skew angle, and we are trying to correct that.
The correction improves that safety issue that we have and also
accommodates planning for future projects as this intersection is on
your long-range transportation plan for an overpass in the future.
Page 95
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jay, go back to that --
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- slide. On the right, go down to that
little red dot, further to the right, further to the right. Do you see a
little red dot?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you get that?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, I got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is that?
MR. AHMAD: Those are -- at this point, I believe it's an access
management issue that this is -- we're maintaining the access to
Falling Waters as currently exists. The left turn southbound will
remain as a result of this intersection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there are two of those access points?
MR. AHMAD: Correct. There's one south of the intersection, as
you see. That will be maintained also to this facility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'm -- well, there and to the right.
Go to the right. No, to the right. Right. There. You've got one access
issue there.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And go further to the right, and you've
got another one there.
MR. AHMAD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: There's no change --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, what I'm going to ask you --
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is essentially this: You're taking a
huge amount of what really is prime real estate at that intersection, and
a good portion of that property that you're paying for appears to be
merely for two access points and a lot of green median; is that true?
MR. AHMAD: I'm sorry to say, sir, that's not true. The primary
Page 96
October 9, 2012
reason for this green area is, as you can see -- and I'm putting my
pointer --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're going to have water retention
over there.
MR. AHMAD: The retention is in this area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, okay. But where you're
talking about, those access points, you see all the green between that
access road and the new road just above it?
MR. AHMAD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's green all through there.
MR. AHMAD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a lot of green that you're paying
prime money for, and you're not using it for anything.
MR. AHMAD: The simple answer to that question, sir, is
because the intersection is not aligned, we need to go out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I understand that. I understand
that. But the green median between those access roads and the
highway itself looks like it's at least 50 feet wide and maybe 400 or
500 feet long --
MR. AHMAD: And the reason for that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and it's just grass.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. I know exactly what you're saying.
The answer is two components. One, we're accommodating that skew
angle; we're bringing the intersection out and back, that's number one.
The number two, as we're required, we are accommodating your
future planning. There is an overpass planned in your long-range
transportation in 2030. It's been on the books since 1995. It was
updated in 2007 as a long-range transportation plan and a goal for this
board, and it's currently on your books.
So instead of acquiring the parcels twice, we are planning for that
project, as part of this project, to accommodate the future overpass if
you choose and if you may find it necessary in the future. So we
Page 97
October 9, 2012
wouldn't have to obtain these right-of-way and the administrative
costs, attorney costs, severance costs, and so forth, twice. And those
costs are severe and very expensive.
So if I may continue, I will show you the overpass concept which
fits in this right-of-way so you don't do this twice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: And it is part of what the courts ask us and we
consider that -- have you considered long-range transportation as part
of your deliberation? And you're asking the correct questions. Are
you considering that? And you certainly are by asking that question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just not getting the right answer.
MR. HENDRICKS: I think Commissioner Coyle was asking
about this right here, and --
MR. AHMAD: Go ahead. Kevin Hendricks is my right-of-way
manager. He has a few things to add.
MR. OCHS: Kevin, get on the mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to somehow get --
MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, the pointer thingy. I'm not really
technical. Let's see. Where's your mouse? Okay, there you go.
That's the red dot you first inquired about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, I'm Kevin Hendricks, the right-of-way
acquisition manager for the transportation engineering management
department.
That red dot, the median, the width at that red dot, that's all being
constructed in the existing right-of-way. It's the lanage that goes out
beyond that to the west and to the north that's really consuming all that
vacant commercial property that you were asking about.
And then out beyond that, which we don't, actually, have shown
on the map here, is the L-shaped stormwater retention pond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. HENDRICKS: Now, the dot down here, that dot, it's one of
Page 98
October 9, 2012
the entrances to Lowe's. Yes, there's a lot of extra median built into
that which accommodates the future overpass, and reducing that, you
would take a lot less property from -- let's see. Where's the mouse
again? I lost it. Oh, there it is. You could take a lot less property off
of the Circle K right here and the telephone switching station here and
the water/sewer district repump station right here.
But that's about all you really -- that's really the major impact if
you don't do -- if you don't buy enough for the overpass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we sit down and get our
pencils, and I'll show you what I'm thinking about, and you tell me if
I'm wrong, okay, because I just simply don't understand why you want
to buy so much property in that quadrant of that intersection, because I
think it's going to cost you the entire, what, $13 million for that one
parcel. But it's -- it's going to be real, real expensive.
MR. HENDRICKS: We were talking yesterday about that very
question: What happens if you don't build the overpass; how much
money could you save? And it's approximately $3 million you save.
If you don't build the overpass, you don't buy enough property to build
the overpass --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to get you on the
mike, though. Okay.
Well, I don't want to belabor this anymore. I think you can build
the overpass and do everything you want to do.
MR. HENDRICKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just don't have to spend so much
money on wide medians. And I think there is an easier and better way
to get that access you think you need there.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. We won't have these wide medians out
-- what we're showing on the board to your right there, on your right --
MS. MESSAM: That median goes away.
MR. AHMAD: The median, as you see in green, has gotten
really small when the overpass project comes in. And as you can see,
Page 99
October 9, 2012
most of the improvements will fit for the overpass exactly, with not an
inch more than what we need.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you still maintain the accesses to
those two business centers?
MR. AHMAD: And the accesses have been changed, and I'll let
Marlene explain the access management. The -- obviously, because of
the overpass, there are a lot of changes, and we're not proposing an
overpass by all means. I want to be very clear. This is a
condemnation to do an at-grade intersection with long-range
transportation planning in mind.
There will be changes to the access management as a result of an
overpass, but that's in 2035 or beyond. So we're not proposing an
overpass at this stage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're proposing to condemn the
property and take the property now?
(Commissioner Coletta is no longer on speakerphone.)
MR. AHMAD: Correct. We're proposing to condemn the
properties to do the intersection. And as you can see from the prior is
the at-grade intersection fits in this footprint.
It happened to fit. Yes, there may be a couple of areas that we
have -- and I think we've gotten the same question from Commissioner
Hiller. What's a delta if we just do -- and it's a great question. What's
the delta if we just do the at-grade intersection without, you know,
buying more right-of-way? And the delta is really less than $3
million, from what my folks here estimated.
So there isn't a huge savings at this time. And in the future if we
start acquiring that, it probably will cost us more in attorney fees and
severance again and dealing with the same property owners again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? There's only a $3 million
difference between an overpass and --
MR. AHMAD: Three million, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at-grade road?
Page 100
October 9, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right-of-way costs only.
MR. AHMAD: In right-of-way costs only.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, just in right-of-way costs.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I thought, like, the delta
between the overpass and an at-grade road. I was, like, going, wow,
that number sounds off.
MR. AHMAD: I need to put a few things more on the record, if
you'll allow me, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. AHMAD: The next slide is, visually, the areas we're
acquiring, and you identified most of them. Obviously the pond site
and the needed required right-of-way for this take.
This is the most important slide, and this -- the proceedings here
will be part of the record for the Court in order to grant us an order of
taking. An OT cannot be granted by the courts unless you have
considered all these five factors.
The first one, alternative alignments. And, obviously, we're
considering an overpass, we're considering at-grade intersection and
different ways of doing the at-grade intersection, with more taking,
less taking, what your consultant did and what we did bring you that
at-grade intersection with the least amount of take that we could take
at that time considering long-range transportation planning.
The cost of competing alternatives, there is a technical
memorandum that's part of your record and as part of your packet that
I hope that you reviewed it carefully and considered that we have
considered the cost.
That's safety. Safety -- again, the skew angle of this intersection
is the primary cause for us to start this project at this time, the skew
angle, and to address deficiencies in capacity. We're adding some
lanes to address growth.
There's over $9 million of developer contribution agreement that
Page 101
October 9, 2012
this board approved related to this intersection and improvements. So
you also have public safety, health, and welfare as part of this
deliberation.
Long-range planning, I mentioned that a couple times.
Environmental impacts, we have considered environmental impacts,
and we are before the South Florida Water Management District at
this time to get our required permits.
With that, I am open to any more questions with, hopefully, that
you approve this recommendation to adopt the resolution so we'll
continue with this process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You brought up some really
good points. That were also a couple more dots on there that I wasn't
familiar with in the original thing. Yeah, see, there -- there are the two
little dots over there beyond the green -- yeah, those guys -- and then
one over there on the -- on the south side of U.S -- southeast side of
U.S. 41. A couple little dots in there. I was just wondering what they
were for.
MR. AHMAD: Marlene Messam will answer this question for
you.
MS. MESSAM: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Marlene Messam. What has been identified on the exhibit that you're
viewing are locations where we are either closing an access point or
keeping that access open. So these are -- points are just indicating
access changes.
Now, the two access points in the northwest quadrant, this is an
abandoned service station, so these two driveways there are going to
be closed because we're acquiring that property for stormwater pond.
The access to the north there, we're maintaining that access open
for the Falling Waters Beach Resort community.
The next access on the southeast corner, we're closing one of the
driveways to the Circle K. The other access point there would be --
Page 102
October 9, 2012
we're keeping the access open to the Eagle Creek community -- Eagle
Creek Shopping Center.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question, Commissioner Coyle brought this up with the
generous amount of land we plan to purchase, and I wonder if we
don't need the overpass. Will we have purchased this land, and then
what do we do with it when we don't need it anymore?
MR. AHMAD: Well, it will remain as a green, nice landscaping,
I suppose. And the majority, again, of the areas that we're taking is in
this quadrant. It is required to align the intersection. We're taking the
intersection out and back in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I do know that you're taking
that dog leg out of there, which has been a problem area, because
people are coming out and heading right into each other's -- the front
of their cars, head-on collisions occur there.
I was just wondering, you know, is there -- are you buying even
more excess rather than just rounding out that intersection? And if we
don't happen to build an overpass, I guess you've given me an answer I
can understand.
And the last thing is, I am concerned about the wall. I've told
you about that a number of times already with the Eagle Creek
community, and they're not quite there yet as far as that decision goes.
And I just want to make sure that if we approve this that the approval
of the wall -- even though it doesn't say it's supposed to be in here, but
it mentions it a number of times -- even though we're not approving
that wall, I want to make sure that they still have -- that their
negotiations are still moving forward, because they're very unhappy
with it the way it is.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, ma'am. As you know, I know you went
with me to a couple of the meetings at the homeowners' association.
I've presented this a couple times to them. I do understand their
concerns and issues.
Page 103
October 9, 2012
We're about 60 percent in the design stage. They do want the
wall. We're offering a wall. The issues with them now is how high is
this wall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. AHMAD: We're dealing with a federal process that
requires us to put certain height, and they are unhappy with that phase
of it. But we are working the issues. We submitted something to
them just this week, and he's -- his architect, Mr. VanAlstine, the
president of the Eagle Creek, is reviewing that, and I think he will be
pleased with the outcome of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's good.
MR. AHMAD: It's an engineering solution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for the folks to understand what
they were -- what the state, not us, but the state -- that's the thing.
We're kind of crippled because the state has different criteria than we
do. We're more responsive to neighborhoods, whereas the state has
declared that we need a 21-foot wall.
Well, that's going to make them feel like they're in a prison rather
than -- when right across the street on 951 but on the county side, Lely
Resort has a lovely wall, and they say, why can't we have the same?
Well, that's because they're not on the state road. They're on the
county road, and we're more flexible.
So we're hoping to negotiate something that they can live with
that is acceptable to them and beautiful at the same time to --
MR. AHMAD: Yes, ma'am. I will not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- individual --
MR. AHMAD: -- bring you a construction contract unless I
resolve that issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. AHMAD: We're about 60 percent, and we're advancing this
issue forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Jay. Okay.
Page 104
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Jay, you put out that summary which shows why a takings would
be justified, and one -- I think number two on the summary indicated
cost of the alternatives. Can you put that on the overhead? And then
could you, afterwards, also put on the overhead the difference in cost
between acquiring the land just for a ground road and the cost of the
land for acquiring the land for a road at grade plus the overpass, you
know, showing me the component costs of each.
MR. AHMAD: I'm going to let your right-of-way manager
address the costs. He's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. AHMAD: In addressing your question yesterday, he
worked out some numbers, and he told me about $3 million is the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But I want to know -- like,
let's start with two, the cost of the competing alternative designs. Do
you have those? You can just put them up.
MR. HENDRICKS: Marlene, you're probably going to have to
address that.
MS. MESSAM: Commissioner, to answer your question, we did
look at competing alternative designs; yes, we did. We looked at a
no-build, we looked at the at-grade, and the overpass.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want -- I just want the cost
between the three.
MS. MESSAM: I don't think I have that with me. At least if it's
in the package, I won't waste time in trying to find it, but I can
certainly get that information to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if you could send it --
whatever you send me, send to the whole board.
Also, what's the likelihood we're going to build this overpass?
What's the percentage probability right now, and when do you
anticipate building it?
Page 105
October 9, 2012
MR. AHMAD: I'm going to go back to 2009 when the DCA
came before you. And in that DCA, a bunch of consortium developers
came and they said, there's concurrency here. We want to do
improvements at this intersection. They contributed money to this
project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That $2 million.
MR. AHMAD: Well, they have actually over $9 million --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nine million.
MR. AHMAD: -- in different developer contribution
agreements.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has that already been contributed,
9 million been contributed?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, we have that money. It's part of the
funding for this project, as I mentioned, the DCAs.
MR. HENDRICKS: The amount of contribution was made in
January 2012.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my question is, has the
funding already been contributed by the developers?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because we have DCAs
where it's, you know, contingent on certain events occurring in the
future, like the improvement of the, you know, Orange
Blossom/Airport intersection, which is small by comparison, but, you
know, they haven't made contributions but they have a developer
contribution agreement between multiple developers.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, ma'am. I put on the visualizer the funding
for this project. Part of $18 million there are $9 million from
developer contribution agreements that funds this project.
There is a grant from the Department of Transportation. You've
seen the beginning of it last board meeting, I believe, when you
approved a joint participation agreement between Florida Department
of Transportation and the county that funded the CEI, and we will
Page 106
October 9, 2012
come back again when we have a construction contract or about that
time to fund the remainder of the money from that grant funding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jay, where is the developer
contribution agreement? What line item does it fall in in your funding
schedule?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: How you doing, Commissioner? For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
It's in your line item under impact fees. There are two
agreements. One is approximately for $9 million that was already
approved several years back, and they've paid that. You've also
approved another $4 million agreement probably about three months
ago. They fund in FY 13, January, and FY 14 in January, in two
tranches of $2 million each. That's extra money that we will -- we'll
have above and beyond this schedule that you have here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But those are impact fees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, they're prepaying their impact
fees to the DCAs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So those are prepaid impact
fees. Those are not contributions above and beyond impact fees.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they're not above and beyond
impact fees. They're prepaid impact fees. They knew that they
couldn't go because we had a moratorium at this intersection. We had
a failure that -- unless they prefunded the improvement. So they
agreed to put their money ahead of time, fully paid their impact fees
for the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And all these developers want that
overpass?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not necessarily the overpass. And I
think I want to go back to Commissioner Coyle's comment and yours
about time, if I can get the graphic back.
If you look at the diagram -- and a couple things to consider.
You asked when. It's a matter of time. When we looked at 6L Farms
Page 107
October 9, 2012
and everything that's going on over here, our goal is, obviously, to get
as much time as we can out of the at-grade, and we expect to get to
2025/2030 based on today's growth rates.
But when you go outside of that time period, your level of
service at the intersection is exceeded. So you have to come back at
some point in time. The question is when. 6L Farms is scheduled for
approximately 7,000 residential units, and that's on the East Trail.
Unfortunately, at this intersection that you have here, you have
no other way out either from Marco or from the East Trail. The
Wilson/Benfield corridor study that we presented to the board going
back a couple years, it's going to be extremely difficult to tie Benfield
to 41 because of that state property that's in the northeast corner. I
know Commissioner Fiala's well aware of that location. So this is
your only way out from Marco and your only way out for the East
Trail. So we're hoping to get a good 20 years out of there.
To address the right-of-way that Commissioner Coyle brought up
-- I'd like to get the mouse to work. You can see this location here is
already fully developed. One issue that you have, notwithstanding the
skew and the water management pond that's here, coming back later, if
these two parcels develop with commercial outparcels, the cost will be
-- I can't even begin to imagine if, obviously, a CVS or some other
retail store comes in in these two locations after we've done the
at-grade and you haven't taken the right-of-way.
To go back and hit them a second time, those costs would be
exponentially higher.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nick, that was not my suggestion at all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe you can achieve both objectives
without taking as much property. That's my only point. And I'll be
happy to draw you a diagram when we get out of here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 108
October 9, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, if you're not comfortable, should
we continue this item until we can --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should continue this
item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there are a lot of issues.
The fact that what Commissioner Coyle is saying, the fact that, you
know, the road as-is is going to be good for another 20 years, and we
already know that the potential for development exists considering the
20 years. We know about 6L, and that's factored into that 20-year
number.
So I think we need to re-evaluate this. I'm -- I can understand a
concern that future development might make this more expensive, but
I think we have to weigh how realistic it is that we're going to do this
in the near future and whether we need to buy as much land now. I
mean, I'm not sure this necessarily makes sense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We want you to be comfortable
with this, because this is an important decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This drives the whole project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. All takings are important
decisions, no matter how big or small. But I'd think -- I'd like to make
a motion that we continue this and that maybe you would visit with
each of the commissioners and answer their individual questions that
have come up as a result of today's debate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't agree with you more --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- because it's too important not to
make that decision in the right way. So we want to give you the facts.
If we have to sit one-on-one, we will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Page 109
October 9, 2012
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it is continued.
And we're going to take a break for lunch. We'll be back here at
1:18.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. We don't have Commissioner
Coletta with us, do we? No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said he wouldn't be back till two.
MR. MITCHELL: No.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2012-191: A RESOLUTION FINDING PETITION
NUMBER ST-PL2012168 FOR A SPECIAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DREDGE AND FILL ON STATE-
OWNED PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF WIGGINS PASS
CONSISTENT WITH THE AGRICULTURAL AND
CONSERVATION SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAYS (A-ST
AND CON-ST) AND ISSUE THE PERMIT. THE PROJECT IS
Page 110
October 9, 2012
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 17, 18 AND 20, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
ADOPTED W/MODIFICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to go to 11C; is that
correct, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: That's right, Mr. Chairman.
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: All participants are required to be sworn in. It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution finding Petition No.
ST-PL2012-168 for a special treatment development permit to dredge
and fill on state-owned property in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass
consistent with the agricultural and conservation special treatment
overlay, and to issue the permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who are going to
provide testimony for this petition please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And I'll
start the ex parte disclosure. I have reviewed the CCP (sic) staff report
of 8/16/12 and the EAC staff report for 7/13/12, and I've also received
several emails concerning this petition.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have received the staff
report and also the EAC report. I met with Joe Moreland, and actually
he wrote me a letter and said, you know, what you need to do is come
on out and see this firsthand so you know what we're talking about.
So I made arrangements to go out there. He brought a couple other
fellows with me -- with him, and we all took a look at it together.
And I'm so glad I did, because it was quite an eye opener. Thank
you, Joe.
Page 111
October 9, 2012
I've also heard from the Conservancy on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I reviewed the staff reports; I
watched the Planning Commission meeting; I spoke to the chair of the
Planning Commission; I spoke to constituents; I spoke to
Conservancy; I spoke to staff; I, too went on a boat with Mr.
Moreland, but he didn't invite me --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he brought you back?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. But I just wanted you to
know, not only --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, you missed a chance, buddy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know, you're -- that's
just sour grapes because you weren't invited, okay. But I'll tell you
one thing, if you wore a skirt, he might have invited you, too, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not with my legs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Listen, we've never seen your legs,
so, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to see them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No thanks, no thanks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ooh, ooh. All right. So -- yeah.
So I was out there also and, actually, I was out there as part of a
very well organized tour put together by Gary McAlpin and Mr.
Moreland, and I attended the beaches and shores conference, which
was very educational. And, in fact, I brought back a lot of information
which I will share at a later time with the Board of County
Commissioners because it was a real eye opener.
That tour took a whole group of us. Nicole Ryan -- Nicole
Johnson, forgive me, was on that tour as well. And we also saw it
from a perspective that many of us hadn't. I normally kayak out there,
so when I kayak I see it from a different height, and it's very different
to see it from the height of a boat as opposed to the low elevation of a
Page 112
October 9, 2012
kayak. So it was certainly interesting, and the input of all the people
on the boat made a big difference, too; gave me a lot of insight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 10 public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten public speakers, okay.
Commissioner Henning, do you have any ex parte disclosure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reviewed the Planning
Commission's report, EAC's report, received some emails. I was not
invited by Joe Moreland. I refuse to put a skirt on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is going to be a standing joke
you're going to have to live down, Joe, okay. I'm sorry, but you're
tainted forever now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, all it took was just a little
shove. Okay. Let's go.
MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm
Stephen Lenberger from the natural resources department from the
planning and regulation branch of the Growth Management Division.
What we have before us is a special treatment permit. On the
visualizer, I put the ST overlay exhibit, which you have in your
packet. If you look at the exhibit, you'll see it has "CON-ST" over the
park, both park sites, Delnor Wiggins and Barefoot Beach Preserve,
and there's an "A-ST" overlay over the lagoon immediately behind
Barefoot Beach.
I'd like to just back up a minute here and just tell you the three
types of overlays you have which are regulated by this section of the
code. Those would be your coastal systems, that being what you have
in front of you today; the other being the area of critical state concern
in the Big Cypress National Preserve, which has a whole 'norther set
of development regulations very specific to that region, and we have
Page 113
October 9, 2012
those adopted in our Comp Plan, and they're also state statutes; and
then there's ST overlays, which were done in the '70s over wetland
areas in the urban area, and those wetland areas are usually reviewed
as part of a development petition, whether it be a conditional use for a
church or whether it be a PUD rezone.
When a PUD comes in-house, the ST overlay is lifted, and the
areas and all the existing vegetation is reevaluated in accordance with
the criteria for the selection of preserves in the Growth Management
Plan and the Land Development Code. So those are your three areas
of ST overlays.
The ST permit process is a separate and -- how should I say --
additional review process for ST overlays. ST overlays are considered
environmentally sensitive. And as far as permitting activities, it's up
to the board's discretion to review and approve what they see fit for
impact to these areas.
As far as review criteria, for coastal systems we usually look at
the Growth Management Plan, the CCME for consistency, and that's
what staff looked at at this product, and our determination for
consistency is included in the staff reports, the EAC and the Planning
Commission.
This particular project submitted an environmental impact
statement which is required by the Growth Management Plan and the
Land Development Code. Staff thought it was pretty thorough. And
we've reviewed the product for consistency with the GMP, and we do
find it consistent.
There are other agency permits which will be required and also
approvals by this board later on for contracts and things of that nature.
As far as our department's concerned, the product will also be
required to follow -- apply for a CCSL permit.
The maintenance dredging and beach renourishment historically
used to require a CCSL variance in front of the Board of County
Commissioners, and the board simplified the process for these type of
Page 114
October 9, 2012
activities by creating a permit process for CCSLs.
So after the -- if the ST permit is approved, it would have to get a
CCSL permit from staff as well as other approvals from the board for
contracts and things of this nature.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
approve, but I'd like to do so with adding a few comments, if I may.
May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. First of all -- first of
all, to ensure that this project is a sound project -- because we do have
limited resources -- I had raised my concerns at one point to the
county attorney and to some staff, and it was actually the county
attorney's recommendation that, you know, the solution to eliminating
concerns is a peer review. And staff actually took the suggestion and,
at Leo's direction, went out, and they have now -- do you already have
Olson under contract?
MR. McALPIN: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Have hired a very qualified
coastal engineer by the name of Olson, Mr. Olson, who will be doing
an analysis of this design to ensure it will achieve the objectives that it
is intended to achieve, one of which is to shorten -- to lengthen, I'm
sorry, the dredge cycles; number two, to do it at a reduced cost;
number three, to do it in a manner that, you know, stops the erosion of
the north beach and doesn't in any way adversely affect the south
beach and basically will provide for that navigability that we have
committed to the boaters with respect to that channel.
The second thing that I want to address is the financial analysis.
As I mentioned, one of the objectives is to reduce the cost to the
county. The financial analysis presented today isn't correctly
calculated. That's now being referred to the office of management and
budget to recalculate, so we need those numbers coming back when
we go through those next steps, as you describe, to make sure that this
Page 115
October 9, 2012
does accomplish, you know, one of the intended objectives, which is
cost savings.
The third thing I want to address, which will be reviewed as part
of the Olson's analysis, is the impact of the tributaries on the channel,
and there are three coming in, the one towards the harbor, I guess, or
-- would that be a fair description? What do you want to -- what?
MR. McALPIN: East.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right -- call it -- okay, the east
channel. Then you have the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: North channel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: North channel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The north channel, the east
channel, the west channel. The three channels. Anyway, so those
channels will be -- those tributaries will be analyzed. And we have a
preliminary analysis that the current engineers have done which you
sent me, and I would really appreciate, Gary, if you could send that to
all the gentlemen who are here today so that they could review it also
so that they understand what the total impact will be, because it has to
be looked at as a system not just, you know, we're straightening this
because this is what we want to do. We have to look at the collective
impact.
So those are the three comments I wanted to make for
clarification purposes as to where we stand today and, again, making
the motion to approve the submittal of this permit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With those criteria involved in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll just add that, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to approve with the modifications as stated and
Page 116
October 9, 2012
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
We have public speakers. Is anyone here opposed to this
petition? No one is going to speak in opposition to it?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, and I want --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to withdraw your right to
speak --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the things --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in view of the positive motion? I
know you're not going to withdraw, Bob.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the things I wanted to say
is there has been a very concentrated collective effort to bring all the
interest groups that are affected, be it Conservancy, Friends of
Wiggins Pass, Friends of Delnor --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Barefoot Beach Preserve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- thank you -- Barefoot Beach.
He's filling in the blanks for me. This is really scary. He knows what
I'm thinking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She'd never get through this meeting
without me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I tell you something? It
would be -- it would be very lonely up here without -- you know,
without -- well, I won't go there, okay.
So -- yes. So there has been a very strong collective effort to
move forward considering all interests, the boaters' interests, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Who wants -- who is the
first person up to speak? You can waive if you wish, or else you can
come up and talk.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Doug Fee, and he'll be
followed by Bill Pitman.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, Doug Fee.
I basically have two questions, or main questions. Does Collier
Page 117
October 9, 2012
County have the legal ability to apply for, review, hold public
hearings, and approve an ST permit for an upland riparian owner,
Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund, TIITF, who holds title
to both the north of Wiggins Pass as well as the south?
Who is the ST permit issued to? Who paid the cost of pursuing
this ST permit, Collier County or TIITF? What if there was a legal
challenge to issuing of this permit?
Along with that, what was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you stop? Can we get that
answered first?
MR. FEE: Okay. Well, if I get my time stopped.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's more than two questions,
Doug.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Why weren't these submitted to
the staff so they could have you an answer today?
MR. FEE: Well, I'll get to that, I promise.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah. I bet you will. It would have
been a lot easier if the staff had had your questions so that we could
have researched the answers and given you something that was
substantive rather than just trying to do it on the fly.
MR. FEE: I'm not going to do your job, Commissioner Coyle,
but I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was just asking you to do yours. But,
nevertheless, go ahead.
MR. FEE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He doesn't have a job to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, he does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's a citizen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He has a responsibility as a citizen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He has the right to ask a question.
Jeff, can you answer the question, please?
Page 118
October 9, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the applicant who applies for the permit.
The applicant's the one who's doing the dredging. The applicant here
is Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And do we have the legal ability to
do all this stuff based on this TIITF ownership interest?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have the legal ability to do what we're
doing, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Is that okay?
MR. FEE: That's all. Yeah, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right.
MR. FEE: And as it related to the CCSL variance or permit, as
you want to call it, as well.
Now, to answer your question, Commissioner Coyle, the second
question that I have deals with state-certified approved professional
survey, which I believe is in your Land Development Code when you
go through the process of issuing an ST permit.
I just received today, actually yesterday evening, a survey which
shows the legal boundaries of the project. It is dated September 4,
2012. I had requested this maybe a month ago, actually have been
requesting it for several months, but I now have what I consider to be
a survey, okay, which is right here.
In your resolution that you have in front of you, it indicates an
exhibit, Exhibit A, which is not really a survey. It shows you the
project boundaries, but it doesn't show you the exact construction area.
So -- and the reason why that's important is over many meetings I
have mentioned there's a deed restriction on some land on this area.
And I'm going to put up a map real quick that was provided by the
state, which is right here. If you can see the cross-checked -- it's 200
feet all the way from the bay to the gulf -- that area has a restriction on
it. That was provided by Lainie Edward of DEP, but it is not a survey.
In other words, it's an area -- but I've been asking for what is the exact
boundary.
Page 119
October 9, 2012
The reason why that's important is when you issue the ST permit,
there may be a conflict between this restricted area and what the
project entails. And so I keep raising that issue. I'm not pointing the
finger at anyone, but there is a deed restriction that when the land was
transferred back in the '70s -- and I've read that deed restriction into
the record -- I just don't know whether there's a conflict in the
parameter of the project, and I wouldn't want to get too far down the
road.
Also, the final question would be, if you issue the ST permit
today, and let's say a year from now you need to change the
boundaries, will there have to be another process in order to grant a
new ST permit for some change to -- and are you going to get yourself
in a situation where you're creating more regulation? So I'm just
raising an issue.
Thank you very much.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to dredge this or not? Because
at the end of the day, if you want to dredge this, we'll dredge this. At
the end of the day, if somebody challenges this, at that point in time
we'll look at these issues.
I don't know what else there is to say. It's your project. It's your
granting the ST. We've been at this now for quite some time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing I can conclude, quite
frankly, is that this is -- these comments are designed to delay the
project again. If there was a desire to really get an answer to these
issues, Mr. Fee wouldn't have waited till the day of the decision to
raise his questions. He would have been in here asking staff for
answers to those questions, and he would have the answers today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He actually has been asking staff
for months, because I get copied on all the emails. I go back and forth
on this. And he has been raising this issue for quite some time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Has staff refused to answer?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But staff must have the answer
Page 120
October 9, 2012
then, so what --
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Bill.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director. And let me introduce Steve Keene here, who's the
consultant. He's been working with the project and is familiar with the
boundaries, the details, and the state requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the question is, has Mr. Fee
presented his questions to you, and have you failed to answer them?
MR. KEENE: Sir, I think this particular one here, Mr. Fee called
up, I believe it was Lainie Edwards at DEP, and asked the question in
regards to this issue. Lainie Edwards gave us a courtesy copy of the
answer, and I assume that Mr. Fee got an answer at the same time.
This diagram that was up here just a second ago is what DEP put
together probably in consultation with state lands. And from DEP's
point of view, on this issue and a lot of other issues -- and this includes
their consultation with state lands -- there's no state-lands issue with
this project right now.
They're prepared to give us a permit shortly. They're processing
it right now. And they're satisfied that the state-lands issues have all
been addressed, and I haven't heard any of those come up recently.
And so there's been a lot of state-lands issues, there's been a lot of
debate between us and them, and I think we've gotten into the process
on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that the same -- Commissioner
Coyle, can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, Commissioner
Henning is waiting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to know, is that what
Page 121
October 9, 2012
the state told you? And if there's been a lot of debate about this -- I
mean, I've seen a lot of emails back and forth on this issue, but what --
I mean, this is new. What -- did the state tell you the same thing that
they told Mr. Keene, that there are no issues with state lands?
MR. FEE: For the issue in front of us -- which I have raised at
many meetings. This is not a new topic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But what did the state tell
you?
MR. FEE: I believe that the Land Development Code has a
stipulation that you have a survey and metes and bounds and all that.
It's certified by the state. I can see on what the state -- Lainie Edwards
provided me, which is a cross-check on some land but, in fact, it's not
a survey. It is merely just showing me where they believe it to be.
So in the subsequent question, it was please provide me the legal
description for that 200 feet so that there wouldn't be an overlay of a
survey that I received last night. I'm not -- I'm not pointing a finger.
These things take time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What survey did you receive last
night?
MR. FEE: I received from Gary McAlpin's office a forwarded
email from Steve Keene, the consultant, with a survey. And I now
have that, but I only had it last evening. But on top of that, I don't
have the survey of the deeded land where this restriction lies. I have
the picture. But when you do development, you want to know the
specifics --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let me ask the question again.
MR. FEE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Keene just stood here in front
of us and said that there has been a lot of discussion between the
county and the state with respect to the rights to these lands and who
could do what where.
MR. FEE: Okay.
Page 122
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And he just finished saying, if I
understood what you said correctly, that those debates have been
resolved and that the state says there are no issues with respect to
these state-owned lands. So is that what you understand also?
MR. FEE: I can only comment that last night was when I got the
survey to the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the state has not told you
whether or not there are issues? I mean, have you -- have you had any
discussions lately with the state?
MR. FEE: No, not since I received that map.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. FEE: What I did have discussions with was with staff here
at the county level asking them for certifications, state survey
certification, and I kept being told that's coming, that's coming, that's
coming. Correct, Gary? Right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Doug, let me -- I understand.
So finally you got it, but now you want --
MR. PEE: I got one part of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you want an additional survey,
and you believe the Land Development Code requires that survey?
MR. FEE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's one issue. The other issue
is whether there's a survey or not if, based on the state's analysis of the
lands, there is no problem, unless you tell me you've heard otherwise
from the state, maybe we need to get it in writing so that it eliminates
the discussion about this debate.
MR. FEE: All I'm saying is, it's sort of like me going to my
neighbor and saying, you know, I see where your property line is, but
I'd like to build something. Sometimes when you go for permits, there
are exact things that you're doing, and I don't have that on the
Delnor-Wiggins. I'm not saying it's a problem, but I don't want to
second-guess it is my thing.
Page 123
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let me make sure I understand this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's state land. The state says they have
no problem with it. You say you don't have a survey but you actually
received a state survey last night, and now you want another county
survey?
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I've got the point now. You
know where this is going, don't you? If we approve -- if we approve
the contract, the clerk is not going to approve the payment because of
this problem, because it will have to be researched for months and
months and months and months.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very unfair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not, because it's a clear pattern
that takes place here frequently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But go ahead, Gary.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, if I may, Gary McAlpin, for the
record, Coastal Zone Management.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's wrong.
MR. McALPIN: The State of Florida has told us on numerous
occasions -- and I have indicated to Mr. Fee yesterday morning being
the latest -- that the state considers this all submerged lands,
submerged lands by the state.
In our application for the permit, we make application for
submerged lands. The state does research with state lands, their own
department, and if there's any problem with state lands either to the
north or to the south, they do not issue us a permit.
We even went to the fact -- went to the point where we went to
the permitting agency and we asked for a detailed research on this
issue. They came back and said, no, there's no issues with any
encroachment on the state parks' property either to the north or to the
Page 124
October 9, 2012
south. We're 100 percent in state lands.
We are not -- the state did not require us to do an official survey,
because they did it with metes and bounds. The legal description is
what we're talking about.
Coastal Planning and Engineering was in the process of doing
that. When they found out it was not required, we stopped that effort.
I did, in fact, provide a draft survey to Mr. Fee yesterday just
because we wanted to make sure that he had everything that he
needed, and that's where we stand on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Can I make the suggestion,
Commissioner Coyle? Could we maybe -- since Olson is reviewing
this and doing the peer analysis, just to make sure that we're doing
everything correctly, part of the analysis should maybe include
assurances that, you know, we are legally within our boundaries to do
what we're doing on the land we're doing. I mean, it should be easy to
verify if Keene has already -- not Keene. Mr. Keene, Mr. Keene --
MR. KEENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- has already done that, so it
would merely be like a verification, and then we eliminate the debate
and have an independent third party --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the objective is to delay this for
another hearing, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not delay it at all.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No need to delay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to hear it.
MS. KINZEL: Well, for the record --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't even want to hear it.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we asking to waive the
requirements under our Land Development Code? There are --
supposed to be a survey attached to it, and that is supposed to be
Page 125
October 9, 2012
Exhibit A. We don't have a survey. We have a depiction of an area.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, let me have -- Steve Lenberger has
researched that. Let me have him answer that question,
Commissioner.
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, natural
resources.
I have the Land Development Code amendment that was just
approved, and it has the strikethrough language. I have it in front of
me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which land development?
MR. LENBERGER: This is the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Four oh --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one -- okay.
MR. LENBERGER: This is with the ST overlay, 4.02.14.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the one we just
approved?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes. But I have the strikethrough language
here, so I can refer to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. That's in
Chapter 8 -- 10?
MR. LENBERGER: Chapter 4.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chapter 4.
MR. LENBERGER: And it talks about submission requirements,
and it talks about exact survey. And the context that this paragraph is
in is in preservation of native vegetation. And what it says, exact
surveys showing the product boundaries, any existing street, water
courses, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed development,
period. Then it continues. It says, development shall identify, protect,
and conserve native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat.
Habitats and their boundaries will be consistent with the FDOT
Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System, and shall
Page 126
October 9, 2012
be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal
to 200 feet when available from the county; otherwise, the scale of at
least one inch equals to 400 feet is acceptable.
Information obtained by groundtruthing with photographic
evidence -- through groundtruthing surveys shall have precedence
over information presented through photographic evidence.
For proposed site alteration within or on shorelines or onto
undeveloped or developed coastal barrier habitats, identification shall
comply with the scaling criteria in accordance with Chapter 10 of this
code.
The context this is used in -- and this is old language that we --
staff has used to identify preserves, when we have conservation
easements, we can't have easements conflicting with those
conservation easements.
So we look for utility lines, easements, ingress/egress easements,
or right-of-ways so we don't have conflicts for preserve areas. This is
a coastal project. It doesn't have those easements. So the context of
the survey is for identification of native vegetation for retention.
This product also is different. It doesn't have a preservation
requirement. It's to improve the resources there in the ST overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're looking at the intent,
not the actual strict language.
MR. LENBERGER: Right. And we amended the language to
write submission requirements pursuant to 10.02.00 and 10.08.00,
which are submission requirements in the Land Development Code for
site development plans, plat and plans, planned unit developments,
conditional uses, things of that nature. So we wrote it -- that as
applicable, clarifying how we look at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're not applying this
because it doesn't have native vegetation.
MR. LENBERGER: There's no native vegetation preservation
for this product, correct.
Page 127
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that answers the question
then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you had suggested
a motion of some kind to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She already made the motion, I
seconded it. We had the first speaker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just said if there is a debate -- and
it was a suggestion -- that it's a very easy question to just include in
the review to make sure. And I would just make a broad question just
as part of the peer review -- and this is not part of my motion. This is
a suggestion -- that the -- that Mr. Olson ensure that we are properly
dredging in lands that we have the legal right to dredge in. Really,
you know, very simple.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have any problems with that.
That --
MR. LORENZ: Yes, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director.
The scope for Olson and Associates is really more for the technical
analysis, and so that would not be part of the scope. But we can
certainly get a separate -- a separate firm, a surveying firm to validate
those boundaries.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. We should -- Jeff, what do
you think? Yeah, do we have surveyors?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why can't our county attorney make that
determination?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's what I was wondering
if -- I was just asking -- I was going to ask the same question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much extra does that cost?
Page 128
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let's first find out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if we find out the county attorney
can make that --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what the need is. I mean,
you've got a permit to dredge a very specified area issued by the state.
We want our -- what, do we want to resurvey this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ask them again.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do we want to resurvey this, ask them again
to get another permit?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me put the question to
you this way. If the state felt we were doing something on lands
which were controlled by the state that the -- where the state felt it was
unacceptable for us to do that, wouldn't they just deny us?
MR. KLATZKOW: You wouldn't get the permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So isn't the control mechanism in
place here, Doug -- I mean, just think about this. Isn't the control
mechanism --
MR. KLATZKOW: The state.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the permit? The state. So if the
state says no because we own the lands -- you've raised the issue, and
it's nice that -- it's good that you raise the issue so that we don't have
problems down the road and, you know, it slaps us in the face as
something that should have been considered.
Because you raised it, there obviously was a lot of debate
between state and the county. And it sounds to me like through a lot
of debate of an issue that you raised, there has been a conclusion on
the state's part that this can be done, that it is okay to do whatever
they're doing on the lands that you're identifying, because either it
doesn't affect that land or it does, but it can't.
So I think -- I'm not really -- you know, I'm very -- I'm always
Page 129
October 9, 2012
very concerned about issues, especially, you know, encroaching on
someone else's rights or not having legal right to do something, but I
just am not seeing the issue here. And I -- do you see an issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see an issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the county --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see the issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just don't see the issue
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The county attorney has already said that
this is legally sufficient for board action, and that's in the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't like the term "legal
sufficiency," but that's a debate for another day. But I accept Jeff s
position right now where he said he believes that what is being done
by the county is legal, and it sounds to me like the state is saying what
the county is doing is legal. And unless the state comes back to us and
they have the ability to do, as we submit the permit, to say that what
we're doing is wrong, then we have to work on the assumption that it's
right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let's call the next speaker, if
you really want to talk.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bill Pittman, and he'll be
followed by David Seiden.
MR. PITTMAN: Bill Pittman. I live at the Anchorage on 12945
Vanderbilt Drive.
Part of the ECA process was to contact all of our members and to
make them aware of this issue and to speak out in favor of the process
and the project that's up for consideration.
I have -- we have 10 or 12 people who are here in person, but I
have 65 letters from people who aren't here because the season hasn't
quite started for them yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you introduce them on the
Page 130
October 9, 2012
record?
MR. PITTMAN: Introduce?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just give -- if you give them to the
court reporter, they'll be attached as an exhibit to -- yep -- to the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give it to the county attorney.
MR. PITTMAN: I was going to read them. I was going to read
them, because I have all these minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to read all the names?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what? I suggest
we order pizza at 6 o'clock. No, that's great because --
MR. PITTMAN: And then they'll charge me with the pizza, I
suppose, though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll just add it to the taxes.
MR. PITTMAN: No, I'd rather you didn't do that either.
I do want to read at least one of these letters, if I may. It won't
take just a minute.
This is from one of the fellows. I'm writing to show my support
of the ECA and the Wiggins dredging product. I'm a local homeowner
and a member slip owner of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club. The reason I
chose this area in 2004 to invest in is because I am a boater and what
the area has to offer from a boating perspective.
There are many people in my community -- it's Cove Towers --
that are boaters and feel the same way, as well as many other
homeowners that pay a premium for property and taxes to live on the
water, not to mention the thousands of people not on the water who
trailer their boats to the Collier County boat ramp who also buy fuel
and bait at the county store.
These people can easily trailer their boats somewhere else and
support some other area more friendly towards boaters. Not so easy
for slip owners and homeowners on the water.
However, I would personally move to another area if Wiggins
Pass is not maintained for boating safety. The impact to the North
Page 131
October 9, 2012
Naples area is huge. Collier County should take this into account --
into consideration when making decisions to maintain Wiggins Pass
for boating safety.
After all, they collect the premium taxes for waterfront property,
which will become less valuable if Wiggins Pass is not maintained.
Thank you for your ongoing support and efforts to keep Wiggins
Pass safe for boaters, and this is Richard Schnabel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is David Seiden.
MR. SEIDEN: I am David Seiden. I live in Collier County. I
live at Cove Towers, which is just at the foot of the Wiggins Pass area.
I would like to echo the comments that Bill has made on behalf
of others. I own a center-console boat with an outboard motor, and I
regularly go through that pass. I'd like to encourage you to move
forward expeditiously on this project. It's important to all of us.
I have been impressed by the work that the staff has done. It
appears to be very professional and appears to have balanced the
needs of the variety of communities that are interested in this.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where's your promise that you
were going to kayak with me?
MR. SEIDEN: I thought that was private.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hey, nothing here is private. This
is government.
MR. SEIDEN: So I'm learning.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will by Joe Moreland, and
he'll be followed by Felix Javczyk.
MR. JAVCZYK: Javczyk, and he will waive for speed and
maybe to get an affirmative vote.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon, Chairman. Joe Moreland,
Page 132
October 9, 2012
for the record, here under, really, three hats for total revealing.
Number one, I am president of the Estuary Conservation
Association, which clearly has a very active interest in this issue. I'm
also a member of the Coastal Advisory Committee which, similarly,
has an active interest on its agenda in this issue.
And, thirdly, I have had the privilege to share as the committee
chairman of the CAC subcommittee for Wiggins Pass, which is -- full
platter has been these particular issues for the past.
But my -- obviously, I think the chairman has given me a change
in mission today, and the first point I want to make is to adamantly
defend the ladyhood of Commissioner Hiller on that cruise. She was a
perfect lady, did nothing to embarrass either herself --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or you, or you, Commissioner
Coyle, although I had the opportunity over and over again.
MR. MORELAND: She did. She was much in demand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, our deal was that she was to get a
very close inspection of the hard-bottom structure 40 miles offshore.
MR. MORELAND: Oh, I had the wrong hard bottom in mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I guess you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness.
MR. MORELAND: I can only say so not from feel but from
visual observation, it is very charming. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I swear. I think I'm going to turn
red.
MR. MORELAND: I will, in the interest of your good
temperament, continued good temperament, keep comments --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've already got my vote, okay.
We can stop right there. I mean --
MR. MORELAND: I'd like to think you owed me big-time, but I
don't.
I will be the last speaker on this issue from the gang here in
deference to your time and patience.
Page 133
October 9, 2012
I do -- just again, everything I have said in the most part has been
so redundant in your ears by now that I want to avoid that a bit.
But referring to that cruise that we were just making light of, it
was really quite a dramatic thing, and I think Gary McAlpin, who was,
essentially, the active host of that event, which included the
representatives from all of the coastal counties in the State of Florida
-- I believe that to be true -- who holds similar positions to him, we
also had state-level congress and senator with their entourage with us
on that. So it was a very professional group --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, it was.
MR. MORELAND: -- who faced the same kind of problems in
large measure in their county commissions as we are facing here with
you ladies and gentlemen.
(Commissioner Coletta is present via speakerphone.)
And they were very interested in the complexity of the effort that
has been made and, in fact -- there was borrowed time from -- there's
thousands of people waiting to speak to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got an hour and 45 minutes left.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, sir. I've lost my thought.
But they, too, are charged with the complexity of unique areas in
which dredging is required. But I think there was a general consensus,
too, that the area in which we are addressing is, perhaps, a little more
than unique from the run end ball (sic). The public interest is in
common with most but, perhaps, a little more than with most.
The focus in the sidebar conversations, though, was really the
interest of the administrative processes that go on in accomplishing an
objective or in saying no to it.
The administration behind it is simply, literally and accurately,
overwhelming, and it doesn't ever seem to end. And I think, in part,
that was shown today. No question of good faith. No question of
unprofessionalism, but just the dynamics of the effort under current
standards. And they may not be able to be fixed, but the current
Page 134
October 9, 2012
procedures, I think, could be fixed.
And the ladies and gentlemen on that cruise and who represented
in that are clearly watching -- and I've been told this indisputably --
are watching the process that is being followed by Collier County as
well as its engineering and methodology. So we're -- we are in a
spotlight.
And they kind of raise their eyebrows, too, when you give them a
short scenario of how long this has been going on. I mean, ladies and
gentlemen, it's well over four years. And all of the vitriolic agrue --
that's not the right word to use, but I'll let it rest -- arguments as to
certain points in them, the minor and the not so minor, should have
been resolved quite a while ago and were thought to be until new
things got there.
As a retired in part lawyer, I, early in law school, learned, at least
under the common law, that there was a legal concept of di minimus
non curat lex; Latin for, the issue is so small that the Court will take
no notice of it.
Now, only on request by the commissioner would I recite for you
a rather naughty little poem that gives an explicit example --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to ask you to do that.
MR. MORELAND: -- of what di minimus non curat lex means
to a lawyer who would take a lovely lady on a cruise in the gulf. So
the decision is yours.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to hear it.
MR. MORELAND: You do not want to hear it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do not want to hear it.
MR. MORELAND: Will you please put that in the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MORELAND: But they are going to be watching --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there is a time limit, Joe.
MR. MORELAND: And I've run mine up. I think tolerance has
run out more than time.
Page 135
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it has.
MR. MORELAND: So with that, I will speak with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Joe, just face it. He's jealous,
okay.
MR. MORELAND: Is he really?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just live with it. It's not going to
change, but just live with it.
MR. MORELAND: You know, I was thinking of running for
commissioner, but I've decided to run from it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you all very much for your time and
patience. We appreciate all of you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: No. The next speaker is Jim Cunis (sic)?
MR. KINDSVATER: He had to go to the bathroom, but he
waives.
MR. MITCHELL: He waived, okay.
John Kindsvater?
MR. KINDSVATER: I waive my time.
MR. MITCHELL: Alan Ritchie?
MR. KINDSVATER: He's left.
MR. MITCHELL: He's left.
Bob Krasowski?
MR. OCHS: Left.
MR. MITCHELL: Left?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I won't go through all of my comments that I had prepared.
I think I see, hopefully, where this is going. But suffice to say that as
our letter stated to you, we do believe that the project as proposed and
Page 136
October 9, 2012
conditioned by staff is consistent with the GMP and the LDC, and we
would ask that you approve it.
And I would make just one observation, because back in
2007/2008 there was lot of controversy over how to address Wiggins
Pass. And it was not necessarily always on the friendliest of terms; a
lot of different opinions, a lot of mistrust. And what the commission
directed staff to do was to bring everyone together, a very open public
stakeholder process.
And from that we did work through all of these different issues,
and we came to what I believe almost everyone considers to be a good
solution.
So as other projects and issues come forward in the future, I
would ask that you think back to this process. And I know it takes
staff time. It takes time to go through this consensus-building type of
exercise, but in the end it is well worth it.
So I appreciate that you allowed this to go through the process.
We believe it's a good project, and we ask that you move it forward
today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You oppose it?
Page 137
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the motion? I
thought it was in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was, but you voted after I called for
the naysayers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, naw, naw, naw.
Commissioner Hiller will explain to you how you can change
your vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you voted for the motion; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 11D, County Manager.
Item #11D
AWARDING BID NUMBER 12-5915, "SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) ODOR
CONTROL FACILITIES UPGRADES," TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,378,681 FOR SCWRF COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROJECT
NUMBER 70089 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It is a recommendation to award Bid No.
12-5915, the South County Water Reclamation Facility, odor control
facilities upgrade to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company in the
amount of $1,378,681, and Mr. Chmelik will present.
MR. CHMELIK: Hello, Commissioners. Tom Chmelik, for the
record, public utilities division.
I have a short presentation for you or, if you wish, I can answer
any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does anyone have any questions?
Page 138
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second by Commissioner Hiller?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're speaking for me now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I heard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow.
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: Okay. It passes unanimously. Good
presentation.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Thanks, Tom.
Item #11E
AWARDING BID NO. 12-5909, "COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY," TO
COMPASS CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$833,777 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
LANDFILL, PROJECT NUMBER 59005 — APPROVED
Page 139
October 9, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is 11E. It was
previously 16C1 on your consent agenda. It's a recommendation to
award Bid No. 12-5909, Collier County Landfill Household
Hazardous Waste Facility, to Compass Construction, Incorporated, in
the amount of $833,777 for construction of the household hazardous
waste facility at the Collier County Landfill.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I moved it because a
constituent had brought it to my attention and had some concerns
about the cost. I had separate questions about why we were doing this
at all, and I discussed those with Leo.
But let me first raise the issues about the cost. This is about an
800,000-or-so-dollar project, and within that there is 110,000 in
contingencies. That seems to be a lot more than should be buried in a
project of that size. It just seems excessive to have 110,000
contingency, and that 800,000 includes the 110,000, so we're really
looking, actually, at a project -- I don't have the numbers in front of
me -- but, you know, 600-, of the high sixes, if you will.
So I'm not really sure I understand why we have such a large
contingency. And, furthermore, what also concerns me that was
brought to my attention by the constituent is that there are so many
things beyond this construction scope that are additional costs that are
not factored into what we're hearing today.
So when you look at what the total cost for this project is, I mean,
you're looking at a lot more money. And if you would put a
photograph of the facility on the board -- I mean, it's a corrugated tin
building. Is that the right term, corrugated metal building?
MR. ATKINSON: Pre-engineered metal building, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So prefab metal building.
And it seems to me -- you know, I want to know what the total cost is
above that 800,000 that, you know, is approved here today. I would
Page 140
October 9, 2012
like to see that contingency reduced.
And then my last question is, you know, why are we doing this?
Is there really a need for this facility, given the other facilities we
have?
I talked to Leo about it yesterday in my one-on-one, and his
response was, well, it's in that plan we have. I said, well, you know,
that plan, as we all know, is not intended to be necessarily acted on if
there isn't any need that warrants the implementation of a plan
recommendation at the time.
And I don't believe we really have a need for this. This reminds
me of what happened with Pelican Marsh. It just happens to be in
another district.
So this is, by the way, not anywhere near as attractive as the
Pelican Marsh facility. In fact, the Pelican Marsh facility is so
attractive, I'd like to redesign my house to make it look like it, but
that's another issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That could be arranged.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really wouldn't mind. It's a
beautiful facility; seriously.
Anyway, the long and short of it is, I think there are a lot of
issues here that need to be addressed. I think the project scope needs
to be clearly disclosed. The contingency needs to be reduced. And
then, really -- and this is, really, the threshold question, should we be
doing this at all?
MR. OCHS: Can we make the staff presentation, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
And do we have public speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. ATKINSON: For the record, Dayne Atkinson, project
manager for public utilities.
The purpose of this project is to provide the residents and
Page 141
October 9, 2012
businesses of Collier County a location for safe and proper disposal of
hazardous household waste.
This is in line with the strategies that were outlined in the greater
solid waste management strategy approved by the board in December
2006.
Currently, household hazardous waste at the landfill is sorted and
stored temporarily at the landfill. This facility will allow for safer and
more efficient handling and collection of the household hazardous
waste.
The project location is physically at the landfill. It will be built
between the current gas-to-energy facility and the scale house.
And as shown before, this is a rendering of what the facility will
look like. It is a pre-engineered metal building.
The bids were advertised and posted in compliance with Collier
County purchasing policy. Compass Construction is the low bidder.
The results of this project -- or our goals for this project at the
end was to enable a safer, more efficient process with storage and
delivery of hazardous materials to qualified vendors for disposal.
Further, it's to protect the environment and provide important
resources to the individuals and businesses and to maintain regulatory
compliance.
Recommendation -- our recommendation, solid waste staff is
seeking approval of the award to Compass Construction in the amount
of $833,777 as outlined in your executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commission members, do you
want to hear the public speaker first, or do you want to ask your
questions of staff now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Peter Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. With this
particular project, by the time you add in the soft costs, the equipment,
Page 142
October 9, 2012
the furnishing, the Site Development Plan, you're probably looking at
a facility real close to one million dollars. It's a 13,000-square-foot
facility, including 2,800 square feet in an enclosed area.
The amenities include a records room, a training room, two
bathrooms, and $10,000 in landscaping. I want to point out this
facility is going to be located at the dump, and I really don't believe
we need $10,000 in landscaping.
Currently, we collect hazardous waste at the landfill, and those
wastes are collected in barrels and containers and dropped off, and I
just don't understand why we need such a lavish facility at the dump.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
I believe the hazardous waste does need to be stored or housed.
We're responsible for that. There's more hazardous -- believe it or not,
there's more hazardous waste out there than there is in this room by
far, and we house this room.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- except for the -- you need
to put a gate for the animals. I would agree that the contingency in
normal contracts are 10 percent.
The next thing, I visited the facility. You have a room there, a
conference room -- actually, you have a training room, too -- is that
right, Mr. Rodriguez?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. For the record, Dan
Rodriguez, your solid and hazardous waste management department
director. We do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have an existing
training room there?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have a conference room, a small
conference room, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 143
October 9, 2012
MR. RODRIGUEZ: But at this facility -- first of all, let me start
the bigger picture, if I may.
We absolutely need this facility. We currently collect household
hazardous wastes at the landfill, but where it's located at the landfill,
Commissioners, is in the back area. Let's see if I can get this right.
You see, this area in the landfill is where we actually collect the
hazardous waste. There's a section off to the side where residents,
business owners, will bring their paint, their gasoline, their oils, their
antifreeze; it's out in the weather.
And as Commissioner Henning stated, we are responsible for
getting that material and disposing of it properly as part of the landfill
operating agreement that the board approved back in 1996.
So Waste Management will pull the materials out of the waste
stream -- because, as you know, it is illegal to put hazardous waste in
our landfill or to contaminate the construction demolition material or
any other materials.
This area that you're looking at here at the landfill is actually
going to be filled with garbage over the next 30 years. But, more
importantly, we need this facility now because we need the proper
concrete flooring, the containment areas, the storage cabinets, so that
we can put this material, just like we do at the recycling centers but on
a much greater scale at the landfill.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question about that
photograph?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. He hasn't
answered my question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, sorry. I just wanted to
know about that picture.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Let's get back to the picture.
First of all, real quick, the circles you see there are the current
facilities we own and operate. The Collier County Landfill is in an
area near the Golden Gate Estates City area, the Golden Gate Estates
Page 144
October 9, 2012
area; there is not a recycling or hazardous dropoff center anywhere
near.
And what we're trying to do is to get greater participation. Back
in 2010, Collier County was recognized nationally with the Silver
Award, second place nationally for ability to move hazardous waste
out of our waste stream. This is the next step in that process as part of
the integrated solid waste management strategy to continue to protect
our environment, protect our drinking water wells.
Let me get back to the picture for Commissioner Henning. I'm
sorry, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's talk about the facility,
okay. Is -- the elements within the facility, you're having a -- you
have a training room, offices, so on and so forth?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: There are no offices. What you see there --
see, the white door is a large bay area, and that's where we store
equipment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have mowers, we have utilities vehicles
and forklifts, and they will need to be parked in there. Next to that is a
large -- not large -- I say large. It's a records area. As you know, in
solid waste we're required by FDEP and EP to collect and maintain
our records for the life of the site.
We have three sites. We need to maintain those records. Every
year we have more and more records. Currently, they're scattered in
our office building. They line the hallways. We need to have a
consolidated area where we can put those as well, and then also
staging area for other operations that we do and conduct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staging areas for?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For different materials. If we bring in the
lamps, they have to be put on pallets, they have to be put in
containers, they have to be shrink-wrapped, and that's basically what it
is is a facility to do all that and better manage it, because the more that
Page 145
October 9, 2012
we can contain and ship out in larger quantities, the less expensive it is
to our ratepayers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's no proposed offices or
training room?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: There's no offices, but there's a large
records area room there, and it could be multi-purpose room.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Records -- okay. Well, how big
is the room?
MR. ATKINSON: The size of the room is 10 by 12, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten by 12. It's 10 foot by 12
foot.
MR. ATKINSON: It's not a large room.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. It's only the smallest portion of the
building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Come up here, Dayne.
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this gentleman
volunteers his time to teach young boys soccer, and he does that how
many -- three days a week?
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's awesome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that great?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is fantastic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a 10-by-12 room is not a
very large room.
MR. ATKINSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, I do have a problem
with the contingency. Usually our contingency's around 10 percent; is
that right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 10 to 15 percent; typically 10.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Ten percent.
Page 146
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the square footage of this
facility?
MR. ATKINSON: It's approximately 13,000 square feet under
roof.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thirteen -- and the roof includes the
open area?
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the area to be covered by concrete?
MR. ATKINSON: Well, the whole entire facility is on concrete.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it should be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a lot of money to build that
building. I just put up one that's a bit smaller, but the price was more
like $30 a square foot. But that's a lot of -- that's a lot of money for a
pre-fabricated metal building, and the concrete, you've got it broken
out in two places in your cost schedule.
I don't know what portion includes what. But concrete, I think, is
listed about the second or third line item down about a hundred
thousand dollars, generally, is about what the bidders bid for that
concrete, but there's also concrete specified in walkways and other
things for another amount of money. But that's a lot of money for a
pre-fabricated medal building with a concrete floor.
How much per square foot are you spending on this building?
MR. GADDY: I have those numbers, Commissioner, if you'd
like them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I want them to give them to me,
because I want to make sure they've got them.
MR. ATKINSON: Sir, I don't have that number broken out. I
can get that number for you, quickly, but it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's thirteen thousand square feet,
roughly?
MR. ANDERSON: Roughly, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that what you said? You're talking
Page 147
October 9, 2012
about over $65 a square foot, if I calculate that right; is that close to
yours?
MR. GADDY: Comes out to $56 a square feet. And the
under-air portion of 2,800 square feet comes out to $259 a square foot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's a bunch.
MR. GADDY: Similar to a condo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. That's a bunch of money.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It is, but also the facility -- it's a hazardous
waste industrial facility. There's fire suppression systems in there.
There's more concrete in there than just the -- I believe it's $96,000.
There's probably another 40,000 in concrete for the drives, because
they have to be to DOT standards for the commercial vehicles that
will be coming in there, the semis, the trucks.
This needs to withstand a hurricane. As you know, as part of our
debris mission, Solid Waste Management Department administers a
debris mission plan. That building needs to be intact, ready to take the
hazardous waste out of here after the storm.
We didn't build it just for the storm, but it's a responsibility that
we're very familiar with, especially with Wilma.
This is needed in the community, Commissioners. Of the
hazardous waste that's collected, the annual individual creates about
nine pounds of hazardous waste a year. We're probably collecting less
than a pound from our citizens. We need access so that these people
can bring their materials to us.
If you look at all the places that you can buy hazardous waste,
Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Publix, auto parts store; how many
places can you actually take it to deliver and dispose of it properly?
Where's it going? It's going in the green waste container cans. It's
going in the dumpsters.
This facility will enhance --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I take all mine up to Pelican Bay.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 148
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine, thank you.
I agree with you; I think it's needed. I think it's -- it will
especially serve the Golden Gate and the Golden Gate Estates area,
because that's really needed. They have nothing there to go to unless
they drive a long distance.
A number of times now the contingencies have been brought up,
but nobody's asked you about them. You know, why is it so high?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And the contingencies are based on
budget we put together.
As I stated earlier, hazardous waste takes special containers. You
can't commingle materials, and then they have to be in fire-protective
chemical boxes, very large steel containers. They also have
ventilation in them. So those contingencies, the hundred thousand
dollars, are used to buy those containers, the roll-off dumpsters --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then it's not a contingency, Dan.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It is, Commissioner, if once we build --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- the facility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dan, if we're buying stuff that we
know we're going to purchase, it's a line item in another budget. I
mean, if we need bins, than that is separate and apart from the
construction budget. I mean, the contractor is not going to buy bins.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the vast majority of the contingency
is for construction costs. This was designed about three months ago --
three months ago, the price changes in materials, concrete, building
materials --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dan, now you're changing your
story.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioners, if we do not spend the
contingency, it goes back into the budget and it gets pushed forward as
carryforward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
Page 149
October 9, 2012
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I do remind the board, this is the third
year in a row we've held our rates, through cost containment, through
proactive measures, to save cash/money.
In addition, the vast majority, or a good portion of it, a good
portion of it, the site development was done as part of the
gas-to-energy project. So that helped us save even more money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That answers my
contingency question. My last question is, how successful have the
other recycling facilities been in saving you dollars?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's a great question, Commissioner. The
vast majority of the savings comes from the fact that we protect our
environment. We save airspace through the volumes and volumes of
material.
Just North Collier Recycling dropoff center received over 8,000
customers this last year. That's a lot of customers. We've collected
over 15 tons of household hazardous waste, and that's just pesticides,
herbicides, paints; that doesn't include the electronics, doesn't include
fuel, gasoline. We've collected over 350 gallons of oil, about 360
gallons of gasoline, and somewhere in the neighborhood of about 280
gallons of radiator fluid.
That's taken out of the environment. That's taken out of the
waste containers. It's not put on the dead-end streets in the Estates; it's
not put in canals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or not put into our landfill where it
then could seep into other things. Anyway.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I wanted to know that. I wanted
to know how much in savings there was. You probably don't have that
figure. Savings there was not only in airspace but also in savings itself
rather than having to follow through on the hazardous waste
afterwards.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And I can calculate those numbers as
Page 150
October 9, 2012
tonnage relating to the fee that we pay to dispose. There's also the
savings of not getting fined from FDEP for illegally putting it in the
landfill, which could be anywhere from $1,000 a day to $15,000 a
day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I like the project. I think it's in
a great location, I think it will serve people well, I think you need to
get moving forward on it, and so I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, and second by Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nope, I have a comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta seconds it,
and Commissioner Hiller has a comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Can you put that photograph
back up?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The photograph of the waste, the --
where you say you're accumulating that, are you suggesting all of that
waste is going to be in that building now?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that going to stay the way it is?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How is it going to change? Is it
going to move to a different location?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That site that you see there is our C&D
processing area as well as our horticultural waste.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what does this have to do with
hazardous waste?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: This is where we're currently collecting
hazardous waste out in the open.
Page 151
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So someone drives to that area,
and that's where they deposit the waste?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. What they do is they bring it
back by the C&D area, and there's a segregated area where they can
unload their paints and their pesticides.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's this -- you're not
showing us the segregated area where they unload the materials,
correct? So -- because you're giving us a very incorrect impression
here. You're making it seem, had I not asked these questions, that this
is the hazardous waste site and that this is somehow going to go away
as a consequence of you building that building, and that isn't true.
Now, there is some other area where people with hazardous
waste make their deposits, and at all the various transfer stations the
citizens of this community can deposit their hazardous waste at this
time; isn't that true?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The landfill receives over 350 loads a day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Those loads take hazardous waste --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long has that been going on?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long have you been
collecting hazardous waste at the landfill?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Since the landfill was opened.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And you've been collecting
it at the location that you're describing?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And you haven't received
fines for having hazardous waste commingled with other materials in
the fill -- in the landfill, have you?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We haven't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. So whatever you're doing is
working effectively. I don't see the need to do something that has
Page 152
October 9, 2012
caused no problems whatsoever. You're throwing in red herrings. Oh,
we'll get fined. Well, we've never been fined. It's going to get
commingled. Oh, we're going to have all these savings because these
materials are not going to be seeping into the ground. Well, they're
not seeping into the ground. People are delivering a great deal of
hazardous waste materials not only here, but also at the various
transfer stations, which are not being used to capacity at all.
And we saw that clearly established by graphs that were showed
when the debate was brought to this board about building the facility
by Pelican Marsh. We saw that the existing transfer facilities were not
even being used near capacity.
This doesn't make any sense at all. It's making less and less sense
by the minute.
I completely agree with Commissioner Henning. We have a duty
to properly house the hazardous waste, and we are, and that's
evidenced by the fact that we have not gotten any fines, and we have
not introduced those hazardous wastes into the landfill.
Your descriptions make no sense. You said that we had --
another statement you made is that we have to build this building
because you needed off-site storage. Then it turns out that the room is
10 by 12 and that you have all these records.
First of all, my question is, why aren't you processing these
records electronically? I mean, I don't know why we have hard
copies. But a 10-by-12 room -- and I've actually been in your
conference room. I've visited the landfill and, you know, was in that
conference room, and you have a very nice-size, you know, larger
conference room. It -- I can't possibly approve this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One statement is not true. There
used to be a hazardous waste facility over there. The gas-to-energy
facility was put in the proximity of it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was it?
Page 153
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that's not on it. And there was
a -- it was a very small shed --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chain link?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and chain-link area. They had
tanks or drums for different hazardous waste.
I don't think all of it was sheltered, though, from the elements,
and that's the thing is, when you have that runoff, that is the property
of the county; however, I don't see anything in here as bids for the
bins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I mean, all this -- all this
looks like -- if you go back to the picture of the building, this looks
like a drive-through. This basically looks like a covered driveway --
you know, if you look at this, the bulk of this construction is some
covered drive-through with nothing more. I mean, this -- doesn't seem
to serve any purpose other than a covered dropoff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would imagine there's a lot in
concrete.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know -- and, again, the
other question I had, which still hasn't been answered, is what is the
real total cost of this? Because, like I said, there is a great deal on top
of this that's not being disclosed as part of the overall cost of this
project.
I just think -- I agree with Commissioner Coyle. I think this is
very expensive, and I think it really should be sent back to be repriced.
Maybe there is a need for some sort of a facility, but I don't think it's
this one at this price.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, were you
finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm finished, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I don't know how much
Page 154
October 9, 2012
of the expense is involved in these specialized containers that can
contain these hazardous wastes safely. I know you've mentioned
them, and they're larger steel containers and so forth, but I'm sure that
that goes into this figure as well.
And as you said -- and I feel comfortable with this. If, indeed,
you have overestimated and it comes in lower, and you -- you know,
obviously, you don't spend the money anyway, and it goes back into
the budget. And so I feel comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question, but
I want to get some reassurance on something. It is not necessarily
productive to just continue this and come back and have the same
discussion later on.
I would be willing to vote in favor of it with the expectation that
staff is going to monitor this process very carefully from the
standpoint of value engineering to determine if there is anything, any
way, you can save money on this project.
Now, can you do that with the contract awarded? That's the
question.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If the contract is awarded, is the contract
going to be written in a way that allows the contractor to spend and be
paid all of that money, or is there some control over how much money
will be spent?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're buying the building you were
shown.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're buying the building you were
shown.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's it, huh?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're buying what you see there in
Page 155
October 9, 2012
concept. There were how many responders?
MR. ATKINSON: Eleven.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Eleven contractors bid on this. Great
market saturation. So the lowest-priced bidder is getting this. They've
checked their pricing. They've looked at the site; they've looked at the
engineer plans. So we're getting the best price out of 13 (sic)
contractors right here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the issue is the scope of the
project.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner, this is the building that we
need to manage the volume of hazardous waste in this community.
This is a 50-plus-year facility. We want more and more businesses to
come to the landfill, not to go traipsing through the C&D areas to get,
you know, soaked in the rain in the summer and say, well, I'm not
bringing my hazardous waste because I'm soaking wet.
This facility does what -- the board's intent. It protects our
environment. It moves the solid waste to this facility for proper
disposal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got, I think, roughly a 15
percent contingency; is that not correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have about $100,000, so yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that's about a --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thirteen, 14, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Now, does the award of the
contract allow the contractor to spend that amount of money without
your approval?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have to approve any use of that
contingency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the amount of money that we're
authorizing to be spent is 100,000, 105-, $102,000 less than the bid
price; is that correct?
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir.
Page 156
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to make sure I understand here.
MR. ATKINSON: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we were to approve this contract --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with the provision that the
contingency fee could not be spent without staff approval and perhaps
even Board of County Commissioners approval, what would that do to
you?
MR. ATKINSON: Sir, it's in the purchasing policy that
contingencies and allowance cannot be spent without authorization
from staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Now, if staff were to have to
come back to the Board of County Commissioners to get authorization
to do that, what does that do to you?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's an extra step. If it holds up
construction, that's at the discretion of the board. But the contract, as
you stated, 833- minus 100,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's not our intent to spend the 100,000,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand, but --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And they have to get our approval, and they
better have a real good reason.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I think it would make us all feel a lot
better if that $100,000 were sort of held off to the side and that we had
to have some good justification to spend that kind of money.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. It's held off to the side,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, County Manager, is it going
to be okay to bring that back to the board if we decide to spend that
money?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. If that's what the board would like, we'll
Page 157
October 9, 2012
bring any proposed expense of contingency back to the board.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're saying both change orders come
back to the board? I think that's what you're saying here, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again.
MR. KLATZKOW: All change orders come back to the board.
That's what we're talking about, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: On this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So that is assuming what the
county manager -- or county attorney said earlier is true, that this is a
fixed-price contract for this building, and you're going to get that for
$773,000, roughly, right?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, if there's something that is extra
that you didn't anticipate or there's a change in design, that's a change
order, and I would feel a lot more comfortable if we were to manage
that a little more closely.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Then we can. If the $100,000 -- let's say
the electrical bid comes back or it's updated, electric costs are slightly
higher, but if there's savings in the concrete, but we don't -- still don't
touch that 100,000 without your permission, we can still do this
project, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be happy with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, do you
still have a second for that motion as modified?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 158
October 9, 2012
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.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good compromise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We can go -- do you want a break
now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm good. I'm okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're just about done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are. But I'm just wondering if we
can get it done.
You're okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's go to the next item, which
would be 14A, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We don't have any items under 14 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- on your regular agenda this morning, sir, or this
afternoon.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then we're going to go
straight to staff and commission general communications; is that
right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope I'm not missing anything, am I?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
Page 159
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll start with Commissioner --
MR. OCHS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. We'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Ochs (sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll start with you. See, he gets
touchy when you take these things out of sequence.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I have a couple things this
afternoon. The staff had been working at -- on previous board
direction to amend the contract of your medical director to add an
evaluation component into it. We're going to bring that forward at
your next meeting, but I just wanted to confirm that that is, essentially,
the -- was the intent of Commissioner Fiala and the rest of the board.
We had not planned to do any other changes to that contract at
this point. Unless I'm otherwise directed today, we'll bring you back
the contract that includes the annual evaluation component that was
requested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that is what I requested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't know why we
want to micromanage this issue. We just appointed a -- medical
emergency authority?
MR. OCHS: The Public Safety Authority, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, I would
-- if anything, I would like for them to do that and keep it out of the --
keep the politics out of it. The -- they have much more awareness of
the day-to-day operation of training and the duties of the medical
director. That's my personal opinion, and I'd much rather see them, if
at all, deal with it. It would be the -- those professionals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can understand what you're saying.
The reason I suggested it is because all of the people that serve under
our authority bring us back -- you know, allow us to evaluate. I mean,
that's in the contract.
Page 160
October 9, 2012
And, in fact, in a couple cases, not only are they evaluated by us,
but they're also evaluated by their advisory boards. So we get the
advisory boards -- for instance, like, the airport manager or airport
director and the CRA director. So as long as -- I think that what's
good for one is good for all. Why should he be the only one that
doesn't have an evaluation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because this is a political board.
It is not a board of -- that has knowledge about medical issues,
training issues, and all the things that a medical doctor does. It's -- this
is strictly a -- this is strictly a political board. And wouldn't you want
the advice of the authority?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why can't we get the advantages of both
ideas? Commissioner Henning, you can use the same argument for
the airport authority. We're not aviation experts yet we make direct
evaluations of the airport director.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that was part of the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not in Dr. Tober's
contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I wanted to add it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's one of the things. We could
-- I would prefer, a personal preference, that if he is our employer --
employee, we should be the ones determining his final evaluation, but
I don't have any problem getting recommendations from the medical
policy advisory board.
Can't we do both? Can't we ask them to provide us their input in
the same way we ask for the CRA advisory boards to provide us
information on them, and the Airport Advisory Board providing us
information on their valuations of the airport director?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That way we have everything being
done in a consistent manner across the board, for the CRAs, the airport
Page 161
October 9, 2012
director, and the medical director. That would be my preference, but
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if anybody else has a different idea
-- were you asking for guidance, County Manager, as to what you
should be doing?
MR. OCHS: Well, yes, sir. I was just confirming that that was
the only nature of the change that the board wanted me to make on
that contract so that when I brought it forward it had everything in it
that the board wanted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I like Commissioner Coyle's
suggestion, because then we get -- we hear from the professionals
working with him as well, which will help guide us. I think that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three nods?
MR. OCHS: Would you like me to include that in the contract,
or just make that a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, say what you
want; tell me what you want again. I was reading a document.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. That's all right. I was
suggesting -- this is from the last meeting where --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should have took a
break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the emergency medical director --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing is easy here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or the medical director, actually,
for our EMS department is evaluated, because everybody else is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No, I agree with you. I
agree with what Commissioner Fiala says. I think she's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you believe that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- absolutely right.
Page 162
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've been agreeing all day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's right, except on the
landfill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was me who said it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it wasn't. You know, there is
-- I think that the input -- I think what Commissioner Henning said
about getting that PSA to be part of the review process is a good one,
because there are multiple aspects to the medical director's jobs, and
Commissioner Henning is right in that part of it involves the review
of, you know, medical protocol, and they would be better suited to
evaluating that.
But there is an administrative component, too, and I think we
should be evaluating that and how responsive he is to what we're
requesting of him.
So I think -- I think you can achieve a review from both and have
useful feedback.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got three nods on that
issue.
Any more guidance you needed on that?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other issues you want to
raise?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to go back to that issue,
Leo, and, actually, Jeff, because this is more of a question for Jeff.
You know, that contract doesn't seem to have an end date, and it's
being just rolling over and rolling over. It seems like an evergreen
contract, and I haven't looked at it so closely as to analyze it from that
perspective. But I would like an opinion that it is not an evergreen
contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have the contract before me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know you don't.
MR. KLATZKOW: My recollection is it is an evergreen
Page 163
October 9, 2012
contract. There's nothing wrong with an evergreen contract. No
different than a month-to-month tenancy where you get to a point
where you no longer wish the services, you give notice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I thought that in government
we don't want evergreen contracts. But, you know, you can give us
some insight on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are a number of counties who give
both their county managers and county attorneys, in essence,
evergreen contracts that are renewable every year, and then if the
board wishes to make a change there's a notice provision. So it's not
uncommon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like a little more research
on it. I, personally, would like to know a little bit more about it. I'm
not sure that I agree with evergreen contracts from a public-policy
standpoint, and I'm not sure that the contract with the medical director
should be an evergreen contract if, in fact, it is, and it sounds like
you're agreeing that it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Leo, what more do you have?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there should be a finite
term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney's going to give
you some information on that, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Earlier this month I notified the board that
we had received notification from the City of Naples that they were
discontinuing the ALS engine program in the city. Just a brief update.
That did, in fact, occur on October 2nd.
Since that time your medical director and your EMS chief have
been meeting with city officials and the fire chief down there to
explore other opportunities or avenues by which they could still
maintain an ALS engine level certification with some other
Page 164
October 9, 2012
mechanism beyond -- or besides a one-to-one swap between our staff
and theirs.
So we are continuing to work on that. And I will -- I will update
you as soon as we have more progress made there or a report from Dr.
Tober on what protocols, if any, he can notify to allow that program to
continue in the city.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. OCHS: Okay. And the last item, Commissioners, I wanted
to briefly circle back to an item that was discussed at your last board
meeting on -- actually, it was on Wednesday, the item having to do
with my contract extension.
During that item, Mr. John Lundin approached the podium and,
in essence, accused me of intentionally withholding information from
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller.
His alleged evidence, as he stated, was an email that he allegedly
received to that effect from Commissioner Henning.
When I told the board that I wasn't aware of any email where I
directed that to happen, Commissioner Hiller leaned across the dais
and pointed at me and said, well, that's the problem.
So after the meeting I, certainly, was concerned if there was an
email I wasn't aware about. And, unfortunately, the -- as you might
suspect, and not surprisingly, the Naples Daily News reporter that
very same day asked for a public-records request for information on
Growth Design Corporation. That allegedly was the company about
which I was withholding information from the commissioners.
We ran an exhaustive public-records request, searching for any
emails with those references; more than 200 emails. I went through
each one of them individually. None of them seemed to produce any
evidence to support Mr. Lundin's accusation.
The next morning Ms. Albers, apparently, asked, in an email, Mr.
Lundin to produce the email. He answered in an email that he didn't
save the email that he had raised during the discussion that day.
Page 165
October 9, 2012
I believe Ms. Albers then asked to email Commissioner Henning
what communications he's had with Mr. Lundin and Growth Design
Corporation. Commissioner Henning immediately contacted my office
and directed a public-records search, and we were happy to do that for
him.
He submitted the very few emails of communication between he
and Mr. Lundin on that subject. Again, based on my review, none of
those substantiated his claim.
So I didn't want that to be hanging out there not responded to. So
he either was misinformed or misled or just didn't tell the truth. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hope that the Naples Daily
News will report this also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- rather than just the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no public comment here. This is
our discussion, not yours. No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear what Mr.
Lundin has to say.
MR. LUNDIN: You mean, I just brought up the issue, there's
been a lack --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't want to hear. This is
the commissioners' comments. We had public comments earlier. By
the way, he has accused me publicly of --
MR. LUNDIN: Weathervane, weathervane (sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Lundin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want control of this meeting
right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not --
MR. LUNDIN: Commissioner Hiller asked me to speak. I think
I can speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. Commissioner Hiller doesn't
Page 166
October 9, 2012
have the authority to ask you to speak. That comes from either a
majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners or from me, and
MR. LUNDIN: You don't believe in free speech.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't believe in you. That's what I don't
believe. So take your choice. Okay.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He has published on this item in
the Immokalee Bulletin things that were just not true, and I think he
owes myself and Leo Ochs an apology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I doubt if you'll get it. But I
honestly think that anybody who has followed Mr. Lundin and
listened to the things he says knows not to believe any of them. So
he's his own worst enemy. So for whatever it's worth, I don't think
you'll get an apology, but I think you're due one, as is County
Manager Leo Ochs.
Anything more?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd love to have those 200 emails
on GDC.
MR. OCHS: Growth Design?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like them all. I'd like to read
them.
Yeah, just a couple of questions. And, actually, Jeff, I'm going to
direct these questions to you. As part of your review for Ian's
severance pay, did you make a determination through review -- and
I've actually asked for the employee files to take a look at them myself
Page 167
October 9, 2012
but haven't received them.
Have you made a determination that none of the aides have made
allegations or claims against Ian which would rise to the level of a
suggestion that he created a hostile work environment with respect to
them? I just -- and the reason I ask that is I want to be sure that there
isn't litigation that's coming down the pike that you have -- that you're
aware of or you have reason to believe might occur and that somehow,
you know, us terminating Ian knowing that there's litigation in the
wings will be problematic.
So have you done your due diligence to ensure that there are no
-- and, actually, Leo, I'll ask you the same. Has HR done a review of
the files to ensure that there are no employee claims?
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked HR for the -- their files with respect
to the aides, and there were a series of 2009 evaluations, and that's
what HR has. Whether Mr. Ian has filed, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not -- what I'm asking is, have any
aides filed anything with respect to Mr. Mitchell?
MR. KLATZKOW: I am not aware of that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or have they complained to HR?
Has HR been documenting what aides have been saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: I am not aware of any complaints. I am not
aware of HR documenting nor would I necessarily be made aware of
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, in light of this -- I
mean, I just want to be sure that there is no potential or threatened
litigation with respect to Ian's office and that we are, you know,
allowing for a severance termination, whatever you want to call, you
know, the action taken by the board today, that would somehow be
viewed as a coverup.
MR. KLATZKOW: Coverup, no, no --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, maybe -- I don't know --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- no, no, no.
Page 168
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know what the right word
is, and maybe "coverup" isn't the right word. But I just want to make
sure that the review of the files has been done by the County
Attorney's Office and by the County Manager's Office with respect to
the employee files as it relates -- and, yeah, as it relates to Mr.
Mitchell's position, maybe even as it relates to commissioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: I will say this about that. You have two
issues that I'm aware of from your office. One is dealing with an aide,
which is a personnel matter. The other is dealing with Mr. Mitchell.
They are two -- in my mind, two completely separate different issues.
And the actions that you take towards one, in my mind, does not
affect the other.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but that's where I question if
you've done the due diligence to ensure that is, in fact, the case,
because if the termination of one of these aides is somehow related to
Mr. Mitchell's conduct towards the aide, then they are intertwined --
MR. KLATZKOW: If Mr. Mitchell has engaged inappropriately,
he'll have to answer for that. I'm not aware of any.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is no complaint as against
Mr. Mitchell?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not aware of it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Did you do any due
diligence that would give you reason not to be aware of it? I mean,
have you done that due diligence?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I have not been ferreting around this
issue, all right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- but, I mean, you've got an
issue with the termination that still don't --
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue that I responded to in connection
with our conversation today was to ask Ms. Lyberg if she had any files
dealing with the aides, and what I got was a series of 2009
evaluations, and that was it. If there's anything else in there, I didn't --
Page 169
October 9, 2012
I'm not looking for it. If you'd like, I will look for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you should. I think that's
the best approach. I think if you just -- if you would sit down and go
through all the aides' files and make sure that there is nothing in those
aides' files as against Mr. Mitchell or --
MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that would actually be an
important step.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you're saying that the aides -- oh, okay.
So you want me to search the aides' files and Mr. Mitchell's files?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't know how the -- I
don't know how HR documents these things. I'm not familiar.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm telling you HR -- I don't think HR
has anything is what I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you don't know that because
you said you haven't looked for this. You've only looked at --
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked HR for their files. If there's
something in your offices, then I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Well, here's the thing. My --
I had -- you and I had talked about files, but you made a request for
evaluations, and I said, no, I think what ought to be looked at are files.
Now, I was going to look at it just to be sure that there isn't
anything that would affect Mr. Mitchell. I wanted to be sure that he
was not in any way adversely affected in that manner.
MR. KLATZKOW: We will look at whatever files are available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate that, and then
can you let us know before the next vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: I can give you a copy of everything, if you'd
like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, that's fine. That would be
fine?
MR. KLATZKOW: They're public records.
Page 170
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does anyone else want copies of
everything? And I'm sure HR would properly document, you know, if
there's any issue, what the issues are. Because, I mean, I believe that
it's county policy that they're required to document if anyone has any
issues. I'm assuming that was done.
So, yeah, so if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. So,
yeah, I'll take a copy.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Mr. Mitchell, you'll open up your
files, and we'll take a look at them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And HR -- I mean, HR is
important.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I'm sure Mr. Mitchell has
kept proper files. I don't have concerns about Mr. Mitchell's files.
You should still look at Mr. Mitchell's files, but I think you need to
look at HR's files.
And, again, I want to just be sure that, you know, Mr. Mitchell --
you know, that there aren't any issues there that there is no, you know,
threatened or pending litigation that we're not aware of, or at least I'm
not aware of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else? This is
communications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's wonderful to see you
again. I mean, as always.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sure it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I just -- I live from
meeting to meeting with you. So, yeah, it's -- I almost thought you
were going to stab me with that pen, but then I knew you just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You ducked.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Actually, I did better than
that, but we won't go there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 171
October 9, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have something. The clerk just
finished an audit of the -- of our --
MR. OCHS: Gilchrist properties?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, probably.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's Hillcrest properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Actually, there were some home projects
in there that he audited --
MR. OCHS: Oh, that was the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and one of the discrepancies that he
found was the chairman signed an agreement that was not previously
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I saw that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the staff reply was, well, we agree
with that assessment, and did not acknowledge that there were two
attorneys who had certified that document as legally sufficient for my
signature and had presented it to me for signing.
Now, that is a discrepancy, in my opinion, but it should have
been acknowledged by the County Attorney's Office, and that should
have been the statement that was included in the staffs response to the
clerk's finding, but it was not.
So it raises a question. Was it, in fact, approved by the attorneys
for my signature? And if so, why didn't the attorney's office accept
responsibility for providing the wrong advice to me as far as signing it
is concerned?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what you're talking about. If
you can get that document to me, I'll follow up on it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have the document, and we'd
be happy to provide you copies.
But it is important -- I get thousands of pages of documents to be
signed, and I depend upon the lawyers to make sure that they are
legally sufficient before I affix my signature on them, and I have, on
Page 172
October 9, 2012
occasion, many occasions, demanded specific statements from the
attorney's office concerning the guarantees that I am making in those
contracts.
And so I view that very seriously, and I think it's something that
you ought to take a look at and make sure it doesn't happen again.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we review prior -- we review all
documents prior to it going to the board, all right. So it could very
well be that we've reviewed and signed off on a document that then
doesn't get taken to the board. But we'll follow up on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this was -- this was an agreement
to be signed by me with, I think, HUD, probably, and that signature
page had at least one, perhaps two, attorneys' signatures on it
approving it for its legal sufficiency.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we'll review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Ian, could you get those documents to Jeff?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
And, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- you'll find that
there are several documents for the chairman to sign after the board
has approved that, you know, it doesn't go through the county
attorney. It goes through the county attorney when it's on our agenda;
however, staff brings those documents thereafter, the ones with the
pink slip.
I kind of embarrassed Dayne Atkins (sic) for his involvement in
the community with the children, but actually we have plenty of
employees that do that on a day-to-day basis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doesn't Mr. Casalanguida --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Casalanguida does coach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And some ladies.
Page 173
October 9, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Softball.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Softball, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's soccer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Soccer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Soccer, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I mean, that's encouraging
to see that a lot of our employees, you know, are involved in the
community doing things with, especially, youth and that.
The new board takes over November 20th, I think, somewhere
around there? Does anybody know?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your first meeting, I think, is in December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why is it December?
MR. KLATZKOW: Because you only have one meeting in
November, typically.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Isn't the election held before that
meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: But the new commissioner doesn't take
office, I think, until two weeks after the election.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, really, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: It's November 20th, as Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is November 20th, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: It is, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a lucky guess on my
part.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, you were correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that means it will be the first week in
December. So there is only one meeting in December?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the new board takes
over -- the new commissioner takes over in -- or it would be first
meeting in December.
Page 174
October 9, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: I think it's the 13th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would be that first meeting.
MR. MITCHELL: The 13th of December.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The 13th of December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the move into his office is on
November the, what, 20th?
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, he becomes the commissioner
November 20th. The first meeting will be December 13th, and I think
that's when, if there's a swearing in, he can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then we need to
pick a vice chair. Is there any prohibition of -- do a vice chair and a
chair at the December meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all I have.
MR. OCHS: That meeting date is December 11th rather than the
13th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: December 1 lth?
MR. OCHS: That's the board meeting, December 11th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then no other comments. We're
MR. OCHS: Oh, did Commissioner Coletta get a chance? Is he
still on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, Commissioner Coletta, are you still
there? He's smart.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's gone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you.
Page 175
October 9, 2012
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Hiller
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BETTER ROADS,
INC., FOR BID NO. 12-5937, INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
(RADIO ROAD TO MERCANTILE AVE) ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60188.4 FUNDED BY THE
NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK MSTU, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$473,312.96 PLUS A TEN (10) PERCENT CONTINGENCY OF
$47,331.30 TOTALING $520,644.26 — CONSISTS OF MILLING,
RESURFACING, CONSTRUCTION OF PAVED SHOULDERS
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OF SOME SWALES
Item #16A2
AGREEMENT #4600002607 WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $240,000 FOR
CONTINUED COLLECTION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY
SAMPLES IN COLLIER COUNTY— ADDING FIVE WATER
SAMPLING COLLECTION SITES NEAR LAKE TRAFFORD TO
THE TWENTY-SIX CURRENT SITES SAMPLED MONTHLY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2012-177: AN EMERGENCY BEACH
RENOURISHMENT RESOLUTION TO MAKE A FINDING
THAT THE VANDERBILT BEACH AND NAPLES BEACHES
ARE CRITICALLY ERODED AND TDC FUNDS CAN BE USED
FOR RENOURISHMENT, TO ALLOW AN EXPEDITED
Page 176
October 9, 2012
COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO RENOURISH THE BEACHES,
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
APPROVE A CONTRACT BUT NOT ISSUE A NOTICE-TO-
PROCEED UNTIL CONTRACT RATIFICATION BY THE
BOARD, AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $650,000 OF
CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2012-178: AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHERLY
5-FEET OF AN EXISTING 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED IN LOT 1, BLOCK I, GULF ACRES, RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 111, IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FL (PETITION VAC-PL20120001426)
Item #16C1 — Moved to Item #11E (During Agenda Changes)
Item #16D1
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EVERGLADES CITY
TO PROVIDE FUNDING ASSISTANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 TO EVERGLADES CITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
MCLEOD COMMUNITY PARK — FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ENGINEERED WOOD CHIPS TO BE PLACED UNDER
PLAYGROUND FACILITIES FOR IMPROVED SAFETY,
DRAINAGE AND CUSHIONING
Item #16D2
FOUR AGREEMENTS ALLOWING PARTICIPATION IN
Page 177
October 9, 2012
ALTERNATIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER
PROGRAMS (IGT): TWO BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA),
ONE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER AND ONE WITH NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL. THE COUNTY'S CURRENTLY BUDGETED
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT IS $2,097,484 — TO IMPROVE THE
QUALITY OF CARE & HEALTH OF LOW INCOME PERSONS
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,759 WITH THE
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND AN
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES (CHS) TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDICAID LOW INCOME POOL
PROGRAM. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION WILL GENERATE
$308,329 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CITIZENS IN
COLLIER COUNTY — FOR THE MEDICAID LOW INCOME
POOL PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES HEALTH RELATED
SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS
Item #16D4
MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. FOR
DELIVERY OF THE 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING
CENTERS SWIMMING SKILLS & DROWNING PREVENTION
PROGRAMS "MIRACLE PLUS 1 AND MIRACLE PLUS 2" — TO
PROVIDE SWIM LESSONS, DROWNING PREVENTION AND
RECREATION CAMPS TO ELEMENTARY AGE CHILDREN IN
IMMOKALEE
Page 178
October 9, 2012
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FISCAL
YEAR 2012-2013 BUDGET APPROVED IN THE HUD ACTION
PLAN FOR ENTITLEMENT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIR TO SIGN THE STANDARD HUD AGREEMENT FORMS
UPON ARRIVAL. THE FUNDS ARE FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) AND EMERGENCY
SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICES.
PROJECT START DATES AND TIMELY USE OF FEDERAL
FUNDS IS DEPENDENT ON THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
FUNDING — CHAIR TO SIGN ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS
WITH THE CERTIFICATES SIGNED AT A LATER DATE
WITHOUT FURTHER BOARD ACTION
Item #16D6
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12-5918 "BOAT RAMP REPAIR"
FOR THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA PROJECT #80215
TO CB CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORP. AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AND NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,747 —
BOATS ON TRAILERS THAT USE THE RAMP TO ENTER &
EXIT THE WATER HAS ERODED THE EDGES AT THE END
OF THE RAMP
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2012-179: PROVIDING AFTER THE FACT
Page 179
October 9, 2012
APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL OF SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL
AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $70,000 TO THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR PROCUREMENT
AND INSTALLATION OF A CALL CENTER SOFTWARE
TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND CERTIFICATION MODULE FOR
THE PARATRANSIT SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT AND ALL APPLICABLE
DOCUMENTS
Item #16D8
THE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM COLLIER
COUNTY'S 4-H ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,350,
APPROVE SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OF THE FUNDS,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE 4-H ASSOCIATION TO
FUND OUTREACH COORDINATORS AND ENHANCE
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES MANAGED BY COLLIER COUNTY'S
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA/IFAS EXTENSION DEPARTMENT
AND AUTHORIZE A SUBSEQUENT BUDGET AMENDMENT
— FOR THE OUTREACH COORDINATOR'S SALARY AND FOR
ACTIVITIES IN AND AFTER SCHOOL IN COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITIES
Item #16D9 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT NO. 11-5753, ELECTRONIC
FAREBOXES FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS)
PROGRAM, AND APPROVE THE SOFTWARE LICENSE
Page 180
October 9, 2012
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FARE LOGISTICS CORPORATION
AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 2012-180: AUTHORIZING A MULTI-YEAR
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
THROUGH FEDERAL PASS-THROUGH 49 U.S.C. § 5311
FUNDING UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER AQR01 PROVIDING
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN COLLIER
COUNTY'S NON-URBANIZED AREAS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$272,797 WITH A FY12/13 LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT
OF $272,797 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — TO SUPPORT OPERATIONAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGERIAL FUNDING FOR
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN THE COUNTY'S
NON-URBANIZED AREAS
Item #16D11
GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE 2012/2013 CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION
STAKEHOLDERS (CMS/ITS) BOX FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $276,000 THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TRANSPORTATION ELECTRONIC
AWARD MANAGEMENT (TEAM) SYSTEM — FOR ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE COSTS OF EACH SHELTER INCLUDING THE
TRANSIT VENDOR'S CONTRACT AND TO REPAINT/REPAIR
THE SHELTERS EVERY SIX TO SEVEN YEARS
Item #16D12
Page 181
October 9, 2012
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AREA AGENCY
ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. TO REFLECT
ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDS FOR SENIOR MEALS OF
$27,262 AND COUNTY MATCH OF $3,029.11 IN THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $30,291.11 FOR THE FY12 OLDER
AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM TITLE III, AND AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — TO PROVIDE
CONGREGATE AND HOME DELIVERED MEALS THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2012 WHEN THE CONTRACT EXPIRES
Item #16D13
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
BCC MEETING. RESOLUTION 2012-181: REPEALING 2009-296
TO ESTABLISH A REVISED COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY FEE & FINE SCHEDULE — INCLUDES AFTER HOUR
RATES FOR SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
Item #16E1
VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,112 TO PURCHASE CLASS A FOAM FOR THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (LOCAL MATCH
$1,056)
Item #16E2
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
FOR THE 800 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM — FOR
Page 182
October 9, 2012
BOARD APPROVED CONTRACT #94-2201 WITH ERICSSON,
INC., NOW HARRIS CORPORATION FOR THE TRUNKED
RADIO SYSTEM, WITH SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROVIDED
BY HARRIS CORPORATION, THE MANUFACTURE, AND
NEW UNITS AND MAINTENANCE TO BE PROVIDED BY AN
AUTHORIZED RESELLER AT THE DIRECTION OF HARRIS
Item #16E3
ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
APPROPRIATING APPROXIMATELY $3,085,820.51 OF FY12
CARRY FORWARD FOR APPROVED OPEN PURCHASE
ORDERS INTO FY 2013 FOR OPERATING BUDGET FUNDS
(THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #17B)
Item #16E4
RETROACTIVE (EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 26, 2012) REQUEST
FOR A WAIVER OF COMPETITION TO AUTHORIZE FUEL
PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS UNDER STATE OF FLORIDA
CONTRACT (#405-000-10-1) TO MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY,
LLC TO FILL COUNTY OWNED FIXED FUEL TANKS AT
FLEET MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS; TO ADD "TANK
WAGON" SERVICES TO CONTRACT #10-5581, MOTOR OILS
AND LUBRICANT WITH COMBS OIL; AND AUTHORIZE
PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS TO MANSFIELD OIL
COMPANY, LLC FOR COUNTY OWNED FIXED FUEL TANKS
AT THE FLEET MANAGEMENT OPERATION AND TO
COMBS OIL FOR "TANK WAGON" SERVICES — FOR COUNTY
VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, MARINA RESALE TO THE PUBLIC,
CAT BUSES AND EMERGENCY GENERATORS
Page 183
October 9, 2012
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2012-182: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16G1
RESOLUTION 2012-183: AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. AQR24 WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,312 FOR
DESIGN, PERMITTING & BIDDING OF RUNWAY
17-35 PAVEMENT RESTORATION AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, AND TO AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G2
RESOLUTION 2012-184: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. AQR22 WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,642 FOR
THE DESIGN, PERMITTING AND BIDDING OF RUNWAY
9-27 PAVEMENT RESTORATION AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G3
RESOLUTION 2012-185: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
Page 184
October 9, 2012
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT NO. AQ122 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,121 FOR SECURITY SYSTEM
UPGRADES AT MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, SHE ATTENDED THE PARKINSON
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2012. $11.48
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT NAPLES RED LOBSTER, 2355 N. US 41
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, HE
ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MONTHLY BREAKFAST MEETING AT ROMA HAVANA
RESTAURANT IN IMMOKALEE, FL ON MAY 2, 2012. $10 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — LOCATED AT 1025 W. MAIN STREET,
IMMOKALEE
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
Page 185
October 9, 2012
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, HE
ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MONTHLY BREAKFAST MEETING AT ROMA HAVANA
RESTAURANT IN IMMOKALEE, FL ON AUGUST 1, 2012, $10
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — LOCATED AT 1025 W. MAIN STREET,
IMMOKALEE
Item #16I 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
Item #16I2
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
Page 186
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 9, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Collier Soil & Water Conservation District:
General Financial Statements and Independent Auditor Reports for
Year Ending 9.30.10
State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY
2009-2010
General Financial Statements and Independent Auditor Reports for
Year Ending 9.30.11
State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY
2010-2011
Correspondence dated 8.15.12 and 8.29.12
Profit and Loss Budget Overview for October 2012 through
September 2013
2) Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association:
Annual Member Meeting Agenda 2.22.12
3) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District:
Public Meeting Schedule FY 2013 8.21.12
Meeting Minutes 6.15.12; 7.20.12
Meeting Agenda 6.15.12; 7.20.12
4) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District:
Annual Financial Report FY ending 9.30.11
Financial Statement and Recommendations from a 2011 Independent
Audit received 4.23.12
5) Heritage Greens Community Development District:
Meeting Minutes and Agenda 5.21.12
October 9, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2012
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2012
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
TAX COLLECTOR REQUEST FOR ADVANCE COMMISSIONS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 192.102 (1) FOR
FY2013 — FOR 1/12 OF COMMISSIONS ON COUNTY TAXES
LEVIED ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR THE YEAR 2011
IN THE AMOUNT OF $963,023.80
Item #16K1 — Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
TERMINATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2012-186: A RESOLUTION FORMALLY
ELECTING THE MEDICAID SETTLEMENT OPTION SET
Page 187
October 9, 2012
FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE AMENDED STIPULATION
PROVIDING FOR DISMISSAL OF SOME PARTIES AND
ABATEMENT OF CASE FOR REMAINING PARTIES FILED IN
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA ET AL V. ELIZABETH
DUDEK, ET AL; CASE NO.: 2012-CA-1328, SECOND JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS IT RELATES TO
LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
CHAPTER 2012-33, LAWS OF FLORIDA (HB 5301) AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE MEDICAID
PAYMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA)
Item #16K3 — Moved to Item #12A (During Agenda Changes)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2012-40: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 91-107, AS AMENDED (THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT), TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS TO FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS AND ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE MSTU BOUNDARIES
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2012-187: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13
ADOPTED BUDGET (THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #16E3)
Item #17C
Page 188
October 9, 2012
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23,
2012 BCC MEETING. PETITION VAC-PL20120001606, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF STATE ROAD NO. 29
(A.K.A. COPELAND AVENUE SOUTH) A 200-FOOT PUBLIC
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 53
SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
Page 189
October 9, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:11 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UN ^ER ITS CONTROL
FRED COYLE, CHAI ' A N
ATTF �_
DWIGUIT E.f B1 OCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on Kiove.►y-1(0-oc 15)2-1)(2— ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 190