BCC Minutes 09/25-26/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2012
September 25-26, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 25-26, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
o1 1 1,
!1•
•
r nom' , s
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
September 25, 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
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
Page 1
September 25,2012
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (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
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. August 24, 2012 - BCC/Emergency Meeting (Tropical Storm Isaac)
C. September 6, 2012 - BCC/Budget Hearing
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 2
September 25, 2012
1) 20 Year Attendees
a) Timothy Stick, Building Review & Permitting
2) 25 Year Attendees
a) David Streit, Water
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation congratulating Collier County Emergency Medical Services
for receiving accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of
Ambulance Services (CAAS) for its compliance with national standards
of excellence. To be accepted by Robert Tober, M.D. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating October 2, 2012 as Livestrong Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Jennifer Sam, Southwest Florida Livestrong
Leader. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
C. Proclamation recognizing and congratulating Arthrex, Inc., on receiving
the WRAP award for its continued efforts to promote waste reduction, reuse,
recycling and environmental awareness. To be accepted by Michael Dock,
CSP, EHS Manager and Rick Novak, Machine Operator and Green Team
Leader. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Nancy Frye, Technician, Traffic Engineering
Department, as the Employee of the Month for August, 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
September 25,2012
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the June 18, 2012 BCC Meeting, then
again from the September 11, 2012 BCC Meeting Recommendation of
Reconsideration of CP-2008-5, Petition requesting amendments to the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land
Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to
commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density;
elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for
the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, re-designation of approximately
103 acres to Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land
Use Map. Additionally, the petition requests an amendment to Policy 6.2.5
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to treat that portion
of the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand System which is within the
Immokalee Urban Area as Neutral Lands for vegetation retention, and to the
Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to
show the re-designation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area.
.1429.G1-140-1-e-'•
B. Recommends on to consider the following Land Development Code
Amendments: Bayshore Triangle CRA Amendments and Wellfield and
related Amen ments will be heard at 5:05 p.m. time certain)JAn Ordinance
of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
amending Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section
One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of
Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending
the following: Chapter 1 — General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02
Definitions; Chapter 2 —Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section
2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning
Districts; Chapter Three —Resource Protection, including Section 3.05.02
Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation,
Section 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation, Section
3.05.07 Preservation Standards, Section 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields,
Section 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.12 Regulated
Development; Chapter Four— Site Design and Development Standards,
Page 4
September 25,2012
including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base
Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design,
Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST
Districts, Section 4.05.02 Design Standards, Section 4.05.04 Parking Space
Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03
Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way,
Section 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection, Section 4.07.02 Design
Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, including Section
5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Section 5.06.02 Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts, Section 5.06.03 Development Standards for
Signs for Institutional Uses, Section 5.06.04 Development Standards for
Signs in Nonresidential Districts, Section 5.06.05 Exemptions from these
Regulations; Chapter Six— Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate
Public Facilities Requirements, including Section 6.02.01 Generally, Section
6.02.03 Transportation Level of Service Requirements, Section 6.06.01
Street System Requirements, Section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and
Pathway Requirements; Chapter Nine —Variations from Code
Requirements, including Section 9.03.02 Requirements of Continuation of
Nonconformities, Section 9.04.02 Types of Variances Authorized; Chapter
Ten—Application, Review, and Decision-making Procedures, including
Section 10.01.02 Development Orders Required, Section 10.02.03 Submittal
Requirements for Site Development Plans, Section 10.02.05 Submittal
Requirements for Improvements Plans, Section 10.02.06 Submittal
Requirements for Permits, Section 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for
Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for
Public Hearings Before the BCC, The Planning Commission, the Board of
Zoning Appeals, the EAC, and the Historic Preservation Board, Section
10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures; Appendix A— Standard Performance
Security Documents for Required Improvements; Section Four, Conflict and
Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land
Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. And An Ordinance of
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending
Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section
One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of
Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending
the following: Chapter 1 — General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02
Page 5
September 25,2012
Definitions; Chapter 2 —Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section
2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four— Site Design and
Development Standards, including Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for
Development in the BMUD-Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Section
4.02.17 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-Waterfront
Subdistrict, Section 4.02.18 Design Standards for Development in the
BMUD-Residential Subdistrict (R1), Section 4.02.19 Design Standards for
Development in the BMUD-Residential Subdistrict (R2), Section 4.02.20
Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-Residential Subdistrict
(R3), Section 4.02.21 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R4), Section 4.02.35 Design Standards for
Development in the GTMUD-Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD), Section
4.02.36 Design Standards for Development in the GTMUD-Residential
Subdistrict (R); Chapter Ten— Application, Review, and Decision-making
Procedures, including, Adding Section 10.02.15 Mixed Use Project
Procedures within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area;
Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the
Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Hiller of Item #14A1 from
the September 11, 2012 BCC Meetinji titled: Recommendation to approve
after-the fact acceptance of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant
offer of$713,565 for design, permitting and bidding of Runway #9-27
pavement restoration at the Immokalee Regional Airport, and associated
budget amendments.
B. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henninji of Item #9A from
the September 11, 2012 BCCMeetinr titled: Recommendation of
Reconsideration of CP-2008-5, Petition requesting amendments to the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land
Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to
commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density;
elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for
the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, re-designation of approximately
103 acres to Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land
Use Map. Additionally, the petition requests an amendment to Policy 6.2.5
Page 6
September 25, 2012
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to treat that portion
of the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand System which is within the
Immokalee Urban Area as Neutral Lands for vegetation retention, and to the
Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to
show the re-designation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area.
(This item was continued from the September 11, 2012 BCC Meeting and
appears on this agenda as Item #9A)
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
F. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council
G. Appointment of two Board of County Commissioners to the Value
Adjustment Board, with one Commissioner to act as Chairman. The
remaining Commissioners to serve as alternates.
H. Recommendation to appoint a County Commissioner to serve on the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
I. To give the Board of County Commissioners an update on the RESTORE
Act Meeting held on September 19, 2012- Commissioner Fiala.
J. The annual performance appraisal of the Executive Manager to the Board of
County Commissioners.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Agreement #12-5901 for Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) and Related Services for US41 &
SR/CR 951 Intersection Improvements and SR951 (Collier Boulevard)
3R Improvements"; to Atkins, North America, Inc.: Project No. 60116,
Fiscal Impact $1,748,086.25. (Marlene Messam, Growth Management
Sr. Project Manager)
Page 7
September 25,2012
B. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,381,990.36 to Bonness, Inc. and reserve 10% ($138,199.04) on the
purchase order for contingency, for a total of$1,520,189.40 for ITB
#12-5946 "LASIP Outfalls 3 and 4 Canals Stormwater Improvements",
Project No. 51101. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation Engineering Director)
C. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve an
Emergency Truck Haul beach renourishment for a portion of Vanderbilt
and Naples beaches; approve a six year design and permitting plan for the
FY2013/14 Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach renourishment; and
direct the County Manager or designee to review the scope of the Marco
Island Beach re-nourishment and discuss options with the Coastal Advisory
Committee (CAC), Tourist Development Council (TDC) and Marco Island
with respect to a commensurate level of renourishment consistent with
county wide funding reductions. (Bill Lorenz, Growth Management
Comprehensive Planning Director)
D. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members and all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to hear testimony from
American Medical Transport and the public to determine the need for an
additional Class 2 post-hospital inter-facility transport ambulance transfer
service in Collier County. (Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Services)
E. Recommendation to approve the Site Improvement Plan and authorize the
Chair to sign the Compliance Agreement for the Star Mobile Home Park
located at 1507 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida. (Diane Flagg, Code
Enforcement Director)
F. Recommendation to approve purchase of Group Dental Insurance through
Cigna Dental Plan, Inc. for a two year period effective January 1, 2013 in
an estimated annual premium of$1,626,697, a reduction of$103,824. (Jeff
Walker, Risk Management Director)
G. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Liability, Automobile,
Workers' Compensation, Flood, Aircraft, Airport and other insurance
coverage and services for FY 2013 in the annual amount of$1,325,228,
a reduction of$37,923. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director)
Page 8
September 25,2012
H. Recommendation to complete the Annual Performance Appraisal for the
County Manager. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager)
Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners indicates its intent
to extend the County Manager Employment Agreement with Leo E. Ochs,
Jr., fixing the end date of the first extension term as September 30, 2015,
and amending the Agreement to comport with Ch. 2011-143, Florida
Statutes. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. 11:30 a.m. Time Certain. This item to be heard immediately precedinji the
Closed Attorney-Client Session. That the Board consider a Settlement
Agreement in the lawsuits entitled, Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al. v. Collier
County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1224; and
Sean Hussey, et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal
Case No. 2D11-1223., and authorize the Chairman to execute the Settlement
Agreement.
B. 12:00 Noon. Time Certain Notice of Closed Session. Notice is hereby given
that, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires
advice from the Board of County Commissioners in Closed Attorney-
Client Session on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2012. The session will be
held at a time certain of 12:00 noon, in the Commission's Office Conference
Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Administration Building F, Collier
County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In
addition to Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs, and County
Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow will be in attendance. The Board in Closed
Executive Session will discuss: Strategy session related to settlement
negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending cases of: Francis D.
Hussey, Jr., et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal
Case No. 2D11-1224; Sean Hussey, et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second
District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1223.
C. 1:00 P.M. Time Certain Return from Closed Session. For the Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney
regarding settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending
cases of: Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second
Page 9
September 25,2012
District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1224; Sean Hussey, et al. v. Collier
County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1223.
D. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews and
approves the proposed FY2012 - 2013 Action Plan for Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,
County Attorney.
F. Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners indicates its intent
to extend the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Jeffrey A.
Klatzkow, fixing the end date of the second extension term as September 30,
2015, and amending the Agreement to comport with Ch. 2011-143, Florida
Statutes.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item continued from the July 24, 2012 BCCMeetin
Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement Authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have Traffic
Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the Valencia Lakes
Subdivision.
B. 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
1) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committee rankings for
RFP #12-5885 for Engineering Consulting Services for the Design,
Permitting and Bid of Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island
Executive Airport Runway Rehabilitation and direct staff to bring a
negotiated contract to the Board for subsequent approval.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 10
September 25, 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 approve Change Order No. 4 to Contract
#09-5278 for an additional 942 days with Stanley Consultants, Inc.,
for Design & Related Services for the Intersection Capacity
Improvements to US 41 and SR/CR 951 Intersection and Resurfacing,
Restoration and Rehabilitation (3R) roadway improvements to SR951;
Project #60116; Fiscal Impact: $0.00.
2) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement
for Devonshire Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio
Road for the volunteer group, The Peppe Fox Partners.
3) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$3,612.29 for payment of$562.29, in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Palmira Munoz, Code
Enforcement Case Number CESD20100018348, relating to property
located at 2051 44th Terrace SW, Collier County, Florida.
4) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of$74,159.20 and to authorize a refund of
$11,272.35 from the Countywide Pathways fund.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Valencia Lakes —Phase
4-A, PPL-AR3124 with roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance
security and acceptance of the plat dedications.
Page 11
September 25, 2012
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Piacere —Pavia, Tract FD2
Replat, Application Number PL20120001564.
7) Recommendation to accept a schedule to review past staff
clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) and to accept
specific Staff Clarifications attached to this Executive Summary.
8) Recommendation to declare Fisher Scientific as sole source vendor
and request authorization to purchase a Dionex Ion Chromatogram
Capillary System in the amount of$58,270.53 for the Natural
Resources Department.
9) Recommendation to ratify the County Manager's determination of the
existence of a local shoreline emergency at the Pelican Bay Southern
Beach Facility in the vicinity of FDEP Monument R-41 and to allow
temporary emergency mitigation and repair activities without
requiring a Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve Contract#12-5863 between the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and URS to
perform Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI) Services for the
Immokalee Downtown Stormwater Improvement Project. (Fiscal
Impact: $67,950).
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with Smith Plastering,
Inc., permitting them to operate a local, owner operated business on
CRA owned property located at 1991 Tamiami Trail East, in the
Gateway Mini-Triangle.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
Page 12
September 25,2012
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. ($2,443.41)
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. ($853.37)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a time and materials contract with
Agnoli Barber & Brundage in the not-to-exceed amount of$243,631
for Request for Proposal #12-5883, "Master Pumping Station 312
Professional Services During Construction," Project Number 72549.
2) Recommendation to approve the annual rate resolution to establish
fees, rates, and charges for the use of Collier County Solid Waste
Facilities, including landfill tipping fees, recycling drop-off center
fees, and residential multi-family and commercial waste collection
fees for FY13. This resolution adopts the rates that fund the FY13
Budget for solid waste collection and disposal.
3) Recommendation to approve a contract with Johnson Engineering,
Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of$234,470 for Request for
Proposal #12-5919, "Utility Design Engineering Services ,U.S. 41
from CR951 to Greenway Road", Project Numbers 70045 and 73045.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to recognize the transfer of responsibilities as Lead
Agency from Collier County Housing, Human and Veteran Services
(HHVS) to Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition (HHC) as
they are designated the Collaborative Applicant/Lead Agency for the
purposes of submitting Continuum of Care grant applications to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement
#12-5944, Child Advocacy Agreement for Mandated Services with
Page 13
September 25, 2012
the Collier County Child Advocacy Council, Inc., to provide for
mandated services identified under Florida Statute 39.304(5).
The agreement will have a fiscal impact of$70,000.
3) Recommendation to accept Library Services and Technology Act
(LSTA) Grant "Collier Connects" funds in the amount of$27,154;
a partial match contribution from Friends of the Library in the amount
of$3,800; approve balance of local match from the Libraries General
Fund (001) in the amount of$11,373, approve E-Government Policy
and Library partnership with Access Florida.
4) Recommendation to approve and execute a five-year Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) with Florida Department of
Transportation in the amount of$1,776,556 under State Transit
Block Grant Program Contract #AQQ16 providing for State funding
for eligible Collier County public fixed-route transit administrative,
management and operational expenses in the amount of$888,278 as
well as a FY2012/2013 local match in the amount of$888,278.
5) Recommendation to accept the Conservation Collier Annual Report.
6) 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.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #12-5900 to Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc., in the amount of$594,692.86 for the construction contract of the
Bayview Park Phase II & III Project No. 80060, authorize budget
amendments totaling $369,355.83 and authorize the Chairman to sign
the County Attorney approved contract.
8) Recommendation to approve the award of Contract #12-5868 in the
amount of$359,745 and authorize the Chairman to execute an
agreement with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., for "On-Call
Construction Engineering and Inspections (CEI) and Related
Services" for the Gordon River Greenway Park, Goodlette-Frank and
Golden Gate Parkway, Project Number 80065.
Page 14
September 25,2012
9) Recommendation to comply with a Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) payback disbursement directive of Federal Funds in the
amount of$500,000 for a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) project sub-awarded to Habitat for Humanity (HFH) and
authorize any necessary budget amendments.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Antenna Site
Agreement with SBA Towers II, LLC, related to the communications
tower Agreement for the County's SafePoint Location System, a
component of the County's 800 MHz public safety radio network, at a
first year's estimated utility cost of$540.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$2,890,000 from Fund 517, Group Health and Life Insurance
Reserves, to pay anticipated claims expenses for the remainder of
FY 2012.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
an Assumption Agreement from Road Safe Traffic Systems, Inc.
to McShea Contracting, LLC, as it relates to Contract#10-5410
"Roadway Paint, Thermoplastic Markings and Raised Markers".
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Agreement for
Medical Examiner Services which will extend the term of the
Agreement to September 30, 2013, amend the operating cost, as
well as costs relating to Information Technology and General,
Property, and Liability insurances for FY2013.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to acknowledge receipt of the Workforce Services
Plan, submitted by the Southwest Florida Workforce Development
Board, Inc.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
Page 15
September 25,2012
3) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a
one-year extension to the Memorandum of Understanding between
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Early
Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida, Inc., to provide funding in
the amount of$75,000 in Fiscal Year 2013.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve a License Agreement with United Circus
Operating Co., Inc. d/b/a The Kings Bros. Circus at the Immokalee
Airport for a one (1) day circus event.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving as a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the East Naples Merchant Association's cocktail party
September 15, 2012. The sum of$20 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
2) Advisory Board minutes and agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 1, 2012 through September 7, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 16
September 25,2012
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
Settlement and Judgment Agreement Order prior to trial in the lawsuit
entitled Board of County Commissioners Collier County v. Jeffrey
Lillard, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida. (Case No. 11-03359 -CC) for the sum of$2,844.75.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
mediated Settlement Agreement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled
Simina Moldovan v. Collier County, and Collier County, filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Case
No. 09-4781-CA) for the sum of$1,200.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDZ-PL20 1 1 0000406: Brynwood Center --
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which established comprehensive zoning
regulations for unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending
the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing zoning classification
of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district
with an "ST" overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
zoning district for a project to be known as the Brynwood Center CPUD to
allow construction of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office
uses which include a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and a
Page 17
September 25,2012
maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office uses. Also permitted are
hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing (assisted living
facility and independent living units) at a floor area ratio of 0.6. For each
acre of group housing or hotel or motel use, 12,083 square feet of retail or
office use shall be subtracted from the total amount of allowable commercial
square footage. The project is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road,
approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine
Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 13.65± acres; and providing an effective date.
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. VA-PL20110002627: Donald Gray Variance -
A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,
relating to Petition Number VA-PL2011-2627, for a variance from Land
Development Code Sections 4.02.03 and 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced
riparian side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on the west side of the
subject property and a reduced riparian side yard setback from 7.5 feet to
1.55 feet on the east side of the subject property located on Lot 6, Block G
of the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision in Section 5, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida.
C. Recommendation to adopt proposed changes to Ordinance No. 91-65, of the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Ordinance to incorporate statutory
requirements and otherwise clarify terms.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry-forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry-forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 18
September 25,2012
September 25-26, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Board of County Commissioners meeting is now in order.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Would you please stand for the invocation to be provided by
Pastor John Boutchia of the Gospel Baptist Church.
PASTOR BOUTCHIA: Our gracious Father, we thank you for
such a beautiful day. Thank you for the privilege of being here in
Southwest Florida, what I believe to be one of the most beautiful
places in all the country.
Thank you that we can have this meeting today. And we ask that
your hand of blessing would be upon our commissioners here today.
For Fred Coyle and Jim Coletta, Donna Fiala, Georgia Hiller and Tom
Henning, would you just give them wisdom today. Our understanding
is that wisdom only comes from above. And so may their direction be
from you.
And Lord, thank you for the meeting and the things that will be
discussed. We pray that you just help in all the matters that are going
to be brought before them.
Thank you for those that will be recognized here shortly. I think
of these who have -- are receiving service awards. We thank you for
Timothy Stick for 20 years of service, and David Streit, 25 years;
Nancy Frye, who will be mentioned because of employee of the
month in the month of August. What a privilege.
Lord, our attention really also goes not just here locally but
nationally as we think of our elections. We pray that, Father, your
hand would be upon our country. And we understand righteousness
Page 2
September 25-26, 2012
exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. And may folks
get elected into offices who honor the Bible and would hold high the
things of God.
Thank you again for this wonderful day. Help us through it. In
Jesus' name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, will you please go through the changes to the
agenda.
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, Commissioners. These
are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of September 25th, 2012.
First proposed change is a request to hear Item 10.A immediately
before Item 14.A.1 on your agenda today. That's at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to add Item 10.K to the agenda. It's a
consideration of impending vacancy on the Collier County Planning
Commission for District 5 representative. That item is added at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
Next proposed change is to withdraw Item 11.D. That was a
hearing on a potential issuance of a certificate of public need and
necessity. We got a call last evening from the applicant in
Page 3
September 25-26, 2012
Connecticut who had taken ill and had asked for the item to be
postponed 'til a later date.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 11.E from the
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the Site Improvement Plan
for a mobile home park in Immokalee. Again, we received a
communication from a representative of the property owner last
evening saying that they could not be present today and asked that we
reschedule that at a later date.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.A.7 off of your consent
agenda to become Item 11.J on the regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to ratify -- for the Board to ratify past staff
clarifications of Land Development Code provisions. And that is
moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to add Item 10.K. It is a resolution
extending the current fiscal year 2012 pay in classification plan to
your next board meeting of October 9, 2012. That's at staff request.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.C.1 from your
consent agenda. This was a construction award and we're
withdrawing that at staffs request, pending resolution of a bid protest.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.D.5 to the
October 9, 2012 BCC meeting. That has to do with the annual report
from your Conservation Collier staff.
Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.D.6 to the October
9th, 2012 board meeting. That's a resolution establishing some new
fees for your library department. We had a couple of items that
needed clarification there. We'll bring that back on the 9th.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.D.9 to become
Item 11.L on your regular agenda, having to do with a payback
disbursement from Habitat for Humanity to the Board. That item is
moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.G.1, and that
Page 4
September 25-26, 2012
was a license agreement for the circus to be held in Immokalee.
Apparently they cannot make it on that date.
Next proposed change is to withdraw Item 17.0 from your
summary agenda. That's a recommendation to adopt a proposed
ordinance amending your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
ordinance. That request is made at staffs behest.
We have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners. Item
16.D.2 should read as follows. The second sentence in the
consideration section of the executive summary should read: Per
Florida Statutes, subsection 39.304(5), the parents, legal guardians or
legal custodians are required to reimburse the county for cost of such
allowable examinations, as opposed to initial examinations. That
correction is made at the staffs request.
We have a number of time certain items scheduled for today's
agenda, Commissioners. Item 9.B -- portions of Item 9.B, your land
development code revisions, will be heard at 5:05 p.m, those revisions
having to do with the Bayshore/Triangle CRA amendments and your
wellfield amendments.
Item 10.I will be heard at 1 :05 p.m. That's a report from
Commissioner Fiala directed at the last meeting by the Board with
respect to the BP oil spill and the proposed settlement between the
government and the Gulf Coast states.
The next time certain item is Item 11.C. That is to be heard at
10:00 a.m. regarding the proposed beach renourishment program for
the next fiscal year.
And we have three items related to the proposed settlement of a
Burt Harris claim. The first item will be heard at 12 -- excuse me,
12.A will be heard at 11 :30. That's the staff outline of the proposed
settlement as we understand the proposed terms and conditions.
That will include a recommendation for some further vetting with
your Planning Commission. Depending on the board's decision on
Page 5
September 25-26, 2012
12.A, we may or may not then go into closed session at noon,
followed by the reporting out of that closed session at 1 :00 p.m.
I don't know if the County Attorney has anything else to add to
that.
MR. KLATZKOW: (Shakes head negatively.)
MR. OCHS: No.
Those are the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: ***Okay. Then we'll go to
commissioners for ex parte disclosure of the summary and consent
agendas. We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes to today's
agenda.
Ex parte communication, 17.A I received the staffs report to the
Planning Commission. The same on 17.B. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have no changes to the
agenda. And as far as disclosure goes, 17.A, I received a staff report.
And for 17.B, I've received the staff report for that one also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda.
And with respect to ex parte disclosure, I also have reviewed the
staff report for Item 17.A and B in the summary agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, same with me, I have no
changes or corrections to the agenda.
And again, 17.A and B I received staff reports. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no disclosures on consent.
Page 6
September 25-26, 2012
On the summary I have staff reports for 17.A and B. And with
respect to the agenda, I do have a question, and that is the item that
was added after the agenda was published, which is 10.K, and I'd like
an understanding why this was added after the fact and why this needs
to be addressed at this meeting and can't be put on the next agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, I made the mistake of not
advertising this position when I advertised the Planning Commissioner
for District 2. I've been asked to put it on the agenda since there was
this -- the item that Commissioner Henning had brought up at the last
meeting, because there was a difference between the motion that was
passed in the meeting when they were appointed and the resolution
that was filed.
But the County Attorney had then informed me that the
resolution actually took precedence. So the term does expire on the
1st of October. So it was decided that, you know, because this is the
Planning Commission that it needed to be addressed, at least
addressed at this meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
And Jeff, can you explain what this issue is about, the motion and
the resolution?
MR. KLATZKOW: Chairman Mark Strain's term expires the
end of this month, I believe, or October 1st. So you will have a
vacancy on the Collier County Planning Commission between now
and your next meeting.
And my understanding is Commissioner Coletta would like to
address that issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. But we're not going to leave
a vacancy, we're basically going to continue his position because we
have to have an odd number of votes --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, his position expired. He's done. You
Page 7
September 25-26, 2012
have an open seat now. So the question -- and Mr. Coletta will raise
the issue; I'm not sure where he's going to go with this. But you have a
vacancy right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. Well, how many members are
there on that board?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nine? So we have to have an odd
number.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you don't have to have an odd number,
but it's always helpful to have an odd --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would think so.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's always helpful to have an odd number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think I can -- I mean, if
Commissioner Coletta doesn't want to extend his term to allow for the
advertising, then what I can do is just allow Brad Schiffer's term to
expire, because it also expires October 1st and then we're back to
seven.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, these are all matters we can discuss
on 10.K.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that case, I'll entertain a motion to
approve the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the agenda
as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, A motion by Commissioner
Coletta to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 8
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Page 9
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 25,2012
Request to hear Item 10A immediately before Item 14A1. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add Item 10K: Consideration of impending vacancy on the Collier County Planning Commission for
District 5 representative. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Withdraw Item 11D: This is a quasi judicial hearing.This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members and all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation
to hear testimony from American Medical Transport and the public to determine the need for an
additional Class 2 post-hospital inter-facility transport ambulance transfer service in Collier County.
(Applicant's request)
Withdraw Item 11E: Recommendation to approve the Site Improvement Plan and authorize the
Chair to sign the Compliance Agreement for Star Mobile Home Park located at 1507 Immokalee Drive,
Immokalee,Florida. (Staffs request on behalf of property owner)
Move Item 16A7 to Item 11J: Recommendation to accept a schedule to review past staff clarifications of
the Land Development Code(LDC)and to accept specific Staff Clarifications attached to this Executive
Summary. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add Item 11K: Recommendation to continue the Fiscal Year 2012 Pay and Classification Plan for the Board
of County Commissioners and Office of the County Attorney into Fiscal Year 2013,allowing for final
revisions to the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 plan which will be brought forward for consideration at the Board
meeting of October 9,2012. (Staff's request)
Withdraw Item 16C1: Recommendation to approve a time and materials contract with Agnoli Barber&
Brundage in the not-to-exceed amount of$243,631 for Request for Proposal No. 12-5883, "Master Pumping
Station 312 Professional Services During Construction," Project Number 72549. (Staffs request pending
resolution of a bid protest)
Continue Item 16D5 to the October 9,2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to accept the Conservation
Collier Annual Report. (Staffs request)
Continue Item 16D6 to the October 9,2012 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. (Staffs request)
Move Item 16D9 to Item 11L: Recommendation to comply with a Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)payback disbursement directive of federal funds in the amount of$500,000 for a Community
Development Block Grant(CDBG)project subawarded to Habitat for Humanity(HFH)and authorize any
necessary budget amendments. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Withdraw Item 16G1: Recommendation to approve a License Agreement with United Circus Operating
Co.,Inc. d/b/a The Kings Bros Circus at the Immokalee Airport for a one(1)day circus event. (Staff's
request)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 25,2012
Page 2
Withdraw Item 17C: Recommendation to adopt proposed changes to Ordinance No.91-65,of the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Ordinance to incorporate statutory requirements and
otherwise clarify terms. (Staff's request)
Note:
Item 16D2: The second sentence in the Considerations section of the Executive Summary should read:
"Per Florida Statutes subsection 39.304(5),the parents,legal guardians,or legal custodians are required to
reimburse the County for the costs of such initial allowable examinations". (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 913 to be heard at 5:05 p.m.(Bayshore Triangle CRA Amendments and Wellfield and related
Amendments)
Item 10I to be heard at 1:05 p.m.
Item 11C to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 12A to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
Item 12B to be heard at 12:00 noon in a Closed Session
Item 12C to be heard at 1:00 p.m.in an Open Session
9/25/2012 8:43 AM
September 25-26, 2012
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 24, 2012 — BCC/EMERGENCY
MEETING (TROPICAL STORM ISAAC) AND THE SEPTEMBER
6, 2012 — BCC/BUDGET HEARING — APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to the minutes of the
August 24th, 2012 BCC emergency meeting pertaining to Tropical
Storm Isaac, and the minutes to the September the 6th, 2012 BCC
budget hearing, are there any changes to any of those minutes? And if
not, I'll accept the motion to approve them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the minutes from
the August 24th meeting, BCC emergency meeting, and September
6th BCC budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion by Commissioner Fiala
to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #3A
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 20 YEAR AND 25 YEAR
Page 10
September 25-26, 2012
ATTENDEES — PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to service awards. You
want us down there?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're pleased to recognize the
work of long-standing county employees this morning. Our first
service award recipient celebrating 20 years of service, Timothy Stick,
with our Building Review and Permitting Department.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 25 years of service with our Water
Department this morning, David Streit. David?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that concludes our service awards
this morning. Thank you.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR RECEIVING
ACCREDITATION FROM THE COMMISSION ON
ACCREDITATION OF AMBULANCE SERVICES (CAAS) FOR
ITS COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL STANDARDS OF
EXCELLENCE. ACCEPTED BY ROBERT TOBER, M.D —
ADOPTED
Page 11
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that brings us to proclamations.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Item 4.A is a proclamation
congratulating Collier County Emergency Medical Services for
receiving accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of
Ambulance Services for its compliance with national standards of
excellence. The award to be accepted by Robert Tober, MD. This
item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward, Dr. Tober.
(Applause.)
DR. TOBER: Commissioners and guests, thank you for giving
us the time for this recognition.
I want to particularly thank retired EMS Chief Jeff Page, who is
actually here today, for launching this exhaustive application process
two years ago. We're now one of about 150 systems in a country of
about -- what did you say, 15,000 services. So it's quite a feather in
our hat.
And this goes to all of the administrative staff and paramedics of
our system who have helped create the quality system that we have
today. And I just want to thank all of you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, I would like to thank you on behalf
of the Board and the people of Collier County for the fine job you've
done in setting the standards for this excellent level of emergency
medical care.
DR. TOBER: Thank you very much. Thanks.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2, 2012 AS
Page 12
September 25-26, 2012
LIVESTRONG DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
JENNIFER SAM, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA LIVESTRONG
LEADER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating October
2nd, 2012 as Livestrong Day in Collier County. To be accepted by
Jennifer Sam, Southwest Florida Livestrong leader. This item is
sponsored by. Commissioner Coletta. Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MS. SAM: Good morning, and thank you, Commissioners. And
good morning, guests.
I just want to thank you officially on behalf of the 28 million
people living with cancer worldwide. Cancer is still the leading cause
of death. More so than HIV, AIDS and malaria combined. So this is
for them and for everyone in Collier County affected by cancer
somehow. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING
ARTHREX, INC., ON RECEIVING THE WRAP AWARD FOR
ITS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE WASTE
REDUCTION, REUSE, RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AWARENESS. ACCEPTED BY MICHAEL DOCK, CSP, EHS
MANAGER AND RICK NOVAK, MACHINE OPERATOR AND
GREEN TEAM LEADER- ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation recognizing and
congratulating Arthrex, Incorporated on receiving the WRAP award
Page 13
September 25-26, 2012
for its continued efforts to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling
and environmental awareness. To be accepted by Michael Dock,
CSP, EHS Manager, and Rick Novak, Machine Operator and Green
Team Leader. This item sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners. Congratulations.
MR. DOCK: For the record, it's Michael Dock, EHS Manager
for Arthrex. This is Rick Novak.
We appreciate being asked to come in here today. We thank you
for the recognition from the solid waste and -- actually solid and
hazardous waste department.
Arthrex's Green program is a global program that's a collective
effort between our environmental team, managers and employees, as
well.
I really wanted to talk about some of the programs that we have,
but I want to touch on the one that the employees have come up with
and that is the recyclable lunch trays.
During a team meeting that Rick was chairman of, one of the
employees asked what do we need to do to be able to recycle our
lunch trays. And basically it was we need to scrape the food off of
there. And we added a dumpster and employees started scraping their
food at their own -- volunteering their own time there to scraping their
food.
And so far we're going to be able to recycle up to 130,000 lunch
trays this year. And that number is going to be growing.
So one of the things that really caught our eye was when
employees came to us and said, you know, by simply scraping my tray
it's made me recycle more at home as well.
So our department is really looking forward to seeing those
numbers grow. And we actually want to thank the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Department for making recycling very easy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. You're doing a
Page 14
September 25-26, 2012
wonderful job. And we really thank you for being such an important
part of our community. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING NANCY FRYE, TECHNICIAN, TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR AUGUST, 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda this morning, Presentations. 5.A is a recommendation to
recognize Nancy Frye, Technician with our Traffic Engineering
Department as the Employee of the Month for August, 2012.
Nancy?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Stay right there, Nancy, we're going to embarrass
you here for a minute. We're going to read a little bit about your life
story here.
Commissioners, Nancy's been an employee of the county for
over 27 years, working in our Transportation Department. She's
responsible for a variety of assignments that include designing and
fabricating signs, assisting with engineering projects and preparing
crash data reports.
She's also an important member of our Community Traffic Safety
Team, serving as the secretary and the event coordinator for that
committee.
For the past five years she's worked diligently in the Walk to
School Program, which is a joint effort by the schools, law
enforcement, fire department, citizen volunteers and county staff to
make sure that all the school children have a full set of safety related
Page 15
September 25-26, 2012
materials so that they can learn how to walk and ride their bike safely
to school.
Nancy is truly an asset to our community, very deserving of this
award, and it's my great pleasure to present to you Nancy Frye, your
Employee of the Month for October, 2012. Congratulations, Nancy.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Leo, she has asked to say a few
words. She's going to embarrass you now.
MS. FRYE: This is such an honor to receive this award that I
just want to thank all my coworkers in Traffic Operations. I could not
have done it without them, and millions of other people that have
helped along with CTST and everything else. So thank you very
much, I really appreciate it.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nancy.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could we have a motion to
approve the proclamations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification on today's agenda.
Page 16
September 25-26, 2012
I guess because there was no action about the settlement, that we're
going into closed door session?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we won't -- I think it would be
wise for us to do so, to go into closed door session, rather than trying
to debate a settlement when the presentation is made at 11 :30.
MR. OCHS: No, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The issue was, are we going to
send it to the Planning Commission for their review before
consideration.
MR. OCHS: Well, part of the staff presentation at 11 :30 will
conclude with a recommendation that the Board seriously consider
remanding this to the Planning Commission for further vetting.
We couldn't presume the vote on that, so we've left the
opportunity, if you don't want to do that and you want to go into
closed session and talk about a settlement right away, that you still
have that option, Commissioner. But if the Board accepts the staff
recommendation on the 11 :30 presentation and you remand it
ultimately to the Planning Commission for further vetting, then there
would be no need for the closed session today, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so we're going to deal
with it at 11 :30.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My apology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what's our next item?
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Next item is Item 7, public comments on general
topics.
Page 17
September 25-26, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have some speakers signed up. So the
first one is Stan Chrzanowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Morning, Commissioners, again.
This week I'm here to talk about a brief history of the FEMA
maps in Collier County. 1998 FEMA decided they were going to
subject us to their new improved mapping system.
3 August, 1999 at the Board hearing, Item 10.E, the Board voted
to challenge the new FEMA maps.
January, 2001, Abe Skinner, bless his soul, for some reason had a
set of LIDAR topography done of Collier County, along with his usual
yearly aerial photography. That letter wasn't available 'til after June,
2001. We didn't learn about it until a few months after that. That's
county engineering staff. We're the ones that were given the LIDAR
maps and the task of seeing how accurate they were.
When we started comparing it to the new flood insurance rate
maps, the LIDAR showed that the flood maps were grossly inaccurate,
especially Golden Gate and Naples Park. The original FEMA maps
were based on a couple of local area of topographies, and USGS
maps, which were a five-foot contour interval was one spot elevation
to the nearest foot for every section, every square mile.
They did an entire set of FEMA maps based on that because they
were too cheap to get any proper topography done.
July 31st, 2001, the Board passed Resolution 2001.312 rejecting
FEMA's proposed map changes.
FEMA was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security
March 1st, 2003. Folks we were dealing with had their email
addresses changed from @FEMA to @DHS.
On or about September, 2002, county staff and others met with
FEMA and tried to convince them that their maps were screwed up.
We convinced them, Commissioner Coletta was there, about the
Page 18
September 25-26, 2012
Golden Gate maps. They insisted that the Naples Park maps just had
to go ahead because they were the best maps we had.
So we got Dick Tomasello to start a study. Dick Tomasello was
there to talk about the flood surge along the coast.
March, 2003 the Board approved a contract agreement with DEP
for densification of the benchmark network through Golden Gate.
In September, 2003, you approved a single vendor contract with
3001 to certify the old LIDAR, because it had to be within two feet for
FEMA standards. And we didn't have any certification saying it was
within that.
Then we started the process of obtaining LIDAR for the eastern
county from the Corps of Engineers who had just done another
LIDAR that overlapped ours but was slightly a little off. The LIDARs
were all found to have an accuracy within two feet.
The next three years many requests for the LIDAR were made by
-- for new LIDAR were made by engineering and by the EAC. For
months, for years, they requested new LIDAR of the county so we
could see what the difference was between the LIDARs.
2008 the new LIDAR was finally flown. But not for FEMA. It
was flown I think for some kind of study that was being done.
We received it in early 2010 and began working with it. When
we started working with it, just as Jack McKenna was coming onboard
to replace me, Tim Billings and I noticed -- you want me to stop and
come back in two weeks? I've got about five -- about two minutes to
go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear the rest of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would, too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And actually, if you could, if you
have those dates summarized, if you could enter it on the record.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have all the backup. I'll leave it with
Leo. I have -- I printed off the minutes.
Page 19
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if you could enter it on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a
minute. You're asking for two more minutes. Does that mean you
won't be back next week?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you give me two minutes, I won't be
back in two weeks, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got two minutes. It's now 9:31;
you have exactly two minutes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're okay, I don't care what
everybody says.
In about June, 2010, just as Jack McKenna was coming onboard,
Tim Billings and I noticed that there were consistent elevation
differences between the two LIDARs. The new LIDAR showed
elevations approximately a foot higher than the original.
Jack confirmed that that's what it was and we confirmed it a few
weeks later by Water Management District, said they found the same
differences between the two maps. None of us old-timers took GIS in
school, me, Tim, Jack, the surveyor, Steve Higgins, so we figured out
a way graphically to show that there was this difference.
And then we went all over the county shooting centers of road
into sections to figure out which of the two LIDARs was correct.
Because Tim could place his pointer on the LIDAR and it would tell
him what the elevation was.
This led the BCC to refund a study of two basins out of 10 that
showed there's an impact by using the new LIDAR to the FEMA
maps.
So now we have two worlds. We have Collier real word, which
is actually what the elevation is, and we have FEMA world, which is a
Page 20
September 25-26, 2012
parallel universe a foot lower than Collier real word.
All the studies and maps are done to FEMA world. They all
show a foot low. But all the LOMAs and all the surveys being done
are being done in Collier real world. So all my friends that are calling
me up saying should I do a LOMA, I'm telling them do a LOMA.
Because you've got a foot advantage right there. The real world is a
foot higher than FEMA world.
So that's about my presentation. This whole system is so screwed
up. But thank you. And I won't be back in two weeks. Maybe two
weeks after that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll be limited to one minute then.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Stan, if you could enter your
documents on the record so they're attached to these minutes so the
public can review them, if they would like. You can just give them to
the court reporter or to Ian.
Stan, can you just very quickly explain to us the negative
consequences of these map changes? I mean, I can think of a few that
increase cost of construction to comply with FEMA requirements for
when you're building within what they define as a flood zone. The
effect of in part creating possibly a building moratorium indirectly in
some areas. Could you elaborate on that?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think that maybe staff should address
that. That's an ongoing issue. And I think Mike Ramsey's also here to
talk about that.
As far as the other issues, the maps -- FEMA has known for two
years that the maps are off by a foot. They don't seem to have a
problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. It's an advantage to
us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain how?
Page 21
September 25-26, 2012
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The original LIDAR topography was
done to within two feet of-- there's a difference between precision and
accuracy. The USGS maps are accurate to within a foot. They're
accurate. But the grades are like elevation 12 or elevation 13, not
13.000.
The LIDAR topography is precise. If you point a pointer there, it
will tell you it's 13.452389, whatever. But it's not accurate. It's not
within -- it's a foot off, the old LIDAR. The new LIDAR is much
more accurate. The spot elevations we did are all within an inch. So
we trust the new LIDAR. But the new LIDAR isn't what the FEMA
maps were done by, they were done by the old LIDAR.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the consequence you said --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the consequence --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- was positive?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- is -- yeah, everybody's doing
LOMAs, which is great. But I'm worried that FEMA's going to come
back and say all these LOMAs are worthless.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why would that be?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because the LOMAs are based off the
old LIDAR. The grade on the LOMA is based off the new LIDAR.
The flood elevation off the LOMA is based off the old LIDAR. And
there's a foot difference between the two.
And at some point -- well, FEMA probably realized that two
years ago. They don't -- I mean, it's obvious. They don't have -- they
don't seem to have a concern about it. As long as they don't have a
problem with it, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then what are we talking about?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We're talking about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't care --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't have a mortgage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- FEMA doesn't care, what are we --
Page 22
September 25-26, 2012
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm worried that they will care at some
point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what is the proposed plan of
action to solve the problem?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's a whole bunch of meetings
going on. Because like Commissioner Hiller said, there's also some
issues about floodplain compensation. There are some single-family
homes in Golden Gate that sit entirely in flood zones. Those are -- a
lot of those people have already been -- well, I've been told that a lot
of those people are going to be told that their lots are unbuildable.
Because you can't put fill in into an A Zone.
But Mirasol and Parklands and Terrafina, Hacienda, they're all in
A Zones. And there's not much difference if you're 640 acres or an
acre and a quarter if you're all in an A Zone and somebody goes to put
fill in there. I'm being told you have to dig it out of a X Zone to put it
in an A Zone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very, very significant. In
fact, one of the items that I pulled off consent and put on the general
agenda related to Habitat being unable to go vertical on a project they
had in Immokalee. And in the executive summary what was
specifically said was that due to these flood map issues that they were
unable to pull permits. Which to me sounds like a building
moratorium. And that's in essence what you're bringing up as a
potential concern down the road as a consequence of this regulation.
So I think it's very serious. And I would actually like to have
staff comment. Is Nick here? Oh, hi, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, there are concerns that
go beyond residential and commercial development.
The question that I'm concerned about that I raised briefly with
you yesterday is county infrastructure. How do you build roads --
Page 23
September 25-26, 2012
how do you build an airport runway that is now in a flood zone?
What do you do -- what does that mean to the cost of the construction
of that public facility? What does that mean to our future budget
forecast? It sounds to me like they're off.
If we have to do things to compensate because FEMA now has
designated, for example, a runway in the flood zone, and as a result
that runway, you know, if modified in some manner can only be done
if elevated or -- I don't know what you do, for example, to runways
that are in flood zones. The cost will change materially.
So what does that mean to us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you asked a lot of
questions. For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't tell you what it means --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a compound question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- to a runway. I couldn't answer that.
That would be something with the permitting agencies. They'd have
to talk about it with FAA.
I can tell you that everything Stan's brought up we've brought up
in front of the Board, and we're working expediently with a DSAC
subcommittee, with outside consultants, with FEMA itself.
As Jack and I discussed several years ago when Jack came on
and Stan brought this forward, we're unique, but we're not unique
country-wide. We have an extremely flat topography. So that
one-foot contour in Golden Gate Estates, that level of accuracy has a
tremendous impact to the folks in Golden Gate Estates.
I think to the Board's credit, when we presented this item over a
year ago and we said all we can do is two basins, let's take the two
basins we can move on quickly and get in front of FEMA before we
could do (sic). The Board heard our presentation, acted on that, and
we were successful.
Page 24
September 25-26, 2012
Now we have 10 more basins to complete at about 18 more
months to go. That will update those maps the most current level they
can be. And the impacts Mr. Chrzanowski pointed out are true.
That said, I'm working with this nebulous agency that we're
continually trying to get good answers from. I've asked Jack our
County Engineer to get with the subcommittee and for a problem
statement with a set of questions to send to FEMA before we spend
anymore money.
I want to get -- I want to determine a destination, a goal to go for
before we spend time and effort on this. Because it seems when we
move forward without that, I'm chasing my tail. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Mr. McKenna a quick
question?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Jack?
MR. McKENNA: Good morning, Commissioners. Jack
McKenna for the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jack, good morning. With your
expertise, maybe you can answer my question.
What happens if a road is suddenly in a flood zone where it
wasn't before and now, you know, we need to do repairs to the road or
replace the road? What does that mean if FEMA has now declared it's
in the flood zone? What do you do? And --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I can answer, as you asked
that yesterday.
Your permit to the District deals with your high water line,
seasonal high water line, not essentially the FEMA flood grades.
Your Watershed Management Plans that you've adopted has a
section that said: Hurricane evacuation routes should be designed to
the five-year or 10-year -- I'm sorry, 100-year storm, if possible.
Your permitting through the agency looks at seasonal high water.
So they want to keep the road subgrade dry, because as water moves
Page 25
September 25-26, 2012
to the subgrade it causes the roadbed to fail.
So the seasonal high water line dictates more the height of the
road. And typically, because we have seasonal high water that's pretty
high in Collier County, we require three to four feet of fill above that.
Which usually takes us out of the 100-year flood zone as well also. So
a lot of the new roads we've designed are above the BFE.
Now, in your urban area, ma'am, we couldn't do that. If you look
at Airport Road or some of the, you know, historical projects we have.
If we were to do a re-build on some of these roads and if the BFE
required the roads to be two feet higher because of the base flood
elevation, we wouldn't reconstruct these roads to base flood elevation.
It would just be non-economical or practical. You'd have a -- you
picture Airport Road, if it's two, three feet higher to be out of a storm
surge event, you couldn't tie it back down to existing grade.
So I think in new projects we evaluate the cost, the benefit of
being in the BFE. The permitting agencies don't require it, it's our
own restriction, so we do it on a case-by-case basis and we take it to
the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I summarize what you're
saying is the cost of the infrastructure will not increase as a
consequence, it'll -- it's already been accounted for in your future
costing of new roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the roads that we have cost
estimates for in our five-year plan, those are accounted for. But the
roads that you get into the long-range plan, because we review it on a
case-by-case basis with the board, we would evaluate those as we go
forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So there is no fiscal impact
with respect to for example roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't say -- not necessarily no
fiscal impact. If you look at what FEMA requires, and again, getting
Page 26
September 25-26, 2012
clarification --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or let me just say this, a change in
fiscal impact as a consequence.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There could be. And I think the Board
has some discretion to respond to that. I think it's itself imposed. Our
Watershed Management Plan talks about, that this Board adopted,
being compliant on hurricane evacuation routes.
Now, I think if compliance meant adding, you know, six inches
of fill or a foot of fill we would look at that and say maybe that's a
good cost to benefit. If it required two feet of fill, we may ask the
Board for discretion on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've had this discussion in the past 60
days. And so let's once again get to the bottom line.
I don't believe there is any confusion on the part of staff or
anybody else who has been dealing with this, that it's FEMA's intent
to drive people out of coastal and low-lying areas. They don't want us
living here. And it's largely a budgetary issue for them because they
don't want to have to pay for damage to homes that are continually
rebuilt in flood prone areas. I would suggest they start with New
Orleans before they come here.
But nevertheless, this is an issue that is not going to be resolved
by you and the staff. You've done a wonderful job of trying to force
some degree of accuracy and common sense into the FEMA process,
but FEMA is not going to change their strategy. And this is
something that is only going to be solved if we get our legislative
delegation sufficiently aroused about FEMA's decision-making
process.
And I will tell you that that is a losing proposition. Because the
people who don't live in flood prone areas in the United States far
outnumber those who do. And they don't want to see their insurance
Page 27
September 25-26, 2012
premiums go any higher to pay for the fact that we want to live along
the coast or in Immokalee or someplace else.
So this is not a simple problem and you're not going to be able to
solve it. But keep doing what you're doing, but we just -- you know,
there's no point in having discussions about this every two months,
because it's the same problem over and over and over and over again.
But Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't think anybody was
talking about existing structures. I think the issue is, is the federal
government saying that Collier County is in a building moratorium
with new construction.
And you're going to get back to us when on those issues?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Well, we're forming the
problem statement now. I'm guessing we're going to have a question
to FEMA in the next 30 to 60 days. And typical of FEMA, we're
going to get a nebulous response.
What we've gotten in the past, it says follow the codes. And we
say well, we're asking you a specific question, and they say follow the
codes.
So the code right now says in a geographic area you're supposed
to provide compensating storage. So that's the issue we're dealing
with FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, then why don't we
-- why don't the Board propose the question to our congressional
delegation and let our congressional delegation get answers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But really, this is a Florida
problem in the coastal areas of the State of Florida, which that is the
majority of populous here. So Jeff was right by stating at the previous
meeting to kick this up to FAC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
Page 28
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, three simple questions. First of
all, when Stan was talking about LOMA, I just wondered how many
people in our audience understands what LOMA actually stands for.
Could you say that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Letter of Map Amendment,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then secondly, how
does this affect our insurance rates? Us being -- our calculations
saying we're a foot higher than FEMA calculations. And let me couple
that with my third question and that is, which one does the insurance
companies believe?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It affects your insurance rate. If
you're a compliant community in your community rating system,
which we're a six right now, we get a discount for doing all the things
that we do. So anybody that gets insurance gets a discounted rate.
But in answer to your question, on a case-by-case basis, you'd
have to look at it. Depending on what type of flood zone you were in
and how high your home was, it would affect obviously your rate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But who do they believe,
FEMA or us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's the independent mortgage
and the insurance companies, ma'am. And what's happened now is the
mortgage companies, when they send out notice -- and maybe this is a
good opportunity for the public to hear this is, because we've had even
the County Manager deal with this and some of the commissioners --
you get a notice in the mail from your mortgage company that says
you are in a flood, you're required to buy flood insurance. The maps
that they use are different versions of our flood maps over-layed on a
Google map. And they say that we're going to respond to our carrier,
our provider doing the analysis. Yet when our staff says we've got the
local map and we'll give you a sketch and our certified floodplain
Page 29
September 25-26, 2012
management will sign an affidavit, a document that says you're not in
the local flood zone, sometimes they choose to follow their own
agent's review. Which causes a surveyor to get involved, which causes
you to fire LOMA, even when you don't need one.
So that's been happening a lot. And I've got to give you a lot of
credit as the Board. You funded staff participation. This is a FEMA
issue and we have three to four staff members who are almost working
full-time on FEMA every time a new basin gets analyzed by FEMA
and the mortgage companies get ahold of those documents. We get
flooded hundreds of calls on a daily basis, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you draft a letter with my
signature on behalf of the Board to our legislative delegation asking
for resolution of that specific issue that you talked about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Will do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there -- do we have three nods for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I agree with that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is Michael Ramsey,
and he'll be speaking for six minutes. Mr. Gaddy has given his time to
Mr. Ramsey.
MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Do you want the computer up?
MR. RAMSEY: Yeah, if you would.
My name is Michael Ramsey. I am the vice-president currently
of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and I'm also an
ecological consultant working in the South Florida area.
And as part of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association,
we've been studying this new FEMA classification from DFIRM maps
as it applies to areas primarily east of 951 in the Estates.
Page 30
September 25-26, 2012
And that first map that you're looking at is a representation of
how the DFIRM flood zones relate to the highest groundwater
elevation and 100-year base flood elevation.
And the reason we want to make sure that you understand a
problem with this here and most of the public is that in the past in the
Eighties I had to deal with wetland mitigation, and wetland mitigation
is an issue of function and replacement of function.
This is different because we're having to replace volume storage.
And the way this is coming down, if we look at what's going on in
other locals and some of the rules coming down is that the first thing is
a significant issue to the rural lifestyle and the small businesses in the
Estates and others, is that if that first rule comes down that you cannot
mitigate for compensation on the AE or AH area, it effectively kills all
the building on a small building lot in the Estates.
According to the other rules and regulations from FEMA,
compensation from this volume is only allowed on X or X 500
classified properties. And it can only be done below the red line and
above the high water elevation. It's very specific about its mitigation.
Then this issue, all the mitigation we've done before in other
areas and up to this point, it does not lend itself to a volume mitigation
type scenario that has such closely defined characteristics.
The next thing we did looking at this is that we -- let me bring up
this next map here -- we went into the Golden Gate Estates area east
of 951, which we referred to as the rural Estates. And we classified all
the FEMA/DFIRM classifications in there and calculated out the
acreages.
It came out that 75 percent of the Estates is going to be classified
as AH or AE, which if you place these limitations on it is really going
to affect significantly economic development.
And that's our issue here today is to bring forth and let people
know that this classification of property and this side issue that's
Page 31
September 25-26, 2012
coming up afterwards, this volume mitigation issue, will have serious
effects on our economic development for businesses and small
businesses in the future. Especially east of 951.
In fact, all lands east of 951, because of their rather undeveloped
state, will have significant impacts from this.
So the way we're looking at it from the Estates area from our
association is we think we ought to start bringing together more
people in the community, because we think that this is not just a single
issue. It's not just federal FEMA, it's not just about the mitigation
issue. It has kind of a legal issue, it has an ecological logical issue, it
has a volume mathematic issue, and maybe the last option is pleading
for desperation.
I think all of those should be -- we feel that all those should be
followed or attempted, because this is a very complicated issue. And
not only does it affect raw property, it does affect existing structures.
So the existing structures, if they try to do more than a 50 percent
remodel on it, everything has to come up to the new standards. And
that is very economical (sic) limiting.
So we're asking that maybe a consideration should be to go out in
the community and ask for more professionals or landowners and all
that to come together. Because this is a county-wide issue. It's not --
it might be bigger than just Collier County staff. I think it involves all
of us together in a very large way.
And thank you very much. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have two questions.
The first, if you could go back to your first diagram. I would like
to have a better understanding of what this diagram means as it -- and
I was reading the notes that you have in the back of your exhibit. I'd
like more and better clarification to understand exactly what you mean
Page 32
September 25-26, 2012
by to build on a fill pad must compensate for volume loss only
allowed in X 500 Zone below a 100-year base flood relation to highest
groundwater elevation. Only way to compensate is to dig in XX 500
Zone in rural Estates. If no compensation allowed on individual lots,
no construction allowed.
Clarify what you're saying. I just need a better understanding.
And being that you're a professional and I'm a lay person, you know,
whatever you can do to help me better understand, I would appreciate.
MR. RAMSEY: In very simple terms, floodplain management is
taking Collier County and all the different elevations from all the land
and you establish a top line and you establish a bottom line, and you
measure the horizontal distance and you calculate the volume in that.
Once that volume is determined, when FEMA adopts these maps
and these elevation, they say that you cannot exceed that volume of
water anymore. They don't want any of our construction activities to
produce a volume of water that exceeds the red line from May 16th,
2012 forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically the body in the
bathtub.
MR. RAMSEY: So any time you put a fill pad out there, you
have to dig a hole in the X area only that allows that much water that
was displaced to be then stored on the X area, because it's not
considered a part of the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, got it.
So what we're looking at is the extent to which our added
construction is causing the displacement of water, in effect.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the problems associated with
MR. RAMSEY: One of the issues that we have been trying to
figure out if we can address is that when I have worked around Lake
Page 33
September 25-26, 2012
Okeechobee and areas around that, they allowed us to go project by
project and do compensation storage by the project in those elevations.
But apparently that is leaving the plateau of an option.
Here they're holding that you cannot dig in an AE or an AH to
offset that. They don't want any more impacts to those elevations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you -- do you have anything
-- I mean, I appreciate you focusing on the Estates, but there are other
areas where, you know, there are proposals for very substantial future
development like, for example, the Immokalee area. And as you
know, right now we're addressing the Immokalee Area Master Plan,
which is proposing exponential development, both residential and
commercial.
Can you -- do you have information on that? Like do you have a
map on that similar to the Estates so we can see whether that area is
similarly affected?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, we put together -- we were looking at a
map out there too. Because we found that the economic issues in the
Immokalee area also affect the ability of people in the Estates to get a
job and pay for their mortgage. Immokalee is the significant area.
But the Immokalee area is generally about the same as the
Estates area. About -- well, in Immokalee, if you look in the urban
area map there, it's about 80 percent AE or AH.
Now, my understanding from other locales, if we take the new
FEMA rules verbatim, then the issue is when a building permit is
issued. And if a building permit is issued after June, 20 -- May 16th,
2012, then it succumbs to the new FEMA rules, unless we found
options to prevent that or work with it or work around it.
This is a significant economic issue to us, more than it is a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And now I go back to what I said
earlier when Stan was speaking. The issue of that project that Habitat
could not go vertical with being directly adversely affected by these
Page 34
September 25-26, 2012
FEMA maps and the inability to pull a permit to construct.
MR. RAMSEY: I think that was the indicator of what possibly
could be in the future for the whole county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that's not true.
MR. RAMSEY: I'm sorry.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's okay.
The Habitat could have pulled a permit. And they chose to try
and work. It was a cost analysis Habitat had done. And that would
apply -- for instance, Mirasol went through a FEMA flood analysis,
the Mirasol project. So they're taking into consideration the federal
requirements in their design.
Habitat said look, we don't know what this new flood elevation is
going to be. It wasn't anything before, now you've got a grade we
may have to hold to for our pads and we can't afford that economic
uncertainty. So they kept trying to work that out as they were
adopting the project.
Any time right now a builder can come in and they can pull a
permit to the best available information that there is today. Now, they
are at risk if something changes with FEMA, and that's always been
the case, whether it was 15 years ago, 10 years ago or five years ago.
So the language in the new ordinance that FEMA kicked back
that we had to bring to the Board that's disturbing is that they weren't
going to allow de minimis impact. And when we said for clarification
they said read the CFR's.
So if you consider that as a de facto moratorium, you couldn't
pull a permit in Pine Ridge or urban Estates anywhere. Because any
time you fill in any area that's within a flood zone, you'd be having
impact on that bathtub.
So one of the options for us to do as we're considering -- and I
know we're getting in a long discussion now -- is to quantify that
bathtub at a very basic level, do some analysis and show to FEMA if
Page 35
September 25-26, 2012
the height of the bathtub, depth of the bathtub is 10 feet and we're at
two feet right now full of water, if we put in all the homes in Golden
Gate Estates, does it go up to two-foot one-inch or does it go to three
feet? If it goes to two-foot one-inch, we could say to FEMA that has
no impact on your base flood elevation and will not impact anybody
else, let this go. If it raises it a half a foot or a foot and starts to impact
other homeowners, I think that's where FEMA's going to say no,
because now you're impacting somebody else with this dropping
pebbles in the bathtub.
But I want to get this question to FEMA so that we can answer it.
I want them to say this is what we want and we'll provide the answer
and then go from there. I don't want to chase my tail in a discussion
with these folks because I get nowhere.
So I think the Chair's request to us, to draft a letter with a
problem statement to run it up and say we want an answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I hear what you're saying,
Nick. The only thing is when I read Mr. Ramsey's memo, he says if
the building permit had been issued prior to May 16th, 2012 then they
would not have had to comply with the new rules. So there seems to
be some disconnect between what you're saying and what he's saying,
you know, vis-a-vis, for example, that Habitat project. Because, I
mean, that Habitat project was in the making for years. But we can
talk about that at that future point.
I think that the conclusion I draw from what Mr. Ramsey says is
that consider this Immokalee area or Golden Gate Estates or other
areas that are similarly labeled AE and AH is that the consequence
will be directly or indirectly to effectuate a moratorium, a building
moratorium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And ma'am, I can't -- again, we're not
the only flat place in the country. Whether it's New Orleans -- New
Orleans must be issuing building permits. I mean, other places in --
Page 36
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's -- and a moratorium
doesn't necessarily have to be us saying no, we will not issue a
building permit. But if for example the cost of complying with
FEMA's building standards make it cost prohibitive for the builder to
build, that's like a moratorium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, we've talked about that, that
you could --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, that is exactly the same. It
doesn't have to be an action by the Board.
So the consequences are very significant. And I think that any
planning that we do have to take into account the impact on the -- or I
should -- have to consider, you know, the flooding impact on the
county as a whole.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So very, very significant.
Mr. Ramsey, thank you so much. Can you introduce all your
exhibits on the record also so that the public can review everything
you've presented today as well?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do we have another speaker, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Mr. Fee's asked to speak, if you'll allow
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I have to? Okay.
MR. FEE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Doug
Fee. I am part of the public, so I'm hoping I'm able to speak today.
I would like to talk about a community located in the Wiggins
Pass area called Audubon Country Club. I live up in the Wiggins Pass
area and there's an issue in regards to a preserve management plan that
has been approved. And I've been involved with it for about six
months. I am a resident of the area but not of Audubon Country Club.
Page 37
September 25-26, 2012
My concern is in the agreement that was ironed out between
staff, the county and the foundation, Audubon Foundation, there was
in the original agreement a sentence that says: The invasive nuisance
vegetation, ornamental vegetation, pots and plants and bridges and
anything that could be put into the preserve would be removed in the
future when the sale of a home occurred in that community. Okay.
And I raised the issue at the time saying this is really an
open-ended code enforcement situation where you know there's a
violation but yet the violation could stand for as long as that
homeowner held their home. Could be 20 years, could be 10 years.
So I raise that issue.
In the end, through some meetings, they did come up with new
language which says within 24 months of the approval of the preserve
management plan these ornamental, invasive, nuisance vegetation, all
this would have to be removed, okay, 24 months.
So we got it from the sale of a home down to 24 months. I raised
the issue it probably should be more like six months to a year. And
staff said well, we hear what you're saying, but we're going to go
ahead and approve this at 24 months.
I'm raising this not only as it applies to preserves. Obviously
where I live we're along the coast, we have lots of environmentally
sensitive lands. But I'm raising this in terms of code enforcement in
general. Should a code enforcement case have up to 24 months to
remedy a very simple situation in order to give the people this amount
of time. And it really isn't in my opinion an economic hardship. It's
not very difficult for a person to go out and remove that which they
have put into the preserve.
So I wanted to raise that. I raised it with staff saying I realize
you have the authority to do this, but there are some times when the
board needs to hear the situation and figure out a policy as it relates to
the overall situation in Collier County. I don't see it just as a preserve
Page 38
September 25-26, 2012
issue. That's the immediate issue, but it is different agreements that
can occur granting special rights for 24 months. So that's my
comment. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leo, can you explain to us where we are
in this process of approval and what staffs position is?
MR. OCHS: Sir, Nick will provide an update, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. As part of the project, sir,
there's a Preserve Management Plan has to be adopted.
I sat with Mr. Fee and the owners of the Audubon and we
discussed the open-ended remove it at the time. And I agreed that it
shouldn't be open-ended, we should have a time certain ability to take
this out.
What I explained to Mr. Fee, as long as it's administrative -- and
if it doesn't become administrative, that's fine if it wants to be a Board
decision -- we'll evaluate the size of the project and how long the
project's been there.
And the way -- the example I gave Mr. Fee was is if was a
plotted subdivision of 20 homes, we might say you can do this in six
months. If it's an HOA of 1,000 homes it will take about a year to do
it. If it's a development of 4,000 homes, maybe three years. And I said
to Mr. Fee, I think what we've come up with is reasonable. The HOA
community agreed to it. I didn't think it was unreasonable and it gave
a time certain to that.
If the Board doesn't want staff to administrate or review periods
of time for when projects can come into compliance, I'm happy to
bring these to the board. But I think it was a fair review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does the specific regulation
provide that it shall be done right away, or does the regulation provide
that there is a period of time to correct the defect?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It talks about in the code, and I don't
Page 39
September 25-26, 2012
have it in front of me because I didn't -- Mr. Fee didn't tell me he was
speaking about this. But it talks about the staff being able to
administratively review and put together a Preserve Management Plan.
And in that plan it talks about some flexibility in coming into
compliance.
Audubon itself is a wonderful community. They've done a great
job. They're proactively going through this. So when an HOA says
we've hired a preserve manager, we've hired an outside consultant to
do this, because the homes that abut the golf course has many different
people living in there, we'd like to do this over -- as they sell.
And when I read that, I said that's too open-ended. We need to
give them some period of time. Can we do two years? I said that's
reasonable. So over the period of two years the people that live there
will go through and clean these preserves. And we're only talking
some bougainvillea and some other items, so it could be done quickly.
But they've asked for that time. They're non-invasive species, so staff
reviewed it and said there's no threat with these items being in there.
So that's where staff went with it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think what we want are
regulations that are clear where people aren't dependent on the
discretion of staff. Because you might be fair but someone else may
not be and might be more onerous or less onerous as the case may be,
depending on the relationship.
Jeff, is there any way that that particular code section can be
amended to provide for clearer standards so we don't have these type
of debates?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me talk about code enforcement in
general.
As long as this notion of prosecutorial discretion, because you
don't want to -- you don't want to go to the letter of the law on
everybody; otherwise you're going to be just filling your Code
Page 40
September 25-26, 2012
Enforcement Board with nothing but cases all day long.
Second, the Board policy has consistently been compliance, that
what we're really looking for is to get people to get into compliance,
and we're not looking to punish anybody.
You know, I don't think this Board wants to review every single
code enforcement determination. I mean, you've got better things to
do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, no, by no means. I'm
suggesting something different. I'm just suggesting that the particular
regulation in question be clarified so the period of performance is
somehow --
MR. KLATZKOW: Every case is going to be different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I like what Nick
recommended that for example depending on the size, obviously
there's a lot more vegetation in a development with 2,000 units than
with 1,000 units. And if you have some, you know, thresholds, you
know, based on the size of the development, some time frames for,
you know, the different sizes of the development then it just
eliminates the debate where, you know, a citizen believes that, you
know, one community has been given more favorable treatment than
another. Just some objective standard.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a Board policy. At the end of the
day what I would tell you is that if you believe your code enforcement
staff is fairly administrating your codes on a general basis, leave it
alone.
If you're getting the impression that they're being arbitrary and
capricious, then I think at that point in time you need to look into it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think that's the message
being sent by the citizen who just spoke, Mr. Fee. Oh, there you are.
I think he and others I think are of the opinion that there might be
some arbitrary application, and as a consequence, to the extent we can
Page 41
September 25-26, 2012
make the standards clearer, then it eliminates these type of debates.
And I think this has taken a great deal of Nick's time and a great
deal of Doug's time and just some sort of simply clarification would
eliminate this debate. Like I said, I think Nick's suggestion is
excellent.
So could we bring this back?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, what I'll do, let me make
it easy, I have the ability to put something on the agenda. I'll do it. I'll
bring it back at a future point in time as a matter of-- as a topic of
discussion for the Board.
So maybe I could have a meeting with Mr. Fee and with you,
Nick, with Leo's permission, and develop, you know, some sort of
recommended modification to that code section.
And if the Board approves it, great. And if they don't, then they
can explain why they think it's a bad idea. And then we don't have to
debate it further here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do we go from here, County
Manager?
Item #1 1 C
AN EMERGENCY TRUCK HAUL BEACH RENOURISHMENT
FOR A PORTION OF VANDERBILT AND NAPLES BEACHES;
A SIX YEAR DESIGN AND PERMITTING PLAN FOR THE
FY2013/14 VANDERBILT, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES BEACH
RENOURISHMENT; AND REVIEW THE SCOPE OF THE
MARCO ISLAND BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT AND DISCUSS
OPTIONS WITH THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Page 42
September 25-26, 2012
(CAC), TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TDC) AND
MARCO ISLAND WITH RESPECT TO A COMMENSURATE
LEVEL OF RENOURISHMENT CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY
WIDE FUNDING REDUCTIONS - MOTION FOR STAFF TO
PURSUE BIDS FOR THREE METHODS OF RECEIVING SAND
FOR THE RENOURISHMENT FOR SAND HARVESTING AND
SIX YEAR RENOURISHMENT INSTEAD OF A TEN YEAR —
APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SOUTH MARCO ISLAND
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PLAN (6 YEAR) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a 10:00 a.m. time certain
item this morning. It is agenda Item 11 .C. It's a recommendation to
approve an emergency truck haul beach renourishment for a portion of
the Vanderbilt and Naples beaches; approve a six-year design and
permitting plan for the fiscal year 2013-14, Vanderbilt, Park Shore,
Naples Beach renourishment; direct the County Manager designee to
review the scope of the Marco Island beach renourishment, discuss
options with the Coastal Advisory Committee, the Tourist
Development Council and Marco Island with respect to commensurate
level of renourishment consistent with countywide funding reductions.
Bill Lorenz, your Comprehensive Planning Director from Growth
Management, will present.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz, actually
Natural Resource Director.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, Bill.
MR. LORENZ: Problems -- glitches in the software system.
Staff is here to present the recommended steps essentially in the
county's beach renourishment program to include a six-year design
life and permitting plan for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples
beaches.
Page 43
September 25-26, 2012
A limited emergency truck haul project for severely eroded
portions of Vanderbilt Beach and Naples beaches, and to review the
scope of the Marco Island Beach project.
And a little bit of a common thread here, one of the biggest
reasons that we're here, in re-reviewing the six-year design versus a
10-year design is essentially the FEMA's de-obligation of the 11 and a
half million dollars has put us into a position where our revenue
stream and funding sources for the next -- for the foreseeable future
has been severely limited. And so need to really look -- we need to
really cut down our project scope and ensure that we will have
sufficient funds to spend -- to accomplish the projects that we have on
the books.
And this will require the Board to make a decision as to whether
we should be looking at a six-year design versus the 10-year design
that the Board has previously given direction for.
I haven't seen O&B, but I know that we have -- staff from O&B,
but we do have a specific attachment in the executive summary that
does show the proforma. And they would be able to provide a little bit
more detail after my presentation.
Again, today's priority is really for the Board to give us direction
for the six-year design rather than the 10-year design. And we need to
have that direction so that we can begin submitting permit applications
for this concept in order -- in staffs position to begin the project in the
fall of 2013. Based upon other permitting requirements, we feel that
that's the earliest that we could conceivably get started with the
project.
First what I'd like to do is I'd like to describe the renourishment
plan. Then I'll cover the emergency truck haul and review of the
Marco Island project. And then if there's any questions concerning the
specifics of the funding sources, O&B staff would be available to
review that.
Page 44
September 25-26, 2012
On the visualizer I've displayed a map showing the proposed
areas where we have -- I've color coded it -- this is from your
executive summary -- color coded it in yellow where we will be
proposing placing fill on the beaches in Vanderbilt, Park Shore and
Naples.
And the other thing to notice on the map is that we're not filling
all of the beach. There are gaps in that renourishment plan. And those
gaps are areas where through analysis it's been determined that there's
adequate sand on those areas to protect the design width of the beach
and also to have sufficient buffer. I'll call buffer. The term advanced
reserves nourishment is used. But buffers that design width of the
beach for six years of average erosion that we would experience on
the beach.
So those gaps then will not be renourished, because they have
sufficient sand to protect the design width of the beach and that buffer.
Essentially the analysis that the consultant has done is in these
areas there's roughly 400 -- we're using 420,000, plus or minus, cubic
yards of fill that will need to be placed in these areas that are marked
in the yellow crosshatching.
And I think there's a key understanding as to exactly how that
volume has been calculated. First off, the volume is based upon
maintaining a design width of the beach. Typically the design width
is 100 feet. There are some areas where it's identified as 85 feet. But
we're maintaining that design width of the beach. And that design
width of the beach has been established to protect the beaches from
particular storm events. So we need to ensure that that design width
will be maintained.
There are certain areas on the beaches that that design width does
not exist. It's something less than that design width.
So the first calculation that has to be made is to provide adequate
fill to bring those beaches out to that design width. And that's roughly
Page 45
September 25-26, 2012
around 119,000 cubic yards.
At that point you have -- now have a template where you've
designed your -- you've maintained the design width of the beach and
now you want to say we need to be able to put more material on that
beach to buffer it from future erosion.
So in a six-year design, based upon average annual erosion rates,
in six years we need to have a volume that would -- that as it erodes in
six years' timeframe it will come back to the design width of the
beach.
So that erosion, that buffer, that's almost like a -- that's a
sacrificial sand source that's going to go away, but as it's gone in six
years, you've maintained the integrity of the design width of the
beach. That's roughly around 209,000 cubic yards.
The consultant then looks at, since we're not starting the contract,
the construction until 2013, obviously during this period, between now
in terms of this design and when we put sand on the beach, there's
going to be some future erosion. So he includes that in his
calculations.
And then also, as we've done these designs going from one
monument to the next monument to the next monument to be able to
transition from certain areas that receive a lot of fill from areas that
don't, there's some special adjustments that have to be established for
that -- for those transition (sic), and that's about another 55,000 cubic
yards.
So that's how it comes to the calculation of 420,000 cubic yards
for the six-year design project.
And again, it doesn't -- it includes not just the erosion in that six
years, but it also includes bringing the beaches that are below the
design width up to their design widths.
The total project is estimated to be costing around 15 to 17 and a
half million dollars. As I said, the proforma budget that we have in
Page 46
September 25-26, 2012
the budget provides the detail cost.
And we also will scope manage the project. Remember that this
analysis that we've done is an estimate. It's the best available
information the consultant has put together. And we will use that
information for permitting, we'll use that information for bidding the
project. But as time moves on and if we see something different in
terms of the profile of the beach changing, at the time of construction,
just before construction, there will be a survey to be done so we'll
know how the beach -- how the actual beach at that particular point
compares to our design standards. And then there will be assessment
to be made as the contractor now starts to put fill on the beach that he
will adjust those areas so that we get the design width of the beach and
we get sufficient fill to hit that six-year design so that every segment
of the beach that's being renourished will meet those two
requirements.
In terms of timing, we're looking at the permitting constraints that
we have. We have to submit a permit to the Corps and to the state.
Brings us to mid September as being the earliest time frame that we
think that we can do it. Like especially this is -- also then the timing is
constrained with regard to sea turtle nesting. And sea turtle nesting
season goes from May 1st through November 1st.
What we intend to do is we intend to bid the project so that we
can get a bid starting in September 15th and ending middle of June --
May 1st. And then also bidding the project outside of turtle nesting
season completely.
So that's -- we will get those alternates and then it will be a
decision from the Board as to whether or not you want to begin work
within the turtle nesting season, and understanding what types of
impacts there would be with regard to the amount of turtles that could
be impacted, or simply stay outside of turtle nesting season. And
you'll have information, you'll have the biological information, you'll
Page 47
September 25-26, 2012
have the cost information to make that determination so we can then
bid it both ways.
Recognize that it is a biological opinion that does allow beach
renourishment to occur during turtle nesting season. So that's allowed,
but it becomes a policy decision for Board to determine whether you
want to do that or not. And that's when we'll have the alternatives for
you.
Let me just talk about the emergency truck haul. We have
identified emergency truck haul for the Vanderbilt -- locations for
Vanderbilt and Naples beaches of about 12,000 cubic yards each.
You have to realize that the emergency truck haul really provides
marginal protection at a fairly high cost. You're not able to put any of
the material into the water, so you kind of start from your mean high
water line, you add sand on about a 25 percent gradient, and that
works out to maybe you're doing one to two feet of actual height of
the beach in that particular location. It does not increase the beach's
width, but it does provide a little bit more height of sand on the beach.
The estimate that we have here is $650,000 to do those -- that
hauling. Of course you'll have trucks on the beach in a conveyor
system to bring that material in. One thing, of the executive summary
you'll also note that we need to have Board declare a State of
Emergency and authorize emergency repairs to these beaches to go
through that process. But that would be something that is allowed.
The Marco Island recommendation, again, with FEMA's
de-obligation, where can we save some monies? And Marco Island is
(sic) been designed for a 10-year design period. We're currently
planned to begin construction in December, 2012, this year, where we
propose to rebuild five erosion control structures and add 104,000
cubic yards of sand on the beach.
Given the FEMA de-obligation and the change in funding
revenue streams, and again, just looking at a comparison equity to the
Page 48
September 25-26, 2012
Naples beaches gives some recommendation to take a relook at the
Marco Island Beach and look at a six-year design. Roughly we're
thinking that possibly that could save up to $200,000 if we moved in
that direction.
So the recommendation from staff would be to approve the
emergency truck haul project, the six-year design and permitting plan
for the Vanderbilt/Park Shore/Naples beaches, and direct the County
Manager designee to review the scope of the Marco Island beach
renourishment project and come back to Board with specific
recommendations.
With that, that ends my presentation, and if there's any questions,
I'll be glad to try to field or have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break now for the
court reporter. We'll be back here at 10:36 and we'll have questions
from commissioners and/or speakers.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Board of County Commission
meeting is back in session.
We have commissioners who want to speak and we also have
public speakers.
What's your pleasure, Commissioners? Do you want to speak
first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I just need a question
answered. I could wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then Ian, let's call the public
speakers. How many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got three public speakers, I think.
The first speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski.
I would like to know if we are going to separate out the
Page 49
September 25-26, 2012
emergency renourishment and the six-year plan. Because there's two
different issues and items here, and three minutes isn't enough to cover
all of them.
My comments on the emergency management is go ahead, I
think it's an appropriate action to take.
My concern is the volume of sand being put and the slope it will
create when water or beach, you know, there's a little activity in the
Gulf. If the slope is too large, it makes a cliff, an escarpment, it's
called. And that's a problem. But, you know, through analysis, math
and all that stuff you can come to understand what the appropriate
thing would be.
Now, I hope and plead that I have an opportunity to make a
presentation when it's time for the six-year plan. Or is that right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're both one in the same,
the item.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. Well, okay, then I'll go -- can we
separate them like we did yesterday at the Tourist Development
Council?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They really are very different
issues. And I don't think that you should have one vote that covers
both. They're two separate contracts, you know, two separate projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I think everybody kind of
agrees that it should be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the six-year issue is different
than the emergency renourishment. And I think what Bob would like
is that the emergency renourishment be addressed as a separate item.
You know, maybe we divide this into part A and part B, and we could
start with the emergency renourishment which only affects two small
areas and is an immediate decision, versus the six-year design
template which is a much different discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I tend to agree. The -- but I'd like to
Page 50
September 25-26, 2012
avoid the disruption of bringing up people two times to talk about a
subject.
Can you break your comments into two parts and deal first with
the emergency renourishment and then with the six-year plan?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. I've just made my comments on the
emergency nourishment. And then if you're going to deal with the
six-year plan, I'd like to go over there and show you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By all means, go over there.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. You've got slides, right? You
want to show us some slides? Okay, fine.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if we're going to take these items
separately, which I think is a good suggestion, we actually have three
decision points for you. The Marco Island issue is the third.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But the emergency replenishment
issue is definitely different from the others. The other two are indeed
ongoing replenishment programs --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that are going to be going on for a
long period of time.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
MR. KRASOWSKI: On the six-year renourishment plan, and
this segues from the truck haul emergency plan, I would suggest, and
through my evaluation of the overall project, that we consider Collier
County inland source truck haul option. And as shown here, this
would provide us flexibility. And I'm talking about the emergency
plan blending in with the overall plan at the appropriate time.
This plan would provide flexibility with the choice of where and
when to nourish. This is a truck haul as the whole thing. Hot spots,
public beaches and hotels could be done first, and they are all
accessible through existing beach access points.
Page 51
September 25-26, 2012
Well, you can see this, and I've provided you all with a copy. I
don't want to stay too long on this.
But another positive thing is no pipes would be spanning the
beaches during nesting or turtle nesting season. And the sand is
available. And sand quality and grain size can meet Florida DEP
criteria. And then we can avoid certain aspects of turtling nesting. I'm
going to go over that.
The economics of this are what is probably most striking, and
that is that our bed tax dollars could pass through the local economy
rather than shipping it out of state even. And I estimate that the truck
haul option, based on staffs numbers, would fall somewhere between
11 and $15 million or even less when you get this much sand. The
dollar multiplier coming through from the tourist department is that
every time a dollar comes in it's 1.5. So this would actually -- could
potentially bring 27 to $37 million into our local economy. And you
know there are people in the economy that could use that money. And
the rest of the thing here, we are already planning to use the truck --
sand.
My recommendations along this line is to engage the
Development Services Advisory Committee to analyze the local
option. Do whatever it takes to bring them into it. There's a bunch of
engineers, contractors, people that are very knowledgeable, hands-on
people that could review that option.
We'd use a different engineer to put the local option proposal
together. We'd send out bid requests for both the local sand haul truck
option and the dredge proposal. That way you can see separately the
economics and logistics of all.
And what I'm suggesting is that the sand truck haul, you look at
what it would take in Vanderbilt and Park Shore and Naples and you
can bid and adjust your program to whatever you think is best.
And I'm almost done here.
Page 52
September 25-26, 2012
The coastal management staff could receive a presentation from
Gary but then go off on their own and then Gary could focus on the
dredge options so we could keep the two things separate.
And the engineers on the DSA board are more than capable and
more knowledgeable on this kind of stuff than the CAC or the
Economic Development Council.
So it's worth looking into, Mr. Coletta, because most of those
people that work -- would do the job come up from your area.
This next slide, it says more. It's about how we can work a deal
with the sand source in the future to set aside sand for us.
Now, okay, so here's an important one. The next one is the -- and
this will kind of be the next to last.
Here is an emergence per week chart over the last several years
for turtles. You can see way to the right is the line. I put in those big
lines. The one all the way on the right is the end of turtle nesting
season where the turtles have stopped laying and all you have is the
nests that exist there and you can move those. So that's like
September 15th, right? You know where they are and the plan is to
possibly allow for renourishment into that.
But to the left, that big line that identifies June 1st, look at all the
turtle activity that's going there. And it actually starts at the end of
April.
These turtles are migrating time-wise because of the water
warming more and more. So standard for turtle nest season is June
1st, but -- is May 1st, I'm sorry, but it even starts in April, okay. So I
just want you to see that. That's pretty -- you know, there's a lot of
turtles there. We've got to be sensitive to the turtles.
The end might be doable. And with the truck haul, at the end
you can put the sand where you want and avoid those nests altogether
as opposed to the dredge where you have the pipes up and down the
beach and you have to move them.
Page 53
September 25-26, 2012
Here in the beginning on that chart -- I'm repeating myself. You
got my point.
Okay, so in conclusion -- and I appreciate the extra time. In
conclusion, I would say we study the local sand source option
incrementally as it applies to each of the individual beaches. There's a
call for 60,000 cubic yards at Vanderbilt and then on the Park Shore,
two segments; 60,000 to the Naples Beach is 291,000. They're all set
up independently as far as piping sand onto the beach. So we should
consider our options in the mix.
Put local truck sand source nourishment option out for bid,
parallel bid.
And then the third but kind of something I've been interested in
for a long time, and we've been discussing, is remove the April 21st to
June 1st portion of turtle nesting season from the nourishment
schedule. In other words, let's take that out altogether and let these
bids, all of them, understand that we are not going to go into the
beginning of turtle nesting season right now before it even has to go to
other agencies. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And thank you for some very
constructive recommendations, Bob. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Bob a couple of
questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can, but there are other
commissioners ahead of you.
Commissioner Henning, you wanted to ask a question. Do you
want to ask it now or would you prefer later?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I wanted --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Coletta, Fiala, do you have any
questions?
Page 54
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear all the speakers and
then we can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead
and ask your question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, Bob, can you clarify for me,
what you're proposing is that we do a combination of the truck haul
and the dredge; is that what you're suggesting? Because my
understanding is the truck haul just places the sand on the beach and
then the dredge would basically build the beach from the water side
up.
MR. KRASOWSKI: The emergency truck haul gets placed only
on the beach. And this is the same sand, okay. But when you're
allowed to put the sand on the beach and contour it to the full and
regular beach renourishment, then I'm saying we can also consider
using truck haul for that.
So do the emergency, but in the future the other sand, let's go
ahead and bid out the truck haul option. So yes, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let's look at it another way. If
I'm understanding, and again, it's the technicality of how you get the
sand on the beach. If you're saying that a conventional renourishment
can be done by a truck haul and that you're not limited to the truck
haul merely elevating the beach, that it can also expand the beach?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If that is the case --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- then I guess my question is why
is this emergency renourishment being limited strictly to the elevation
of the beach? Why can't the emergency renourishment do what is
necessary to cure the defect that is precipitating the emergency and
expand the beach at the various locations?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, see, that would be possible if you had
Page 55
September 25-26, 2012
your permits. But the whole basis of the emergency is you're staying
out of the water and you're just building up some -- the beach. You
know, in an emergency which doesn't -- you have to declare an
emergency and then that allows you to do that without -- I think you
have to get the blessing -- you have to tell the DEP you're doing it.
But because you're not going in the water, you don't need the same
permits.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
MR. KRASOWSKI: So what's holding -- because that would be
a great thing if the emergency truck haul could actually be part, which
it would be, but we could start contouring the beach and do it now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think it would be
worthwhile asking the question. I mean, you know, obviously this
issue of the plover seems to be what's holding up the renourishment of
these beaches. And I really don't understand how the plover is not an
issue at the Marco Beach. I didn't know that plover is only -- you
know, I mean, obviously they're looking to renourish the Marco Beach
with a dredge, what was the date, in December of this year. But the
plover doesn't seem to be, you know, on the Marco Beach and for
whatever reason only seems to be at these north beaches.
Now, I guess my point is, is if we have several beaches that are in
need of emergency renourishment and if there's no evidence of plovers
on those specific beaches or whatever means we're using to bypass the
plover on the Marco Beach, it would seem to suggest to me that we
should be able to proceed very expeditiously.
So I just really don't understand. There's a lot of--
MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, I've done research and called
the plover man who's with the Florida --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Plover man?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, there's one guy, Jeff, in this room.
But he kind of works for the Army Corps of Engineers. He'll talk to
Page 56
September 25-26, 2012
anybody, but his operation feeds into their analysis.
And, you know, the problem I perceive there is that we haven't
started feeding them information, or at least he hasn't gotten any, you
know, through the Army Corps of Engineers. Where the sooner we
start, the sooner we can get going. Like we could do truck haul, right,
like let's say in March, all of March and the beginning of April, you
know, in spots and start accumulating sand there for its distribution if
we could get the permits for this year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may interrupt, what you're
saying is very significant. Are you saying to me that the gentleman
who is responsible for the plover biological opinion review has not
drawn the conclusion that the plover is an issue and has requested
preliminary information and has not received it from the county to
make that determination?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, yes and yes. And there's some detail
to that.
He was interested, he told me. And this is in conversation, so it's
not -- it's hearsay, right, in any kind of official capacity. But what he
told me was that he would be interested to get the logistical
information about the location of beach and all this kind of stuff so he
could do a preliminary evaluation to see if he thought that the plover
issue would be relevant. And he hasn't gotten that yet.
But I think in defense of our people that are working on this, they
probably want to throw everything together appropriately and then
pass it through the channels rather than kind of this spot checking the
way I do, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, I need help with this.
Because this is, you know, diametrically opposed to the conversations
I've had with staff. Could staff address this issue?
MR. OCHS: Certainly.
Bill?
Page 57
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Bob, if you could stay there,
since you've spoken directly with this gentleman.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, my understanding of the permitting process
is for Marco Island we've already got the permit from the Corps, so
they --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How did we get it?
MR. OCHS: Applied.
MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure what it was.
MR. McALPIN: For the record, Gary McAlpin.
The Marco Island permit we have, we're using an existing permit
for the Marco Island that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit was
existing and we had a biological opinion with that.
We needed a new Corps permit for Marco Island, but we did
have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer -- excuse me, we did have the
DEP permit for Marco Island. They looked at it and they gave us the
approval that the existing permit we had was not required, did not
require a biological opinion. So we have worked through that issue
down on Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me jump in for just a
second. With that piping plover, if you remember a few years back, it
was definitely an issue on Marco. And maybe you might confer,
because they had a deal with the same thing, and they were really
having problems with it as well. And maybe they have some hints to
give us.
Now, I can understand why it doesn't bother right now, because
there's only rocks there, and I don't think piping plovers walk around
on the rocks. But they definitely dealt with it, and they -- I believe
they were successful in it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have a real concern with
what I'm hearing now, because now I'm being told that you already
pulled the permit. And did you pull the permit for the Marco based on
Page 58
September 25-26, 2012
a six or a 10-year design template? And when did you pull it? When
did you apply for it?
MR. McALPIN: We had direction from the Board to move
forward with a permit application on Marco Island. We reviewed that
with you. We moved forward with the permit application probably
about -- probably about four months ago. We've needed to do that to
move forward to get this project accomplished at that point to this
year.
We have had direction from the Board to move forward with that
design. We talked about the design. The design was -- we permitted
the design with the ability to rachet down the cubic yards that we had.
The permit that we had was for 104,000 cubic yards, but we haven't
decided on what the exact quantity for that beach renourishment
would be, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it took you four months to get
that permit?
MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am. We -- the -- for the piping plovers,
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit, I believe that permit was
in place at that point in time.
We've been working this permit for Marco Island for a period of
four, five months to work that through.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it took four to five months to
get the permit for Marco?
MR. McALPIN: That's how long we have been working it, yes,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're ready to go?
MR. McALPIN: Well, we're ready to go with the design that --
once the design is approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
We haven't set the final quantities at this point in time.
Again, the permit -- what the permit does, it allows you to put up
to a certain amount of sand on the beach. You could always come
Page 59
September 25-26, 2012
back and put less sand of that onto the beach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the issue. I mean, I
guess my concern is it sounds to me like this whole issue about the
plover is a red herring to intentionally delay the -- and I'm going to
call it the north beach, anything but Marco -- the north beaches
permitting.
What I just heard Bob say is that the gentleman at the -- either
through Fish and Wildlife or the Army Corps, whichever agency it is
who deals specifically with the plover is waiting on information from
the county with respect to the location of where the plover lives,
walks, eats. And that the county has not submitted that information.
What I'd like to know is what is the holdup, Leo? Why hasn't
that information been submitted? I mean, this is -- I mean, you're
supposed to be directing staff--
MR. OCHS: That's correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to get things done.
So why hasn't the Army Corps received the information to be
able to make the determination that the plover is not an issue?
MR. OCHS: We're going to answer that right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
The piping -- we have completed our biological assessment that
has been submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
They've completed their first review. We've incorporated that into it.
To this point in time the Board has told us to go with a 10-year
design. What we have to do when we submit the application to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which we're ready to do right after the
Board tells us to move forward with a six-year design, we complete
the design sketches at this -- at that point, we submit the biological
assessment in terms of what we have to do, and that will initiate
formal consultation with the Corps.
Page 60
September 25-26, 2012
We have had extensive conversations with the Corps and with
Fish and Wildlife Service on this issue. They have told us, and it is in
writing, that they are going to require a formal consultation on piping
plovers, Commissioner.
So what our next step would be is to submit the permit
application. As part of the permit application for the Corps, we have
to submit the biological assessment. The biological assessment is
complete. It took us about three-and-a-half months to complete that
biological assessment. We have not been delaying doing that work,
and that's on the schedule that we have moving forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bob, can you comment on that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: I think -- I don't know. I don't know enough
to evaluate the entire effort. But it does seem to me that things have
been moving pretty slow. But a lot of it had to do with the option of
the 10-year plan, which was an option. There's always this discussion
about what you approved and what you didn't approve.
But Commissioner Hiller, if I might, being that we have Mr.
Lorenz here, and I've had a conversation with him earlier on the -- this
chart and the turtle nesting season, I'd like to have his comment on
record about what he thinks about what I've suggested for avoiding the
beginning of turtle nesting season.
Bill, would you mind?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, is that what you'd like to do at this
point in time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's okay, if he can do it briefly.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, Bob makes a good point with regard to the
turtle nesting in terms of the extreme ends.
As you can see from the chart -- and this is what they call
emergences, which is basically coming up from the beach to nest. The
hatching occurs -- it would be 60 days in time, then the hatching
occurs.
Page 61
September 25-26, 2012
But what you can see is that the tail end of the season, you have
less nests being -- less turtles nesting. You know where all the nests
are, because you've done the monitoring. And so to start your project
at the tail end of the nesting season has less impact on the sea turtles
than if you were to start it in the beginning of the nesting season.
So if you were to try to set up a contract in a window, you would
definitely want to be able to -- if you needed to have that time, you'd
want to be able to shift that time to the latter part of turtle nesting
season.
So starting in early September I think would be the least amount
of impact.
Once you get into, and what Bob's information shows, the last
couple of weeks in May, that's when you -- that's when you're starting
to have a greater adverse impact on that species.
But -- so I think his -- he does have a valid point there with
regard to the emergences.
The other thing to recognize as well is that this of course is total
nesting. And you have some differences based upon the various
beaches. But again, you have that data and information you can assess
as you're trying to work your project and try to optimize, you know,
getting the project done and having the minimal ecological impact.
And I also want to make sure that I -- I kind of tripped over -- I
believe in the executive summary we talked about June 1st would be
the ending of the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And given the smaller scale of the
project now, Bill, obviously the number of months needed to do the
work will be significantly less. So this whole notion of having this
very expansive project from a time perspective is now gone.
MR. LORENZ: I would say it would certainly be reduced
proportionately. We'll have to see how that works out. You never
know in terms of the weather --
Page 62
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course.
MR. LORENZ: -- those types of things. But everything else
being equal, you certainly have a reduction.
And again, my point is, and this data that Bob has brought to be
able to show you pushes, to me, the recommendation towards the -- in
September to be able to really make sure you can start then so you can
avoid that beginning of the nesting season as much as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner -- do we have any
other public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two more public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two more public speakers. Let's get the
next public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next public speaker is Mick Moore.
MR. MOORE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Mick Moore, and my family owns the Vanderbilt Beach Resort on
Vanderbilt Beach.
First off I want to say thank you to the Commission for
considering the emergency truck haul. The beach in our area is
extremely narrow. It's critically eroded, as it is up in parts of Naples,
and I appreciate the action you're taking to address that.
I want to point out that although I'm here representing my family
business, which is a hotel, that emergency truck haul will also
renourish the beach that's the biggest county public beach, or the most
widely used public beach, so it's going to dramatically affect things for
the public or at least help the public beach.
The hotels really show up here talking about this issue because
we're canaries in the coal mine. We're the first people to notice a
problem with the beach because we're there every day. And of course
it impacts us economically as opposed to just someone from the public
who wants to go to the beach and doesn't have a place to sit. But it is
really a public issue, it's not just an issue for the tourism business.
Page 63
September 25-26, 2012
We need to go forward with beach renourishment as quickly as
possible and do everything we can to get every permit we need. This
project is already going to be a year late by the time it's done. It was
done in 2006 and it was supposed to commence again in 2012, right
now, and we're talking about 2013 and 2014. That's a problem that
needs to be addressed in the future.
I'm pleased that we're going back to a six-year plan, because
experience this time has shown than it might be a seven-year plan, if
we continue to be late. This is too important an issue to allow to slip a
year to a year and a half. And if it had been on time there would be no
discussion of emergency renourishment at least for my beach, and I
wouldn't even be here, I'd be minding my own business and taking
care of it.
I've raised questions at the CAC meeting and talked with Bill
yesterday about some of the numbers that are used in the estimate
that's put forward. The way they calculate the numbers for specific
markers, I'm not an expert and I can only comment on the ones that
relate to my little slice of beach out in front of my business. And I just
want to make sure that the estimates that the engineers have come up
with as to what the beach conditions are now are accurate. Because
when I look at it, it looks like they're estimating me to have a lot more
beach than I really have. But again, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an
engineer, I'm not in the business of measuring this, but I'd urge the
Commission on a project of this scope and this amount of money to
second check the numbers if possible with someone independent.
Again, thank you for taking action on the emergency truck haul,
and please speed this through as quickly as you can, because we
desperately need it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to address Mick, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mick, I just want to make sure that
Page 64
September 25-26, 2012
you understand that this emergency haul is not going to expand the
beach. Your beach is going to -- or I should say the beach in front of
your property and the other properties adjacent to you are only going
to be raised. But that small beach that is there now is going to
continue until the renourishment, which based on the time line that I'm
hearing right now, which I find unacceptable, could be as much as two
years. So you're going to be in this adverse situation for a very long
time.
MR. MOORE: And that's going to be a problem for us, as well
as for the public and everybody else who uses the beach. Anything
that can be done -- the best case scenario for all of us would be to
speed up and get the permit to put sand in the water and extend the
width of the beach. If all we can get is some protection against the
storms that are inevitably going to come, then we'll take it. But I'd
prefer to have the full renourishment proceeding as it was originally
designed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And that makes perfect
sense.
And that raises the question in my mind, Leo, why the permits
were not pulled and why the dredge isn't occurring in November as it
should, based on the permit that we pulled, which was a six-year
design template. And I'd like an explanation for why that didn't
happen. And please don't say it's because they were looking at a
10-year design as an alternative. Because if you were looking at a
10-year design as an alternative, that dredge still should have been
dropped this November. We had a six-year design permit in place.
Now, the economic impact to the county is very significant.
These beaches are critical to tourism. If people are not going to come
back because they see that our beaches are poor compared to Sarasota,
for example, that's a big problem. And we'll never be able to quantify
the lost business as a consequence of what I consider to be, you know,
Page 65
September 25-26, 2012
an unacceptable delay based on that permit we pulled in 2005 for the
2006 six-year renourishment.
So I would like an explanation. And I really don't want it to be
because we were considering a different design template.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, you were considering a
different design template. We've had discussions over the last several
months with this Board about looking at options for a 10-year
renourishment interval verses a six-year renourishment. In fact, this
Board authorized the staff to go out to get engineering services to
design up to a 10-year renourishment. Then along came the FEMA
de-obligation. $11.2 million went out of the budget and went into a
reserve account and that drove the decision at this point to preempt the
10-year design and come to the Board and recommend the six-year
design, given the funding available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It still doesn't explain why that
10-year design, when you knew about it a long time ago, wasn't
started earlier if that was what was considered.
Again, we should have been in a position to put the dredges in
the water this November. And it's very concerning. Because this
doesn't only affect the tourism industry, it affects the public of Collier
County. We have a lot of users who live here in Collier County who
are now being deprived of being able to enjoy their public beaches as
a consequence of these problems. And I find it very concerning.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm not aware of anyone that's been
deprived of the use of the beach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I can tell you, the beaches
are very small compared to what they were when they were
renourished. They're at the point that they need to be renourished.
Except for Marco. Because Marco's beaches are about, you know,
three football fields in length, whereas the beaches at the north end of
the county are well under 100, and they only go up to 100 when
Page 66
September 25-26, 2012
they're renourished.
Now, for some reason we're expediting the renourishment of, you
know, beaches that are three -- you know, 200 to 300 feet wide but yet
beaches in the north where the public crowds because that's the only
place where there's parking are eroding before our eyes, you know,
right up to -- Mick, do you have pictures of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get the public speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're not trying to renourish the
Marco beaches. Only the one point where it's rocks. That's all we're
trying to do there. So we're not really trying to redo that.
And I'd like to hear the other speakers so we can get on with this
subject, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's the reason we haven't
reached a decision on the beach renourishment issues after months and
months and months and months of debate and questioning and delays.
That's the reason we haven't been able to start the renourishment
process.
So let's call the next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Marcia Cravens.
And Commissioner, this will be your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then I'm first.
MS. CRAVENS: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
for the opportunity to speak on this important item.
If you would, I do have some comments on the truck haul beach
renourishment separately from the overall county beach
renourishment. So I beg your indulgence on allowing me to speak
separately on those items, similar to what Bob did.
And I would concur with the two prior speakers in urging that the
truck haul sand proceed as soon as possible. When I'm done with my
comments, I think I might be able to provide a little more background
Page 67
September 25-26, 2012
about how U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Corps permitting is
different from DEP. Because a lot of times when you hear the word
permit, what that means is the state permit, not the federal permit.
So I would just point out that on the upland truck haul sand
renourishment, the source from Immokalee, although I don't know
exactly how they sort out their sand, the last time that source was used
there was a lot of silt. May not have had the proper oversight. And I
do believe with proper oversight that they likely can provide high
quality sand.
But what I've land is that the site for source known as the Ortona
source in Labelle was used in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 for hot
spots. That that was used as a step design that worked very well. It
helped to stabilize the beach and it also was very good for the turtle
nests being able to withstand storm surges and things like that. So I
would recommend that several source sites be looked at.
One other thing about the truck haul stuff is that seriously eroded
beaches where the gaps are for the county-wide beach renourishment
project includes Clam Pass Park Beach. In an all-ranking criteria that
beach should be ranked very, very high as getting renourishment
either by truck haul sand or by the county-wide beach renourishment
from the off-shore source. Because it has all those amenities. It's got
the commercial establishment of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel which
brings lots of tourists to the area. You've got a large parking lot of
nearly 200 spaces. You've got dedicated restroom facilities,
concession for food and drink, as well as concessions for beach chairs,
umbrellas, kayaks and canoes that are very popular.
So it's one of our most publicly accessible and popular beach
areas, and yet it's very puzzling that it's not included to be renourished
from either the truck haul source or the off-shore source.
That also creates a situation of competing uses where expanded
dredging has raised its head for being promoted for Clam Pass, which
Page 68
September 25-26, 2012
directly leads to increased erosion and increased migration north.
So those are some concerns. I would hope that Clam Pass Park's
beaches will be added to either the truck haul source for sand or the
off-shore borrow source and no longer be a gap.
I have accumulated a lot of information about county-wide beach
nourishment projects. And I would just -- I've gotten information from
DEP for materials that were submitted by Collier County for the local
share for grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. Can we stay on the
topics, please?
MS. CRAVENS: Well, the first topic was the truck haul sand,
the truck haul emergency beach nourishment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to get this done so
we can give some direction.
MS. CRAVENS: Okay. The second thing that I'd like to address
now is the other issue about the county-wide beach renourishment.
And I would point out that in 2006 and '07 you only had two gaps.
There was a total of about 655,000 cubic yards of sand. And that was
nowhere near the 17 to $20 million price tag we're being told that the
next beach renourishment would be for nowhere near that amount of
sand.
Some of the information that I've just recently obtained was from
Lee County for beach renourishment they did in 2011. The cost to
them was $3,533,486.80 for 315,000 cubic yards of sand.
So I think we really need to scrutinize the cost that we're being
told, the price tag for the beach renourishment. If Lee County did this
for a fraction of the cost for almost as much sand, then we really need
to be looking at how we arrived at the cost for our beach
renourishment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I don't think the
emergency truck haul is in contention, so I would like to make a
Page 69
September 25-26, 2012
motion on that. However, I do still have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to ask the questions before
you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to make the motion
and get this off the table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, also in the motion is
direct staff to prepare an emergency resolution instead of just relying
on the minutes. If that's what you need for the permitting agencies,
that should be the proper motion and direction --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for the Chairman to sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree with that, and that is in
my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to be sure that this
emergency truck haul does not -- is not used an excuse to continue to
delay obtaining the permit, as Mr. Moore and the others have pointed
out. And we have to get that permit as expeditiously as possible,
because we're behind.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're not delaying that, we never
have, and we're going to continue to expedite that to the best of our
ability.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
-- we have a motion for approval of the emergency truck haul
renourishment by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 70
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing is if we were
going to renourish the beaches in November of 2011, the permitting
process would have started in 2010. There was no discussion at all
about a 10-year design so, you know, I think the Board really deserves
an answer in the future. Not now. We've spent way too much time on
this item and we have a lot more to go.
The second thing, I would like to know why was this a time
certain item?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Hiller asked for a time certain item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had constituents that requested
that it be at a time certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be -- as far as a land
source for sand bid, would that delay or cost -- it shouldn't cost
anything if we ask for a bid for the six-year renourishment.
MR. LORENZ: Six-year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A land source of sand instead of
MR. McALPIN: We could stretch for the bid in such a way we
can get prices for truck haul, we can get prices for a hopper dredge,
and we can get prices for cutterhead dredges too. So we could do that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Answered my questions.
I would like to include that in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great idea. I don't
know if you need nods or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we need a motion.
Page 71
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second it. Because that's
an excellent idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion was to pursue
opportunities or pursue bids for three different methods of sand
harvesting for replenishment. Is that not true?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's true. And give staff
direction for a six-year design permit. And I'm assuming that is with
the existing consultants that we've already approved, we're going from
a 10-year to a six-year. No more doing the 10-year; is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion was made by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to -- strictly on the hauling
or on -- okay, the hauling, we're treating that a separate motion from
the six-year design template, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the bids come back is (sic)
give us choices whether it be a haul offshore or whatever, give us
options on that.
But they're bringing back options on renourishing the beach out
of turtle season -- turtle nesting season and shoulder turtle nesting
season.
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, there's another -- if I may,
Commissioner Henning, there's another issue, and the other issue is if
you do proceed with a dredge, we were, or at least I was not given a
copy of what was submitted to the state. And they have already --
staff has already submitted to the state a budget for the six-year design
template that proposes partnering with Long Boat Key as a dredging
Page 72
September 25-26, 2012
partner.
Now, that was never brought to the Board, that has never been
discussed with me or I don't know if it was maybe discussed with you
or the others. But I think that, you know, one of the things that we
need to address is do we want to partner with Long Boat Key?
Because staff is moving forward as if, you know, that is what we're
doing. And that's what they sent to FDEP.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the motion is to discover which
of these methods would be the best and most efficient and time-wise
the effort that we want to pursue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And part of that ought to be
whether or not there should be a partnership and if so, with whom.
Because that would be part of the overall cost analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's a lot of problems
with this whole thing. You know, if we were to going to renourish in
2011, we should have had this discussion in 2010 prior to you being
on the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, did you
want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but Commissioner Coletta seems
to have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I do want to enter this
discussion that's going on. And I turned my light on some time ago.
Let's go back to the cost and the urgency of this whole project. I
heard you mention earlier in your discussion about we could get a
waiver as far as the turtle nesting season goes?
MR. LORENZ: Well, there's a biological opinion that allows
turtle nesting season throughout the year, subject to certain permitting
requirements. So you're allowed to --
Page 73
September 25-26, 2012
MR. OCHS: Allows renourishment.
MR. LORENZ: Allows -- yes, what did I say?
MR. OCHS: You said turtle nesting.
MR. LORENZ: Allows renourishment throughout the year.
So -- but it does -- I'm not familiar with the specific details, but it
would have certain requirements that you'd have to follow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would there be a considerable
savings in cost if we were to get this permitting done and be able to
continue through the turtle nesting season?
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's part of the executive summary.
What we had in your backup was that we would be having alternate
bids within nesting season and outside of nesting season. So you
would have the ability to see what the cost savings could be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it could possibly happen
sooner, if we were allowed to ignore the turtle nesting season as far as
the dates go?
MR. LORENZ: It would allow for year-round renourishment.
I'm not sure whether we could -- I'd have to ask Gary whether we
could start sooner with that kind of requirement. But if you start
sooner, then you're into that heavy area of sea turtle nesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't want to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what we're going to do is we
are going to have that into the process where we can see what the cost
would be, the cost savings.
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, because my
understanding is, is that if it's done in a -- with people observing
what's taking place and moving the nests that it can be done with as
little trauma as possible to the turtle population. And as much success
as we can find for the tourist population. Both begin with a T.
MR. LORENZ: All a balancing act and trade-offs.
Page 74
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion -- you
didn't want to talk about this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to talk about another issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can the motion be repeated,
please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to direct staff to
work with the consultants to obtain a six-year renourishment permit,
use -- when you come back with bids you want to make sure that one
of them is a truck haul besides what's being suggested by staff
What was the other?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The other two was a cutterhead. What
was the third one?
MR. LORENZ: Hopper.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sand source?
MR. OCHS: Hopper.
MR. LORENZ: Hopper dredge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hopper dredge.
Okay, so you're going to come back with three costing
alternatives to include trucking, cutterhead and hopper, okay?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without options for the difference
in cost between turtle nesting and without options for difference in
cost in partnerships?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was outside of-- you're
going to give us options outside of turtle nesting or shoulder and
shoulder.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to be looking at
partnerships?
MR. LORENZ: We had that in the executive summary. It wasn't
Page 75
September 25-26, 2012
in your recommendations, but the background. It indicated that we
would look at potential partnerships and look at costing that out as
well, get a bid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're already submitted to the
state and said that you were going to do it with Long Boat Key. What
have you submitted to the state?
MR. LORENZ: There's a draft resolution that if interlocal
agreement for -- if we were to pursue that, we've done some backup
work to accomplish that, if it were to occur.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, what was submitted to the
state?
MR. McALPIN: In the state package we submitted a draft
interlocal agreement that we -- that is very preliminary, that if we did
partnership with a local opportunity of a local government, we
submitted a draft resolution.
Why did we submit a draft resolution? Because when the state
evaluates cost share proposals, they evaluate and they give extra
points for regionalization. And the regionalization points that you get
if you could achieve this are very significant. Which would put us
potentially over the top in terms of state DEP cost share money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you didn't --
MR. McALPIN: That doesn't necessarily mean that we're going
to do that. There's a lot of things that have to be worked out. And
anything we do has to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. But this is the preliminary step to let the state know
that we're considering this option.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you -- so you didn't
recommend any jurisdiction to the state?
MR. McALPIN: We had said that we were -- told the state that
we were looking potentially with Long Boat Key, and since that time
Captiva Erosion Control District has also said that they would
Page 76
September 25-26, 2012
potentially be interested in talking to us.
But it's very open at this point in time how we move forward
with this. If we move forward with the hopper dredge than we can
propose this. If we don't move forward with the hopper dredge, then
these other municipalities would not be interested in it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to qualify one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has been sitting here
for the last hour waiting to say something.
So Commissioner Fiala, it is your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
My question is, if indeed the FEMA settlement comes along and
we are relieved of a lot of the cost that we're now burdened with, and
so we have extra dollars, will we then put it back into this
renourishment for the north end of town to get that thing moving
along, and possibly by that time we might even have some permits in
place to move it into the water area?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- one facet of that answer is it's going
to be difficult to determine at what particular point are we going to be
able to trust that we have the dollars back.
Page 77
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. LORENZ: So there's simply a matter of timing along those
lines. Because if you have that money, then we kind of set aside, if
we're going to have to pay for it, and we don't want to spend it and
find out now we're going to have to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was my --
MR. LORENZ: But that's the timing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we expand it, you know, when
that comes through? Even though we hadn't planned on it at this
point, we do have like an alternate plan just in case.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, that takes us back to the
10-year versus six-year. We're designing to the six-year template.
We're planning to renourish to the maximum of that template to
restore the full six-year design. If you get more money available to put
more sand in that takes you outside of that design, we may have to get
some modification of a permit to do that. And that would all come
back to the Board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo, I'm guessing that maybe I
didn't say that very clearly or I didn't understand very clearly. I
thought right now with this emergency trucking we can only take it to
where it is just moving the thing up. We can't expand it in any way.
But the six-year design does expand it somewhat is the way I
understand it. But we can't do that right now.
But if the FEMA dollars happen to, you know, appear, would we
then be able to go right into the six-year design? That's --
MR. LORENZ: Well, we are recommending the six-year design
in taking into account that de-obligation. So we can move forward
with the six-year design. That's the conservative -- that's our
conservative approach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's wonderful.
MR. LORENZ: The question that I thought you had asked was if
Page 78
September 25-26, 2012
we -- if FEMA does not de-obligate that money, could we apply that
money someplace else. And in the future of course that's the question
I answered was well, we're not -- how confident can we be of that.
But if we were confident of that, then there are other projects that
we could then prioritize for those funds to go into.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just concerned right now with
the beaches at north end of town, because from all that I've seen and
heard, they definitely need this and I wanted to support that effort, and
so I was trying to ascertain that. Let's see. And just trying to get to
the fastest and most cost effective method to get this thing moving
forward.
By the way, I couldn't -- I can definitely work with the turtle
nesting if we were very careful not to disturb things right into that first
month either way, preferably at the end of it. But I could never go
year round, so I just have to tell you. I'm just throwing that on the
record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, do you
want to say anything more --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at this point in time?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, motion to approve staffs
recommendations on the south Marco Beach renourishment and
erosion control structures rehab.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Second that motion.
MR. OCHS: Could we get some clarification? We're talking
about a revision back to the 2005, '06?
MR. LORENZ: Correct, the review would be go into a six-year
design for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six-year. Staff, is that your
recommendation?
Page 79
September 25-26, 2012
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree on the second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion was stated very
clearly. You got it okay? Okay.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning to approve
staffs recommendations concerning the Marco Island renourishment.
Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously.
And I hope you have nothing more for us.
MR. LORENZ: I don't on this one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to address something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We at the last meeting approved a
resolution to transmit a budget to FDEP, and staff made a commitment
to actually show us what they were transmitting before that was done.
I subsequently found out that not even Nick Casalanguida, Mr.
McAlpin's manager, had the opportunity to see this before it was
submitted.
Now, I went on DEP's website and it's posted there. And I will
Page 80
September 25-26, 2012
tell you that it does not represent what I believe is accurate. It
proposes that there will be $5 million in federal funding. I have no
idea where that money is coming from. It talks about this Long Boat
Key partnership, you know, again something that we have never
approved.
I don't even see how that will result in economies either
physically or financially, given the space, you know, or the mileage, if
you will, between Long Boat Key and where we are.
The resolution that we adopted is meaningless. We approved
something that we never even saw. So I have real concerns about
doing business in that fashion.
The other issue I have is while I understand we made a motion to
move forward with a six-year design template, I have concerns about
the design volumes. And I agree with one of the speakers who
proposed that these design volumes be somehow validated to ensure
that they are in fact accurate. Because while it says that we need
420,000 cubic yards of sand, we need to know exactly where that sand
is going to go. Just like Mr. Moore said, well, you know, I don't
believe that the number they're saying that applies to us is the case. I'm
sure there are others who feel the same way. We need to make sure
that the allocation of the sand along the beaches is where it should be
placed, and that secondly the quantities that are proposed are accurate.
And while I understand that there will be an update, the problem
I have is our entire budget is being predicated on these values here.
And if these values are incorrect, then our budget is correspondingly
incorrect.
So I think that's something that needs to be brought back and
addressed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those quantity values will be
addressed through the consultants trying to obtain the permit; is that
correct?
Page 81
September 25-26, 2012
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. But staff, we can take another
look at it and validate it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I appreciate it.
MR. LORENZ: -- and bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Commissioner Henning,
while what you say is a true statement, they already have provided the
data that they claim they are going to be relying on for purposes of
redeveloping the permit. And that underlying monitoring data from
Atkins is what is in question. That is what was raised by Mick Moore
and that is what I am raising again here today. These numbers are not
materially different from what was presented earlier when the six-year
and the 10-year design template were presented. And the numbers
that I was coming up with were very different at that point of time. So
I think it needs to be revisited and validated.
And I really appreciate you, Mr. Lorenz, for your willingness to
go back and verify that. And I know you have not had the time to do
that, so thank you so much.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have an --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time certain.
MR. OCHS: -- 11 :30 a.m. time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Item #12A
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUITS ENTITLED,
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET
AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-
1224; AND SEAN HUSSEY, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET
AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-
1223., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
Page 82
September 25-26, 2012
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - DISCUSSED AND MOVED ON
TO THE CLOSED SESSION
MR. OCHS: This is an item that the Board consider a settlement
agreement and the lawsuit's titled Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al versus
Collier County, et al. Second District Court of Appeals case number
2D11-1224, and Sean Hussey, et al versus Collier County, et al,
Second District Court of Appeal case number 2D11-1223.
And Mr. Casalanguida will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you start, on advice of counsel, I
would like to ask the commissioners to refrain from discussing the
details of a legal settlement prior to any shade session that we might
decide to conduct after the initial presentations are made. This is a
very significant Burt Harris Act claim involving what, almost $100
million potential liability. So it would not be in the best interest of
Collier County residents to discuss legal issues until we have a chance
to confer with our lawyer in a shade session. Okay?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, Mr. Chairman. You took
the words out of my mouth, I was going to start with that opening
remark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir. I'm going to try and
keep the three B's on this one.
This settlement goes back to a 2002 land use decision. You've
mentioned it correctly, it's up to $100 million in potential damages. It
affects land use, traffic, hydrology, geology and environmental
impacts.
And with that said, I'd like to recommend that this Board send
this down to the Planning Commissioners, your staff, David Weeks is
here, I've discussed this with the County Attorney, and the applicant.
And if that's your direction, we can keep this really, really brief.
Page 83
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to make a motion to do
just that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make an observation to you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be almost impossible in my
opinion for the Planning Commission to make a decision that would
be binding on the Board with respect to a settlement agreement of a
Burt Harris case.
Why can't we divide this into two parts? Let's deal with the
settlement issue but make it contingent upon the review by the
Planning Commission. That gives us, the Board, the opportunity to
discuss this issue in the shade with our lawyer about the potential
ramifications and still get the benefit of the Planning Commission
review. But putting one before the other is putting the cart before the
horse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't mind discussing it in the
shade session, but I would like the Planning Commission to weigh in
on it as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think that's possible and
reasonable. And -- but what has been advertised here is a settlement
of a Burt Harris claim. We have not had the opportunity to discuss
among ourselves the ramifications of that settlement. And it would be
-- I think it would be in the best interest of Collier County if the
commissioners could sit with our lawyer and discuss as a group the
provisions and the ramifications of that settlement, and then make a
decision as to whether we would approve it or disapprove it. And if
we did, we would come back into open session, we could discuss it
and refer it to the Planning Commission.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification,
and I agree with what you just stated, your Planning Commission I
Page 84
September 25-26, 2012
think would provide you what I would call the best checks and
balances if you were going to settle. I don't think I'd be asking this
Board to send it to the Planning Commission to come up with a
settlement agreement, but to give you a list of stipulations and safety
checks that if you were to settle as a Board that you should include in
that settlement. I think that was probably the best way to state my
recommendation for you to send it to the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's putting the cart before
the horse, quite frankly. And the responsibilities concerning
settlement are clearly those of the Board, not the Planning
Commission. But we should take into consideration the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that an acceptable way to proceed,
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it is. But I would like staff to present
to the Board what this settlement would mean.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to have Mr. David Weeks
talk about the land use issues involved with this.
But you're going back to 2002 we had a Growth Management
Plan amendment as identified in your executive summary where the
land use changes resulting from that eliminated the ability for mining
in that property known as the Hussey property. And I'll point that on
your viewer.
The damages resulting from that claim's approximately $67
million in damages. What the settlement looks to do is to allow the
Husseys the ability to mine that property, eliminating the ability or
eliminating the requirement for a Growth Management Plan
amendment, as well as a conditional use. That would require a mining
application that would be reviewed in front of this board.
Page 85
September 25-26, 2012
Because as part of that there's environmental impacts on the
property and they have contractural relationships with the State Road
846 Land Trust. And Mr. County Manager, if you could point to that
property, it's also highlighted.
The settlement offer takes into consideration the second parcel
under this Burt Harris type claim, where they would be trading some
sending and receiving lands and adjusting that for both environmental
value and reducing the mining in one area of the community and
increasing it in the other. In other words, the State Road 846 would
have more preservation near the Corkscrew Swamp portion of the
county and reduce mining ability, and then the Hussey property would
be mining as well, too.
Mr. Weeks will come up if you want to hear some additional, and
he'll talk about the land use balances that are in there.
What we've done as staff is try to provide options in this
settlement where at least every application that would go through this
if the Board settled would go through some sort of public hearing
process. And the property owner has agreed to that. So there is a
safety mechanism there. It is not as complete as a Growth
Management Plan amendment, but it does require a planned unit
development application and a mining application, which this Board
reviews.
They have also agreed to participate in funding roadway
improvements to get the mining rock out of there. That area in the
North Belle Meade area is known for significant geological value in
terms of rock and aggregate that's in there.
So on this map the property -- the Hussey property is in yellow
and you have the Wilson Boulevard directly to the right or the east of
it, and to the south paralleling I-75. And then you have certain other
roads in black that are also in the long-range transportation plan. The
blue shaded area is a future study area and a long-range transportation
Page 86
September 25-26, 2012
plan as well.
And one of the things the Husseys have offered up in the
settlement as part of the record is rock right-of-way and water
management that would go with that to get the rock out of there to be
able to provide a truck haul route and also participate with the other
people that are doing the same.
Impacts and concerns obviously at the bottom left-hand corner of
that screen where both I-75 and 951 meet, some of the folks that live
in that area would see an increase in truck traffic. But that would later
be determined through the mining application.
So your settlement does call that they would go through the
mining application and those impacts from the trucks would be
determined at that point in time.
At the time of the mining application, if there are other routes,
they've agreed to provide fill at cost for those other routes, but at free
for any roads that abut their property in water management as well,
too.
They've agreed to participate in the North Belle Meade
restoration project in terms of hydrological benefits to the county, as
well as providing the water management for the necessary roads
adjacent to their property. Those are significant as well too.
Those are primarily a lot of the general I would call settlement
terms. If you want to get into some of the detailed land use impacts,
David has some tables that would talk about that, if you'd like to hear
a brief presentation on that.
David?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't finished yet. But I made
the motion and now I don't know how Fred Coyle's -- or
Commissioner Coyle's additions change what I just said.
So what I said was I wanted this to go to the Planning
Page 87
September 25-26, 2012
Commission. I believe -- you know, I have many, many questions and
I would like to go into shade session just to ask some of my questions.
At the same time, I do want to have the Planning Commission
thoroughly vet this subject and bring back their conclusions to us
before we move forward on any settlement or whatever we do. Did I
make that clear?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was it your motion or were you the
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe it was my motion, because
I said I wanted to motion right after they talked. And the second I
think was from Commissioner Coletta, right? Or was it Commissioner
Henning? I just heard a man's voice down there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- well, I was hoping that we could
have this in the shade and get some advice from counsel before you
made a final decision on how you'd like to proceed. But if that's your
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- your motion. There is a second.
So how would that motion affect the shade session, County
Attorney? At all?
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand you still want to go into the
shade. I mean, you know, I would think you'd want to go in the shade
and come out of the shade with a motion, quite frankly. This way you
don't bind yourselves now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I could do that. If you feel
that that's -- if that's guidance from you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Where you're going I think that's probably
the best way to go, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Then I --
MR. KLATZKOW: I also think you should --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- withdraw my motion.
Page 88
September 25-26, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: -- hear from Mr. David Weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion is pulled. And you'll have
the opportunity to make a motion later anyway.
So David, how much time are you going to take on that?
MR. WEEKS: How much do I have? Very brief,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forty-seven minutes.
MR. WEEKS: Very brief. I'll say maybe five minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Staff
Commissioners, you have two different sites, as has already been
pointed out to you. The Hussey property comprises 966 acres, and the
State Road 846 Land Trust comprises 2,576 acres.
At the broad level this is more or less a swap of Hussey lands
going from sending lands -- all of the Hussey property is designated as
sending, so it's in a very restricted status. All of the SR 846 Trust
lands are designate as receiving. So they have the most broad array of
uses and development opportunities available for them.
So at the broad scale, this is a proposal to take 945 acres of the
SR 846 Trust lands, change it from receiving to sending to put it into a
protected status, and then take -- from the Hussey site take 526 acres
of it and place it into receiving status so that it has the ability to do
earth mining and other intense development uses. And also for the
balance of the Hussey site, that's 440 acres, over half of that would
remain in sending lands in a protected status. Up to 115 acres of that
could be excavated.
So the net result is the county ends up with more sending lands
than it has today on the map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which means more protected lands.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
Page 89
September 25-26, 2012
I think it's important to point out that for the SR 846 Trust lands,
a part of the protected status of being designated sending, part of the
benefit of it being designated sending would be through that property
owner's utilization of our TDR program, Transfer of Development
Rights Program. Because some of that land that would be designated
as sending has been cleared in the past and contains active agricultural
fields. So a restoration of those lands would be necessary to truly
enjoy the benefit of that sending designation.
But there is an incentive for the property owner to do so because
post-excavation for the SR 846 Trust lands, if a residential
development is proposed, that landowner is going to need TDR credits
to enhance their development capability. If they don't use TDR
credits, they're limited to one dwelling unit per five acres, which is a
very small amount of development, relatively speaking.
I want to get into a little bit of the specifics, Commissioners, and
then I'll stop. Nick has already walked through the carrots, if you will,
the offers of the -- both of the different sites, what they would provide
to the county.
For the Hussey receiving lands, proposed receiving lands, 526
acres, they would be allowed to develop all receiving lands uses, just
as any other receiving lands within the rural fringe area would be
allowed. But they would also be allowed three uses by right that are
presently required to obtain conditional use approval.
Number one, excavation. Number two, asphalt and concrete
batch-making plants, which sometimes are located at an excavation
site so that you can do your processing on-site rather than transporting
the materials over to an industrial area and then do the processing.
And three, a recycling facility for concrete and construction debris.
And it's only fair that I point out that some of the receiving lands
in the North Belle Meade overlay already allow excavation by right --
or excuse me, without a conditional use approval, and allow for the
Page 90
September 25-26, 2012
asphalt batch-making plant without conditional use approval.
An excavation permit does still require a commercial excavation
permit. To do excavation, you'd have to have that. And that is a
public hearing process. But of course the perspective of that is more
technical in nature as opposed to a conditional use which is a land use
approval process.
For the Hussey proposed lands to remain as sending, 440 acres,
they would continue to be allowed to develop sending land uses, as
any other sending lands, except they would forego any residential
development and they would be allowed up to 115 acres of
excavation. And that excavation would not require conditional use
approval but still would require the excavation permit. And the 115 --
up to 115-acre excavation site would forego any TDR credits. That is,
only the sending lands that remain intact would be able to generate
TDR credits.
And also, the proposal is to extend the TDR early entry bonus by
three years.
Now move over to the SR 846 Trust lands, presently designated
receiving. 945 acres are proposed to be designated as sending lands.
The result of this will be extinguishing currently approved excavation
rights on 202 acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time?
MR. WEEKS: 202 acres that are presently approved for
excavation would have those rights extinguished, no longer able to
excavate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: David, can I just interrupt you for
a minute?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I see poor Commissioner
Fiala like feverishly taking notes. I mean, couldn't you make
photocopies and give what you're presenting to all of us so we can
Page 91
September 25-26, 2012
take it in with us?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, there's -- it would certainly
help. Because, you know --
MR. WEEKS: Certainly, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it's too much.
MR. WEEKS: And to give you a heads up, it's about three pages
total. The meat of it is probably more like two pages.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You would have had writer's
cramp.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like that; that would make it
so much easier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The bottom line, it would be a lot better
-- well, I mean, give us that information too. But can't you summarize
the net effect on protected property? Would we be getting more or
less?
MR. WEEKS: You would be getting more protected lands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And quantify that in some way for us for
our shade session.
MR. WEEKS: You would be getting more protected lands
acreage-wise. There is a difference in the habitat types. Though both
fall within panther habitat, I forget the term the federal government
has, panther protection zones I think is the term. Both of those fall
within that.
The Hussey property is of course within the North Belle Meade
area. There's a lot of other sending lands in that area, protected lands.
Then you get to the east of that is Golden Gate Estates, and then you
get to the Florida Panther Refuge and several other state and federal
conservation areas.
My point is that it has a connection -- through the Estates has a
connection to large, large areas of conservation areas.
Page 92
September 25-26, 2012
The SR 846 property up north of the Orange Tree area, close to
Corkscrew Sanctuary, also has that panther habitat zoned location.
But it is separated from the CREW Trust lands and Corkscrew
Sanctuary to the west and northwest by Immokalee Road. Point
being, it would require the panthers to cross an arterial roadway. And
there's certainly reason for concern about that, the viability of having
that area designated for protection for panther purposes.
But a benefit of the SR 846 Trust lands via the restoration that we
presume is going to happen for the purposes of gaining TDR credits,
the agreement provides that wading bird habitat would be created.
And I think we all know that Corkscrew Sanctuary is well known for
the wood stork nesting that occurs there, and that is a federally
endangered species. So there's certainly a benefit there.
So that's what I meant by different types of habitat, different
types of benefits, but they are -- overall there is an improvement or an
increase in the number of acres that will be protected.
Commissioners, I have a table which also I'll provide to you. It
provides both individually for each of the two sites, Hussey, SR 846
and globally, both combined, the impact on the number of dwelling
units, whether they go up or down through this agreement,
commercial acres, excavation acres, eligible TDR credits, and some
effort to address your specific question, Commissioner Coyle, about
preservation and restoration acres both with and without TDR usage.
That all may be helpful to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can that be also introduced as part
of the public record so anybody here who wants to review that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's all part of the public record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, let me just continue.
So that anyone here who wants to review it over lunch can look
at it, you know, before we come back after our shade session, if the
Page 93
September 25-26, 2012
public has any questions. Okay. Because I see a lot of people in the
audience that might have an interest.
MR. KLATZKOW: David, in just a broad general approach, are
we talking about a mitigation plan where we're allowing development
into one area and we're mitigating it in a different area?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: And in a broad generalization what we're
doing is we're training the ability to mine in the SR 846 down towards
the Hussey property. So we're simply exchanging one use for the
other for this mitigation?
MR. WEEKS: Also correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, that's the broad outline,
Commissioners.
And the purpose of the Planning Commission would be to go
back and vet the detail.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait. First, how many public
speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got six public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Six. We're going to have to move
quickly.
Are you finished, David?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else the staff has to put on
record?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to the public speakers and
let them have their say before we break for lunch.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is John Vega, and he'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. VEGA: Good morning, Commissioners.
Page 94
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Morning.
MR. VEGA: I've been before you twice before on this property,
each time on close votes, asking for the Hussey land to be reclassified.
And each time perhaps because of the nature of the manner I came
before you, once was under the rural fringe amendments where I
brought additional data regarding the hydrology and the geology of
the rock formations.
I wasn't offering anything, I was asking for something from you,
but I wasn't offering anything to the environment and I wasn't offering
anything to the county.
We're here today on a settlement proposal of a two-count
complaint. Count one, Burt Harris. Count 2 is a constitutionality
attack which allows us to be much more flexible in a proposed
settlement.
And as I listened to the Commission years ago, I heard two
primary concerns with what I was asking for, the environment and the
potential impact to the TDR program. We wanted to keep a balance to
the TDR program and we should not have a net loss to the
environment. And that at least in my mind, although the lawsuit has
been pending, has guided how I wanted to try to settle this, which
caused me to approach the State Road 846 Trust. The Husseys are
minority investors which allowed me the ability to speak to Don
Barber about the possibility of a swap. And originally to keep the
TDR's perfectly balanced we asked for it to be acre per acre.
And we retained Passarella and Associates, Andy Woodruff, he's
here today, and I said Andy, take these 2,600 acres and tell me -- find
the most environmentally sensitive lands, however many acres that is,
I don't particularly mind, and let me see if I can work a settlement
there. Just go and find what's important.
And he came back to me and he found 950 acres, 110 of which
are gopher tortoise habitat and another 850 are part of the Corkscrew
Page 95
September 25-26, 2012
watershed there, wading bird Habitat. They have an average wetland
score under the UMAM system of .67 which is 50 percent higher than
on the Husseys land, which is .42.
Also because as negotiations commenced we sort of shrunk the
amount of the Hussey acres that we're asking to be reclassified down
to a little over half, about 500, but we left the amount of acres that
we're going to place into preservation by two, the panther habitat units
are almost doubled.
And that leaves the Commission here with two doors to go
through. Door number one is settle, in which case it gains the wading
bird habitat, it gains a mile of right-of-way, it gains free fill for the
Wilson Boulevard extension, worth about 400,000. It gains fill at
cost, which is a savings of almost 2 million for the remainder of the
Wilson Boulevard extension. It gains rehydration ability through
these lakes because there's a pledge in here to cooperate with the
county and water management to help assist in the rehydration of the
North Belle Meade and the South Belle Meade. There are significant
environmental and practical benefits.
Door number two is none of those. Even leaving aside the
consequence of potentially losing the lawsuit, which Charlotte County
learned in the Rotunda case just this past June for $6.3 million.
Leaving that aside, the county gains none of those benefits if we
don't settle, and has the expense of defending this.
Door number three is before you today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nicole Johnson, and
she'll be followed by Roger Rice.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy.
We've only had a few days to review the settlement proposal but
we have many, many concerns with it. We did ask staff to send us a
Page 96
September 25-26, 2012
copy of their analysis, which you'll get copies of today for your
discussion, and we found that some of their analysis really was a bit
lacking, especially on the environmental assessment, which is
something that you had brought up. I wasn't prepared to give you
packets of information on this today, but I do have a couple of maps
because I think it is important that you at least understand some of the
environmental concerns and considerations.
Is this really a fair swap? Was the Hussey property
mis-designated as sending lands in the first place? Should the State
Road 846 Land Trust been designated as sending? And I will provide
this for you. I'll put it on the visualizer; it will be a little hard to see,
but I will send it with you.
Okay, first of all, for the Hussey property, and this is a portion of
it and then it extends to the north. But all of this land is considered
primary panther habitat. And if you can see the small red dots, those
are panther telemetry points. So this is a property where you have
panthers moving through it, across it. Panthers do utilize this lands.
Another reason why the Hussey property was designated as
sending is that it contains connectivity. From the east to the west,
those NRPA sending lands and sending lands to the east, if this is cut
off and mined, then you'd lose that connectivity. That was another
important point for why that was designated sending.
Also, the Hussey property is red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
And I don't believe that there's any RCW habitat that is on the State
Road 846 property.
This is a map of that property. And you can see it's in this area.
It has neutral lands to the north, Estates lands surrounding on this side,
Corkscrew Sanctuary is over here. It's mostly secondary panther
habitat, only a little bit is primary panther habitat. And it would
essentially create a corridor with no place to go for the panthers if they
did cross Immokalee Road to get to this area.
Page 97
September 25-26, 2012
So obviously we don't believe that this is environmentally a fair
comparable land swap. And therefore we concur with staff, this should
go to your Planning Commission, have them vet all of these issues.
We understand this is a very serious matter. You have to protect the
best interest of the public, of the citizens of Collier County, and we
want you to have the best information in front of you to do that and we
don't believe that you can do that today. So we appreciate the ability
to provide you with input before your closed door session and we ask
that you withhold recommendation of settlement until you send this to
the Planning Commission and then you can make your decision with
all that information in front of you. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Rice will be followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. RICE: Hello. Roger Rice. I'm an attorney, and I represent
the developers of City Gate, Commerce Park.
City Gate is an approved PUD/DRI of approximately 287 acres.
City Gate is a commercial industrial park and a vested DRI. City Gate
is in close proximity to the Hussey property and will likely be the
focus of the heavy truck traffic for many mining operations on the
Hussey's property as it connects to County Road 951 or Collier
Boulevard.
City objects to the proposed Hussey settlement. In raising this
objection, I note the letter of Attorney Richard Annunziata, which was
sent to the Board members yesterday and I ask that it be made part of
the record.
City Gate wants to make itself very clear, it does not object to the
Wilson Boulevard extension system as set forth in the Wilson
Boulevard extension corridor study. Such a system will be of great
benefit to the Golden Gate residents, existing uses, public service
providers such as the county's utility division and the landfill, as well
as City Gate.
City Gate also recognizes the public interest served by resolving
Page 98
September 25-26, 2012
this pending litigation and the limitation of the potential financial
exposure of the county. But City Gate is adamant that that does not
justify circumventing public review of a comp. plan change.
The review should include review of how to pay for a road
system that will not only accommodate the truck traffic from the
Hussey's future mining operation, but also the existing traffic such as
the county's lands fill and the county's South Collier Regional Water
Treatment Plant and vested projects like City Gate.
Sending this matter to the Planning Commission would be a start
in the right direction, but we urge that you do not approve this matter
until it has been properly vetted with the public -- excuse me, with the
Planning Commission.
I would also like to point out, I do not believe that the FLUE
provides that mining is a permitted use. I ask that -- I urge you to look
at the FLUE. It only provided that mining was a permitted use if
Florida Rock did certain things. All other people that were in the
receiving lands, like Section 20, it was a conditional use. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Payton will be followed by Don Barber.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
And the Florida Wildlife Federation, since it opened its office in
1994 has been involved in efforts to protect the environmental
integrity of North Belle Meade.
In the 1998 challenge by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, we were an intervener, along with Collier County Audubon
Society. That action, which we were successful in, result in the 1999
final order which said that Collier County had not been fulfilling its
Growth Management Plan obligations to protect wildlife habitat,
wetlands and wildlife itself.
As a result of that came the Rural Land Stewardship Area and
also the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The North Belle Meade
Page 99
September 25-26, 2012
overlay was the result of a settlement of that litigation and we were
one of the co-authors of the North Belle Meade overlay.
It was challenged by Dr. Hussey and others. It was upheld
through the administrative law process, and it's been upheld across the
way in the courthouse. And it's been upheld on environmental values
that the work that was done to identify that land as sending land was
valid and was upheld through the legal process.
I must say that we also were involved in the Burt Harris claim,
and we initially were involved in the settlements but had to walk away
because the environment was not getting its due.
Commissioner Coyle, there may be on a balance sheet more
acres, but as Ms. Ryan showed, the value between what we have now
and those sending lands does not -- the 846 does not rise to the value
of the sending lands that are being proposed to mine. And mining
does not enhance or restore North Belle Meade. And that's just
common sense.
Also, I'd like to point out that the current overlay does provide
many opportunities, including the wood storks up in the CREW area
can benefit.
When you go in the shade session and you come back out, we
wish you would clarify what you're specifically asking the Planning
Commission to do. Are they just to review and comment on the very
specific language that was in the package today? Do they have the
latitude to strike or rewrite settlement language, or make
recommendations on that? Can they recommend new provisions?
Can they recommend not signing and hanging tough in the courtroom?
Because there is no value in the settlement agreement from the broad
perspective.
And once you receive the CCPC -- I'm also done --
recommendations, then what? What is the process after that? Will
you just accept the settlement agreement, then pick and choose what
Page 100
September 25-26, 2012
the Planning Commission recommends? Or is there another process?
And lastly, we'd really like assurances that we're not, and other
folks that came today to testify, unwitting participants in a Kabuki
dance. This is really to get to the bottom of understanding what this
settlement agreement is about, or is this just motion rather than action.
Don't look amazed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know what a Kabuki dance is.
MS. PAYTON: Well, a Kabuki dance is actually motion but no
action because you already know the result. It's a political term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've never heard it, but that's all right.
Okay, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Don Barber, and he'll be
followed by Mary Pat Hussey.
MR. BARBER: I'll waive my time.
MR. MITCHELL: Then the next speaker is Mary Pat Hussey.
MS. HUSSEY: Well, now it's afternoon. Good afternoon.
I think all of you -- most of you who are involved in this
understand how long, how many months and years even that it's taken
us to get to this point.
I think a lot of the issues that were brought up I think we have
discussed in mediation talks. I think we have come up with a proposal
that we hoped would be a win/win situation for both the county and
ourselves.
I want to just request something actually that commissioner --
Chairman Coyle came up with. We're asking if you really feel that
this can be approved, we would be very happy to meet and work
things out with the Planning Commission. But it would be really so
helpful to my husband and my family to at least have your initial
approval based on what the Planning Commission comes back to say.
We have spent many, many anguished meetings and months.
This was our retirement. And at least it might give us a little peace to
Page 101
September 25-26, 2012
at least know that dependent upon what the Planning Commission
says we -- based on that maybe if they come back with no
recommendations and approve it, then we don't have to spend months
waiting to meet with you all again.
Certainly if they don't approve and there are certain issues, we
will come back to the table and present our issues again. But that's
just a simple request, and I hope that you will all consider it. Thank
you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then why don't we -- we have no
further business to deal with now.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think now is the time for the shade session,
sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I should mention that the copies of the
documents from David Weeks are in your conference room waiting
for you. And I've made additional copies that I've put on the table in
the hallway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who will be there to answer any
questions we might have?
MR. KLATZKOW: Unfortunately it's just going to be Mr. Ochs
and myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's my sandwich?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I need to ask a question on the
record before we go in --
MR. MITCHELL: It's on its way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --just a fast one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, just a moment.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. David, you had said that we
would be gaining acres into -- for the environment rather than losing
Page 102
September 25-26, 2012
them. But I have a problem understanding if the sending acres are
now going to become receiving how are we gaining? I don't
understand.
MR. WEEKS: The Hussey property will be -- a portion of it will
be converted from sending to receiving. So that's where you're losing.
But up at the SR 846 Trust site, a greater number of acres are being
converted from receiving to sending. That's the difference. More
sending being created up at the other site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're going to break for
lunch. We'll be back here at 1 :18. Make it 1 :20. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we make it 1 :30? It's a
rounder number.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need it 1 :30?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, let's make it 1 :30.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just for the record, I have to make the
following announcements. You don't need to be at the dais while I do
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I want to hear it myself.
Go ahead. But let's decide upon the time to be back here. It looks like
1 :30 might be better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back here at 1 :30. Go ahead.
Item #12B
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, PURSUANT TO SECTION
286.011(8), FLA. STAT., THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DESIRES
ADVICE FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION ON TUESDAY,
Page 103
September 25-26, 2012
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012. THE SESSION WILL BE HELD AT A
TIME CERTAIN OF 12:00 NOON, IN THE COMMISSION'S
OFFICE CONFERENCE ROOM, 3RD FLOOR, W. HARMON
TURNER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING F, COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA. IN ADDITION TO BOARD MEMBERS,
COUNTY MANAGER LEO OCHS, AND COUNTY ATTORNEY
JEFFREY KLATZKOW WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE. THE
BOARD IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS:
STRATEGY SESSION RELATED TO SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE
PENDING CASES OF: FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., ET AL. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL CASE NO. 2D 11-1224; SEAN HUSSEY, ET AL. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-1223 - CLOSED SESSION
MR. KLATZKOW: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to
Section 286.011.A, Florida Statutes, the County Attorney is desiring
the advice of the Board of County Commissioners in a closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday, September 25th. The session will
be held immediately proceeding following this notice in the
Commissioners' office conference room, third floor of this building.
In addition to the Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs
and myself will be in attendance. And the Board, in this closed
executive session, will discuss a strategy session related to the
settlement negotiations, litigation expenditures in the pending case of
Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al, versus Collier County, et al, Second
District Court of Appeals Case No. 2D11-2024 and Sean Hussey, et
al, versus Collier County, et al, Second District Court of Appeals,
Case No. 2D11-1223.
Page 104
September 25-26, 2012
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session now.
Where are we going now?
Item #12C
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASES OF: FRANCIS D.
HUSSEY, JR., ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D 11-1224; SEAN
HUSSEY, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-1223 -
MOTION TO SEND TO CCPC FOR REVIEW WITH NO
LIMITATIONS ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS —
APPROVED
MR. KLATZKOW: We're out of our shade session. We're now
seeking direction from the Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion.
The statement is the Board has a strong interest in settling this lawsuit.
However, we think it's in the best interest of the citizens and the Board
of Commissioners that -- to send this down to the Planning
Commission for their full review of the settlement proposal, since it
deals with a lot of land use. However, we don't want to limit the
Planning Commission on the recommendations with coming -- their
recommendation coming back different than what the settlement
proposal states.
Page 105
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning. It's been stated clearly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have some public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes, we do, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought we got that finished, all the
public speakers for this before we broke.
MR. MITCHELL: No, this is -- well, this is --
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't do public speaking on this. I
mean, that was the point of the prior.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's a unanimous vote.
Okay, where do we go from here?
Item #10I
Page 106
September 25-26, 2012
UPDATE ON THE RESTORE ACT MEETING HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 - COMMISSIONER FIALA - MOTION
FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH CONSORTIUM — APPROVED; MOTION
TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER FIALA AS PRIMARY
REPRESENTATIVE AND SECONDARY PERSON TO BE
RECOMMENDED BY COUNTY MANAGER — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We go to Item 10.I on your agenda; it was a 1 :05
time certain. 10.I is to give the Board of County Commissioners an
update on the RESTORE Act meeting held on September 19th, 2012
by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
First of all, Board members, I do appreciate you allowing me to
go up there and represent Collier County. I'm proud to tell you that
there are 23 counties that are affected by this Act, and all 23, 100
percent, were there and represented. And we were one of those 23.
There were eight counties that are deeply impacted by this. They
were all there as well. And today with us we have Doug Darling and
John Wayne Smith, and I'm going to ask them to get up shortly.
Commissioners, I don't know if you received my minutes or not
from the meeting. If you didn't, that's -- we should have sent them to
everyone. But if we are sending minutes out, then not only my
minutes but we also had minutes taken from Debbie White and from --
well, the FAC had minutes and they sent them out. Didn't you send
them out Friday?
MR. DARLING: Not yet, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not yet? Okay, fine.
So we've got minutes coming then from Florida Association of
Counties.
So I had minutes, my aide Alexandra had minutes and also
Page 107
September 25-26, 2012
Debbie White had minutes. And if you have not received them, I do
apologize. In fact, I have one in front of me that I can pass -- I'll pass
to my right. And I will make sure that you get the rest of them. I'll
ask Alex to send them out today.
The main gist of this entire meeting was first of all how it will
affect those counties within the State of Florida, the 23 counties. And
that -- we're talking about the oil spill, okay, and the effects of the oil
spill and what effects it had on these 23 coastal counties. Some of the
counties there expressed a problem, especially I think it was Franklin
County who said that their oyster business is almost dead because they
can't get the oysters back.
Another person stated, and this was from an environmental
group, stated that the snapper were not hatching new babies this year
and that will deeply affect the fishing communities. Another one was
stating that the shrimp community will also be felt.
And these are all direct -- in direct relation to the oil spill.
The main theme of the entire meeting that day was that we must
be united, we must work together on behalf of not only our county but
all of the counties in the State of Florida.
One of the things that came to light was there were five other
states that are also affected by the oil spill. Interestingly enough,
those five are all being handled through their state government. In our
state we want to handle it through the Florida Association of Counties
and through the counties. We want to be in charge of how the money
is distributed, and make sure that it gets to the counties that are in
most need, the counties that are suffering the greatest. And we've put
together percentages and so forth.
But first, commissioners, we need your agreement to move
forward with a consolidated effort. And with that, please let me
introduce John Wayne Smith.
I don't know why we always say your whole name. It could just
Page 108
September 25-26, 2012
be John Smith, right?
MR. SMITH: Depends on where you're from. In North Florida
everybody has two first names.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The further north you get the further
southern you are, right?
MR. SMITH: Exactly. I have the dual mistake of also being
born from North Carolina, and I think everybody there has two first
names as well.
Thank you again, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, folks from
Collier County. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. For the record,
my name is John Wayne Smith. I've worked with the People's law
firm. I am acting as the consultant for the Florida Association of
Counties on the RESTORE Act. And prior to starting with the
People's Firm, I was the legislative director for the Florida Association
of Counties. So I have a little bit of an overlap in terms of when I was
working on the RESTORE Act in Washington versus what role I'm
playing today.
Commissioner Fiala did a great job of kind of describing what we
were trying to do last week and why we had invited all of the counties
to be at this meeting. We are delighted and thank Collier County for
being there. We want every county to feel like that they're all getting
the same information.
What I typically try to do is just set the table. I think most of the
counties have gotten the basic introduction on the RESTORE Act and
kind of understand the nuances of the different pots. What I like to try
to do is to try to set up what we think are the reasons why Collier
County and other counties would want to consider coming together as
a group. And I set that table.
And then Doug is going to talk to you about the mechanism or
the consortium concept of which we put on the table for counties to
consider as the way to implement this RESTORE Act. Does that work
Page 109
September 25-26, 2012
for everyone, Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. SMITH: All right, thank you, sir.
And I'm going to blast through a couple of things. But one of the
things that I just -- I like to put out there on the table, because some
folks do get confused between OPA and OPA Policy versus Clean
Water Act Policy. The distinction is from my way of describing this
in a very simplistic layman's term, OPA, which is the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 is a policy of making things whole. So if you're the
responsible party in an oil spill or whatnot, in this case it was BP.
And there are debates and some legal things going on about some of
the other entities, private entities that may have been involved.
But the OPA Policy is about replacing or putting back what is
wrong. The Clean Water Act is a penalty mechanism on polluters.
And prior to the RESTORE Act being passed, the policy would
have been because of the BP oil spill that the federal government
would receive what we would call a windfall of dollars. Because they
are set to impose penalties per barrel from $1,000 to 4,000.
Everyone who evaluated and looked at this issue said that just
didn't seem right, it didn't pass the smell test. Why should the federal
government get the windfall when these other five states and these
communities that rim the Gulf of Mexico not get any benefit.
So the concept of RESTORE centered around my first slide,
which is a trust fund that is created especially for this purpose and it
established a policy where 80 percent of the penalties, the
administrative and civil penalties, are going to go into this trust fund
and will be utilized by the five states and the mechanisms that they
choose to have an environmental or an economic restoration plan. And
that's the fundamental principle and the basic framework of the
RESTORE Act.
Now, why have we have talking to counties and why we've been
Page 110
September 25-26, 2012
talking about the consortium concept and why we've been pushing
softly, but we have been pushing, and encouraging counties to get
organized sooner rather than later is you will see that the U.S.
Treasury is going to be responsible for developing the rules and the
procedures and the guidelines for which the different states and in our
case counties are going to work in this framework.
That 180-day deadline is going to set many of the parameters and
those rules that will affect how you spend your county money and
potentially how the consortium would work with the other dollars that
the 23 counties are going to work on together.
We think that Florida should be at that table and we would like to
speak for you on behalf of all 23 counties. We don't think that we can
do that if we don't have everyone at the table and if we don't get
organized. So there are some deadlines looming that we're
encouraging folks to pay attention to. And we think that by getting us
organized that we can help participate in that process.
The thing that I point out to every county every time I get to visit,
and certainly if you get the chance to thank your delegation or our
U.S. senator, Senator Rubio, Senator Nelson. We worked very closely
with Congressman Miller and Mr. Southerland up in the Panhandle on
this issue. But there was another policy that I think was especially
beneficial to Florida and to our counties and that our delegation
wanted to see, the local communities at the table making these
decisions. And looking at the definition, you will see that the
definition of coastal political subdivision is what the Florida model is
built and framed around. A county that has a coastline contiguous to
the Gulf.
So we like to point that out. We also like to remind folks, if you
get the chance to see your delegation, thank them for that. Because
that's kind of an unprecedented policy to come out of Washington to
make sure that the dollars flow to the local communities.
Page 111
September 25-26, 2012
There's three pots. I'm going to kind of skip over those, but I'm
going to focus on this oil spill restoration impact allocation. This is
one of the three big pots. I'm not here to talk to you about what we
call the county pot where each county gets some on an individual
basis. What I want to kind of set the table for is a 30 percent pot that
is distributed by a formula amongst the five states. You can see that
the formula is in there, it's weighted, it's 40 percent based on oiling, 40
percent based on a distance from the spill and 20 percent from
population.
In the Florida model, while we estimate that the State of Florida
will get 19 to 20 percent of that 30 percent, or if you're a real
mathematician, that's about six percent of the total, what it refers to is
a consortium and it says that at a minimum they will have a
representative from each of the affected counties. And we are using
the coastal political subdivision definition and we're recognizing every
county from Escambia that is contiguous to the Gulf all the way
around what I call the armpit underneath, coming around Jefferson all
the way down the coastline, all the way down to Monroe; Collier
being one of those. And all 23 of those we believe meet the definition
and should be involved based on the RESTORE Act language as part
of this consortium.
And because no one else has kind of taken the lead in terms of
getting this group organized because there's been so much work that
has been done and because of the deadlines that we've kind of
identified, we have suggested to counties that they use their own
powers under Chapter 163 to create this entity, to get organized and to
begin to lay the framework for an organizational structure to develop
the plan, to make decisions, to prioritize projects. And if the state or
the Governor or anyone else wants to catch up and play, they can. But
no one should just be sitting on the sidelines or just letting this issue
just sit there because of the importance of these issues, and we think
Page 112
September 25-26, 2012
that Florida needs to be at the table.
Our model is a little unique, Mr. Chairman, but, you know, we
asked for it to be this way. We asked for the local input. We asked
that counties be at the table and to be in a leadership position.
Because we asked that, it does mean that we have more work to
do, but we all think it's good work. But a lot of the counties that were
below Jefferson down weren't in some of the lobbying, so it's a little
bit new and it's a little bit fresh to some of the other counties, if you
weren't involved in the lobbying effort. And that's why we're spending
our time coming to you and trying to answer any questions.
So that's just our setup. Doug is going to come up here and talk a
little bit more about the interlocal agreement, how it fits with Chapter
163 and what the counties can expect and what we're trying to set up
for later in October. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Yes, that's fine.
MR. SMITH: Okay, thank you.
MR. DARLING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners and staff. For the record, my name is Doug Darling.
I'm a consultant with the Florida Association of Counties.
Prior to being retained by the Florida Association of Counties I
was the executive director for the state's new Department of Economic
Opportunity. And before that I was the Chief of Staff at the
Department of Environmental Protection during the oil spill. So I have
a little bit of background in this whole thing.
But I really would like to give kudos to John Wayne Smith and
the rest of the Florida Association of County members who were so
instrumental in getting this RESTORE Act passed. Because without
that we wouldn't be having this discussion today the way we're going
to have it, it would be more of a discussion about okay, the state's
getting the money, what can we do to get some of that.
As John Wayne said, the RESTORE Act created a unique
Page 113
September 25-26, 2012
situation in Florida. And when I say unique, just to kind of draw a
parallel, the other four states -- and to be clear, it's Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. The other four states all have
permanently established entities. Some of them like in Alabama has
an entire department underneath the Governor's office that does
nothing but deal with -- that has dealt with the oil spill and the
restoration. And they are named in the RESTORE Act as the entity
that will be responsible for implementing the RESTORE Act in
Alabama.
In Florida, as John Wayne described, it lists the affected counties
and requires those counties to come together and form a consortium to
handle the RESTORE Act.
So one of the assumptions we've made at FAC is that once a
consortium is formed, it will be the legal entity that is responsible for
implementing the RESTORE Act in Florida. And once that happens,
FAC will transition out or fade into the background and be in a
supporting role.
The other thing that we have tried to do, as John Wayne said, is
push softly, is that because of the deadlines associated -- the
RESTORE Act was signed on or about July the 2nd or 3rd of this year
-- there's a 180-day time frame, that the first initial plan and rules and
procedures have to be done 180 days after that bill was signed.
So we're looking at the beginning of January of 2013 for the
federal council to be up and running, for the U.S. Treasury to develop
rules that will impact how the consortium in Florida operates and
under what policies.
We have asked counties to consider joining a consortium and
forming a consortium by October 1st. That will give the consortium
three months to kind of get its act together and become a full-time
player in doing the RESTORE Act.
FAC's participation in this is not without precedent. I'm sure you
Page 114
September 25-26, 2012
have heard or maybe you even participated in the Medicaid issue that
happened this last year. And it's come to I believe a fairly justifiable
and reasonable solution. Several counties still are trying to go forward
with litigation. But for the most part, FAC was a facilitator in getting
some common sense infused into the decision-making on the
Medicaid bills. And also the stimulus money, FAC was also involved
in that. And during those times FAC asked the counties, its members,
to participate in a financial way to support that effort.
The same request is being made now. We believe that once this
consortium is up and running, that FAC's requirements both
financially and also for any other needs will diminish and eventually
will respond to the consortium in a supporting role.
As part of the financial support for the consortium, I want to go
over just a few things about where we are right now and what it means
and what it doesn't mean.
We are proposing a transition budget for FAC to transition into
the consortium. That transition budget is not a bill for developing the
interlocal agreement that hopefully your County Attorney has been
involved and we've mitigated all the concerns and questions prior to
you having it for consideration. The transition budget is also not a fee
for joining the consortium. And it is also most importantly not the
Gulf consortium budget. It's simply a bridge to get from where we
were and where we are to where we want to go.
Here's what the budget really is, the transition budget now:
There have been some out-of-pocket expenditures for FAC, and it's to
continue this lobbying effort. I know John Wayne talked about the
U.S. Treasury and how important they're going to be. We've had an
initial conference call with them and they are on an extremely tight
deadline also. In order to meet that 180 days, they have to publish
their rules in the Federal Register in the middle of November. They
have to coordinate with their fellow federal agencies by the middle of
Page 115
September 25-26, 2012
October.
So that means our consortium, our Florida counties has between
now and October, the middle of October sometime, to get items in the
proposed rules on how the consortium is going to operate. We believe
that the consortium will be subject to Chapter 119, all consortium
meetings will be public, they will be open to the sunshine, they will be
noticed appropriately, but they also are going to have to follow federal
rules when it comes to things like procurement, when it comes to
things like involving other stakeholder groups, when it comes to
things like procurement policies.
All of these things the Treasury has to develop, and we believe
that Florida, because of its unique situation, needs to form this
consortium and speak with one voice to the federal government so
they don't hear all this noise going on and that we can potentially
influence the rules, the policies and the procedures to most benefit
Florida.
We're going to continue that lobbying effort between now and
whenever the consortium is formed, and we're going to provide that
continuity just like we have today, just like we've done in other
counties, the continuity for our members to make sure that all of their
questions are answered and do anything else we need to do to make
this consortium successful.
It's a very modest proposed transition budget. And most
importantly about that transition budget is any money that is not used
by FAC once the consortium is up and running will be withdrawn
from FAC and given over to the consortium.
The funding formula or the allocation for the funding used the
same structure as what is in the RESTORE Act. Seventy-five percent
of the money going to the local pot of money is going to the eight
counties, the eight disproportionally affected counties; that's Escambia
up through Wakulla. Twenty-five percent of the money is going from
Page 116
September 25-26, 2012
Jefferson down to Monroe.
So we believed it was only fair that the counties that received the
most money from the RESTORE Act would bear the most burden for
funding this transition budget. It will be up to the consortium to
determine how their budget is formed. I would imagine that this
would be the same methodology.
But in the case of Collier County, your bill or your allocation
right now for the transition budget is $1,120. That's projected to get
us through the end of this calendar year, through the end of December.
So the next steps that we're asking counties such as Collier to
consider is to review the interlocal agreement that was drafted with the
help of your County Attorney and the other county attorneys, bring it
before a commission meeting, pass a resolution authorizing your
county to enter into that agreement, designate one commission
member and one delegate -- or one alternative to represent this county
at a consortium meeting, and participate in the funding of the
transition budget and move forward.
So that's kind of a real quick overview of what the consortium is
going to do, what we expect to happen and kind of the time frame.
John Wayne and I are both available if there are any questions, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The concern at the last meeting
when this topic was brought up is about the governing document of
the consortium members and the powers that it wield. And I really
never seen anything -- something like this, a membership should --
there should be something in writing stating how fast they can do
away with the consortium. There wasn't anything there.
It almost appears, and I don't -- I'm not saying this is the way it
was set up -- it was setting up a long-term bureaucracy. And what it
should say is, you know, have -- either having an ending date for the
Page 117
September 25-26, 2012
consortium or goals and objectives. Okay? That's all I have.
MR. DARLING: May I respond, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
MR. DARLING: Commissioner, the reason there is no end date
is because the federal trust fund is in perpetuity until the funds are
exhausted. So without any kind of definitive end date for the funds
that will flow from B.P. -- and again, we don't know yet when they'll
start or when they'll end. They are still litigating the Exxon Valdez
spill that happened over 20 years ago. Funds are still being paid out.
So to address your concern about no end date, I believe that's the
rationale for that.
As far as setting up a bureaucracy, I don't have anything to do
with the consortium yet. I've been asked to potentially consider being
involved with the consortium. But if it were my recommendation, I
would say that the consortium would not hire a bunch of employees, it
would not bring on overhead that will have a lasting effect.
My recommendation would be if you need legal support, you buy
it and let it go. You don't need attorneys on staff, you don't need web
developers on staff. You don't need exactly what I think you're
talking about, which is a bureaucracy. Lean and mean would be my
recommendation to allow the consortium to funnel the majority of the
money to the counties and to the plans and to the projects for which I
believe it was intended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, shouldn't the governing
document state the objectives, goals and objectives like you're stating,
lean and mean, only hire, you know, legal staff or any other staff as
needed? Shouldn't that say something like that?
MR. DARLING: Yes, sir. And I believe it will. This is almost
-- this is almost like the chicken and the egg. You can't have those
kind of discussions in a public forum as a consortium until you have a
consortium. The idea of the interlocal agreement was to provide the
Page 118
September 25-26, 2012
basic framework to join together, and I believe that at the initial
meetings those very exact things that you're asking about will be
discussed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's a document that kind
of lays out their -- it's our governing document. It was on our last
agenda. And Jack Wert is not here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have it here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'll defer to
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do have the document.
And the document provides exactly for what Commissioner Henning
says it provides for, and very much the opposite of what you're
proposing as what ought to be the structure. It talks, under powers and
duties under Article 4 to obviously maintain offices and so forth --
where is it -- to select and engage a manager who will administer the
consortium, manage staff of the consortium authorized by the Board,
perform all administrative duties as directed by the Board, to employ
or hire attorneys or firms of attorneys as appropriate, to provide legal
advice for the consortium, to employ or hire engineers, consultants or
other specialized professionals.
I mean, it just goes on and on and on. And I don't want to read
everything that's in here. To hire and engage staff, attorneys,
professionals, to advocate, et cetera, et cetera. To hire and engage
staff attorneys, to advocate again on another issue.
This builds a tremendous bureaucracy. This -- and I'm going to
introduce it in the record again so that anyone who's listening to
today's discussion can see it as a part of the minutes. The interlocal
agreement supports a bureaucracy.
Page 119
September 25-26, 2012
Now, one of my concerns -- and that is just to help you with your
point, Commissioner Henning.
One of the things that concerned me what I read Commissioner
Fiala's notes -- and thank you very much for pulling them together;
they were very well detailed -- is what appears on Page 2. And what it
says is as follows: Legally nothing stops the state from forming their
own consortium and taking over.
And then Alex, whoever Alex is, says legislature can form own
group, no guarantee they won't interfere. Question was asked, how do
the public or outsiders get involved, and that would be up to the
consortium.
So I see two issues here. One is that it seems to me that taking all
these steps when the state can step in and either create its own
consortium or take this consortium over leaves me concerned as to
what we are agreeing to by participating in this interlocal agreement
and what that might mean down the road vis-a-vis any state action.
And secondly, what about the public? You know, I understand
that we're representatives, but I think that there should be some seat at
the table for, you know, a representative of the public as well. Two
important points that I think need to be addressed out of her notes.
The last point I want to make is what you raised about the
budget. I think before we can approve anything, the prudent thing for
us to do as a Board is to review the numbers. And we just don't have
the numbers. We don't have any financial information. We have no
financial information about the consortium structure and we have no
financial information about this settlement and how this decision has
been made that certain counties are going to get 75 percent and 15
counties are only going to get 25 percent. I mean, there might be, you
know, disagreements and debates about those allocations. Maybe by
signing this interlocal agreement we as Collier County are giving up a
share of this pot that we might otherwise be legally entitled to. And I
Page 120
September 25-26, 2012
wouldn't want to see the businesses and citizens of Collier County
who have been adversely affected by this oil spill hurt because we've
entered into some kind of agreement.
So those are the three points that I would like to make and I
would appreciate your input.
MR. DARLING: Mr. Chair?
If I could, Commissioner, I've pulled up on the slide -- or on the
screen, since I'm kind of a visually oriented person. I want to make
sure we're talking all about the same pot of money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And this was explained to
us at the last meeting. Staff gave us the same presentation with the
same diagram. So I think we understand what pot we're talking about.
MR. DARLING: But just to be clear, the pot all the way on the
left, the consortium does not control that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, we understand that.
MR. DARLING: The fines and the penalties --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. DARLING: -- will determine how much Collier gets in that
pot of money.
The pot of money we're talking about is the one in the middle,
the 30 percent, which the State of Florida gets to -- also allocated.
There's a set amount of money that will be determined by the formula.
And then how that money is spent within the consortium or within the
State of Florida is what we are asking the consortium to consider.
So the consortium has no say over the money that comes to
Collier County that will be adjudicated by this Board. Nothing, zero,
nada.
What we do believe is that to position Collier County and the rest
of the counties, that will be a plan developed for the economic and
environmental restoration for the entire Gulf Coast.
And as far as public input, it's required in the RESTORE Act that
Page 121
September 25-26, 2012
there be public meetings, that there be public input, that stakeholders
will get a say in what the consortium will propose to the federal
council for that economic and environmental restoration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But can we go back to that 75/25
percent split vis-a-vis the counties within Florida --
MR. DARLING: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as it relates to this pot?
Again, you know, somehow someone has made the determination
that, you know, certain counties are going to get a larger percentage of
that pot. And we being a part of the larger group is going to only get a
sliver of the minority pot.
So how did that -- how was that determination made?
MR. SMITH: Well, the only 75/25 that is in play right now
applies to the 35 percent pot, which is distributed to the counties.
There are other folks who are discussing whether or not a state law,
which is Senate Bill 2156, which anticipated some dollars coming to
the state be split on a 75/25 split.
What you have in front of you is a document that is silent. We
predetermined or discussed with other folks to say that should not be
in this document. What we have suggested to the counties is you
create the consortium, everybody come to the table and we'll have to
have that discussion whether or not it will be based on percentages or
programs or projects or priorities.
But for purposes of establishing the consortium we believed and
our recommendation to the counties is that we would be silent on any
further allocations other than what's already in the federal RESTORE
Act.
Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I must have misunderstood
what you said earlier. Because what I understood you said earlier is
that you reviewed the 75/25 allocation and that per your review you
Page 122
September 25-26, 2012
thought it was reasonable, and that the counties that were allocated to,
you know, the 75 percent pot --
MR. SMITH: On the transition budget?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
MR. SMITH: Okay. The rationale for that, Commissioner, was
the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I assume that that would be
the basis of the future budget. I mean --
MR. SMITH: No, ma'am. I'm sorry if we inferred that. What I
think we were trying to say in that situation is there's hard dollars that
are coming to the counties that are basically guaranteed under a
formula. They are based on a formula that recognizes eight counties
as disproportionately impacted --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the 35 percent. But I want
to just stay focused on the --
MR. SMITH: Yeah, but that is where the transition budget kind
of came from, that allocation, because those are hard dollars. The
consortium dollars, there's been no discussion about how those should
be distributed, again whether it's 75/25, whether you just put it all on
the table for projects. Those decisions will not be made until a
consortium comes together and we have meetings and we begin to
discuss the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can we go back to the question
of the state? Because that's the one that really concerns me the most.
I just don't understand how we can be jumping ahead of the state and
assuming that the state isn't going to, you know, come up behind us
and just really undo all of this. And so I'm concerned about the
validity of these contracts.
MR. SMITH: It's a fair question. We have -- there's a lot of
history that goes into the RESTORE Act. And at different points in
times the amount of partnership or engagement that we have had from
Page 123
September 25-26, 2012
the state -- and understand that my simplistic view of why we stand
where we are today is that there were eight counties in the Panhandle
that pulled their hair out ever since April 20th, 2010. And it was
because they had to go do things with the booming strategy and deal
with B.P. on claims. Just over and over and over. And so that
synergy and that chemistry of that eight led to a joint effort to go to
Washington with parishioners and presidents of Louisiana parishes
and supervisors from Mississippi. And they all went to Washington to
ask for this to pass.
People at the state level and different -- I can't speak for what
they were doing, but they weren't paying attention and they weren't
part of the effort on a continuous consistent basis. And we did have at
different times discussions about how we could have a different
relationship or partnership. But at the end of the day our
congressional delegation took a very strong position that they wanted
it to be set up this way.
Now, even though they passed it this way, we made a
commitment to everyone who was involved that we would continue
talking to the Governor's office and anyone else who wanted to be at
the table.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what has the Governor said
about this?
MR. SMITH: Well, he's still thinking about it. You may read a
little bit of some of the things that are happening in Tallahassee, but he
has a new chief of staff. He's going through reorgs. Adam's been
trying to put the pieces together where he wants everybody to be.
We met with Adam, the Chief of Staff, Adam Hollingsworth and
Chris Finkbeiner I want to say three or four weeks ago. We put this
out; we went back to just say hey, look, when you guys know what
you want to do we want to get back together. We reached out to them
before our meeting last week to kind of see where they were. They
Page 124
September 25-26, 2012
said they still need some more time.
So we believe that at some point in the future they're going to
kind of know what role they want to play. We know that they've
appointed someone to be the Governor's designee on the federal
council. But right now they're not in a rush and they don't have the
urgency. It would -- I don't tell the Governor what to do. You know,
we certainly speak on behalf of counties and we've said that we think
this is a really important thing and that we would like you to be there.
But what we've also said is that we're not going to stop doing what
we're doing, because we think that this effort is so important that is
someone needs to continue keeping this ball moving. And then when
they figure it out, we'll all come back together and we'll figure out if
the Governor wants to have a seat or if he wants to appoint some
folks. We'll continue to have those discussion.
But in the meantime what our advice to counties and to the folks
that are affected is don't wait to see because that answer may be John
or Chris or counties. That's -- we've got some other priorities. So then
all this time is gone and no one's willing to kind of set it up.
So that's what we've suggested. That's a very long answer, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. DARLING: -- it's the most truthful answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I appreciate it, John Wayne. I
thank you so much. You know, maybe it would make most since,
since you've just recently been in touch with the Governor's office and
it's -- you know, a lot of time really has not elapsed in sort of
government standard terms.
MR. DARLING: Yes, true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the expression, going as
fast as a turtle with broken legs?
So maybe it would be more prudent to wait and give you the
opportunity to talk to the Governor and bring back something that,
Page 125
September 25-26, 2012
you know, we know is not going to get overturned or that is going to
be subject to some sort of unpleasant challenge. Because obviously
your goal is the right one and that is for everyone to work together.
And to the extent I'm sure you have close connections with the
Governor's office, being that you've been an active lobbyist, I would
hope that you could maybe make that connection and let us know.
Because I think entering into any agreement which is subject to being,
you know, challenged makes no sense. I would hate to be on the other
end of a challenge. That would be my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what is it you want from
us today?
MR. SMITH: Well, what we're recommending to counties is that
as soon as they can, because I think we're going to try to meet October
the 22nd as a date that we've been throwing around, we'd like to see
counties adopt the interlocal agreement which I think lets you come
play in the consortium, select your leadership team. We've suggested
each county pick a commissioner. We've always encouraged pick
someone elected, have an alternate for someone if that person can't be
there. And then I guess to look at the transition budget to see if you
can participate there as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So basically what we're talking
about is bringing this back at a future date, have staff examine it to be
able to bring it back, and I don't know if you need a motion to that
effect or just a nod, but I'd like us to give consideration. Donna Fiala
has shown an interest in this particular subject matter and if she could
avail herself of the time to be able to go to it I think she would be the
logical one to be able to follow through on this.
We're not going to go anyplace with it unless we get involved.
We can always make up a decision later that if it's going terribly
wrong or we don't feel comfortable with it, just to drop to one side.
Page 126
September 25-26, 2012
But I think that we ought to give direction to staff at this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask -- that's a good point.
But what is the -- can I just ask Commissioner Coletta a question? He
raised an excellent point and that is if you do enter this agreement,
how can you drop out?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You haven't got to the point of
approving any agreement yet.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a drop-out provision.
MR. SMITH: We made it very easy to get out.
And Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Henning asked a very good
question about the bureaucracy. And I don't like government
documents, but I have to read a bunch. And I'm not an attorney,
Commissioner, but my understanding of why you see all that
language, certainly part of it is because an attorney wrote it.
But in order for you to do anything, these are your empowering
documents. So for you to have any action, I'm sure the attorney that
sat down and wrote this probably had to think of everything that you
possibly could have to ever vote on or do, and so what they do is they
end up writing all of those things down. It doesn't mean that you will
do them all. But in order for you to have that power, like
incorporation papers for a city or a business entity, someone has to
write all that stuff down. I know it looks probably maybe worse on
paper than it will actually be. But that's my non-legal explanation as
to why they have to write all that verbiage down. But again, I only
play a lawyer on TV when I watch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so you need an answer
from us when?
MR. SMITH: It's up to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You said October.
MR. SMITH: We've set some self-made deadlines,
Commissioner, because we want to keep the ball moving. Every
Page 127
September 25-26, 2012
county's got to evaluate this issue on their own --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what I'm going to suggest
is that the Commissioners give their nods to the County Manager to
direct staff to go over this and bring it back for the second meeting in
October with some suggested action items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You need it by -- the meeting is
going to held October 22nd, right?
MR. SMITH: We are shooting for that, yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will that give us time to get
somebody appointed and be a part of that? I don't know when our
second meeting is.
MR. OCHS: It's the 23rd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That doesn't work. I'll make a --
how about we just go ahead and just start the process going? We
always have the option to drop out. And recognize that Donna Fiala's
service in this is absolutely crucial and have her go to the meeting on
the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to do that. And they also
made it very clear at the last meeting that it's very easy to drop out.
All you have to do is drop them a note and you're out. So it isn't like
it's a binding thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have agreement from
three commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, if I could help you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go to Commissioner
Henning and then we're not going to have any more discussion, okay?
We're going to make a decision.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's a direction. And the
direction needs to be in the form of a motion and it needs to be
directed to the County Attorney, because he's going to draw up an
Page 128
September 25-26, 2012
interlocal agreement. Okay? That's where the direction should be.
So I'm going to make a motion to direct the County Attorney to
draw up an interlocal agreement with the consortium, okay?
Personally I would like to see in that interlocal agreement to
encourage the consortium to adopt rules to make it more lean and
mean, as it was discussed here.
And furthermore, in that executive summary we need to have a
representation -- it's being suggested to have two -- representation a
member and an alternate; is that correct? You don't want two, you just
want a member and an alternate if that member cannot make it.
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: John, is there any issue if I bring this to the
Board October 23rd?
MR. SMITH: No, sir. What I would suggest, though, because
we want to keep everybody in the loop, is still informally send
someone to that meeting. Because we want -- we think we need --
every county needs to get there in their own comfortable way. That
time period may be different for everyone. If we need to come back,
if we need to make some modifications, we will, but we need every
county to be comfortable. But that's not going to make or break the
deal, you know, if you're not there. It only takes two to actually have
a consortium, so we're going to keep gradually moving the ball.
But we would love to have Collier County get with us when that
time is right, and we'll continue to work and to answer every question
that any of the Commissioners may have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say that we have
meetings before this meeting. I think we have two. At least one, we
have a meeting --
MR. OCHS: October 9th is your next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So, however, if I may
say, the more members that we have in this, the less chance of the
Page 129
September 25-26, 2012
state taking it over. And if they're going to do that, they're probably
going to do it before we get any money anyways. Monies coming
from the fed --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they'll do it afterwards and take the
money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Monies coming from the federal
government doesn't happen any time soon. And then they change
their mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I've heard a motion to direct the
County Attorney to draft a joint participation agreement. But I haven't
heard a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so seconded by Commissioner
Fiala. So we'll vote on this separately one for developing an
agreement. And the second motion will be to appoint individuals, a
primary and an alternate, to attend the meeting.
So all in favor of the first motion to direct the County Attorney to
work with the group to develop an interlocal agreement, all in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, then I'd like to make a
motion that we recognize Commissioner Fiala as the primary delegate
to this consortium and that Commissioner Henning be the alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to appoint Commissioner
Page 130
September 25-26, 2012
Fiala as the primary representative with Commissioner Henning as the
alternate. Is there a second?
I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning has --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you have a primary,
could be a county commissioner, but also could be a staff member. I
think it would be appropriate to have a staff member as a primary or
an alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think there's a benefit if you
could suggest someone on the staff who would be particularly
qualified to participate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we bring this as the next
meeting? Get the County Manager a time to think about it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to nominate
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning. If you wish not to
be considered as the alternate, we can modify that motion to include
only the appointment of the primary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can cover that very well, sir.
The primary person would be Commissioner Fiala and the secondary
person would be a staff person as selected by the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners for edification.
Okay, is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You already seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't second the modified motion, but
I will if you want me to.
All right, the motion is seconded by me.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Page 131
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 3-2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may, I would really
appreciate, John Wayne, if you could let us know when you speak to
the Governor and bring back to us, you know, what the state's position
is. And, you know, I will modify my vote, depending on what that
dialogue is, accordingly. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Absolutely, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much to both of you for
being here. Hopefully this thing will work out okay.
MR. SMITH: It will, it will. Optimistic. Optimist.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Okay, County Manager, where are we going to go from here?
Item #10B
RECONSIDERATION OF CP-2008-5, PETITION REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE
MAP, TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THE ENTIRE MASTER PLAN
TO INCLUDE: INCREASES TO COMMERCIAL ACREAGE,
INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE, AND ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY; ELIMINATION OF SOME EXISTING
DESIGNATIONS; CREATION OF A NEW DESIGNATION FOR
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE; AND, RE-
Page 132
September 25-26, 2012
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 103 ACRES TO
IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA FROM AGRICULTURAL/RURAL
WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA AS
IDENTIFIED ON THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP. ADDITIONALLY, THE PETITION REQUESTS AN
AMENDMENT TO POLICY 6.2.5 OF THE CONSERVATION
AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO TREAT THAT
PORTION OF THE LAKE TRAFFORD CAMP KEAIS STRAND
SYSTEM WHICH IS WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA
AS NEUTRAL LANDS FOR VEGETATION RETENTION, AND
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO SHOW THE RE-
DESIGNATION OF THE 103 ACRES TO THE IMMOKALEE
URBAN AREA. (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING AND APPEARS ON THIS
AGENDA AS ITEM#9A) - MOTION TO RECONSIDER — FAILED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe we should go to Item 9.B
on your -- excuse me, 10.B on your agenda. It's a request for
reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item 9.A from the
September 11th, 2012 BCC meeting titled recommendation of
reconsideration of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee
Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you need to
explain the rules --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Jeff. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need a discussion for this, no.
Page 133
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does the rules say?
There'll be no discussion, is that what it says?
MR. KLATZKOW: We typically have very little discussion on
this, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All the rules say is it must be a majority
vote, right?
Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Henning for
reconsideration of Item 9.A from the September 21th, 2012 BCC
agenda. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
I believe it failed --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Commissioner Fiala, I
didn't hear your vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She voted to oppose the motion.
So Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Coletta voted to oppose the motion for reconsideration and
consequently it fails.
What's the next item?
MR. OCHS: Well, then you move into your advertised public
hearings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second. Can I just go
back to that last item? While we've taken a vote, I just want to clarify
something.
Commissioner Henning, I just want to understand, if you're
Page 134
September 25-26, 2012
asking for a reconsideration, were you asking for the whole Board to
reconsider the votes that they cast on the question of continuance?
Was there something you wanted to discuss?
And the reason I'm asking is, and it's really a procedural question,
and I'm going to turn to Mr. Klatzkow. I mean, if your goal was to
change your vote from a yes vote to a no vote and not have this
brought forward, not have this continued, you don't need a motion for
reconsideration to do that.
I mean, Commissioner Henning, if he wanted to change his vote
from how he voted on this question of the continuance to this date can
just say he changes his vote from a yes to a no. I mean, it doesn't
involve the rest of the Board.
Is that what you wanted to do? Because I think -- I don't know if
you've been procedurally correctly informed.
And to give you an example, that happened to me. There was a
particular issue that I brought back for reconsideration, the Board
would not entertain a reconsideration. My goal was to change my
vote. In fact, it was Commissioner Coyle who said oh, well,
Commissioner Hiller, I mean, if you just want to change your vote,
you can just change your vote and vote no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I must have been wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm convinced you were right,
because I changed my vote. Don't tell me he was wrong.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning's approach
here was appropriate. It was a very narrow request by Commissioner
Henning and the motion fails 2-3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but he still can change his
vote if he wants to, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Going back two weeks?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
Page 135
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Is there a time limit on an
issue on a --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am, we're done with this issue now,
I think.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I -- is there a law that puts a
time limit on your ability to change your vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we take the vote and that's the end
of it. If during the discussion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You advised me I could change
my vote. I'm on the record as changing my vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. If it's not going to affect the
outcome, ma'am, it doesn't matter. But two weeks later you can't come
back and say you know what, that contract we awarded I don't want to
award now and change your vote. It doesn't work that way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, in this particular situation I
don't believe that that would be the case. In fact, it was I believe on
the Paradise contract where I was allowed to change my vote because
this Board would not support a reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it didn't change the contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: It didn't change the result, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not the basis for
allowing it. Either we're allowed to do it or we're not. And it's not
that we can be allowed to change our vote if it doesn't change the
outcome, or otherwise we can't. That procedurally doesn't make sense.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, right after a vote if you want to say
I want to change -- I think Commissioner Henning from a procedural
standpoint was appropriate. It just fails 2-3. I mean, the last time
Commissioner Coyle supported the continuance, this time he doesn't.
It's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, again, I'm going to go back
Page 136
September 25-26, 2012
and ask the question. Can he change his vote if he wants? And
legally what basis do you have for denying him the right to change?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not going back two weeks and
changing the vote, no, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're finished with that item.
Where do we go now?
Item #9A
RECONSIDERATION OF CP-2008-5, PETITION REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE
MAP, TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THE ENTIRE MASTER PLAN
TO INCLUDE: INCREASES TO COMMERCIAL ACREAGE,
INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE, AND ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY; ELIMINATION OF SOME EXISTING
DESIGNATIONS; CREATION OF A NEW DESIGNATION FOR
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE; AND, RE-
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 103 ACRES TO
IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA FROM AGRICULTURAL/RURAL
WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA AS
IDENTIFIED ON THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP. ADDITIONALLY, THE PETITION REQUESTS AN
AMENDMENT TO POLICY 6.2.5 OF THE CONSERVATION
AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO TREAT THAT
PORTION OF THE LAKE TRAFFORD CAMP KEAIS STRAND
SYSTEM WHICH IS WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA
AS NEUTRAL LANDS FOR VEGETATION RETENTION, AND
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO SHOW THE RE-
DESIGNATION OF THE 103 ACRES TO THE IMMOKALEE
Page 137
September 25-26, 2012
URBAN AREA - MOTION TO REQUEST A 6 MONTH
EXTENSION FROM DEO — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We to go Item 9.A. This item has been continued
from the June 18th, 2012 BCC meeting, then again from the
September 11th, 2012 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation of
reconsideration of CP2008-5, petition requesting amendments to the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan
Future Land Use Map. And Miss Penny Phillippi, your Immokalee
CRA Director, will present.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Penny Phillippi, Executive Directory of the Immokalee CRA, for the
record.
At our last meeting the instruction that I received from the Board
of County Commissioners was to take back the eight
recommendations that Commissioner Henning had brought forward at
our last hearing and to get an opinion from each of those -- or get a
vote from the advisory committee. Which we did. We went last
Wednesday. I have -- I can go over those right now.
We also have a video that was put together because, as you
recall, at that same meeting Commissioner Coyle was concerned that
there weren't a large number of people from Immokalee to represent
their sentiment on this document. So we put together -- it's probably
about a 14-minute video of people in Immokalee talking to the Board,
if you want to look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought the motion, and it was
supported by the majority, is get the opinion. Not to politicize this,
okay. It's get the input of the advisory board and bring those
recommendations back.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So here it is, 2:30, we're dealing
Page 138
September 25-26, 2012
with 1 :00 issues. We haven't even addressed the morning issues.
I would like to stay to the topic of the motion and the second and
supported by the majority to get the opinion of the CRA Advisory
Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The objective is to rehear this issue and
to entertain public comment. I see no justification for trying to keep
people from being heard on this subject. Although I think it has been
brought back for rehearing many too many times, I'm certainly not
going to do anything that would keep people from being heard on this
issue. So please continue, Penny.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay, thank you.
As you know, the first item that Commissioner Henning asked us
to strike was the upside down L on the Future Land Use Map around
the airport property that was to be a buffer between the airport,
industrial and the low residential designation. It's marked industrial
mixed use.
So to that one the Advisory Committee agreed that that was
something that they could agree to and voted to strike that from the
Future Land Use Map.
The second item was the rectangular area with red dashes to the
east of the airport, the 103 acres that would be used for the extension
of the airport. And the Advisory Committee moved not to remove that
section from the Future Land Use Map. They felt like it was, well,
needed for the future.
The third piece was to remove the IMU designation depicted in
gray and leave the area with its existing designation of commerce
center industrial. That's this one here. And the Advisory Committee
agreed that that could be left to commercial -- commerce center
industrial. Excuse me.
Then number four was to insert the language Mr. Davenport had
submitted in reference to Policy 6.17 of the existing mobile homes
Page 139
September 25-26, 2012
within the Immokalee urban area. And the Advisory Committee voted
to go back to their original recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, as shown in the executive summary to remove Policy
6.17 completely from the Immokalee Area Master Plan proposed.
Number five was to put farmworker labor camps as an allowable
use in the commercial district by adding existing Policy 1.52 to
proposed Policy 6.14, and the Advisory Committee proposed to
rewrite Policy 6.14 to incorporate 1.52 as follows: Collier County
recognizes the need for farm labor to support the county's industrial
industry, agricultural industry.
Collier County will encourage the provision of housing for
seasonal, temporary or migrant farmworkers, provided that such
housing is consistent with transient housing, migrant labor camps and
migrant labor housing provisions of Section 64.E-14 of the Florida
Administrative Code and does not conflict with the existing zoning
districts or the Immokalee Future Land Use Map.
So they agreed to that one and blended them together.
Number six was to -- actually a two part. The first part of that
was to place a cap on nonresidential density intensity from 8.45
million square feet to 7 million square feet, which they agreed to by a
unanimous vote.
Then the second part of that was the density in CMU, which is
commercial mixed use, to the same as current referencing Policy
6.1.10. And the Advisory Committee made a motion not to keep the
density in the CMU the same as it is currently.
Number seven was in reference to your hurricane policy for
Highway 29 being a hurricane route. And some language was
proposed as a new policy, and the Advisory Committee voted not to
accept the newly proposed language.
Number eight was to remove or modify Policy 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 in
reference to long-range transportation improvements, and to -- in
Page 140
September 25-26, 2012
reference to access from Immokalee Airport to the future State Road
29 bypass.
The Advisory Committee proposed to strike completely Policy
4.2.3 and to rewrite Policy 4.2.2 as follows: Collier County will
explore the possibility to accelerating implementation of the Collier
County Metropolitan Planning Organization's long-range
transportation plan, subject to available funding as a precursor to
initiating new investment in the Immokalee area. In particular the
county will support and encourage the first bullet, the Florida
Department of Transportation and the widening of State Road 82
between I-75 and State Road 29. They added also the widening of
State Road 29 to State Road 27 as a first step in improving
transportation access to the Immokalee Regional Airport. Those last
words were added.
They struck bullet two and bullet three and moved on to keep the
rest of that as the creation of new or expansion of existing
transportation corridors that improve access to Immokalee, the City of
Naples and coastal Collier County, and the creation of new collector
roads including the Little League Road extension near Lake Trafford
to handle increased future population growth and traffic in that area.
So that was the total of the eight. And as you can see, I think that
the Advisory Committee worked really hard. It took them all morning
to try to come up with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have copies of that so
we --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- could see that?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Penny, I've talked with the County
Manager about this executive summary and it is completely confusing
to me. And I'm afraid that you didn't make it any better. Particularly
Page 141
September 25-26, 2012
with respect to item number four. I don't understand what you're
saying.
Look at the executive summary and tell me, did the committee
agree with that or did they reject that change?
MS. PHILLIPPI: They rejected it completely, the whole Policy
6.17. They had -- initially, as you know, these are all addendums to
the initial executive summary. But since April of last year the
committee has recommended removing Policy 6.17 from the proposed
master plan because the current master plan has no reference to
existing mobile home parks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I want to emphasize something here.
This executive summary says the recommended changes -- they say
that the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency met on
Wednesday, September the 19th, 2012 and discussed the changes to
the IAMP that were proposed during the September 1 lth, 2012 BCC
meeting.
The recommended changes are as follows: One, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
MS. VALERA: Yes, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You didn't say that the recommended
changes by Commissioner Henning were these.
MS. VALERA: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a very -- if you don't read it very
closely you can jump to the conclusion that these are the
recommended changes of the committee.
MS. VALERA: And that was not the intent. Carolina Valera for
the record, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning.
And I did write that executive summary. And you are correct, the
intent was to highlight the changes as proposed by Commissioner
Henning in the last meeting. Period. Not the discussions that were --
Page 142
September 25-26, 2012
and the results of the discussions of those changes by the Immokalee
Area CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, so what the committee
did was to reject Mr. Davenport's language?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir. They went back to their original
recommendation, which was to strike Policy 6.17 to remove any
reference to mobile home -- existing mobile home parks from the
proposed master plan, which was the recommendation from last April.
And it's in the original executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I just wanted to get clear about
that. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning I think was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish we would have had this
earlier, because I'm seeing more in here than what was said at the
podium.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, what you're actually seeing in there is the
action where the person who made the motion and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's one of them here
that I looked at that I need to get back to. There's two motions on the
same item.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir. Item six.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so let's get back to
number five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because that was really
confusing to me what you -- you made a motion that -- okay, what
happened on the Policy 1.5.2? Was that inserted as (sic) our last
meeting?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We asked -- what your request was, to add
1.5.2 from the existing master plan to the 6.14 of the proposed master
plan. And as the Advisory Committee reviewed it, they realized that
Page 143
September 25-26, 2012
Section 10.D-25 of the Florida Administrative Code is now defunct.
So I believe that the Advisory Committee decided that the -- the
primary language there was transient housing and migrant labor
camps. So those two types of housing were added so it would say
transient housing, migrant labor camps and migrant labor housing.
Because each one has a separate legal definition and they thought that
that would meet what you were trying to accomplish by blending the
two together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does it mean -- well,
Policy 1.5.2, that's an entitlement of land use. Okay? Because it says
that land use may also be developed in the designated commercial
land use on the Future Land Use Map. And the language being
proposed is the Florida Administrative Code -- I'm sorry, that's a slash.
But anyways, and it does not conflict with existing zoning districts or
in the Immokalee Area Future Land Use Map. So where is it allowed
and where is it not allowed?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse, Planner with
RWA.
As discussed at the last hearing, we acknowledge that the state
regulations do provide for the ability to provide this kind of housing
within the commercial districts.
I think the point that was made was to write that explicitly within
the Policy 6.1 .4 just to make it abundantly clear that it was allowed.
Our understanding is that it is. But the request was to make it
explicit. The Advisory Board decided to provide alternate language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what does that alternate
language mean?
MR. VANASSE: My understanding is that they wanted to
identify the type of housing. And the policy as it is stated is that
Collier County will encourage such housing.
Page 144
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, let me read it to you. Let
me understand what they're trying to insert. And actually, this is
Policy 6.1.4. All right? Collier County recognizes the need for
farmworker housing to support agricultural industry. Collier County
is encouraged for the provision of housing through seasonal temporary
and migrant workers, provided such housing is consistent with the
migrant labor housing provisions -- that's the standards, it's not zoning
-- of Section 64.E-14, Florida Administration Code, and does not
conflict with the existing zoning districts or the Immokalee Area
Future Map.
So it doesn't -- it's really not saying any land use designation that
it can go into, does it?
MR. VANASSE: I agree, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. VANASSE: And I can't speak to the intent of whoever
made the motion, but I agree with you, it doesn't say clearly what
zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, now my -- you recognize
that's a property right, that Policy 1.5.2?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand the intent in making it
clear. But as mentioned previously two weeks ago, we believe that
the Florida Administrative Code section that is quoted there does
protect those rights.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It protects the rights for the use,
but it doesn't delegate -- or doesn't take away the delegation for the
location. The administration code doesn't.
However, that language says provided within the Future Land
Use Map, the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. And it doesn't say
where it's providing. So I'm going to move on to six.
So I understand it. Mr. Cruz made a motion to place a cap on
nonresidential density. Okay, wait a minute, number six deals with
Page 145
September 25-26, 2012
the placing a cap on nonresidential density to 7 million; is that
correct? And there's two motions on that?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The first motion was 7 million would replace
the 8.5 million square feet that's currently listed in Policy 6.17 or
proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the second motion
is made to keep the density in the CMU the same as it is currently.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's actually dealing with
two issues that was brought up in the motion on the Board of
Commissioners at the last meeting; is that correct? There was a
concern of capping the density. I don't recall what the motion was.
Don't have the minutes yet. And keeping the density in the CMU
what it is presently.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Got that part.
Okay, and then we're talking there will be no change to SR 951,
Immokalee urban --
MS. PHILLIPPI: I believe that their discussion revolved around
the fact that the state controls hurricane evacuation routes. It would
not permit something of an increased density to stand in their way. So
anyway, that's why they didn't accept that language. They were -- they
felt like the state monitored that and controlled that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The MPO is, my
understanding, a separate entity than Collier County. It's a Collier
County MPO but it's made up of different representation other than the
Planning Commission. So I guess we need a determination. Can we
the county tell the MPO what to do?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I think it was not so much as telling them what
to do as to encourage them or advocate for or suggest. Explore the
possibility of accelerating implementation of feeder roads into
Page 146
September 25-26, 2012
Immokalee I think rather than -- at least that's the way we understood
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any staff member can
address my question? Mr. -- I was going to say Feder. She said
feeder.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Mr. Casalanguida.
Commissioner, you're correct, you can only recommend to the
MPO, you can't direct them to do anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, I don't want to
take up this whole discussion here. I'll go over these
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Penny, I just wanted to know
if all of these changes will help the community, albeit in a diminished
capacity, or have they taken all of the life out of the Immokalee Area
Master Plan?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Actually, I think that the -- as I said, the
Advisory Committee worked all morning and pored over these one by
one. And I believe that they were really careful not to agree to
anything that they thought would diminish it. So the things that they
agreed to were things that they felt like they could move forward and,
you know, compromise on some of those things and still be able to
accomplish what they were hoping to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, for a little bit of clarity
too, just for the record for full disclosure, I was at that advisory
meeting. My participation consisted of a couple times I was asked
some different questions and my statement was very simple. Whatever
Page 147
September 25-26, 2012
you decide I'll support.
Once again, I really believe this is the plan of the people of
Immokalee. I commend you for all the hard work you put into it and
how you have reached out to try to meet the needs of everyone. And I
think this is further proof of it. I hope today that we can get to the
point that we can finally get this underway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have how many public
speakers, Ian?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Shall I show the video first, Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to do that as part of the
public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have six public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you go ahead and start the
video as part of the public input. Penny?
MR. OCHS: Penny, go ahead, please.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Put it on fast forward.
(The video tape was played.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Pam Brown. The before
first speaker is Pam Brown.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's not here.
MR. MITCHELL: The second speaker is Max Griffin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, there she comes.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Pam Brown, life-long resident of Immokalee and a pioneer family,
who's family has been local farmers and business owners.
I wasn't going to go speak about the amendment today, but the
more data I read and the more I know that the master plan amendment
was not written for the economic development of Immokalee but for
Page 148
September 25-26, 2012
the land that surrounds us.
We have a community redevelopment agency, not an economic
development agency. Excuse me, I'm just a little upset about the tape
that just was shown.
Immokalee's being forced to redevelop to be esthetically pleasing
to the occasional tourist who will pass through. It will be true if only
the Seminole Casino remains and Lake Trafford is promoted as a
tourist destination, a la, a downtown walking community.
To whoms (sic) expense are lost? The property owners of the
downtown area. Why the fuss over the bypass verbiage in the
amendment when there has already been a decision and plan
developed by the county?
Yesterday the Collier County Metro Planning Organization met
to discuss prioritization of roads project space on a draft proposal
detailing the 2035 long-range transportation plan for Collier County.
There are 77 transportation projects listed. Not one of the projects
provides capacity improvements or brings a four-lane road into
Immokalee. In the plan there are 13 projects. Twelve of these listed
projects advocate arterial roads around Immokalee, not into or for
Immokalee. At this time there's only funding stated for Project 25
which is Camp Keais to Eustis, and Project 39, Ave Maria entrance to
Camp Keais Road.
Where will be the funds come from? The amendment does not
state how the county will help with the infrastructure of Immokalee.
Again, where will the funding come from?
What I discovered is that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, acting as a Collier County/Immokalee redevelopment
agency, desires to keep the Immokalee urban area from growing
economically and putting boundaries around the working community
of Immokalee, which will stifle the growth.
Immokalee is being used as a vehicle for others. The amendment
Page 149
September 25-26, 2012
is allowing for the Collier County Airport and the large landowners
around Immokalee to develop and have good roads come into their
communities. The amendment will enable them to develop their land
using the Immokalee status as a rural area of strategic economic
concern to acquire state and federal funding to develop their
properties.
It appears that the Commission is only seeking reinforcement of a
plan that has already been approved by themselves. Is the Immokalee
Master Plan Amendment the way that the county eliminates blighted
areas? Develop a master plan for the community, put the Board in
control of the CRA, the county staff tells the CRA Advisory Board
what to amend in the plan by striking through the entire plan and then
writing it only for the County Commission to approve, who is a CRA?
Land development codes are written, code enforcement steps in. And
oh, by the way, at the cost of the business owners and taxpayers of
Immokalee, tell me again, Commissioners, who's the amendment for,
Immokalee? I think not.
The video is orchestrated and should not be considered. This was
presented with prejudice. You listen to people that had monitary
compensation for their plan. Not many commercial property owners
were interviewed in reference to cost involving the redevelopment of
the area. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Max Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: My name is Max Griffin. And I went to some of
the meetings too. And nobody ever told me that we already have a
master plan. I know submitted by omission, but we got a master plan,
but they acted real emotional and said we need a plan, we need a plan.
Well, we've got a plan.
And they're saying this is going to help jobs. Well, nobody's
telling me what jobs they're going to bring in. Nobody's talking about
any industries, anything, other than we're going to change the -- we've
Page 150
September 25-26, 2012
got the casino and we've got a little bit of tourism. But nobody else is
proposing anything else. Nothing concrete.
I know Fred Thomas, he got really emotional and excited and
other people worked up, but nothing concrete.
And this plan's going really to change Immokalee with the
densities and everything, and I'm against it. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be William Dayo, and
he'll be followed by David Esquila.
MR. DAYO: Hello, my name's William Dayo. Thank you,
Commissioner Coletta, for representing us so well over the years.
And we really need this master plan to go through. We can
amend it later as we need be, as circumstances come about. But, you
know, some of the County Commissioners, past -- Mr. Henning, thank
you for being a County Commissioner, but you're District 3. The
Immokalee people voted on this and we need it passed. How would
you like it if the rest of the commissioners put down everything you
brought before them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want me to answer that
question? Did the Immokalee people know that that plan took away
property rights and gave it to other people?
MR. DAYO: It's not taking away property rights.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure it is. Were you here the
last meeting? We addressed that.
MR. DAYO: Yes, I was here.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is David Esquivel and he'll
be followed by Al Oakes.
MR. ESQUIVEL: David Esquivel for the record.
I'm against the master plan. There was one there already, so just
stick to what was there. That's it.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question? How come
Page 151
September 25-26, 2012
you weren't on the video?
MR. ESQUIVEL: Oh, I'm against the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So they only videoed
who was for it.
MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes. And there were some other people that
aren't against the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you were not -- I understand.
And you understand my point.
MR. ESQUIVEL: Correct.
Fred Coyle said for the community to come here. And I'm part
of the community. I'm here. I made time to come here. Like you put
on the bulletin, so I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Al Oakes.
MR. OAKES: Hello, my name is Al Oakes. And I'd just like to
make the point that I own five different businesses in Collier County.
I have 285 full-time employees between all the five businesses. I only
say that to show that I have a little skin in the game.
Also, I started my business out of the back of a pickup truck. I
didn't get any federal money or anything to get started.
I think -- really, I'm quite insulted by the video. I mean,
obviously to think that the opposing side couldn't come up with a
14-minute video that showed, you know 100 people that opposed it.
It's ridiculous. Those folks had just as much opportunity as anyone
else to come up here and express their viewpoints today.
I think that more than anything there's a lot of conservative
minded people like myself that basically -- you know, Mr. Coletta
strongly in favor of the master plan didn't get reelected, and I think
that speaks volumes in the way that the people feel about this.
And to me this plan is not really so much about helping
Immokalee, which I'm all in favor of, but it's more in helping some of
Page 152
September 25-26, 2012
the fat cats that own land in the surrounding areas. Of course we're -- I
have business in Immokalee, I want to help Immokalee, and no one's
against in that.
To me it just seems like, you know, one of the things that's
disheartening to me about the small government here is it seems like
so much of a microcosm of what I see in the federal government. And
to me this is just like crony capitalism in a smaller level. It's taking
the money from us taxpayers and giving it to these folks that already
have millions of dollars that own the surrounding property. And I just
think that the voices have already been heard by the -- and it was
proved in the election, so I'd like to leave on that note.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner Coyle, there are four people
have requested to speak, but they submitted their slips after the item
had started.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead and call them.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. The next speaker will be Jeffrey
Randall and he'll be followed by Michael Facundo.
MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Jeffrey Randall. I sit on the CRA board.
I just want to say with regard to those folks that were expressing
concern about them not being on the video, it's my opinion that the
video merely expressed the opinion of the majority that voted in favor
of the master plan.
My next statement is directed to Commissioner Henning, and I
wanted to say, Commissioner, in listening to your opening remarks, it
was never our intent on the CRA to remove the language regarding the
C-4 zoning district. We thought it was included in the language that
we modified. Obviously if there is any issue with regard to that, on
behalf of the CRA what I'm telling you is that if this is passed today
the CRA has absolutely no objection to putting back in to your
language the C-4 zoning district.
Page 153
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me clarify what the
language says. And I believe you're talking about farm labor housing?
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It says that it's allowed in
the commercial districts. And the development standards such as
setbacks and so on and so forth will comply to the C-4 district. That's
what it actually says.
MR. RANDALL: We have no objection if that's included.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just so we have a clear
understanding.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, it was our impression that the language
that we adopted, we believed it did. Obviously there is some
confusion, so we have no problem with putting it in the way you want
it, if it's adopted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not what's being reported,
though. So I'm not sure what --
MR. RANDALL: What issue do you have if I'm saying that the
CRA has indicated that it does not disagree with your language?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what you're saying.
MR. RANDALL: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker after Michael will be Larry
Wilcoxson.
MR. FACUNDO: Michael Facundo for the record.
I want to echo what Jeffrey Randall had said. If that's what it
takes to pass it, that's fine. I mean, we'll do -- I chair the CRA here as
well.
This has been going on for a while. It's interesting to me, and I
hate to say this, but I'm going to be very blunt. In reading in the paper
of all the stuff that's going on among the leadership of Collier County
is very disheartening to me. I think there is some personal agenda and
Page 154
September 25-26, 2012
political issues are going amongst you. I think the issue is not this
map, this future plan. I think the issue is much deeper than really
what's being told. And it just disheartens me as a taxpayer, as a
citizen that you read about this stuff. And it's like it's sickening, to be
honest with you.
Pulling that to the side now, I think that one of the things that you
have to understand is that we went and this Board adopted -- had
agreed to go ahead and put it on a ballot and to see what kind of sort
of picture we were going to get from the citizens of Immokalee. And I
read it was about 3,000 people that registered to vote; there was only
400 or 600 or something voted.
You know, that's the privilege we have here in the United States
is to be able to vote. You can't force someone to vote, but if those
were the ones who came out to vote, then that should be it. I
understand it's not binding. However -- and then it was brought back
and then the Board said well, there's eight items that need to be
addressed. We looked at them, we addressed it. And I think if we
could set our own -- if, and just the impression that I get -- any
differences aside and look what is best for that community, I think that
will be best.
I have a degree in architecture. We did a lot of planning there.
And I know there's a little disgruntleness about development around
Immokalee and we're doing a favor of whoever family. But if you
develop outside of Immokalee it will eventually infiltrate the interior
of Immokalee which will help enhance and develop that community.
So I hope that this Board would find it in their hearts and their
minds, would really search out and do what is best for this
community, and I hope you guys vote on it and allow it to go through
and pass. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Wilcoxson will be followed by Mitch
Hutchcraft.
Page 155
September 25-26, 2012
MR. WILCOXSON: Larry Wilcoxson for the record.
I just watched this video. I wasn't going to speak. I didn't come
here to speak. I came here to directly just listen and tune in. But this
video, I mean, it humored me. It's funny. You know, I see in the
visuals on there that I spoke to about this master plan as I really didn't
have a lot of knowledge on it myself As I even asked Commissioner
Coletta. I read it over and over and over.
It's bittersweet. I could see the pros and I also can see the cons.
But one thing I do know, the individuals on this video, they don't
know the first thing about this master plan. You can see a lot of it is
so orchestrated, the same background, just getting individuals. They
don't even know how to say -- I'm not saying they don't know how to
speak, but they tell them to know master plan. They telling them those
words. I mean, I could have got a video 28 minutes long and found
everyone to say no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, that's exactly what
it was.
I mean, I really want to leave this to the expertise -- the experts
on this. The people, the investors who have a lot to lose, a lot to gain.
And I trust you all. I trust you all to make the right decisions and
do what's best for this community. It's my community. I love it. You
know, I'm not an expert on this plan, like I said last time I spoke. This
has been going on forever. You know, it's time that we just do
something, move forward.
And, I mean, like I said, I just wanted to share myself And I
hope this video really don't put any -- it didn't infiltrate any of you all
minds. Because one thing, like I say, I promise you, I never seen
something more orchestrated. Because I didn't talk to probably -- not
even 75, but at least 60 percent of those individuals on that video. And
I wasn't going to speak. That's why I just bust out laughing. I'm sorry
about that, when I walked out to go sign this sheet.
So I'll just leave it up to you at all. I trust all five of you all to do
Page 156
September 25-26, 2012
what's right and make the right decision. And whatever the decision
is, I'm going to stand on it and we're just going to move forward.
MR. MITCHELL: This is your last speaker. It's Mitch
Hutchcraft.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated
Citrus.
Apparently I'm one of the offensive parties. We do happen to
own a fair amount of property in Immokalee.
I just wanted to share with you that I was an active participate in
the process. And I appreciate the comments on both sides here. You
guys have a tough job.
What I want to encourage you to do is to take time. Because I
think it is difficult to create a vision and move forward. I think it's
easy to find fault with that.
So I'm not saying that the points that were made were inaccurate.
I'm saying let's give the vision opportunity a chance so that we can
take Immokalee and move it forward in a manner that's beneficial for
everybody.
One of the points that was raised was industrial property along
the edge of the airport. Happens to be on our property. If that's an
offending issue, take it out. Our point was to participate with the folks
that showed up in that process. And I attended personally for about
two and a half years. And if that is one of the items that is an obstacle
to moving the plan forward, take it out.
The reason that we put it there is we are at the end of two
runways and we thought low density residential at the end of runways
was probably a long-term compatible issue. We recommended a
change.
But again, I want you to recognize that when I attended the
meetings there was a significant amount of involvement and
Page 157
September 25-26, 2012
participation. I respect that process. If there's more input, let's get
more input. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and
make a short decision to end what has been eight, nine, 10 years of
effort.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on --
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the remarks you made? And
you and I have spoken, and I really appreciate, you know, your very
serious concerns about what's going on in Immokalee and obviously
as a major landowner there your position.
The baby was thrown out with the bath water. The baby was
thrown out with the bath water when this amendment was proposed.
There is a plan in place, and this amendment is a strike-all amendment
that replaces years and years and years and a great deal of money that
was invested in the plan that currently exists. This attempt at this
amendment is nothing more than an attempt to get rid of all the effort
that was put into by the community.
As far as the meetings, the public meetings that were held where
you said there was participation, I went ahead and I pulled all the
minutes for every single meeting that was held on this. It was always
the same people. And yes, you attended. I saw your name repeatedly.
And I really commend you for being involved.
It was always the same people. It was always the same few
professionals who intended to benefit by participating in this planning
process. And it was the same few representatives of the key big
landowners who were there. It wasn't the folks out in Immokalee who
were attending these meetings.
This amendment was not a function of the people of Immokalee.
And the referendum that the people referred to is representative of
that. Out of about 20,000 people who live in Immokalee, only 400 --
417 to be exact, voted. That is by no means the voice of the people of
Page 158
September 25-26, 2012
Immokalee. And that doesn't include the business owners. Because
you don't live in Immokalee and you didn't have an opportunity to
vote. You were excluded from the vote.
And one of the reasons that so many people didn't vote is because
the wording of the ballot measure was unclear, it was ambiguous, it
was confusing. And I believe Mr. Wilcoxon, when Mr. Wilcoxon
says that these people who said I support the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, what you said, I believe you. And that's really concerning. I
can't believe we have one-sided propaganda produced using public
funds to lobby this board on a self-serving agenda. It's shocking.
I value your input. And I think what ought to happen is exactly
what you described. This amendment should be set aside. There is too
much that is unacceptable in this amendment.
This flood map that came out this morning makes the density and
intensity that's being proposed absolutely over the top.
So what I suggest is what you think is the right thing to do. Let's
table this amendment, which has only been developed since 2008, not
for 10 years, and let the county work with the people of Immokalee
and come up with changes to the existing master plan and go through
section-by-section to come up with a proposal that's reasonable and
fair to all involved. To people like you, to people like Mr. Facundo,
to, you know, people who have businesses on Main Street.
But the approach that's being proposed here is just unacceptable.
And it literally goes from bad to worse. And it's very kind of you to
say, you know, whatever is being offered to you should be, you know,
rejected so the rest can go through. But it doesn't work that way.
Because once the plan is adopted, we can't take away. That
constitutes a takings. So we have to take it from scratch and build up.
We can't go to the top and take back.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And I appreciate your comments. I
respectfully disagree with your sweeping generalization that this was
Page 159
September 25-26, 2012
throwing the baby out with the bath water and only represented the
interest of a few.
Having sat in those meetings, I can assure you that there were
citizens, representatives, residents of Immokalee that were actively
participating. And so I believe that there was input.
And I will not tell you that this is a perfect plan, but I think it
does represent a vision and a move forward.
And I will also tell you that I think agriculture in Immokalee is
changing. And if you do not plan for the future of Immokalee, what
you're going to get is the worst case scenario.
And so with that I appreciate your comment. I did not say to
table this amendment. I'm encouraging you to take the good parts of
this. If there are minor modifications, let's make those minor
modifications and respect going forward. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It seems major modifications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're taking a 10-minute break.
You haven't had a break in a long time.
So we'll be back here at 3:42.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I only had some live commissioners,
I'd be all right now. Where are they?
Commissioner Fiala is stuffing her face. Did everybody hear that
Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I needed a shot of sugar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is having a sidebar conversation with
the carrot cake, and she's doing that so there won't be any left for me.
Now, should I tell you where she is? We've got a quorum, but
we need a vote of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here I come.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, a distant voice.
Page 160
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had frosting all over.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I understand, sure.
Okay. We're back in session now, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, we have commissioners who want to speak. And it has
been so long, I'm just going to go from left to right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure what we're
considering here. I mean, we had it advertised in our agenda that's the
items, reported in our agenda of the changes.
Jeff, do you have any idea what we're voting on?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The executive summary is in error.
The plan that you're to vote on does not include the changes that were,
apparently, adopted by your advisory board. I don't -- I really don't
know what the advisory board is advising at this point in time. It's not
laid out.
I had asked Carolina Valera at a break, you have to write it down
so we know what we're voting on. I don't know that she's had the
opportunity to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ms. Phillippi, I have a
question for you. Your interview video, what were you -- what's the
agenda there? Is it what they voted on?
MS. PHILLIPPI: On the video? No. At our last meeting,
Commissioner Coyle asked us where the people who are --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. Let me restate the
question. Your agenda of your question, what did you want to
portray, that people want the commissioners to vote on what was on
the ballot or what the advisory board is recommending or what?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I assume that we were voting on the master
plan as it's been proposed with the suggested recommendations that
you made and the advisory board's compromises to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what the question
Page 161
September 25-26, 2012
was to the people that you're interviewing on this video?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, that was not the question to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What was the question?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I didn't personally participate in the video
whatsoever. So I'm assuming they said, "Do you support the master
plan?"
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which version; the one they
voted on?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't think anybody said Version 1, 2, 3, or 4.
I don't think they said that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because I heard -- and I
just want to clarify. I don't want to assume what your agenda is -- that
they want to -- the board to vote on what we voted on in December of
2011. Would that be a correct assumption?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That would be correct --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- except that you would need to include the
changes that you recommended and the board's advisory committee's
compromises that they submitted to you at this point. The people on
the video, I don't think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That had the CRA on there, the
MS. PHILLIPPI: They had the logo of Immokalee CRA, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was made by the CRA.
And you had no idea that -- what your staff was doing?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, I was not -- I did not participate in that
whatsoever purposely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is your staff member who put
that together or participated here?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No. It's a completely separate entity that put it
together. It was not the CRA staff at all.
Page 162
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. Well, can I
play a video?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's relevant to the
discussion, but -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the video, and how long does it
take?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If it's relevant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't worry, Penny. You're not
in it, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to understand if it's not
relevant, I'm going to erase it from my mind.
(A DVD was played from the 9/11/12 MPO meeting.)
"COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like
to -- can you go back to the schedule of
priorities for the Immokalee airport. Thank
you. Thanks. You can just leave it on that
one right there.
When I'm looking at this schedule of
priorities, I see a lot of overlap with the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and, like, for
example, just reading from the master plan,
your redesignation of lands within the
boundary of the Immokalee airport from
industrial to Immokalee Regional Airport
Subdistrict, addition of 103 acres of land
that are proposed to be removed from rural
land steward -- RLSA and be included within
Page 163
September 25-26, 2012
the boundary of the Immokalee Regional Airport
Subdistrict, APO, you know, increasing
462 acres of industrial designated lands,
redesignation industrial to Immokalee Regional
Airport Subdistrict of 1,484 acres as part of
the Immokalee Regional Airport boundary.
All of that has to do with what you've got
here as your priorities; is that correct?
Because, like, for example, the line
acquisition for runway extension, 103 acres,
is that the same as the 103 acres of rural
land that's being redesignated?
MR. CURRY: I'm sure it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So,
essentially, if I understand what's going on
here, you're taking agricultural land through
the Immokalee Master Plan, you're upzoning it,
and then, subsequently, you're going to
propose that government buy it based on the
upzone value?
MR. CURRY. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Why would
you do that? That makes no sense at all. I
mean, if we know that you're going to need
that land, why aren't we buying it now as
agricultural land and then subsequently
upzoning it ourselves for whatever need, you
know, we deem appropriate? Because,
obviously, what you're doing by having it in
the Immokalee Master Plan and changing the
zoning and then, subsequently, buying it for a
Page 164
September 25-26, 2012
runway extension is you're creating tremendous
value for the private owner of the land and
costing the taxpayers of Collier County way
more than they should be paying for this land.
I mean, it's agricultural land.
MR. CURRY: Well, it's in my plan because
I want it to be funded by the FAA. I want it
to be eligible --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's public
money. I don't --
MR. CURRY: To be funded by the FAA,
and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's federal
funds.
MR. CURRY: When property is purchased in
that way, it's done simply based on what is
the appraised value of the property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the appraised
value of the property is agriculture. The
only reason it's becoming more expensive is
because, through this Immokalee Area Master
Plan, it's being rezoned ahead of a known
future acquisition, which makes no sense.
And to me, when we're talking about tax
dollars, I don't care if it's county, state,
or federal. It's the public's money.
Who owns that land?"
(The video concluded.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, tell us what your point is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My point is, in the
administration code of Collier County properties valued over 50,000,
Page 165
September 25-26, 2012
you need two appraisals. Clearly, the airport director was in full
knowledge of-- that we were going to rezone this property and then
purchase it at the rezone value, which needs two appraisals.
Until we have an agreement with the landowner, there's no
guarantee that you're going to get it at agricultural. And, in fact, our
law says different. We need to appraise it by the value of the zoned
property. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what's the point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's things said at the
last meeting that is contrary to what was said at the MPO, and it was
really to your benefit, because I think that was one meeting that you
missed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I think -- I think what you're
confusing is the fact that a whole year has elapsed since that comment
by Mr. Curry, and we have discussed that in substantial detail on a
number of occasions since that point in time.
So you are ignoring all of the conversations and commitments
that have been made by Mr. Curry, myself, the county manager.
Everybody's understanding was that it was being rezoned only so the
airport could use it, not so it could be sold at a higher price.
And it's been made very, very clear that our discussions with the
Colliers have also centered around buying it at the agricultural price
and has never included upzoning it and buying it.
So the point still is, what is your point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the point is we've never
discussed this at a public meeting, okay, except for the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I -- you know, show me
where it's on the record, because I couldn't find it. That is the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll show you when it was on the record
when --
Page 166
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you can't. I'm going to answer your
question. You asked a question to show you where it is on the record,
and I'll show you where it was on the record.
Commissioner Hiller brought the same thing up probably a year
ago, around November, and alleged that we were conspiring to do this.
And I said, we are not.
And Mr. Curry came up to the podium and I said -- I think he
said I misspoke. And so we talked about that very clearly at that point
in time. And I made a commitment then that I would never agree to
purchase that property at anything more than its agricultural value. I
did the same thing at our meeting just recently when you brought it up
again.
So this is old news. It's -- it's a manipulation of a misstatement
made over a year ago that you and Commissioner Hiller will not let go
because you feel you can use it for your advantage.
Now, if this is to be another excuse for not voting on the
Immokalee Master Plan, go ahead and tell us that. But the point is
that that is not a relevant issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, your political statements
are wrong, sir. And I want to finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I searched the minutes on the
Immokalee airport, and that is all I could find. And it's a -- you know,
it's a very extensive search that not only I did but other people did.
Furthermore, as far as including that land in the Immokalee
Master Plan, that was a recommendation of staff during the rezone of
the airport, and I believe that was in 2009. The executive summary
clearly stated that the property needs to be a part of the Future Land
Use Map.
So that's the reason why that property is being added.
Page 167
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what, I'm not going
to get political on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can go ahead and govern
yourself the way you see appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just asking what your point is.
Apparently, it's not a point.
Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I do appreciate it.
And I don't want this to break down into a negative discussion.
The reason we've gone through -- well, I'm sorry. I'm going to
try -- so it's happening. That's the way it is at the moment.
I didn't go through all this trouble over such a long period of time
to try to keep this alive just at the last minute to be able to give a rash
-- a reason to someone to be able to vote against it.
What I'm saying is, is if that's the one issue that Commissioner
Henning's having a problem with, I'm sure we could come up with
some language that would qualify the fact that that -- that anything
that takes place on that airport as far as the purchase of that land in the
future, put it into the Immokalee Master Plan as a subnote that it will
have to be purchased at agricultural value no matter when it's done,
and put it in there. And then that might be able to remove the obstacle
that Commissioner Henning's having with this one item.
If we're at an impasse and the impasse is a lot deeper than just the
airport, let's get down to it and have a frank discussion and go from
there.
We've tried awful hard to make this work. I'm about at the end of
the road with this whole project. Either it flies or it doesn't fly. So
let's just go about it as rational people and see what we can do to meet
the will of the people in Immokalee.
Page 168
September 25-26, 2012
And I heard a lot of misstatements out there that really were
concerning. It's been eight years; it's been longer than eight years
they've been working on this plan. It's been a continuous process of
many people, not always the same people.
I sat in many of the meetings. They even hired their own
consultant so they could be free of the county in their decision-making
process.
Well, we all know where it's been. We know the long process it's
been through. We know the fact that the first time it came before this
commission it passed unanimously to be moved forward. That was for
transmittal. And then it started the whole process of disintegrating for
all sorts of reasons. And I'm not going to blame anybody at this point
in time. But I'd sure like to give a lot of people credit for making this
thing happen today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Interesting that you gave that
proposal, because I had written down, didn't the landowner adjacent to
the airport actually say he was -- well, he -- not he, but, you know, it
was said on the record that they had spoken -- our people had spoken
to them or whoever was at the -- I shouldn't say our people.
Whoever was standing at the podium said that the landowner was
actually going to sell it to the airport at ag prices. So at -- just almost
exactly what you said, Commissioner Coletta, how about this,
including the -- include the land at the airport only if it can be
purchased at an ag price, and if not, then it shouldn't be included at all.
That makes it pretty darn simple, very clear. There's no ifs, ands,
or buts, and maybe that would answer Commissioner Henning's
concern, and at the same time everybody's concern, because they
would like to buy it at ag prices, not at an upgraded price anyway,
including the airport. They don't want to do that either.
Page 169
September 25-26, 2012
The second thing is, Penny, I ask you, once again, the changes on
here right now, do they gut the plan? Can the plan move forward?
Because what my main concern is, just me as a commissioner, I want
to see what we can do about not only invigorating the community and
helping them to move forward and upgrade their community, but I
would also like to see if this plan will also help them stimulate
economic growth in that area.
Will this plan in any way stop that from happening, the way it is
written right this minute?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine.
MS. PHILLIPPI: The professional planners are here, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I needed. You
don't even have to explain, because that's what I needed. Because I
came in thinking I don't even want to vote for it anymore because it
had been desecrated. But now with the new things added and your
assurance that you feel that it won't hurt -- you know, it won't hurt the
community but it would help it, you've helped me to change my vote.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, a couple of things.
You know, Commissioner Henning, bringing up the airport issue
is actually very important. I did a little bit of research, and what I
found was really very disturbing. Brent Batten at a point in time had
written an article which was full of misinformation, if you will, both
about the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the airport master plan,
and I wanted to wait to the -- you know, for an appropriate point in
time to address what he incorrectly described. So I think I'm going to
bring out some points right now.
You know, the airport has a PUD, and that PUD is inconsistent
with the Growth Management Plan notwithstanding it was adopted.
Page 170
September 25-26, 2012
We have an airport master plan which Mr. Batten said was as a -- I
can't remember the exact words, but not as a requirement, but rather as
a -- sort of a platitude or a convenience adopted on consent by the
Board of County Commissioners, which is really a meaningless act
when you look at it in the context of the Growth Management Plan
because, again, the Growth Management Plan and the FLUM has
never been changed to reflect what the airport master plan provides.
And, again, as I said, the PUD is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan as well.
So, really, what the intent of this Immokalee Area Master Plan,
with respect to the airport is, is to give legitimacy to what at this point
in time is not legal, okay.
So when you're addressing the airport, you're absolutely right,
that is just one of many problems with this proposed amendment. And
what they are trying to do is -- with the airport subdistrict, is bypass
the process that the airport master plan should have been taken
through, just like the Immokalee Area Master Plan was taken through,
a transmittal hearing, and then, you know, public -- or comments from
the state, and then public -- and then a public adoption hearing in front
of the board. So that's just one issue.
So in terms of problems, yeah, there are very significant
problems with the airport PUD. There are significant problems with
the airport master plan, and there are significant problems with the
Immokalee Area Master Plan as it relates to those two documents. So
thank you for bringing that up.
As far as Mr. Curry saying that he made a mistake, the JSIPs say
otherwise. The JSIPs continue to provide that the value of that land,
that 103 acres, is well over a million. I think they value it at a million
and a half, and then there's panther mitigation credits attached to that
line. That line is actually without value because of the panther
telemetry for another $2 million. So that 103 acres, which, you know,
Page 171
September 25-26, 2012
you're talking about valuing it agriculture prices, in the JSIP is valued
at something like three-and-a-half million, and agricultural provides
prices, I mean, I'm guessing, would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 2- or 300,000. So those are material
misrepresentations, if you ask me.
But that's just a comment on your point, Commissioner Henning,
and it's well taken.
Jeff, I have a question for you. I'm going to read this. A member
of the Immokalee CRA made the following statement months ago:
They hired an outside planning consultant to review the current and
proposed IAMP to review the current and proposed FLUM and to
document how the proposed IAMP will impact their farm holdings in
Immokalee.
They stated that the consultant informed them that the proposed
IAMP is not detrimental but rather provides a high value to some of
the holdings, since a use could be changed to a higher land use; i.e.,
under the proposed IAMP, the mobile home parks would be
mixed-use commercial if a family would decide to rezone the property
to that use.
This was -- this was really, you know, a direct admissions on the
record that this committee member directly would profit by the
changes being proposed to the Immokalee area, you know, to their
property holdings. Could that person vote on this? I mean, they have
a direct financial interest, and they're directly profiting from the vote
that they're casting.
MR. KLATZKOW: Shouldn't have, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They should not have? That would
have been a conflict, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Shouldn't have voted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, they voted. Not only
did they vote; they voted repeatedly, and they commented repeatedly.
Page 172
September 25-26, 2012
So that really puts, in my mind, the question of who else on the
Immokalee CRA advisory board has land interests that are being
increased in value as a consequence of this Immokalee Area Master
Plan and are still voting on the plan. I mean, it basically makes it
impossible for me to rely on the vote of the CRA in light of what I
have. And this came right out of the minutes. I'm going to introduce
this into the record.
Now, if you're telling me that this person as a consequence of this
statement should not have voted and that they have a conflict, how
does that relate back to Commissioner Henning? Because, really, isn't
it the same with respect to Commissioner Henning, that since the use
could then be changed to a higher land use if they decide to rezone,
wouldn't the same thing be true for Commissioner Henning's
property?
And what I really want from you is an opinion on whether or not
Commissioner Henning has a conflict, because it directly affects my
position on the board if he does or doesn't vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: I do not believe Commissioner Henning has
a conflict; however, there is a statutory provision that says that if you
believe there is a perception out there that your vote would be
improper, then you do not have to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And given the discourse that this plan has
had, I think he fully falls within that provision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that he properly could abstain?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe he can, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. All right. So in his case he
can vote, but under the circumstances with the discourse that has
transpired, it is your opinion that --
MR. KLATZKOW: That he would be within his --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- legal rights to abstain.
Page 173
September 25-26, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: He would be within his legal rights to
abstain, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But in the case of this particular
board member where the facts are different --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I really don't know the facts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the facts are as I read them
to you on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, these are -- these were -- this
was the statement by a property owner.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand what you're saying,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think -- I'd like these facts
evaluated further then. And I'll enter this -- I'll enter these minutes.
They're the minutes from March 28, 2012.
Now -- okay. In --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we have a vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you do that, I still have
my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Wow, talk about the
expression "beating a dead horse." I kind of hoped this thing would
show some life, but I'm beginning to wonder. Just a simple question,
Commissioner Henning, then I'm going to offer an alternative to this
whole situation that I believe some people on this commission are
going to truly like this suggestion.
Do you still have problems with everything you heard now, the
testimony that was given today, counter testimony that was given, do
you feel you could support the Immokalee Area Master Plan?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, what I said, what are we
Page 174
September 25-26, 2012
voting on? Are we voting on what's in our agenda packet that was
advertised? Are we voting on what the citizens voted for? Are we
voting on what the CRA director reported and then amended by CRA
members? What are we voting on?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're voting on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion the last one,
and it failed. And -- put some pants on and make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, I'll tell you where
I'm going. The last time you made the motion, I was overstepping my
bounds and encouraging you. I should have referred it right to the
CRA, because some of the things I was agreeing to, the CRA wasn't
going to be agreeable to. And I think I would have done just exactly
what I'm telling everybody else not to do.
We've got to let Immokalee come up with their own plan and
represent what it is.
So you're looking for the clarity that's supposed to be there. You
made a proposal to the CRA and you came up with eight different
changes that you wanted to see done. They've agreed to -- what is it --
out of eight, they agreed to seven, or six I mean? Wasn't it?
MS. PHILLIPPI: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But in any case, you heard what
it was. They read it to you and everything. As the CRA amended it,
could you agree to that; the master plan amended in that direction,
could you vote on that? Could you make the motion for that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I could vote on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's the issue. I thought the
amendments would not do any harm to the plan. In fact, the planner
agreed to it, you know. And then after that, we had a lot of hearsay
discussion.
The two things that I let go -- and David Weeks has stopped us
Page 175
September 25-26, 2012
from doing this in the past, and that is strip zoning. Twenty-nine is
nothing but a strip zoning commercial.
Furthermore, it was pointed out to me that I neglected to bring up
the fact that the single-family mobile homeowners within the platted
subdivision of Immokalee will now become nonconforming, okay?
This issue about mobile homes has been in the Immokalee area,
you know, problem. We are only making it worse by not allowing
people to replace their mobile homes. We're getting back to the same
issue from trailer park to single-family, you know, and exacerbating
the problem for future boards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what I'm trying to get
to about future boards. But you feel in your heart for all the right
reasons that this Immokalee Master Plan does not really represent
what the people of Immokalee want and doesn't serve their best
interest; is that a simple statement that you can agree to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, all I'm trying to do --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not answering your
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All I want to do is get to a
conclusion on this, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor -- is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, wait.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me -- one more time. I still
got the floor, and I'm not relinquishing it.
Penny Phillippi, come up to the podium. Okay. I haven't told
you everything. I've been holding back something. Rabbit's being
pulled out of the hat. Now, I didn't pull this rabbit out, but it's been
pulled out, and it can happen.
Penny, tell us about your conversation with Tallahassee.
Page 176
September 25-26, 2012
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, I submitted an email to Tom Beck at
DEO and asked him, if the board were to request an extension of the
deadline for this master plan, would they consider it, and he sent an
email back immediately and said, absolutely, be glad to work with the
commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, simply put, let's take all the
politics out of it, and politics being Commissioner Jim Coletta whose
last meeting will be the first -- the meeting in November. At that point
in time, I'll depart, and everybody will be up to their -- up to their own
to figure out what to do with this, and we'll have a new commissioner
coming in that may even have some ideas to solve this problem.
I would make a motion that we direct Penny Phillippi to ask for a
six-month extension while this commission sorts out where they are
with the CRA and the people of Immokalee. And we've got too much
invested in this to walk away at this point in time.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my motion. I don't think
I can make the request. It has to come from the board. Well, this
would come from the board if the board agreed to it, and then the
board will have to deal with this down the road after the new
commission's in place, and possibly that may change the dynamics of
this whole thing so we can get to where we need to be.
I'd love to bring it to a close today and say the Immokalee Master
Plan has passed, but it's, obviously, not going to happen. And I'm
making a lot of people uncomfortable, and I don't care to do that, and
I'm one of them that's getting uncomfortable. So let's bring this to a
close, and that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion is to have Penny
Phillippi, in the name of the Collier County Commission, reach out to
her contacts at Tallahassee and ask for a nine-month extension -- or,
Page 177
September 25-26, 2012
no, excuse me, a six-month extension, because we've done all the
work we ever need to do on this. And then that six-month extension,
you deal with it as you start down the road to figure out where you're
going to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. But when it
does come back in six months, I would like it also to include -- as
Commissioner Henning was talking about the price of the land over at
the airport -- some statement from the landowner that they would still
sell it to the Immokalee airport at agricultural prices.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's great. But may I make a
further suggestion that we don't give any other particulars other than
the fact to ask for the extension. And when the new commission is
seated, let them come up with the direction for what they're going to
do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 3-2 for an
extension -- to request an extension.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time.
MR. OCHS: Sir, at the risk of belaboring this, there were some
statements made about inconsistencies in the planning documents with
regard to the airport. I'd like Mr. Weeks to just address the board --
Page 178
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- very briefly on that, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just as a statement of fact, not to
try to change anything we did.
MR. WEEKS: No. For the record, David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Staff.
Commissioners, the Immokalee airport operations PUD that this
board approved, I don't know, a year ago -- I'm not sure how long ago
-- that was reviewed for consistency with the Future Land Use
Element -- well, for the Immokalee Area Master Plan that is in effect
and for the Future Land Use Element, because the 103 acres that
we've been discussing today was and is within the RLSA and,
therefore, a part of the Future Land Use Element, not the Immokalee
Area Master Plan. And that PUD was deemed to be consistent with
both of those documents, the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the
Future Land Use Element.
That was a recommendation by staff that it be found consistent,
and then the Planning Commission, I would say, endorsed that by
recommending approval, and then this board, by approving the
petition, was making a finding of consistency as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So all of the statements concerning the
fact that the Immokalee airport plan is faulty, is not proper, violates
standards, violates statutes is not true; is that --
MR. WEEKS: I'm speaking specifically about the Immokalee
airport operations planned unit development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Not the Immokalee Airport Master Plan. I have
no expertise in that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, Mr. Weeks, the airport PUD
does include the 103 acres as a runway extension, doesn't it?
Page 179
September 25-26, 2012
MR. WEEKS: It includes that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it right here.
MR. WEEKS: It includes that property, but the only uses
allowed on that property under the current designation, that is as
within the RLSA, are the same uses that are allowed by the RLSA
overlay. They cannot develop it with industrial uses, with airport, or
other types of uses unless and until the Future Land Use Map is
changed to a different designation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. You can't have a condition
like that. You can't include a provision in a map that says this land,
you know, will not be an airport until the -- I'm sorry. You can't
include a provision like that in a PUD and say, we're approving this
conditional upon the modification of the Growth Management Plan.
That's contract zoning.
MR. WEEKS: I defer that to the County Attorney's Office that
found it legally sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's absolute -- that's contract
zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You started this.
MR. OCHS: No, I didn't, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Where are we going to
go next, County Manager?
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2012-38: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION
Page 180
September 25-26, 2012
TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 —
GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02
DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 2 — ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES,
INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.01 AGRICULTURAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING
DISTRICTS; CHAPTER THREE — RESOURCE PROTECTION,
INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.02 EXEMPTIONS FROM
REQUIREMENTS FOR VEGETATION PROTECTION AND
PRESERVATION, SECTION 3.05.05 CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL
OF PROTECTED VEGETATION, SECTION 3.05.07
PRESERVATION STANDARDS, SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED
WELLFIELDS, SECTION 3.06.07 UNREGULATED
WELLFIELDS, SECTION 3.06.12 REGULATED
DEVELOPMENT; CHAPTER FOUR — SITE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR
CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-ST
DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.05.02 DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION
4.05.04 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.06.02
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.06.03 LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS AND
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, SECTION 4.06.04 TREES AND
VEGETATION PROTECTION, SECTION 4.07.02 DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER FIVE — SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.03.02 FENCES AND
WALLS, SECTION 5.06.02 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 5.06.03
Page 181
September 25-26, 2012
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS FOR
INSTITUTIONAL USES, SECTION 5.06.04 DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SIGNS IN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
SECTION 5.06.05 EXEMPTIONS FROM THESE
REGULATIONS; CHAPTER SIX — INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.02.01
GENERALLY, SECTION 6.02.03 TRANSPORTATION LEVEL
OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.01 STREET
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.02 SIDEWALKS,
BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER
NINE — VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING SECTION 9.03.02 REQUIREMENTS OF
CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMITIES, SECTION 9.04.02
TYPES OF VARIANCES AUTHORIZED; CHAPTER TEN —
APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.01 .02
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED, SECTION 10.02.03
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLANS, SECTION 10.02.05 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS PLANS, SECTION 10.02.06 SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, SECTION 10.02.07
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY, SECTION 10.02.13 PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCEDURES, SECTION
10.03.05 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
BEFORE THE BCC, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE EAC, AND THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, SECTION 10.08.00
CONDITIONAL USES PROCEDURES; APPENDIX A —
STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR
Page 182
September 25-26, 2012
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE — ADOPTED
ORDINANCE 2012-39: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION
TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 —
GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1 .08.02
DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 2 — ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES,
INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS;
CHAPTER FOUR — SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.16 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT, SECTION
4.02.17 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE
BMUD-WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICT, SECTION 4.02.18
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R1), SECTION 4.02.19 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R2), SECTION 4.02.20 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R3), SECTION 4.02.21 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R4), SECTION 4.02.35 DESIGN
Page 183
September 25-26, 2012
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD-MIXED
USE SUBDISTRICT (MXD), SECTION 4.02.36 DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD-
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (R); CHAPTER TEN —
APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING, ADDING SECTION 10.02.15
MIXED USE PROJECT PROCEDURES WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX,
EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO APPROVE CRA
AMENDMENTS — FAILED; MOTION TO RECONSIDER —
APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT CRA LDC AMENDMENTS
EXCEPT NONCONFORMITIES — APPROVED; MOTION TO
APPROVE WELLFIELD AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Go next to Item 9B. There are three areas of this
Land Development Code amendments, commissioners, that can be
heard prior to 5:05.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's hear them.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. CILEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek,
Senior Planner with the Growth Management Division, and I'm here
today to present the final set of LDC amendments in this current cycle
for your consideration.
I have three amendments, as the county manager described, to
present to you now, and then at 5:05, time certain, we will be
reviewing the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Agency and the
wellfield amendment -- amendments.
As well in your packet are the two ordinances for this cycle. One
Page 184
September 25-26, 2012
is for the Bayshore amendment, and the other is for the remaining
LDC amendments. If it pleases the board, we can review those at any
time.
The first amendment in your packet is 10.02.13, planned unit
development procedures, and this amendment follows board direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page?
MS. CILEK: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page?
MS. CILEK: It's actually the first amendment in your packet. It
has a little tab that describes the section. Great.
This amendment follows board direction to provide a procedure
within the LDC to remove affordable housing monetary contribution
requirements within a PUD ordinance, development agreement, and
settlement agreements.
The proposed language would allow the county manager or
designee to administratively remove the affordable housing
commitments as a minor text change.
The procedure would include a public notice requirement. If a
notified property owner submits a letter of objection to the minor
change, the change would then be reviewed by the Board of County
Commissioners.
This received a unanimous vote of the approval by the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're asking for a motion now?
MS. CILEK: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala makes a
motion to approve. It's seconded by Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 185
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My light's on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to discuss it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are a number of developers
that were made to pay. I don't know the exact number, but I think it's
probably around $600,000 or so. Crystal, do you remember?
MS. KINZEL: (Shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There was a schedule prepared
that shows how much is being collected. I mean, there is some
fundamental unfairness to waive this requirement for so many and
leave the few who have been saddled with this out of pocket.
MS. CILEK: What's important about this amendment is that it's
the procedure to allow these commitments to be removed from a PUD
ordinance. If you would like specific discussion about refunding or
the amount of money that's been collected, I'm going to refer you to
Ms. Patterson with impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the
record.
Commissioner Hiller, you're correct. It's just under $600,000 has
been collected to date. At the direction of the board, collections have
been suspended. And with the executive summary that started this
process, it was described that we would first develop the process by
which to remove the commitments and then address the potential
refunds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you'll be bringing that back? I
think it's important, because I would hate to see a legal challenge on
that, and I could see it, and I think they would be justified.
MS. PATTERSON: If that's the direction of the board, we can
bring back an executive summary outlining those that have paid and
Page 186
September 25-26, 2012
then options for a refund of that money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other thing I'd like to just
confirm again is not only are you addressing it with the ordinances but
you're also addressing it within the settlement agreement. So to the
extent there are provisions like that included in settlement agreements,
those will be reversed also.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. We also have four that are
contained within rezones, and we're working with the county attorney
to deal with those as well. So everybody that's on the list we will
address their --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought we had a motion on already.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, sorry. Did you make the
motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to call the vote now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was made by Commissioner
Fiala and seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
We have public speakers, Ian, or is this left on from --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, no. We have one public speaker.
Page 187
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do, okay. For this particular item?
Is there a public speaker for this item?
MR. MITCHELL: It's Conservancy of Southwest Florida. It's
about the mangrove trimming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's the next one.
MS. CILEK: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
MS. CILEK: The next amendment is 3.05.02E, exemptions from
requirements for vegetation protection and preservation, and 3.05.05,
criteria for removal of protected vegetation.
And this amendment will be presented by Steve Lenberger.
MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. For the record, Stephen
Lenberger, Natural Resources Department.
This amendment here is to make a revision under the criteria and
exemptions for vegetation removal. We took a look at the state
statutes dealing with mangrove trimming and preservation, actually
the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, and found that the
code is inconsistent with state law.
The provision for mangrove trimming and alteration is governed
by the state. And unless the state delegates that to a local government,
we're not allowed to regulate mangrove trimming or alteration.
So this amendment here is just to bring it up to date with state
law. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Jeremy Frantz.
MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz representing the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida. I'll actually speak to two separate issues.
The first is related to the removal of Section 3.05.05's G. One of
the underlying reasons for this amendment was to clarify that the --
what the state and county rules are in the protection of mangroves, and
that is that the state is the agency that's responsible for the permitting
Page 188
September 25-26, 2012
of mangrove trimming or removal; however, during the process of
working through the new amendment language, the Conservancy
brought up the fact that Collier County does have a limited role in
mangrove protection as a matter of zoning.
For county preserves used to fulfill native vegetation retention
requirements, the -- and protected through conservation easement, it
was our belief that Collier County could and should have the ability to
dictate what activities are allowed, whether the native vegetation be
mangroves, oaks, or slash pine.
Whether this -- when this matter was discussed with the Planning
Commission, the county attorney indicated he wasn't comfortable with
the county having any role in any type of policy direction regarding
mangroves.
The Planning Commission felt that there was merit, though, to
the county's ability to have a role in mangrove protection limited to
county required preserves and conservation easements. Thus, their
recommendation was to recommend the county request delegation of
authority over mangrove trimming on that limited basis.
The Conservancy supports this recommendation, and we request
that you direct staff to apply for such a delegation of authority.
The second issue is related to the criteria for removal of protected
vegetation in Section 3.05.05, the very first section.
As you recall, originally, the existing introduction language to
3.05.05 wasn't a part of the concerns regarding mangrove -- regarding
mangrove trimming but became a question the last time the
amendment was brought before this board as it introduced some
nonregulatory language.
When it was brought back to the CCPC, the entire section was
proposed to be removed. And while we don't have an issue with
removing the nonregulatory language from the code, we wondered if
there was a way to resolve the issue without completely striking the
Page 189
September 25-26, 2012
entire section.
Discussion with staff indicated that the provision has been used
on rare occasions to ask applicants to retain trees in buffers when it
wasn't critical they'd be removed.
We brought the issue up to the CCPC, and they asked us to work
on a possible alternative with staff, which we did, and we feel that the
new language eliminates any nonregulatory or ambiguous language
but at the same time preserves the guidance language that we thought
was important.
My time is ending, so I'll just say that we do recommend
approving the language presented today along with the CCPC's
recommendation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. That was the last
speaker, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: It was, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is your response to the
request for delegation?
MR. LENBERGER: The state statute says that you can request
delegation, but there's no indication that you can request partial
delegation.
I've talked to some staff who are familiar with the delegation
process and, apparently, what they have told me, there's only one
county that has delegation from the state, and that's Dade County, and
they regulate it completely.
But I mentioned that to the Planning Commission, that I didn't
know if we could request partial delegation. And what the Planning
Commission said is just to request mangrove trimming within
preserves. And they said, well, we don't know if we don't ask, and
that was the reply.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, do we have any intention
Page 190
September 25-26, 2012
of asking, County Manager, or do you believe that there are too many
complications associated with that?
MR. OCHS: Sir, I would say that there are too many
complications associated with that. I'd prefer not to go down that road
unless the board wants us to get into that additional regulatory level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we even --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, that's the problem. You
probably would need to have additional staff; it would be additional
cost. I'm not sure we're in a position to absorb that sort of thing right
now.
But I don't see any member of the board rushing to urge you to
ask for delegation, so I'll call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve as submitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as submitted, and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: We have one more on the agenda. It is 10.02.04,
submittal requirements for plats.
This amendment proposes to amend the submittal requirements
Page 191
September 25-26, 2012
for the final plat section in the LDC. Currently, there's a limit of
submitting one site development plan following the first review of the
final plat by staff.
The proposed change would allow for one or more site
development plans to be submitted concurrently with the second
review of the final plat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
you. We'll take up the remaining items after -- or at 5:05.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do you want to go now?
Item #10A
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER
HILLER OF ITEM #14A1 FROM THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
Page 192
September 25-26, 2012
BCC MEETING TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
AFTER-THE FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GRANT OFFER OF $713,565 FOR
DESIGN, PERMITTING AND BIDDING OF RUNWAY #9-27
PAVEMENT RESTORATION AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO RECONSIDER — FAILED;
COMMISSIONER HILLER WANTS HER VOTE ON 9/11/2012,
ITEM #14A1 CHANGED TO A "NO" VOTE
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that would take us to 10A that was
moved by Commissioner Hiller at her request to be a companion to
Item 14A1, if the board would like to take those up now together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Item 10A was a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Hiller of Item 14A1 from the September 11, 2012,
BCC meeting titled, recommendation to approve an after-the-fact
acceptance of a Federal Aviation Administration grant offer of
$713,565 for design, permitting, and bidding of Runway No. 9/27,
pavement restoration at the Immokalee Regional Airport and
associated budget amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have some public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Just one speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Marvin Courtright.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Marvin Courtright, resident of Collier
County, and congratulations on the way this meeting went today. It's
certainly a contentious item, and all of you are to be congratulated.
I attended the last Airport Advisory Board meeting a couple of
weeks ago anyway, or a week ago, and Mr. Curry presented a bit of
information that kind of caught me by surprise.
Page 193
September 25-26, 2012
There was only three of us there just as observers. There were
two commission advisory board members absent. And Mr. -- yeah, hi.
He did a good job. He had attended an FAA meeting that addressed
the work to be done on the Runway 9 and 27, and also the north/south
runway.
And when he presented it, he paneled (sic) the board up and
explained that the FAA did not agree with the present plan for the two
runways. They had different suggestions.
Well, the different suggestions, as -- if-- perhaps, I think Mr.
Curry could probably answer that better than I -- my question was,
why are we paying $713,565 for a company to come out and do
design, permitting, and bidding on a runway that, ultimately, has to be
approved by the FAA and funded by different grant monies when that
particular responsibility will not apply to the FAA's thinking of it?
They want to -- as I understood from Mr. Curry, they want to
move Runway 9/27 one way, they want to drop the north/south
runway this way. They're going -- it's going -- we just put in
brand-new lights, all kinds of money spent, and it's going to require
relocating all of those.
My point is due to the meeting and the lack of being able to
communicate from the time it becomes on the -- on the board to talk
about -- and it was on a consent agenda item -- I think you should
have been brought aware of this or reconsider having this cost
analyzed for a better price, because it's already been done previously.
They've done a major portion of it. Same company doing the work.
That's -- I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Courtright, this is the FAA's grant to
us to do it with their money, okay?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Wouldn't it help to save the FAA a little
money, too? Maybe they might help us do something. My point is
this --
Page 194
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. The point is that the FAA has
certain safety requirements nowadays that they are trying to build into
their improvements of runways for the future, so they are very wisely
considering those things into these kinds of projects, and they are
providing the money to do it.
So what are you suggesting, that we return the money and not do
anything?
MR. COURTRIGHT: No. I'm suggesting that you become more
knowledgeable about what the FAA is looking at. Perhaps the
executive director could do for you folks what he did for three
business owners from Immokalee: Myself, Corky Mayhood, his
daughter, Stevie Fletcher's representative, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What makes you think he hasn't done
that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I assure you, I know
nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay. I'll buy that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I haven't been informed.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Well, perhaps you have. I apologize if
you have. Perhaps everybody knows.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the first I've ever heard of
any of this. Have you heard of any -- has anybody else heard of this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of what, resurfacing the runway?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what he's talking about.
That's not what he said.
MR. COURTRIGHT: No. I'm talking about total changing of
the runways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not total changing.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Well, as presented by this gentleman, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not. And we'll ask him to
explain it in fairly simple terms. It's merely a displaced threshold on
Page 195
September 25-26, 2012
one end and an extension on the other, you know.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Two thresholds being displaced,
north/south and east/west.
I appreciate your knowledge of aviation, sir. I'm only saying that,
as presented at the advisory board meeting -- I was there just as an
observer -- it caught my attention when I saw the amount of money
that we had just approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just accepted it. The FAA awarded
us a grant and we said, okay, yeah, we'll take that money.
MR. COURTRIGHT: We've done that too much already in
Immokalee. It's time we accounted for the money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we will. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marvin, I want to ask you some
questions.
May I go ahead and speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't believe what I'm hearing. I
can't believe that you have information and you're bringing it to my
and, I guess, Commissioner Henning's attention. I assume that
Commissioner Fiala, Coyle, and Coletta know about it. And what
you're also saying is that the work that we are applying to the feds for
with respect to funding this project is work that has already been
done?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. COURTRIGHT: A major part of the research has been
accomplished, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who did that work?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Same company that has been awarded the
contract right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they did that work pursuant to
an earlier contract?
Page 196
September 25-26, 2012
MR. COURTRIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they, in effect, would be getting
paid twice for the same work?
MR. COURTRIGHT: There's nothing wrong with utilizing the
information and the data that's available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there is if you're getting paid
twice for the same work.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm not inferring anything. I'm just saying
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you're not. You don't have to.
I am.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Well, sir -- well, ma'am, it just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know --
MR. COURTRIGHT: My comment was this: It's time we
started accounting for the money --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. COURTRIGHT: -- in regard to the Immokalee airport, and
I'm going to leave it at that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Courtright, you're very --
you're very kind, and I want to thank you for taking the time coming
here today and sharing the information.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Now, we have a request for
reconsideration by Commissioner Hiller. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Hiller.
Page 197
September 25-26, 2012
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In that case, I change my vote on
the last item. I change my vote. Where I had said yes on this issue,
I'm changing my vote to no.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have the legal right to do that,
don't I?
MR. KLATZKOW: I apologize, ma'am. What -- you're
changing your vote on which item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the item that I asked for
reconsideration. I've been denied the reconsideration. The vote that I
cast at the last meeting on this agenda item where I said yes, I'm
changing my vote to no.
MR. KLATZKOW: Does anyone object?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do. You know, this business of just
going back and retroactively changing your vote is just foolishness.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a question of objection. It's
my legal right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm changing my vote to no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minutes -- the minutes, I think, are
probably already recorded. If they are -- if they come back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have been told by counsel in the
past that I can change my vote after it's cast if it's not a land-use issue.
This is not a land-use issue. I'm voting no.
Page 198
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just try to understand what's
just even going on here. Okay. So you wanted to recall the paving of
the runway, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to have that vote
reconsidered by the board as a whole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From the last meeting?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we voted to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now what you're saying is
because we are --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's not actually the -- well, it's
the design work on the paving of the runway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right, right. And so what
you're saying now is you want to recall -- being that the
reconsideration isn't passing, you want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm changing my vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- change your vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On that last issue, which --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like this is going to be
something that occurs. Could you find out legally --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I sent you all a memo on
this, like, a year and a half ago. I'll resend it. Commissioner, your
statement's on the record now as to where you stand on this, but I'll --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I can legally do it, correct? I
just want a yes-or-no answer.
MR. KLATZKOW: With unanimous approval by the board, yes.
I will resend my memo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the board has to approve my
change of my vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
Page 199
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what you said before
when you talked about Commissioner Henning changing his vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I will --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you going to -- so what
guidance are you giving us? Are you telling us that now the board has
to vote on my change of my vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, when you vote, you vote, all
right. If you want to make a change in the vote, okay, before the vote
is final, you can do it. After the vote's taken, with the support of your
fellow commissioners, unanimous support, you can change your vote.
What we can't have is a commissioner, on a 3-2 vote, three, four
meetings, three, four months, three, four years, changing a vote which
changes a result.
I will resend the memo that I originally sent out a year, year and
a half ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll take a look at it. Now, I
just want to make sure everybody understands what's going on here.
Our runways have been determined to be in slightly poor condition.
They need to be resurfaced in Immokalee, and this is according to the
Florida Department of Transportation Aviation division.
So the FAA has offered a grant of$713,565 to pave the runways
and make them safe and keep them from deteriorating.
At a prior meeting, we accepted the FAA grant, and we are now
moving forward to develop specifications and put out an RFP to get
somebody to do the work.
And Commissioner Hiller wants us to stop that and, I guess, send
the money back to the FAA and do something else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's -- you're putting words
in my mouth. What I'm saying is that -- and the reason I wanted the
reconsideration -- and it does seem we're going to have the discussion
anyway, notwithstanding there's no discussion on reconsideration -- is
Page 200
September 25-26, 2012
because the amount of money that we're asking for does not seem to
have been adjusted, notwithstanding that the estimate of the project
has been cut in half.
So where the project before was estimated at 10 million, that
same project now is estimated at 5 million, notwithstanding the
engineering costs are staying the same.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, so I feel that, you
know, at some point we have to change our representations to the
federal government and reflect what's accurate or what's -- or let me
say this, a reasonable estimate and not an inflated estimate to induce
the federal government to give us more than what we actually need for
the project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's the next item?
Item #14A1
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS FOR RFP #12-5885
FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE
DESIGN, PERMITTING AND BID OF IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
RUNWAY REHABILITATION AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING
A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO THE BOARD FOR
SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14A1 is the related item to this, sir. It's a
recommendation to approve the selection committee rankings for RFP
#12-5885 for engineering consulting services for the design,
permitting, and bid of the Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco
Island Executive Airport runway rehabilitation, and direct staff to
bring a negotiated contract to the board for subsequent approval.
Mr. Curry will present.
Page 201
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is what item? I missed --
MR. OCHS: 14A1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14A, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure that I
understand. With this repaving, it's going to become a safer runway,
right? The FAA has stated that it's in very poor shape, and they want
to get it resurfaced immediately; is that correct?
MR. CURRY: Yes. Chris Curry, Executive Director of the
Airport Authority.
You have runways at Immokalee which have not had any major
work done since the 1940s, and you have the runway at Marco Island
that has not had any work done since the 1970s.
Generally, asphalt lasts about 20 years and concrete 40 years. So
these runways were rated in poor condition by the Florida Department
of Transportation and, therefore, we wish to pave them to make them
Page 202
September 25-26, 2012
much safer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I saw the pictures
within this subject, and I saw all the big cracks and so forth, and I
would guess that this is a very important health, safety, welfare issue
that we need to move forward with.
MR. CURRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Chris.
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That takes you to Item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to go back to 10A -- 10C?
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2012-171 : REAPPOINTING NORMA RAMIREZ
AND MARIA V. ORTIZ TO THE IMMOKALEE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10C, sir. It's an appointment of members to the
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
committee's recommendation of Norma Ramirez and Myra (sic) Ortiz.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maria Ortiz.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to accept the
committee's recommendations for appointment to the MSTU advisory
committee in Immokalee -- Immokalee Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 203
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2012-172: REAPPOINTING CHRISTIAN DAVIS
(IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION) PATRICIA C.
FORTUNE (FOR-PROFIT HOUSING PROVIDER) AND
APPOINTING ALAN HAMISCH (LOW-INCOME ADVOCATE
WITH THE TERM EXPIRING NOVEMBER 8, 2014) TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10D is appointment of members to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Christian --
reappoint Christian Davis, Patricia Fortune, and Alan Hamisch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hamisch, okay. A motion by
Commissioner Henning to approve the committee recommendations
of Mr. Davis, Ms. Fortune, and Mr. Hamisch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to ask one question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A question by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we doing much -- being that
we're not really in the affordable housing business anymore, the
Page 204
September 25-26, 2012
county, and, you know, we've more or less let this be handled by the
community at large and right now we've got quite a bit of affordable
housing still on our books, is this committee a functioning committee
or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's by statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I went through the whole thing,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I totally agree with
you, but it's by statute that we have it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to 10E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we vote?
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: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #10E
DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MR. OCHS: 10E is appointment of member to the Collier
Page 205
September 25-26, 2012
County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will not be recommending
anyone for reappointment at this time, so I'm going to leave the seat
vacant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It'll be readvertised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't get a choice. It must be
nominated by the commissioner from that district. So without a
nomination from the district -- the commissioner of that district,
there's nothing to vote on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that takes us to —
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2012-173: APPOINTING GARY MCNALLY
(NON-TECHNICAL MEMBER) TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10F, sir, appointment of member to the
Environmental Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just had a question on this.
I was reading through this, and it says -- both of them sound just
wonderful, by the way. I don't have any problems with either one. In
fact, I met with Patricia Forkan, but it said one member to fill a
vacancy in the category of nontechnical, which -- and they both are
listed in the category of nontechnical, yet in the applications they both
say technical. Does that make a difference?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Technically, yes.
Page 206
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, do we have an answer to the
question?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, at the moment one of the applicants is
the alternate on the committee, and he's the alternate on the committee
as a technical alternate.
When they both applied, I sent it through to the advisory
committee, and the staff liaison judged that both were eligible to fill
the nontechnical role.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, as much as I would
like to -- I would like to nominate Patricia Forkan, but yet I hate to
overlook Mr. McNally just because -- has he been to all of the
meetings?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Performed all the requested duties as
alternate to the counsel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to turn my back on him, so
what I'd like to say is to move Mr. McNally up to the vacant seat but
move Patricia Forkan up to his seat, which is the -- what is it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Technical advisory council alternate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he's the alternate.
MR. MITCHELL: Right. But the position would have to be
advertised. But I mean -- I mean, and, obviously, we would
encourage her to apply for that position. But, you know, we're now
creating a vacancy, so that vacancy needs to be advertised.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. She was an ideal candidate,
and I hate to turn my back on an ideal candidate, but he deserves the
right to be in that position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to appoint Gary McNally as the nontechnical member of the
Environmental Advisory Council, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
Page 207
September 25-26, 2012
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is approved unanimously.
And I think, Ian, that Commissioner Fiala's intent is to inform
Ms. Forkan that we would encourage her to apply for the technical
alternate.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll take care of that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2012-174: APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
HILLER AND COMMISSIONER COYLE WITH REMAINING
COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS ALTERNATES TO THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, WITH ONE COMMISSIONER
TO ACT AS CHAIRMAN — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 10G is appointment of two Board of County
Commissioners to the Value Adjustment Board with one
commissioner to act as chairman, the remaining commissioners to
serve as alternates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I would love to appoint
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning to those positions.
If that -- if it would be acceptable. Just to -- if it would be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
Page 208
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will -- I will second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'll be the other one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'll second your nomination.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll second. I'll do it, but
I'd have to come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know. I can't nominate you. Well
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can't you put it off till Nance
comes on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When do the first --
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. There's a meeting in October, and it's
got to be advertised. And in the -- one of the stipulations in the
advertising of the meeting is that you stipulate who the chairman is.
Currently that's Commissioner Fiala, but she will not be available for
the meeting. The second person on the committee is Commissioner
Coletta, and he will not be available for the meeting, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's -- is it the October meeting
that we're really concerned about?
MR. MITCHELL: It is, sir. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When is the next meeting?
MR. MITCHELL: I think it will be March.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Put me -- if you want to, put me down
there for the alternate -- I mean, for the other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll nominate Commissioner Hiller
as the chairman and you as the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'll be the other member --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to the Value Adjustment Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. It's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody's got to be there to advise
Page 209
September 25-26, 2012
Commissioner Hiller, so I'll --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, right. She really needs
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you hold my hand through every
meeting, I'll feel a lot better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I won't have any fingers left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, you wouldn't have any
blood left, but that's another thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't act as chairman, Donna. Is
there a second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, there's a second. I'll second it.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's done.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2012-175: APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
HENNING TO SERVE ON THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10H is a recommendation to appoint a County
Commissioner to serve on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council.
Page 210
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to nominate Tom
Henning, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to nominate
Commissioner Henning by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by both
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the next item is 10J, and it's the
review of the performance appraisal for the executive manager of the
Board of County Commissioners. I will remind you, you have a 5:05
time-certain to go back to your two remaining items on your Land
Development Code revisions. You also have an add-on, 10K, under
Board of County Commissioners to speak about another vacancy on
the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we take a break until about
5:07, then we'll take up the LDC items, okay, and then we will
proceed to these remaining items. I would like to stop this agony at 6
o'clock, okay, if it's possible.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll come back tomorrow and
finish up.
(A brief recess was had.)
Page 211
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Can -- we have some residents who have an item that I hope
would be very, very quickly disposed of You think we can go to Item
13A very quickly?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #13A
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
VALENCIA LAKES SUBDIVISION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This item was continued from the July 24, 2012,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the
chairman to sign an agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriffs
Office to have traffic control jurisdiction over the private roads within
the Valencia Lakes subdivision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A motion to approve. And may
I state why? The last time that this item came before us we were not
that familiar with it, and we had a couple of people that were raising
some objection to it -- not raising objections, just looking for answers.
The community has met. They've had a meeting. They
understand what's taking place. And from what I understand, there is
no opposition, no measurable opposition to this.
We have six people here that could speak to us individually, but I
do think that we should just go ahead and approve this item and let
them get about their business.
Page 212
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any objection from anybody
here?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a number of speakers registered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Six speakers? They've all waived. And
excellent presentation, Mr. Anderson. You've earned your $1,000 an
hour.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But thank you for being here. Had
you not been here, we wouldn't have known.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I've got eight speakers. I've got eight
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got eight?
MR. MITCHELL: Should I call their names?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who are the other two?
MR. ANDERSON: Me and my partner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: And I sent him home.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they've waived, too.
Okay. You're not charging for him, are you?
MR. ANDERSON: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by, I think, it was
Commissioner Hiller, wasn't it, or Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, motion, the second
by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 213
September 25-26, 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. It passes unanimously. And who
says government can't be efficient.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for being here, folks. You
make it easy.
Item #13B
DISCUSS ITEM #11E FROM THE BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 11,
2012 AGENDA REGARDING "WASTEWATER BASIN
PROGRAM" CONTRACTS - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
OCTOBER 9, 2012 MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, while we're on this area of the
agenda, other constitutional officers, you had an Item 13B. On the
break Mr. Teach from the County Attorney's Office -- Ms. Kinzel and
I have had a discussion. I think we're all in agreement -- and, Crystal,
I'll ask you to verify this since this is the clerk's item -- that we would
request to move this to the next meeting of October the 9th so we can
do a little bit more research on it.
MS. KINZEL: We're agreeable to that, Leo, and with one
indication that -- just if the contract could be held until then, and I
think utilities was okay with that.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, no problem.
MS. KINZEL: Verify that.
MR. OCHS: No work orders will be issued on those contracts
Page 214
September 25-26, 2012
until after.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we need a motion to continue --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for that item to the meeting on
October the 9th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to continue by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm hoping we can go all the way to
the end tonight. Maybe we'll get these done real quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wouldn't that -- no, there's no chance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No chance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no chance.
Now, what do we have remaining, County Manager? We have
the LDC changes, right?
Item #11L
A HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) PAYBACK
DISBURSEMENT DIRECTIVE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Page 215
September 25-26, 2012
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT SUB-AWARDED TO
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (HFH) AND ANY NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS —APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Also if-- as long as we're trying to
accommodate some other members of the public, we've had a
gentleman from Habitat for Humanity here all day on an item that was
moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. I wonder if the board would
indulge us to hear that.
It was previously Item 16D9 on your agenda, moved to Item 11L.
It's a recommendation to comply with a Housing and Urban
Development payback disbursement directive of federal funds in the
amount of$500,000 for a Community Development Block Grant
project sub-awarded to Habitat for Humanity and authorize any
necessary budget amendments.
This item's moved, as I said, at Commissioner Hiller's request.
We can either present, Commissioner, or respond to questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think there needs to be a
brief presentation, and then I'd like to highlight some points.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We shouldn't take this
money back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's not take this money back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm sorry.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon. Kim Grant, Interim Director of
Housing, Veteran, and Human Services.
Very briefly, Commissioners. The Office of Inspector General
performed an audit on the Housing and Urban Development
organization, and from that there were a number of older projects that
Page 216
September 25-26, 2012
had not been completed, not just in our community, but in many
others.
And one of the projects that was an old project started in
2004/2005 time frame was a grant that was given to Habitat for
Humanity. And they did purchase the land, which is what the grant
was for; however, they were not able to complete the national
objective, which was putting people in the homes. So HUD wrote to
us and said that we must pay the funds back.
So we contacted Habitat and have been working with them, and
they were very gracious and supplied us with a check. We have
deposited that and are ready to return the funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the things that caused me a
great deal of concern when I read the executive summary was the facts
as to why they couldn't go vertical. And one of-- one fact in
particular was what I said this morning -- and I'm going to repeat it on
the record for purposes of this discussion -- is that due to the flood
maps, that they were unable to move forward with pulling permits.
And I would like if the representative from Habitat could explain
further what these flood maps meant to them and why they couldn't
pull the permits, because I think it's basically a -- you're like a
bellwether, if you will, for what might happen with more development
in these flood zones, especially in the Immokalee area.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Nick Koulorheras, executive vice
president of land development for Habitat for Humanity. And thank
you for moving this agenda item up.
I agreed with your points this morning with Mr. Casalanguida
and with you, Commissioner. Habitat for Humanity could have
proceeded with the project; however, with the uncertainty of those
flood maps -- and, you know, besides the upfront cost of what that
could do to the development, Habitat's major concern is the end-user.
You know, our families are low-income families, and if their
Page 217
September 25-26, 2012
flood insurance goes from zero or $100 a year up to some other
number greater than that, that becomes an economic burden on them.
And so that's why we made the cost analysis and the decision
we're not going to move forward at this time until we have all the data
needed.
Consequently, because we couldn't move forward, we started
another community. So we will build this community in Immokalee
one day. It is our long-range plan; however, we're going to finish
another community we started. It doesn't make sense to have multiple
communities going, you know, in one small demographic, so we're
going to build to the need.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when you were doing your
financial analysis, did you notice a change in your construction costs
as a consequence of the zoning that that land that you acquired was
going to be placed in?
MR. KOULORHERAS: Yes. Well, our concern was, obviously,
elevation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KOULORHERAS: -- for FEMA, and when you're dealing
-- this one tract is 100 acres. And we were originally, back in '05, '06
when the planning came for this, we were looking at inches difference.
But inches over 100 acres adds up to quite a bit of money. And it was
determined that it was just too risky at that point in time with
uncertainty.
You know, we had meetings long ago saying we could go forth,
put in infrastructure. But, once again, you know, we're good stewards
of donor dollars, and we want to make sure we do everything right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then on the back side with
respect to your potential purchasers, the problem there is with
insurance costs being higher and then being either low or
moderate-income families, they would then not qualify for mortgages
Page 218
September 25-26, 2012
because their total overhead would be larger than what you had
anticipated?
MR. KOULORHERAS: Well, we're our own bank, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you -- you still have to
qualify, because when you sell your loan -- so to the extent that, you
know, you're basically -- you're your own bank to a degree because, I
mean, you're underwriting for the benefit of some other ultimate end
purchaser of your mortgage pool.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Yes. But you make an excellent point,
though. Yeah, that's all considered background. We set house
pricing. We look at -- for better, for worse, most of the families we
cater to live paycheck to paycheck, and we look at those ratios.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, as you progress, what
I would really appreciate, if you come back and let the board know
when you can't proceed as a function of this flood issue, because I do
see it as a potential moratorium, direct or indirect, on the development
industry. And you're the first example that I came across when I was
looking at these maps.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Well, thank you. And I appreciate the
concern. You know, it was always our intention -- we went forth with
that community as strong and as fast as we possibly could have. We
invested a great deal of time, effort, and money into that community.
So we will build there one day. It's just -- the timing is not right, right
now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to be cost effective.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Otherwise, it doesn't work.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Thank you for the opportunity, though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Especially there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
Page 219
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question. In it, it also
says the next RFP will be announced shortly. Are you going to build
there again; is that what it means, the next RFP?
MR. KOULORHERAS: I should let the housing department --
we're not building our -- it's not scheduled to build Kikossa (phonetic)
any time in the near future, Commissioner. But I should let the
housing department answer about the RFP.
MS. GRANT: One of the good-news items about this is that
these funds will be re-available for use in Collier County. So we will
be providing the typical round of applications for people to submit to
use these funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this goes back into, what, CDBG
funds?
MS. GRANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, those could be
used -- because we're not in the housing business anymore, we could
use those for other things within the community like a community
center, right?
MS. GRANT: They could certainly be used for CDBG-eligible
activity, and we would be bringing -- once we go through the
competitive round, we'd be bringing those agreements to the board,
and you would make the final determination as to what -- which
projects would get funded.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you thinking about your
project in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because, I mean, that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because it's mostly Habitat kids that
would be in that area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, but -- well, actually, I think
Commissioner Fiala makes a good point, because what we did is we
Page 220
September 25-26, 2012
did a swap with funding for another project in Immokalee. We took
the CDBG funds from that Immokalee project and moved it over, but
then we still had to, I believe, come out of the General Fund for part of
that park, notwithstanding.
So if you move those funds over to this park, then you'll free up
the General Fund monies that we had allocated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as it doesn't compromise it,
right.
MS. GRANT: Well, then what I'll make sure happens is that the
park staffs knows that they can submit an application to release for
those funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And, obviously -- yeah, if it
has to be competitively bid, then that's definitely the way it has to be
procured for that project.
MS. GRANT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are there any other projects like
that out there, or was this the only one?
MS. GRANT: This was the only project that fit into this
category. There was one other old activity where, if I recall correctly,
an appraisal was done 12 years ago or 10 years ago for $780, and the
project did not go through. So we're in the process of returning that.
But this is the only item of size.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there are other projects in
Immokalee, aren't there, like Esperanza, that are receiving CDBG
funds, aren't there?
MS. GRANT: Oh, yes, I'm sorry; I misunderstood your question.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I think those need to
be very carefully monitored.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
Page 221
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller. Second by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one other possible deviation
from our agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #11H and #12F (Speaker)
SPEAKER UNABLE TO ATTEND DAY TWO OF THE MEETING;
SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF THE EVALUATION OF THE COUNTY
MANAGER AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Hoppensteadt wanted to make a
comment concerning evaluations, appraisals of some of the contract
employees for the board. We're not going to get to those until
tomorrow. I think they're going to take a while, and so we'll hear
those at 9 o'clock tomorrow. But would the board indulge Mr.
Hoppensteadt and let him make his comments today, because he can't
Page 222
September 25-26, 2012
come back tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's been here all day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. He should have been
indulged at 9 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he has nothing else to do, so he
just likes to hang out here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this was like a vacation for
you; right, Jim?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it probably is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, taking a little break.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, today's my birthday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy Birthday. Oh, my God.
That's great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you 39?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations. Wow. And you
spent the day here?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: And I spent the day here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, this is an important item for me.
First of all, I want to thank the commission for passing the emergency
order for facilities down there. We greatly appreciate it, and we will
monitor that closely.
For the record, my name is Jim Hoppensteadt. I'm the president
and CEO of the Pelican Bay Foundation. This committee will know
I've also served as -- on your Productivity Committee, I've served on
the board of the chamber, I've served on the board -- currently serve
on the board of Leadership Collier, and am currently the chair and on
the board of the Education Foundation.
All of those roles have allowed me the opportunity -- well, most
Page 223
September 25-26, 2012
of those roles have allowed me the opportunity, personally, to interact
with Jeff Klatzkow and Leo Ochs.
And noticing their item on the agenda, it would be a disservice to
them not to come up and express to you what great professionalism,
integrity, dedication, and accountability that these two gentlemen have
brought to their jobs.
Obviously, the paper has made note of the issue that
Commissioner Hiller has brought up.
These two gentlemen have done an excellent job this past year.
Certainly in the case of Leo, four out of the five commissioners have
recommended -- recognized his accomplishments as exceeding
expectations.
We all know that there are political issues that you guys grapple
with, and you're not always going to see eye to eye. Please, please,
please don't make your staff a political issue.
There are morale issues that you should know about. Keeping
the leadership in place, supporting them is very, very important to
your staff, and I would urge you to do so.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jim.
Okay. Let's get to land development.
Item #9B — Continued from earlier in the day
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this takes us back to 9B, which is a
5:05 hearing on the Bayshore Triangle's CRA amendments and the
wellfield amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These are the same amendments
we heard previously?
MS. CILEK: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those two.
Page 224
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion if there's no
public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there are no public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the balance
of the LDC amendments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve the remaining LDC items, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Do you have a comment, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had the opportunity to meet with
Mr. Vanasse and our new interim director of the CRA. And in
reviewing the wording of what was proposed in the amendment, I
would say that it rises to the level of a takings, regulatory takings.
The section specifically -- can you help me, Patrick? Which -- I
don't -- I believe it was -- it's the nonconforming provisions. And not
only after our discussion -- it's on Page 81 and 82. But not only -- not
only is this nonconforming section --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's nonconforming lots?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the nonconforming
provisions. It's definitely challengeable. And this also took us back to
9.03.01, which also appears to have issues that would rise to the level
of a regulatory takings.
So on the basis of that, Commissioner Henning -- let me make it
easy for you. Let me send you the pages. I'll just pass them down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, because it's hard to get in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's really -- and what Mr. Vanasse
and I discussed -- here it is. And it's very, very important. He was
very kind. He -- here, you can pass this down. And everybody else is
Page 225
September 25-26, 2012
welcome to look at it also.
He gave me a great deal of information to review, and I have a
file on nonconformities.
But, in short, what's being proposed in both sections of the code
and what Mr. Vanasse's intent was was to basically not make it as
onerous as our general provision is within this particular component
for the Bayshore CRA, notwithstanding the problem remains that the
way both sections of the code are handling nonconformities, I see as a
major problem.
So I was not able to support what was being proposed. And Mr.
Vanasse understood my concerns and appreciated where I was coming
from.
I really think both those sections need to be revisited in whole.
MR. VANASSE: If I may, I'd like to clarify certain things.
Patrick Vanasse for the record.
Jean and I did meet with Commissioner Hiller. We were asked to
provide some background information on nonconformities. I did a
literature search. I -- as a planner also, I am part of the AICP
certification and have access to a planning service that can provide
you background information. I did a review of the literature. And
what I'd like to clarify, though, is, yes, we did discuss
nonconformities.
My opinion of the literature that I read is that we are doing
nothing that constitutes a taking and that we are not affecting people's
property rights in any negative way.
Could some of the language that's in the existing code be
improved upon? I would agree to that. And I think there's been
discussion already with these LDC amendments that it could be
revisited at a later date, but I am not of the opinion that this affects
people in any negative way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, what is your position?
Page 226
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or County -- whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoever's sitting in that chair over
there, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff is fine, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I haven't looked at the issue. Commissioner
Hiller may be raising an issue I don't know. I'd be happy to look at the
issue. And if we concur with Commissioner Hiller, we'll come back
to this board; otherwise --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, didn't we have some members of
your staff review this, though?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, this has been vetted for a
long period of time. We're comfortable with it. Commissioner Hiller
raises a specific issue on a specific provision. I haven't had a chance
to look at this.
I'm more than willing to give Commissioner Hiller the benefit of
the doubt and take a look at this issue. And if we concur with her
analysis, we'll come back to the board, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what are you saying we do with this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you could adopt it, quite frankly, and
I can come back to the board if there's an issue, and we can fix it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why can't we just remove
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I'm not even sure what page we're
on. I don't have what you have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Why don't we just
continue on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This one is 81, and in the bigger one
it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, H1 .
Page 227
September 25-26, 2012
MR. VANASSE: If I may, I think the concern from
Commissioner Hiller -- and she can jump in if I'm not paraphrasing the
right way. The concern is really with the existing nonconformities
provisions in the Land Development Code, not in the
Bayshore/Gateway overlay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was concerned with both,
because in the Land Development Code it has certain -- it's imposing
certain requirements on these nonconforming properties that cannot be
imposed on them because there's no justification to impose those
requirements on them.
You know, to the extent that they're not doing anything to change
their property, we can't force them to do things that -- just because. I
mean, we basically cannot regulate blight.
MR. VANASSE: But these nonconform --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like, we can't take blight.
MR. VANASSE: These regulations that currently exist have
been vetted through the process. At some point the county
commissioners approved that language. It was reviewed by the county
attorney, I'm sure, at that point. It had to go through a formal approval
process. It's been on the books for years.
So right now, essentially, we're guilty by association because
somehow we refer back to that section.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that these regulations have
the potential effect of a regulatory takings, and I can't support it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I step in and say --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on this particular -- it's a CRA.
There's a difference between your neighborhood, my neighborhood,
and a CRA. The CRA is established only in areas where there's slum,
blight, and crime. And so there's got to be a way to get rid of some of
the slum, blight, and crime.
Page 228
September 25-26, 2012
I can only tell you personally how I've been involved with
Bayshore and watched what's happened as the crime rate went down,
as we approached people that own slums, offer to pay them a fair and
legitimate price. Sometimes we've had to contact them while they're
in jail, but we've bought them anyway. That is the truth, right? I'm
not -- I'm not saying anything that isn't true. But we've bought them
anyway, and the places were in such, I'm sorry to say, disgusting
condition we had to just haul them away to the landfill. They weren't
safe for human beings to live in. What happened was the crime
dropped, what was it, 30 percent or 33 percent when we hauled away
MS. JOURDAN: Actually, it was -- for the record, Jean Jourdan,
interim director of CRA. Actually 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty percent. Fifty percent the
crime went down when we were able to get rid of the blight and the
slums, and that's a great thing. You can't help a community unless
you have the tools with which to do it.
Now, I'm talking just this CRA. I'm talking about CRAs in
general. The reason they're established is to get rid of them. They're
not doing -- they're not doing the work they're designed to do unless
they have the ability to go in and -- not clear people out without
paying for it. But, you know, pay for the lots at a fair price and move
forward. So I am totally behind this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sony.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does blight and slums
have to do with nonconforming structures or lots?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't have anything to do with
it.
Page 229
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're getting close to six clock,
and I'd like to get some work done. If we could stay on the topic, I
would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it was exactly that, though.
These nonconforming lots are in a slum and blighted area is what my
point is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any oppose the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion fails 3-2 with
Commissioner Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. We're going to have to
keep the slum and blights, but thank you everyone. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, it doesn't have anything
to do with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's why it's improved, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, folks. Some of us tried to
help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Now the -- does that item fail?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. It failed 3-2 because Hiller
and Henning objected to it. Okay.
MS. CILEK: We do have one item left on the agenda, and that is
the wellfield amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
Page 230
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that means all of the Bayshore
amendments to this Land Development Code have failed; is that
correct?
MR. VANASSE: Can we interject?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do this motion?
MR. VANASSE: The answer to your question is yes, and we'd
like the board to reconsider. If there's an issue with the nonconformity
section, to still approve the overlays and revisit those nonconformities
at a later date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what I was going to
suggest; however, we got off the track of something else, and then the
motion was called, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. My concern is that --
having identified this and having met to just address this issue, I feel I
need to go back to be sure that the balance of what is in there doesn't
have the unintended consequence of doing the same. So I can't support
it because right now I just don't feel comfortable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have a motion to
reconsider?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Coletta.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was in the majority.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. But it's 3-2. The only members
who can reconsider are Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner
Henning.
Page 231
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't think you were going to
catch it. I thought I'd try it anyways.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's late, but it's not that late.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Just another failure to
take action to help our community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. I was trying
to help.
MS. JOURDAN: I think Commissioner Henning wants to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, they want to ignore me.
They want to talk about something else that has nothing to do with --
on the agenda, can you stay on the agenda? Can you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't
usually raise my voice, but a little sarcasm has to get some voice
raising in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it just flows much better,
and there's -- everybody understands if we just stick to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to make a motion
to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 232
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes, but it's opposed by
Commissioner Hiller.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, do you want to consider it now, or do
you want to continue it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I want --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to consider a motion to accept
the balances of the Bayshore CRA LDC amendments except for
nonconformities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you do that?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes. I just wanted to make it clear that what
this -- what this does -- our provisions for the nonconformities actually
were more flexible than what's allowed in the LDC, so now it will
revert to the LDC, the nonconformities, which will be less flexible
than what we proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it sounds like it all needs
to be fixed, so let's do it all at once, and we can give that direction
another time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you remove all of the
nonconformity provisions here, you're merely reverting to the existing
LDC --
MS. JOURDAN: Correct --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with respect to nonconformities --
MS. JOURDAN: -- and we can live with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which gives you sufficient control but
not as much flexibility.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
Page 233
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I have that right?
MS. JOURDAN: You have that right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let's call the question.
All in favor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's Commissioner Hiller opposed again.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this time it passed. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
wellfields.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already did that, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. OCHS: No, no, sir.
MS. CILEK: We need a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already seconded it. You're a third.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the wellfields
by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes.
Page 234
September 25-26, 2012
MS. CILEK: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, it -- why don't we just hold
everything else until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, County
Manager?
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the board, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anything pressing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's nothing pressing, is there?
Nothing somebody's waiting for?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've still got some time. It would
be good if we could at least get a few more done so -- and it'd be easy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't do the evaluations in that
amount of time. You get into what, 11A or B?
Item #10K
CONSIDERATION OF AN IMPENDING VACANCY ON THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
DISTRICT 5 REPRESENTATIVE - MOTION TO ADVERTISE
THE VACANCY AND BRING BACK AT THE SECOND
MEETING IN OCTOBER — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: You have one item under 10, sir. I don't know if
you want to deal with that. That was the add-on item from
Commissioner Coletta on the vacancy on the Planning Commission.
Other than that, it's staff items that can be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought that was handled by the county
attorney earlier where he said that that vacancy is vacant, and we'll
have to take it up in the second week in October. Didn't we -- didn't
we determine that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It -- it's dependent upon what
Commissioner Coletta does at this particular motion -- item.
Page 235
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I thought you clarified that
earlier. But go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
we advertise and bring this back the second meeting of October with
all the applicants that are interested from District 5.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to advertise the vacancy and bring the applicants for consideration in
the second meeting in October.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that -- I just have a question.
I'll second it for the sake of my question. Does that mean we can't just
motion to reinstate Mark Strain at this meeting because it's not
advertised?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You could, but it's up to Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you second it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You did second it. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had a settlement agreement
that we reprimanded -- remanded down to the Planning Commission.
Two senior members on there is Mark Strain and Brad Schiffer, so we
don't have those, and we can't appoint -- reappoint Mark Strain
without Commissioner Coletta agreeing to it.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, and you cannot reappoint Mr.
Schiffer without Commissioner Hiller agreeing to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to put a lot of
Page 236
September 25-26, 2012
burden, in my opinion, on the Board of County Commissioners and
staff, because you're losing -- you're losing a lot. And I guess that's
the parting shot for the work that we need to do in the future, because
there's going to be a lot of land-use items that are going to get stuck up
here. It's just not going to have the good oversight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't we just give the -- the mining
we just gave back to them, too, didn't we, to the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All of that has nothing to do with the
item. Can we stay on point, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'll call the question.
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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
Now, we have 11A and 11B. We've got to come back tomorrow
anyway. So you want to stay here -- well, no, we can't do anything in
10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, unless we just motion. It's
pretty short, sweet, and simple on 11A and B, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you look over there and see how
simple it's going to be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When is the -- when is the shores
Page 237
September 25-26, 2012
-- the beaches and shores conference? That's not tomorrow?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's tomorrow at one o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Starting at one. Okay. So we have
till one o'clock. I have to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you have? You have
something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She said 11A.
Item #1 1 A
AGREEMENT #12-5901 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
AND INSPECTION (CEI) AND RELATED SERVICES FOR US41
& SR/CR 951 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND SR951
(COLLIER BOULEVARD) 3R IMPROVEMENTS"; TO ATKINS,
NORTH AMERICA, INC.: PROJECT NO. 60116, FISCAL
IMPACT $1,748,086.25 — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 11A.
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the board, sir. Whatever you want to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you promise me it will be short and
sweet?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'm more interested in being short
than sweet.
MS. MESSAM: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I have five
slides, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, listen, I'd like to make a
motion to approve.
MS. MESSAM: Absolutely. I can just answer questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve.
Page 238
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning has his light on. Is it on for a reason?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, because you didn't turn it
off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll take care of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Charge him for it.
Commissioner Hiller?
It won't come back on again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Call the vote.
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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was an excellent presentation.
MS. MESSAM: Thank you so much.
Item #11B
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,381,990.36 TO BONNESS, INC. AND RESERVE 10%
($138,199.04) ON THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR
CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL OF $1,520,189.40 FOR ITB #12-
5946 "LASIP OUTFALLS 3 AND 4 CANALS STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS", PROJECT NO. 51101 — APPROVED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 11B.
Page 239
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Give it a try.
MR. OCHS: 11B, it's award of a contract for LASIP Outfalls 3
and 4 canals stormwater improvement project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for staying all day.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have two quick insurance
renewal items, both reductions from the prior year, if you want to hear
those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Give them a shot.
Item #11F
PURCHASE OF GROUP DENTAL INSURANCE THROUGH
CIGNA DENTAL PLAN, INC. FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2013 FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
PREMIUM OF $1,626,697, A REDUCTION OF $103,824 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11F is a recommendation to approve the
Page 240
September 25-26, 2012
purchase of group dental insurance through Cigna Dental plan for a
two-year period, effective January 1, 2013, an estimated annual
premium $1,626,697, a reduction of$103,824.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala, to approve.
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's approved unanimously.
Item #11G
THE PURCHASE OF LIABILITY, AUTOMOBILE, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, FLOOD, AIRCRAFT, AIRPORT AND OTHER
INSURANCE COVERAGE AND SERVICES FOR FY 2013 IN
THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,325,228, A REDUCTION OF
$37,923 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11G is a recommendation to approve purchase of
liability, automobile workers' compensation, flood, aircraft, airport,
and other insurance coverages and services for FY2013, annual
amount of 1,325,228, a reduction of$37,923.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve that one.
Page 241
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala. Second by who?
I'll second it.
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.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, you did some great work in
here, Jeff. Thank you very much.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Item #1 1 J
A SCHEDULE TO REVIEW PAST STAFF CLARIFICATIONS OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AND ACCEPT
SPECIFIC STAFF CLARIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO THIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO
THE CCPC FOR REVIEW — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I don't know how much time we need to talk about
the staff clarification on LDC items. Probably --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my recommendation that it
be presented to the Planning Commission and then be brought
forward. I mean, these are -- you know, these are our LDC issues, and
I don't think that the Planning Commission's input should be bypassed
on them.
Page 242
September 25-26, 2012
So my suggestion was just to remand it back to the Planning
Commission and then bring it forward at a later date after they've
reviewed it.
MR. OCHS: May we give a little -- just a two-minute
backgrounder on this, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may if you like.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Keep it quick, Commissioners.
For the record, Mr. Casalanguida. Commissioner Henning
actually brought up a good point, when we were discussing staff
clarifications before, to bring it back. Because we had a couple that
were in conflict with some that were prior.
So the discussion was, at the board, if we brought them forward
in a schedule, maybe offer the board -- maybe if we keep them on the
board schedule and if you see anything that you don't like or are a
little curious about sending to the Planning Commission, we can go
both ways. But it will add some time if we go to the Planning
Commission with all of these and then come back to the board.
Some of these are pretty clear. If you have a question about it,
we could always send to the Planning Commission for discussion, but
we'll go either way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Send them all back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me put his button back on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: High testosterone. High
testosterone, is that the word? I forget what they apply to men who
are very aggressive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tired.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have a motion to send them all
to the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
Page 243
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to clarify our
discussion.
Nick Casalanguida said that it would be his recommendations
just to send the ones back that any commissioner had objections to. It
wasn't what I said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's what I said. I've got concerns with
all of them. I just think it's unacceptable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
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.
Item #11K
RESOLUTION 2012-176: CONTINUE THE FISCAL YEAR 2012
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY INTO FISCAL YEAR 2013, ALLOWING FOR
FINAL REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013
Page 244
September 25-26, 2012
PLAN WHICH WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR
CONSIDERATION AT THE BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 9,
2012 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11K was add-on agenda item. It's a
recommendation to continue the current Fiscal Year '12 pay and
classification plan to your next board meeting of October 9th. Staff
request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Each year we bring an annual pay and
classification plan to the board. Because it is -- the current year's plan
was listed as an FY plan for 2012 in discussions with the Clerk's
Office, they indicated that it -- it will technically -- I guess, technically
expire at the end of this month. And the new pay plan for the
following year will not come for the county attorney or the county
manager till your next board meeting, which, obviously, is nine days
into the new year.
So in order to allow people to get their next paycheck, under the
current pay plan we've got to -- we're told we have to extend the
current plan for nine days.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see, okay. I just want to
comment on the raises that you're giving. You're giving everyone a 3
percent raise?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. The board authorized a 2 percent
general wage adjustment as part of your adopted 2013 budget.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. How is that going to affect
the constitutionals? Are they going to get the same 2 percent
increase? Like, is the Sheriffs Office going to get it and the tax
collector and the other constitutionals?
MR. OCHS: Typically, that's up to the constitutional officer,
ma'am. I can poll them for you, if you'd like.
Page 245
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know what they're going
todo --
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because I'm really concerned
that -- you know, I don't see how we, where we control their budgets,
can give our staff raises, but then the constitutionals are not given
enough money where they get raises.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have we ever said no to them, by
the way?
MR. OCHS: No. I don't know what their plan is. That's why I
have to check with them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'd like to know, and I
really think that -- you know, that they should be -- whatever we get
they should get.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I agree. Especially when it comes to the
insurance, too. We've had that discussion. There's a lot of money
that's going over there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's fair is fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then, of course, the question
is if any of it is financially feasible, which has to be evaluated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get to the issue here. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. To continue it till October the
Page 246
September 25-26, 2012
9th.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue by
Commissioner Henning, second by -- who was it, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me, yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's been continued.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: I believe that concludes everything except the
evaluation items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll start those at 9 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And hopefully finish them up before the
end of the day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hopefully finish them up by 11
o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned.
Page 247
September 25-26, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:57 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 25-26, 2012
(Day 2)
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in CONTINUED
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Page 248
September 25-26, 2012
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 249
September 25-26, 2012
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
County Manager, I believe we finished everything up yesterday
except the evaluations of the three contract employees to the board; is
that true?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, everything but the commission and staff
communications at the end of the meeting. But other than that, just
the appointment —
Item #10J
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - MOTION TO DIRECT COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO FIND A RESOLUTION TO MR. MITCHELL'S
REQUEST — APPROVED; MOTION FOR THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO BRING BACK SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR
CONSIDERATIONS (September 26, 2012)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right, then let's start with 10.J
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which is the Annual Performance
Appraisal of the Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners, Ian Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could I read a document into
record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you may. Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: "Commissioners, after considerable thought
and deliberation, I find myself having to ask you to make an important
Page 250
September 25-26, 2012
and profound choice. I've concluded that my role as manager of the
Board of County Commissioners has become untenable and I am
unable to perform my duties unless the Commissioners agree to
fundamental process changes.
The well-publicized disagreement between commissioners and
the unnecessary scrutiny of the county employees who diligently
strive to support the work of the elected members has not only
significantly undermined the morale of these employees but also
resulted in substantial distraction to their work which is neither in the
best interest of elected representatives nor the constituents that they
represent.
On this occasion I will choose not to speak on their collective
behalf but simply advise you that I as the manager of the Board will
not continue to be denigrated by certain commissioners as they strive
to score political points over one another. You were elected to this
office to not only represent your constituents but also to work
collectively for the betterment of Collier County and its residents.
It is a solemn duty that I personally believe several of you have
failed. I will not name individuals but instead ask you to collectively
agree that the management of the Board rests solely with the
appointed manager. The aids that form this office need to serve the
greater good of the constituencies that you represent and not the
individual agendas of the Commissioners. The manager must ensure
the good governance of this principle and have the authority to bring
to task with the support of the County Attorney commissioners who
seek to use their elected positions to pursue personal agendas that
abuse the dignity of county personnel and result in the frivolous use of
taxpayer money and resources.
If you are willing to adapt to principle of good governance in
terms of the board management, I'm willing to dedicate myself and my
energies to ensure that this objective is achieved and maintained. If
Page 251
September 25-26, 2012
you find this principle unacceptable, I ask you to terminate my
position. This is a choice that I ask you to make today."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, were these lights on -- left on
from yesterday or did they come on this morning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mine came on this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Henning, was yours --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mine is from yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yesterday.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mine was from yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yesterday? All right, Commissioner
Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. It's right to the point.
You know, very few people have been able to speak their mind around
here or have been willing to do it.
I wonder if there is a possibility for change. You know the
school board went through a similar sequence back some years ago,
and they had some special sessions to try to knit it back together
again. I don't know, that might be an answer. But, I mean, that's less
than certain. Your job has been extremely difficult. I've been
following what's been taking place for some time.
I fully agree with you. It's -- you're in an untenable position that
you can't really manage the office when you've got people pulling
from five different ways. Totally agree with you.
And as far as asking for termination, you've been a tremendous
administrator of our office. I greatly appreciate what you did and
what you tried to do. And I'm willing to agree, but I hope there's some
more discussion to your termination according to the provisions within
your contract.
Not that I like to see it, and you're going to be a hard person to
replace, it's just that I don't see the situation changing.
Page 252
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just stunned. I'm trying to get
over it. I've enjoyed working with you and you've worked diligently
trying to -- I know we've had very, very low morale in there, and
you've tried what you can to bring a little bit of spirit in there and to
try and keep people's spirits up. But I just don't know what to say.
I'm not saying anything, because I guess I'm stunned, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, could you comment?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm as surprised as Commissioner Fiala is. I
mean, comment -- as a general comment or on a specific matter?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the legality of the issues with --
I believe that there are personnel issues and I believe you're involved
in I guess the issues involving -- I think you've had a county attorney
working with the staff and with Ian regarding the issues that are --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's, that's -- and I know what you're
talking about, ma'am. That's a collateral issues, I think.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Collateral issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think that this --
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue presented right now is that I really
don't want to talk from. I think he's asking to be fired. Sort of like
what David Jackson did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And under the new statute, if
there's a termination, is it at -- it's a voluntary termination, so it's 20
weeks pay?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I believe was awarded
to David Jackson.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I'm going to hear what the Board
wants to do and --
Page 253
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what is legally permitted? I
mean, there's a statute that governs terminations.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would have to look at his contract, ma'am.
I did not come here today thinking this was going to happen, to be
bold. If you can give me five minutes, ma'am. 'Cause -- 'cause really,
this is -- I am -- I am a bit stupefied.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, can you please email a copy
of Chapter 215, Section 215.425 to all the commissioners, Jeff, so that
they have a copy of the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Are you referring to the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry, are you referring to the statute we
were talking about earlier?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, this is the extra
compensation claims, prohibited bonuses, severance pay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you know this was coming?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I just pulled the law.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can put it on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so stunned, so I wouldn't have
even known to pull anything, myself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, No, this -- I had this actually
related to another matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is -- there is a law that was
-- the law with respect to compensation, to termination compensation
and bonuses was changed last year in 2011.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we addressed this when it
came to David Jackson's termination, because he wanted like a bonus
and then, you know -- so that's how I had this information.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Mr. Jackson was six weeks, but
Page 254
September 25-26, 2012
that was on the particulars of that particular matter. If the board
wants, I can put this on the overhead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask another question,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we acquiesced and said okay,
we'll terminate your employment, does that mean like you go now or
does that mean you have like a couple weeks to let us try and find
somebody to fill your shoes, or what?
MR. MITCHELL: I mean, Commissioner, there's no way I want
to harm the office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that.
MR. MITCHELL: I feel so passionately about the BCC office,
and I've really, really tried to change its perspective with regards to
the rest of the county and the way that it operates. And there's no way
that I would leave those people isolated or -- so I would work a period
of time to allow them to work through that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ian, just so you know, in your
employment contract, if I have the latest version, or the correct
version, it says that if you want to resign, if you give the county 60
days notice, you protect your accrued leave. If you decide to
voluntarily resign with less than 60 days notice, you forfeit any
payment for accrued leave otherwise due and owing.
So that's what the contract says. So I don't know, you know,
what your accrued leave is and what your consideration is with respect
to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian, is it your evaluations that
Page 255
September 25-26, 2012
prompted you to write this statement?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I -- in the end the -- I mean, it wasn't the
evaluations themselves, it was what happened with the evaluations
that was actually, I guess the expression is, the straw that broke the
camel's back. This -- this decision has been forming for some time as,
you know, I've seen the difficulties that I've been trying to come to
terms with.
And what I've just read out to you I wrote a few days ago. But in
actual fact you would have thought I would have written it as a
commentary on the Board meeting yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Ian, do you realize that
you have the opportunity to talk to individual commissioners? And I
know this is a difficult discussion in the public. But I've talked to
several contract employees in the past and recent present about
evaluations.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, my evaluations were good. I mean, right
across the board. Because even, you know, initially my evaluation
from Commissioner Hiller looked incredibly bad, but we actually --
yesterday she spoke to me and it turned out she was using a different
scoring system than I was and what the rest of you did. So when you
-- you know, you do the math to change it so that everything's
equitable. And in actual fact I got a good evaluation from everybody.
And the evaluations in themselves were -- didn't really play a part
in this. It was -- I mean, because I got good evaluations, I mean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm glad we
cleared that up. But I always -- I think you have an opportunity to talk
to commissioners individually instead of in the public. Because it's --
well, it is what it is. And I know it's embarrassing for everybody. But
again, it is what it is.
So I'm not going to ask you to step down. However, if you want
to resign, I will respect your wishes.
Page 256
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, to kind of cast a positive light
on this, is there a way that we can help you and our staff members in
that office in order to lift the morale or save your employment so that
-- because I think in essence what the bottom line is you're trying to
say if we could do a better job, everybody would be a lot happier but I
see no way to do it in this mode. I'm interpreting it that way.
So maybe there's a way we could work with you -- work with our
staff members to make a more harmonious atmosphere. Would that be
something that you would consider, if we could do something like
that?
MR. MITCHELL: I think, Commissioners, it's -- it's the Board.
I mean, I just find the work environment untenable I think, so I'm not
sure where I could go with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just -- Ian, there's no severance if you
leave under these circumstances. I'm going to tell you that right now.
MR. MITCHELL: Unless the Board terminates.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you right now, all right? Unless
the board wants to make a motion to terminate you, you know, there's
no severance walking away.
MR. MITCHELL: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: The severance package is six months. The
statute refers to contracts that get renegotiated or extended. He's still
on his old contract, so it would be a six-month severance package.
If the board wants to consider that, I've got the Board approved
contract, I could put that on the overhead and you could see what the
financial impact would be. But for resignation there's no severance.
That's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, as I understand it, Ian is not
resigning. He's asking for us to --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just letting him know.
Page 257
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand.
I also think Ian has done a wonderful job and this saddens me
tremendously. He's done a great job in the office. But there is no
question about his concern that this is an untenable work environment.
The position he holds is and always has been in my opinion one of the
toughest jobs in Collier County government. And maybe it was made
worse by a decision that I influenced several years ago to take the
management out from under the County Manager's umbrella. Because
that would have protected the manager of this department. Because we
have the County Manager's ordinance that would in some degree
shield the manager from some of the abuse and unnecessary criticisms
that he has received from some.
But as we see every day, other members of the County Manager's
staff are exposed to the same problems. So it wouldn't stop it entirely
but it would at least provide some protection. But that places an even
larger load on the back of the County Manager.
Clearly it would be in the best interest of the taxpayers if the
Board would become more sensitive to how their actions and
comments and insinuations and allegations impact employee morale.
But I quite frankly don't see that that's going to change.
And I think that from the standpoint of a termination and
payment of termination benefits, I certainly think that Ian is entitled to
those kinds of severance pay because he is not responsible for the
untenable working environment that has been created here. And he
certainly deserves consideration if it's his desire that we terminate him.
And I would reluctantly see to his request. But I would prefer that he
stay on and hope for a better working environment, but that's not
something I can promise.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think it's likely to change, quite
frankly.
Page 258
September 25-26, 2012
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think you pretty well
summed it up. And we could discuss this over and over again, and it's
not going to take us to any different place than we're at now.
I think the whole thing is a simple motion for termination. And
the terms of the termination as far as when it would be that the exit
would have to be made.
Also too, you brought up an interesting point. I think before this
Board we need to be able to change it so that the county -- this office
is under the County Manager once again totally. I mean, this business
of commissioners hiring known aids, firing known aids, delegating
what kind of work they're going to do or not do, that's all got to come
to an end. Not too long before we became commissioners there was
only Sue Filson in the office, and she did everything for all the
commissioners. And that was it. And yeah, there was a lot of-- there
was some in-fighting and everything, but not like it is today.
What's happening is that some of the commissioners have
become disillusioned with each other and their aides have joined in on
the whole thing, human nature being what it is.
I do believe that that's a -- that would be a separate thing that
we'd have to do as far as directing the County Manager.
But I'm going to make a motion at this point in time, and if
somebody wants to weigh in on it, I'm willing to modify it --
MR. KLATZKOW: Before you do that, because this is not clear,
I'm going to tell you right now, all right. The way the contract -- and
Leo's contract is like this, my contract. The way these contracts are
structured says you can fire us with cause and without cause, all right?
Ian is on the without cause structure here. But the contracts provide
that he's being terminated despite the fact that he is willing and able to
perform the duties as executive manager to the Board of
Commissioners. And he's telling you here that he's not.
Page 259
September 25-26, 2012
You can make this motion, all right, but I don't know that
payments can be made by the Clerk. Because this is really not the --
this is really not the intent of the severance. The intent of the
severance is, as an example, you get new board members on, they
want a different county manager, they want a different county
attorney. They could simply say okay, you guys are gone, we want
our own people in here. And That's fine. That's the intent of the
provision, okay. It's not to come to the board and say I can't work
under these conditions. All right? You can make the motion, but I
don't know that there's going to be payment made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well --
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to say this, but, you know, I don't
want any surprises down the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I appreciate the fact
that you're bringing this up now. And possibly it has to do with the
wording of the motion that would get us there.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, at the end of the day, Ian, are you
willing and able to perform the duties as executive manager to the
Board of County Commissioners?
MR. MITCHELL: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then there's no severance.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'm --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not severance, it's
termination.
MR. KLATZKOW: He can be terminated, but he's not willing to
do his job now and that's why people quit.
MR. MITCHELL: I stated in the statements I made that I was
able to do it but not -- if I was going to do that, then it would have to
be under extremely different conditions. And as Chairman Coyle has
said, he does not anticipate that that is going to happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And my interpretation of that, Jeff,
Page 260
September 25-26, 2012
would be that this is a situation where an untenable working
environment has been created by the Board for the manager. The
manager is willing to try if the Board will improve. The Board likely
cannot, will not improve. And so given those circumstances, it would
appear to be in the public's best interest to terminate the office
manager and reorganize the office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion,
Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me get Jeff s interpretation or
reaction to that reasoning.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I understand what you're
saying, all right, but what I'm telling Ian here, okay, is that this is not
clearcut, all right? And at the end of the day there's a check and
balance in the system with the Clerk. And if he feels that under the
terms of the contract he cannot pay, all right, then the dispute's not
going to be between the Board of County Commissioners or me and
the Clerk, the dispute's going to be with Ian and the Clerk, trying to
compel payment.
I don't know if Ian has gotten individual counsel on this
beforehand, all right, or he's just come here. But I'm saying that this is
not clean. And I understand the reasons. I once again want to say, I
understand what you're saying, but I'm just letting Ian know that there
is this issue out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard, Ian, is you said
under different circumstances that you would love to stay; is that
correct?
MR. MITCHELL: The environment's just so untenable. And I
think, you know, I really don't want to go beyond my statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I heard in the
Page 261
September 25-26, 2012
statement is unless things change. I'm trying to get an opportunity for
change by working with individual commissioners, working with the
County Attorney's Office, Scott Teach, who is wonderful on, you
know, employee relationship, and the HR Department.
It's just this is taking me by surprise. And, you know, you and I
have been working on issues of late, and I really don't fully understand
what's going on here.
And again, I think working and communicating with people,
maybe we can have what we need to have in the office, as you would
wish and perceive very well this is what the public needs also.
Just a suggestion. I think instead of, you know, leaving on a note
where we're not really sure if there's going to be any compensation for
you under this early termination of the contract, I would try to reach
out to people to try to make it work.
By the way, I think we've got a great staff in the office. And I
know this election season was very tough on everybody. But that's
over. So I think there's opportunities for improvement. And I hope
that you allow it to happen. Because I think you have the gifts to
make it happen. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, do you
have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Ian, I'm still there. I
know where you're coming from. I don't see any change in the
immediate future. We can do all the sweet talking we want to do at
this point in time to try to make it go away and it won't go away.
I think if you get to the point that you can't get some resolution
where you're going to get to where you need to be, this is called a
hostile work environment. People sue over these type of things all the
day. And instead of the small remittance you're asking for to be able
Page 262
September 25-26, 2012
to make an exit with, I'm sure it would cost the county a lot more if
you had a good attorney and you came back and wanted to address it
in that condition. You would have absolutely no difficulty
documenting the fact that this has been a hostile work environment.
So I would suggest that this Commission strongly look at the way
to be able to terminate his contract in a user friendly way that will
keep us away from any types of lawsuits and find out how we can
work with it to make the Clerk part of this so that there's no conflict
with the whole process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That seems to be consistent with the
intent of the statute which says that payment is -- severance pay could
be made if it represents a settlement of an employee dispute. But
nevertheless --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Six weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What? Six weeks what?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was what we did with Mr. Jackson. It
was -- termination part of the settlement is six weeks, not six months
for termination without cause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if Ian were to feel that six weeks was
appropriate compensation, that there would be no problem in paying
him that amount?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I didn't know there was a
dispute until 9:05 today. So, I mean, I don't know what to tell you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Well, Ian has stated that he
would be willing to stay on for a period of time to permit a transition.
Can I suggest to the Board that we continue a final decision on
this issue, the issue of termination, until we've had the chance to
evaluate the benefits of reorganizing the office and perhaps placing it
under the control of the County Manager and under the umbrella of
Page 263
September 25-26, 2012
the County Manager's Ordinance, and determine what is possible for a
fair -- for fair treatment of Ian Mitchell.
I see no way that we would benefit by forcing him to continue to
work under these difficult circumstances.
There certainly is no benefit in subjecting him to those same
kinds of pressures on the job just because it suits us. I think we need
to find a fair way of dealing with an employee who has served us very
well and loyally for a long time.
So if I could -- or Commissioner Coletta, if you'd like to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm going to ask for some
guidance on the motion. But I think what we need to do is to give
specific directions to the County Attorney to be able to come back at
the next meeting within the parameters that we outlined to be able to
fulfill those directions, rather than just end this whole thing now and
leave it up in the air.
So my motion would be to direct the County Attorney to go over
the contract that exists and try and see if that contract fits into what
needs to be a fair exit strategy for Mr. Mitchell, to talk to Mr. Mitchell
and negotiate a reasonable settlement and bring it back to the Board
after we have vetted it through the Clerk's Office or whatever else it
takes to get to where we need to be.
What else do I need in that, Jeff, to be able to --
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll look at it. I don't know if that's going
to be any end result. I don't. You guys want to make the legislative
finding that you have a hostile work environment in your offices? I
mean, I would not recommend that, I mean. But okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, wait, Jeff, you're getting a
little hostile right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, because I'm trying to protect you, sir. I
have a guy here who wants to get fired and he wants to get paid too.
And that's not the way it works. It's not. I mean, this is a big boy job.
Page 264
September 25-26, 2012
And, you know, you put up with stuff If you don't like the conditions
of employment, you find another job. I mean, I don't know what else
to say about this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't understand what it
is that we can't give you directions to follow what the Commission
wants you to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, I'll come back, sir. I just don't see
where there's a severance based on a settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, how did that happen with David
Jackson?
MR. KLATZKOW: What happened with David Jackson is for
one thing the CRA was crashing as far as an income stream goes. You
wanted to get out of that long-term obligation to him. You know, there
were other factors, but it was a very different situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will second your motion to direct the
County Attorney to bring back to us a recommendation as to what can
be done with respect to Mr. Mitchell's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that sounds fine. And
you got a second from Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know, I wasn't making the
motion, but I'll make it if that's what you -- I was sort of modifying
your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine, I was want to get
the motion forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then I'll say that I made the
motion and Commissioner Henning seconded it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 265
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Now, can I follow that with a request for Board support to at least
explore the possibility of placing this office under the County
Manager? I can't imagine the County Manager wants to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's been shaking his head. His
face got red.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It just puts more pressure on him.
Which means we're going to have to pay him more. But would that be
all right if we asked for at least an assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages of doing that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're past that point. I
think we ought to just do it. It worked before. The reason we brought
it under the commission is because we figured that we could do a
better job of running it. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? We
failed. It worked well under the County Manager before, and I think
we should just give directions to bring it back to us under the County
Manager rather than draw this out to 20 steps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it doesn't include you. Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: I wondered if I could bring back maybe more than
one option for you, including that one, of course. There may be other
ways that we haven't really thought about that might work for the
Page 266
September 25-26, 2012
Commission, might work for the staff and the office. So I'd just like
the flexibility and the latitude, if there's another option that might be
feasible or desirable, I'd --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I amend my motion to
include that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll agree on my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to ask
the County Manager to bring back several alternatives for our
consideration, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's next?
MR. OCHS: That would be me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two down.
Item #11H
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE
COUNTY MANAGER - MOTION TO ACCEPT PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION — APPROVED; MOTION TO GIVE A 10% MERIT
PAY INCREASE — APPROVED (September 26, 2012)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager is next.
I hope you don't have a similar statement.
Page 267
September 25-26, 2012
MR. OCHS: No, sir, no, sir. My wife wouldn't appreciate that.
Commissioners, Item 11.H is a recommendation to complete the
annual performance appraisal for the County Manager.
Pursuant to my employment agreement with the Board, the
Commission is required to perform an annual assessment of County
Manager's performance each September. That performance is based
largely on the annual action plan that is developed jointly between the
Board and the manager. And this Board approved that action plan
approximately a year ago.
Also as an aid to the Commissioners in completing their
performance review, I have provided a self-assessment earlier this
month. I've received the appraisals back from each of the
Commissioners. The ratings are on a three-point scale. And based on
the scores from the Commissioners, the overall average grade on that
one-to-three scale is 2.24. That places me in the upper quartile of the
"meets expectations" block of the performance continuum.
That performance under the terms of the contract would warrant
consideration of a merit adjustment. The contract calls for a range of a
minimum of three percent, maximum of 10 percent.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm available to answer any
questions or discuss any particulars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, is that your light
on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know me, I usually don't
score threes, because I just don't. I don't feel anybody is better than
perfect. But in your case, I gave you many threes, and that's because
you've had to deal with some really tough morale problems amongst
our employees, and you've done all you can, and I think you've done a
good job at trying to keep morale up, trying to pull people, so many
people have wanted to leave the job and you've tried to keep them on
board. And I think you've done a yeoman's job. And so I gave you
Page 268
September 25-26, 2012
high scores, from the way I score, anyway. And some high praise.
Because your job is to oversee all of our employees. And I think
you've done a good job. And I think you deserve an increase in pay as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you summed it up pretty
well, Commissioner Fiala.
You've done a great job. How you kept your sanity through this
whole thing is questionable. And the fact that you seem to keep every
commissioner reasonably happy for the most part.
Little concerned over the negative scoring you got from one
commissioner, but those things happen. And I'm not going to let that
detour me from the fact that I support Commissioner Fiala on the fact
that you deserve a pay raise. When's the last time you had a pay raise?
MR. OCHS: When I took this job, sir, in October of 2009.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I know -- I've seen a
comparison sheet where you stand compared to other people in similar
jobs, and it's below the norm by far. And I think that does not speak
well of the County Manager of Collier County who's expected to
perform a job that I think has more detail to it than the school board
administrator or any number of other public officials out there that are
responsible.
And I'm going to support it too. I know that's 11.I when it comes
up. But thank you so much for the excellent job you did, and it's been
a pleasure working with you.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the -- Collier County has
struggled through one of the worst economic recessions in our history.
And we have begun to emerge from it in surprisingly good condition.
All of the essential services are still being performed; we still have a
quality of life here that is not diminished.
Page 269
September 25-26, 2012
Most of that, if not all of it, is due to you and your staff and the
employees of Collier County. Because you were on the front lines
making most of the sacrifices. The employees haven't had a salary
increase or wage adjustment either in four years. And you've all done
it while maintaining a high level of commitment to the job. And that
-- when you see that happen in an organization, it's because the key
managers of the organization are providing the right kind of leadership
and example.
I think it is time to recognize that the -- the accomplishments
which you and your staff are responsible for and to express our
appreciation for what you've done for Collier County and its residents.
So I also would like to see a salary increase here.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have a speaker, I
guess.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a public speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- yeah, we -- it's been --
like Commissioner Coyle said, it's been difficult. And because of
management and employees, we've been able to hold services the way
we have. We have a great community. However, the employees are
receiving two percent CPI. I want to be consistent and equal. And I
had this conversation with Leo. That is the -- that's the only thing I
could support. It would send a chilling message, in my opinion, to the
county employees if we have a disparity of increases. And hopefully
in the future that everybody can get up to the same level that they
should be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and then I
want to hear from the public speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. I just want to make
mention the fact that we're still dealing with 11.H. And we seem to be
getting into a deep discussion which is 11.I. So if we could wrap up
Page 270
September 25-26, 2012
11.H and then get to 11.I, I do have some comments I'd like to make.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you trying to tell me to stay on
point?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, I am. You're drifting
off a little bit. I hope you had breakfast this morning. Maybe that's
the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, let's hear from the
public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, actually the public speaker wants to
speak to 11.I.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. MITCHELL: So I'll second Commissioner Coletta's
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to vote on
acceptance of the annual performance appraisal of the County
Manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move to accept the County
Manager's appraisal and evaluation. Good enough?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would second it and vote for the
motion if we excluded one Commissioner's evaluation, because I can't
accept that.
So I would accept the evaluation of Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Fiala as reasonable and fair. And I would not accept the evaluation by
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we changing the Florida
constitution?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. I'm voting on acceptance
of a performance appraisal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course the record still stands,
Page 271
September 25-26, 2012
but I agree with you. In other words, disallow for the abnormally low
one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, how does
this deal with the Florida constitution? Could you let me know?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Florida citizens have set up
local government and defined under Florida statutes, and the Florida
statutes said home rule county government is made up of five
commissioners to make decisions of the board.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might, I would ask you to
accept the appraisals as submitted in the agenda packet,
acknowledging your statements and appreciating those. But the
process in the contract calls for evaluations from all five
commissioners, and I certainly respect that. I hope we can just move
on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're quite a guy, Leo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amazing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Okay, all in favor of the motion, please signify by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the motion, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was for acceptance of the
performance evaluation of the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 272
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, 11.I.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to make a motion --
I'm going to explain what my motion's all about too.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry, did we end the
discussion on the merit question, is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we're getting into the --
MR. OCHS: That's part of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought 11.I was the part that
dealt with that, sir.
MR. OCHS: No, that's the extension of the current payment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry, what this motion
would include also is the merit raise?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or a separate motion.
MR. OCHS: Or a separate motion, if the Board --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
Well, I'd like to make that motion. And the reason I would --
now Commissioner Henning brought up a very interesting point. Our
employees have been without pay increases for four years, a little bit
more than four years. And that is true. And the County Man -- and
they got a two percent, which is minor, but our budget could not do
any more than that. We realize that. It was a goodwill part on our
part to show the fact that we are going to try to bring things back into
balance, and we don't want to return to 2000 when we had our
employees exiting about 30 percent a year because we were so
inadequate as far as our pay scale compared to the private sector. The
Page 273
September 25-26, 2012
private sector is starting to pick up again and we're going to have to
start making adjustments.
We start with the County Manager, and from there next year
when the new budget comes out, we can make the necessary
amendments to the budget to be able to take care of the rest of our
employee base.
I make a recommendation that we go with the full 10 percent,
with the idea that when the budget comes up next year that we look
for a 10 percent pay increase across the board for all employees. But
that's not part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, now, you had two motions
there. The first one was still on 11.H, including merit adjustments.
And we started talking about that. That was Leo's question, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you said you thought that went
into it. Do we need to vote on that?
MR. OCHS: You've accepted the annual appraisal. The
Chairman suggested a separate vote and motion, which I think is
appropriate, the question of whether you want to do any merit
adjustment based on that evaluation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so you started making that
motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion is for 10 percent.
I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's 11 .I, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's --
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 11.1 is the --
MR. OCHS: That's part of this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- question concerning extension of the
contract.
Page 274
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you very much for --
MR. OCHS: That's part of this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- clearing that up.
Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner -- what is
your name?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm the good-looking one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I'll
second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We didn't listen to the public speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's under --
MR. MITCHELL: That's 11.I. You've moved back to 11.H.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion passes by a vote of 3-2
with Commissioner Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that -- I'll just add that that now
brings him up somewhere near the Naples City Manager's pay scale,
as well as maybe the County Attorney's pay scale. Because he's been
below them and manages a lot of people. Thank you.
Page 275
September 25-26, 2012
Item #11I
EXTENDING THE COUNTY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT WITH LEO E. OCHS, JR., FIXING THE END
DATE OF THE FIRST EXTENSION TERM AS SEPTEMBER 30,
2015, AND AMENDING THE AGREEMENT TO COMPORT
WITH CH. 2011-143, FLORIDA STATUTES — APPROVED
(September 26, 2012)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, thank you. And that would take us
to Item 11.I on your agenda, which is a recommendation that the
board extend the current employment agreement with your County
Manager for a period of two years, with the first term ending on
September 30th, 2015.
Again, consistent with the terms of the current employment
agreement, that agreement provides that the end of the third year of
the contract the parties by mutual consent may extend the agreement
for two years beyond the initial term.
I believe the performance of the organization under my
leadership over the last three years would merit serious consideration
of an extension. It's an honor to serve the community, a privilege to
serve this Board, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to
serve for that two-year extension.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is John Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: Hi, I'm John Lundin. I've been an activist in
various counties and various cities and two legislatures. And normally
when there's an election and a new majority is ready to take over a
commission, if there have been issues where there have been problems
with the county manager or the county manager's staff, it's kind of
acceptable that either the county manager resigns his position or he's
Page 276
September 25-26, 2012
removed from office. And my experience in government is that
elected officials have a right to access to all information in
government. And for the last two years here, I've noticed on
numerous occasions that two of the commissioners here, when they
request information, they either don't get the information from the
county staff or the County Manager or they get inaccurate
information. And so I feel that's grounds to remove the County
Manager for misconduct.
Let me give you a really good example. Back in February the
Growth Design Corporation did a presentation at the Immokalee CRA,
and that was the first time there was any like public notification that
they were going to do business in the county.
Subsequently, Commissioner Henning did some research and
found out that for a year prior Growth Design Corporation had
meetings with various departments in the CRA and the county staff
and there was actually an email sent around from the CRA to some of
the staff that this information should remain hidden from
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning.
So this is an example of where information in this county has
been kept from two of the commissioners.
And subsequently, Commissioner Hiller did a request from the
Public Utilities Department to have any documentation of Growth
Design Corporation, and she received an email document from the
county staff which stated that there were about 16 meetings involving
Growth Design Corporation.
Now, in that document about eight of the references included
companies that had nothing to do with Growth Design Corporation,
which -- that seemed like that document was purposely misleading to
throw her off finding out about Growth Design.
And the instances that did mention Growth Design, there was
very little information on exactly what was going on with Growth
Page 277
September 25-26, 2012
Design. So this is an example of many times in this county in the last
two years two of the commissioners have been prevented from getting
public information.
And ultimately it is the County Manager's responsibility to make
sure that the county staff gives the elected officials the information
they need.
So I think this is a perfect example when the new majority of
commissioners come in here, there are grounds for -- to terminate
through misconduct. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's finished.
We'll call the question. All in favor of the motion, please signify
by -- wait, we haven't had a motion on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we haven't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Lundin, the CRAs are --
they have employment agreements with the director. The CRA does.
So Ms. Phillippi and former David Jackson is under the CRA, not
under the County Manager. Although the County Manager does
provide support staff working with the CRAs as part of his valu --
MR. LUNDIN: Well, with the Growth Design Corporation there
were meetings between the Public Utilities Department and Growth
Design. And Commissioner Coletta was involved in these meetings
too. And none of this information was ever given to you or
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you reference information
that I requested from the CRA in Immokalee, okay, and you stated
that I did not receive it or they were told to hide it from Henning and
Hiller, that's under the CRA --
MR. LUNDIN: But that was an email sent to -- from the CRA to
county staff. And the County Manager is responsible for anybody in
Page 278
September 25-26, 2012
the county staff for supplying information to you and Commissioner
Hiller and any other commissioner. And I'm just citing one example.
Ever since the Jackson Labs issue there's been lots of anecdotal
information from people in the community how information has been
hidden from the county commissioners here.
And in my experience this is the first county or city I've ever
been an activist with where it seems there's actually -- it seems like a
willful intent to keep information from elected officials. I mean, the
elected officials represent the people. And the County Manager and
the county staff work for you.
Any information that a county commissioner ever requests
should be freely given and there shouldn't be any misinformation. And
it just seems like that is grounds for misconduct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's -- like you
said, that can be brought up at a separate time. But I would like the
information, if you could email it to me, about the sequence of events.
MR. LUNDIN: You mean concerning Growth Design
Corporation? That was an email actually you forwarded to me that the
CRA sent an email to the staff saying that the information should be
kept from you and Commissioner Hiller. This was an email I received
from you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'll look at that then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really, really?
MR. OCHS: I have no idea what he's talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's the problem.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve -- I'm sorry
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the extension
to the County Manager's contract.
Page 279
September 25-26, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that. And boy, we
better grab it quick because I don't know how many other people
would want that job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not after this.
Okay, all in favor of the extension of the contract to the County
Manager, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion passes 5-1 (sic) with
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, 4-1 . It's still early. 4-1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12D
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY - MOTION TO ACCEPT PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL — APPROVED (September 26, 2012)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 12.D, the annual
performance appraisal for the County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Quite a morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. KLATZKOW: I apologize for not getting these in your
Page 280
September 25-26, 2012
packages. Some of the information I got a little -- I got it just a little
too late to get in there.
That's simply a summary of the performances by the individual
commissioners, and I am waiving the merit pay adjustment and I'll just
take the questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions, comments,
motions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your -- your employees
are going to receive CPI; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, presumably.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Presumably, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why is it presumable?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have to have a pay plan come before
you to approve that.
MR. OCHS: The Board hasn't formalized that decision, sir. It
will be presented at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: You have the appropriation in your budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, no other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does somebody have a motion to accept
the performance appraisal of the County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do accept the formal evaluation of
the County Attorney and make a motion to approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to accept the performance
Page 281
September 25-26, 2012
appraisal for the County Attorney by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Item #12E
THE PROPOSED FY2012 - 2013 ACTION PLAN FOR JEFFREY
A. KLATZKOW, COUNTY ATTORNEY — APPROVED
(September 26, 2012)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 12.E.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews
and approves the proposed FY 2012-2013 Action Plan for County
Attorney Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the Action Plan is substantially similar
to this year's Action Plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the Action Plan by --
for the County Attorney by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there a second?
Page 282
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Item #12F
EXTENDING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT WITH JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW, FIXING THE
END DATE OF THE SECOND EXTENSION TERM AS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND AMENDING THE AGREEMENT
TO COMPORT WITH CH. 2011-143, FLORIDA STATUTES —
APPROVED (September 26, 2012)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that brings us to 12.F, which is the
County Commission should determine if it is our intent to extend the
County Attorney employment agreement with County Attorney
Klatzkow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I make a motion to approve the
extension of his contract. I talked to him in the office and he said I
love this job, I just love this job. And I thought well, that's great, we
Page 283
September 25-26, 2012
have to keep him. He's done a good job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to extend. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries to extend. It's
approved by Commissioner Henning, Coletta and Fiala. And
Commissioner Coyle and Hiller are dissenting.
So we're finished, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to put one thing on the
record. I rated all three employees by the same scale. To have three
executives with three different scales didn't make any sense to me so
that everybody could, you know, compare their ratings against each
other. I rated everyone as Jeffs evaluation was prepared, which is
one, two, three. So as a consequence I didn't give any like 1.1, 1.2,
and I didn't give any fours or fives, which only appeared on one
evaluation and not on two evaluations. So that's just for informational
purposes.
And as far as renewing the contracts or giving pay awards, my
comments are on the record with respect to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do we have —
Page 284
September 25-26, 2012
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
(September 26, 2012)
MR. OCHS: On Item 15, sir, I don't have anything this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney, do you have
anything on --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioners. We'll start with
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No staff and commission general
communications.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I have nothing to add to this
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, looking forward to
working with you the next year. Trust me, you're going to earn every
dime of it.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. Look forward to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then with no further business, we
are adjourned.
*****
Page 285
September 25-26, 2012
**** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO CONTRACT #09-5278 FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 942 DAYS WITH STANLEY CONSULTANTS,
INC., FOR DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE
INTERSECTION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE US 41
AND SR/CR 951 INTERSECTION AND RESURFACING,
RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION (3R) ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 951; PROJECT #60116; FISCAL
IMPACT $0.00 — IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
SIMULTANEOUSLY TO ALLOW FLEXIBITY BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT FUNDING MECHANISMS
Item #16A2
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR DEVONSHIRE
BOULEVARD FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO
RADIO ROAD FOR THE VOLUNTEER GROUP, THE PEPPE
FOX PARTNERS — THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
INSTALLING TWO NEW SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF
$150.00
Item #16A3
Page 286
September 25-26, 2012
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,612.29 FOR
PAYMENT OF $562.29, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. PALMIRA MUNOZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NUMBER CESD20100018348, RELATING TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2051 44TH TERRACE SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
APRIL 18, 2011
Item #16A4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,159.20 AND A
REFUND OF $11,272.35 FROM THE COUNTYWIDE
PATHWAYS FUND — FROM COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS
PROGRAM, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW AND PUD
MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2012-164: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VALENCIA LAKES — PHASE 4-A, PPL-AR3124
WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND THE RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A6
Page 287
September 25-26, 2012
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PIACERE — PAVIA, TRACT
FD2 REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20120001564 — THE
DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A7 — Moved to Item #11J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A8
DECLARING FISHER SCIENTIFIC A SOLE SOURCE VENDOR
AND TO PURCHASE A DIONEX ION CHROMATOGRAM
CAPILLARY SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,270.53 FOR
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT — PROVIDING
LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES FOR DRINKING, WASTE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL WATER
Item #16A9
RATIFY THE COUNTY MANAGER'S DETERMINATION OF
THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL SHORELINE EMERGENCY AT
THE PELICAN BAY SOUTHERN BEACH FACILITY IN THE
VICINITY OF FDEP MONUMENT R-41 AND TO ALLOW
TEMPORARY EMERGENCY MITIGATION AND REPAIR
ACTIVITIES WITHOUT REQUIRING A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERMIT
— DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT SHIFT OF CLAM PASS OVER
THE PAST TWO TO THREE WEEKS
Item #16B1
Page 288
September 25-26, 2012
CONTRACT NO. 12-5863 BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND URS
TO PERFORM CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION
(CEI) SERVICES FOR THE IMMOKALEE DOWNTOWN
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (FISCAL IMPACT
$67,950)
Item #16B2
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SMITH PLASTERING, INC,
PERMITTING THEM TO OPERATE A LOCAL, OWNER
OPERATED BUSINESS ON CRA OWNED PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1991 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN THE
GATEWAY MINI-TRIANGLE — FOR A 24 MONTH TERM WITH
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION AT $1,500.00 PER MONTH
Item #16B3
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT THAT IS
FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY A FIFTH THIRD BANK GRANT
AWARD BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT
WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA.
($2,443.41) — PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2631 SHOREVIEW
DRIVE
Item #16B4
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT THAT IS
FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY A FIFTH THIRD BANK GRANT
AWARD BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT
WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA.
Page 289
September 25-26, 2012
($853.37) — PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2759 SHOREVIEW
DRIVE
Item #16C1 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A TIME AND MATERIALS CONTRACT WITH AGNOLI
BARBER & BRUNDAGE IN THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT
OF $243,631 FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12-5883,
"MASTER PUMPING STATION 312 PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION," PROJECT NUMBER
72549
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2012-165: THE ANNUAL RATE RESOLUTION
TO ESTABLISH THE FEES, RATES, AND CHARGES FOR THE
USE OF COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITIES,
INCLUDING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, RECYCLING DROP-
OFF CENTER FEES, AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES FOR FY13. THIS
RESOLUTION ADOPTS THE RATES THAT FUND THE FY13
BUDGET FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Item #16C3
A CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE
NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $234,470 FOR REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL NO. 12-5919, "UTILITY DESIGN ENGINEERING
SERVICES - U.S. 41 FROM C.R. 951 TO GREENWAY ROAD,"
PROJECT NUMBERS 70045 AND 73045 — FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE RELOCATIONS
Page 290
September 25-26, 2012
Item #16D1
THE TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITIES AS LEAD AGENCY
FROM COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING, HUMAN AND
VETERAN SERVICES (HHVS) TO COLLIER COUNTY
HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION (HHC) AS THEY ARE
DESIGNATED THE COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT/LEAD
AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBMITTING
CONTINUUM OF CARE GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT NO. 12-5944, CHILD ADVOCACY AGREEMENT
FOR MANDATED SERVICES WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY
CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC., TO PROVIDE FOR
MANDATED SERVICES IDENTIFIED UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 39.304(5). THE AGREEMENT WILL HAVE A FISCAL
IMPACT OF $70,000 — STARTING ON OCTOBER 1, 2012 AND
IS FOR ONE YEAR WITH THREE ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR
RENEWAL OPTIONS
Item #16D3
LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT (LSTA)
GRANT "COLLIER CONNECTS" FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$27,154; A PARTIAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FROM
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,800;
APPROVE BALANCE OF LOCAL MATCH FROM THE
LIBRARIES GENERAL FUND (001) IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 291
September 25-26, 2012
$11,373, APPROVE E-GOVERNMENT POLICY AND LIBRARY
PARTNERSHIP WITH ACCESS FLORIDA — FUNDS
AVAILABLE OCTOBER 1, 2012 AND MUST BE EXPENDED
BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2012-166: FIVE-YEAR JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT (JPA) WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,776,556 UNDER
STATE TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CONTRACT
NUMBER AQQ16 PROVIDING FOR STATE FUNDING FOR
ELIGIBLE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC FIXED-ROUTE
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $888,278 AS
WELL AS A FY2012/2013 LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT
OF $888,278
Item #16D5 — Continued to the October 9, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ANNUAL REPORT
Item #16D6 — Continued to the October 9, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-296 AND A
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FEES AND FINES SCHEDULE
Item #16D7
Page 292
September 25-26, 2012
BID NO. 12-5900 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $594,692.86 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT OF THE BAYVIEW PARK PHASE II & III
PROJECT NO. 80060 AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
TOTALING $369,355.83 AND THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED CONTRACT — IMPROVING
PARKING, LIGHTING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING
Item #16D8
CONTRACT #12-5868 IN THE AMOUNT OF $359,745 AND THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH Q. GRADY
MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., FOR "ON-CALL
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS (CEI)
AND RELATED SERVICES" FOR THE GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY PARK, GOODLETTE-FRANK AND GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY, PROJECT NUMBER 80065
Item #16D9 — Moved to Item #11L (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E1
AMENDMENT TO ANTENNA SITE AGREEMENT WITH SBA
TOWERS II, LLC, RELATED TO THE COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY'S SAFEPOINT
LOCATION SYSTEM, A COMPONENT OF THE COUNTY'S 800
MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO NETWORK, AT A FIRST
YEAR'S ESTIMATED UTILITY COST OF $540 — TO CONNECT
TO THE LANDLORD'S UTILITY SERVICE AND PAY
INCREASED RENT TO COVER UTILITIES
Page 293
September 25-26, 2012
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,890,000
FROM FUND 517, GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
RESERVES, TO PAY ANTICIPATED CLAIMS EXPENSES FOR
THE REMAINDER OF FY 2012
Item #16E3
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM ROAD SAFE TRAFFIC
SYSTEMS, INC. TO MCSHEA CONTRACTING, LLC AS IT
RELATES TO CONTRACT #10-5410 "ROADWAY PAINT,
THERMOPLASTIC MARKINGS AND RAISED MARKERS" —
DUE TO ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS CEASING WORK IN
SOUTH FLORIDA
Item #16E4
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL
EXAMINER SERVICES WHICH WILL EXTEND THE TERM OF
THE AGREEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND AMENDS
THE OPERATING COST AS WELL AS COSTS RELATING TO
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL, PROPERTY,
AND LIABILITY INSURANCES FOR FY2013 — TOTAL COST
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 IS $1,077,800
Item #16F1
RECEIPT OF THE WORKFORCE SERVICES PLAN, AS
SUBMITTED BY THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE
Page 294
September 25-26, 2012
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2012-167: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F3
A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EARLY
LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., TO
PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 IN FISCAL
YEAR 2013 — PROVIDING UPDATED DATES AND DOLLAR
AMOUNTS AS WELL AS ONE MINOR CHANGE RELATED TO
SERVICE ELIGIBILITY, REIMBURSEMENTS AND
REFERRALS
Item #16G1 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED CIRCUS
OPERATING CO., INC. D/B/A THE KINGS BROS CIRCUS AT
THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT FOR A ONE (1) DAY CIRCUS
EVENT
Item #16H1
Page 295
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES MERCHANTS'
ASSOCIATION COCKTAIL PARTY ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2012.
THE SUM OF $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE CLASSICS
COUNTRY CLUB IN LELY RESORT
Item #16I1
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 296
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 25, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Request for Legal Advertising of Public Hearings 5.8.12:
Historic&Archaeological Preservation Board 5.16.12
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
September 25, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 6.6.12
2) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 4.11.12; 5.9.12; 6.13.12
Minutes of 3.14.12; 5.9.12
3) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of 7.18.12
Minutes of 6.20.12
4) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of 7.18.12
Minutes of 6.20.12
5) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 4.19.12; 5.17.12; 6.21.12
Minutes of 3.16.12; 4.1912; 5.17.12
6) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 4.9.12; 5.14.12; 6.11.12
Minutes of 3.19.12; 4.9.12; 5.14.12
7) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 4.5.12; 5.3.12; 6.7.12
Minutes of 3.1.12; 4.5.12; 6.7.12
September 25-26, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2012
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT AGREEMENT ORDER PRIOR
TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY LILLARD,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 11-03359-CC) FOR
THE SUM OF $2,844.75 — FOR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF
COLLIDING WITH A LIGHT POLE ON MAY 16, 2011
Item #16K2
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED SIMINA MOLDOVAN V. COLLIER
COUNTY, AND COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 09-4781-CA) FOR THE SUM
OF $1,200 — FOR INJURIES RELATED TO A ROLLERBLADING
ACCIDENT AT THE EAGLE LAKES PARK ON MARCH 30,
2008
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2012-37: PUDZ-PL20110000406: BRYNWOOD
CENTER -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 297
September 25-26, 2012
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL
(A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN "ST" OVERLAY TO A
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE
BRYNWOOD CENTER CPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
A MAXIMUM OF 145,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND
OFFICE USES WHICH INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 25,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND A MAXIMUM OF 60,000
SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE USES. ALSO
PERMITTED ARE HOTEL AND MOTEL USES AT 20 UNITS
PER ACRE AND GROUP HOUSING (ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY AND INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) AT A FLOOR
AREA RATIO OF 0.6. FOR EACH ACRE OF GROUP HOUSING
OR HOTEL OR MOTEL USE, 12,083 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
OR OFFICE USE SHALL BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL SQUARE
FOOTAGE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 980 FEET EAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND PINE
RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF
13.65± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Page 298
September 25-26, 2012
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2012-168: VA-PL20110002627: DONALD GRAY
VARIANCE - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
PETITION NUMBER VA-PL2011-2627, FOR A VARIANCE
FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 4.02.03 AND
5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A REDUCED RIPARIAN SIDE YARD
SETBACK FROM 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A REDUCED RIPARIAN SIDE
YARD SETBACK FROM 7.5 FEET TO 1 .55 FEET ON THE EAST
SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 6,
BLOCK G OF THE LITTLE HICKORY SHORES SUBDIVISION
IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-65, OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORDINANCE TO
INCORPORATE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND
OTHERWISE CLARIFY TERMS
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2012-169: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY-FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17E
Page 299
September 25-26, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-170: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY-FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
----7---- -,--,1_,,L,„) (7-t---Adi
FRED COYLE, CHAI ' JA
ATTEST: ,„ , , ,
DWIGHr'`E:'BRZO+ K, CLERK
C
\
001,04
*',test as to Cha trams A
itonature 'J0°K.
These minutes approved y the Board on pc --a 3 -o td-�as
presented or as corrected .
Page 300