BCC Minutes 12/11-12/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11 -12, 2012
December 11-12, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 11-12, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Georgia Hiller
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Tim Nance
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations - CMO
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
Ll I fie
` `e
0
1 N., NF
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
December 11, 2012
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
Tim Nance - BCC Commissioner, District 5
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
December 11,2012
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
A. Invocation - Reverend Robert E. Townsend, United Church of Christ at the
Lighthouse
B. Swearing in ceremony for Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5, to be
conducted by 20th Judicial Circuit Judge Cynthia A. Pivacek.
C. In honor of the swearing in of Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5, musical
performance will be provided by James Steven Farnsworth.
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Page 2
December 11,2012
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. October 23, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. November 13, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. Recommendation to (1) remove Commissioner Coyle as Chairman, (2)
appoint a new Chairman to serve the remainder of Commissioner Coyle's
term, and (3) appoint a new Vice-Chairman to serve the remainder of
Commissioner Coletta's term, with both terms expiring the first Board
meeting of January 2013. (Commissioner Henning)
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating December 2012 as Guadalupe Center of
Immokalee Month in honor of its thirty years of service in Collier County.
To be accepted by Barbara Oppenheim, President, Guadalupe Center of
Immokalee. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Proclamation designating December 11, 2012 as the Dick Lydon Day of
Remembrance in Collier County in recognition of his contributions to the
community. To be accepted by members of the Vanderbilt Beach
Beautification MSTU. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
C. Proclamation designating December 11, 2012 as the Mimi Watson Day of
Remembrance in Collier County in recognition of her contributions as a
board member of the Collier County Friends of the Museum and as a Collier
County school teacher. To be accepted by members of the Friends of the
Museum. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
D. Proclamation celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Temple Shalom and its
accompanying project, "Our Torah: Scribing Our Future." To be accepted by
Rabbi Adam Miller; Cantor Donna Azu; Rabbi James Perman; Susan
Daugherty, Executive Director; Caren Plotkin, Education Director; Seyla
Cohen, Preschool Director; Yale Freeman, President; Bobbie Katz, Vice
Page 3
December 11, 2012
President; Tracy Albert, Second Vice President; Dr. Joel Waltzer, Third
Vice President; Rob Nossen, Treasurer; James Knafo, Recording Secretary;
Debbie Antzis, "Our Torah" Chair; Sandy Stone, Sisterhood President; Ed
Cohen, Men's Club President; Susan Freeman; Beth Feldman; Michael
Rubner; Helen Weinfield; and Evelyn Cole. Sponsored by Commissioner
Hiller.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December
2012 to The Dock at Crayton Cove. To be accepted by Vin DePasquale,
President; Bobbi Simi, Co-Owner; Jonathan DePasquale, Restaurant
Manager; and Jacci Robb, Assistant Manager.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting. Public
Petition request from Mr. Bob Krasowski regarding issues relating to beach
renourishment.
B. Public Petition request from Mr. Dan Robuck, President of Emergency
Medical Specialists, regarding an EMS management proposal.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and Item 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve petition number
ADA-PL20120001218 Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal represented by R. Bruce
Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, LPA, requesting an appeal to the Board
of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission
in denying Petition BDE-PL20110001573 that requested a 19-foot boat dock
extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section
5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 39-foot boat dock facility
accommodating 2 vessels on 2 boat slips for property located at 10090
Page 4
December 11, 2012
Gulfshore Drive and is further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14,
Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1; Section 29,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This item to be
heard in conjunction with Item #8B. [Companion Item to: VA-
PL20110001576, Jaffe Variance]
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider a Resolution of the
Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition
Number VA-PL20110001576, Jaffe Variance, for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.7 to permit a reduced side yard
(riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 10091 Gulf
Shore Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. This item to be heard in
conjunction with Item #8A. [Companion Item to: ADA-PL20120001218,
Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to review and adopt Proposed Amendments to the Collier
County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as Amended, based
upon the Collier County Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in 2011
and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report on these Amendments, and to
Transmit the Amendments to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation that (1) the Board interprets its Reconsideration Procedure
to allow a motion for reconsideration to be made by a member who voted in
the majority prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was
voted upon, or at either the first and/or second meeting, and that a prior
motion for reconsideration does not bar a later motion for reconsideration
made at any time during this two meeting time frame, and (2) that the Board
(by a majority vote) deems former Commissioner Coletta's and
Commissioner Fiala's motion to reconsider (blocking further reconsideration
Page 5
December 11,2012
prescribed by 75-12 as amended) null and void. (Commissioner Henning)
B. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14B2 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve and
execute an amendment to the employment agreement between the CRA and
Penny S. Phillippi, the Immokalee CRA Executive Director, extending the
term of employment three years, make certain changes to the contract, and
authorize the Chairman to sign.
C. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14B8 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Collier Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board designates the
Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Executive Director as the
Special District Registered Agent for the Collier County CRA.
D. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14B5 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) to authorize the continued operation of the Immokalee Business
Development Center (IBDC) under the auspice of the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) exclusive of the partnership
with the Collier County Airport Authority and the Immokalee Airport.
E. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14B6 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to approve amending the Immokalee Business Development
Center's (IBDC) Proposal, IBDC Application, and IBDC Policies and
Procedures Handbook.
F. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14B3 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to award
Agreement No. 12-5896 for Design Construction Documents, Civil Site
Design (SDP Permitting), Permit and Bid Services and Construction
Administration and Related Services for the First Street Zocalo for
Immokalee to David Corban Architect, Inc.; Fiscal Impact $113,450.
Page 6
December 11,2012
G. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14A3 from
the October 23, 2012 BCC meeting titled: Recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the governing body of the
Collier County Airport Authority, indicates its intent to extend the Airport
Authority Executive Director's Employment Agreement with Thomas C.
Curry, 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.
H. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #16K2 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the Collier County
Airport Authority, memorializes its October 23, 2012 extension of, and
amendments to, the Collier County Airport Authority Executive Director's
Employment Agreement, and authorizes the Chairman to execute the
Extension and Amendment Agreement.
Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14A2 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute attached Contract #12-5885 "Design
and Related Services for the Immokalee Regional Airport Runway 9-27
Rehabilitation Project" in the amount of$761,000 with Hole Montes, Inc.
J. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #14A1 from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute Contract #12-5885 "Design and
Related Services for the Marco Island Executive Airport (MKY) Runway
17-35 Rehabilitation Project" in the amount of$660,000 with Hole Montes,
Inc.
K. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #16K6 from
the October 23, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to adopt a
Resolution terminating the Employment Agreement with the Executive
Manager to the Board of County Commissioners.
L. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #13A from
the October 9, 2012 BCC meeting titled: Recommendation to discuss Item
Page 7
December 11,2012
#11E from the Board's September 11, 2012 agenda regarding "Wastewater
Basin Program" contracts.
M. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #11C from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to consider
an out-of-cycle Tourist Development Council ("TDC") Grant Application
from the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control
Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved make a finding that the
project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget
amendments.
N. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #9A from
the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to review
and approve the 2012 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report
(AUIR) on Public Facilities and Capital Improvements Element (CIE)
amendment as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land
Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
O. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #12A from
the October 23, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to approve and
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign an
Interlocal Agreement relating to establishment of the Gulf Consortium to act
on behalf of Collier County in the implementation of the RESTORE Act
(Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability Tourist Opportunities and
Revised Economics of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012).
P. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning of Item #10C from
the October 23, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Appointment of member to the
Collier County Planning Commission.
Q. Direct the County Attorney to negotiate a settlement agreement with
Stephen J. Fletcher legal counsel, bring proposed settlement to the BCC.
(Commissioner Henning)
R. Direct the County Attorney to seek a Florida Attorney General Opinion
regarding authorized uses of tourist development tax. (Commissioner
Henning)
Page 8
December 11,2012
S. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 07-09 in
its entirety so as to remove the requirement for a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the
Board of County Commissioners for approval of certain types of settlement
agreements resolving land use disputes or litigation. (Commissioner
Henning)
T. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to negotiate a settlement
agreement with Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker and bring the proposed
settlement to the Board of County Commissioners for reconsideration.
(Commissioner Henning)
U. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Hiller of Item #11D from the
November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to approve the
final beach access sign renderings for installation throughout the Gulf Shore
Drive corridor for direct public beach access via county easements.
V. Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Hiller of Item #11M from the
November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to consider
options for re-structuring the Board Office.
W. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
settlement offer presented by Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 12-495; and,
that the settlement agreement related thereto, as presented herein, be
executed on December 11, 2012 by the Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners on behalf of Collier County. (Commissioner Hiller)
X. Recommendation that effective immediately, Clam Pass be considered part
of the ongoing management responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services
Division ("PBSD") including but not limited to all monitoring components
such as biological, tidal, and hydrographic data collection, and, inlet dredge
permitting/construction; that PBSD, exclusively, shall make
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to when the
inlet should be dredged, and make such other recommendations related to
managing the unified Clam Bay system as it deems necessary; further, that
Clam Pass, being an integral part of the Clam Bay system, is managed as
such. This is a companion to Item #10Y. (Commissioner Hiller)
Y. Request for authorization to advertise an ordinance for future consideration
which would amend Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended, relating to the
Page 9
December 11, 2012
Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. This is a
Companion to Item #10X. (Commissioner Hiller)
Z. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to
prepare RFPs for the Collier County General Beach Re-nourishment
construction project to include pricing for sand in 50,000CY increments over
200,000CY up to 500,000CY, to include pricing for both truck hauls and
dredging, to include pricing for such re-nourishment activities outside of and
within turtle nesting season, and to include that the offered prices will be
fixed for a period of time at the expiration of which if construction has not
commenced that the contract will lapse and be put back out to bid in the
future; that staff further prepare an RFP for Fixed Term Coastal Engineering
services to expand the number of firms available to provide such services to
the county; that these RFPs shall be prepared and publicly advertised during
the months of December and January, respectively. (Commissioner Hiller)
AA. Recommendation that the County Attorney be directed to handle all aspects
of the FEMA beach re-nourishment reimbursement denial and de-obligation
appeals on behalf of Collier County; to direct that staff provide the County
Attorney with all requested information, and to assist his office in any
manner he deems necessary; further, that the County Attorney assess what
civil and/or criminal liability the county may face if the final determination
on appeal is that the county materially misrepresented to the federal
government (by way of overstatement) what the storm related beach re-
nourishment expenses were, and report back to the Board of County
Commissioners. (Commissioner Hiller)
AB. Recommendation that the Board authorize the County Manager to sign the
attached notice, and that such notice be given to terminate the Red Light
Camera contract between Collier County and ATS, effective February 28,
2013; to direct that all red light cameras be duly removed from all
intersections in accordance with the ATS contract; and, to further direct staff
to investigate and report back to the Board (1) whether traffic lights can be
retimed so drivers will encounter fewer red lights, (2) whether it is
appropriate to increase the duration of the yellow light between the green
and the red, and (3) whether it is appropriate to add or increase the
"clearance" phase to the intersection's traffic signals during which all
directions have a red light, all in the interest of enhancing the public's safety.
(Commissioner Hiller)
Page 10
December 11,2012
AC. Recommendation to direct Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. to prepare a work
order under Contract #10-5571 to update the existing Clam Bay
Management Plan to ensure the preservation of the Clam Bay system and
compliance with this preserve's Natural Resource Preservation Area
("NRPA") designation; and, to establish criteria as indicators for evaluation
of dredging needs for the purpose of maintaining flushing for the
environmental benefit of the Clam Bay system; to present such work order
to the PBSD, the TDC, and the BCC at the first January, 2013 meeting of
each of these respective boards. (Commissioner Hiller)
AD. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
AE. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
AF. Appointment of member to the Airport Authority Advisory Board.
AG. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
AH. Appointment of members to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU.
AI. Appointment of members to the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd.
MSTU.
AJ. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
AK. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
AL. Appointment of member to the Contractor's Licensing Board.
AM. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
AN. Appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to award a
construction contract in the amount of$1,109,456.17 (which includes an
Page 11
December 11,2012
allowance of$101,000) to Bonness, Inc. for ITB No. 12-5947 - "Roadway
Improvements of Immokalee Road (CR846), Valewood Drive (southern
extension) and Autumn Oaks Lane" Project No. 60016.5 (Jay Ahmad,
Director, Transportation Engineering)
B. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-5982 to Compass
Construction, Inc. in the amount of$1,073,995 for the construction of the
Immokalee South Park Community Center Project #80085 and authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached contract and authorize any necessary
budget amendments. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director)
C. Recommendation to provide direction relative to reallocation of current
Tourist Development Tax funding to increase destination marketing efforts
and the annual accumulation of reserves for major beach renourishment.
(Ed Finn, Sr. Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget)
D. Recommendation to approve recognition of additional, uncommitted FY 12
Carry Forward up to $450,000 and all necessary budget amendments for
additional destination marketing efforts and Tourism Department staff.
(Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
E. Recommendation to approve and authorize the expenditure of Tourist
Development Category "A" tax funds for a Peer Review of the Collier
County Beaches volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. under
Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump sum amount of$33,365. (Gary
McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department,
Growth Management Division)
F. Recommendation to deny a lender's offer of settlement in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Tricia
Jenks, Code Enforcement Case Number CESD20090001470, relating to
property located at 830 3rd Street NW, Collier County, Florida, as contrary
to Resolution 2012-46. (Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director)
G. Recommendation to approve proposed changes that would repeal and
replace the Animal Control Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2008-51, as
amended) and direct the County Manager or his designee to advertise
ordinance changes to be approved by the Board at a future meeting.
Page 12
December 11, 2012
(Amanda Townsend, Domestic Animal Services Director)
H. Recommendation to review the County's progress coordinating permitting
and inspection activities with the building industry and the independent fire
districts (Districts) and staff's request for direction on future actions
regarding the same. (Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division
Administrator)
I. Recommendation to consider the current status of the County's initiative
seeking direct vehicular permanent access from Golden Gate Estates to I-75
and staffs request for direction regarding future initiatives. (Nick
Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Administrator)
J. Recommendation to approve obtaining appraisals (not to exceed $10,000)
for Fifth Third Bank properties located north of the Naples Zoo leased
property. Cost of appraisals will be reimbursed by the Naples Zoo. (Steve
Carrell, Interim Public Services Administrator)
K. Recommendation to review the Growth Management Division's (GMD)
progress implementing an electronic plan submittal and digital plan review
system and further; to authorize one additional Full Time Employee (FTE)
to manage the system. (James French, Director of Operations & Regulatory
Mgmt., Growth Management Division)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, Acting as
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), elect
a Vice Chairman to fill the incomplete term of the vacated office.
Page 13
December 11,2012
2) This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reject the sole response to
RFP #12-5945 and authorize CRA staff to work with the Collier
County Purchasing Department to release a new RFP to procure the
professional services of a real estate firm to market and sell CRA
owned land for development of the approved MPUD.
3) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the attached
Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) Highway
Beautification Council grant application to Immokalee CRA/MSTU
seeking grant funding in the amount of$100,000 to support
landscaping and irrigation improvements associated with the
Immokalee Main Street Improvements project in the Immokalee
Central Business District.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Manchester Square, (PL#20110000280) and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or
the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Manchester Square —Force Main, (PL#20110000915).
3) Recommendation to declare a 0.28 acre parcel of land on Tamiami
Trail East as surplus property, to authorize the conveyance of the
Page 14
December 11, 2012
property back to the State of Florida, and to accept the conveyance of
an easement to Collier County and the Collier County Water-Sewer
District. (Estimated Fiscal Impact: None.)
4) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution authorizing a speed limit decrease from thirty miles per
hour (30 mph) to twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph) on Danford
Street from Bayview Park to Hamilton Avenue at a cost of
approximately $200.
5) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution authorizing speed limit changes within Willoughby Acres
and on Piper Boulevard at a cost of approximately $5,625.
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 an extension for completion of site improvements associated
with the Site Development Plan (SDP) for Youth Haven, (AR#13286)
pursuant to Section 10.02.03.B.2.g of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
7) 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 Reflection Lakes at Naples, 217
- 219 (PL20120002312).
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Quarry Coquina Circle,
(PL20120001085), approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
9) 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
Page 15
December 11,2012
approve for recording the final plat of Canwick Cove,
(PL20120001486), approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Aviano at Naples, AR
#6583 (Balmoral PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained and authorizing the release of the
maintenance security and acceptance of the plat dedications.
11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 111 (AR
#473) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 112 (AR
#792) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
13) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 113, (AR
#1894) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
14) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Unit Two (AR
#295) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
15) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 117 (AR
#7087), with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
Page 16
December 11, 2012
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
16) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 120 (AR
#1082) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
17) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a Release relative to the subdivision improvements associated
with the final plat of Casa Del Vida and return the remaining
maintenance security in the amount of$8,460 to the Casa Del Vida
Homeowner's Association.
18) 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 Prato Way, A Replat of Lots 1
& 2, (FP-PL20120002521). This plat is a re-subdivision of Lots
within the Tuscany Reserve Planned Unit Development (PUD).
19) 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 Riverstone - Plat Three
(PL20120001441), approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
20) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Tuscany Reserve, (AR
#2274) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
21) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of water utility facilities located in the Linwood Way
Page 17
December 11,2012
Right-of-Way to the City of Naples. (Gateway Triangle Stormwater
Pump Station Project#51803).
22) Recommendation to approve the purchase of easements required for
the four-laning of Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard
and DeSoto Boulevard. Project No. 60040 (Fiscal Impact: $14,400).
23) Recommendation to award Bid #13-5995 for "SR 951 from the Mc
Llevane Bridge to Jolley Bridge Landscape Maintenance" to
Affordable Landscaping Service & Design, LLC. in the amount of
$59,183.42.
24) Recommendation to approve a Resolution revising the "Construction
Standards Handbook for Work within the Right-of-Way, Collier
County, Florida," in accordance with Ordinance No. 2009-19, as
amended, so as to allow an adjacent property owner to plant minimal
vegetation enhancements within a right-of-way without obtaining a
right-of-way permit.
25) Recommendation to recognize the commitment of the prepayment of
road impact fees in the Hammock Park Commerce Centre Developer
Agreement (Agreement) recorded in O.R. Book 4202, Page 675 and
to convert a temporary three year Certificate of Public Facility
Adequacy (COA) into a COA in perpetuity.
26) This item continued from the November 13, 2012 BCC meeting.
Recommendation to execute a License Agreement with the Barefoot
Beach Club Condominium Owners Association, Inc. and The
Conservancy to allow for mangrove trimming and monitoring on
County-owned property in the vicinity of Lely Barefoot Beach.
27) Recommendation to authorize the cooperative purchase of Ground
Application Services for Aquatics, Wetland and Terrestrial Vegetation
Control from Applied Aquatics in the estimated annual amount of
$300,000, utilizing the South Florida Water Management District
Contract No. 46000002497.
28) Recommendation to accept a schedule to review past staff
clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) and to accept
Page 18
December 11, 2012
specific Staff Clarifications attached to this Executive Summary.
29) Recommendation to approve Interlocal Agreement (Agreement) with
the City of Naples and execute documents necessary for the Design
Build Golden Gate Boulevard Bridge Replacements raw water main
relocation. Bridge Repairs/Improvements (Fiscal impact: revenue of
$616,178.75) Project#66066.
30) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$207,932.10 for payment of$15,932.10, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Graciela Susi,
Code Enforcement Case Number CEPM20080008180, relating to
property located at 2130 Morning Sun Lane, Collier County, Florida.
31) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$46,081.15 for payment of$21,481.15, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co., Code Enforcement Case Number
CESD20110013221, relating to property located at 4540 7th Avenue
SW, Collier County, Florida.
32) Recommendation to approve a permit to conduct the annual St. Agnes
Catholic Church Parish Carnival on January 18th, 19th and 20th, 2013
located at 7775 Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Golden Gate Estates, and
to recommend waiver of the Surety Bond in the amount of$2,500 for
the St. Agnes Catholic Church Carnival.
33) Recommendation to reject all bids for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-
5857 Nuisance Abatement Services and extend the awards associated
with previous solicitation #11-5646 to Neal's Lawn and Landscaping
Maintenance, A & M Property Maintenance, and Walker Exotic Tree
eradication until December 13, 2013 or the award of a new contract
for these services.
34) Recommendation to approve a reduced prorated payment to Better
Roads, Inc. in the amount of$35,907.31, for its paving of Johns Street
and Carlton Street under the County's Annual Resurfacing Contract
#09-5328, without advance authorization from County staff and prior
Page 19
December 11, 2012
to the scheduled resurfacing date for those roads.
35) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Retention Agreement for legal services with FEMA Law Associates,
PLLC pertaining to an appeal concerning the de-obligation of FEMA
funds related to Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma with a request to open
a Purchase Order in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
acting in its capacity as the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the attached Amendment No.
1 to Contract No. 12-5863 between the CRA and URS Corporation for
CEI Services for the Immokalee Downtown Stormwater
Improvements Project.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to terminate the Utility Facilities Reimbursement
Agreement dated February 20, 1996, relating to property located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
Johns Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County.
2) Recommendation to (1) approve the Utility Easement Agreement with
First Choice Storage, L.C. for the acquisition of a Utility Easement to
accommodate improvements to Pump Station 312.21 for a total cost
not to exceed $7,250, Project Number 70046, and (2) accept the
proposed Utility Easement on behalf of the County and direct staff to
record same.
3) Recommendation to approve a Utility and Access Easement for the
acquisition of additional easement area at no cost from ARCFLSV,
LLC, to accommodate improvements to Pump Station 310.01, Project
Number 70046.
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract #11-5752 to
correct an error in the terms and conditions to be in agreement with
Page 20
December 11, 2012
the Board-approved amount.
5) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for the 1994
and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special
Assessments where the County has received payment in full
satisfactions of the lien. Fiscal Impact is $38.50 to record the
Satisfactions of Lien.
6) Recommendation to approve removing uncollectible accounts
receivable and their respective balances from the financial records of
the Collier County Public Utilities Division in the amount of
$57,481.48.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve Collier County's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for Fiscal Year 2011-
2012 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); approve the CAPER Resolution; and authorize
the Chairman to certify the CAPER for submission to HUD.
2) Recommendation to approve a resolution indicating the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners' desire to be re-designated as
the Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County and
requesting the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
recommend it be so re-designated to the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute a Grant
Agreement for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) funded Second Allocation of the Emergency
Solutions Grant (ESG) grant in the amount of$53,219.
4) Recommendation to enter into a Residential Lease Agreement with
Collier County Sheriffs Deputy Arlo Hagen to reside at Pepper Ranch
Preserve, 6315 Pepper Road, Immokalee, FL 34142.
Page 21
December 11,2012
5) Recommendation to approve Amendment 2 to Contract No. 11-5753,
Electronic Fareboxes for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) Program to correct technical language
in the agreement, and approve the Software License Agreement
between Fare Logistics Corporation and Collier County with a future
annual fiscal impact of$17,535 after expiration of 5 year warranty
period.
6) Recommendation to approve two (2) Subrecipient Agreements (first
time homebuyers and foreclosure prevention) in the total amount of
$156,174 for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
projects previously approved for U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) funding in the 2012-2013 Action Plan
approved by the Board on July 24, 2012 (Agenda Item No. 11E).
7) Recommendation to approve amendments to specific contract
conditions within seven (7) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
subrecipient agreements for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.
The changes are in line with HUD guidelines for 24 CFR Part 570
Subpart K language and records retention time frames for both HUD
and State regulations.
8) Recommendation to approve an amendment to authorize specific
reimbursment within the Subrecipient agreement between Collier
County and David Lawrence (DLC) to operate the Collier County
Drug Court Program and authorize the County Manager or his
designee to request a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) to initiate a
zero-cost budget amendment to the Drug Court Grant #2010-DC-BX-
0016.
9) Recommendation to approve a one-time exception to the 2011-2012
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) agreement between
The Shelter for Abused Women & Children (Shelter) and the Collier
County for an after the fact approval of a sub-contract between the
Shelter and Legal Aid Service of Collier County, and make a
determination of compliance with the terms of the Scope of Services
set forth in Exhibit "A" of the agreement, as well as to amend the
agreement in order to add SubPart K and records retention timeframes
Page 22
December 11,2012
for both the State and HUD regulations and modify the budget. This
amendment will not change the funding level.
10) Recommendation to authorize the execution of grant award for the
construction of additional bus shelters in the amount of$276,000
through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transportation
Electronic Award Management (TEAM) System and authorize the
necessary budget amendment.
11) Recommendation to approve the Resolutions authorizing the submittal
of the Federal Transit Administration Sections 5310 and 5311
FY2013/2014 grant applications and applicable documents for
submission to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
12) Recommendation to execute a Joint Participation Agreement (WA)
between Collier County and the Florida Department of Transportation
to accept a State Transit Service Development Program Grant in the
amount of$237,919 including a local match requirement of
$59,479.75 for the necessary improvements to bus stops in accordance
with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA); approve a resolution
authorizing the Chairman of the Board to sign the agreement; and
authorize the necessary Budget amendments.
13) Recommendation to execute an agreement between Collier County
and the Collier County Child Advocacy Council Inc., d/b/a Children's
Advocacy Center of Collier County (CCCAC), for operation of the
Supervised Visitation and Exchange grant funded program via the
Department of Justice (DOJ) on Violence Against Women;
incorporating grantor required adjustments to the application budget
and associated budget narrative, with no change to the total budget
(Fiscal Impact $350,000).
14) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact amendment between
Collier County and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida to reflect additional
grant funding in the amount of$544 for the Nutritional Services
Incentive Program (NSIP) and authorize the Chairman of the Board to
authorize the necessary Budget Amendment.
Page 23
December 11,2012
15) Recommendation to accept receipt of the 2012 Incentive Review and
Recommendations report prior to December 31, 2012, as required by
Section 420.9076(4), Florida Statutes, State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP).
16) Recommendation to approve an after-the fact amendment and
attestation statement between Collier County and the Area Agency on
Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest
Florida to reflect a revision in the budget summary page to include 24-
hour respite services for the Community Care for the Elderly
Program.
17) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact Nutrition Services
Incentive Program (NSIP) contract with Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida and
approve a subsequent budget amendment in the amount of$35,146 for
FY 2013.
18) Recommendation to approve an agreement between the Collier
County Board of Commissioners and the David Lawrence Mental
Health Center, Inc. (DLC) for provision of mandated services, in the
amount of$1,154,200.
19) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment recognizing
$19,450 in program income revenue generated by affordable rental
properties acquired under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP1).
20) This item continued from the November 13, 2012 BCC meeting.
Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment recognizing
$277,867.36 in program income revenue generated when conveying
properties acquired under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP1).
21) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Developer
Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. for the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) to reflect updates to
the US Census Tracts.
Page 24
December 11,2012
22) Recommendation to authorize staff to notify applicant of the County's
cancellation of the "As Is" Contract for Sale and Purchase for a
property in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 1).
23) Recommendation to authorize the Parks and Recreation Department
Director to provide a tour of park facilities for any interested citizen
with the purpose of enhancing the public's knowledge of current park
amenities available to the community.
24) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact amendment between
Collier County and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida to reflect a change in
the Home Care for the Elderly (HCE) grant program.
25) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$22,509.47 and recognize revenue generated from case management
and case aid from the Medicaid Waiver program.
26) Recommendation to approve award of Request for Proposal (RFP)
#12-5856 Services for Seniors to all vendors named herein and
authorize the Chairman to execute associated agreements and
authorize continued services and payment on invoices for contracts
affiliated with the predecessor Contract #09-5227 until all contracts
are fully executed (estimated fiscal impact $550,000).
27) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of utility easements on County property located at the
Naples Zoo, 1590 Goodlette-Frank Road, to the City of Naples, at no
cost to the County.
28) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment and Attestation
Statement between the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida and Collier County to
extend the grant period by sixty days, approve budget amendments to
reflect estimated funding for the FY 13 Older Americans Act Program
in the amount of$642,226, with local match funding from carry
forward in Services to Seniors Fund 123 in the amount of$64,222.60
and authorize the continued payment of grant expenditures.
Page 25
December 11, 2012
29) Recommendation to waive the Purchasing Policy and deem
GameTime, Inc a sole source vendor, and authorize the necessary
budget amendment in the amount of$78,919.94 for the purchase of
playground equipment at the Eagle Lakes Park and approve the
cooperative purchase under US Communities contract #110179.
30) Recommendation to reject all bids for Inivitation to Bid (ITB) #13-
5986 Gordon River Greenway Park and re-solicit bids for this project.
31) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign an application
with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
for permits in order to continue the sale of food, ice, and beverages at
Port of the Islands Marina, Cocohatchee River Marina, Goodland
Boating Park Marina, and Caxambas Park Marina at an expense of
$965.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #12-5812 Fire
Sprinkler Alarm Testing and Installation to Cintas Corporation No.2,
DBA Cintas Fire Protection and authorize the Chairman to execute the
County's standard agreement.
2) Recommendation to retain from active sales various properties
obtained from Avatar Properties, Inc., that are part of the Gulf
American Corporation (GAC) Land Trust.
3) Recommendation to execute the attached Modification to the annual
Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Grant (EMPG),
Contract #13-FG-86-09-21-01-078, amending Attachment C (Program
Conditions).
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
renew the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity for Advanced Life Support non-
transport services for one year and authorize the Chairman to execute
Page 26
December 11,2012
the Permit and Certificate.
5) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of power and cooling
equipment maintenance agreements for County Information
Technology hardware from Insight Public Sector, Inc. for the
County's Schneider Electric (APC) power and cooling equipment in
the amount of$69,709 utilizing U.S. Communities IT Products &
Services Contract #4400001195 (RQ09-997736-42B).
6) Recommendation to approve and execute a Fourth Amendment to
Lease Agreement Between Collier County and Collier County Fair
and Exposition, Inc., to provide clarification for events to be
conducted at the Fairgrounds.
7) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Health
Reinsurance coverage for calendar year 2013 in the amount of
$672,290, a rate increase of 14.6%.
8) Recommendation to approve the 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining
Agreement between Collier County and the Collier EMS/Fire
Bargaining Unit, Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters Local
1826, International Association of Firefighters, Incorporated.
9) Recommendation to approve the renewal of the Lease Agreement
with the Retreat at Port of the Islands LLC for the Ochopee Fire
Control District.
10) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
11) Recommendation to acknowledge and approve the transfer of
ownership to Choice Environmental Services of Collier, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Choice Environmental Services, Inc. which was
recently acquired by Waste Services of Florida, Inc. a wholly owned
subsidiary of Waste Services, Inc., as it relates to Contract #09-5319
for solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard trash collection
services.
Page 27
December 11, 2012
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to extend Public Financial Management's (PFM)
financial advisory services contract (#08-5081) for six months to June
15, 2013 allowing for services to be provided on pending debt
restructuring under consideration by the Finance Committee while
public request for proposals covering a new financial advisory
services contract are solicited.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve the
attached Second Amendment to the Long-Term Ground Lease and
Sub-Lease Agreement with Turbo Services, Inc.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Naples Press Club Luncheon on October 25, 2012. The
sum of$23 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Friends of the Library Red, White & Roulette on
November 2, 2012. The sum of$29 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the 2012 Golden Gate Citizens of the Year Banquet on
November 13, 2012. The sum of$35 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
Page 28
December 11,2012
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce 35th Anniversary
& 2012 Christmas Gala on December 2, 2012. The sum of$75 to be
paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on November
15, 2012. The sum of$18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
6) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended Wake up Naples; Greater Naples Chamber Honor Collier
County's Finest for Distinguished Public Service at the Naples Hilton
on November 14, 2012. $13 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's
travel budget.
7) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
will attend the Collier County Lodging & Tourism Alliance Holiday
Mixer at the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL on December 12,
2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce monthly breakfast
meeting at Roma Havana Restaurant in Immokalee, FL on November
7, 2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October
27, 2012 through November 2, 2012 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
Page 29
December 11,2012
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 3, 2012 through November 9, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 10, 2012 through November 16, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 17, 2012 through November 23, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
5) 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 Bristol
Pines Subdivision.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to request for authorization to advertise and bring
back for future consideration an ordinance establishing prohibitions to
the possession, provision, sale, or distribution of illicit synthetic drugs
in Collier County.
2) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement prior
to trial in the lawsuit entitled Vernon H. Young and Jeanne M. Young
v. Collier County and Wyndemere Homeowners Association, filed in
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Case
No. 11-834-CA) which settlement includes relocation of certain
utilities and landscaping on Mrs. Young's property, accept a Utility
Easement from Mrs. Young, and payment of$10,000, and authorize
the Chairman to execute the Settlement Agreement and Release, the
Mediation Agreement, and for the Board to accept the Utility
Easement. Total fiscal impact not to exceed $50,000.
3) Recommendation to approve a Retention Agreement for legal services
with the law firm of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.
Page 30
December 11, 2012
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 continued from the November 13, 2012 BCC meeting. This
item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. CU-PL20120001757, Mac Business Plaza, a
Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,
providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use in a C-3 zoning district
to allow up to four buildings on four different parcels of up to 15,000 square
feet each of gross floor area in the principal structures for food stores, food
services, personal services, video rentals, or retail uses pursuant to
subsections 2.03.03.C.1.c.10, 2.03.03.C.1.c.16 and 2.03.03.C.1.c.17 of the
Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the
southeast corner of Tamiami Trail East and Barefoot Williams Road in
Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider a Resolution of the
Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida determining that
Animal Specialty Services —Pet Grooming Only is a comparable and
compatible land use to other permitted uses, and therefore, is a permitted use
within the Goodlette Corners PUD, as authorized in Section 3.3 of
Ordinance 04-40. The subject property is located in Section 15, Township
49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 31
December 11,2012
C. Recommendation to approve the attached proposed Ordinance to repeal
Ordinance Number 80-43 to dissolve the Goodland Water District.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
E. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would establish limitations,
in addition to those set forth in Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes, on the
sale and/or purchase of secondhand goods (secondhand dealers).
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 32
December 11, 2012
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Ladies and
gentlemen, Board of County Commission meeting is now in session.
Will you please stand for the invocation to be delivered by
Reverend Robert E. Townsend, United Church of Christ at the
Lighthouse.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVEREND TOWNSEND: Let us pray. Gracious and loving
God, we offer thanks for this wonderful country in which we live and
the freedoms that we enjoy.
As we offer thanks for this holiday season and for the upcoming
new year, be with us this day as the Collier County Commissioners
begin a new era. And we ask your blessing on the work that they do
and offer thanks for the gifts that they bring. We ask a special
blessing on Commissioner Tim Nance as he begins his first term on
the commission, and Commissioner Fiala as she begins her fourth
term on the commission.
During this time of year, we hear music with such beautiful
harmonies, different notes that, when sung together, sound wonderful.
We know that this new era will not be one where everyone will agree
on the issues, but we pray that the voices will be in harmony so that
even though they sing different notes, the end result is one of beauty
for Collier County.
We pray in the name of God, our creator, redeemer, and
sustainer, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Please join us in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Mayor John Sorey has asked me to make an announcement
concerning the Christmas parade in Naples this evening. It has been
canceled. Christmas has not been canceled. The parade will be held at
the same time on Tuesday, December the 18th, for the benefit of all of
our viewers. The Naples Christmas parade has been canceled because
of weather and will be held on Tuesday, December the 18th, at the
same time. Thank you very much.
Item #1B
SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR COMMISSIONER TIM
NANCE, DISTRICT 5, TO BE CONDUCTED BY 20TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT JUDGE CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK - SWORN IN
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now I would like to welcome our newest
commissioner, Tim Nance, and his swearing-in ceremony to be
conducted by 20th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Pivacek. So
it's all yours.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Stand there.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Commissioners, good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Good morning. And I'm asking that Dale
will hold the Bible, and Commissioner Nance will place his left hand
on the Bible and raise his right hand for the swearing in.
I --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I, Tim Nance.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Do solemnly swear.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do solemnly swear.
JUDGE PIVACEK: That I will support, protect, and defend.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That I will support, protect, and
defend.
Page 3
December 11-12, 2012
JUDGE PIVACEK: The Constitution.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The Constitution.
JUDGE PIVACEK: And government of the United States.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And government of the United
States.
JUDGE PIVACEK: And the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And the State of Florida.
JUDGE PIVACEK: That I am duly qualified to hold office.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm duly qualified to hold office.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Under the Constitution of the state.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Under the Constitution of the state.
JUDGE PIVACEK: And that I will well and faithfully.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I will well and faithfully.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Perform the duties.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Perform the duties.
JUDGE PIVACEK: Of Collier County commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Of Collier County commissioner.
JUDGE PIVACEK: On which I am now about to enter.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: On which I'm now about to enter.
JUDGE PIVACEK: So help me God.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So help me God.
JUDGE PIVACEK: All right. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to
thank you-all for being here, and I want to let you know that it is,
indeed, my greatest honor to serve the citizens of Collier County. And
I wish to thank all of you for your service and your volunteerism,
because I know so many of you are active in our community, and it's
what makes our community great.
Although sometimes it seems like we stumble in the United
States, we have a hard time coming together, in the end these struggles
and our persistence and tenacity is what makes our country great, it's
Page 4
December 11-12, 2012
what makes America the finest nation in the world and the light of the
world. And I think we all share that. Are you with me on that one?
(Applause.)
Item #1C
IN HONOR OF THE SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONER TIM
NANCE, DISTRICT 5, MUSICAL PERFORMANCE WILL BE
PROVIDED BY JAMES STEVEN FARNSWORTH —
PERFORMED
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Before I take my seat, I want to
borrow a little page from Mr. Jeff Lytle, who's gone in our
community, and popularized singing God Bless America, and I will
ask you to do that together in a moment.
But what I would like to do is I'd like to make a couple just
statements about this song and why I think it's so appropriate for this
time of year and why I think it's so appropriate for America in this day
and age.
God Bless America was written by Irving Berlin. Of course, we
know Irving Berlin as possibly our greatest American song writer. He
lived to be 101 years old. He died in 1989. But he wrote over 1,500
songs. And the song that we actually know him best for is not God
Bless America but White Christmas. That is one of the largest selling
songs of all times.
Irving Berlin was a Jewish immigrant to the United States. He
didn't start out as an American citizen. But he started out writing God
Bless America when he was in the service in World War I in 1918.
He wrote the song as a song for peace very near Armistice Day.
Armistice Day, of course, is November the 11th when World War I
came to its termination at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th
month. And, of course, Armistice Day became Veterans Day, as we
Page 5
December 11-12, 2012
know it currently.
The song actually wasn't a hit, but in 1938, as things deteriorated
right before World War II, Irving Berlin rewrote God Bless America,
and he added some things that made it current. And what I want to do
is I want to suggest to you that those words that he added that we don't
hear today, the -- kind of the pre -- what I'll call the preamble to the
song that we've forgotten remind us about times then before World
War II and times now.
So I'm going to read those words to you, and then after I do I'm
going to ask our friend James Stephen Farnsworth to play God Bless
America so that we can sing the part that we all know. But this is the
way the song actually begins in 1938 when he changed it on the 20th
anniversary of Armistice Day. And the song begins, "While the storm
clouds gather far across the sea, let us swear allegiance to a land that's
free. Let us all be grateful for a land so fair as we raise our voices in a
solemn prayer." And then, of course, it begins God Bless America.
So please rise, and with your friends and our countrymen, let us
sing God Bless America.
MR. FARNSWORTH: Two-second lead in. Don't jump on too
quick.
(God Bless America was sung in unison.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything else that's going to
happen?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to our agenda and the
changes to our agenda.
County Manager Leo Ochs, will you please provide us a review
of those?
Page 6
December 11-12, 2012
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of December 11, 2012.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 9A to the January
8, 2013, BCC meeting. It is a recommendation to adopt a series of
Growth Management Plan amendments based on your 2011
Evaluation and Appraisal Report. That continuance is requested by
Commissioner Hiller.
The next proposed change is to add Item 12B under your county
attorney agenda. It's a notice of closed session to discuss Hussey
litigation. The actual closed session will be held at your January 8,
2013, meeting, but we have some legal notice requirements that we
have to dispose of at this meeting.
The next proposed change is to add Item 16A36, and that's a
recommendation to authorize a release of liens to allow a foreclosure
sale to close on time. This is an add-on to the agenda at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16D6 to the
January 8, 2013, Board of County Commissioners' meeting. That
change is made at the staffs request.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16D10 from your
consent agenda. That is also made at staffs request. That will be
rescheduled at a later date.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16D21 indefinitely.
That is made at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Page 7
December 11-12, 2012
The next proposed change is to move Item 16G1 to Item 14A1
under your airport authority regular agenda. It is a recommendation to
approve a second amendment to a long-term ground lease at the
Immokalee airport. That move is made at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16K1 to become Item
12A under county attorney regular agenda, and that's a
recommendation to request for an authorization to bring back for
future consideration an ordinance establishing prohibitions to the
possession, provision, sale, and distribution of illicit synthetic drugs.
That move is made at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 17E from your
summary agenda to the January 22, 2013, BCC meeting. That is a
proposed ordinance initially brought to you at the request of Sheriff
Rambosk regarding the sale and purchase of secondhand goods. That
request is made by Commissioner Nance.
Then you have a few agenda notes this morning, Commissioners.
The first is Item LOAD under Board of County Commissioners. There
was an error in the district residence for the two applicants for your
advisory board. Mr. Kane and Mr. Sansevieri both live in District 1,
not District 5.
The next agenda note relates to Item 10S, and that is a proposed
resolution repealing Resolution 07-09 has been included as backup to
the items, and copies have been distributed to the County
Commissioners, and that change was made at Commissioner
Henning's request.
Item 17A, there was an additional condition added, and that
condition is listed here on your change sheet under Subtopic A. It's
add Condition No. 7, which reads, no adult-oriented sales are
prohibited in this project and D would be to delete the language --
MR. SHEFFIELD: Permitted.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, permitted. Delete the language in 6N and
Page 8
December 11-12, 2012
6Q that reads, excluding adult-oriented stores.
Then you have a series of time-certain items on the agenda. First
is 11A, and that will be heard at 10 a.m. The next time-certain item is
1482, and that will be heard at 11 a.m.
Then you have three related items that will be heard at 2:30 p.m.
Those are Items 10X, 10Y, and 10AC.
And, finally, Items 11C, 11D, and 11E will be heard in sequence
beginning at 4:30 p.m. Hopefully that's 4:30 this afternoon.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not much chance.
All right. County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have one change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. We'll go in sequence.
We're going to start with Commissioner Hiller for additional
changes to the agenda and ex parte disclosure for the consent and
summary agendas only.
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you. To begin, what
I'd like to ask is that Items 11C and D be continued. I've noted that
you have them at time certain at 4:30.
I've reviewed the material, and in the backup to the request, there
are studies which were put together by the TDC subcommittee which
have, as of yet, not been presented to the board and been made
available for public debate.
I think it's very important that the recommendations of the
subcommittee are presented first, and then afterwards that the board
give staff direction as to what to put in front of the advisory boards for
consideration with respect to the reallocation of TDC funds.
So I think we're putting the cart before the horse on that one. So,
again, that's a request for continuation of Items 11C and D, because
Page 9
December 11-12, 2012
they are companion with respect to -- they're companion items with
respect to how TDC funds ought to be used.
The next thing that I'd like to comment on -- and actually this is a
comment to Commissioner Nance, with your request to continue 17E,
I just wanted to explain that when we adopt ordinances, it's a two-step
process. The first thing we do is we bring forward a proposal of the
change, which is then put forward in an advertisement to give
everybody the time to visit with whoever is proposing the ordinance
change, and then after it is advertised, it comes back to the Board of
County Commissioners at the next meeting for approval.
So what I was going to suggest, if I may, is that that item not be
continued but that we allow that advertisement with respect to that
ordinance to go forward and give you the opportunity to meet with the
sheriff to get a better understanding of what the ordinance is about.
And then if you don't like it, you can vote against it at the next
meeting when we actually vote on the ordinance.
Would that be agreeable?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, that would be agreeable. I
just want to make sure that the stakeholders, the people that are
impacted, I don't think the unintended consequence of the ordinance is
fully understood, and I'd like to review that before we adopt it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely, and that makes perfect
sense. And, actually, advertising the ordinance as proposed gives
everyone the opportunity to see what is being considered, and they
will have the opportunity to speak to you and then the sheriff, in turn,
and you guys can talk all you want to clear it up.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The next change that I'd like to propose is just to change the
sequence in which the events are being proposed here today, and that
is to have Items l0U and V to follow Item 10P and to have Items
10AD through AN to follow Item 10V, and that's because they're all
Page 10
December 11-12, 2012
either similar in nature or ministerial in nature, and I think we should
dispense with all those items up front and then get to the heart of the
agenda without interruption with these smaller items which -- for
example, like the appointments to the advisory boards and things of
that nature.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, what items will these
become? Are you going to change the item numbers, or are we just
going to rearrange the sequence?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would --
MR. OCHS: I need to hear them one more time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could I recommend -- could I
recommend just leaving the item numbers the way they are and just
propose that the order be considered as I've recommended?
And the reason I'm suggesting the move of l0U and V is those
are two reconsideration items that I have put forward, and
Commissioner Henning put forward a number of reconsideration
items. So my suggestion is we group the reconsideration items to be
heard all at the same time.
Items 10AD to AN are the appointments to all the advisory
boards, and I think we can dispense with those very quickly and deal
with them at the beginning of the meeting.
MR. OCHS: Okay. You want to do those first when we get to
Board of County Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So if we actually do them
right after the reconsideration, because they would follow right in
order.
MR. OCHS: Do you want to do those first before you get to the
discussion on your reconsideration, ma'am, or do you want to do them
after?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would do it after.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just let Commissioner Henning go
Page 11
December 11-12, 2012
forward with his reconsideration, do all reconsideration motions, then
do the appointments, and then go into the meat of the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Okay. You still have some other items, I believe,
under Board of County Commissioners that are not reconsideration
items.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely, and those would
follow after the appointments to the advisory board. Just to --
MR. OCHS: Got it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- essentially get -- move all the
ministerial items, the administrative items, ahead and then get to the
substantive items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got the sequence, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: May I interrupt?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: On the 17E, that was advertised. This is the
second time it's come before the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 17E actually is the second
time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, so we were -- it's adopted unless you
continue it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay. I misunderstood. I
thought it was just being advertised.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I would prefer if we would
continue it then to give a little more time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In that case, I would agree. So I'll
remove that recommendation.
As far as ex parte goes, with respect to 8A, I reviewed the staff
report. With respect to 8D, I had meetings, calls, and reviewed the
staff report.
On the consent agenda, 16A5, no disclosure; 16A7, no
Page 12
December 11-12, 2012
disclosure; 16A8, no disclosure; A9, no disclosure; A17, no
disclosure; A18, no disclosure; A19, no disclosure; E4, I had meetings
and calls; 17A, I had calls, and the staff report; and 17B, I had one
call. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much. I have
no changes or additions to the agenda.
Under -- of course, A and B are zoning issues, zoning appeals,
and I will make my declaration when we come to that section.
Under the consent agenda, on No. 16A5, which has to do with
the Site Development Plan for Youth Haven -- actually, I didn't speak
to them, but I did go for a site visit and brought a few other people to
see the place as well, so I want to disclose that.
And then I have no disclosures on anything else on the consent
agenda except for No. 16E4, and that was the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District. And I met with Chief Jorge Aguilera and
Chief Stolts on that particular subject.
In the summary agenda, No. 17, summary agenda, No. 17A, I
had meetings and correspondence, and I have them on file for the
public to see, and I reviewed the staff report.
I spoke with Owner Chris -- rather, I -- I emailed with owner
Chris Shucart, and I spoke with Nick Casalanguida, Leo Ochs, and the
East Naples Civic Association regarding this, and I'm very content
with the way ifs turned out. Thank you.
And No. 17B, which is the resolution for determining animal
specialty services in a particular building, I spoke with staff on that
item. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
I have no further changes to the agenda. With respect to the
consent agenda and the summary agenda, I have disclosures only for
Item 16E4. I have received some emails concerning that item; and
17A, I have reviewed the staff report from the Planning Commission
Page 13
December 11-12, 2012
meeting.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir, thank you.
As far as changes to the agenda, I would like to pull consent
agenda Item 16E2 and have that placed on the regular agenda, if
possible, please, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Commissioner, that will become Item 11L
on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: On ex parte items, I have one issue
for disclosure on the consent agenda, and that is Item 16A17 -- excuse
me. It's Item 16E4. I had meetings and emails regarding North Naples
Fire Control and Rescue District.
And on the summary agenda, I have disclosure on Item 17A. I
had correspondence, calls, and reviewed a staff report on the Mac
Business Plaza, and on 17B, the Goodlette Corners PUD, I had emails,
calls on that item. Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which item did we just pull?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: 16E2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16E2.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 16E2. What is 16E2?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, Avatar Properties.
MR. OCHS: It's the Avatar Properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My ex parte
communications consist of, on the summary agenda, A, the Planning
Commission's report, I received that, and an email correspondence on
17B.
As far as the closed-door session on the Hussey settlement and
advertising, my understanding, that there has to be a neighborhood
information meeting prior to it going back to the Planning
Commission, and then the Board of Commissioners for our
consideration with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Page 14
December 11-12, 2012
I'm not sure it's going to have enough time to go through the
public process on the settlement agreement for us to go into
closed-door session to even consider any kind of settlement or the
proposed settlement or a counteroffer.
So I -- Jeff, can we arrange that to where we can do it the second
meeting in January or --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I
requested the shade session to bring me, personally, up to date on the
status of the settlement, not to propose a settlement. Just to get an
update to understand where we were in the negotiating process and
what was expected of everybody going forward. It's really just
informational and an update. It's not a proposal to settle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it that you're going to bring
the Board of County Commissioners updated information?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or you need information?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I was requesting that Mr. Klatzkow
bring us up to date as to where he thought we were in the process,
what we should be thinking about going forward, and where we were
with the whole settlement calendar so I could understand where we
were in the process, because I'm completely in the dark of where we
are with any of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we can't do that
individually? We should be doing that in a shade session?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I would prefer if everybody
heard the same thing and everybody would, you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It would make me feel better if
everybody was on the same page. I don't know how everybody else
feels.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't mind if I pack a lunch
Page 15
December 11-12, 2012
then for that, do you?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Better schedule it for a day when we do
not have a BCC meeting.
Have you finished, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With respect to that particular
issue, the County Attorney's Office is, I think, greatly delinquent in
responding to the courts concerning an issue on that. Are you
planning to have some sort of response?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have a drop-dead date to file my brief of
February 22nd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: February 27'd (sic).
MR. KLATZKOW: February 22nd. At this point in time, if
nothing's accomplished by the first of February, and I doubt very
much we will have a settlement then, we're going to proceed with the
briefs and file it. And at that point in time you'll have probably a
six-month to a one-year time frame before you get any decision from
the appellate court.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We just keep kicking that can
down the road further and further. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the agenda as
amended.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- sir, just for the record, because there seemed to
be some confusion which item Commissioner Nance had moved. It is
Item 16E2. It's a recommendation to retain from active sales various
properties obtained from Avatar Properties, Incorporated, that are part
of the Gulf American Corporation Land Trust. That item is moved off
of your consent agenda, will become 11L on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 16
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And may I just add a comment with
this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was happy to hear about the shade
session, because I spoke with Leo about it as well, and I wanted to be
brought up to date as far as how it's progressing legally. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, Commissioner Henning has a motion to approve the
agenda as amended. Is there a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second? Second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Page 17
I
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 11, 2012
Continue Item 9A to the January 8, 2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to review and adopt
Proposed Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05,as
Amended, based upon the Collier County Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in 2011 and the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
on these Amendments,and to Transmit the Amendments to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add Item 12B: Notice of Closed Session to discuss Hussey Litigation,January 8,2013 BCC meeting.
(County Attorney's request)
Add Item 16A36: Recommendation to authorize the partial release of four liens in relation to
four Special Magistrate orders entitled Collier County v. Timothy S. Nelson, CEB Case Nos. CENA-2009-
0015974;CEV-2009-0015983;CESD-2009-0015977, and CEPM-2009-0015979, to release the liens with
respect to 2621 Tarpon Road, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Continue Item 16D6 to January 8,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve two(2)
Subrecipient Agreements(first time homebuyers and foreclosure prevention)in the total amount of
$156,174 for the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) projects previously approved for U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)funding in the 2012-2013 Action Plan
approved by the Board on July 24,2012 (Agenda Item No. 11E). (Staff's request)
Withdraw Item 16D10: Recommendation to authorize the execution of grant award for the
construction of additional bus shelters in the amount of$276,000 through the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)Transportation Electronic Award Management(TEAM)System and authorize the
necessary budget amendment. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 16D21 Indefinitely: Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Developer
Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.for the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program 3 (NSP3)to reflect updates to the US Census Tracts. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 16G1 to Item 14A1: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners,acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority,approve the attached Second Amendment to the
Long-Term Ground Lease and Sub-Lease Agreement with Turbo Services, Inc. (Commissioner Hiller's
request)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 11,2012
Page 2
Move Item 16K1 to Item 12A: Recommendation to request for authorization to advertise and bring
back for future consideration an ordinance establishing prohibitions to the possession, provision,sale,
or distribution of illicit synthetic drugs in Collier County. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 17E to January 22,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which
would establish limitations, in addition to those set forth in Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes,on
the sale and/or purchase of secondhand goods(secondhand dealers). (Commissioner Nance's
request)
Note:
Item 10AD: District for applicants listed is incorrect. The correct district for Mr. Kane and Mr.
Sansevieri is District 1 and applicant portion of Executive Summary should read:
APPLICANT CATEGORY DISTRICT ELECTOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
Ray Kane Resident in Taxing 1 Yes None
District
Dan Sansevieri Resident in Taxing § 1 Yes None
District
Item 10S: Proposed Resolution 2012-_ repealing Resolution 07-09 has been included as
back-up to the item. Copies have been distributed to the County Commission. (Commissioner
Henning's request)
Item 17A: Conditions of Approval language to include:
a. Add Condition No. 7: No adult-oriented sales are permitted in this project.
b. Delete the language in 6n and 6q: "Excluding adult oriented stores".
Time Certain Items:
Item 11A to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 14B2 to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 10X, 10Y and 10AC to be heard at 2:30 p.m.
Items 11C, 11D and 11E to be heard at 4:30 p.m.
12/11/2012 8:41 AM
December 11-12, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2012, BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, with respect to the October 23, 2012, BCC regular meeting
and the November 13, 2012, BCC regular meeting minutes, do I hear a
motion either to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- amend or approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- both meetings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one correction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has made a motion
to approve the minutes, and Commissioner Hiller has a change that
she wishes to make.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. There is one correction, and
that is the backup to Mr. Curry's evaluation was incorrect as included
in the minutes, and I have the appropriate schedule here that needs to
be incorporated as a replacement. And I believe it was the November
13th minutes that included his evaluation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you provide us copies of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the document that you wish to
change?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. This is it right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do we know that's it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to introduce it in the
record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we all see it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 18
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Could you have someone
make a copy and give everyone a copy? It's my attachment to his
evaluation, which should have been included, but my aide accidently
included a different document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's happening to it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A copy is being made so you can
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why didn't we put it on the viewer? We
could have -- everybody could have seen it by that time. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then we should be able to
compare what it was taking the place of--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so we know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what the corrections are, if we
could, please. So maybe you can pull that one out as well.
MR. SHEFFIELD: We need a copy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Troy?
MR. MILLER: They're coming, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we just put it on the viewer
and everybody could see it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like a hard copy, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can wait for him to produce it, if
you wish. Put it on the overhead.
Now, this is supposed to be included in Mr. Curry's evaluation; is
that what you're saying, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. This was an attachment that I
had given my aide to put behind Mr. Curry's evaluation, but she
accidently introduced a different document, and we only recognized it
after the fact. And when it was brought to my attention, the
appropriate time to make the correction was at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
Page 19
December 11-12, 2012
Mr. Curry, did you receive this item in your evaluation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My aide was supposed to give it to
him, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's hear if he got it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, absolutely; no question.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director, airport authority.
This was sent, I believe, to my executive assistant to be included as
part of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you have seen this before?
MR. CURRY: Yes, I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have any objection to this?
MR. CURRY: Well, I don't necessarily agree with the numbers
that's used, because there's a lot of assumptions that's made in the form
of it, so -- but it was sent to be included.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's fair enough. Okay.
Then we have a change then. And that's to the October 23rd or
November 13th?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe it's November 13th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I consulted with minutes and
records, and they indicated to me that it was in the November 13th
packet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the correction should be to the
evaluation that was included in that set of minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- let me just ask a question. Thank
you. So this is in addition to, or does this change what was there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It replaces. It replaces.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Replaces.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's in there is not even
Page 20
December 11-12, 2012
relevant. Like I said, it was just an error on her part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So could we get a copy of the --
what was in there so we can compare the two? I don't even know.
And there might be questions to be asked.
So without being able to compare the two, I -- it's hard for me to
approve anything.
Item #2C
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012, BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 8, 2013 BCC
MEETING FOR FURTHER REVIEW — CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What would the board think of
continuing the approval of the November 13th meeting until the next
meeting until we get complete documentation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have absolutely no problem with
that. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I have three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Looks like we have three nods to
do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we will take --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'll place on the record is to
direct my aide to pull the document that she inserted and email it to all
the commissioners so they can see what was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Exchanged.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- introduced in error so that you
can compare the two documents.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then let's -- Commissioner
Page 21
December 11-12, 2012
Fiala, if you don't mind, would you withdraw your motion for
approval of both sets of minutes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and make a motion for the approval of
the October 23, 2012, BCC regular meeting minutes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now -- so let's get agreement from
everybody that the November 13, 2012, BCC regular meeting minutes
will be continued until the next meeting where we will have a
complete set of documents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need a motion on that, or do
you just agree?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's merely procedural, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Item #2D
REMOVE COMMISSIONER COYLE AS CHAIRMAN, APPOINT
A NEW CHAIRMAN TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S TERM, AND APPOINT A NEW
VICE-CHAIRMAN TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF
Page 22
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TERM, WITH BOTH TERMS
EXPIRING THE FIRST BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 2013 -
MOTION TO REMOVE COMMISSIONER COYLE AS
CHAIRMAN AND APPOINT COMMISSIONER HILLER AS
CHAIRMAN - APPROVED; MOTION TO APPOINT
COMMISSIONER HENNING AS VICE-CHAIRMAN —
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we come to the best part of
the agenda today.
Commissioner Henning has recommended that, number one, we
remove me as chairman today and, secondly, appoint a new chairman
to serve the remainder of my commission -- commissioner --
remainder of my term as chairperson, which will be until January, and
also appoint a new vice-chairman to serve the remainder of
Commissioner Coletta's term, which will be until January.
So, Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to appoint
Commissioner Hiller as chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As chairman?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine, but we really need a motion
to remove me, okay? Are we going to be co-chairs? Would you like
to be a co-chair, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could just see that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would be honored.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would be absolutely honored.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to remove
Commissioner Coyle from the office of chairman and appoint
Commissioner Hiller, as Commissioner Henning suggested, to that
position.
Page 23
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we -- okay. We're just --
because there's more, isn't there? There's vice-chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to go -- you have to get a new
vice-chair. So is there any discussion on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Now -- now, Commissioner Hiller --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. You can't make a
motion as chair until you have a gavel.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you're so kind. Can we trade
seats?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd love to sit in the middle. I have
to say it's because I'm really tired of listening to Crystal's nails on the
keyboard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, you've got to take
your stuff with you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I can only do one thing at a time.
Page 24
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can only have one stack of stuff.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Take his water to him there. Is that
Commissioner Coyle's water?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll just sit here and read her notes.
Oh, my God. You won't believe what she's proposing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here you go. Somehow I bet they
knew that Commissioner Hiller --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, customarily after you name the
chair and vice-chair, we'd normally take a few-minute break to allow
everybody to rearrange their materials and their chairs, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we didn't have to do it right
now? Do you want us to go back?
MR. OCHS: Well, no, ma'am. It's the chair's prerogative.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thank you very much.
I will follow your lead here, Leo.
Can I go ahead and address the next issue --
MR. OCHS: Please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- which is the appointment of the
vice-chair. I'd like to make a motion? And there is a question
whether we actually follow Robert's Rules and whether the chair
should make a motion as the chair. But since we really don't, I'm
going to, and then hopefully down the road we'll revise our approach
and figure out what rules we really are following up here on the dais.
So I'd like to make a motion to appoint Commissioner Henning
as vice-chair.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
Page 25
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Commissioner Henning, congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I love my seat.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It fits me well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I really would love to have you sit
on the right hand --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am on the right side.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You are?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I always will be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. With that I'd like to take a
five-minute break at the request of the county manager.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to call the meeting back to
order.
Leo, would you like to announce the service awards, please.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 2012 AS
GUADALUPE CENTER OF IMMOKALEE MONTH IN HONOR
OF ITS THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY BARBARA OPPENHEIM, PRESIDENT,
GUADALUPE CENTER OF IMMOKALEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: No service awards this morning, ma'am, but that
Page 26
December 11-12, 2012
then takes you to Item 4 on your agenda, which is proclamations, if I
may.
Item 4A is a proclamation designating Item 2012 as Guadalupe
Center of Immokalee Month in honor of its 30 years of service in
Collier County. To be accepted by Barbara Oppenheim, John
Vatterott, Megan McCarthy, Don Popejoy, Brandon Dowdy, and
Alice Arena, and this item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
If you'd please come forward and accept your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you so much for all your
service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are you?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Congratulations. Thank you so
much for all you're doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you just stay up here by the
dais, and we'll take a group picture of you with the board.
Thank you. Would any of you like to speak?
Don, would you like to speak?
MR. POPEJOY: Yes, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you stand at the podium,
please. Thank you.
MR. POPEJOY: My name's Don Popejoy. I have the privilege
of serving as chairperson for the board of trustees of the Guadalupe
Center. On behalf of that board, I want to thank you folks for this
recognition.
We -- our mission remains the same. We try to break the cycle
of poverty in Immokalee through education. And to that end, we're
serving about a thousand kids daily over there in our programs, our
Early Childhood Education Program, our after-school program for the
Page 27
December 11-12, 2012
K through 2 kids, tutor core for the -- where the kids from the high
school will come in and tutor those little kids under the guidance of a
teacher.
And we've got about a 100 kids in college now. And we're so
pleased with the results we're getting. Our kids coming out of our
Early Childhood Education do so well in the assessment test before
they enter kindergarten. Our after-school kids are not being held back
the way they used to be, in that little town.
And our college kids are amazing. We have 105 kids in college.
We've got 62 in our tutor core right now. The last six years every one
of those kids has received admission to a college across the country.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's wonderful.
MR. POPEJOY: And what may be even more impressive, about
93 percent of them have graduated. So we're grateful.
Without the support of hundreds of volunteers and donors, we
couldn't do this. Last week we were given a four-star rating by a
prestigious organization called Charity Navigator, which rates
charities in this country, and they gave us that on the basis of our
accountability and transparency and our fiscal management.
And that's a great help to us as we seek the help we have to have
to do these programs, and another great help is your honoring us this
way today.
We have our annual big fundraiser coming up January the 16th,
the Taste of Brazil. We hope you could all come to that, and thank
you, again, for this honor.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 11, 2012 AS
THE DICK LYDON DAY OF REMEMBRANCE IN COLLIER
Page 28
December 11-12, 2012
COUNTY IN RECOGNITION OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE COMMUNITY. ACCEPTED BY MEMBERS OF THE
VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating December
11, 2012, as the Dick Lydon Day of Remembrance in Collier County
in recognition of his contributions to the community. To be accepted
by members of the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU. This item
is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I may, ladies and gentlemen,
Dick Lydon passed away a few weeks ago very suddenly, and we're
all very saddened by it. He was a tremendous contributor to the
community, and we intend to carry his legacy on by continuing his
projects as he had envisioned them.
So I ask you-all to stand and respect his passing with a moment
of silence.
And now, if I may, could the members of the MSTU come
forward to accept the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I go back with this
family. We all came from Cleveland. So we go back a long way, and
we were all in the travel business together, so.
MS. LYDON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's wonderful. And we will
carry his projects on just like he wanted them. And we're going to
start with those signs along Vanderbilt, because I know how much that
meant to him. So that will come back.
If we could have a photograph.
Would you like to say anything in memory?
MS. LYDON: Thank you very much. And, Fred?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just thank you very much.
MS. LYDON: Dick remembered you a lot. We did a lot of
things together, didn't we?
Page 29
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we won't say.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 11, 2012 AS
THE MIMI WATSON DAY OF REMEMBRANCE IN COLLIER
COUNTY IN RECOGNITION OF HER CONTRIBUTIONS AS A
BOARD MEMBER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FRIENDS OF
THE MUSEUM AND AS A COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL
TEACHER. ACCEPTED BY MEMBERS OF THE FRIENDS OF
THE MUSEUM — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating December
11, 2012, as the Mimi Watson Day of Remembrance in Collier
County in recognition of her contributions as a board member of the
Collier County Friends of the Museum and as a Collier County
schoolteacher. To be accepted by Leanne Bailey and members of the
Friends of the Museum.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
Please come forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please. And, again, we have
another sudden and sad passing of a tremendous volunteer and a great
community contributor. Mimi was an outstanding lady. I actually
served on the board of the Friends of the Museum with her, and she
will be sorely missed.
So if the Friends could please come forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I add while we're waiting for
them to come forward, she was a member of a Kiwanis club and really
active in the Kiwanis club, so we got to interface a lot. And she was
one of those people that never retired. She just kept giving and giving
and --
Page 30
December 11-12, 2012
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And for 20 years she was with the
Boy Scouts of America.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was 20 years with the Boy
Scouts of America, for those who didn't hear that. So in her memory.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to speak?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
OF TEMPLE SHALOM AND ITS ACCOMPANYING PROJECT,
"OUR TORAH: SCRIBING OUR FUTURE." ACCEPTED BY
RABBI ADAM MILLER; CANTOR DONNA AZU; RABBI
JAMES PERMAN; SUSAN DAUGHERTY, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR; CAREN PLOTKIN, EDUCATION DIRECTOR;
SEYLA COHEN, PRESCHOOL DIRECTOR; YALE FREEMAN,
PRESIDENT; BOBBIE KATZ, VICE PRESIDENT; TRACY
ALBERT, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT; DR. JOEL WALTZER,
THIRD VICE PRESIDENT; ROB NOSSEN, TREASURER;
JAMES KNAFO, RECORDING SECRETARY; DEBBIE ANTZIS,
"OUR TORAH" CHAIR; SANDY STONE, SISTERHOOD
PRESIDENT; ED COHEN, MEN'S CLUB PRESIDENT; SUSAN
FREEMAN; BETH FELDMAN; MICHAEL RUBNER; HELEN
WEINFIELD; AND EVELYN COLE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation celebrating the 50th
anniversary of Temple Shalom and its accompanying project, "Our
Torah, Scribing Our Future." To be accepted by Rabbi Adam Miller;
Cantor Donna Azu; Rabbi James Perman; Susan Daugherty, Executive
Page 31
December 11-12, 2012
Director; Susan Freeman; Yale Perman; Mark Malone; Tammy
Strohl-Samuel, Trustee; and I believe we also have members of the
Naples Klezmer Revival Band to accept the award?
Please come forward to accept the award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Rabbi, would you like to say a few words?
RABBI MILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you-all like to have a seat
while the rabbi speaks. Thank you.
Rabbi, before you get started, I just want to explain to the
community that I believe yours was the first Jewish congregation in
Collier County.
RABBI MILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And this is your 50th anniversary.
RABBI MILLER: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And as a result of what your
congregation started, now we have so many Jewish organizations that
many thought never would ever be here.
And I had the honor of being at your Torah signing service on
Sunday and heard your band play and asked that you would play a
little bit for us so people can have a sense of your spirit.
So with that, I'll let you begin.
RABBI MILLER: Thank you. And it was our pleasure to have
you there on Sunday for that wonderful opening ceremony.
Thank you, Chairwoman, thank you, members of the
commission, for inviting us here and for honoring Temple Shalom for
our 50 anniversary. I'm here on behalf of our entire temple family,
from our lay leadership, led by our president, Yale Freeman, the more
than 500 households affiliated with Temple Shalom, including the 180
children in our religious school, the 90 children in our pre-school, and
all those who are part of our Temple Shalom family.
Page 32
December 11-12, 2012
We wish all of you and all who have gathered here and all who
are here in Collier County a happy Hanukkah. It is, indeed, the third
day of Hanukkah which you have brought us here to make this
proclamation a very fitting date and time, given that Hanukkah is a
holiday of religious freedom.
And as you pointed out, Commissioner Fiala, we are only 50
years old, and 50 years ago there was no Jewish community here in
Collier County. Four brave families came here and decided to start a
community for themselves, and that has become Temple Shalom.
Over those 50 years, the Naples Jewish community has blossomed and
grown, as has our congregation and we are thrilled with what has
evolved here in our community.
This year we celebrated 50 years, and we also just began our
Torah project, which is, for those who don't know, Torah is our sacred
scroll that we keep in our ark. It is the first five books of the Bible,
the books of Moses, and we are literally writing a new scroll.
Something that is for us today as a holy sacred object, but also it is our
chance to pass on a legacy to the future to those who are yet to come.
We may continue to pass on our values that our important to us. Yes,
indeed, to the younger generation, as you hear voices out there in the
audience today.
It is our pleasure to be creating this, and it is truly a wonderful
thing that all of the households in our community and many members
of the general community will be participating in filling in the letters
of our Torah and contributing to this blessing for us and for the whole
Naples community.
As part of our opening ceremony, we are blessed to have the
members of the Naples Klezmer Revival Band play for us, to bring joy
and to bring music into our lives. And I know that you were so moved
by them that you invited them here today to play, so we are honored
by this proclamation, honored by all that you have given to us, and we
are thrilled to share with you the music of the Naples Klezmer Revival
Page 33
December 11-12, 2012
Band.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So follow in the footsteps of Irwin
Gershwin (sic) from this morning, right, from this morning.
RABBI MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was it Berlin?
RABBI MILLER: The music of Irving Berlin, right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Irving Berlin, not George (sic)
Gershwin. I'm mixing the two up. Hey, it's a blended approach.
RABBI MILLER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. WARSHAUER: Good morning, everybody. I'm Stu
Warshauer. I'm the founder of this group; and Jane Galler, my -- was
the number one person I recruited when I started the band; and Dr.
Marty Cohn, who has become a very competent clarinetist over the
past several years. And we're delighted to play for you.
Commissioner asked me to play something that was sad.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sentimental, not sad, sentimental.
This is a happy day; not a sad day.
MR. WARSHAUER: Well, let me go on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. WARSHAUER: It's a little sad and then, perhaps, happy.
And so that's what we're going to do. We're playing a song. It's called
Shalom Bulgarish, and it starts out with a sad part, it's almost like a
prayer, and then you'll see.
(Shalom Bulgarish was played by the Naples Klezmer Revival
Band.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you so much. That was
really lovely.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I may have a motion to approve
the proclamations this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
Page 34
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries.
Item #1 1 A
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,109,456. 17 (WHICH INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE OF
$101,000) TO BONNESS, INC. FOR ITB NO. 12-5947 -
"ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
(CR846), VALEWOOD DRIVE (SOUTHERN EXTENSION) AND
AUTUMN OAKS LANE" PROJECT NO. 60016.5 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to your first
time-certain of the morning. We have a 10 a.m. -- oh, I'm sorry. Do
you want to do your Business of the Month first, ma'am, before your
time-certain?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we should honor -- the
time-certain is for which item?
MR. OCHS: It's Item 11A on your agenda this morning. It's a
contract award for a road project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we should hear the
time-certain and then go back. We made a commitment to Mr.
Bonness, so I think we should honor it.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
Item 11A is a recommendation to award a construction contract
in the amount of$1,109,456.17, which includes an allowance of
Page 35
December 11-12, 2012
$101,000 to Bonness, Incorporated, for Invitation to Bid No. 12-5947.
It's roadway improvements of Immokalee Road, Valewood Drive, and
Autumn Oaks Lane.
Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation Engineering,
will present.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before you present, Mr. Ahmad, let
me ask if the board would like to hear the presentation or if they've
had the opportunity to review the material. Would the board like to
hear the presentation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The audience might, and same with
our listening audience.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've read it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but they haven't.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If Commissioner Hiller (sic) would
like to hear the presentation, let's move forward with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm Fiala. You're Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clear the record here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry. You're right. Then let's
just listen to her -- Commissioner Fiala's request. Go ahead.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman.
Commissioners, I'm Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation
Engineering, for the record.
I do have a very brief presentation, so it will not be long.
What I have on the visualizer is the area location. Immokalee
Road is in the center, east to your right, or to the right of the picture,
I-75 just slightly off the picture to the left or to the west.
Valewood is a roadway that serves the community of Quail
Creek and others to the north and, of course, Oak Boulevards -- Oakes
Boulevard is -- connects between Immokalee and Vanderbilt Beach
Road and serves the folks and the communities -- the Oakes Estates,
essentially.
Page 36
December 11-12, 2012
The project consists of a connection, a small connection between
Immokalee Road and Autumn Oaks Lane. And it also adds turning
lanes, left-turn lane in the westbound direction to serve this
connection, and a right-turn lane.
The projects began, essentially, with a promise to the folks of
Quail Creek and the folks that live in the Oakes that when we build
Immokalee Road, we're going to have a connection so people on
Oakes traveling north can still make a left turn to I-75 and to the west.
With the removal of the signal when we built Immokalee Road,
essentially, that movement was eliminated.
With this connection, we're re-establishing that movement, and
we're updating -- essentially providing a brand new signal at the
intersection of Immokalee and a new connection of Valewood
extension. Folks from the north from Quail Creek would continue
south and access Oakes as well.
Again, this was a safety-improvement project. It was not funded.
And at the budget workshops we came before you and we -- our
county manager and Mr. Casalanguida presented options of gas tax
that could fund this project, and five projects were presented to the
board at this time, and this was one of them.
We went out to bid. We prepared the plans. The plans were on
hold for a while. And we got four -- five bidders, and with -- the low
bidder is Bonness of$1 .1-plus million.
The engineer's estimate was 1 .2 million, and this is about 8
percent below the engineer's estimates.
And we are making a recommendation to award to the low bidder
and qualified bidder.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'm going to
make a motion to approve. This has been a long commitment dating
back to the time when I-75 was expanded; Immokalee Road was
expanded. And it was delayed because of revenue reduction. So I'm
Page 37
December 11-12, 2012
happy to make that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I would be happy to second
that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to, though.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you want to. Then please be
my guest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala seconds the
motion. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We have two speakers
waiting, though. But I just wanted to say, this has long been -- the
community there has been waiting for this for a long time, and I'm
glad to see that we could finally get it on track and moving forward.
But we have speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes. Can you call the speakers,
please.
MR. MILLER: Yes. The first speaker is Roland Fondessy, and
he will be followed by Reverend Les Whicker, I think this is.
MR. FONDESSY: Where do I speak from?
MR. MILLER: Either podium, sir.
MR. OCHS: Either podium.
MR. FONDESSY: Good morning, and thanks, finally, for
bringing this up. We've been waiting, like, three years for this, and it's
sounded like this gentleman gave a good report on what is needed
over there.
And we're just glad that this is coming to an end and hope that we
can get this done. So thank you for that, and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your last public speaker on this item is Reverend
Les Whicker.
MR. WHICKER: Thank you for the opportunity to express the
church's gratitude for a long promise that's been made to Oakes
Page 38
December 11-12, 2012
community and the church. As you well know, the church has sought
to be cooperative with the community in granting part of our land,
much needed land to the county for this project, that access to
Immokalee Road might be granted to the people who travel Oakes
Boulevard.
I'm glad to report this morning that our church is just completing
its second phase of its additions, and the new Valewood extension will
be a huge improvement for us in having access to the church.
Thank you very much for your support.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I will say, this is
one of the first projects that I worked on when I started as a
commissioner, and I remember when you-all came to my office asking
for help. So I'm very happy to see that Jay has done such a wonderful
job in bringing it forward and that we can all vote on it today.
And you may have a seat, thank you.
With that, if there isn't any further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Leo, if we can go back to the presentations.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 2012 TO THE DOCK AT
CRAYTON COVE. ACCEPTED BY VIN DEPASQUALE,
PRESIDENT; BOBBI SIMI, CO-OWNER; JONATHAN
Page 39
December 11-12, 2012
DEPASQUALE, RESTAURANT MANAGER; AND JACCI ROBB,
ASSISTANT MANAGER — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, that's Item 5A. It's a presentation of the
Collier County Business of the Month for December 2012 to the Dock
at Crayton Cove. To be accepted by Vin DePasquale, president;
Bobby Simi, co-owner; Jonathan DePasquale, restaurant manager; and
Jacci Robb, assistant manager.
Please come forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I will confess, I had nothing to
do with this, Vinny. Even though you are my neighbor down the
street and awesome. So congratulations. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Congratulations, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well deserved.
MR. OCHS: Hold on, Lavah. Lavah? I'm sorry. We want to
make sure they have the award in the photo.
(Applause.)
MR. DePASQUALE: I'm somewhat relieved that we didn't have
to follow that wonderful music selection by Temple Shalom.
I'm Vin DePasquale. And on behalf of myself, the management,
and staff and all of the guests that we've served over the last 36 years,
I thank you very much for this honor. We are pleased to be here and,
again, terribly honored by this.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And thank you for giving us such a
good time for so many years. It's been wonderful.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, before we move to the next
agenda item, I'd like to ask the community to thank Commissioner
Coyle for his service as chairman these past few years. We appreciate
what you have done for us and the service you gave.
So thank you.
Page 40
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's nice. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hey, that was before me. If I had set
the agenda, I would have had the plaque here. Thank you, again.
Leo?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. BOB KRASOWSKI
REGARDING ISSUES RELATING TO BEACH
RENOURISHMENT - DISCUSSED; RECOMMENDATIONS
WILL BE DISCUSSED FURTHER DURING RELATED AGENDA
ITEMS HEARD TODAY
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that -- Commissioners, that takes us to Item
6, public petitions.
Item 6A was continued from the November 13, 2012, BCC
meeting. It's a public-petition request from Mr. Bob Krasowski
regarding issues relating to beach renourishment.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. And
welcome, Commissioner Nance. And as a person that comes in front
of the board pretty regularly, it's great to have you here.
And Congratulations, Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And hello to the rest of the commissioners,
and congratulations to Commissioner Henning as well.
And hello, Commissioner Coyle and Fiala.
For the record, my name's Bob Krasowski. I've been following
with interest the beach nourishment (sic) project that's been moving
through the county system for, gosh, at least a year now. And I'd just
like to make a couple of comments in front of the new board about this
project.
Page 41
December 11-12, 2012
Collier County's been monitoring and nourishing our beaches for
a couple of decades now. Recent history starts in 2005 and '6 with a
renourishment event that was supposed to last for six years, and then
we were supposed to do it again in '11, November of'f 11 through May
of'12. So we're kind of a year past that now.
What happened there was about a year ago the Naples City
Council and the commission had a joint workshop, and they suggested
to the Coastal Zone Management Department that they tried to extend
the life of the renourishment projects so as to save money. It would
save money with the permitting processes and stuff. It's pretty
expensive when you go for the permits.
And then also to -- further along those lines, to see what they
could do to build the higher bigger beaches like -- that would last as
long as 10 years. But that was kind of-- put a lot of stress on the
economic aspect of that, because it would have cost a lot more money
and a lot more sand, and they were strategizing, used joint projects
with other communities.
And -- but what happened, there was some concern about that,
about the economics and also, from my perspective, about the request
that -- for their application to do that, to encroach onto turtle nesting
season. Like, you have six months out of the year where the turtles
don't nest where they could renourish, and then there's six months
where turtles nest. So that kind of drew me into this.
What happened was the 10-year project fell apart because we got
de-obligated with some FEMA money that they were planning to use,
and for other reasons. But the -- when that fell apart, we weren't
prepared to go back to the six-year strategy and, therefore, we're here
now, like seven-and-a-half years past the original renourishment, and
we don't have anything going on right now. And there were plans to
do a renourishment on '13/'14, which is a bit into the distance.
Now, I mentioned earlier that the intention was to save money by
extending the lives of the beaches but, as a result of this extra wear
Page 42
December 11-12, 2012
and tear on the beaches and some of the public and hoteliers being
frustrated with the condition of the beach, we've had to just recently
spend $750,000 to have some emergency truck haul work done, okay.
So that's kind of the history of that in a nutshell. There's a lot more to
it.
But pretty much -- one other thing I'd want to say about this was
that the project was very narrowly focused. The relationship between
the Coastal Zone Management people and the dredging industry kind
of narrowly focused their consideration, and so they were motivated to
move forward with kind of a dredging-only scenario.
What's come about since, the commission has considered other
potential options and has directed staff to include truck-haul bidding in
the bid. And this is, I believe, good. And later you'll be addressing an
RFP on the agenda as to how to improve the situation and move
forward with the -- everything from this point on. And I'll talk later
about staying flexible, keeping your options open, and I'll have more
to say at that time.
Now, I get 10 minutes in my presentation. I'll try not to use it all
up, but I talk so slow, and there's so much to this that I want to make
sure to --
The -- one other thing, then, for now. The current application is
in -- has been submitted to the state, and it's in process. It's being
reviewed, and public comment's been asked for in other agencies that
commented. And I'll touch on this later as well.
You still have an application in looking to encroach into turtle
nesting season. And I think it's -- I don't see how anybody could
consider renourishing the beach during the beginning of turtle nesting
season, because that's when the turtles are mating out in the water and
just emerging onto the beach. And I think Collier County has also
been sensitive to its environment.
So that month, into the beginning of turtle nesting season, I
should be -- I think should be removed from consideration. And then
Page 43
i
December 11-12, 2012
at the end of turtle nesting season, only truck haul sands would be
placed where no nests are until all the turtles could hatch and leave,
and we can develop a strategy around the turtles, you know, especially
now that the program -- the amount of sand needed has been greatly
reduced.
So this may be a little redundant or repetitive for some of you
commissioners that have heard me speak before. I wanted the
opportunity to address this, especially with the new commissioner,
new chair, and hopefully we can work smart into the future.
And thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'll wait for Item 10Z, as in
zebra.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Bob, could you come back to the
dais for a moment. You're here under public petition. Is there
something you would like to petition the board to do with respect to
this matter?
There are a number of items addressing the beach renourishment
issues that have come up that are on this agenda. There will be more
coming forward. Is there something specific that you would like to
petition the board to do, or was this more informational?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well -- yes, there are specific things, and
I'd mentioned them before, but I guess it is appropriate if I state them
now.
I would like the board to remove the timeline from April 21st to
June 1st from consideration for beach renourishment. That's the
beginning of the turtle nesting season.
This matter is under discussion with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Florida Wildlife Commission. So it -- if they
determine later that there's no good reason to do it, that could save you
some trouble.
Page 44
December 11-12, 2012
But also, just in keeping with our ecotourism destination and our
sensitivity before the environment -- we should get that out of there.
Then, also, at the end of turtle nesting season, if necessary, only
if necessary, that only truck haul method, bringing in sand and be used
to place sand on the beach where there are no nests so we can avoid
any kind of harassment or taking, which is the term that the agency
used, and -- for that.
And then if I -- oh, and then also one other thing that would come
up later, that -- okay. The -- under the RFP, I want you to be very
considerate to not only be flexible with -- and what I mean by that is
in the application that's in front of the state now, it states that the
bidding process -- you will select the low bid, okay. I don't think that
that's -- should be the case.
I think if this RFP is sent out, you should explain to bidders that
we're interested in putting together the combination of methods that
best serves Collier County for our renourishment program, and that
would include our sensitivity to turtle nesting season, and that --
because, see, like at the state level they've been told that whatever the
process is, once the bids are submitted, you're going to have to take
the lowest bid. And I think if that the lowest bid's just a little lower,
then the next bid you might want to exercise preference.
So keep your ability there, you know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If it's the will of the board, we have
an agenda item that addresses the bidding on the sand renourishment
that will be coming up later this afternoon. The suggestions presented
by Bob could be brought forward for discussion at that time and
considered for incorporation as part of the recommendations. Would
that be acceptable?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And, of course, if you are not
Page 45
December 11-12, 2012
supportive, you're always welcome to oppose it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have no objection.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, Bob, we'll just bring
your recommendations up. So if you could be present at the time that
agenda item is presented. And if you could sign up as a public
speaker, limit your discussion simply to re-presenting those items in
summary form. We don't need to repeat the details on the record, and
then the board could consider if they would like to incorporate it in the
RFP guidelines.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I have a little more to add at that time on
that item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But, yes, I appreciate that. And I
understand that when somebody speaks under public petition, you
can't take action on their request. But being it's on the agenda
separately --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- so -- I appreciate your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which is why I'm asking you to just
come back and reiterate without going into the details you've already
presented.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excellent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. DAN ROBUCK, PRESIDENT OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS, REGARDING AN EMS
MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL — DISCUSSED
Page 46
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6B. It's a
public-petition request from Mr. Dan Robuck, president of Emergency
Medical Specialists, regarding an EMS management proposal.
MR. ROBUCK: Do you want me to go ahead and start?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please do.
MR. ROBUCK: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Dan
Robuck with Emergency Management Specialists. I practiced law for
a number of years, did healthcare law, and been involved in a number
of businesses.
One of the principals here also is Dr. Ed Schlein. He's an
emergency room physician. He was an EMS medical director for a
number of years and owned his own emergency room management
company.
Bill Compton is also here. Mr. Compton runs the EMS service
for Grady Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.
Back in April of this past -- of this year, we had some friends that
lived down here call us and say that there was some -- a lot of
discussions going on with EMS service, possibly consolidation, and
the economics involved.
Of course, you're like all other counties. Your assessments have
gone down, so your income has gone down.
What we're proposing is not privatizing your company, but
coming in and doing an assessment of your system and transitioning it
where you control -- where you control your system -- where you
control your system.
The lead consultant and what makes this work so well is Grady
Emergency Services will be down here making this thing work.
Bill Compton, before he went to Grady, was the COO of the
largest hospital-based EMS system in the nation. He went to Grady in
2009. At the time he went there, it was losing $9 million. He has,
since then, made it self-sustaining. Not just profitable, but
Page 47
December 11-12, 2012
self-sustaining where it will continue to operate and do all the capital
improvements. And Bill will go over a little bit of that with you now
to show you what he can do.
MR. COMPTON: Thank you, Dan.
Madam Chair, members of the board, as Mr. Robuck indicated,
we are looking for a few areas for expansion of management services
which, here again, we're one of Lee's consultants for EMS, LLC, out
of Florida. I'm a Floridian by birth. Worked in the state many years
and, as Dan said, at one time managed the largest EMS-based hospital
management company in the nation.
In Grady -- Grady's been in business for 120 years in the
ambulance business. Actually the oldest hospital-based service in the
nation. And for 118 of those years, the EMS division had serious
financial deficits. Even though they provided excellent quality care,
they lost a lot of money.
In your county here, I have friends and actually family and
property in Collier County with family members together, and we
have read articles and things all the way back to April that there was
interest of combining fire service because of certain disadvantages,
dysfunctional units, things that were going on; not to indicate that you
didn't have the right people in place.
But in business, as we know and in this industry, there's not
different -- there's three drivers. There's people, process, and
technology.
So your budget in 2013, that is fairly accurate that we got
updated from county staff just about a week ago, shows about a $24
million operation expense. It shows roughly about 9,500 to 9,800 of
collectibles from delivery of service.
At the end of the day, you've got somewhere between
14-and-a-half million to $15 million of a loss that has to be mitigated,
made up every year from general fund, subsidy, and MSTU, whatever
the revenue source it is.
Page 48
December 11-12, 2012
What our goal would be for you, obviously no action required
today, but in the future to discuss with staff and hopefully again in a
future presentation is to make you a presentation on how this could be
accomplished for Collier County to get you at least $5 million of
savings a year without compromising care, actually enhancing your
care, and the long-term goal within three to five years would be get
you to a self-sustaining organization, which means with the exception
of probably a million dollars of capital expense that you'd have every
year is save you $14 million in the long haul.
With that said, how do we do that? I've been asked that before.
We're not only healthcare experts. We employ master's degree MBA
associated managers that are in the industry.
And a lot of questions get to me, well, how do you do this? Is it
magic? How do you -- the things of the nature is that in EMS, in this
county and all counties across the south and even the nation, there's
excellent people in these industries that have grown up through the
ranks and were promoted because of their technical expertise.
Nationally, there are very few managers, with exception of some
of the very larger privatization companies, that actually have
businesspeople that have experience in balance sheets and running
book of business and on the same side that have physicians that have
MPHs and things that are associated with business and expert medical
management.
So with that said, we, again, would like to hopefully get back
here in the future. And to just give you an example of expenses and
costs that provide the counties, in Georgia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, here again in Florida, completely familiar with how things
work here and in the state, if you look at your operating expenses and
the number of calls that you run a year compared to the money that
you generate, let's just say roughly at $24 million of expenses a year
and the little under 200 employees you have and roughly between 30-
and 40,000 calls a year, our Grady operation is almost four times as
Page 49
December 11-12, 2012
large, we have twice as many people, and our net operating expenses
almost mirror yours. So there is something there that probably might
want to be worth examination as time goes on.
With that said, I would like to answer any questions that you
would have of me in reference to what we're talking about because --
and any change and any perception really is the enemy of change, and
this is kind of new information. And the question would be, well, how
in the world would you do that, and why couldn't we do that today?
So with that, I would like to answer any questions, then turn it
back to Mr. Robuck.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The board has a
long-standing commitment, if the fire districts consolidate, that we
would give them EMS to provide a better service to the citizens, or
more consolidated service to the citizens. I haven't changed on that
one bit.
And, in fact, East Naples and Golden Gate Fire Districts are
talking about consolidation now. I think this is premature, and I
would vigorously oppose this if it's coming back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Understood.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So at this time it would seem that
what Commissioner Henning is saying would probably be the
appropriate conclusion to what you've presented.
This discussion really is in flux with the community. We've just
put together an advisory board made up of all the representative
stakeholders within the EMS system, and I think it really probably
would be to your benefit if you communicate with them, because I
think what Commissioner Henning is saying is on the table. And until
that's decided, any other decision would be premature.
So you may just want to go back and communicate with the
Page 50
December 11-12, 2012
Public Safety Advisory Board. And I'm sure Mr. Ochs can give you
guidance on how to get touch with them.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I just have one question, sir.
How are you compensated for your consulting? Are you on a
fee-for-service basis, or what's typically done?
MR. COMPTON: It's fee for services. We work for Mr.
Robuck's company and, basically, it's a standard healthcare consulting,
you know, a market fee that you would incur in any industry that you
work through healthcare.
And, again, it's -- like you said, it's not a privatization issue. It's a
management consulting issue to get you where you would maybe like
to go in the future as far as operational financial incentives.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that may very well play into
the recommendations by, you know, this board and, like I said, the
various service providers as to what direction the system will go and
that could maybe actually add value.
Any other further discussion?
MR. COMPTON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The court report needs a break.
MR. ROBUCK: We thank you all very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I was going to ask that
question. At 10:30 I was going to call for a break. Would you like a
break now, court reporter, or are you comfortable to continue?
Because we had one earlier. It's your pleasure.
THE COURT REPORTER: Whatever, I'm okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could we go through public
comments, because I know there are members of the public waiting,
and then take a short break.
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
Page 51
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: That leads us to No. 7 on your agenda, Madam
Chair. That's public comments on general topic.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. You have five registered speakers today
under public comment. Your first speaker will be Joan Ricci. She
will be followed by Tom Graham.
MS. RICCI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Joan
Ricci, and I'm the property manager for Collier's Reserve Association
in North Naples.
I'm here before you today to discuss the recent landscape changes
made to River Chase Shopping Center.
On October 3, 2012, Collier's Reserve representatives met with
Collier County planners to view the landscape installation at River
Chase that had been accomplished during the summer. The planners
stated that the landscape plan did not conform to county code. And as
we suspected, the trees that were installed are contrary to the Land
Development Code.
And so I have a question for the commissioners, and I don't know
if you can answer this now, but perhaps you could respond in the
future. I'd like to know at what Collier County Board of County
Commissioners' meeting were the trees -- tree requirements modified
and approved by the commissioners and incorporated into the Land
Development Code.
I'd like to thank you all for listening to me today. I'd like to
thank Commissioner Hiller for meeting with us in the past and
listening to our concerns about River Chase and the landscape design
plan that they've incorporated, and I look forward to receiving an
Page 52
December 11-12, 2012
answer to my question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Boy, do I agree with you.
And we see that that is beginning to happen at other shopping centers.
The county doesn't have any control over private property. We can't --
you know, we can't tell them what to do. We do have certain criteria
that must be met.
MS. RICCI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I know I, myself-- and I just
wrote a little bit of this in my column for this coming week how,
whenever we go to a shopping center, we look for a place to park in
the shade because that -- and those are the first places people take.
Even if it's way far down the aisle, it's better to keep your car a little
cool, and the items that are in your car. So I totally agree, but I don't
know what we can do as far as telling the owners what they have to do
with their landscaping.
MS. RICCI: Well, they have to follow certain criteria, and it has
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, but it doesn't say shade trees.
MS. RICCI: They have to follow a certain canopy size, and the
trees that they have incorporated into their landscape design plan
actually have no canopy, or very little.
So I think that -- and also a tree preservation ordinance that could
be adopted by the county would protect all of the other shopping
centers. But the problem that we have right -- is immediate for
Collier's Reserve, because we are neighbors to River Chase. So we're
looking for some -- an answer to our question to see if, in fact, there
were any modifications made to the tree requirements.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I think we have a significant
problem with landscape design requirements for commercial
Page 53
December 11-12, 2012
properties, because everybody seems to have a different idea on what
they're interested in. Some people might want to beautify, some
people might want to provide shade, some people might want to
maintain a native landscape. And there's all sorts of requirements on
what sorts of trees you have to use, where you have to use the trees.
The one thing that's ignored is the fact that these people have
commercial properties. They have a sign; they want visibility. They
have to be able to be successful in that shopping center.
So I believe that what is appropriate, and so we don't have this
happening where they go in and the vendors are going out of business
and they're frustrated so they want to cut all the trees down -- that's
basically what's taking place.
I think we need to go in and examine how we landscape shopping
centers. Perhaps we can cluster our trees in an area that's designed for
landscaping, rather than blocking the stores and so on and so forth.
In addition, Collier County's got tremendous sign ordinances that
requires very small, tasteful signs. Well, by the time you get small
signs and huge trees, you know, you have conflicting interests. And I
think it needs to be addressed comprehensively, or nobody's going to
be happy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think what Commissioner
Nance says is absolutely correct, and what we have done as a first step
is myself and Commissioner Fiala at the Land Development Code
approval meeting several months ago requested that that section of the
Land Development Code be amended to provide clarity of direction
with respect to these conflicting interests.
I would like Leo to address what is currently in the code. And if
you could please provide the list of trees that were approved by the
board, because obviously there seems to be some concern on Collier's
Reserve part, and maybe provide, you know, the minutes when the list
of trees were approved by the board and the discussion that was had so
we can reconcile what was contemplated at that time versus where we
Page 54
December 11-12, 2012
are now, because obviously the issue we have with this particular
landscape plan is that the designer relied on a listing of trees, and
those trees are not accomplishing the end that is intended by the code
as written, which is why the planners have said that this is
nonconforming design.
You have filed a code complaint on this matter --
MS. RICCI: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so as a result, this is a serious
issue. And if this is going to go before the board, the Code
Enforcement Board, I think it's important that we, the board, see the
evidence with respect to what our staff was relying on to approve
those plans.
In the meantime, Mr. Casalanguida has informed me that the
developer does want to remediate and is looking to put in shade trees.
So what I might recommend, Leo, is that Joan, who's the property
manager for Collier's Reserve, meet with Mr. Casalanguida and the
developer, and maybe the three of them can work things out so that
code enforcement action could be settled before it goes to a hearing.
But in the meantime I think the board needs to be informed as to
what was contemplated in the past and get that list of trees and
standards.
MS. RICCI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Is that acceptable?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'd be pleased to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Tom Graham. He
will be followed by Robert Ochs.
MR. GRAHAM: Good morning, Commissioners, and
congratulations, Ms. Hiller, on your recent election today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, and also to
Commissioner Nance --
MR. GRAHAM: And Commissioner Nance.
Page 55
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Fiala.
MR. GRAHAM: That's right, for all of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And on Commissioner Coyle's
retirement. He finally has a break.
MR. GRAHAM: Very good. I just retired recently, too, so I
hope you enjoy your time like I did and am doing, playing golf.
My name is Tom Graham. I live in Collier's Reserve. I'm the
secretary of the Collier's Reserve Association. And following Joan,
I'm also here to express concerns about the approval of the landscape
plan that was done with respect to River Chase Shopping Center.
For all your information, I would imagine that Collier's Reserve
is located -- 224-home community with a golf course -- located right
off of Immokalee Road near U.S. 41. We sit way back off the road.
River Chase Shopping Center, it also fronts on Immokalee Road
and U.S. 41. It's on the east side, for your information.
And what I'm here to ask, a little bit different than Joan, is to
whether or not the commissioner can please look into determining
whether the Growth Management division appropriately approved the
landscape plan for River Chase Shopping Center. What the Growth
Management division did was to do what is called, from what I've
learned -- an insubstantial change to the site plan that was developed
back in '90. That was the Site Development Plan 90-152 is what the
initial plan was.
The Collier's Reserve is part of a development by a Collier -- by
Collier Development Corporation, which include River Chase, which
include Collier's Reserve, and which included the Collier Health Park.
And so back in the early '90s, the Collier Development
Corporation felt that there was a certain need for the communities to
maintain an aesthetic standard that it was consistent with the entire
community. And as a matter of fact, in their development plan, which
was Collier Tract 22 PUD, in forming these different entities they
Page 56
December 11-12, 2012
entered into an agreement establishing landscape easements and
maintenance standards, which were with respect to all of the
properties, to maintain the aesthetic standards and compatibility of
each of the properties and to install and maintain in a continuously
good and attractive condition the foliage and the landscaping that was
in these -- in these communities.
And so what has happened is -- whoop, that's it?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that --
MR. GRAHAM: Three minutes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was that three minutes?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to go ahead and just
finish your sentence there?
MR. GRAHAM: Fine, thank you. What I was going to say is
that I would like the commission to determine whether or not the
Growth Management Division appropriately followed the rules and
requirements for an insubstantial change, and an insubstantial change,
according to what we have gotten back from Mr. Nick Casalanguida,
was a change of 130 trees. We had nice, mature 20-year-old oak trees,
queen palms, that they substituted ball Cypress trees and slash pines.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
Leo, if I may, in light of the questions presented, I was just
thinking, maybe it would be beneficial, given that this project is in my
district and, you know, with the board's indulgence, if I sat down with
the property owners, with growth management, with their planners
and with Mr. Klatzkow to see what we can do to resolve this and
clarify what happened -- you know, if errors were made, they'll be
corrected. You know, if there were misunderstandings, they'll be
remedied. And that way we can resolve this matter in an amicable
fashion. Would that be agreeable?
Page 57
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I have no problem with meeting as
you suggested. I would like to bring the final staff report --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: -- back to the full commission --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, I agree with that.
MR. OCHS: -- with all of the findings and recommendations --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- so that the full board has full visibility.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I absolutely agree with you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think, you know, a full
history of how the code got to where it is will be put together and then
how the landscape designer came up with the conclusion that this was
an insubstantial change --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- approved the plan and how the
planners considered otherwise and how we are where we are today
with a hopeful settlement negotiated by staff. Is that acceptable, Mr.
Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that acceptable to the board?
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Robert Ochs, and he
will be followed by Marsha Cravens.
MR. ROBERT OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner, and
congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. ROBERT OCHS: I want to clarify for the record that Leo
and I have talked, and we are not related.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. ROBERT OCHS: Tom said -- took most of my remarks,
but let me put in context, if I may try to use less (sic) time as possible.
Page 58
December 11-12, 2012
As he alluded to, the development of Collier's Reserve over 20
years ago, 25 years ago, by the Miles Collier side of the family, was
intended to be -- to maintain a preserve of the entire area, not just the
450 acres which comprises Collier's Reserve, but the shopping center,
which they owned, and the Health Park where the hospital is now,
which they owned at the time, and there's a little commercial office
development in front of Collier's Reserve, which they own.
So what they did, and they had the foresight to do so, is to make
an arrangement whereby that entire community, that entire complex,
would be maintained in a native vegetation reserve status to the extent
that it could, obviously.
We appreciate that we're now part of the center of Collier
County, okay. I mean, we're not out in the -- when we looked at
property out there in 1994, one realtor said, well, only the Boy Scouts
live out there. Well, the Boy Scouts are long gone, all right, and we
understand that.
But what we are asking is that the board support the intent in the
development there that has been accomplished. And to compare our
situation with that of the county which has spent substantial funds to
construct and maintain medians in our highways, okay, for a purpose
-- there's a purpose for that, and the purpose is no different than the
intent and the objective of Collier's Reserve.
So to avoid the next developer coming along and asking you
people, well, let's remove some of the medians because they're
obstructing our view. In deference to Commissioner Nance's
observations, which are true, that's not -- that's not the Collier County
philosophy or intent, nor do I think it would be.
So we're -- we would support anything the board would do to
avoid these situations, certainly at our facility, but at all facilities.
We have a private agreement, and we will pursue that, obviously,
with the owner. We're not asking the board support in that regard.
Thank you.
Page 59
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Marcia Cravens, and
she will be followed by John Sorey.
MS. CRAVENS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm so
delighted to welcome Commissioner Tim Nance and congratulate
Commissioner Hiller and Henning and Fiala for their continuing roles
on the board.
I'm having trouble with this mike.
I'm here today because the items that Commissioner Hiller has
placed on the agenda that are related to Clam Bay and the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board's role for Clam Bay are very high interest to
many persons, including those persons who serve on the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board.
And since I'm very -- I care very much about those people on the
PBSD Board, including my husband -- and I don't want any of them to
get in trouble, including my husband -- I would just like confirmation
stated on today's record that those persons on the PBSD Board, any
number of them, have an opportunity to speak at today's meeting
regardless that Items 10X, 10Y, and 10AC may actually become a
later agenda item before them at a subsequent PBSD board meeting.
So, please, can we have on the record a statement regarding that?
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Not an issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker under public comment
is John Sorey.
MR. SOREY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm John Sorey. I'm Chair of your Coastal Advisory Committee, and I
also give my congratulations to all the commissioners and look
forward to working with you.
And your process does not allow commenting on public petition,
Page 60
December 11-12, 2012
so that's why I'm speaking at this time. And I wanted to just briefly
touch on a few items that Bob brought up earlier while it's fresh on
your mind.
And I have met with Bob. He's appeared before the Coastal
Advisory Committee a number of times, and I just want to be sure that
we're all -- have the facts on the record.
Truck haul for spot applications is quite effective, and I know
there's a difference of opinion, and we're in discussion about how
many cubic yards that we're going to put on the beach when that
occurs, but let's use what the engineers came up with. If we use
450,000 cubic yards, that would take 25,000 trucks. And the impact
on the streets of the City of Naples, on the county streets, and on the
disruption during our peak season would be pretty substantial.
Also, for the record -- and you've heard me present this before --
but the Coastal Advisory Committee is very committed to our
environment and the turtles. For the record, when we looked at
extending the scope of the renourishment, one of the drivers was,
indeed, economics because, as you've heard me say before, the
dredgers, the maximum window that they can get positively affects the
price.
Now, we did the science on this, and just to give you an example,
from September the 15th -- if we started September 15th, on the
beaches of the City of Naples, the Conservancy's data shows that
there'd be only an average of 10 nests impacted for relocation.
We relocate nests today. And part of the project would be
working with the Conservancy to relocate those nests. So we can
protect the turtles and still have the flexibility of that longer window,
which will have the numbers. And the way the bid is being prepared,
we'll know what those additional days (sic).
If it's nominal or no improvement in cost, obviously we don't
want to do it. But at the current time, I think there is a plan and the
capability to do that.
Page 61
December 11-12, 2012
Incidentally, the Conservancy agreed not to contest that
expanded window. So they've looked at the science, and I met with
them, and they know what the facts are. So we're talking a very small
relocation project.
The other thing, there's been various allegations about the fact
that we should have had a six-year plan in place, that sort of thing. It
really wouldn't have been logical for the Coastal Advisory Committee
and staff to have done that with the effort on the 10-year plan.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Are there any more
public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I could make two suggestions,
Leo. With respect to public petitions, if we could ask that anyone who
comes forward with public petitions to introduce backup ahead of the
preparation of the schedule so the board has the opportunity to see it.
We received an exhibit today from the EMS group, and we just
received it here, obviously not allowing us to review it and listening at
the same time. So that would be very beneficial.
And the other suggestion I'd like to make is Lee County has just
introduced e-commenting, and what that means is that the Lee County
population can comment to the Board of County Commissioners under
public comments by submitting electronic comments. Now, it is not
to be expected that they will receive a response from the board
specific, but at least their comments can be heard without them
needing to be physically here.
If you could look into that and maybe bring that back to this
board for consideration if-- you know, as a way of incorporating more
of the community's comments at our meetings.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I would
make a suggestion that we explore that option under the terms that it
would be a one-way communication --
Page 62
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- and that way the commission
would not be required or we would not be expected to maintain public
records on those comments. But it would be an excellent way to
garner information easily and conveniently for everybody without
causing a large records keeping --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it actually automatically
becomes a public record as soon as we receive it, so that's actually a
given. But the one-way communication is important so that a public
speaker doesn't expect that we necessarily have to respond --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- that it's at our option, but they're
providing input. But if you could look into what Lee County is doing,
since they just introduced it, and I just heard about it, and I thought it
would be a great way for the community, again, to share their views
without necessarily having to be here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you -- while you're doing that
also, could you, first of all, ask the question how long their meetings
last right now. And then as they've just introduced it, how -- does that
make their meetings last a little bit longer? I know they used to finish
their meetings in five hours. Well, you know, we don't do that. And
how much longer will that take us if we have a deluge of public
comments coming in?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should go to weekly
meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe we should meet all
week long. You know, I mean, it might just happen, you know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, Commissioner Fiala, you
make some very good points, and so do you, Commissioner Henning.
And I actually have been giving thought to the structure of our
meetings, and I have been looking around the state to see what other
counties are doing. And there are many different approaches.
Page 63
December 11-12, 2012
I've already talked to Leo in the past about, you know, some
ideas I've had. One of the things is we have a lot of discussion which
really should be reserved for a workshop, and so if we had monthly
workshops, we could eliminate discussions that are really, you know,
thought developing, like this one, for example.
But I'd like to defer that to a later time and bring forward
considerations of how we can improve the management of the
meetings as we move forward to make it easier on the public, easier on
staff, and easier on ourselves.
Leo, would you like to proceed to the -- are you okay?
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, are you going to take your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want a break? Okay. We're
going to take a 10-minute break.
MR. OCHS: Then we have a time-certain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: At 11 o'clock, right.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle would like to
get this show on the road.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. County Manager, could
you please move to the time-certain, please.
Item #14B2
REJECT THE SOLE RESPONSE TO RFP #12-5945 AND
AUTHORIZE CRA STAFF TO WORK WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO RELEASE A NEW
RFP TO PROCURE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF A
REAL ESTATE FIRM TO MARKET AND SELL CRA OWNED
LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPROVED MPUD —
Page 64
December 11-12, 2012
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That would be Item 14B2 on your
agenda. This is an 11 a.m. time-certain. It's a recommendation that
the Community Redevelopment Agency reject the sole response to
RFP #12-5945 and authorize CRA staff to work with the Collier
County Purchasing Department to release a new RFP to procure the
professional services of a real estate firm to market and sell
CRA-owned land for development of the approved MPUD.
And, Madam Chair, it would be appropriate for the board to
convene as the Community Redevelopment Agency at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have a chair, do we?
MR. OCHS: Yes, you do.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: The CRA -- yes, I am the
chairman of the CRA. CRA is now in session.
And I have spoken with the people, the applicants on this, and
they would prefer right now to take this off of the agenda entirely and
speak to us in January on a public petition.
If that -- if that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: If that pleases the board, I
would like to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I respond? I think we need to
vote on the agenda item that's being presented today, which is to reject
the RFP which is being presented and to allow staff to move forward
with readvertising the sale of the property.
And then my understanding is that the Kappa Group would like
to come forward separately at a later time and do a public presentation
to educate the board and persuade the board to accept their business
model. We've got two items.
Page 65
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. JOURDAN: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Jean?
MS. JOURDAN: That's correct. Kappa has decided -- they were
wanting to speak on the item, but they've decided they want to collect
themselves a little bit better and come back in the future. But in the
meantime we do need to get a vote on this solicitation for the RFP.
Kappa was the sole respondent; however, it didn't meet the intent
of the RFP that was released. It was to develop a mixed-use
development, and they were proposing just the development of a
stand-alone facility. So it still needs to be rejected so we can move
forward.
And in addition, staff would like to move forward and work with
the purchasing department to see what would be the best way to
procure the services of a real estate firm in order to assist selling
CRA-owned land.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you intending to bring back to
us an RFP which deals only with this particular planned unit
development or deals with all of the land that is owned by the CRA?
MS. JOURDAN: I would like to deal with all of the land that's
owned by the CRA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the proposal by Kappa will
really be related to a subset --
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of the RFP which you would
bring back to us for review and approval; is that correct?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the RFP -- did it have
specifics like when are you going to develop, what is your capital
Page 66
December 11-12, 2012
starting monies, and things like that?
MS. JOURDAN: No; no, it did not. The RFP basically sets forth
the criteria of what you needed to develop. The RFP is more geared
towards soliciting a developer to come develop it; however, when you
don't have the funds, which would be us, to give the developer to
develop it, then it's not really the correct way to go about it, and that's
what we found out --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. JOURDAN: -- is that this wasn't really the appropriate way
to try to get someone to buy, because they need to actually buy it, but
then develop the uses that were approved in the mixed-use
development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And maybe, you know, we
-- the board was very quick to change the uses, and maybe what we
should consider is some flexibility to allow for the sale at the highest
possible price, and that -- entertain a discussion with any future
purchaser that, you know, some other configuration of uses, obviously
subject to board approval, which would not be unreasonably withheld,
should be put on the table that were not fixed in the position we're
currently in.
Because, obviously, it is the intent of the board, as has always
been expressed, to sell that property at the highest possible price to
repay the debt.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But I might add, at the same
time we also want to make sure that we support the efforts of the
Bayshore CRA to improve this area, eliminate the crime, eliminate the
blight, and move this area forward rather than handicap it.
MS. JOURDAN: We do have some very exciting things that are
going on now.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
Page 67
December 11-12, 2012
MS. JOURDAN: A lot of interest in the CRA area that I'm so
excited to bring back to you guys in January --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
MS. JOURDAN: -- at a workshop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to move that we accept
your recommendation to move forward with the RFP and to hire a real
estate consulting firm to assist with the marketing of the property.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is that --
MS. JOURDAN: That's wonderful.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Anything else that you need to
add to that?
MS. JOURDAN: No, I'm good.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. I hear two seconds.
Commissioner Coyle was the first one, Commissioner Nance is the
second; so now we have three.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And the CRA meeting is closed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You run a great meeting,
Commissioner Fiala. Nice and short and fast.
Page 68
I
December 11-12, 2012
Leo, could you take us to the next item on the agenda, please.
Item #10A
THE BOARD INTERPRETS ITS RECONSIDERATION
PROCEDURE TO ALLOW A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION TO BE MADE BY A MEMBER WHO
VOTED IN THE MAJORITY PRIOR TO THE ADJOURNMENT
OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE MATTER WAS VOTED
UPON, OR AT EITHER THE FIRST AND/OR SECOND
MEETING, AND THAT A PRIOR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION DOES NOT BAR A LATER MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION MADE AT ANY TIME DURING THIS
TWO MEETING TIME FRAME, AND THAT THE BOARD (BY A
MAJORITY VOTE) DEEMS FORMER COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S AND COMMISSIONER FIALA'S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER (BLOCKING FURTHER RECONSIDERATION
PRESCRIBED BY 75-12 AS AMENDED) NULL AND VOID -
MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair, that would be moving to Item
10 on your agenda, Board of County Commissioners.
Item 10A is a recommendation that the board interprets its
reconsideration procedure to allow a motion for reconsideration to be
made by a member who voted in the majority prior to the adjournment
of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon or at either the first
and/or second meeting and that a prior motion for reconsideration does
not bar a later motion for reconsideration made at any time during this
two-meeting time frame and, number two, that the board, by majority
vote, deems former Commissioner Coletta's and Commissioner Fiala's
motion to reconsider (blocking further reconsideration prescribed by
75-12 as amended) null and void.
Page 69
December 11-12, 2012
This item was placed on the board's agenda by Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. Madam
Chair, Commissioners, this has all to do -- it has nothing to do with
changing our rules. Our rules are written. They're very clear. This
has nothing to do with Hideaway Beach funding, because there has to
be a tri-party agreement; is that right, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. We're still waiting for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that has to be on our
agenda. This has to be an attempt by certain members of the board to
circumvent our rules, and our rules are very clear.
Our rules were established in 1975 as amended throughout the
years. And in fact, I think, Madam Chair, twice since you've been
here they've been amended.
The reconsideration item, there are two parts; one under general
topics and the other one under land use. It is very clear. A
commissioner -- on general topics a commissioner who voted in the
majority can bring an item back up to two meetings after the item was
originally heard, and then the county manager shall put the -- those
items on the agenda thereafter if it's voted on by the majority.
Now, the attempts -- what happened at the last meeting was to
block or circumvent our ordinance. Now, Robert's Rules of Order is
very clear, and you can see it in the backup, that any motion voted on
and approved, even if it's the majority, that is contradictory to
constitution, bylaws, or state law, is, therefore, null and void.
Now, the Florida legislators in Chapter 125 of the Florida
Statutes allows the Board of County Commissioners to create rules,
meeting rules, and we have them; we've had them for a long time.
So -- and some of these issues that are on the agenda that I have
put on for reconsideration -- prior to Commissioner Nance being
elected, we had a conversation about things, and he would like to
Page 70
December 11-12, 2012
readdress those. And I think that is fair since we have a new board to
do that.
And so, you know, basically the action is is to recognize the
board has rules on reconsideration. It's not being circumvented by
Robert's Rules of Order and deem the previous actions to block
reconsiderations be voted on null and void.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
the recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's interesting, though, to see
that at that meeting, the reason I asked to have it reconsidered, the
item that I was talking about, and that was the City of Marco Island's
request to build erosion control structures to protect the boating access
through the creek and the bay because the sand closed back in -- we
have to keep pulling it back out anyway. The City of Marco Island
wants to build that. And they're in conjunction with Hideaway Beach
Homeowners Association and their district.
Hideaway Beach -- and I want to just state this real clearly again.
They have nothing to do -- these tax dollars have nothing to do with
the sand on the beach, nothing to do with it. The Hideaway people,
the residents, pay for that sand themselves. Nothing else.
This is for erosion control structures, because when Hideaway
Beach goes in and they renourish their beaches on their own dime,
City of Marco Island doesn't want that sand washing into the creek
then to stop the boating access. They're very, very concerned about
that.
So when I saw -- Commissioner Henning has been fighting this
all along. It's not that it's a new thing for him. He's certainly been
staying with the same position for a couple years now, never voting
Page 71
December 11-12, 2012
for anything on this. And, you know, I have to commend him for that.
You know, it's not like he waivers. He stuck with it because this is
what he believes except when it came to the vote. He fought it all
day, or that whole subject, and then he voted for it. And, obviously,
when you vote for something, you want to vote in the majority so you
can bring it back.
Well, we already knew what he was up to, so I tried -- I brought
it back at the end of the meeting instead. I mean, why should I -- or at
the next meeting instead. Why should I knowingly know he's going to
try and stop it and then just lay down and play dead?
Now, he ridiculed me a lot at that meeting, and Commissioner
Coletta, too, because we had reconsiderations, and yet he's got 19 of
them on here.
So, I mean, you know, it's not a nice thing, and that's said in
Donna Fiala terms. It's not nice to ridicule other people. It's not nice
to put them down, especially when you're doing the same darn thing.
So I go back to this. There are many things -- but let me say
what I'm concerned with with all of this reconsideration and trying to
poke holes in what we have used as our mantra for the 12 years I've
been onboard, and same with Commissioner Henning, and that is the
Robert's Rules of Order. We've always stuck with them.
So, number one, how can you ask somebody who hasn't sat in on
any of that, and that's Commissioner Nance -- and I'm so sorry you're
put into this position, Commissioner Nance -- to vote on something
that he has not participated in, has not heard all the facts on, and to
weigh in on something that had nothing to do with him on this
commission? And to say now they want him to do something, I don't
think that's right.
But let's think of it globally. What does that do to our
businesspeople in our community? How can they feel that they ever --
that we ever make a decision and that we'll stick to it if you can go
back and pull things from other meetings back in, even things that
Page 72
December 11-12, 2012
have been going on for a very long time, and reconsider? Everybody
will feel that nothing is safe. Nothing is safe that they bring to the
County Commission because they can always be considered (sic),
depending on who's trying to get even with whom or what they -- their
change of thought is this week rather than a month ago.
This -- I think this is very, very bad legislation, and -- well -- and
I could not, in my heart of hearts, ever agree to do something like this.
And so I state that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner
Henning in one respect. Our ordinance is very clear. There is no
ambiguity in our ordinance. The ordinance clearly says or describes
circumstances under which reconsideration can be accomplished, and
it says if there -- it is silent on the item of how frequently one can have
reconsiderations, and you default to Robert's Rules of Order. And
Robert's Rules of Order clearly say items can be reconsidered only
one time.
And I'll quote from the county attorney's memo which says
standard practice is that the motion can only be made once. That has
been our practice for the 11 years I have been here and probably for
much longer.
So the question arises, what is it that we are interpreting here in
our ordinance? This is not an interpretation of our ordinance. It is a
change to our ordinance, and it's a change which apparently is trying
to be done without going through the proper process of changing an
ordinance.
Now, I am in full agreement that majority should rule, but they
should rule fairly by taking the proper actions to change an ordinance.
Now, unfortunately, they're being led by an -- the county
attorney's rather strange interpretation that you can do whatever you
want to do whenever you want to do it and, in fact, ignores the
opinions of the county attorneys on staff.
Page 73
December 11-12, 2012
So this requested action is not an interpretation. It is a change in
the ordinance, and the ordinance -- the change is essentially this:
Commissioner Henning wants to ignore Robert's Rules of Order in this
particular case.
So the question then arises, does that mean we ignore Robert's
Rules of Order in other cases?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if so, why don't we change the
ordinance so that we can clearly define the laws which we use to make
our decisions?
The decision that I believe the majority should make is to direct
the county attorney to bring us a modified reconsideration ordinance
which incorporates the desired changes, because without appropriate
guidelines, once again, quoting from the county attorney's own staff, if
you don't have the proper guidelines, the interpretation could conflict
with the plain and ordinary meaning of the provision and, therefore,
would not be upheld by the courts.
Furthermore, without said criteria, the decisions of the designated
official could be arbitrary or capricious, and that's exactly where we
are with this.
In the rush to provide members of the majority with the opinion
that they want, the county attorney's advice has, in my opinion,
completely ignored the potential impacts and exposure to legal costs
associated with reconsidering the contracts of personnel, reconsidering
contracts with builders that have already been signed and in some
cases are already in progress.
I think this process is a disservice to the commissioners and an
insult to the public. The public has a right to know what our rules are,
and they shouldn't just be interpreted on the fly. They should be
written down in an ordinance, they should be presented at a public
hearing, and they should be exposed to the comment of the public.
That is not here -- that is not here.
Page 74
December 11-12, 2012
There is not included in this agenda a statement of the policy
which we will be following. We're changing it on the fly, and it is the
wrong way to accomplish it.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Nance -- Commissioner Nance?
Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I just want to make some general
comments about the reconsideration process and Robert's Rules of
Order.
Robert's Rules of Order is generally written to regulate and
enable people to conduct business in large groups. Many of the
aspects of Robert's Rules of Order pretty much apply to those and not
small boards like the Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
In areas where they apply to boards, you will find that some of
Robert's Rules of Order are completely inappropriate, and you'll find a
couple exceptions to Robert's Rules because of that and the Collier
County Florida Code of Ordinances.
And one example is one that Commissioner Hiller referenced
earlier, and that is, in our board meetings here, the chair can move,
second, and debate from the chair and shall not by deprived of any
rights and privileges of a commissioner, and that is because you have
a small group of people.
The reconsideration portion of Robert's Rules is the only part of
Robert's Rules that originated in the United States. It was put in place
to accomplish two things. The first one was to correct voting errors.
That is, if an individual voted, had a substantial impact on the result,
and discovered after the item had been closed that they, indeed, made
a mistake and they never intended to vote that, it was like a claw-back
provision to allow a reconsideration at that time to correct an error.
Why is that important? Because many associations have annual
meetings and only meet one time a year. There may be 4- or 500
people voting. You must have a reconsideration at that meeting. You
Page 75
December 11-12, 2012
can't have a reconsideration at a following meeting because it wouldn't
occur for another year and it would tie things up. That is the reason
reconsiderations in Robert's are restricted to that meeting.
It is very clear that the code of ordinances of Collier County
employ the second purpose of a reconsideration, and that is to allow a
board member on this board to change their mind. It simply allows
two meetings to change your mind. It's been enabled. It's always been
part of the process.
To go back and try to engage a rule of Robert's intended to
regulate large boards and say that it, therefore, applies to this is very
disingenuous. It's also very disingenuous for people to make motions
and make seconds and then vote against their own motion and second
and somehow suggest that that's going to limit the ability of another
commissioner here to make a motion. That's very disingenuous, and it
doesn't forward business.
So I don't think there's actually anything here that's unclear. All
the members of this board have a right to go back and change their
mind, and they have a right to reconsider. It's always been that way.
Nothing has changed. It's going to be that way unless this ordinance is
changed.
So to say that there's confusion, there's no confusion. The only
confusion is that the provision of the code that we're discussing has
never been used before. And there's a little bit of contention about
that, but I don't think there's any confusion whatsoever.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to respond to the board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Nance, you're right on target. Let me just expound
with factual information.
You know, over the past three years, there has been nonfactual
information given out to the public. There is not any proposed change
to our ordinances. I'm not proposing that. All I'm doing is asking
Page 76
December 11-12, 2012
affirmation of our present ordinance.
Let me read it to the public. And it is in the commissioners'
backup material. Any matter which has been voted by a Board of
Commissioners may be reconsidered as follows: A motion to
reconsider made by the member who voted in the majority if such
motion is made to -- prior to adjournment of the meeting and which
the matter was voted on. If the item was -- if there were no public
speakers on the item or if the public speaker for the items are still
present, the board may follow successual (sic) motion to reconsider,
and the board may elect to rehear the matter at that meeting, okay, or
direct the county manager to place the item on a future agenda
meeting is set for subsection (sic), and there were -- if there were
public speakers on an item and it's not -- and not all the public
speakers are still present in the board (sic), following succession
motion to reconsider, the board -- the county manager will place the
item on a future agenda.
Now, here's where I'm using the reconsideration and what
Commissioner Fiala tried to block me from reconsideration. A motion
for reconsideration is made by a member who voted in the majority.
If such motion is made at the regular meeting following the meeting at
which the matter has -- was voted upon but only in accordance to the
file where the -- the following where the member who has voted in the
majority wishes for the board to reconsider a matter after the
adjournment of the meeting in which the vote was taken on, and the
member shall deliver to the county manager a written correspondence,
written memo stating the member's intent to introduce a motion for
reconsideration. And we have that up to two meetings when the item
was heard.
There's no change of our rules. Not at all, what has been said up
here. There is no change in the rules.
And for the public's information, the county attorney has issued
-- the board interprets its ordinance. That is all we're doing today.
Page 77
December 11-12, 2012
We're not, you know, discounting anything that the county attorney
has advised us about some members of the board concerned about
litigation, okay.
I just want to follow our own rules. Commissioner Fiala wants to
change it to do away with reconsideration so we can use Robert's
Rules of Order as it says about reconsideration. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I have the floor.
You'll have to wait your turn. We have rules of reconsideration. We
are not changing our rules. Very simple.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Do we have public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. You have two public speakers on
this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could we hear the pubic at this
point?
MR. MILLER: Sure. Your first public speaker is Doug Rankin,
and he will be followed by Bruce Anderson.
MR. RANKIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Doug Rankin.
I'm only -- I only have one dog in this fight, so I don't care about
beaches and all that. It's not my concern.
And I would suggest to you the dog I have in this fight is unique
from the rest of the -- how many ever items are up for reconsideration
today.
I want to thank the four commissioners who put me on the
Collier County Planning Commission. They actually only needed
three, but I got four. And the thing that's unique about the Planning
Commission is it takes three to put me on, or anybody else; it takes
four to take off.
And the rules as in place for my situation are that I was put on
with four. It was reconsidered. It was voted down. That's now over. I
want to thank that, and I know there's probably not four votes to take
Page 78
December 11-12, 2012
me off, and I would hope there are not three. I have done nothing to
want to be taken off. I'm simply a pawn in this overall situation here.
There is no mistake (sic) to cover those two things, and I don't --
I hope there's no board members here changing their mind.
Also, I would point out that under the Planning Commission the
recommendation has to come from the commissioner in question, and
it did, for the district, because I was District 5, and that commissioner
is not here anymore, and the one that has taken his place did not vote
in the affirmative for the matter, because he wasn't here. So I would
suggest to you that there's also an issue there.
Now, why am I up here fighting for something that takes up a
great deal of my time and I don't get paid for? Real simple. My
mother taught me what I'm sure you-ails mother taught you. You
don't take on a job unless you're willing to see it through, and if you
take on the job, you do a good job or you don't do it at all.
I have a great deal of experience. I was not just put on here. In
fact, only one-and-a-half matters that have come before the Planning
Commission in the meetings I've been there are matters that I have not
been involved in previously, either on the Golden Gate Master Plan
Committee, East of 951, or numerous other volunteer situations.
I have a long series of experience with such matters, and I have
few conflicts because I generally do not represent developers. So it's
an ideal place for me.
Also, I want to do my best to make sure Collier County stays the
beautiful place it is.
From a policy standpoint, I am concerned that if these
considerations and these board appointments start becoming a rule
rather than an exception, you're going to find a great many
professionals and other volunteers in the community are not going to
subject themselves to being put on and taken back off. That's the
reason why the ordinance requires four to come off, so that people
who are volunteers not getting paid do not get caught up in this kind of
Page 79
December 11-12, 2012
thing.
And I would suggest to you -- the other matters are up to you, but
as far as my item, which is 10P, I would assume I've done a good job.
I'm planning on doing a good job, and there's another opening coming
up on that commission district in the early future. And if somebody
else wants to go on there then, fine, you'll have that opportunity.
But I'd agreed to take this on, and I intend to see it through. And
there's also some question about, if this is incorrect, what would then
happen to all the decisions of the Planning Commission while that got
straightened out?
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on Item 10A is Bruce
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. First a
preliminary question. Are all these reconsideration matters being
considered en masse, or are we doing them one by one?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're going to do them one by one.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may, there is no -- there will be
no public comment or board comment when the vote on these items
will be taken, because there is no discussion under our ordinance with
respect to items -- with respect to the administrative action of a
reconsideration vote. The discussion on the item that will be
considered will happen at the future meeting where the item will be
reheard.
MR. ANDERSON: You mean the merits.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, so there won't be any
discussion on the particular issue.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, okay. Because I know that the city
attorney registered to speak on just the reconsideration of the TDC
matter, and if he needs to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then I recommend that they speak
Page 80
December 11-12, 2012
at this point in time, because there won't be any public comment. So
if you could add that speaker.
MR. MILLER: We've got quite a few. I'm going to have to sort
through here, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. My name is Bruce Anderson,
and I'm here on behalf of the Hideaway Beach district. It's a special
taxing district of the City of Marco Island whereby the property
owners in Hideaway tax themselves to place sand on their beach.
Some of this I said the last time, and I just need to reiterate it for
the record since we're discussing it here today.
Your county code says that, except as provided in the code, all
matters in the conduct of business are governed by Robert's Rules of
Order, and Robert's Rules of Order states that you can only consider
an item -- you can only consider an item once unless it was materially
amended.
Now, this new Board of County Commissioners may or may not
be able to give a new interpretation rather than formally amend the
reconsideration ordinance to allow a second reconsideration of a failed
motion to reconsider but only as to new matters that have first been
heard by the new Board of Commissioners.
It would be a violation of the due process to retroactively apply a
new interpretation to a matter that was previously subjected to a failed
reconsideration motion by a prior County Commission. Also, it's our
belief that the new interpretation, in fact, violates the terms of the
reconsideration ordinance.
There needs to be some finality to the decisions of this body,
which is why Robert's Rules of Order provides that you cannot
endlessly reconsider matters that have previously come before you.
Residents, businesses, and other units of government must, by
necessity, rely on your decisions and commitments in organizing their
own affairs and conducting their business.
Page 81
December 11-12, 2012
They have to ask themselves and they have to ask you, when is a
final decision final?
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could answer that.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, I have five additional
speakers who had registered to speak on individual items of
reconsideration. I'm going to check --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let's go ahead and let them speak
at this time.
MR. MILLER: Well, Bruce Anderson was registered for Item
10M, so he's going to waive.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Burt Saunders was also registered for Item 10N.
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman and Commissioners,
congratulations on your appointment as the chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS: And, Commissioner Henning,
congratulations on your appointment as --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Vice-chair.
MR. SAUNDERS: My name, for your record, is Burt Saunders
with the Gray Robinson law firm. I'm also the city attorney for the
City of Marco Island.
I agree with the legal analysis that Mr. Anderson just went
through, and I'm not going to bore you by reiterating any of that. I
want to just indicate to you that the city council, as you know, of
Marco Island deems this to be a very important project.
Timing is of critical importance. This project, hopefully, can be
done prior to the turtle nesting season, which I believe begins in
March. So timing is of critical importance.
The residents of Hideaway Beach are paying for all of the sand,
and I think it's clear that you can't use tourist development dollars for
the sand portion of this. I think the county attorney has opined that
Page 82
December 11-12, 2012
over the years. But the county attorney has also opined over the years
that you can use Tourist Development Council funds for the beach
erosion portion of this project, and that's what we're asking for.
So Hideaway Beach residents are going to pay for the sand and
the mobilization for the sand as well as for the construction of the
T-Groins that will preserve the beach. There's been a numerous listing
of the public benefits.
My purpose on this particular item is simply to say that the city
objects to this item being reconsidered. The city believes that there's
been ample discussion of this, that it's of great public importance, and
they've asked me to convey to the county commission their desire for
this project to move forward as quickly as possible.
Now, you will be dealing with an item involving the attorney
general's opinion issue, and I do need to speak on that, but that's a
separate issue. But on this particular one, this is a very important
project for the City of Marco Island, for the residents of Hideaway
Beach, and for the citizens of Collier County. There's a tremendous
tax base there, as well as the use of this beach by tourists.
The folks at the Marco Marriott send their shelling tourists --
people that want to shelling, they go to this particular beach by boat.
Clearly a very active area. Twenty-two percent of the tourist
development taxes generated in Collier County come from Marco
Island.
Now, I realize that this is taxpayer money. This is not Marco
Island's money. But a tremendous amount of that revenue is generated
on Marco Island. This is a small piece of that. And the request is to
move forward with that project.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, Item 100, Jennifer Hecker
has registered to speak.
MS. HECKER: Good morning. Thank you. Jennifer Hecker on
Page 83
December 11-12, 2012
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 6,000
members.
We wanted to come today to ask that you support reconsideration
of the Restore Act agenda item. We share your desire to see that
Collier County receive the maximum benefit from the BP Oil Spill
monies, including Clean Water Act penalties related to be dispersed
under the Restore Act.
And we've been looking for opportunities for Collier County to
better position itself. We understand that there were concerns with
joining the Florida Association of Counties Gulf Consortium, and
we've been tracking that process to try to understand those concerns
and see if we could have those addressed.
The issue with the consortium is that now there have been recent
developments that we think are notable that might warrant some
further discussion on your part. They have now formed a relationship
with the governor's office, and all the gulf coast counties have joined
except for Franklin and Collier Counties.
And to complete the legitimacy of the consortium under the
Restore Act, they need to appoint representatives from those two
counties, and we'd rather see Collier County appoint its own
representative than have the consortium appoint one for it and think
that that would best benefit you.
We've looked at alternate ways of dealing with this and, really,
the Restore Act has very specific requirements that drive how the
consortium can be constructed and think it would be difficult to
reconstruct a different one at this point. So that might be something to
consider.
We also understand the concern with the FAC taking a portion of
the administrative costs for facilitating the consortium, but we wanted
to let you know that we looked into that, and there's only a small
initial outlay that's expected from the county after that. All the
administrative costs will be covered by the Restore Act funds.
Page 84
December 11-12, 2012
And because the county's not likely to be able to access or at least
receive as much of this pot of funding if they don't participate, we
think that that investment will be returned 10 -- you know, manyfold if
you do join.
There is a separate pot of funding that comes directly to the
county, but we want to make sure that the county's positioned to
receive funds from all three pots, the federal pot --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I appreciate your comments, but our
focus right now is not a debate on the merits of the issue. It is strictly
limited to the discussion of reconsideration. And as I hear you, you
would like the board to support a reconsideration vote on this item?
MS. HECKER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great.
MS. HECKER: So we just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. HECKER: -- wanted to make it --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I understand.
MS. HECKER: -- clear that there's some additional
developments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep. No, we understand.
MS. HECKER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you can report on that under
the item.
MS. HECKER: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your next registered
speaker for Item l0P is Doug Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: I already said my piece.
MR. MILLER: And so you also have registered on 10U, Emily
Maggio. I'm sorry if I'm doing that a terrible injustice.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And, again, if you could focus on
whether or not you would like to hear this item reconsidered and save
Page 85
December 11-12, 2012
the merits for the future discussion.
MS. MAGGIO: For the record, Emily Maggio. Everybody in the
world knows Joe DiMaggio. You take off the Di, and nobody can
pronounce it.
I'm here today to suggest that you don't reconsider the signage
because, as you can see, the signs are already in place. Whoever
constructed them has to be paid. I mean, does it make any sense to
tear them out, throw them away, and start over? They are being used.
I took a ride by, and there were bikes and people walking in those
beach accesses. So the signs are certainly a help. But I would also
just ask -- a comment. These signs, they say -- the people that are
opposed to them say they're ugly. Well, I really -- look at the picture.
I would like to know what criteria they use, and have they notified this
property owner that he has to change that ugly sign? If not, then I
question what their motives really are.
At any rate, the signs are in and they should stay in, because it's
fiscally irresponsible to take them down.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. Are there
any more public speakers?
MR. MILLER: As far as I can discern, that was your last public
speaker registered to speak on an item of reconsideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to comment, and then
Commissioner Coyle and Fiala have last comments, I'll allow
Commissioner Henning one final comment, and then I'd like to go
ahead and get the motions voted on.
I've listened very carefully to what everyone has presented. And
there is no question that our rules provide that the board has the right
to reconsider its votes and specifically in the manner described by
Commissioner Henning, because that is the plain language that's
incorporated in our rules.
Numerous speakers pointed out that the motions for
reconsideration made by the previous board members at the previous
Page 86
December 11-12, 2012
meetings were failed motions, and that is a very, very important fact.
They were failed motions for reconsideration. We have not had a
reconsideration on these items that are being brought forward.
When the motion for reconsideration on these items are brought
forward today, in each case, if three board members vote to reconsider
the item, that item will be brought forward at a future meeting, and
that will be the first time that that item will be reconsidered.
With respect to finality, yes, there is finality provided. The
finality is twofold. First in that the majority -- anyone who votes in
the majority can, only within either the first or the second meeting
following the meeting where the matter was heard, request that a
motion for reconsideration be supported by the majority, and then
once that motion is approved and an item is brought forward, if there
is a vote on that item for the second time when it's heard in
furtherance to that motion for reconsideration, that is the last time that
item can be heard. So there is absolutely finality with respect to what
is being proposed by this board.
With respect to what happens in the interim -- if an item is
brought back for reconsideration, in other words, if all these items that
are presented before us today, if Commissioner Henning, for example,
makes a motion on 10B and says, you know, motion for
reconsideration, if the majority of the board accepts that motion for
reconsideration, then what will happen is that whatever action this
motion for reconsideration relates to will end up being stayed. It will
be frozen at that point in time.
And any contractor that has done any work obviously gets paid
up to this point in time where a vote is made in support of that motion.
And then what happens at the following meeting, however the vote
turns out when that motion is reheard -- and the public at that point in
time has the opportunity to, again, debate the merits of the case. Mr.
Sanders can come back and explain why he thinks his position is
good, and Emily Maggio can -- and I said that correctly, I hope -- can
Page 87
December 11-12, 2012
come back and explain why she thinks the sign should stay.
At that point, if the vote is reaffirmed, it carries forward as
before. If a different position is taken, whatever the changed position
is, is what carries forward.
So I just wanted to clarify that, because we actually have not had
motions for reconsideration that have passed on these items. That
actually will be happening for the first time, because the board
previously turned down their own motion to reconsider items.
So let me now allow Commissioner Coyle to speak,
Commissioner Fiala, a final comment from Commissioner Henning,
and then I'd like to have a vote on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.
The -- what matters here is not what each individual
commissioner thinks would happen. Commissioner Hiller just related
to you how finality might be achieved if there are multiple votes, but
where can you find that in our code of ordinances? Where is that
procedure written down? Where is it guaranteed for the people who
are the subject of these reconsiderations? It's not. It's not part of our
law.
If the majority wishes to do those things, then write them into our
ordinance and vote on it and change it so the public will know the
basis -- the legal basis by which we make our decisions.
Discussions about the purpose of Robert's Rules of Order are
completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that our
ordinance says we default to Robert's Rules of Order if our code is
silent on a particular issue. And for this issue, Robert's Rules of Order
clearly state if a vote is voted on and lost, the motion to reconsider
cannot be reviewed except by unanimous consent.
The motion to reconsider a vote on a proposition having been
once agreed to and that vote having been again taken, a second motion
to reconsider may not be made.
Page 88
December 11-12, 2012
Therefore -- and this is a conclusion of one of the county
attorney's employees. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration should
not be made twice by the Board of County Commissioners. That's all
that matters here, not how it got here, not why it was originally
designed that way.
This is what was intended, and it's very, very clear that that's
what was intended. There is no mistaking it. There is only one thing
that the majority will do right now, and that is they will disregard
Robert's Rules of Order. And according to our ordinance, you can't do
that.
So if the majority wants to do this legally, they will bring back
for review and passage at our next meeting a modified ordinance
which lays out the procedures for doing what they want to do, and
then everybody will have a chance to look at it, understand it, and
voice an opinion on it. Right now, nobody knows.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wrote some notes, and then I
strayed off of them before, so I'm going to just read my notes. I've
made corrections here and there.
But I object to a reinterpretation and a nullifying and voiding of a
reconsideration of motions and votes. We can only reconsider a
matter once, and that has occurred. It doesn't say you have to vote in
the affirmative for it to be reconsidered or not accepted. It just says a
reconsideration.
The attempt to have a reconsideration vote violates county's
reconsideration ordinance. It's an attempt to retroactively apply new
interpretation to past action by prior board commission, and that's why
motion to reconsider was made, so that that same commission which
approved it also voted on whether to reconsider it.
Commissioner Nance cannot reconsider a matter that he didn't
even have any part of in the first place.
At last meeting the county attorney advised that the BCC had --
Page 89
December 11-12, 2012
legal interpretation was that only one reconsideration motion can be
made after the original approving -- approval meeting. BCC approved
and followed that interpretation, as it has been the history for
reconsiderations that we know since we took office in 2000. I don't
know what happened before then. I can only tell you up to 2000
we've always followed the -- back to 2000, we've always followed
Robert's Rules of Order.
Right now you hear commissioners talking about their
interpretation rather than the rules that are in writing. It has been 12
years of precedent that has been set, and reconsideration can only
occur once.
And, by the way, when we were talking about some of these
things that have already been accomplished or bids have gone out and
approved and moved forward, and now they want to reconsider them,
how much does that cost the taxpayers? How much does it cost the
taxpayers to rip something out that's already been done? Why are we
doing this?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I yield my time
to Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Robert's Rules of Order are
typically interpreted all the time. They're not hard and fast. If you
don't believe it, go and you can look, and there are agencies that do
that. There are parliamentarians that that is their job.
Robert's Rules of Order enables action to take place. It does not
contemplate things that disable action. It does also not contemplate
foolishness, as we saw in the November 13th BCC meeting where you
had motion after motion after motion that was made, and then the
person that made the motion voted against it.
Robert's Rules of Order does not address that sort of thing for the
simple reason that it only occurs in junior high school civics classes
and on Saturday Night Live.
Page 90
December 11-12, 2012
I don't think this board should discuss this any further.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And with that, I'm going to restate the motion and call for the
vote. The motion presented by Commissioner Henning is that the
board interprets its reconsideration procedure to allow a motion for
reconsideration to be made by a member who voted in the majority
prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted
upon or at either the first or second meeting and that a prior motion for
reconsideration does not bar a later motion for reconsideration made at
any time during this two-meeting time frame and that the board, by a
majority vote, deems former Commissioner Coletta's and
Commissioner Fiala's motions to reconsider, and then parenthetically,
which blocked -- or blocking further reconsideration prescribed by
75-12 as amended, closed parentheses, null and void.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Coyle oppose.
Motion carries.
With that, I'd like to ask direction from the county attorney.
County Attorney, can I make one motion to reconsider the items being
brought forward and read each of the items as part of that motion, and
can we have one vote on that, or should we vote on that individually?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's more appropriate to vote on it
individually.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I thought so, too, but I, you
know -- in that case, with -- what will happen, as I read each of these
Page 91
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't it lunchtime, though?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, do you want to break for
lunch, or do you want to go through --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Do you want to eat?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. I would just keep
working, but that's just me. No, of course. Let's go ahead and break
for lunch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Keep working.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no, no, no.
All right. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to break
for lunch. We'll be back at 12: 15.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: 1 : 15.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, 1 : 15. I'm a little -- I'm
new to this. I'm just new to this, farklempt.
So we'll be back at 1 : 15. Have a very nice lunch, and then we'll
vote on these items.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to call the meeting back to
order.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
County Manager, next we're going to move through the
reconsideration requests.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we're going to take them item
by item. Mr. Ochs, would you like to read the reconsideration request
for each of these items as presented, and then I'll request a motion, and
we can have a vote.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Page 92
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There won't be any discussion either
from the board or the public on these items.
Item #10B
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14B2 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND PENNY S. PHILLIPPI,
THE IMMOKALEE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
EXTENDING THE TERM OF EMPLOYMENT THREE YEARS,
MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: First one, Commissioners, is Item 10B on your
agenda. It's a request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning
of Item 14B2 from the November 13, 2012, BCC meeting titled
"Recommendation that the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency approve and execute an amendment to the
employment agreement between the CRA and Penny S. Phillippi, the
Immokalee CRA Executive Director, extending the term of
employment three years, make certain changes to the contract, and
authorize the chairman to sign."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question? Did you say
we can't discuss anything at all? Just vote on it, period. We can't ask
why it was --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, because on --
Page 93
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- reconsiderations motions --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. No, that's all right. You
don't have to explain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are we --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can discuss why you want to
reconsider. That's appropriate. You can't -- what we're not talking
about is the item itself.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So can you --
MR. KLATZKOW: The reason for the -- the reason for the
reconsideration is an appropriate discussion point.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, would
you like to comment? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering what
the reason for reconsideration is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would like to make some general
remarks since I did not -- I was not a member of the Board of County
Commissioners when these items were originally heard, and I have
promised my constituents that I would faithfully explain to them why I
vote on items that might or might not be controversial so that they can
understand what my thought process is.
As the commissioner for District 5, I'm going to be directly
involved, as will all the other commissioners, but I will be perhaps
more involved with some of the different reconsiderations than others.
There are two things that I think are very important in my
district, one of which is the Immokalee CRA, and the other one is two
of the county airports. And one of the reasons that you will see me
resupport these reconsiderations is I want to participate in -- number
one, I want to participate in discussion of these issues and understand
them fully and understand what my fellow commissioners feel about
them.
Page 94
December 11-12, 2012
And there's only one reason for me to do that and that is these
two items that I mentioned, which include the airport and the CRAs,
are business units that are managed by the Board of County
Commissioners. They're not managed by Mr. Ochs and his staff.
They're directed by the Board of County Commissioners as the CRA
and as the airport authority.
And what I hope to do through these reconsiderations, to bring
these things back for discussion -- and we'll talk about the dates in
which that happens is -- I want to address the staffs of these agencies
so that they get two things.
Number one, they get clear direction on what the Board of
County Commissioners wants them to do. And my goal will be to go
through their program and their management and their agencies and
reach a consensus of five board members. My goal is to not see the
management of these important groups and agencies continue with a
strongly split board.
The second thing is, I will work diligently to remove politics
from the management of these agencies. It is patently unfair for these
people to have to manage their agencies and be handed political
agendas and items. The political issues should be handled by these
five people up here and not by the staff that works for us.
So I'm going to support these reconsiderations, and I'm going to
make some recommendations. After we talk a little bit further, maybe
I'll take another couple minutes to talk about what I think we can do to
help make these organizations achieve the best and help our managers
do the very best job that they can and work freely and honestly and
speak freely and be able to work as they should with these very
important groups.
So that's why I'm supporting these reconsiderations, so that I get
informed and so I can help achieve a consensus to do better than we
have in the past.
Thank you.
Page 95
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one thing.
Penny, I want to tell you that I will probably vote for this
reconsideration, not because you haven't done an absolutely
outstanding job, because you have, but I'm going -- I'm going to honor
what Commissioner Nance has said.
I've listened to the community. Maybe he has -- he just started.
But I've listened to them. I know how thrilled they are with you. I
know how much confidence they have in you, and I want to tell you
that I have that same confidence. And I don't think anybody could do
a better job.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ditto.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Hey, that was my line.
I've used that one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, I've used that before, but
that's a good one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With that, I will go ahead and ask
for a vote.
All in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
The next item?
Page 96
December 11-12, 2012
Item #10C
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14B8 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) BOARD
DESIGNATES THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS THE
SPECIAL DISTRICT REGISTERED AGENT FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY CRA - APPROVED; MOTION TO HAVE ITEM
PLACED ON THE JANUARY 22, 2013 BCC MEETING AGENDA
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10C is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14B8 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation that the Collier Community
Redevelopment Agency Board designates the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Agency executive director as the special district
registered agent for the Collier County CRA."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll make another comment
again. I don't want to see -- I don't want to lose you, Penny, so stick
with us, because people there admire you. So thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm opposed to a reconsideration of
this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 97
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle opposing.
Next item.
Item #10D
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14B5 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO AUTHORIZE THE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC) UNDER THE AUSPICE OF
THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) EXCLUSIVE OF THE PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT - APPROVED; MOTION TO PLACE ON
THE JANUARY 22, 2013 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10D is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14B5 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, to
authorize the continued operation of the Immokalee Business
Development Center under the auspice of the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Agency, exclusive of the partnership with the Collier
County Airport Authority and the Immokalee airport."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
Page 98
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I will, again, oppose this,
because it serves no purpose to reconsider this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion -- was that an opposition?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, ma'am, it was.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle opposing.
Item #10E
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14B6 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE
AMENDING THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CENTER'S (IBDC) PROPOSAL, IBDC APPLICATION, AND
IBDC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK -
APPROVED; MOTION TO PLACE ON THE JANUARY 22, 2013
BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10E is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14B6 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, to
Page 99
December 11-12, 2012
approve amending the Immokalee Business Development Center's
proposal, IBDC application and IBDC Policies and Procedures
Handbook."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I -- once again, it serves no
useful purpose. It's just an exercise for delaying action.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was going to say, you know,
I never did vote on Item No. 10C, and I wanted to vote no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 10C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't respond at all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I thought you were -- I said 4-1 .
I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that. But you didn't hear me,
and I didn't say.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Do you want to go back to
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you can just note, because I
haven't voted.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So just, on 10C, if the record will
reflect that Commissioner Fiala did not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now votes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- yeah, now votes in the negative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So that 10C is a 3-2.
And back to 10E, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Page 100
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Fiala, are you opposing that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah. Because I don't see it
serves any purpose.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Fiala opposed.
The next item, please.
Item #10F
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14B3 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO.
12-5896 FOR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, CIVIL
SITE DESIGN (SDP PERMITTING), PERMIT AND BID
SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR THE FIRST STREET ZOCALO FOR
IMMOKALEE TO DAVID CORBAN ARCHITECT, INC.; FISCAL
IMPACT $113,450 - APPROVED; MOTION TO PLACE ON THE
JANUARY 22, 2013 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10F is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14B3 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation to award Agreement No.
12-5896 for design construction documents, Civil Site Design, bid and
permit services and construction administration and related services
for the First Street Zocalo for Immokalee to David Corban Architect,
Incorporated; fiscal impact, $113,450."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
Page 101
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Penny, was this already -- I
don't know think your button went on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it didn't. Well, that's because
Commissioner Hiller's disabled it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, every time he turns it on, I let
him speak, and I turn it off, and then he turns it on again, and we have
a system going here. It's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With this contract -- Penny, I'm
sorry to bother you. Was this contract already let, and has he already
start this design? By the way, I loved it. It's beautiful.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Penny Phillippi, for the record. Commissioner,
as of yesterday it was being finalized by the County Attorney's Office
and routed to the clerk.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What -- can you explain. What was
being finalized?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The contractual agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, so the contract. So work hasn't
actually commenced yet on it, because the contract --
MS. PHILLIPPI: We have not issued a notice to proceed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So there is no notice to
proceed that has been issued as of yet.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just say, again, that these
items -- it serves no purpose for reconsideration of these items except
to delay a project that has long been approved for Immokalee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 102
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle opposing.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, I'd like to -- I'd like
to make a suggestion, or I can make a motion.
Ms. Phillippi is currently scheduled to provide a -- to present a
CRA workshop on January the 15th. And I would suggest that this is
-- this is going to give a wonderful opportunity to gather information
on these five last considerations that we're talking about to maybe lend
some more clarity as to how they fit into the future plans of the
Immokalee CRA.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I would like to ask Mr. Ochs
-- I'll make a motion to place these reconsiderations for the January
22nd BCC meeting, which would be following Ms. Phillippi's
workshop. And I would just also like to say that I appreciate
Commissioner Fiala's remarks on the Immokalee CRA, and that I hope
everybody can attend the workshop on the 15th of January.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's an excellent
recommendation. And after we conclude voting on all these items,
one of the points that I would like to bring up is to ask for the board
and staffs input as to when these items should be brought forward,
whether it be the first or the second meeting in January, depending on
items just like you brought up, the workshop, as an example.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Page 103
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are we voting on?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're -- on this item, right?
MR. OCHS: My understanding was --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are we voting -- what was the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Voting on Commissioner
Nance's motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So this is a --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- motion on Commissioner Nance's
item.
MR. OCHS: To bring these items back to the second meeting in
January.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To the workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, to the second -- to all of the
items?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The previous --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just the five?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The previous five that apply to Ms.
Phillippi's agency, the Immokalee CRA, which would be 10B, C, D, E
and F which we just voted to reconsider. I'm just suggesting that since
she has scheduled a January 15th workshop, that we should rightfully
reconsider those items at the January 22nd BCC meeting, which
would be the following week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll vote for that. I want to
ask Penny, you are going to publicly notice it? Because I'm going to
come to that workshop. And I don't know if anybody else is, but it's
going to need to be publicly noticed if commissioners attend.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney?
Page 104
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a workshop with the CRA
board.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, it's a workshop with the
CRA board.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Commissioners, excuse me. As you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As you know --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Order, please. One person at a time
and in order in which I call them. It was actually Commissioner
Coyle's turn to speak, so if we could let him speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. My concern has been
clarified. I understand what Mr. Nance's motion is intended to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion on Mr.
Nance's motion -- or Commissioner Nance's motion?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I think Ms. Phillippi wanted to
address.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I believe the date that we're looking for is the
14th of January. You might look at that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Excuse me, ma'am.
MS. PHILLIPPI: This is a special district. The CRA is a special
district under Florida Statute, and we're required annually to bring
back an annual report to the full CRA board, which we generally do
mid January.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 105
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Mr. Ochs, can you go back to G?
Item #10G
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14A3 FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNING
BODY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
INDICATES ITS INTENT TO EXTEND THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS C. CURRY, 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
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
10G is a request for reconsideration by Commissioner Henning
of Item 14A3 from the October 23, 2012, BCC meeting titled
"Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners in its
capacity as the governing body of the Collier County Airport
Authority indicates its intent to extend the airport authority executive
director's employment agreement with Thomas C. Curry fixing the
end date of the first extension term as September 30, 2015, and
amending the agreement to comport with Chapter 2011-143, Florida
Statutes."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to oppose it for the same
Page 106
December 11-12, 2012
reason. It serves no purpose. There is an existing contract that has
already been signed with the employee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, would you like
to comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. He's done a great job.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle opposing.
10H.
Item #10H
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#16K2 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, MEMORIALIZES
ITS OCTOBER 23, 2012 EXTENSION OF, AND AMENDMENTS
TO, THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10H is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 16K2 from the November 13, 2012,
Page 107
December 11-12, 2012
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, in its capacity as the Collier County Airport
Authority, memorializes its October 23, 2012, extension of and
amendments to the Collier County Airport Authority executive
director's employment agreement and authorizes the chairman to
execute the extension and amendment agreement."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same objections as before.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motions carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #10I
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14A2 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE ATTACHED CONTRACT #12-5885 "DESIGN
AND RELATED SERVICES FOR THE IMMOKALEE
Page 108
December 11-12, 2012
REGIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 9-27 REHABILITATION
PROJECT" IN THE AMOUNT OF $761,000 WITH HOLE
MONTES, INC — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10I is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14A2 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the airport authority, approve and authorize
the chairman to execute attached Contract No. 12-5885, design and
related services for the Immokalee Regional Airport Runway 9-27
rehabilitation project in the amount of$761,000, with Hole Montes,
Incorporated."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- again, it serves no useful
purpose. The contract has already been signed, and the work might be
underway. I don't know. It's just an attempt to delay a rehabilitation
project that's necessary for runway safety and for future development.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was going to mention about
the safety of that particular airport. This project -- for those of you out
in the audience, this project will be paid for, about 95 percent out of
other dollars, not Collier County dollars at all.
When we saw pictures of this runway, and it only had 27 percent
life left in it, we need to get this thing moving rather than drag it out
any further for the safety of the people using that airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion --
is that your light, Commissioner Henning? I'm sorry. It's hard to see
at this angle. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some things never change.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Without -- there being no further
Page 109
December 11-12, 2012
discussion, all in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #10J
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#14A1 FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE CONTRACT #12-5885 "DESIGN AND RELATED
SERVICES FOR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
(MKY) RUNWAY 17-35 REHABILITATION PROJECT" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $660,000 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10J is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 14A1 from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the airport authority, approve and authorize
the chairman to execute Contract No. 12-5885, design and related
services for the Marco Island Executive Airport Runway 17-35
rehabilitation project, in the amount of$660,000 with Hole Montes,
Incorporated."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
Page 110
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same as before. We're
jeopardizing FAA funding for a needed rehabilitation process by
constantly delaying the project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I absolutely underscore that.
This is needed for safety.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Coyle and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, I'm going to make a
similar motion on the last four items that we have voted to reconsider,
which consist of Items 10G, H, I, and J to schedule -- I will make a
motion to schedule them for -- also for the January 22nd regular BCC
meeting because -- having spoken to Executive Director Curry, he
expect -- expressed an interest in also doing a workshop to discuss his
business units activities going forward for the coming year and to
update us on these items.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. KLATZKOW: May I say one thing? If there's a notice to --
Page 111
December 11-12, 2012
right now you have a contract. I don't know if there's been notice to
proceed or not. But you get to a point where you can't unscramble an
egg, and the second meeting in January is a long time from now, and I
don't know -- you might not be able to reconsider it at that point in
time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. But if I can comment on
that. Since a motion for reconsideration is being voted on in the
majority today, that stays any action on any of these items. So the
contractor --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need to direct your staff to do
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, that's what I will do. I will do
that. And I do intend to do that after we go through all these motions.
There just has to be an absolute stay on any further action on any of
these items till the item is reheard and voted on in the majority by the
board.
But thank you for making your point. It's well taken.
Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chris Curry, can we lose our
funding by putting a stay on this and not moving forward with it? Is
there a limitation on the funding that we're going to be getting for
these airports?
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director, airport authority.
Well, there certainly will be an issue with the FAA and Florida
Department of Transportation as it pertains to meeting the timeline to
have the project completed.
And if we implement a stay to those projects, yes, then we will,
in my opinion, lose the funding for this year and, perhaps, be
responsible to pay back a portion of what's been done already.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may. Thank you for your
comments on that.
Crystal, is there any way that you can validate that for us? If you
Page 112
December 11-12, 2012
could contact the FAA? Since this is -- this funding is -- this funding
are local tax dollars just through the federal government. They're
federal taxes that are coming back to the local community. And
they're coming back to us -- is it through a grant award, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: I'm not sure, Commissioner. We'll have to check
the grant award and pull those and the contracts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if you could validate that for
us. And depending on what your response is, if we could know before
the end of this meeting, then we can decide.
MS. KINZEL: I can't promise that, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You guys are so good, right?
MS. KINZEL: We have to pull the agreements, and I have not
looked at that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And maybe Chris Curry can assist
and provide the document that he's relying on to draw the conclusion
he presented here to assist you in verifying.
Okay. So if I could ask, Commissioner Nance, could you hold
off on your motion till we get some information back on that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, certainly that would be --
you know, be pending on any legal ramifications that or deadline dates
that would be negatively impacted by that, of course.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you -- you've got one of two
choices. Either not to go forward with this motion or to amend the
motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll just withdraw the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you.
Oh, Commissioner Coyle, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me make an observation
here and a suggestion. These are projects that have been underway for
a long, long time. There have been multiple hearings, public hearings
concerning all of these. They've been in our plans. We have applied
for FAA funding grants. And, by the way, that money doesn't come
Page 113
December 11-12, 2012
out of general revenues. It comes from airport revenues. So large
portions --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're right. You're absolutely
right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of that money are coming from
somebody else's airport revenues, and we're getting the benefit,
disproportionate benefit by getting that money now, and Chris Curry
has worked hard to get those grants. And to fiddle around with the
FAA, asking them if they will take the funds away if we don't use
them promptly, merely makes them believe that we don't need them.
And any further delays to this creates the same impression.
If there is any commissioner here who is not sufficiently familiar
with these projects that have been underway for a long, long time,
then I would encourage the commissioner to start having meetings
today, tomorrow, the day after with the appropriate people to get up to
speed on this stuff, rather than placing these important projects at
jeopardy and failing to address safety issues on our airports.
It is absolutely ludicrous to put off till middle or late January
some sort of a discussion about what these projects are all about.
Everybody who's followed them knows exactly what they're about.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I opposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Opposed. Okay.
So motion carries 3-2 with Commissioners Coyle and Fiala
Page 114
December 11-12, 2012
dissenting.
The next item?
Item #10K
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#16K6 FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
TERMINATING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10K is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 16K6 from the October 23, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation to adopt a resolution
terminating the employment agreement with the executive manager to
the Board of County Commissioners."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll, once again, say that this
serves no useful purpose. Suppose you reconsider it. What are your
alternatives? The executive director is gone. He said he did not
resign. He said I refuse to resign. So how are you going to explain
the fact that he's gone if you didn't terminate him? So, you know,
you're going to bring back something that is not going to achieve any
reasonable outcome.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, would you like
to comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With there being no further
discussion, all in favor?
Page 115
December 11-12, 2012
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #10L
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#13A FROM THE OCTOBER 9, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION TO DISCUSS ITEM #11E FROM THE
BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AGENDA REGARDING
"WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM" CONTRACTS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10L is request for reconsideration by Commissioner
Henning of Item 13A from the October 9, 2012, BCC meeting titled
"Recommendation to discuss Item 11E from the board's September 11,
2012, agenda regarding wastewater basin program contracts."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same comments as before for all
the others.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I can't even understand why
-- well, I guess that was -- I can't even understand why you would
bring something like this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 116
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I could never --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody supports the program.
It's a great program. We've gone through it in great detail. And, once
again, it was approved on September 11, 2012, and we're going to put
off until January a decision as to whether or not we proceed with it.
It's absolutely intolerable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #10M
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#11C FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-
CYCLE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ("TDC") GRANT
APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND/HIDEAWAY BEACH DISTRICT FOR EROSION
CONTROL STRUCTURES AT HIDEAWAY BEACH AND IF
APPROVED MAKE A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10M is a request for reconsideration by
Page 117
December 11-12, 2012
Commissioner Henning of Item 11C from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation to consider an out-of-cycle
Tourist Development Council grant application from the City of
Marco Island and Hideaway Beach district for erosion control
structures at Hideaway Beach and, if approved, make a finding that
the project is in the public interest, and authorize all necessary budget
amendments."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to -- this is -- not
even on this subject. It's on all of these subjects. I feel sorry for our
taxpayers, because there's going to be a lot of lawsuits coming out of
this, and they're going to be stuck paying for those lawsuits, or there
are going to be safety issues on the airports, and they're going to be
stuck paying for that, or we're going to be losing grants, and the
taxpayers, again, are going to be stuck with what's left in ashes. And I
truly feel sorry for our community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I, if I may, Commissioner --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I read an article in the newspaper
today, front-page article in the newspaper where a commissioner was
suggesting that we stop punishing our citizens and making Collier a
bad place for business.
If these reconsiderations aren't punishment for our citizens, our
communities, and the taxpayers, I don't know what else it is.
But it appears that the majority is going to proceed with trying to
drive off our good employees and ignore the needs of some of our
communities.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
Page 118
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't depend on the media for
my information and never will. The items are on the agenda. There is
some backup material. That's what I depend on in the public record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being none, all in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It's two ayes, opposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With that, the motion carries 3-2
with Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #10N
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#9A FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2012
COMBINED ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT
(AUIR) ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT (CIE) AMENDMENT AS
PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECTION
163.3177(3)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: ION is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 9A from the November 13, 2012,
BCC meeting titled "Recommendation to review and approve the
2012 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on public
facilities and Capital Improvement Element amendment as provided
Page 119
December 11-12, 2012
for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code
in Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
Item #100
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#12A FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GULF CONSORTIUM TO ACT ON
BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RESTORE ACT (RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS
SUSTAINABILITY TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES AND REVISED
ECONOMICS OF THE GULF COAST STATES ACT OF 2012) —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 100 is a request for reconsideration by
Page 120
December 11-12, 2012
Commissioner Henning of Item 12A from the October 23, 2012, BCC
meeting titled "Recommendation to approve and authorize the
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign an interlocal
agreement relating to establishment of the Gulf Consortium to act on
behalf of Collier County in the implementation of the Restore Act."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to point out that
this is a motion reconsideration of a proposal to participate in the Gulf
Consortium which failed. So if it is brought back with the opportunity
for us to participate, I will support it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have -- have we checked to
see what time limitations we have or when the next meeting is? I
believe it's the beginning of January sometime. And it's so important
for us to be a part of this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we'll make sure to recommend
this be at the first meeting in January?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, good.
So there being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, does the BCC
currently have a representative attending?
Page 121
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We do.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Excellent.
Item #10P
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HENNING OF ITEM
#10C FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 BCC MEETING TITLED:
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 1013 is a request for reconsideration by
Commissioner Henning of Item 10C from the October 23, 2012, BCC
meeting titled "Appointment of member to the Collier County
Planning Commission."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Once again, it's a proposal that has
no benefit, because I don't see anything that anybody can do. But if
the majority wants to go through the motions, I'm sure you'll do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to direct the county
attorney to make an opinion. Mr. Rankin brought us some issues that
he's -- could be correct. I'm not sure. I'm going to take your advice on
that. Can you forward that to -- a correspondence to the Board of
Commissioners?
Also, if the board was to appoint a hearing officer and do away
with the Planning Commissioner (sic), would the same thing apply
where you'd need a supermajority? If you can look at the laws and
Page 122
December 11-12, 2012
ordinance, could you forward that to the board?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can't get rid of the Planning
Commission, because they're your local planning agency, so they're
statutory.
But to get back -- I will get a memo out. My question is, do you
want me to put that as backup to the agenda item when it comes back
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- or just distribute it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- you know, I think it
would be a better idea to put it with the backup material so --
MR. KLATZKOW: It makes it public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, so the public knows, and
we can -- we know our limitations.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we voting on this now, or are
we going to wait till the next meeting till we get this backup material?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to vote on this now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. It's on the agenda. I'm not
asking to remove it. My motion stands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is it a four vote or a three vote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a three vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is just to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have legal considerations when it
gets brought back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion --
Page 123
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words -- this one is a
tough one for me, because I think Mark Strain has been an asset to us
on the Planning Commission. I know that -- and so it's hard for me to
vote against this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #10U
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HILLER OF ITEM
#11D FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL
BEACH ACCESS SIGN RENDERINGS FOR INSTALLATION
THROUGHOUT THE GULF SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR FOR
DIRECT PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS VIA COUNTY EASEMENTS
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We move now, as previously directed, to Item 10U.
It's a request for reconsideration by Commissioner Hiller of Item 16 --
excuse me -- of Item 11D from the November 13, 2012, BCC meeting
titled "Recommendation to approve the final beach access sign
renderings for installation throughout the Gulf Shore Drive corridor
for direct public beach access via county easements."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which ones are you on?
Page 124
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: U, 11U.
MR. OCHS: 11U. I'm sorry, 10U.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's all right. Forgive me. 10U,
correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. These are signs that are
already in. Dick didn't like the original ones that were a lot larger,
right? And he wanted a smaller sign that fit in better with the
community. We changed those signs to accommodate what his
suggestions were. The letter that we had in our backup material was
done in June. He didn't see how we had changed these things, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He actually did, Commissioner
Fiala, and new evidence came to light. He, very sadly, after his
meeting with Gary, when we directed that he be the representative of
the MSTU to negotiate with him, had a meeting with Gary. They did
not have a meeting of minds. Staff came back and represented that
there was a meeting of the minds.
We went forward on that. Dick was not at that meeting. We now
know why. And as it turns out, Dick had sent an email to the
members of his board stating that he and Gary did not agree and that
he did not support the signs that were installed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I have a problem with
this. I cannot vote for it, because the signs are already existing.
We've already put them in place. They finally allow people to know
where the access points are. They're, indeed, a smaller version.
Unless people want it down on the ground in a teensy version --
and then it serves no purpose whatsoever. I can understand the people
whose property it borders, because they don't want any signs there.
But, you know, it's just like living near an airport. You know, you
move there, you move next to an access point, you've got to figure that
Page 125
December 11-12, 2012
they're going to be signs there. And they're tastefully done. I see no
problem with it, so I cannot vote for this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'll just make the observation
it's a waste of taxpayer funds to pull out signs that have already been
installed to place some other unspecified signs. We've been fiddling
with this for a year, I think. It's just crazy. Let's put an end to it and
leave it alone.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, all in favor?
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Next item is —
Item #10V
RECONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONER HILLER OF ITEM
#11M FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 BCC MEETING
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR
RE-STRUCTURING THE BOARD OFFICE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10V, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
MR. OCHS: It's a request for reconsideration by Commissioner
Hiller of Item 11M from the November 13, 2012, BCC meeting titled
Page 126
December 11-12, 2012
"Recommendation to consider options for restructuring the board
office."
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve.
I'd like to hear your comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. I don't feel that the solutions
presented are necessarily optimal. I think that this was brought
forward when we were under pressure to act, and I think there are
solutions that can be explored by looking at what other jurisdictions
have done to address this problem that we haven't considered.
I talked to the county manager, and he was amenable to going
back and looking at what other counties are doing and seeing if we can
bring back maybe some better suggestions.
So not to say that everything that's presented is not the best, but
that we could actually improve. And before we expend the money
and make these radical changes, let's, you know, measure twice, cut
once.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I will discuss. I'm
always -- and I don't mind seeing this again. We never had to redesign
the offices before. If the aides feel that Sunshine laws are being
violated and they wanted something, we can go ahead and see what
we can do. If we can do it cheaper and better, fine. I don't mind
bringing it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, would you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. I just make the
observation that there is a cost involved, and we should try to keep
that cost as low as possible. But the point is, we will recover that cost
Page 127
i
December 11-12, 2012
within a period of two years by cost savings. So it's not like it's a
great expenditure over budget. We will actually wind up saving
money in the long run.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any further discussion? Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you
mentioned about Sunshine law violation. Do you want to expand
upon that or expound about that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, I'd be happy to. Right now the
way our office sits, there's partitions between each one of the
assistants or aides, if you want to say that. Not Commissioner Hiller's,
because she has a different office. But the rest of us all have them
there.
And it's so easy for -- you know, if one is talking louder than the
other, everybody can hear. If they bring back any conversations to
their commissioner saying, well, here's what I heard, then it might
sound, you know, like -- you know, it could be a Sunshine violation.
It's not like this has just occurred. You know, this can always be the
case because you can hear everybody in there.
You can't hear the commissioners when their door is closed, but
you can hear what's going on in the aides' little cubicles.
So I understand that it could be considered a Sunshine violation if
people could hear and then mention to others what they've heard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, can you provide
Commissioner Fiala some information on Sunshine Law and
commissioners' aides that is in the handbook? Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
Page 128
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, are you
opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm for it. That's okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Now we're going to move to 10AD, which is the appointment of
members starting with AD through AN, which are appointment of
members to the various advisory boards.
Item #10AD
RESOLUTION 2012-256: APPOINTING RAY KANE AND DAN
SANSEVIERI TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. AD is appointment of members to the
Isle of Capri -- excuse me -- Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to
appoint Ray Kane and Dan Sansevieri, who are the committee's
recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sony. All in favor?
Page 129
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10AE
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION - NO RECOMMENDATION
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next item is AE, and I'm not
recommending anyone for the second district at this time.
MR. OCHS: This is appointment of member to the Collier
County Planning Commission.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, right. And this relates to the
second district, and I'm not making a recommendation at this time.
The next item is AF?
Item #10AF (Discussed and continued to later in meeting)
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO RE-ADVERTISE WITH
SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make Magda Ayala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Magda Ayala.
Page 130
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: AF, Magda Ayala --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for the member to the Airport
Authority Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe that the Immokalee area
needs another member on the Airport Authority Advisory Board that's
a little more versed in aviation than I believe Ms. Ayala might be. So
from my perspective, I would like to see it readvertised and see if we
can get another individual that's maybe got some qualifications to help
us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I believe Mr. Marvin
Courtright has very substantial qualifications and has been very
involved for a long time in the airport and has done a great deal.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Marvin, are you a resident of
District 5?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Where's Marvin?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he isn't.
MR. COURTRIGHT: No, sir, I'm not a resident.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He's not a resident of District 5.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does it have to be a District 5 --
does it have to be a District 5 representative? Where is the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think we're supposed to have
somebody from Immokalee. Do we have somebody currently from
Immokalee?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can the county attorney -- hang on
a second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let me see the list.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you have Floyd Crews, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, you do.
Page 131
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He's an alternate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's come back to this item. Mr.
Klatzkow, can you please advise as to who needs to sit in this seat,
what the qualifications are, and whether the candidates that have
presented themselves qualify? Let's revisit this item after the county
attorney researches it.
County Manager, can you move --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'll move onto --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just add one thing. As long as
he's researching that, can we also find out if a board member for the
airport authority should -- would there be a conflict if they also have a
business on the airport and can profit by any decisions they might
make? So maybe you could --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they can be on there anyway?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's allow --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The answer is, there's a
conflict.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's allow the county attorney to
research it and come back to us.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe -- I believe the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we please allow the county
attorney to research it and come back. No further discussion on this
item.
The next item is AG.
Item #10AG
RESOLUTION 2012-257: RE-APPOINTING CARLA GRIEVE
AND DORIS LEWIS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD —
ADOPTED
Page 132
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: 10AG is appointment of members to the Library
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the library
board's recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries.
Next item?
Item #10AH
RESOLUTION 2012-258: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM
SJOSTROM AND CHARLES ARTHUR TO THE VANDERBILT
BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10AH is appointment of members to the Vanderbilt
Beach Beautification MSTU.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
Page 133
i
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next appointment?
Item #10AI
RESOLUTION 2012-259: RE-APPOINTING TOM DEPOUW AND
SUE CHAPIN TO THE RADIO ROAD EAST OF SANTA
BARBARA BLVD. MSTU — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10AI is appointment of members to the Radio Road
East of Santa Barbara Boulevard MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to appoint Tom DePow
and Sue Chapin.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to -- I'm sorry. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10AJ
RESOLUTION 2012-260: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT
MULHERE, WILLIAM VARIAN, DALAS DISNEY, AND DAVID
DUNNAVANT AND APPOINTING ELEANOR TAFT TO THE
Page 134
December 11-12, 2012
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10AJ is appointment of members to the
Development Services Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make the recommendation we
accept the committee recommendations to reappoint Bob Mulhere,
Bill Varian, Dalas Disney, and David Dunnavant, and appoint Eleanor
Taft -- I guess reappointment of Eleanor Taft as an attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, she's not --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. She's not a current
member. She will be a new appointment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. New appointment, okay.
And appoint Eleanor Taft.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10AK
RESOLUTION 2012-261 : APPOINTING GERALD MURPHY TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
ADOPTED
Page 135
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: 10AK is appointment of member to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to get to the page.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion that we appoint Gerald
Murphy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10AL
RESOLUTION 2012-262: APPOINTING RONALD J. DOINO, JR.
TO THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10AL is appointment of member to the Contractors
Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to appoint Ronald Doino.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
Page 136
I
December 11-12, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Can I comment on this one?
County Attorney, could you please verify that all members of the
Contractors Licensing Board are, in fact, Collier County residents.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you have one that's in Lee County,
but I'll get that information for you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If that's the case, was that a waiver?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was a waiver.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we need to revisit that. I'm
not sure that we can actually waive the residency requirement, and I'm
not sure that we should. So could you bring that back at a future
meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Next item is?
Item #10AM
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MOTION FOR COUNTY
MANAGER TO GET CLARIFICATION ON QUALIFICATIONS
AND BRING BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: LOAM is an appointment of member to the Collier
Page 137
December 11-12, 2012
County Coastal Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Councilman
Larry Honig --
MR. KRASOWSKI: There's a speaker on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- from the City of Marco --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. MILLER: I've got that. We have a public speaker on this
item, Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me make my motion, okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The City of Marco Island, which is
-- the City of Marco Island recommends the appointment of
Councilman Larry Honig, who is new to their board of councilors.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I have a second.
Discussion by the public?
MR. MILLER: I have one public speaker on this item; Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Apologies for jumping up too soon. I was
afraid you might miss me.
For the record, Bob Krasowski.
I would like to comment on the status of the Coastal Advisory
Committee in appointing new members. I believe that the -- like, I go
to the Coastal Advisory Committee a lot and the TDC, and I come
here, because of the beach renourishment, and try to learn, study, and
contribute.
When I go to the Coastal Advisory Committee minutes to reflect
on what's been said and done in the past, I notice whenever there's a
public speaker, all it does is it says, public speaker, and gives the
speaker's name, myself or some other people, but never says anything
else about whether we opposed or supported. So I don't know what
Page 138
December 11-12, 2012
value it has to you as a commission unless you watch every one of
these advisory committee meetings. And we have tons of advisory
committees.
And so I think that -- now the Coastal Advisory Committee,
they're really very negative towards the environment. You could look
at some of-- at their meetings on the tape, and you can see they really
get excited about plovers having to be accommodated, and they're just
really hostile to the environment, and I think that it's disproportionate
as far as doing scientific in-depth serious, mature evaluation of the
issues that come before them.
They're locked in on defending this beach renourishment thing
that's going on now. It's almost like a private little operation.
Earlier you were told that the Conservancy report was received
and evaluated and used to determine where turtles' nests might be at
the end of the season. That wasn't the Conservancy report. It was data
from the county's turtle monitoring people, and it was never delivered
publicly to the Coastal Advisory Committee. It was just, like, a
couple of people sitting and listening at a table with the Conservancy
outside of a meeting. And this is consistent.
So I would suggest you just do away with this, you beef up the
Parks and Recreation Board, and let them start managing parks and
recreation and beaches. Your top-notch person in beaches in Collier
County is in the parks and recreation department. It's Mara Cross.
She's the turtle lady, for lack of a better term. She -- her degree is in
Coastal Zone Management. She's not an engineer. She knows the
whole spectrum that has to be considered, and that's what we need.
So thank you for your attention to my comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, if I might interrupt for a
second. I'm sorry, I misplaced some of these. There are so many
items. I did have some public speakers for Item 10AC and 10AE that
I just discovered I had misfiled. I'm sorry that I did not get those as
Page 139
December 11-12, 2012
those items were being considered.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, 10AC we haven't heard yet.
MR. OCHS: The time-certain on those items --
MR. MILLER: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: -- Troy, 10:30 -- or 2:30.
MR. MILLER: Then 10AE, rather.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And who is the speaker on
AE?
MR. MILLER: Doug Rankin.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe he spoke earlier. Does he
want to speak again? Is he here? I think he spoke under public
comment to discuss this matter, and I think we've all taken his
comments under advisement as we voted on this, but thank you.
The next item -- I'm sorry. With respect to AM, is there any
further discussion on the appointment to the Coastal Advisory
Committee?
If there's no further -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't there have to be
expertise with the appointment on that? I know there's -- has to be a
recommendation from three members from the City of Naples, three
members from Marco, but there has to -- except -- but there has to be
expertise. Upon confirmation of said individual meeting the technical
requirements and the general advisory board requirements specifically
-- specified below, the Board of Commissioners shall adopt the
individual committees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, do you have that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm looking at it now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to hold off on the
vote pending the outcome of the county attorney's response on that
issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: I could put it on the monitor.
Page 140
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. I just got the
MUNI code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you enlarge that a little bit,
Leo? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I didn't see anything in the
backup material that -- because this is really a technical board. I didn't
see anything in the backup material showing any expertise.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to continue this
item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we really --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How would you like to proceed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We really need to get -- if that's
true, we really need to give direction to the county manager to send a
correspondence to the City of Naples --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marco.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Marco, and asking for the
gentleman's expertise in these areas.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I -- to summarize, it would seem
that the point that you're raising is whether or not this gentleman,
notwithstanding that he's a council member, which is not one of the
criteria, is qualified to hold a position, and if he's not qualified, then,
obviously, we can't support him --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- based on what's provided.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Have all of the other members
been qualified? This is usually something where we honor the request
of the city, whether it be City of Marco, City of Naples, or even if
Collier County wanted to appoint somebody. I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unfortunately, we are bound by
what's written here in the ordinance, so --
Page 141
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I have brought
this up in the past.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Demonstrated interest?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think it is very important,
because we are talking about technical --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- issues, and I think that we
should adhere to our ordinance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have to. So may I make a
suggestion that -- do we already have a motion on the table? I think --
did you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe we have. We have a
motion.
So I think what has to happen at this point, I will ask the
question. And depending on the outcome of the vote, you can proceed
with an alternative motion if it fails.
So is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. My light's on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's not read this selectively,
okay? Let's read it in its entirety. Membership of this committee shall
be assembled based upon familiarity with coastal processes, inlet
dynamics, coastal management programs, or demonstrated interest in
such programs, relevant education and experience, leadership and
involvement in community affairs and willingness to attend meetings
and to undertake and complete assignments.
If there is a need to get technical expertise, there is ample
opportunity for the committee to call in the experts to do the job and
provide them the information, which I understand they do quite
frequently.
Page 142
December 11-12, 2012
So let's not select one area of qualification here and say that the
nominee is not qualified. I think the Coastal Advisory Committee has
done a pretty darn good job considering the difficulty of the task.
So I think that we can get the technical expertise, either from our
own staff, from the Conservancy, or from the state or anybody else
whenever it's needed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That was beautifully said, and
I agree, because I was looking at where it said "demonstrated interest"
and that they do have -- and that the City of Marco Island has a great
deal involved in this because they have so much coastline. They
wouldn't want to appoint somebody that they feel didn't have that
demonstrated interest and leadership and so forth and involvement in
community affairs.
So I think he's met much of this criteria. And I would like to
make a motion to approve this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, let's not rewrite
our ordinance on the fly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, or demonstrated interest
in such programs, relevant education and experience, leadership and
involvement in the community affairs and a willingness to attend the
meeting and undertake the complete assignment. Now, we don't know
that from the recommendations from the City of Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- but Marco should know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't know that from the
recommendations of the City of Marco. So let's not rewrite it, and get
outside technical assistance, because our ordinance already provides
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, it's their
Page 143
December 11-12, 2012
obligation to appoint somebody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They had their city councilman who
just was re -- who was replaced, and it was their obligation to put
somebody else on this board. I don't know why -- it seems that -- let's
see now, it's the Marco airport you don't like. It's the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not on the item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the Marco, according to this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it's the Hideaway Beach
thing. It seems if it has anything to do with Marco, you're opposing it
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I'm taking a lot of resentment
to that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is what the City of--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Let me just finish.
The City of Marco has asked us to place their councilman, Larry
Honig, on here, and that is what I want to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. There's a motion and a
second.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The motion carries --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa.
Page 144
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- 3-2 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope everybody's listening, folks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- with Commissioners Hiller --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you see.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- Nance and Henning dissenting.
We do have to respect the law. The law is as written. And there
was no evidence to support the background.
And so if you'd like to make another motion, since this motion
failed, Commissioner Henning, you can do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Make a motion that we direct the county manager to ask the City
of Marco of the city council's expertise using the board's ordinance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And would you like that brought
back at the next board meeting and this item placed back on the
agenda at that time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Once we get the
correspondence from the City of Naples -- City of Marco. I keep on
making that mistake.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So with that amended motion, do I
have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion? Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. I've said enough. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope, nope.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Page 145
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. The vote is 4-1 to bring this
back with --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four-two (sic).
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Four-one. I believe --
Commissioner Coyle, you're opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes. And Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do want to bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And Commissioner Fiala wants to
bring it back. So the motion carries --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to write a letter of apology.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. The motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #10AN
RESOLUTION 2012-263: APPOINTING MARCO ISLAND
COUNCILMAN LARRY SACHER TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL — ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next appointment is to the
TDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa, wait a minute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 146
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle and Fiala, are
you voting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Did you say aye?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry. Forgive me. I didn't
hear. If you could speak into the mike. Sometimes I can't tell if-- you
know, silence is consent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's golden.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to point out this
appointment was a councilman from the City of Marco.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, thank you. And I think that's
where the confusion comes in. The other ordinance does not require a
councilman be approved but rather that the individual from Marco
have certain qualifications as compared to this where it does provide
for a Marco council member.
The motion passes unanimously.
Item #AF (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO RE-ADVERTISE WITH
SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS — APPROVED
Page 147
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we go back to the item that was
left open, which was AF?
MR. KLATZKOW: The airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to say this, but you're going to have to
interpret your ordinance here. Your ordinance talks about seven
members and one alternate member and one -- it also says that at least
one member must be appointed from Immokalee. And there's a lack of
clarity as to whether that one member can constitute the alternate
member or not, so you'll have to make that determination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, may I answer the
question?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A member constitutes equal
rights as any other member?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the alternate doesn't vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your difference. Do you want one of
your voting members to be from Immokalee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if the -- if it's the
membership, I think it would have equal duties and responsibilities.
An alternate does not. That's my opinion, Commissioner Nance, is
when you're a member -- and one of these requirements is from Marco
Island -- that it would, to me, seem that it has full rights. An alternate
doesn't.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I agree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, County Attorney, what do you
recommend under the circumstances?
MR. KLATZKOW: You had one applicant who, I believe, is
from Immokalee --
Page 148
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- who meets the criteria. Mr. Courtright
does not meet the criteria as an Immokalee resident. And if he leases
a premises on the airport, my recommendation is you wouldn't appoint
him anyway because he'd have a terrible voting conflict.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Conflict of interest.
MR. KLATZKOW: He would just have one voting conflict after
the other.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. It would make it difficult.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you have one qualified applicant.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which you can choose to accept, or
you can, you know, choose to reject and put this back out for further
advertisement.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I don't have anything
personally -- an objection to Ms. Ayala. I know she's a businessperson
in town, but I really feel like this advisory board needs to get some
more people on there that have some aviation experience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to -- I'd like to make a
motion to approve Magda Ayala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Nance, is your
wishes to continue this to readvertise it?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will honor that wish.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So at this time, there being no
further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To my motion, you mean?
Page 149
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You vote for yourself?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good. I would hope so.
Any opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. The motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Hiller, Nance, and Henning dissenting.
Is there another motion on this matter?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a
motion that we advertise for a citizen of-- resident of Immokalee and
asking for qualification -- aviation qualification to apply to the airport
authority.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which would also allow any sitting
member -- like if Mr. Crews, who was placed in an alternate position,
would like to sit as a member of the advisory board, he could also
apply for that position.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- with, you know, the aeronautical
background that he has. Is that correct? If he wants to apply for that,
he doesn't have to step down from his current position to apply for that
opening as an Immokalee resident?
MR. KLATZKOW: Historically, he has not wanted to be a
regular member. He's wanted to be an alternate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I'm just -- I'm not saying -- I
don't know what he wants. I'm just making sure -- because since
there's all this discussion about the alternate.
MR. KLATZKOW: But you're going to need an Immokalee --
Page 150
December 11-12, 2012
but if Mr. Crews continues to remain an alternate, you're going to need
an Immokalee resident with aeronautic experience.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if they -- if we don't have
one?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you'll -- I don't know what to tell you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sure there are guys out there
who fly a lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my light is on, if you don't
mind.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I need some clarification on
the motion.
I understood Commissioner Henning to say that we wanted to
readvertise for someone who is a resident of Immokalee with aviation
experience. I want to make sure that that is the intent here, because it
is in conflict with the whole range of qualifications that we list for this
particular advisory board, because we say that they should be involved
in planning, development, and implementation of policies, goals, and
objectives of the airports. Their business ability and experience may
include, but are not limited to, general business, economic
development, aviation, public affairs, law, finance, accounting,
engineering, natural resource conservation, or other related fields.
So are we now interpreting our ordinance so that you can only be
appointed for this position unless (sic) you have aviation experience;
is that what we're now saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what you said before.
What are you saying now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I didn't say that before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you did. You want to read it
back?
Page 151
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me clarify what I said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Nance wants
somebody from Immokalee according to the ordinance, and he wants
somebody with aviation knowledge. That does comply to our
ordinance.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're narrowing your search.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just narrowing it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll be in compliance. Whether you find
somebody, that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're not changing the
ordinance, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're narrowing your search
parameters.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. My concern is, I would really
personally like to see some more experience in aviation on our Airport
Authority Advisory Board. I don't think we have a lot of aviation
experience either on the airport authority or the Airport Authority
Advisory Board.
Perhaps Mr. Coyle has extensive aviation experience. I do not. I
don't know that too many of us do. We're trying to manage airports
without knowing much about them.
So my goal would be every person that we need to -- you know,
we need to get a substantial number of people between the two that
have some aviation expertise. That's all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, if I could. We
actually have people with aviation experience on the airport. Karl
Geang is a very experienced pilot and has been involved in aviation
Page 152
December 11-12, 2012
for many, many years, and Lloyd Byerhof also has some aviation
experience. The problem --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim Murray?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Jim Murray.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim Murray, also David Gardner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. So there are probably four
people on the advisory board who have aviation experience, and we
have to make sure that we have a -- this is a Collier County advisory
board. It is not an Immokalee airport advisory board.
We have to make sure that we have people who understand
business issues and how we can create economic development
opportunities through an airport, and that's why we hire an airport
director and a technical staff for that purpose.
So I would remind all of the commissioners that the biggest
problems we have had, particularly with the Immokalee airport, is that
it was guided by a group of pilots who ran it like their own little club,
and they got it into a real mess. They negotiated leases, long-term
leases at cut-rate prices for their buddies, and it's locked us in for 30
years to leases at way-below-rate amounts. It is really bad, and I
would hate to see us return to that kind of situation.
So I think Ms. Ayala is well qualified. She knows what
Immokalee needs. She's been involved in economic development
activities there. She is a businesswoman. And I would hate to see her
miss an opportunity to serve on this board merely because we want to
have a pilot.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Coyle.
There being no further discussion, there is a motion on the table
presented by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner
Nance.
With that, all in favor?
Aye.
Page 153
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
We have a time-certain at 2:30, and I just want to, before we
move to that item, go back to what we had discussed. And I just want
to repeat, for clarification purposes, relating back to the
reconsiderations, Leo, that we have a stay in place with respect to any
and all actions relating to where the motion for reconsideration passed
by a majority, which is all of the ones presented here today and that,
secondly, that the order in -- of-- in which these items will come back
to the board will be established based on input from staff and the
board.
And what I would like to recommend is that all commissioners
email the county manager and staff, provide your input to the county
manager, and have the county manager compile a suggested ranking.
And then if you could please re-send that back to the Board of County
Commissioners as soon as possible. If we could establish a deadline
that that be accomplished in the next two weeks, then turn that back
around to the County Commissioners so that they can respond.
And if we could give everybody maybe three or four days from
the time of receipt to respond so that you can finalize this list so you
can prepare the January agendas accordingly. And that's just to
reiterate what I said earlier, but I want to make sure that the direction
that we are giving you is clear.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a clarification. I didn't
understand the part about ranking priorities.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In other words, prioritizing which
Page 154
December 11-12, 2012
reconsideration items will be at the first meeting in January versus the
second. There might be issues that better warrant being brought
forward quickly and some that -- you know, where time is not an issue
and it doesn't matter if they're brought back at the second meeting.
And the only reason I'm suggesting that is -- of course,
everything could be brought back at the first meeting, but it would
create a very burdensome agenda. So in the interest of Leo and his
staff, I suggest we bifurcate it between the two meetings. Is that
acceptable to everybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And with that, let's move to the time-certain, which is the Clam
Bay system agenda items.
Item #10X
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, CLAM PASS BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE ONGOING MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ("PBSD")
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL MONITORING
COMPONENTS SUCH AS BIOLOGICAL, TIDAL, AND
HYDROGRAPHIC DATA COLLECTION, AND, INLET DREDGE
PERMITTING/CONSTRUCTION; THAT PBSD, EXCLUSIVELY,
SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHEN THE INLET
SHOULD BE DREDGED, AND MAKE SUCH OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO MANAGING THE
UNIFIED CLAM BAY SYSTEM AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY;
FURTHER, THAT CLAM PASS, BEING AN INTEGRAL PART
OF THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM, IS MANAGED AS SUCH. THIS
IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #10Y - MOTION TO ACCEPT
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY JIM HOPPENSTEADT —
Page 155
December 11-12, 2012
APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE PRESENTED
BY TED RAIA - APPROVED; MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER
HILLER TO SEND EMAIL TO LINDA ELLIGOTT WITH ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGARDING DREDGING PERMIT —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. You have a time -- excuse me, a
time-certain at 2:30 to hear Item 10X, 10Y, and 10AC.
Let me read 10X first, if I might, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: It is a recommendation that, effective immediately,
Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management
responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services Division including, but not
limited to, all monitoring components such as biological tidal and
hydrographic data collection and inlet dredge permitting and
construction, that the Pelican Bay Services Division exclusively shall
make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to
when the inlet should be dredged, and make such other
recommendations related to managing the unified Clam Bay system as
it deems necessary; further, that Clam Pass, being an interregal part of
the Clam Bay system, is managed as such.
And this item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, thank you.
I've brought this item forward in light of the many conversations
I've had with the constituents and in light of where we are today and
considering what has happened over the past.
The Clam Bay system is an NRPA, which is a Natural Resource
Protection Area, and as such the management of the system has to be
with the intent of the preservation of that NRPA.
Currently, there is a management plan in place, and the intent of
the management plan was to restore the mangrove system within the
NRPA. And now we have moved from that to the need to update the
Page 156
December 11-12, 2012
plan to reflect preservation of the NRPA as a whole.
To that end, we look at dredging, which is done for a single
reason. It's strictly to maintain the health of the system from a natural
standpoint. Dredging is not intended for sand sourcing, it's not
intended for expanded navigation, nor is it intended for any -- it's --
nor is it intended that the result will be expanded dredging of the ebb
shoal.
We have an ordinance in place. That ordinance provides that the
PBSD was to maintain this system and was to be the advisory board
with respect to this system to the Board of County Commissioners,
and through a number of steps, that was reversed, incorrectly.
And what this motion is proposing is simply a restoration of the
management of the system as a whole, the pass and the bay, back to
PBSD, which has done an exceptional job historically with respect to
the NRPA.
And so with that, I'd like to make the motion to approve what is
recommended.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't we have some public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes. Madam Chairman, some -- rather
Chairwoman, some direction here. I have several -- between 10X,
10Y, 10AC, some people that are signed up for all three on separate
sheets, some that are signed up for all three on one sheet. Do you just
want each person one time for the three items?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think so. I think we need to bring
MR. MILLER: We've got about 25 then. I'll have to sort out
some duplicates.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. Would you like to -- would
you -- should we take a break for a few minutes and allow you to meet
Page 157
December 11-12, 2012
with the various speakers and organize your speaker slips to decide
who wants to speak on which items or if they all want to speak on all
items?
MR. MILLER: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let's just take a five-minute break
at this point to regroup on that.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was inspired when I looked in
your eyes. You know, it's like, wham.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, I have instructed Troy that if a
speaker slip indicates an interest to speak on all three of these items
that are going to be heard in order, that he call that speaker for each
individual item, and the speaker can then decide whether they've
already made their comments or they want to waive. I think that's the
safest way to proceed, with the board's endorsement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. And, yeah, it's up to the
individual speaker. You know, they can speak one time and say that it
applies to all three items, or they can speak individually with respect
to each item as each item comes up.
And if they change their mind, you know, I'll respect their wish
to talk on, you know, the items as they come up in succession. So
don't worry, you're not, like, locked in and barred forever. It's totally
your choice.
So with that, let's start with the first speaker.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker on Item 10X is Robert
Naegele, Jr., and he will be followed by Linda Roth.
MR. OCHS: In the interest of time, ladies and gentlemen, if you
don't mind, the next speaker could use this alternate podium so we can
keep things moving. So if the next speaker would get ready behind
Page 158
December 11-12, 2012
this podium, we would appreciate it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mrs. Roth, if you could step up to
this podium. Thank you. And as soon as you see the next speaker
finish and a name is called, just trade places, please.
MR. NAEGELE: Madam Chairman, members of the
commission, thank you very much. My name is Bob Naegele, 7993
Via Vecchia. I've lived in Pelican Bay since 1994. I served six years
as a board member of the Pelican Bay Foundation, the master
homeowners association that governs Pelican Bay. I served as the
chairman of the Pelican Bay Foundation from 2007 to 2010, so I'm
very familiar with the issues before you today, having lived through
many of these.
I recently was elected to the Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association board, which represents about 3,000 homes.
I'm here in total support of Agenda Items 10X, 10Y, and what's
the other one?
MR. MILLER: 10AC.
MR. NAEGELE: Yes, 10AC -- that Clam Bay may be subject to
the ongoing management of the Pelican Bay Services Division.
After the management of Clam Pass was removed from Pelican
Bay Services Division in 2008, the result was a blurring of
responsibilities between the foundation and the county, and this has
led to valiant attempts by the Pelican Bay Foundation to solve the
management issue. It hasn't worked.
The time is here to consolidate activities under the Pelican Bay
Services Division. The Pelican Bay Services Division has a proven
track record of good stewardship in the Clam Bay conservation area,
including the restoration of the mangrove forest, water management,
and overseeing the dredging of Clam Pass.
Because the county owns the conservation area, it is only logical
that the Pelican Bay Services Division, an arm of the county, be
responsible for its overall management.
Page 159
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Linda Roth. She'll be
followed by Michael Seef. If you could come to the next podium,
please.
MS. ROTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
As you know, the Clam Pass/Clam Bay mangrove estuary is a
nature preserve. It is also the only coastal Natural Resource
Protection Area, NRPA, left in Collier County.
Based on long experience, the most efficient and effective
approach to managing the Clam Bay NRPA is to treat it in a
comprehensive and environmentally responsible manner.
And the best county division to do this is the Pelican Bay
Services Division, PBSD, not the Coastal Zone Management, CZM.
As you are aware, since 1998, PBSD has had an exemplary record in
restoring 50 acres of mangrove die-off by managing Clam Pass/Clam
Bay holistically. CZM, on the other hand, has a record of dredging
inlets for navigation and placing sand to renourish adjacent beaches
eroded by that very dredging.
The mangroves and the estuary are interdependent and should be
managed as a whole. PBSD has a successful experience of managing
Clam Bay Nature Preserve as a whole; CZM has not.
Furthermore, dividing management of the relatively small Clam
Bay mangrove estuary between two different county departments is
inefficient and not cost effective.
In addition, County Ordinance 2002-27, as well as all prior and
subsequent amended ordinances regarding the Pelican Bay MSTBU,
clearly state that PBSD is to manage and maintain the Clam Bay
conservation preserve areas.
This ordinance must be respected and upheld by County
Commission and county staff Commissioner Hiller's
recommendation simply reaffirms and clarifies this ordinance.
I urge the commission to vote for this recommendation for the
Page 160
December 11-12, 2012
health of an irreplaceable coastal NRPA, for all residents and visitors
who enjoy this nature preserve, and for the county treasury.
Thank you for your consideration.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next public speaker is
Michael Seef. He'll followed by Kathy Morley (sic).
MR. SEEF: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for
your attention. I live in North Naples. I'm not living in Pelican Bay.
I have a son who has a house in Seagate, so I don't have any
direct political connections, but I'm vastly interested in preserving that
amazing preserve in our urban area. It's one of a kind.
And somebody mentioned NRPA, or Commissioner Hiller
mentioned about the Natural Resources Protection Area. So I think
we have a lot at stake in short. And as some of the speakers
mentioned before, the PBSD has done an exemplary job over many
years.
And in the last two years, whether it's the coastal -- coastal
management or whether it's the Pelican Bay Foundation, it's kind of, if
you excuse the pun, muddied the waters, and I don't know if they are
really your best source for solid scientifically based input on
maintaining this area, including Clam Pass and the size of the dredges
and the depth of the dredges and the ebb shoal and the hydrology and
the biology.
So, again, you know, based on some comments before about
needing expertise, I'm not sure it's there in some of these alternate
organizations.
And as was discussed before when you were talking about
staffing, I wonder if we have the right mix, because CAC, the Coastal
Advisory Committee, has three representatives from Marco, three
representatives from the county, three representatives from Naples, but
do they have the right expertise?
Similarly with the foundation, the Pelican Bay Foundation, do
they really have the right expertise? Now, here Pelican Bay Services
Page 161
December 11-12, 2012
Division, who's monitoring the biologic and hydrologic areas and who
I think would be called on most being the on-site, online measurers of
what's going on, are probably closest to being able to give you a more
scientific-based input.
As an example, you know, we hear about current offerings or
suggestions by Coastal Zone Management and these other
organizations to have a max of an 80-foot dredge, maybe five feet.
Well, as far as I know and -- a 30-foot dredge or even less is quite
sufficient.
So enough said. Thank you for your attention.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next public speaker is
Kathy Worley. She'll be followed by Marcia Cravens.
MS. WORLEY: Hi, Kathy Worley, the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
I'm going to talk just on 10X at the moment and then later come
back for, what is it, 10AC.
I'm going to say -- I'm not going to say exactly who should be in
charge of the management of Clam Bay exactly however the current
practice that separates the projects. For example, the dredging permit
and the past concerns are currently in the hand of Coastal Zone
Management and Pelican Bay Foundation.
Well, the mangrove maintenance is currently in the hands of the
Pelican Bay MSTBU. Now, carrying out these two projects without
an integration plan isn't good science. It could result in a waste of
money, and you're not addressing the issues of the estuary as a whole.
The original Clam Bay Management Plan was developed to
restore the mangrove forest, and it was successful. And at this time --
I'm sorry. At that time the Pelican Bay MSTBU had management of
both the pass and the mangrove maintenance.
In order to manage the pass, you need to know flow issues in the
back bay and, conversely, if the mangroves are starting to show stress,
Page 162
December 11-12, 2012
you need to know what the pass is doing. You need to have these two
things working together. And currently they're under separate projects
or at least, to my knowledge, there is no working agreement in place
for the two to work together or, if there was, I missed the memo on
that one.
But right now some might say the pass appears to need to be
dredged, and that might not -- that because of that, it might not be the
right time to make a move in management. But using such an event
such as the condition of the pass to keep things separate is, in my
opinion, a mistake.
From Humiston & Moore's latest report that was represented by
Turrell & Associates at Pelican Bay's MSTBU Clam Bay
subcommittee meeting -- lots of acronyms here -- the flow to the north
is not as robust as it used to be, and this could indicate the need for
dredging for mangrove purposes.
Now, while it's of concern, since it's the dry season, it's unlikely
that water will impound the mangrove forest, putting them at risk right
away. So you guys have a little time here.
So no matter who runs the show, both entities would -- likely to
be in agreement about the past status, and whoever does lead it doesn't
have to start from scratch regarding the dredging permit, as the one
currently in the hands of FDEP could be tweaked, if people think it
needs to be tweaked, to accomplish what we need to keep this a
healthy estuary.
What I'm getting here is that no matter who runs the show, they
need to operate in transparency and not behind closed doors, as has
been the case with Coastal Zone Management and Pelican Bay
Foundation.
Discussions should be open and between interested parties rather
than having to duke it out later during the permitting process.
Thank you for listening.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Page 163
December 11-12, 2012
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next public speaker is
Marcia Cravens. She'll be followed by Tom Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you for this
opportunity to speak.
I like to use visual aids whenever possible.
Last year I worked with the county property appraiser, and we
went through all of the deeds and all of the legal descriptions and
covenants and restrictions for what's known as the conservation area,
which is also the same footprint of the NRPA, which is also the same
footprint of FL64P, which is an undeveloped coastal barrier resource
system unit in the federal Chafee system.
You'll notice that Clam Pass is in the conservation area, it's in the
NRPA, and it's in the undeveloped coastal barrier system. And on the
other side here, I have the Future Land Use Map for 2006 through
2016. You may not be able to see it very well, but there's an area right
here that is the Clam Bay NRPA. It is not an urban designated area.
It is on the legend as a conservation area and a NRPA.
There are definitions of the purpose of a NRPA, and I will just
read a definition that Mark Strain had provided to me from the LDC
and from the Future Land Use Element.
Natural Resources Protection Area Overlay. The purpose of the
Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay designation is to protect
endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large
connected, intact, and relatively unfragmented habitats which may be
important for these listed species. And the very first listed NRPA is
Clam Bay.
There's so much history; there are so many records here. And I
agree with previous speakers; this needs to be a holistic management
and it needs to be done by an entity that understands that this is a
stewardship issue.
Clam Pass is maintained for the health of the estuarine system,
not as a sand source, not as a way to improve navigation between the
Page 164
December 11-12, 2012
Gulf of Mexico and the Seagate subdivision. And that is consistent
through all of the records dating back to the 1970s.
The Clam Bay Improvement District was created by the state
legislature. It ended up being succeeded by the Pelican Bay Services
Division. Maintenance of the conservation and preserve areas has
always rested with a Pelican Bay entity.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Tom Cravens. He'll
be followed by Susan O'Brien.
MR. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Tom Cravens. I am a former president of the Mangrove Action
Group, which is an organization in Pelican Bay that got together to
help deal with the die-off that we had of mangroves.
I was their president for four years. I am a volunteer naturalist
for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I lead nature walks
through Pelican Bay in through the mangroves on a weekly basis
during season. I'm also a substitute guide at Clam Pass Park for the
Conservancy.
In addition to that, I serve on the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board. I am currently the vice-chairman of that board. I'm not
speaking for that board, but I am speaking for myself.
I strongly support the Items 10X, 10Y, and 10AC. I think that
the Pelican Bay Services Division has an exemplary history in
managing both the mangroves and the pass, and I urge you to support
those.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next speaker is Susan
O'Brien. She'll be followed by Johan Domenie.
MS. O'BRIEN: Good afternoon. I'm a member of the PBSD
board, and I'm also the chair of the PBDS -- PBSD's Clam Bay
subcommittee. And I speak today as an individual.
Page 165
December 11-12, 2012
Returning the responsibility of all aspects of managing the Clam
Bay system to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board is, number
one, good for Clam Bay, which would benefit from having one county
entity oversee its maintenance and its health; number two, would be
good for Collier County, which could focus its limited staff time and
resources on the many other coastal-related needs; number three, it
would be good for our HOA Pelican Bay, because our board and
management could devote all of its attention to providing services to
members.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Johan Domenie, and
he will be followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He makes you sound like a movie
star.
MR. DOMENIE: Good afternoon, and welcome to our new
board member, as well as those who continue to dedicate their efforts
for our county.
My name is Johan Domenie, a full-time resident of Pelican Bay
since 1987, with nine years of service on the Pelican Bay Services
Division, first appointed by Commissioner Carter and twice elected by
the Pelican Bay residents. I also serve on the board of the Mangrove
Action Group.
My service began at a critical time when nearly 50 acres of
mangroves in the NRPA -- NRPA were dying. I witnessed their death
and recovery. It was concerned citizens, the Conservancy, Mangrove
Action Group, and the Pelican Bay Services Division that -- which
took on the burden of studying means of recovery, not the Pelican Bay
Foundation, not the Coastal Advisory Committee, nor the Coastal
Zone Management.
It was the PBSD and MSTBU financed by all Pelican Bay
property owners, the Mangrove Action Group, and individuals which
took on the financial burden of recuperation, not the foundation, not
Page 166
December 11-12, 2012
the CAC, not this county -- the Coastal Zone Management.
It was the services division, an advisory body to the BCC, which
obtained the necessary permits to begin the recovery efforts, not the
foundation, not the CAC, nor the CZM.
It was the Pelican Bay Services Division which oversaw the hand
digging of nearly 80,000 linear feet of small channels which permitted
the draining of the die-off area and ebb -- and flow of the waters in the
preserve, not the foundation, not the CAC, nor the CZM.
It is the Pelican Bay Services Division which manages and
maintains the lakes, the swales, and the weirs which control the
amount of water entering the mangrove preserve, not the foundation,
not the CAC, not the CZM.
It was the Pelican Bay Services Division which, in accordance
with the permit, installed the 40-plus canoe and kayak trail markers,
not the foundation, not the CAC, nor the CZM.
The Pelican Bay Foundation claims it is the only entity which
represents the Pelican Bay residents. Apparently its president is not
aware that the members of the services division are elected in an
election organized and supervised by the county, not by a distant
private organization.
It is true that the foundation's predecessors donated 500-plus
acres to the county with certain restrictions. The foundation should
dedicate its time, energy, and funds to oversee and limit the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, et cetera, by homeowners, as the City of Naples
has done. That would surely benefit the preserve and I'll fine -- the
Pelican Bay Services Division accomplished all of this without
resorting to an extensive legal staff.
So I ask, who's best suited to manage your 500 acres, the
foundation, the CAC, or the Coastal Zone Management, or your own
Pelican Bay Services Division?
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Jim Hoppensteadt.
Page 167
December 11-12, 2012
He'll be followed by Noreen Murray.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. I also believe Robert Pendergrass
has ceded time to me. But you can check the form on that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jim
Hoppensteadt. I'm the President of the Pelican Bay Services Division,
which is the --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Whoa, whoa.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Wow. Okay. I have nothing to do
with Pelican Bay Services Division.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was Freudian, Jim. They'll
embrace you. It's okay. They'll take you.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, hopefully. I'm the president of
the Pelican Bay Foundation, the master homeowners association. The
foundation is -- has been assigned all the rights and responsibilities for
this particular conservation area and piece of property by the declarant
and still stands in the shoes of the declarant.
We have -- I have sent around a letter which I'd like to enter into
the record officially to the board, and we also have some photos that
we'd like to walk through the -- walk the commission through.
It is a fact --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a point of order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order. According to the
rules, any information introduced to the board needs to be voted on by
the board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It does. We -- we have an
ordinance, actually, that was passed by the -- Commissioners Coyle
and Coletta and Fiala, and what it provides is that any information
brought forward has to be voted on by the majority of the Board of
County Commissioners before it can be accepted on the record if it's
introduced after the agenda is published.
So if you would like to give me the documents you would like
Page 168
December 11-12, 2012
considered, I will announce what documents you're considering
presenting, I'll ask for a motion to be made either to accept or deny,
and then we'll have a vote and -- because no one -- and the reason
being, just so you know, is because no one has had time to review this,
and so the interest -- in the interest of ensuring that we don't get hit
with information we did not have time to review and prepare to
address, we have that rule.
So let me just take a look at this. The document that I have here
is a letter first from -- from Jim Hoppensteadt, and it's dated December
7th, and it's a letter to me expressing his appreciation for my
graciousness. No. And about seven pages more.
And then, additionally, he has presented a number of
photographs here which relate to the mangrove system, which were
taken on 11/17 and 11/19, respectively, of this year.
So if someone would like to make a motion whether or not these
are to be accepted, I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll make a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- motion to accept them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As a matter of fact, I received the
same item on Friday of last week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we have a motion and a second
to accept. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion -- any
discussion, Commissioner Coyle? Commissioner Fiala?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. There being no discussion,
all in favor?
Page 169
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So these --
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Back on track.
It is, in fact, a fact that back in 2008/2009 this commission took
away from the Pelican Bay -- geez. I'm going to do it again -- the
Pelican Bay Services Division responsibility for a permit.
You convened the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. It had
recommendations that the Pelican Bay Foundation didn't agree with.
We worked with this decision to try and get those corrected. This
commission said, you know what? Continue to work with our
structure, work with Coastal Zone Management and CAC and figure
out a way to move this forward. We did that. There was a working
group. We participated in that working group. We worked in good
faith with the structure that this commission set up.
We brought scientific experts to the table. Jeff Tabor with Atkins;
Eric Olson with Olson & Associates; Ken Humiston with Humiston &
Moore were all talked to about the dredging permit.
The dredging permits have been filed. They -- we, in fact, have
received the first dredging permit. It's a joint permit. The first
dredging permit has been received from FDEP. We are waiting on the
Army Corps permit, which would be the companion permit to this.
The thing that concerns us most -- and, Leo, if you wouldn't mind
putting on the visualizer -- is that at this junction in time the pass is
functionally closed. Biologically, Tim Hall has advised us that it's
Page 170
December 11-12, 2012
about 50 percent closed. It's closed at low tide. It functions at high
tide.
Even though we are in quote-unquote, the rainy season,
freshwater makeup of this system with saltwater is integral to the
health of this system. Those of us who were awake last night know
that we've had some freshwater intrusion recently.
It is critical that we continue the process that has been established
by this committee that has been followed faithfully by the foundation,
that has been executed by the county's Coastal Zone Management,
Coastal Advisory Committee to move forward and get the permits and
get this pass restored.
The health of the system is the most important thing. We have --
as I've said, we've followed a scientific approach. We have worked
effectively with Coastal Zone Management and understood the issues
of water quality. We've looked at the dredging templates. We support
the Coastal Zone Management and CAC moving forward with the
funding of the hydrographic surveys. This needs to be done now.
Time is of the essence.
And with that, I thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Jim.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Noreen Murray. She'll be
followed by Keith Dallas.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Congratulations to
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning on your reelection,
and welcome, Commissioner Nance, and congratulations, and our own
commissioner sitting at the center of the platform is nice to see.
I'm here -- I am secretary to the Pelican Bay Foundation, our
master homeowners association. And I'm here for the board, for our
board, simply to ask for time to review the ramifications of
Commissioner Hiller's proposals. It had only a brief verbal airing at
the PBSD meeting less than a week ago. There was nothing in
writing, and the first I heard of it was the report I got regarding what
Page 171
December 11-12, 2012
happened at the PBSD meeting, and the first we saw it in writing was
when the proposals for this meeting were posted.
We need time to understand the legal, financial, and operational
issues involved in the proposals and time to discuss this important
issue in public forums within the Pelican Bay community and other
stakeholders.
One of the things that concerned me when I read the proposal is
the word "exclusively," that the Pelican Bay Services Division will be
the exclusive authority to advise this commission. And that's
troublesome because the Pelican Bay Services Division is part of the
county.
Stewardship was also mentioned by a previous speaker endorsing
this proposal. The reality is the documentation for the conservation
area rests stewardship with the Pelican Bay Foundation, not with the
county.
The county owns the conservation area. It is to be maintained for
passive recreation and conservation. And the foundation is actually
the watchdog to ensure that goes on.
For some of you who may not be -- particularly Commissioner
Nance, who is new to this issue, listening to the previous speakers,
you might think that the Pelican Bay Services Division and the
Pelican Bay Foundation don't talk to each other. I'm here to assure you
that we talk frequently, sometimes personally, about these issues.
And one of the suggestions Commissioner Hiller has made is that
the foundation be able to appoint someone to the services division
board. Well, our board members attend the services division meetings
every month, and the services division members attend our meetings
every month. We talk, and we have worked closely together.
The current situation came about because of the County
Commission and what they did some time ago, but -- and the
foundation stepped in because we do have authority and we do have
money, but we do need time.
Page 172
December 11-12, 2012
The foundation, the services division, the Mangrove Action
Group, the property owners' foundation are not at war with one
another. Is everyone satisfied all the time? Absolutely not, but all we
want is a little time for us to work this out in our own community
within our elected bodies.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Keith Dallas. He'll
be followed by Rich Yovanovich.
MR. DALLAS: Afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Keith Dallas.
I'm the current chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board;
however, these comments are my own personal opinions and not
necessarily those of the board.
This proposed change and the related changes to the PBSD
ordinance came as a complete surprise and has not been vetted in our
community.
The first time our board knew there were changes in the works
was when one of our members, Dave Trecker, asked that the item be
added to last week's PBSD board agenda. He said Commissioner
Hiller would be proposing changes, although all the details were not
provided at that time, and nothing was put in writing.
The board did not take any position on these changes but did
have some questions how they would actually operate. Clam Pass, as
has been said, is now closed at low tide. The county and the
foundation has been working on a collaborative effort and seem to be
nearing a point where permits will be approved to begin planning for
an actual dredge of the pass.
It was intended that the whole community, including the PBSD
and the Mangrove Action Group, would be part of the conversations
about the details before anything was finalized.
My concern is that the adoption of these proposed changes could
cause the regulating bodies to stay -- take a step backward in their
approval process, thus delaying the much-needed dredge and possibly
Page 173
December 11-12, 2012
causing serious adverse impact to the mangroves. I'm also concerned
what these changes may do to the financing for the dredging.
Major changes like these need to be vetted by all the stakeholders
in Clam Bay, not just a small group of residents.
Past experience has shown quick decisions can cause unintended
consequences. Although well intentioned, this organizational change
could put us back to the times of warring factions with Clam Bay
becoming the victim.
All I'm asking for is sufficient time for all the stakeholders to
understand the proposals, how they would work, and the budget and
staffing implications. Allow time for a transparent process.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Rich Yovanovich.
He'll be followed by David Buser, Busa? Sorry.
DR. BUSER: Buser.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
I think we have to take a step back and look at what is the main
governing document for Pelican Bay, and that is the Pelican Bay PUD
ordinance, and I would like to put a portion of the ordinance on the
visualizer. And I hope that will be permitted.
The Pelican Bay PUD was adopted originally in 1976, and
through the many years and amendments to the Pelican Bay PUD, one
provision has essentially remained the same, and that is Section 2.03
of the PUD. And it deals with gulf-front lands, and it talks about two
very important pieces of gulf-front land. One is Clam Pass Park,
which is to benefit all of the residents of Collier County, and then you
have the conservation area, which is to benefit the residents of Pelican
Bay, and that is governed by Section 2.03(b) (sic) of the ordinance.
And to paraphrase what that says, is it -- I'm sorry, A of that
ordinance. And to paraphrase basically what that says is that the
county will be deeded roughly 500 acres and change for the benefit of
Page 174
December 11-12, 2012
the residents of Pelican Bay, and there will be covenants and
restrictions that go along with that land. And there -- that land was
dedicated to the county.
There were covenants and restrictions adopted pursuant to that,
and those covenants and restrictions have a declarant, and the
declarant is the Pelican Bay Foundation.
All ordinances that you adopt subsequent to the adoption of the
1976 PUD need to be consistent with the PUD, including the Pelican
Bay MSTBU ordinance.
Now, we're not saying that we don't agree with the proposed
changes. What we're saying is you have to come to the Pelican Bay
Foundation, discuss it with the Pelican Bay Foundation, and the
Pelican Bay Foundation, under the current law that applies to Pelican
Bay -- and as we've discussed in earlier agenda items, we're not here
today to rewrite the law. There's a process to do that. But under the
current law the Pelican Bay Foundation, as a declarant, has to be
consulted, and their wishes have to be followed until the law changes.
So what we've asked for is come talk to the Pelican Bay
Foundation, let's vet this process and determine if it is appropriate to
put this back into the Pelican Bay Services Division realm of
responsibility.
Now, I will take on one -- the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board -- and this is not intended to be disrespectful to the board,
because they are donating their time -- do not have the technical
expertise to review this nor does the Pelican Bay Services Division
staff. You hire consultants to provide that information.
The Pelican Bay Foundation has also hired consultants to provide
scientific evidence, and the Pelican Bay Foundation has played within
the rules that have been laid out, and they have been going to the
CAC, working with county staff and county experts to come up with a
scientific response to how the foundation and the pass -- I mean, how
the mangroves and the pass should be dealt with.
Page 175
December 11-12, 2012
That's the process that the foundation has endorsed and continues
to endorse until a properly vetted process changes those plans.
So under the existing law, I believe you're obligated to come to
the foundation, talk to the foundation, and publicly vet this before the
County Commission makes its own determination on how the
maintenance and conservation of that area will occur. And that's
simply what we're asking. We're not saying we don't agree with the
conclusions in the report. We're saying, give us some time to publicly
discuss it and determine whether or not that's the right thing to do.
Unlike the two previous attempts where we were not consulted when a
committee was adopted, and now where it's going back to the PBSD,
we're saying please come to the foundation, because whether people
want to acknowledge it or not, it is the foundation that is responsible
for making sure that the covenants and restrictions are, in fact,
enforced within that conservation area.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe Commissioner Henning
would like to address you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. You haven't
provided the covenants. You're providing language out of the PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be happy to send -- I know I have
provided them to Mr. Klatzkow on an occasion, and we have debated
this, and we have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me provide you the
language in the quitclaim deed that Mr. Hoppensteadt provided us.
What you're talking about, the declarant and the restrictions deal
with Clam Bay Park. I'll be happy to provide that, or your client can
provide it to you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've read it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you read No. 4 in Page 1
Page 176
December 11-12, 2012
and Page 2 of the conservation area?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can read it. I'm sure I have. Would
you -- I don't have it in front of me, so if you want to hand me a copy
or read it to me, I'm happy to respond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me read it to you. The
reservation right of grantor is to construct, operate, and maintain
certain mitigation activities as required by the U.S. Corps of Engineers
Permit No. 97K-0282, November 18, 1981.
Special Conditions B, as recorded in official record, which I tried
to get to, but I couldn't get at, but the Corps of Engineers Permit
97K-0282 we all know that as the Clam Bay estuarine system
maintenance.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That actually had to do with the
filling of 98 acres that is Bay Colony. In order to get the ability to fill
some lands, the county got a permit to do a dredging --
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yeah. I mean, just -- what you're
reading from is an '82 permit --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you -- hang on a second.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: -- and a quitclaim deed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You have to let Mr. Yovanovich
speak. If you want to consult with him and let him speak, he's at the
dais or -- I'm sorry -- at the podium.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There -- what you have to go --
Commissioner Henning, when you go to the original 1976 PUD and
that deed conveyance, it was related to the ability to fill 98 acres
within Pelican Bay.
Also, concurrent with that PUD is a separate set of covenants and
restrictions --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the park site.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that it be on Pelican Bay that apply to
the conservation area that also limit the uses of what the county can do
without getting the declarant's permission, and one of those is
Page 177
December 11-12, 2012
dredging.
So nothing can happen in the conservation area, including
dredging, without going through the declarant, which is now us, the
Pelican Bay Foundation.
We are not asking to -- we have deliberately not pushed the legal
fight, because we have been working closely with the City of Naples,
the Coastal Advisory Committee, and your staff to come up with a
scientifically based response to the dredging issue.
We have never -- and we have decided that the better approach
from the foundation's perspective, contrary to other issues where there
was a constant battle, the approach has been to work cooperatively on
a scientific basis to hopefully reach a consensus as the right way to
approach this, unlike historical battles, which I have been, frankly, on
the other side of from the foundation.
But that's been the approach. The foundation has rights under the
covenants and restrictions, and one of those rights is to regulate the
conservation and dredging in that area.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Yovanovich, if I can comment
on that. Your document that you've presented on the overhead makes
no reference to what you're saying. There's no nexus between your
statements and what you've presented before us.
With respect to the Board of County Commissioners, the Board
of County Commissioners cannot delegate its discretionary
decision-making authority with respect to public waterways or public
lands.
As you well know, since, you know, you actually practice
governmental law, to do so would tie our hands with respect to
making decisions as it relates to public safety which, obviously, is just
not possible.
So your statement that there is some sort of restriction that ties
the hands of the board to make decisions in the best interest of the
public subject to foundation approval doesn't stand legally.
Page 178
December 11-12, 2012
So I'm sorry, I can't accept your legal argument.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's certainly your prerogative.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David -- is it Busil (sic)?
DR. BUSER: Buser.
MR. MILLER: Buser. And he'll be followed by John Sorey.
DR. BUSER: Hi, I'm Dr. Buser. I'm the president of the
homeowners association of Seagate. I'm here to represent the
single-family homes within the neighborhood, approximately 90.
I've also spoken with a number of other associations in the area
that are not -- have not had a voice today. So I want to kind of set the
record straight.
We were shocked to see that this was on the agenda today. It
took us by complete surprise. There was a statement earlier from
Commissioner Hiller that she had had numerous meetings with
various shareholders, and that is what led her to write this.
I could speak to Seagate. We have not had any meetings with
her. We're certainly a shareholder. And I also spoke with Naples Cay,
and I've also spoken with the president of the Moorings Bay Taxing
District, and none of them had heard anything about this.
And so I'd like you to include in your list of shareholders all of
the shareholders. Definitely the other group of shareholders that is not
here today is just the general public at large which frequents Clam
Pass Park.
And so to have a meeting with one group of people from one
association or one neighborhood and say you've spoken with all the
shareholders is not really accurate.
Obviously, I'm here to speak against Item 10X. Seagate's letter's
already on the record. I do have a record or a letter from the Moorings
Bay Taxing District also opposing it. And I've spoken with Naples
Cay, and I anticipate having their letter by tomorrow.
Obviously, we're not the only ones at stake. We are property
Page 179
December 11-12, 2012
owners that are affected by this. But as I said before, the general
public that goes to the park is also a big part of this, and I'd say a
bigger part of it than any single neighborhood.
I've read the letter from the Pelican Bay Foundation as well. It
was well written, and I think you should definitely hear their concerns
and take them into account. And I think it's more than just have
another meeting or some more meetings with them. You really need
to address the general public.
Some of the commissioners here are not representing the district
that Pelican Bay is within. And I would speak to each one of you and
say that your constituents need to be able to go to the beach, know the
estuary is being managed, and know that they can have a voice in the
way it's managed.
Currently, there is a county ordinance, 2001-03, which
established the CAC, and the CAC -- I know you're very familiar with
-- is an excellent groups of individuals, very well qualified to discuss
coastal issues and analyze them, and that ordinance specifically tasks
them with the management of all inlets within incorporated and
unincorporated Collier County.
And so I would address -- I would hope that you would read that
ordinance, because I think that what you're proposing is in direct
opposition to that ordinance.
The CAC handles numerous environmentally sensitive areas. It's
in -- you know, down in Rookery Bay, et cetera. And I think that to
say that they can't manage a NRPA is completely ludicrous.
So Collier County's the single largest landowner within the
estuary. Pelican Bay has three private beach facilities. We have 90
single-family homes on the estuary. Naples Cay has a number of units
on the estuary. But Collier County is, by far and large, the single
largest landowner.
There was discussion earlier regarding deed restrictions. We've
made this case in the past. Those deed restrictions, we would state,
Page 180
December 11-12, 2012
pertain to the uplands, not to the state-owned submerged lands.
And so the county really doesn't have an obligation to get
permission to do things to the state-owned submerged lands. And if
you review the DEP file for the ongoing permit application, the DEP
came to that conclusion. So they don't think these deed restrictions
even apply to the submerged lands.
When you start making decisions in this estuary, it really needs to
be made by a group of individuals that represents the entire county,
and that's exactly what the CAC is. And the beauty of the CAC is
Seagate can go approach them; Naples Cay can approach them. The
Moorings/Park Shore group can approach them, so can the Pelican
Bay service division board, and the foundation, obviously, feels
comfortable approaching them.
And so I would encourage you to maintain the status quo. It
sounds to me we've got the foundation, Naples Cay, Seagate,
Moorings/Park Shore, and I'm guessing if we went out to the
unincorporated Collier County residents, they would all say the same
thing, don't give away our rights.
You just said you can't delegates your rights to the waterway.
Well, you're delegating your rights or you're contemplating delegating
them to a county board which is made up exclusively of business
owners and property owners within one community.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Doctor -- it's Dr. Buser,
correct?
DR. BUSER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Just so you understand, the decision that I have made is a
function of meetings that I've had with the community, including
yours, over the course of the last two years.
I've attended numerous meetings where you have spoken. I have
listened to what you have had to say.
Page 181
December 11-12, 2012
The representations that I'm putting forward are a function of the
best ideas that have come from two years of in-depth study and hours
of meetings with the communities as a whole.
So I appreciate your comments, but this is really the culmination
of a very long process.
I agree with you. When the management plan for the system is
updated, everyone needs to come back to the table. And I've heard
that discussion from others. And one of the things I intend to do is
make a recommendation at the next board meeting after this is
adopted.
And just so you know, we are not doing anything new. We are
restoring what the law provides has to happen.
So at the next meeting, what I will recommend, that once the
draft proposal of the management plan is prepared, that a work group
be created which involves all the constituents to sit down with the
engineers to review that plan and to provide your input, you know, as
you see fit.
The reason we are where we are today and why I made the
recommendation that I did at this time is because the bifurcated
approach to the system has not worked. The permitting for the system
has not worked. We have a pass, as pointed out by several speakers,
that is almost closed, and we do not have a permit. That's
mismanagement, okay.
So we can't have that situation. We can't be in a situation where
something like this happens and we don't have what's necessary in
place to address the situation.
The transition at this point in time is essential to get the right
things done in the interest of all the users of the system. And I really
hope that you participate when the work group has put together --
you're a very articulate, intelligent man, and I think your input would
be invaluable.
So I would like to see you there, and I would really appreciate
Page 182
December 11-12, 2012
your help.
DR. BUSER: So I'd like to respond to that. Thank you very
much.
Ordinance 2001-03, which is a law, specifically states that this
should be managed by the Coastal Advisory Committee. So when you
say that we need to get back to what the law states we need to do, I
think we can see what the law states that we need to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll respectfully disagree with you.
The ordinance that governs this particular body is a different
ordinance which clearly provides that everything with respect to the
management of the Pelican Bay system preserve and conservation
clearly rests with the PBSD, and that's what we're restoring.
So -- and I don't want to debate this -- and thank you for your
time.
Can we have the next speaker, please?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your next speaker is John
Sorey. He'll be followed by John Iaizzo.
MR. SOREY: For the record, John Sorey, Chair of your Coastal
Advisory Committee and mayor of City of Naples.
My recommendation would be that you continue this. It's
something that we've talked a lot today about process, and I'm
delighted, Mr. Nance -- and he and I have had the opportunity to talk
about process. And he's a process guy, and I'm delighted that he is
oriented that way, because process has not been followed here.
What the executive summary on Clam Bay responsibility says,
it's being transferred to the Pelican Bay Services Division eliminating
the CAC as the primary advisory board. I agree with Dr. Buser; I
think this is in conflict to the role and charter of the CAC has
established by the BCC.
There were no discussions with the Coastal Advisory Committee.
There were no discussions with the City of Naples. And the City of
Naples has a part of this estuary.
Page 183
December 11-12, 2012
Absolutely, the Pelican Bay Services Division did a fantastic job
as far as the mangroves is concerned.
Some of the areas, I think that the performance was less than
spectacular. Some items, such as the water quality monitoring, the
state reporting of the data, water quality data management, those sort
of things.
So the question is, do they have the expertise to accomplish this?
And there are a lot of questions to be raised here.
The service division has had a history of excluding other
stakeholders, and certainly the City of Naples, from participating in
any discussion or decision.
On more than one occasion, representatives of Seagate were told
to go home, and they could not participate in the discussions.
There are still members of the services division that argue about
the dredging of the pass for navigation. I hope that that was behind
this, but it appears that maybe that's not true.
This is a county estuary to be enjoyed by all members of the
public and not the private domain of Pelican Bay. This was certainly
the situation when people were asked to get off the beaches and
blocked from entering or exiting the pass by boat.
As I said earlier, part of the bay sits in the City of Naples, and we
were not consulted on this change. This action underscores all our
concerns about cooperation and inclusion of the management of this
estuary.
A key question is who's going to pay for this. As I read the code,
if Coastal Advisory Committee is supposed to make the
recommendation to the TDC and then to the Board of County
Commission about resources and using tourist tax for these kinds of
activities -- we've got another item, and Madam Chair, I'm going to try
to cover all of mine in one time --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. SOREY: -- so I won't have to take your time. But the item
Page 184
December 11-12, 2012
is concerning AC. I'm not sure that that can be used for -- TD (sic)
funds could be used for that.
So I would suggest that we step back, let the process occur. And
if we determine that this is the best alternative for what we're all
committed to, and that's the preservation of this estuary, then go
forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just a quick clarification.
Historically, the cost for the dredge and engineering related to the
dredging of Clam Pass has been paid for with TDC funds.
If you're saying now that that is not possible, then that throws
into question everything that was approved by you historically.
MR. SOREY: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So -- but we'll address that at
another point. But I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. SOREY: Yeah. Madam Chair, I think I was clear that I'm
talking about AC as far as the new study that you want to do for the
area.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. And that -- yeah. We can
address that when it comes to it.
The other point I'd like to address is pollution. There is a concern
I have. As I've been listening to the communities, what was brought
to my attention by the foundation is that there are pollution concerns
with respect to the foundation's management of its property. And I
think the foundation is going to work to attenuate the pollution at the
source.
But as it stands right now, the pollution management is somehow
lacking, and apparently there's some copper getting into Clam Bay. I
don't know if there's pollution leaking into Clam Bay from the city in
any way and, obviously, that needs to be monitored.
So we'll certainly look at all of that. That has to be part of the
preservation plan. One of the components is looking at pollution and
Page 185
December 11-12, 2012
ensuring that there's attenuation at the source and ensuring that
whoever is being -- who's polluting the natural bodies of water takes
remedial action and that there's adequate monitoring to ensure that it
doesn't continue.
So that definitely will be incorporated in the management plan
for the future preservation. So thank you for bringing that up, Mayor
Sorey.
MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Ted Raia, who has been
ceded time from John Iaizzo. Ted Raia will have six minutes.
DR. RAIA: I brought with me a thumb stick, but I was going to
address the root cause of why we're here today. Well, I won't use the
thumb stick.
We're here today because back in 2008 when we were closing out
the first 1998 10-year permit, Seagate claimed that, that permit
required the installation of red/green navigation signs, and the county
supported them.
Now, that permit does not in any way require the installation of
the red/green markers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's correct.
DR. RAIA: The service division at that time protested that they
would not put those markers in. So what did the county do? They
removed the responsibility of Clam Bay from the service division.
Now, we just want to turn the clock back there, because we
would never be here -- we would not have spent four years with
consultants and lawyers if it wasn't for that action.
Now, I have in my thumb stick the evidence to clearly
demonstrate -- and, in fact, it's absurd -- to think that that permit
required red/green navigation signs.
Now, the county foundation took it upon itself to intervene since
the county took the care of Clam Bay away from the service division,
but they decided, in spite of all the talk about wanting to discuss
things with you and open -- they decided to handle this all by
Page 186
December 11-12, 2012
themselves with secret closed-door meetings with the county.
Now, I have served on the Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association; it's the first organization I served with. Then I served on
the Pelican Bay Foundation Board, and then I served on the Pelican
Bay Service Division. I am currently president of the Mangrove
Action Group, and I can assure you I speak for that group.
Now, I feel I still represent the people I had served when I served
on the service division board and when I served on the foundation
board. I read the letter that Mr. Hoppensteadt submitted. I wrote a
rebuttal to it, a necessary rebuttal, because it definitely needs
clarification.
So I hope you do not accept that letter at its face value. I would
be glad to forward my comments to you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We certainly can accept the letter.
We could, if-- again, with the vote of the board, consider accepting
your letter, if you can get a copy of it.
DR. RAIA: I didn't bring one with me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. Well, you can go and talk to --
did you -- who did you send it to?
DR. RAIA: Well, I think I sent it to most everybody in this
room, but I did not --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why don't you --
DR. RAIA: Does anybody have a copy with them? Oh, wait a
minute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you could -- if you could email
that letter to Jennifer Rainey, then Jennifer -- if you could just email --
MS. ROTH: I have a copy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, good. Then if you could please
give Dr. Raia a copy of the letter and have him present it to me and
then let me ask the board if they want to accept it.
DR. RAIA: Oh, yeah, yeah. Thank you, Linda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please present it to me,
Page 187
December 11-12, 2012
and I'll ask the board to consider accepting this rebuttal document.
DR. RAIA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I have here an email
from Ted Raia to Jim Hoppensteadt and everybody else, and it is a
clarification to the letter written by Mr. Hoppensteadt. And your
responses are in red?
DR. RAIA: In red.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So Mr. Hoppensteadt's
comments are in blue, and Mr. Raia's comments are in red.
Would someone care to make a motion to introduce this in the
record?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve -- to introduce
into the record and also make a copy and distribute to the Board of
Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He already did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
Any discussion on introducing this document as a companion
document to the letter presented by Mr. Hoppensteadt?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but I haven't had a chance to
read that. I did have a chance to read the other one which was sent to
us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, we'll have copies
made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. With that, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
Page 188
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Jennifer, could you make copies for the -- for both? And also,
could you please give this to the court reporter along with that letter as
well to enter in the record and give all board members a copy of the
letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe Leo can put it on the
overhead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
DR. RAIA: All right. Thank you. I wore my lawyer's suit today
because I thought I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to --
DR. RAIA: -- could get as much time at Rich Yovanovich got.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- restart his time?
MR. MILLER: It was paused.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. You paused and resumed?
MR. MILLER: As I did for Mr. Hoppensteadt. I paused while
you were deciding on the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So you paused. Do you
want to resume wherever he was?
DR. RAIA: Let's see where I can pick up.
Now, my colleague, Dr. Buser, states there are 90 homes there. I
ride my bicycle there frequently. I only count 70 something --
perhaps there are 90 house lots -- but that's not important.
What is important, there are 6,500 units in Pelican Bay. They
really have a financial interest in maintaining a quality Clam Bay
which will definitely be to the benefit of Seagate, undoubtedly.
Now, the problem with the current permit -- by the way, in 2008
when the county took the care of Clam Bay away, the Pelican Bay
Page 189
December 11-12, 2012
Service Division already was working on a new 10-year plan that was
80 to 90 percent completed and paid for. And that was passed up, and
that plan included emergency dredging.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's essential.
DR. RAIA: Now, this human cry about, oh, we've got to get this
dredge permit right away, the place is falling down, they could have
had this permit months ago if they used the 30-foot cut, which was the
authorized cut in the first 10-year permit, was used twice, was always
successful.
Why are they not doing that? Is because they're trying to use this
route to force through an 80-foot cut. Now, I -- you know, it -- I don't
understand why the foundation and the county are pushing for an
80-foot cut. I don't understand it, when they know a 30-foot cut is the
one that had been used successfully.
They want to bring up the 2007 dredge. Well, the 2007 dredge
was 80 feet; however, it was originally approved for 30-foot cut for
maintenance of the mangroves.
But then the county decided, let's see how much -- be quiet. Let's
see how much sand we can get. Let's try an 80-foot cut. So they
proceeded to do an 80-foot cut.
Now, that was in violation of the rules for getting a permit,
because on the permit you're supposed to clearly state the purpose, and
that purpose was for sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
DR. RAIA: Now they want to say, well, we're only using a cut
that was permitted. And, yes, it was permitted, surreptitiously.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your time is up.
DR. RAIA: No, well, my colleague --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you got extra time. Oh, then
you know what, you need to --
MR. MILLER: That was all in --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's already six minutes.
Page 190
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was that six minutes?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
DR. RAIA: I already went through six minutes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You went through 12 minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, that goes to show you,
time flies when you're having fun.
DR. RAIA: The pain was worth it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand the point you're trying
to make. And the point you're making is part of my recommendation
is this debate over 80 feet or 30 feet or 50 feet for sociopolitical
reasons or otherwise is not the right approach. The right approach is to
establish the correct monitoring criteria and to engage in testing to
come up with a conclusion as to what the dredging ought to be
intended for the health and the preservation of the system.
So none of us here are the engineers; none of us here are the
scientists. There's no one who can, you know, faithfully say that 80 is
the answer or 30 is the answer. The totality of the evidence drawn
from monitoring data viewed as a whole is what needs to be
considered as to whether there needs to be dredging at any point in
time. And, again, for the health of the system. That's what it's all
about, the health and the preservation of the system.
So -- yeah. Are there any other public --
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We have two more public speakers,
Madam Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Judith Hushon will be followed by Lilias Bruce.
Those are your final speakers on Item 10X.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. HUSHON: I'm Judith Hushon. I live in Naples Cay and --
just south of Clam Pass. And I walk there several times a week, so I
frequent this area often. And I'm concerned right now about how this
pass and bay have been handled by the county.
Page 191
December 11-12, 2012
I work in the environmental industry, for many years. You never
let a permit lapse, never. What you do is you go in and you renew it.
That's almost a rubber stamp thing from the Corps and from the other
organizations that have to okay it, DEP. That just happens.
If you need to change it, you submit another application while
renewing your current application. We wouldn't be in the situation we
are now with a 3-foot-wide pass that's 18 inches deep. It doesn't even
come up to my knees right now, so --
And so what is -- what should Clam Pass and Clam Bay be
managed for? The mangroves and the wildlife that's around the
mangroves. That is the whole purpose of managing that pass.
In the past we had had studies done. We had studies done that
told us how much water had to come in and out to keep those
mangroves healthy. The mangroves are healthy, the wildlife is
healthy, and that's what we need to be managing for.
The science for that management was developed by PBSD at
their expense, and they seem to understand the science to drive the
actions that needed to be taken.
We should listen to the science to tell us what should be done
now on the pass. Obviously, we're in rather dire straits. That pass is
closed. We have until summer when the mangroves start to throw their
new leaves to get that water back in there. But we have to do
something by -- before then, or we are going to start reversing the
trend that we have been so nicely moving to the positive.
And I don't think the county has done a great job managing this,
and I would kind of-- I think in this case, this may be a time when it
should go back to where it was and -- kind of a status quo, that was
actually a stable quo and was benefiting our environment, because that
is a NRPA area, and it's very important to parts of the county.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you so much. Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on Item 10X is Lilias
Page 192
December 11-12, 2012
Bruce.
MS. BRUCE: I'm last. I am a Pelican Bay resident, a long-time
member of the Mangrove Action Group, and got involved originally
because it was very horrific to see the mangroves dying outside my
window. It was scary. So I wanted to learn the science of it. And I
think that's what we've done in the MAG group.
And we think that Pelican Bay Services Division has done an
excellent job of restoring the mangroves. Now it's a matter of
maintaining.
I want to bring to your attention the board meeting -- BCC board
meeting April 22, 2008, recommendation -- IOB, recommendation --
Item IOB, recommendation. I'll read it to you.
Recommendation from the Pelican Bay Services Division, that
the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Pelican Bay
Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay
Management Plan to the federal and state agencies, motion for a new
five-year permit to maintain the hydrology and estuary of Clam Bay
and for Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit the
permit to federal and state agencies. This was approved.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Are there any more
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Not for Item 10X.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So with that, being that
there's no further discussion.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I may?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Just a couple of quick comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: I certainly appreciate the passion and affinity that
Page 193
December 11-12, 2012
all the residents have for the estuary, but I do feel compelled to just
comment on a couple of things --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of course.
MR. OCHS: -- that were said from the dais. One was a
characterization that the estuary's been mismanaged. I'm inferring that
that was a reference to the recent management by the county staff.
And then the other comment had to do with the delay in the
permit for the dredging. Part of that delay, in fact, is because the
permitting agencies have to continue to respond to repeated concerns
that are coming out of the community.
It's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy, but they can't get to the end
as these calls continue. It's not an excuse, but it contributes to the
delay in some regard. And I just wanted to get that on the record.
And the fact that over the last couple of years, I don't see any
evidence, frankly, of mismanagement. There was a lot of cooperative
work with many stakeholders to improve water quality management
and a lot of scientific study and data accumulation that you alluded to
earlier, Commissioner.
So I just wanted to make a --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. And I understand that coastal
zone was, you know, under the leadership of someone else other than
today and, you know, we might see a different outcome down the road
with respect to some of the other projects that coastal zone is
managing.
But it has been problematic, and there has been ongoing disputes,
litigation, delays. I really -- you know, the facts speak for themselves.
The history is there.
And my perspective on everything is, you know, the past is the
past. Who cares? All right. We need to move forward, and we need
to move forward in a positive and a unified way that's in the best
interest of the community as a whole.
And without a doubt, you've done an outstanding job managing
Page 194
December 11-12, 2012
the Pelican Bay Services Division, okay. You -- Neil Dorrill is really
good. He's done a great job over there. And the engineers and
scientists that were retained to develop the management plan and who
currently are responsible for the monitoring and all the testing as well
as the management of the system, except for the pass, have done an
excellent job. I mean, truly, you've got to pat yourself on the back,
Leo. Let's face it.
You know, the mangrove restoration in Clam -- in the Clam Bay
system is the single most successful restoration of such a system in the
state.
So the PBSD has proven their ability, their technical skill, and
that was under your management. And I think part of the problem is
what people have identified as the bifurcated system that, you know,
you have to look at Clam Bay as a holistic body, you know, just -- the
totality has to be considered.
And I think everybody's intentions are good, but by being a
house divided as to this particular system, we're having a lot of
problems. And this is the solution. And I've listened to, really,
everybody, and really I tried to pick the best of what everyone
suggested, and this is a solution that I think will carry us forward into
the 21st century happy.
So with that, I would like to make a motion that we approve my
recommendation, and then I have a follow-up with a couple of action
items that I would like to address that we need to approve as well. But
thank you for your comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
With that, I'd like to go ahead and ask for the vote.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would like to have some
discussion on it before we vote, if you don't mind, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please, go ahead. Go ahead.
Page 195
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm the District 5 County
Commissioner, but I do know many of you, and I have had an interest
in the county back to the late '70s. And I'd just like to ask the group a
couple of questions if I might, and I'd like to ask also for some
clarification.
Who is responsible right now for the management of the Clam
Bay system NRPA? Who is the lead agency that's in charge of
managing the NRPA?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It should be the PBSD.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Can somebody tell me who is in
charge right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: PBS&D (sic).
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: PBSD.
MR. OCHS: County --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The PBSD is the county.
MR. OCHS: For the NRPA?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's the county, PBSD.
MR. OCHS: PBSD is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The county.
MR. OCHS: -- a division of the Board of--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: PBSD is --
MR. OCHS: -- County Commissioners, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Who is responsible for managing
Clam Pass?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But a different department.
MR. OCHS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners is the
applicant for the permit, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So it's not synonymous?
Page 196
December 11-12, 2012
Okay.
I've learned that there's many differing opinions about the
management of Clam Bay, and many interests. There's many
financial interests, there's many use interests, there's many personal
interests. There's interests from one end of it to the other; however, I
will tell you that it is -- the Clam Bay system is a remarkable entity. It
is something that you won't find in Florida. It is something that's also
under tremendous pressure because of where it is and the amount of
development that surrounds it.
How many people in this audience or interests (sic) have an
economic interest in Clam Bay?
How many people in this room have a use interest in Clam Bay?
How many people are interested in Clam Bay for some other
reason?
I submit to you that all of you consider yourself stakeholders; do
you not? You're stakeholders. I will tell you that what -- indeed what
you are is you are all temporary custodians of Clam Bay. And that if
Clam Bay is to survive, it has to have one agency that is responsible
for its care and feeding, and if its care and feeding is carried on by a
group of stakeholders and a committee of stakeholders, all that have
different economic and use interests, ultimately, over a period of time
and incrementally, Clam Bay will be lost, I assure you.
I don't know exactly what the lead agency should be. I think I
understand what the lead agency has been in the past, but I'm almost
certain that what you can't do is you can't approach this issue like
King Solomon is and say, what I'm going to do is I'm going to have a
compromise, and I'm going to divide the living child in half, because
you know what the results of that are going to be.
So that having been said, I think we need to establish one lead
agency to take care of the Clam Bay NRPA and Clam Pass. I do not
think that Clam Pass can be managed by an organization that manages
passes, I don't think that Clam Pass and the navigability issue can be
Page 197
December 11-12, 2012
managed by somebody that's in charge of navigation issues, and I
certainly don't think that you can do anything except manage it as a
whole. It has to be managed as a whole.
Somehow you have to come together with that decision. I know
it's not a simple one. It's not simple. Because I do believe that all of
you do care about the results in the end.
So it's a conundrum. It's not an easy decision. But I hope you
understand that if you are to be the temporary custodians of it, that
you're going to have -- and if that's true in your heart, you're going to
have to set aside your use and economic interests on Clam Bay, or it
will not survive. I promise you that. I've seen it all my life. I've lived
in Florida all my life. And I've seen the incremental loss of most of
our habitat, including out where I live in Eastern Collier County, even
though we've done -- we've done a decent job in the last 20 years to
try to do the right thing.
So I just wanted to make those things before we -- make those
statements before we go any further.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
With that -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry. I wasn't sure if your light
was on from before. So I had it -- it was on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You forgot to turn it off?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. Actually, I finally -- it was like
on, on, on. And I thought, oh, my goodness, I've forgotten to turn it
off, so I finally turned it off, and then suddenly it reappeared.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on for real now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. There have been lots of
representations today that all of the stakeholders have been consulted
and involved in this process and, yet there are many people who come
Page 198
December 11-12, 2012
up here and say they're completely surprised.
You can't move forward without talking to everybody. You can't
approve this concept without talking to everybody. And whether it is
the Pelican Bay Services Division or some other organization, I agree
that we need to focus responsibility, but it cannot be turned over to
one group, because that group doesn't represent the entire county.
So what our task should be is to talk with everybody and come
up with a sound solution to the problem.
Now, the question really should be how many of the people who
are not here have an interest in Clam Bay? Because nobody's talked
to them. And I am really reluctant to proceed with this process until
there is an open discussion, a public discussion, among all of the
people who are interested in Clam Bay so that we can make some
informed decisions.
Preselecting one organization and turning over exclusive control
to that one organization without having the kinds of public meetings
and discussions that are essential to even building a single PUD, we
do that when we consider development. Why wouldn't we do that
when we're considering something as important as Clam Bay?
So I will vote no for approving this concept, but I would be very
happy to vote yes for having future public debates where all people
are represented, and we can consider the kind of organization that
should be administering Clam Bay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to make sure that I
took my notes down correctly.
Keith Dallas, did you say you're the chairman of the PBSD?
MR. DALLAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did I understand you right
when you said you didn't even know about that?
MR. DALLAS: No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I have to agree with
Page 199
December 11-12, 2012
Commissioner Coyle, until the agency we're trying to give it to
actually learns -- the chairman of the agency we're trying to give it to
should know about it -- I think it's a better thing that we just wait to do
this until all people can work together.
Dr. Buser said, from Seagate -- I don't know if you're Seagate. I
can't remember.
DR. BUSER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But everybody should be at the table
to discuss this, because it affects all of you. And I think a working
relationship where everyone works together for the betterment of the
whole community should be put in place.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Fiala.
Just so you understand, the law requires that the management of
the system be under the PBSD. We have an ordinance that binds us.
I'm simply implementing what the law requires, because at the
moment we're nonconforming. So this is not a concept. It's not an
idea. It's the law.
Now, with respect to the changes with the representation on the
Pelican Bay Services Division by the foundation, I do want to address
that. That will go out to the community for discussion, because all
we're doing right now is advertising and letting the community know
what's being proposed so they certainly can study, evaluate, and
comment on it.
The reason a nonvoting position on the part of the foundation is
required on PBSD goes beyond Clam Bay. It's really not limited to
that.
The foundation, you know, keeps saying that it wants a formal
seat at PBSD's table. And, unfortunately, it cannot have a voting seat,
because there would be a conflict.
The fact that members of the foundation speak in front of the
board is not good enough, and the reason being is we need a formal
Page 200
December 11-12, 2012
representative from the foundation who speaks on behalf of the board
-- the foundation board as a whole based on the foundation's vote at a
public meeting so that it's very clear that these individuals who are
speaking before PBSD are speaking in a representative capacity and
not in an individual capacity.
Now, the nice thing about creating a seat -- and the idea there
being so that since the Pelican Bay PUD is managed both by Mr.
Dorrill through the PBSD and Mr. Hoppensteadt through the
foundation, is so that there is, you know, unequivocal coordination,
cooperation, no duplicity of functions.
And the nice thing about the seat is, if you don't want to sit in it,
you don't have to send anyone. But there is a seat at the table, and
that's what's important.
The other issue in the ordinance change is that there will be term
limits on the chairmanship. That's actually a recommendation that
comes from personal experience. I feel that the rotation of leadership
is really important. I think it benefits any sitting board to have a
different perspective on an annual basis.
So as I said, the ordinance is being advertised. It's being put out
there for comment and won't be voted on till the next meeting.
With respect to moving the system and unifying both the
management of the pass and the bay and NRPA as a whole, if you
will, under the PBSD, that's the law. That's what the ordinance
provides, and so we have to do that.
So, again, with that, I'm going to end the discussion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, wait, wait.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and call the vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait just a minute. I think I
understood you to say that because we have an ordinance, our hands
are tied and we have to do it that way. We just spent most of the
morning talking about this board's flexibility with respect to changing
its ordinances and interpreting its laws.
Page 201
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, you certainly can bring back a
recommendation to change the ordinance.
Anyway, no more discussion. We're going to move forward with
a vote.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes us to Item 10Y on your
agenda this afternoon. It's a request for authorization to advertise an
ordinance --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before we move on to that, can I
just mention some action items that we need to take?
The first is, is that the transfer to the PBSD of the management of
the Clam Pass/Clam Bay system united as a whole will move over to
PBSD effective immediately.
And with that, we -- I would like to have the board's approval to
send a letter to the Army Corps to Linda Elligott, who is the project
manager in Fort Myers with respect to the dredging permit. And what
I would like to say is the following. And I just want to send it by
email, and I want to copy everybody, but I want to just get everyone's
concurrence on this -- that the county will refine its management plan
of the Clam Bay system and resubmit in the near future and -- I'm
sorry -- resubmit the dredge permit in the near future which will -- you
know, which will be in the scope of the existing plan, and to please
not delay the ongoing coordination with respect to the permit
application with the resource agencies, because as it stands right now,
Page 202
December 11-12, 2012
there are two resource agencies that are currently looking at the dredge
permit, and that's the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agency and the National
Marine Fishery Service Agency.
So we want to make sure that, you know, this keeps moving
forward and that we're just putting them on notice that it may be
refined in order to accomplish the -- you know, the objective sought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want a motion on that?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make a motion to give
that direction.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second it.
Any discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. OCHS: Oh, I'm sorry. Just a point of clarification. You
said that you were going to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was going to send an email and
copy everybody. And I'm happy to sit down and, you know, draft it
with you and make sure it's properly worded.
MR. OCHS: No. I'm fine with that, ma'am. I just wanted to
make sure who was doing it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, yeah. Because I want to let
them know what is transferring and let -- and not to slow the process
down, that we keep it moving forward and get it done.
And then the other -- so I'm sorry. We had a motion. Do I have
a second on -- oh, I seconded it. Okay.
Any further discussion, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you.
All in favor?
Page 203
December 11-12, 2012
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a theme? It seems like a
good theme.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure seems like it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. The next issue I wanted
to address is the litigation with Seagate. And currently the foundation
-- the board previously would not support funding the litigation
against Seagate, and the found -- the foundation very graciously
picked up that cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's that number? Could you tell
us?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's not -- I'm just -- it's not currently
on there, but with the shift, I want to address it, because I would like
to suggest --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, we can bring it back.
I'll just bring it back. Should I bring it back? I'll bring it back.
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The county attorney says to bring it
back, because I think the county needs to pick up that cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pick up the cost for -- let me -- say
that all --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The foundation has been paying for
the litigation against Seagate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the taxpayers should pay for it
Page 204
December 11-12, 2012
instead; is that what you're saying?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it's a lawsuit against the
county. It's not a lawsuit against the foundation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We certainly have to see that one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, you know what -- so
let -- what we'll do -- I mean, if the foundation wants to keep paying,
that's fine. That's fine. I certainly don't want to strip you of that, but it
is a lawsuit against the county, and it's being very gracious of the
foundation to support it, but that's okay.
MS. MURRAY: It's an intervention.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What?
MS. MURRAY: We filed an intervention. We're an interested
party in this.
DR. RAIA: We're paying for this.
MS. MURRAY: We're funding for our participation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Just for your part?
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are we funding our part? What are
we funding?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have in-house attorneys doing our part.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, good. Okay. Then you
know what? Scrap that item.
All right. So let's move to the next item.
Item #10Y
ADVERTISING AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD AMEND ORDINANCE NO.
2002-27, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PELICAN BAY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT. THIS IS
A COMPANION TO ITEM #10X — APPROVED
Page 205
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: That is 10Y. It's a request for authorization to
advertise an ordinance for future consideration which would amend
Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended, relating to the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
This item was brought to the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Second.
All right, go ahead. Seconded by Commissioner Nance.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Being no discussion, all in favor?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, I do have public speakers
for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Marcia Cravens. She
will be followed by Linda Roth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many do you have?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many speakers on this
item?
MR. MILLER: There are 10 at this time, but some have
registered to speak on all three items. I'll call them to see if they want
to speak again on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. For this item I am authorized to
speak for the Sierra Club's Calusa Group as well as speaking for
myself as an individual full-time resident of Collier County.
We heartily endorse and support this agenda item. It is consistent
with every other item that the county has taken -- that County
Commissioners have taken in respect to the Pelican Bay Services
Division MSTBU and particularly -- in particular the action that the
County Commissioners took to approve and adopt the MSTBU non-ad
Page 206
December 11-12, 2012
valorem assessments that pay for the act -- the active work that this
ordinance will help to clarify, the ordinance amendments that
Commissioner Hiller has suggested.
I needed to simply clarify. The function and role of the Pelican
Bay Services Division is consistent with the resolution whereby the
non-ad valorem assessments are paid to the county for those actual
work items.
The only other thing with this is that I would just have to
comment. From people who have indicated that they were shocked
about this item, it is really disingenuous.
Our community has been discussing needing the ordinance
establishing the Pelican Bay Services Division to be amended and to
reaffirm the role of the Pelican Bay Services Division for
management, maintenance, and monitoring of Clam Bay for several
years.
And, Commissioner Hiller, you came to a Pelican Bay Services
Division board meeting very soon after you were elected, and that
board clearly indicated a desire for you to do exactly what you're
doing right now.
And we thank you for it. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Linda Roth. She'll be
followed by Noreen Murray.
MS. ROTH: Linda Roth, Pelican Bay. I urge the commission to
authorize the request to advertise an amendment to Ordinance
2002-27, as amended, because this amendment is simply -- except for
a few very minor changes, it's simply a reaffirmation, clarification,
and consolidation of prior ordinances relating to the Pelican Bay
MSTBU.
Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Noreen Murray. She will
Page 207
December 11-12, 2012
be followed by Keith Dallas.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I'm still Noreen Murray. I'm speaking
only for myself at this point, not the foundation board, because we did
not have a chance to discuss any of these items.
With respect to Commissioner Hiller's comments about spending
two years consulting with constituents, I don't mean to disrespect, but
I think you've been conferring in an echo chamber, because certainly
you have not been listening to a broad range of the elected
representatives of Pelican Bay. You and I have had no conversations
about this.
Mrs. Cravens just indicated that no one should be shocked
because this has been being -- has been discussed in the community
for a number of years, and that's true. And it's been discussed over
and over by the same small group of people who were dissatisfied
with the fact that the foundation was cooperating with the county.
The science that you say you want done has been being done by
the foundation and the county jointly by some of the best consultants
and scientists. You, more or less, implied that the homeowners
associations within Pelican Bay are responsible or could be
responsible for pollution. We have been doing water-quality testing,
and the bulk of the pollution seems to be coming from the chemicals
used by the Pelican Bay Services Division in its ponds.
And with a final note on the specific thing about -- you said
somehow that the Pelican Bay Foundation has been asking for a seat
at the services division table. I've been on the board for two years, it's
never been discussed. So I don't know with whom you spoke, because
we never felt a need to sit on their board, as they don't sit on our
board, but we work collaboratively.
And what you're hearing from are the people who haven't been
satisfied with our results. They don't like the current Pelican Bay
leadership and have convinced you that that's correct. But I would
strongly suggest that you broaden the scope of the number of people.
Page 208
December 11-12, 2012
And one final point. As it just simply -- as a resident of Collier
County, I'm thrilled to see a woman in the seat, I am thrilled to see our
commissioner as chair, but I heard you giving legal opinions multiple
times this afternoon, and I think, perhaps, you're confusing your role
as attorney with your role as commissioner.
Just one cite, when Dr. Raia was mentioning that the permit
never required red and green markers and you said, "that is correct,"
well, that case will be in the courts. There are clearly good lawyers on
both sides of that question, as there are on almost all legal questions.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Fortunately, being an
attorney and formerly practicing as a CPA, I am able to bring a great
deal of knowledge to the table, and I use what I have and will continue
to use what I have.
But I do appreciate your comments, notwithstanding that they're
not correct.
With respect to the pollution, the pollution is a big concern, and
we do need to look into that. Mr. Hoppensteadt indicated to me that
there are problems, as I said, and this is what he relayed to me, with
copper leaching into the bay.
Where that is coming from obviously needs to be determined. If
the county is at fault, that's a problem, and it needs to be stopped. And
I'm going to ask the county manager to investigate that and find out
whether or not the county is responsible for pollution as you seem to
allege, Noreen.
Go ahead.
MR. DALLAS: I'm Keith -- still Keith Dallas. I'm still speaking
on my own behalf.
As far as the copper sulfate, it is an issue. The foundation and the
service division are working on it. The initial readings are the --
there's two issues where it's being done. It's the service division
putting copper sulfate in the ponds to control the algae, and it's also
Page 209
December 11-12, 2012
the reclaimed water coming from the county.
And so we're trying to figure out how we can get around this. So
it's just started the process.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.
I'm glad you're here -- to hear that you're working on it.
Thank you.
MR. DALLAS: Yeah, we've ratcheted it up to get our arms
around it round.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. DALLAS: My concern with the ordinance is really the
devil in the details. The -- this hasn't been vetted by the community.
And I look at it and say, is there something here that we haven't
thought our way through?
Let me give you an example: The way the chairman is selected.
If-- obviously the commissioners have the authority to structure your
advisory boards any way you prefer. It's your prerogative. If you
want the chairman to change each year, that's your prerogative. I have
no problem with that; however, to require that no one can be reelected
chairman until all the other eight members have served as chairman is
problematic.
This is a large board with nine residential and two commercial
members. We're all part time. We have limited time to talk to each
other. We have Sunshine rules, thus it is not surprising that it is often
difficult for us to come to conclusions. And being the chairman is
challenging often.
We have a difficult time getting people to volunteer for our
board. Most times we do not have elections because we don't have
enough people decide to run to fill the openings.
For instance, of our current nine members, one of them has been
elected for his current term. The other eight of us have all been
appointed.
Last -- two years ago we had three openings. It took us three tries
Page 210
December 11-12, 2012
to fill that third slot.
So my concern is that if you decide that every member must
serve as chairman, then we're going to have an even tougher time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you clarify that? I don't
believe when you drafted that, that that was your intent. I believe it
was your intent to give everyone the opportunity to have a seat. And,
you know, if they choose to waive, that it would pass to the next
person, but not that any single member be a chair year after year
before everyone had the opportunity to serve.
MR. KLATZKOW: The intent was opportunity to serve. We
can clarify that language.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you? To make sure that Keith's
situation is properly addressed?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's why we do this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. DALLAS: There are some other concerns I have. Our
terms are bunched, and we'd like to spread them out. So there's things
like --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. DALLAS: -- some devils in the detail that I think we
should think about before this gets set in cement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And -- absolutely. And then can
you please schedule a meeting? That's the whole purpose of the
advertising. That's why we have ordinances set as a two-step process.
So we have, you know, over a month before this will be heard
again, and I'd be more than happy to hear your recommendations.
MR. DALLAS: Okay. The -- like I say, I just think -- let's take
enough time to make sure that this is right. Quick decisions cause
unintended consequences.
I'm asking for sufficient time for us all to understand it, allow
enough time to have a transparent process, and take into consideration
the holidays are coming.
Page 211
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. DALLAS: We have problems getting people together then.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. If you want, you can extend
the -- do you want to extend the advertising period to the second
meeting in January, that way it goes beyond the holidays and gives
them a full month to address the issue of the chairmanship and the
rotation?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. Another approach, Commissioner,
would be to let them meet, and I don't know when they're meeting
next. They can review the ordinance and then come back with
suggested changes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Well -- and, actually, what
we could do is just leave this -- have it come back at the next board
meeting and continue it if there's additional suggestions with respect
to --
MR. KLATZKOW: They can tell me when their next meeting is.
I'll advertise this for after that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. When is your next
meeting?
MR. DALLAS: Second --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of January?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The second Wednesday.
MR. KLATZKOW: So why don't we advertise --
MS. MURRAY: The first one's January.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: October 2nd. January 2nd.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: January 2nd. Okay. So if the meet
-- well, if it's after the second, then we have plenty of time, because
our meeting in January isn't till the --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the 8th, isn't it?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't recall.
MR. KLATZKOW: The 8th. Why don't I advertise it for the
Page 212
December 11-12, 2012
22nd, and this will give everybody adequate opportunity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. Is that good? That's
fine.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your next public speaker is
Robert Naegele, Jr. He'll be followed by Tom Cravens.
MR. NAEGELE: I cede my time.
MR. MILLER: Robert Naegele is waiving.
Tom Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Tom Cravens had to leave.
MR. MILLER: Okay. After that would be Susan O'Brien.
MS. O'BRIEN: I'll pass.
MR. MILLER: She's also waiving.
John Sorey?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left.
MR. MILLER: He's gone. Ted Raia? Hey, got a winner. Three
minutes.
DR. RAIA: Can't pass up this opportunity.
I just want to let the public know that Commissioner Hiller was
elected to her seat in District 2 with an overwhelming majority of vote
from Pelican Bay on the very issue that is being discussed here. That's
why she garnished that kind of support.
So I -- I'm sure that the members of the foundation board were
aware of this. I'm curious, have you received any invitations to
address the foundation board?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (Shakes head.)
DR. RAIA: Interesting. I would think that they would want you
to visit them maybe, you know, once every three months at least --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd be more than happy to come.
DR. RAIA: -- so they can communicate.
But have you received an invitation from the Mangrove Action
Group?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, multiple.
Page 213
December 11-12, 2012
DR. RAIA: We look foward to having you. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your last public speaker on 10Y is Judith
Hushon.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She left.
MR. MITCHELL: That will be your final speaker on this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we're starting to wear
them out, huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
Commissioner Coyle, you have a final comment, or is that light
on from before?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's from last time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want to be sure.
Commissioner Fiala? All right.
Since there's no more discussion, I'm going to go ahead and call
the vote.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
Item #10AC
DIRECT TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PREPARE
A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #10-5571 TO UPDATE
THE EXISTING CLAM BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN TO
ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM
Page 214
December 11-12, 2012
AND COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PRESERVE'S NATURAL
RESOURCE PRESERVATION AREA ("NRPA") DESIGNATION;
AND, TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA AS INDICATORS FOR
EVALUATION OF DREDGING NEEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING FLUSHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFIT OF THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM; TO PRESENT SUCH
WORK ORDER TO THE PBSD, THE TDC, AND THE BCC AT
THE FIRST JANUARY, 2013 MEETING OF EACH OF THESE
RESPECTIVE BOARDS - MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #10-5571 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 10AC, which is
the final of the three items being heard together.
That's a recommendation to direct Turrell, Hall & Associates,
Incorporated, to prepare a work order under Contract No. 10-5571 to
update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan to ensure the
preservation of the Clam Bay system in compliance with this
preserve's natural resource preservation area designation; and to
establish criteria as indicated for evaluation of dredging needs for the
purpose of maintaining flushing for the environmental benefit of the
Clam Bay system; present such work order to the PBSD, the TDC,
and the BCC at the first January 2003 (sic) meetings of the respective
boards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. And may I
say, Madam Chair, it's -- Turrell, Hall & Associates have been in the
community for decades, and this is the first time I ever see them
getting work again. It's a pleasure to finally see that local
professionals are getting work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, thank you. But the -- just to
clarify. The -- they're not actually being selected. They're already
there.
Page 215
December 11-12, 2012
The problem we have is that what should have been incorporated
as part the original contract was omitted, which is why we have the
problems where we are today. And what should have happened is,
since they are responsible for all the monitoring, they should have
taken that monitoring information and applied it to the existing
management plan to update it to achieve the preservation objective
which, in turn, would be then the basis for the dredging permit
triggers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the problem we have is that
isn't the way it's happened so -- which is why you have the debate of
whether it's 30 or 80 or whatever.
So this is really a work order pursuant to their existing contract
limited by law to not more than 34,000 and at the rates not to exceed
the rates of contractors under existing fixed contracts to do what they
should have been assigned to do.
It is a recommendation which is subject to the PBSD's approval,
the TDC's approval, and the BCC's approval. And I appreciate your
comments about them. They are -- they have done the county well.
They're the ones who restored the mangroves to where they are today.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let's give them a hand.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second Commissioner
Henning's motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It seems a little strange for a
commissioner to be directing that a specific contractor be awarded or
given a -- an additional work order.
Does that meet the requirements of our procedures, County
Manager?
Page 216
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask our Purchasing Director, Ms.
Markiewicz, to comment on that, please, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a legal concern?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I had the county attorney
review it, and he said it conforms with the law. I also had the clerk
review it to make sure it conforms from a legality perspective.
MS. MARKEIWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director.
Commissioner Coyle, this -- the only that's -- two things are
unusual. It's unusual for a commissioner to direct an outside vendor.
In this case I would also point out, not knowing the specific
intricacies of the work order, this particular solicitation and contract
was not competitively bid under CCNA. So I don't know the full
depth and breadth and the scope that Turrell, Hall will be doing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This work is under 34,000 so it goes
-- it basically -- the CCNA does not apply. So as a result that's not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute.
MR. OCHS: She's saying if it's engineering services, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if it's Category B services, which
are -- Crystal, could you address that, please?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I think the original review was, if
you look at CCNA statute under -- Category 2 is under 35,000. So if
the estimated amount is under the 35,000, it doesn't have to follow that
original procedure. So it would be a work order under this contract.
We're not preapproving, obviously, a claim or anything that's let,
but if-- I think if Joanne wanted to work through that, we'd work
through that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And just so you also understand,
this did include engineering services, because the monitoring includes
engineering work. And I believe Humiston & Moore are the
subcontractors under Turrell, Hall under this contract.
Page 217
December 11-12, 2012
So it was all done compliant with the CCNA originally and is
being done compliant with the CCNA under the recommended work
order. And gee, I mean, worse comes to worse, you can almost hire
me as staff, I'm getting so good at processing this stuff on my own.
But -- yeah, but it's been a pleasure working with you, Leo, on
this. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't finished yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think this is a slippery slope
to get started down. Did we select $34,000 as the value of the work
order so that it could be processed under the limit?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it's to avoid -- it was to avoid
conflict with the limit so that they understood they didn't have the
legal right to exceed that because, otherwise, they would have to bid
it. It would have to be competitively bid. So -- and there's no need for
it to be more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. That's just -- it's just
extremely irregular.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not really.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But nevertheless.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what I will say, Commissioner -- and
we did review it for legal -- well, my deputy, Scott Teach, reviewed it.
And, you know, we're fine on the legal sufficiency.
I will tell you that there's always the problem of air of
impropriety. And I don't know that it makes a -- I don't know that
commissioners picking vendors on an ongoing basis is a good idea.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I'm not actually picking a
vendor. I'm just recommending that an existing vendor do work that
should have been awarded under this contract. Nor am I saying that
I'm approving it. All I'm saying is that it should be presented for
consideration for approval to the PBSD, the TDC, and the BCC. So,
you know --
Page 218
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- it's a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in order to remove any
appearance of impropriety, why don't we say a recommendation that
the county manager prepare a work order under the contract, and leave
out the name of the recipient of the contract?
And if it makes sense to do so -- and give it to Tune!! then, by all
means, do it. But I -- this just sounds to me a lot like somebody wants
to direct money to a specific --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The concern I have is I want to
make sure that the same people who did the management plan and
who did the management plan and who are doing the monitoring
which will serve to update the plan, update the plan and, concurrently,
update the permit to reflect the plan.
I don't want all these different companies stirring the pot with
conflicting opinions, nor do I want to see the county pay double to
have some other engineering firm review the work, you know, to -- or
familiarize themself with the work that this firm has already done.
There's a significant cost savings.
And, like I said, the problem I have is that the firm that's
currently doing the work should have had this included within the
scope and that the scope was flawed when it did not provide, from
what I'm suggesting.
So the issue for me is -- not the firm nor giving any particular
firm work. It's that the work -- the original contract was not properly
thought out. It wasn't well put together.
So figure out how to get there any way you like. I couldn't think
of any other way. But we don't want a duplication of effort. We want
that it be updated by the people who did update it, and then it was
pulled from them. I mean, these were the people who updated the
Page 219
December 11-12, 2012
plan in, what, 2008, as Ted Raia pointed out
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and then it got thrown out to be
shifted to some engineer who redid whatever in whatever way; we
don't know.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm okay with the approach, Commissioner.
I'm just saying --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well -- but then fix it to make it
sound however you want it to sound. Make it -- fix it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I will tell you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's your job. You get paid the
big bucks to make these things, you know, appropriate. . Make it right.
Present it in a way that it accomplishes the objective that I want to see
accomplished.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that objective is what I said,
that we don't have a duplication of effort, that it's done by the entity
that did it, and then it was taken away from them and resulted in all
these problems we have.
So what do you say, Jeff, do we go forward --
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll take care of it. It's under 200,000.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's under 200,000. We'll take care of it.
The board doesn't have to be involved. We understand the direction.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So do we have to vote on it,
or do we not have to vote on it?
MR. KLATZKOW: You --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or do we just give the county
manager direction?
Tell me how to do it, Leo. I mean, you look like you have your
thinking cap on.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, there's only one current vendor
Page 220
December 11-12, 2012
under the contract number that's identified in this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- title. So that, in essence, takes care of itself. If
you're directing that we process a work order for that work under this
contract number, that's all we need to know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that appropriate?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, is that -- I want it done in,
you know, the most --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I'm saying --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- technical, correct way.
MR. KLATZKOW: What you're doing is fine. What I'm saying
is that it's out of the ordinary --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No doubt.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- how it's being presented to the board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I understand that. I understand
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Leo's statement is exactly
what I proposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So what --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just, if you would direct us to process a
work order for the services under the contract specified, which is
Contract No. 10-5571, we will proceed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Then would you like to
restate your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, what's the --
MR. OCHS: I don't really think it's necessary, ma'am. We
understand the intent, and I think we can accomplish the board's
objective here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The key is -- and to get those
deliverables in place as quickly as possible so that we can update that
dredge permit to get the problem solved. However you think is
Page 221
December 11-12, 2012
appropriate.
MR. OCHS: We'll start on it in the morning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Whatever -- I trust your
judgment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not today? You have 15
minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I completely --
MR. OCHS: No, I have all night, sir. It's just a matter of how
long --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So just to summarize, I -- you know
what needs to be done, and we don't need a motion on this then?
MR. OCHS: No, I think we need -- we need the motion. So I
would suggest maybe you amend the motion to direct the staff to
prepare a work order under Contract No. 10-5571 .
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I amend my motion to
reflect that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. And then the remainder of that
title, and that will take care of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
And I appreciate your help trying to figure out how to get to the
ultimate objective, because it was kind of difficult trying to figure it
out. And Jeff and I discussed it, and we really weren't sure what the
best approach was, and this was the closest we came.
So, Commissioner Coyle, thank you for your recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I have a question or two.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead,
Page 222
December 11-12, 2012
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what the scope of work
is. There's nothing here in -- there's no backup material or anything.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And was staff able to weigh in on
this, you know, to even have any say in this? And also, did it -- was it
able to be put into your budget? I mean, was it part of your budget, or
is this something we're taking money from? Or where are we getting
the money from to do this? None of that is stated in here either.
I mean -- and do we have the money to do? And does that -- and
the clerk says this is perfectly fine, right, without going to bid, without
doing anything? Without having a scope of work? I've never heard
that we're able to accept that before.
MS. KINZEL: No. Commissioner, the scope of work, I believe,
is defined by your existing agreement. The scope of work that then
would be let by the work order is already defined by the contract
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if I brought something up like
this, I would be able to get it approved then?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, we're not predetermining
payment nor are we predetermining a contract. The very specifics of
this issue had been reviewed previously. So we don't make just
blanket -- no, you can't just bring anything with no scope, with no
anything. I don't think that's the circumstance here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: But we would have to review each and every
item separately.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you've already reviewed all of
this.
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is -- what budget does this
come out of?
Page 223
December 11-12, 2012
MS. KINZEL: Budget isn't the clerk's issue. If you would like to
direct that to the county manager. That's not our issue.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. Commissioner -- Commissioner, if I may.
We have a -- we have an engineering firm already engaged doing the
work to secure the permit.
As I understand the new direction, we will cease work with that
engineering firm and engage a different vendor under a different
contract to continue that work --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we've already got somebody
doing this. We want to relieve them of that duty and choose
somebody else; is that what you're saying?
MR. OCHS: That's my understanding of the board direction
being proposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In part.
MR. OCHS: In part, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just in part. But it's because the
permit needs to be modified from what they did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if you did that, the clerk
would be all over you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they'd never pay it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. OCHS: So there's budget there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So there's what?
MR. OCHS: There is budget in place as long as we don't pay
both of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will the other guy sue us because
we've changed in midstream?
MR. OCHS: We have a "termination for convenience clause" in
most your contracts, Commissioner. We'll exercise that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wow. How rotten. Okay.
MR. OCHS: You have speakers.
Page 224
December 11-12, 2012
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Madam Chairwoman, we have six public
speakers for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which, incidentally, just to clarify,
was what happened to the previous contractors. They were, I guess,
you know, basically told to stop when the new ones were selected.
MR. OCHS: I'm not making a judgment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're not. No, I'm not -- I'm
just -- I'm just -- I had my head to -- it's like, yeah. Just so you
understand, this is just actually restoring what was.
Go ahead.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker on this item is Jim
Hoppensteadt. He would be followed by Rich Yovanovich.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Oh, God, no.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Waive.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Yovanovich is a no as well.
Marcia Cravens, and she will be followed by Linda Roth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a break.
MS. CRAVENS: Hi. I'd like to clarify a couple of items, if I
might.
The Pelican Bay Services Division does have a state and federal
permit. While the state permit -- the State of Florida rules require
bifurcation of state permits whereby one is a permit for the interior
areas, and a separate permit for Clam Pass is required by the State of
Florida, there is no requirement to bifurcate the federal permit. That
federal permit was issued to the Pelican Bay Services Division that
included being consistent with the Clam Bay Restoration and
Long-term Management Plan.
So the Clam Bay Restoration and Long-term Management Plan is
actually an authorization reference material to a permit that the
Pelican Bay Services Division is already responsible for. And Turrell,
Hall & Associates are actually under contract with the Pelican Bay
Page 225
December 11-12, 2012
Services Division to be the consultant for the Clam Bay Restoration
and Long-term Management Plan already. So this work order is
absolutely consistent with the contract that firm already has.
And the Pelican Bay Services Division also has the engineering
firm of Humiston & Moore. Already, they're registered, their engineer
of record for the very same permits for a state permit and a federal
permit.
The problem is that Collier County Coastal Zone Management
Department has insisted on a second federal permit, which is not
consistent with anything else that has been before you.
And it is the Sierra Club's recommendation that that second
permit actually be withdrawn and that the federal permit that the
Pelican Bay Services Division already holds could be revised or
modified to again include excavation, such as dredging of Clam Pass.
That's how it -- the prior federal permit was. It was a holistic
permit for all of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay System. Sierra Club
believes that is still the right thing to do.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Linda Roth. She'll be
followed by Kathy Worley.
MS. ROTH: Hi, Linda Roth again. I urge the commission to
support this recommendation because the Clam Bay NRPA is in need
of an updated comprehensive management plan to ensure its health
and survival for the enjoyment of present and future residents and
visitors.
Turrell, Hall & Associates have been working in Clam Bay since
the '90s with input from a group of knowledgable local environmental
scientists and specialists, such as Conservancy, Audubon, Sierra Club,
MAG.
You can be certain that an appropriate comprehensive
management plan for Clam Bay Nature Preserve will be developed.
Page 226
December 11-12, 2012
Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Kathy Worley.
She'll be followed by Ted Raia.
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Good afternoon. Kathy Worley from the
Conservancy.
The idea to manage Clam Bay Pass and the bays as a whole is
something I've advocated since the early '90s. This is not just to
include the mangroves. You're talking water quality. You're talking
seagrass, flow, dredging, the benthic, you know, and also human use.
You have to look at this thing all together.
And in regard to this item, I urge you to modify the
recommendation that directs one entity, Turrell, Hall & Associates, to
develop plans and, instead, establish a scientific working group for
this that includes all the stakeholder that have worked real hard to
preserve this system and have the scientists -- scientific expertise
necessary to assist in the planned development.
In particular are those groups that developed the original plan,
which was Collier County Natural Resources Department at the time.
Audubon, MAG, the Conservancy; there was also others that probably
wouldn't be interested at this date because they've already solved the
die-off problem, which was Karen McKee and Robin Lewis.
But Turrell, Hall was then hired to ramrod the plan that was
developed by those entities and also the Pelican MSTBU at the time.
Now, basically, I think the plan will have more validity if you get
all the scientists together and get them to at least come to a consensus
ahead of time.
Now, I know, Commissioner Coyle, you have issues with
working groups or lots -- you know, of individuals, but I think if you
just keep it to the science, you might actually get somewhere. At least
I hope that we can come to a consensus. I still believe that you can
with working groups. And it was proven with the Wiggins Pass
Page 227
December 11-12, 2012
working group. That one did work.
And so -- and just to -- maybe if you could have a scientific
working group that would work together that has interest in Clam Bay
to develop the overall management plan with Turrell, Hall maybe
acting as the lead agent to ramrod the thing, or some other entity or
some other individual who's willing to chair such a thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Kathy, let me make a suggestion,
and that is, you go talk to them, you know. And as the work order is
developed, you know, talk to Turrell, Hall. And as everybody is
working together to develop, you know, the deliverables as I've
outlined them, I'm sure your input would be appreciated --
MS. WORLEY: Well, it's not just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- graciously accepted.
MS. WORLEY: -- me. There's other science.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But -- we'll bring everyone to the --
you know, just talk to them.
MS. WORLEY: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I certainly support a working
group after this direction is given to bring all the parties together to
work together on developing the plan, as I indicated to you.
MS. WORLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Kathy, where did you get the idea
that I don't like working groups?
MS. WORLEY: Oh, you had said something about having too
many people doing too many different things earlier today --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MS. WORLEY: -- on another topic.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MS. WORLEY: Well, I misunderstood you then. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. But I'll tell you what I object
to. I object to a predetermination of a conclusion and/or an
Page 228
December 11-12, 2012
organization without including all of the people who have a stake in
the process.
MS. WORLEY: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I object to.
MS. WORLEY: Okay. Thanks, sorry.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Ted Raia, and he
will be followed by Robert Naegele, Jr.
DR. RAIA: Having been on the Pelican Bay Service Division at
the time that permit was yanked by the Board of County
Commissioners, I strongly support giving that company the
opportunity to do the last 10 percent and only pay for that.
I wish the concern that the commissioners are placing before
them now was exercised back in 2008 when they decided to terminate
a permit that was completely paid for. And, you know, we should not
be -- do anything like that again.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your last public speaker on this item is Robert
Naegele, Jr.
MR. NAEGELE: I ceded my time.
MR. MILLER: And he waives.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a motion on the table
presented by Commissioner Henning, seconded by myself.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with Fiala --
Page 229
December 11-12, 2012
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we need a break for the court
reporter, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. I was going to suggest -- I
would like to -- I mean, since we've come to the end of these items, I
think there's only one more item that we should hear, which is -- you
wanted to hear the --
MR. OCHS: Well, you had one more time-certain item at 4:30
that you haven't taken up yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which one is that? Yeah, we are
going to take a break now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 11C, D, and E.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three items. It's 11C, D, and E.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just wanted to let everybody know
how long we were going to be, because if people wanted to leave, just
so they know what's ahead of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Speaking on that, can we take a
break at 7 o'clock and reconvene in the morning?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we take a break earlier than 7
o'clock?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we could, but however, I
have things going on tomorrow, also.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, yeah. But it's up to you. I
mean, would -- I personally --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, 7 o'clock is fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to work till 7?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have an engagement at 6.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got all day tomorrow to do
the rest of this. Let's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What time is your engagement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One.
Page 230
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do the 4:30 time-certain and
then be finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To answer your question 1 --
and 3 for sure. The 1 o'clock I can move.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, we can discuss that
when we get back. Can you just tell me what items we have ahead of
us today for sure?
MR. OCHS: Well, ma'am, like I said, you have the one
time-certain for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which time-concern is that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: 11C, D, and E.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 11C, D, and E.
MR. OCHS: That was 11E -- 11E. C and D were continued
when you set the agenda. So 11E would be your next item, and then
depending on if the board wants to hear the advertised public hearing
on the variance and the related boat-dock extension.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: The petitioner's been here, I think, most of the day
waiting for that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. We'll get that heard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why is that one on 11?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll take a break now for 10
minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A time-certain?
MR. OCHS: How long is your break, ma'am?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ten minutes.
MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've had some people that
Page 231
December 11-12, 2012
have been waiting for a long time. Some of them came from --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And we are going to
accommodate them. We're going to continue this meeting till 6
o'clock. If you would like to be heard before 6 o'clock, please advise
the county manager. He and I have worked through a priority of what
we can squeeze in till six.
And this is an enormous agenda, and we appreciate your
patience. But he will guide us through the next hour. So if you want
to be heard tonight, please let him know, and he will put you in the
queue.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, thank you. The first order of
business is to take care of your time-certain item that was scheduled
for 4:30. That is Item 11F.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: E.
Item #1 l E
THE EXPENDITURE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY "A" TAX FUNDS FOR A PEER REVIEW OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES VOLUME DESIGN BY ATKINS
NORTH AMERICAN, INC. UNDER CONTRACT NO. 09-5262-CZ
FOR A LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF $33,365 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, 11E -- my apologies. 11E on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the
expenditure of Tourist Development Category A tax funds for a peer
review of the Collier County beaches volume design by Atkins
Northern America under Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump-sum
amount of$33,365.
The board has discussed this item before. Mr. McAlpin can
answer questions or make a brief presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
Page 232
December 11-12, 2012
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, you do have two
registered speakers on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Can you call the speakers?
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Marcia Cravens. She
will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Bob has stepped out.
MS. CRAVENS: Good evening. I do not have a hard-copy
document. I just had not had time to pull it together. This is not only
a very busy agenda for the commissioners and staff, but also for those
of us who try to be well informed and provide supporting
documentations for our comments. So I don't have the actual
documents with me, but I can certainly provide them.
I object to this particular agenda item. And the purchasing policy
of Collier County may not allow it. If you consider the rules about
corruption and companies that have been prosecuted and convicted of
corruption charges, which the employee/staff of the Atkins of North
America firm are -- it's actually an affiliate firm. The Post, Buckley,
Schuh & Jernigan employees, they are the actual individuals, and that
is the actual firm that would be doing this peer review.
And they are affiliates of the Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan
firm that was convicted of embezzlement and all kinds of corruption
in the State of Florida.
Besides those issues -- and I believe in your purchasing policy it
indicates that Collier County does not award contracts or do business
with firms that are even affiliates, which means that an employee or
CEO that has been convicted, that their other employees -- any
relationship amongst them makes them an affiliate, and they fall under
those provisions in your purchasing policy. And I would ask you to
please investigate that.
Page 233
December 11-12, 2012
But in addition to that, I have had to expend an enormous amount
of time and effort because the current pending permit, particularly the
federal permit for Clam Bay, has materials that were submitted by this
firm's employees that are grossly misrepresentative and inaccurate.
And I have had to go behind them and provide materials to the Corps
and their federal consultant agencies documenting how inaccurate and
misrepresentative those materials are.
And that's really all I have to say about it. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Crystal, is there any comment you have with respect to these
revelations?
MS. KINZEL: No. I haven't looked at that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does that impede our ability to
award this contract?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, unless it's researched -- I mean, I
-- that's a statement on the record. And perhaps purchasing has other
comments. I have not looked into that firm or that aspect.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Have you looked into it,
purchasing?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They're doing other work for the
county, I know that.
MS. MARKEIWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director. This is the first time I've heard about that comment,
Commissioner, so I will look forward to the information.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. Could --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we've had this contractor do
multiple projects over several years, and we've always been satisfied
with the work for --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are they not doing the watershed
management plan, Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they did.
Page 234
December 11-12, 2012
MS. MARKEIWICZ: Under this contract, we have over
$450,000 over the last three years issued to this firm.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
MS. MARKEIWICZ: And -- Gary? Yes, they are doing the
watershed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a question. How are you
going to research this?
MS. MARKEIWICZ: I hope Ms. Cravens would provide me
with some additional information, and then we'll do some independent
research as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I hope you contact Akins --
Atkins.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Atkins is the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Atkins North America and make
them aware of the allegations.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Atkins was just acquired.
MS. MARKEIWICZ: I will do that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We could also have the county
attorney research any cases against them.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm Googling them now, and they're coming
up clean. So I mean, I'll tell you, I'll get with purchasing after this. If
we find something, I'll get with the county manager, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. Well, if you could do
the research, County Attorney and purchasing, and then please email
the board in a one-way communication as to what you've uncovered, I
would appreciate that. Thank you.
With that, we have a motion on the table. If there are no -- if
there's no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
Page 235
December 11-12, 2012
Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioner Henning and Nance dissenting.
Item #11F
DENIAL OF A LENDER'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. TRICIA JENKS, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER CESD20090001470,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 830 3RD STREET
NW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS CONTRARY TO
RESOLUTION 2012-46 - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to move, if I could, next
to the next item under 11, which is 11F. It's a recommendation to
deny a lender's offer of settlement in the code enforcement action
entitled "Board of County Commissioners versus Tricia Jenks, Code
Enforcement Case No. CESD20090001470, relating to property
located at 830 3rd Street Northwest, Collier County, Florida, as
contrary to Resolution 2012-46."
Ms. Diane Flagg, your Code Enforcement Director, will present.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Diane, could you just briefly outline
why this offer of settlement is nonconforming with the resolution?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, ma'am. Under board policy, $74,000 is
eligible for a waiver.
There were two banks on the consent agenda that did follow the
board policy. This property is currently appraised at $411,443. The
calculation is based upon -- at 30 days after certificate of title, any
Page 236
December 11-12, 2012
fines that accrue prior to that would be eligible for waiver.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So you're recommending denial?
MS. FLAGG: Based on board policy, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Any discussion?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I think there is a representative --
MR. MILLER: You have a registered speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Nicholas Vanhook.
MR. OCHS: Is that you?
MR. VANHOOK: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is he registered as a lobbyist?
MR. MILLER: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you register with the Clerk
of Court as a lobbyist? You're working for --
MR. VANHOOK: For the bank.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the bank?
MR. VANHOOK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you registered as a
lobbyist?
MR. VANHOOK: No, I did not. I spoke with Ms. Flagg to get
on today's agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know you're in
violation of local law if you're going to go ahead and present, but go
ahead.
MR. VANHOOK: Well, if I'm in violation of local law, I don't
think I should be presenting; however, I'm from Orlando.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can register afterwards.
MR. VANHOOK: I'm sorry?
Page 237
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can register afterwards.
MR. OCHS: We have a lot of people that register after the
presentation with the clerk, if--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't register now.
MR. OCHS: Well, no.
MR. VANHOOK: Am I able to register afterwards? I can do it
tomorrow and come back --
MR. KLATZKOW: We've allowed that in the past.
MR. VANHOOK: May I proceed?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would -- if the county attorney
says it's okay, if he can register first thing in the morning.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. We've allowed that in the past, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So as long as you register
first thing in the morning.
And, County Attorney, if you would confirm that. Because I do
believe it's a misdemeanor if you present without registering.
MR. VANHOOK: Okay. For clarification, I am from Orlando.
Is that able to be done -- does that have to be done in person?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. VANHOOK: So I need to stay the night to do that in
person, or can I do that online or over the phone?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll work it out.
MR. VANHOOK: I appreciate that. I just want to make sure
before I proceed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before you get arrested?
MR. VANHOOK: Well, I do have to go back to Orlando
tonight, so that's why I appreciate you letting me speak.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Now I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Depends on what you have to say
as to whether or not you get arrested.
MR. VANHOOK: Understood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You agree with us, right?
Page 238
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. VANHOOK: Thank you very much. First off, thank you
for letting me speak today before 6 p.m. so I could get back to
Orlando.
My name is Nicholas Vanhook. I do represent Residential Credit
Solutions in this action. My client is a bank, and they did take title to
this property through a foreclosure.
The code enforcement violation hearing that occurred on this was
back in 2009, November of 2009. My client didn't take title until
April of 2011, almost 18 months later.
Within a week of my client taking title, they began to take steps
to cure the violations that were on the property prior to my clients
taking title. In fact, they did $37,000 worth of repairs. I have invoices
of those, if the board would like to review them. But I have $37,000
of invoices in regards to that.
Additionally, my client has also put in an additional $200,000 to
maintain the property, to update the property.
We do have a purchaser at this time with a sale scheduled for
December 21st. We are trying to get that sale to go through. We are
concerned that it won't go through.
Your resolution speaks to a financial hardship in regards to the
consideration of reduction of a lien. I'm aware my client is a bank.
I'm aware they have more money than the average citizen in this
community.
But just to give you numbers, my client has taken a $1 .3 million
loss on this property. We're not asking the board to reduce the fines to
nothing; we're not. What the recommendation, according to your
ordinance, was is $50,400. We're requesting $25,000.
So we are not asking you to wipe everything away. We are just
trying to get it mitigated down more so we do not lose this seller that's
coming up on December 31st.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Any discussion?
Page 239
December 11-12, 2012
MR. VANHOOK: Would you guys like to see the invoices that I
have?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's up to the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we put it on the
overhead.
MR. VANHOOK: There's a bunch of them. The first one, that is
a week -- that is a week after my client took title to the property. And
I have a bunch more. I have a bunch more that go on through. I have
a bunch that go all the way through that total that $37,000 to keep this
property -- get this property into compliance. And these are not
including the additional $200,000 my client has paid to maintain the
property and to upgrade the property, to find the seller that can get the
property back into the hands of a citizen of Collier County.
We all know that there's too many bank-owned properties in this
county, in this state. So at this point we are trying to get it in the
hands of a citizen or worried we're going to lose a prospective buyer if
we don't get this -- these list liens reduced, because at this point I'm
not 100 percent sure if my client can afford to take even more of a loss
on this property.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But the reality is, all your -- well,
the bank, in selling the property, would just not reduce the price by
that amount.
MR. VANHOOK: And that's why we'll lose the seller -- or the
purchaser.
And to give you more exact numbers, the note on this property
was for -- let me find it. I believe it was $1 .9 million back when it
was taken out. We're selling this property for 400-something thousand
dollars. This doesn't include the amount of costs that we've put into it.
So we're trying to get this off of our hands. We're trying to get it
into someone else's hands, someone that lives here, someone that will
maintain it. And I understand that if it doesn't get -- if it doesn't get
approved, chances are my client will --
Page 240
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you.
Yes, we've forgiven other fines to some degree, and unless code
enforcement has a problem with that, I would say -- you're asking to
half it, right?
MR. VANHOOK: Yes, and that's the thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't see any problem with that.
You've paid all of the expenses to bring it up to code and so forth. We
didn't have to.
Diane, do you have any problem with that?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, just pursuant to board policy,
you're already waiving 74,000. So he's requesting -- in addition to the
74-, he's requesting another 25,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. How much money do we
have in the property?
MR. VANHOOK: If I may, though, in regards to the 74,000
that's being waived, before I answer your question. That 74,000 being
waived are fines that were accruing not under my client's ownership.
So that is why that 74,000 is there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. VANHOOK: But money into the property, to answer your
question, it's over $200,000 to get it up to code and to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So this was before they even
purchased the property, the 74,000, right? And we don't usually
charge them for -- until they've actually taken ownership, right?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, your policy is that you would
waive the fine that accrued prior to their ownership and 30 days with
their ownership. So 30 days of fines did accrue under their ownership.
So the recommendation is based upon your policy.
MR. VANHOOK: And my last point is, I understand the policy.
I'm just appealing to this board to ask for a forgiveness of a portion of
that. Because if we've spent $37,000 to get this property into
Page 241
December 11-12, 2012
compliance, it's not -- it's going to take more than 30 days to get that
done, you know. And it took approximately six to seven months to get
that accomplished. We can't get $37,000 worth of repairs done in 30
days.
And if we were a citizen in this community when the violation
occurred, we would have been noticed, and that would have given us
an opportunity to try to cure it. We would have shown up for a
hearing, which we could have asked for additional time to get it cured.
And then after that hearing, we would have had even more time to get
it cured.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd rather see this house get
into service again and get back to be a functioning taxpaying unit. So
I'm going to say I will go along with relieving the other $25,000 and
make a motion to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll support you in that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. What is the motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to accept staffs
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I did not hear that.
Excuse me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. So let's call the motion
that's on the table. Motion to deny, or said another way, to accept
staffs recommendation by Commissioner Hiller and seconded by
Commissioner Nance.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All opposed?
Page 242
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2.
MR. VANHOOK: Thank you for your time, and thank you for
hearing me today so I can go back. I will get with Mr -- I don't want
to butcher your name. I will get with him to make sure I don't get a
misdemeanor in Collier County the next time I come down.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He'll take good care of you.
MR. VANHOOK: I appreciate that.
Item #10Q
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH STEPHEN J. FLETCHER
LEGAL COUNSEL, BRING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO THE
BCC - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MR. FLETCHER'S LEGAL COUNSEL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I'd like to go to Item 10Q on your agenda, if we
could, Commissioners. We have an attorney here that's on the clock.
10Q is to direct the county attorney to negotiate a settlement
agreement with Stephen J. Fletcher, legal counsel, bring proposed
settlement to the BCC.
Commissioner Henning brought this item forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. What kind of a motion? I
mean, what kind of a settlement?
Page 243
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct the county attorney to
negotiate a settlement agreement --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with Stephen --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know that. I read that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Fletcher, legal counsel, and
bring back a proposed settlement to the BCC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that -- you don't have to be
sarcastic. I'm just asking the question. Do you mean a settlement to
pay them off? A settlement to settle the thing? A settlement to what?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To settle the case. What the terms
of this settlement are will be negotiated between the county through
the county attorney and the attorney who's representing Mr. Fletcher.
And they need to discuss, you know, what each side wants.
I mean, Jeff knows what the county's position is, and this
gentleman knows what Mr. Fletcher's position is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask you one more question
then. Haven't they been doing that? Is the reason you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, they're in litigation right now.
And the -- because we're in litigation with them, if a settlement is
achieved, the litigation against Mr. Curry will come to an end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Curry?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This is against Mr. Curry and Mr.
Vergo. This is -- Mr. Fletcher filed a lawsuit, I believe -- what was it,
Jeff-- enjoining Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo from interfering with his
business and whatever other issues there were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we negotiate some kind of a
settlement, does that make it sound like we're the ones that are at
fault?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 244
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. Usually when you negotiate a
settlement, neither party admits or denies fault, and they try to come to
terms to have this litigation go away.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that exactly what --
MR. RICHARDS: If I may?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. RICHARDS: Madam Chair, members of the commission,
my name is Richard L. Richards of Richards & Associates. I'm a
board certified aviation attorney, and I've been hired by Collier
County to defend Chris currently and Thomas Vergo in the lawsuit.
Basically, your employees are being sued for doing their job.
They -- everything -- every allegation in the lawsuit basically is
something that they do on a regular basis. For example, your
employees are being -- they're being sued for reporting violations to
the FAA.
So in our -- in our view, the lawsuit is frivolous and is just a
method of harassment.
That being said, certainly there will be a mediation in the case
eventually, and the Court will order a mediation. And we certainly
would support, you know, a settlement but, you know, obviously the
devil's in the details.
You know, for instance, if you were to say to me right now that
Fletcher's going to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and reimburse
the county for all the legal fees, then certainly we would support that
sort of settlement. So the devil's in the details. But that being said, we
would certainly be amenable to the process.
But I just want to -- and I'm probably preaching to the choir, but
if this sort of behavior is rewarded in any way, you are going to open
up the flood gates against your employees for doing their jobs, and
then people are going to figure out, well, then all I have to do is bring
a lawsuit against them individually and I get a better result than I got
when they were just doing their jobs. I think everyone's got to be
Page 245
December 11-12, 2012
mindful of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Except for the fact that -- the claim
on the part of Mr. Fletcher is that they were not doing their job and
that they were overreaching and that the complaints filed against Mr.
Fletcher were without merit. So that's a factual dispute.
And I think to say that the suit is frivolous is a very dangerous
claim, because we have hired you to defend this, and I think this --
you know, the suit is serious.
MR. RICHARDS: Well, it's serious, but you -- for instance, you
cannot bring an action against an employee for doing their job; it's
against -- then -- it's against -- there's laws against that.
And so the Court has already dismissed the complaint once. And
the Court -- and what happens in litigation, the Court will dismiss the
complaint and give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
They've amended the complaint but they haven't said anything
real different, so I imagine the Court's going to dismiss it one more
time, and eventually we're going to ask the Court to dismiss it with
prejudice.
So -- and, again, you know, even if your employee -- you know,
let's do the reporting of the FAA violations. Even if your employee
was wrong in that it wasn't an FAA violation, that's their job to report
it.
And if you have a situation where you allow somebody to sue
your employee for reporting FAA violations in order to get a leg up,
guess what? You're going to have a chilling effect on your employees
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unless it was done -- unless it was
done maliciously, which is what the allegation is.
MR. RICHARDS: Right. But it -- either way, it's within their
job function. It'd be one thing if the employee does something that's
outside of their job function, such as if the employee got in a fight
with Fletcher, something like that, then they might be sued
Page 246
December 11-12, 2012
individually. You can't sue them individually for something they do
within their job function. And I expect the Court to eventually dismiss
the case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Isn't the suit also against the
county?
MR. RICHARDS: No, the county is not a party to the suit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So it's strictly against the
two employees?
MR. RICHARDS: It's strictly against the individuals.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think negotiations --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd make a motion not to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to move forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- already have a motion on the
table. Didn't you make a motion? Yeah. We have a motion already
on the table and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was seconded by
Commissioner Nance. It was stated on the record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a big mistake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It really, really is. We're not
supporting our airport staff in enforcing regulations only because we
have some commissioners who have gotten real friendly with Mr.
Fletcher. And that's what it's all about here, and that's unfortunate,
because that works to the disadvantage of Collier County.
We're trying to operate a professional airport, and we have
people, pilots who are not conducting themselves in a professional
manner. And, really, something should be done about that.
So I think it's a real big mistake for the board to insert itself in
here just to be doing a favor for Mr. Fletcher. This decision should be
Page 247
December 11-12, 2012
based upon the merits of the case, and nobody has asked this lawyer
what the merits really are here. You haven't gotten a good description
of the defenses and allegations. And to make a decision without that
is clearly a decision based on personal bias.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think this attorney has outlined
what he sees is his position in the case.
You know, we're not going to sit here and summarize the entire
case. It's a matter of public record. In fact, it's in the court records.
The county attorney can summarize it for you if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think he can, but I would be
happy to hear him try.
But nevertheless, the point is that it's not the county attorney
that's making this decision. It is this board. And if you're not familiar
with the issues related to this case, trying to make a decision to make
it go away is, in fact, a failure to perform your duties.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely not.
Isn't it always in everyone's best interest to try to achieve a
settlement in litigation? Don't the majority of cases resolve through
litigation -- I mean, through settlement? Do we want to spend the
taxpayers' money, you know, litigating, litigating, litigating if we can
resolve this to the county's benefit in a fair way through these
negotiations? Are you against settlement?
MR. RICHARDS: I am not against --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sure you -- I mean -- go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah. In a perfect world, I would wait until
-- to see if the Court's going to dismiss the case, but I can understand
that there are other issues going on here.
Certainly a negotiated settlement is usually better than a trial,
absolutely. What gives me pause in this case is that you are -- again,
you are going to be rewarding this -- you're basically having the signal
that if you don't like what an employee is doing within their job
function, all you've got to do is bring a lawsuit and name them
Page 248
December 11-12, 2012
individually, and you might get a leg up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't think that that's the case here.
I mean, I don't think that that's what the case -- I don't think that that's
what they're alleging.
I think what they alleged is very serious, and I think the facts are
very serious. And I really -- I think your first statement that a
settlement is always better than litigation is absolutely true. And, you
know, we're dealing with taxpayer money, and I can't see throwing
away the possibility of you negotiating a fair settlement and saving us,
you know, I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars in
litigation if that ensues if there is no settlement or if there's no attempt
at a settlement. I mean, you should at least try it. And if it doesn't
work, you know, we'll continue litigating.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One more question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if these --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, the question has been
called.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I want to ask one more
question before I can vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if they, again, misbehave on the
airport, does this mean if they call for the settlement, then our people
can't report them to anybody? They just have to take it on their chin?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. RICHARDS: No. I think the -- you know, certainly from
my client's perspective, it would have to be a settlement, again -- you
know, our starting point would be a dismissal of the case with
prejudice and pay back Collier County's legal fees, you know, if you
were to ask me where I would start in a settlement negotiation
Page 249
December 11-12, 2012
because, quite frankly, I think that should be the just outcome of this
case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I mean, every attorney on the
opposing side is going to say exactly what you said as their starting
position, and that is a fair starting position, because the other guy's
going to say the same thing.
MR. RICHARDS: But if we go -- if we go any -- if you get
further away from that position, my fear is that you're just going to
open up the flood gates. But to answer your question, Madam Chair,
yes, I would support a settlement. You know, certainly we could have
it as a mediation. The Court's going to eventually order us to mediate
the case, so we could have a mediation, and -- so that -- I'm not
opposed to that, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think what we should do is
start with a negotiated settlement, and if that fails, go to mediation.
MR. RICHARDS: It's good to have a neutral in these things.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You guys can't negotiate directly? I
mean, start. Start going directly, and then if that fails, then get a
mediator.
MR. RICHARDS: I have no problem doing that, Your Honor
(sic).
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said that right. Call the
motion again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a question. Hey, my light is
on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry. The question was called.
Page 250
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You called it several times, and
our rules allow it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have something to say here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. So all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you are going --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, you're out of
order.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You are going to be negotiating a
settlement. What is the Court's next step, and when is it likely to
occur?
MR. RICHARDS: The Court is going to hear, on December
18th, a motion to dismiss their amended complaint.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So just, what, nine or 10
days from now the Court is going to rule on something that will make
any settlement that we wish to pursue probably easier to achieve; is
that true?
MR. RICHARDS: Easier or harder.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. RICHARDS: I mean, it depends on how -- it depends on
your perspective. It's the uncertainty that usually -- that usually breeds
the best settlement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Exactly. This is the best time. And
if you're looking for the county's best interest or, if you want, for your
client's best interest, this is the best time to negotiate it. You're right at
the eve of it turning either way.
MR. RICHARDS: I will -- yeah, we will start the settlement
negotiations and raise it to mediation and continue on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And hopefully it can -- you know,
you'll take a fair approach in everybody's best interest.
Page 251
December 11-12, 2012
MR. RICHARDS: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. So again, it was a 3-2
vote, with Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Thank you.
Item #12A
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
PROHIBITIONS TO THE POSSESSION, PROVISION, SALE, OR
DISTRIBUTION OF ILLICIT SYNTHETIC DRUGS IN COLLIER
COUNTY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'd like to go to Item 12A, which
was previously 16K1. That was a recommendation to request for
authorization to advertise and bring back for future consideration an
ordinance establishing prohibitions to the possession, provision, sale,
or distribution of illicit synthetic drugs in Collier County.
Commissioner Hiller brought this item forward from the consent
agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. This is a very important
item.
At the last meeting I asked that the board support me in bringing
forward an ordinance against the sale and distribution of synthetic
drugs, and the county attorney has crafted a very well developed
ordinance which will be a starting point and will be enhanced with
input -- with further input from Drug Free Collier, the Sheriffs Office,
and the State Attorney's Office. So this is a starting point.
And I just wanted the county attorney to very briefly summarize
what he is putting forward, and then we can just go ahead and vote on
it.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're basically trying -- we're basically
Page 252
December 11-12, 2012
trying to outlaw poison in the community. There's no other way to put
it.
It's been very difficult for the states and the Feds to regulate this,
because every time they come up with a definition of the chemical
composition that they're trying to prohibit, the chemists change them.
And what we're trying to do is anybody basically selling these
items, these synthetic marijuana or these bath salts, will be unlawful in
Collier County.
I've worked with the Sheriffs Office on this. He's reviewed this
ordinance with the state attorney. The state attorney is more than
willing to prosecute under this.
This is a new approach. There will be constitutional issues raised
by this but, you know, I'm always looking for profit and loss in things,
and there's no loss on this. I mean, this is just poison in the
community.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. No, thank you so much
for doing it and doing it so quickly.
With that, I'd like to make a motion to approve.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have one public speaker
registered for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I ask you a favor? Can we
announce that we have public speakers on an item right after Leo
announces the item, because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See that green light.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know, but it's always on. I don't
know if it -- if you do what Commissioner Coyle does which is just
leave it on? Oh, you actually turn it off? You're not like him?
MR. MILLER: No, I turn it off. I'm sorry. I've been turning it
off. We've just had a lot of speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Well, because all day long I
see it on, so I'm like --
MR. MILLER: If you want me to say something at the --
Page 253
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would prefer, yeah.
MR. MILLER: -- beginning of the item, I will certainly do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Thank you so much.
We have a motion and second, so go ahead and let the public
speakers speak.
MR. MILLER: Melanie Block (sic) is your only public speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I support the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I just -- it's easier for
me when I hear Leo say, yeah, we do have -- or you say just, we have
public speakers. Then everybody knows.
MS. BLACK: Hi. For the record, my name's Melanie Black.
I'm the Executive Director for Drug Free Collier.
Thank you, County Commissioners, for directing the county
attorney to draft this ordinance on synthetic drugs, which is currently
being sold in many of our convenience stores.
We fully support moving forward with this ordinance, and we
feel it will make a significant difference in our drug-prevention efforts
and the ability to enforce this product that has become a nuisance in
our county.
We should not delay the progress that's been made on this
ordinance, and we would love to meet with you to identify additional
strategies to combat substance abuse in Collier County.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks. And we have a -- we're
going to have a meeting scheduled again with the group to further
bolster these laws. We've got to be tough on drugs.
MS. BLACK: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it was so interesting reading in
the backup material how they concoct one thing, and as soon as they
take it off the shelves, the chemists go back and put together
something else, and they disguise it in packages that make it look
inviting to kids --
Page 254
December 11-12, 2012
MS. BLACK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- then you get kids hooked into
drugs.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's something I'm sure
everybody can wholeheartedly support. And I think the more that you
-- the more information you get out to our community, the more you
can help the parents and grandparents to help their kids.
MS. BLACK: And we will continue to do that. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I think the board, more
likely than not, will be unanimous on this motion.
So with that, I'm going to go ahead and call the question, unless
you'd like to speak.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I just want to commend everybody
for moving this ahead rapidly. I think everybody's having to deal with
this, and it's good to be ahead of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. So all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much, County
Attorney.
What's the next item, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we had some members waiting
most of the day here to talk about your proposed Animal Control
Ordinance amendment. That is Item 11G. I'd like to go there, a
Page 255
December 11-12, 2012
recommendation to approve proposed changes that would repeal and
replace the Animal Control Ordinance and direct the county manager
or designee to advertise ordinance changes to be approved by the
board at a future meeting.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have three registered speakers
for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to get done in 11
minutes, 13 minutes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to -- County Manager,
I know you've negotiated the balance of the schedule with the people
who are here. Do you think we can get this done by 6 o'clock?
MR. OCHS: Do you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Speakers?
MS. TOWNSEND: I can move through my presentation as
quickly as possible, but there -- I do want the board to be aware of,
sort of, the process and how we arrived where we are right now.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, in that case, I think, perhaps, we
ought to set this for time-certain tomorrow morning. Pleasure of the
board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you prefer that? It looks like
MR. KEPI): Can we do the speakers before she does her
presentation?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. OCHS: Well, no. I think you should do it all at one
hearing. I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So could you please coordinate with
our staff for a time-certain tomorrow, and -- you can talk to Leo.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if the board's going to reconvene at
nine, we can set this for the first item.
Page 256
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Nine o'clock.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If the public speakers don't want to
come back, I have absolutely no qualms in listening to them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Nine o'clock tomorrow? Okay. So
nine o'clock time-certain.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
MS. MacALISTER: Thank you.
MR. KEPP: And will we have to register tomorrow?
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. MILLER: I will hold on to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He'll take them home and bring
them back in the morning. Safekeeping.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. What's the next item?
Item #10R
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO SEEK A FLORIDA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION REGARDING AUTHORIZED
USES OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - MOTION TO
APPROVE THE REVISED QUESTIONS TO SEND TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That will take us back to Board of County
Commissioners Item 10R, which was direct the county attorney to
seek a Florida Attorney General opinion regarding authorized uses of
tourist development tax.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have two registered public
speakers on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I'd like to make a
motion to approve this. And I want to commend you, Commissioner
Henning, because this has been on my mind for two years. So I'm
very glad that you're bringing this forward. This is definitely
Page 257
December 11-12, 2012
something that we need.
And I would ask you to work with the county attorney and the
clerk to define, you know, what we're seeking in this letter, because
not only are we talking about how funds are used for dredging, we're
also talking about how these TDC funds are used for beach park
facilities, which has been debated as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, the Florida opinion -- Attorney
General opinion we're asking for is part of your agenda backup.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. It's just about the dredging.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you'll be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. But I really would like you
to consider beach park facilities in your question also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like me to put
something together in the future meeting on --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, could you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- AGO?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. And I would be happy -- if
you wanted to have two opinions, that works, too. But I just think it's
fantastic that you're asking the question. We need clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you made a motion, so I'll
second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's a good idea. The
question is, I believe that the proposed question submitted by the
county attorney is flawed in -- slightly, I would say.
On packet Page 851, the last question asks whether the use of
tourist development funds is consistent with and authorized by the
appropriate section when said dredging projects are used for beach
renourishment and erosion control.
Page 258
December 11-12, 2012
Dredging projects, to the best of my knowledge, are not used for
beach renourishment and erosion control.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dredging projects are done for inlet
management. The sand from the dredging projects, rather than being
trucked away or otherwise disposed, are used on the downdrift side of
the project. I think that should be clear in the question that's being
asked of the Attorney General, because it is not appropriate to ask a
question that confuses the purpose of the dredging project.
The dredging project is for inlet management. The sand from the
dredging project is used for beach renourishment and, perhaps, erosion
control. And we have to understand what will happen if the attorney
general misinterprets what we're doing and says, no, the sand can't be
used for beach renourishment. What are you going to do with it? Are
you going to truck away? How much is that going to cost you?
So it's an important question, and it deserves to be phrased
properly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is not -- not what it says --
is can we use tourist development dollars when we do maintenance as
long as we put that sand on the beach for beach renourishment. It
doesn't say -- when we do maintenance or dredging in passes, we all
know our policy states that if it's not used on the beach, it can't be used
-- you can't use TDC funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, I have a
good ability to read and comprehend what I'm reading, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm reading the question, and
my interpretation is absolutely correct. It does not say anything about
sand. It says when said dredging projects are used for beach
renourishment and erosion control.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay?
Page 259
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're talking about using the sand
from the dredging projects. There is a difference in those two
statements.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if I may. I can break it down into two
questions then, because I understand Commissioner Coyle's -- I think I
understand Commissioner Coyle's issue. The first thing would be
whether or not we can use TDC monies for pass and inlet
maintenance, period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the second question is, can we use
TDC monies for pass and inlet maintenance if we're using the sand
required during the dredging process to renourish our beaches.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I actually --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That works.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's fine. And I think
there's really a third question that should be asked, and that is, what is
the definition of a public beach for purposes of applying TDC funds in
the manner described above.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that could be in the
second question about beach park facility if we need to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well -- but that -- but this is --
because this goes directly to the dredging. In fact, it addresses, for
example, Hideaway Beach.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe we should clarify the
dredging question. I believe Commissioner Coyle is correct. I
understand what he's saying. We need to define whether it's dredging
a project to remove or a project to obtain product to put on the beach.
There's a -- there's a difference. I mean, they can be one in the same,
but they don't have to be.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think Commissioner Coyle's
Page 260
December 11-12, 2012
absolutely correct; you should clarify that if possible.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But then again, you also have the
issue of whether or not the sand that's being sourced is properly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- being placed on a public beach
versus a private beach, or just as a third question, define the difference
between a public and a private beach for purposes of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are no private beaches.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public access --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- beach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There are no private
beaches. It is an eligible beach, or it is an ineligible beach, depending
upon where the parking spaces are.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And let's call it -- let's ask for the
definition of what is an eligible beach for purposes of application of
TDC funds.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're making this way too complicated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, they're trying to just get
it away from a Hideaway Beach. So we all understand that. Let's just
put it where it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here we go again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I wanted to know is, when
you're talking about --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, actually it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- dredging a pass, I don't care
where the pass is, and you're talking about disposing of the sediment,
sand, whatever you dredge up, do you -- even if it's on an island that
nobody ever uses but it's close enough that you can dispose of the
sand, is it better to do that, or is it better to truck it someplace,
especially if it's sand that can't really be used much of anyplace else,
or is it better to put it on an ineligible or -- what did you call it?
Page 261
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ineligible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- ineligible beach rather than spend
the money to truck it all away?
MR. KLATZKOW: The first question would be, can we use
TDC funds for inlet management, period. So if you're dredging, just
for dredging, can you use TDC funds. And the second question would
be, okay -- and if the answer to that is no -- all right. So if the answer
to that is yes, we're done, all right. If the answer to that question is no,
would it be appropriate to use TDC funds for dredging if we used the
sands on eligible beaches.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But the definition of eligible -- well,
they might just define it as a matter of course.
MR. OCHS: It's statutorily defined.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's statutorily defined, ineligible beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the statutory definition is 100
parking spots and a public bathroom facility, which, for example,
Hideaway would not qualify for.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I agree. It's all related to the state
cost-share formula, as you know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: And that's why you have a funding policy that
augments your ordinance that defines opportunities for expenditure of
TDC funds on both eligible and ineligible beaches when the board
deems that to be a public benefit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Let me go ahead and turn
back to Commissioner Henning and ask him if he would like to amend
his motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To include the inlet pass
dredging?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To basically --
MR. KLATZKOW: Two-part.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- include the two parts.
Page 262
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, two parts; yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'd like to do is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's your motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- before I send it out to the Attorney
General -- because we're not going to be meeting again for a while, I'll
get, you know, one-way communication, the proposed letter to the
Attorney General, and if there are any changes you want, any
commissioner could just get it back to me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, that's fine. I think that's very
fair.
All right. Well, I'll amend my motion to include the revised
questions in two parts as described by the county attorney. Do I have
a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second; I'll amend my second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we had the two public speakers.
Your first registered speaker is Burt Saunders, and he'll be followed
by Bruce Anderson.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. I'll be really quick, because I think I understand the
two questions. They deal with dredging issues. They don't deal with
the construction of T-Groins and other beach erosion control
structures. You're talking about just dredging.
If that's the narrow question, that doesn't impact the project on
Marco Island. I mean, I -- yeah, I'm sorry -- on Marco Island at
Hideaway Beach.
I would like to ask, if we could -- you passed the motion to
reconsider. If you could schedule that for the first meeting in January,
that particular item, that would be appreciated by the City Council of
Page 263
December 11-12, 2012
Marco Island.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That shouldn't be a problem.
MR. SAUNDERS: All right. And then, again, the two narrow
questions -- I will say just, gratuitously -- it has nothing to do with
Marco Island or anything. You do have to be real careful what you
ask for, if you ask for an opinion from the attorney general.
And I've got a lot of research here. There was discussion about
parking facilities or other park facilities. You can't use TDC funds for
that type of thing, but might want to just, you know, make sure that
when you ask the question, make sure that that question hasn't already
been answered, because a lot of the questions that you are raising have
already been answered by the Attorney General. But this doesn't affect
Marco Island or Hideaway Beach, so I will sit down.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the total question. I think
the motion is send a letter, and we're amending it to include -- and just
inlet passes, and then inlet passes that the sand goes on a eligible
beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I'll amend my --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that correct?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep. I'll amend my motion in that
manner, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I mean, I think we ought to
let Mr. Saunders speak to the issue because he has a
misunderstanding.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, just real quickly. And I do have some
research here. I will tell you I think the first two questions that are in
this letter that the county attorney has drafted have already been
answered by the Attorney General --
The first question deals with erosion control structures. Whether
it's an ineligible beach or an eligible beach, it deals with the erosion
control structures.
Page 264
December 11-12, 2012
You clearly can use TDC funds for erosion control structures.
The Attorney General has opined in numerous occasions that if you
have a project like a T-groin that is eligible, the question that you --
that has to be asked is, is it in the public interest, number one, and,
number two, does it promote tourism.
And the Attorney General has said over and over and over again,
the Attorney's General not going to answer those two questions.
That's something that has to be answered by the governing body --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- the county commission.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're right.
MR. SAUNDERS: And so, if you're -- Question No. 1 has been
answered on numerous occasions. Question No. 2 -- and I will refer
you to Attorney General Opinion 2010-09 dealing with the public
interest question and the promotion of tourism.
The second question is dealing with dredging projects. There are
AGOs -- and I'll cite you to one -- dealing with a dredging project.
That's Attorney General Opinion 91-62 dealing with dredging in the
Crystal River area. That's in -- within a river, and the Attorney
General has opined that dredging fits within the category of acceptable
projects as long as the governing board determines it's in the public
interest and it promotes tourism.
So those two questions have been answered, and that's why I was
suggesting that if you're going to ask questions to the Attorney
General, let's make sure that they haven't already been answered.
Those two have been.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to continue to proceed
with the questions that the county attorney has articulated?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'm going to go ahead and call
Page 265
December 11-12, 2012
the question.
MR. MILLER: We still have one public speaker, Madam Chair,
and that would be Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Bruce Anderson.
I would just suggest that when you send the materials to the
Attorney General, I would ask that you please include the 10 years
worth of consistent opinions that you have received from the County
Attorney's Office that this is a lawful expenditure of TDC money. I
want the attorney general to have the benefit of their research.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks for the suggestion.
Okay. All in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The motion carries unanimously.
Did you vote for that, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, it's past 6 p.m.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we're done. We'll go ahead
and reconvene tomorrow --
MR. OCHS: Reconvene tomorrow at nine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- at 9 o'clock. So the meeting is
adjourned for today.
Thank you.
(The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.)
Page 266
December 11-12, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m.
*****
Page 267
December 11-12, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 11-12, 2012
(Day 2)
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Georgia Hiller
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Tim Nance
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 268
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Good morning.
MR. OCHS: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Board of County Commissioners'
meeting is back in session.
We have a number of time-certains. The first that was requested
was the hearing with respect to the ordinance amendment for
Domestic Animal Services.
I'd also -- and then another one that was requested but has yet to
be confirmed is at 10 o'clock a request to hear the discussion on the
settlement agreement on DOA Case No. 12-495. A final request has
come in from Bruce Anderson with respect to the case involving the
Jaffe boat-dock variance, and the request there is that it be heard
subsequent to 10 o'clock.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The last thing that I'd like to state
for the record is that the county manager is going to be made
responsible to ensure that there are hard breaks every one-and-a-half
hours for the benefit of our court reporter. So if our court reporter is
overworked, we only have one person to look to instead of the entire
board.
So if you could please interrupt us no matter where we are in the
discussion, because I'm sure everyone will understand that we,
obviously, can resume 10 minutes later without any harm.
MR. OCHS: I thought we'd run it like a soccer match. First I get
a yellow card, and then I'll get a red card.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's great. That's a very
nice suggestion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I thought for a minute you were
going to suggest we have hockey rules where we have 20 minutes of
work and then 20 minutes of break, and then --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I actually like that. That works, too.
Page 269
December 11-12, 2012
And, lastly, I really want to thank County Manager Ochs because
what he did for the benefit of all of us -- and if any members of the
public would like a copy, he has taken the very, very large agenda we
have, and he's parsed it down to what we have left, which looks very
reasonable. So just to be assured, it doesn't look like a terrible day.
County Manager, would you like to please call the first --
MR. OCHS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, just to confirm the time-certains. We have a 9 o'clock
time-certain, which will be Item 11G on your agenda this morning,
11 G; and then 10 a.m. time-certain now has been confirmed for Item
IOW. 10W to be heard at 10 a.m. And, again, as the chair just
announced, your Board of Zoning Appeals items, 8A and B, will be
heard after 10 a.m.
Item #11G
CHANGES THAT REPEAL AND REPLACE THE ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 2008-51, AS
AMENDED) AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE ORDINANCE CHANGES TO BE
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING -
STAFF TO BRING BACK THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
BRING BACK A REPORT AFTER COORDINATING WITH
COURT ADMINISTRATION REGARDING FINES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: So with that, Madam Chair, if we could move to
the 9 a.m. time-certain. That's 11G on the agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve proposed changes that would repeal and
replace the Animal Control Ordinance and direct the county manager
or designee to advertise the ordinance changes to be approved by the
board at a future meeting.
Page 270
December 11-12, 2012
And Ms. Amanda Townsend, your Domestic Animal Services
Director, will present.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you also have three registered
speakers on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: About the agenda, I have
commitments this afternoon. I hope that we can get to some of my
items that I put on the agenda before.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely, if we -- what we'll do
then, Commissioner Henning, is as soon as we're done with this
time-certain, we'll review which agendas (sic) you'd like moved
forward ahead of anything else, and we'll take care of those
immediately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning, Commissioners. Amanda
Townsend, your director of Domestic Animal Services.
The item you have before you today is the first of two readings
for proposed changes to our Animal Control Ordinance.
I want to give you a little bit of background about how we got
where we are today and present to you what those changes are.
It's important to know that this -- these proposed changes come
out of a -- some public outcry. In July of 2011, we impounded 49
dogs belonging to Arthur Perkins surrendered to us as part of his
foreclosure.
Among those animals, Humane Society of Naples accepted
adults and nursing mothers and puppies and, subsequently, 14 of those
puppies died of the parvovirus. And it was a very sad thing.
At our next advisory board meeting in September of 2011, the
public came out and really told us exactly what they thought about
Page 271
December 11-12, 2012
DAS's performance with respect to Mr. Perkins, and it was not good.
And we really had to take a hard look at our enforcement activities
and say how can we do this better.
So we moved forward in conversations with the county manager.
I put forth a three-point plan to look at enforcement operations day to
day, our internal policy, and then also our Animal Control Ordinance.
Simultaneous to that, our advisory board was looking at sort of
establishing some multi-year projects. Among those, excuse me, we
established that we had wanted for some time and really needed to
step up on regulating cat and dog breeders in our community, and also
that we needed to improve citation collection and consequences for
nonpayment.
In November of 2011 you heard a public petition by Colleen
MacAlister again regarding enforcement operations, and we really
kicked it into high gear as far as seeing what we could do on all three
levels.
We formed a subcommittee of our advisory board. And this slide
-- just telling you a little bit about the process, the real highlight is that
the advisory board and interested community members have really put
a considerable amount of time into the effort that you see before you
today.
In September we had a couple of well publicized and very well
attended meetings where we heard a multitude of voices from the
community about how they want to see enforcement issues handled.
In October we thought we had a version of the Animal Control
Ordinance that was going to work. The advisory board voted to
support it to the Board of County Commissioners.
As we moved through preparing that for your agenda, it
underwent county attorney review, and the county attorney had some
reservations with some of what the advisory board was putting
forward.
As a result there's -- some changes were made. We brought that
Page 272
December 11-12, 2012
back to the advisory board in December. And at that time the
advisory board voted to support the original version that they had
supported in October.
Let me go over the changes of the staff-supported version that
you have before you today. Those include strengthening our
provisions for our permitting process for breeders, pet shop -- I'm
sorry -- pet shops, rodeos, stables, et cetera. Now we're calling those
animal-related organizations and businesses.
We're introducing to that definitions for noncommercial and
commercial breeders and adding those to that regulation -- regulatory
process.
We're allowing the county to be able to advance and collect
citations to county court, and allowing some people who are cited for
sort of lesser offenses to take a responsible pet ownership course in
hopes that we can capture those folks and change their behavior. Not
dissimilar, obviously, from a traffic course you might take if you get a
speeding ticket.
We're revising our definition of dangerous dog to mirror state
law. We had been a little aggressive on that, and it has caused us a
little bit of pause, so we're pulling back towards state law. We're
revising our definitions of cruelty, neglect, and abuse to also mirror
state law, and we're introducing a penalty schedule into the ordinance
so that we have a specific guideline. If this is your offense, if it's a
first time, second time, this is the penalty that will be issued. Really
looking for consistency in that enforcement.
We have, existing, a resolution, 79-93, that establishes standards
for pet shops, stables, kennels, rodeos. We'll be establishing an
ordinance, actually, that establishes those standards of care, and that
will apply to the permittees only, those animal-related businesses and
those breeders that we'll be regulating.
I want to highlight just a little bit, because you do have
conflicting recommendations, the differences between your advisory
Page 273
December 11-12, 2012
board recommendation and your staff recommendation.
Specifically with regard to cruelty and abuse and neglect, staff is
advocating that we specifically mirror state law.
The advisory board had advocated creating a local definition of
neglect and cruelty and defining that as failure to meet standards of
care.
Staff is advocating that we maintain officer discretion in the
issuance of penalties, although we do intend to conform to the penalty
schedule unless there's a significant reason not to.
And then we want to maintain staff discretion in pursuing those
uncollected citations; whereas, the advisory board is advocating that
that be a mandatory process.
Really what you have before you in the staff-recommended
version achieves everything we set out to do. You saw some
conceptual changes in March. Every one of those has been achieved.
The two items that apply from the advisory boards overarching
multiyear plan, those have been achieved.
We've really achieved everything we've set out to do, and I think
that this version of the ordinance really achieves the compromise and
will protect animals and -- you know, while also maintaining folks'
rights.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Can we hear the public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Certainly. Your first public speaker is Colleen
MacAlister. She'll be followed by Tom Kepp.
MS. MacALISTER: I had hoped to appear last because I'm not
an advisory board member. I am merely a citizen here.
My name is Colleen MacAlister. You saw me a year ago here. I
will go over, since Ms. Townsend has given her presentation, some of
the problems and why you have two versions in front of you.
First of all, this process started with my plea, A, number one, to
enforce the ordinance. You know, the Perkins incident happened
Page 274
December 11-12, 2012
because we weren't -- we weren't -- we were asleep at the wheel, and
we weren't enforcing the ordinance.
She skipped over the part where the Board of County
Commissioners directed the Domestic Animal Services Advisory
Board to rewrite the ordinance. There was no -- there was no proviso
in that directive that the advisory board should come up with
something, and then the County Attorney's Office and county
administration should, you know, in their best judgment, change it,
you know.
It was our opinion that if they didn't like what we came up with,
then their position should be to come here and tell you why they didn't
like this or that provision, not to just wholesale change it.
This represents one year of work by not just the DAS Advisory
Board, but countless members of the community. There's a public
trust issue here. No one was ever told that our debate, our
compromise, our consensus, our discussion, some serious
philosophical debates were suddenly going to be usurped by county
administration and the county attorney.
What you heard here was a very clever presentation of a very
important issue. Ms. Townsend said this ordinance allows us to
maintain officer discretion. We had this discussion. And, quite
frankly, history shows that officer discretion hasn't worked. And in
the last year, with all of the scrutiny of all of the people at the DAS
meetings, we still haven't seen a will to enforce.
So for right now there -- if the facts -- if the totality of the
circumstances indicate that there is a violation, somebody should be
violated.
She -- Ms. Townsend said we have put a schedule in place so that
people know what they're fined. Well, first of all, you have to issue a
citation. And once you issue a citation, then you have to enforce it.
And you'll notice that the other part of that, the second part of
that was we want discretion in enforcement. Well, we've also had this
Page 275
December 11-12, 2012
argument. You don't get to selectively enforce. You don't get to say,
I'm going to enforce against this guy and not against this guy, you
know. Either you enforce your ordinance -- either your ordinance has
meaning or it doesn't have meaning.
And I would remind this board what brought us here in the first
place was the issue of enforcement. I think that what's happened with
this rewrite is that the administration and the County Attorney's Office
really didn't sit at the table all year. And I would ask that they be
required to come back. I don't think that this ordinance is prepared
yet.
There was a consensus ordinance. There was a public ordinance
that was created per the directions of the Board of County
Commissioners. So I would ask that you send it back and require
consensus.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Tom Kepp, and he
will be followed by your final public speaker on this item, Daniel
Martin.
MR. KEPP: Tom Kepp. Good morning. Could I put this on the
-- how do I do that?
This is a -- this is a -- this whole ordinance change -- you know,
you have basically the three -- three versions now; what we have in
place now, which, you know, is enforceable, the new one that we
recommended that put "shall" instead of "may" into this -- the new
ordinances that the -- I'm a member of DAS, advisory board.
And the problem is, this discretion issue is with me, because
they've had discretion -- and this will show you -- and I can bring you
case after case individually, if you want, that I've had over the years,
and I've already brought them to you over the years.
But this one just happened, I believe, in November, the first of
this month. That's a dog that was brought home as a stray when it was
-- it's approximately six months old. That's what the shelter -- that's
according to my information that I've gotten.
Page 276
December 11-12, 2012
And it was brought home by a child to a family in Immokalee. It
got -- they had a fence. It got under the fence, so they just chained it
in the backyard. They gave it shelter and food -- you know, you can
see how it was living -- and they chained it up.
Well, that makes it aggressive. And so it was reported as a
chained animal. Domestic Animal Services went over. And if you
read it, the owner said, oh, my kids brought it home as a stray, it got
under the fence, we chained it up. They said, well, you have to license
it, you have to have its shots and, you know, general care.
And they said, we don't want to spend the money. And so they
allowed them to surrender this animal as a stray. It wasn't a stray.
They allowed them to surrender it. It's right in the report that the
officers -- this is the officer's report.
I was able to make contact with the residents, and -- I'll leave
their name out -- and explain the complaint. He advised that they
were tethering the dog because it had gotten under the fence and into
the neighbor's yard on another occasion.
I explained the county ordinances and requirements for license,
vaccination, and tethering. He advised me that his daughter found the
dog and brought him home but does not want to spend this much
money on keeping the dog. He agreed to surrender the dog as a stray.
I don't know whether they kept -- they're, by law, as a stray,
required to keep it five days. I don't -- it was in their possession for no
more than eight days, and it was euthanized because of aggression.
These people were not -- they didn't pay a surrender fee. They
didn't pay ordinance -- for breaking the ordinances. They didn't -- to
my knowledge. Did they? No, they didn't pay anything.
Who paid for this? The dog. It was tethered. It became -- and
according to them, it was euthanized because of aggression. Okay.
I'm not against -- I understand that that has to happen, but because of
these people's action, the dog was aggressive. It wasn't brought home
aggressive.
Page 277
December 11-12, 2012
And so my opinion is, I don't think the discretion -- at this point
they deserve to have the discretion, because they don't use it. And this
is -- this, like she said, after a year, and we still don't do it.
And if you go over there tomorrow, you'll look at the policies and
procedural manual; unless they've done it recently, it hasn't been
updated. They don't -- there is no policy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your time is up. Thank you very
much.
MR. KEPP: I know. But just so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. Thank you.
MR. KEPP: -- I understand, yesterday, you guys sat here and
gave a $50,000 fine on a code enforcement violation. And I don't
understand the difference between those ordinances, if they are
ordinances -- maybe you let them explain it -- and these ordinances.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. Thank you
for your comment.
MR. KEPP: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on Item 11G is Dan
Martin.
MR. MARTIN: Yeah. My name is Dan Martin, and I'm
speaking for myself, but I am a member of the DAS Advisory Board.
Now, you were given an ordinance written by the county
attorney. The advisory board, however, has recommended a different
version. The advisory board was sent the county attorney's version a
couple days prior to our December 3, 2012, 4 p.m. meeting, which is
awkward for public attendance. Now, that was the first time that the
public was given an opportunity to see this document.
Now, even though we labored on the advisory-board-approved
version for over a year, word by word, line by line, section by section,
negotiating, debating, arguing, and posturing, we were given a few
scant hours to decide whether or not we wanted to endorse the county
attorney's version.
Page 278
December 11-12, 2012
Now, the DAS Advisory Board version was drafted and
duly-noticed public meetings offering those that attended almost
unlimited time to comment on the proposal. We negotiated the
document with the full participation offered to the people of Collier
County.
Now, we never had standing-room-only meetings, but what we
did we did, as the saying goes, in the Sunshine.
Now, the county attorney took our almost-completed version
behind closed doors and made changes, and the public was only given
a peek at the document, and that was under a severe time constraint;
sort of like now or never.
Now, you write the ordinances with the best of intentions, and
time is the only judge on how effective they are. Now, the existing
ordinance, for one reason or another, was judged as not effective.
Now, enforcement was one issue.
Now, when I was appointed to the DAS Advisory Board, during
the first meeting the topic of lax or no enforcement was brought up.
Specifics have always been given, each one as heartbreaking as the
next.
Notes were taken, but the next month the same song and dance
that's a never-ending mantra at the DAS Advisory Board meetings.
And the breeder in question was egregious enough to bring the issue
into the daylight.
Now, the other issue is collections. Yes, I heard at a meeting that
the fines are never collected, so why start the paperwork.
Now, we wrote the county court section to eliminate this line of
reasonings. Fines actively collected act as inducements to correct
negative behaviors. I believe that Collier County should use every
avenue of collections available.
Now, not surprising, DAS Advisory Board decided to endorse
their own version of the document.
In closing, I want to say that the DAS Advisory Board was
Page 279
December 11-12, 2012
written in front of God and everybody, excluding absolutely no citizen
input. The county attorney's version may have some -- may have
sections concerning some merit, but we can't make that determination
without further study.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
Madam Chair, I remember the item when it came before us, and
we gave direction for the county manager and staff to work with the
advisory board to bring back a revised ordinance.
I don't have that revised ordinance, so I would make a motion to
direct staff to bring back the advisory board's ordinance for the board
to consider.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have a few concerns about where
we're heading with the Animal Control Ordinance issue on a broad --
in a broad way, and I want to make a few comments about it.
This is -- an animal control ordinance and the care of animals is
something that people are very passionate about, and I have every
respect for that.
From a practical standpoint in the county, what we need to do is
we need to get an animal control ordinance that's focused where we
can achieve practical results. It has to be results-oriented.
And in order to do that, several things have to happen. Number
one, you have to have one that's focused. We have to make sure that
we're always focused on events that are happening in our community
that are animal cruelty. I have a real problem when we start
expanding that into specific standards of care.
We need to be focused on animal cruelty and, of course, public
safety that results when an animal cruelty results in dangerous
Page 280
December 11-12, 2012
animals.
When we get into standards of care, rather than defining
narrowly what is bad and the bad activities that we want to restrict and
act on, we get into a situation where we start defining what is good
and, therefore, what is not good therefore becomes bad, you get
something so broad that we can't really ask our public servants to go
out in the community and enforce it. It becomes something that just
gets -- it gets away from us.
So I really want to make sure that we're focused on the bad things
so that we can narrow them enough so that we can get measurable
results and take action where action is really needed.
Secondly, I want to make sure that when we're defining our fines
and our action when we have activity that we've acted on that we're
not getting over the line and deciding that we need to punish these
people for their bad acts and that we focus on getting results for the
pets that we're trying to safeguard.
In other words, okay, we've done something bad. Are we -- are
we enacting a fine that's going to help our goals, or are we just trying
to punish people for bad behavior?
Secondly, I want to make sure that we don't get into unintended
consequences. The example that was brought forth is a very
interesting one, and I don't think that that example was a person, for
example, that was a breeder. It was a single homeowner and
obviously, a poor family.
The sad reality of it is, in Collier County we have two worlds.
We have a very wealthy urban coastal zone, and we have a very poor
agrarian interior. Poor families have poor children. They also have
poor pets. And the children and the pets, as was mentioned, are the
ones that suffer in the end.
So we have to make sure that we focus on getting the results that
we want, and that is stopping cruelty and making sure that the animals'
situation is being improved.
Page 281
December 11-12, 2012
If we have aggressive fines and we have a situation where there's
no discretion and you go in and you go to fine a family several
hundred dollars for doing something bad, they are going to give the
dog up, or worse, they're going to destroy the dog, they're going to
release the dog into public, they're going to give the dog up to shelter,
and that's not achieving any of our goals.
So we have to make sure that we are achieving our goals and
getting improved care for the animals as our final result. And I think
that does require some discretion. I don't think we can go in there
with a "shall" ordinance. I just think it's going to produce too many
unintended consequences.
Finally, one thing that I want to talk about on all our ordinances
-- and this is one of them -- I am personally very solidly against
anonymous complaints. Anonymous complaints are one of the things
that our country was founded over. And the reason I'm against
anonymous complaints is not because they don't identify problems,
but because they allow our ordinances and our laws to be misused in
domestic disputes.
Somebody gets mad with their neighbor, and they start
employing our staff to further their argument with their neighbors.
This is not taking action on whatever it is, whether it's pets or a code
enforcement violation or whatever.
So those are four things that I'm concerned with with the
ordinance. I hope the ordinance is focused, and I want to -- I want to
have the ordinance constructed so that our public servants can take
action. I don't want to have it so broad and on standards of care. I've
really got some problems with that.
For example, I don't want to see us get in a situation where we
ask our public servants to go out and break into cars in Naples. I don't
think we can handle that.
So let's bring something back that's focused. Let's make sure that
it involves something that -- whether we can achieve results for the
Page 282
December 11-12, 2012
animals and we're not getting -- that we're getting too broad and lose
the basis for which we're bringing this ordinance forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It appears that a lot of work
needs to be done. And if we're going to bring it back, we'll have an
opportunity to incorporate all of that.
But, you know, I'd just like to address one issue that was brought
up. I have absolutely no problem with our DAS personnel breaking
into a car if a pet is enclosed in that car and is in danger of dying
because of excessive heat. I have absolutely no problem with taking
that kind of action.
And with respect to enforcement and fining people, my primary
-- I think people need to be punished in order to encourage good
behavior, because they refuse to do it if they get away with it every
time.
And we need to coordinate with the courts to determine what the
additional work volume is going to do for the courts. Will the courts
actually uphold the fines?
And we had discussed this in the past, and I had intended to bring
it up to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, but there isn't another
meeting for the council for probably two or three more months.
So rather than delaying it, I would suggest that we also add to the
motion that the county attorney coordinate with the county
administrator to determine the courts' position concerning the
enforcement of the fines. They could be numerous, and they could be
sometimes difficult.
So we have to take the courts into consideration when we're
going to implement a law that requires this kind of enforcement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to speak after we vote, okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. I would like to add a few
Page 283
December 11-12, 2012
comments myself before we vote. And before we vote I'm going to
ask Commissioner Henning if he's willing to amend his motion based
on Commissioner Coyle's recommendation.
My comments are that I tend to agree with Commissioner Coyle;
voluntary compliance doesn't work. Discretion doesn't work. We
have to have clearly defined standards that eliminate animal abuse and
animal cruelty, and that is up to staff in conjunction with DAS to
define. We cannot have a "may" ordinance, and I mean the word
"may" in quotes, when it comes to anything that has to do with the
abuse or cruelty of animals. That's just not an option. Not acceptable
to any degree.
There's no question that the standards have to be clearly defined
so that the public knows what is not acceptable.
And so, as such, I support Commissioner Henning's motion to
send this back, and I support Commissioner Coyle's amendment to
that motion to ask that we coordinate with the courts to make sure that
the courts are able to handle whatever will be coming forward.
Lastly -- and this is unrelated to the motion -- I agree with
Commissioner Henning's -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Nance's point
that there needs to be an avoidance of complaints and our staff being
used to interfere in neighbors' disputes.
So some sort -- and I'd like the county attorney to research this
and come back to us. You know, how can we require disclosure, in
other words, no anonymous complaints -- and that goes for code
enforcement as well -- but at the same time protecting the individual
who makes the complaint from retaliation?
MR. KLATZKOW: Once -- here's your issue in a nutshell. You
can require that the complaints be in writing, okay. That's fine. Your
problem with that is they become a public record, and your problem
with that is retaliation.
And so there's no right answer on this. You are weighing the
abuse that people have with anonymous complaints, okay, against the
Page 284
December 11-12, 2012
potential of violence people might get from neighbors finding out that
they filed the complaint. This is a policy decision which way you
want to go.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think that's a policy decision
we should discuss at, possibly, a future workshop, because I think it's
important to avoid, you know -- basically to balance the abuse against
the physical safety of the complainant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still want to speak after the
motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But with regard to what the county
attorney just said, we had a prime example, that's why we had to start
getting security officers here, because somebody was reported to our
code enforcement about abuse of animals, and the guy was a little bit
nuts, and he started shooting at their cars when they drove by the
house. He started shooting their animals. You-all remember that one.
And, finally, of course, he had to be arrested and incarcerated, but he
was a danger to everyone around. So you have to be real careful with
what you do in this situation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And that's why we have to
discuss it and try to come up with a balanced solution in everybody's
interest.
Commissioner Henning, would you be willing to amend your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I will amend my motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would the second be willing to
amend their second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
If there's no further discussion.
Page 285
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
The anonymous complaints is a double-edged sword, because
you get -- you may get a neighbor down the street or a person that's
not affected or a businessperson that is affected that will lodge an
anonymous complaint against, you know, somebody else who's in
competition in business.
It is a -- I think it's a due-process issue, myself. Although it's
applied to criminal, I think it should be applied to our rules also.
There's no reason why a constituent cannot call a County
Commissioner to say, hey, I don't want my name to be known;
however, here's my concern. You know, let the commissioner get
involved if he chooses to do so, and let that determination be made
whether it is a -- strictly a neighbor dispute or somebody in business
that wants to somehow deal with their competition.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for your comments.
County Manager Ochs, could you make a note that at a future
workshop we discuss this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can give direction --
I'm willing to give direction at commissioners' comments --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on this issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a long-standing issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Thank you.
MS. TOWNSEND: Madam Chair, if I can just ask for a little bit
of clarification on the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of course.
MS. TOWNSEND: The motion was to bring back the advisory
board recommended version of the ordinance. Are you looking for
consensus amongst staff and advisory board recommendations? Do
Page 286
December 11-12, 2012
you just to want to see both versions? Do you want us to publicly
advertise? Where are we going from here?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's Commissioner Henning's
motion. I'll let him clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want a contrast and
comparable. You know, we asked the advisory board to take their
volunteer time to draft an ordinance, and I haven't seen it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the second part is to follow
through on what Commissioner Coyle said, which is to go back to the
courts and find out what their capacity to handle the issues would be.
MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So with that, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for letting me have this
time.
I just wish that we as a community could see this same outrage
and passion for our helpless children who are neglected --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- harmed, abused, but we don't see
that. They live in violent homes and they have to live with that for the
years; all the while they're helpless, and I wish we would see more
concern for that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it's the -- you know, abuse
Page 287
December 11-12, 2012
towards women, children, animals, it's all wrong.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right, except that, you know,
women can leave --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the outrage -- sometimes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but children --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Many times they can't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Children are held helpless, just as
animals are.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Oh, absolutely. I mean,
there's no question. And there should be community outrage against
all of the above.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
The next item?
Item #10S
RESOLUTION 2012-264: REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 07-09
IN ITS ENTIRETY SO AS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT
FOR A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5) VOTE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL OF CERTAIN
TYPES OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS RESOLVING LAND
USE DISPUTES OR LITIGATION — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Next item is Item 10S. It's a recommendation to
adopt a resolution repealing Resolution No. 07-09 in its entirety so as
to remove the requirement for a four-fifths vote of the Board of
County Commissioners for approval of certain types of settlement
agreements resolving land-use disputes or litigation.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
Page 288
December 11-12, 2012
Yeah, the board did adopt a policy requiring that Bert J. Harris
claims be a supermajority; however, with Bert J. Harris claims, a lot of
those come with a financial responsibility to the county.
You know, I'm looking at -- it only takes a simple majority for
the Board of Commissioners to raise the millage by a tenth of a mill, a
point tenth of a mill; however, it takes a supermajority to get property
rights and possibly leave taxpayers at risk.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So would you like to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second? I'll second it.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have two registered speakers.
I know one of them is here. I don't believe Bruce Anderson is here yet,
though.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Would you like to
bring them forward?
MR. MILLER: Sure. Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
And for this issue, we really see two overarching considerations.
The first is about consistency in the land-use approval process, be it
through the regular application process or through some sort of
negotiated settlement.
The second is the high standard that Collier County has chosen to
impose upon itself in order for certain land-use approvals and Comp
Plan amendments to actually be adopted and approved.
The Conservancy believes this high standard is important. It's
about quality of life, quality of the economy, and quality of the
environment, and we think that all of those are mutually
interdependent.
The supermajority that is required for these land-use approvals
Page 289
December 11-12, 2012
really deals with projects and policies that are going to have an impact
beyond just a specific project footprint. It's going to impact the
community as a whole and at large.
So looking back, why was this resolution initially adopted or
approved in the first place? I took a look at transcripts, and it was
actually at Commissioner Coyle's suggestion that it be adopted at the
December 12th and 13th, 2006, BCC meeting. And part of that
transcript from.Commissioner Coyle states, it's just to resolve what
appears to me, and I think it appears to you, to be a glitch in the law
that would permit a developer to circumvent the majority-vote rule by
filing a lawsuit or challenge of any kind and then getting it approved
by a simple majority.
So litigation circumventing that normal land-use approval
process, that was the concern then. The Conservancy still believes
that it is a valid concern now. We believe that the additional
protection afforded by that supermajority requirement is something
that's important.
And I would point out, oftentimes the settlements to these
land-use cases are far more controversial than the initial land-use area
of contention in the first place. So, you know, we think that this is
something that really does need to be looked at very closely.
Also, when you look at Bert Harris claims, when these claims are
filed, even before there is an actual lawsuit, the county is required to
sit down and have discussions with the plaintiff or the claimant. And
these discussions in the settlements can go far beyond what the actual
initial land-use dispute was over. So that really does circumvent in
that case the public's ability to weigh in on many of these issues.
As an example, the Cocohatchee settlement, which was settled
back in 2006, it started out with a dispute over whether buildings
could be constructed close to an eagle's nest. But in the end, the
settlement contained building heights and sidewalks, all sorts of things
that would have been a PUD amendment otherwise.
Page 290
December 11-12, 2012
Another example, you have a settlement that you are in ongoing
negotiations on. That also deals with things above and beyond what
the initial Bert Harris claim was.
So the Conservancy believes that it was a thoughtful policy to put
in place, and we ask that you think very carefully on this. We believe
that this resolution should remain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Nicole, if I may respond to your
comment. It doesn't work that way. A perfect example being
Cocohatchee. You cite that and you said that things were included in
there that should have gone through the land development approval
process but bypassed it by way of the settlement.
This was settled with a supermajority vote. And, in other words,
the supermajority vote doesn't give you the added protection of
avoiding what you're looking to achieve. And so there's no
incremental benefit, if you will.
In fact, the problem is, is what if by virtue of that fourth vote
something that should be settled in the public's interest is not? And
then the county is faced with enormous legal fees and potential
liability to wrongly allow something to move forward that should have
been negotiated before it got to litigation.
MS. JOHNSON: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So there is no evidence that the
supermajority vote achieves what you want. The intention sounds
good, but practically it doesn't work. And, in fact, I think it can have
the opposite effect of actually hurting the county.
So it's not a matter of consistency. It's a matter of, you know,
does it work, and it clearly doesn't.
MS. JOHNSON: Right. And we do have a different perspective,
and I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Cocohatchee -- I mean, like I said, it
bypassed -- the Cocohatchee settlement --
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
Page 291
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- was a supermajority vote, and it
did not achieve -- or it did not avoid what you want the system to
avoid with a supermajority vote.
MS. JOHNSON: Well, correct, and I understand this policy
wasn't in place for Cocohatchee. So Cocohatchee only required a
simple majority. It was passed by that supermajority.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I thought -- I talked to Jeff about
that. I thought -- it was a simple majority? Oh, my misunderstanding.
I apologize. Because Jeff indicated -- I thought, when -- I spoke to him
about Cocohatchee --
MS. JOHNSON: It was on the same meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- when we reviewed this. I thought
it was a supermajority.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is what led to this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, this is what led to this. Got it.
Well, it doesn't work, because you had four on that and it didn't work.
But, yeah, thank you. Thanks for the clarification, but it doesn't work.
MR. OCHS: Next speaker, Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I appear
here solely on my own behalf I wanted to suggest to you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unbelievable. I really -- we have to
-- can we take a picture of this. This is a special moment. Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: About the four-fifths vote requirement, I
would ask you to also consider -- there's only one -- state statute only
requires a supermajority vote for a zoning change.
By your own predecessors' actions, you have required conditional
uses and Comprehensive Plan amendments to require supermajority
votes. Those are things within your control.
And I would say to you, think about going to three votes for both
of those items as well, because the effect is, you are letting the
minority control the majority by insisting on a four-fifths vote when --
Page 292
December 11-12, 2012
on matters that the special act does not require it for.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, why did the special act single
out zoning and nothing else?
MR. KLATZKOW: Special act was 1967. There was no growth
management process in Florida then. My guess is that over the years
we -- your predecessors took the notion that if it's going to require four
votes for a simple zoning change, for a comprehensive change it
should also take four votes, to be intellectually honest. And Collier
County evolved for -- four votes for pretty much all land-use changes,
except for variances.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how unique is that in Florida?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're pretty unique. We're the pretty
unique. And sometimes -- it's a two-edged sword. It's allowed you to
get significant public benefits out of developments, getting -- requiring
four votes, but it's also led to some things that did not get passed that
maybe should have gotten passed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of my concerns is -- and
this is something Commissioner Henning fought for, and I'm thinking
back to the Ave Maria/Arthrex thing. That was then a three vote
because it was already --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was the Jackson Labs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- zoned.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ave Maria. Jackson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it wasn't Jackson Labs. It was
Arthrex.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so it was already zoned, so they
were just asking for permission to move forward with the Arthrex
thing, and we were able to -- Henning wanted it to be a four vote. It
Page 293
December 11-12, 2012
was simple -- it was a simple three vote. And so it's moving forward,
and you see it being built right this minute.
But I think we have to be careful of where we go with this,
because we have to also consider business in our community, and
what we're trying to do is encourage business. We're trying to
encourage business to move here, not disillusion them to come here.
And so as we vote on this -- and Bruce made a very good point
there. So, anyway, I just want to remind you that, you know, that four
vote has been a good then as well as a nuisance. It can be -- go both
ways.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, was that your
understanding on the RLSA supermajority/simple majority?
MR. KLATZKOW: To this day I think it's four votes. But, you
know, we sent it out, and we got a decision that it was three, so it's
three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, was it Henning's
determination that it -- for supermajority, or was it staff?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we got -- no, no, no. We got -- it was
staffs -- it was staffs opinion that it was supermajority. I agree with
that opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My final comment,
Madam Chair. You know, Ms. Johnson brings up some good points.
The Cocohatchee settlement actually went back to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission made recommendations to
the Board of Commissioners.
The point is -- Mr. Anderson articulated it -- you have the
minority controlling the majority. That's the real issue. And my issue
is a fiscal issue with a policy.
So my motion still stands.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
Page 294
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I do think we need some
flexibility when it comes to settlements. I don't think we need to get
locked into always requiring a supermajority.
I do believe that there's a place for it, but I think we need to -- I
think we need to have a few options rather than getting ourselves in a
box, and I think having the minority control the majority -- I
appreciate Mr. Anderson's comments. I think they're very timely and
apply very well to this situation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further decision? If not,
all in favor?
COMMISISONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 ; Commissioner
Fiala dissenting.
Item #10T
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH JERRY AND KIMBERLEA BLOCKER
AND BRING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION -
MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL AT
THE JANUARY 8TH BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 10T on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to direct the county attorney to
negotiate a settlement agreement with Jerry and Kimberlea and bring
Page 295
December 11-12, 2012
the proposed settlement to the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have two registered speakers
on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, may I step away
from the dais and step to the podium?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I brought this
issue up during the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment. In the
language of the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan, it calls for a
commercial center industrial subdistrict. That property is here in pink.
In the legend it provides -- and this is in your backup.
Commercial commerce industrial subdistrict, business park subdistrict.
The -- Kimberlea and Jerry Blocker's property is approximately in that
area right there. That property, by the simple language of our Growth
Management Plan, provides for industrial and commercial uses
described in the Land Development Code for the commercial C 1
through C-5 industrial and business park zoning district.
Now, furthermore, in the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the plain
and simple language is Policy 1.5.2, transient housing and migrant
camps as defined in Florida Administrative Code 10D-25 may also be
developed in designated commercial land use areas on the Immokalee
area -- the Immokalee Future Land Use Map.
Part of the code case in 2006 -- actually, it was April 27, 2006,
the investigator, Dennis Mazzone, cited, this -- if this were a permitted
use as a labor camp in Immokalee, which it is, the permit requires (sic)
by the department that the issue for those permits, such as -- that does
not address Collier County land use regulations and setbacks in places
and in density (sic).
The problem is, our Land Development Code is silent in the
migrant camp. It falls back to -- it falls back to Florida Administrative
Page 296
December 11-12, 2012
Code because the State of Florida regulates migrant camps. The
county does not.
Okay. The only thing the county does is deal with the allowable
uses. And I showed you that these uses are allowed within the Future
Land Use Map and the plain language of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan.
Mr. Dennis Mazzone further says that our Growth Management
Plan is not the one that should be taken lightly. It is the one they
address good health, safety, and it would be the hope that the citizens
participate in it. And those housings, other than -- the tenant would
acknowledge the fact that the -- that we want to make sure that
housing is better. We have done that.
There was an initiative in 2001, I believe, to have some of these
migrant labor camps come into compliance with the Florida
Administrative Code. The health department reached out to the Board
of Commissioners with the help of code enforcement. Those were all
cleaned up. Kimberlea and Jerry Blocker have a certificate for
running a labor camp at the site. Now, they wouldn't have got that if it
wasn't in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code.
During the presentation to the Code Enforcement Board
December 27, 2006, staff and the then zoning -- or then director of
code enforcement stated that it doesn't comply to the Growth
Management Plan.
I think there's an inherent problem with communication between
code enforcement and our zoning staff for verification. That is
something that I hope that would be dealt with in the future. But the
bottom line is, the bottom line, this is permitted. It's an allowable use
under our Growth Management Plan. That's why I bring that forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a couple of questions.
Commissioner Henning, do you have a copy of this certificate
Page 297
December 11-12, 2012
that certifies this as a migrant labor camp?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. -- I think Mr. Blocker does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we see that? Why don't we
put it on the overhead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right over here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I have a question of
staff. Staff, did you -- have you ever received a copy of this?
MR. OCHS: I'll ask Mr. Casalanguida to come forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you see what the expiration date
is? I can't see that. When does it say the expiration date it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looks like it expires in 2008, or it
might even be 2006.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida, and I have Carolina with me.
I haven't seen the certificate. I asked staff. We discussed a little
bit this morning if there was any information about a certificate. So I
-- we haven't reviewed it in terms of their application for migrant
housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we -- in your opinion,
would it be inappropriate to make a decision concerning this issue
until after you've -- or until you have -- delay a decision on this until
you have had a chance to search this and determine its validity?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if the board wants to get some
background information, it's appropriate always to have some review.
We don't -- we can't comment on it the way it's presented today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I would like to
rebut that. During the code enforcement case -- and I've got the
minutes from the clerk's site. I would like to show you that Mr.
Page 298
December 11-12, 2012
Blocker did make -- I'll go page by page. That's where Mr. Blocker is
talking at the dais, on Page 67.
On 68, you will see that -- in addition, that they included a
current inspection sheet -- they're talking about the Florida
Department of Health -- current inspection sheet and that they were --
again, HRS is very strict because of its laws.
And I want to point out on Page --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second. Go back to the
bottom of that page, the previous one, the previous -- the bottom of
that page. No, where -- before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The highlighted part?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. It says, and to whom it may
concern, our records indicate the facility located at 1101 Alachua has
been operating as a residential migrant housing since July 19th (sic) of
1986, and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just want to point out that
then Director Arnold said, I want to state an objection that the State of
Florida -- the health department record has nothing to do with zoning
regulations or anything like that.
So clearly staff had knowledge that Mr. Blocker had a permit
from the State of Florida, the health department.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I am very disturbed by what's being
brought forward, because at the code enforcement hearing and then, I
assume, through the courts, we had this information all along, and it
was not brought forward. And this matter has been in litigation for
years now, notwithstanding that we had in our possession the evidence
that supports that they had the legal right to do what they were doing
on that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'd like to give
this record to the county manager so he can pass it on to staff
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff had knowledge that Mr.
Page 299
December 11-12, 2012
and Mrs. Blocker had a permit from the State of Florida to operate a
migrant labor camp. And, furthermore, zoning staff was never
involved from what I could find in the records, to determine that this is
an allowable use under our ordinance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Even though it very clearly is. This
is new evidence brought before the board. I understand there was --
what kind of appeal was filed in the courts? What went before Hayes?
MR. KLATZKOW: This was the appeal of a Code Enforcement
Board order, went before Judge Hayes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What type of opinion did Hayes
issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's in your backup. It's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, but just for the record, what --
MR. KLATZKOW: Final appeal order --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was a writ -- it was under a writ
of certiorari, wasn't it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe so, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. So he was limited to his
review of what was on the record, and he obviously could not opine
about our Comprehensive Plan and how it relates to the Blocker case.
And now this board is presented with new evidence that makes it clear
that the Blockers were being wrongly sued by the county.
This is a very serious matter, very serious. I think not only is a
settlement in order, but what is also very much in order is that the
county withdraw its suit. And the reason I still want a settlement is
because I think the Blockers need to be afforded some sort of
protection that they are not put in a position where they will have to
reinstitute suit to protect their rights. This is very serious.
And then I think, further, there has to be some sort of an inquiry
or investigation as to why this evidence was not brought forward,
because it's clear, and why we're hearing this for the first time.
So what do you want as your motion, Commissioner Henning,
Page 300
December 11-12, 2012
because this is obviously very concerning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I believe there is some -- is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My light is on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, I'm going to come to that.
Commissioner Coyle, discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I find it curious that we
have new information presented here, and the staff has not had a
chance to reply but yet we jump immediately to the conclusion that
the staff has been guilty of dereliction of duty, I think.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. The board should
at least provide sufficient time for the staff to inspect this information,
because there are dozens of questions that need to be answered about
this, and they have not been.
All of the proof necessary to establish this case has not been
presented here. A lot of it is subject to rebuttal. It may turn out that
it's absolutely correct, but we owe it to the citizens to do proper due
diligence before we start saying let's negotiate a settlement, because
what are you going to negotiate a settlement on, just what
Commissioner Henning has presented, or are we going to have the
staff present some additional information to us and let us question
them about it?
So I -- while I believe it should be brought back, I believe that it
should be brought back and the staff be asked to provide us with an
explanation and response to this information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which -- yeah, I just want to
respond.
Page 301
December 11-12, 2012
I think, Commissioner Coyle, that flows from my question about
an investigation into why this information was not brought forward.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
Well, we have a trial coming up. It's going to be very expensive
on both sides for this trial. This information was given to the county
manager to upload into the system 10 days ago. So the staff has -- you
know, aware -- was fully aware that it was uploaded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your comprehensive staff is
here. So, Commissioner Coyle, if you have any questions, please feel
free to ask.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I did ask them. They said
they haven't had a chance to review it. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's odd we get -- I
don't know how many pages are in today's agenda. We get it on a
Thursday.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Four thousand, five hundred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, now you're
saying the staff doesn't have enough time to review the stuff that we
put on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't say that, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you're implying
that information that is on our agenda staff does not have enough time
to review it; however, the items that staff is asking us to approve on an
-- every-other-weekly basis, they're asking us to review and approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now listen carefully, if you
don't mind; listen carefully.
We just asked Nick Casalanguida if he had a chance to review
this information. He said no. I don't care when it was given to him.
He said he did not have a chance to review the information, and he
Page 302
December 11-12, 2012
cannot answer our questions about it this morning; perhaps because he
was tied up dealing with these thousands of pages that we've got
before us today.
But the point is, if the staff can't respond to my questions here
this morning, are you willing to provide them an opportunity to do so
to answer the questions of the commissioner, or do you want to ignore
the opportunity to get the full picture on the issue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me respond to that.
That is a lame excuse for staff to say they didn't have enough time to
review it when we have to deal with thousands of pages on the agenda
from the day we get it on Thursday to a Tuesday. If they do not
prepare to address the board, that's something that we need to address
to the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I encourage you to take it up with
the county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Furthermore -- furthermore, my
real concern is we have trial coming up, and this is going to get more
and more expensive.
So I think you should ask staff your questions, and they should
be prepared to answer it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to give a shot at it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like to just clarify a couple things.
I understand the debate.
When you asked if we had time to review it, time to review it's
one thing, that's true. We've looked at it. To review it in the context
it's presented is a different story. When we did our analysis for the
Immokalee Mobile Home Housing Initiative -- when I took this
position, one of the things that we discussed was, were the Blockers
being singled out? And I said, let's look at Immokalee county-wide or
Immokalee-wide. Let's look at all the mobile homes. And we found
two other problems, potentially, three other zoning issues, not a Comp
Page 303
December 11-12, 2012
Plan issue. We did that analysis.
The context of them being a migrant housing was not looked at in
that analysis because it wasn't requested to be looked at in that
analysis.
As I discussed with the county attorney, as I discussed with staff,
going back to 1970 there were four units there. Zoning changed
between seven -- five units, I believe, there. I think -- if that's correct.
Zoning changed several times in between that time period.
At a minimum, five units would be counted towards that analysis
that Commissioner Henning's presented, possibly more. But the
question was, it wasn't looked at that way because we weren't asked to
look at it that way. The applicant had not said to staff, while we were
doing the Immokalee mobile housing initiative, to look at it that way.
The zoning case had already gone out the door. It had already
gone to the appeal process. So what was found at the zoning -- at the
appeal process was different.
So in saying that staff didn't look at it, we've had time to look at
it. We've looked at it. We haven't been asked to consider it with that
information to say, could you have looked at it back to 1970, that it
was migrant housing? How many units? When did they change?
Again, a zoning interpretation always comes to the board, and the
board can hear facts and evidence from the applicant and from staff.
So it's very -- some of it can be subjective because of its age. It's 40
years old.
One of the problems staff had was determining when the changes
took place on the property, because you looked at aerial maps, and
some of them kind of showed structures out there, and they're very old
and vague.
So have we looked at it, Commissioner Henning? We have. We
haven't looked at it in that sense, but I can surely have Carolina and
Mike probably give you their opinion on what they found when they
looked at it, but it is somewhat subjective in a sense.
Page 304
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask you a question?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you recognize in the Future
Land Use Map that there is a commerce center industrial subdistrict?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do you recognize that the
industrial uses and commercial uses is C 1 through C5 and industrial?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd have to let Carolina get into that
level of detail. She's worked on that Immokalee quite -- most of her
time here.
MS. VALERA: Good morning, Carolina Valera, Principal
Planner with the Comprehensive Planning Section.
Yes, Cl through C5 are allowed uses in that subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that where Mr. and Mrs.
Blocker's property is?
MS. VALERA: Yes, and their zoning district is industrial. Their
underlying zoning, the subdistrict allows for commercial and
industrial zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. VALERA: And their land is zoned industrial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Their land is platted as
industrial.
MS. VALERA: It is -- the zoning district of their land is
industrial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the subdistrict is -- allows
for Cl through C5 use?
MS. VALERA: Through rezoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through rezoning?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
Page 305
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do you remember when
the Board of Commissioners, since the -- since it was silenced -- I
mean, there's no language about this subdistrict in the Land
Development Code; is that correct?
MS. VALERA: I'll have to double-check. I do know that we do
have in the Land Development Code the specifics for migrant housing,
and it's allowed within the rural agricultural area of the county,
meaning outside the urban area of Immokalee.
Migrant housing is allowed within the Growth Management Plan
of the Immokalee Master Plan for -- in those areas where their
commercial is allowed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, so --
MS. VALERA: But mobile homes are not allowed in
commercial districts. They are only allowed in the rural agricultural
zoning district where migrant housing is allowed within the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there is no language
to -- in the Growth Management Plan to mirror what's in the
Immokalee Area Master Plan to where migrant housing is allowed
through C 1 and -- through C5 districts?
MS. VALERA: I'll have to double-check, but I believe you're
right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. You just explained
that it's on the -- outside the --
MS. VALERA: Urban area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- urban boundary. And you
know what, I agree with that; however, the board approved, since it
was silent in the Land Development Code, a use of a runway in a -- in
the ST overlay for the Immokalee airport, because it was silent. This
is the same thing. It is silent within the Land Development Code for
the migrant housing allowed through the commercial subdistricts in
the Immokalee area.
Page 306
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, this is -- if I -- just to clarify,
this is the argument that staff used to justify what they did with the
Marco --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- Island airport runway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, of course. So now we have
an inconsistent application of that argument; at least it would seem
that that's what they're trying to suggest now, that even though that
argument applied in Marco, now it should not apply here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. She did not say that.
MS. VALERA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She did not say that. I'm just
trying to bring a recent event where staff for the Immokalee -- or the
Marco Island airport recognized -- because it was silent, it recognized
that it was allowed in ST. The board approved it.
So if it's good for government, I'm saying it's good for the people
who we serve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It has to be.
MS. VALERA: I'll defer in regards to that case to the county
attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have court-ordered mediation for
January 16th. We can take this motion, and I could start the
settlement negotiations, or I can wait till January 16th when I have to
have settlement negotiations under court order so that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I think we start them now.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- we're having -- what I'm saying is we're
having settlement negotiations. It's just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand. I think -- well, here's
the issue. With this new evidence that's brought before us, I mean, as
Page 307
December 11-12, 2012
a board, we can make a decision based on the new evidence now.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, this is not new evidence, but I don't
want to really --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's new evidence to me.
MR. KLATZKOW: To you, yes, but this is not new evidence to
the Court, all right. This was -- this was before Judge Hayes. But I
don't want to get into the merits of the case here.
I'm more than happy with Commissioner Henning's
recommendation, and I'd be more than happy to start settlement
negotiations and bring back, because what I'm saying is I'm going to
be doing that in January anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wow. If this was before Judge
Hayes and he ruled the way he did, then I'm really concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I have the public speakers
come forward so we can hear what they have to say.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your first public speaker is Jerry
Blocker. He'll be followed by Steven Bracci. Am I saying that right?
MR. BLOCKER: I'm going to give my time him.
MR. MILLER: He will cede his time to Steven -- is it Bracci,
sir?
MR. BRACCI: It's Bracci.
MR. MILLER: Bracci. He'll be followed by Randy Johns.
MR. BRACCI: Hello, Commissioners. Steve Bracci, attorney
for Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker.
Just following up on some of the points that were raised this
morning. This issue with respect to the migrant housing permit, it has
been in our complaint as Paragraph 10 of our first amended complaint
since September of 2011, is when we first moved to amend. So the
county has had it since then.
And, again, it has also been -- it was raised in the original April
2006 action before the Code Enforcement Board and was attached as
Page 308
December 11-12, 2012
evidence in that case. So this is not anything new. This information
was out there.
Now, picking up on Commissioner Coyle's theme about having
staff look at certain things between now and whenever the process
continues in this matter -- another thing that's equally disturbing to me
in this case is what happened after that April 2006 matter before the
Code Enforcement Board, because the Blockers, through their then
attorney at the time, Patrick White, attempted to have a motion for
rehearing of this very strange Code Enforcement Board hearing that
took place in April 2006.
And they -- the way your Code Enforcement Board ordinance
reads, there's only one person you can submit your motion for
rehearing to, and that is the secretary to the Code Enforcement Board,
who conveniently is a member, has to be a member of somebody
inside code enforcement department.
So the Blockers went in May of 2005, I believe, they submitted
their motion for rehearing to the code enforcement -- to the secretary
to the Code Enforcement Board. The ink wasn't even dry on the
motion yet when the secretary to the Code Enforcement Board sends a
memo to the prosecuting County Attorney's Office and says, we don't
think that the Blockers should have a rehearing. You know, what can
we do about it? Essentially -- it doesn't say that directly but,
essentially, that's what it said.
So the code enforcement -- the prosecuting County Attorney's
Office turns around, they write a memo back to the code enforcement
-- to the secretary to the Code Enforcement Board, who is defined in
the officer's section of the Code Enforcement Board structure saying --
advocating his case for why the Blockers should not be having a
rehearing on these matters which, obviously, have problems, as you
can see here today.
That memo was never provided to the Blockers or their attorney.
The hearing takes place the next day, and the Blockers get denied.
Page 309
December 11-12, 2012
And thereafter, as Commissioner Hiller says, it sets forth a process
that goes to writ of certiorari where the judge, on appeal, on writ of
certiorari, has a very limited review. They can't review the substance
anymore.
So that closed the door. That's very problematic, not just to the
Blockers, but to any citizen of Collier County who's coming before
this Code Enforcement Board.
And the bottom line here is you don't have to take my word for it,
but Judge Pivacek ruled on this, or at least she contained a lot of this
in a preliminary ruling that she did last year where she basically said
she noted the impropriety.
She was disturbed by this so much that she sent memos to the
attorneys in this case, Jacqueline Hubbard at the time and me, asking
me for a follow-up memo, and how is it that the prosecuting county
attorney could play both sides of the fence.
They're prosecuting the case before the citizenry, and yet they're
also advising the Code Enforcement Board. Is that not problematic?
And what Judge Pivacek acknowledged in her order is that if
there's not -- if there's an appearance of impropriety, if there's a belief
that the system is rigged against the citizenry, it's going to fail.
And that's something else that I would suggest to Commissioner
Coyle that you might have your staff look into in the -- as well as the
substantive matters in dealing with zoning.
These are things that are about this case that have never been
before this board. This case has been out there since 2006. The
Blockers have been repeatedly maligned before this board over and
over again.
The Naples Daily News won't report the Blockers' side of the
case, but there are things about this case that I would strongly suggest
set this case up, at a minimum, for settlement.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I have a question.
Page 310
December 11-12, 2012
MR. BRACCI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The information that I presented
about the Future Land Use Map in the Immokalee Area Master Plan
was from a -- from the assistance of a citizen. Was that information
discussed in the courts?
MR. BRACCI: Before Judge Hayes? It was attempted to be
brought before Judge Hayes. Now, I wasn't the attorney at the time.
But there was an attempt to bring a lot of this information forward.
But, again, because, as Commissioner Hiller correctly points out, on
certiorari review, there's only three things a judge can look at, was the
correct law followed, was there substantial weight of evidence, and
was there procedural due process being followed, i.e., was the
respondent given notice in a hearing.
So there was an attempt to bring that forward, but it really didn't
gain any traction, because once you -- once the case is -- was sealed at
Code Enforcement Board letter -- at the Code Enforcement Board
letter -- level, the ability to look into those issues is very limited.
So really, again, that's why, to me, the process that occurred
behind the scenes that the Blockers never knew about when they were
denied their motion for rehearing is so important, because it prevented
all of that stuff from being looked at at the appeal level.
And then -- but now what's happening in this case, just so you
understand, is we've now gone in a different direction. Now we're
saying, well, this is -- regardless of what you did at code enforcement,
this is still a taking. This is still an inordinate burden on the Blockers'
property rights. You've gone too far in trying to enforce your code to
the detriment of Mr. Blocker, who's paying his inordinate burden to
the citizenry to achieve a goal that the county commission has put
forward, and that is to get rid of substandard housing which, by the
way, was never defined back in 2000 when this whole process was
taking place. So, conveniently, you guys could just fill in the blanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
Page 311
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it true that the -- Mr. and Mrs.
Blocker were told that they had to change the Growth Management
Plan and then have zoning?
MR. BRACCI: The Blockers were told over and over again that
this is not a zoning problem; this is a Comp Plan problem. You have
-- it's illegal because you have a Comp Plan problem. You are illegal
based on the Comp Plan problem.
So, yes, you are correct in that assumption. That is -- I mean, you
could go through the statements that were made before the Planning
Commission and before the Collier County Commission. You could
-- particularly, if you look at the time frame from around September of
two thousand -- or sorry -- April 2011 through June 2011, there was a
lot of this going on where there was a discussion about that.
The things where Mr. Strain was trying to craft some resolution
to this matter on the addition to the Comp Plan amendment, I think it
was 6.17D that was going to get added. And then later on it got taken
out by this commission.
The Planning Commission suggested putting in language that
would solve the Blockers' problem, but then this commission took it
out, interestingly, after the CRA advisory board orchestrated a quick
meeting to basically recommend against 6.17D, which brings up a
whole 'nother issue, because there's communication that said Kitchell
Snow, the code enforcement officer, was -- sort of spearheaded those
efforts.
And from -- my understanding is, there's ordinances in the books
that say, it's inappropriate to have somebody such as Kitchell Snow
even serve on the advisory board, and yet now he's leading, behind the
scenes, a charge here to try to get political cover for this commission
to take out a provision that would have solved the Blockers' issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I understand correctly, what
you're saying is that the Comp Plan does allow the Blockers' use as
incorporated in the master plan?
Page 312
December 11-12, 2012
MR. BRACCI: The Comp Plan, I believe, does allow the
Blockers' use.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Based on what Commissioner
Henning presented this morning?
MR. BRACCI: Based on -- it's always been the case that they
say you can't have a Comp Plan -- you have a Comp Plan problem
because the Comp Plan says you can only have an industrial use. But
what has come forward here is that the Comp Plan, the existing Comp
Plan, is broader than that; as Ms. Valera just admitted this morning,
that it includes Cl through C5.
And if you start looking at the way the SIPs were processed --
and actually what happened, and as -- Ray Bellows last September --
August or September starts putting this after-the-fact memo together
to try to explain all this and make it make sense.
And he says that, you know, well, if you have -- if you -- if you
can have Cl through C5, then you are okay and then you can apply for
a rezone, and there's a process.
But, essentially, they always singled out the Blockers as being --
if you look at those lists from back in December of 2011 at your
commission meeting, it shows how the Blockers were the only -- just
happened to be the only guy -- guy standing that had both a Comp
Plan and a zoning problem, but yet the discussion today makes the
Blockers in parity with a lot of other people.
So, again, they were singled out, essentially, in terms of how they
were treated in this case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So when I listen to what you're
saying, we have a whole host of issues. One issue I see is there's a
violation of procedural due process; secondly, there appears to be a
very serious conflict issue; thirdly, it appears to me that there is an
equal-protection argument that we have similarly situated properties
that are being disparately treated under the same body of law.
Very clearly, because it was a certiorari review, the Court was
Page 313
December 11-12, 2012
limited to only what was presented at that first hearing. And had there
been a rehearing, more evidence would have come forward that would
have, based on what I'm hearing today, resulted in a very different
outcome.
This is very, very concerning.
MR. BRACCI: Commissioner Hiller, if I may just add, too,
another count that we have extrinsic fraud on the Court, that the
actions behind the scene of the communication unmounts the citizenry
with -- between the prosecuting county attorney's office and the
deciding -- essentially, the judge, the Code Enforcement Board, really
renders all of these judgments as a nullity.
And what -- the remedy that we would seek would be the
undoing of the Code Enforcement Board decision, the appellate
decision, and the second DCA's decision, because they all resulted
from an extrinsic fraud in the court that occurred early on in this case.
So the net result of that would be the Blockers no longer have --
we don't have any determination on the Comp Plan -- on what the
Blockers' property is or isn't from a land-use perspective.
The Blockers have no fine against them. But the one thing that
will be left standing would be our Bert Harris Act claim, our takings
claim, both of which continue to exist because there was, at least for a
temporary period of time, a taking.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know. I understand.
Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MILLER: Ma'am, we do have one other public speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry.
MR. MILLER: Randy Johns.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I allow Commissioner Coyle to
speak, because I think he would like to address the attorney.
MR. MILLER: Whatever you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I really don't. I think the
attorney has told me everything I need to know. Thank you.
Page 314
December 11-12, 2012
MR. BRACCI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Randy Johns is your last registered public
speaker on this item.
MR. JOHNS: I'm going to pass.
MR. MILLER: He waives.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, this is your item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Clearly, staff
acknowledged that it's an allowable use within our Growth
Management Plan, correct me if I'm wrong.
MS. VALERA: It is an allowable use to the extent that the comp
planning allows certain zoning districts certain uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. VALERA: And the zoning district of Mr. Blocker's does
not allow migrant housing, does not allow residential use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it needs zoning?
MS. VALERA: Because it needs a rezone type of an action at --
a public-hearing process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For migrant housing uses?
MS. VALERA: For migrant housing.
Also I will -- just for your knowledge, I will also add that
commercial uses -- if the Blockers decided to go through the
public-hearing process and achieve commercial use, the mobile homes
are not allowed in commercial uses, and that is in the Comp Plan and
the Land Development Code.
Mobile homes for migrant housing is allowed only in the
agricultural rural zoning district, meaning outside the urban area of the
Immokalee area master plan -- Immokalee area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any language in the
Land Development Code to accommodate migrant housing within the
Immokalee urban area?
Page 315
December 11-12, 2012
MS. VALERA: Yes, within commercial zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the commercial?
MS. VALERA: And I think -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're talking about specific
structures of migrant housing.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Does the Land
Development Code provide certain structures for migrant housing
within the Immokalee urban area?
MS. VALERA: Oh, I see what you're saying. No, it is -- it is
silent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that is my point is, since it is
silence on the type of structures -- and that's what you're saying,
mobile homes are not allowed?
MS. VALERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is silent on what kind of
structures is allowed.
MS. VALERA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Therefore, the same policy that
the board adopted for itself in the Immokalee urban area, or in the
Marco Island --
MS. VALERA: I would also --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- incident --
MS. VALERA: Right --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- shall apply? And it could be
in part of the settlement?
MS. VALERA: Yeah. And if you allow me, I will also add, just
for your knowledge, that, of course, the Land Development Code --
the whole intent of the Land Development Code is to have the
specifics to implement the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And this -- and we are
Page 316
December 11-12, 2012
discovering in ST areas that the Growth Management Plan is silent, or
the Land Development Code was silent on runways so, therefore, the
board took action on the settlement and subsequently changed the
Land Development Code to say it is allowed. So we corrected it
because we discovered it was silent.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: It's 10:33, if you wanted me to remind you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's finish this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I'm going to ask the -- yeah,
I'm going to ask. I know we have a time certain for the Vanderbilt
bathrooms, but I'm going to ask, if they don't mind -- because this is a
very important matter, and there are a lot of issues that have been
raised here which I think, if interrupted, would be very difficult to
pick up and come back to. So with your indulgence, if we could finish
this and postpone you so you'll be the item immediately after this, if
that's all right with you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I was pointing out your reminder
that you asked me to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, gosh, yeah. And you have a
break, okay, so we are going to interrupt for the -- because that I can't
-- I mean, she'll kill me, and she won't make any more cakes for us.
So, yeah, 10-minute recess for the court reporter. You've got to
be stronger with me. You've got to really, like --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- let me know.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe it was Commissioner
Nance's turn to speak.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: In this matter, I don't want to make
any comments on the merits of the case, I don't want to make any
Page 317
December 11-12, 2012
comments on the legality of the case, because I'm not prepared to do
any of that.
But I will say, in this issue there has been numerous, numerous
opportunities for the Board of County Commissioners to resolve this
conflict. For various and sundry reasons, which we certainly don't
have time to review today, the board has chosen not to take any of the
avenues to resolve this conflict. I think that's regrettable. I think it's
regrettable for the staff members of Collier County, the staff members
who have spent countless hours on this; it's made this thing a
nightmare.
It's become litigious. It's cost everybody a fortune. It's put an
economic burden on everybody involved.
For my part, if I have any decision in this, I want to resolve this; I
want to get it done. It's a relatively simple matter, and I think anybody
that takes a look at the court issue can identify it as a relatively simple
matter.
It's an embarrassment to everybody that we're in this situation at
all, and I suggest that we should go ahead and try to resolve it as soon
as practicable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I have had my answers -- my
questions answered. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thanks.
Where is Commissioner Fiala? Does -- can someone find out
where Commissioner Fiala is? Because we're going to vote on this.
Commissioner Henning, before I ask for the vote, could you
please restate what you want?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd have to get to my agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What you said here is to direct the
county attorney to negotiate a settlement agreement with Jerry and
Kimberlea Blocker and bring the proposed settlement to the Board of
County Commissioners for approval, is really what you want to say,
Page 318
December 11-12, 2012
not reconsideration, but rather for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For its consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, or for -- well, for approval.
Now, I think there's -- if I may suggest that you add to your
motion, and that is that the Blocker case be continued until this matter
is settled or, if you want, you could make a motion to have the case
dismissed and negotiate a settlement notwithstanding.
Because my concern is what just happened, especially the
evidence that exists that the secretary of the Code Enforcement Board
actually consulted with the County Attorney's Office, and the County
Attorney's Office directed the Code Enforcement Board to deny a
rehearing, if my understanding is correct.
I mean, I think that issue alone is enough, in my mind, to, I mean,
stop this as quickly as possible. We have some very, very serious
issues here that I feel exposes the county in a very bad way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that's -- I think
that was argued or is going to be argued in the court, Commissioner.
I'm looking for a global settlement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so what do you want to
add to my motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that the case be continued,
because if we have -- I don't want the deadline of a court date --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're asking for the -- direct
the county attorney to --
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got court-ordered mediation that's not
going to get continued.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Anything else?
MR. KLATZKOW: The Court will set a trial date after that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So you don't have a trial date at this
point.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe I have a trial date, no, but I
Page 319
December 11-12, 2012
would expect trial to be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you have a trial date?
MR. KLATZKOW: -- shortly thereafter.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I'm going to ask -- can you
come up to the stand again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think my motion is fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I just want to make --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, too. Why don't we vote on it?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I want to -- this is my turn to
speak. Can I get an understanding of what's coming forward? And is
this motion sufficient so that the county doesn't have anything that
impedes our ability to fairly negotiate with you?
MR. BRACCI: Steve Bracci again, for the record,
Commissioner. I think what Mr. Klatzkow said is correct, that the --
there is mediation set for on or about January 16th.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. BRACCI: And the trial -- there is no trial presently set. It's
not on any kind of trial docket, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So then I think the direction
is for the county attorney to bring back a settlement proposal at the
first meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He can't do that.
MR. BRACCI: Which would, I think, require the county
attorney and me and the parties, or at least my client, to engage in
some kind of settlement discussions outside of mediation, because I
think the mediation is set for -- I don't know what your next January
hearing is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: When is the -- you said the --
MR. KLATZKOW: The mediation's set for January 16th.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And when is the first board meeting
of the year?
MR. OCHS: January 8th.
Page 320
December 11-12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: The 8th.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So bring it back at the 8th.
So that's what -- how I'd like the motion amended, Commissioner
Henning, that the settlement be brought back before this board on the
8th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I amend that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amend my motion to include it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Did you want to
comment on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think you should let the
court-ordered mediation take its place, give them time to do what they
need to do. I don't see the need to try to rush it. You'll have an
answer by the middle of January anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There is an additional cost to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is a cost for ignoring facts
also.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, we're not ignoring facts. All
the facts are on the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait just a minute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In fact, my concern --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait just a minute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- is that the facts have been ignored
and suppressed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that is a common
theme here, jumping to conclusions based upon the presentation by
one side of a dispute. There are always two sides to a dispute. You
have not heard all of the information from the county's side, and that is
the side we should be representing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what I would suggest is that
Page 321
December 11-12, 2012
you give the county time to pull that information together and have
them sit down and negotiate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How long has this case been going
on?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The mediation -- the mediation is
scheduled for the 18th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixteenth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixteenth of January. What is the
big rush to try to get it done by the 6th?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How long has this case been going
on?
MR. KLATZKOW: It goes back to the Code Enforcement
Board, April 2006.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This has been going on since April
of 2006. I think we need a settlement at the first meeting in January.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If not, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye, only for the date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I oppose it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So then the motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what happens then on the 16th?
Do you then -- you don't go to mediation? They just win, and there's
nothing --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no. That's not the way it works.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Please understand. What I'm
going to do is we're going to have a shade session, assuming we have
Page 322
December 11-12, 2012
a settlement agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. If we have a settlement
agreement, we'll notify the Court that we have a settlement agreement
pending board approval. That should stay the mediation.
If we do not have a settlement agreement by then, I do have a
court-ordered mediation --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that I will be attending.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Now, what -- the settlement will be
negotiated in good faith between the county and the Blockers'
representative, their attorney, and you will bring back what has been
offered.
MR. KLATZKOW: Assuming that we have -- I will bring
something back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you will -- the Blockers will
present an offer, you will review it, you'll give your comments, and
that will come forward to the board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
Item #10W (Discussed and tabled to later in the meeting)
SETTLEMENT OFFER PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS IN
DOAH CASE NO. 12-495; AND, THAT THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO, AS PRESENTED HEREIN,
BE EXECUTED ON DECEMBER 11, 2012 BY THE CHAIR OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF
Page 323
December 11-12, 2012
COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE —
APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT SETTLEMENT OFFER
WITH MODIFICATIONS AND BRING BACK AFTER LUNCH
TO REVIEW — APPROVED; ITEM TABLED UNTIL AFTER
LUNCH — CONSENSUS; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES
OF THE AGREEMENT — APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: -- excuse me. I apologize -- Item IOW. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
settlement offer presented by petitioners in DOAH Case No. 10-495,
and that the settlement agreement related thereto as presented herein
be executed on December 11, 2012, by the chair of the Board of
County Commissioners on behalf of Collier County.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have several public speakers
registered from yesterday. I'm not sure if they're all here or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many?
MR. MILLER: This would make, I think, eight here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Eight public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Oh, no. We have seven on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Seven speakers on this item?
MR. MILLER: Again, I can see that a couple of them are
definitely not here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Can you call their name to
see if they're --
MR. MILLER: Sure. Robert Naegele, Jr., are you in
attendance? Emily Maggio?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: She's here.
MR. MILLER: She is here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
Page 324
December 11-12, 2012
MR. MILLER: Marcia Cravens? I don't see Marcia anywhere.
Kathleen Robbins is here. Bonnie Michaels is not here, and David
Buser.
So two of the registered speakers are here at this time, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. So we only have two
speakers on this item.
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. To begin, I would like
to ask for a vote to introduce an exhibit which was presented by the
petitioners in this case. It's a drawing prepared by McWard Architects
that shows how construction of these bathrooms can be achieved in
the AE zone without elevated pilings.
So if I can go ahead and -- and it gives actually several options of
either two new buildings or renovating the existing building and
adding an additional building.
So I'm going to go ahead and ask for -- I'm going to make a
motion to accept these on the record, and if I could have a second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We haven't seen them yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I have to allow for them to be
admitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then if we vote on that, then --
thank you.
Any discussion on these documents so that the board can see
them?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry. Who produced these,
please?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: McWard Architects.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The architect for the petitioners.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Thank you.
Page 325
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With that, I'm going to call the vote.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed? Motion carries
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Aye, I oppose.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So it carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask who paid for these?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who did?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The petitioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's the -- I don't --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The petitioners in the case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who are the petitioners?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The petitioners are a number of
individuals and associations that have sued the county with -- I'm
sorry, sued the Department of Environmental Protection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rollin Rhea, Robert Naegele.
Yeah, you know, same people.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And it's in your backup; it's all in
your backup.
This is a lawsuit involving, as I described in the executive
summary, the petitioners' objection to the variance that was approved
by the DEP to allow for construction of new structures, including an
elevated viewing deck concession and restroom facility at Vanderbilt
Beach Road park westward of the coastal construction control line.
And, essentially, what happened is that staff said that there was
no means to build a structure without elevated pilings in the vicinity of
Page 326
December 11-12, 2012
the Vanderbilt Beach Park. And, in fact, the board had asked for
options to be presented, and we were told that this couldn't be done.
It's very clear that there is an alternative that does allow for a structure
that is not on elevated pilings. And, as such, it would be the case that
the variance which the state granted would not be approved, or I
should say would be reversed since, very clearly, there is an
alternative, and this variance was only granted because there was a
representation that there was no alternative.
As such, it is in our best interest to settle this matter. And what
the petitioners have done is they presented a settlement offer to the
county attorney, and I received a copy.
Staff has provided input. One thing that staff wanted was that
there be -- in addition to what is presented in your backup -- the
inclusion of a time limit on the restriction which, again, is somewhat
of a moot request because, again, given that there is an alternative -- in
other words, that the building can be built without pilings, it doesn't
make a whole lot of sense but, notwithstanding, it can be included.
And I believe that the petitioners do not see a problem with
putting a time limit on this settlement, which they have fairly offered
to be 15 years.
And the other thing that I wanted clarified that I wanted to be
sure was understood is that with respect to the issue of the pilings that
what was objectionable are elevated pilings, not pilings that are
necessary for the foundational support of a building at the current -- at
the elevation of the current bathrooms.
And so with that, I would like to briefly explain that the
petitioners very clearly support the need of a restroom facility in -- at
the Vanderbilt Beach Park location and that the design parameters that
they're proposing, in fact, will give us more stalls than what the
existing design will provide and, obviously, at much -- at a much
lower cost in light of the fact that the design does not involve the
elevated pilings and additional uses which are not necessary.
Page 327
December 11-12, 2012
The other comment I will make is that the petitioners, rightfully
with the public's concern in mind, have provided that in the interim,
while this bathroom is being built, that it's time -- that the county
should have temporary bathrooms placed at the site for the benefit of
the public until construction is completed during high season when
these bathrooms face overdemand.
So with that, I would like to make a motion to accept the
settlement offer presented by the petitioners and to direct staff to bring
back a revised design that conforms with this settlement at the second
meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you show on this map where
the parking garage is, where the mangroves are located, and where the
bathroom is presently?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll ask the petitioners
representative, Kathy Robbins, to explain the design.
MS. ROBBINS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Kathy Robbins for
the board. I'm Secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association, one of the petitioners.
On the drawing, you will see -- in the drawing that's up there on
the visualizer right now, there is a little kiosk. That is located,
according to the architect, right where the current bathroom is.
If I could have the other drawing put up temporarily, this other
drawing -- this one shows two new bathrooms -- two new buildings.
This other drawing shows an expansion of the current facility under
the FEMA 50 percent rule, and that's the location of the current
bathroom right now. So we're just taking it and expanding it,
reconfiguring it.
The way I understand it, if you do that less than 50 percent, you
don't need to get FEMA involved and also then you wait five years,
and you can do it again.
Page 328
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which is great. Thank you.
MS. ROBBINS: That's two alternatives.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any further discussion? Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, thank you
for bringing this forward. You know, the bottom line is, the
bathrooms need to be expanded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm glad everybody
recognized that the bathrooms need to be expanded.
But settling this, we're going to have those expanded bathrooms
sooner instead of carrying on disagreements. That's number two.
Number three, what is being proposed is going to be less costly
than what was approved by the board previously. And bottom line is,
tourist development dollars are -- there's a limited resource.
And with the extra savings, that would be more for other things
like putting the sand on the beach. So thank you for bringing that
forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Madam Chair --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- we had spoke about this yesterday. It
would be my recommendation, if the board is inclined to accept the
settlement agreement, to modify the settlement agreement to provide
that each party shall bear its own costs in attorney fees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't have a problem with that.
MS. ROBBINS: We don't have a problem.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does the petitioner have a problem
with that?
MS. ROBBINS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree with that. I think that's an
acceptable addition.
So -- yes, sir?
Page 329
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: May I make a few comments --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- Madam Chair? There were a few statements
made here that I need to correct for the record, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: The first was that -- the statement made that the
staff never told the board that there were any other alternatives than
the current project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no. That allowed for
at-grade construction.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's not true, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: In fact, at board direction, we brought back a host
of alternatives that included this location that's being proposed, and
others, on June 14, 2011, Board of County Commissioners' meeting,
went through all the options, explained the difference between the VE
zone, the AE zone, the difference in constructions and elevations in
those areas. And after a full discussion and vetting, the majority of the
board voted to maintain the current project.
So the statement that the staff never presented any alternatives is
just patently not true.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To build -- okay. So let me
understand. They presented this alternative that it could be built
without elevated pilings --
MR. OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- at that meeting? Then how could
we have submitted a request for a CCCL variance? Because the only
way that could have been approved is by a showing on our part that
there was no other alternative.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the board directed, after that
review, to maintain the current project on the -- at the current site,
which, in fact, did require the variance.
Page 330
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand what you're saying, but
that -- I just don't understand. Because, again, my question to you is,
you could not apply for this variance unless you were able to
demonstrate that there was no alternative site.
So in the application for the permit, someone had to represent
there was no at-grade -- and at-grade is the wrong term to use, with no
other option and that this was the only option that was available,
which is clearly not true.
And so the state, on some sort of misinformation --
MR. OCHS: There was no --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and the board, under some -- on
some sort of misinformation, came to this conclusion.
MR. OCHS: Well -- and the state --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because, obviously, they're going to
win.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear what he has to say.
MR. OCHS: Well, I don't know why you say they're going to
win, ma'am. In fact, the state has issued the variance to the board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Based on wrong information.
MR. OCHS: Well, apparently the state didn't believe it was
wrong, because they issued the permit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it's based on the information
presented to them, Leo.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So in other words, if we said there's
no alternative, now all of a sudden we have a petitioner who comes
forward that shows an alternative which gives us the bathrooms
without the need of the CCCL variance.
MR. OCHS: Let me say this. If the board wants to eliminate the
current project and direct a different project at a different location,
please do so and let us move forward with that. But I don't see the
connection between doing that and entering into a settlement
Page 331
December 11-12, 2012
agreement with a random group of individual citizens and homeowner
groups around that particular area that bind the board on what they can
do on their own property forever and binds, potentially, future boards
through this settlement agreement. I don't see the connection, frankly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's a very significant
connection, because what the board did and what the county presented
to the state is patently incorrect in light of the alternatives that citizens
who do have the right to challenge whatever the state does and
whatever the county does --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- have challenged.
MR. OCHS: We get challenged all the time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, but this is a legitimate
challenge, because it is obvious there is an alternative and that there is
no hardship that makes it justifiable to get that variance. There is an
alternative. And to the extent there's an alternative we lose.
And with that, if there's no further discussion, I'm going to call
the vote.
MR. OCHS: Don't you have speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you have to listen to the
speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, okay.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Emily Maggio.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry. I always forget about --
MR. MILLER: And she'll be followed by Kathleen Robbins.
MS. MAGGIO: For the record, Emily Maggio. I'm here to
respectfully request that you reject this settlement. It is not in the
public interest but is contrary to it. It forfeits our property rights and
gives a select few the power to control what is built on the public
property forever.
To borrow Mr. Anderson's comment, we're allowing the minority
to rule the majority.
Page 332
December 11-12, 2012
As trustees of public property and public rights, why would you
do that? The reason the decision is in your hands is because we, as
individuals, tend to be selfish.
We are in a strong position in this matter. The facility has been
approved by the Tourist Development Council twice, the Coastal
Advisory Committee, the parks and rec board, the County
Commission at least twice, and even the Pelican Bay Foundation.
We have applied for and been granted the necessary county and
state permits. The precedent for the state granting the permit was
established years ago by the construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
and other structure to the south of the public beach property, and the
Broadmoor and other high-rises located to the north stretching all the
way to Wiggins Pass state recreation area.
The most disturbing to me is that the executive summary, which
was authored by Commissioner Hiller, an attorney by profession,
urges acceptance of this settlement and calls it fair and appropriate. It
is neither fair nor appropriate.
What attorney advises their client to accept defeat and sign away
their rights before all available options have been exhausted? Is this
the county attorney? Is he in support of this?
The right thing to do is to reject this self-serving settlement and
move forward with the administrative hearing.
There was some discussion yesterday about the expenditure of
taxpayer money on lawsuits. I think spending our money to protect,
preserve, and defend the public's property rights is well worth doing.
What do each of you own that's worth more than your property and
your property rights, and how far would you go to protect your right to
build what you are legally allowed to build on your own property?
You are obligated to do no less for the assets that are entrusted to you.
We seem to have some kind of a special thing going on at
Vanderbilt Beach. We can do nothing with the parking garage unless
certain individuals agree to it. We are prepared to tear down signs
Page 333
December 11-12, 2012
because -- that have already been installed because somebody doesn't
like it. This is a slippery slope, and it ain't leading somewhere good.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for your comment.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker is Kathleen Robbins.
MS. ROBBINS: Madam Chair, I'm Kathleen Robbins,
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. I am here primarily to
answer any questions you-all may have.
With regard to the settlement agreement, I do have -- I do have
one change that we need to make, which is a minor change, but we
need all the petitioners to sign according to our attorney.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MS. ROBBINS: He wants all -- and so I'm adding a separate
Page 4 that has all of the necessary signatures, including the Florida
DEP --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MS. ROBBINS: -- needs to sign, and it will be signed in
counterparts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MS. ROBBINS: So I have those revisions with me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. ROBBINS: But I'll need to revise it also for the -- each
attorney.
Do you want to write that language for me, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure.
MS. ROBBINS: Just one line.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just one line.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you add the line that each bears
its own costs?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what we're talking about.
MS. ROBBINS: That's the line.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, that's the line? Okay.
Page 334
December 11-12, 2012
MS. ROBBINS: Yeah, because I'm not an attorney.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MS. ROBBINS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
I believe Commissioner Henning was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- as far as the speaker
talking about the Vanderbilt Beach bathrooms and a need for others to
have input, that was set forth during the deed restriction and covenants
of Pelican Bay. So they will always have to do that. And the problem
is, you know, it's -- it is very important that if it was brought to the
board -- that was a 3-2 vote. It was brought to the board; there were
alternatives, and that wasn't given to the state. And we want to
continue the litigation or the challenge of the -- at the end of the day.
If the citizens win -- which obviously if there's alternatives, they have
a very good chance -- does that get the bathrooms built? No.
At the end of the day, those bathrooms need to be expanded, and
this provides it.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Henning, I agree with you. This
would allow a different project to get built, but you could accomplish
that without accepting the settlement agreement.
All you have to do is direct the staff to build a different project at
a different location, and you won't be giving up any of the rights that
you have to develop and control your own property, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What issue do you have with the
settlement agreement?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have -- the parties to the
settlement are individual citizens just whoever decided to file an
appeal to the variance with the state.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. They're the citizens that
we serve. They are citizens of the county.
MR. OCHS: Sure, but why not other citizens if we're going to
Page 335
December 11-12, 2012
enter into some kind of settlement agreement on the use of the land?
This was -- this was a petition over a setback variance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because they filed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, they -- they filed it, and
we are going to enter into a settlement with all the citizens once we
award a contract for construction.
MR. OCHS: Sir, you could simply order us to withdraw the
application and build the project in a different location, and you'd
accomplish the same objective.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what you want?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Without any certainty, Leo, and
that's the problem. This has been going on for how long? I mean,
Commissioner Halas was on the board eight years, and at the
beginning of his second term he started pushing for the pier --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pier.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and that is what blocked the
construction of bathrooms in this location -- what could have been in
this location from that time forward.
And staff has absolutely with unmitigating commitment been
pushing these elevated bathrooms which are nothing more than the
truncated pier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's my turn, I guess.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We had a -- we had a selection
of what we wanted. I can understand the Vanderbilt Beach people,
and it's just kind of like when you move in next to an airport and you
don't want to hear the noise anymore, I can understand why you don't
want people on the beach or you don't want, you know, a concession
stand there, because it would bring more people.
It would certainly make it easier for the tourists who pay for that,
by the way. The tourists -- Tourist Development Council had voted to
do this because they wanted to make it easy for the people. Instead of
Page 336
December 11-12, 2012
having to pack up their stuff and go across the street to get something
and come back, they wanted to make it easy for the people to have
something.
I've been to the -- an elevated -- and actually two of them --
elevated bathrooms and concession stand. And when we were -- when
we were given all of the options, I felt it was a great -- a great asset for
the people who pay for it. Yeah, maybe the residents would never use
it, but the people who pay for it.
Now, the people in Pelican Bay who are against it, they can't
even see it. But they're part of this settlement, too. I think that that's
kind of a shame that they would do that.
But anyway, we're not thinking about the people. And, you
know, what this is all -- as you probably notice through this meeting,
we're not ever talking about the people anymore. We're talking about
politics, and it's kind of shameful.
And I'll just say that I think the staff did everything they could to
give us all aspects of this, and it's the one we chose. So they shouldn't
be blamed for what the commissioners chose.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to ask the
county attorney a couple of questions about this.
Does this, in fact, give Mr. Rollin Rhea and Mr. Naegele and
then the homeowner associations that are listed here ongoing control
over what happens at that site?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forever and ever?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens if Mr. Rollin Rhea
or Mr. Naegele move away? Will they -- they could be living in, well,
let's say Miami. Are they still going to have a say in what happens
here, and how will it be determined? Will it be determined by
Page 337
December 11-12, 2012
majority vote of all of the people named in these associations, or how
do you deal with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's got a right of approval of site plans and
architectural designs, but the approval may not be unreasonably
withheld.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the out-clause for us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's always debatable.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But that will always be the
case. If there's a modification of an expansion of any of the facilities
or even a minor change in location --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On our property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on our own property, we're going
to have to seek the approval of those people; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's insane. We can instruct the
county manager, as the county manager has correctly observed, to
build this configuration in the location that is identified here without
having to sign this ridiculous agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This is with respect to buildings that
will be on elevated pilings. It's very reasonable.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I think it's very important for
the long-term health of the natural beach at Vanderbilt that we pull
back construction from the VE zone to the AE zone. I think that's
very commendable.
I think it would also be valuable if we could, at some point when
we get these new bathrooms, in fact, even remove the existing
bathroom or take that boardwalk and expand it into a little area where
Page 338
December 11-12, 2012
people can enjoy the boardwalk in that natural area to restore the VE
zone.
I would not be objectionable to a settlement with the county that
would craft an agreement to satisfy the petitioners that no further
construction would be made into the VE zone and no other further
proposals would be made to build anything on the natural beach rather
than engage a whole group of individual parties to the lawsuit over a
long period of time. I agree that that might be awkward.
But, you know, I'm open to discussion on that. But I think -- I
think what we're getting to is a protection of the beach and a
prohibition on constructing large structures on our natural beach. And,
you know, if we can craft something that accomplishes everybody's
goals, it would make me very happy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, the issue
there is that that can be revoked, and that's the importance of the
settlement. Because the problem we have now is for 10 years
bathrooms have not been built --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- because of this debate.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If the county crafts a settlement
with this suit that stipulates that the county agrees in perpetuity --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's not into perpetuity. It's for 15
years. It's a 15-year term.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, this is a 15-year term.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I said at the beginning,
that they agreed to the modification because --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- I raised the issue that it cannot be
into perpetuity. So it is limited to a 15-year term.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It, indeed, cannot be in perpetuity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I said, we don't want it into
perpetuity, so I said come up with a reasonable term, and the term is
Page 339
December 11-12, 2012
15 years.
MR. KLATZKOW: One approach the board could consider
would simply be get rid of Paragraph 5.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which is Paragraph 5?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's the one I
highlighted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where does it say it ends in 15
years?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I said is a modification.
I announced that at the beginning of the discussion, that staff had
brought back the concern about a term limit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, I misunderstood that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. So that is in addition, and
that's what Kathy Robbins was telling Mr. Klatzkow, that he would
add the language of the term.
MS. ROBBINS: No, no, no, the attorney's fees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, the attorney fees. I'm sorry.
MS. ROBBINS: The term is Paragraph 10.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ten, but they do not have the copy.
MR. OCHS: We don't have Paragraph 10.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just brought that up in discussion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We don't have that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's hard for us to vote on something
we can't even see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, we don't have the copy that
we're voting on? Is that really what we're doing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. We're working on the
amendments to the copy right now. That's what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we're crafting something on
the fly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to ask a question, too, that's
Page 340
December 11-12, 2012
kind of like an outline question.
As we see the waters rising, and we've seen what's happening as
they swallow up different things -- and I think initially of the dome
houses that 20 years sat on land -- 25 years sat on land, and people
rode their horses on it, and now they're underwater -- are we taking
into consideration that the water levels might change here as the
waters are rising?
You put a term limit on something and then nature takes control,
but we can't do anything on our own property because we're limited
by 15 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not even that, according to
this. It's not less than 15 years from the date of execution. There is no
termination date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a new -- new document
that's just put before us, and it says the term of the agreement shall be
not less than 15 years. It doesn't have any ultimate termination date.
This -- this stinks, it really does.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not even allowed to use our own
property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is really outrageous, but
nevertheless do what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're going to anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got the vote. Do it, and
then live with the consequences.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to consider removing
Paragraph 5?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's what I'm looking at,
Jeff. I'm taking what you're suggesting. I don't see how --
Page 341
December 11-12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Because we're going to be taking public
comment anyway on the architectural designs.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's going to come back to the board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But let me ask you a question.
Kathy -- where's Kathy?
MS. ROBBINS: Here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you explain Paragraph 5 in the
context of what Jeff is saying? Does Paragraph 5 apply to everything
that's built in that area? I thought it applied to the bathrooms.
MS. ROBBINS: It is intended to apply to the bathrooms. There
really --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I thought.
MS. ROBBINS: -- isn't a whole lot of room to build anything
other than the bathrooms. The park is a very small park. Most of the
park is occupied by the parking garage. So all you have is the VE
zone on the west --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. This --
MS. ROBBINS: -- parking garage on the east, and this is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. This -- my understanding of
Paragraph 5, Jeff-- and that's why I'm a little confused by this
discussion -- I don't believe relates to anything accept the bathrooms
that are in question.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're already required, through the
deed restrictions and covenants on that property with the Pelican Bay
Foundation to, you know, get architectural approval from them, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm not sure that's enforceable. I'm
really not. I really -- and that's why I wouldn't rely on that.
Jeff, I don't believe that that paragraph applies to anything but
these bathrooms.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if you're asking me --
because I think Commissioner Coyle's raised some interesting points
Page 342
December 11-12, 2012
and Commissioner Nance has raised some points, especially that
second sentence, if you take it out, I think --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which one?
MR. KLATZKOW: That the parties shall have the right of
approval of the site and architectural design. If you take that sentence
out, I think it becomes a lot more palatable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it's the site plan only with
respect to this bathroom, because --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, why should it -- why should they
have that right? It's going to come back for a full public hearing. I
mean, the last time we had public hearings on this, you had a roomful
of people.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's your position on that?
MS. ROBBINS: I think it should remain in, because we attended
several public hearings in the previous cycle. We voiced our
concerns; all of the petitioners did. That was later characterized as the
neighborhood is fine with the previous plan, which we were not fine
with the previous plan.
Obviously, our voice speaking at these public hearings is not
effective.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but you're protected by Paragraph 4.
I mean, we're building in the AE zone now.
MS. ROBBINS: We still would like approval rights. I'm sorry to
say that we really don't trust county staff to come back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't have a problem with that.
It's just with respect to the bathroom. It's not with respect to all the
construction in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have a Paragraph E within 4,
petitioners shall have the right to approve the site plan architectural
Page 343
December 11-12, 2012
design for the bathrooms.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And remove 5 altogether.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a very good --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's saying the same thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to amend your
motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I want to -- I'm looking at Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I told you my thought, but
it's -- this is a board policy decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, no. I think that's fair, because
-- yeah. I think that is -- so let -- I will amend my motion -- I'm going
to amend my motion as follows: To accept the settlement agreement
with the following modifications: That, number one, the term of the
agreement shall be 15 years from the date its -- its execution; that
number two, that each party will bear its own legal fees in this matter;
that number three, Paragraph 5 will be removed and replaced by 4E
where 4E will provide the same wording as now exists in 5 with the
additional wording of all -- and that -- and that this right of approval
shall pertain to the bathrooms proposed herein.
MS. ROBBINS: So the last sentence on Paragraph 5, which is
now known as 4E, would read, the petitioners shall have the right of
approval of the site plan and architectural design of the bathrooms?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The paragraph -- 4E will now read,
the county will seek site plan and architectural input from petitioner
before proceeding with the design work and will make its architect
engineers available to consult with petitioners or petitioners' architect.
The petitioners shall have the right of approval of the site plan
and architectural design, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld, comma, with respect to the proposed bathrooms, period.
So that it's understood that this is only -- so that these petitioners
Page 344
December 11-12, 2012
involved in this case will be involved with the approval process of the
bathrooms only, not any structure in that area.
MS. ROBBINS: I'm not sure I understand why the relevance of
moving it from Paragraph 5 to Paragraph 4E.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because Jeff thinks that it relates to,
I don't know, everything in that whole area. I don't -- nowhere in this
settlement agreement does it refer to the whole area. And the only
discussion in this entire settlement is with respect to the bathrooms
alone. So I don't know how he's jumping to that conclusion. But just
to give him comfort, I think we can move it.
MS. ROBBINS: And I guess I do see your reasoning, because
Paragraph 4 refers to -- that we will support an application to build the
restrooms. So it frames it as being a restroom thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely, this is strictly --
MS. ROBBINS: Yeah, and this is what it's intended to be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- strictly limited to the restrooms.
And -- yeah.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, so Item 10 will be revised as you
suggested.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. The term of this agreement
shall be 15 years --
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- from the date of its execution.
MR. OCHS: My only other question is, what would the board
consider approval from the petitioners? What constitutes written
approval? I mean, do we need a signature from all of the homeowners
in all the groups or the president or --
MR. KLATZKOW: They would need to fully sign off.
MR. OCHS: Who's that?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The petitioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: The petitioners, everyone who's joined in
that action.
Page 345
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: So all the homeowners, or the representative of the
homeowner groups?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, which one? Every resident?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, not every resident. Who's ever joined
in the suit. There's a list of names in your suit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. He's asking if
everyone --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be Rollin Rhea, Robert
Naegele, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Incorporated. That
can get signed off by the president --
MR. OCHS: That's my question. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- as in all corporate entities. You know,
the same thing with the homeowners associations.
MR. OCHS: The Mangrove Action Group, do they -- each one
signs or --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. It's the president of each
corporation that has filed suit. There is one, two, three, four
corporations, or four incorporated entities that have filed suit.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, ma'am, do you want us to take -- after
it's fully executed by the petitioners, do you want us to bring it back to
the board on a consent item so the board can see the changes, or do
you want it just to go for -- assuming this is voted -- for the chair's
signature?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What I would like to do is have the
board vote. If the board votes to accept this settlement, that this
settlement becomes immediately effective as modified by the motion
and that it -- upon execution by all parties, that it be put on consent for
informational purposes so that the board can confirm that everything
that was approved here was incorporated as stated without any other
changes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So I'll -- when it's fully executed,
Page 346
December 11-12, 2012
then we'll send it for your signature.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I would sign it first, then they
execute it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You modify it, give it to me, I sign
it, we send it to them, they countersign.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then you put it on consent at
the next meeting so everyone can see what was executed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because what is executed should --
what is presented in the backup today with the modifications that will
be voted on based on today's discussion. And we're presenting, in
effect, a counteroffer to them by presenting these modifications and,
as such, my signature on this document only becomes binding upon us
when they accept the counteroffer, in effect, that we're making.
MR. KLATZKOW: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have no written document in
front of us that is complete that incorporates all of the changes that we
can review, nor can the public see what it is we're really voting on.
I think it is highly irregular that we would put something into
effect immediately without an opportunity for the board or the public
to see the final document that is being voted on. I can't imagine that
we would even vote on this document until it is properly drafted and
presented to us in a public meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner, I believe Mr.
Klatzkow wants to comment.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can table this matter, okay, because
Page 347
December 11-12, 2012
we're coming up to the lunch break soon anyway. If I can get a Word
copy of this, we can make the changes upstairs and then bring what
we believe is the final document back to the board before the end of
the meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. And what I'd like to
actually do is have you do it over lunch and bring it back at 1 o'clock
and re-present it to the board at one clock.
MS. ROBBINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make an
announcement. At one clock I have meetings. I will not be available
for that.
So any other items that you don't want me to comment on or vote
on, schedule it between one and two clock.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I'll make sure of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll make absolutely sure of that.
But thanks for letting us know you won't be here. We'll miss you.
MR. OCHS: Madam --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if you could please go back --
and I'm going to ask for a vote now on the modifications, and if the
vote passes with a majority, then please go back, redraft the settlement
to reflect what the board has approved, if it gets approved, and bring it
back at 1 o'clock for final ratification --
MS. ROBBINS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so that the board can see it before
it's executed.
Thank you for that suggestion.
So with that -- did you want to speak, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner Nance, do
you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, ma'am.
Page 348
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
All right. If there's no further discussion, all in -- can I have an --
a second on the amended motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep, got it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. There being no further
discussion, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Motion passes 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2012-266: PETITION NUMBER ADA-
PL20120001218 JAFFE BOAT DOCK APPEAL REPRESENTED
BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, LPA,
REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS OF A DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION IN DENYING PETITION BDE-
PL20110001573 THAT REQUESTED A 19-FOOT BOAT DOCK
EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20-FOOT PROTRUSION
LIMIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A 39-FOOT BOAT DOCK
FACILITY ACCOMMODATING 2 VESSELS ON 2 BOAT SLIPS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10090 GULFSHORE DRIVE
AND IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF
LOT 14, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1; SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
Page 349
December 11-12, 2012
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS ITEM
TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM #8B —
ADOPTED
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2012-265: RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER
VA-PL20110001576, JAFFE VARIANCE, FOR A VARIANCE
FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.7 TO
PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK
FROM 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
10091 GULF SHORE DRIVE, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH
ESTATES IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS ITEM TO BE
HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM #8A — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'd like to go to Items 8A and B, if
we could, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Eight?
MR. OCHS: Those are your zoning board of appeal hearings.
Because I don't know how many commissioners are going to be left
after the lunch hour here, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I agree. Thank you so much.
MR. OCHS: These are companion items, Commissioners. Item
8A requires ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members,
and all participants are required to be sworn in.
It is a recommendation to approve Petition No.
ADA-PL20120001218, Jaffe boat-dock appeal, represented by R.
Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, requesting an appeal to
the Board of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County
Planning Commission and denying Petition BDE-PL20110001573
that requested a 19-foot boat-dock extension over the maximum
Page 350
December 11-12, 2012
20-foot protrusion limited as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land
Development Code to allow a 39-foot boat-dock facility
accommodating two vessels on two boat slips for property located at
10090 Gulfshore Drive, as further described as the north 50 feet of Lot
14, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 29,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
I would also ask Mr. Klatzkow to assist me here. In terms of the
companion item, Mr. Klatzkow, should we read that and hear them
together or vote separately on these?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would hear them together and then vote
separately.
MR. OCHS: Then, Madam Chair, if I could read B as well.
Again, this item requires ex parte disclosure and witnesses be
sworn. It's a recommendation to consider a resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition No.
VA-PL20110001576, Jaffe variance, for a variance for the Land
Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.7 to permit a reduced side yard
riparian setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 10091
Gulfshore Drive.
So ex parte and swearing in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. OCHS: Ex parte, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ex parte, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning commission's report,
staff.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I have met with Mr.
Anderson and reviewed the staff reports on both of the items, A and B.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to get
Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I'm going from the ends to the
Page 351
December 11-12, 2012
middle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. You've changed the
procedure.
Yes, I have ex parte disclosure for A and B, which include the
planning commission report, a meeting with representatives of the
petitioner, emails, telephone calls, correspondence, and that's it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Excuse me. I had
correspondence. I had meetings with our own staff I also had
meetings with Bruce Anderson and Tim Hall. I also met or talked
with a few different planning commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I spoke to Bruce
Anderson, Tim Hall, Planning Commissioner Bill Vonier, and I also
spoke to staff and reviewed the backup material as presented. Go
ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Good morning. My name is
Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm on behalf of
Andrew Jaffe, the property owner.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a unique lot that is depicted on the
overhead projector. It's 50 feet wide at the end of a 1,400-foot canal.
A lot of that size, 50 feet in width, is nonconforming, and it could not
be created today under the county's laws. It is, however, a legally
nonconforming lot.
That lot was created in the mid '50s, and it has been used and
conveyed since that time solely for a boat dock for the gulf-front home
across the street.
The lot presently has two docks, and one of those docks actually
encroaches over the riparian line for the southern neighbor's property.
Approval of these applications will eliminate that encroachment and
will reduce the number of docks from two to one dock with two slips.
The abutting owners on both sides of this property have
submitted letters of no objection, and they are the only people that will
Page 352
December 11-12, 2012
be affected by approval of these two applications. And we would
respectfully ask you to render your approval.
I'd like to turn this over now to Tim Hall to address the criteria, if
I might.
MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, my name is Tim
Hall with the firm of Turrell, Hall & Associates also representing Dr.
Jaffe, who is the owner of the lot.
Bruce already talked about the unique stature of it. The county
code does say that side yard setbacks for lots less than 60 feet wide is
seven and a half. The petition in front of you is to reduce those
setbacks to zero on the north side and to a half a foot -- six inches on
the south side.
The -- in determining whether or not the variance is appropriate,
the county looks at the eight criteria. And what I was going to do was
just go through those criteria briefly. If you have any questions,
please feel free to ask.
The first is, are there special conditions and circumstances
existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of
the land structure or building involved.
We've already kind of noted that it's a unique lot. It could not be
done under today's code. It's the only one in the neighborhood with its
location and orientation, and the 50-foot width in conjunction with the
diagonal riparian line, because of it being on the corner, limits the
available area that you have to moor a vessel without a variance.
And that limitation would be -- would only allow vessels that are
smaller than what are allowed and what are common everywhere else
in the neighborhood. And that's a depiction of the lot. This is the
actual upland lot. The riparian lines and what you see in pink is what
is essentially lost because of those setbacks.
This is what is there today. As Bruce had said, the existing lot
does have a little bit of encroachment.
So the setbacks that were put in place that are in place and the
Page 353
December 11-12, 2012
location of the lot, the orientation of the riparian rights, and the
riparian lines to that lot definitely do limit the ability to place the two
vessels at the site, and two vessels are what are commonly allowed
everywhere else within the county except for Port of the Islands.
The second criteria is are there special conditions and
circumstances which do not result from the actions of the applicant,
such as preexisting conditions relative to the property, which is the
subject of the variance.
As we said, the existing facility is not currently compliant with
the setback requirements or the riparian lines associated with the
property.
The owner did not own the property when it was separated back
in the '50s, and they also did not own the property when the
seven-and-a-half foot setback criteria were established in the county
code, and he didn't even own the property when the existing lot was
constructed. I don't have the exact day, but I know that based on
aerial interpretation, that it was before 1999.
And given that the two slips have been present since before 1999,
it's reasonable to assume that two slips would still be allowed on that
lot going into the future.
The third criteria is will a literal interpretation of the provisions
of the code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or
create practical difficulties on the applicant? I think based on what
we've shown you, you can see the practical difficulties; he can't
continue to moor the two vessels without the variance that's being
requested.
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure,
and which promote standards of health, safety, or welfare?
As I said earlier, and what is -- I won't say defined, but what is
outlined in the code, a reasonable use of the land is to provide two
slips, which currently exist and which is allowed other places in the
Page 354
December 11-12, 2012
county.
The county code under the boat-dock extension criteria says that
a typical single-family use should be no more than two slips. This is a
single-family use, and it currently has two slips. He's asking to
continue to utilize it for two slips.
As I said, the only place that is specifically limited in the county
to only one slip is Port of the Islands, and that was done as part of the
Manatee Protection Plan.
The proposed design does not constitute a danger to any health,
safety, or welfare standards. It improves access to the property for the
boats that are proposed. It does not interfere with access or use of the
adjacent properties. In fact, the adjacent properties have both given
letters of no objection. And it provides safe mooring for the vessels
that are proposed.
The fifth criteria asked if granting the variance requested will
confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is designed in the
zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same
zoning district.
I've already explained that the zoning districting is a
single-family district. The code allows for two slips, and he's asking
for the two slips. The granting of the variance will allow the
encroachment into the side setbacks, which is not commonly -- you
know, which is outside of the scope of what's normally allowed. But
doing so will allow the owner to appreciate the same privileges with
respect to mooring the two vessels that are enjoyed by the rest of the
neighborhood and does not impact negatively the neighbors or the
neighborhoods.
The sixth criteria asked if granting the variance will be in
harmony with the intent and purpose of the code and not be injurious
to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare.
And, I mean, I've already gone through that. It's kind of the same
answer. It allows the same use that has historically occurred on the
Page 355
December 11-12, 2012
property since the 1950s. The vessels proposed are not out of--
they're not larger than what is commonly seen in the neighborhood,
and it is not detrimental to the public welfare.
The seventh criteria asks if there are natural conditions or
physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives
of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, et
cetera. I don't believe that criteria is actually applicable to this
property. It's a dock on a manmade canal used for navigation, and this
will not interfere with the navigation within that canal. It's at the very
end of it. The only people that would be navigating in that area is the
owner of the property.
And the last criteria asks if granting the variance would be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You've seen the staff
report. They are recommending approval. We agree with the
determinations that it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
So our presentation to the Planning Commission asking them for
the variance, they did not believe the variance was appropriate, which
is why we're in front of you today.
And, you know, that's my presentation with respect to that. I'd be
willing to answer any questions, or I can go right into the BDE.
I did Item B first with the variance, because if the variance is not
approved, the BDE is a moot point. It can't be approved without the
variance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning would like
to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tim, is this a platted lot as it is,
50-foot wide?
MR. HALL: I'll let Bruce respond to that one.
MR. ANDERSON: It was carved out of a platted lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it became
nonconforming when it was carved out?
MR. ANDERSON: No. Well, it became nonconforming when
Page 356
December 11-12, 2012
the county changed the rules about minimum lot sizes and the inability
to split a lot off in that fashion. I mean, that happened years ago. But
when it was initially conveyed out, it was conforming with the
county's laws.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, all right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further questions on his first
presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to take a vote on
this at this time, in light of the fact that the second item is --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'd like to move the -- for approval
of the variance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve and a second of
the variance as presented.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Just the commissioner of
the district's input.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, my concern on this issue was
to what extent the setbacks were more restrictive than necessary to
promote the objective of public safety.
And we obviously can't have a regulation that is more than is
needed, particularly in light of the fact that it's depriving this property
owner of what -- this property owner should have the right to have,
just like all the other properties have.
So I spoke to Mr. Hall, and I asked him whether these setbacks
were more than needed to achieve the public safety objective, and he
represented that, yes, that was the case, and that reducing the setbacks
does not in any way adversely affect the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so that is why I accepted it,
Page 357
December 11-12, 2012
because I do think the regulation as applied to this property does
exceed what is needed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. HALL: Thank you.
I'll kind of run through the same thing with the boat-dock
extension. As I said before, once the Planning Commission had
decided to vote against the variance request, they couldn't, therefore,
approve the BDE because it was not possible to do without the
variance.
So going through the boat-dock extension criteria, there are --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning? Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No comments by the motion maker
and the second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That being the case, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 358
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. HALL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We have five minutes. Can we take care of-- what is something
that -- could we take care of, for example -- could we address AB?
MR. OCHS: Which item?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: AB, which is -- 10AB, which is the
red light cameras.
MR. OCHS: Sure, if that's the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sheriff.
Item #10AB
TERMINATING THE RED LIGHT CAMERA CONTRACT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ATS, EFFECTIVE
FEBRUARY 28, 2013; ALL RED LIGHT CAMERAS BE DULY
REMOVED FROM ALL INTERSECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE ATS CONTRACT; AND, TO FURTHER DIRECT
STAFF TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO THE
BOARD (1) WHETHER TRAFFIC LIGHTS CAN BE RETIMED
SO DRIVERS WILL ENCOUNTER FEWER RED LIGHTS, (2)
WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE
DURATION OF THE YELLOW LIGHT BETWEEN THE GREEN
AND THE RED, AND (3) WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO
ADD OR INCREASE THE "CLEARANCE" PHASE TO THE
Page 359
December 11-12, 2012
INTERSECTION'S TRAFFIC SIGNALS DURING WHICH ALL
DIRECTIONS HAVE A RED LIGHT, ALL IN THE INTEREST OF
ENHANCING THE PUBLIC'S SAFETY - MOTION TO
APPROVE AND STAFF TO BRING BACK A REPORT ON THE
TIMING OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE FIRST MEETING IN
FEBRUARY 2013 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: AB is a recommendation that the board authorize
the county manager to sign the attached notice and that such notice be
given to terminate the red light camera contract between Collier
County and ATS, effective February 28, 2013.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
If I could just make a quick comment first, Commissioner Fiala.
I think it's very important that when we consider using something
like red light cameras, that it's done for the right reason, and it's -- the
right reason is not to raise revenue which, by the way, the sheriff does
not get the revenue which is raised by way of these camera citations.
There is no demonstrated evidence that these cameras promote a
reduced number of red-light-camera-related accidents.
And so, what we need to do is to promote the interest of public
safety to -- and to try to do everything we can to minimize these type
of accidents, is we need to look at our traffic light timing management,
which staff has advised me they are doing and are continuing to do.
We're not there yet.
We need to look at the timing of the yellow lights. We need to
look at the timing of the four-way clearance time, the -- where,
basically, you have four red lights coming on simultaneously at an
intersection. We basically need to look at alternatives to red light
cameras to improve the public's -- you know, to improve safety for the
Page 360
December 11-12, 2012
benefit of the public.
So there is really at this point no evidence that supports the need
for these red light cameras. And I thank you both for the motion, the
first and the second, on this subject.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The sheriff sent us a letter
stating that this -- he felt that it was important for the safety of our
community to continue. I do agree, by the way, with you about the
retiming of the lights. I didn't realize how much it had -- the yellow
lights had to do with, you know, the safety of-- or accessibility of the
-- I should say ease of getting through the light. Maybe they're timed
too short. I think that's a good idea. If they're timed properly, then
maybe people won't be running red lights.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know we had a lot of deaths here,
and some of them so needlessly because of people running red lights,
and that's why we started the initiative in the first place. We certainly
don't make any money on it.
And, really, the sheriff doesn't either. It's -- he was doing this
more for safety reasons. I wish he was here today to state his position
on this, but he did send us a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, let me just finish.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, I just feel that now is not
the time to start the -- stop the red light cameras, but I do feel it's a
good idea to re-time the lights and see if that will reduce the need for
red light cameras.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would agree with Commissioner
Fiala.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Page 361
December 11-12, 2012
As I stated, there is no evidence that the presence of these lights
are reducing any incidents.
I would like you to amend your motion, if you would,
Commissioner Henning. If you could add a date-certain for staff to
come back and give us the report on the timing of the lights as to what
they have done to remedy the problems we've had, I would appreciate
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if the second would support
that, because I think we need a definitive time, because this is a public
safety matter. And I don't believe that the correction of the timing of
the lights should be delayed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll amend it so we get a
report at 12:12 on 12/12.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot to mention --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On 2012.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just a second. You want the report
to be given to us today or when?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Why don't we ask Mr.
Casalanguida what's reasonable.
MR. OCHS: That's an idea.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wait a second. It's not your turn.
One second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been after this for a long
time, and it starts even vocally when we started talking about
greenhouse gases, you know. I said time the lights. We're working on
it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. If I could address the board.
Nick Casalanguida.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tony Khawaja's done, I think, a real
Page 362
December 11-12, 2012
good job in some of the corridors. He's done probably about six of
them of the main line corridors, our urban grid, and he continues to go
through and look at each one of those.
So I'm happy to come back and give you a report and show you
the improvements we've done and which ones are left to do and then
explain what the clearance zone is and the yellow time and how it's
done as a function of speed and spacing of the intersection. So we can
come back to you, I would say, in --
MR. OCHS: First meeting in February?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's reasonable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I think it's very important. We
can't delay on this. I had that experience yesterday. I was driving -- I
can't remember which road it was on. I think it was Goodlette. And it
happened to me there. And, I mean, literally, I was at a green light
and it, like, turned to yellow, like, instantaneously before I even had
literally -- I mean, it went from -- it was green -- yellow for such a
short amount of time, and then red where, I mean, I was, like, just
barely able to clear.
So it's a big problem, and we need to get it remedied as soon as
possible. There is no excuse for a delay in this. It is a public safety
matter.
So I think -- thank you very much, Leo, for suggesting the first
meeting in February. I think that's very prudent to give, you know,
almost a month,and a half--
MR. OCHS: We'll give a full report to the board, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to get a full report. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't say -- I should have said. I
started to say how many deaths there had been, but I didn't say that I
asked the sheriff about, since we had the red light cameras, what has
Page 363
December 11-12, 2012
happened, and we have had zero deaths since then, so I just thought I'd
mention that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I know you're getting ready to break for lunch, but
if I could get the board's indulgence on Item 11J.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to vote on this one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have to vote on this matter.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you hold on a moment.
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I'm very anxious to get rid of
this onerous program. I think it's been harmful to our tourist industry.
I don't think it's been helpful from a safety aspect. I think Mr.
Casalanguida's staff has got wonderful things that he can do to add
safety, but all the evidence that I've read indicates that deaths due to
red light running are by far and away caused by errors, simply people
not stopping at the light in any fashion. It's not a question of sneaking
through during a period of the normal operation of that light.
So I support getting rid of this program as soon as practicable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask clarification of the
motion? We've talked about two things. We've talked about adjusting
the timing of the lights, and you've talked about eliminating the red
light program.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Let me go ahead and restate
the motion so there is no question, then I'll call the vote again.
Page 364
December 11-12, 2012
The recommendation is to -- that the board authorize the county
manager to sign the attached notice, that such notice, which -- be
given to terminate the red light camera contract between Collier
County and ATS effective February 28, 2013, and to direct that all red
light cameras be duly removed from all intersections in accordance
with the ATS contract and to further direct staff to investigate and
report back to the board, one, whether traffic lights can be re-timed so
drivers will encounter fewer red lights; two, where it is appropriate to
increase the duration of the yellow light between the green and the
red; and whether it's appropriate to add or increase the clearance phase
to the intersections' traffic signals during which all directions have a
red light, all in the interest of enhancing the public safety; and, further,
that a report of the current status of the timing of lights be brought
back to the Board of County Commissioners for presentation at the
first meeting in February by staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If I could just make a
request. Would you be willing to bifurcate that motion? Because I
agree with part of it, but I disagree with the second part.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would motion maker be willing to
bifurcate the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Does the second support the
first's position?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I still support.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Get 'er done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Again, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 365
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2, with
Commissioner Coyle and Fiala dissenting.
Item #11J
OBTAINING APPRAISALS (NOT TO EXCEED $10,000) FOR
FIFTH THIRD BANK PROPERTIES LOCATED NORTH OF THE
NAPLES ZOO LEASED PROPERTY. COST OF APPRAISALS
WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE NAPLES ZOO - MOTION TO
CONTINUE INDEFINITELY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I was mentioning that 11J was an
item that the staff obtained two appraisals for -- on behalf of the
Naples Zoo, but Ms. Krier, who represents the zoo, asked for us to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Withdraw that.
MR. OCHS: -- asked the board to withdraw this item, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: So with the board's motion, we withdraw.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to -- well --
MR. OCHS: I'm asking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can't withdraw it, because
it's already on the agenda. What would be the proper motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't you continue it without a date.
MR. OCHS: Continue indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue it indefinitely motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, continue indefinitely.
Motion to continue 11J indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
Page 366
December 11-12, 2012
favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We will now break for lunch and be
back at 1 :05.
(A luncheon brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That was easy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was. That was the first time
that everyone just, like, looked up.
Thank you. We're reconvening the meeting.
Item #10W (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
SETTLEMENT OFFER PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS IN
DOAH CASE NO. 12-495; AND, THAT THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO, AS PRESENTED HEREIN,
BE EXECUTED ON DECEMBER 11, 2012 BY THE CHAIR OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF
COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE —
APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT SETTLEMENT OFFER
WITH MODIFICATIONS AND BRING BACK AFTER LUNCH
TO REVIEW — APPROVED; ITEM TABLED UNTIL AFTER
LUNCH — CONSENSUS; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES
OF THE AGREEMENT — APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT
Page 367
December 11-12, 2012
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — APPROVED
I just was having a conversation with Mr. Ochs, and we were
trying to figure out the timing of the balance of the schedule. We are
going to pick up where we left off with just the review of the
corrections made to the settlement agreement that was voted on to
ensure that what we wanted is properly included so that the document
can be signed and presented back to the petitioners.
But before I continue, what I wanted to mention was that --
Commissioner Coyle is now gone and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, he's not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I thought you weren't coming
back. Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm coming back just for this vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And then you're leaving?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'm leaving.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then he's leaving.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got people waiting in my office
for me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. But I don't believe we're
actually having a vote on this, because this is just to ensure that the
document is executed as per the vote that was given.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're just approving this to
bring it back for formal vote?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. The vote was already taken.
You voted on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I voted no on it, didn't I?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Do I need to vote again?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you don't need to vote again.
You just need to -- you just need to look at and, you know, we just
need to collectively agree that it reflects what was voted on by the
Page 368
December 11-12, 2012
board. And the changes were that -- can you please take us through it,
Mr. Klatzkow, or somebody.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think I've got them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I want to make sure that they're
properly read into the record, and there is no question that they --
MS. GREENE: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, if you'll permit me; I
don't like it any better now than I did before, so I'll just continue to
oppose it, and I'll leave you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sounds great. Go have fun. We'll
miss you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
(Commissioner Coyle has left the boardroom for the remainder of
the meeting.)
MS. GREENE: Commissioner Hiller, there is one change on
Page 2 that was brought forward by the petitioner, Kathy Robbins.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right.
MS. GREENE: I'm sorry. For the record, it's Colleen Greene,
assistant county attorney.
Paragraph 2, it's the third line where it says, nor construct any
elevated or elevated pile supported structure, and the second elevated
was added this afternoon, an elevated pile.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, okay.
MS. GREENE: And then the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just so that -- basically, so the
county -- all right, I understand. Is that a -- that's just a clarification?
MS. GREENE: I think it's a clarification at --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To make sure there's no --
MS. GREENE: -- the petitioners' request.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- question? I mean, I'm not sure
how you can have anything that's elevated without a pile, but --
MS. ROBBINS: Commissioner --
Page 369
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- you can't -- I'm looking at the
back, and staff says you can't have anything elevated that doesn't have
a pile. So it's somewhat redundant, but I guess it's fine.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might -- and I'm not trying to
confuse this. But if memory serves, the AE zone new site for the
facility is a -- still a low-lying area, and there's going to be some need
to make sure that we get the foundation stable, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We understand. That's why pilings
-- they're foundational pilings. The issue is not to have an elevated
structure.
MR. OCHS: I just want to make sure elevated doesn't mean that
it can't be six inches off the ground to keep it from being under water.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because I think the specifications as
to the elevation is outlined in the first part where it basically says, you
know, elevation not to exceed the elevation of the current bathroom.
MS. ROBBINS: No, I don't think we said that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, it's not there?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It says not to be over 20 feet.
MS. ROBBINS: It says total elevation of the top of the building,
20 feet maximum.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, okay. Well, that --
MS. ROBBINS: But we recognize that you need pilings. We
had pilings in there before, and then Commissioner Hiller pointed out
that we better say elevated pilings, because there probably will be
pilings involved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. But the maximum height of
20 feet addresses the elevation, so that actually covers -- it's just said
in a different way.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What is the next item?
MS. GREENE: The next item, Commissioner, is the old Number
5 became letter 4E, as discussed this morning, with the additional --
Page 370
December 11-12, 2012
the last part of Paragraph E says, with respect to the proposed
bathroom. So Paragraph 5, in its entirety, is now 4E with the
additional language with respect to the proposed bathrooms.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, that's fine.
MS. GREENE: And then they're renumbered, 5, 6 and 7 and 8.
Number 9 is new that says, the term of this agreement shall be 15
years from the date of approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Uh-huh.
MS. GREENE: Number 10 is new: The parties agree that each
party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Uh-huh.
MS. GREENE: And No. 11 was also proposed by the petitioner
and says "time is of the essence."
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Which doesn't change the
term of the agreement. It's just a paragraph.
MS. GREENE: No. Then we do have to make one correction to
the signature page. But other than that, Commissioner Hiller, the
document is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then all of the petitioners will
be signing the document?
MS. GREENE: Yes, including the petitioners' attorney, Mr.
Tomasello, since he's been the lead attorney on the matter from the
beginning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, that's fine.
Is there any comment from the board or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we voted on this? I think --
I think we need to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Reaffirm the vote, or reaffirm the
document?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept
the changes of the settlement agreement.
Page 371
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the thing that I do want to
clarify is that the involvement of the petitioners is only as to the
design for this bathroom for purposes of ensuring that the terms of this
agreement are being respected.
There being no discussion, all in favor of accepting the settlement
as presented.
(No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed with like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-1 with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
So this puts me in a position to sign it; is that correct, Mr.
Klatzkow?
MS. GREENE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller, except we do have a
corrected signature page, just hot off the press now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you please give me that --
MS. GREENE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and I'll go ahead and sign it. And
then if you could then carry it to the county attorney to sign, and to the
clerk, and then please give it to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we have a photo op?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question? Could you
-- could I ask a question? Could you tell me what kept this from
moving forward for so long? I mean, everybody -- I've heard it
mentioned that this has been held up for too long. What held it up so
long?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What held what up?
Page 372
December 11-12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: I -- nothing was held up. I mean, the board
approved --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this kept moving forward? It
wasn't --
MR. KLATZKOW: The board approved a particular project.
That project required a variance. The petitioners have questioned the
issuance of the variance, so we got involved in an administrative
hearing, but there's nothing outside the normal course of business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So it wasn't staff that held
this up? I got the feeling that it was staff that was holding this up.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What do you mean?
MR. OCHS: -- because of the appeal, we were not able to move
forward without that variance from the coastal construction setback
line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. OCHS: You know, we did things that we could do
concurrently from a planning standpoint, but you couldn't take the
next step without those permits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. OCHS: That was the subject of the appeal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So just so the audience will
know that it wasn't staff that held this up.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. All right.
Again, so now it's going to be signed by the county attorney, by
the clerk, and then given to the petitioners to accept and countersign.
As we said earlier, what was asked was that staff come back at
the second meeting in January, I believe. Is that what we said, or the
first meeting in February with the design, with a modified design?
MR. OCHS: No, I don't think we put a date on it, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we should put a date on it. I
Page 373
December 11-12, 2012
know the objective of this board should be to get these bathrooms built
for the public as quickly as possible. I mean, the whole objective is to
get bathrooms there, expanded bathroom facilities. So I think our
target should be to start construction in the summer when the bulk of
the people are gone, and to get a temporary bathroom facility in there
now in season so people have additional facilities in there and are not
forced to wait in long lines.
So I'd like to make a motion to that regard to move this item
forward and request that staff come back with a modified design in the
second meeting in --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: With respect --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: -- we have to honor our procurement policies. We
have to select a design professional; get the design done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can it not be modified by the
existing architect under the existing contract? We've had additional
design modifications for alternatives.
MR. OCHS: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we get either an
email report from the county manager or -- at next meeting --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of what is the time frame, and
what is the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Let me do this. I'll work with
the county manager and get his -- I think your suggestion is a good
one, Commissioner Henning -- and get his input to develop a timetable
to get this done.
MR. OCHS: Sure, because we share the interest of the board in
Page 374
December 11-12, 2012
getting the facility --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, built.
MR. OCHS: -- open and ready for the public as quickly as
possible.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And I know from my
experience with the Wiggins bathroom that, you know, it was planned
at or around a time like this and was in construction by the summer
and built through the summer, and it was really well done. Gary did an
excellent job on that Bluebill bathroom. And, you know, to whatever
extent we can emulate that.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a really super template that
he worked very long and hard to develop, so that would be awesome.
MR. OCHS: Okay, great.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll work with you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, would you like to
move forward on the next item?
Item #11H, #11K, #11L, #14A1, #14B1 and #14B3
BALANCE OF AGENDA ITEMS — CONTINUANCE/DEFERRAL
TO A MEETING IN JANUARY AS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNTY MANAGER — CONSENSUS (OUTSTANDING ITEMS:
#11H, #11K, #11L, #14A1, #14B1 AND #14B3, AT THE END OF
THE MEETING ARE DETAILED BELOW)
Item #11H
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE COUNTY'S
PROGRESS COORDINATING PERMITTING AND INSPECTION
ACTIVITIES WITH THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AND THE
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS (DISTRICTS) AND STAFF'S
Page 375
December 11-12, 2012
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON FUTURE ACTIONS
REGARDING THE SAME. — CONTINUED TO JANUARY
MEETING
Item #1 1 K
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DIVISION'S (GMD) PROGRESS
IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRONIC PLAN SUBMITTAL AND
DIGITAL PLAN REVIEW SYSTEM AND FURTHER; TO
AUTHORIZE ONE ADDITIONAL FULL TIME EMPLOYEE
(FTE) TO MANAGE THE SYSTEM. — CONTINUED TO
JANUARY MEETING
Item #1 1 L
RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN FROM ACTIVE SALES
VARIOUS PROPERTIES OBTAINED FROM AVATAR
PROPERTIES, INC., THAT ARE PART OF THE GULF
AMERICAN CORPORATION (GAC) LAND TRUST. —
CONTINUED TO JANUARY MEETING
Item #14A1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE THE
ATTACHED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LONG-TERM
GROUND LEASE AND SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
TURBO SERVICES, INC. — CONTINUED TO JANUARY
MEETING
Page 376
December 11-12, 2012
Item #14B1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA), ELECT A
VICE CHAIRMAN TO FILL THE INCOMPLETE TERM OF THE
VACATED OFFICE. — CONTINUED TO JANUARY MEETING
Item #14B3
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE THE AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE
ATTACHED FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL GRANT
APPLICATION TO IMMOKALEE CRA/MSTU SEEKING
GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO
SUPPORT LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMMOKALEE
MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN THE
IMMOKALEE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. — CONTINUED
TO JANUARY MEETING
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Let me just say,
Commissioner Henning has to leave at 2:30, and because we're losing
members of the board one by one here, Commissioner -- I think it
would behoove us at the time that he leaves to do what the county
manager has suggested to me, and that is continue the balance of
what's on the agenda that -- assuming there's nothing there that's time
sensitive, to the January meeting because, in his opinion, there are
items on here which can be deferred.
Page 377
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'll look to him to give us
guidance on that. And that way we'll end the meeting at 2:30 today
with a motion for continuance for the balance of the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Commissioner Henning, is there
anything that you need to address before 2:30?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because you've put a lot on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we already got all those.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I may?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
Item #11B
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12-5982 TO COMPASS
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,073,995 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK
COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT #80085 AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT
AND ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Again, in the interest of time, if the board would
permit us to take 11B. The source of fundings for this construction
project is largely federal grants that have spend-down requirements,
and we would not want to go to another meeting if the board is
disposed to approve this contract today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Nance, this project is in your
Page 378
December 11-12, 2012
district. Would you like to address this item?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I'd like to move approval of
the item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion on this? I
think we've all reviewed the backup, unless any member of the board
would like a presentation. I think the public and us have all had the
opportunity to review the information presented. Would you like --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Williams, is there anything
that you need to add or any remarks?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Supplement?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think we require a full
presentation, but this is something we've had cooking for a long time.
It's a 4,000-square-foot project.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Barry Williams, Parks and
Recreation Director.
I think you're right, Commissioner Nance; I think it's pretty
straightforward. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Everybody happy with where it is?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely. This will be their
third community center, right, in Immokalee?
MR. WILLIAMS: There's Immokalee Sports Complex,
Immokalee Community Park, and Immokalee South Park. Those
three facilities in Immokalee, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How big are they respectively?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this one was really in bad
shape. They have to tear it down. It was an old trailer. And I was in
there just a short time ago, so I totally agree with it. It really needs to
be done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Thank you.
Page 379
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With there being no more -- no
further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that 10AA?
Item #1 OZ
STAFF TO PREPARE RFPS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
GENERAL BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TO INCLUDE PRICING FOR SAND IN 50,000CY
INCREMENTS OVER 200,000CY UP TO 500,000CY, TO
INCLUDE PRICING FOR BOTH TRUCK HAULS AND
DREDGING, TO INCLUDE PRICING FOR SUCH RE-
NOURISHMENT ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF AND WITHIN
TURTLE NESTING SEASON, AND TO INCLUDE THAT THE
OFFERED PRICES WILL BE FIXED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME
AT THE EXPIRATION OF WHICH IF CONSTRUCTION HAS
NOT COMMENCED THAT THE CONTRACT WILL LAPSE
AND BE PUT BACK OUT TO BID IN THE FUTURE; THAT
STAFF FURTHER PREPARE AN RFP FOR FIXED TERM
COASTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND THE
NUMBER OF FIRMS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE SUCH
SERVICES TO THE COUNTY; THAT THESE RFPS SHALL BE
PREPARED AND PUBLICLY ADVERTISED DURING THE
Page 380
December 11-12, 2012
MONTHS OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY, RESPECTIVELY -
MOTION TO APPROVE PART 2 OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FIXED TERM CONTRACT
WITH COASTAL ENGINEERS — APPROVED; MOTION FOR
STAFF TO PUT OUT A SEALED BID THAT INCLUDES
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I think 10Z is our next item in order.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
MR. OCHS: That is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners direct staff to prepare RFPs for the Collier County
beach -- general beach renourishment construction project to include
pricing for sand in 50,000 cubic yard increments over 200,000 cubic
yards up to 500,000 cubic yards, to include pricing for both truck
hauls and dredging to include pricing for such renourishment activities
outside of and within turtle nesting season, and to include that the
offered prices will be fixed for a period of time at the expiration of
which, if construction is not commenced, that the contract will lapse
and be put back out to bid in the future; that staff further prepare an
RFP for fixed-term coastal engineering services to expand the number
of firms available to provide such services to the county, that these
RFPs shall be prepared and publicly advertised during the months of
December and January respectively.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we do have two registered public
speakers from yesterday. I do not believe Marcia Cravens is here, but
our other speaker, registered public speaker, Bob Krasowski, is here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I'd like to begin with
part two which addresses the request to put out an RFP for fixed-term
coastal engineering services to expand the number of firms that
currently service us.
And it -- this came to my attention when I believe -- if I
remember correctly, I think it was the Wiggins peer review that the
Page 381
December 11-12, 2012
firms that we had on our current fixed contract vendor list were unable
to do the work because they had conflicts either with respect to time,
or I'm not sure what other issue.
So, you know, we cannot be in a situation where we have such a
short list of coastal engineers that if there's an emergency we have to
put something out to bid to get a non-conflicted firm to work on the
project.
When a coastal matter comes up and time is of the essence, we
have to have the ability to be immediately responsive.
And so this is a request to have staff go out, prepare an RFP,
advertise it in -- and I believe I -- in January and bring back who they
recommend should be considered for an expanded list of engineers so
we have more choices immediately available to the board.
There was such an RFP that I believe went out in 2008 for such
services, and what we put out for RFP now could be modeled after
that one.
So I'd like to make a motion to approve that portion of the
recommendation as a first motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What part of the recommendation?
I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's part two. There's two parts. The
first part addresses the beach renourishment bid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The second part addresses putting
out an RFP for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The number of firms.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- additional coastal engineering
firms.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long does it take to put that out
for additional firms?
Page 382
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask Ms. Markiewicz to provide that
response, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In the case -- for example, just
while you're coming up to the stand, what happened in Wiggins Pass
peer review, because the firms we had, none of them could do it, and
we didn't have a very long list of firms to pick from. We actually had
to go out and solicit a third firm, which was -- it was a third firm, right
-- Olsen, who ended up doing it. So go ahead.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director.
Currently, we have three firms on the 2009 contract,
Commissioner. The question you asked was how long does it
typically take us? Between four and five months from the point we
actually solicit to the point that we make the award.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I was concerned
with.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And could you possibly tell me
what it was that has been delaying us from moving forward till this
time?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Well, we do have three firms under
contract now, and those firms are just renewing. Each of those firms
have had about $160,000 worth of business each year. This is really
the first time we've heard that there's an additional need.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the additional need, again, is
evidenced by the fact that none of them could do the Wiggins peer
review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, my only
concern is, if we do a truck haul --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we're not at that point. We're
not on that discussion yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one are we --
Page 383
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're just talking about the second
part.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Fixed-term services.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just the fixed term -- the coastal
engineering service, a fixed-term contract for coastal engineering
services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And this is just simply a request for
staff to put out an RFP to expand our list of coastal engineers under
fixed contract so we're not in the situation we have found ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Good to go.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that a second for discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, my second still holds.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
Bob, did you want to speak to this motion, or do you want to wait
to speak to the beach renourishment?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, I'll wait to speak to the beach
renourishment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Whatever you do otherwise is okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. There being no further
discussion, in favor motion?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-1 with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
The next issue is the beach renourishment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask one more question. I
asked how long it would take. Does that mean that we would then --
Page 384
December 11-12, 2012
by, say, taking five more months to do this, does that mean we lose
our opportunity this year to renourish the beaches?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: One has nothing to do with the
other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if you don't have somebody to
do it, then --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no. This fixed-term
contract for coastal engineers is unrelated to the beach renourishment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I'm asking.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, does this then prolong us
getting this work done?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: It should not, ma'am. We have somebody
under contract already in the design process for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I did not realize that
we would still be using the one that we already have under contract.
Okay, fine. Thank you very much. It did not say that. Thank
you.
MR. OCHS: We have three under contract right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard her say that. I know we
have them. I just thought that they -- that's why I asked how long it
was going to take, because I was worried about prolonging this any
longer.
MR. OCHS: No, there won't be any gap, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just in addition for future
coastal engineering projects, right?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To expand the short list that we
have so we have more choices.
The next motion is with respect to the request to put an RFP out
for the county's general renourishment construction project. I really
Page 385
December 11-12, 2012
do not want to see the re- -- the construction of the renourishment
project delayed any further. And the only way we can move forward
on this is to put out an RFP.
But because there is a question as to the quantity of sand that is
actually needed and when it will be needed, I think the crafting of the
RFP has to be very carefully considered by the board, and that is why
I brought this forward.
The first issue is the question of pricing. We don't know for sure
that the quantity of sand proposed by the engineers is what's actually
needed.
The amount that the monitoring engineers have said has eroded is
120,000 cubic yards. The coastal engineer that did the design came
back and said, as a consequence, we're going to need 420,000 cubic
yards to fill the 120,000 cubic yards of erosion. And then when they
submitted the application to the state, that number changed again to
515,000 cubic yards.
We have requested a peer review to validate the calculations
because, at least in my mind, without confirmation it doesn't seem
reasonable that for 120,000 cubic yards of erosion we need
three-and-a-half times the amount of sand compared to what's missing.
So -- and just to put it in perspective, what has eroded since the
2006 renourishment is only about 25 percent of what has -- was
actually placed there back in 2006. And all of this considers an
unmodified six-year design template.
So to that end, because the amount that we need to place is
subject to change and because there is a difference in price, depending
on the quantity of sand that we need, I suggested that we get
competitive pricing in 50,000-cubic-yard increments between 200,000
and 500,000 cubic yards so that, you know, if we need more sand,
we're not paying a higher price just because we went in at, for
example, what the price would be for a lower quantity or, conversely,
that the contractor doesn't come to us with some sort of a change order
Page 386
December 11-12, 2012
saying that it's not fair that we're using less than what we put out to
bid if we just put out to bid, you know, a maximum of 500.
And it basically protects the county with respect to variable
quantities and commensurate price adjustments.
Fifteen percent is typically what is used as a -- an incremental
figure. So what I did is I basically looked at the difference between
200- and 500- which is, you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of
300-, 350-, and then 15 percent of that coming to, you know,
somewhere between the low end of 40,000 -- I mean the high end of
40,000 and the low end of 50,000, and rounded it to about 50,000
cubic yards to be fair. So that's the explanation of that.
And then further to include pricing for both truck hauls and
dredging, because there are situations where we will be able to use
truck hauls, and there are situations where we will be using the dredge
to bring sand to the beach, so the pricing for both needs to be
considered.
And, also, as has been discussed on numerous occasions, to look
at the difference in pricing between doing it outside and within turtle
nesting season.
And, finally, to consider the putting in a term that says that the
prices that -- you know, that the contract -- or I should say that the
responses to the RFP will be fixed for a period of time. And if the
construction does not start within that period of time that, obviously,
this all lapses and we have to go back out to bid.
Because, as I said, at this point in time, we don't know if we're
going to start, you know, in a month, in two months, or whenever.
And, you know, hopefully, we will start as soon as possible.
I understand the permit has been submitted to the state?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So with that, I'd like to make
a motion that when -- that we direct staff to include the
recommendations proposed here today in the RFP and to the put the
Page 387
December 11-12, 2012
RFP out to market as soon as possible but, you know, no later than
January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion for
discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, may I? I was just speaking with Ms.
Markiewicz, and she wondered if the board had a strong preference on
whether we do this through an RFP or a straight sealed bid. It was her
thought that we could handle it through a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A bid.
MR. OCHS: -- bid with alternates; that way you don't have to
deal with some of the subjectivity that you normally do with an RFP.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sealed bid, sure.
MR. OCHS: If the board doesn't have a strong preference, it
would allow us to put --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me ask the Clerk of Courts to
make sure there's no issue with our approach in that regard. Does it
make a difference if we do it as a sealed bid or an RFP?
MS. KINZEL: That's a purchasing decision. I haven't looked at
the specific issue for sand as to what's the most common use. I'd defer
to purchasing at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we did it all bid before.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Everything has been done as a
sealed bid?
County Attorney, your comment on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the customary practice is sealed bid,
sealed bid's a good way to go.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. I think what we should do is
what's customary practice.
Mr. Casalanguida, do you have comment on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I don't.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. County Manager, if it seems
Page 388
December 11-12, 2012
that common practice is sealed bid, then I think that purchasing's
recommendation is a good one, and do it in that fashion.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you suggesting that we do
the renourishment in December and January or just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. This is just to make -- to give
directions to staff to take action to get that sealed bid out now --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so that we don't have any further
delays, because if we sit around and keep delaying -- you know, we
have to wait to get responses, and that just delays it further. We need
to do everything possible to move this project forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's my concern with -- on
when we do it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we do a truck haul, hopefully
we'll do it at the time when we're not ramping our visitors, and winter
residents are not coming home.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing is, I think we
really need to know what it's going to do to the road.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the third thing would be the
-- if it is a renourishment, we want to do it prior to, you know, peak
season.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The decision as to when we do the
actual renourishment will be at the board's discretion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because we'll give the contractor
Page 389
December 11-12, 2012
direction, correct, Leo, as to when we want to take action?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Once you have your permits in hand
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- then you can direct us. Obviously, until we have
the biological opinion and the balance of the permits, we can't start.
But any time after the permits are in hand and the bids are open, if the
board wants to direct a specific sequence or timing --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll have the ability to vote on that
at that time, because this is not a direction as to when the sand will be
placed but rather just to make sure that in our -- in the bids that we get
back, we get pricing for all these variables so that we have the ability
to make choices and we know what the economic impact of our
choices are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and the -- and my last
thing is, this is a City of Naples and North Naples renourishment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There has to be communications
with the City of Naples if we do a truck haul and what would be their
concerns.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, absolutely. There's no question,
and that needs to all come back to the board.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, one more point. In speaking with
staff-- because we are ramping up a bit the complexity of the
specifications, we would like to be able to have until February to get
the specification out. Your recommendation had January -- or
December/January. To do it right and to avoid any conflicts with bid
protests, we would like to have up until February to finalize and get
the bid out on the street. We're going to do it as fast as we can but --
Page 390
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, basically, like, two-and-a-half
months to get a bid out?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sounds like a long time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got the holidays,
you know.
MR. OCHS: This isn't the only project --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Don't you work through the
holidays?
MR. OCHS: We're asking for February.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How long will it take to get a
response on this?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioner, we'll need to advertise this
for 30 days. So from the point we get the specifications and design
package put together, 30 days from there, we'll have the response back
from the suppliers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if you -- okay, so you would
prepare the bid and put it out for advertisement, like -- let's say by the
end of the month of January you'll have -- or sometime between now
and the middle of January, and then you'll have it back to us by the
second meeting in February?
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, what -- in talking to
Gary and -- if we can come back in, say, the second meeting in
January or even early February with the bid. I want you to see it,
because there's going to be a lot of alternatives, as Commissioner
Henning pointed out. We're going to have to coordinate with the City
of Naples on this truck haul. It's not going to be -- just be lowest
price, because you're going to weigh price versus time of year versus
truck haul impact and everything else. So I want to make sure that we
put everything in writing that we do and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But the point is, we're going to say,
Page 391
December 11-12, 2012
give us a pricing on all these options, and then we will pick what we
want.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- but the issue --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The coordination with the City of
Naples comes after.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- because if you're going to do
truck haul and some of that sand's going through the City of Naples,
that coordination is not going to be -- it has to be done up front.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who are you -- in coordination with
the City of Naples for purposes of putting out the question as to what
the pricing is for the bid?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no. No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's all we're talking about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm talking about when you choose
your vendor and you make that choice where you were talking about
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we're not at that. All I'm talking
about now -- let's stay focused on the narrow issue of getting the bid
out. That's all I'm focused on. What is the fastest time you can put
this bid out on the street?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd like to get it out in early
February. And there are two reasons. One, we'll get the peer review
back, and that may help clarify the bid for us. If the board approves
the peer review, and a peer review says --
MR. OCHS: It's already approved.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right -- 320,000 cubic yards is the
right number, you may want to see that, because then you're not
putting fluctuations out. Two, we want to make sure we lay out all
those options and probably have the opportunity at a second meeting
in January to give you what I would call a draft bid document once.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So then you would put the bid out
for advertisement or actual for -- actually for competition in the first
Page 392
December 11-12, 2012
week in February -- by the first meeting in February?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Advertisement. It would go out for
advertisement. Then 30 days later we'd open up the bids.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, basically, we would not be
putting this out for bid till the beginning of March?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. You're putting it out in February.
Your 30-day period -- you'd open up the bids in March.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry. You're opening up
the bids in March?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So people -- you would start
soliciting -- no, you would solicit in February?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Solicit in February.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, that's fine, that's fine. No,
that's reasonable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then my mistake. I misunderstood.
But that's reasonable and fair.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So with that, may --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'd like to move approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already have a motion and
second. You made the motion, I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're right. Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Public comment?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we still --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely, Bob. I would not leave
you out.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's like the old days all over again. The
Page 393
December 11-12, 2012
kind is dead; long live the king.
Hi, I'm Bob Krasowski, for the record. Is this thing on? I can't
hear it.
MR. OCHS: You've got to get it close to your mouth.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, I saw the other guy use it, and he
was like this. Can you hear me?
MR. OCHS: He's louder than you are.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, yeah; engineer.
I'm going to revert to this chart again -- most of you have seen it
before. Mr. Nance probably hasn't. But to explain my -- what my
thinking is on this, what my request will be.
And this is what we've been talking about. Well, let's see. I'll go
over here. Most recently we've been talking about the end of turtle
nesting season, right here. This big line here. I put that line in. And
from here on, the nests that are laid within -- before two months of
November would have to be moved.
So when you look at, let's say, just Naples beach, there's not a
whole lot of them, but there could be. So that's what Mr. Sorey was
talking about, you know, operating it at the end of turtle nesting
season which I think, if you need to, might be appropriate under
certain conditions.
Here's my major concern. It's over here to the left. Is my --
yeah, it is. Okay.
This is the beginning of turtle nesting season, and this occurs a
little earlier each year lately because the waters in the ocean, the gulf,
are warming earlier, and that triggers the turtles to respond.
So by renourishing, with pipes on the beach and everything, in
this time frame on -- anywhere in the beach, there's a substantial
number of turtles, okay. And, now, this is just from April to over here
in November. You've got January, February, March over here, and
December; that's normal, what has been beach renourishment season,
okay.
Page 394
December 11-12, 2012
So this is the area I'd like to see eliminated altogether.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which one? Can you be specific?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. It's from April 21st to June 1st.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't want you to renourish in there
because of the turtles. Then the rest of this is not to -- we already plan
on not renourishing here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But at the end, all you have here is nests.
You know where those nests are. There's no more turtles coming up to
lay. So you can perform truck hauls, preferable, and put the sand
where you want it along the beach away from the turtle nests. And
they're spread out at this time, and you're waiting for them to leave as
you're putting on. This is just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So are you saying -- are you saying
it's premature to put this out to bid?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, no. I can see what you're thinking
about. I'm just shocked that we haven't talked about this in real
earnest.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But this is not --
MR. KRASOWSKI: And meaning me and you commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But here's the thing. This is not the
discussion today. Because the discussion of the timing of when sand
will be placed on the beach and how it will placed on the beach -- and
that's what I was sharing with Commissioner Henning -- doesn't come
till another motion down the road after we have the permits in hand
and after we have the selection of a vendor who has given us the
prices on all the options.
MR. KRASOWSKI: What I'm saying --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I understand that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
Page 395
December 11-12, 2012
MR. KRASOWSKI: I understand that very clearly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. So this has to all come back
to the board for a vote.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Before you even put out the bid --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- or the request for proposals, I say that
you put out an RFP for nourishment between October 1st through
April 21st with October nourishment being limited to truck haul at
locations where the fewest nests exist so none need to be moved,
okay.
And then -- let me gather my thoughts here for a second. Oh, for
some reason we've identified a target of Naples Beach being where we
will start, to the south, right? I say we start in the October time period
at the beach with the fewest nests, and you keep your options and
flexibility open to where you can direct the renourishment activity to
where you want it at the time that it happens so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have to.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. So -- but forget about this early
nesting. This is horrendous. This is environmentally horrendous, and
I'm ashamed that the other environmentalists aren't talking about this,
because to renourish at the time when the turtles are actually
acclimating to the warming climate and the ocean temperatures -- and
when you're renourishing you're putting sand on the beach with --
mixed with water, and then you have a barrier up to reduce turbidity at
the beach, at the water's edge.
So how are the turtles going to get through there? You know, it's
just a wrong time --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me just ask you --
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's the worst time to do it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we're not voting on the
timing.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But we are putting out an RFP that
Page 396
December 11-12, 2012
identifies the timing. And if you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're not identifying timing.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You said -- it's in your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I think you
have to identify timing, because the cost of dredging may depend on
the time in question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, no. What we did is we
requested -- because one of the discussions we had -- and this was at
previous board meetings, and there was a consensus opinion -- which
included you, and it was actually at your request -- to ensure that when
we got pricing, we got pricing both within and outside of turtle nesting
season.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, but that wasn't my preference. I went
along with that but also explained that always, always I've been saying
stay out of turtle nesting season.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And that is what we will
vote on when the bid comes back, but we have to -- we have to -- for
informational purposes, we need to know what the difference in
pricing is. And we will make a public-policy decision that,
notwithstanding that the pricing is X versus Y, we want it done, for
example, as you describe, okay. But the -- that decision --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Why even invite that dilemma? Because to
do it at any price at the beginning of turtle nesting season is wrong. It
is contrary to this county's previous ecotourism or environmentally
sensitive characteristics. This is an offense against --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll make a -- I'll make another --
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't want to get too exaggerated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll make another motion.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, may I go on with some of the
other points?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. Let me make a motion point by
Page 397
December 11-12, 2012
point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much time do we have
here?
MR. MILLER: It's over.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's over.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Sorry.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I've been -- we've been having a
conversation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You didn't count the time we were
talking, did you?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, you did.
MR. MILLER: It was over before then.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, was it? Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, it wasn't. I only -- three minutes?
Well, look, you know, it's at the discretion of the chair. We've been
working on this for three years now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just -- can you -- just give me in
bullet form your other points. Just -- let's finish it up.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I want -- important. I want to -- you
to retain the flexibility for the commission by structuring the bid or the
RFP in such a way that the County Commission can select one or a
combination of methods to do the work -- to do the work. Now, how
you would do this is -- and I've talked to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do me a favor. Don't get into those
details. Stick to the points that you want considered.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. The point I -- when you go out for
the RFP, I want three -- the three beach sections for dredging and,
separately, the three beach sections out for RFP for truck haul, and
then you can have an RFP that includes if some company wants to do
all of it. Because you might want to use truck haul on one beach, and
you might want to use dredging on another beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I see staff nodding their head in
Page 398
December 11-12, 2012
agreement; is that acceptable?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can put it out that way. For the
record, Commissioner, I mean, a bid can be put out any way you want.
The more complicated it becomes, the harder it is to get vendors to
come in.
I don't have a -- I don't have a concern right now with what he's
saying. We're going to come back the second meeting in January with
a draft of this bid. And by that time, we'll have worked with them a
little bit, and we'll be able to kind of--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well -- then let me do this. You
have the general guidelines which are supposed to give us the
flexibility to have options.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In the meantime, if I could make a
suggestion, what could I -- Leo, could Bob and staff work together so
that they consider his suggestions in developing this? Rather than go
through this as a matter of public comment, you know, as an interested
constituent, he can share his opinions and work with staff, and they
can, you know, consider his input.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Commissioner Hiller, I appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on. Bob --
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- hang on a moment.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I've worked with them already. They are
incalcitrant (sic), they're inflexible. They will not eliminate --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just a second. One second.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- renourishment in the beginning of turtle
nesting season.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's a board decision.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Why even bother?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a board decision. One
second.
Page 399
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Well, you know, being characterized as incalcitrant
(sic), if that means we don't agree with Mr. Krasowski --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Maybe that was the wrong word.
MR. OCHS: -- 100 percent of the time then, perhaps, we are.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KRASOWSKI: On this issue --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just a second, please.
MR. OCHS: But if you're asking us to meet with him and try to
incorporate his ideas into the draft specification, we'd be happy to do
that.
Commissioners, I will have to make this statement just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: The more we go down this road of complicating
this, the greater chance of margin for error and, worst of all, a bid
protest when we open this bid in March.
And, you know, I fear this commission's going to be looking at
the staff at that point telling you, well, we have a bid protest because
the bid was so complex --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let me ask you this, Leo. I
mean, realistically, I'm just hearing all of this, and it -- my concerns
are just increasing, because it seems to me, based on what I'm hearing,
that even if we put it out for bid as quickly as we can, which is what
I'm proposing, we are, in fact, opening ourselves up to only being able
to start in the middle of turtle nesting season, which doesn't make a
whole lot of sense, because we can't go out to bid now, get
solicitations, and keep it open until September.
MR. OCHS: Yes, you can. Commissioner, we normally put in
contracts that these contractors hold their pricing for six months.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So that wouldn't hurt us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And we still could skip --
Page 400
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, then --
MR. OCHS: Just so you know, we had been planning for
September of next year. But if we can move faster, certainly, we
would like to do that, but we've never planned to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Prior.
MR. OCHS: -- renourish in the middle of the turtle nesting
season, as you know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And hopefully the quantities
will come back to be substantially less where this will never be an
issue, because that would render all of this moot.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Commissioner, the economics, right, it's
always, I suppose, going to be cheaper to put the sand in during turtle
nesting season, because that's when they're not available in other
places.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not on the agenda right now.
Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's on the agenda are the
specifications to be considered for the bid. And based on what the
county manager is telling us, it does not look like we will be able to
begin renourishment until September. And if the quantities come back
to be less than what's being proposed, we should be able to get it done
outside of turtle nesting season and this issue becomes moot.
So there's no -- I don't think we're able to take any more time on
this matter.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I really want you to work with staff,
and I'd like staff to be amenable.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, I will, I will. One last thing in -- as far
as what you're doing today, if you don't identify those time periods,
those shoulders periods, specifically, and don't just say turtle nesting
Page 401
December 11-12, 2012
season --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it's going to come back.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- you're in violation of your agreement
with the Conservancy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Here's what you're going to
do. You're going to tell staff all these things.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are not voting on this.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're giving guidance on the
direction of the RFP. You will work with them. This will come back
at the timing that was specified, and it should be properly incorporated
per the statement you just made.
MR. KRASOWSKI: We'll see, but -- we will see.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We will.
MR. KRASOWSKI: We have the future.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the future will -- the future will
reveal itself in the future.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No doubt. Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Did we vote on this?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I need Leo to hold my hand.
Okay. All right. If there's no further discussion -- Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to say that I
hope when staff-- if staff is shaping their opinions by what Mr.
Krasowski says, I do hope that they include the experts over at the
Conservancy, because that's extremely important, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- don't just go with Mr. Krasowski.
Go with the Conservancy as well.
Page 402
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would say take input from any
constituent willing to help and including --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you might -- yeah, might get a
whole boatload then.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good. Bring them on. Let's have a
party.
But thank you for the suggestion. It's a good suggestion and a
well made one.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. I don't even know what the --
what is -- I shouldn't say aye. What is the motion now? I can't even
remember anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Didn't we already vote?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then fine. Opposed, I mean.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Do we need to restate the
motion for the record?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is it clear?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very clear.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the motion carries 3-1 with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'd like to go now to Item 111, if I
might.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could we quickly do AA?
Page 403
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Sure.
Item #1 OAA
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO HANDLE ALL ASPECTS OF THE
FEMA BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT REIMBURSEMENT
DENIAL AND DE-OBLIGATION APPEALS ON BEHALF OF
COLLIER COUNTY; TO DIRECT THAT STAFF PROVIDE THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WITH ALL REQUESTED
INFORMATION, AND TO ASSIST HIS OFFICE IN ANY
MANNER HE DEEMS NECESSARY; FURTHER, THAT THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY ASSESS WHAT CIVIL AND/OR
CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE COUNTY MAY FACE IF THE
FINAL DETERMINATION ON APPEAL IS THAT THE COUNTY
MATERIALLY MISREPRESENTED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT (BY WAY OF OVERSTATEMENT) WHAT THE
STORM RELATED BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT EXPENSES
WERE, AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS — APPROVED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because if-- and that is, basically,
to direct that the county attorney be made responsible for the appeal to
FEMA both on the de-obligation and the denial appeals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion to approve,
and I appreciate you putting that on there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to know, how
does the county attorney feel about this? Does he feel that's something
that's necessary?
MR. KLATZKOW: You had another item on this agenda that
you've already approved on consent where you hired a FEMA
Page 404
December 11-12, 2012
attorney. Rather than staff working directly with them, I will be
working with him with staffs involvement, so it doesn't change
anything. It just gives -- what it does is it gives you another set of
eyes on the issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #11I
CURRENT STATUS OF THE COUNTY'S INITIATIVE SEEKING
DIRECT VEHICULAR PERMANENT ACCESS FROM GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES TO I-75 AND STAFF'S REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION REGARDING FUTURE INITIATIVES - MOTION
TO DEFER 2021-2026 AND BRING BACK FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION AND STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION AT A
FUTURE BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're now moving to 11I, Commissioners. It's a
recommendation to consider the current status of the county's initiative
seeking direct vehicular permanent access from Golden Gate Estates
to I-75 and staffs request for direction regarding future initiatives.
Mr. Casalanguida will present.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have three registered public
speakers for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Page 405
December 11-12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
I'll try and be brief, but I -- also there's some things we want to
make sure we cover for the public. So I want to make sure I do it all.
Mr. County Manager, if I could have the viewer go to the
computer, if possible.
MR. OCHS: Certainly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
Brief history on the timeline, Commissioners. You had directed a
Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy back in 2001. In 2003 we
started, really, our high growth period that went through there.
And finally your Golden Gate Area Master Plan was adopted in
2004 with one sentence that's in your executive summary that's
probably key. It says, Collier County shall coordinate with the Florida
Department of Transportation to initiate a study of potential
interchange in the vicinity of I-75 and Everglades Boulevard, and it's
not any more restrictive than that. It just says, we shall work with
DOT to try and get this thing done.
With that going forward, it was introduced to your MPO
long-range transportation plan late in 2005, and it's financially
feasible. So this project became a little more real. There were some
public meetings held in the Estates just to gather some feedback.
We signed our first MLOU, which is a methodology letter of
understanding, with Federal Highway in the middle of 2008, and we
received about a quarter million dollars in federal funding in 2009.
Between 2009 and 2010, Army Corps of Engineers permitted
temporary access from Everglades Boulevard from I-75 for their
Picayune Strand rehydration project.
As you can see on the viewer, Commissioners, this is Everglades
Boulevard, and this is the temporary access that they permitted.
There's gates here and gates here.
So at that point in time, even more awareness came forward in
Page 406
December 11-12, 2012
terms of this project and the citizens wanting to get access, because
they knew the ramps were somewhat partially installed.
The project went through the ETDM screen, which is Efficient
Transportation Decision-Making process in 6/11 of'09, triggered
some red flags from some of the agencies, which sent us into what's
called a dispute resolution.
During that period, we met with Federal Highway and FDOT and
knew that it was going to take some time to go through that. They
asked us to push back our dates. So we had to review our MLOU.
So our opening year went from 2019 to approximately 2021,
which led to one of the largest, if not the largest cumulative effects
study in the State of Florida. That's been initiated and ongoing by
DOT.
To give you a feel, if you look at the diagram that's on -- in front
of you right now, there are two areas. One, highlighted now, is our
IJR study area, which goes west to I-75, south to I-75, east to State
Road 29, and north to Oil Well Road. So that's the area where we're
looking at existing interchanges in traffic flow.
The cumulative effects study is approximately a 25-mile radius
from the center of the interchange, very broad, all the way up into
Hendry County, Lee County, Marco Island, and over to the east,
again, another 10 miles east of our limited study area, so it's quite
broad.
That is an ongoing study, but I want to take you through what
was released in Technical Memorandum 3. And we knew this, I think,
as staff, felt pretty comfortable -- and I don't want to read the whole
memorandum, but I want to read some key sentences in this. And I'm
in the first paragraph, about halfway down.
And it states, there is little difference in the pattern of these
land-use changes with an interchange and without an interchange. No
substantive change in development patterns are expected based on the
location of an interchange.
Page 407
December 11-12, 2012
This is what they're saying is, whether you put an interchange
there or not, you're still going to develop in Collier County to the
patterns that you were going to develop to before. It may increase the
speed but, ultimately, the impact will be the same.
And I'll read you the last paragraph or last sentence there; it's the
bottom. The presence of an interchange at I-75 in the vicinity of
Everglades Boulevard is not expected to significantly change future
development patterns and corresponding effects on the environmental
resources within the study area.
So I think those are two very important points to take out of the
technical memorandum, and this study continues to go forward.
We didn't get our FDOT comments till Friday at 4:50 p.m.
We've been calling and asking, hopefully, to include them in your
board package. I had sent out a memorandum through the county
manager on Friday morning or about midday. I think he sent it to you
by the afternoon.
I'm going to introduce it on the record for the court reporter just
so we have it, and I think -- it's not part of your package right now.
Now, it's important -- out of that letter I took out probably two
key sentences that I think kind of give us a little bit more direction, or
at least visibility from FDOT and Federal Highway's perspective.
While the department does not support the enumerated change --
and I highlighted in bold -- at the time, as land use and development
patterns change and the existing unit changes cannot satisfy the need,
a new interchange can be re-evaluated in the future. So you are not
getting a "don't come back." They're just saying it's not prudent at this
time.
And the second part of that is the department both shares and
supports your concerns for timely emergency response and efficiently
-- efficient wildfire evacuation through your request to permanently
maintain the break in limited access at Everglades Boulevard for
emergency responders to quickly access incidents.
Page 408
December 11-12, 2012
So DOT is not saying that, you know, we shouldn't use that for
emergencies. What they are saying is they're the first agency that sees
your application for permanent access, and then they send it on to
Federal Highway. They are the gatekeeper for Federal Highway.
And the way I can describe it, before I get into the
recommendations, is if you had scored a 90 or better on a test, you'd
almost get an IJR approved. We probably scored about a 60 or 65.
And if I was going to go back to one of my previous slides, that high
growth period that we started this project, obviously, we went into a
recession and one of the -- probably most deeply impacted areas was
Golden Gate Estates.
So with that said, with scoring as, say, a 60, to continue to go
forward, everybody would have to be in lockstep. That means our
state reps, that means all five commissioners, that means the
landowners in the area, and I'm not feeling that support at that level.
And even DOT is saying you can do all that, you can keep going, but
we are not going to recommend this goes to Federal Highway at this
time.
So in terms of that, we've spent close to a million dollars on this
IJR application. To continue to go forward would probably be to our
detriment at this point in time.
That statement where DOT said to come back at a later time, that
would be my first recommendation to this board would be to defer
consideration for a new budget IJR roughly in 2020. And you can
always do it sooner if situations change, or 2020 you being push it out
later. It basically means you're just starting up the program again.
I think important for No. 2, submit a resolution to FDOT and
Federal Highway seeking permanent emergency access. We're
already doing that, but I think getting the resolution together and the
air rights and getting that in quickly is important, because right now
we do have FDOT support, and I'd like to get that signed and
approved by Federal Highway permanently.
Page 409
December 11-12, 2012
Third bullet point, continue to work through environmental
impact concerns and potential mitigation strategies. That is probably
going to be the hardest part of an access -- permanent access at this
location is to work with the environmental groups over time. And I
don't -- you know it's going to take years to develop some ideas. If
they're willing to work with us and kind of talk about what an access
would look like in the future and what mitigation could be and what
the impacts are, I think it would be to our benefit to kind of put that on
the slow track but continue forward.
And last, if you agree on the first three, document and file the
permanent access efforts, because I think whoever takes this on seven,
10, 15 years from now, will need the benefit of all this prior history.
Let us package this thing up and at least conduct one public
meeting out there to let people know, because I think a lot of folks are
going to be disappointed. And if we can go out there and explain why
we're in the situation we're in, I think they'll at least appreciate that.
So with that said, I can take questions from you commissioners,
if you so choose.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Before I ask the
commissioners for their and hear public comment, I want to read you a
recommended action plan presented by the Florida Wildlife
Federation which, to me, sounds very reasonable and I think, you
know, with input from the board, will -- could readily be the basis for
the motion on this.
The first item would be to defer the IJR and PDE to 2021/2026,
which confirms your first recommendation; stop all efforts on the
current IJR, which conforms with the state's direction; continue
dispute resolution process with the goal of a calculation on the
required wildlife compensation and wetland mitigation, how many
acres and where, and what is the dollar cost to purchase and, if
necessary, restore; and, finally, redirect the monies currently allocated
in the LRTP cost-feasible plan for the proposed interchange, which is
Page 410
December 11-12, 2012
44 million, and Everglades Boulevard widening, which is 71.7
million, to other projects including enhancing traffic circulation in and
around North Golden Gate Estates, specifically to be considered
expedite building of all North Golden Gate Estates bridges and,
secondly, to expedite the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard from
Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard and combine with --
combined with the 2015 widening from Wilson Boulevard to
Everglades Boulevard.
The bridges I personally understand, and the last
recommendation, the expedited widening within those roads, I'm
going to defer to Commissioner Nance, because those are in his
district, and I'm not as familiar if what is suggested in this part is what
you would like to see happen in that order out there.
But the recommendations otherwise presented by the Wildlife
Federation seem very reasonable and could be the basis for the
motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think it's very clear that at some
point in time this interchange is going to be absolutely necessary. I
don't see how we can meet the projected population that we're being
advised to plan for through the University of Florida without having
this interchange. So I think it's almost certain that it will occur at
some time in the future.
I believe that we should wrap up the IJR to a reasonable
conclusion. I mean, we've invested an awful lot time into it. Rather
than just close the book and leave it unfinished, I think we ought to
bring it to a reasonable stopping point. And I'm sure Mr.
Casalanguida can recommend what we need to do on that.
As far as environmental impact concerns and potential
mitigation, I'm very interested in doing that, but I'm a little conflicted,
because it seems that most of the NGOs have indicated at this point
that they're opposed to the interchange.
So I don't see how we can possibly go through what's
Page 411
December 11-12, 2012
recommended by the Florida Wildlife Federation, which is to do
calculations on what the required wildlife compensation and wetland
mitigation would be, how many acres, where, and what the dollar cost
to purchase a necessary restore would be until they modify their
approach to saying that they would be willing to support the
interchange under some conditions.
Right now they -- up to now, as far as I know, they've been
unwilling to do that. So I think in order to have a good-faith work
relationship with them, that we're going to have to establish that they
would be able to support an interchange under some circumstances,
and I would hope that we would be able to do that.
Certainly, we're going to have to discuss this with the public.
One thing that -- one question that I would have for you, Nick, is on
the permanent emergency access, is there any opportunity to get an
eastbound emergency access at any point in there? Because right
now, as far as I know, we just access and egress to the west.
Suppose we should have some sort of a wildfire concern where
sending people west would send them into the fire rather than away
from the fire. Would that be -- would it be possible to expand an
emergency ramp to allow anybody to go to the east?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could ask them that. And I think
the way the ramps are configured right now, if you drove over the
interchange and did a counterflow back north, you could do that. I
think we can put that in as part of our request.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, you have to take a look at it,
because right now it's kind of awkward. You're heading -- you're
heading west to make an eastbound turn there. It's -- you can see it
was designed to take eastbound traffic out to the work and not direct
traffic east from the interchange itself towards Miami, for example.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What you could -- well, to do that --
and I don't know what's under this abutment here, but you would
basically route traffic this way and then head this way, is what you're
Page 412
December 11-12, 2012
saying.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right. Well, you'd have to take a
look at that, because I think it would be pretty hard to construct it with
the way the overpass is built there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I think we'd have room under
the abutment. I'd have to look.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But we could certainly look at that as
something to figure out.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's just something that has
crossed my mind a number of times.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, your support
of the Everglades interchange puts in question, are you supporting an
interchange in that area or specifically that location? Because I heard
you mention in the past that DeSoto might be a better location for the
interchange.
So I guess, I think, for purposes of clarification for the benefit of
the public, are you saying that there will be an interchange in your
mind at Everglades, or there will be an interchange in that eastern
region to support population?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think there will be an interchange
in that region. And, in fact, I believe that the exact location and
design of an interchange is going to have to reflect what's needed to
address all the concerns that everybody has.
In other words, if we're going to have wildlife corridors, if we're
going to have crossings, if we're going to try to minimize the sizes of
different roads that come off the interchange and the roads that
support the interchange, I believe we're going to have to leave
everything on the table as far as location in order to meet all the goals
that we're going to have to address, and that includes not only the
needs of Golden Gate Estates, but the needs of the rural -- Rural Land
Page 413
December 11-12, 2012
Stewardship district, which is yet to the east of there.
So in order to avoid building an eight-lane road -- I think if you
do a calculation based on your needs, when you get down to 300,000
people, you're going to find that if you build one road, it's going to
have to be titanic.
I don't think that an eight-lane road is going to be good for
anybody necessarily. I don't think it's going to be good for the
neighborhoods. I don't think it's going to be good for dealing with
your wildlife crossings and so on and so forth, but maybe not. I don't
know. I'm not casting that judgment now. But what I'm saying is, I
believe we're going to have to have the cooperation of all parties,
including the rural land property owners and developers of the future
that are going to, in fact, be a major user and beneficiary of such an
interchange.
So in order to -- in order to keep it wide open, I would prefer not
to continue to define it as something at Everglades Boulevard. I
believe certainly Everglades Boulevard is going to need to be
accessed, but I'm not sure that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- the earlier design that was
proposed, in fact, by Collier Enterprises in the 2007 IJR wouldn't be
something that would necessarily not be worth revisiting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let me make a suggestion then
based on what I'm hearing you say. Since the location is in question,
then dispute resolution becomes moot if location were to go
elsewhere.
So maybe the motion is to defer the IJR and PDE to the time
period that was suggested by staff, 2021/2026, stop all efforts on the
current IJR, and to redirect the money to other projects, you know,
with the priorities to be determined --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- at a later date.
Page 414
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Then I'll make that
motion, and then we can have discussion.
I'm going to make the motion to defer the IJR and PDE to
2021/26, to stop all efforts on the current IJR, and to redirect the
monies currently allocated in the LRTP cost-feasible plan for the
proposed interchange, 44 million, and Everglades Boulevard
widening, 71 .7 million, to other projects to be determined at a future
meeting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if I could help you a little bit.
Your redirection of money is an MPO board function.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we, as a board, are going to be
at the MPO, but the board, as the Board of County Commissioners,
will be supporting that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I do understand that, and I was
going to say that this will be up for discussion at Friday's MPO
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. And we certainly need to go
back and evaluate what our priorities are if we're not going to do this.
If we have monies that we can --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And we'll have a future
discussion on the re-prioritization --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- but we'll free up those funds.
Can I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I haven't even been able to ask
my question yet --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead. No, go ahead.
Page 415
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and we haven't heard from the
speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Discussion. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been asking --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say your final
recommendations were good ones. I agree with all of them except the
first one I would just like to say to use the IJR between, say, 2022 and
2026. That gives us 10 years. And by that time we're going to know
how that area is shaping up and what's going on. So that was the only
thing.
I think it's important to submit a resolution letting them know that
we're going to be seeking permanent emergency access because we
want to make sure that those people can get in and out of there safely.
I want to continue to work through environmental impact
concerns, you know, especially with the Florida Wildlife Association.
That's really important. And then to document and file permanent
access efforts for future consideration.
I think these were all excellent recommendations. And I think
Nancy would agree with that, too. Right, Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So those would be my
recommendations, as staff had mentioned.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And thank you for your input.
One of the things that I think needs to be clarified is we already
have a permanent access effort for -- or permanent emergency access.
That has already been asserted. It's put on the record by the state. It's
been reaffirmed in the MPO meetings. We do not not have emergency
access.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have it. It's not been documented
by Federal Highway. I think you want it in writing that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then at -- tomorrow -- at the Friday
Page 416
December 11-12, 2012
meeting, then would you please request that they confirm what they
have said on the record repeatedly?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They will. The reason I'm saying you
want the resolution and Federal Highway to give you a break in that
limited access line is because when Picayune Strand gets rehydrated
and done, that permit could pull it out by getting a resolution adopted
by Federal Highway. Those ramps will stay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then could you please bring that as
a separate item and prepare the resolution for board approval --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- at next meeting?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what I'm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why wouldn't we want to include it
today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what I'm asking.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. That's what we're asking staff
to bring back, to prepare the resolution. We're giving staff direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Friday?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right -- no.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, but I'm not -- ma'am, I won't
bring it back the next meeting only because I have to get the air rights.
There are things I have to do -- prepare to go with the resolution. And
you're not under any time constraint, Commissioners. These ramps
will be there for three or four years.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So just -- we're just -- that's staff
direction?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Because the other are
actually motion-directed actions. But staff is to bring back the
resolution on your recommendation at a future meeting --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to address that.
Page 417
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Nick, the other thing that I would
ask you to do, and Mr. Ochs, if you could, is once we get this
emergency access memorialized and everybody understands it, I
would like to make the information on how that works, who's
authorized to do it, and what the mechanism is to get it open.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I want to make it public so
that people understand what's going to happen and everybody knows
who's in charge and who the decision maker is.
So if we have a tragedy out there, we don't need to go running
around trying to figure out the mechanism for utilizing it properly so
that we're not in violation or causing any problem. But I think we do
have to respond whether it's -- you know, it needs to be part of the
procedure in emergency management or whoever needs to -- you
know, who needs to make that decision.
But what people need to know is that if we get a call into the
District 5 Sheriffs Office out there, that we've got a tragedy or there's
a -- or the Department of Forestry identifies that there's a fire out there
or something, and we need to make a decision, we can do so in a
timely and safe fashion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
So we have a motion on the table and a second. We're going to
listen to public comment, and then we're going to call the vote.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your first public speaker is Nicole
Johnson. She will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll pass.
MR. MILLER: Bob will pass. Nicole will be followed by
Nancy Payton.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And the Conservancy supports the motion that has been made. I
Page 418
December 11-12, 2012
think a lot of the points that the federation submitted, the Conservancy
also submitted in our letter to you. I would just point out that in staffs
recommendation they recommended 2020 for the IJR, and we had
recommended the 2021 to 2025 time frame, which then puts that into
those blocks of funding that the MPO uses, so you might want to have
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. No, my motion said 2021 to
2026.
MS. JOHNSON: Okay. And I think the MPO, it's 2021 to 2025,
but regardless.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MS. JOHNSON: And also, just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Close enough.
MS. JOHNSON: -- a suggestion that the IJR be done prior to a
PD&E. Sometimes these projects go in a parallel fashion of the
PD&E is going on the same time that your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we're not even -- we're putting a
stop to everything right now.
MS. JOHNSON: Correct, correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I don't even -- like when the time
comes for that issue --
MS. JOHNSON: When it's re-started to do the IJR first. Once
the need's determined, then the PD&E, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And what you need to do at
that point in time -- because who knows where we will be by, you
know, 2021.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm feeling okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You could be on a beach in Havana
as far as I know. Put it in your tickler, in your calendar to make sure
you remember to bring those back.
MS. JOHNSON: We'll see if it goes that far into the future, but
we definitely will --
Page 419
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks.
MS. JOHNSON: -- because we want that justification before
additional funding is expended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of course.
MS. JOHNSON: And also -- I don't know if it needs to be part of
your motion -- but really looking at having staff-- county staff, MPO
staff, and everyone working together on future solutions.
I know there have been some ideas of pushing funding forward
for bridges or different road expansions, and I think those are good
ideas, but I think that's only part of the solution.
So with the 2040 LRTP coming up, have everyone working
together and finding additional solutions and definitely having
Commissioner Nance lead the charge on that, I think, is very, very
important.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's his job description.
MS. JOHNSON: We want to be part of that process and really
encourage everyone to start now so that we have solutions in place
hopefully in the very near future.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think it's his intent. He has
expressed that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think it's necessary to invite
everybody to do that, and I do that very wholeheartedly, absolutely.
MS. JOHNSON: And we look forward to working with you on
that.
And, you know, we're certainly willing to participate in sort of a
broader context of looking at environmental issues. The Conservancy
would like to look not just at mitigation and environmental needs in
Golden Gate Estates in association with any interchange, but just in
looking at, for all road projects, what do we need to support the
environment, protect the environment, kind of broaden that out and
have it as part of a larger discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks.
Page 420
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, some of this -- can I make a
comment?
Some of the discussion that I've had with all of you individually
over a period of time is that I'm well aware of the way, and you are
well aware of the way these things happen and the political pressures
that come and go on big projects like this.
And what I've counseled everyone to be prepared for the time
when developers and large landowners to the east decide that they will
come forward and support this.
One of the reasons why, you know, it didn't go as far and as fast
as maybe it could have is they just weren't willing to make those
commitments at this time.
And so when they are willing to make those commitments, we
actually may be some of the last to know. It wouldn't be the first time
for that to happen.
So I think it's important. And I've reached out to the Wildlife
Federation, and I will continue to reach out to the Conservancy and
Audubon to try to come together to agree that there are ways that we
could make this happen that meets everybody's needs.
And I'll be working continuously to try to build that consensus
and see if we can't try to use that consensus as a basis to work forward
and develop some mitigation.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker is Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation in support of the motion. And please vote before
Commissioner Henning has to leave.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we do, and we actually have
to -- that's why I'm, like, a little anxious, because we have this
deadline that we're working up against.
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please -- and I have a couple of
Page 421
December 11-12, 2012
things before you leave that we need to address also.
There being no further discussion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. Does his motion
also include submitting a resolution to FDOT and FWA?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. The resolution is going to be
prepared by staff and brought back to us for approval and then
submitted to FDOT. And we have to see the resolution. It has to
come back to the board for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we have given direction to staff
to prepare it and to bring it back, but we can't vote on a resolution we
haven't seen. We actually need to see the resolution. It needs to come
back to us. So they're going to prepare it and bring it back. Is that
okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good. Just want to make sure. Is
that okay? Everyone understands that you're going to bring this back?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, is that good?
Okay.
With there being no further discussion, all in favor of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow.
Item #15
Page 422
December 11-12, 2012
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next item -- is there any item
that you need to address, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- Henning?
There's one thing I would like to bring up from the prior meeting
that we had yesterday; just a point of clarification. On the
Curry/Fletcher litigation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I wanted to talk about that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- I had a concern. I just -- I want to
-- I want to find out whether or not, did we -- I mean, did we -- as part
of our motion, did we say to continue the case?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We voted 3-2 to negotiate a
settlement agreement. That was at the end of day when I think we
were getting pretty worn out, and I don't think we really talked about
what that actually meant. But we voted 3-2 to negotiate a settlement
agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Did we vote to continue the case
pending a settlement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a case against the county.
The county didn't bring on the action.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a case against the county.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, it's not our case, so we can't
vote on the continuance? Because we --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Fletcher brought suit against two of
your employees, not the county.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, okay. So -- so the case goes
forward notwithstanding the county's --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's not our case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's not our case.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not our case.
Page 423
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, got it. But we're providing
the attorney to the case; is that what it is?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I expand upon that? There
might have been some misunderstanding. The motion and second,
voted on majority, is direct the county attorney to negotiate, not the
representative for the employees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that understood?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So does that -- does that mean that
that attorney who was presenting here yesterday will not be involved
in the settlement negotiations? Because that goes to whether or not
we're paying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Yeah, no. It was direct
the county attorney, not the outside attorney.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we will not have the outside
attorney -- it will be the county attorney, not the outside counsel, to
negotiate the settlement?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll get in contact with Fletcher's counsel and
see if I can't get a proposed resolution. But at the end of the day, this
litigation's between Fletcher and two of your employees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I guess the point, though -- okay. I
understand that. And the point you're making -- I need to clarify. Our
motion was to direct the county -- okay. It is to direct the county
attorney to negotiate a settlement, not the attorney who presented here
yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's my understanding. I'm good with
this, Commissioner. I understand my direction.
Page 424
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I wasn't clear. Because I was
confused, and that's why I wanted to bring it back up. Because with
that attorney presenting it started sounding to me -- by the time I was
done, my impression was that he was going to negotiate that
settlement and that was where I had some confusion, and I wanted to
be sure that it was understood that it's you and not him.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Got it. Okay. So he's not going to
be paid for this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two things before I leave.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Happy Hanukkah, Merry
Christmas, and Happy New Year and no happy holidays, okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And thank you for your input
today. It was very provoking to listen to your thoughts and guidance.
I really appreciate that.
And the last thing, we had a discussion about anonymous
complaints. I want to give staff direction to stop receiving anonymous
complaints on code enforcement issues.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And animal control issues?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And animal control.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that a motion?
MR. OCHS: I was just going to say, is that a motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happens when somebody
wants to report but they're fearful that their neighbor's going to shoot
them?
Page 425
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You report it to the
commissioner. Work with your commissioner. Let the commissioner
work through staff.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Have we ever had anybody shot
over a complaint?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but we sure had people shooting
animals, and I'll tell you the name right after we leave here.
Everybody else knows who it was. And shooting at their neighbors'
cars --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- right out in Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Is there any discussion on
this?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The county manager has asked for
the vote. There being no further discussion, all in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The motion carries 3-2 (sic) with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. One more thing, I think
this is the first time in a decade that I only disagreed with one item on
the majority.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Merry Christmas, and
Commissioner --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me just --
Page 426
December 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I have one procedural issue that I
want to --
MR. OCHS: Yeah. And I wanted to make sure that the county
attorney got his notice, if we're still going into the shade for Hussey
next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hussey.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, before we leave, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Blocker, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have anything on Blocker to report
back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When are we going into shade?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I mean, I know I have
something for Hussey.
MR. OCHS: Hussey.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not -- I don't know that I'm going to
have anything for Blocker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think we should announce a
shade session for Blocker at this time along with the announcement
for the Hussey, since we said to bring back the settlement offer at the
first meeting in January.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's what we said.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not arguing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we should announce it -- if we
want a shade session for that, it needs to be announced now to ensure
that we have the ability to do it when you present that settlement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does that require a motion or just
notice?
Page 427
December 11-12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm going to make an announcement
just before you guys leave.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
The other thing I want to mention is that with respect to another
agenda item that we voted on, which is the ATS contract cancellation,
I never received the letter that Commissioner Fiala was referring to,
which is why when you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The letter from the sheriff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I never got it, so I didn't know what
you were talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so what I would like to do is --
it should be entered into the record as an attachment to that agenda
item. And for purposes of the record, I'd like the county attorney --
the county manager to please read it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I go?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there anything further that is
needed before --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- the board breaks up and
Commissioner Henning leaves?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We have a few items left
unattended.
MR. OCHS: Yes, please. I'm sorry to keep you. Again, this
relates to Item 10I and 10J that you approved at yesterday's meeting
regarding the affirmative vote to reconsider the design services
contracts for the runway extension at the two airports.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: After you voted in favor of that, you had a
Page 428
December 11-12, 2012
subsequent discussion where you had asked Ms. Kinzel to get with
Mr. Curry to see if that action was going to jeopardize any federal
funds. And I believe the two of them have collaborated on that. I'd
ask either Ms. Kinzel or Mr. Curry -- because it is time sensitive,
perhaps. So that was the only item I have left, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, I believe --
Commissioner Fiala, you want to talk about this, too?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another thing that was up for
reconsideration was the gulf consortium, and we still haven't resolved
that, but we need to -- we need to -- well, I feel, we need to have
representation on there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's coming back for
reconsideration.
MR. OCHS: I will bring that back at your first meeting in
January of 2013. And as -- and you are still the representative for the
board. You're just not a voting member until there's another decision
made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've still been going to meetings,
yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, I'd like to consider
possibly revisiting the question of whose representing us. I know,
Commissioner Fiala, you've indicated that -- like, for example, you
resigned from the Regional Planning Council because you said it was
too much for you to handle that. And I just question if it isn't too much
for you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to do this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason is I had -- I'm the
president of another organization, and it meets at the same time.
That's why it was too much.
Page 429
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same time, same day.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because I know Commissioner
Henning is very interested in being the representative, and you would
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would never let this go,
unless, of course, you vote me out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because at the last meeting you
indicated you would be willing to let it go, and he had expressed an
interest in taking it over. Were you serious about that or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'd be happy to. You
know, the whole concern is get in there, have a plan, and get out. The
document creating the consortium, as has been expressed over and
over again, it could be a -- you know, a never-ending consortium with,
you know, staff members and consultants and this and that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What they're asking for is people
that can work together as a team. That's what they're looking for,
unanimity. Together they can form some decisions, not go in and try
and change everything.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are they going to vote on which
projects move forward and what order of priority?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're going to be told. You
know, right now --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who will tell them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right now we're working with
the governor's office, and that's a big, giant step forward because
before they were going to take it. Now, with -- we are all going to
have control. They're going to tell us how much we can have. And
it's something like -- like 75 percent goes to the five gulf counties that
are affected mostly, the other 25 percent from the other eight gulf
counties, and then from -- they're going to tell us what we get and --
but we're going to be submitting things --
Page 430
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, you still needed me to be
here?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let me just finish this one
issue.
MR. OCHS: I don't know. We were going to -- I thought we
were talking about the airport items, but we got sidetracked.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have -- let's just very -- my
apologizes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But that's time sensitive --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me finish this issue with
Commissioner Fiala, and then let's address that one.
Go ahead. Just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, anyway, so there's no
negotiation on our part, more or less. We're just there as part of a team
to get a job done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand. And I just think -- I
mean, one of the things -- I heard you say that you weren't -- you
know, that you would be willing to give it up. I heard Commissioner
Henning say he was interested in doing it.
Since he's the current chair of the TDC and is actively involved
with the people who have been adversely affected by the industry, I
would actually like to see Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- as the representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine, that's fine, as long as
we're represented.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. I mean, is that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine with me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that agreeable?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, it is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What do you think?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think if it's agreeable to you-all,
Page 431
December 11-12, 2012
somebody make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I certainly can't, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make a motion that we change
our representative from currently being Commissioner Fiala to realign
the TDC work and appoint Commissioner Henning as a representative
on this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This has nothing to do with TDC,
by the way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it's the individual -- it's the
businesses who have been adversely affected, the tourism industry,
that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, mainly you're going to see --
excuse me for interrupting you. But mainly what you're going to see
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And coastal issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is the environmental communities
that are going to be affected by this, and this is -- this money is going
to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Coastal projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- environmental projects also. For
instance, the dead mangroves over on 92.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Coastal -- coastal environmental
projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not in the coast. But, anyway,
they're mangroves there. You can't see a coast there, but the
mangroves are dead. So there are going to be other projects as well.
But fine. You know, like I said, I'd rather not split the baby. If
you want to give it to somebody else, that's fine. Do I vote for it? No,
but that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second your motion.
If there's no further discussion, all in -- is there a public speaker
Page 432
December 11-12, 2012
that would like to speak on that? No.
MR. OCHS: No; no, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then all those in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-1 with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
And Mr. Curry's item.
Item #10I and #10J
UPDATE REGARDING FAA SCHEDULE — UPDATE GIVEN BY
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY:
STAY FOR THESE TWO PROJECTS ON AIRPORT RUNWAYS
(AS TO THE DESIGN) LIFTED SO NOT TO JEOPARDIZE
FUNDING BUT STILL DISCUSS ITEM IN JANUARY —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Chris.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director, airport authority.
Crystal, do you want to lead, or would you like for me to?
MS. KINZEL: Whichever.
Commissioner Hiller, you had requested that we validate and,
actually, we're very good, because I do have some good staff.
We were able to get ahold of a Mr. Vernon Rupinta with FAA.
Now, that is not the project manager. We tried again today to get
ahold of Ms. Ritchy. Have you gotten a call back from her at all,
Chris?
MR. CURRY: I have not spoken to her since our conversation
Page 433
December 11-12, 2012
earlier this morning.
MS. KINZEL: But what we could relay, and the only guidance
that I can give you, is that they did tell us that a pre-grant application
is due January 21st of 2013. A bid solicitation must be completed
prior to submitting the grant application, because the grant application
has to include a bid tab and selection for the construction component.
That would be due in mid-June as an application. And the FAA is --
target is to have all the grant applications in by mid-June.
Now, there is an opportunity through August, depending on the
project manager specifically, which would be, I think, Crystal Ritchy
-- no relation first-name basis. But she would want probably to get all
those applications no later than mid-June. But there's some leeway
June and August that we can't pin them down. We were waiting for a
call back from Ms. Ritchy.
But what they were able to say is they anticipated that you would
need not only the engineering, but the engineering to have completed
the bid solicitation for the construction associated with that no later
than mid-June, if helps you with your decision process.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so from the standpoint of
purchasing, is that doable?
MR. CURRY: Yes, it is. From -- right now, as we stand with the
consultants -- because we did reach out to the consultants and asked if
that delay would impede their ability to make those dates, and they
indicated that they would, because they -- they're already behind with
the time that it takes them to go through the county's process.
So they're already behind once they were issued the notice to
proceed. But they're on an accelerated schedule that will allow them
to meet the dates required by the FAA.
Now, we were trying to get some more written communication
from the FAA, but I will tell you what they told me this morning, that
there could be some serious ramifications if the project is not
completed, and if the project is delayed.
Page 434
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the ramifications are?
MR. CURRY: Well, I will let them explain that to us with
further communication. But that was the general statement from them.
FDOT and the FAA has both said if the project is not completed
that they would hold the county responsible, of course, to pay all of
the money back, and they would not fund the 95 percent of the
project.
The other issue related to the airports is that, of course, you know
that they're in very poor condition, and the state is the one that's
responsible for the inspection of Marco and Immokalee.
And FDOT has indicated that because of the very poor condition
of the runway, that future inspections may lead to a restriction of jet
traffic so that we may not be able to have jet traffic into the airport
because they know the condition is very poor.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that raises some very
significant concerns on my part. I mean, I'm not going to wait for
FDOT to stop the traffic into these airports. If the runways are in such
bad condition, maybe from a public safety standpoint, we should shut
it down now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shut the airports down?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the -- if we don't have
runways, there's no point.
MR. CURRY: Well, we have not made that determination as --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or shut the --
MR. CURRY: We have not made that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you have anything in writing
from FDOT that says that -- you know, that we're in imminent risk of
them shutting it down?
MR. CURRY: What I have from FDOT is the report that states
the runway's in very poor condition. That's what I have from FDOT.
The management of the airport authority has not made that
determination yet to put a restriction nor has FDOT. But they inspect
Page 435
December 11-12, 2012
the airports in October, and they look at the pavement and all of those,
and that's when they will make that assertion as to whether the airport
should be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In when -- what month?
MR. CURRY: In October.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: October.
MR. CURRY: It's October/November that they do inspections.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, basically, like, essentially, a
year from now that we'll be operating with runways that we're being
told are in very, very bad condition?
MR. CURRY: We already know they're in very bad condition.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Based on the report you received?
MR. CURRY: Based on the report we received. And what we do
know is that as we speak, because they're rated as very poor, that some
of the larger jet traffic will call us personally to make sure the airport
is suitable to land.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is very concerning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When were you supposed to start
the resurfacing? I know this is supposed to go forward right now.
MR. CURRY: Well, what we're trying to do is get the permit,
design, and bid portion done, meet the FAA time limits and
requirements so that we're in the position for discretionary funding for
Fiscal Year 2014, which would be, you know, around September that
we would be allocated the funding.
So we're trying to move everything as quickly as possible to
avoid, perhaps, some of those things that we've just discussed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Chris, when did we get the report
saying that the runways were in such bad condition?
MR. CURRY: I think they were issued in, maybe, 2010. I sent it
to all of the commissioners, and I've sent it to you twice.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So -- yeah, I understand that. I just
wanted to know when we received it. And here's my point -- because I
Page 436
December 11-12, 2012
did not understand that the condition was so bad -- because this is the
first time that you're reporting to us that, you know, you've got planes
-- you know, pilots calling you to verify the condition for landing
purposes. This precedence puts a completely different spin on the
whole matter.
From 2010 to now we're putting it out to bid at the -- or I'm sorry.
We're doing a design and construction bid what seems to me to be at
the 11th hour. Why did we not do anything between 2010 and now?
Why are -- whyamI --
MR. CURRY: Well -- we have, we have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why are we considering -- why am
I faced with -- why am I faced with this now with a grant deadline in
August?
MR. CURRY: You know, the process for obtaining funding and
getting into the system is probably 10 years in the making. So as you
know, I got here in September 2010. This was already plugged and
programmed into the system.
The FDOT inspection actually escalated it, because FDOT is a
range in priorities. So as they go through the whole State of Florida
and inspect these runways, the ones that are very poor, it changes their
priority for funding. It moves them up the funding ladder.
So to say that, you know, the airport authority did not act as
expeditiously as possible is not -- that's not true at all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the reason -- the reason you
didn't proceed is because you didn't have the federal grant approval?
MR. CURRY: Right. We need the funding to carry out these
major projects.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. But the question that I have
is in the meantime, if we know that the rating of these runways is so
bad that it presents a public safety hazard, which is what I'm hearing,
if I've got --
MR. CURRY: No.
Page 437
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I'm hearing --
MR. CURRY: What you're hearing is that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- you've got pilots calling you --
MR. CURRY: -- they're rated as very poor, but very poor does
not close down the runway. It does not close down the airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So do we have a public safety issue
or not?
MR. CURRY: No, we do not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So it is safe for planes to
land on those runways notwithstanding the condition that they're in?
MR. CURRY: The minute that I see that they're not safe, we will
take action to resolve any safety issue associated with aircraft.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Would it be worthwhile to
bring in an independent consultant to give us that opinion right away
to ensure we don't have liability for that runway?
MR. CURRY: Well, that's what FDOT did. FDOT hired a
consultant to do the work to test the pavement. They hired an
independent consultant to bring them the report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But you said that they're going to
wait till one year to come back and tell us whether they need to restrict
air traffic on those specific runways.
MR. CURRY: What I said is that they inspect the airports every
year. The licenses to operate the airports are from FDOT. So every
year they come around and inspect the airport.
But the longer that we take to take action to resolve the issue, the
more that the runways deteriorate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. That's different than what
you said earlier. Again, my concern is the public safety aspect and,
you know, your comment that the runways are so bad that you've got
pilots calling in. Because the conditions are so bad, they're
questioning the safety to land.
MR. CURRY: Because the runway is rated as very poor --
Page 438
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. CURRY: -- that is on the airport master record, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. CURRY: So it's rated very poor. So when pilots look to
come into an airport, they're checking all of the facilities that's
available to include the runway.
So when they see that the runway is very poor, for example, the
guy called me and said, well, we have a Gulfstream 4, which is a
super-large business jet. And he said, it's rated very poor. Does that
mean that you have holes in the pavement? No, we don't have holes in
the pavement?
Okay. Well, does Net Jets use your airports? Yes, they do.
Okay. Well, we're okay landing there.
That's the kind of call that I'm talking about. But very poor only
leads them to question, but very poor does not --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So it's not a public safety hazard?
That's all I need to know.
MR. CURRY: It's not. And when it is, you will be the first to
know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So this pavement
improvement is -- the timing we're looking at now is not because of
public safety but rather because of the grant deadline; is that correct?
MR. CURRY: It's because of the grant line (sic) and the fact that
we understand where deteriorating pavement goes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we understand --
MR. CURRY: Because eventually it affects your revenue. It
affects the revenue coming into the airports because these guys may
decide not to land there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The deadline -- we're talking about
one month. We're talking about the first meeting in January. And the
date for that meeting again is what date?
MR. OCHS: January 8th.
Page 439
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8th.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: January 8th. And what we're saying
is we cannot wait till January the 8th to reconsider this matter. Now, I
don't know why Commissioner Henning pulled it for reconsideration.
It was his decision to bring it back for reconsideration.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
MR. CURRY: I don't know as well either.
MR. OCHS: If I might. And I'm not trying to complicate this or
prolong it. But it was my understanding that the board directed
yesterday that any of these contract issues that were approved for
reconsideration, we need to issue any -- an immediate stop work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: On those.
MR. OCHS: So not only will they not work between now and
the January 8th meeting, but if the board decides to discontinue those
contracts on January 8th --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You have to put out bid.
MR. OCHS: -- and re-solicit, you are -- you are pressing, again,
the window between the time -- and I don't mean to speak for Chris,
but I would think you're further compressing the deadline that you're
facing. Because you have to have construction done.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's have some direction.
MR. CURRY: And they'll remobilize the crews as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. It's Commissioner Nance's
turn to speak.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let me ask just a direct question,
then I'll propose a solution, if we can.
On Items 10I and 10J in which we reconsidered the design and
related services for the Marco project and the Immokalee Regional
Airport project with Hole Montes, is delaying that to a meeting in
January, in the opinion of Ms. Kinzel and Mr. Curry, is that going to
jeopardize that money to the point where we should not talk about
Page 440
December 11-12, 2012
this, say, January 22nd?
Is that your -- what's your professional recommendation between
the two of you? Can the two of you concur that this is a problem that's
serious enough that we need to amend our action?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance, that really isn't a clerk's
decision. I can give you the timeframes, but purchasing would have to
handle the RFP and all of that paperwork and documentation. I think
that'd be best answered by them.
I did talk to Mrs. Markiewicz during the lunch break and
previously, but it really isn't a clerk policy decision to encourage you
or discourage you.
I gave you the date deadlines. We did confirm those deadlines
with the external agency. It would be a matter of how soon can
purchasing prepare the documentation with the engineer report being
returned.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What about you, Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: Commissioner Nance, in my professional
opinion, talking to the consultants, a delayed schedule would not
allow them to meet those due dates for the FAA for us to be eligible
for the rehabilitation piece in Fiscal Year 2014.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right. Well, I'll tell you what I
will propose then. I will propose, if Commissioner Fiala would
consider seconding it, to reconsider our action on Items 10I and 10J.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't know. Can we legally do
that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sure, we can. I can reconsider
them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I don't think so. Wait a second.
Because we have a motion for reconsideration which was adopted
which said we would bring this forward, I think the motion that we
take is a little different.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
Page 441
December 11-12, 2012
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can't reverse a reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can't reconsider a
reconsideration?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you can't.
MR. OCHS: Wait a minute.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Here's the -- let me --
MR. OCHS: Wait.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I make a suggestion?
MR. OCHS: Let's get the question answered.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can make a motion. Wait. We
can make a motion to lift the stay with respect to these contracts to
allow the work to proceed and then let it come back for
reconsideration for whatever the discussion is that Commissioner
Henning wanted, which basically allows this to continue to move
forward, and then at the first meeting in January we can address
whatever his concerns were with respect to that project.
And that doesn't impede the progress but doesn't start reversing
reconsideration votes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. CURRY: Well, that satisfies my concern.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. So I'll make a motion
that the stay for these two projects is lifted as to the design of the
repaving of these runways so as to not jeopardize the timing of the
grant monies, and to allow the matter to come back, as was voted on,
at the January meeting.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think that's a better fix, and I will
second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion, Commissioner Fiala? Do you have any
comment on that?
Page 442
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you -- do you support that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that favorable?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then with that, I'll call the vote. All
in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
That will be the last action we're going to take as a board except
for the Hussey announcement. But we don't have to vote on that, do
we?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I just -- you don't even have to be here.
I'm just going to give the public notice that this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. We're all leaving.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- just for the court reporter.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just -- all I want to do is for
purposes of the public, that everyone understands that the remainder
of the items that are on the agenda will be carried forward to the
January meetings to be allocated between those meetings as the
county manager sees fit, that we will take no more action, because it
really wouldn't be fair since we're missing two commissioners at this
point, and to proceed with the comments from the county manager, the
county attorney, and the board to conclude the meeting.
Go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Section 286.0118, Florida Statutes. The county attorney desires the
Page 443
December 11-12, 2012
advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday, January 8, 2013.
The session will be held at a time-certain at 12 noon in the
commissioners' offices conference room, Third Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Administration Building, Collier County Government Center,
3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 34112.
In addition to the board members, the county manager, Leo Ochs,
and County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow will be in attendance.
The board, in closed executive session, will discuss two matters.
The first matter will be a strategy session relating to the settlement
negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending cases of
Hussey, et al, versus Collier County, Second District Court of Appeal,
No. 2D11-1224, and Shawn Hussey, et al, versus Collier County,
Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D11-1213.
The second matter which we will discuss, which will occur
following the conclusion of the first discussion matter, will be a
strategy session relating to settlement negotiations, litigation,
expenditures, in the pending cases of Jerry Blocker, et al, versus
Collier County, Case No. 08-9355-CA, and Collier County versus
Jerry Blocker, Case No. 09-1281-CA, both pending in the Circuit
Court of the 20th Judicial District in and for Collier County, Florida.
And I will hand these notices to the court reporter for inclusion
into the official record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Do you have any other
comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please read the letter
from the sheriff on the record?
MR. OCHS: Yes, I'm sorry.
Page 444
December 11-12, 2012
Dear Chairman Coyle and Board of County Commissioners, Late
last week I was advised of an agenda item regarding the termination
of the Collier County red light camera program contract.
I regret I am unable to attend the meeting due to a previous
commitment; however, I wish to state for the record that I continue to
strongly support the red light camera program. I believe the program
had merit when initiated and still has merit today in helping to make
our streets safer.
Our participation in consideration for supporting the use of red
light camera systems developed from resident and homeowner
association inquiries regarding unsafe traffic conditions and the
absence of red light cameras to aid in enforcement.
The significant amount of public inquiry about utilizing red light
camera systems prompted our interest as a law enforcement agency to
consider cameras as an additional tool in our traffic enforcement
efforts.
Our research indicated the potential for continuing to enhance
traffic safety through awareness, prevention, and operational
enforcement programming with the use of technology, i.e, a red light
camera system.
Since implementation of the red light camera enforcement
program, we have found it to be an efficient use of resources and
technology. Along with our continued field operational enforcement
efforts, the cameras have resulted in an observable change in driving
behavior. These efforts have all but eliminated citizen complaints
about red light runners.
Regardless of the method of enforcement, every citation issued
represents a violation of a Florida traffic statute.
As you are aware, the State of Florida has authorized and
sanctioned the use of red light cameras as a traffic enforcement
mechanism for correcting poor driver behavior and as an additional
means of promoting safe driving.
Page 445
December 11-12, 2012
In conclusion, I would ask you to consider all factors, including
efficiency, safety, and community desire before terminating the Collier
County red light camera program.
Sincerely, Kevin Rambosk, Sheriff.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I'd like that
introduced on the record behind the agenda item so that the
community can read it as a companion to the board's discussion and
vote on the matter.
And, unfortunately, I had not received it for reasons we shall not
discuss. And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was sent to all of us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I didn't get it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I had read it, I certainly would
have read it at the time the agenda item was presented. So thank you
so much for reading it on the record.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome, ma'am. I've also been extremely
derelict again in my duties to the court reporter, and I apologize.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the good news is is this time
you can blame Leo.
MR. OCHS: That's right. That's a hint to keep it short.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, exactly.
County Commissioners, any comments?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If I may, motion to adjourn.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wait, wait. You can't make a
motion to adjourn. You have to see if Commissioner Fiala has any
comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I actually have some comments. I
want to congratulate you, Commissioner Nance, on your first meeting.
You did an excellent job, and this is the biggest agenda I think we
Page 446
December 11-12, 2012
have ever had as a county.
I was speaking to the court reporter, and this is the first time ever
in the history of the county that we got into double alphabet agenda
items. So, I mean, it was a yeomen's job on your part.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We don't want the public to think
that we're missing commissioners because we have workman's comp
claims related to handling the agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Exactly. And, unfortunately, I
inherited this agenda. And I want to thank everyone for supporting
me through this, since there was a lot of work involved. And, Leo,
you really were very helpful in helping me get through my first
meeting as chair with as much information as we had in front of us.
MR. OCHS: Oh, you're welcome, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And one last comment -- well, two
last comments.
First of all, Happy Birthday, Leo.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You don't look a year older. You
look just as good as last year. Your hair is exactly the same color.
You're the only person who gets older without changing hair color.
MR. OCHS: That's because I went gray when I was 30, so I
didn't have to -- I was ahead of the curve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes. That wisdom set in at a young
age. So Happy Birthday.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And to everyone, Merry Christmas,
Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, all the holidays that come about at
this time, happy, happy, and most importantly, Happy New Year. Go
2013.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
*****
Page 447
December 11-12, 2012
**** Commissioner Henning 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
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MANCHESTER SQUARE, (PL#20110000280)
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — LOCATED IN
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR MANCHESTER SQUARE — FORCE MAIN,
(PL#20110000915) — LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A3
DECLARING A 0.28 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND ON TAMIAMI
TRAIL EAST AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN
EASEMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE.) — THE DEEDS REVERTER CLAUSE
PREVENTS THE COUNTY FROM SELLING THE PARCEL, THE
Page 448
December 11-12, 2012
COUNTY WILL USE A PORTION OF THE PARCEL FOR
FUTURE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2012-235: SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT
DECREASE FROM THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO
TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) ON DANFORD
STREET FROM BAYVIEW PARK TO HAMILTON AVENUE AT
A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $200
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2012-236: SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPEED LIMIT
CHANGES WITHIN WILLOUGHBY ACRES AND ON PIPER
BOULEVARD AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $5,625
Item #16A6
EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP)
FOR YOUTH HAVEN, (AR#13286) PURSUANT TO SECTION
10.02.03.B.2.G OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE — THE WORK MUST BE COMPLETED
BY JANUARY 13, 2014, ANY ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS
MUST BE REQUESTED PRIOR TO THE NEW EXPIRATION
DATE
Item #16A7
Page 449
December 11-12, 2012
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES AT
NAPLES, 217 - 219 (PL20120002312) — LOCATED IN SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY COQUINA
CIRCLE, (PL20120001085), APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — LOCATED IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CANWICK COVE,
(PL20120001486), APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2012-237: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF AVIANO AT NAPLES, AR#6583 (BALMORAL
PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND
AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Page 450
December 11-12, 2012
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2012-238: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL #111 (AR#473) WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16Al2
RESOLUTION 2012-239: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL #112 (AR#792) WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2012-240: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL #113, (AR#1894) WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A14
Page 451
December 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-241 : FINAL APPROVAL OF
THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA UNIT TWO (AR#295)
WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2012-242: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL #117 (AR#7087), WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2012-243: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL #120 (AR#1082) WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A17
A RELEASE RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PLAT OF
Page 452
December 11-12, 2012
CASA DEL VIDA AND RETURN THE REMAINING
MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,460 TO
THE CASA DEL VIDA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION —
WITH THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND
PRESERVE ARE PRIVATE AND WILL BE MAINTAINED BY
THE HOA, FOR WHICH THE COUNTY WILL HAVE NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE
Item #16A18
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PRATO WAY, A REPLAT
OF LOTS 1 & 2, (FP-PL20120002521). THIS PLAT IS A RE-
SUBDIVISION OF LOTS WITHIN THE TUSCANY RESERVE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) — LOCATED IN
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A19
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF RIVERSTONE - PLAT
THREE (PL20120001441), APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2012-244: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF TUSCANY RESERVE, (AR#2274) WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
Page 453
December 11-12, 2012
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A21
THE CONVEYANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
LOCATED IN THE LINWOOD WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE
CITY OF NAPLES. (GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMWATER
PUMP STATION PROJECT #51803) — FOR THE NEW FIRE
HYDRANT AND ALL RELEVANT APPURTENANCES THAT
ARE LOCATED AT 2411 FRANCIS AVENUE
Item #16A22
THE PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
FOUR-LANING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BETWEEN
WILSON BOULEVARD AND DESOTO BOULEVARD
(PROJECT NO. 60040) (FISCAL IMPACT: $14,400) — WHICH IS
ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE
LOCATED AT 4189 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. EAST
Item #16A23
BID #13-5995 FOR "SR 951 FROM THE MC LLEVANE BRIDGE
TO JOLLEY BRIDGE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE" TO
AFFORDABLE LANDSCAPING SERVICE & DESIGN, LLC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $59,183.42 — FOR SERVICES WHICH
INCLUDE MOWING, EDGING, WEEDING, TRASH REMOVAL,
STREET CLEANING, FERTILIZER AND HERBICIDE
APPLICATION
Item #16A24
Page 454
December 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-245: REVISING THE "CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS HANDBOOK FOR WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT-
OF-WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA," IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE NO. 2009-19, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO
ALLOW AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO PLANT
MINIMAL VEGETATION ENHANCEMENTS WITHIN A
RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT OBTAINING A RIGHT-OF-WAY
PERMIT
Item #16A25
COMMITMENT OF THE PREPAYMENT OF ROAD IMPACT
FEES IN THE HAMMOCK PARK COMMERCE CENTRE
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) RECORDED IN
O.R. BOOK 4202, PAGE 675 AND TO CONVERT A
TEMPORARY THREE YEAR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
FACILITY ADEQUACY (COA) INTO A COA IN PERPETUITY —
AS THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID 64% OF THE CURRENT
ROAD IMPACT FEES
Item #16A26
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE BAREFOOT BEACH
CLUB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND
THE CONSERVANCY TO ALLOW FOR MANGROVE
TRIMMING AND MONITORING ON COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF LELY BAREFOOT BEACH —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A27
Page 455
December 11-12, 2012
THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE OF GROUND APPLICATION
SERVICES FOR AQUATICS, WETLAND AND TERRESTRIAL
VEGETATION CONTROL FROM APPLIED AQUATICS IN THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $300,000, UTILIZING
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CONTRACT NO. 46000002497 — AWARDED TO APPLIED
AQUATIC MANAGEMENT, INC., LAND AND WETLAND
MANAGEMENT, INC., EARTH BALANCE CORP., FLORIDA
BEST, INC. AND AQUATIC VEGETATION CONTROL FOR
CONTRACT #13-6021
Item #16A28
A SCHEDULE TO REVIEW PAST STAFF CLARIFICATIONS OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AND TO ACCEPT
SPECIFIC STAFF CLARIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO THIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — FOR 1) PROPOSED SCHEDULE
FOR REVIEW OF STAFF CLARIFICATIONS AND OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION, 2) SC-2011-01 WINDOW SIGNS, 3) SC-
2004-03 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, 4) SC-
2004-07 GUEST HOUSE OR COTTAGE AND GUEST
QUARTERS/GUEST SUITES, 5) SC-2006-04 RMF-6 DENSITY
CALCULATION, 6) SC-2003-01 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, AND
7) SC-2002-03 SIGN SIZE STANDARDS
Item #16A29
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) WITH THE CITY
OF NAPLES AND EXECUTE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR
THE DESIGN BUILD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BRIDGE
REPLACEMENTS RAW WATER MAIN RELOCATION.
BRIDGE REPAIRS/ IMPROVEMENTS (FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 456
December 11-12, 2012
REVENUE OF $616,178.75) PROJECT #66066 — WORK TO
COMMENCE THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2012 AND
COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2013
Item #16A30
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,932.10 FOR
PAYMENT OF $15,932.10, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. GRACIELA SUSI, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER
CEPM20080008180, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2130 MORNING SUN LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
FOR 1,032 DAYS OF ACCRUED FINES PERTAINING TO NO
PROTECTIVE BARRIER SURROUNDING THE SWIMMING
POOL
Item #16A31
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,081 .15 FOR
PAYMENT OF $21,481 .15, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER CESD20110013221,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4540 7TH AVENUE
SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR 230 DAYS OF
ACCRUED FINES PERTAINING TO UNPERMITTED
ADDITIONS
Item #16A32
A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL ST. AGNES
CATHOLIC CHURCH PARISH CARNIVAL ON JANUARY
Page 457
December 11-12, 2012
18TH, 19TH AND 20TH, 2013 LOCATED AT 7775
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
AND TO RECOMMEND WAIVER OF THE SURETY BOND IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 FOR THE ST. AGNES CATHOLIC
CHURCH CARNIVAL — THE REQUIRED INSURANCE HAS
BEEN PURCHASED, THE SHERIFFS OFFICE IS PREPARED TO
PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE FESTIVAL FOR THE THREE
DAYS
Item #16A33
REJECT ALL BIDS FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12-5857
NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVICES AND EXTEND THE
AWARDS ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS SOLICITATION
#11-5646 TO NEAL'S LAWN AND LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE, A & M PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, AND
WALKER EXOTIC TREE ERADICATION UNTIL DECEMBER
13, 2013 OR THE AWARD OF A NEW CONTRACT FOR THESE
SERVICES — SET TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 14, 2012
Item #16A34
A REDUCED PRORATED PAYMENT TO BETTER ROADS,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,907.31, FOR ITS PAVING OF
JOHNS STREET AND CARLTON STREET UNDER THE
COUNTY'S ANNUAL RESURFACING CONTRACT #09-5328,
WITHOUT ADVANCE AUTHORIZATION FROM COUNTY
STAFF AND PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED RESURFACING
DATE FOR THOSE ROADS
Item #16A35
Page 458
December 11-12, 2012
A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH
FEMA LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC PERTAINING TO AN
APPEAL CONCERNING THE DE-OBLIGATION OF FEMA
FUNDS RELATED TO HURRICANES KATRINA AND WILMA
WITH A REQUEST TO OPEN A PURCHASE ORDER IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000
Item #16A36 — Added Item (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
PARTIAL RELEASE OF FOUR LIENS IN RELATION TO FOUR
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDERS ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. TIMOTHY S. NELSON, CED CASE NOS. CENA-
2009-0015974; CEB-209-0015983; CESD-2009-0015977, AND
CEPM-2009-0015979, TO RELEASE THE LIENS WITH
RESPECT TO 2621 TARPON ROAD, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — DUE THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED AT 3461
VERITY LANE FOR LITTER, UNLICENSED BOAT TRAILER
AND UNPERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS AND PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS THAT ENCUMBERED THE
TARPON ROAD PROPERTY
Item #16B1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 12-5863 BETWEEN
THE CRA AND URS CORPORATION FOR CEI SERVICES FOR
THE IMMOKALEE DOWNTOWN STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT — EXTENDING THE CONTRACT
THROUGH MARCH 31, 2013
Item #16C1
TERMINATING THE UTILITY FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT
Page 459
December 11-12, 2012
AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1996, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951)
AND JOHNS ROAD IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C2
UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH FIRST CHOICE
STORAGE, L.C. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS TO PUMP
STATION 312.21 FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED
$7,250, PROJECT NUMBER 70046, AND ACCEPT THE
PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY AND DIRECT STAFF TO RECORD SAME — DUE TO
ITS INSUFFICIENT SIZE
Item #16C3
A UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AREA AT NO
COST FROM ARCFLSV, LLC, TO ACCOMMODATE
IMPROVEMENTS TO PUMP STATION 310.01, PROJECT
NUMBER 70046 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW
FENCE
Item #16C4
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT #11-5752 TO CORRECT AN
ERROR IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO BE IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD-APPROVED AMOUNT —
THE CORRECTION WILL COVER ALL EXISTING INSTALLED
Page 460
December 11-12, 2012
SOFTWARE LICENSES INCREASING THE TOTAL TO
$60,342.03
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2012-246: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
THE 1994 AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL
SATISFACTIONS OF THE LIEN (FISCAL IMPACT IS $38.50 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN)
Item #16C6
REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL
RECORDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,481 .48 — FROM
PROPERTY OWNERS WITH BURIED INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT IS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHO FAIL TO PAY WATER
OR SEWER SERVICES AND LIEN RIGHTS ARE NOT
AVAILABLE
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 2012-247: COLLIER COUNTY'S COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) AND EMERGENCY
SHELTER GRANT (ESG) CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Page 461
December 11-12, 2012
(HUD); APPROVE THE CAPER RESOLUTION; AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE CAPER FOR
SUBMISSION TO HUD
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2012-248: THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DESIRE TO BE RE-DESIGNATED
AS THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND REQUESTING THE COLLIER
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RECOMMEND
IT BE SO RE-DESIGNATED TO THE FLORIDA COMMISSION
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
Item #16D3
A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDED
SECOND ALLOCATION OF THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS
GRANT (ESG) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,219 — FOR
THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE
GRANT PROGRAM
Item #16D4
RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY ARLO HAGEN TO RESIDE AT
PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE, 6315 PEPPER ROAD,
IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D5
Page 462
December 11-12, 2012
AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT NO. 11-5753, ELECTRONIC
FAREBOXES FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS)
PROGRAM TO CORRECT TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE
AGREEMENT, AND APPROVE THE SOFTWARE LICENSE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FARE LOGISTICS CORPORATION
AND COLLIER COUNTY WITH A FUTURE ANNUAL FISCAL
IMPACT OF $17,535 AFTER EXPIRATION OF 5 YEAR
WARRANTY PERIOD
Item #16D6 — Continued to the January 8, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
TWO (2) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS (FIRST TIME
HOMEBUYERS AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION) IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $156,174 FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDING IN
THE 2012-2013 ACTION PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD
ON JULY 24, 2012 (AGENDA ITEM NO. 11E)
Item #16D7
AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIC CONTRACT CONDITIONS
WITHIN SEVEN (7) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 AND 2011-2012.
THE CHANGES ARE IN LINE WITH HUD GUIDELINES FOR 24
CFR PART 570 SUBPART K LANGUAGE AND RECORDS
Page 463
December 11-12, 2012
RETENTION TIME FRAMES FOR BOTH HUD AND STATE
REGULATIONS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D8
AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE SPECIFIC REIMBURSEMENT
WITHIN THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE (DLC) TO
OPERATE THE COLLIER COUNTY DRUG COURT PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO REQUEST A GRANT ADJUSTMENT NOTICE
(GAN) TO INITIATE A ZERO-COST BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO THE DRUG COURT GRANT #2010-DC-BX-0016 — FOR THE
ADULT DRUG COURT DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM
HELPING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIVE AND
PROMOTING PERSONAL WELLNESS, SELF RELIANCE AND
INDEPENDENCE
Item #16D9
A ONE-TIME EXCEPTION TO THE 2011-2012 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN &
CHILDREN (SHELTER) AND THE COLLIER COUNTY FOR AN
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL OF A SUB-CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND LEGAL AID SERVICE OF
COLLIER COUNTY, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF
SERVICES SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE
AGREEMENT, AS WELL AS TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT
IN ORDER TO ADD SUBPART K AND RECORDS RETENTION
Page 464
December 11-12, 2012
TIMEFRAMES FOR BOTH THE STATE AND HUD
REGULATIONS AND MODIFY THE BUDGET (THIS
AMENDMENT WILL NOT CHANGE THE FUNDING LEVEL)
Item #16D10 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
THE EXECUTION OF GRANT AWARD FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL BUS SHELTERS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $276,000 THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TRANSPORTATION ELECTRONIC
AWARD MANAGEMENT (TEAM) SYSTEM AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16D11
RESOLUTION 2012-249 (SECTION 5310) & RESOLUTION 2012-
250 (SECTION 5311): THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS 5310 AND 5311
FY2013/2014 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE
DOCUMENTS FOR SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 2012-251 : A JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT (JPA) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT
A STATE TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $237,919 INCLUDING A LOCAL
MATCH REQUIREMENT OF $59,479.75 FOR THE NECESSARY
IMPROVEMENTS TO BUS STOPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA); A
Page 465
December 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; AND THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D13
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL INC., D/B/A
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF COLLIER COUNTY
(CCCAC), FOR OPERATION OF THE SUPERVISED
VISITATION AND EXCHANGE GRANT FUNDED PROGRAM
VIA THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) ON VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN; INCORPORATING GRANTOR REQUIRED
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE APPLICATION BUDGET AND
ASSOCIATED BUDGET NARRATIVE, WITH NO CHANGE TO
THE TOTAL BUDGET (FISCAL IMPACT $350,000) —
PROVIDING SUPERVISED VISITATION, SAFE VISITATION
EXCHANGE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL ASSAULT OR
STALKING
Item #16D14
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $544 FOR THE NUTRITIONAL
SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — IN EAST NAPLES,
GOLDEN GATE, GOODLETTE ARMS SENIOR APARTMENTS
AND THE ROBERTS CENTER IN IMMOKALEE
Page 466
December 11-12, 2012
Item #16D15
RECEIPT OF THE 2012 INCENTIVE REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31,
2012, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 420.9076(4), FLORIDA
STATUTES, STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM (SHIP)
Item #16D16
AN AFTER-THE FACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A
SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO REFLECT A
REVISION IN THE BUDGET SUMMARY PAGE TO INCLUDE
24-HOUR RESPITE SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE
FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM — THE CCE PROGRAM GIVES
SENIORS ALTERNATIVES TO RESPITE CARE
Item #16D17
AN AFTER-THE-FACT NUTRITION SERVICES INCENTIVE
PROGRAM (NSIP) CONTRACT WITH AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR
CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE A
SUBSEQUENT BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,146 FOR FY 2013 — FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2012
THROUGH DECEMBER 15, 2013
Item #16D18
Page 467
December 11-12, 2012
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. (DLC) FOR PROVISION OF
MANDATED SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,154,200 —
FOR EXPANDED BAKER ACT SERVICES MANDATED BY
THE STATE
Item #16D19
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $19,450 IN
PROGRAM INCOME REVENUE GENERATED BY
AFFORDABLE RENTAL PROPERTIES ACQUIRED UNDER
THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP1) —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D20
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $277,867.36 IN
PROGRAM INCOME REVENUE GENERATED WHEN
CONVEYING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED UNDER THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP1) —
FROM THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: 4437 54TH AVE. NE,
4910 42ND STREET NE, 5031 32ND AVE. SW AND 2545 45TH
AVE. NE, ALL LOCATED IN NAPLES
Item #16D21 — Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3 (NSP3)
TO REFLECT UPDATES TO THE US CENSUS TRACTS
Page 468
December 11-12, 2012
Item #16D22
STAFF TO NOTIFY APPLICANT OF THE COUNTY'S
CANCELLATION OF THE "AS IS" CONTRACT FOR SALE AND
PURCHASE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP1) — LOCATED AT 3 502
CALOOSA STREET IN NAPLES
Item #16D23
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
TO PROVIDE A TOUR OF PARK FACILITIES FOR ANY
INTERESTED CITIZEN WITH THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING
THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT PARK
AMENITIES AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY
Item #16D24
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE
HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY (HCE) GRANT PROGRAM —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D25
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,509.47
AND RECOGNIZE REVENUE GENERATED FROM CASE
MANAGEMENT AND CASE AID FROM THE MEDICAID
WAIVER PROGRAM
Page 469
December 11-12, 2012
Item #16D26
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12-5856 SERVICES FOR
SENIORS TO ALL VENDORS NAMED HEREIN AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ASSOCIATED
AGREEMENTS AND CONTINUED SERVICES AND PAYMENT
ON INVOICES FOR CONTRACTS AFFILIATED WITH THE
PREDECESSOR CONTRACT #09-5227 UNTIL ALL
CONTRACTS ARE FULLY EXECUTED (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT $550,000) — PROVIDING HOMEMAKING, PERSONAL
CARE RESPITE, CHORE ADULT DAY CARE, NURSING,
ESCORT, COMPANION SHOPPING ASSISTANT AND
EMERGENCY ALERT RESPONSE SERVICES
Item #16D27
THE CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ON COUNTY
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NAPLES ZOO, 1590
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, TO THE CITY OF NAPLES, AT
NO COST TO THE COUNTY — LOCATED IN SECTIONS 27 &
34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
Item #16D28
A CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY TO EXTEND
THE GRANT PERIOD BY SIXTY DAYS, APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT ESTIMATED FUNDING FOR
THE FY 13 OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $642,226, WITH LOCAL MATCH FUNDING
Page 470
December 11-12, 2012
FROM CARRY FORWARD IN SERVICES TO SENIORS FUND
123 IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,222.60 AND THE CONTINUED
PAYMENT OF GRANT EXPENDITURES — AVOIDING
DISRUPTIONS IN SERVICE THE CURRENT AGREEMENT HAS
BEEN EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 2012
Item #16D29
WAIVING THE PURCHASING POLICY AND DEEM
GAMETIME, INC. A SOLE SOURCE VENDOR, AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $78,919.94 FOR THE PURCHASE OF
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT THE EAGLE LAKES PARK
AND THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE UNDER US
COMMUNITIES CONTRACT #110179 — REPLACING THE
REMAINING 70% OF EQUIPMENT IN ANTICIPATION OF THE
EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY CENTER BEING BUILT
Item #16D30
REJECT ALL BIDS FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #13-5986
GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK AND RE-SOLICIT BIDS
FOR THIS PROJECT
Item #16D31
AN APPLICATION WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES FOR PERMITS
IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE SALE OF FOOD, ICE, AND
BEVERAGES AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA,
COCOHATCHEE RIVER MARINA, GOODLAND BOATING
PARK MARINA, AND CAXAMBAS PARK MARINA AT AN
Page 471
December 11-12, 2012
EXPENSE OF $965 — FOR THE COST OF RENEWING THE
PERMITS AT ALL FOUR LOCATIONS AND WERE DUE TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ON DECEMBER 1,
2012 TO INSURE PERMIT ISSUANCE BY DECEMBER 31, 2012
Item #16E1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12-5812 FIRE SPRINKLER
ALARM TESTING AND INSTALLATION TO CINTAS
CORPORATION NO.2, DBA CINTAS FIRE PROTECTION AND
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE COUNTY'S STANDARD
AGREEMENT — INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE AND
PROPER TESTING OF FIRE EXTINGUISHER, BUILDING
ALARMS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND FIRE PANEL
MONITORING
Item #16E2 — Moved to Item #11L (Per Commissioner Nance during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16E3
MODIFICATION TO THE ANNUAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE GRANT
(EMPG), CONTRACT #13-FG-86-09-21-01-078, AMENDING
ATTACHMENT C (PROGRAM CONDITIONS) — AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E4
RENEWAL OF THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE
Page 472
December 11-12, 2012
SUPPORT NON-TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR ONE YEAR AND
EXECUTING THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE
Item #16E5
THE PURCHASE OF POWER AND COOLING EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE FROM INSIGHT
PUBLIC SECTOR, INC. FOR THE COUNTY'S SCHNEIDER
ELECTRIC (APC) POWER AND COOLING EQUIPMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $69,709 UTILIZING U.S. COMMUNITIES IT
PRODUCTS & SERVICES CONTRACT #4400001195 (RQ09-
997736-42B)
Item #16E6
A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY FAIR
AND EXPOSITION, INC., PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR
EVENTS TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE FAIRGROUNDS
Item #16E7
THE PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $672,290, A RATE INCREASE OF 14.6% — THE CURRENT
COVERAGE EXPIRES ON JANUARY 1, 2013
Item #16E8
2012-2015 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER EMS/ FIRE
Page 473
December 11-12, 2012
BARGAINING UNIT, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1826, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, INCORPORATED — RUNS
FROM THE BOARD APPROVAL DATE THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 20, 2015
Item #16E9
RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
RETREAT AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS LLC FOR THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E10
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
TIME PERIOD BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2012 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 21, 2012
Item #16E11
THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP TO CHOICE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF COLLIER, INC., A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC. WHICH WAS RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY
WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF WASTE SERVICES, INC., AS IT RELATES TO
CONTRACT #09-5319 FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS, AND YARD TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES
Item #16F1
Page 474
December 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-252: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2
EXTENDING THE PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT'S
(PFM) FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES CONTRACT (#08-
5081) FOR SIX MONTHS TO JUNE 15, 2013 ALLOWING FOR
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON PENDING DEBT
RESTRUCTURING UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE WHILE PUBLIC REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS COVERING A NEW FINANCIAL ADVISORY
SERVICES CONTRACT ARE SOLICITED
Item #16G1 — Moved to Item #14A1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB
LUNCHEON ON OCTOBER 25, 2012. THE SUM OF $23 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
HELD AT THE HILTON HOTEL, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H2
Page 475
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
RED, WHITE & ROULETTE ON NOVEMBER 2, 2012. THE SUM
OF $29 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT THE WALDORF ASTORIA NAPLES, 475
SEAGATE DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 2012 GOLDEN GATE
CITIZENS OF THE YEAR BANQUET ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.
THE SUM OF $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE VANDERBILT
COUNTY CLUB, 8250 DANBURY BLVD., NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE 35TH ANNIVERSARY & 2012 CHRISTMAS
GALA ON DECEMBER 2, 2012. THE SUM OF $75 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD
AT THE BISTRO SOLEIL, 100 PALM STREET, MARCO
ISLAND
Item #16H5
Page 476
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 15, 2012. THE
SUM OF $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE HAMILTON HARBOR
YACHT CLUB, 7065 HAMILTON AVE., NAPLES
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED WAKE UP NAPLES; GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER HONOR COLLIER COUNTY'S FINEST
FOR DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE NAPLES
HILTON ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012. $13 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
THE HILTON HOTEL NAPLES, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH,
NAPLES
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE COLLIER COUNTY
LODGING & TOURISM ALLIANCE HOLIDAY MIXER AT THE
RITZ-CARLTON GOLF RESORT, NAPLES, FL ON DECEMBER
12, 2012. $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S
TRAVEL BUDGET LOCATED AT 2600 TIBURON DRIVE
Item #16H8
Page 477
December 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MONTHLY BREAKFAST
MEETING AT ROMA HAVANA RESTAURANT IN
IMMOKALEE, FL ON NOVEMBER 7, 2012. $10 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
HELD AT 1025 WEST MAIN STREET, IMMOKALEE
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 27, 2012
THROUGH NOVEMBER 2, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 3, 2012
THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 10, 2012
THROUGH NOVEMBER 16, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 17, 2012
THROUGH NOVEMBER 23, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Page 478
December 11-12, 2012
Item #16J5
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
BRISTOL PINES SUBDIVISION
Item #16K1 — Moved to Item 12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K2
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED VERNON H. YOUNG AND
JEANNE M. YOUNG V. COLLIER COUNTY AND
WYNDEMERE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 11-834-CA) WHICH
SETTLEMENT INCLUDES RELOCATION OF CERTAIN
UTILITIES AND LANDSCAPING ON MRS. YOUNG'S
PROPERTY, ACCEPT A UTILITY EASEMENT FROM MRS.
YOUNG, AND PAYMENT OF $10,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE, THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, AND FOR
THE BOARD TO ACCEPT THE UTILITY EASEMENT (TOTAL
FISCAL IMPACT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000)
Item #16K3
A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES &
HOLT, P.A.
Page 479
December 11-12, 2012
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2012-253: CU-PL20120001757, MAC BUSINESS
PLAZA, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE IN A C-3
ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO FOUR BUILDINGS ON
FOUR DIFFERENT PARCELS OF UP TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET
EACH OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURES FOR FOOD STORES, FOOD SERVICES,
PERSONAL SERVICES, VIDEO RENTALS, OR RETAIL USES
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 2.03.03.C.1 .C.10,
2.03.03.C.1 .C.16 AND 2.03.03.C.1 .C.17 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TAMIAMI
TRAIL EAST AND BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD IN SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2012-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DETERMINING THAT ANIMAL SPECIALTY SERVICES — PET
GROOMING ONLY IS A COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE
LAND USE TO OTHER PERMITTED USES, AND THEREFORE,
IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE GOODLETTE CORNERS
PUD, AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 3.3 OF ORDINANCE 04-
40. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Page 480
December 11-12, 2012
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2012-43: REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER 80-
43 TO DISSOLVE THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2012-255: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17E — Continued to the January 22, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS,
IN ADDITION TO THOSE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 538, PART
I, FLORIDA STATUTES, ON THE SALE AND/OR PURCHASE
OF SECONDHAND GOODS (SECONDHAND DEALERS)
*****
Page 481
December 11-12, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
S A DIST ' CTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
1
G ORGIA HILLER, CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST
DIGa E. BROCK, CLERK
st 1-# Iii
i
hest as to Chap 1 r* ;
itoature -)0
These minutes approved by the Board on t 190- / I_3 , as
presented ✓ or as corrected
Page 482