BCC Minutes 01/08-09/2013 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 8-9, 2013
January 8-9, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida January 8-9, 2013
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:
CHAIRWOMAN: 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 — CMO
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
ot
L '1t'
r Azonatti. '°
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
January 8, 2013
9:00 AM
Georgia Hiller— BCC Chairwoman, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning — BCC Vice-Chairman, Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Commissioner, District 4
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
January 8,2013
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. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's Regular Agenda as amended.
B. Approval of today's Consent Agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
C. Approval of today's Summary Agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
D. November 13, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
January 8, 2013
E. Selection of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating January 2013 as Make A Wish Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by Reg Buxton, President's Council Chair, Collier
County and Sandra Buxton, Co-Chair. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation congratulating Arthrex, Inc. for its recognition as a Top Job
Creator at the 2012 Governor's Innovators in Business Awards Ceremony.
To be accepted by representatives from Arthrex. Sponsored by
Commissioner Henning.
C. Proclamation celebrating the 150th Anniversary of the Morrill Act, which
created the University land-grant system. To be accepted by Bryan Fluech,
Collier County Extension Director/Florida Sea Grant Extension Agent and
Dr. Charles Vavrina, Ph.D., District Extension Director. Sponsored by the
Board of County Commissioners.
D. Proclamation designating 2013 as "Viva Florida 500" in recognition of the
500th Anniversary of the European Discovery of Florida. To be accepted by
Ron Jamro, Director of the Collier County Museums; Bridgette Van Den
Hove Smith, Regent, Big Cypress Chapter of the Daughters of the American
Revolution; and Consul-Generals of France, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for January 2013
to The Naples Soap Company. To be accepted by Deanna Renda, President
and Patrick Renda, COO.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting. Public
Petition request from Mr. Edward Dunphy regarding a process to reduce
hauling and landfill expenses.
Page 3
January 8,2013
B. Public Petition request from Thomas Graham regarding landscape plan
submitted by Riverchase Shopping Center.
C. Public Petition request from Patrick White regarding June 26, 2012 approval
of Item #17C titled: Recommendation to consider a Resolution of the Board
of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida determining that a tire store
with minor automotive repairs is a comparable and compatible land use to
other permitted uses, and therefore, is a permitted use within the Business
District designated area of the Creekside Commerce Park CPUD, as
authorized in Section 4.3.A.14 of Ordinance 06-50. The subject property is
located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Items 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Items 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to approve the 2012 Cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity for review and objections, recommendations and comments
(ORC) response. (Transmittal Hearing) (Companion to Agenda Item #17B.,
SE-PL20120002580, Gordon River Greenway Park Scrivener's Error)
B. This item has been continued from the December 11, 2012 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.
C. Recommendation to approve a "small-scale" amendment to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-
Page 4
January 8,2013
05, as amended, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity. (Adoption Hearing)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Re-appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
C. Recommendation to appoint a County Commissioner to serve on the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
D. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution terminating the Employment
Agreement with the Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners. (This item was approved for reconsideration at the
December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
E. Recommendation to discuss Item #11E from the Board's September 11,
2012 agenda regarding "Wastewater Basin Program" contracts. (This item
was approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
F. 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. (This item was approved for reconsideration
at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
G. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. 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). (This item was
approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
H. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Appointment of member to the Collier
County Planning Commission. (This item was approved for reconsideration
Page 5
January 8, 2013
at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
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. (This item was approved for
reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
J. 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. (This item was approved for
reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
K. 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. (This item was approved for
reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
L. 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. (This item was
approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
M. Recommendation to consider options for re-structuring the Board Office.
(This item was approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC
Meeting.)
N. Recommendation to direct the Human Resources Department to develop a
new staff position for the Board of County Commissioners entitled
Executive Assistant in pay grade 19 with exempt status. Staff serving as an
Executive Assistant are to be an at-will employee, to be hired, fired, and
reporting directly and solely to individual Collier County Commissioners.
Page 6
January 8,2013
Directing further that the job description of this new position be developed
together with input from each current sitting Commissioner and the County
Manager to integrate effectively with the reorganization of the BCC office,
and to bring back to the Board for approval. (Commissioner Nance)
0. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommendation that there be
immediate substitution of counsel in the case of Stephen J. Fletcher vs
Thomas C. Curry and Thomas Vergo; that the County Attorney immediately
terminate the services of the Law Firm of Richard L. Richards and Jason
Goldstein in the representation of defendants Thomas C. Curry and Thomas
Vergo; that the County Attorney be appointed to represent Mr. Curry and
Mr. Vergo in the litigation brought against them by Mr. Stephen J. Fletcher
and Fletcher Flying Services, Inc. (currently pending in Collier Circuit
Court); and that a full accounting of all legal costs in this matter be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review at the next
board meeting. (Commissioner Hiller)
P. Recommendation to direct the County Manager to add scheduled BCC
supplementary meeting dates on the first and third Tuesdays of each month,
(with appropriate calendar month breaks to coordinate with the annual BCC
meeting calendar), to facilitate the timely scheduling and presentation of
workshops, presentations, public meetings, and other special meeting needs
as determined by the Board. Further, authorize the BCC Chair to prioritize
placement of items on these dedicated supplementary meeting dates for final
approval by the Board at each regular BCC meeting. (Commissioner Nance)
Q. Recommendation to direct staff to present a detailed review of the current
status of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) proposed amendment
package to include but not be limited to: development of data and analysis,
peer review, funding of work by consultants, funding of work by County
staff, fiscal impact of completion of the amendment package, economic
analysis of credit and acreage relationship, specific traffic analysis,
verification and study, and projected short and long range fiscal impact of
amendment related GMP modifications, coordination with related long range
Growth Management Plans. To further determine how to proceed with the
RLSA amendment package including the option to delay the amendment
package indefinitely. (Commissioner Nance)
R. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners declares the
recent closure of Clam Pass to constitute an emergency situation, requiring
Page 7
January 8,2013
dredging the pass as soon as practicable; that in furtherance of this, the
Board directs the County Manager to obtain pricing information for this
project from at least two prospective vendors, including any potential
vendors with dredges already operating off the west coast of Florida, and
that the County Manager negotiate and enter into an Agreement with the
apparent low bidder, subject to ratification by the Board, preferably at the
next Board meeting. (Commissioner Hiller)
S. Recommendation to approve agreements for planning, permitting, and
engineering services related to Clam Pass and approve associated budget
amendments. (Commissioner Hiller) (The Executive Summary and back-up
materials for this item will be submitted as an Add-On Item to the agenda,
subject to Board of County Commission approval.)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-5981 Roadway Paint,
Thermoplastic Markings and Raised Markers to Traffic Solution, LLC as the
primary vendor and McShea Contracting LLC as the secondary vendor.
(Travis Gossard, Superintendent, Road and Bridge Maintenance, GMD)
B. 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)
C. Recommendation to retain from active sales various properties obtained
from Avatar Properties, Inc., that are part of the Gulf American Corporation
(GAC) Land Trust. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
D. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to obtain Board
direction regarding the proposal received from the stakeholders group to
amend the current Isles of Capri Fire District MSTU and authorize the
advisory board to fully research the state of fire service in the district. (Len
Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
E. Recommendation to award RFP #12-5914R "Outsourcing of County
Marinas" with an anticipated revenue of four (4) percent of gross sales to
Paradise Property Management, Inc. for a period of ten (10) years beginning
Page 8
January 8,2013
not later than February 1, 2013. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation
Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. 12:00 P.M. Time Certain Notice of Closed Session. Notice is hereby
given that, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney
desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-
client session on TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2013. The session will be held
at a time certain of 12:00 p.m., in the Commission's Office Conference
Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Administration Building F, Collier
County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida,
34112. In addition to Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs, and
County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow will be in attendance. The Board in
closed executive session will discuss: Strategy session related to settlement
negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending cases of: Jerry
Blocker, et al. v. Collier County, Case No. 08-9355-CA, and Collier County
v. Jerry Blocker, et al., Case No. 09-1281-CA, in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.
B. 1:00 P.M. Time Certain Return from Closed Session. For the Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney
regarding settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending
cases of: Jerry Blocker, et al. v. Collier County, Case No. 08-9355-CA, and
Collier County v. Jerry Blocker, et al., Case No. 09-1281-CA, in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.
C. 12:00 P.M. Time Certain Notice of Closed Session. Notice is hereby
given that, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney
desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-
client session on TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2013. The session will be held
at a time certain of 12:00 noon, in the Commission's Office Conference
Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Administration Building F, Collier
County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida,
34112. In addition to Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs, and
County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow will be in attendance. The Board in
closed executive session will discuss: Strategy session related to settlement
negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending cases of: Francis D.
Hussey, Jr., et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal
Case No. 2D11-1224; and Sean Hussey, et al. v. Collier County, et al.,
Page 9
January 8,2013
Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1223.
D. 1:00 P.M. Time Certain Return from Closed Session. For the Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney
regarding settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in the pending
cases of: Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al. v. Collier County, et al., Second
District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1224; and Sean Hussey, et al. v.
Collier County, et al., Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D11-1223.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Presentation by the Clerk of the Circuit
Court regarding audit 2012-3 Immokalee Regional Airport Dirt.
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item 13A. Request by the
Clerk for additional funding for pay plan adjustments and COLA increases
consistent with the Board of County Commissioners Pay Plan
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
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.
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.
2) 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
Page 10
January 8,2013
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 grant final approval of the roadway (public) and
drainage improvements, excepting street lighting, for that portion of
Veterans Memorial Boulevard from Livingston Road eastward to
Strand Boulevard, with the roadway and drainage improvements
being maintained by Collier County and authorizing the release of the
maintenance security.
2) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a
Resolution authorizing speed limit revisions within the Pine Woods
Community from 30 mph to 25 mph at a cost of approximately $600.
3) 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 subdivision improvements
associated with the Royal Palm Golf Estates Replat#3 (AR-6774)
subdivision pursuant to Section 10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
4) Recommendation to adopt the 2013 schedule for submittals to amend
the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), as aligned with
the Florida Statutes.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 11
January 8, 2013
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Lantana, (PL20120001529),
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
6) Recommendation to reject all bids for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-
5979 for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Components due to
noncompetitive bidding and authorize the County Manager or his
designee to issue a modified ITB.
7) Recommendation to authorize a reimbursement in the amount of
$7,410.32 to Florida Power and Light for Utility Relocation and the
approval of a Utility Relocation Agreement between Collier County
and Florida Power and Light for "Accelerated Bridge Construction
Projects: White Boulevard Bridge Replacement (#034021)," Project
No. 66066.
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 Phase 5
(PL20120001514), approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plats of Valencia Lakes —Phase
lA (FP00-53), Valencia Lakes — 2A, (AR-992) and Valencia Lakes —
Phase 3A (AR-1415) with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained and authorizing the release of the
maintenance securities and acceptance of the plat dedications.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for The Quarry— Entry Road (AR-5360), Entry Road
Phase 2 (AR-5360), Phase 1-1 (8958), and Phase 1-2 (AR-9541) and
to release the Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to
the Project Engineer or the Developers Designated Agent.
11) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$48,362.47 for payment of$562.47, in the Code Enforcement Action
Page 12
January 8,2013
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. US Bank National
Association as Trustee for the Benefit of Harborview 2005-16 Trust
Fund, Code Enforcement Case Number CEPM20110014961, relating
to property located at 378 Egret Avenue, Collier County, Florida.
12) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$124,483.15 for payment of$50,483.15, 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.
13) Recommendation to increase the annual expenditures for countywide
Bid No. 10-5507 for the purpose of"Storm Drain Cleaning,
Documentation & Repairs" to Shenandoah General Construction
Company for an estimated annual expenditure of$250,000.
14) Recommendation to approve a refund of inspection fees requested by
CH2MHILL, totaling $96,854.53, due to the cancellation of the Ave
Maria Phase Four Project (AR-10816).
15) Recommendation to adopt a resolution superseding Resolution 2011-
182 establishing the Collier County Growth Management
Division/Planning and Regulation Fee Schedule for Development
related review and processing fees pursuant to Section 2-11 of the
Collier County Administrative Code.
16) 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 Sabal Bay, (PL20120001474)
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Agreement #12-5950 to Southwest Direct,
Inc., to outsource the printing and mailing of Collier County Water-
Page 13
January 8,2013
Sewer District utility bills.
2) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of$405,000
to Haskins, Inc., for construction tasks set forth in Request for
Quotation #08-5011-75, Irrigation Quality Water Sites Priority Group
#3.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Community
Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement between Collier
County and the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) Immokalee by extending the time of performance, adding a
provision requiring compliance with the FY 2010 HUD Grant, 24
CFR 570, and Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and modifying Exhibit
A, Scope of Services to be consistent with the Citizen Participation
Plan. (There is no Fiscal Impact associated with this item.)
2) Recommendation to approve seven (7) satisfactions of mortgage in
the amount of$74,614.01 of owner occupied dwelling units that have
satisfied the terms of their affordability period.
3) Recommendation to reject all bids for Inivitation to Bid (ITB) #12-
5918 Boat Ramp Repair for the Port of the Islands Marina and re-
solicit bids for this project.
4) This item is continued from the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.
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. (This item does not propose to alter the
geographic boundaries of Board approved target areas.)
5) Recommendation to provide approval for the electronic submittal of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Continuum of Care (CoC) Grant application, on
behalf of Catholic Charities, in the amount of$99,662 to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for CoC
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) program that will
assist and benefit the homeless population in Collier County.
Page 14
January 8, 2013
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of NetApp
hardware/software maintenance agreements from Terremark
Advanced Data Services Division for the County's NetApp
hardware/software in the amount of$132,693 utilizing Florida State
Contract #250-000-09-1.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 09-
5254, authorizing an increase to the estimated annual expenditure for
grounds maintenance of Collier County Government Facilities to
$750,000.
3) Recommendation to increase the estimated annual expenditures to the
amount of$850,000 for Contract #09-5187, "On-Call Mechanical
Contractor."
4) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in support of
Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
5) Recommendation to authorize the Chairperson to sign contract
amendments to increase the estimated annual expenditures under
Agreement #10-5373, "Energy Management Services," to $750,000,
to allow for projected countywide expenditures.
6) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Volunteer Fire
Assistance Grant Application to purchase Class A Foam for the Isles
of Capri Fire Rescue District requesting $1,260 in grant funds and
requiring a local match of$1,260.
7) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of Computer replacements
up to $200,000 utilizing National IPA Contract #083052-01.
8) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of new Data Domain
(EMC) hardware/software from CDWG for the County's data backup
systems in the amount of$86,754 utilizing Florida State Contract
#250-000-09-1.
Page 15
January 8, 2013
9) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract No. 07-4180
"Gasoline & Diesel Fuel" with Evans Energy Partners, LLC, d/b/a
Evans Oil Company, authorizing a change in payment terms to "net
immediate."
10) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
11) Recommendation to authorize the Chairperson to execute the Public
Assistance Subgrant Agreement for Tropical Storm Debby.
12) Recommendation to approve a purchase order for the acquisition of
four ambulance modifications totaling $586,000, consistent with the
Board's FY13 budget.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve a Commercial Aviation Operations
License Agreement with History Flight Inc., for limited commercial
aviation operations at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approves the attached revised t-hangar standard
lease agreement for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee Regional
Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, adopts the attached Resolution approving the
proposed rate schedules for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee
Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport for 2013.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 16
January 8,2013
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) Naples
Annual Program Kickoff and Luncheon on December 3, 2012. The
sum of$25 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 Arlington of Naples Annual Christmas Party on
December 11, 2012. The sum of$50 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 Christmas Island Style Silver Anniversary Celebration
on November 18, 2012. The sum of$65 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC Office until approval
2) Advisory Board minutes and agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC Office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 24, 2012 through November 30, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 1, 2012 through December 7, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 8, 2012 through December 14, 2012 and for submission
Page 17
January 8,2013
into the official records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 15, 2012 through December 21, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners against
Mary Munguia and Joshua E. Crump in the County Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, to
recover damages incurred by the County for the repair of a light pole
in the amount of$10,408.19, plus costs of litigation
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment to Agreement for Legal
Services relating to Retention Agreement Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.
extending the expiration date to February 26, 2016. There is no new
fiscal impact associated with this Amendment.
3) Recommendation to accept a Right-of-Way and Utility Easement
from Thomas Sbrocco and Carmen Sbrocco, husband and wife, as part
of the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit entitled Sbrocco
v. Collier County v. Agnoli Barber & Brundage (ABB), filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, FL (Case No.
12-CA-2707) which settlement includes a confidential settlement
agreement between the Plaintiff, Thomas Sbrocco, and the Third Party
Defendant, ABB, and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
Settlement Agreement. Total fiscal impact is approximately $8,000.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
Page 18
January 8,2013
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to correct a scrivener's error
found in the legal description vacating a portion of Railroad Street in
Immokalee, Florida, being a part of Resolution No. 84-166, recorded in
Official Record Book 1099, Page 1655 of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, located in Section 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 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 approve a scrivener's error,
SE-PL20120002580, amending Ordinance Number 11-25, which rezoned
the Gordon River Greenway Park to the Public Use (P) zoning district, to
make a Scrivener's Error correction that the public park is for a passive park.
The property is located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item 9.A.
PL20120000371/CP-2012-1, GMPA-Gordon River Greenway Park)
C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance establishing prohibitions to the
possession, provision, sale, or distribution of illicit synthetic drugs in Collier
County.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
January 8,2013
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seat.
Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Good morning to all of
you and Happy New Year.
Please rise for the invocation and the pledge.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray.
Lord God, how fitting it is that this, the beginning of a new year,
that we look to you our great God, our Creator.
Lord, I ask that you would bless us with humble hearts and that
as your Word instructs us, that we would learn how to number our
days, to make them count, that we might gain a heart of wisdom.
So I pray for our County Commissioners and staff, that you
would bless them with wisdom and great discernment so decisions that
they make would be for our good, that we might live peaceable lives.
And I pray for us as well, citizens of this beautiful county, that
we too might be a part of the process and not just be a people who
would sit back and criticize. Lord, give us hearts that are motivated to
roll up our sleeves and get involved.
Lord God, our desire is that you and your great name would be
glorified in this county. Amen.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, would you
lead us in the Pledge?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I certainly will.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, if I may, I'd like to just make a
few announcements.
Page 2
January 8-9, 2013
We will have a hard break at 10:30, at noon for lunch and at 2:30.
And we will end today at 6:00. If we need to continue into tomorrow,
we'll commence at 9:00.
Leo, would you like to start?
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR AGENDA AS AMENDED
— APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of January 8th, 2013.
First item is to withdraw Item 6.A. This was a public petition
request that has been withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.11 from the
consent agenda to become Item 11 .F. It's a recommendation to
authorize submission of a Public Assistance Agreement for Tropical
Storm Debby. This item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to add Item 12.E to the agenda. It's
a recommendation to authorize representatives from the County
Attorney's Office to bid on eight parcels of land foreclosed on as a
result of code enforcement liens. And that item is added at the request
of County Attorney.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 13.A to the January
22nd, 2013 Board meeting. That request is made by the Clerk of the
Courts.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 13.B to the January
22nd, 2013 BCC meeting. That request also comes from the Clerk of
the Courts.
Page 3
January 8-9, 2013
The next proposed change is to continue indefinitely Item 16.A.5.
That continuance is at the staffs request. We have some additional
work to do on an easement there. We'll bring that back when it's
complete.
We have a few agenda notes this morning. The first one is on
Item 10.A. There was a typo on the two names recommended for
reappointment to this particular committee. Those names should be
Joel A. Davis and Ronald Gilbert.
And Item 10.S was an item listed on your regular agenda as an
add-on item. The executive summary in the backup materials for this
item have been submitted to the commission members as stated on the
agenda index. It's a recommendation to approve agreements for
planning, permitting and engineering services related to Clam Pass,
and approve associated budget amendments. This item was placed on
the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
And per your ordinance, Madam Chair, I believe we need Board
concurrence to add that item onto the agenda this morning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think we can address that
when we vote on the changes to the agenda as a whole. We'll take it
as one vote.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
And then we have a series of time certain items today,
Commissioners, beginning with Item 10.G at 10:30 a.m. That's your
reconsideration of the RESTORE Act item.
10.H was to be heard at 3:00 p.m. That's reconsideration on the
appointment of a member to the Planning Commission.
Item 10.0 is to be heard at 4:30 p.m. That's the item having to do
with the Fletcher lawsuit and representation of counsel.
Item 10.R is to be heard at 4:00 p.m., immediately followed by
Item 10.S. Those are the two emergency items related to Clam Pass.
Item 11 .D is to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. this morning. That's the
item related to the Isle of Capri Fire District discussions with the
Page 4
January 8-9, 2013
Fiddler's Creek neighborhood.
And then finally you have a noon closed shade session on two
items, and those two items will be reported out in the sunshine at 1 :00
p.m.
And those are all the changes that I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no -- yes?
MR. OCHS: Normally we go to County Attorney if he has any
changes.
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication today, Madam Chair, on today's summary or consent,
and no further changes to the agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Sorry for the interruption. There was a slight
change in the format of the approval of the minutes, so I didn't know if
you wanted to review --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was going to address that
subsequently. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though.
Go ahead, Mr. Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: On ex parte, I have ex parte on
only one item, it's Item 17.B from which I've had meetings and
reviewed the staff report from the Planning Commission. That's on
the Gordon River Greenway public use zoning district.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 5
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda.
With respect to the summary agenda I have a staff report that I
have reviewed for 17.B. And that concludes my ex parte disclosure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no changes or additions
to the agenda.
And as far as the consent agenda, I have nothing to declare. The
summary agenda I only have one and that is 17.B. And not only did I
read the staff report, but I've talked to just a few people in gatherings
just to -- so I want to declare that as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And I have no further changes to the agenda and I have one
declaration, which is 17.B where I reviewed the staff report from the
Planning Commission.
There being no further discussion, may I have a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's agenda
as amended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 6
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 8,2013
Withdraw Item 6A: This item continued from the November 13,2012 BCC Meeting. Public Petition
request from Mr. Edward Dunphy regarding a process to reduce hauling and landfill expenses. (Petitioner's
request)
Move Item 16E11 to Item 11F: Recommendation to authorize the Chairperson to execute the Public
Assistance Subgrant Agreement for Tropical Storm Debby. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add On Item 12E: Recommendation to authorize a representative of the County Attorney's Office to
bid on eight parcels of the County at code enforcement lien foreclosure sales scheduled by the Clerk in the
case styled Board of County Commissioners of Collier County v. Henry J. Tesno,et al, now pending in the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit,in and for Collier County,Florida,Case No. 11-904-CA.
(County Attorney's request)
Continue Item 13A to the January 22,2013 BCC Meeting: This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Presentation by
the Clerk of the Circuit Court regarding audit 2012-3 Immokalee Regional Airport Dirt. (Clerk's request)
Continue Item 13B to the January 22,2013 BCC Meeting: This item to be heard immediately following Item
13A. Request by the Clerk for additional funding for pay plan adjustments and COLA increases consistent
with the Board of County Commissioners Pay Plan. (Clerk's request)
Continue Indefinitely Item 16A5: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 Lantana,(PL20120001529),approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance
security. (Staffs request)
Note:
Item 10A: Committee Recommendation portion of the Executive Summary should read: Re-appoint
Joel A.Davis and Ronald Gilbert
Item 10S: The executive summary and back-up materials for this item have been submitted to the
Commission members as stated on the agenda index: Recommendation to approve agreements for planning,
permitting,and engineering services related to Clam Pass and approve associated budget amendments.
(Commissioner Hiller) (The Executive Summary and back-up materials for this item will be submitted as an
Add-On Item to the agenda,subject to Board of County Commission approval.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10G to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
Item 10H to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Item 100 to be heard at 4:30 p.m.
Item lOR to be heard at 4:00 p.m.,immediately followed by Item 10S
Item 11D to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Items 12A and 12C to be heard at 12:00 noon,in a Closed Shade Session
Items 12B and 12D to be heard at 1:00 p.m.,in a Sunshine Session
1/25/2013 4:29 PM
January 8-9, 2013
Item #2B
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED
— APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
The next item on the agenda is a change from past agendas.
What we have done is we have broken out the consent agenda item as
amended so that if there is anybody who would like to pull an item
from consent, they can do so now. Or alternatively, if any member of
this Board would like to vote no as to a specific consent agenda item
without pulling it for discussion, that they have opportunity to do so.
So with that I'll ask, is there any item that any member of this
Board would like to pull?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any item on the consent
agenda that any member of this Board would like to vote no on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, may I
have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 7
January 8-9, 2013
Item #2C
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED
(EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
We did the same thing for the summary agenda. I won't repeat
myself; the reasons are all the same.
Is there anything on the summary agenda that anybody would
like to pull?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Not I.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there anything on the summary
agenda that anyone would like to vote no on without discussion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Not I.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion for approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #2D
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012, BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Page 8
January 8-9, 2013
The next item on the agenda is approval of November 13th, 2012
BCC regular meeting minutes which were amended with respect to the
backup related to Mr. Curry's evaluation.
There being no further changes, is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I understand what you said?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What happened was my aide, by
accident, when Mr. Curry's evaluation backup material was included
in the November 13th minutes, attached the wrong document. She
gave Mr. Curry the right document with his evaluation, but
accidentally put the wrong document behind his evaluation in the
packet. And we substituted the right document, which Mr. Curry
received, instead of the wrong document. And it was the financial
statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #2E
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN —
MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER HILLER TO CONTINUE AS
CHAIRWOMAN — APPROVED; MOTION FOR
Page 9
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING TO CONTINUE AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN — APPROVED
The next item on the agenda is the selection of chairman and
vice-chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I -- sometime in the
future I would love to be chairman; however, at this time I don't have
an aide. And being chairman of the Board of Commissioners there's
extra duties, and there needs to be the checks and balances and the
assistance from somebody a commissioner can rely on. Therefore,
being that you did such a great job at the last meeting, I'm going to
make a motion that you remain chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, I appreciate those kind
words.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item, and I'm going to make this a companion to E, is the
appointment of the vice-chair. And I'd like to make a motion that
Commissioner Henning be appointed vice-chair. You did such a
fabulous job as vice-chair at the last meeting that I couldn't think of a
Page 10
January 8-9, 2013
better person for the job.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is a mutual admiration
situation --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- between the chair and the
vice-chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is.
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT
ALL PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 2013 AS MAKE A
WISH MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY REG
BUXTON, PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL CHAIR, COLLIER COUNTY
AND SANDRA BUXTON, CO-CHAIR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4 on your
Page 11
January 8-9, 2013
agenda, proclamations. Item 4.A is a proclamation designating
January, 2013 as Make a Wish Month in Collier County, to be
accepted by Reg Buxton, President's Council Chair, Collier County,
and Sandra Buxton, Co-Chair. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. BUXTON: I want to thank the Commission and the County
for this proclamation. This is the second year in a row you've done it.
Last year Make A Wish was able to award 37 wishes to needy
children or children that needed these wishes in Collier County. This
year we have 42 children in line to get wishes, and our goal is to make
sure that by the end of the year each one has been filled.
Again, thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Reg, you do a wonderful job and it's
a wonderful organization. And thank you for everything else you do
in the community.
MR. BUXTON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We appreciate you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING ARTHREX, INC. FOR
ITS RECOGNITION AS A TOP JOB CREATOR AT THE 2012
GOVERNOR'S INNOVATORS IN BUSINESS AWARDS
CEREMONY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation congratulating Arthrex,
Incorporated for its recognition as a Top Job Creator at the 2012
Governor's Innovators in Business Awards Ceremony.
Commissioners, we received word that representatives from
Page 12
January 8-9, 2013
Arthrex are not able to be here this morning.
This item was sponsored by Commissioner Henning, and we will
make sure that they receive their proclamation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And again, we would
really like to recognize Arthrex for its contribution. They have done
so much for the community both in terms of employment and their
generosity, and we really do appreciate them.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE MORRILL ACT, WHICH CREATED THE UNIVERSITY
LAND-GRANT SYSTEM. ACCEPTED BY BRYAN FLUECH,
COLLIER COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR/FLORIDA SEA
GRANT EXTENSION AGENT AND DR. CHARLES VAVRINA,
PH.D., DISTRICT EXTENSION DIRECTOR — ADOPTED
That takes us to Item 4.C. It's a proclamation celebrating the
150th anniversary of the Morrill Act which created the University
Land Grant System. To be accepted by Bryan Fluech, Collier County
Extension Director and Florida Sea Grant Extension Agent, and Dr.
Charles Vavrina, Ph.D., District Extension Director. This item is
sponsored by the entire Board of County Commissioners.
(Applause.)
DR. VAVRINA: Just on behalf of the Collier County Extension
Office, I just want to thank the commissioners and the county for their
continued support, and we look forward to hopefully having another
150 years to serve the citizens of Collier and the State of Florida.
Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Page 13
January 8-9, 2013
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING 2013 "VIVA FLORIDA 500"
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 500TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
EUROPEAN DISCOVERY OF FLORIDA. ACCEPTED BY RON
JAMRO, DIRECTOR OF COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS;
BRIDGETTE VAN DEN HOVE SMITH, REGENT, BIG CYPRESS
CHAPTER OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION AND CONSUL-GENERALS OF FRANCE, SPAIN
AND THE UNITED KINGDOM — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating 2013 Viva
Florida 500 in recognition of the 500th anniversary of the European
Discovery of Florida. To be accepted by Ron Jamro, Director of
Collier County Museums, Bridgette van den Hove-Smith, Regent, Big
Cypress Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, and
Consul-Generals of France, Spain and the United Kingdom. Those
being Gael de Maisonneuve, Consul-General of France; Christopher
Wade, Great Britain's regional director consul to the United States.
And also accepting, Ana Zabia, curator of the Museum of America in
Madrid.
So we're honored to have these people with us, and please come
up and accept your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I make a suggestion? That
everybody move to the middle. And if we could tighten up a little bit
and have you flanked by our representatives from the Spanish
Armada.
Thank you. Would you like to speak?
MR. JAMRO: If I may. Good morning, Madam Chair, County
Commissioners. For the record, Ron Jamro, your Museum Director.
I was taught, and maybe you were too, that the American story
Page 14
January 8-9, 2013
began in Plymouth or in Jamestown, but in fact it begins here in
Florida. And in 2013 we're going to celebrate the 500th anniversary,
the quincentennial, of Ponce de Leon's officially recorded discovery of
Florida. Of course Native Americans discovered Florida 12,000 years
earlier, but this was the first presence of the Europeans on the
mainland of what became America and North America.
We've got a full year of events planned to celebrate this in
concert with the Viva Florida program out of Spain and also here in
Florida, including school programs and over 50 events. Currently we
have an exhibit, special exhibit at each county museum, and we'll be
giving these informative little brochures, The Early History of Florida,
to all the school teachers and students and as well in Collier County.
For most of that early period three flags competed to rule Florida.
And those countries are now at peace. And I'm glad to say that we
have our dignitaries here today representing with some messages from
their governments. I'd ask you now to welcome Bridgette van den
Hove-Smith who will introduce our dignitaries to you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. HOVE-SMITH: So I have the pleasure to introduce our
consul of France, Gael de Maisonneuve. Please stand.
(Applause.)
MS. HOVE-SMITH: Consul of France in Miami. Thank you,
Gael, for being here.
I would like to introduce Ana Zabia, and she's the curator of the
Museum of America in Madrid, Spain.
(Applause.)
MS. HOVE-SMITH: She's representing today the Spanish
government.
And tonight we will have Ambassador Christina Barrios here, but
she's been tied up with all her business. So thank you so much.
And we have Christopher Wade, who is Director of the British
Consul for Americas and is representing the United Kingdom today.
Page 15
January 8-9, 2013
(Applause.)
MS. HOVE-SMITH: Thank you so much for welcoming them,
and thank you very much everyone. Thank you.
MR. JAMRO: If I could conclude with one final thought. Is
Troy here?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
MR. JAMRO: Troy, would you run that for us? This is
hopefully going to get the message out to our visitors about what we
have in mind.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: While Troy is pulling that up, Ron,
can you tell us where citizens of Collier County can get information
on all the events you're planning?
MR. JAMRO: It's right on the banner, Colliermuseums.com.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you will have everything laid
out on the website so everybody knows what events are upcoming?
MR. JAMRO: It's already there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
MR. JAMRO: And we're keeping it current, because we're
adding as we go along.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please keep the Daily News
informed so they can let everyone in the community know as well,
what's anticipated.
MR. JAMRO: That's our plan.
(At which time the following video was played: They came.
They helped make Florida what it is today. Join Collier County
Museums throughout 2013 for Viva Florida 500, a year-long
celebration commemorating the 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon's
landing in Florida. With new exhibitions, programs and events.
Free admission at all five locations. For more information, visit
Colliermuseums.com.)
MR. JAMRO: Our administrative assistant made that
commercial.
Page 16
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely fantastic. Thank you.
MR. JAMRO: Did any of our dignitaries want to say a few
words? You've come a long way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Consul, would you like to speak?
CONSUL WADE: I'm underdressed, actually, compared to my
colleagues here.
Britain is -- this phrase we were competing for Florida. What a
prize, the Florida State. Britain actually only controlled -- I don't
know quite what the word is for Florida, which is 20 years, 1763 to
1783.
But I'm really pleased that we still have 1 .3 million tourists
coming to Florida every year. I have a strong sense that although that
was a short chapter in the history of Florida, the warmth of the British
relationship to Florida continues today. And you can see Brits all over
the state. And I very much hope that the tradition of friendship
between our two nations continues for our nation and our state
continue for a long time to come. Thank you very much for the
warmth of the welcome that Sarah and I have had for this wonderful
celebration today. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CONSUL de MAISONNEUVRE: Well, it's a great pleasure for
me, Gael de Maisonneuve, to be here today. The French people
arrived in 1562 in North Florida where today Jacksonville, is located.
We are the first of many celebration of this 450 years anniversary.
But I'm so proud and happy that we have friends in Collier County
that made this day today to welcome all the European settlers to
Florida. And the day was going to be reached with schools, museums
and other activities, so thank you to all of you in the county.
(Applause.)
MS. ZABIA: Thank you very much. I am the last but we are the
first to come.
And I have to say thank you to Viva Florida, because I am very
Page 17
January 8-9, 2013
proud to find the Spanish history is still here. And as you know, that I
am a curator in Spain, and I study American history in Spain. But
here you can also think that you can study because the people remind
and keep the things in their heart. And I think for me it's special.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a fast question.
Ron, did you say there's some kind of a ceremony this evening or
something --
MR. JAMRO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- where we get to meet these people
again?
MR. JAMRO: Bridgette, help me. We're having lunch at the
Depot, at Naples Depot, and you can certainly, you know, meet and
greet our friends here.
This evening is a dinner to benefit the museum's education
programs at the -- a private club in Port Royal. And meet the press at
the Depot as well. So that's our show for today.
And again, Mr. Carlos Bishot (phonetic), who has come here
who is Ponce de Leon, he'll be part of our museum team going into the
schools, giving history presentations. This is all new territory. And
Tim England, who will be doing the British side of it. And I guess we
need to get a Frenchman. Maybe Leo could fill in for that.
MR. OCHS: Qui qui.
MR. JAMRO: We really thank you for your support of this. It's
going to be an exciting year for the museum. I think we're going to
really make you proud this year.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we really should say merci and
muchas gracias.
Page 18
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Commissioners, may I get a motion to
approve today's proclamations?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2013 TO THE NAPLES SOAP
COMPANY. ACCEPTED BY DEANNA RENDA, PRESIDENT
AND PATRICK RENDA, COO — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5, presentations, this morning.
Item 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the
Month for January, 2013, to the Naples Soap Company, to be accepted
by Deanna Renda, President, and Patrick Renda, Chief Operating
Officer.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to speak?
MS. RENDA: Good morning, everyone. And first I want to say
thank you so much for acknowledging our business and the
recognition that you've given to our little retail store that started out
300 square feet three years ago. We've taken the Naples name and the
Page 19
January 8-9, 2013
Naples Soap Company brand from Sarasota all the way to Key West,
five stores later, in three years. We've also taken our Naples Soap
Company name to Japan with seven shopping shops in Japan. And
we're really proud of that.
Along the way a lot of people told us that you should change
your name, you can't be Naples Soap Company in Sarasota. And I
said absolutely not, I will not do that.
And again, we've gone international and we have shopping shops
in Japan that proudly display our Naples Soap Company brand. And
the reason that we've done that is from the support of the community,
the Chamber and so many organizations. And I'm really proud of the
work that we've done and I'm proud of our staff So this really means
a lot to us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Deanna, if I may, I'd like to
comment on what you just said. I've known Deanna for years and she
is the most enterprising person you will ever meet. You're a real
entrepreneur.
MS. RENDA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what you and your husband
have done together is outstanding.
I had the opportunity to tour your business, which was very
impressive, and as a consequence I bought I won't say how much of
your product. And I encourage everyone to buy it. I mean, it's
exceptional.
And could you please just share the health benefits of some of
your specialty products?
MS. RENDA: Absolutely.
One of the reasons that I started three years ago, I was a nurse
and I had eczema and psoriasis, and so did my daughter, and this was
really the inspiration, because we found that so many products didn't
work. So I basically started finding people and vendors that would
make our products with the basic ingredients of shea butter, cocoa
Page 20
January 8-9, 2013
butter, olive oil, back to the basics and taking all the chemicals out.
And three years later we now have our own manufacturing
facility in Naples. We have a 4,000 square foot corporate office and
distribution center on Trade Center Way and now we have a 3,000
square foot manufacturing facility, which you have not seen.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which I'd like to. I'm very
interested to see that.
MS. RENDA: Yes. So we found that controlling the ingredients
-- and this has helped us build an interesting and amazing cult
following for our products, and that's why we've been able to expand
and grow so rapidly in three years.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And your other line is more akin to
a perfume soap --
MS. RENDA: Yes, it's not --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- almost like a Jo Malone, but
better.
MS. RENDA: Correct. Exactly. And more affordable.
And that's what we model our products after, luxury products as
well. And it's not just soap. People say you just sell soap. It's not
soap. We have an entire line of specialty body care products.
And like I said, we're incredibly proud of the work that we do
and the people that we help. We have a tremendous amount of
following of people that we've been helping in a medical capacity.
Even though we can't make those claims, it makes me proud every day
that I was a nurse and now this is my way of giving back and helping
people again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you give us your website
name so if there's anyone in the community that's interested, they can
research what you have to offer?
MS. RENDA: It's Naplessoap.com. And you can just go to
Naplessoap.com. We also do a radio show on Fox FM every week for
an hour; we've been doing it for two years, called The Soap Dish.
Page 21
January 8-9, 2013
And some of you may have been mentioned. You're there on our
show.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All favorably, right?
MS. RENDA: Yes, all favorably. Of course.
But we've been doing a lifestyle health and wellness show to
spread the word and to bring that information to the community. And
we also use that as a venue to support community causes and various
charities throughout all of South Florida, from Sarasota all the way to
Key West.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. In conclusion, I'd like
to encourage all members of the Board to visit the Naples Soap
Company. This is an example of an entrepreneurial start-up, the kind
of start-up that we would like to see here in Collier County.
MS. RENDA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM THOMAS GRAHAM
REGARDING LANDSCAPE PLANS SUBMITTED BY
RIVERCHASE SHOPPING CENTER — MOTION TO BRING
BACK TO JANUARY 22, 2013 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your
agenda this morning, public petitions.
Item 6.A was withdrawn so we move to Item 6.B. It's a public
petition request from Thomas Graham regarding landscape plan
submitted by Riverchase Shopping Center.
MR. GRAHAM: Good morning, Madam Chair, fellow
Commissioners. My name is Tom Graham. I am a resident at Collier's
Reserve and a member of the homeowners association.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again. I was here
Page 22
January 8-9, 2013
last month but only had three minutes, so I've asked for a little bit
more time so that we can discuss the tragedy that occurred at North
Naples at the Riverchase Shopping Center this summer in which the
Kite Realty, the owners of the shopping center, proceeded to chop
down scores of nice mature live oak trees that had nice canopies, and
also cabbage palms.
And this was not just a concern of the people in Collier's
Reserve. I just saw in the newspaper the other day in the column by
Tim Aten, In the Know, in which this apparently has regional concern.
Because what happened to the trees in Riverchase Plaza was one of
the top five hits on his program. So this is not just local to Collier's
Reserve, it's apparently regional that many people are concerned how
this occurred.
What happened was that Kite Realty removed these oak trees that
had been there for 20 years that provided shade, provided canopy, and
what they did, they put in bald cypress trees and spindly slash pines.
Now, the bald cypress is a deciduous tree, for those who don't know,
and is mostly in the swamp and the low-land areas. And here they put
them in the parking lot of the Riverchase. And since July, any of you
all have ridden by there, these trees have remained dormant. They're
dormant about three to four months during the year. And it happens to
be just at the time when visitors and tourists come to Florida.
So therefore, if these are put into a shopping center, they in fact
have no needles on them whatsoever and appear dead. They're
extremely unsightly.
Now, just a history, because when all this occurred we presented
our inquiry to the county and the county wrote back. Mr.
Casalanguida said that the Kite Realty met the requirements of the
County, the Land Development Code and therefore it was approved
and there was nothing that they could do about it. They could not
enforce a private agreement.
And so let me just give you a little bit of a history that goes on,
Page 23
January 8-9, 2013
please, with respect to -- that I have been able to find because of my
concern of how this occurred that they could remove mature
20-year-old oak trees that are in fact beautiful trees and put these bald
cypress in that are dormant and appear dead for three or four months.
Well, what my research developed was -- and the county was
kind enough to send us the initial landscaping plan that was involved
with the Riverchase Shopping Center. And this was back in 1992
when this plan was submitted. And guess what? We found out that at
that point in time the landscaper was providing for over 300 oak trees
in this development. The landscaping plan by Kite Realty provides
for no oak trees, provides for after removing all of the oak trees and
the cabbage palms that were there that they're going to put in 54 bald
cypress and 45 slash pines.
Now, how did this occur? As an interested citizen I wondered,
how were they able to substitute these type of vegetation for the
mature oak trees that had been in there?
Well, what I found was there is a procedure -- first I went to the
Land Development Code to see what was required. And in the Land
Development Code it says as to landscaping, landscaping is to
improve the esthetic appearance of commercial developments that
harmonize the natural and a built environment (sic). It is to improve
environmental quality by reversing air, noise, heat, reduce heat gain in
the paved areas. To screen and buffer the harsher developments, the
visual aspects of urban development. So starting with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sir, your time is up. But I think as a
consequence of maybe some questions from the Board, you may be
able to complete your presentation through your responses.
MR. GRAHAM: Okay. I spent 10 minutes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was that 10 minutes?
MR. MILLER: No, that was just three minutes. You want 10
minutes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, yeah, 10 minutes. I mean,
Page 24
January 8-9, 2013
this is a public petition.
MR. GRAHAM: I thought I had 10 minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, you should have 10 minutes
under a public petition.
MR. MILLER: It's the new guy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, okay. Hey, new guy, get with
the program. Hey, I'm the new girl, I completely get it.
My apologies, I got the high sign and so I just go with the flow.
So we're going to do a reverse, so keep talking, have fun.
MR. GRAHAM: Well, I'm hoping that the Commission can do
something to either rectify this situation and/or to prevent this from
occurring in the future is what I'm asking. Because in this particular
case Kite Realty, we have had a meeting with Kite Realty and the
county, Mike Bosi, last Friday. And the only compromise that Kite
was going to do is to put in 15 extra live oaks. And so they've got to
file an amended plan. So if they file an amended plan, I'm hoping that
the Commission and the land development people will say that no,
they have to go back and do the type of vegetation and landscaping
that was initially proposed.
And I think I put in your packet that there was an agreement back
in 1992 when the initial plan was developed, Collier Enterprises, who
developed that whole particular area, said well, we want all of this
area to be somewhat compatible. And so if you look at that particular
area, you've got Granada Shoppes on the south side, you've got
Germain on the north side, you've got Wal-Mart on the east side all
have nice oak trees in their environment and in their particular area.
So what I'm asking is that the county do not allow this to occur in
the past -- excuse me, in the future. And the reason it happened was
the county, which I've also put in the packet, has a procedure by which
this can be accomplished, and it's called insubstantial change. And
how can there be an insubstantial change?
It talks about here, it says it's only for minor changes. How did
Page 25
January 8-9, 2013
this get approved when you have such a massive change in the nature
of the landscaping that's being presented?
And to show you how it appears that this took such a -- I guess a
perfunctory approval process, I wrote down, I put this in your package
also, Mr. Robert Mitchell from Weston and Sampson, who were the
landscape designers, on March 28th at 3: 11 p.m. sent an email to
Robert Sawyer at the landscaping -- at the Growth Management
Division saying can this project, my landscaping plan, be approved as
an insubstantial change?
Well, it took Mr. Sawyer approximately 23 minutes to approve
that particular plan. Did he go out and -- his email, which is also in
your packet, shows that he replied back yes, submitted as an
insubstantial change. Did he go up and look at the area? Did he make
any attempt to check the public records of Collier County, which
would have alerted him to the fact of the agreement that I also put in
your package in which Collier Enterprises attempted to allow and
attempted to maintain the esthetic beauty of this particular area? No,
it was in public record. All he had to do was look at it and go in and
find it. What they did, it took him 23 minutes to approve this.
And finally when they have the check off list, the route sheet, the
route sheet -- the requirement was that he must put how long it took
him to review, it's also in your packet. He doesn't have any time that
he spent reviewing this to determine whether this was applicable and
whether this change was substantial or not. So these are the things
that I think the county should look into.
We met with Mr. Mike Bosi and he says there's nothing that
could have been done because the approved tree is now changed to not
different tree, it says a native plant list. And right on the very front of
it, is a bald cypress.
So if the county is going to want all the developments and
parking lots of the commercial shopping centers to have these bald
cypress, then they need to change this and go back to where the Land
Page 26
January 8-9, 2013
Development Code, which it says requires a canopy, that there must
be a 20-foot canopy of the trees.
And so somehow or another this needs to be reviewed so that we
don't have this happening again. Because now it's a mess.
I would ask that the county, when they go in and present this new
plan, that it get reviewed and there be substantial changes to make
them put in the oak trees that had been there, the 300 and something
oak trees that the initial developer and initial county had approved
instead of 54 bald cypress trees.
So I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you on this and I hope
that you all will revisit -- the county will revisit this so that when we
have new developments or changes in a development project that we
don't have this unsightly bald cypress sitting in our parking lots.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Sir, could you please stay at the podium to allow for questions
from the Board?
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just want to say I
totally agree with you, and I do think we need to revisit this. After I
read about it in the paper -- now, I live down here in the east area, and
I didn't even know that was going on. I went by there and I was
aghast, just as I think most of the people in that area were.
And one of the things I have to say is as soon as I go to a
shopping center, I look for the shade areas to park my car in. And
when there's no trees left to give any shade, sometimes you just want
to keep on going till you can find a place that there is trees.
I understand that the shop owners say that they hide the signs that
they have on their shops, but I'll tell you something, if you want to go
to a Publix, you know where all the Publix's are anyway. And when
you drive to your Publix, you see all the other shops in there anyway.
I just feel that it should be discussed further and we should
Page 27
January 8-9, 2013
address that. Because for the convenience of the shoppers, they're the
ones that are spending the money there, they should have a place to
park in the shade.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that a motion, Commissioner
Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to bring it back?
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion. It's
coming back at the next meeting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, the staff is already scheduled to
bring this report back to the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful.
MR. OCHS: -- at your next meeting on January 22nd.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
I would -- Commissioner Henning, would you like to comment
on this or would you like to second Commissioner Fiala's motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll second it. But I'm just
letting everybody be aware it's going to be on our agenda the next
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'd just like to make a few
comments because I do have a little bit of experience in this area.
One thing that has to happen in our Land Development Code is
people have to understand what sorts of landscaping works and doesn't
work in parking lots. And the purpose of landscaping in commercial
areas is to enhance a commercial area, soften a parking lot and make it
a pleasant place to park. It's not intended to provide a park
environment, per se, it's intended to enhance a commercial area.
So what we need to do is we need to make sure that we have
several things that are compatible. Number one, we have to have trees
that are going to survive in that harsh environment. Being planted in a
Page 28
January 8-9, 2013
small median planting is not a good place for a tree.
We also have to have a design that takes into account what those
plants are going to look like at maturity. A mature live oak in the
State of Florida is 65 feet high and 100 feet wide. They're really not
good trees for parking lots, not to be planted in medians.
So, you know, we have to balance what we want as far as native
plants that are to be used. We have to have a rendering, in my
opinion, of a shopping center that shows what those trees are going to
be like and how they relate to the signage and how they relate to the
parking lot at maturity, not at installation. It's easy to run out there
with 100 20-gallon live oaks that are 10 feet high and down the road
30 years you have a forest, and that's not what was intended at the
beginning. So it's a moving target. I think we just have to balance it
better, and I'm glad it's coming back for additional discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Comm --
MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Nance, on that, though, they can be pruned
and trimmed annually to avoid what you're talking about with respect
to the large --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah. Oh, certainly.
MR. GRAHAM: And see here, this is what happens, if they
don't do that, then they use that as an excuse, which it's avoiding.
But I don't think that the trees get that high in this type of limited
soil and stuff that they have. If you go by and look at all the other
trees around, I don't think they get 65 feet high. But I can understand
and I agree with you, but --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I'm not intending to say that
I'm not sympathetic to what happened in this particular instance, but
what I'm saying is it is something that can be repeated over and over
again in the lack of good planning up front. That's all I'm saying.
MR. GRAHAM: But we don't need dead trees that appear dead
trees for three months out of the year, especially when our tourists are
down here, I don't think.
Page 29
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the pruning and trimming
that we're talking about, that is for the health of the tree, not to reduce
it, reshape it, make it look like a lolly pop or whatever. That's only for
the health of the tree that you want to prune it. And that's per our
Land Development Code. It tells you exactly how much you can
prune it. And we do have a standard of native vegetation for --
approved.
But anyways, it's coming back. We get to discuss it. And I think
it's worthy of discussion.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wait one second. Can you hold on?
Commissioner Coyle, is there anything you'd like to comment
on?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a few comments.
The first thing is with respect to the description of the facts that
you gave, I'm left very concerned.
Jeff, what is the definition of an insubstantial change? Is
changing a landscape plan from 300 oaks to zero oaks considered
insubstantial?
MR. KLATZKOW: I really would prefer to get into all of this on
executive summary.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. Then I'm going to ask
that you, as part of the executive summary when this item comes
forward, give us the legal definition of insubstantial change and then
tell us whether or not the changes described by the petitioner is
insubstantial or not.
The second thing that I would like in this executive summary is a
few questions answered about the list that you presented.
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Bosi gave me this Friday,
Your Honor.
Page 30
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was actually told that that list was
what the planner relied on to approve the plan.
Now, I would like to know when the Board of County
Commissioners approved that list and where in the Land Development
Code that list is incorporated.
MR. GRAHAM: I was told by Nancy Gundlach that it was
approved four years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to know when --
MR. GRAHAM: After that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to see it. I would like
to see when and where it was approved.
The next issue that I would like answered is the question of
rubber stamping. Because if in fact it only took 23 minutes to review
and approve this, I have concerns. So I would appreciate that being
addressed when we come back.
The other thing that I would like to make sure is that when this
matter is brought back, that it's brought back as a companion item to
the Land Development Code section change that is being proposed.
Because I believe -- is staff going to be bringing that back? Because it
was my understanding that we were going to be looking at an
amendment to the Land Development Code to make sure this couldn't
happen again.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, ma'am, Nick
Casalanguida.
No, ma'am, we're going to come back with an approach to amend
the code from the Board. So we'll come back with some ideas as to
how we should amend the Land Development Code. I think we'll talk
about who should be on, the group that will look at what the
requirements are, identifying stakeholder groups such as development
owners, private property owners and then some arborists and
landscape professionals that can advise us what the appropriate code
and plantings should be.
Page 31
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And actually, I think it
would be a good idea to have Commissioner Nance as part of that
discussion group, given his background in that field.
Is there anything else you're going to be bringing back at that
meeting? Are you bringing back a settlement proposal between
Collier's Reserve and Kite or a new review of their plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. They've submitted a plan;
they're trying to accommodate some of the concerns that they've
suggested. They met on Friday. And I think Mike was preparing a
synopsis of the meeting for my review and discussion. So I think
Kite's taking a position they will add some trees but they will not add
more trees than what's on the existing county requirements.
And just one clarification that's just important. Mike's 23
minutes wasn't a review, it was just a quick response to tell the person
you can submit it that way.
And the only difference between an insubstantial change and
SDP amendment is price and time. It requires no public meeting. So I
think to Mike's credit he did a good job in responding to the customer
quickly. And if they had done an SDP amendment it would have been
more expensive and more time, but the result would have been almost
the same, because there was no structural changes to the parking lot as
part of the review. You're just reviewing the islands.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, can I ask a question? And
Nick, if you'd stay there one minute.
Is there any way that this approval can come before the Board for
final ratification, as opposed to being limited at the staff level, in light
of all these issues that have been raised? Because I would actually
like to see this --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm not sure the Board of County
Commissioners wants to be reviewing landscaping plans --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, in this case --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- or site development plans.
Page 32
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think this is a very
significant issue. We're having this problem in several districts. And
while normally I would agree with you, we would defer to staff,
unfortunately what has happened has developed into a very significant
community issue, not only in my district but I believe also in
Commissioner Fiala's district.
So while normally I would agree with you, under the
circumstance I think we're looking at a county-wide problem that the
citizens are extremely concerned about, and I think the Board needs to
get involved with.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just take -- let me take the specific
issue and talk about it general. Once upon a time we had the Planning
Commission view site development plans. And so from a public
policy standpoint this Board in the past had thought that was
important. Nick and I can get together and give you some
recommendations as to whether or not you want your Planning
Commission to do this or perhaps appoint a hearing officer who can to
do this and then have sort of an appeals process to the BZA. I just
don't think you really want to be getting involved in dozens and
dozens of site development --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we don't. And I wanted to do it
strictly by exception, because this involves a county-wide issue where
we have had a great deal of citizen feedback where there is unanimous
concern.
And I like your idea. I think you're absolutely right, I do think
we need to revisit the question of whether this type of approval or
other approvals should go back to the Planning Commission
separately and maybe in addition to a hearing officer.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, it's up to the Board. We can include
this as part of this executive summary or bring -- this is a separate
issue. We can bring this back as a separate issue on another day. It's --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the other way to get at this is to,
Page 33
January 8-9, 2013
you know, let the evaluation take its course and then the Board can
amend its code to reflect the policy, however restrictive or
unrestrictive you would like it, and then the staff can implement the
code. Creating additional steps and more bureaucracy and time and
money --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't want to do that.
MR. OCHS: -- is not necessarily business friendly --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. OCHS: -- and I would just caution you to not make too
many snap decisions before you get the data in front of you and the
recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't, we absolutely don't. But
what we do want to do is make sure that this issue is resolved in a
manner that has a positive county-wide impact. And what I'm hearing
right now is that we're coming up to an impasse where this developer
wants to limit the number of trees to -- how many?
MR. OCHS: Well, whatever the code requires.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, what does the code require?
MR. GRAHAM: 54 bald cypress is what --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, how many oaks or how many
shade trees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Graham mentioned they took
away all the oak trees. That's not true. There's still oak trees on the
site. It was only in that parking lot. I visited the site just the other day
again, just to prepare for this meeting. But the Bank of America and
all these other approach sites still have oak trees on the site as a whole.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: No, Kite
Realty ripped all that.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Kite
doesn't own that property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the whole site itself still has oak
trees that was on the original plan.
Page 34
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we're talking strictly about the
property that Kite owns.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. And with respect to Kite's
property, were all the oaks removed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. No, there were still oak trees on
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: On Kite's property?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, on the approach road that's there.
And I don't know if you would call that Kite's property, but on the
plans that were submitted, there were still oak trees on the approach
road and on some of the periphery areas. Kite offered to add 16 or 17
more oak trees, but did not agree to go any further than that is my
recollection of what the meeting was.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I remain concerned. And I
think this needs to be explored, because again it's very clearly a
county-wide issue and it's also very clear that the residents of Collier
County within more than one district share a common concern.
So what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask that the County
Attorney and you, Nick, and Leo and myself meet --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to figure out what is the best way
to resolve this, to move it forward so we don't have this problem
again. Is that okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we have to come back to the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand. But I want to discuss
what approach we bring back to the Board.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think one of the problems is
and why this all happened is we weren't clear enough in our Land
Development Code, and so we didn't stipulate what kind of trees or
that they want shade trees or whatever. So -- and I believe that Kite is
Page 35
January 8-9, 2013
going to be going around changing some of their other parking lots.
And so I would think that we would want to put together an ordinance
right away so that we -- rather than wait two years to get through the
Land Development Code change, so that we can get an ordinance in
place to give direction so that our people know what to do. They can
only do what the code says right now. And so that means we need to
improve it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's an excellent
suggestion, Commissioner Fiala. I really like that idea. I would
support that.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I am concerned that we're in
the mode of shoot, get ready and aim, when we should be in the
business of getting ready, aiming and then shooting.
The thing that we have to determine now is whether or not this
developer is in compliance with our existing codes. If he is in
compliance with our existing codes, that define the range of options
we have for solving this thing in the future. So why don't we wait and
let the staff come before us at the next meeting, present the facts and
the information, answer some of the questions that have been raised
here today, and then formulate a plan of action to resolve the problem
in whatever way the Board wishes to proceed.
But let's not go out and create committees until we've had that
meeting. Let's have the meeting and find out if this contractor or
developer has violated the current county standards. If they haven't
violated the current county standards, this is a non-issue for this
particular situation.
If we believe that the county's standards are not adequate, then
we can take action to change the codes to make it more acceptable to
our citizens.
So let's approach this in a logical fashion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think, Commissioner Coyle, you
Page 36
January 8-9, 2013
make some excellent points. And I would agree that Commissioner
Coyle's recommendation, before we form the committee -- but when
you do get Nance -- be deferred until we have the hearing.
The other thing I would like to clarify, it's not whether or not
what they have done conforms or doesn't conform to the standards
only, because the threshold question is whether or not the change to
the PUD should have been approved in the first place. And that is the
threshold question. And then secondarily whether or not that change
conforms to the standards. So I think we have two issues here.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I agree 100 percent with
Commissioner Coyle. I think we've got the process backwards. And
we need to be very, very careful how we proceed on this, because
everybody in this room realizes that a landscape is something that
constantly changes. And what it does is it constantly gets bigger,
particularly when you're talking about your canopy trees.
And trees in the public landscape, particularly in medians and
small places and on roadways can become hazards in the end, looking
back at our experience in Florida with Hurricane Andrew and
Hurricane Wilma. I predict, in fact, that some of the trees that we
have used in our Collier County medians are within our lifetime going
to become a tremendous hazard. Having 80 and 100-foot royal palms
in a 12-foot median is going to be a problem. Look at what happened
on Crayton Road during Hurricane Wilma and imagine what happens
if we have a large metropolitan storm, we have 100 miles of landscape
medians where we have mature trees that have actually been misused
by putting a large tree in a small space. You know, the results of that
can be catastrophic, and the investment is massive. So we need to be
very careful and deliberate about how we deal with our regulations,
and we need to be talking about what these plants look like at
maturity, not what they look like at installation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So with that we have a motion on
Page 37
January 8-9, 2013
the table to bring this petition back. We have a second.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
And the one thing I'd like to ask is that we incorporate
Commissioner Coyle's recommendation, and that is we defer what you
were going to bring back to the Board at the next meeting with respect
to proposed changes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're coming back asking for
direction, so we're not -- we're going to give you options and then give
you a detailed analysis of what's been done at this site.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. As long as it's done in the
manner in which Commissioner Coyle recommended, I'm happy with
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM PATRICK WHITE
REGARDING THE JUNE 26, 2012 APPROVAL OF ITEM #17C
TITLED: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DETERMINING A TIRE STORE
WITH MINOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS IS A COMPARABLE
Page 38
January 8-9, 2013
AND COMPATIBLE LAND USE TO OTHER PERMITTED USES,
AND THEREFORE, IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE
BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGNATED AREA OF CREEKSIDE
COMMERCE PARK CPUD, AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION
4.3.A.14 OF ORDINANCE 06-50. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FL — MOTION TO DENY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 6.C.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: 6.0 is a public petition request from Patrick White
regarding June 26th, 2012 approval of Item 17.0 on your county
commission agenda titled recommendation to consider a resolution of
the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, determining
that a tire store with minor automotive repairs is a comparable and
compatible land use to other permitted uses and therefore is a
permitted use within the business district designated area of the
Creekside Commerce Park CPUD, as authorized in Section 4.3.A.14
of Ordinance 06-50.
The subject property is located in Section 27, Township 48 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
Mr. White, good morning.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, County Manager.
For the record, Patrick White, Naples Law Firm of Porter,
Wright, representing Collier's Reserve Association, Incorporated.
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Vice-chairman Henning,
Commissioners. Congratulations to the Chair and vice on your
leadership rolls, and best wishes to you all in our community in what
I'm calling lucky '13. And hopefully that will lead to a more
prosperous community for us all.
Before you today, along with the president of the Collier's
Page 39
January 8-9, 2013
Reserve Association, Ms. Lyn Hunerberg; Board members Bob Oaks,
Tom Graham; committee chairman for this matter involving the
Creekside beauty, Jim Johannsen; as well as the property manager for
Collier's Reserve, Ms. Joan Ritchie. And last but not least, we've also
retained the expert services as a planner of Ms. Laura DeJohn of
Johnson Engineering.
The Collier's Reserve Board, as you just heard from Mr. Graham,
is a sophisticated and engaged group. They support open dialogue and
working collaboratively with all of the parties in any matter.
My goal today is to share what information we have learned
about the approval of an intense commercial use, the tire store with
auto repair, in the Creekside CPUD.
The subject site is on the south side of the Immokalee Road
right-of-way, opposite the main entrance to Collier's Reserve. The
site's bound on the west by lands blanketed by a conservation
easement and to the east by a mobile gas station. These lands are part
of the business subdistrict of the Creekside PUD, not the industrial
commerce portion.
It is in for a PUD amendment that began last February to allow
for changes to the PUD that will be appearing to address -- we'd be
appearing to address a week from Thursday before the Planning
Commission.
In fact, that was how I came to learn of the tire store's approval,
as my clients were not then aware of it when I was retained in
November. My further research and later that of Ms. DeJohn has led
us to recommending to the association they request the Board's review
of the process used in the limited notice afforded neighboring
residents of this zoning action.
The applicants back in May sought by way of zoning verification
letter to gain approval for the tire store use. As you may know, a
zoning verification letter is typically sought by a contract purchaser or
mortgagee bank or others to confirm the existence of an already
Page 40
January 8-9, 2013
approved zoning use.
Prior to the ZVL request of May, there had been an SDP
pre-application in April that sought to approve the plan for the tire
store. The staff notes indicate at that time that a zoning action would
possibly be required.
We believe this is where the staff by way of those notes had
identified what more properly should have been done to direct the
applicant to either the PUD rezoning process that was already
underway or at the minimum the next best procedurally appropriate
step would have been for an application for an official interpretation.
The LDC is clear in affording discretion to the zoning staff under
the OI process, the official interpretation process, to apply a set of
facts to a specific piece of land and interpret the provisions of the
LDC which includes those by reference of all PUDs like the Creekside
to reach a conclusion as to what was sought here, that a use that was
not listed in the Creekside PUD's business subdistrict could somehow
be approved administratively by shoehorning it through zoning
verification letter process.
That process, regardless of whichever was used, required the staff
to review facts that were presented by the applicant and their own
analysis and apply them to the four-part test conditions that have to be
met to allow the requested use to be approved.
Clearly this is far beyond the scope of a zoning verification letter
performed by staff as a ministerial type of function for a fee that is a
small fraction of that for an official interpretation.
It's without question that to reach its approval of June 8th, 2012
in its letter that staff had to apply facts to a set of rules for a specific
property. Perhaps that's why the County Attorney in the executive
summary for your June 26th summary agenda opined that an official
interpretation was the preferred process for staff to approve such a
request. More so it's why the staff perhaps sought the Board's sanction
of that process and its administrative approval.
Page 41
January 8-9, 2013
The unrecognized problem here in the Board's action in being
asked to sanction is that it constitutes a procedural variance. Such a
variation from established procedures, i.e., either a PUD amendment
or an official interpretation, could not be itself approved without a
recasting of the LDC's provisions. They establish how such zoning
actions are to be achieved.
An impermissible procedural variance led to a second bigger
problem we believe renders the process used fatally flawed. By
simply following a public notice advertising scheme required by state
law in Section 125.66, giving a 10-day notice of a general law
enactment of the proposed resolution the Board as the BZA approved
in June.
The notice to the neighboring residents was ineffective. No one
was put on notice by including this amongst the general notices. As
you all know, in each of the zoning actions that come forward for the
county, those types of public notices take place in a separate portion
and are accompanied by notice to the neighboring property owners.
As a result of the inappropriate and limited notice in the
newspaper, a belated approval letter was sanctioned, along with the
procedural variance.
The difficult challenge we have today, Commissioners, is that the
staff and the applicant believe all was done properly.
Had it in fact been done so, then the concerns now before you
would have been heard at a public hearing. You would know, for
example, that under staffs and the applicant's analysis that such uses
are incompatible, not comparable to those in the business district and
are otherwise inconsistent.
The simple logic we lay before you, is if the tire store use was
compatible, et cetera, under the rules it would not have required the
limiting conditions that were imposed by way of the ZVL and
resolution you approved.
We ask simply as well for proper opportunity to be heard and that
Page 42
January 8-9, 2013
the use be added to the list of permitted uses in the PUD.
Because the action taken did not comply with state law, the most
straightforward process to allow the opportunity to be heard is to roll
this request into the ongoing PUD amendment process. The contract
purchaser and the landowner do not have a vested right here. And the
procedural defect renders the June 26th action void.
As such, we ask for your direction to staff to include this use as a
listed permitted use in the applicant's request for zoning changes that's
scheduled to be heard by the CCPC next week.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have, and as well
if necessary can have you inquire of Ms. DeJohn as to the substance of
the issues we believe were not followed appropriately in the analysis
made in the ZVL.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. White, I'll use the information that you provided us.
MR. WHITE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm very disappointed on
your presentation.
Do you agree that gasoline filling station group at 5541 is
allowed in the district?
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Commissioner, you're asking me
whether an SIC use is allowed in the business subdistrict of the
Creekside CPUD?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you drop this off to my
office with the interpretation from Johnson Engineering as a front
cover page?
MR. WHITE: I can't see what that is. We submitted basically I
believe a two-page document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me read you
from the PUD document. And this is within the zoning district of
Creekside that you're referring to.
Page 43
January 8-9, 2013
Convenience store group, 5411, and gasoline service station
group, 5541, only one is allowed, okay?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, would you agree that in
the PUD any other services which are comparable in nature in
foregoing use is otherwise clear, consistent in intent and purpose of
the district can be approved by the administrator of the community
development?
MR. WHITE: Well, I understand that that's what the provision in
Section 4.3 says. Our dispute, if you will, is that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in 4.2.
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 14.
Let me read you from the SIC Code what 5541 is. And that's a
gasoline service station primarily engaging and selling of gasoline and
lubricants. These establishments frequently sell other merchandise
such as tires, batteries, automobile parts or perform minor work repair.
Now, this was on the Board's agenda. Mind you, it wasn't a PUD
amendment, but clearly staff had the option to do it without coming to
the Board. It was on our agenda, would you agree?
MR. WHITE: Certainly it was on the agenda, sir, you approved
it. And we understand that the staff believes that they had the
appropriate authority under the PUD, applying the provision you've
discussed, to be able to try to do so administratively.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. WHITE: Our problem is the way that they did so
administratively. Number one --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were more restrictive than
what they're allowed under the Board's ordinance.
MR. WHITE: Well, in fact I believe that the Board's ordinance
as it exists in 0560 allows only one. And if we follow the staffs logic
and the analysis of the SIC groups and activity codes, there's a
Page 44
January 8-9, 2013
preclusion against having more than one in the business district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's only one gasoline now.
MR. WHITE: The analysis --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The comparable, sir, and I
disagree, and again, I'm very disappointed. You want us to
unscramble an egg that the Board has already approved. And you
should know about that.
MR. WHITE: I absolutely do. And if I believed that were the
case, I would have so advised my clients. I believe that the case law is
absolutely crystal clear all the way up to the federal courts in Atlanta
that when you fail to follow the procedural requirements for statutory
notice, your approval of the zoning action is void.
I don't want to bring this forward as something that disappoints
you, Mr. Vice-chairman, believe me. I'm here representing what I
believe is in the best interest of the process, my client and this Board,
as well as the staff. There has been a prior --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask Mr. Klatzkow.
After hearing what I read from the PUD, do you think the staff
had the ability to approve administratively?
MR. KLATZKOW: I was part of the initial process, okay, and I
had chats with both Nick and Heidi Ashton at the time. And it was
my belief at that time you could do it administratively.
It was our concern, given the community, that they should be
more ability for the community to be involved than just the
administrative process, which is why we put out the notice.
There was no response to the notice, the advertisement, and so
we took it to the Board. It is my belief that staff acted above and
beyond what they needed to do as far as this goes, and it's also my
belief that this is the absolute wrong venue for this discussion to be
taken now that if the -- Mr. White's client believes they've been
wronged, we have a court system for that.
Five minutes ago I talked with Mr. Yovanovich and I am told
Page 45
January 8-9, 2013
that there is an agreement with Bridgestone Tires in place. The last
thing I want this Board to get involved with is a tortious interference
with an existing contract. I'd just as soon if Mr. White wants to take
this action that he do so in the proper venue, which is court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, there is one
thing: In previous PUDs the Board has removed statements allowing
the administrator to do a comparable. A comparable and compatible
in nature as to be determined by the Board of Commissioners. That's
one way to -- you know, for those to -- future uses have a more public
scrutiny.
MR. WHITE: May I interject, Madam Chair? I believe what
Commissioner Henning's referring to derived from the experience that
the county had in a similar matter of interpretation in the Gulf Coast
American Blinds case. And I'm sure that Commissioner Coyle may
well remember that particular experience. I was on staff as a county
attorney at that time. And it seemed clear to me that in order to assure
that there was the type of procedural due process provided that at least
an official interpretation be pursued. The zoning verification letter is
the wrong tool in the toolbox.
Your actions attempted to sanction what effectively is a
procedural variance that went around what it is that your LDC
requires. We're simply saying the easiest fix here is to roll it into the
PUD process.
As to the Bridgestone contract, my belief is that any well drafted
contract in that regard would include a provision that indicates they
must have the appropriate zoning approval. And if the zoning approval
you gave in June is void because it didn't follow statutory
requirements, then they are clearly not going to be held to the contract.
So we're not trying to be casual about this. We understand that
it's a difficult circumstance. And the way to start the year with this
kind of a conundrum is one we believe can easily be resolved. By
simply being added into the PUD it gives the concerns that the
Page 46
January 8-9, 2013
residents have about such an intense commercial --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then why do you care? I mean, if you're
going to say well, just put it in the PUD and not worry about it, then
why do you care? Why are you coming here asking the Board to say
that --
MR. WHITE: It is a constitutional --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the prior decision was wrong, so let's do it
a different way unless you've got another motive involved.
MR. WHITE: Well, the motive is simple. It's what I believe this
Board has stood for, which is to have disclosure, open opportunity to
comment.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it was advertised.
MR. WHITE: The advertisement was legally insufficient, in my
opinion. Now, I understand there's a difference of opinions, but the
point is that the simplest way to cure it is to allow the residents to
address their concerns in an open forum.
There are many. Each time we go back through and do a more
detailed layer of analysis we find further and further factual bases as
to why this is not compatible, comparable or consistent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Excuse me very much.
I had started out to say a few of the things Commissioner
Henning said, but he said much more and much more eloquently so I
just have to say rah, rah, and I agree with him.
And Jeff questioned it, why would you care. You know, this is a
good point too. We voted on it, everybody was invited to the meeting
beforehand so that they would know. They didn't show. I think it was
handled in a most appropriate way. And I would prefer not to hear
this again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any other comment from the
Board?
(No response.)
Page 47
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to say that I do have a
concern about the vehicle used to approve this. At the end of the day
we may very well come to the same conclusion that we're at right
now, but if what you're suggesting is that an official interpretation was
the proper vehicle, and I heard you say at the beginning that the
executive summary included a comment from the County Attorney
that the official interpretation -- what was that, Jeff, you --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, an official interpretation is done when
the applicant disagrees with staff. The process is on something like
this, okay, the applicant goes to staff, is this comparable to what I
have. Staff renders an opinion. If the opinion is yes, traditionally
we're done.
In this case Nick went above and beyond and advertised it. If the
answer is no, at that point in time the applicant can seek an official
interpretation so he can appeal that to the BZA.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So your inclusion of the reference to
the official interpretation was only if there was a disagreement
between the petitioner and staff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I didn't talk about the official interpretation,
but I will tell you that it's only when there is a disagreement between
the petitioner and staff, yes, that is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you clarify?
MR. WHITE: That is certainly not the limitation that exists in
the LDC.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll put it right on the monitor, if you want.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, you know, here's my concern.
Just listening to this, there's sufficient debate to I think warrant
bringing this back. The last thing I would like to see is that there be a
legal suit, you know, a lawsuit declaring that what was done was void
and that somehow we are found to be at fault and that it is in fact void.
So what we're looking at is not the substance of the question as to
whether or what was approved was right or wrong but whether or not
Page 48
January 8-9, 2013
the official interpretation should have been the vehicle used, but more
importantly whether or not there was adequate procedural due process
in this case.
The issue with respect to incorporating it through a PUD is that,
if my understanding is correct, if you do include it as part of an
amendment to the PUD that it will give the community opportunity to
recommend restrictions on hours of use, which way the garage doors
would face and issues like that. It would more narrowly define how
the facility could operate; is that correct?
MR. WHITE: Certainly that would provide an opportunity. We
believe that it should be more open in terms of what the concerns that
could be raised are about the actual use itself.
And for the record, what the legal considerations portion of the
executive summary says for your June 26th item, verbatim, the
preferred process for clarifying or adding uses to a PUD is through an
official interpretation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, with that I'd like to make a
motion that we bring this back to clarify these issues. Whatever the
resolution is will be settled by a full discussion before this Board and
then by a vote of the Board.
And I just want to caution you, if the Board supports bringing
this back, that at the end of the day we may end up being exactly
where we are now, but at least we will have clarified that there is no
violation of procedural due process and the official interpretation was
not necessary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we get a second on it, let me
ask a question.
If you try and include it in the PUD, how many years does that
take?
MR. WHITE: I don't believe it would take any additional time
from what's already ongoing, Commissioner.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can say no. This is why he's trying to
Page 49
January 8-9, 2013
get the second bite at the apple. Because if you take it through the
PUD process, all right, and I believe it's four votes, all right, you may
say no to it and you'll be in effect changing your prior decision here
with an existing contract in place. Which is why I'm saying, if he
believes he has a legal basis here, that's why we have courts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But rather than go through litigation
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I cannot second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. But rather than go through
litigation, I mean, you're basically suggesting that they should sue us
as opposed to --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think his argument is hooey.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think his argument is hooey, all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second that.
MR. WHITE: I strongly disagree.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hooey, all right?
MR. WHITE: And I think it's disrespectful --
MR. KLATZKOW: If he wants to sue us --
MR. WHITE: -- to make those types of comments.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- I'm okay with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I just seconded Mr.
Klatzkow's comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no second, do I have
another motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion that we do not
bring this item back.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion on the motion?
Page 50
January 8-9, 2013
MR. WHITE: Before you vote, Commissioners, I'd like to
proffer into the record a report that was prepared regarding the
analysis of the determination of the use assessment that we believe
leads to the conclusion that both procedurally and substantively it was
in error. And I'd like to hand that to your minute keeper, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please do.
Just so you understand, if you feel the way you do, that Mr.
Klatzkow is correct, that your alternative right now would be to sue
the county in the event this motion carries.
MR. WHITE: Certainly, Commissioner. Madam Chair, we
recognized we had that opportunity long before we came here. We
had hoped that we would have the opportunity to present information
that could sway your opinion differently.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a 10:30 time certain, and I
know you want to take a court reporter break before that, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We need to take the break. If the
time certain will indulge us 10 minutes for the court reporter.
MR. OCHS: Very good, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And we'll be back here
at 10:40.
(Recess.)
Page 51
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a time certain 10:00 a.m.
item, if you're ready to proceed with that, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, we are.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE
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).
THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT
THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED;
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER FIALA AS THE COLLIER
COUNTY ALTERNATE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That is Item 10.G on your agenda. It is a
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. And this item
was approved for reconsideration at the December 11th, 2012 Board
of County Commission meeting.
And I believe Commissioner Henning had originally scheduled
this as a reconsideration item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner --
Page 52
January 8-9, 2013
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, I do have three registered
public speakers for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And before we begin with public
speakers, and thank you very much for the motion, Commissioner
Henning, we have a special guest here today and that is the Executive
Director, Mr. Holley, from the Florida Association of Counties.
And I'd like to begin by allowing him to speak and to bring the
Board up to date with where we are with the formation of the
consortium and the consortium objectives.
And thank you very much for coming all the way from
Tallahassee to speak to us. We appreciate the time you are taking.
MR. HOLLEY: Well, thank you, Commissioners, for all that
you do for all 67 of Florida's counties. And many of you participate
on committees and board seats and whatnot. So it's always unique for
me to come back to Collier County.
If you don't know, I served this county in the early 80's. That
tells my age. My office was about 20 steps away. Burt Saunders was
-- had brown hair at the time and was the county attorney, and we
owned boats together and jogged together on the beach, and which I
did this morning. And it's always fun to come back. Two of my
children --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The vision of Burt jogging with
brown hair? Oh, my God.
MR. HOLLEY: Well, I had brown hair as well. Time does
strange things to you.
Two of my kids were born at Naples Community Hospital, so it's
kind of like coming home for me. So thank you for the time this
morning.
I don't want to -- I know you've got a long agenda today, but I
want to answer as many questions as I can. This has been a huge
project on behalf of five states in the Gulf region and for 23 counties
on the Gulf Coast in Florida.
Page 53
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you bring us up to date in
terms of where we are in the formation of the consortium and your
relationship with the Governor's office?
MR. HOLLEY: Absolutely, absolutely.
We have 21 of the 23 counties that are official members of the
consortium; Franklin and Collier are the two that are still considering
joining. We've had I think three official meetings of the consortium. I
think you all have attended even as non-members but have
participated in the discussion of the debate.
Most of what we've done up to this point are on two fronts:
Getting organized through Chapter 123 through these interlocals,
establishing an interim budget and transition plan, because we all
know there's no fine monies available as of yet. Many of you have
probably read the news last week, Transoceanic settled its civil fines, a
billion dollars, two-year installments, half a billion each year going
into this trust fund. So we're anxious to get started. It's hard to do a
lot of good work without dollars to do it.
The biggest project for us is the plan for the State of Florida.
And I don't know how much detail you want. It's a heavy lift, it's
going to be expensive, it's something that we're going to need help
doing. And we've been talking at the Governor's office about their
role in all that.
So as late as yesterday afternoon, staff and Commissioner Grover
Robinson from Escambia County who was designated as the
consortium's representative with the Governor up to this point, met in
the Governor's office.
We think we have a plan. They have kind of backed away a little
bit from official board appointments and wanting to have a role in who
the chair was.
We will have elections at our next meeting, which is January
18th from 1 :00 to 4:00 in Pinellas County. So hopefully if you
approve and join that your representative will be at that meeting.
Page 54
January 8-9, 2013
We will elect officers. We've gone through a solicitation of interest
from members to serve as the chair, vice chair, secretary/treasurer.
Those three officers when elected will appoint two at large board
members. I think it's -- our hope is that the executive committee
will be diverse in terms of regionalism.
Obviously you know that the state is somewhat separated
between the eight disproportionately affected counties which are from
Escambia over to Wakulla and then from Jefferson down to Monroe
are the other 15.
So the concepts with the Governor right now are to --
everybody's interests are the same. We want a plan that has projects
that are well vetted, that are permittable environmentally, that
maximize both local plans.
I'm going to assume you have the basics. You have three really
pots of money: A federal council with a 30 percent pot; a state plan,
which is a 30 percent pot; and a local plan which is 35 percent of the
pot. The other five go to some fisheries issues and university studies.
But you're going to develop your own local plan and allocate the
money as you see fit for those local pots -- I will say there's some
small counties in Florida that need help with their local plans. They
don't have the staff or the capabilities to do them, so there's a role for
the consortium in assisting some of the smaller counties.
But it's the state plan that we need help with, that we want the
state as a partner with. And I think the process we're looking at is
using several of the state agencies, DEP, Department of Economic
Opportunity, DOT, as ex officio members of the board that will create
a vetting process for statewide projects to go through some criteria
that sends to the consortium a plan that prioritizes for Florida these
projects and leverages the state pot with the federal pot and also the
local pot.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think you've developed this
beautifully. This is a big difference from what was originally
Page 55
January 8-9, 2013
presented, and I'm delighted to hear that you're working so closely
with the Governor's office and getting support from the Governor, as
well as our state representatives.
So on the basis of your presentation, I will certainly second
Commissioner Henning's motion. And thank you for presenting so
eloquently.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I was going to second it
as well.
I just want to say that you've taken hold of this as -- we needed
leadership in the State of Florida for this project. And you at FAC
really took that role on and you've done a wonderful job. I've sat in on
the meetings, as you well know. I would love to offer my name again
to continue. But even if I'm not selected to do that, I'm going to attend
the meetings anyway as an audience member.
Also, I think it also -- as we approve this, it also gives us now a
challenge. We need to decide where this money is going to go. I'm
sure that we'll hear from many people as to how they would want it
divided up. We wouldn't know how much we're getting yet, but we
need to put together a plan for where this money is going to go. And
so we need to choose a representative and also start deliberating on
how this money should be spent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I may comment on that, I
believe Commissioner Henning is the representative. And what I'd
like to suggest is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have we chosen him yet?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we did at the last meeting.
But I'd like to recommend that Commissioner Fiala be the
alternate. And that in the event Commissioner Henning cannot attend,
Commissioner Fiala could participate, given her level of interest and
her intent to attend anyway.
So I'd like to make a second motion to nominate Commissioner
Page 56
January 8-9, 2013
Fiala as the alternate to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We first have to vote on the first
one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you're right, we do. Thank you.
Keep me in line.
How about we just vote on the second and then go back to the
first. So let's just first vote on Fiala --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we do have three public speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, okay. Great.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Frank Donohue, and
he will be followed by Jeremy Frantz.
MR. DONOHUE: Good morning. My name is Frank Donohue.
I'm here today representing the Marine Industry Association of
Florida, which I serve as president, and also the local chapter of the
Marine Industry Association of Collier County.
It's my fervent hope that all the commissioners will support
participating in the Gulf consortium. Grant funding arising from this
program will afford significant opportunities to obtain funds to support
programs such as environmental restoration, tourism, water and beach
access, dredging and jetty projects, as well as benefit both public and
private marinas and the fishing industry.
Joining the Gulf consortium is only the first step, however.
Aggressive participation in the process is going to be required to
ensure that Collier County gets its fair share. And with that, I urge
Collier County to begin developing programs and grant-worthy
projects that can be put up for consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I appreciate all
you've done to support this initiative. I encourage you to please work
Page 57
January 8-9, 2013
closely with Commissioner Henning. And any projects that you think
are worthy of consideration ought to be put forth to him in as much
detail as possible.
MR. DONOHUE: Yes, I will, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Jeremy Frantz. He'll
be followed by your final public speaker, Brad Cornell.
MR. FRANTZ: Good morning. I can't tell the story any better.
Representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I will just add that -- and really follow up on Mr. Donohue's
comments, that joining the consortium is a great and important step for
us, but we do also think that it's the first of many. And we would
recommend convening maybe a special meeting or a workshop to
discuss the creation of a local Collier County RESTORE Act
committee who could begin to tackle the creation of that project list
and selection process and monitor and report to you any other
requirements for any of the pots of RESTORE Act money.
That's all I really have to add --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. FRANTZ: -- and we do appreciate you reconsidering today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And, Jeremy, thank you very much.
We've met and discussed this and you've expressed ideas as well. And
so I again would like to encourage you to also communicate with
Commissioner Henning.
And your idea of some sort of a workshop to discuss this in a
public forum is excellent. And I think Commissioner Fiala would like
to comment on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, actually what I was going to do
is ask Chris, I know that they've already decided what percentages go
to the counties, right? Could you possibly give us, I mean, how it's
going to be divided up, the eight counties and then the other 13
Page 58
January 8-9, 2013
counties and some get a little bit different, right?
MR. HOLLEY: Well, they're -- in the local pot they're split
75/25. And 75 goes to the eight disproportionately affected and 25 to
the other 15 coastal counties.
Now, that's based on a formula of coastline and sales tax and
some other things I couldn't recite to you. But until the fines are
levied, it's hard to estimate what you'll get at the local level.
I did want to mention that the budget for this interim period is a
whopping $1,120 to Collier for joining, just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo? Leo, that's your
responsibility, okay? You need to go out and find that money.
MR. OCHS: I'll give them a check. You got it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Don't come back and tell us you
can't.
MR. OCHS: Well, we can find that. We could certainly find
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you so much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final public speaker on this
item is Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here
on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon Florida.
And I won't delay you from approving this, because that's what I
wanted to ask you to do. And I'm very pleased you're supportive of
this. I think it's really important for Collier County to be at this table.
And I'd like the suggestion that Jeremy Frantz made to you to
convene a committee, an ad hoc committee or a temporary committee
to look at ways that Collier County can maximize its benefit from this.
And my understanding in looking at the details and summaries of
the various amounts that could occur through Clean Water Act funds
that it ranges up to about $19 million for Collier County if about $20
billion is the Clean Water Act fine. So obviously that depends on
what the ultimate fines are. But nevertheless, there's a lot of good
Page 59
January 8-9, 2013
benefits.
We already have submitted through staff four important projects
that help benefit Naples Bay and Rookery Bay and wetlands in the
Belle Meade, South Belle Meade area and North Belle Meade area, as
well as a flow way in the Golden Gate Estates. I think that those
projects are worth looking at. I think there are other projects that we
can look at certainly that focus on estuarine benefits that helps fishing
industry, charter fishing, recreation and tourism, as well as the
environmental health of our coastline.
And I do want to suggest that if we can convene, if you all do
convene a committee, that you include Rookery Bay in that
committee. I think they have a lot of expertise to share on staff and
would bring a lot to that discussion. So thank you very much for your
consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, I was just going to
-- and I appreciate Mr. Cornell's remarks.
One of the people that should definitely be included if we engage
a committee in my opinion is a gentleman that the Board and the
audience met earlier, which is our new extension director, Bryan
Fluech, who is also a sea grant agent. I think it would be wise on our
part to make sure that we include the University of Florida in our
discussions and capitalize on our relationship with that institution.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a great idea.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. My idea I know is
going to bring this back is to talk to the community, the environmental
community, including Rookery Bay. I mean, we're losing sea grasses
in the Goodland area. That could be a project. But however, I think
it's very important that we submit the projects as soon as possible --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
Page 60
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to the consortium.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- but we need to do some
outreach to get interest parties to come to the consortium and support.
But whatever projects that we choose to take to the consortium should
come to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
Commissioner Henning, could I suggest, with the Board's support
of course, that you develop this format, that you develop the workshop
format, the outreach format and the time tables to get these things
done, as well as bring back a list of the projects back to the Board?
And if you could present that at the next Board meeting I think it
would really be appreciated by all of us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll work with Chris to find out
what our time lines should be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would the rest of the Board be
agreeable to that direction?
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion with respect to the two motions
that we have on the table?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then with that, let me go ahead and
take them in order. The first motion was to approve joining the
consortium and with that finding the funding, the thousand plus --
thousand 100 or so dollars --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: $1,120.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to fund the membership.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 61
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
The second motion was to appoint Commissioner Fiala as the
alternative representative to the consortium. We have a motion and a
second. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you very much for coming to the meeting, Mr. Holley.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us back for Item 7 on
your agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, I believe we have a time
certain at 11 :00. 11.D.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And it is 10:58. So would it be
appropriate to go ahead and deal with that agenda item at that time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't do it earlier than 11 :00.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we have to wait till 11 :00, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have anybody that's signed
up to speak?
MR. MILLER: For public comment we have three speakers, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Let me make a suggestion,
then. If we could maybe in the next two minutes go through very
quickly Items 10.A, 10.B and 10.C?
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2013-10: RE-APPOINTING JOEL A. DAVIS AND
RONALD GILBERT TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
Page 62
January 8-9, 2013
DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.A is a reappointment of members to the
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendation of Ray Cane and Dan Sansevieri.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, I believe it should read
Joel Davis and Ronald Gilbert.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you know what? You're right. I
saw that in the agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to modify your
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I sure will. Motion to approve --
where is it again?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joel Davis and Ronald Gilbert.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
10.B?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2013-11 : APPOINTING BRADLEY SCHIFFER TO
THE BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS —
ADOPTED
Page 63
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: 10.B is appointment of member to the Board of
Building Adjustments and Appeals.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Ochs, could you please read the
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is no recommendation.
It's a quasi judicial board committee. And the only applicant is Brad
Schiffer, so I'll make a motion to appoint Brad Schiffer to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Board of Adjustment
Appeals.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
And thank you for that clarification, Commissioner Henning.
The next item, 10.C?
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2013-11A: APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
NANCE TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Recommendation to appoint a county commissioner
to serve on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nominate Commissioner Henning.
Page 64
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm already on it. I can't be on it
twice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure you can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't split myself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about Commissioner Nance?
Can you do that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I've been to one meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, good.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I can do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then I make a motion to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I already made the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I was going to make the second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did already.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you seconded?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, so you make the motion to
appoint him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You make the motion to second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You got that?
(The court reporter nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Page 65
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimous.
It's 11 :00.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO OBTAIN BOARD DIRECTION
REGARDING THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED FROM THE
STAKEHOLDER'S GROUP TO AMEND THE CURRENT
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT MSTU AND AUTHORIZE
THE ADVISORY BOARD TO FULLY RESEARCH THE STATE
OF FIRE SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT — MOTION TO APPROVE
STAFF'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
COMMUNITY AND BRING BACK CHANGES TO THE MSTU —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Very good. That takes us to Item 11 .D on your
agenda this morning, Commissioners. It's a recommendation to obtain
Board direction regarding the proposal received from the stakeholders
group to amend the current Isles of Capri Fire District MSTU, and
authorize the advisory board to fully research the state of fire service
in the district. Ms. Len Price, your Administrative Services
Administrator, will present.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have three registered public
speakers on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. So what we'll do is
after you speak, Len, we'll hear the public speakers and then take it to
the Board for discussion. Is that acceptable to all the members?
Thank you.
Go ahead.
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Len
Price, Administrative Services Division Administrator.
On November the 13th -- I'm sorry, I'm little. On November the
Page 66
January 8-9, 2013
13th the Board directed staff to go back to work with the stakeholder's
involved in the Isles of Capri Fire District area to come back with a
comprehensive plan.
And to that end we held three publicly noticed meetings: One on
November 29th, one on 12/14 and one on 12/20. They were publicly
advertised and they were attended by citizens, fire advisory board
members and the East Naples Fire District as well.
At those meetings we identified problems, desired outcomes and
potential solutions, and we created work teams to investigate and
pursue each of the options that they identified. We also prepared the
reports that are contained as backup to this item.
The group identified the problems they felt as being eroded trust
and strained relationship with county staff, an advisory board that was
not well defined, weak communication, daily management issues that
they'd like to see improved, some budget shortfalls that are coming up,
increased costs of county services, the indirect cost of county services,
lack of input on the tax levy and expenditures, and lack of community
participation.
The outcomes that they were looking for included increased
control over taxes levied, revenues, expenditures, management and
operations, being able to retain and maintain a well trained staff and
proper resources, and they of course wanted to be continuing to treat
the staff with respect at all levels.
And the potential solutions that they identified at the initial
meeting included working with East Naples Fire District either in the
full merger as an interlocal agreement or potentially one leading into
the next. They also identified the potential for a special dependent
district, and they looked at an interlocal agreement with Marco Island.
Groups were assigned to work on each of those projects, and
when they came back together on the 14th, the group that was
addressing the Marco Island interlocal agreement asked to just table
that item. They felt that it was not going to meet their desired
Page 67
January 8-9, 2013
outcomes at this point in time.
They also had a meeting with Jeff Klatzkow at which they
identified the fact that they didn't really need to become a special
dependent district to do the things they wanted to do, they could
simply amend -- or recommend amending the MSTU that currently
exists. And they also wanted to continue, the second group, continue
pursuing working with East Naples in whatever capacity that might
take us.
And the groups continued working. When they came back
together on the 20th, there was a great deal of discussion about the two
options not being mutually exclusive, that we could take it in steps.
First amending the MSTU, better defining the role of the advisory
board, improving communication, and then asking the advisory board
in its capacity to continue pursuing, probably the East Naples option.
And so that's where we really are today. The group of citizens is
asking for your authorization to put together a group to bring back to
you an amended MSTU, and then of course we would take the next
appropriate steps on adopting that, if that's your desire.
There are some members of the group of people who are here
who may want to address you, and I'm here to answer any questions
that I might be able to answer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's have our public speakers first,
please.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Phil Brougham, and he'll be
followed by Jeri Neuhaus.
MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Phil Brougham. I reside in Fiddler's Creek, and I started this issue
here about a year ago.
But I just want to speak in support of what you heard from Len.
We had a well attended number of workshops out at the Isles of Capri
Civic Center where all manner of people came, voiced their opinion,
some very vociferously, but it all led down to what you just heard
Page 68
January 8-9, 2013
from Len.
And our interest, at least Phil Brougham's interest, and I'm not
speaking for this group by any means, but my interest is, as a taxpayer
in Isles of Capri Fire District, to have a voice in how I'm taxed. And
right now I feel that at least 280 of us folks in Fiddler's Creek are
disenfranchised.
And I think that what is being proposed today, if you approve
that, will empower the people that are the taxpayers in the district to
come forward with well thought-out decisions and investigate all the
alternatives, how we can best provide fire service at an equitable cost
to the taxpayers in Isles of Capri. And essentially that's what we'd like
your support for. Thank you. Any questions?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeri Neuhaus. He'll be
followed by Matt Crowder.
MS. NEUHAUS: I waive my time.
MR. MILLER: Matt Crowder is your final speaker on this item.
MR. CROWDER: Good morning. For the record, Matt
Crowder.
Just briefly, I don't have anything prepared, but I do want to
follow up on what Phil Brougham said.
Some of you may remember, this is an effort that had been
started approximately a year ago, and we've been working hard to try
to come to the right decisions. Len has been involved and her
involvement has I think made the process a lot smoother.
I just want to repeat what Mr. Brougham said which is we ask for
your support. It's moving this direction. We think this is the right
thing to do. And we believe that if we can get together as a group as
we have done already, and coalesce and come to some uniform
decisions about the future of our fire district that we'll be a lot better
off. And we think that the residents of the district will also be a lot
better off.
Page 69
January 8-9, 2013
With that, I'll close. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I just wanted to mention
on the record, which is something I haven't mentioned to any of our
people and I should have, but if-- no matter what they do, if they are
controlling their own MSTU, which is fine, you know, I feel the
direction they're going is great. If they control their own MSTU, and
that's perfect, they have to remember that it's still under the county
manager ordinance, and he is still -- the county manager ordinance,
the manager is in charge of all employees. So that's just something I
need to put on the record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was last.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know, but I'm --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll go in sequence.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Really? Really? Okay. I was being
nice to him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's what you get.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's unrequited love.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's next?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Fiala, I do
have concerns about creating a super dependent fire district. And you
heard from Ms. Len Price that the concerns are budget shortfalls.
That's not going to change.
I think it's a perfect opportunity, since there is no Isle of Capri
fire chief, to advance discussions with the East Naples Fire
Department, like Golden Gate does, or is doing at the present time.
So, you know, I will support what you want, but I do have a lot
of concerns if-- remember this whole issue started with residents of
Fiddler's Creek wanting to annex into East Naples because of the
Page 70
January 8-9, 2013
millage. Now, the only way you're going to get more monies from a
fire department is increase the assessed values or more millage. So
anyways, that's my thought.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I also have a few concerns
that, you know, I would hate to see things get more complicated with
the organization and the administration in Isles of Capri District when
we're on the cusp of talking about consolidation with others.
So to the -- you know, I can support changes, but what sorts of
changes to your MSTU are you contemplating, and are those going to
indeed work towards consolidation, or is it going to make that
additionally burdensome to consolidate that? Is there any thoughts on
that from Ms. Price or Mr. Brougham?
MS. PRICE: I would say that the devil is in the details. I would
continue -- if so directed, I would continue working with the group to
specifically identify how they would want to make changes.
I believe as part of your packet there were some suggested
changes that were brought forward, but those are going to need to be
worked on, I think. And I do believe that the group, and I'll ask them
to just nod if I'm representing them correctly, I believe that their hope
was to empower their board to further discussions with East Naples to
determine if that is in fact in their best interest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's several approaches,
correct?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way I read it too.
MS. PRICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So you're intending to convene a
group to bring something back to the Board and suggest changes to the
MSTU; is that what --
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- you're proposing?
Page 71
January 8-9, 2013
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the typical process for that is that
an executive summary comes outlining the proposed amendment to
the ordinance. In this case the MSTU that forms the Isle of Capri Fire
District and then there is a second reading after we get Board
comment and direction, and that final version then would come back
at a subsequent agenda if the Board wants to take that next step.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I will ask Mr. Ochs and Ms.
Price and Mr. Brougham that when you bring such a document back
that it specifically include a discussion and a summary of how it
enhances the move towards consolidation so that we're sure
everybody's moving in the right direction. I would appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the executive summary asks
the Board to provide direction concerning the proposal, and I think
that is the proper thing to do. And you've already received some
comments concerning direction.
I would merely state that if the objective is to become completely
autonomous, that is an unachievable goal. It just doesn't happen. I
don't know of a legal way to accomplish that. We're not permitted to
delegate some of the duties -- some of our duties to another
organization outside of the government in that manner.
So I would advise you to look very, very closely at consolidation
with someone else. Because that's the only way you're going to save
any money. Otherwise your taxes are going up. And the more
autonomous you become, the more expensive it's going to be.
So I think a dose of reality is essential as you move forward,
because I don't think we can give you what you're ultimately looking
for. Okay? Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
I think then all they're really asking is they want to continue to go
Page 72
January 8-9, 2013
back to the drawing board and form this plan. And I think we should
give them that opportunity.
We've also given them direction from the Board members as to
what we feel are concerns when this comes back to us for a final vote.
And so it's important that these people know how all of you have felt.
And I appreciate that, but I want to give them the time to come up
with their own conclusions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
I share some of what everybody here has said today. I think this
-- what's going on begs the question of whether or not consolidation
county-wide really becomes more a function of the different types of
services provided to different parts of the community because of the
different lifestyles, if you will, you know, high-rises versus being
spread out, concentrated on an island versus being on the mainland,
and whether or not it begs the question that consolidation really maybe
looks like three independent districts throughout the county rather than
one super district.
And what I'm beginning to see play out here is the possibility of
an east-west-south consolidation process where we have three
independent districts that service the different needs of the various
constituencies. So I'd like that discussed and considered. Thank you
very much.
The other thing that I would really appreciate is if you would
consider in some manner incorporating Ochopee and Goodland in the
discussion, with East Naples Fire, because ultimately when you're
looking at what might happen in the south, that might be the combined
total. And we would, as the county, move the MSTU over to this new
larger consolidated district, where if you run numbers you might see
budget shortfalls eliminated because now you have numerosity.
So I would ask that you consider that when this advisory board
meets and bring that back and tell us what your thoughts are.
With respect to what Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Page 73
January 8-9, 2013
Fiala said, I actually had the same comments. Number one, the Board
of County Commissioners cannot delegate discretionary
decision-making authority. The MSTU cannot spend without Board
approval. There are clearly a number of limitations.
And also what Commissioner Fiala said with respect to the
county manager's ordinance, yes, the employees will remain under the
county manager as a consequence of that ordinance.
I would recommend if the County Attorney could have one of
your staff attorneys present at this meeting to assist and guide the
citizens so that they gauge their expectations in a more realistic
manner so that they come back and propose something that falls
within the law so we don't have to deny them because of legality, if
that would be possible, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Of course.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, I appreciate that.
So with that, Commissioner Fiala, would you like to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
approve their request.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to second it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm just a little -- Goodland
was mentioned, and Goodland is already covered by East Naples and
by Marco. They kind of cross-cover them. And Marco is usually the
first ones there. But I just wanted to say they're probably not in this
equation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, sounds good. Thank you for
the clarification.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 74
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you for your presentation, appreciate it.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, now we'll move back to Item 7 on
your agenda, which is public comment on general topics.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have three registered
speakers under public comments today. Your first speaker will be Jim
Johannsen. He'll be followed by Penny Kramer.
MR. JOHANNSEN: Good morning. I'm Jim Johannsen, I live at
813 Barcarmil Way in Collier's Reserve. And I appreciate the few
minutes.
I moved here to work 10 years ago. I've previously lived on the
East Coast of Florida. I think we all live in Collier County and we're
proud of the fact that it used to at least be concerned about its planning
and zoning and not running amuck and being out of control like so
many parts of Florida are. Commonsense growth is good.
I would ask if it's really common sense as to what Collier County
wants to really become by putting an oil service station at the entrance
to the world's first Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Golf Course, a
few hundred yards from NCH North and next to a holding pond and
preserve. The answer is yes. That's disappointing.
So as a resident, I'm just telling you, I'm really disappointed.
Page 75
January 8-9, 2013
There's lots of land available for something. There are competitors to
that business. The public is served by three other businesses within a
mile and a half.
We can talk about notice. That's the notice that was in the
newspaper. There's no map, there's no mailing to us that live within
500 yards. To the nonprofit organizations we work for that we
support, do we need to now raise money so they can hire lawyers so
they can be reading the fine print to understand what's really going on
in the community? This was also done in June when half of our
residents are gone.
I would say that the bias is towards the land developers and
businesses, and residents are a distant third at benefit. It's
disappointing. We somehow or another have to make it better.
There's room for businesses, there's room for residents, there's room
for a process that makes sense.
Since we've already got the PUD under review for another
amendment going in front of the planning and zoning commission
next week, this could have been folded in and we could have had a
bite at an apple.
So I'm sorry, I'm disappointed, I was looking for a win/win
situation. Instead it's a win/lose. Residents beware. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public comment is from Penny
Kramer. She'll be followed by your final speaker in this item and
that's Bob Krasowski.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: She's
gone.
MR. MILLER: Okay, apparently Ms. Kramer has left so your
final public comment will be from Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. For the record, Bob
Krasowski. Happy New Year.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Happy New Year to you, Bob.
Page 76
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KRASOWSKI: Nice to see you all again today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I wanted to take this opportunity to address
an email that you received regarding a truck haul in the beach
nourishment potential program. And I -- it's interesting. You know,
I like to see all this stuff. And it seems we're still working, kind of
piecemeal, where we get an email from so and so, if I didn't see it I
wouldn't know about it, I wouldn't be able to talk to you. So I hope
we can kind of try to start congealing things and making sure
everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Because I've sent
in emails. I've been invited to submit things and I don't know who
else is.
But what I wanted to do was remind you of-- and there's a
speaker in the back, isn't there, when a Commissioner goes in the
back? Can he hear me?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, yeah.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I thought so. I certainly didn't want Mr.
Henning --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, no, no, no. Even if you're in the
washroom --
MR. KRASOWSKI: There's a speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- there's a speaker.
MR. KRASOWSKI: For the people.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I turn the speaker off.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't believe it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if I get up and leave, please be
assured that I'm not going to be hearing you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You're just trying to run out my seconds.
But just to touch on three basic things, okay? A benefit of a
truck haul is to try to keep as much of that money for the project in
this community, or close by in the region, you know, because we have
Page 77
January 8-9, 2013
the truck haul, the sand and all that stuff, okay. Then --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Bob? And please, if you would,
just give him the time that I speak, I don't want to interrupt and take
away from his three minutes, but I do want to mention this.
I would appreciate -- I think everybody needs to understand what
document you're referring to. So I don't want to add this -- or take
away from your three minutes, but could you please right now state on
the record what you are talking about and introduce that document on
the record and then put it on the overhead so the members of the
audience can refer to it as you discuss it.
But don't start his timer, let him just take care of this first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's already used up three minutes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much for being so kind.
The document is an email sent to everyone, and you and other
officials from the Mayor of Naples, City of Naples, Mr. Sorey, and I
would think that they probably discussed that at one of the city
meetings, I hadn't had the time to check it out.
But he explains how the city is most enthusiastic in support of
just doing what he calls traditional dredge, dredging. And traditional,
I mean, we've been doing this since maybe the Seventies or the
Sixties, you know, renourishing the beaches. Or I don't know when
they first dredged it. It's not a very old process. Yet -- okay.
So what I want to do is address to you, remind you or hopefully
remind you of the benefits.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And let me just, before we start the
timer, I just want to explain that the letter that was sent by Mayor
Sorey to myself and the Board of County Commissioners, as well as
the staff members copied on that email, was to basically advise that
the City of Naples objected to any truck hauling of sand, and they
wanted to put us on notice to that effect.
And the reason that you're involved in this is because you're the
constituent who brought forward the recommendation that a
Page 78
January 8-9, 2013
combination of truck hauls and dredging should be considered,
particularly given that in the past we only did truck hauls, actually,
before a few years ago when we started the dredging.
So I just wanted to clarify that. And I would like to add one
other thing and that is I think your comment that we need some
manner of centralizing the information so all interested parties can be
aware of what's going on is a good one.
And maybe, Leo, you can explore whether or not under Coastal
Zone Management we can establish a link that gives, you know, status
report, updates, copies of letters like this posted to the website where
all citizens, you know, be it someone like Bob or a hotelier that might
be interested in, you know, the progress of the renourishment or
someone interested in the appeals on the denials from FEMA, maybe a
funding issue, can inform themselves as to where we are. We can
have transparency in the process and centralization of information.
So thank you for your suggestion.
With that, can you hit the button and continue his three minutes?
Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: All I have to do is come up here and let you
go. You cover it better than I do.
But back to my three main points about the truck haul. And
that's the -- to repeat, the keeping the money local, okay, to a great
degree, whatever degree we can.
Now, one of the things in this email suggested that it was an
either/or. And I just wanted to clarify that Mayor Sorey probably
doesn't understand or misunderstands or the City Council
misunderstands that what we're looking to do is use the truck haul
option to the greatest extent possible for the benefits of keeping the
money in the local economy and then also to help condense the time
needed for the delivery of the sand. So -- and then also truck haul in
October at the end if we have to do something during turtle nesting
season in October it can be focused in areas where they are no nests.
Page 79
January 8-9, 2013
Also the competition. Competition is good, that we have some
different element proposing a scenario. And I wish we had time to do
more.
And then the spot application of truck haul, the flexibility that
truck haul sand provides. There was some mention -- and I think
there's a legitimate interest in understanding the impacts on the roads.
The Mayor certainly has that. And I was -- is that three minutes or
two?
MR. MILLER: That was three, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, so let me wrap up then. I mean --
but to make a key point, what we're doing now it's like we're
remodeling a house while we're living in it. You know, we have this
set plan which was kind of developed by narrow focus, and so we're
trying to work through it.
But thanks a lot for listening to my comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I appreciate it. The two comments
I'd like to make to add to what you have said is number one, we just
did a truck haul over on Vanderbilt Beach and also by the Naples
Beach Hotel.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And it went very well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And they went exceptionally well.
So I'd like to thank staff for doing a really great job. I don't know
where Gary is. But those truck hauls, you didn't even know that the
trucks had been on the road. And I saw what was going on up at
Vande. So it can be done and can be done in a very successful
manner.
The second thing is, is we did recommend to staff that in
developing the bid specs for the renourishment that they do consider
truck hauling and get pricing on that.
And you're absolutely correct, what we would like to see, what
would be optimal, is some sort of highbred approach that balances
cost, efficiency, timing, and obviously promotes competitiveness.
Page 80
January 8-9, 2013
And I like the fact that we are helping our local vendors who
right now are suffering because the general construction market is
slow.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, just to be real brief and make a
final comment, there are other options that are in sort of design phase
that if-- that we didn't do, which is beyond our nec-- what's required
of us. But if we had gone further in to analyzing the whole project,
there are innovations that we might have wanted to get involved in.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I make a suggestion? Please
bring those innovative ideas to the staffs attention so that they
contemplate it.
MR. CRAWFORD: Well, that starts causing a bit of a conflict
though because of--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Time up, time up.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But thank you very much. But like
I said, just -- you know, ideas are always healthy. And they may not
be considered now, but if you put them on the table, it's something for
future consideration. We'll put it in a file and hopefully when the
opportunity presents itself, they could be applied. So don't hesitate to
bring new ideas forward. We really appreciate your help.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thanks for your attention to my comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any comment?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a quick one. I think it's
commendable that you give your comments. And in some cases it will
work.
One of the problems that -- or one of the questions I have is if
they're taking this sand that has migrated out into the water and
bringing it back onto the beach, it doesn't cost us anything for the
sand, you've got the truck hauls that take a lot longer than just
spraying it back on the beach. So it would seem to me that there
Page 81
January 8-9, 2013
would be a difference in cost versus truck haul. But I don't know that.
You know, I'm just telling you from a novice's point of view that it
looks like it would be more cost effective to take it out of the sand
barge and put it back onto the beach.
And also, I was wondering which is less as far as a time factor
goes. Because we have this little time constraint with the turtles and
so we have to be very careful of that as well. So if we're going to be
pursuing this, I would like all of the information.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excellent. And I think that that
information is kind of-- it's in what you've gotten over the various
months. You don't pay for the sand that's out in the Gulf. But the use
of the ships and the mobilization of the dredges and setting up of the
pipes and the pumping and all of-- and the fuel for doing that at least
recently has been proven to be more expensive than the emergency
truck haul per cubic yard of sand and all that stuff. Even in terms of
gas and all that. Which when you buy diesel in Collier County you get
31 cents a gallon tax that go to the roads.
But excellent points, Commissioner Fiala. And we have to look
at all of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to have that dredge
anyway if we're trying to reduce a sand bar. So it's going to be out
there anyway.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, different dredges, but all excellent
questions that we have --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's very complicated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you stay up there, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there are more issues related
to that, Bob, than just driving trucks down to the beach and dumping
the sand, particularly with the City of Naples.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're driving on residential roads.
Page 82
January 8-9, 2013
There will be thousands of truck trips.
MR. KRASOWSKI: If you do the whole thing with trucks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, there will be tens of thousands
if you do the whole thing.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there'll be a lot of trucks.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And maybe in the City of Naples on those
roads ifs not appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what Mayor Sorey was
addressing.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But it sounded like he was against truck at
all. And Naples -- the Beach Hotel is in the City of Naples and that
went okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The City of Naples has used truck
hauls for supplementary purposes --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- many time in the past.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are also complications
with respect to how do the trucks get onto the beach? They tear out a
beach end, they tear out the vegetation there, they level things so that
they can drive out onto the beach and drop the sand.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, not now, because the conveyor belts
straddle over the vegetation so that you don't even go on the beach.
But there are certain conveyors of sand that can or might not be used
if you use more conveyor belts. And with the beach access points we
have a range that we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the additional equipment at
additional cost.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, it's less equipment and it's cleaner
equipment and less noisy equipment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't know that.
Page 83
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I talked to truck --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't done it. Okay? I've
done it, all right?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've lived there for a long time and
I've seen these things take place.
So there are a lot of considerations here. So let's not dismiss the
Mayor's concerns.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, not at all, not at all, I didn't do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's consider what the City of
Naples would like to do and let's do it in the way that serves the best
interest of all of our citizens.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think it's important to keep the
option open. I also think the materials that are available by truck haul
afford you a lot of opportunity to deal with things during the turtle
nesting season for the simple reason that when you deliver sand in a
truck you're not delivering water, you're delivering sand. When you
dredge, you're delivering sand of course and water.
And the materials that I've seen that have been sourced from the
ridge are extraordinary materials. They're actually nicer materials out
there. Of course everything in Florida is a marine sand, but that
coarse marine sand from the ridge is extraordinarily nice material and
wonderful to have on a beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Thank you for your comments, Bob.
Mr. Ochs, I'd like to make two suggestions, because we have a
time certain at noon. I see several people in the audience who I think
we can bring forward now so that they don't have to wait till well
Page 84
January 8-9, 2013
beyond after lunch. The first is Mr. Anderson and his client,
Hideaway Beach, and the other is the chief fire inspector, and Nick
who will be addressing the turnover of the finances to the fire
inspector.
So could we start with Hideaway Beach and then go to the fire
inspection issue?
MR. OCHS: Certainly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are those items?
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-CYCLE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ("TDC") GRANT
APPLICATION FROM 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 PUBLIC INTEREST AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
(THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT
THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING) — MOTION THAT
STAFF BRING BACK A PRESENTATION AT THE FEBRUARY
12TH BCC MEETING WITH A BEACH PROPORTIONALITY
ANALYSIS, WHETHER SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE,
PROMOTING TOURISM AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OPINION REGARDING USE OF TDC FUNDS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10.F will be the next item, Commissioners. It's
under Board of County Commissioners. 10.F is a recommendation to
consider an out-of-cycle Tourist Development Council Grant
Application from City of Marco Island and Hideaway Beach District
for erosion control structures at Hideaway Beach, and if approved
Page 85
January 8-9, 2013
make a finding that the project is in the public interest and authorize
all necessary budget amendments.
This item was approved for reconsideration at the December 11,
2012 Board of County Commissioner meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I may, I would like to -- I
understand that this was brought back by Commissioner Henning, but
I received a phone call from Mr. Anderson. And Mr. Anderson, could
you come to the podium?
And in that phone call what Mr. Anderson requested,
unfortunately I could not get back to him because of all the other
meetings I had in between, was that he was wondering whether this
item could be continued if the Board was willing to consider what I
had recommended earlier, that there be a participation in the cause to
the extent that a public service is being provided.
So to the extent that the groins benefit slowing down ero -- or I
should say accretion into the -- what's the proper title of the body of
water there? Collier Creek?
MR. ANDERSON: Collier Creek.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was going to say bay, but I think
creek is the appropriate word.
That that portion could be publicly funded and that the other
portion would remain a cost of the residents through the MSTU.
Secondly, we also have a request from the opinion from the
Attorney General. I don't know to what extent that opinion would
address this issue, Jeff, and I don't know if you'd like to comment on
that very quickly.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a potential it would be dispositive
one way or the other.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, what I think we should
do is I think if the Board would entertain, you know, the
proportionality test being applied and then allowing the petitioner to
come back with a suggestion of how much would be a county cost and
Page 86
January 8-9, 2013
how much would be an MSTU cost, I think that we should indulge
Mr. Anderson's request for the continuance which preserves our right
in the reconsideration that part of his reconsideration is looking at the
option that was presented at the last meeting.
And then in the meantime maybe we can get a response from the
AG. I don't know if it -- I don't know what the timing on that is.
MR. KLATZKOW: They typically take 60 days.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And so it might well be
since -- you sent that out how long ago?
MR. KLATZKOW: About a week and a half ago.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, only a week and a half? Okay.
Gosh, seems like a lot longer.
MR. KLATZKOW: My sense of timing is gone these days.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: My sense of timing is for sure.
So we might not have the response. And then if we do decide a
proportionality contribution would make sense, we then would have to
caveat it that in the event the AG comes back and says no, we cannot
use TDC funds to do that, that we would have to reverse that decision
and that it would be 100 percent borne by the MSTU, because
obviously we'd be bound by that opinion.
Would that be fair, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Or you can do it through ad valorem. It's a
Board decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, or it could be done through
ad valorem.
So that would be my suggestion. Is that agreeable to you, Bruce?
And then I'm going to turn it over to the Board for discussion.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's important to wait
until we have the AGO. And I think -- well, it's my opinion, for what
Page 87
January 8-9, 2013
it's worth, the Board needs to make a finding that it promotes tourism.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If TDC funds are used and if TDC
funds can be used for inlet management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was never done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So yeah. Anyways, I'm willing
to continue it. However, we need to take a look at the totality of
spending these funds. We have a major beach renourishment coming
up, and how does it affect that? I don't know, it never was answered.
I think there's a lot of concern about that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what we can do is one of two
things: We can either wait til the opinion comes back and then bring
all three items forward at the same time. One is looking at the totality
of the beach renourishment and inlet management expenditures to
look at the proportionality test and whether it can be applied based on
the opinion that comes back from the AG. Or we can bring back what
-- items one and two and then just make the approval contingent on
the AG's opinion or make the decision to use general funds if we so
choose. What's the pleasure of the Board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I want to know if tourism
relates to boating and fishing.
MR. KLATZKOW: It can, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And just for the audience
sake, what we're talking about here is the City of Marco Island has
asked us to build erosion control structures. Because Hideaway Beach
is already going to pay for their beach renourishment. They're already
paying $1,425,000 for their beach renourishment.
But what the City of Marco Island has said is as soon as they
renourish their beach, it's going to all go back in the water again. It's
just been -- it keeps eroding back out there. And the city would like to
Page 88
January 8-9, 2013
keep their boating canals open. And so if they put the erosion control
structures in, it doesn't then impede the boaters from using that creek.
So that's just by way of explanation for those that are listening.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And when we have the discussion -- and actually the third item I
meant to cite was the finding of to what extent this promotes tourism
if we do make that finding. And if we don't, if we should use general
funds. So what you just commented on would go to the discussion of
that. So that would make sense.
So Jeff, let me ask for a little guidance. Would you prefer, given
that the AG's opinion is anticipated in the next month and a half,
maybe month and a half to two months, would it be better if we
continue this and bring both of-- or the three questions back
concurrently, or would you suggest we move forward with the three
questions now and then make it all subject to what opinion we get
from the AG?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning raised a very
interesting point, and that's you only have so much money and you
have to do all this renourishment along all your beaches. So I don't
know that you're going to have enough TDC funds to do everything
you want between Marco and the beaches and everything else. So you
may be using ad valorem dollars anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if that's the case --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then it's not dependent on the AG.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then it's not dependent on --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So in that case I will make a motion
that we bring this back.
And how quickly can you bring back the proportionality
analysis? And of course it would be subject to review by staff. It's
very important that you coordinate with Nick and staff before you
bring it to the Board. And make sure that they're in agreement; and if
Page 89
January 8-9, 2013
not, that you address their concerns.
How long do you need?
MR. ANDERSON: We would like to come back at your first
meeting in February, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And would that work, Nick? Does
that give your staff time to pull together the analysis that shows with
the limited funding that we have what would be available to contribute
towards what would be the county's share, if any?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, it would. The only thing,
if they're going to provide a proportionality analysis, I think we can
have staff review it if it's not significant. But I would also probably
just have a third party, and we can do that on an on-call contract that
we have, just so you have a peer review of the proportionality and say
that's what it is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's great. I think that's an
excellent suggestion.
Leo, is that acceptable?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So with that, I make the motion --
and then of course there's the question of the tourism, which we'll
address, whether it benefits tourism.
So with that I make a motion that this matter be brought back at
the first meeting in February, that a presentation be made that shows
the proportionality of the extent to which the project serves a public
purposes versus a private purpose. That secondly, the analysis be
presented by staff to show the total amount of available tourist
development tax dollars that have to be allocated towards the
renourishment projects that we need to see what is left over to apply to
this project. And lastly, that any analysis that can be presented to show
that this does in fact serve the promotion of tourism be presented on
the record as well so that we are able to make that determination if
TDC funds are in fact available to be used. And that in the alternative,
Page 90
January 8-9, 2013
if general fund dollars are to be used because there are no TDC fund
dollars, Leo, that you have your staff determine if there is any general
fund dollars available, to cover that cost.
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
The public purpose is the concern that I have about our policy.
Oh, by the way, it was supposed to be put in to the TDC ordinance
and it never was, okay. So that policy I think is in question. At least I
am questioning it, whether it complies to Florida law.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I think that's a great question.
So let me make another -- let's first vote on this motion and I'm going
to make a second motion based on what you just said and that is to
direct the County Attorney at the next Board meeting to bring back the
answer to the question that Commissioner Henning raises. And if in
fact the ordinance needs to be modified to clarify the definition of, you
know, promotion of tourism, because I think that's the question that
he's raising.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we're going to get
the answer through the AGO.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So then let's wait. But then
the only problem with that is if we have ambiguity in the current
ordinance, then --
MR. KLATZKOW: Money is refundable. If you award TDC
funds and find out you can't, you can always do a budget amendment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. That's fine. As long as we're
all in agreement with that.
Are you okay with that?
Page 91
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it says here an area of
ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion with a recommendation
of the CAC and determination by the BCC as being in the public
interest may have erosion control structures installed with Category A
funding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's questionable whether
it's lawful.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's the question that's being --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the policy whether it's
lawful or not. And we'll get an answer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's the question that's being
presented to the AG because -- I'm sorry, was that clear for the record
what I said?
THE COURT REPORTER: No, it was off the microphone.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What I said to Commissioner Fiala
is that is the question being presented to the AG, because that is what
may be in doubt. That's the ambiguity in the ordinance.
Yes?
MR. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, just a couple of points,
please.
Number one, for the record, in order to preserve my client's
rights, I need to object to this reconsideration as in violation of the
reconsideration ordinance.
Secondly, I wasn't sure if I understood that we are or are not
going to wait for the Attorney General's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are not.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are going forward. And the
question of the reconsideration has already been asked and answered,
and I believe it's clearly settled that it could be brought back for
reconsideration, since the motion for reconsideration was voted down
by the last Board. So it was never heard. There was never a motion
Page 92
January 8-9, 2013
for reconsideration; that was upheld.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I just needed to do that for the
record. I don't want to engage in a debate here. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Always a pleasure, Bruce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to arm wrestle?
MR. ANDERSON: What's that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Arm wrestle?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second for?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: For the motion that I made so that
they can bring it back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a motion to bring this back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At the first meeting in February.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a motion to approve any of
the things you've been talking about for the past 10 or 15 minutes,
right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is correct. What they are
doing is -- Court Reporter, could you please read back my motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's going to be about four or
five pages.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's because it's big type.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will be back at the very
beginning where Commissioner Hiller was describing that she had
talked with Mr. Anderson and he had requested that this be continued
to a future date. And during the discussion Mr. Anderson has
requested the first meeting in February.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was actually -- yeah, if you look
at -- go back to where he says the first meeting in February, and it
precedes that.
Page 93
January 8-9, 2013
(Whereupon, the Court Reporter read a portion of the hearing
before the Commission.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, it's before that. You're into
the discussion on it, so it would be ahead of that. I listed four things,
or three things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the four things or the three
things are not part of the motion. You're just bringing it back. And at
the time -- when it comes back we'll discuss all those things, right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, what we're asking --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're putting conditions on the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're putting conditions on what
they're bringing back. They're being back the proportionality test. The
staff is bringing -- which they're coordinating with staff and staff is
going to have a peer review done on it. They're bringing back staffs
analysis as to the funding. They're going to bring back the availability
of ad valorem dollars in the event that TDC funds are not available.
What was the other thing I said? There was one other thing. That's
why I wanted her to read it.
MR. OCHS: Well, and to address the issue of does it promote
tourism.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, and to address the question of
whether it promotes tourism, which in effect will ultimately be
addressed in the AG, but we can still have the discussion on that based
on some of the comments made by Commissioner Fiala.
So that was the motion. And I think everyone was in agreement
with it.
So we have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
Page 94
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the next item is?
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW COUNTY PROGRESS
IN COORDINATING PERMITTING AND INSPECTION
ACTIVITIES WITH THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AND
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS AND STAFF'S REQUEST
FOR DIRECTION ON FUTURE ACTIONS REGARDING SAME —
MOTION TO AMEND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH
EACH AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN FEES AND
QUARTERLY REPORTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Is 11.B, Commissioner. It's the recommendation to
review the county's progress coordinating permitting and inspection
activities with the building industry and the independent fire districts,
and staffs request for direction on future actions regarding the same.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Casalanguida will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman,
Board of County Commissioners. I'll be brief because it appears we
have consensus on this item.
We met on April 26th at a joint workshop where we discussed
fire review inspection and county review, building permit inspection
activities, and we agreed for an approximate period of 180 days we'd
get together and work to see what we could do.
I have to give a lot of credit to the administrative section of the
Page 95
January 8-9, 2013
fire chiefs and Mr. Ed Riley's office. They have put their best foot
forward in meeting with the development industry and county staff,
and we have achieved some milestones with regard to some
uniformity and communication, and agreement that going forward
we'll use the same platforms.
One issue that always comes up is the county is the front-facing
agency with respect to inspection, collections of permit applications,
fees and the distributions of comments. And some concerns came up
about the finances.
And in my opinion, I think an agency should manage its own
finances. And one of the discussions I had with the chiefs was that we
separate the fiscal responsibilities of what we do without affecting our
customers. And both DSAC and CBIA noted that they wanted to keep
the one stop shop approach for customer efficiency and really had no
objection to this, were neutral pretty much on it. The fire chiefs were
supportive of it. And I think basically that's my recommendation is
we amend the interlocal and that each individual agency that's
responsible for fee collections and assessments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think that's an excellent idea.
Because it will eliminate the confusion of who's who and what's what.
How many times they say the county is holding up the permitting.
And I'll give you a prime example. And here it isn't the county at all,
it's fire.
And I went to the grand opening for The Conservancy's animal
clinic, and the speech that was given was saying we would have been
open a lot sooner but the county held us up. And I asked them right
there in front of the audience, I said, how did they hold you up? He
said they made us dig a well that we didn't need because we've already
got the water. And I said was that county or fire? He says, well, it
was fire; he said, but they're all the same thing. I said no, they're not
all the same thing. And so he apologized for that.
Page 96
January 8-9, 2013
But I think by doing this, it's going to separate who's who and
who's on first. So I thank you for bringing that forward. And I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- make a motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to make a request
of staff. Could you please provide us -- and ask the fire people to
provide copies to us also of their activities of the average time that it
takes to complete a fire inspection. And I'd like to see your
performance statistics too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we could get a regular report
to the Board that shows the average time from submission to
completion of permits for both your responsibility and for the fire
district's responsibilities, that will give us a good indication of how
much improvement is being made.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And actually, I'd like to add to what
-- I think that's an excellent suggestion. And I think the other
suggestion that should -- or the other fact or analysis that should be
incorporated is the number of reinspections. How often does the same
thing have to be reinspected before it's determined to be final.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could we do a quarterly report to the
Board?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That would be great.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the County Manager.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do it -- they do it for me, so it's a
matter of just formatting the report and giving it to you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That would be nice. And what
would be really nice is if you could present it at the Board meeting for
Page 97
January 8-9, 2013
the benefit of the public so that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- there's transparency? Because as
was pointed out by Bob, we get information that the public doesn't
necessarily get to see. So the more you can bring this forward in just a
very brief bullet presentation on the overhead would be great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this by the way is not as
simple as it sounds, particularly the re-inspections. Because what
frequently happens is we'll have a series of inspections and at each
inspection they will have corrected the deficiencies that were detected
in the first inspection, but then in the second inspection you find
something different that you didn't find the first time. That gets very
complex and it causes a lot of frustration.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And to that extent you have to
define what re-inspection is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And remember, inspections are
done in phases from your initial building slab to your frame to your
final. So you'll find sometimes a violation or a rejection comment at
one phase that could trigger something at a later phase.
We can give you that report. And if it's -- the format is in a --
you know, you'd like a change so we can make it an interval process --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But we're happy to do that. And for
fire I think they'd have to do that on their own. I couldn't -- I don't
have that data. I think they'd have to provide that data.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Nick, thank you for working
on this. I do support it and I will support this recommendation. But I
do have to say that, you know, hearing the discussion and the
comments that Commissioner Fiala mentioned, establishing where the
problem is and separating ourselves as a Board from the problem
Page 98
January 8-9, 2013
doesn't give me a lot of comfort when a problem still exists in our
community. Because we're going to be undertaking economic
development and we've said over and over that what we want to do is
make our community business friendly. It doesn't give me any
comfort to tell somebody this in the building industry, well, we've
done whatever we can but it's the fire guys that are the problem. I
think we have to recommit ourselves to working with them to
streamline this entire process.
And I hope what this does is I hope this is an aid in that and that
we're just not drawing a line in the sand so that we can point back and
forth at one another. Because I want to see the end result take place.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Real quick, Commissioners, I've got to
give credit to Ed Riley and the fire chief. Because they have -- they've
really stepped up to work with us. And again, we are two independent
authorities, so there's only so much that I can do. And I think they get
comments about what we do, so in fairness to them as well. We're
committed to it, and that public trust versus public service model.
And it's a balancing act every day, because you heard some of the
petitioners this morning.
But I can tell you, the staff I work with is amazing and is very
committed to making sure we provide a good service to our customers.
And I think in talking to the chiefs and them, they want to do the same
thing.
So we'll continue to communicate. We know that's the end goal
for the community.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think the point that
Commissioner Nance made is a good one and it was raised by Kathy
Curatolo who represents the CBIA. And she sent an email to us and
her comment was while this is a good step from an administrative
standpoint, it doesn't go to the question of what can we do to improve
the overall level of service as between the two agencies for the benefit
of the public.
Page 99
January 8-9, 2013
So you had made a commitment that you were going to work
with fire to iron out whatever glitches related to the both of you. And
really, the only thing you can address is where the two departments
overlap. Because you're absolutely correct, jurisdictionally we are
independent.
So I think what should be considered is that that is -- that
continues to be a formal process and that we have a date certain where
you come back to the Board and tell us what recommendations will be
instituted to solve -- what problems if any exist. And could you
recommend a date for that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think as part of our quarterly reports
we can just tell you progress of what we've done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's an excellent idea. So if you
could do that.
Leo, is that acceptable?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, great. So there's one
comment I'd like to also add in that there was discussion about an
audit being conducted before this matter -- before these finances get
turned over to the fire. I would suggest we turn it over as we have it.
And if fire would like to conduct an independent audit for their
benefit, obviously as auditing ourselves for their benefit doesn't make
much sense, they need to audit us for their benefit.
And if anything were to come up as being incorrect, that we
would be more than happy to make it right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if you could let them know
that. Is that acceptable, Ed?
MR. RILEY: Good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to come and just
quickly state that on the record?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you do have one registered public
Page 100
January 8-9, 2013
speaker for this item and it is John Melton.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, wonderful.
Ed? Is that acceptable?
MR. RILEY: For the record, Ed Riley, Fire Code Official.
I do believe that would be acceptable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful. Thank you. Everything
proceeding the discussion about the audit, all the discussions we just
had here, all --
MR. RILEY: Those have all been accurate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful. Thank you so much.
So with that we have a motion and a second. We've had
discussion, but we have one speaker, so if we could bring the speaker
forward.
MR. MILLER: John Melton.
MR. MELTON: Good afternoon. I'm John Melton. Madam
Speaker, Commissioners, thank you for your time in advance.
I just wanted to comment in regard to the decision that's being
made today and regarding separating of finances between fire and
building.
I am the industry. I'm a general contractor here in Naples for the
past 15 years. I do commercial construction about 80 percent, 20
being residential.
I think you're making a mistake, solely from what I'm hearing
today, based on maybe trying to make a separation between fire and
building. But myself, as the customer, you're adding more steps than
what we have to do on a daily base. Not to mention the steps,
financial, that now we're going to pay at two different places, whereas
right now you're a one stop shop.
Currently it will affect not just the permit submission but it will
also affect the going back for my correction, because fire and/or
building may be charging for those, so it will be two trips again.
I'm also looking at the expense for doing this is -- it's going to
Page 101
January 8-9, 2013
have to come from somewhere. Right now the county does not
provide ad valorem dollars to subsequent (sic) for permits and the cost
thereof. So when you guys make this split, fire's going to have to have
someone to pay, you know, to do the intake for the fees, as well as
building's going to have to do the cost.
Myself as the customer is going to be the one to end up paying
through (sic) that through my permits. The money's going to come
from somewhere and I can't imagine that it's going to be an
inexpensive process the way government works.
Right now you as the county take in all the fees for the utilities
department, impact fees, planning and zoning, building, as well as all
the sub-trade permits for the county through one stop.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With the difference being that those
are all departments under the Board of County Commissioners. But
for example, we don't collect permit fees for South Florida Water
Management, for example.
But I think you raise a very good question and I'd like Ed Riley
and Nick to both answer your concern with respect to the cost. But
when you're done. He still has time to speak. But I certainly
appreciate the questions you raise, and they should have the
opportunity to give you peace on that.
MR. MELTON: And obviously I, the building department with
Nick and others, have done a lot in the last, call it probably three
years, to really try to expedite the permit process.
And no side is without fault. Fire has their issues, building has
theirs. But I think the consensus has been for the last three years to
really expedite and streamline the process to get the permits out and to
have Collier be a more business friendly -- seen by the community as
being more business friendly, whereas it hasn't been in the past.
So please, in closing, thank you for your time, but please look at
this as not just a separation because of one department wanting to find
fault with another. Look at the customer being on my end as a
Page 102
January 8-9, 2013
one-stop facility. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'll address it real
quick because I think we can make it really simple.
We have software that takes in the permits. I think all we'll end
up working out with Ed's shop is actually just it will generate two
different bills on the same slip that comes in. And I think maybe
they'll have to write two different checks, one to the Board of County
Commissioners and one to the fire districts. But that's part of that
separation of that audit responsibility and collection.
We're going to make it simple for the customer. It's not -- and I
can speak for Ed, I think -- it's not our intent to make it difficult. We'll
make it a simple process. We're only two buildings away. So worst
case scenario they may have to walk to two buildings and drop off two
checks, or --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's really beautiful to see the two of
you standing there. This is like, it's a nice thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We put our hands up like a prefight?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no, you're holding hands,
walking into the sunset together.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or they can work it out at our shop,
we can give them, you know, one of the intake desks if they want. We
can work that out.
But our goal is not to make it more difficult for our customers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ed?
MR. RILEY: I agree. The intent as I understand it is to try to
make this as seamless as possible. There may be a requirement to go
to two different locations to make a payment.
We still use county's software, we have in the past and we'll
continue to determine what our permit fees are, so that doesn't change.
I don't see it as a significant cost addition. Obviously we have some
people that will have to be trained to collect those fees, but we'll just --
Page 103
January 8-9, 2013
logistically we'll have to see how this works out, but I don't see it as a
big cost issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Could I ask the motion maker to modify the motion to clarify that
we are splitting the finances, that if there is an audit, the audit will be
done by fire at the expense of fire and they will come back to us and
tell us if there are any items that need to be reconciled, and that
quarterly reports will be presented by staff that show us, you know,
what actually is going on, and will also include an update on
continued efforts at cooperation to build efficiencies between the two
divisions. Would the motion maker modify?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I will do that, as long as this
-- is that legal to do, to add all of this stuff to it?
Okay, and Nick, you can do that? I don't want to ask anything
that they cannot do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, Nick was the one -- and he likes
quarterly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So I will include that in
my motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Can I have the modification from the second to support that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I want to say one more thing. And
gentlemen, Mr. Riley and Mr. Casalanguida, I don't want to be
adversarial here, and I do support this motion and I hope you can work
this out, because I want to say this and I want to get it on public
record, because I want to be clear. And I'm not criticizing you
individually and I'm not criticizing this effort. But I want you
gentlemen to understand that what is coming to me from the business
community is telling me that they believe you are making a genuine
Page 104
January 8-9, 2013
effort, but where Collier County stands compared to other counties
and other business environments in which they work is simply
unacceptable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And that we need to work harder.
And that -- I hope that we take the initiative to compare ourselves to
others. If we genuinely want to make our community business
friendly, it's going to begin with you guys. And you have to
understand and you're going to have to compare yourself to others. I
would love for our businesses to come back and say you know what,
Collier County is the best place to work in. And I don't think that -- I
won't be satisfied until I start getting feedback like that. And I can't
honestly say that I'm hearing that.
And it's not coming from me, it's coming from our client. So
please, take that into consideration. Rethink what we're doing. Look
at what others are doing and please, bring something back to us that
these people can be happy about. Because they're clearly not happy.
And you can see it in the tone of different correspondence that we get.
So please, just understand that. And I'm not trying to -- you
know, I'm not trying to throw water on this effort, but I'm just telling
you that we're truly not where we need to be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just to add to that, I know that
I've been hearing from the building and construction industry
regularly now. And just this gentleman that was here too, he said, you
know, they've done a lot to streamline the process. So I don't want
people to get confused. They haven't been stagnant, they've been
doing a lot to streamline the process, make it a better process, even
handle it electronically, which saves people a lot of time as well. Just
so that the audience knows.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, Nick, Ed, could you please --
no, because we have a time certain, we're done.
Page 105
January 8-9, 2013
But Leo, Nick, Ed, could you please incorporate what
Commissioner Nance suggested and that is go to other jurisdictions,
see how they do it. See if the results are better than what we have
here, and bring back in that first quarterly report recommendations
that you have gathered from outside Collier County that we could
potentially incorporate in Collier.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happen to, ma'am, but I want you to
know we are doing that as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Awesome. So you're ahead of the
curve.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We took a trip to Miami --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So you're ahead of the curve.
You're ahead of Commissioner Nance. Good. So just report that back
to us. Tell us what you're picking from them, tell us what you're
incorporating. I think the community needs to be informed.
With that, I'm going to call the vote. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
We now are going into closed session. Mr. Klatzkow, would you
kindly announce?
Item #12A
THE BOARD IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL
DISCUSS: STRATEGY SESSION RELATED TO SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE
PENDING CASES OF: JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL. V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 08-9355-CA, AND COLLIER COUNTY V.
Page 106
January 8-9, 2013
JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL., CASE NO. 09-1281-CA, IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. — CLOSED SESSION
Item #12C
THE BOARD IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL
DISCUSS: STRATEGY SESSION RELATED TO SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE
PENDING CASES OF: FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., ET AL. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL CASE NO. 2D 11-1224; AND SEAN HUSSEY, ET AL. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-1223. — CLOSED SESSION
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We're going to be going to closed
session along with the Commissioners, myself, the County Manager
Mr. Ochs will be there.
The session is to discuss the pending litigation of Blocker versus
Collier County and the Husseys versus Collier County.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We will be back in session at 1 : 10.
(Closed session and luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
County Attorney?
Item #12B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
Page 107
January 8-9, 2013
EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASES: JERRY BLOCKER,
ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08-9355-CA, AND
COLLIER COUNTY V. JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL., CASE NO.
09-1281-CA, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH THE
BLOCKERS REGARDING A SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST
CLERK'S OFFICE PERFORM AN AUDIT OF ALL LEGAL FEES
INVOLVED AT WHICH TIME A CLOSED SESSION WILL BE
SCHEDULED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're on Item 12.B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 12.B, did you say?
MR. OCHS: 12.B.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, could you please
address our discussions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm here for direction from the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you could summarize the
direction that we gave you on both items. And then we'll go ahead and
make a motion. You can start with the Blocker case.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. My understanding of the direction of
the Blocker case is that I am to go back to the Blockers, work on the
rezoning GMP amendments with the Blockers. That I'm going to ask
if Crystal would be good enough to review the attorneys fees and the
other costs incurred to make sure that they were appropriate and to
apply the same fee that the county utilizes in its attorneys fees to
calculate what an appropriate legal fee would be, and then to come
back to the Board with a proposal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And work with Mr. Nance.
MR. KLATZKOW: With respect to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no. This is about the
Blockers.
Page 108
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, with respect to the Husseys, that I'm
going to be the point person for the negotiations from here on out, and
I'll be working with Commissioner Nance to try to work with the
plaintiffs to formulate a proposal that -- if we formulate a proposal we
will then bring that back to the Board in another shade session, and
that the proceedings before the Planning Commission will be held in
abeyance until that point in time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that staff will not continue any
work on this project till the Board has the opportunity to review what
you and Nance work out.
MR. KLATZKOW: To the extent that I will be working with
staff on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may add, I think we need to
bring the Blocker settlement back in closed session.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what I would recommend, that
you have a parallel time table for both cases and decide when you
would like to announce a shade session for purposes of both of these
settlements. And maybe if you can --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to happen at the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no. No, I understand. But
either at the end of today or by the next meeting --
MR. KLATZKOW: By the next meeting, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- make a decision --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- when and announce the amount.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there going to be a motion and
vote taken on the guidance provided by the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that necessary?
Page 109
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're fine with the guidance as it is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I could make one last comment
and that is, going forward on all settlements that all negotiations will
be through the County Attorney's Office on all pending litigation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Is that a motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I can make that a separate motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we break these two into
parts and vote on both of them?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would agree with you, let's vote on
them.
So the first motion is with respect to giving the County Attorney
direction as to the Blocker lawsuit and to the Hussey lawsuit.
With respect to the Blocker lawsuit, we are directing the County
Attorney to go back to settle with the Blockers with respect to the land
use and any GMP or zoning that has to take place in order to settle that
dispute.
To secondly direct --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we vote on that one then first?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm going through the -- that's
not the end of the Blocker.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To direct the County Attorney to
work with the Clerk's Office to get an audit of the legal fees done, and
to apply the county's outside counsel rates and expert fees to whatever
the Blockers fees are to the extent that they are more than what we
would pay. And also to audit the cost. And then to set a closed
session and bring that back to the Board for discussion in closed
session before final approval. And that would be the first motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
Page 110
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll just slow down the
process.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there anything you'd like to
address?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's unnecessary to have a
motion. The discussion was in a closed session, and the direction was
in the closed session. But we can still go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So there being no further
discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it doesn't.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm opposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, forgive me. Then the motion
carries 4-1 with Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #12D
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASES: FRANCIS D.
HUSSEY, JR., ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., SECOND
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D 11-1224; AND
SEAN HUSSEY, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL.,
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D11-1223
— COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH COMMISSIONER
NANCE AND OPPOSING COUNCIL TO TRY TO COME TO AN
Page 111
January 8-9, 2013
AGREEMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT AND TO SCHEDULE A
CLOSED SESSION FOR FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION AND
SUSPENDING STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTIVITY ON THE CASES — APPROVED; MOTION
DECLARING THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
WILL GO THROUGH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE —
APPROVED
The next motion is with respect to the Hussey case, and that is to
give the County Attorney direction to work with Commissioner Nance
to work with opposing counsel to come up with a counter offer and a
modification to the initial offer, to bring that back in a closed session
for Board discussion, and then to in the meantime suspend any staff
activity with respect to the Hussey case and to suspend any Planning
Commission activity with respect to the Hussey case.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just if he would need outside
counsel to -- somebody who specializes in mining or anything, could
we sanction him to get somebody?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that acceptable to the Board?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It is to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So I'll add that, that if
Commissioner Nance, in conjunction with County Attorney Klatzkow,
determine that additional counsel is needed to assist, that the County
Attorney have the ability to go out and retain additional counsel.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
Page 112
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then the last motion is that
going forward that all settlement negotiations will go through the
County Attorney, that there won't be any independent negotiation
between any parties and staff or the Planning Commission or any
parties like that, so that we have centralized control over these
discussions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless we need outside counsel.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Well, yeah, of course, and
that would be at the County Attorney's discretion. This is just strictly
in terms of where parties attempt to negotiate with staff with respect to
a settlement.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that, as long as there's a
provision that we can hire outside staff when needed. Outside legal
counsel.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'll just modify my motion
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 113
January 8-9, 2013
Jeff, is there anything else we need to address on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am. I'm good, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. And thank
you for hosting the session. We look forward to when you announce
the next joint shade session on these matters.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #9C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A "SMALL-SCALE"
AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(ADOPTION HEARING) — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
FEBRUARY 12TH BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to Item 9 on your
agenda this afternoon, advertised public hearings. I understand there
are several people that have an interest in Item 9.C. Would the Board
like to take that item first?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please.
MR. OCHS: Item 9.0 is a recommendation to approve a
small-scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan element
of the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This
is an adoption hearing, Commissioners.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we do have three public speakers
on this item as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We don't need anyone to be sworn in on this?
Page 114
January 8-9, 2013
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, technically you don't.
I'm assuming you want me to present for this item?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unless, Mike, you want to present.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He'll have his chance.
I'm Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
I have an owner's representative here, Chris Henning; and I have
Wayne Arnold, who's with Grady Minor and Associates, the planner
on the project; and Brant Henning is also here who can discuss the
proposed architecture for the project, if you desire to get into those
types of discussions.
I'm putting on the visualizer an aerial that I can get in closer if
you need me to with a better aerial, but the property is located at the
northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate
Parkway. It's highlighted in yellow on the visualizer.
Approximately seven acres of this property is already zoned for
office and medical -- regular office and medical office uses on the
property. We're adding -- and it's got its own comprehensive plan
designation. We're adding the rectangle to the west, which is
approximately 2.8 acres to this district. And as I take you through the
master plan, we'll show you the proposed use of that 2.8 acres.
And we're requesting to change the permitted uses from office
and medical office to senior housing, specifically 120 beds for assisted
living and memory care beds.
And we're also asking for 5,000 square feet of medical office that
will be primarily used by the 120 people who will be staying at the
facilities but will also be available for the surrounding community, if
they needed the facilities that we're providing at that facility.
I'll put a proposed master plan up for you.
We had originally requested two stories for the assisted living
portion and one story for the skilled nursing facility, and a floor area
Page 115
January 8-9, 2013
ratio of a .45. And the typical floor area ratio in your Land
Development Code is a .45. And we included that .45 to show you
we're not asking for what has historically become the new standard of
a 4.6, because we had enough acreage to fit the beds and the
supporting facilities within the .45.
Well, if you did the math of a .45 floor area ratio on the roughly
10 acres, you would come up with a rather large potential facility,
which we never had an intent to build a facility that big.
The original plan with the two stories was to have roughly 70,000
square feet in the two stories. The footprint would be smaller. But
we're also asking now a one-story configuration for the same 70,000
square feet we had originally asked for. And I put on the visualizer
what 70,000 square feet would look like in a one-story configuration.
Because we met with our neighbors and our neighbors didn't like the
two-story configuration for concern that somehow people who were
staying on the second floor would have an opportunity to look through
the trees and into their backyard. So we had agreed, in meeting with
them, to address that concern by going to one story.
And I can put up for you, let me do that real quickly, what the
original proposal was. In the two-story configuration that we showed
our neighbors and we showed at the neighborhood information
meeting, as you can see in the -- I think that -- terrible at colors -- I
think that's either light green or a yellow where it says assisted living.
That was the two-story configuration.
As you can see, how it kind of goes on a diagonal. And a portion
of that building actually, if you were to extend the property line
completely across -- and I'll point. If you were to extend our
neighbor's property line across our property, you would see a small
portion of that building actually would be, quote, in their backyard.
So that was another concern that was raised. The two stories and
a portion of the building was actually in their backyard. And I hope I
get it, the Cirous, right? I've been calling them the Cirous for I don't
Page 116
January 8-9, 2013
know how many years now.
But the Cirous were concerned because they have a very nice
family compound there, and recently Steve and his wife built a
swimming pool and they wanted to maintain their privacy. So we
had agreed to address their concerns. And I think we've addressed all
of their concerns except for two and I'll go through those two. One
concern that we couldn't address was they preferred that we have no
cooking at all on the premises. They were concerned about odors.
And I had offered to take them to other assisted living facilities in
town to show them that you would not smell the odor. The people
who stay here have a fairly restricted diet, so there's not going to be
any fried foods or things that would typically create an odor from a
restaurant.
So we offered, we said, listen, we can't cater the food, we need to
be able to cook for the people who are staying here.
And two, they wanted us to cap our square footage at the same
35,000 square feet that we're currently allowed for office and medical
uses. And in order to have a nice assisted living facility with the
appropriate amenities to serve the people that are there, we simply
cannot build that in 35,000 square feet.
My client who owns this property and develops assisted living
facilities, so this isn't a hope of a spec and a flip. And he's built one up
in I think it's called Harbor Chase now, but it's up in Palm River, right
behind what was the dinner theater, what is now Lockup Storage, it is
a small senior housing facility, similar to what we're talking about
building here. It fits in very nicely with the residential neighborhood,
and it has the residential character that we're proposing to build here.
But you simply can't build the necessary facility in the existing 35,000
square feet.
So those are two issues that, you know, we simply couldn't agree
to because the project was no longer a project if we agree to those
conditions.
Page 117
January 8-9, 2013
But we did agree to go to one story, which caused the building to
become longer and take up more space. But it still works. It still
works for the original intent.
We also agreed to build a wall immediately adjacent to the
roadway to create a sound barrier for any trucks or cars that would go
behind the building. So those are conditions that we've agreed to.
Now, keep in mind we're in a two-step process. The first step is
to do this small-scale comp. plan amendment. Then we would have to
come back and amend the already existing PUD to delete office uses,
and then substitute the senior housing uses for the site.
At that point we could get into a whole lot more detail of some of
the other issues that they raised, which are legitimate issues. Delivery
hours for supplies, food, things like that we can clearly come up with
appropriate delivery hours, appropriate delivery locations. They were
concerned about where would the dumpsters be. We can address all
of those levels of details at the PUD which is where we typically
handle those types of things. We don't handle that level of detail in a
comp. plan amendment.
So we know we have to go through this process twice. And the
public, including our neighbors, will have two bites at the apple to
make sure we address their other concerns.
From an intensity standpoint, and I believe staff has confirmed
this to you, traffic wise there's a tremendous reduction in traffic from
going from an office and medical use on this site to senior housing.
And the numbers are pretty significant. Just the peak hour goes -- is
reduced to 74 trips from 91, which is a reduction of 17 trips. And then
there's a reduction in the afternoon peak from 114 to 88, which is 26.
Now, the overall reduction is well over 1,000 trips a day. That
would be going to and from this site by changing the use from medical
and office use to senior housing use. So we believe that from an
intensity standpoint and the use on the property standpoint, it's better
for the neighborhood. And honestly I wish this use had presented
Page 118
January 8-9, 2013
itself five, six, seven years ago when we did the original comp. plan
and not gone through with office and retail. At one time we tried to
put -- actually office is what we settled on. At one time we tried to put
retail on that corner. And I think this use is a better transitional use for
the site at this heavy corner than the current use that we're currently
allowed and have zoning to put in on that site.
As I mentioned, we had our neighborhood information meeting.
We also met with the Cirous at their house to try to address their
concerns. I think we've addressed those concerns that we can address.
And the ones that we can't address, I think we have good reasons for
why we can't prohibit cooking on the site and why we can't live with
35,000 square feet.
There are obvious economic benefits about this project moving
forward. There's the construction of this which will create 62 jobs and
roughly $8 million in cost. And then there's the permanent jobs and
there's skilled nurses. There's good jobs that will be created by this.
There'll be -- it's projected that will have 151 employees. There's
three shifts. And that's another annual increase in the economy, you
know, roughly $11 million.
So there's positive economic benefits to the community. There's
really, and I believe your staff agrees, in this portion of Collier County
there's no senior housing assisted living facilities that I would say are
for the working class people. I mean, Collier County has, you know,
the higher ends ones and then you have some on the affordable
housing issues. But really for the working class people who live in this
area, there's really not an assisted living facility. And we've provided
the market study backup for you. Your staff has reviewed that and
your staff has agreed that there is a shortfall of assisted living facilities
in this area.
We went to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission, I think the vote was 7-1 in support of what we're
requesting. Your staff is recommending approval.
Page 119
January 8-9, 2013
That is a brief overview of what we're proposing on the site. We
hope the Board can approve our comp. plan amendment that then
allows it to come back with a PUD amendment to get into greater
details to address some of the other concerns that they've raised and
we are fully capable and fully willing to address at the PUD level.
I've got Wayne here if you need him to take you through any of
the master plan or -- and again, I have the architect if you need him to
take you through the building. And I also have Mr. Henning, if you
need him to talk about any of the operational standards.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to speak before the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your amendment to this project
is not for middle class housing. It doesn't say that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't say that, but it does recognize
that the area that we're going to be serving is roughly a middle class
community, and those are the people we'll be drawing from and will
be utilizing the facilities. I mean, we don't expect to be drawing from
west of U.S. 41 for people to come living in this -- to stay at this
assisted living facility. So that's the market that we believe we'll be
targeting and the market that will be using the facility. But you're
correct, I don't have in here --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it could be low income.
I mean, that's what it could be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you really even taken a
look at the demographics of income?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we have. We have done a detailed
analysis of who the market would be. And I don't know if staff gave
you that backup information, but we provided that as part of our
analysis. And this will be a market rate rental project for people in
Page 120
January 8-9, 2013
that -- that community can utilize, that area of Collier County can
utilize.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's not going to be a part
of your land use petition either.
You know, I have recognized that we have so many projects,
Rich, you are involved in a lot of them, for ALF, some kind of assisted
living. They haven't been built. I remember the rush on the Orange
Blossom projects, we've got to get this done. Well, it's still under the
same ownership.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mark Bates' project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. And that is a different
demographic. That was -- if I can, and I hear what you're saying
because I know, I've been the applicant's representative on several
senior housing facilities. Those other ones, the landowner himself was
not a senior housing provider. In this particular case Mr. Rosen, who
owns the property, is a senior housing provider. In the other case, and
you're absolutely correct, on Orange Blossom that was a project that
my client was going to buy the property, started down the process and
financing dried up, okay. So they weren't able to meet the presale
requirements in order for that project to go out of the ground. I think
that's different than this scenario because you have the gentleman who
owns the property actually will build and provide the assisted living.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my point is we have so
much land already zoned for assisted living. And the whole point of
the Growth Management Plan is to prepare for the future. And we
have an abundance of this use throughout Collier County.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have this use within Golden
Gate -- and I'll call it the Golden Gate City area. In this demographic
area you do not have the use. And you don't have to believe me, you
can believe your own staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, for somebody to stand up
there, whether it be a staff member or whatever, say that a Golden
Page 121
January 8-9, 2013
Gate resident is not going to go to some other facility in Collier
County is just ridiculous.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's -- there's uses all
over the county, and they can go to any one of them. We're saturating
the market with assisted living land to be rezoned. Already rezoned.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- you know what? I'm going to
ask the expert, and that's Chris Henning. I'm going to ask Chris to get
up and talk about --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I just ask a quick question?
Commissioner Henning, is this property in your district?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So you have a very good
understanding -- I mean, I also know that you're familiar with, you
know, obviously what's been approved throughout the county, but
your perspective as the commissioner from the district is important.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think what you really need to
understand is you have theoretical zoning for projects and then you
have are they really going to get built.
Second of all I think, you know, Chris who's been in this field for
a long time can talk to you about the demand today, the projected
demand in the future, and the fact that, you know, the people really
don't -- they would prefer to move to a facility in their neighborhood.
Yes, will they go somewhere else if they have to? But that's really not
their preference. And what we're trying to do is meet that need. But
I'll let Chris --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There already is zoned property.
What you're asking here is just the right to ask for the zoning.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already have so much zoned
property, that's my point, for ALF.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And let me have -- if I could have Mr.
Page 122
January 8-9, 2013
Henning address that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. HENNING: Commissioner Henning, we're not related in
any manner, for the record.
I've been very familiar with the epidemic within the county over
the last seven years starting in about '05 or '06 where stucco
developments that were originally intended for residential use were
suddenly surging in the marketplace to rezone property for the use that
is now under discussion.
I myself personally looked at four or five and declined our efforts
because of the lack of financial capacity of the sponsor and the lack of
operational background from the sponsor.
In this case Joseph Rosen developed his first assisted living
facility, which I was part of, in 1997 in the area up in North Naples off
Immokalee Road behind the storage center. That was done in 1977.
Right now Mr. Rosen, which is Continental Health Enterprises,
has approximately 15 health care facilities throughout the United
States; concentration in Texas, Georgia and there are a mix of assisted
living and nursing facilities.
So our background of the company is one that has been
fundamentally in senior housing.
This particular property is one that was -- a feasibility study was
conducted by a party that's considered an industry expert. We
validated her recommendations in terms of the pricing of the facility.
Secondly, I agree with you that although there's a lot of land that's
owned, few people have the financial capability or industry
background to proceed, which Mr. Rosen demonstrated that he has.
Also, I have discussed this with other colleagues in the industry,
and we believe that the feasibility study that's shown because of the
other markets I've been working is understated. I think the conclusion
of the author of the feasibility study recites there's approximately 650
beds designated net market demand for Alzheimer's, not including the
Page 123
January 8-9, 2013
assisted. We believe it's well over 1,000. Because as you know, with
the surge of the aging population there's going to be creating a greater
demand.
The other fundamental difference in how Mr. Rosen's companies
operate is they link up with institutional sources so that instead of
having what we consider -- what you'd look at as a custodial facility is
now a facility that is tied in with institutional partners that can help
develop programs that provide life enrichment.
And that's not a story. There's two facilities I'm visiting
tomorrow in Georgia which are a good example, that we link with the
local hospitals and develop wonderful programs for the community
that are acknowledged by the community as being beneficial.
So this is not -- we're not -- this is not a first event for us in
Naples in doing assisted living facility, nor are we blinded to the fact
that there's a lot of other properties that are zoned for that use. We
consider this an excellent site, we consider the resources that we have
available both financially and operationally will add a dimension to
the community that's not now present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for staff.
Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for staff.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please go forward. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any proposed changes to
any of the streets north of that, Painted Leaf Lane? I've been receiving
some correspondence about Painted Leaf Lane in this petition.
MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon. For the record, Michele Mosca
with your Comprehensive Planning Staff.
I'm not -- with regard to your question specifically, for this
particular project the access will be off of Golden Gate Parkway, no
access ingress/egress off of Santa Barbara. So no changes that I'm
aware of. But perhaps transportation could provide some additional
Page 124
January 8-9, 2013
information.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. I mean, we're not asking
for any change. There's an existing prohibition on any access off of
Santa Barbara. The only way there would be an allowance for access
off Santa Barbara is if a frontage road system is ever constructed, then
we would like to be allowed to do that. But that was -- there's no
proposed access off of Santa Barbara.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, Commissioner, and we received
an email from a gentleman regarding Painted Leaf Lane last night.
Our traffic ops team reviewed both any accident history or safety
concerns and determined there was only one in the last six years and
so they're not recommending any changes right now. But to confirm,
they're not recommending any access off Santa Barbara either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this has to do with this
particular petition, that's what I'm asking. So it's not related?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HENNING: There's one other point that I'd like to make
and it's evidenced in Thomasville, Georgia, a community that's north
of Tallahassee. We initiated our assisted living facility and our
Alzheimer's facility in 1998, it was about, maybe '99. Two years.
When we talk about an institutional linkup, we've linked up with
Archibald Hospital, which is a regional hospital. But more
importantly we linked up with Thomas Technical College, and we
developed a training program with the college that would transition
those who were unemployed or underemployed into developing the
skill task to have positions within the facility at various levels of
nursing care and also restorative care.
So the fact is when we recite that there's going to be a creation of
150 jobs, we don't just have somebody come in the facility, sign an
application and say you're hired. There's a protocol that we have.
And that's the reason it distinguishes the facilities. And in this
Page 125
January 8-9, 2013
community at this point in time we would obviously work with
Florida Gulf Coast on some of their nursing training programs, we're
very -- and geriatrics with training with Lorenzo Walker. So we hook
up as soon as we know that we have a planning time table. We know
we're an open facility, so we're creating entry jobs in those classes and
categories.
And believe me, there's two epidemics in the State of Florida,
both nationally. One is diabetes and the other is geriatric care. And
our firm was responsible for the newest geriatric facility in Ft. Myers
that opened in February called Park Royal Hospital. And the same
scenario occurred there. We created in that facility under an EDC
grant from Lee County presently over 100 jobs.
So we're very conscious of that, we're very conscience of the
commitment to the community. We network with all those within the
community to develop a facility that will be distinctive, create jobs
and enrich lives.
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Madam Chairman, I'm Wayne
Arnold with Grady Minor.
I wanted to just point out one of the exhibits that's in your packet.
Staff had prepared an Exhibit indicating the location of existing and
pending ALF projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not zoned projects,
though.
MR. ARNOLD: Some are, some are not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, some are. Some are
going forward. But the majority of them zoned is not on that map.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think one of the distinctions that I would
make, and if you look at that exhibit there's really nothing in the
Golden Gate City in that immediate area. Most of these are along our
-- Livingston Road and Airport corridor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your future clients would
drive there, right?
Page 126
January 8-9, 2013
MR. ARNOLD: Well, not necessarily. I think the idea from the
market analysis that was done was to target a pretty linear direction
for people to travel. As Rich indicated, I think the preference is for
people to have care facilities like these that are sort of in their area
where they're accustomed to so that they don't have to drive and be
coming into a different neighborhood.
But I think it points out that there really is a deficiency of this
type of use in this particular part of the county.
And I think the other thing I would say is that we have a lot of
these that are zoned. Many will not be built. You end up with PUDs
that have a mixture of a lot of uses. We ask for 100 different
commercial uses, when you add up all the SIC codes in many of those,
and you end up with 10 or 15 of those types of uses.
So, I mean, I think to include them shouldn't necessarily be a
negative. There are a lot of projects out there that are ready to go for
commercial that haven't had their time yet either.
So I just point out that we have a deficiency in the market and
your exhibit I think demonstrates that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, would you put up that other
graphic of the two-story facility?
I quite frankly prefer that design to the other one. You have
much more open space. You have water retention, pond. Can't you
deal with the issue of sight lines from this property into the others with
an appropriate vegetation buffer?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, the short answer to that
question is yes, we absolutely believe that we can show through a
sight line analysis that people who are living on the second floor won't
be able to see through into our neighbors. However, we wanted to
show our neighbors that we were fully committed to addressing their
reasonable concerns regarding this type of use, so that's why we went
to the one story.
Page 127
January 8-9, 2013
But we could do that through the PUD process. And if we can't
satisfy you and the neighbors that we could be silent on stories in the
comp. plan and deal with the story issue at zoning and then do the site
line studies to see if we can justify a second story.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And where would you establish the
maximum height for this facility?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where would I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, what document?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, right now the comp. plan would
cap it at 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So --
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would never go higher than 35
feet. And if you wanted to say it could never be more than two
stories, but -- we can do that and then the actual stories will be
resolved at -- so I can't go to three within 35 feet, because you
probably could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you would be willing to -- you
could proceed with the maximum height established at 35 feet and two
stories maximum.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And then address whether it be
one or two stories through a sightline analysis at zoning.
And there's other, you know, configurations to that building to tilt
it and make sure it's not behind our neighbors. So there's ways to
address those concerns as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I think we'll move to
the public speakers now.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your first public speaker
Richard Fardy. He'll be followed by Talitha Cirou.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have three, you said?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. FARDY: Can we put that other picture up that they had,
Page 128
January 8-9, 2013
possibly?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Rich?
MR. FARDY: I'm here because I live on Painted Leaf lane.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, sir?
MR. FARDY: Richard Fardy. I live on Painted Leaf lane.
Actually, right behind this property here.
But my concern is that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you please speak into the mic.
MR. FARDY: Oh, I'm sorry.
My concern is that coming -- any traffic that's going eastbound
that wants to enter this property has to turn left onto Santa Barbara, go
up to my street, Painted Leaf Lane, make a U-turn and then come back
and then get on the entrance to this property. So that means during the
day all the shift workers, all the suppliers, all the visitors, any
emergency vehicle approaching from the east has to go around that
circuitous route through my property.
And outside my street there where the turn lane is laid out, it was
laid out for just the people entering that street. Now it would be very
confusing. In fact right there at the beginning of Santa Barbara it's
three lanes and then there are all these merge signs that say it's
narrowing down to two lanes. So it's confusing just to start with.
And then when you enter that turn lane to turn onto Santa
Barbara, the only people now that would have to make a U-turn now
would be the neighbors that just live along Santa Barbara. Now it
would be all the construction vehicles, the service vehicles, emergency
vehicles that I think would present a safety problem.
Kids have a bus stop right there. They're there three times in the
morning, three times in the afternoon, you know. And people park
their cars there. I see it -- it's pretty confusing there. I know there's
only been one exit, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wait. Let me do one thing for you.
We have the head of our transportation division, Nick. Could you
Page 129
January 8-9, 2013
please come and address Mr. Fardy's concerns?
MR. FARDY: Can I just say one more thing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, absolutely. I just want to
make sure he has --
MR. FARDY: Just on my way in here today I was coming down
Davis, and at Airport Road you can make a U-turn. I don't know why
you couldn't just make a U-turn -- it's prohibited now, but I don't know
why you just couldn't make a U-turn there if you wanted to go into
that building.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if I understand correctly, you
don't object to the project, per se, that you're --
MR. FARDY: I don't know enough about it to be either way. I
just worry about, you know, access to that street.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Nick, could you please
address this gentleman's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- concern about the street?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had received I think an email from
you last night that was forwarded and we responded back to you. I
had the traffic engineers go out this morning to take a look at it, do the
traffic history.
He's right, there will be more trips that would come out there, and
when the SDP comes in our PUD we look at it again. But what's
currently zoned is more intensive than what they're asking for. So
aside from this hearing that you're having now, if they came in for the
PUD or to do the Site Development Plan under the current zoning
that's allowed, it'd be more intensive than what they're asking for.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Except would the Site Development
Plan look different so the traffic configuration would flow in a
different manner where he wouldn't be impacted as he's describing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be the same, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It would be the same.
Page 130
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, because it would be the same.
And now we can certainly look at the U-turn. Those are the things we
would look at when the site plan came in. The cost would be borne by
the developer. And that's what we do. At every layer we look at now
-- at comp. plan we look at consistency, do the roads have enough
capacity, are there any drastic site issues that we need to look at. Both
of those have passed that test.
When they come into the PUD we look a little deeper. And then
when they come into the site plan we look at site impact, where the
driveway is going to be, and all those costs are borne by the developer,
not by your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think Commissioner Nance would
like to comment on that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So Nick, are you advising the
Board that should this property be developed as a commercial parcel
rather than an assisted living parcel, it's likely that the traffic and the
intensity use would be higher, in your opinion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Mr. Fardy made I think a great
suggestion. Take the no U-turn sign away from that intersection and
let people make U-turns, and that would solve that problem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would certainly look at that, ma'am.
I just wouldn't want, you know, to go on the record today --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- to say we could do that. I would
want to look at the geometry of the intersection.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does that answer your question?
MR. FARDY: Thank you much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Talitha Cirou. I
Page 131
January 8-9, 2013
hope I'm pronouncing that right. She'll be followed by Steven Cirou.
MS. CIROU: Hi. My name is Talitha Cirou and I live at the
residence not directly north, but I'm speaking on behalf of my
father-in-law, Leon Cirou, and he lives directly north of this proposed
project, and we are next door to him.
And as Rich has explained, we have a family compound there
and we all have lived there for 20 years plus, and we very much love
where we live. We have no problems with it. But the idea of the size
and the magnitude of this assisted living, living next door to it is just
not sitting well with us at all.
We were kind of coerced into agreeing to allow the property on
the corner to be rezoned to commercial 1, C-1 back in 2004. And not
so much coerced but we were -- it was suggested to us that we work
with the owner of that property to allow for more possible viable
projects on this corner so that they could turn it into something.
Because they were saying when it was residential who would want to
live there, it's such a busy corner, it's so loud, it's so noisy. No one
would ever want to live on this corner was what they told us. And so
they said let's make it commercial, that way we can sell the property,
make some money on it, or whatever, develop it, and it would be a
viable piece of land.
So being reasonable people, and not -- you know, we're not
trying to prevent the owner from doing something with his land, we
just want to be able to live next to it and not have our property values
decrease and our lifestyles disrupted by the day in, day out events that
occur on the property next door.
So we agreed to the whole, like, low intensity C-1 because
basically that's a 9:00 to 5:00 situation and no weekends, probably,
like we could have our lifestyle on the weekends, which is when we're
usually home. It not (sic) be like this 24-hour-a-day business next
door. Because it was residential for the last, you know, 15 years until
it was rezoned or -- in 2004. I guess that was 10 years ago, so it was
Page 132
January 8-9, 2013
10 years it was residential. And we're residential and everything on
that corner is residential. And we're single-family home dwellings on
that corner as well.
I see my time's up.
So anyway, I'm just concerned about the time and the size and
the amount of people that are going to be living next to us. I don't
think it is the most compatible and best possible use for that property
being next to us. We just feel the property -- the proposed facility is
too large, too many residents so close to ours. And we also feel like
the current zoning -- okay, I already said that.
If this amendment is approved, we do ask that all the buffers,
walls and setbacks provide us with the opportunity to protect our
privacy and our property values, future and present.
And I also wanted to just ask like what assurances can the county
give us that our homes will still be as valuable after this project is
completed as they are now with the current zoning, based on what
even Mr. Henning brought up, that there is a chance that this could be
a low income assisted living facility. And if that did come to pass, I
certainly wouldn't want it next door to my house. And I feel --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ma'am, your time is up. Thank you.
MS. CIROU: Okay, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final registered public speaker is Steven
Cirou.
MR. CIROU: Thank you. My name is Steven Cirou. I've been a
resident of Collier County for 56 years. My family's lived here for
approximately 65 years. We've lived on that property for about 30
years.
We have been compromised. I gave the land for the right-hand
turn lane on Santa Barbara about 20 years ago to the county for a
right-hand turn lane. They in return put some improvements back on
my property, moved my gate post back, things like that. Then Kevin
Hendricks came along when they were doing the taking of the road
Page 133
January 8-9, 2013
and we lost about 16,200 square feet off the north piece and off the
south piece we lost about 11,300 square feet.
Yes, I got paid for it. But so far out of the project between Santa
Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, I lost the most amount of land,
with the exception of what the county bought, a couple houses. So I
basically lost 100 feet off the front of my property.
Then comes along -- well, we've been at this for about 25 years.
So we've gone through several developers. In 2004 we worked with
Mr. Yovanovich and came up with a plan for the 35,000 square feet of
office space. That's what we would prefer to have there.
I have a hard time believing that food service people, medical
people are not going to create more traffic. Where the problem comes
in is that there is not a turn -- there is not a U-turn at Santa Barbara
and Golden Gate. There's probably not going to be one allowed by
your traffic people. They're going to have to go down to Painted Leaf,
make a U-turn, just like I do.
The people on Painted Leaf do not like me because I make the
U-turn at the head of their street. There's about 70 some people live --
70 families on Painted Leaf They have a really hard time getting out
and going northbound on Santa Barbara. That turn lane was not
created to make a U-turn at. Even if you re-adjust it.
So all the trucks, all the delivery people, all the service people,
the 120 some people that are going to live there, the workers, are all
going to have -- that are heading from the east, heading east off of 75
are going to go to Painted Leaf and make a U-turn to get back, go past
the front of my house.
My house is in the U-turn. I mean, excuse me, is in the turn lane.
It's very difficult when I turn into my house, the county has a thing
called the oops factor when they build a -- there's a mailbox and a
residence right up towards the intersection. We are within that
intersection. People almost run into us every day in the back of our
cars when we turn in our driveway. They don't realize we live there.
Page 134
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Are there any more public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't even know why I had
that light on anymore. I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many people in the audience
are here from the community today? Can you raise your hands? Put
them up high so we can see.
So we have just four people from the community -- I'm sorry,
five people from the community. Okay. How much community
opposition did you face beyond the people who are here today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's fair to say none. Our neighbor
to the immediate west supports the petition. I don't think it's fair to
say Mr. Fardy opposes -- I hope I said it right, your last name --
opposes the project. He just opposes -- he's got a traffic concern that
exists with the existing zoning. It's just worse with the existing
zoning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many people -- how many
residents will there be in the project?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's 120 beds.
And let me make a further distinction. We can limit our request
to assisted living and memory care and delete independent. I don't
think you have very many senior housing projects that are assisted
living and memory care projects. You have a lot of I'll call them
CCRC's on the bunk, which is independent all the way through. But
from an assisted living to a, you know, memory care use, we could
further refine that. Because that's really the market that Mr. Rosen
serves. Correct, Chris?
MR. HENNING: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And so I think -- and it is a -- I guarantee
Page 135
January 8-9, 2013
you it is a more quiet use --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you have photographs of Mr.
Rosen's other properties that we can see a sample of the quality of his
work?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can certainly -- I didn't bring those with
me, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can pull it up on the internet of
projects that he has?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If we get a break. Would you want to
take a break so we don't all watch me fumble around?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would the court reporter like a
break? The court reporter would love a break.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we pull up for you off the
website.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then when we get back, after
you show us a sample of the type of project, I'm going to ask that
since it's in Commissioner Henning's district, I would like him to
make the motion and explain his position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask before we --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just take this little break, does Mr.
Rosen, does he build any low income or affordable --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, this is not going to be an affordable
housing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just --
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- project. It's going to be a market rate
project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any way we can stipulate
that in what you're proposing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd be happy to stipulate it on the record
formally or informally, but I've gotten the look before. And I agree
with the County Attorney, I think you'd probably have some legal
Page 136
January 8-9, 2013
issues if I were to put that in here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And not to say that it's -- like for
example, when we identify housing, we say, you know, it's gap
housing. And I think that's what you're saying, it's, you know, gap,
ACLF.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, the market's the market. And
even right now if he had an upper end development, over the course of
time the community may change, the facility will get older.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. No, that's true. That's very
realistic. I don't disagree with that. I didn't know -- it's like I say, with
housing, you know, we target certain type of housing in certain areas
to accommodate the needs of that community. I didn't know if the
same could apply to this type of housing.
We're going to take a break. And why don't we come back at
2:30 -- well, actually, for the benefit of the court reporter, 2:35. Is that
all right? Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, if I may, before we get started
on this item again, I'd like to mention, we have a number of people
here for two agenda items: For the airport agenda items and for the
RLSA agenda item. So what I'm going to try to do is suggest that --
we have a time certain at 3:00. After that time certain agenda item is
voted on, that we take the airport items between what's left and 4:00 --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- when we have the next time
certain.
And then with respect to the RLSA amendment, let's establish a
time certain at 5:00 p.m. Because I think a half an hour will be
sufficient for 10.0.
MR. OCHS: Very good. That RLSA item, just for the
commissioners' memory, is 10.Q on your agenda. We'll hear that at
5:00 p.m. That was --
Page 137
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And is -- it's 10.0 and -- oh, that's
10 -- okay, yeah, 10.0. I think a half an hour would be sufficient for
that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're talking about both airports
and about the airport director's contract?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I think there's four items, ma'am, but we're
going to try to get those, if I understand the Chair correctly, between
3:00 and 4:00.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But if we can't get them between
3:00 and 4:00, we can try to get two items between 3:00 and 4:00, and
then another two items between 4:00 and 4:30.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll do our best. It's just very tight
with the time certains.
MR. OCHS: Okay, very good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if I make a motion
real quick.
You know, Ms. Cirou said it right. Back when that was rezoned
originally, it was stated on the record that it's not compatible for, you
know, a use for living and it should be commercial. However, that
intensity in that corner, I can agree with the Cirous.
You know, I'm going to make a motion to add institutional to the
existing footprint, not expanded footprint. And the buffers remain the
same as they are today. And not to exceed two stories. But the
two-story is not an entitlement. And we'll deal with the details when it
comes back for the zoning.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- I can't -- I could tell you that
your -- I'm waiting to see if there's a second and then I'll respond. I
didn't want to jump the gun.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I can't second it until I hear
Page 138
January 8-9, 2013
what you have to say.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, okay. I can tell you that if I could
do the use in 35,000 square feet, I would be sitting here asking for
35,000 square feet. I've been doing this long enough that I don't see
any benefit in asking for 70,000 square feet when I could do it in
35,000 square feet.
I could do it in a 35,000 square foot footprint and go to two
stories.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me respond to you. It
doesn't make sense that your client purchased this property thinking
that he can get what he needs on that property --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner, that's not what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and then expand that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, that's not what my client
did. My client bought this property fully understanding the existing
zoning and had every intention at the time he bought it to do medical
office. The market changed. The world changed. He said I'm a
developer of assisted living facilities and memory care. I've got
another use that makes all the sense in the world to go on this site. Let
me go through the process. Rich, what's the process. The process is
the comp. plan amendment and a PUD rezone. I'll go through the
process. I understand I don't have the right to do that. And I
understand I bought it with the existing zoning. And he said I want to
go through the process. I said fine.
What I'd like to walk through is a couple of more exhibits to
show you, if you'll indulge me for a few more minutes. What I put on
the visualizer is an aerial from Google Earth of the existing facility in
Naples that he's done, Harbor Chase. As you can see, it's this building
right here. It's a single-story building amongst residential
development. It's been there for years, perfectly compatible, not
creating any problems. Now, I don't have a picture of it so I'm going
to have to jump over to another picture to show you the quality of
Page 139
January 8-9, 2013
development.
I go to podium computer?
This is the project that he's building in -- or has built in Georgia.
That's a two-story project. But you can see it's nice quality, fits in
with the Georgian architecture and makes sense. Here's another --
unfortunately the website's being rebuilt for this project, but this is
another project in Georgia where it's assisted living/memory care.
First rate, first quality.
Here is an image from the Harbor Chase project in Naples.
Single-story, nice entrance. If you were to go by you'd see it's a
quality project.
In order for this assisted living project to go, it has to be at the
120 beds with the memory care. I might be able to take 5,000 square
feet off if we go to less two-bedroom units to one-bedroom units. But
I'm never going to get down to 35,000 square feet. So, I mean, you
can make that motion, you can pass that motion, we won't be back
asking for institutional at 35,000 square feet. Fair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, are you
saying a 35,000 square foot footprint, in other words, up to two feet,
35,000 square feet, two-story with the larger buffer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, adding institutional within
the footprint.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. The existing square
footage -- now remember, the existing PUD allows me no more than a
25,000 square foot building. I'm allowed a total of 35,000 square feet,
but I can't have a building greater than 25,000.
So that would mean if everything stays the same, I've got a
25,000 square foot building and I have a 10,000 square foot building
that I can put an institutional use in. It won't work.
Again, the use we're proposing is far less intense. The existing
PUD allows these medical offices to be open till 9:00 at night. And,
you know, we could do Urgent Care, we could do all kinds of-- when
Page 140
January 8-9, 2013
the market gets better we can go in and we can do medical office and
regular office on that corner. And that's what we have. We think that
this use is a more compatible use with the residential neighbor. It
exists already in Palm River at a smaller scale. It's not a big huge
project that we're proposing. It's not anything like you've seen where
we've come in with a much bigger 20, 30-acre projects that are
continuing care retirement communities. This is a smaller project to
fit into the neighborhood and to serve people who are in that
neighborhood. People will drive if they have to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What, Commissioner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but you're going to want to move
where --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He misunderstood.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you clarify, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you done?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not limiting the size of it,
I'm adding the use within the existing properties, not to expand the
properties, and keep the buffers the same. I'm not limiting the size of
it except for it cannot exceed two stories. And that is not a given that
you'll get that in the rezone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is the 35,000 square feet coming out or
are we at 70,000 square feet? That's what I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why didn't you ask
instead of spouting off?
I'm not saying any square feet for institutional, period.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to allow the institutional
use and we'll come back --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll do that through the
rezone process.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I got -- when you made the
statement I took it to mean, and I don't think I'm the only one in the
Page 141
January 8-9, 2013
room, to mean that we were capped at the 35,000 square feet that's
currently in the comp. plan language. We're going to have to delete a
reference to square footage in the comp. plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. But you still have
medical use in there. You still have a commercial use in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The existing language caps me at 35,000
square feet, correct, Wayne?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For commercial, right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then are we going to say -- and again I
just want to make sure I understand it, I don't want to spout off. What
I -- are you saying that my medical and retail -- my medical and
regular office is capped at 35,000 square feet and my institutional use
is uncapped?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your institutional is uncapped.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is uncapped.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will determine by the zoning.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But you want all the buffers to stay the
same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Even if I could do better by skinnying of
the buffer by putting a wall and landscaping? Because that's frankly
what we had proposed was the wall was a better buffer with more
intense landscaping in a more compact area than a distance
requirement. I mean, I'm just saying that there were some nice
tradeoffs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the buffers stay the same,
and the footprint stays the same. I mean, not expanded acreage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For just the office and just the medical
office?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For institutional as well, same buffer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
Page 142
January 8-9, 2013
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to understand it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand it myself. So do
you mean don't use that extra piece on there, is that when you say the
footprint stays the same? Or do you mean the footprint stays the same
as the first drawing that he showed us or the second drawing that he
showed us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you have an
existing use -- or a PUD, existing PUD. What they're asking to do is
expand that PUD, make it bigger. And I'm saying no, keep it the same
size and that should address your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you understand what he's
saying? Me neither.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, would you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't. But what I would propose --
and again, I want to work with you. I think I do. But I'd rather,
instead of making a decision, we know we can build what we want
with the parameters that we put in front of you at 70,000 square feet,
one-story or two stories with the smaller -- you know, with the lake
and all that. We know we can fit that.
I have not done an analysis of a two-story building within the
same building envelope that I'm currently allowed under the current
comp. plan language at one or two stories. I haven't done that analysis
so I don't know that I could agree to that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So then let me make a suggestion.
Given now that you fully understand what Commissioner Henning
finds acceptable, would you like to continue this decision and then
come back?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that my
institutional is not capped so I can get to 70,000 square feet in one or
two stories, subject to PUD approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With the same boundaries that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: With the same --
Page 143
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- building setbacks as we currently have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But you need to go calculate that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if I can live with that or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that. I just want to make sure I'm
right. Before I send the architect to go do a site plan, I want to make
sure I'm right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But Mr. Yovanovich, what you're
suggesting is that your business can't function if you can't
accommodate roughly 120 clients.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In 70,000 square feet. I can't make --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You have to have that critical mass
before you really have a business that's viable.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I have to figure out if I can live with
those parameters and get to what I need to get to.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Again, as a courtesy, would it be
beneficial to you to go ahead and run --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- the numbers and then come back?
Because you may find that what Commissioner Henning is suggesting
works perfectly. And then it would be a simple approval, you don't
have to re-present anything.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I get it. I just want to make sure I got it
right is what I'm --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, my point is why
would you buy a piece of land to do business that is not big enough for
you to do? So, I mean, I don't understand why would we want to even
bring it back?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, again, he bought the piece of
Page 144
January 8-9, 2013
property with the existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You explained that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the world changed and he's now
asking for another use on the property that he believes, although it's
not currently allowed, makes sense. And he's got the right to do that.
You hear rezones all the time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if I may, you're not asking just for a
different use, you're asking for a much bigger footprint.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Exactly. Exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I think what Commissioner Henning's
saying is he'll give you the additional use but not the additional
footprint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not the additional footprint, yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, then if the answer is I'm stuck at
35,000 square feet for institutional use, I don't need to go do any work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's not necessarily so.
Because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying the different
footprint.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- the footprint can be -- the
footprint -- you know, Commissioner Henning is also saying you can
go up, but it's not certain that the Board would approve going up. But
if the Board were to approve it, then you have your 75,000 feet in the
same footprint. Because you have -- how much do you have there
now, 25 or 35?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you we can't live with the
footprints that are currently on the PUD.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So that doesn't --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because they're in two different -- they're
in multiple buildings.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So basically the current
Page 145
January 8-9, 2013
footprint does not work because you've got multiple buildings, and
total square footage, even if you multiplied it by two, would still not
work economically --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll get to the square footage, I'll get to 70,
but I'll get to it in multiple buildings. I won't be able to make it work
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in the footprint --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What do you recommend to try to
reconcile --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's still not -- I mean, he
wants to -- you want to add one and a half acres to the site.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, and that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right, stop. I'm saying no.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we're done. We don't need to
analyze it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you keep on going back to
the square foot. I'm not saying square foot on institutional. I'm not
saying separate the buildings or anything for institutional. Your
maximum use for institutional will depend upon how much you can
put on there and maybe at two stories.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala would like to
add a comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just want to go back just a
teensy bit here. Was it -- didn't you decide on the larger footprint to
help the neighbors concern so that instead of it being two-story it was
one-story so people couldn't really be looking into their yard and so
forth? And didn't you decide also to build the wall to protect the
neighbors from any deliveries or sounds or anything? But if these are
both obliterated, then it's not going to help the neighborhood at all is
what I'm surmising.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I -- Commissioner Henning, that's
Page 146
January 8-9, 2013
the existing PUD master plan. What I crosshatched was the area that is
developable, okay? And you can see there's multiple buildings on
that. But that's the developable area that currently exists today.
I want -- are you asking me to stay within that developable area?
And what I'm confused at is do I get a 35,000 square foot footprint,
not limiting my square footage but my footprint is capped at 35,000
square feet, or is that a blank slate for me to come back with an
institutional use that I could fit within that area?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The latter, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The latter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The latter. Okay.
Now, the reason we added the acreage, the 2.8 acres, is it makes
it function so much better. And we've also added that acreage to deal
with water management and we've limited the uses behind our
neighbors. And the lady to the west of us doesn't object to our adding
that 2.8 acres. So we would like to be able to add that 2.8 acres to the
equation so we can have a better site plan. And frankly, it may even
work better from an access management standpoint, if I can -- and I
don't know that I can, but when we get to site plan maybe I can move
my access further to the west, which might allow us to get a left in, a
directional left in, which would avoid some U-turn issues as we're
heading east on Golden Gate Parkway.
So that additional acreage allows for a more park-like looking
facility. And we're hoping that that would work. We could add that
with -- if you want to add some limitations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Rich, could we let Commissioner
Coyle speak. He's been patiently waiting --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- for quite some time.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just have one question. How many
Page 147
January 8-9, 2013
employees would you have in this facility?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe roughly 150.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 150 jobs, huh? Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. You know, being from the
Estates in an area where typically people live next to undeveloped
properties, I've had nice conversations with Mr. Cirou, and I
appreciate his candor and honesty, and I had a brief conversation with
him a moment ago, asking him to be sure what sort of uses he wants,
you know, next to his home going in the future.
You know, I would like to see some way that everybody could be
accommodated to see the project go forward. And Mr. Yovanovich, I
think you've got a history of working very well with people to make
custom -- you know, adjustments in your plans as much as you can.
So, you know, I would just inquire between the neighbors -- and
it only seems to be the set of neighbors who have their family
compound there -- if there's any reason to believe that you two could
get together and work out a compromise or you feel like, Mr. Cirou,
that you're at a point where, you know, you don't want to discuss this
any further.
Is there an opportunity for you to work with Mr. Yovanovich to
resolve it?
MR. CIROU: Well, I've worked with Rich for, I don't know, 20
years I guess on this.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But, I mean, are you at such an
impasse on this project that you just -- you know, you have no interest
in discussing it further, or --
MR. CIROU: No, I'll discuss it. I like --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You know, because, you know, I
have to follow Commissioner Henning's lead, you know, it's his
district. And, you know, if there's some way that it could be worked
out, I would --
Page 148
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CIROU: I like Commissioner Henning's proposal.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would hope that Commissioner
Henning would make a motion to let people go back and make another
run at this and maybe you guys can work, you know --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to go back. I'm going to
make a motion, and my motion -- well, have you made a motion? Did
you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did, and it hasn't been
seconded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I would be willing to second
it, but let me make a suggestion and that is that we continue this to
give you all an opportunity that Commissioner Henning, Mr.
Yovanovich, Mr. Rosen and any other residents there sit down at the
table and work this out. Because I understand where Commissioner
Henning is coming from, but I also understand that you have not run
the numbers to ensure that you can realistically do what he's
proposing.
I think he believes that you can, which is why he's
recommending it. That's what I think. And I think what he's
recommending will serve to make the Cirous happy and make you
happy. But since there's a lack of clarity with respect to both parties, it
just might be nicer to let you all go back and talk and then just come
back at the next meeting with a proposal. And then we don't have to
have any discussion. Because this is being, you know, very well vetted
at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, don't make a commitment
that there's going to be a left in from Golden Gate Parkway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't. I just said by having that
additional piece of property it gives us a much better layout for the
development of the center and might allow us to move our entrance
further to the left. I didn't say it would. But that piece of pro -- we
would like the continuance. I would request that the continuance
Page 149
January 8-9, 2013
would be to your first meeting in February.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm out of town the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle would like to
comment, and then I believe Commissioner Nance would like to
comment again? Or not?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So Commissioner Coyle will
have the last comment, and then I'll make the motion to continue. Or
Commissioner Henning, you can make the motion to continue, just
substitute your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll withdraw my motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make my comment after the
vote, if you'd like.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can make it now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want you to remember
that we are a business friendly community, okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, and I think that's a very good
point. And we also have to remember that medical offices would also
provide a lot of employment as well. So, you know, we're fortunate to
have two uses here which are job creation oriented and that's positive
in and of itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I wish we had $130
million to give you to build the project. Because that's just about the
amount of employees that is Jackson labs would have had.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to restate your motion to continue this to the first meeting in
February?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue to February,
first meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
Page 150
January 8-9, 2013
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
We again have two minutes to a time certain. Leo, is there
anything we can handle in two minutes?
MR. OCHS: I rather doubt it, ma'am. Really, we're down to land
use items and reconsiderations. I don't know that we have anything --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Item 10.E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we have an audience full of
people waiting here yet for the airport issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10.E.
MR. OCHS: 10.E, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10.E. I mean, I think.
MR. OCHS: Okay, 10.E.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's just wait 30 seconds and go
to 10.H.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, let's go ahead and take 10.E.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO DISCUSS ITEM #11E FROM THE
BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AGENDA REGARDING
"WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM" CONTRACTS. THIS
ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE
DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING — MOTION TO
Page 151
January 8-9, 2013
MAINTAIN CURRENT CONTRACTS WITH HOLE MONTES,
CDM SMITH AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES
STIPULATING NO CHANGE ORDERS ON THE CONTRACTS
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING BACK A CAPITAL ASSET
INVENTORY ON THE BASINS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10.E is a recommendation to discuss Item 11 .E
from the Board's September 11, 2012 agenda regarding wastewater
basin program contracts. This item was approved for reconsideration
at the December 11, 2012 meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- I agree with the
staff-- or the Clerk that the -- I mean, going from a proposal of
approximately I think it was $60 million to seven and a half million
dollars is a change in scope of the original RFP. The contractor was
supposed to do site visits per the RFP. That never was done.
However, the -- speaking to the Clerk and the staff, they want to work
with the Board and the Board's employees. They feel that it is legal
that they can pay it.
That was my main concern is so we don't have vendors waiting
to be paid and not paid because the Clerk feels it's not legal.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I would hope in the future
that our staff will work, diligently work prior to making decisions on
awards, RFPs, so on and so forth, so that we can do reasonable
business.
So I'm going to make a motion. The motion would be to
continue with the contracts.
Leo, can you get your employees to work better with the Clerk's
agency?
MR. OCHS: I can try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 152
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: It's a two-way street, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, if we communicate prior
to, I think it would resolve a lot of things.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like some discussion.
I actually have a concern. And my understanding of the Clerk's
conclusion is not quite the same as yours, Commissioner Henning.
And in fact I have an even greater concern, and the concern is that
staff has picked two or three out of about 22 basins. And we've asked
staff for two years now to come back with an inventory that quantifies
what our future liability will be with respect to repairs and
replacements as to the capital assets that are out there. And we still
have not received that.
And like I said, out of the basins that we have, they've picked
three. They may have reasons for picking three, but the total project
cost hasn't been reduced. We're talking about $100 million just for
those three basins. We have a total of 22 basins. We have all these
other capital assets that we have to consider. And so I don't think it is
appropriate to continue.
At the end of the day, Hole-Montes might be absolutely the best
choice, they're an outstanding engineering firm. But we do have
issues with how this was bid. And more importantly, we absolutely
have no idea what our total exposure is. And as I said, what we're
looking at here is $100 million just for those three basins.
So while I appreciate that you've got a motion on the table, what
I would ask you to do is reconsider that, if you would, and ask staff to
go back and come back within two months and bring that budget for
all the basins so that we can properly make a decision in terms of the
allocation of funds and then properly put this out to bid without all the
mistakes that were made in this bidding process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me tell you,
Commissioner Fi. -- Commissioner Hiller, the reason I -- I apologize.
Page 153
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No apology.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason I put it out for
reconsideration is that a vendor may not get paid. A professional may
not get paid because of the concerns of the Clerk and the whole RFP
process. The Clerk and I have worked through that and he is going to
pay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Crystal, is that correct? Are you
going to pay everything under this contract?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, we expressed our concerns
at the initial meeting and we reviewed it. The Clerk's office did pay
based on the Board's approval of that contract at that time. When that
item came forward for reconsideration we discontinued paying until
the Board made a decision. But this issue is a Board decision on
policy and what you wish to review.
But our -- we're paying on the contract based on what you
approved and what was put on the record previously.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, that's a little bit
different than what you presented. Because when you stood in front of
this Board and made your presentation on all the issues related to as to
how this was bid, have you gone back and worked with staff further
and resolved those issues that you highlighted and have made a
determine that it will be paid in full as it was bid?
MS. KINZEL: We paid based on the Board's decision to honor
the agreements at the time that you approved the contract. The issues
that we put on the record were primarily the scope change and the
things that you were told by staff. And I went through that list on the
record. So the decision became one of policy for the Board of County
Commissioners.
At this point we are willing to pay it, but we -- as I believe the
Clerk expressed to Commissioner Henning, we do not want these to be
so complex in the future. There were several issues that created
confusion, how it was let, ranking of those -- of the consultants. So
Page 154
January 8-9, 2013
there were some issues that weren't as clean as perhaps it could be or
should be to prevent confusion with the competitive consultant's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. So I'm going to ask the
question again: In conclusion, having reviewed everything, okay, the
Board initially approved it, then we went back, then there were all
these issues that were identified where you and staff brought forward
information that was not available to the Board at the time the Board
made decision. Dr. George presented, and his staff presented
schedules to the County Attorney and to you that were after-the-fact
information.
Based on all the information presented, are you saying that
having reviewed that you have now come to the conclusion that you
can legally pay?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner, you had that information --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we didn't.
MS. KINZEL: -- based on -- well --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know because I was actually in the
meeting.
MS. KINZEL: At the Board meeting it was presented regarding
their subsequent schedules. At the end of that this Board voted to
approve those agreements in the majority. We paid based on that
approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In other words, the second meeting.
MS. KINZEL: And so we were okay with that after that
approval that we were paying based on everything that was put on the
record, and the Board understood the technical issues regarding those
contracts.
Subsequent to that, you have voted for a reconsideration. It is a
Board policy at this point what you wish to do moving forward on
these contracts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So then going back to what I
said, if the Clerk now has made the determination that in fact the
Page 155
January 8-9, 2013
bidding process was legal and correct, the second determination that
was made, that there wouldn't be change orders to this contract that
would take it from 50 to 100, and that it would be rebid for any
changes that would increase the scope from 50 to 100. Do you recall
that discussion?
MS. KINZEL: That's correct. We were fairly adamant that it
not now be change ordered up to the original, because that further
complicates what you presented to the Board.
And I think staff was in agreement with that, that they would not
change order beyond what they had presented to you. And I believe
the figure is something like five million, in the range for that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was about $7 million for the
engineering, about 6.9 or 6.7, million for the engineering. And that
you would not change order that, it would stay within that scope. Is
that understood?
MR. CHMELIK: Yes. Tom Chmelik for the record. That's
correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
Commissioner Henning, could I ask you to modify your motion
to approve Hole-Montes going forward with the contract as approved
by the Board, with the understanding that there will be no change
orders to that contract. And that secondly we direct staff to bring back
that capital budget with the -- you know, the estimate for repairs and
replacements two meetings from now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's actually three
contractors, there's not just Hole-Montes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's true, forgive me. You're
right. There's the three for the other two basins. Hole-Montes was for
one of the basins. Thanks for the clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to fish there for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're absolutely right.
MR. CHMELIK: AECOM and CDM.
Page 156
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: AECOM.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: AECOM. Which ones were the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And CDM, Hole-Montes. And
there will be no change orders, and direct staff to bring back --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The quantified asset inventory.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, the asset inventory.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- showing the aging and the cost to
repair and replace. So we understand what our liability is. And we
need that for the entire county.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It's a long process and we've been
providing quarterly updates to the Board on our progress, and we'll
bring you what we have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We need it in full and done.
I'll second that motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2013-12: RE-APPOINTING MARK STRAIN FOR
DISTRICT #5 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR
RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC
MEETING — ADOPTED
Page 157
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, takes you to your 3:00 p.m. time
certain. It was agenda Item 10.H. It's an appointment of member to
the Collier County Planning Commission. This was an item that was
approved for reconsideration at the December 11th, 2012 BCC
meeting.
MR. MILLER: We have one registered public speaker for this
item, Madam Chair.
MR. RANKIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Douglas
Rankin. I'm the current member of the Collier County Planning
Commission. And for that reason, by the way, I'm going to disagree
respectfully with the County Attorney's opinion, because I made
motions, seconded motions, had votes, therefore it's removal in my
opinion, but another day.
Commissioners, I am here because I guess there was a change in
the makeup of this Board between the time I was appointed and then
that was reconsidered and that was affirmed before that change. And
then there was a change, and there was an attempt to go back and, I
won't debate it, but change the rules and have it reconsidered again.
So that is the vote you took last time I was here. And it made
this vote today possible.
As you know it takes four votes, I believe, to remove a
commissioner. And there's a reason for that. Of course I know there's
no real reason to remove me. I haven't done anything. I've been doing
a good job. In fact, for another reason I asked for all the resumes of
the people sitting on the current board so I'd know who I was working
with, because I like to be prepared for everything I do. In fact,
sometimes over prepared.
And these are a lot of fine people. But you don't have many on
here that have 40 years of accounting experience, you don't have
many or hardly any or almost none that have 35 years as a licensed
real estate professional in the State of Florida. You have none on here
that have 30 years as a real estate attorney. And for a while I was
Page 158
January 8-9, 2013
board certified; in effect I was board certified in estate planning,
which at the time made me one of four in the State of Florida.
You have nobody here that I'm aware of that's been in except for
the guy that they're trying to put back on that's been in Collier County
for 30 years. You have nobody on here that I'm aware of that's been
in Southwest Florida for 56 years.
And I've seen the mistakes up the coast and I've seen them here.
Although mostly you've been doing a very good job here. That's why
I wanted to get on this commission, besides the fact that I was asked to
be on it, because I want to keep this place nice.
There is hardly anybody on here that's been on as many --
involved in as many planning issues in this county. I don't represent
developers but I've been Golden Gate Master Plan, East of 951,
president of both Golden Gate associations and a dozen other informal
matters over the last 25 years.
Also, people arrange their lives on decisions made. I turned
down a higher level broader area of Florida appointment to take this
appointment, and that is now no longer open because it has statutory
time periods too. So I made a choice and then the rug's attempted to be
pulled out from underneath me after the fact.
And contrary to what's been in the paper, and I now have
permission to say this, the person that was not reappointed was not
removed because he didn't support somebody's campaign. He may be
put on because he supported somebody's campaign, but one of the
reasons he was taken -- not reconsidered is because you recall there's a
shopping center in the Estates that was approved by over 70 percent of
the residents of the Estates, and that particular person criticized that
publicly before, during and after that vote and after this commission
approved it.
As a person in this community, I have a First Amendment right
too. But I also understand that as a planning commissioner I make
recommendations to this Board and then I should show respect
Page 159
January 8-9, 2013
publicly for this Board. That is also was not the case in that respect in
the past.
That is why I think I should stay on here, aside from the legal
reason and the like, and there should not be a reconsideration or
change in this matter.
Again, I'm not getting paid for this, I'm not going to gain
anything out of this except trying to make the community I've chosen
my life to be in better. And some of the communities I came from up
the coast, in fact some of you mentioned before, like Manatee County,
don't try and be them, believe me, I could curl your hair with stories
from up there. And I've seen that. And my family's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Rankin?
MR. RANKIN: -- been on this coast since 1925.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I appreciate it.
MR. RANKIN: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your time is up. Thanks.
MR. RANKIN: Bye-bye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, it's your
item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's -- you know, the
commissioner of the district needs to make recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. You know, this has been
somewhat of a controversial issue, and it's because it's gone -- of
course it's one of the items we reconsidered and so on and so forth.
Directly I will tell you that it would be my motion to return Mr.
Strain to the Planning Commission. He was one of the applicants at
the time. And I will tell you why. I think Mr. Strain -- as well as Mr.
Rankin; this is not a criticism of Mr. Rankin, it's not a criticism of
either gentlemen and anything either gentlemen has done in the
community. Both of them have in fact distinguished themselves. I've
served together with Mr. Rankin on a number of committees. And I
Page 160
January 8-9, 2013
will tell you honestly, he has made good contributions to his
community. He's been a leader and he's been a volunteer, as he said
about himself, and what he said is true, he's been a volunteer that's
done a great deal of service to Golden Gate Estates.
That having been said, Mr. Strain has also done that. And Mr.
Strain has been an advisor to staff, he's been an advisor to members of
the Board of County Commissioners in Collier County of many
makeups for many, many years. And I think he has the respect and
trust of everyone on this current board and members that have since
served and retired.
So rather than engage in a criticism or a comparison between
either gentlemen, since Mr. Strain requested to be reappointed, and I
believe his service merits reappointment, I would make a motion to
reappoint Mr. Strain to the Planning Commission, with no prejudice
whatsoever against Mr. Rankin and his service to the community.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it doesn't.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry. Did you say no?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I oppose it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Forgive me, I didn't hear.
So then the motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Coyle
dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, as previously discussed, we'll move
Page 161
January 8-9, 2013
for the airport items now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #10I
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
CONTRACT #12-5885 "DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 9-27
REHABILITATION PROJECT" IN THE AMOUNT $761,000
WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. (THIS ITEM APPROVED FOR
RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC
MEETING — DISCUSSED; TABLED UNTIL AFTER HEARING
ITEM #10R
MR. OCHS: The first one of those is Item 10.1 on your agenda.
It's a 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 rehabilitation project in
the amount of$761,000 with Hole-Montes, Incorporated.
This item was approved for reconsideration at your December
11th meeting.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have one registered public
speaker on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to begin the discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. My understanding, the
concern from the public is basically repaving and a contract for three
quarters of a million dollars.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I will share with you that I
Page 162
January 8-9, 2013
have since had the opportunity to further clarify what exactly we're
doing in this contract.
When Mr. Curry presented before this Board, he said the runway
was in very bad condition and that we had to repave it and that that
was the purpose of this contract. In fact that isn't the case.
What this design is proposing to do is change the load-bearing
capacity of the runway, decouple the runway from the other runway
and extend the runway. And we never had discussion of that here.
Now, that is not what we approved, but that is in effect what this
contract is for. So I think it's worthy of discussion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had understood that the FAA
declared it in very poor condition and it was accompanied by pictures;
is that true?
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Airport
Authority.
Actually, the Florida Department of Transportation did a
pavement study in March of 2010, and they did an evaluation of the
airport and determined the runway condition to be very poor for both
Immokalee and Marco Island airports.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so then they recommended
that you begin the process, is that correct, to begin the process to
repave them? I don't say repave, I should say overlay them, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Resurface.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, resurface them. Which you
did. And they both felt it was in the proper condition that they would
be happy to provide us a grant.
The FAA then said through their letter that you sent to us, if you
don't take this grant and you don't fix it now, then we'll take back that
grant. Not only that, but we're going to expect you to pay back the
other grants that you already have and we're going to demand that you
resurface it in two years, but now the taxpayers pay that what,
Page 163
January 8-9, 2013
whatever the two are together, $6 million. Is that, the way I
understand it, correct?
MR. CURRY: Well, that's in the email. But in the planning
process for the airports, which we use the Joint Automated Capital
Improvement Program process, the priorities of the airport are put into
the system. The system is used both by the FDOT and by the FAA.
In accordance with the master plan of the airport, it also includes
decoupling at some time in the future for the airports. So these
projects are right in line with what you have approved in the Airport
Master Plan. If they were not in line with the projects approved in the
Airport Master Plan, you would not be funded by Florida Department
of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration. So
therefore --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's not what the Board
approved.
MR. CURRY: The Board approved the permit, design and bid
for these two runways.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The Board approved repaving.
Because the condition of the runways was poor. And what we
approved and what our discussion was at the Board level was to
repave those runways, not to change the load-bearing capacity, extend
it and decouple it.
And there's a real problem there. Because as you know, and
there's been a lot of discussion about the Airport Master Plan, whether
it was legitimately approved, whether it was based on correct
underlying information, and a review of it would suggest very much to
the contrary, that the JACIPs in fact are incorrect. In fact, we've had
numerous discussions that have shown that the JACIPs don't have
accurate numbers.
The resurfacing of the runway was first discussed back I believe
in 2008 by the Airport Authority and I believe the estimate was
somewhere in the neighborhood of three million, but it showed up on
Page 164
January 8-9, 2013
the JACIP as 10 million.
And then when you were challenged on the 10 million, you said
well, it could be five million. And then at the last meeting you
brought it back up to seven million.
MR. CURRY: Let's correct what you have just said before you
get too far.
The JACIP price is $10 million estimated. And what I've said is
that once we go through this permit and design process, we'll have a
more accurate number.
Now, what I said is that I thought the project would come in at a
lower cost of around $7 million. But you also know from the
pavement report that I sent you that from the Florida Department of
Transportation analysis they estimated $9.5 million. So how are those
numbers incorrect?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Again, we're talking about repaving
versus decoupling, extending and changing the load-bearing capacity.
And what we approved was the repaving of the runway, not these
additional factors.
And so I think what you would find is that when you go back to
this contract and you limit it to what was represented, that the price is
very high. And that this price -- the contract ought to be modified to
limit it to what is essential, which is the repaving. Without more.
And that the price should be adjusted accordingly.
MR. CURRY: We are not funded for rehabilitation, okay. And
this $1 .4 million is split between the two airports. We are not funded
for rehabilitation or decoupling in this portion of the grant that the
FAA funded, okay. That's all we're doing. There's nothing we're
trying to hide. This is all that we're doing. If we were funded for the
rehabilitation then you would see 12 or $13 million funded from the
FAA and the Florida Department of Transportation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we're talking strictly about the
engineering design right now.
Page 165
January 8-9, 2013
Crystal, you reviewed the grant and the contract. Does the
contract provide for the extension, the decoupling and the change in
the load-bearing capacity? I mean, are we talking about more than
simply repaving the surface of the runway?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I didn't review those in detail this
morning. I obtained the copies and I have not reviewed this in detail,
no. I did not have time to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, I think it's essential
that your staff does it. Because again what we approved is limited to
repaving.
Go ahead, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Curry, maybe you could help
me understand exactly what the fiscal impact of this project is. And I
realize that the two are very similar --
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- and so by understanding one you
can thereby understand the other.
On the executive summary it says the sources of funding are an
FAA grant, an FDOT grant and a local match. Can you tell me what
the breakout is, for example, the $761,000 approximately, what
portion is borne by those three funding sources?
MR. CURRY: Yes, I can give you an estimate because I don't
have --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Just an estimate.
MR. CURRY: -- exact numbers.
Essentially the FAA funds 90 percent of this grant.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. CURRY: Okay. Normally the Florida Department of
Transportation funds 2.5 percent. But we asked the Florida
Department of Transportation to pick up a larger share to reduce the
cost to the county. So they agreed to fund five percent of that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Which leaves us with five
Page 166
January 8-9, 2013
percent.
MR. CURRY: With the five percent local match, which I think
is somewhere around $38,000.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So what we have here is we
have a -- if I understand this right and correct me if I'm wrong, sir,
please, we have an extensive evaluation of a lot of things here.
According to the executive summary, and I'm just using that because I
think it's the simplest language that we have, it's going to give us
pavement rehabilitation options, it's going to give us taxiway system
options, it's going to give us -- include a workup on an upgrade to the
airfield lighting system. Ifs going to give us an update to our layout
drawing which depicts how you can manage your runways. And the
person that's going to do this is going to do this through a project that's
going to take a minimum of work time in his terms of 300 days.
Included in those 300 days, because we have milestones at a 60-day --
a 30 percent design phase, we've got an alternative analysis report,
then we've got a 30 percent design plan based on what we decide.
Then we bore down a little bit deeper, we get a 60 percent and then a
100 percent, and then their services are continued through 30 calendar
days to bid what we choose to bid at that time.
So it looks to me like, if I'm understanding what you're proposing
here with these commitments, is that we're looking at well over a year
of work to determine where we're going to go with the various options
on all these different things; is that fair to say?
MR. CURRY: No, everything you said is correct except the time
table. The consultants are on a time table to finish in April and to
have us eligible by June to apply for rehabilitation grant money the
following fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, according -- unless there's
been some modifications that I'm not privy to, under the Schedule C
here, project milestone schedule, it outlines 300 days, less what it's
going to take this Board to approve anything that's proposed within
Page 167
January 8-9, 2013
those different milestones. Is that --
MR. CURRY: I understand the time schedule that you're looking
at, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: How are we going to do that by
April?
MR. CURRY: Well, the consultants are on a schedule to have
this work completed by April. They are going to accelerate that
schedule that you see in front of you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But you're not --
MR. CURRY: And the reason we want them to accelerate that
schedule is that it makes us available for the first pot of discretionary
funds that will be given out by the FAA. If they took --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What you're telling me is if they
can do that, then perhaps there are other FAA grants that we could
avail ourselves to, to do this, assuming that we can make all those
decisions in time to qualify for that next --
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- grant.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you think that's a reasonable
timeframe? Do you think we're going to be able to do that knowing
that we have to function --
MR. CURRY: I certainly think we can do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may, I'd like to comment on
what you just said, Commissioner Nance. It makes no sense to me, a
timeline that took 300 days and 761,000 now can be done by April.
And by the way, Commissioner Fiala, the comment you made
about that email where they highlighted that, you know, we would
potentially lose the funds, I reviewed the grant agreement and what
the grant agreement provided was that, you know, we're secure with
respect to that grant, provided we have an expenditure on that project,
Page 168
January 8-9, 2013
in other words, the engineering, within 12 months from the time we
were approved by the FAA. Which is very different than what was in
the email.
But that being said, again the concern I have and continue to
have is that if there is a need to repave that runway, what we're
proposing in this project goes way beyond that. And not about -- and
not considering issues like the lighting and all of which is legitimate
for rehabilitation and repaving, but all the other stuff that we did not
discuss, that we did not approve as part of the scope.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, first off--
MR. CURRY: I think that you should listen to Commissioner
Nance. He summarized it very well with the scope of this project is
really to provide the airport with options. And it's options that you
already approved in the Airport Master Plan and it's options that the
airport will have to comply with to become current with the now
existing FAA standards.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But Mr. Curry, that's not -- I
appreciate what you just said, but what I am suggesting to you is if we
have to take time to evaluate our alternatives -- and I'm not certain that
this Board really knows what they want this airport to be when it
grows up. If we are going to have a nearly $800,000 study, that looks
to me like it's suggesting -- you know, I looked at all the details. It
looks to me like it's an exhaustive study. I don't know why we would
want to rush through that before we understand what our options are,
and make decisions rapidly when it's unclear to me that we can do that
and make those sorts of decisions. Because every decision we make is
going to obligate us to an expenditure that could be tremendous.
Certainly beyond the scope of any grant that you have lined up, unless
you've got $100 million grant that's looming out there.
MR. CURRY: You've already declared. When you decided as a
Board to take grant money from the FAA and the FDOT --
Page 169
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
MR. CURRY: -- in previous years, you obligated yourselves to a
20-year commitment to maintain the infrastructure in a safe and
operational manner.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But now we're trying to gain
information to determine what that actually means in terms of
operations and dollars. Yes, it's clear we made that commitment, but
these people are going to propose specifics. They're going to say pave
this much or stripe here or do that. And those are the decisions we're
going to have to make; am I correct?
MR. CURRY: Well, that would be another grant that would
come before you that would include rehabilitation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right, well --
MR. CURRY: These guys will provide you with all the options.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right.
MR. CURRY: And then if you want to move forward, then it
will come back to the Board to approve a grant for further funding that
involves rehabilitation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But you're saying they're on track
to do all this, and we're going to make all these determinations and
make all these decisions that they said's going to take them 300 days
less our time -- you know, plus our time to determine it. They're
going to do this by April?
MR. CURRY: My job is once you approve something, I try to
get it done as fast as possible. So even though it may say 300 days,
there's no need for me to string a consultant out to take 300 days if he
can certainly do it much quicker.
So all I'm doing is trying to get this portion of the work done as
quickly as possible, once the Board of County Commissioners
approve of the grant.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala has been
patiently waiting. I just want to mention before we shift this
Page 170
January 8-9, 2013
discussion to her, we didn't approve this to have the engineer prepare
alternatives that we didn't even consider discussing. The only thing
we ever discussed, the only thing that we were concerned with and
wanted done was repaving the runway, because you kept on
emphasizing that the runway was in a degraded state.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what you're now saying is that
this -- we're paying almost 800,000 to have alternatives presented,
which again are not part of the scope of our discussion or what we
intended to approve.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say first of all, 300
hours could be divided up amongst 10 guys -- 300 days rather could
be divided up amongst 10 guys, and that way they can get the job
quickly. They're just giving you total hours. It's not telling you just
one person's going to work 300 days.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, ma'am, that's not the case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. Being that you know
that better than I, that's fine, I'll bow to that.
I think the second thing that he is really trying to do is he's trying
to get this airport positioned to be a business catalyst for the
Immokalee community. That's what this is all about. If you uncouple
it, if you lengthen that runway you can invite more businesses in. He's
trying to make this a business center for that community.
It's been long -- it's been waiting a long time to do that, many,
many years. They've been trying to expand this airport and make it
functional and to be a vital part of the Immokalee community.
I think that maybe that's the reason, and I'm just guessing at this,
maybe that's the reason that this study is going to be taken so far, to
know what opportunities we have, what opportunities can be used to
Page 171
January 8-9, 2013
better the Immokalee community business atmosphere.
MR. CURRY: And I'm trying to prevent you from running afoul
of the FAA and not being able to say that I didn't tell you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to explain, if I can,
what's going on here. You've got runways that are in the form of an L.
They join together. Now, they need to be resurfaced at some point in
time. So when do you do that? And under what circumstances and
conditions? Do you do it now? Well, if you do it now, you will have
resurfaced portions of the runway that have to be torn up in order to
comply with the FAA's new standards of decoupling.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think it's only one runway that
we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a minute. They're all related.
The FAA wants those two runways that are joined to be decoupled,
because you can decrease the number of runway incursions by doing
that.
When you decouple the two runways, you have to build more
taxiways to handle traffic going to and from those two runways. That
gets relatively complex.
So how are you going to decide when you're going to do this,
where the money is going to be spent first? Is it going to be spent on
taxiways or is it going to be spent on decoupling the runways? There
are a lot of decisions that have to be made.
And the best thing to do is to have somebody who understands
aviation go out and develop designs for us to look at and say aha, this
is the way we want to proceed. There is nothing -- there's no black
magic going on here. You know, we're not trying to pull the wool
over anybody's eyes. But if you keep belaboring this issue, you're
going to lose that funding and you're not going to get any funding in
the future. And who is going to explain that to the people of
Page 172
January 8-9, 2013
Immokalee after the staff has fought so hard to get this money down
here, which once again will create jobs for people who live hopefully
in the Immokalee area to do this work.
So I would suggest that we deal with this at a little higher level,
let the people who understand aviation make the kind of decisions and
bring the decisions to us. Mr. Curry has brought this stuff to us. He's
given us a diagram of the design of the decoupling. He told us when
the FAA had adopted new safety standards. He has been completely
open and professional in providing all this information. But we've got
Board members who are treating it as if money is being improperly
spent, and that is absolutely ludicrous. The money that is being
improperly spent is the money that this Board is going to lose because
of its inability to make a decision to proceed with a plan that has been
in effect for years.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Mr. Curry, I think
it's -- I mean, looking at the contract, it is exactly what it is. However,
the executive summary really wasn't clear, and the discussion on the
item really wasn't clear. So it is going to be a huge investment. And
I'm not sure -- we're going to be having a workshop pretty soon, I
think?
MR. CURRY: There's one scheduled for February 5th with or
without me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's when we need
to talk about what the costs are going to be. Because we have been
investing a lot of money in these airports with a loan type deal. And
I'm not sure when -- if we want to keep on pouring money into the
airports as vigorously as we have. So, I mean, that's an issue that we
can talk about.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the scope is (sic) laid out is
a long-term project. So we need to figure out at a certain point can we
Page 173
January 8-9, 2013
separate those or can we remove some of those.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And it's really the removal that's the
issue. Because again, we have an airport master plan which was
advanced based on assumptions which don't hold true today. We have
-- for example, it's my understanding that the Fort Myers airport is
only operating at about 18 percent capacity and we have very little
traffic at the Immokalee Airport.
Repaving is something that has been established as necessary.
Whether everything else is necessary is subject to debate.
Now, if you take the scope of this contract and you reduce it to
what it was intended to be and what the discussion was all about,
repaving, as opposed to engineering, we have something that's more
reasonable. Reengineering with, you know, the limited projects which
promote public safety like lighting and so forth is very different than a
complete reengineering, if you will, of that runway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about if we do this, is
approve this item, direct Mr. Curry and the County Manager to limit
what Hole-Montes is going to do under this for necessary items.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And we can do that. We
have the legal ability to modify the scope of this contract unilaterally
to what is -- what we deem to,be necessary to be done.
But I'd like to give -- I believe it was Commissioner Coyle next,
then Commissioner Nance and then Commissioner Fiala, the
opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make one comment.
I agree with Commissioner Henning in that we don't want to keep
subsidizing these airports any longer than we have to. But I make the
observation that since Mr. Curry has been here we have seen declining
amounts of subsidies going to the airports.
So you've been doing a good job in that respect, Chris, keep up
the good work.
Page 174
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think the current obligation that
the airports currently owe the county is about $20 million.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just get the feeling, and I'm
sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings, I feel like we're foc-- some of the
talk is focused on crippling the growth of the airport in Immokalee,
and we should be fostering growth. We should be fostering good
business practices. And that's why we need all facets of this study, to
find out what we can do, what we need in order to move forward,
what assets could be derived from this airport. But if we just give a
half-baked study, we're not going to get those answers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, this isn't intended to be a
study. We didn't hire Hole-Montes to do a study of alternatives. We
hired Hole-Montes to do the engineering of the resurfacing of the
runway, not the reengineering of the runway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the other things that you're
taking out of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, but those things were not
anything that -- and just a point of clarification. When you look at a
runway it's like looking at a road. You have to develop the road based
on future demand. And we don't have the demand projections to
support the expensive development that's being proposed. So when
you overdevelop an asset, in effect you're wasting money, because it
will ultimately be a wasting asset, because there is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't build for the future --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it's like Oil Well Road. I mean,
we didn't have to build Oil Well Road for a very long time to the
extent that we built it because it wasn't going to reach maximum
capacity until 2035. Notwithstanding, we poured tens of millions of
dollars into a road which now we're actually -- we've eliminated two
of its six lanes.
Commissioner Nance?
Page 175
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, you know, if you look at it
on the face of this, this is a request for a $761,000 project, 90 percent
of which is going to get paid for by the FAA and five percent by
FDOT. So 95 percent of it's going to be paid, all right? And this is
what is says --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By whom?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is going to be paid by a grant
from the FAA and FDOT.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does it matter?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now wait a second. Let me tell
you what, when you sign up for that, when you say okay, this is what
I'm going to do, this is what Hole-Montes wants to do. They want to --
after we tell them to start, in 60 days they're going to provide us with
what they call a justification, and alternative and analysis in 60 days.
Then they want our comments on that. Thirty days after we give them
our comments, they are going to do a 30 percent design plan. Then
they want our comments on the 30 percent design plan. Sixty days
later they're going to produce a 60 percent design plan, all right? And
then 90 calendar days after we comment on that, they're going to give
us a 100 percent design plan.
So we're committing to a huge process on all these things that are
elucidated in this contract, and it's a list as long as your arm, okay?
Now, I believe Mr. Curry when Mr. Curry says now, if you take
this money and you don't act on it, the FAA is going to be really
grumpy with Collier County. I agree. Because they are going to put
out $1,260,000 of their money and they're going to expect us to act on
it.
What I'm suggesting to you is if we are not prepared to act on
these things, we shouldn't take this money. Because what they're
going to do is they're going to end up asking for it back.
MR. CURRY: You've already taken it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We've already taken the 761,000?
Page 176
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: You've already taken the 761,000 for Immokalee
and the 600 something thousand for Marco Island.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we haven't taken it. That's not
correct.
MR. CURRY: You signed -- you approved a grant that they
gave to us to get those projects completed.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. And how much money has
that obligated to us downstream?
MR. CURRY: I would say right now you're probably -- I mean,
you're only obligated initially to what we have been funded, which is
the $1 .4 million in totality.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I mean, if we don't act on this
study, what's FAA going to do?
MR. CURRY: Well, if you want to stop the projects right now --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, if we conduct the study, if we
take and we say Hole-Montes, go ahead and do it and we do all that
and then we look at it and we say hey, this is $200 million, we don't
have $200 million, what's FAA's reaction going to be?
MR. CURRY: Well, the FAA is going to say you have a
responsibility to rehabilitate the runways.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, but the rehabilitation is
resurfacing to bring it up to the standard that it was at before the
degradation. It is not all these ancillary projects which expand the
scope of this to be way more than --
MR. CURRY: That is part of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There are two words that are not
interchangeable. And one is reengineering and the other is repaving,
or resurfacing as Commissioner Coyle said.
So what we're required to do is resurface. We are not required to
do anything else beyond resurfacing. And the justification to do more
than resurface has to be supported by demand, and we have nothing
that substantiates --
Page 177
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- that the demand is forthcoming --
MR. CURRY: That's not correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to support that.
MR. CURRY: That is not correct. Once the FAA -- the runways
at Immokalee are old. They have not had any major pavement work
since their inception back in the 1940's. So the way the FAA operates
is once they touch that runway, then they say to the airport, now we
want you to come up to what the current safety standards are.
So it's not the airport that's running to the FAA and saying yeah,
we want to decouple these runways. The FAA is saying you will
decouple these runways and provide us with alternatives as to how
you want to do this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Changing the load-bearing capacity
doesn't go to what you're saying. Extending the runway does not go to
what you're saying.
MR. CURRY: I guess the question is do you want me to manage
the airports, or you?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe we --
MR. CURRY: Because I'm trying to explain to you exactly what
the ramifications are and how the process works, but you refuse to
listen to me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, one thing I will clarify is that
the reason now you've moved on an accelerated schedule from the 300
days, the timeline here that Commissioner Nance read, is because of
the application deadline for the additional funding. And that you, as a
consequence of going back, made the determination that it would have
to be accelerated to be ready by June.
But let's take a break for right now from our discussion and give
the public speakers an opportunity to come forward.
MR. MILLER: You have one registered public speaker, David
Gardner.
Page 178
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GARDNER: Let me lower this thing down a little bit.
Good afternoon. I'm Dave Gardner, 817 Giralda Court, Marco
Island.
I've been a member of the Airport Authority three years, the
Airport Advisory Board for two years, and I just want to explain a
couple things about it.
When you're hearing Chris get up and say we have to do this and
we have to do that, you're hearing us say we have to do this, we have
to do that.
We go over this very carefully. We have at least 150 years of
aviation experience in our seven members. And not just aviation
experience. We have accounting experience, banking experience,
legal experience, all of this. We're almost all pilots. I have 4,000
hours of flying time and 30 years worth of flying in New England
where it's kind of tough to fly. And I also am a contractor of 44 years.
Much of my work was with the FAA, and much of it was with the
Corps of Engineers, the two hardest agencies to possibly deal with,
unless you know what you're doing and unless you compromise and
unless you follow their rules. You deviate and you're in deep trouble,
to put it nicely.
So when something like this comes to you, this is months of
discussion, months of information. And what we're trying to do is
give you the biggest bang for the buck that you can possibly get.
Now, we can, yes, resurface the runway. But what you are
saying, and this is true, is that this is the entering wedge of what the
FAA wants us to do to bring that airport up to the proper standards.
Now, this coupling and decoupling means if you pave the runway
now and you do the decoupling and the uncoupling, you cut into your
pavement, you change it, you cut in to here and you change it.
Whereas if you do it all in one fell swoop it will be done completely
and continually. And that's what Commissioner Coyle was saying.
Page 179
January 8-9, 2013
And you're getting this for five percent of the investment of Collier
County.
Now, I've heard over and over again, we've got to get better
arrangements in Immokalee, we must see the airport better, we must
see the community better.. The changes this will make will allow
heavier aircraft to come in and land at that airport. Heavier aircraft
means bigger business down the road, and of course more
employment by the Immokalee people.
So again, this is us making this decision. We've researched it
very carefully, the same way we've done before in a number of things
that you have never questioned. We've had the taxiway at Marco
Island. We didn't have to do that, but it was a safety issue that could
have caused many lives and a lot of many if we didn't do it. So we
asked you to do it and you said yes, so we did it. Now we've got that.
We've got larger airplanes can come into there. Many airplanes were
limited because of the length of the runway and no taxiway. It's an
improvement. You paid for it, your five percent.
And this is the same thing in Immokalee. We need to make these
things. And you say how can you do something in 30 days that you're
given 100 days? Well, let's take the example of a woman who wants
her house reroofed and it's $300 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've ceded him my time.
MR. GARDNER: And a week later the contractor comes in and
says by the way, you owe me $600.
Well, the way you do something with the government is you
always tell them you need this much. They're happy if you take this
much. If you take that much, you are in trouble again.
So by being able to work and get it done in this period of time it
makes everybody much happier. And the FAA, you want to keep
them happy, and they will continue to work with you for years to
come. And if you stumble or you say I'm going to give you something
back, good-bye.
Page 180
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GARDNER: Thanks very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks for your presentation.
If I may comment. You make some very good points. Again, it
goes back to are these expanded projects supported by demand.
Whether we're building a road or a runway, there has to be the demand
component that's satisfied. And that hasn't been established. That
hasn't been proven.
So regardless of the source of funds, no funds can afford to be
wasted, particularly in this economy. Whether it's from the FAA, the
state or from our local taxpayers. And to suggest that because it's
coming from the FAA we should do it even if there's no need is really
not the proper way to do business. It's not principled.
With that, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I've ceded my time to the
gentleman just before.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to speak more?
Because he's given you his time. I mean, seriously, you've got some
good comments. If you'd like a few more minutes --
MR. GARDNER: I think, ma'am, that I have made --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your contribution?
MR. GARDNER: -- my points.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thank you for doing
so.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What Mr. Curry is telling
us, which wasn't revealed later, even with the resurfacing all these
other things need to be done as far as FAA requirements. Is that true?
MR. CURRY: Once we get to that point, they have other
demands that's necessary to bring the airport up to the current safety
standards.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is not -- is that true? I mean,
Page 181
January 8-9, 2013
the FAA is saying we have to extend the runway, the FAA says we
have to extend the load-bearing capacity?
MR. CURRY: We have been in discussions with the FAA. The
FAA says that when we touch the runway, you must bring it up to
current standards, which includes decoupling of the runways.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let's talk about the extension
and the load-bearing capacity.
MR. CURRY: What extension are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's down the road. That's not
a part of this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Isn't it a part of this? Isn't the
engineering for an extension part of this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Isn't the engineering for changing --
I mean, isn't this runway actually being reengineered to increase the
load-bearing capacity, as well as extend the length? You have to go to
the contract. Don't look at the executive summary, go to the contract.
MR. CURRY: I don't have the contract before me. But what
extension are you talking about?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't know.
MR. CURRY: Well, I don't know either.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what it said. I mean, I'm
assuming the extension that they're talking about is the land that would
be acquired --
MR. CURRY: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- separately to extend the runway.
Because that's the only extension we've referred to here. And that's --
MR. GARDNER: The extension is the decoupling.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, the extension is the decoupling?
Because they actually refer to it as extension and decoupling in one
sentence.
MR. GARDNER: You extend a few feet on one end --
Page 182
January 8-9, 2013
THE COURT REPORTER: I need to have him on the
microphone.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. GARDNER: That's all the same thing.
MR. CURRY: I think, Commissioner Hiller, you're confusing
this with what the master plan -- the ultimate master plan that would
extend the runway to 10,000 feet. We're not even entertaining that at
this point with this contract.
The other thing you mentioned was that you thought that it was
based on demand for the airports to be resurfaced. It's not necessarily
based on demand. What the pavement is based on, time. So because
Immokalee Airport is part of the national airspace system, it has
federal importance and state importance, that's why it's being funded.
But the pavement of the runways is not necessarily based on
capacity, it's based on time. And if you only had one person to land in
there and it was unsafe, that would be enough capacity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand that issue, but this is
different because this is changing, this is reengineering the
load-bearing capacity, as you pointed out. This design is proposing
that these runways would carry heavier planes than what we're able to
carry now. Do we want those heavier planes? Is there a demand for
heavier planes to come onto those runways. That hasn't been debated
by this Board. That wasn't the Board's direction, to reengineer the
runways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner, I'm
looking at the scope, and it doesn't say, you know, change the
load-bearing of it. I mean, having pavement rehabilitation options in
the taxiway system servicing -- also entitled to upgrade field lighting
system. Mr. Curry is saying it needs to be updated as far as the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the lighting is not something
-- I mean, that's a maintenance issue, that really is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fence has to be redone.
Page 183
January 8-9, 2013
And I'm assuming, Mr. Curry, all the things in the scope are what is
required by FAA for this rehabilitation.
MR. CURRY: Everything that we're doing in the scope is
approved by the FAA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that isn't my question.
MR. CURRY: Well, we're certainly not going above and beyond
requesting anything that's not approved by them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, required, not approved.
Required.
MR. CURRY: Well, you know, I have to be very careful with
every word that I answer in front of this Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying just to communicate
MR. CURRY: I know you're trying to communicate, but I don't
want us to get caught up on require, okay. So I'm looking at very
limited information in front of me because I had no idea the nature of
this discussion. So, you know, unfortunately I didn't have the
opportunity to meet with some of the commissioners beforehand to
properly prepare for any and everything, including the contract. So I'm
not so sure I want to say require at this time in front of this Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's what I understood
you said. The FAA required these upgrades, along with some of the
things I see in there, like changing of the fence realignment because of
the rehabilitation.
Okay, I'm just saying that I understand it through the discussion
that all these are required for the rehabilitation, repaving. And I didn't
see anything in the contract about extension.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, it's -- I read all of it and I
don't have it here with me, but there were multiple documents and it
was in there.
If I may, we have a 4:00 time certain, so we're going to have to
suspend discussion on this and bring it back so we can go to our 4:00.
Page 184
January 8-9, 2013
So Leo, if you could go ahead and allow for that to happen.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we need to give the court
reporter a break? Would you like one now?
All right, we will take a 10-minute break and then we will come
back to our 4:00 time certain, which is 10.R, and then resume with this
airport matter in the time remaining to the next time certain.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we'll be back at 4:15.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #10R
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DECLARE THE RECENT CLOSURE OF
CLAM PASS CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY SITUATION,
REQUIRING DREDGING OF THE PASS AS SOON AS
PRACTICABLE; THAT IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS, THE
BOARD DIRECTS THE COUNTY MANAGER TO OBTAIN
PRICING INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT FROM AT
LEAST TWO PROSPECTIVE VENDORS, INCLUDING ANY
POTENTIAL VENDORS WITH DREDGES ALREADY
OPERATING OFF THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA, AND
THAT THE COUNTY MANAGER NEGOTIATE AND ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER,
SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD, PREFERABLY
AT THE NEXT MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have a 4:00 p.m. time certain
for agenda Item 10.R. And then immediately following 10.R you will
Page 185
January 8-9, 2013
hear a related item, 10.S.
So with the Commission's indulgence, we'll start with 10.R. It's a
recommendation the Board of County Commissioners declare the
recent closure of Clam Pass constitutes an emergency situation,
requiring dredging the pass as soon as practicable; that in furtherance
of this, the Board directs the County Manager to obtain pricing for this
project from at least two prospective vendors, including any potential
vendors with dredges already operating off the west coast of Florida,
and that the County Manager negotiate and enter into an agreement
with the apparent low bidder, subject to ratification by the Board,
preferably at the next Board meeting. This item was placed on the
agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I appreciate staffs
assistance in compiling the backup material to support the executive
summary.
Our consulting engineer analyzed the situation and prepared a
memorandum which was submitted and reviewed by staff. And there
was clearly plenty of evidence that supported labeling this an
emergency situation.
That position statement has also been shared with the Clerk of
Courts, as well as with the County Attorney, and it is recognized by
everybody that it is appropriate to make the declaration as described.
So with that, I'm not sure, Neil, if you would like to comment on
this or if you would rather have the engineers speak to this. I don't
think there's a great deal that needs to be explained beyond what the
summary description provided.
MR. DORRILL: I would agree. And in the interest of your time,
any specific comments from my part would be better for the next item.
If you have questions of the consultants, they are here, and so maybe
we could just defer to the Board to see what questions --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are there any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Madam Chair, you have one registered
Page 186
January 8-9, 2013
public speaker for this item and for the next item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm going to support this
emergency designation. But I'm also going to make sure that the
public understands it didn't have to be an emergency designation. The
staff has been involved in trying to get this permit for years and they
have been constantly blocked by people who objected to things and
had other questions to be answered, just as you have seen today here
with the airport authority. The staff has probably responded to 100
different pieces of correspondence, intentionally delaying this
dredging process. And we are in fact probably within 30 days of
getting the permit, but it is likely to be delayed by action that the
majority of this Board took at their last meeting, which was to transfer
responsibility for its management and to also commission additional
studies relating to the pass, which we'll take up as the next item.
And now all that is going to be evaluated by the Department of
Environmental Protection and the Corps of Engineers, and who knows
how long that will take.
It is entirely possible that the people who are now demanding
that this be done on an emergency basis will find out that their own
actions have resulted in a substantial delay in responding to something
of great importance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And actually, Commissioner Coyle,
thank you for your comments; however, they're not correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course they're correct and I've
got a timeline here I'll be happy to read to you, Commissioner Hiller.
And as a matter of fact the county staff will back me up on it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that isn't the case, but we're
not here to discuss that. That's not the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Ochs, do you agree with my
assessment?
Page 187
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let him finish this, because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you agree with my assessment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we've taken a black eye for this
and I think it needs to be clarified.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It needs to be clarified, that's right.
Has the staff been trying to get this approval?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I think all the Board knows we've been
working for more than two years to obtain the permits to be able to do
the tidal flushing dredging in this pass. The staff action has resulted in
the FDEP permit being already in hand, and we were finishing up the
last component with the biological opinion to receive the Army Corps
of Engineer permit. We believed it was probably 30 days or less out.
So yes, it's been a couple of years worth of effort. But I think
you're essentially accurate in what you said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for calling on me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, then I'll respond to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had gotten a letter and I was just --
because we've been talking about private beaches, and I don't -- you
know, it says I say historically because in the past the dredge permit
did not allow TDC funds to be spent to renourish the beach, nor Clam
Pass. This rationale was (sic) placing sand south of the pass was that
TDC funds could not be used to renourish beaches that did not have
public access. The area just north of Clam Pass is the site of one of
three private beach clubs owned by Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay has
vehemently opposed opening the boardwalk leading to this beach to
the public. What you may not know is that the new Clam Pass inlet
permit allows beach quality sand dredged from Clam Pass inlet to be
placed on the north side of the pass. This is the first time TDC funds
are to be used to renourish the beach in front of private beach facilities
in Pelican Bay.
Page 188
January 8-9, 2013
I just thought I would like to put that on record, because I heard
so much opposition this morning about Hideaway. And I just thought
-- David Buser sent me this email, and I thought I'd ask about that.
MR. DORRILL: And I can.
In response to your question, one of the initial things that I
authorized was to conduct an actual survey with Agnoli, Barber and
Brundage. There had been a great deal of misinterpretation on the part
of a beleaguered Army Corps and DEP staff in Fort Myers. We have
a meeting with them Thursday afternoon where I hope to resolve some
remaining misinterpretations of this Board's intent.
So the survey work is almost complete. And it is my
understanding that once we can identify the historical parameters in
which the actual pass inlet has existed, the intent for the sand that is to
be north of there is to help address some of the recent emergency
erosion that threatened the structure that is their food and beverage
operation. But it is not intended as a widespread beach renourishment
project, but to replace and address some of the erosion that occurred.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But it is a private beach,
right?
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. At least that area that
is upland of the mean high water mark.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I knew it was, but I wanted
to hear that from you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we're not renourishing the area
up of the mean high water mark, we're only renourishing the public
portion of the beach. And it is publicly accessible from the pass.
MR. DORRILL: It may include -- this is one of the areas that I
might ask one of the consultants to respond to, either Mr. Hall or Mr.
Moore, or Humiston, whoever is appropriate.
MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston with Humiston and Moore,
Engineers.
The plans -- the original plans plus the plans that we're pursuing
Page 189
January 8-9, 2013
now do call for placement of materials seaward of mean high water.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the prior plans called for that
also?
MR. HUMISTON: Yes, they do. They always have in the past
with the maintenance that was done in '99, 2002 and in 2007.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And why are we placing the sand on
the upland part of the beach?
MR. HUMISTON: The nature of the project, the direct pump to
the beach hydraulically really necessitates that for a project of this
magnitude where we expect the -- as Mr. Dorrill mentioned, the
survey is being done. In fact it's being worked on right now.
But we had to -- there's going to be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 20 to 25,000 cubic yards of sand to deal with. And
some of that will go upland to mean high water, but some of it will
necessarily be below mean high water.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's below mean high water is
not a problem, but what -- because that is fully public beach. But
what is above mean high water, does that constitute public or private
beach, Jeff? And you know the location we're talking about, it's right
at the entrance of the pass. Right where the park is.
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe that's private beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, I think there's
probably a problem with that then. Would you say that there's a
problem with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, without knowing anything
else, what I'm hearing is that's the only place to put the sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I understand. But the question
is, if that's the only place to put the sand and there is a need for the
sand, should there be some sort of compensation for that upland sand?
MR. DORRILL: And Commissioner, we're prepared to explore
that. And I have had that discussion with my counterpart at the
foundation here, Mr. Hoppenstedt. We do not yet have a set of
Page 190
January 8-9, 2013
construction drawings or bids in hand in order to tell you, you know,
what portion of the total project. It may be north and south of the pass
itself. But I hope to have that -- hope to have the permit issues
resolved and be able to have all those answers to you before the end of
March.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would appreciate that.
And Jeff, if you could be involved to ensure we're not doing
anything that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if we're using TDC funds, we should
be compensated for the sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: For the upland sand --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- that's going on the private beach.
Yeah, I would think so.
MR. DORRILL: And that's the nature of the discussions that I've
had with Mr. Hoppenstedt.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And so he understands the
issue.
MR. DORRILL: I believe that he does, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. And that's reasonable. So
thank --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask you a question about
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- you for bringing that out.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So say for instance Mr. Humiston,
or you, Neil. So say for instance it's a lot cheaper to just put that sand
there. I mean, I realize it's TDC funds, but we have to get that pass
cleaned out anyway, and we've got to put the sand someplace, and it's
cheaper to put it on the private beach, and you don't have any place
else to put it. There's got to be some way that we as a Board address
to take the road that -- it might be helping a private beach, but at the
Page 191
January 8-9, 2013
same time ifs helping us not have to pay the extra expense of taking
that sand out of the pass, trucking it out of there to someplace
wherever we can find a place. And that's my point.
I mean, I don't object to that. I realize Commissioner Henning
doesn't want my Hideaway Beach to be done, but I don't want to take
that away from you. It just seems to me it would be cheaper to do it
that way and to do it the right way. And so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it still has to be done legally,
whatever --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right. Maybe we need to
address that as a Board, as I said.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You understand the issue, right,
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've had conversation with the foundation
off and on over a couple of years on this very topic, that there should
be some sort of a fair share arrangement made for the sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, I would think there should be.
I thought there was. I thought that they were compensating or paying
for the portion of where the sand is actually going to the private beach.
And there ought to be, of some sort.
MR. DORRILL: Well, again, that would be consistent with my
conversations with Mr. Hoppenstedt, as was the recent emergency
work that was done there. As the inlet began to drift to the north and
threaten that structure, they did take certain steps to install some fabric
and some concrete devices and perhaps some grading and whatnot.
And my understanding is that was all done at the cost on the backs of
the foundation who owned the adjacent private beaches.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So they're already making a
contribution. And they also already are paying, what, over a half a
million dollars towards the mangrove preservation within the public
park. Which do they have to do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just talking about TDC dollars.
Page 192
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Hang on one second. I'm
just wondering, do they have to pay the half million towards that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I participate in this
discussion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I agree, we need to
do this. We need to approve this item and move forward.
And my only question would be there needs to be a valid public
-- no, there needs to be -- we need to make a finding -- actually, TDC
needs to make a finding that it promotes tourism, bottom line. And
I'm glad we're --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think the Board should make that
finding also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- starting to understand what
TDC funds can be used for.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. And that's a very good
point.
Commissioner Henning, I think that we need to make a finding at
this level also that the dredging of Clam Pass does promote tourism.
And I think all we have to do is look at all the tourists who are
currently dredging it for us as proof that it's certainly a tourist
attraction. It's a beautiful pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Dorrill is doing the right
thing. He's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- going to find out where
everything is going to go. We can make that decision later.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's approve this item and
move on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, my light's on.
Page 193
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sony. Go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question of the
engineering.
You threw out some cubic yards of sand that you anticipate
resulting from this project. What is the traditional direction of flow of
eroded sand on the beach?
MR. HUMISTON: The sand has typically been placed on the
beach south of the inlet because the dredging of the inlet may have
something to do with some of the erosion that occurs south of the
beach.
And that brings out something else, and I'm not sure what bearing
this might have on the use of tourist tax dollars, but the state actually
requires that sand that's dredged from inlets, they treat that a little
differently than a straightforward beach restoration project. They
require that the sand that's taken from inlets be placed on the adjacent
beaches that may be impacted by that dredging, without the
requirement of establishment of erosion control line.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, that's interesting. Without the
establishment of the erosion control line.
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So in other words, ignoring the
mean high water mark. So whether or not it's private or public doesn't
matter because it's expected that the dredging creates this erosion and
so the sand should be used to restore all the beaches, regardless of
public or private.
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what you said. Not all
of the beaches. You said the beaches adjacent to.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Adjacent, absolutely. And that's
what we're talking about. And let me restate that to clarify.
The adjacent beaches, whether public or not they're public or
Page 194
January 8-9, 2013
private, should benefit from the sand that's dredged because of the
consequential erosion.
MR. HUMISTON: Correct, if it's determined that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So Jeff that changes the
compensation argument.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that it does. But if we're
bringing this back anyway, we'll get the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: -- contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I just want to raise that point.
Thank you for highlighting that.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
MR. MILLER: We do have the one registered speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, go ahead.
MR. MILLER: Marcia Cravens.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, just one comment while Marcia
Cravens is coming forward.
Again, I don't want anybody to be under any misconception, we
need a permit before we can do any dredging.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: So even though this is an emergency and we get
prices quickly, we still will need the permit in hand before we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's excellent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, that's a very good clarification.
Thank you, Leo.
Marcia?
MS. CRAVENS: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I must
say it's been a pleasure monitoring how this meeting has proceeded.
It's been so smooth and courteous for the public speakers and
everybody. I'm so happy to have you as continuing Chair,
Page 195
January 8-9, 2013
Commissioner Hiller. Thank you.
What I have on the overhead here, I don't know if you can please
turn that on, shows the modification to the permit. That is the last
official determination on permitting for Clam Pass.
And what I highlighted there is the flood shoal area that was
actually dredged and just a portion of the mouth of Clam Pass.
This was the 2002 dredging. I didn't highlight it, but right here,
that area is the south side of Clam Pass along the public beach. That's
where dredge material, spoil disposal was placed for beach quality
sand.
This issue about putting sand on Pelican Bay's beach actually
was a revision to the permit application that never went before the
BCC, never went before any advisory committee. The Army Corps of
Engineers actually issued a second public notice, I believe mid-2010,
and that occurred after private meetings between county staff and a
couple of people representing the Pelican Bay Foundation who
successfully argued that when Clam Pass is dredged larger to a larger
template there is -- what has commonly occurred is significant erosion
on the north shoreline of Clam Pass, as what we have experienced
after the 2007 over-dredging event.
And Coastal Construction Engineering plans are only one part of
consideration here. It cannot be considered isolation to the effect upon
the natural resources.
I gave all of you just kind of a brief summary of a person by the
name of Morgan Rees who has more than 20 years of experience with
the Army Corps of Engineers at the highest level'. He has been
wonderful in providing his advice and comments about what has been
occurring with the Clam Pass dredging permit.
And Commissioner Coyle, I would strongly refute what you have
to say about the efforts of Collier County staff and those -- the
challenges to that permit application. Collier County staff has been in
pursuit of a permit to over-dredge Clam Pass far beyond anything
Page 196
January 8-9, 2013
needed for the environmental needs of the preserve area.
That is the challenge that not just a few people have made. There
are over 2,500 signatures on a paper petition, over 400 on an on-line
petition and hundreds of emails and letters that have objected to a
permit that would authorize over-dredging of Clam Pass.
One thing last. If you dredge it for the purpose of safety, you
have to understand, this is the only pass in Collier County that is a
swimming beach, that has swimming beaches where people actually
recreate and play and are able to enjoy passive recreation inside the
pass. It's the only one. And when you over-dredge it to 80 feet wide
by five and a half feet deep or even 60 feet wide by five and a half feet
deep, you make it unsafe for passive recreation and the swimmers and
waders and even people fishing and so forth in those waterways.
So the original design by David Tackney was 40 feet by four, and
this modification I'm showing you was 30 feet by five and a half. Both
of them have a cross-section of less than 10 percent difference. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Marcia, I very much
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Marcia, I want to make sure
everybody understands that you're one of the reasons that this has
been delayed for a long, long --
MS. CRAVENS: No, sir, your staff is the reason, because they
have failed to work with conservation organizations who have
institutional knowledge and understand how important this preserve
area is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In fact, one of the things that's very
concerning, without Board direction staff actually sent a
communication to the Feds stating that the underlying management
plan was essentially void, that it had expired and should no longer be
considered in context of the permit application.
Well, nothing was and nothing is further from the truth. And
Page 197
January 8-9, 2013
needless to say, the environmental agencies were, as I understand,
very displeased by that communication that staff took of its own
initiative.
So those are some of the problems we have. But we're not
looking backwards. We're not looking backwards, we're moving
forwards.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes, we are. You just looked
back --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, we are. Because I do not want to go
down this road. The Board made the decision to transfer management
and I respect that. But, you know, I can't stand here and let those
statements be made. We came to this Board on several occasions to
get specific direction on the size of that cut.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: On decoupling -- on eliminating the
management plan?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, on --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's just focus on that.
MR. OCHS: May I answer --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Focus on that. Because that's what
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- you were addressing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please, Leo, finish. I'm sorry that
you're being interrupted.
MR. OCHS: The statement was made is that it took so long
because we didn't work with the environmental agencies on the
dimensions of the cut in the past. The fact is this -- the permit
application submitted to the state was identical to the template for the
dredge that was done successfully in 2007. The Board approved that
the last time we submitted this permit application.
So to represent that we were out there dreaming up our own
dimensions for the template for that dredge is patently untrue.
Page 198
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, that's not what I said.
MR. OCHS: In fact, when we get to this next item we'll have to
have some more discussion about --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: -- who makes that final decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Well, that's fine.
Well, Leo, just so you know, the permit that was submitted by
staff was different from the other permit. They were not the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I bet he can show us what they
really were.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can have our engineers do that
for us, and that could be part of their project, that could be part of their
scope.
So is there any further discussion? Let's just wait until
Commissioner Henning comes back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's sometimes perplexing
when everybody is always wrong. And, you know, no matter whether
they know it or not. But it's perplexing when they're always told no,
you're not right. Especially if--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Without any substantiating
evidence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody has an opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And everyone is entitled to their
opinion.
With there being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Page 199
January 8-9, 2013
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries -- Commissioner
Coyle, are you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I'm for it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you very much.
Item #10S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AGREEMENTS FOR
PLANNING, PERMITTING, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO CLAM PASS AND APPROVE ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — MOTION TO APPROVE THE USE
OF TDC RESERVE FUNDS (195) TO ESTABLISH FUNDING
FOR CLAM PASS DREDGING AND DETERMINING THAT IT
SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, next item is Item 10.S, and it's a
recommendation to approve agreements for planning, permitting and
engineering services related to Clam Pass, and approve associated
budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you're going to do budget
amendments you're going to have to pick the fund, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a -- we're not
sure what the fund is. But we're having fun discussing it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Having fun discussing the fund?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yet to be determined I guess my
motion is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the motion can be from TDC
Page 200
January 8-9, 2013
funds and in the alternative from the general fund?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. TDC fund's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we need to determine the
appropriate source.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask on this, as we're
talking about funding and along this same line, have we ever decided
yet how wide this cut is going to be?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not on the agenda right now.
That's not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But wouldn't that be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what we paid for?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, because their engineering
services are not a function of the width of the cut.
MR. OCHS: Well, I believe they are, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Part of the permitting process -- the only reason
we're going back to the well for permitting, as far as I can tell, is
because there's some contemplation of amending the permitting --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, yes, absolutely.
MR. OCHS: There were a template on the cut --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. But their engineering
services, what we actually pay them, is not a function. In other words,
we're not paying them more or less, depending on how much narrow --
MR. OCHS: Oh, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- or wider they make that cut. That
was just a clarification.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The previous engineers were paid
from what source?
MR. OCHS: TDC funds.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: From TDC.
Page 201
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And this is no different than that?
MR. OCHS: That's correct. That's why we recommended doing
a budget amendment of$110,000 from TDC reserves, to pay for these
services.
Commissioner Henning makes a good point. As we spoke earlier,
if the AG opinion is different, you know, we may have to go back and
make the TDC fund whole, if in fact it turns out that the state says we
can't use tourist development funds to perform inlet management work
consistent with the question that went to the AGO.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: But to keep this moving right now, I would
recommend that we continue the past practice and then make
modifications if we need to once we get the AGO.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that we recognize a valid
tourist purpose for the use of these TDC funds --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and that the budget amendment
be made from the TDC's funds, transferring it from Coastal Zone
Management to Pelican Bay Services Division.
Would you like to amend your motion accordingly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, accordingly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was the motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: To approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To approve. And that the funding
source be TDC funds, transferring the funds from Coastal Zone
Management to Pelican Bay Services Division, and that there be a
finding that this serves a valid purpose in promoting tourism.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I have a couple of
Page 202
January 8-9, 2013
questions here.
MR. OCHS: I want to make a technical correction on that. The
money is not being moved from Coastal Zone Management. Those
services are --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, forgive me --
MR. OCHS: -- in 195 TDC --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's being taken -- right.
MR. OCHS: -- out of reserves to a separate project --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, thank you.
MR. OCHS: -- in that fund.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks for the clarification, Leo,
you're correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So Leo, how much money have we
spent to do the planning, permitting and engineering services for the
permit that we previously had submitted?
MR. OCHS: Roughly $194,000, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're doing it again here by
approving this. How much of this is duplicative of what we've already
spent?
MR. OCHS: I believe roughly the $28,000 for the planning and
permitting work that -- the survey work would have to have been done
anyway due to the dynamic changes at the pass. And the engineering
work that's being considered here with Humiston and Moore includes
not only the construction drawings but construction management
services when we move into the actual construction. And we had not
gotten to that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the prior.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And actually, in the $28,000, part of
that is updating the management plan to support the new objective of
preservation from restoration, which has to be done. And that's
included in the 28. So that's not duplicative either. So it's less than
Page 203
January 8-9, 2013
that.
MR. OCHS: Well, we have a difference of opinion there,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So some of this is
duplicative of what we've already done.
Now, my other question, have we thought out the process? If the
engineers come back and say it's going to take an 80-foot cut, what are
you going to do? If they come back and say it's going to take a
60-foot cut, what are you going to do? Ms. Cravens is going to still be
up here badgering you about a 20-foot cut or 30-foot cut.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's inappropriate to say that she's
badgering us. It's her right as a constituent to express her position.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the question still stands, what
do you do then?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I think that's a good point and a
related point, I might add. And we'll have to address this with Neil and
his staff.
As I mentioned earlier, the state has already issued the permit at
the template that was the design template in 2007. Typically the state
and the feds like to be in synch, if you will, on these projects, and they
issue joint permits. So if the new application for the new permit
comes back with a different design template, we may be faced with
some redesign work from the state. We don't know that yet and that's
why Mr. Dorrill and his team I believe is going to go up on Thursday
and try to get some of those items sorted out.
But if we do have to come back and do a modification of the state
permit as well, there will be either some additional time that we have
to build into the schedule or some additional cost or both.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we look forward to hearing
what the engineers have to say after the meeting. Thank you,
Commissioner Coyle.
Page 204
January 8-9, 2013
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah. So then Leo, what you
just said was they're going to make the decision as to how wide the cut
is going to be.
MR. OCHS: I think -- I'm not saying that. That's a policy
decision for the Board. All I can tell you is that when we came to you
to seek this permit a few years ago, the Board directed us on what the
dimensions of that cut would be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I guess that somewhere along --
MR. OCHS: And we had a peer review -- Commissioner, I'm
sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
There was also a peer review done on that design template paid
for by the Pelican Bay Foundation, done by Olson and Associates, a
very reputable firm, and they concurred with the design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I think somewhere along
the line pretty quickly we ought to establish who's going to make the
decision as to what that cut is going to be, because I think you've got a
lot of differing opinions, and it will be hard for us to determine where
to go without the knowledge of who's going to be making that
decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think that's a very fair
question, Commissioner Fiala, and I think the appropriate way to
handle it is for the consulting engineers to give us a range and then for
us to make the decision as to what appears to be optimal within the
range that's being recommended. And then it ultimately will be up to
the Board of Commissioners to approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds reasonable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No one else should.
Commissioner Henning, would you like -- I'm not sure who was
first. Was it Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
Page 205
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just with reference to your last
remarks about the consulting engineering giving us some options or
range, I don't have any problem with that, and I'll support it. But I
would like to add that the consulting engineer should give us an
assessment of the consequences of choosing those options.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it's going to be very
interesting to me to see how long a dredge lasts. If it's 30 feet or 50
feet or 80 feet, which one would give us the best drainage water flow
in the Pass for the longest period of time so that we don't have to come
back and do this again next year.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's a very fair request and
I don't see any reason with --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I say yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we do have one public speaker
registered for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Marcia Cravens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MS. CRAVENS: Thank you again.
What I have here -- I don't know if you can enlarge that, Leo -- is
an email that I received from Merrie Beth Neely, Ph.D. with Florida
Department of Environmental Protection that was provided to me after
the permit application was submitted by Coastal Zone Management
Department, wherein she -- you can see the subject of that is Dredge
Limits Clam Pass.
I've underlined the relevant portion here. She confirmed and
clarified to me, the approved channel width between station 0+00 and
3+64, which is the entrance of Clam Pass, was 30 feet wide. Farther
Page 206
January 8-9, 2013
inland the channel widens and is variable in width.
What happened was your Coastal Zone Management Department
staff informed the public, informed the BCC and everyone that the
permit allowed dredging to 80 feet wide. They did that when they
dredged it in 2007. They were wrong. The DEP clarified exactly
what the permit indicated. And the 2009 permit application wrongly
referenced an 80-foot wide cut as having been permitted.
The problem with the permit application that was submitted by
Coastal Zone Management Department staff for Collier County is that
there are so many errors in this permit application as to make it a
fraudulent record.
I have been documenting the discrepancies of this to DEP -- I'm
sorry, not DEP but the Corps, NOAA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and even EPA over the past couple of months.
From item one of where it's located where it's supposed to
identify wetlands and special aquatic areas, which in the prior permit
that was identified, in this one it does not, all the way to -- all the way
throughout the permit application.
Importantly, items 33, A thru D, which were supposed to provide
environmental resource information completely misrepresented it.
Again, there are so many errors with this. To reactivate this
permit it would really have to be rewritten in order to meet the
requirements of being an accurate -- accurately representing the
resources, impacts and so forth.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please provide a copy of
this email to the court reporter and to the engineers?
MS. CRAVENS: Absolutely.
And back in 2008 I corresponded with Mark Strain, asking him
about NRPA, and I had just begun learning about this stuff. Mr. Strain
responded to me with the CCME policy and the LDC.
And the important thing to understand about NRPAs, and I
underlined it in his response to me, is that these lands generally should
Page 207
January 8-9, 2013
be the focus of federal/state/county acquisition efforts. Accordingly,
allowable land uses, so on and so forth, and listed species protection
criteria within NRPAs set forth herein are more restrictive than would
otherwise be permitted in the underlining zoning district and shall be
applicable in addition to any standards that apply in the underlining
zoning district.
That is not what has been occurring since 2008.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Marcia.
MS. CRAVENS: And thank you for trying to correct it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thanks.
Do we have any other speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, did you
make a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We had a second. I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we want to wait until
Commissioner Coyle comes back?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think he already said yes, though.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we have to wait. We'll wait.
We'll give it a minute to give him the opportunity to vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the next thing we're going
to discuss? I know we've got some people here --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a time certain. The next
item we have is a time certain regarding the RLSA amendments.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, Madam Chair, you also have a 4:30
time certain that we haven't gotten to yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, okay. So guess what? That's
what we're going to do next.
Page 208
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The 4:30 is -- which one is that?
MR. OCHS: Is Item 10.0, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that is the -- oh, the
substitution of counsel. Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I apologize to counsel that we ran
30 minutes over. Thanks for your indulgence, we appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just vote on this
item, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. There being no further
discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously with
Commissioner Coyle being absent.
Item #100
RECOMMENDATION THERE BE IMMEDIATE SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF STEPHEN J. FLETCHER VS
THOMAS C. CURRY AND THOMAS VERGO; THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE SERVICES OF THE
LAW FIRM RICHARD L. RICHARDS AND JASON GOLDSTEIN
IN THE REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS THOMAS C.
CURRY AND THOMAS VERGO; THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
BE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. CURRY AND MR.
VERGO IN LITIGATION BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY MR.
Page 209
January 8-9, 2013
STEPHEN J. FLETCHER AND FLETCHER FLYING SERVICES,
INC. (CURRENTLY PENDING IN COLLIER CIRCUIT COURT);
AND FOR A FULL ACCOUNTING OF ALL LEGAL COSTS IN
THIS MATTER PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR REVIEW AT THE NEXT BOARD
MEETING — MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED; COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE A FULL ACCOUNTING (AS
COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE) OF LEGAL COSTS AT THE NEXT
MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That does take us to
our 4:30 p.m. time certain, Item 10.0. It's a recommendation that
there be immediate substitution of counsel in the case of Stephen J.
Fletcher versus Thomas C. Curry and Thomas Vergo; that the county
immediately terminate the services of the law firm of Richard L.
Richards and Jason Goldstein in the representation of Defendants
Thomas C. Curry and Thomas Vergo, that the County Attorney be
appointed to represent Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo in the litigation
brought against them by Mr. Stephen J. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying
Services, Incorporated, currently pending in Collier Circuit Court, and
that a full accounting of all legal costs in this matter be presented to
the Board of County Commissioners for review at the next Board
meeting.
And this item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I just think this is consistent
with the direction that we've given our County Attorney, Mr.
Klatzkow, regarding taking the lead in our settlement negotiations so
that we can go ahead. And I believe we've already directed that
settlement negotiations be engaged on this case; is that correct, Mr.
Klatzkow?
Page 210
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: It's correct. But I was hoping we would get
to this item after the other items involving Mr. Curry. Because
depending upon how those went might impact this one.
I know that there is an item to reconsider Mr. Curry's
employment agreement. Depending upon the Board discussion, I may
have a conflict by representing Mr. Curry. I don't know. I just would
prefer that this item be after the other items.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let me make a suggestion.
We can handle this item, because that is what we directed. We made
it very clear that you would represent the Board in the settlement
discussions and that there would be no further action beyond the
motion to dismiss as a consequence.
So I think what we have here now can be acted on. And I would
like assurances that in your representation of Mr. Curry and Mr.
Vergo, you have limited yourself only to those matters specifically
relating to the litigation and nothing else.
MR. RICHARDS: I think we probably need to step back here
and --
MR. OCHS: For the record, please, identify yourself.
MR. RICHARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, my name is
Richard L. Richards of Richards and Associates.
This Commission did what is a normal practice when faced with
this type of situation, which is when your County Attorney as I
understand it has a potential conflict, he hired independent counsel.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we didn't hire the independent
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not what happened.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- counsel because of the conflict.
There was no conflict. And there --
MR. KLATZKOW: There was no conflict at that time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- is no conflict. And there's no
conflict at this time.
Page 211
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is there's no conflict at this
particular moment, but later on in this meeting or tomorrow there may
be a conflict.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we'll address that then. But as
of right now, from the date of the last meeting we agreed to two things
Number one, that you would handle the settlement negotiations, which
I hope you've been doing. And you mentioned to me that there was a
settlement that -- a settlement offer had been made. And the second
thing is that there was going to be no further legal work done on this
from the motion to dismiss forward.
And so I think, you know, under the circumstances that's what I
want reinforced here, to ensure that there is no legal work being done
by you since the motion to dismiss on this or any other matter for Mr.
Curry that we haven't approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, point of
order, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir, you may speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is in fact a fraudulent
executive summary.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it states things that are not
true.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why is that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It says that it was further made
clear that the law firm of Richard L. Richards would receive no further
compensation in regard to such settlement negotiations. And there in
fact was no statement that terminated the services of this lawyer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, that's what we're doing now.
What we said is that he would --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- not be involved in the settlement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me finish.
Page 212
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're trying to make this
retroactive to December the 13th, 2012. I have the minutes here. I'll
be happy to read those for, if you wish. You did not terminate this
contract at that point in time and you did not tell this lawyer that he
would not be paid for any services after December the 13th, 2012.
Furthermore, I believe that neither you nor this Board has
standing to make any decision relative to this lawyer except to stop
paying him the effective date of the decision by the Board of County
Commissioners, which can be no earlier than today.
So you have no standing to terminate this man and keep him
from representing the two employees. The only action this Board can
take is to say we will not pay you beyond this date if the Board votes
with a majority in the affirmative.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may, Commissioner Coyle, in
response to your remarks. First of all, at that last meeting what we
specifically provided was that Mr. Richards would no longer be
involved in any settlement negotiations. We were further told that the
last action in this case was a motion to dismiss and there wasn't going
to be anything beyond the motion to dismiss, because Mr. Klatzkow
was going to take over and initiate settlement negotiations. I don't
think it could be clearer.
Did you engage in settlement negotiations immediately after the
motion to dismiss was heard?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was there any other legal action
that could have or should have been taken subsequent to that motion
to dismiss hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: Other than the ongoing motion, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So there absolutely should be no
other activity. And that is what we said.
And so while I hear what you're saying, I disagree and I think the
Page 213
January 8-9, 2013
record speaks for itself.
So I don't know what you might have done for Mr. Curry, but
there was no business to be done, because the motion to dismiss was
heard and there wouldn't have been any further action until the judge
came back with a ruling. And in the meantime it was County
Attorney Klatzkow's responsibility to negotiate a settlement, because
that was the Board's direction.
So absolutely being compensated through the motion to dismiss
hearing is completely fair. But beyond that there shouldn't have been
any services rendered by you. If you're telling me there are, I'd like to
know what you did.
MR. RICHARDS: Well, again, if I may indulge. I think we
need to take a step back, because there's a difference between
representation of the county and representation of these two
individuals that I'm representing.
You know, I represent airports, I've represented towns and
government. I understand how the process works. And it is -- what
you have here is, in my opinion, and that's why -- I guess I'm surprised
that no one saw the potential conflict of interest. But, you know, in
this -- you know, in this lawsuit there's -- one of the allegations is a --
involves an incident on the airport in a vehicle. And I understand that
two of the commissioners here were in the vehicle with Fletcher
during that incident. That in and of itself rises to the level that there is
a potential conflict of interest. So certainly it made complete sense
that you would hire independent counsel to do this.
And another thing that you have done, and I think to your credit
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What is the allegation? What
exactly are you referring to? And actually, I'd like opposing counsel to
come to the podium and clarify this discussion and how this relates to
the lawsuit.
MR. RICHARDS: One of the allegations in the lawsuit is that
Page 214
January 8-9, 2013
Mr. Curry and Mr. Fletcher wrongfully revoked the driving privileges
based on an incident at the airport, where -- going 45 miles an hour in
a 15 and wouldn't pull over. And so with that, you know, certainly I
think the two commissioners are going to be witnesses in the case,
potentially.
So that's why it made complete sense. And it also makes
complete sense that you have a professional staff led by Mr. Curry
who is representing you here. Because I have seen airports who do
not. And I will tell you, they don't have -- you know, I understand that
this Marco Island taxiway project, you got the General Aviation
Project of the Year. I mean, that's good stuff. And so -- and there's a
whole laundry list of stuff that I see that he's done that's very positive
for the community. He's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that have to do with --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, what does that have to do
with the litigation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's not interrupt the gentleman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- with Mr. Fletcher?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let him talk.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on, you're not running this
meeting, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He needs to sign up as a speaker
MR. RICHARDS: I did sign up.
MR. MILLER: He is signed up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, and he has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But didn't we ask him to come up?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I asked him to come up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I thought so.
MR. RICHARDS: I mean, we have to recognize that you have a
Page 215
January 8-9, 2013
valuable person here, and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, sir, can you please stick
to the litigation?
MR. RICHARDS: I am sticking to the litigation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're not. We're talking about
specifically the allegations in this case, not his personal value or
contribution to the county with respect to other projects. That's not
what's at issue here.
MR. RICHARDS: And what I'm -- the point that I'm going to
make is that people like that, it makes complete sense to hire
independent counsel and have them defend it. And what you're doing
now is if you terminate -- I think your goal is well, we'll just terminate
the law firm. But the County Attorney isn't going to be able to
represent them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're in the middle of settlement
negotiations.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right, just to get back on track, it's a
very narrow executive summary, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is.
MR. KLATZKOW: And a very narrow issue. And the issue is
whether or not you want to terminate this law firm's representation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. KLATZKOW: And all I'm saying is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Second.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- at this point in time I do not have a
conflict. That could change.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct. And we'll deal with it if
there is a conflict that arises. But as of right now there isn't.
Could you please address the comment made by the attorney
with respect to driving on the airport and how that in any way would
create a conflict with respect to this case.
MR. REAGAN: Thank you. Kelly Reagan, Law Offices of
Page 216
January 8-9, 2013
Kelly Reagan, PA. Thank you, Commissioners.
The allegation of the amended complaint with respect to the
driving focuses on the -- what we believed and alleged to have been an
improper revocation of Mr. Fletcher's driving privileges based on
mere fiat, mere action without any due process rights to Mr. Fletcher
on behalf of Mr. Curry.
There's certainly no focus in the complaint with respect to actions
of then non-Commission members or Commission members. It's
simply the facts are set forth that Mr. Fletcher was a passenger in the
automobile, that he wasn't driving. But again, the focus of the
allegation was the revocation of his driving privileges.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, as of this moment I do not
feel I have a conflict.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good. So we have a motion, we
have a second. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, wait.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right, go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call the motion.
MR. RICHARDS: I have some more I'd like to talk for the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, there's been a request to
call the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We haven't even --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- been able to talk yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- and Nance haven't spoken yet.
Can I give them the opportunity?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we could stay focused on the
topic.
Page 217
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Then let's stay -- okay, go
ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I wanted to know, you had
mentioned a couple of times you don't have a conflict. Are -- excuse
me, go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm listening. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Steve Fletcher is suing us and suing
him?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just suing them, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then how can you represent them?
MR. KLATZKOW: At this moment in time, and when I came to
the Board, when they hired this law firm I gave the Board the option
that the County Attorney's Office represent the employees or you go
outside. At that time it was the majority of the will of the Board to go
outside. Which is customary, and that's fine.
But at this moment in time I do not have a conflict. What I'm
telling this Board is that there are a couple of items on this agenda that
may change them. But if all we're talking about is settlement --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's all we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I believe that what we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we're talking about settlement.
We're talking about firing the attorney for two employees, that's what
we're talking about.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're not. We're substituting
counsel. We have a substitution of counsel, we're substituting the
County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think when we have voted --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have voted --
Page 218
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on it to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- substitute counsel for two
employees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we do, because we're actually
using taxpayer dollars to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you please give me your --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- fund them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- opinion on that issue?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on, Commissioner Coyle,
you're out of order. It's not your turn to speak.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right, he can carry on.
I was just going to ask this gentleman the same thing, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Coyle, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you answer my question?
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, if I may, the -- what you have here is
they are my clients at this point. And just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then they can pay you.
MR. RICHARDS: What?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then they can pay you. I mean, for
as long as we're paying, we can direct who the funds should go to.
MR. RICHARDS: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so to that extent we're saying
the funds will be retained by the taxpayer and the County Attorney
will provide his services in the settlement. If Mr. Curry wants to pay
you additionally, then that is up to Mr. Curry. But your representation
as far as compensation goes by the Board, based on this motion, is that
taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund you, since we have in-house
counsel who can do the job.
MR. RICHARDS: I have a couple of points I'd like to make.
The first one is, is that you can't direct a substitution. You can -- you
Page 219
January 8-9, 2013
know, I can continue to represent --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. RICHARDS: -- them in a lawsuit.
And furthermore, you know, just because -- you know, there are
things that happen in litigation that, you know, that are obviously
attorney-client privilege things that you can't direct either. Because
it's my representation of my client.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. RICHARDS: And with that, I think we have to recognize
too that the county is certainly a potential defendant in this action, and
certainly is with -- just by that, virtue of that, the county has a -- I
think the county has a conflict. I think the County Attorney can't
represent them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, then I think we absolutely
should not be paying for you at all. So, I mean, you're welcome to
represent Mr. Curry, but not using county tax dollars. So you can
continue representing them, but then we won't -- and if he has a
conflict we'll get an attorney to represent us who doesn't. But we will
not use tax dollars to pay you to represent him.
MR. RICHARDS: You might use the tax dollars again. But the
point is is -- that I would like to make as well is you are now basically
interfering with representation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're not.
MR. RICHARDS: Yes, you are. You're directing things to
happen in the course of litigation and you are -- you're interfering with
-- you know, you say we'll get you an attorney and now you're
revoking that, or attempting to revoke that. And what --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With justification.
MR. RICHARDS: -- that is going to do is that is going to show
every other employee that you have that we might get you an attorney
but then we might revoke it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, and that's not true. Because
Page 220
January 8-9, 2013
what we have is a County Attorney who's fully capable of negotiating
the settlement. And your skills are not necessary. Tax dollars do not
have to be used to pay for your services.
Now, Mr. Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: (Shakes head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one final question of this
attorney.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you think that if this attorney
continued to represent the two employees that they wouldn't call
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Nance to be deposed for the
suit?
MR. REAGAN: With all due respect, Commissioner, I have no
idea and cannot give an opinion of what another attorney might do.
All I can say is that on behalf of Mr. Fletcher that we understood the
agenda to be put forward at this meeting. At that time I immediately
contacted Mr. Richards' office in attempt to continue the December
18th hearing to save cost, expense and time for both sides in light of
what that proposed action was. That proposal was refused on behalf
of Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo.
I then filed immediately a motion to continue, making my point
to the court, which I thought it was in the interest of all parties to
continue that so we could have a fruitful settlement negotiation
without casing the county or my client to expend anymore fees.
The court heard that motion. It was opposed in court. Mr.
Richards wasn't there. His colleague, Mr. Goldstein attended on behalf
of Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo. The court denied that motion. We went
forward.
Thereafter, after the hearing I was served -- and this is to address
Chairwoman Hiller's question about if anything was done on behalf of
Page 221
January 8-9, 2013
Mr. Curry or Mr. Vergo post the December 18 hearing.
At that point I received after that hearing a service of a fact
witness list on behalf of Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo.
In response to that I again contacted Mr. Richards and suggested
that we agree to a stay and abatement of any further action in the case
pending the action here today. That was also refused.
So all I can say on behalf of Mr. Fletcher and his company is he
remains willing and would like to work to resolve this matter. I
believe hopefully we can. I have had some discussions with Mr.
Klatzkow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you actually talked with
Commissioner Hiller?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. REAGAN: I did not say that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understood you to say that.
MR. REAGAN: Well you misunderstood me, sir, I did not say
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. REAGAN: I said after learning of this agenda item, after
reading the public posting --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not to me.
MR. REAGAN: -- of the agenda. I did not speak with --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He didn't talk to me.
MR. REAGAN: I have not spoke with Commissioner Hiller at --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At any point in time ever?
MR. REAGAN: I have -- at any time with respect to this case,
no. In the past prior to this? Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I would like to just --
MR. REAGAN: Before she was a Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to read a brief
extract from the minutes.
Commissioner Hiller is talking about a settlement discussion:
Page 222
January 8-9, 2013
This is the best time. 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.
Attorney Richards: We will start settlement negotiations and
raise it to mediation and continue on.
Chairman Hiller: And hopefully you will take a fair approach in
everybody's best interest. Thank you.
And the motion passes 3-2.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's not correct because then
we came back afterwards when you were not here to clarify that that
was not the intent. And you were absent, you left early the second
day, and you haven't pulled those second set of minutes. And in those
second set of minutes we clarified unequivocally that the settlement
negotiation was going to be conducted solely by County Attorney
Klatzkow. So just so you understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did not take another vote; you
did not advertise that particular portion of the hearing; you did not let
anybody know it was going to be heard; you did it at a point in time
where you merely discussed it; and you did it in a way that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't think that's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that particularly mirrors the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- attempt to misconvey --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the facts in your executive
summary.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're absolutely wrong.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your executive summary is
absolutely and completely wrong.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're incorrect. Okay --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have actually three registered
public speakers on this item.
Page 223
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. Let the public speakers speak
and then I'm going to call the question.
MR. MILLER: The first public speaker is Steve Fletcher,
followed by Kelly Reagan.
MR. FLETCHER: I'm not going to speak. Kelly Reagan can use
my time.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Fletcher waives to Mr. Reagan.
MR. REAGAN: I have nothing further to say, unless the
Commission has further questions.
MR. MILLER: The last registered speaker was Mr. Richards.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, he's taken his time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want to speak again, Mr.
Richards?
MR. RICHARDS: I will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to be done by the Chair.
The Chair runs the meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, but you have already
taken your time and you came up and you spoke. So I think we're
done at this point. But thank you.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, no one else is speaking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my item on the agenda.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Hold on. As a matter of fact, if I may,
Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am speaking, sir.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my item on the agenda at
the last meeting. The title said direct the County Attorney to negotiate
the settlement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's correct.
Page 224
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was an assumption by
that man, he was going to do it. I clarified it when Commissioner
Coyle was not there during, you know, County Commissioners
comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the executive summary was
clear. And I was just stating the clarity of the executive summary.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is correct.
Sir, are you registered as a speaker?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, I'm listed as Jason Goldstein on the
form.
MR. MILLER: When the form was submitted, Mr. Goldstein
suggested that either he or Mr. Richards, one or the other, they were
both listed on the same speaker sheet, would speak on this item.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: However, Madam Chair, with respect to this
item, because it was special set, my understanding was Mr. Richards
would be given a separate opportunity to speak, that's why I listed my
name on this one. I understand with Items 10K and 10L I may have
misinterpreted that it would have been either/or. But with respect to
this item, I ask for a few moments to speak, if I may. And I do
apologize to the vice chair for interrupting. I did not mean to do so.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please, go ahead.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay, I just wanted to bring some points of
clarification.
With respect to what was proffered by opposing counsel, counsel
for Fletcher, with respect to the work performed after the hearing on
the motion to dismiss, I think it's worth noting that the witness list we
provided is per court order. We had a joint scheduling agreement, so
we were required to provide that.
Secondly, I think what's important to note here is that there needs
to be an understanding that the Board can certainly terminate payment
for our services, but it cannot terminate our representation of Mr.
Page 225
January 8-9, 2013
Curry and Mr. Vergo.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's no question.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: And further to that point, settlement
negotiations, whatever settlement negotiations the county chooses to
enter into with Mr. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying Services, the
plaintiffs in this action, it does so on its own accord. However, it
cannot settle the matter. The only parties that can settle the matter
would be Mr. Vergo and Mr. Curry. They would have to be the
signatories. This Board can't coerce our clients to enter a settlement
agreement.
The Board, in its divine providence, can certainly ask the County
Attorney to engage in settlement negotiations, but cannot insist that a
settlement take place. So for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- those reasons I caution the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I think you're absolutely right.
And I don't disagree with you. And our direction was to allow Mr.
Klatzkow to help Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo achieve a settlement with
the Fletchers, in light of the fact that the direction of the Board was
not to compensate you to negotiate that. So we were actually looking
out for Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo's interests by allowing Mr. Klatzkow
to assist. Because Mr. Klatzkow's a very good attorney.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: And Madam Chair, I certainly respect your
position. And that would all bear true. However, there's only one
point that really arises in this litigation that really gives me pause as
counsel. And what it is, is right now we're at the phase of motion to
dismiss. Just so we understand, and this is all public record, the first
complaint that was initially filed with Mr. Fletcher was dismissed
upon agreement of myself and opposing counsel.
The second complaint merely mirrored the first and it's up now
before the magistrate in this county for consideration for reporter
recommendation, but as you know, Madam Chair, as an attorney, will
Page 226
January 8-9, 2013
go to the judge for the judge's signature.
That being said, it seems rather bizarre that at this juncture of
litigation that we would encourage a settlement, when quite frankly in
my opinion as counsel, and I understand I am biased in my
representation, but truly as objective as I can be at this juncture of
litigation it would seem frankly ludicrous to enter into a settlement
agreement when the circumstances are such that they're greatly in
favor of Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo.
Should we go forward and permit the county attorney to enter
into a settlement at this juncture, we're frankly sending a message to
the citizens of this county that if they want to file a sham lawsuit
against this county, that they'll be able to effectuate their purpose upon
the Board via such lawsuits, and that is not the proper use of justice.
So I ask this Board to seriously reconsider its position with
respect to terminating our services and representation of Mr. Curry
and Mr. Virago. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak, by the
way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You did it very well. Let me just
answer or comment on your last remark.
Unfortunately your comment right now is contradictory to your
partner's comments at the last meeting. So while I appreciate your
position can be different than his, it is.
Would you like to comment in light of the fact that we have
given them more time? It would only be fair.
MR. REAGAN: Thank you, Chair. Very briefly.
It's not a sham allegation, sham lawsuit. I think Mr. Goldstein,
and I heard Mr. Richards say this at the last meeting from the minutes,
respectfully, their position is contrary to the vast weight of Florida
law. I think it would be exceedingly unlikely that a Florida court
would grant a motion to dismiss with prejudice of this complaint at
this time, and even less likely that any such order that would be issued
would be upheld on appeal.
Page 227
January 8-9, 2013
So I take great strength in our position and to contradict
respectfully Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Richards, and I don't think their
position is legally correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: And Madam Chair, we did actually --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think we're done at this point.
Thank you.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay, thank you for the opportunity. I
appreciate it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion, is
there any other public speaker or are we done?
MR. MILLER: That is all, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2, Commissioners
Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
I think one clarification. The full accounting of the legal costs in
this matter to be presented to the Board, I want to make sure that they
understand that that has to be presented at the next Board meeting.
The costs for the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, the costs flow through my
office. What I will do is I will -- when they come in, because there's
usually a period of time, I will get that to the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we -- the motion includes that
it be presented at the next Board meeting. And I just want to make
sure that that's clear on the record.
Page 228
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that I'll have the final invoice
by then, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That will be plenty of time. That
would be what, two weeks away? I mean, they should be --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not the one who issues the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- invoice.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to move for your
5:00 p.m. time certain here?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
Item #10Q
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PRESENT A
DETAILED REVIEW OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE
RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) PROPOSED
AMENDMENT PACKAGE TO INCLUDE BUT NOT BE
LIMITED TO: DEVELOPMENT OF DATA AND ANALYSIS,
PEER REVIEW, FUNDING WORK BY CONSULTANTS,
FUNDING WORK BY COUNTY STAFF, FISCAL IMPACT OF
COMPLETION OF THE AMENDMENT PACKAGE, ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS OF CREDIT AND ACREAGE RELATIONSHIP,
SPECIFIC TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, VERIFICATION AND STUDY,
AND PROJECTED SHORT AND LONG RANGE FISCAL
IMPACT OF AMENDMENT RELATED GMP MODIFICATIONS,
COORDINATION WITH RELATED LONG RANGE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLANS. TO FURTHER DETERMINE HOW TO
PROCEED WITH THE RLSA AMENDMENT PACKAGE
INCLUDING THE OPTION TO DELAY THE AMENDMENT
PACKAGE INDEFINITELY — MOTION TO SUSPEND
AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
Page 229
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Item 10.Q on the agenda. It's a recommendation to
direct staff to present a detailed review of the current status of the
rural land stewardship area proposed amendment package to include
but not be limited to development of data and analysis, peer review,
funding of work by consultants, funding of work by county staff,
fiscal impact of completion of the amendment package, economic
analysis of credit and acreage relationship, specific traffic analysis,
verification and study, and projected short and long-range fiscal
impact of the amendment related GMP modifications, coordination
with related long-range growth management plans to further determine
how to proceed with the RLSA amendment package, including the
option to delay the amendment package indefinitely.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Nance.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, you have 15 registered public
speakers for this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want you to know we are not
going to be able to hear all the public speakers, nor will we finish this
item. This meeting will terminate at 6:00 this evening.
MR. MILLER: Did you want me to call public speakers now?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're going to allow -- this is
Commissioner Nance's item, so we're going to allow him to bring it
forward.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Members of the Board, ladies and
gentlemen, I'm making a recommendation to direct staff to present a
detailed review of where we are with this amendment package for the
simple reason that if you go back as far as the minutes of April 21st,
2009 you will find some interesting and kind of contradictory
approaches by the Board of County Commissioners as to how these
amendments were to be developed and how they were going to be
brought forward and finalized going forward.
Basically what I'm asking staff to do is to go through here so that
we can properly determine at this motion where we are with the
Page 230
January 8-9, 2013
amendment package and who precisely is doing what sort of work and
what sort of data and analysis we are relying on so that we can make
some determinations on what we should do going forward.
The basis of this recommendation today is not to review it at this
time, but to take this -- take the details of this up and actually hear
public opinion and input at a time when that analysis would be
presented so that everybody can determine and comment on where we
actually are and what the prudent steps that the Board should consider
taking going forward.
It's a very complicated set of amendments, it lays the groundwork
for following up for GMP modifications that are extensive, and it's
going into a period of time when our economy is vastly different than
it was five years ago when some of this data was first arrived at.
So I think it's only proper at this time when we're considering
taking action during a period of time when we do not have any staff
oversight, we no longer have Tallahassee looking over our shoulder.
The Office of Economic Opportunity pretty much approves what we
send forward. We don't have the Department of Community Affairs.
And this Board itself has opined on the need for peer review. As a
matter of fact, we just went through an exercise where we accepted
$90,000 that staff suggested we needed for a peer review from The
Conservancy, turned around and went through some requests for a
proposal that were unsuccessful, ended up turning the money back to
The Conservancy and refunding their generous offer. And now I
understand that there's some discussion about well, we never needed
the money to begin with.
So I want to clear up this confusion. I think this is a very, very
large and complex entity that we have in the eastern part of Collier
County, it's got a good deal of autonomy, but we need to establish
what our relationships are. And I think a workshop and review to
understand that is appropriate at this moment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 231
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm just -- I'm supportive. I'd
just like to know what it is you want to do. You want to put it on an
agenda in the future? You want to have a workshop? Or you just
want to have the staff come back and give us a presentation on --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I wanted to open it for
discussion. What do you -- I mean, you've been working on this a lot
longer than I have, Commissioner Coyle. What do you think is
appropriate at this time? Surely you recognize what I say is -- some of
that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, first of all, I think our
requirements for doing this kind of assessment is not very well drawn
up. And I don't think that it provides a good method for quantitatively
measuring the effects of the process which we've created there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I agree with you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so -- but I can't tell you that
I've got a solution to that. And my recommendation would be that we
ask staff to bring to us alternatives or recommendations about how we
deal with that.
Now, we've already said to staff, you need to go to our ordinance
and clarify the requirements. Take out all the stuff that is subjective,
the requirements to look into the crystal ball for the next 20 to 30
years, which induces a lot of inaccuracy concerning these kinds of
processes.
But in any event, what I would like to do is have the staff bring
us -- consolidate the details, come to us, lay out some alternatives, and
then we can question them about that and then we can try to arrive at
some consensus on which alternative we take.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I agree with you, sir, but I
think we need to take -- we need to understand who's doing what and
what it is that remains to be done and decide how we're going to go
forward. And I think it takes a fairly wide discussion to do that,
certainly beyond the scope of this agenda item today.
Page 232
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's clear in the minutes,
and thank you for providing that, in 2009 Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Halas, his motion is, is the landowner is going to pay
for this. And now we have gone, you know, 180 degrees, or 360, that
the taxpayers will pay for it.
And I've always had a concern why are we doing this. We're not
seeing any pressure on growth, we're not seeing any threat on
threatened endangered species. I'm not sure it's time to do it. Because
analysis -- the data and analysis needs to be updated for the
requirement to do any changes to the RLSA. Okay, that's my
comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
any thoughts?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a simple thought and that
is I don't think we're ready to even make any decisions on this subject
at this time. I think there's so much more work to be done. And it's
not like something's waiting out there waiting to get into this thing.
There's plenty more time.
So I would like to put this on the back burner, let people think it
through, see what's good for the community. We -- and then discuss it
amongst themselves and bring it back at another time, even if it's a
year or two, you know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I understand what you're saying,
Commissioner Fiala, just to boil it down, this refers to the last
sentence of Commissioner Nance's summary. Instead of doing all of
this more work upon more work, based on what Commissioner
Henning has said, what you're suggesting is that we simply table this
amendment package and delay it indefinitely and let the community
come back to us with a recommendation for some direction --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 233
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- given that those landowners are
not paying for this work at this time.
It seems that based on what Commissioner Henning has said,
Commissioner Fiala's recommendation seems very reasonable and
certainly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could support that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So the motion is to suspend
the RLSA amendments being proposed indefinitely without any
further work to be done by staff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then, you know, let the
community engage. And when you get feedback and we all get
feedback on this, then decide what the next step ought to be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So we have a motion, we
have a second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I can agree with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who was the second on
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was Commissioner Fiala
made the motion, Commissioner Henning made the second.
Can we begin hearing the public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your first public speaker -- and if
we could please use both podiums and be ready at the second podium.
Your first speaker is Patty Whitehead, and she'll be followed by
Carl Veaux.
MS. WHITEHEAD: Good afternoon, almost evening,
Page 234
January 8-9, 2013
Commissioners. My name is Patty Whitehead. I represent the Sierra
Club Calusa Group in Southwest Florida, and also the Responsible
Growth Management Coalition of Southwest Florida.
And I am deeply concerned about any changes to the RLSA, as it
will impact panthers. Just a few comments here. Eastern Collier
County has been identified as part of an imperiled ecosystem due to an
88 percent loss of habitat between the year 1900 and 1989.
The wetland heights found in Southwest Florida, hydrate pine
flatland support 31 mammals, 139 birds, 40 reptiles, 17 amphibian
species and 22 fish species, including 10 federally listed species.
Additionally, habitat loss due to fragmentation, including
infrastructure, roads, in other words, setting out any kind of
development in those far-flung rural areas, is going to have the
greatest threat to the panther survival.
The Florida mor -- the Florida panther mortality database through
October 13th, 2008 contains 122 road recorded kills of panthers
range-wide, and 29 of these occurred within the Rural Land
Stewardship Area. So we're talking about 2008, which was the depth
of the recession when economic activity and certainly commercial
traffic in that area were probably the most de minimis in the last 10
years, I would say.
You know, what we're dealing with, it's a direct competition
between humans and panthers out there. It violates a fundamental
tenant of ecology which is known as exploitive competition in that no
two competing species can coexist by exploiting exactly the same
resource. That would be land area.
This is called the competitive exclusion principle. The species
that wins in an exploitive competition system is the one that consumes
the resources the quickest or draws it down to levels where individuals
of the other species can no longer meet their food, reproductive and
sustenance requirements. That's exactly what's occurring. We need no
more development in the RSLA.
Page 235
January 8-9, 2013
Those conclude my comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Carl Veaux. He'll be
followed by Matthew -- forgive me here -- Schwartz? I was close.
MR. VEAUX: Hi. I'm Carl Veaux with the Responsible Growth
Management Coalition and the Sierra Club.
And I say briefly that we have 40 kittens this year, and where are
they going to go? Are you going to let them grow and multiply or are
we going to take away the land and let them perish and become
extinct? I know that probably in Lee County they will become extinct
the way they're going.
But Collier County is our only hope. Because they are not north
of the river. There's been no report of anybody seeing them north of
the river so far.
So it's up to you people to see that your children and
grandchildren have the panther and remember that the panther was
elected by the children and the schools of Florida as our state symbol
of an animal. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matthew Schwartz. He'll
be followed by Roy Ault.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, Commissioners. The last time I
was here was in 2009 when this amendment or when this RLSA was
voted on. I recognize three faces and two new ones, and I'm glad to be
here. I come from the east side of the state. So I'm representing a
group called South Florida Wild Lands Association.
And why am I here? Why is somebody based in Fort Lauderdale
here in Collier County to deal with this issue? And I think you can
see from the large number of people who come to talk on this issue
and how much passion it engages. And that's because Collier County
is actually a very special place. And it's special because of the public
lands. It's special because of the Picayune, and the Fakahatchee. I
just read an article yesterday, they called it again, it's the Amazon of
Page 236
January 8-9, 2013
North America.
The Big Cypress National Preserve, the bulk of which is all in
Collier County, is in a piece of Everglades National Park, first
biological park in our nation's history here in Collier County.
Big Cypress alone, NPS statistics, 941,393 people visited in
2011. Those people ate at your restaurants, they stayed in your hotels,
they had their dogs groomed here when they were visiting. Very few
of them were from Collier -- I mean, some were in Collier County, but
a lot of people come from outside.
These public lands, by the way, they cost you nothing. They cost
you absolutely nothing. And they bring tremendous amount of tourism
to this area. Ecotourism has a huge potential. And actual not potential,
actuality in Collier County.
But it's not all wealth. In 2007 National Geographic did a
destination scorecard of national park destinations. Unfortunately Big
Cypress/Everglades National Park taken as a unit, they're connected,
was voted dead last. And a big part of the reason, yes, it was the
quality of the water entering Everglades National Park, but part of it
was the quality of the gateway community. I'm going to quote a line
from there: Rapid development on all sides has created an unpleasant,
unattractive gateway in one of the planet's unique places.
The RLSA borders both the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge, it borders the Big Cypress National Preserve. This is a
treasure that Collier County has.
I'm in Fort Lauderdale. I do all of my outdoor work in Collier
County in the Big Cypress and the Fakahatchee. I'm putting together
an outings program for South Florida Wild Lands Association. We're
coming to your county to do those outings.
All the Broward Audubon societies, Florida Audubon societies,
they're all coming to Collier. You're a special place.
But unlike public lands that don't cost you anything, residential
development in this area costs you a lot. And I have here -- I'm going
Page 237
January 8-9, 2013
to have to send you some stuff by email, because my time is running
out. This is a fact sheet from the American Farmland Trust. And what
they do are these cost of community services studies where they
actually analyze in a given community how much money comes in
from residential land versus public land or versus undeveloped land,
working land, agricultural land.
Their summary: Basically for every dollar that a farm pays you
in taxes, they take out, they use 36 cents. Residential for every dollar
they pay you in taxes, they use $1.16. Those are real numbers. That's
nationwide studies.
Every time you take rural land, turn it into residential property,
it's a loss for the county. You do take in more taxes, you're spending
more in services.
I would say recommend delaying or scrapping this amendment
package. There's a lot of bad stuff in there that's coming to the floor.
Thanks very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Roy Ault. He'll be
followed by Michael Seef.
MR. AULT: Yes, my name is Roy Ault. I don't know if you
remember what I say when you get around to voting on this a year or
two from now or however long it takes you, but I live in Englewood,
Florida, which is located in the far south of Sarasota County. I have
been a member of the Sierra Club since 1987 and a past chairman of
the Manatee Sarasota Club.
I'm here to speak for the dumb who cannot. I'm referring to the
wildlife of this state, and particularly Collier County.
When I came to Englewood in 1979, there was one red light.
Now there are seven. In 1979 we had quail. Now we have Quails
Run. In 1979 we had bobcats. Now we have Bobcat Trail. In 1979
we had herons. Now we have Heron Apartments.
Just as our nation of 300 million can barely suffer 1,000 wild
grizzly bears, the State of Florida with 20 million people can barely
Page 238
January 8-9, 2013
suffer 100 panthers. If the people of Florida, particularly the leaders
of this state, continue on the path they have set for the state and this
county, in a few short years the Florida panther will be exterminated.
And speaking for those who cannot, I urge you Commissioners to
vote no on the amendments to the Rural Land Stewardship Area Plan.
If you do not, you will have a great deal of habitat for humans and
none for the panther. And people will be living on Panther Lane but
there will be no panther.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak for the wild.
And again, I urge a no vote on these amendments when you get
around to it. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we can stay on track.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. What amendments are we
talking about? There are no amendments under consideration. How
can you say they're bad when we don't even have any amendment?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, he said down the road a couple
of years when they come back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, that's what he said.
MR. AULT: When you get around to it in a couple of years.
You indicated it would be a year or two before you got to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you already know what the
amendments are going to be so you can say they're bad; is that right?
MR. AULT: That's my understanding, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- just wanted to understand,
because I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we can get some guidance --
Page 239
January 8-9, 2013
if we can get guidance from the speakers, we might be able to vote on
this before 6:00.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are going to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would be are you in
favor of the motion or are you opposed to the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And I think if you can just
state who you're with, in other words, who you're represent-- who you
are and who you represent and whether you are for or against the
motion. And the motion again is to indefinitely continue the RLSA
amendment package that's being proposed at this time.
MR. MILLER: Your next registered public speaker is Michael
Seef. He'll be followed by Josephine DeVincenzi.
MR. SEEF: Commissioners, Commissioner Hiller. First of all,
Commissioner, I want to -- I was going to say something about the
population growth and the lack thereof and the effect of a lot of things,
but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We really don't have time.
MR. SEEF: I understand. And I support tabling this indefinitely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And who do you
represent?
MR. SEEF: I represent myself. Thank you. Michael Seef.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker, Josephine
DeVincenzi. She'll be followed by Susan Calkins.
I don't see Ms. DeVincenzi.
Susan Calkins?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: She's
not here.
MR. OCHS: Absent.
MR. MILLER: Alexis Meyer. She'll be followed by Kathleen
Donahue.
MS. MEYER: Thank you, Commissioners, for taking the time to
Page 240
January 8-9, 2013
vote on this. I'm Alexis Meyer. I represent the Sierra Club. I'm their
associate representative for the Florida Panther Campaign. And the
Sierra Club supports the tabling indefinitely of this motion. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Donahue?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. And instead your next speaker will be
Marcia Cravens, and she will be followed by Deborah Arnason.
MS. CRAVENS: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for your
motion.
As co-conservation chair of the Sierra Calusa Group, I strongly
support your motion. And as a permanent full-time resident of Collier
County who dearly values the resources and the species that we still
have here, again, I thank you for your motion and strongly support it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Deborah Arnason.
She'll be followed by Andrew McElwaine.
MS. ARNASON: Hi. I'm Deborah Arnason. I live in Alva; I
used to live in Naples. I love the Florida environment, what's left of it.
I've been here all day, almost as long as --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please limit your discussion to
whether you support or don't support the motion.
MS. ARNASON: I don't know. I am so totally confused. I've
been here all day long --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, let me just --
MS. ARNASON: -- so tell what am I voting -- what are you
voting on?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're voting to indefinitely
continue, in other words, delay any further discussion indefinitely on
these RLSA amendments.
MS. ARNASON: Okay, are they in effect now?
Page 241
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not the amendments.
MS. ARNASON: Okay. And what is the present -- the present
status is that we are leaving them for the panthers and that's the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Whatever exists now is what's going
to be maintained.
MS. ARNASON: Good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So in that case you support the
motion?
MS. ARNASON: I definitely support the motion. Thank you
very much. And thank you for hearing me --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. ARNASON: -- after all these hours.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Andrew McElwaine. He'll
be followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. McELWAINE: Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy of
Southwest Florida. Thank you for the motion. Support it. Good
night, God bless.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Brad Cornell will be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Andrew, can we use you as a model
for all public speaking? That was well done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll be calling you for more
money, so --
MR. MILLER: Brad Cornell will be followed by your final
speaker, Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, Brad.
MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society
and Audubon Florida, and I do not support the motion and I have
some very strong reasons why I don't.
I sat on the 5-year review committee for a year and a half.
Page 242
January 8-9, 2013
We very carefully crafted recommendations and talked about the data
and analysis that go into those recommendations. Now I understand
that there may be misunderstanding or disagreement about any of the
specifics about the specific Growth Management Plan amendments,
but you need to look at what the review report said. Essentially we
have a really landmark program that was a response to a 1999 final
order that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you stay focused on the
amendments?
MR. CORNELL: Well the amendments arise out of a Governor's
order in 1999 to better protect rural resources and agriculture on
300,000 acres. The Rural Land Stewardship Program does that.
We have protected over 50,000 acres already, but you have problems.
The program as it stands now would allow for almost 90,000 acres of
development. As it stands now. And that's because of one unit per
five acres base zoning that you have out there in all rural areas of
Collier County. That's a problem. So these amendments address that
to reduce that amount to 45,000 acres instead of 90,000. And it will
be less than that.
You also need to restore panther corridors. If you do away with
these amendments, we don't have any incentives to restore or buy or
create panther corridors. There are two really vital ones. And if we do
away with these amendments, you lose them. So I think those are
really important. Audubon supports those. We helped write those
amendments.
And also you need to better incentivize protection of agriculture.
That's a big part of that mosaic of landscape out there for panthers.
And that's an amendment that is vital.
And one other thing I'll point out is that we changed the credit
consumption rate from eight units per acre to 10 units per acre to use
them up faster, so that cap of 404,000 credits gets consumed faster. If
you do away with these amendments you'll lose that higher
Page 243
January 8-9, 2013
consumption rate.
We think that there are some really useful amendments that you
need to consider that are very important from Audubon's perspective,
very important for Florida panthers, wood storks, wetlands and
habitat. And I would be very disappointed to see this dismissed or put
off.
And I would make one other point and that is that if the motion
does get approved, you have not identified any way for the
community to come to some sort of consensus.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What we'll do is we'll allow
Commissioner Nance at a future meeting to make a recommendation
of, you know, how suggestions like that can be brought forward to the
Board. Because that's a point well taken.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you. And --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, it's your
responsibility.
MR. CORNELL: And if I may suggest that the 5-year review
actually was that forum to come up with whatever the needs and
specific issues were. A better forum to talk about the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe your time is up right now.
I'm sorry, we have to stay on schedule. But thank you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, what --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The transmittal process.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker is Bob Krasowski. I don't
think I see Bob.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. Quickly, quickly. He's not
here.
MR. MILLER: He is apparently not here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Is there any further
discussion from the Board? Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I would like to say a couple
of important things. And Mr. Cornell, I do not take your -- I
Page 244
January 8-9, 2013
appreciate your communication that you sent to me, sir, and I
appreciate your remarks.
And I don't -- nobody should take this agenda item as an
indication that I feel like the RLSA is something that isn't a very
innovative way of addressing our needs going forward. It is indeed a
very innovative thing and I think it's got a tremendous amount of
merit. I've participated in it for a long time, I've examined it for a long
time. It has indeed a lot of things to its credit.
What we have now is we have a unique circumstance, because
tremendous change has taken place in Florida and in Collier County.
The two most significant things are that our economy is completely
resetting itself. And I think the way development occurs in the future
is going to be vastly different than was contemplated at the time the
RLSA was considered. I believe at the end the investors in the RLSA
and the major landowners in the eastern part of Collier County will be
completely rethinking how they're going to go forward.
The second thing is, due to the changes in oversight in the State
of Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has
a tremendous amount of responsibility that is now on its shoulders.
We have virtually complete control in the Growth Management Plan
and the things we send forward. With more control comes more
responsibility. And anything that we do in error is going to come back
to haunt us at our own responsibility.
Going forward with the RLSA and the amendments, the required
relationship between the data and the proposed amendments has got to
be good. And I think our data is aged. I don't think anybody
anywhere, whether it's in a business or any sort of conservation trade
of values can do anything based on data in our old economy.
So I don't think you should mistake the Board's action in this case
to mean that it forsakes the Rural Land Stewardship Area. It means it
is time to sit back and let this thing reset itself and go in for a new
analysis at a future date when we're all a lot more comfortable than we
Page 245
January 8-9, 2013
are right now with the way things are.
Thank you very much for your comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Any -- Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not on this issue. Just before
you adjourn.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In that case, there being no further
discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd just like to ask if you'd
give some guidance to the audience concerning Item 10K and L. Will
they -- can you give us a time certain that would be convenient for the
people who have been sitting here waiting all day?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Mr. Ochs?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is 9:00 in the morning better for
everybody, or is it --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Ochs?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 11 :00?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we've got --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1 :00?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We actually have Item I, which we
had not finished, which we have to go to. Then J, then K and then L.
So we actually have --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All related to the airport.
Page 246
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All related to the airport. I, J, K and
L.
And what we can do, if you would like --
MR. OCHS: That could --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If that's agreeable to you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was it?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If it's agreeable to Leo and to the
rest of the Board, we can start tomorrow morning at 9:00 with I and
move -- because we were in the middle of I when we got interrupted
by all the time certains. Then move to J, which is the Marco Airport
item. And then K, which is the Airport Authority Executive Director
employment agreement. And then a Board action related -- and L,
which is a Board action related to that on October 23rd.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But some of the members of the
audience are suggesting that 1 :00 would be better for them. Is there
any --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would 1 :00 be better?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- way we can accommodate that?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you rather have 1 :00 after
lunch?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, let's do that then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we start tomorrow at 1 :00 and
just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- finish up in the afternoon?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I don't think so. I think we have
to start at 9:00.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to leave at 2:30
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm supposed to leave at 1 :00.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that shouldn't take that long,
Page 247
January 8-9, 2013
1 :00.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then you know what? Then I think
we should start at 9:00 in the morning with I. I mean, we have to.
Because we've got so much more to do. I mean, this is a very difficult
agenda because we're rehearing so much of what was heard at
previous meetings. So we're still in that phase with the next -- this
meeting and the next meeting will continue to be difficult. And then
we'll be back to just new business as opposed to old business and new
business.
So I'm going to recommend that we start at 9:00 tomorrow
morning, and then you all should have all your issues heard I'm sure
by 11 :00.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If they can be back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you be back by then?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've been here all day long.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know. There's nothing we can do.
This wasn't set as a time certain and there was no request made to set
it as a time certain, so I'm very sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: And you
say L is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we're going to start I at 9:00
and then J immediately following that, and then K and L immediately
after that.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Did you
say that there was no request for a time certain?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I didn't get any. They would have
been --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, there was a request by Mr. Richards
that we spoke about late in the day --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, that had to do with Mr. Curry
-- what he wanted was to tie Mr. Curry's contract in with the hearing
on the other issue, but we said that one had nothing to do with the
Page 248
January 8-9, 2013
other.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But he didn't ask for a time --
MR. CURRY: I did ask for a time certain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not to me.
MR. CURRY: I went to the County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. And Mr. Richards asked that the two items
related to Mr. Curry's contract be heard after 4:30, after the 10.0.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, but when we had the
discussion, they're unrelated to each other, which is why I said --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- no. But no one specif--
MR. OCHS: I'm just clarifying.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, yeah.
MR. OCHS: We did have that discussion, and for the reason
stated we didn't --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, yeah.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A couple of these items I think
go real quick for me. You need to understand the correlation between
resurfacing the runways and these other items that is part of the scope
of that contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's really my issue too.
Absolutely. Because resurfacing is all that was contemplated, and we
have an expanded scope that considers issues we haven't considered.
So I feel the same way. It's pretty straightforward. And then we can
get right into those two items.
Or I have another suggestion. The alternative is, is we could do
K and L first so that there's no delay, and then do I and J after. Would
that work better? Then you know for sure it's at 9:00.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: No. Do
it after I.
Page 249
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do it -- okay. Because then I can't --
I don't know how -- it would be I and J, and then --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: We
suggested I.
Tell me this, what do you want to do?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why don't you come up to the
podium so we can get you on the record.
What we could do is start with -- we'll start with K at 9:00,
followed by L. Because I think you're here to speak on K and L, not I
and J.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So that way you don't have to sit
through I and J.
MR. WEEKS: Is that what it is?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. WEEKS: Whatever you suggest.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. So we would have K and
L at 9:00, which you can speak to those two agenda items, and then
you're done. Because I and J relates to the runway discussion, and I
don't think you have any comments on that, do you?
MR. WEEKS: I don't know yet at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. That was the discussion
about repaving the --
MR. WEEKS: Whatever it was, I don't know yet at this time.
But I'll follow the suggestion of Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're very kind.
MR. WEEKS: She seems to be very suggestive and
knowledgeable.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're very kind. Thank you. I
appreciate your kind words.
So let's do this, Leo, let's do K and L as time certain for 9:00, and
they're I guess companion items.
Page 250
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then right after that we'll do I
and J. And then we'll go back to the regular agenda. Because I don't
believe we have any more time certains that were requested.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And the other only other
issue you were looking into was potentially the continuance of the
marina contract. Have you spoken to Steve about that?
MR. OCHS: Well, and the concessionaire would like to have the
item heard tomorrow --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- regardless.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They sat here all day long too.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, yeah.
MR. WEEKS: Am I finished? Could I have permission to leave
the podium?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to reconvene at 9:00
a.m.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 9:00 tomorrow morning.
(The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.)
*****
Page 251
January 8-9, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 8-9, 2013
(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 252
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good morning.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. We have a time certain
this morning at 9:00 a.m. There will be two items that will be heard at
9:00. And then following that we will go back to the item that we were
working on with respect to the Immokalee Airport runway.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, would you get us started,
please?
Item #10K
(1/9/2013) 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.
(THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT
THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING) — MOTION TO
REVERT BACK TO MR. CURRY'S 2010 CONTRACT
REINSTATING THE ORIGINAL TERMS INCLUDING A
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 END DATE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair. We're beginning with Item
10.K this morning. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, in its capacity as governing body of the Collier
County Airport Authority indicate its intent to extend the Airport
Authority Executive Director's Employment Agreement with Thomas
Page 253
January 8-9, 2013
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 Statute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have any public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have I believe it's seven public speakers
registered.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you make sure the light is
turned on for me --
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- just so I know? Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, you had brought this back for
reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
Here's what my thoughts on this (sic). Since the airport is losing
so much money and there's very -- there's less activities going on and,
you know, the amount of money, taxpayer money spent on the
airports, I would like to change the management of the airports and
tell the County Manager to immediately start managing the airports.
And the first business of order is change the management at the
Immokalee Airport. For some reason there is so much drama going on
in the Immokalee Airport, from access to Avgas to you name it. I
mean, it's just ongoing issues over there. And it's just not business
friendly to the Immokalee people.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was Commissioner Coyle first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I was first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've been on the Commission
12 years. We've been through five airport directors, three of them
interim. The first airport director, nice guy, he was traveling a lot.
The second one, nice woman, but she was way out of her realm.
She couldn't -- she tried her best to do a good job. The third, fourth
and fifth were all interims. Like, for instance, the administrative
Page 254
January 8-9, 2013
assistant over at the airport.
Finally we've got a professional in this airport. Finally. And
before the airports were run kind of-- especially Immokalee was run
like a good 'ol boys operation, which was fine. I mean, they liked it
that way, they liked the good 'ol boys. It's kind of like what you have
in Immokalee. And that was fine with them. However, the Marco
Airport, which is our cash cow, by the way, it pays for our expenses.
But Marco Airport is thriving. Not only that, they've got a waiting
list, and I can't remember how long that waiting list is. But Chris, is it
like 120 or something like that, the waiting list for hangars? I don't
remember how much it is.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County
Airport Authority.
I think there's about 50 people, and some of them have been on
the list for more than 10, 12 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. I'm sorry, I misquoted
with the 120. I just knew it was an awful lot.
Now, you mention the expenses there. But from what I've been
told, and you might be able to bring these figures up, I've been told
that now these airports are operating on less general fund than they
have before. And this is what I've been understanding as well.
If you get rid of Chris for no reason for an airport that only needs
funds going to it and the other airports, which are vitally important --
maybe Everglades City is kind of not vitally important, but that Marco
Airport sure is. And if we let him go, I don't know who in the heck is
going to want to run these airports. Because why would anybody feel
secure in taking this job?
I think that it is of course so wrong to say that the Immokalee
Airport is -- you know what Chris has tried to do and I think people
resent it? He's trying to run it like a business. And people feel
uncomfortable with having it run like a business. He's trying to
position that airport to invite new businesses in. He's already got a
Page 255
January 8-9, 2013
few of them coming in.
He's been remarkable as far as awards that he's received. And
not only that, I get letters, I have some right here, I get letters on his
behalf saying what a great guy he is and how good he is to work with.
No, they don't come -- actually, I don't know if-- I was going to say,
no, they don't come from Marco, (sic) but then again, that's whose
fighting this. And I don't know why we're focusing so much on Marco
who's cost so much money instead of focusing on Marco Island who is
thriving and really adding to the pot all the time. Now with this new
taxiway, the airport is even receiving more airplanes. So I think that's
-- let's see. I've got some notes here.
Everything Chris has changed at the airports directly addresses
safety and business. And I hope you understand what I just said.
Addresses safety and business. It doesn't address personalities at all.
We want to have a great airport system, and I believe Chris is the man
to stay on the job and do just that. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to address about I
guess three issues.
One is the executive summary itself. There's nothing in the
executive summary that indicates that our purpose here is to terminate
the airport director. It is a reconsideration of a contract to be extended
from November, I think -- or September of 2013 to September, 2015.
So there's nothing that's been advertised concerning the termination of
the airport director.
So if that is the intent of the majority of the Commission, then the
very least that should be done is, it should be advertised to be a public
hearing.
Secondly, in our last two meetings I have heard Commissioners
say I don't know what's going on, I don't understand this and I don't
understand that. And perhaps that's true. But I also know that there
are Commissioners here who have refused to meet with Chris Curry.
Page 256
January 8-9, 2013
Even Chris's request to brief Commissioners is sometimes refused.
And Commissioner Nance expressed concern in December that
he would like to know more about what's happening in the airport, and
we decided we would have a workshop for that purpose, so that
everybody could get a good understanding of what's going on, because
there apparently is complete ignorance of the improvements that have
occurred in the Collier County airport system since Chris Curry's
gotten here.
So I'm wondering why it is that we're taking up issues like this
before you have the workshop. It was always my understanding that
Commissioner Nance wanted to get up to speed and wanted to have a
workshop, but yet what happens, the workshop is postponed til
February and we've got proposals that I understand today are designed
to terminate the airport director.
I think that this is a very, very unethical way to proceed with our
business here. And I would ask you to seriously consider sticking to
the executive summary. If you want to deal with a reconsideration of
an extension of Mr. Curry's contract from November -- or September
the 30th of this year to September the 30th of 2015, then you certainly
have the authority to do that. But there's nothing here that indicates
that a termination of Mr. Curry is being anticipated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Commissioner Coyle, I agree
with you 100 percent. It's not -- it's not my understanding that there's
any consideration to terminate Mr. Curry. As a matter of fact, at this
time with the information that I have today, I will not support the
removal of Mr. Curry unless somebody has some revelation that's
beyond any understanding that I would have.
I worked very hard to try to make sure that these reconsideration
items and everything related to the airport did not occur before we had
a chance to do a workshop on the airport. And I spoke to Mr. Curry
twice about that. For some reason this was not possible to happen.
Page 257
January 8-9, 2013
That having been said, I do have a very serious concern about the
performance of the airport over time. And historically some of the
things that Commissioner Fiala brought out are absolutely the truth.
The fact of the matter is the airport, the county's airports, as managed
by the Board of County Commissioners, have been dysfunctional as
far as I can remember back. And by all accounts, and all information
available today, they continue to be dysfunctional. And this is over a
number of airport executive managers and over a number of different
-- not as many commissioners as you'd think over the last decade but
over the Commission as we've known it. It hasn't been a well
performing business unit, if you want to discuss it as a business unit.
And I think overall a workshop is necessary to come to a
conclusion that we do need a different -- if we're going to achieve
different results and we're going to have success, I think
Commissioner Henning's opening remarks are exactly right, we have
to have a different management structure. And I think nothing should
be left off the table in discussing that.
Commissioner Henning mentioned putting it under the County
Manager. As a matter of fact, and I will throw a number of things out
for discussion, I hope we can talk about it further, but basically I
would suggest to you that movements should be made to return the
Everglades City Airport to the City of Everglades. There's an interest
to do that in the City of Everglades.
I think the Marco Island Airport is a wonderful general aviation
facility. I think it rightfully should be co-managed or very closely
related to the management of the Naples Airport. I think they share
interests, I think they share services. I don't see any reason why we
shouldn't look and see if there's some potential for co-management on
that.
The Immokalee Airport itself as a rural airport, it's a tremendous
facility, a tremendous piece of real estate, needs an incredible
injection of cash to ever become anything.
Page 258
January 8-9, 2013
If it is to realize its potential as an economic driver, it's going to
have to have private money come into it. All over the United States
you see facilities like this that are being privatized or they have a
public/private partnership or they have an injection of cash, private
management that's not by committee to -- I think to conclude, that
we're going to see any different results when the management team
are five political elected officials that can't speak to one another
because of the Sunshine law, I think it's folly. I think it's been proved
over a number of decades that it's just not going to happen.
So I believe that there's going to have to be a bigger, a wider
discussion, and I'll just open it up like that and see if there's any
agreement that we need to do something different on this board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we do need to do
something, and I guess this is why I brought this up. I mean, let me
give you some examples. Historically residents with airboats were
allowed to go on the airport and get gasoline for the airboats, or
aviation gas. They can't. There's no access afterhours like they had.
The agency, which is the Airport Authority, has no idea what the
security is out there. And that's the ramifications of it, you know.
Behavioral issues of the airport manager and the airport director.
You know, we had Lee County Mosquito Control did a landing
because they had a low tire. They had to report it to the FAA. That
drama is not good for business out there. And, I mean, it just goes on
and on. You know, Marco Airport is functioning well. Why is that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because Chris is running it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, because there's probably
good management over there.
The problem has always been focused around the Immokalee
Airport and the problems out there. And there's no resolution to it. So
I'm seeking resolution. And, you know, I don't see any reason why
the County Manager can't run the airports.
Page 259
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we've been through
this before. Remember that the airport authority before, just a few
years ago, did consist of a group of citizen appointees who have
aviation backgrounds. But it was mostly dominated by people who
wanted to treat it like their own little flying club. We decided to
change it, and there has been substantial improvement in the airport's
performance, enduring this economic recession that we're involved in.
There is a clear reason why the problems are occurring in
Immokalee and not in other places. And it's because the same people
who have resisted improvements in the creation of a professionally
managed airport are still there agitating to keep it from changing.
They have come into my office and said we don't want Immokalee
Airport to change. It is a small town airport, we like it and we want to
keep it that way.
Now, I'm not interested in taking taxpayer money and pouring it
into Immokalee for that purpose.
So I think I know what the problem is. And I've stated it time and
time again. The problem is that there are people there who believe
that it is their own private playground, and they don't want anybody
else messing around in it. And they do things that are unsafe, that are
violations of FAA procedures. And because Mr. Curry takes action
against those, he is constantly attacked. Not only by them, but by
members of this Board.
So those who say they want a professionally managed airport
first need to have a professionally qualified airport director. Now, no
offense meant to the County Manager, but he is not an airport director.
He does not know that much about running airports.
So I think if you ask the current members of our Airport
Advisory Board, they will tell you that Chris has been doing a
wonderful job. But yet we hear from people sitting on this dais who
know nothing about what's going on out there, really, telling us we've
Page 260
January 8-9, 2013
got to get rid of a professionally trained airport director. That is the
wrong direction.
And we talk about infusing money into Immokalee Airport, but
yesterday we spent hours trying to find ways not to approve the use of
grants from the FAA to improve the airport. I don't understand it.
This does not add up to me.
And so bottom line is I think everybody wants to have a
workshop. My recommendation, Madam Chair, is that we table this
issue and have our workshop and then everybody will get the same
information at the same time and hopefully we can make some
informed decisions.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I may interrupt just briefly to let
you know, if you don't know, that the workshop at the airport is
scheduled for February the 5th right now on your calendar.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. All the lights are on,
but I'm going to take a moment and share my thoughts, and then I'll go
back in order as I saw them pop up.
I have to agree with -- in part with Commissioner Coyle, and
wholly with Commissioner Nance, and wholly with Commissioner
Henning.
I agree, the narrow issue that we have before us today is the
reconsideration of the extension of the contract, and that is all we are
voting on. We are, as Commissioner Coyle correctly pointed out, not
addressing the -- or should not be addressing anybody's termination.
And I don't think that should be part of any motion.
I also thank you, Leo, for organizing this workshop. I think it's
critical. And I think we need to address all these issues and consider
what Commissioner Henning said which is looking into the possibility
of a reinstructing and consider those issues that Commissioner Nance
brought up as a possible way to restructure it.
I know Sammie Hamilton wants the Everglades Airport. And I
personally think that that's a good thing. You know, who best knows
Page 261
January 8-9, 2013
how to run that airport than that community. So I for example would
support that wholeheartedly.
Now, what I would like to do is I'd like to make a motion, and
that motion is that -- where is the item here -- that the employment
agreement remain as-is and that there be no extension of that
agreement. So we basically reverted to where it was. That contract
was not up -- that contract was not about to expire, and it was
prematurely being extended for reasons driven by the old Board.
So my motion is to leave Mr. Curry's contract as-is and not
accept the extension to September 30th, 2015.
The one question I have is regarding the -- what are the
provisions in the contract right now, Jeff, with respect to -- or what are
the requirements regarding comporting with the Florida Statute change
that is referenced in the executive summary here? Do we have to --
what does the contract say now in terms of provisions?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you go back to the old contract that
predated the Florida change --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But the Florida change doesn't impact Mr.
Curry's contract, old contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So we just leave that
contract as-is then?
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. I think you have an issue as to the
salary increase. I think that was a separate issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is the salary increase addressed in
the next agenda item? Because it's not very --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- clear.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, I mean, we'll address that. But
again right now we're reverting -- I say that we revert the contract
back to what it was without --
Page 262
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: So you want to go back to the September
15, 2010 agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The original contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which said?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which said -- which had an
expiration of what, September, 2013?
MR. KLATZKOW: 2013.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And the termination
provisions and the salary provisions and the duties? The duties were
-- just quickly go over the termination provision and the --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's easier if I go the other way. The
amendment to the agreement extended the severance, okay, and gave
four percent increase.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So what we are doing is we
are reverting back to no increase, leaving the provisions as-is, not
adopting the Florida Statute standards, and not extending the contract,
leaving it at the -- is it September, 2013? What is the --
MR. KLATZKOW: September 30th, 2013.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: September 30th, 2013.
So that's my motion. And again, I don't think we have to have a
motion on the workshop. I think we owe Leo a debt of gratitude for
scheduling it, getting it done.
MR. OCHS: Actually, it was Chris that scheduled it, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Fantastic, Chris, thank you for
getting that done. I appreciate that. That's very good. We absolutely
need workshops to discuss these larger issues.
Can I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Now, let's go back to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Nance was before
me, then me, then Henning, then Coyle.
Page 263
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You have an eagle eye. You're
good.
Okay, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I believe that every Board
member has made valid points. I think the primary problem with the
Immokalee Airport and the challenge to Mr. Curry is he actually
doesn't have much of an airport operation to manage. He's got a huge
potential facility, but the revenue stream that's currently out there at
the Immokalee Airport cannot support what's going on out there. The
Immokalee Airport consistently loses money. To a great extent I don't
think that's Mr. Curry's fault. There's not enough revenue to support
what has to go on there.
And the greater decision that this Board has to make with
Immokalee is whether Collier County wants to make the titanic
investment in public monies that's required to develop it to its full
potential. That is -- that's the nexus, that's the problem, that's the
question we have to answer. That is the question that we're going to
have to answer as we go forward with these grant applications and
studies and everything else. If we are going to be committing
ourselves and public monies to do what has to be done.
And I think it's to Mr. Curry's credit that he's outlined the
extensive amount of work that we're going to have to engage in.
That's certainly to his credit.
But I don't feel like we can make -- that we should make any
further extensions of the current management that we have here until
we can decide that. And I'm very much in favor of the workshop and
I'm very much in favor of exploring all options so that we can come to
a good resolution for everybody.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who's next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am.
First of all, you were talking about different management at the
airports? He's running Marco so smoothly, I don't want to see it
Page 264
January 8-9, 2013
change there, because he's done a magnificent job. I believe that even
the Immokalee Airport has been slowly but surely improving as far as
financials go. This is what I -- is that true? I believe so, right? Yeah.
You can't go anyplace.
MR. CURRY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is Immokalee slowly but surely
improving as far as the financials go?
MR. CURRY: It is. I mean, as Commissioner Nance said, the
airports have been -- as a whole has been operating in the red for
many, many years. That's not uncommon for general aviation airports
because of the economic benefit that they provide to the communities.
So it's somewhat accepted in the industry that, you know, if we
are subsidized $511,000 this year -- which is lower than it was last
year, so we're actually heading downward -- the airports as a whole
provide $28 million in economic benefit per year. So the investment
from the county is 511,000, the economic benefit is 28 million. I
consider that to be a pretty good return on investment. But 80 percent
at least of general aviation airports are subsidized by someone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And with the National Guard
coming on board soon, that's going to be more benefit there.
I think that this airport, as you say, is poised to be successful.
And I think that if we do not keep you on board to lead us in that right
direction -- you're trained to run airports and you do a magnificent job.
That's why we hired you to come here, because we needed a true
professional. As much as I love Leo, I don't think he's a professional
airport director, and he's got his hands full with the rest of the county
and I don't think he's really wanting to do that. But -- I'm speaking for
you, Leo, but your nod says I'm right.
And I think we need you, Chris, because what you're trying to do
is infuse the economy in Immokalee by making this airport successful
and a business center that will be -- I don't think it will ever be
profitable, but it will be in better financial situation. And who knows,
Page 265
January 8-9, 2013
when you get people in there that start running a business, it might
pull itself way out. You know, that's just speculating.
MR. CURRY: Well, I think that eventually the airport could
become profitable. The key is that whoever is directing the airport,
whether it's me or whether it's somebody else, has to be given the
latitude to make it a professional environment so that you can attract
the businesses to come in there.
For the longest Immokalee has been an unfriendly business
environment way before I came here. I can't tell you the number of
people that I've run into that said they had intentions of starting
business at Immokalee but they were driven out by those who were
not interested in new business coming in.
So I think I know what it takes to continue to downward trend as
far as reliance on the general fund and make it professional, but the
Commissioners have to allow me to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CURRY: If it's not allowed, then it doesn't matter who's
running the airport, it's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I guarantee you that nobody
sitting up here has ever run an airport. Maybe they've flown a lot and
know a lot or maybe they've worked in airports for a long time, but
nobody's run an airport. And I think that we have to leave it to the
professional to do that.
I got a wonderful letter from Tony Alvez from the Casino, and
he's counting on you leading them to success because, as he said, there
were businesses about to enter into that area, and this will be a thriving
area. But they've got to be allowed to grow and to prosper. And by
cutting you off at the knees, it does not happen.
So I think that's all for now. I thank you for allowing me to
speak my peace. I'll probably have more.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A comment was made earlier by
Page 266
January 8-9, 2013
the Chair person that Mr. Curry's contract was approved by the prior
board for political reasons. Actually --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I didn't say for political reasons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes you did say that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. What did I say?
Do you want to read back what I said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's move on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you cannot --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's have a professional
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to leave the question
unanswered.
Did she say that? Read it back to us.
Look for Commissioner Hiller's statements concerning the time --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, she puts in
the word political and does a search based on that word.
Okay. Do you want to look over her shoulder, help her out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Extension of contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're taking up the public's
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we're taking up the public's
time to try to get the truth, Commissioner Henning. Do you not
support that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, get the minutes done
and review it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A month and a half later we'll talk
about it, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Were you are able to find the word
political?
Let's take --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just move on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, let's take a five-minute break
Page 267
January 8-9, 2013
and give you the opportunity to find the statement that Commissioner
Coyle was looking for. So we're going to take a five-minute break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll be back at 9:40 to give the
court reporter the time to look for the word political.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're back in session.
Commissioner Coyle, would you like to continue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Would you read the statement that you found.
(The reporter read back the requested testimony.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was prematurely.
So Commissioner Hiller said it was prematurely extended for
reasons of the old Board which I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: For the reasons -- can you read that
sentence again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Political reasons.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no, it didn't say political.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, you did not. But for reasons
of the old Board, and you said it was prematurely extended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this might be a statement that
is not clearly understood by all members of the Board, but we in fact
were following the provisions of the contract. And the contract reads
that on or before September the 30th of the year immediately
preceding the then ending year of the agreement, the term of this
contract may be extended for a period of two years.
So on September we took the action to do what was permitted
and outlined in the contract. So we were abiding by the contract.
It was not prematurely extended. We had no secret reasons for not
doing it. We did it because Chris was doing a good job.
And what happened was that so the new incoming Commissioner
Page 268
January 8-9, 2013
would have an opportunity to have some input on this, this process
was delayed and continued until Commissioner Nance could then have
some input on the extension of a contract for an employee for whom
he had no knowledge.
I don't think that's the proper way to conduct our business here.
But nevertheless, Commissioner Nance has a right to weigh in on
these things. But it is improper in my opinion to delay a situation such
as this to the detriment of the employee merely to permit a change in
the voting on the board so that you can get a different outcome.
So this was done entirely legally. And what I think is happening
here is not legal. Chris has a signed contract. He's been operating
under that contract for months. And if we're going to violate the terms
of that contract and call it a reconsideration, then I think we're
exposing ourselves to legal liability. And I think that's an unnecessary
expense. Why go through that process? I mean, if there is reason to
do something with Chris Curry, you can do that whether you have an
extension or not. This is purely vindictive, and that's all it is. It's just
vindictive. And I am ashamed for this Board that we're going through
this kind of thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have an opinion, but I want to
hear the public's opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, there's no reason why in
later time that we can, if we feel compelled, to extend the contract.
So, you know, opinions -- everybody has opinions, but the most
important one is the public's, so let's hear the public, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I will give the public the
opportunity to speak. I do want to comment on what Commissioner
Coyle just said.
Number one, there was no allegation of illegality on the part of
the old Board's action.
Page 269
January 8-9, 2013
Secondly, the contract doesn't say shall, it says may. It is at the
Board's option.
And thirdly, to bind the future new Board by the action of the old
Board, if it's not the will of the new Board to extend the contract is
just patently unfair.
Now, at the end of the day the outcome may be the same. And as
Commissioner Henning just said, the contract may be extended. But it
will be extended or not extended based on the decision of the sitting
Board.
Now can we call the public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your first public speak is Harold
Weeks, and he will be followed by Jim Murray.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning. Harold Weeks, President of the
NAACP Collier County.
How's everybody?
I sent the board an email letter of concern. I trust it's been read
by everybody. And I'm not going to go back on it. I might touch it
here and there. I don't know which one that we're to talk about, K or
L. But I'll start, and if I can't finish with K, I'll certainly finish with L.
I'm going to approach this in a little different manner. At you
can see, I'm part of the African-American community here in Collier
County. I think Mr. Curry has admitted to me that he also is an
African-American.
It's important to our community, it's important to the community
of Collier County that a person of Mr. Curry's character and
intelligence be here with us. I've spoken to him, I've pleaded with
him. No matter how this goes forward, that he would remain here,
because we certainly need him. He's an executive director. Tell me if
I'm wrong, I think he's the only executive director of
African-American here in Collier County.
But it proves one thing, that -- I've always talked with folks about
fair and equitable. We've gotten a little fair, we've got to start being
Page 270
January 8-9, 2013
equitable behind this thing.
When Mr. Curry was hired, 150 applications came in, I believe.
And out of those 150, he was chosen. He was chosen by some people
that know how to choose people. At times that's suspect. But they hit
the nail on the head this time. They really got the perfect person.
Now one of the Commissioners spoke of drama. I wouldn't be
here unless there was a lot of drama coming from up there. If you
want drama, we're going to bring you drama.
But let me just say this: When I say he's good for the African
community, you see, he's been good enough to go into the schools and
talk to some of these kids, minority kids. And it's important they see a
mentor and a role model like this man to understand that they can
achieve in Collier County. I know it's important. I use him all the
time in my talks with some of the kids that I mentor and talk to. I can
say Chris Curry, he's a good guy. I'm not going to back one who isn't,
just because he's African-American. Understand that. Those that
know me, they know I don't do that. But I use him constantly to carry
this forth.
The other main thing is in government contracts we're in a three
percent stage here, I believe, with three percent of the population, and
they work out a three percent percentage in the work force in Collier
County. They get real close. They're real close to that edge. If Mr.
Curry goes, I don't know where -- which talk about falling off a cliff.
But he also brings the federal government. He brings that
percentage to the federal government. Not only his expertise and
people he knows in that organization, but they look and say, oh, okay,
Collier County, Chris Curry, African-American, they fit him for this
grant. Don't forget that. Spring it whatever way, he is important to
this county as a taxpayer, as a, I guess you'd call leader of what I do.
I need him, you need him, the community needs him.
I'll speak later about my other ideas, if we get to that point.
Hopefully we won't.
Page 271
January 8-9, 2013
I want Chris Curry. I want him to stay here. It sounds like he
needs a little better than a four percent raise with the problems here.
Just remember that he's dealing with a bypass error out there in
Immokalee. I'm not going to say what it is; I can think what it is.
Sometimes we don't get the respect that we justly deserve because
perhaps some folks figure we don't measure up. But understand, we
do measure up. And if this continues on, you'll find out how much we
measure up.
Thank you for your time. And if need be, I'll be back for L.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Murray. He will be
followed by David Gardner.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman.
A couple of general points. First of all, Commissioner Nance, I
really respect the fact that you want to look at all options for the way
the airport's moved forward. I think that's very important. I think all
options should be on the table.
Regarding Everglades City Airport, a couple of years ago Mayor
Hamilton stood here and said that he wanted Everglades City to take
over the airports. He was asked to come back with a business plan. I
hope he does. I hope Everglades City can afford to run the airports,
because I think it would be natural. Marco Airport it is doing fine. It's
the gem of what we have.
Just one comment in general. Commissioner Henning, your
comment about the pilot who blew a tire landing at Immokalee, that
was not reported to the FAA. There's a lot of misinformation out
there. We have renamed that form, but it never was reported. It's
strictly an internal document in case something would come back later
on, because the condition of the runway may have affected the tire.
As Chris said, about 80 percent of general aviation airports do
Page 272
January 8-9, 2013
not make money. They're subsidized by their owners. And it's
basically a line item on a budget. They bring in, as I say, about $28
million, about $7 million at Immokalee alone.
We're all frustrated by the slow growth at Immokalee at the
airport, but also Ave Maria is way behind schedule, the National
Guard has delayed their project, and the casino has yet to go forward
with a hotel and convention center. So the growth at Immokalee has
been slow.
I think also you have an underutilized resource in the advisory
board. We're about the cheapest consultants you can hire. We're here
for you any time. And I look forward to the workshop, because I
think down the road you should either utilize us or get rid of us. If we
don't provide a benefit to the Board of County Commissioners, then
there's no real purpose in having us.
I'm here specifically to speak about Chris Curry. Unfortunately
he and Thomas Vergo inherited a situation that -- because before they
got here the former manager who's very popular was removed. Chris
was brought in, Thomas was promoted to that airport, and the trouble
started there. And there has been since then a concentrated effort to
make life for him as difficult as possible. And I appreciate the support
that he can get from this Board. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Jim.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Karl Geng. He'll be
followed by Frank Halas.
MR. GENG: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Karl Geng, a current member of
the Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board and a former
member from 1999 to 2001 of the then Collier County Airport
Authority Board.
Thus I have the benefit of being able to compare the progress
made in the last 12 years from a different perspective. I'm also a pilot
and I use all the county's airports frequently.
Page 273
January 8-9, 2013
My comments this morning try to address what I perceive as a
systemic problem. But first of all let me make sure that you
understand that your hand-picked authority advisory board members
are working to the best of their ability to serve the citizens of Collier
County and to meet your strategic expectations. This current board
has a makeup with experience that corporations would pay a lot of
money for to have as consultants. We work hard to come up with the
most economical solutions in the best interests of the Collier County
taxpayers.
Besides over a century of aviation background, we have
construction, accounting, legal, government, management and
engineering experience represented. Having just retired as a CEO of a
billion dollar corporation before I served on my first term on the
authority board in 1999 I was convinced that the role of the
commission was to set the strategic direction and expectations and
then let the board help guide the authority staff to set and execute
specific objectives that would support the strategic direction. I could
relate to that as a former CEO.
But what I find today is an attempt to micromanage at a level that
frankly is not conducive to an efficient and productive process. In
aviation speak, I urge you to climb 10,000 feet higher and take a wider
view. Set the strategy, explain your vision for the county airports and
then let the professionals help you manage the goals to achieve it.
Airports cost money to operate, no doubt about it. But they also
create an economic benefit to the county. They're also part of the
national transportation infrastructure and they will serve us when
emergencies occur like hurricanes and outside support needs to be
transported to Collier County.
Now to Chris Curry. Frankly, he's a great asset to our county.
He's a professional, and from my observations always open for
suggestions, never defensive and easy to communicate with. He and
his staff have done a great job under trying conditions in this economy
Page 274
January 8-9, 2013
and, I have to say, with some interference from outsiders not willing to
conform with reasonable rules and regulations designed to ensure a
safe airport environment.
I have full confidence in Mr. Curry and his ability and urge you
to retain him as a valuable member of your senior staff. Formulate the
strategy, provide the direction and let us and the authority staff help
you. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Frank Halas. He'll be
followed by Jason Goldstein.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm Frank Halas and I want to wish
you all a happy new year.
I'm a member of the Airport Advisory Board. I'd like to bring to
you some of the highlights that Chris has accomplished in his short
tenure here with Collier County.
He has been involved in the completion of the Marco taxiway
after many years of permitting by many agencies and of course of all
the other hurdles that he had to go across. Under his direction, it was a
huge task and it's been completed. And it's a real asset for Collier
County.
Chris has worked from the Airport Master Plan for the
Immokalee Airport that has been made up for -- made up and has
many shortcomings from prior airport directors. Critical areas were
neglected for many decades. Chris and his staff understand what is
needed to meet the requirements of an airport to meet the 21st Century
concerns.
They are professional and they are working with the advisory
board to get us there. They have acquired much needed funding from
the State of Florida, the federal aviation grants to bring our airports
like Immokalee and Marco Island up to the required FAA standards.
Page 275
January 8-9, 2013
Under Chris the future looks very bright for the expansion
operations of aviation operations at our diamond in the rough,
Immokalee Airport.
The advisory board overwhelmingly supports Chris in his efforts
to meet the goals that are set forth.
The new USDA building, manufacturing building, is open and
the company from Miami has moved here. Its moved its testing
operations from Miami to here.
A great working relationship has been established with the casino
to bring flying clubs into the Immokalee area. Not only to go to the
casino but to seek out some of the unique restaurants that can be found
in Immokalee.
The National Guard is planning construction of facilities at this
airport, which is going to be a big asset in case of a hurricane.
With Arthrex now expanding their operations in Ave Maria and
the renewal of construction of new homes in this community, more
business opportunities are coming. We must be read to meet the
brighter future. We all envision increased commercial aviation taking
place as a freight airport with the expansion of commercial business
out in the eastern part of Collier County. This is where the business is
going to be established in the future.
These are just a few of the reasons we need to retain our present
airport director. Thank you for your time on this very, very important
subject.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Jason Goldstein.
He'll be followed by Richard Richards.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good morning.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Nice to see you all again. I'll try to talk
slower today. I went a little fast yesterday for the court reporter.
Page 276
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's okay, you were eloquent.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Oh, thank you so much.
So basically I'm here -- I don't want to reiterate the sentiment by
the public as to the performance of Mr. Curry, which I think everyone
is in agreement, at least with respect to the public, that his
performance has met and exceeded what the Board had thought of him
when they had first brought him on board.
What I am here for is just to mention, as counsel to Mr. Curry,
and of course Mr. Vergo, that this Board is potentially going to be in
breach of the contract that it executed based on its vote on October
23rd of 2012 to extend Mr. Curry's contract.
My understanding by statements made by Commissioner Coyle
and also by Mr. Curry is that the contract extension has been executed,
and the -- of course approved by the County Attorney. Being that the
contract was executed by the Board as a whole pursuant to its vote,
this Board is now bound to that to two-year contract.
I'd also like to advise the Board that Mr. Curry, based on the
execution of the extension, has also relied upon the conveyances and
the extension insofar as the raises and making future plans, planning to
be here for another two years. And I think that this -- the message that
is being sent by this Board, should it decide not to adhere to the
obligations in the extension that it obligated itself to is essentially that
it's not behind the decisions made by previous Boards, that things can
be changed rather whimsically due to reasons that are not necessarily
clear.
And frankly, I think that the reasons put forth by the Board are
frankly pretextual. And there are events at Immokalee Airport that --
particularly one event that was mentioned yesterday that was -- that is
an allegation to the complaint. And we can certainly buttress that by
pulling it, it's public record.
And I think there was a precipitous decline in the manner in
which Mr. Curry was treated following those events, which only begin
Page 277
January 8-9, 2013
to grow following the filing of the suit. However, the board again in
its define providence, made the determination that they will keep Mr.
Curry on board and thereby execute the contract.
And for those reasons I ask the board not to find itself in breach
and possibly future legal intervention, but to adhere to the contract,
support Mr. Curry going forward, support him in defense of this
frivolous lawsuit that was brought forward by a party at Immokalee
Airport, and seek to keep the airports improving as they have been.
And thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, would you like to comment on
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just so tired of being threatened all the
time.
You know, no, there'll be a workshop. The Board will ultimately
give direction as to where the airport's going. And at that point in time
we'll have to make some decisions on the dais.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are we legally in our rights to put
the contract back to where it was?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe you are, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Madam Chairperson --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- I had 11 seconds left. I had 11 seconds
left when --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does he have -- no, I'm sorry.
MR. MILLER: I have reset the timer. There was maybe four
seconds left.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, you have four seconds. No, it
just wouldn't be fair, because we don't give other people the additional
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, sir.
Page 278
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm sorry, you haven't been
called on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You haven't been called on --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you please --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- tell me what your position is
relative to what the County Attorney has just said?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. And I was going to speak to that.
First of all, I want to be clear to Mr. Klatzkow that I'm not
making any threats. Let me be abundantly clear about that. All I'm
saying is that in my legal opinion, and Mr. Richards opinion, of
course, the extension that was signed by the Board legally bound the
Board. Any contract you sign, you cannot just after executing a
contract decide that you're going to reconsider the contract. You're
bound by that contract. Should the contract have provided, the
extension that is, that the Board could at some point capriciously
reconsider its execution of the contract, that would be a different
matter.
I understand that Mr. Klatzkow in his experience and as an
attorney can have differing opinions, but it is my opinion that the
extension is legally binding upon this Board. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're very kind, thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker is Richard Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I would just like to -- we put us both on there
just -- I didn't know if I was going to make it or not. And Jason has
certainly presented our position.
Obviously we are of the opinion that once you have a signed
contract, you can't just go reconsider it, so you're going to be bound by
that contract. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
What I've just heard, and I do want to comment on this, is
Page 279
January 8-9, 2013
something I'd like you to look into, Jeff. We basically have received a
litigation threat on this matter. And this goes to the conflict, the
litigation representation. Because that firm is representing Mr. Curry
and now he's -- that firm is saying they're potentially going to sue the
board. So I'd like you to investigate that and what that means in terms
of whether or not they have a conflict and they cannot represent Mr.
Curry on one or both cases.
And that clearly goes to the question of any compensation to that
firm in the future.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I will have to research that. If that
comes to that, I will raise that to the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
Yes.
MR. CURRY: Commissioner, if I may, I just wanted to address
some misstatements that were made by Commissioner Henning in
regards to some of his opening comments, if I could.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: One second.
Are we done with all the public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just wanted to be sure.
Okay, go ahead, Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY: You know, as it relates to he said behavioral
issues with Mosquito Control, it is true that they landed at the airport,
they had some tire issues. The problem was with the form that the
airport had. The airport had a form and the form was labeled
accidents or incidents. And the information was taken on that form. It
was never reported to the FAA, it was only an internal document.
And what I responded to Commissioner Henning and the other
commissioners is that we were taught with the advisory board and we
would rename the form, okay, so that the form no longer says
accidents or incidents, it just says a record of occurrence. That way
we would have the information in-house in case there was anything
Page 280
January 8-9, 2013
litigation-wise to come back to the airport. So we never reported that
to the FAA.
As it relates to airboat access and why we restricted airboat
access, prior to my approval, air boaters had access 24 hours a day.
There is an aviation business on the airport that came to the advisory
board meeting and said they had some concerns related to their
security because air boaters could enter the airport 24 hours a day.
So since we had a concern from an aviation user, which is the primary
purpose of the airport, we restricted the airboat access to hours that we
could monitor their entering and exiting the airport. So that is the
reason why we took action to restrict the airboat access. And it was
an item that we thoroughly discussed with the -- through the airport
advisory board.
Again, we love the air boaters. The air boaters have never posed
a problem to us at the airport at all. But when you have a user that's
an aviation user that has a concern, then we must address it, because
that's the initial purpose of the airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CURRY: Just a couple more just notes I have on here.
The issue with Everglades City Airport. When I got here that was
one of the main issues that I was assigned to deal with. I met with
Mayor Sammie Hamilton on several occasions, and I told him the
documentation that he would need to prove his case to the FAA. And
so at that time Sammie said that he understood what he needed to
provide, he would get that back to me. In turn I would bring it to the
Commissioners. But I've never received any documentation back
from Sammie Hamilton to move that particular issue forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great. Anything further?
MR. CURRY: I do have one thing, it's kind of near and dear to
your heart, which is the idea of security. Commissioner Henning said
we had no idea of security. That's not necessarily true. Because we
do comply with the Florida Department of Transportation's security
Page 281
January 8-9, 2013
for general aviation airport. And we actually have provisions in our
plans to update the security. So we are not out of compliance in any
way with what the Florida Department of Transportation requires for
security at a general aviation airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
I was going to hit that same thing about the airports. I think they
were just trying to make sure that the airport stays secure. With all of
the spontaneous crime going on and the airports being threatened and
so forth by terrorists, you never can tell what people are going to do,
especially when they see a safe haven that has no security. It's a good
place to get in and out of and, you know, even creep in in the dark. I
understand what the security is, and I was glad to see the heightened
security there. I think that's a wonderful thing.
The fella, I don't remember what his name is, I have a letter from
him from the car racing on Immokalee Airport. He was not happy
with you when you started, because you were changing things, and
you were going to run it like a business. Well, you never hear from
him anymore because he's very happy with the way you're running it.
He feels that you have taken a giant leap forward to run a much better
operation, and he's benefiting by it. So I thought that was very good.
And I have to say, we do not want to cripple this airport and then
hence cripple the whole Immokalee community because there's some
underlying reason to want to replace the most outstanding airport
director we've had in the last 12 years that I've been there. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, and then I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't know why Mr.
Curry would come up here and do what he did. What I said was we
have no idea what the security plan is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're the agency.
Page 282
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the director stood up there
and said -- and coerced the Board to make it not available to the
agency.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is against the Florida
statutes. So I'm very concerned about his future action.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
All right. With that, I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I stated that I was calling the
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to call the question.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to comment,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we always let other people speak.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I indicated I was calling the
question. I mean, we can't keep the debate --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've called the question --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- going on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- now my light is on.
Page 283
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm calling you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mr. Curry didn't coerce the
Board to do anything about security. Mr. Curry merely said that he
did not want to distribute copies of the security plan to all of the
members of the Board, because some Board members have a tendency
just to distribute stuff to people just to show how smart they are.
He suggested that if you want a briefing on security, he would be
happy to sit down with you one-on-one and go through the security
plan. He has offered to do that every time this issue has been raised.
Has anyone taken you up on that, Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: No one has.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the point is if people are
ignorant about the security at the airport, it's because they choose to be
ignorant, not because Mr. Curry has done anything to cause that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Nance, unless this relates to --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I withdraw it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're not going to get into --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- let's go to the next item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- any further discussion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The discussion of the airport
security can be addressed at the workshop, and we can bring that
matter forward before this Board as an independent agenda item.
But it is not the topic of this particular matter that we have voted on.
Item #10L
(1/9/2013) 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
Page 284
January 8-9, 2013
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT. (THIS ITEM
WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE
DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING) MOTION TO REVERT
BACK TO MR. CURRY'S 2010 CONTRACT REINSTATING THE
ORIGINAL TERMS AND END DATE, WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF A RECENT 4% SALARY INCREASE WHICH WILL REMAIN
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Item 10.L, which is the next item
that the Board indicated they wanted to take up, I won't reread the
title, but it was essentially a memorialization of the action taken under
10.K. So I'll ask the County Attorney perhaps for some assistance
here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And thank you for saying that,
because I had the same question. I wasn't quite sure what the
appropriate motion was to reverse this action.
County Attorney, can you give us guidance on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I've always viewed these two items to
be companion items. I mean, I don't know how you can vote one way
on one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So then what I'll do is I will restate
my motion that Mr. Curry's contract be reversed to its original terms,
that there be no extension, no modification to the termination
provisions, and no salary adjustment.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think -- I would prefer that the salary
adjustment remains. I think in the long run you're cheaper keeping the
salary with the four percent increase than you are trying to
retroactively get rid of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, he certainly -- I wouldn't -- I
mean, to the extent that -- I would recommend that he be paid at the
Page 285
January 8-9, 2013
higher salary through today.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's my advice that you simply allow the
raise to continue. It was a separate issue than the extension was.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Where was the salary
addressed? Was that actually addressed in that previous -- in the
original contract amendment?
MR. KLATZKOW: We put it into the contract, but it didn't have
to be in the contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The raise?
MR. KLATZKOW: He had his annual performance. At that
point in time --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, it was during the annual
performance that his salary was increased.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And I was directed by the Board to
put it into his agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: When did that happen? I do not
recall the Board --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was in November.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I don't recall the Board
directing that the salary be increased be incorporated in the contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I had asked at that time back in
October, November, if you wanted --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, I just don't recall.
MR. KLATZKOW: It would be my advice to keep the raise in
place.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I believe you have speakers
registered on --
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have four registered public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second the motion if the
motion maker amends it to --
Page 286
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, I'll amend it to what the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- County Attorney said.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- County Attorney said.
County Attorney, in my previous motion I had addressed the
salary. Was that incorrect? We can go back and we can -- I can --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think for clarity this motion I think would
take care of it. If the Board directs that the four percent annual
increase take place, then that's what will happen.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So what you're
recommending is that the motion be to revert the contract back to its
original terms --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- with the exception of the salary.
MR. KLATZKOW: Increase.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With the salary increase, which
remains at four percent.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Got it. So I've amended my motion
accordingly.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker, Madam Chair, is
David (sic) Weeks. He will be followed by Karl Geng.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David Weeks?
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, Harold Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: I wish I could get paid under that name.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'd have to take a pay cut,
Harold.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that was an application.
MR. WEEKS: Harold Weeks, private citizen this time, I guess.
I'll be brief.
For a period of time Mr. Curry was a golden child. And there
was an incident at the airport that changed all that. Whether this has
anything to do with anything or not, I have no idea. But the ones
Page 287
January 8-9, 2013
involved, I don't know whether it was a matter -- you know, I'm not
versed on things of ethical nature. But I think if some of those
involved in that incident would search not only their minds but their
hearts and come to reality with themselves and who they are and what
they should be doing, I think all this would come to a close.
Other than that, it's been briefly mentioned here, I know the
attorneys mentioned it. So seeing as -- I mentioned it in my letter. So
seeing it's on the Board here, it's hard, it can be interpreted numerous
ways. I guess it all depends on who is interpreting it. I have my own
interpretation, and I'll keep it to myself, naturally, until things happen
that I should bring it on board.
But hopefully it will go away if everybody, as they say, man's up
to it and does what they're supposed to do as a professional person.
And the answer here is be professional.
That's about it. Let's get it going. Keep this guy on. Like I said, I
need him, the community needs him, Collier County needs him. You
know he gets -- he has what it takes. Let's use him till he doesn't want
to be used anymore. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Karl Geng. He'll be
followed by Jason Goldstein.
MR. GENG: Thank you, I pass.
MR. MILLER: He waives.
Jason will be followed by Richard Richards.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'll waive as well.
MR. RICHARDS: I'll waive as well, thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that the end of our public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I really sincerely
hope that we can revisit this extension and approve an extension.
Page 288
January 8-9, 2013
However -- and I'm willing to work with Mr. Curry to do that. But the
action here today, I'm very concerned. And, you know, the
Immokalee Airport needs to be user friendly to its present users, its
future users and its past users. So I'm looking forward to a workshop.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have a question. This motion
does nothing that the prior motion did except to give Mr. Curry a four
percent pay increase; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. So it doesn't take
anything away from him that hasn't already been taken away by the
prior motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner --
MR. CURRY: The only thing -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually it's Commissioner Nance's
turn.
MR. CURRY: Oh, sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm very much looking forward to
the workshop. I've had an opportunity in my brief period of time
working here to meet with Mr. Curry twice. And Mr. Curry and I,
each time we met, we spoke for over two hours. And I'm sure Mr.
Curry can -- and he's certainly able to share our meetings with
anybody of interest of what we talked about.
And what I was most concerned about, and Mr. Curry will verify
that if you talk to him, was our overall ability to move forward with
our airport. And of course as executive director, he is indeed a key
individual and a key manager in Collier County in that capacity. And
I'm very concerned that the situation with a Board that he has to
respond to that is political in nature, which of course he realized when
Page 289
January 8-9, 2013
he took this position, places him in a very, very difficult situation.
And every decision that this Board makes and certainly every decision
that I make will be based solely upon business and what we can do to
go forward.
But I'm also concerned that Mr. Curry as a professional has an
environment in which he can work comfortably and that he feels good
about his service to Collier County.
And I think, Chris, you and I have talked about that at length, that
I do have that concern for you personally and as a manager in the
county. So I'm looking very much forward to the workshop, and I
hope we can figure out what's best for this business unit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: Yes. Commissioner Henning, if I said something
that offended you, I apologize. What I was simply doing was trying to
correct what I consider to be misstatements. And we all know how
that works in a public forum, that if something is said and if you just
accept it and don't respond to it then it's considered to be true.
So when I said no idea of security, that's what I perceived that
you said. But if you did not say that, then I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- do you see how the
correction works on the Board? It doesn't work well for the public.
And I don't think it's the right place for it. That's all.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's a motion on the table. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the motion again, please?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, the motion -- I'm sorry,
because you asked me to amend it, so I just want to make sure -- but
thank you for clarifying that.
The motion on the table is that the contract is being reverted back
to its original terms and with the exception of the four percent raise.
Page 290
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is still unclear to me. It
seemed to me that what you did under K was that you invalidated the
contract extension. Why do we need another motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the contract modification with
respect to the termination.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But why do we need
another motion to do that, since you've already invalidated his contract
and contract extension. All you're doing is giving him a four percent
increase now. If the motion is to give Chris a four percent increase in
salary, I will vote for it. But if you try to extend that contract into
other things that I think you've already made a decision on, then I'm
going to vote against it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you made the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm sorry, you're not --
MR. RICHARDS: May I be heard just one --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that you have to make this
motion, but to me --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to make it regardless.
MR. KLATZKOW: To me it's like suspenders with a belt. I
don't really think it makes much difference.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. And because it was an agenda
item and it had been voted on in the past and action was taken and we
are reconsidering it, I am going to let my motion stand and I'm going
to go ahead and call the question.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 291
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2, with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
And again, Court Reporter, can you read back the motion that
was made as it was just restated for clarity, to make sure everyone
understood what they voted on. The motion as amended. So that
there is no uncertainty in anyone's mind as to what was voted on.
(The reporter read back the previous question.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that clear? Any questions as to
what the motion was?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With that, we'll move on to the next
agenda item.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I believe the court reporter may --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: -- need a break.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You have to always remind me of
that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Five minutes, 10 minutes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, 10 minutes, for sure. She
deserves it. She's been typing nonstop.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're back in session.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Leo, can you take us to
the next agenda item.
Page 292
January 8-9, 2013
Item #10I
(1/9/2013) RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
CONTRACT 12-5885 "DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 9-27
REHABILITATION PROJECT" IN THE AMOUNT $761,000
WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. (THIS ITEM APPROVED FOR
RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC
MEETING) — DISCUSSED; TABLED UNTIL AFTER #10R WAS
TO BE HEARD; CONTINUED TO DAY 2 (1/9/13); ADDITIONAL
DISCUSSION; MOTION TO APPROVE - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, I can, Madam Chair. And the next item on the
agenda this morning is the continuation of an item that we began
yesterday and then were cut off by a time certain. It had to do with a
reconsideration item, and that item was Item 10.I on your agenda, and
it was a 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 rehabilitation project in the
amount of$761,000 with Hole-Montes, Incorporated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And Leo, if I may, for the benefit of
the people in the audience, before we get into that discussion suggest
that we follow that with J immediately?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then right after that I would
like to go to the marina item, because we have people sitting in the
audience and I want to give them the certainty to know that we'll get
them done and get them out.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
Page 293
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm not sure there's anyone else
sitting in the audience on any other specific issue, so --
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that would be the best order.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Curry, go ahead.
MR. CURRY: Yes, ma'am. One thing that I want to clarify that
I've been asked about the project is that once we do the permit, design
and bid portion, it does not obligate us as the county to do the
rehabilitation. It doesn't obligate us to do that. What indirectly
obligates us is that we've signed past grants where we've said we'll
maintain a safe and operational airport. But by the nature of
approving this grant does not force us to go ahead with the
rehabilitation and certainly does not force us to do it without the
funding mechanism from the FAA and FDOT.
And I've also asked Tom Vergo to join me today because he's
intimately involved with Immokalee more than I. So if there's some
questions specifically that's a little more technical, then he can
certainly answer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Yesterday we stopped just
before I got to ask my question. And somebody had been talking about
there is no demand. I don't even remember who it was anymore, but I
wrote it down. They said there is no demand.
Well, I think sometimes which comes first, the chicken or the
egg? Do you have to create an environment where there is a demand
or do you have to wait til the demand comes and then you respond to
it?
And I think in this case what they're trying to do is improve that
runway so that more airplanes can use it and so that it will reach out
into the future as they try and encourage business to come into that
Page 294
January 8-9, 2013
airport.
I was so impressed with what the Seminole Gaming Palace had to
say about wanting to bring tourists in. And already their attendance or
their -- you know, the people that are using the Immokalee Gaming
Palace, the Seminole Gaming Palace has already increased. And
they're expecting people to be using that airport more and more.
Well, I think we have to get that airport poised and ready, just
like we do with the roads and everything else. We don't wait for the
demand. And same with the water plants. We don't wait for the
people to come in and demand it, we prepare for them so that we can
then, if you will, bring them into our fold and we can accommodate
their needs. So I think that's an important thing to remember.
And again, this is about the growth of the Immokalee Airport.
And the business in Immokalee. I hope that you're listening to that.
We keep saying we want to be business friendly. But by stopping the
airport runway from being resurfaced, how is that business friendly?
Not only that, it creates jobs too. And that's another thing we
keep saying, we want to create jobs, we want to create jobs, and it
does not do that as well. I think we need to take all of these things.
I'm still having a problem understanding why anybody would want to
stop a project like this when 97 and a half percent of funds are already
paid. We don't even have to reach into our taxpayers' pocket. And
who knows, there might even be a little more grant money circling
around out there once we move forward with it.
But for now all we're asking is $38,000 to move to the next step.
Heck, $38,000 in the pocket -- coming out of the pocket is not very
much to ask for a better performance at Immokalee's Airport where
we're trying desperately to improve and bring business in. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Curry, can you tell me what the correlation between the
scope of work and resurfacing the runways is?
Page 295
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: The contract as I know it contains the whole
range of actions, to even include construction oversight, if need be, if
the Board determines that we go to the next step to rehabilitate the
runway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me ask you the
specifics of the scope and how that relates to resurfacing the runway.
Can we do that? I'll read you out of the contract.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Upgrade the air field lighting
system.
MR. VERGO: Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager, Immokalee
Regional Airport.
Would you like an answer to each item, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. VERGO: Okay. As far as upgrading the lighting system of
the airport, what happens is depending on what width of runway that
the FAA does approve as part of this analysis that we do in the design
phase, we have 150 feet, 100 feet and I believe 75 or 60 feet are the
three or four available widths that we are looking into.
Depending on the width that the FAA is willing to fund will
dictate what we have to do with the lights, whether we have to bring
them in closer or whether they can remain stationary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying this has
nothing to do with the resurfacing?
MR. VERGO: It has everything to do with it. If we resurface the
runway at its current width of 150 feet by 5,000 feet, the lights may
remain in place. Depending on -- say the FAA decides based on our
usage, those that use the airport, that they're only going to approve
funding after this analysis and design for only 100-foot runway.
Those lights would have to be brought in closer as the edges of the
runway will be -- 25 feet of each edge of 927 would be deleted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so now you're saying it's
Page 296
January 8-9, 2013
not only resurfacing, it's also widening.
MR. CURRY: Well, what's happening is Immokalee currently is
at 150 feet wide. That's the width of the runways. But the FAA is
saying based on the type of aircraft that you have at that airport, we're
looking at reducing the width possibly to 100 feet or possibly to 75
feet. It depends on what comes out of this analysis that we're in the
process of discussing now. So we're pretty sure that we're going to
lose width to the existing runway because the type of aircraft that's
used.
So that's part of the analysis, is if you have to reduce the width
then certainly you have to bring the lights in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, I guess the
answer to my first question will answer the rest of my questions. So I
really don't need to ask them. It's more than resurfacing the existing
runway.
MR. CURRY: They're looking at the total scope of what it takes
to bring the runway into compliance, whether you keep it at its current
width, whether you reduce the width. Everything associated with that
study going forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well -- and I think it's a
misunderstanding by more than myself that it was associated just with
the resurface of the runway which FDOT said needs to be done, it's
been -- it's never been done before, I think it was said.
So now I have a better understanding why it is $750,000.
Potentially and most likely it's going to be a replacement of the
runway with the ancillary items associated with it.
MR. CURRY: That's correct. And one of the things that we had
to do as well is we had to go out and get an independent estimate to
this to provide to the FAA as we went through the process of hiring
the current consultants. And they're actually lower than what the
independent engineer's estimate was. But that's one of the
requirements we have to satisfy so that a consultant just can't charge
Page 297
January 8-9, 2013
whatever they want to do that type of work for the airport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I understand what the
item is and the contract is about. I mean, ifs more than my
understanding in the previous past.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't want to belabor the
point, but I'd like to try to clarify the issue on the grant and the timing,
and the demand.
I'll be the first one to tell you that I think the process of federal
and state grants is a really, really messed up procedure. But if we
don't get out and compete for those grants, we're not going to get any
of the money. And the grants don't come from the taxes that we as
citizens pay, they come from aviation sources. So if we don't go out
and get those grants and bring the money here to Collier County, some
other community is going to get it.
Now, can we time the availability of grants perfectly to match the
demand requirement? No, we can't. We don't know when the grants
are going to be awarded unless we apply for them. And if we are
lucky to get the grants, then we have to proceed with the
improvements. And that's good for us. But the improvements might
not match exactly the demand that is occurring at the airport. That's
one of the inefficiencies we live with in this process of government
grants.
So if you don't apply for the grants, you're not going to get them.
So when the demand does occur, you will not be prepared to handle
it.
So I am very happy with the way that Chris and his staff have
dealt with this. They've gone after grants aggressively, they've got a
good plan to upgrade the airport. And as we upgrade the airport, it
will become a more pleasing destination to people and people who
want to fly into the Immokalee Airport to go to the casino or for any
other reason. It's likely to occur -- that increase in demand is likely to
Page 298
January 8-9, 2013
occur faster if we make the improvements now.
And the alternative is essentially to do nothing until suddenly the
demand occurs and now we don't have the money from the FAA to do
anything. And I think that now is the perfect time for us to take
advantage of those funds. Because as the economy recovers more and
more airports are going to start competing for it, and there might be
less money available from the FAA.
So I encourage us to take a more positive approach here. I am
really concerned that we have damaged our ability to get grants from
the FAA and from other people because of the way we have belabored
these issues. And certainly the people who write these grants and give
the money know what's going on here, and that's not good.
So I would ask the Commissioners to take a more positive
approach on this. It's not like we're wasting taxpayer money. We're
just trying to get our share of taxpayer money back to Collier County.
Because if we don't get out there and compete for it, it's not going to
come here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, you're talking
about demand. If there is a grant awarded for some sort of expansion
beyond a request for funding for routine maintenance, wouldn't the
federal government want to see what that forecasted demand is to
determine the validity of the request? I can't -- I find it hard to believe
that the federal government would merely rely on our asking for
money for future -- you know, for some project which -- without proof
that there is future demand for that capital asset.
Are you suggesting that they don't care about future demand and
that we just make a request and they're going to give us the money and
then hopefully it will come?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm suggesting to you that the
federal government is highly inefficient. And when they have money,
what they do is they tell airports money is available for certain types
of projects. Send me your projects. Then you ask for the money and
Page 299
January 8-9, 2013
then they rank the requests. And they give the money to whoever they
think has the best justification for doing it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And that's the -- you just hit
the nail on the head. The word is justification. And the justification
is, in the discussion we're having, forecasted demand.
And the issue is whether or not, and this goes to what
Commissioner Fiala was addressing, demand, and it's actually
forecasted demand, that's the issue, whether the forecasted demand as
has been represented in the, for example, Immokalee Area Airport
Master Plan, is correct.
And so I think what you're saying is ignoring the really big issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you're ignoring one of the
statements I made which is it's almost impossible to match the
availability of grants with the actual occurrence of the demand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's absolutely not what's
done. In fact, what's done is we are building projects in anticipation of
forecasted demand. So there isn't any attempt to match demand in real
time with -- a request for funding at the point in time that there's
deemed to be a need. It's always for the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The fact of the matter is that the
Seminole Casino has plans for expansion. Rather large plans. They
were anticipating on growing their number of customers. And some
of it depends upon flights in on private jets.
We have, I think most of us have, confidence that the Immokalee
area is going to continue to grow. Immokalee area has been growing,
as a matter of fact, even during this recession. They will continue to
grow. And we cannot allow ourselves to get in the position where the
lack of infrastructure keeps them from achieving their growth goals.
So we've experienced that in Collier County in the last decade
when Commissioners did not build any roads and didn't improve our
infrastructure process for 10 years in the Nineties, and we struggled
during the first part of this new century to get that deficiency
Page 300
January 8-9, 2013
corrected. We don't want to put ourselves in that position.
So if you really think that what we need to do is to increase the
airplane count at Immokalee before we invest money in improving the
runway, then that is exactly the wrong way to be approaching this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you're correct, that is the
wrong way to approach the issue. The way to approach the issue is to
have a realistic or realistic as possible forecast on which expansion is
based.
And that's actually a great topic for our workshop. I think what
we need to do is bring back the -- for example, the Immokalee Airport
Master Plan and review the numbers that the capital plan was based
on, and determine whether or not they are realistic, given the current
environment. I believe that master plan was written somewhere
around like 2008, 2009. So it properly should be reviewed.
And Chris, if you could bring that back to the table and make
sure everyone has a copy of the latest version of that plan for review
ahead of time, that would be appreciated.
The next speaker is Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'd like to ask a question of a
couple of audience members.
Mr. Fletcher, do you support the resurfacing of the runway?
MR. FLETCHER: Just the resurfacing, not anything else. The
airport is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Fletcher, can you come up to
the podium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'm going to ask Mr.
Courtright, so you can come up as well.
MR. FLETCHER: Steve Fletcher, Fletcher Flying Service.
I've been in Immokalee since the Seventies. The runways -- and
I don't think anybody use them any more than me, especially at that
airport -- are in pretty good shape. They're smooth, there's no holes.
And probably 20 years ago they did a resealing on the airport. But the
Page 301
January 8-9, 2013
asphalt, from my perspective, what I can see, it looks in pretty good
shape. They're all smooth. And they have some areas of grass that
grow up in the edges of the runway which could be easily taken care
of I think once a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So really, you're not in support then
of doing this job; is that it?
MR. FLETCHER: Well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I consider you like the mayor of the
airport, that's why I'm asking you.
MR. FLETCHER: Well, I'm not the mayor. And it's not a boys
club out there. Never was, never will. And I think that if some of the
Commissioners were to come out there, they would see that's not the
case.
But the fact is yes, I would support -- if they want to put --just
resurface the runways, I think it would be a very good thing to do. Or
just reseal the runways. But from my perspective in rolling up and
down them, they're pretty smooth and they're in good shape.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want them to adjust the
lights or anything if they have to cut out part of that runway or, you
know, reduce it to 75 feet or 100 feet?
MR. FLETCHER: Well, I've always liked long, big runways.
And those runways are pretty nice the way they are as far as -- and
what they would have to do is take out the existing runway to narrow
it to bring the lights in, because that's concrete and that was put in
there in 1942.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about decoupling them?
MR. FLETCHER: Well, even if you decoupled the runways,
you're still going to have one airplane -- if one were to land on one
runway 9 to the east and one would land to the south, they're still
going to be in harm's way, if you look at it that way. Decoupling's not
going to do anything.
And I've flown all over the state and a lot of other runways all
Page 302
January 8-9, 2013
over the United States. Last summer I was in several states working
for fires. And I didn't notice any of those airports that were
decoupled. A lot of the old military airports were built in a triangle.
Punta Gorda's one. I don't think they decoupled theirs. They have a
tower now. I can look and see.
But there's -- all the old military airports were built that way and
I haven't seen any that were decoupled yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you, very much.
Mr. Courtright, how do you feel about this?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Marvin
Courtright for the record.
Any improvement to any airport is great. An improvement to the
runway 9 and 27 would be perfect. However, when you do it, we can't
take the approach of well, geez, this money's free.
Somewhere along the line we're under the wrong impression.
That money isn't free. We're all paying for it. My approach is do it
right. Coordinate it. Because we didn't know until I think I brought
the subject up about decoupling the runway. And as a result, Mr.
Curry presented it to some of the members here.
All of these are little add-on things. And I think even Mr. Brock's
office takes exception to changes to the plans and the ultimate expense
of accomplishing the project.
So I'm in favor of anything that improves aviation at Immokalee
Airport.
I would like to see one thing take place, and that is divorce
landside development, industrial development, from the airside.
Let Mr. Curry run the aviation side and get him out of the CRA and
the Immokalee redevelopment plan. We could have a good running
airport. But he's wearing two hats, and he should only be wearing one,
based upon his salary and what all's going on. I think he could do a
good job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Thank you very
Page 303
January 8-9, 2013
much.
I also wanted to mention that the -- I don't think anybody's
actually said this, but the Seminole Gaming Palace also wants to build
a hotel there. And they have Hard Rock Cafes. And they were starting
to clear the land and getting ready. And they're going to want to
transport people in, as well as convention business. And I think the
airport is trying to position itself to be ready for the convention
business when it comes in. They haven't built yet, but then again we
were in a recession, so maybe they were waiting till we came out.
Yes, sir?
MR. CURRY: Can I just say that we are just trying to maintain
the concrete that we have. We're not doing any long-term extensions
or anything, we're just maintaining the 5,000 feet of runway, at the
same time bringing it up to the current safety standards, which the
FAA is requiring for decoupling. That's all we're doing.
You know, there are some things in our business that are really
demand driven, Commissioner Hiller. For example, if I wanted to go
up and build a new terminal building and I -- and it was forecasted that
we were going to have a million people by three years from now and
the economy tanked and those numbers are no longer relevant, there's
no way that I'm going to be able to justify to the FAA that we should
-- still can build a terminal and they would approve it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
MR. CURRY: But things like concrete actually have a life span.
So regardless of what the demand is, when their life span is up then
we have to do something about it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I agree with that. And that's the
difference between, you know, a capital expansion project versus
routine maintenance. So I would agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My last thing is we were
talking about demand and they say forecasted demand. But we have
things that come up that aren't forecasted. For instance, out at Ave
Page 304
January 8-9, 2013
Maria, whoever thought that Arthrex was going to go out there and
build a building and start a major business and then other people
would want to congregate around there? We had no idea. You
couldn't forecast that because we --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, you could. It was -- yeah,
but keep going. They had already purchased land out there. And in
fact, just to add to what you're saying, if you go to the Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know when they purchased
it. But, you know -- and how to forecast --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's exactly what happens is
is you do the research, and you -- and obviously you can't know
everything. But if you look at the Immokalee Airport Master Plan, the
projected population growth was based on the advancement of certain
developments. Like, for example, Ave Maria or Big Cypress or what's
the other one, Arrow -- what's that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Arrowhead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Arrowhead, the Trade Port, it was
all -- the capital expansion of the Immokalee Airport was predicated
on the anticipated growth driven by these underlying developments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, all I say is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just as an example.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that you have to be poised and
ready and be attractive in order to encourage business to come to the
area. If you're all discombobled and you're back 10 years, you're not
going to attract business.
And that's what we're trying to do. We are trying to attract
business to Collier County. Immokalee is part of Collier County.
We're trying to create jobs. And I think by delaying or even opposing
the resurfacing of the Immokalee runways we are -- we're closing the
door in their face. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm looking at this maybe a little
Page 305
January 8-9, 2013
different than what some other people are looking at.
Mr. Curry, please help me, and Mr. Vergo, walk me through.
The contract, as I understand this contract, is a comprehensive
analysis of pretty much all features of our airport; is that not right? It's
a technical evaluation of our surfaces, discusses ground-penetrating
radar and an evaluation of our LIDAR arrangement, it's an update of
the airport layout drawing, and basically every facet of what would be
required to rehabilitate this airport. Is that a clear review of what it's
going to -- what we're going to get when we get done?
MR. CURRY: The runway. I wouldn't say the airport.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right, right. But the runways and
everything, all the ancillary things that are attached to them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But one runway, correct?
MR. CURRY: Yes. Runway 927.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Runway 927, okay, which is the
main one, right?
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. And it's my understanding
that our local match is $38,000.
MR. CURRY: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, approximately. You know,
I'm not going to -- worried about that. If you add this one together
with the Marco proposal, it is roughly a million four of grants that
we've gotten from FAA, DOT with our match to gather this
information.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's right. Okay.
To me, if we are going to evaluate going forward, how we're
going to spend money or if we're going to spend money, we have to
have an evaluation of this type. So to me it's an economic decision
that's driven only by one concern that I will have, and I will ask you
directly to give me reassurance, that if we -- we've already got this
Page 306
January 8-9, 2013
grant. If we execute this contract, are we going to be obligated to
spend a whole bunch of money immediately after that? I mean, if we
go ahead and take this FAA grant, we spend this money and we get
this data and we go in and we evaluate our long-term airport plans and
we say hey, listen, we really can't commit to the 10 or 50 or $100
million or whatever, are we going to have to repay the FAA for this
study money?
MR. CURRY: Accepting this grant does not obligate you to go
forward with any future improvements.
Again, what I said yesterday is what indirectly obligates you is
the fact that you have accepted this grant and previous grants to
maintain a safe and operational infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right. But that doesn't pertain
directly to this grant.
MR. CURRY: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, okay. I think gathering this
information is a good thing. If the Board is willing to go through this
process and the airport management is willing to go through this
process, as outlined by this engineer, to fully take the time and commit
the time to go through the data that they're going to give us and to
make some choices and to have them come back and give us
information on how much it's going to cost to do these different
things, I think it's all good. But everybody -- if the Board can't agree
to commit the time, and it says 300 days, I'm not interested in rushing
through this process. I think it would be absolutely awful to do that.
I think it would be -- I don't think we'd be getting our money's worth
from our grant and I don't think we would be fair to our planning
process to the ultimate decision on what we're going to do with this
airport.
So if the Board members are willing to go through this and
dedicate the time and deliberation necessary to do it, I believe we
ought to execute the contract and get the information. As long as
Page 307
January 8-9, 2013
we're not committed to, you know, expenditures down the road and
we don't have a bunch of liability, I think this information can be
nothing but good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second. Now, one
second. I want to just ask you a couple of questions --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- if I may.
That's not a motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's not a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I didn't think it was.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's a -- I'm trying to bore down to
the decision that we've got to make.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And I'm following what
you're saying.
It still is not clear to me if what we're looking at is a contract for
routine maintenance or we are actually changing the runway. I think
that if-- and I don't really understand why for routine maintenance we
would have an $800,000 engineering contract to explore alternatives.
It sounds to me like we're talking about two different things.
Every meeting to date Mr. Curry said the runway is in bad
condition and we need to repave it. There was never any discussion of
exploring alternatives or changes to the capital plan as it related to this
runway. We were talking about routine maintenance.
So again, if we're talking about routine maintenance and that is
what the FAA said it would fund because that is what we have to do is
maintain that runway in good repair, at what point did it suddenly shift
from, you know, this is the engineering to get it repaved to bring it up
to the standard that it should be back to where it was, you know, when
it was first built versus changing load-bearing capacity, decoupling, et
cetera, et cetera?
Page 308
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, it's my
understanding this investigative work is going to provide us with all
the options to understand what it would cost to do a whole bunch of
incremental things, everything from routine maintenance all the way
up to an upgrade.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, but that is not what we
approved, all right. And that is not what was represented to us when
we discussed here at the Board level with Mr. Curry what was going
to be done.
And again, is the FAA approving a grant to allow us to explore
alternatives or is the FAA awarding us a grant to allow for the
engineering of the maintenance which is the replacement of the
degraded concrete of the runway? And that's my question to Mr.
Curry.
MR. CURRY: I believe that's what you did approve. And --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you be specific and just answer
my question?
MR. CURRY: What is the question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, the question again is: Is the
FAA approving an engineering contract to provide engineering
services for the maintenance of the existing runway, to bring it back
into the level of repair that it ought to be, back to the way it was?
Basically, you know, eliminate the wear and tear as a consequence of
resurfacing, or did the FAA award this grant to allow us to explore all
possible alternatives with respect to this runway, whether it be an
increase in size, a decrease in size, change in load-bearing capacity, et
cetera?
MR. CURRY: I will just say simply that the work that's being
done at the runways is in accordance with the grant award for the
FAA.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not my question. I want to
know --
Page 309
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: I don't have the contract before me and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does anybody have the contract?
MR. CURRY: -- I could go through and read everything that's in
the contract, but we're not outside the scope of the contract and what's
approved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's -- I need clarification. I
need my question answered. I need to understand what this is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking what the grant --
what was FAA told why we need the grant.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. What did we tell FAA?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the grant application?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What was the grant application and
what did the FAA approve and what are we doing as a consequence?
Those are my three questions.
Because I'm hearing two very different stories. The first time
there was ever a discussion that alternatives were being explored by
these engineers was yesterday. Prior to that there had never been any
discussion of exploring alternatives. It was strictly we have to get this
resurfaced, we have to do it now because the FAA says that the state
of the airport is such that it needs to be resurfaced.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the grant application?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What did you apply for, what did
they give you, and what are we doing as a consequence? Because I'm
hearing conflicting positions as to what's going on.
MR. CURRY: I don't know what else to tell you. I mean, I've
been here on -- several times trying to explain it in detail. The work is
quite detailed. I've briefed Commissioners that I've met with over a
period of time, the ones that would meet with me. I've briefed the
Airport Advisory Board in detail --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Curry --
MR. CURRY: -- and I don't know what to tell you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, it's a very simple question.
Page 310
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, maybe I could help. I have this
executive summary that was part of your backup.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't want you to rely on the
executive summary. I would like to know what was requested in the
grant, what is approved by the FAA, and thirdly what is this contract
providing for in the way of services. And are -- I mean, did we request
funding for resurfacing because of the degradation of the runway?
Did we request the opportunity to explore all possible alternatives so
we could modify the runway, for example, by extending it or change
load-bearing capacity? And if so, on what basis?
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then what did the FAA come
back to us and say?
And what we can do is we can table this and go to the next
agenda item and give staff the opportunity to do the research.
Could we take another item while staff is taking the time to get
these answers, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Whatever the pleasure of the Board.
If you want to go to your item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go to the marina.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's suspend the discussion to give
the staff the opportunity to come back to us. Because I really don't
think that we can vote on this before we have the clarification.
MR. CURRY: So by saying to you that the FAA and the FDOT
approve of everything that we're doing under this grant, that's not
satisfactory?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're not explaining to me what
was requested, what they approved and what this engineering contract
provides for. I want reconciliation between the three.
Because on the one hand in previous meetings I was told this is
strictly resurfacing -- limited to resurfacing, maintenance to bring it
back into the condition it ought to be in. And now as of yesterday I'm
Page 311
January 8-9, 2013
being told it's to explore all possible alternatives and then we're not
committed and we don't have to do what is being engineered, it's just,
you know, up for consideration. Which is a very different position
than we're just doing routine resurfacing.
Why don't you take time. I want to give you as much time as you
need to come back and provide the answer. Because I do need
clarification.
MR. CURRY: Okay. Even if it's not today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Because what was the
grant application, what did it say?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't want to be redundant, but do
you understand --
MR. CURRY: No, I really want to understand, but I'm saying as
we're going through trying to research this information, if the Board
finishes its business today --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're not going to finish till we get
this resolved.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I will keep the meeting open
till you come back with an answer.
MR. CURRY: All right, fair enough.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: However long it takes. We're here
to do the public's business and, you know, this is our first priority.
MR. CURRY: Okay, we'll be back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll skip over to the Marco --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can address the same thing.
MR. OCHS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Chris, just do it for both and then
Page 312
January 8-9, 2013
come back and give us the reconciliation so we understand that we
clearly know what we're voting on.
MR. OCHS: Understand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #11E
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD RFP #12-5914R
"OUTSOURCING COUNTY MARINAS" WITH ANTICIPATED
REVENUE OF FOUR (4) PERCENT OF GROSS SALES TO
PARADISE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR A PERIOD
OF TEN (10) YEARS BEGINNING NO LATER THAN
FEBRUARY 1, 2013 — MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE
VENDOR PAYING THEIR OWN ELECTRIC COSTS AND
OBTAINING THEIR OWN PERMITS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that would move us to Item 11 .E
on your agenda. It's a recommendation to award RFP 12-5914R,
outsourcing of county marinas with an anticipated revenue of four
percent of gross sales to Paradise Property Management, Incorporated
for a period of 10 years beginning not later than February 1, 2013.
Barry Williams, your Parks and Recreation Director, will present.
MR. MILLER: And I do have one registered public speaker on
this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Barry, go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Williams, Park and Recreation Director.
Yes, ma'am?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please give us a full
presentation on this?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am, thank you.
Page 313
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, the item before you is a
recommendation to award RFP -- I'm not going to read it because my
eyesight can't see it, but RFP 12-5914R, with the outsourcing of county
marinas.
And just to give you a sense of what we're talking about, we're
looking at four marina operations that we have in Collier County. The
Parks and Recs department currently manages eight boat ramps. Of
those eight boat ramps, though, we have four that have retail stores
that provide for constituents' bait, fuel, you know, supplies, sodas, that
kind of thing; fuel and bait being our biggest sellers.
The other four boat launches, two of them, one is located at Lake
Trafford, one at Golden Gate Community Park in the canal and of
course the other two are 951 Boat Ramp and Bayview. So the ones
that we're looking at in terms of this outsource agreement would be
with these four: Caxambas, Cocohatchee, Port of the Isles, Goodland.
Just to give you kind of a sense, an aerial of these sites, this of course
is Caxambas Park. This is an area that we have boat slips -- or rather
trailer parking. We also have the Coast Guard Auxiliary that is on this
property. We work very closely with them. They provide educational
classes for area boaters.
The green space that you see in this particular location, that
would continue to be maintained by the Parks and Rec Department.
And just a concession store and a boat ramp would be what we're
looking for in our outsource.
Next park is Cocohatchee River Park. Again, this park,
boat/trailer parking, boat launch, concession area. We do have a park
next to Cocohatchee, as you're familiar with, Commissioner Hiller.
That park again would continue to be maintained there. We also have
a Coast Guard flotilla, auxiliary flotilla at that location as well we'll
continue to support.
This is Port of the Islands Park. This is perhaps -- this was
Page 314
January 8-9, 2013
purchased several years ago. At this location we do have dry storage
for boaters who don't wish to take their boat all the way down 41
when they want to put in. They can leave it there for a small fee and
have that boat available. We also have the ships store there, as well as
fuel.
Goodland Boating Park is the only operation of these four where
we're not selling fuel. We're not trying to compete with Goodlanders;
they have private marinas in that area. We do have a ships store in
that location, though, as well as wet slips at that location, so these are
all the areas that we're looking for as part of the outsource.
Just to give you a sense of how we've done over the last few
years, in looking at this from our standpoint we don't do bad with our
operations. Our goal has always been to have revenues at least meet
the expenses that we have associated with these ship stores.
You can see -- a couple of trends I'll note, and I'm sorry I don't
have this graphically depicted. But you can see a couple things. From
FY 10 to '12 we are seeing a slight increase out of the recession.
What we've noticed during the recession is less people on the water in
FY08, FY09. And we're starting to see the boaters return to the water.
So, you know, that's our kind of an indication that things are getting a
little better.
The one thing that's deceptive with this though that I wanted to
bring out is we are showing FY 12 with a cost recovery that -- 109
percent. Basically, you know, our revenues exceeded our expenses by
nine points.
That's a little deceptive. We stopped spending money towards
the end of the year in anticipation of this outsource. Part of what we
didn't want to do is to continue to stop the stores with the types of
things that we did, knowing that our ultimate goal was to turn this
operation over to a private sector. So I did want to mention that.
What we have seen historically --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before -- just go back to that. What
Page 315
January 8-9, 2013
were your expenses as a percentage of revenues year on year?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, for those three years in question, in
FY 10, we had 104 percent. When I say cost recovery, I'm saying the
expenses --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand. I just want to see
what percentage -- I just want to see what that surplus would have
been adjusted to, based on your cost ratio. Just a second.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I have to check out my --
MR. WILLIAMS: You're warming up there, huh?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm warming up my --
MR. WILLIAMS: Shall I -- you want me to wait or continue?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, just continue and I'll come
back. We can come back to that. I'll recalculate it quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Given that the surplus that we're looking at
historically, that -- we're looking at somewhere between 20 and
50,000 each year in normal operations that we've seen in terms of our
operating the stores.
What we have heard, though, from some of the constituents in
terms of the products that we offer in the stores, there is a desire in
particular in a couple of location, Port of the Isles being one -- Port of
the Isles is a unique situation for us. You do have folks that use the
boat ramp, the public boat ramp, but you do have a large number of
constituents there who live there who use that store for a variety of
purposes. Not quite like a Circle K or a 7-Eleven, but in a lot of ways,
you know, that's kind of been the expectation that they've had.
Goodland similarly, there's not a lot of private businesses on
Goodland where you can get a gallon of milk, for example, or a loaf of
bread. And those are the kind of product offerings that we think an
outsource -- the vendor that we're talking with would be able to
provide a little bit better than what we have in the past.
What I would tell you in terms of our seeking this outsource, it's
Page 316
January 8-9, 2013
been driven by a couple of factors. The biggest one has been the
recession. The Parks and Rec Department, and like everyone in the
country, has had a reduction in force. We've lost approximately 50
FT's over the last four or five years.
What we saw this as an opportunity is to do more with less as
you hear that term spoken. And certainly private sector is an
opportunity for this.
Our goal with this is to provide exceptional customer service.
That's what we think your constituents are looking for in terms of
these services, and we do think the private sector might be uniquely
positioned to do this.
I would tell you that this is not something uncommon for the
Parks and Rec Department. We do outsource activities for
recreational leisure services in a lot of different areas. Probably the
most common that we deal with is where we have contract instructors
working with us. Where that doesn't -- we're not hiring staff having
legacy costs associated with those staff, but where we can contract
with vendors who provide Zumba classes, fitness classes, those types
of things. It's a better bang for the buck and we provide the facility for
those folks to provide those types of services to our community.
So with that, just our solicitation for potential vendors, we
initially went out on the street in May of 2012, and when we sent that
solicitation out what we got in response was a lot of crickets. We
didn't really get much in the way of response at all. We do think that
there was some rationale, some reasons behind that.
We did have a pre-solicitation conference to go at this again.
And part of what we heard in that discussion was a vendor saying in
particular they were looking for a longer period of time. And the issue
was in these stores what we anticipate, you know, the upfront costs,
especially associated with fuel, are going to be a significant
investment from anyone who takes on this job. So there's some
upfront costs that running these operations, that the feeling is that
Page 317
January 8-9, 2013
having that long period of time will allow that vendor to make this a
profitable business for them.
We also heard -- and one of the things that we heard was we were
taking too big of a bite in terms of folks considering being a vendor.
We had asked for a fixed amount of money that seemed to -- when
people looked at this as a potential business, they just couldn't make
the numbers work. So they gave us that feedback. And what we've
done is we dialed down the RFP to look for a 2.5 percent gross percent
from the sales.
MR. OCHS: As a minimum.
MR. WILLIAMS: As a minimum, yes, sir.
And the other thing that we looked at in our model and the
revenues that we shared with you, those revenues included the boat
launch fees. And again, part of what we were hearing from the
vendors is allowing for the collection and having those boat launch
fees would help their business model work, where just having the
retail store would not.
I know one of the concerns that we've heard, and one of the
things that we're sensitive to is a Board approved fee associated with
these boat launches. And part of the contract that we have before you
that we're asking for your consideration, that fee would continue. It
would be -- the $8.00 for boat launch would continue to be approved
and authorized by the Board of County Commissioners. There's no
provision that allows that boat launch fee to be increased.
I will tell you, private sector boat launches, we have heard boat
launch fees of the 15, $20 per launch. So it's not unheard of. But the
Board of County Commissioners, in their selection of fees, have kept
that price point at I think a very reasonable amount.
But the last thing we did in terms of background, we went out on
the street in May, got nobody, sat down with vendors, and then what
we did is we reissued the RFP.
In looking at that, our scope was to manage the marina stores, the
Page 318
January 8-9, 2013
boat slips rentals, boat launch operations. I mentioned the two and a
half points.
We had two responses from people interested. And just to tell
you about the two responses, the one folk that responded were the
Platts that are here in the audience with us today. We had another
vendor who had responded; however, he only responded to the
Cocohatchee Marina. And part of our rationale, we look at the
revenues that we get from the marina operations. We do have, if
you'll allow me to use this term, two cash cows. Caxambas and
Cocohatchee, they do very well in terms of the revenue in. We do
have two that there is a need to serve the constituents, the Port of the
Isles and Goodland. However, we don't realize a lot of revenue from
those two.
So our point was we were looking for someone to take all four
marinas, recognizing the fact that they have some opportunities for
growth in Goodland and Port of the Isles, but also recognizing that
perhaps those might be some challenges for them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I just ask you --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- a question on that point, since you
have this graph up.
What are you doing to assure that the level of service is uniform
across all four of these marinas in light of the fact that two are cash
cows and two are not?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's a good question. Part of the
contract allows for stipulation of hours; seven days a week with
specific hours that have to be adhered to. In the two that -- Goodland
and Port of the Isles, we have made some allowances for the store to
close at 2:00 p.m. We don't anticipate that that be the case. We've got
vendors who are very interested in looking at ways to bring the public
in, you know, beyond that 2:00.
And for the most part what we find is in the winter, you know,
Page 319
January 8-9, 2013
the winter months, there's not an issue. The biggest challenge for us is
in the August, September where you have, you know, business is not
there, you don't have the tourists here yet. And those are the times
that we would want to give them that opportunity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I mean, I think it makes sense
to obviously adjust your hours based on demand. But again, you
know, we want to provide the level of service that the demand
anticipates. So it's very important that we have uniformity of that
level of service and that it's clearly provided.
You know, when you provide a service, as parks manager, I
mean, you make sure that all your parks are treated equally and you
don't discriminate in terms of the level of service just because, you
know, your bottom line is bigger at one park versus another. You are
fairly and equally responsive to whatever the demand is and you don't
ignore it just because it's less and goes to the bottom line.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so, you know, as government,
we owe everybody the same level of service, regardless of which park
it's at.
So I want to make sure there's wording in there that governs that.
Jeff? Can we do anything to provide that level of guarantee?
And then of course it would be up to you to define -- Barry, it would
be up to you to define that level of service.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think we can. I do know the vendor would
like to speak perhaps, and maybe she can provide some illumination
of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it has to be contractually --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- provided for.
MR. WILLIAMS: We can add that into the agreement, that
language that stipulates that. I do think, though, and it may be the
contents in the ships store itself in terms of what products offerings are
Page 320
January 8-9, 2013
there that there's some consistency. I think --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we don't need to know the
details, we need to just trust that you --
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a 60-day termination clause.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that's really the great protector on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You mean at any point in time?
MR. KLATZKOW: At any point in time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With -- owing what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: So that if at any point in time you think this
deal is a bad deal for the county or you think the service is inadequate,
your staff has a hammer on the vendor to ensure that the service is
there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: At the same time, though, I think we
need some assurances, because the whole idea is for staff to be freed
up. And if we're freeing staff up to be able to do other things, we can't
have them, you know, micromanaging these vendors. I think if the
standard is there, it's easy to gauge against some measure as opposed
to, you know, waiting for some, you know, lag and then, you know,
customers -- you know, the constituents coming back and getting all
upset that they're not getting what they anticipated and it wasn't the
same like was before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But Commissioner Fiala was
first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am first, but I wanted to ask Barry,
Page 321
January 8-9, 2013
have you finished with your presentation?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am. A couple more slides. But I had
a lengthy one, apologies.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I apologize that I interrupted at this
point. But because it's all about level of service, I really --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I could explain that chart --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- my opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, because you know these --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I use these facilities.
But the private sector provides a lot more service. And that's the
problem with Goodland, it doesn't provide the service down there that
Cocohatchee does.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what you're saying, if I
understand correctly is -- what I'm describing is the problem we're
actually having with government now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, you -- that pie
chart for Goodland is going to equal out. Once you get an
entrepreneur in there and provide the service that it should be, I think
it's a great idea going to a private sector. And I hope that we would
move forward with this. However, I do have some questions and
comments. I don't know if you want to continue with the presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, continue and finish with the
presentation.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just wanted to highlight that point.
And I think what Commissioner Henning said is actually very
interesting, because I thought you were perfect, okay, and he's actually
telling me you're not. But with a smile on his face.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, it's all about public
service. And I just see that the private sector can provide more.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And I think just another point of
Page 322
January 8-9, 2013
clarification real quickly, we'll let Barry move forward. I think there
may have been a little confusion on the part of the Board when we
talked about this provision in the contract for allowing some flexibility
of operating hours. We're already doing that and have been doing that
as a county run operation. So I don't want you to think that we are
allowing the vendor to cut back hours --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want --
MR. OCHS: -- that we weren't, ma'am. And I think that's where
you were going.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And so what -- because of--
what triggered my question was where you said the other vendor only
bid on like Cocohatchee and Caxambas --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right, right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's obviously because it's the
profitable entity and they don't want to allocate resources where
they're clearly (sic) going to have a net loss that's going to erode their
overall bottom line. And so I just want to be sure that while this
vendor said yes to all, that they're just not going to do indirectly what
the other guy, you know, clearly said --
MR. OCHS: Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- he would obviously be doing.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, finish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hurry up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, hurry up.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
The next slide I'd tell you, just in terms of our recommendation,
is to recommend the vendor Paradise Property. They've met all the
requirements. They've actually offered instead of the two and a half
point minimum, four points.
And we've -- negotiated agreement that you have before you, we
can talk a little bit about some clarifications, if I can. And some I've
Page 323
January 8-9, 2013
talked to. Concessionaire would provide for their own utilities. I
know that was a question that came up. And I'm not sure the contract
is as well worded as we'd like, and so we're looking at that.
We are working and sensitive to the employees that have been
working with us. And we basically have one full-time employee, four
part-time employees and seven job bank employees that are working
and managing these marinas. And so we have talked to them about
this. They do know that we're having these discussions.
The vendor has agreed to look at these employees and consider
them for employment, and so that's a possibility. We're also looking
within our department, as we have funded openings, and offering
those positions to those folks, and we've been working with our HR
department with that.
So I just wanted you to know that we are looking at employees
and sensitivity associated with that.
The boat launch fee I mentioned is set by the Board of County
Commissioners. That's not something that the vendor has the ability
to change. And a vendor -- what we're excited about, I think you guys
-- and what I'm hearing is that there's some possibilities here that
maybe we're limited with in terms of our constraints that private sector
can do, and so we're looking at potential better product offerings and
additional services.
With that, our recommendation is to award this contract to
Paradise Property Management.
I slipped one. I can go back, if you want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I was getting the sense to end this thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
You were addressing a concern with uniformity and a level of
service. I think with the same vendor managing all four, you're going
to get the same level of service.
Page 324
January 8-9, 2013
I checked a little bit on their background and I got some very
great comments on how well they do. I feel confident about that. I
have heard nothing but good things, actually.
And just to go back just an tiny bit. One of the problems that
county had was we were cutting back on staff, we were cutting back
on expenses as we got deeper and deeper into the recession. And of
course some of these ship stores really took a hit because of that. And
it was so difficult to get all the way out to Port of the Islands to deliver
milk and soda that then they had to reduce the amount of time in the
stores. They would be closing at 2:00 and the boaters would be
getting in at 4:00 and there were problems there as well.
I'm thrilled to hear that we're going to have this -- you know, we
haven't been able to hire many employees back again, so we've still
been dealing with that. So I'm thrilled that we're going to an outside
vendor, and I make the motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The contract needs to be
amended before we have a motion.
And I think the vendor needs to realize that we have some
commitments to citizens, like Caxambas, dusk to dawn. I know there
is some commitments with Goodland. Vendor needs to be aware of it.
However, I don't want to limit the vendor on what products they can
provide. I mean, I belong -- and I know a lot of people, not only
residents but visitors, want to rent kayaks and canoes. And it's a
perfect opportunity for this vendor to provide that project. So I don't
want to limit that. You know, people are not -- in my group they don't
have a kayak, so they rent one, or a paddle board.
So that's a better service that the public can provide that we
haven't. I mean, they're great facilities, they're clean and I'm sure
they'll stay that way.
Now, the hours of operation, let's take the example Goodlette.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
Page 325
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have been running it
historically, depending on demand too. Does that mean that the gates
stay open after hours, after 2:00?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we have a couple options. If the store
is closed the gates will remain open during park hours, which are dusk
to dawn, as they have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
MR. OCHS: Dawn to dusk.
MR. WILLIAMS: Dawn to dusk, my apologies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing, please look at
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Dusk to dawn. So that's where all
the parties are. All the ones we didn't know that were in Collier
County. I didn't catch that till Leo made that remark.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please look at -- what was I
going to say now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sony.
MR. OCHS: The hours of operation you were talking about, sir.
The utility.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the boat launch, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the annual fee, boat launch
trailer fee. Look at -- try to provide that for the vendor to provide that
at that facility.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. And we can do that. The
annual fee, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this contract limiting the
vendor of what kind of services they can provide? I know there's no
percentage on -- it's sales. Is that sales anticipated rental fees for if
they want to do kayaks and --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, revenue is revenue. The only thing we're
asking is that they bring that to management's consideration for
approval. But, you know, we're going to give them wide berth in
Page 326
January 8-9, 2013
terms of the types of services that the public is looking for. So if they
have -- the kayak I think is an excellent example where we want to see
that as well. So we wouldn't be limited through this contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't want to limit the
vendor from being very successful.
However, on Page 3 of the contract, item eight, utilities, the
county shall pay the charges of the utilities to designate the premises
including but not limited to charges for water, sewer and electric.
That needs to be corrected?
MR. JOHNSON: Correct. For the record, Scott Johnson,
Procurement Strategist from your Purchasing Department.
You are correct, Commissioner, it's a scrivener's error. It has
been corrected with -- in consultation with the County Attorney's
Office. And the vendor has also agreed as well to pay the utilities
from the onset. The RFP was issued with -- I believe the County
Manager put it on the overhead. Was always intended for the vendor
to pay the utilities associated with their operations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that, Madam Chair, if you
don't mind I'll make a motion to approve with the amended contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. Commissioner Nance
still has a comment, and I just have one question --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. And we still
have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Williams, we operate these
facilities at present?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Does it include vending of fuel?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes -- in three of the four.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Three of the four.
Does -- the county has all the relative permits for the tanks
Page 327
January 8-9, 2013
required and so on and so forth?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're the current holders of the
permit?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are we going to continue to vend
fuel there based on our permit, or is the vendor going to have his own
permit?
MR. WILLIAMS: The vendor will be expected to acquire their
own permit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, they're going to have their
own permit and they're going to have the requisite amount of liability
insurance for environmental spills relative to the amount of fuel that's
on site?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And that's going to meet
everybody's approval?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we are going to maintain a contract for
fuel tank inspection. We want to make sure -- we want to have a
double system of protection for the county where we're going to
continue to maintain and make sure those fuel tanks are what they
need to be.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right, that's my only concern.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the only concern I have is
Crystal, did you review the contract to ensure you have the ability to
audit revenues as needed to make sure the county does get four
percent of--
MS. KINZEL: The one caveat that I did see, it said that the
county's internal audit, but I'm assuming that means the Clerk of
Courts' internal audit ability to audit the revenues at any given time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that should be modified.
Page 328
January 8-9, 2013
Jeff?
MR. OCHS: That is the intent, correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: The Clerk has that as a matter of right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, but I think it should be clear
in the contract, just so that there's no dispute that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the constitution he is the
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, there's no question --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- county's auditor.
MS. KINZEL: And that was the response from the County
Attorney. So we understand that. And now that it's on the record,
that's even clearer. And I think the vendor's aware of that, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, so that they have the
ability -- the Clerk's Office has the ability to come in and audit
revenues whenever.
MR. OCHS: You have one speaker, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Cindy Blatt.
MS. BLATT: Good morning, Commissioners. Yeah, it's still
morning. Cindy Blatt, Paradise Property Management.
I will be managing the retail operations of the marinas. And I
just wanted to address your concern about Cocohatchee and being -- it
being a uniform, you know, operation. And I want to assure you that
Owen, who has a vested interest will be at Cocohatchee at least 40
hours a week.
As Barry has stated, we plan on keeping the existing employees,
giving them every opportunity to come on board with us, and they're
doing a great job now and we don't want to change that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
MS. BLATT: And so I just want to thank you for the
opportunity, and please know that you will be very pleased and the
citizens of Collier County will be very happy with what we do there.
Page 329
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great. Thank you very much for
your comments. Appreciate it.
MS. BLATT: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a motion. Do I have a
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you, I didn't hear that.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
We will break for lunch. It's 11 :52. Let's plan on being back at
1 :00.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, before the Board breaks, and I
apologize, we had an email communication from the representative
from Congressman Radel's office this morning inquiring about the
status of the Board of County Commissioners' lease for office space.
He would essentially take over the space that former Congressman
Mack had occupied. It's a routine standard form lease for the Board.
And they also have a standard form congressional lease.
We were going to bring those items to the Board at the next
meeting. They've asked us to attempt to try to accelerate that. I know
the Board has a policy about adding items on, but the County Attorney
and I have both reviewed those agreements, they're ready to go to the
Page 330
January 8-9, 2013
Board, if you'd indulge us and take those --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: -- and consider them this afternoon.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. And what I'll do is I'll,
you know, just take a vote of the Board, and if the Board is agreeable
in majority, I don't see any reason why we can't do that.
MR. OCHS: We could actually -- if the Board under your
ordinance would allow for that as an add-on, we can --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I'm going to do.
MR. OCHS: -- distribute that at your lunch break and then you
can --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- consider it this afternoon.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I'll make a motion that we add --
one agenda or two agenda items?
MR. OCHS: It's just one agenda item. It's a lease agreement with
Congressman -- between the Board and Congressman Tray Radel.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I'm going to make a motion that
we accept the lease agreement between the Congressman and the
county.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, as an add-on agenda item.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is it already on --
MR. OCHS: No. You're --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, as an add-on agenda item.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We put it under --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
MR. OCHS: We'd list it under County Attorney and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 331
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
MR. OCHS: -- and we'll get you the backup during the lunch
hour.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, we'll dismiss. That was a
unanimous vote.
(Lunch recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: By the way, I just -- and I want you
to know, I learned to hit the gavel like this by very carefully observing
Commissioner Coyle over the last two years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See how effective it is?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's amazingly effective. And I want
to thank you for --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's all in the wrist.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- setting the example.
It's all the wrist action.
All right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair, Commissioners, just a couple
of housekeeping items so we can stay organized here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean get organized.
MR. OCHS: No, stay organized, Commissioner.
Again, just a reminder that we have distributed the post-lease
agreement with Congressman Radel, and we'll just add that on with
the Board's motion and approval to become Item 11 .G under County
Manager's Report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 332
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: And the other note, Commissioners, I passed out an
abbreviated agenda of the remaining items to deal with today, and I
inadvertently omitted Item 12.E, which was one of the two add-on
items that we added on at the start of yesterday's meeting. That was
the item for the County Attorney -- authorizing the County Attorney's
Office to bid on eight parcels of property that were foreclosed on. So
we will need to take that up as well. So if you could just make a note
on your abbreviated agenda that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: -- 12.E still needs to be handled.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: And that's all I had, ma'am. And I don't know at this
point if you'd like to go back to 9.A and take the public hearing items.
I don't see Mr. Curry here yet, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. And Mr. Curry and I spoke
over lunch and he's still working on putting the response together so
he can properly disclose --
MR. OCHS: So if you'd like to go back to the beginning?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, let's go ahead and do that.
Item #9A
(1/9/2013) RESOLUTION 2013-13 (CP-2012-01) AND
RESOLUTION 2013-14 (CP-2012-03): RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE THE 2012 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW
Page 333
January 8-9, 2013
AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
(ORC) RESPONSE ADOPTED — 5/0
MR. OCHS: Okay. So we'll begin this afternoon with Item 9.A,
which is a recommendation to approve the 2012 cycle of Growth
Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Objections,
Recommendations and Comments response. It's a transmittal hearing
and it's a companion item to Item 17.B, which you approved yesterday
on your summary agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is correct.
Now, Mr. Weeks provided all of us with the information well
ahead of this meeting. Is there anyone on the Board that would like
Mr. Weeks to present, or would the Board like to ask him questions
rather than have him present?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three seconds, so it must not be too
much discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I have to look at
Commissioner Coyle, you know, he's come up with good ideas today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was one of the seconds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, he was the loudest one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, in that case --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just don't know what this Gordon
Greenway Park thing is, but it's okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 334
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. WEEKS: Please? Madam Chair, for the record, David
Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
My question is, was that motion applicable to both of the
petitions? There are two petitions in this cycle. Gordon River
Greenway is the one and the second one is an amendment to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: Right. Both of them are part of the same executive
summary, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was part of the same summary. I
didn't look at them as two separate --
MR. OCHS: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- issues.
MR. WEEKS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Next we have item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that David.
Item #9B
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND ADOPT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, BASED ON THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 335
January 8-9, 2013
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ADOPTED IN 2011
AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY OBJECTI ONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS REPORT ON THE AMENDMENTS, AND
TRANSMIT THE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY —
ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING:
ORDINANCE 2013-03 (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-04 (TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-05 (SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-06 (POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-07 (DRAINAGE SUB-ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-08 (SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-09 (NATURAL GROUND WATER
SUB-ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-10 (HOUSING ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-11 (RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-12 (CONSERVATION & COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT) W/WITHDRAWAL OF MAP;
ORDINANCE 2013-13 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-14 (FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT)
W/UPDATED MAP AND CORRECTING NAMES;
ORDINANCE 2013-15 (GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN);
ORDINANCE 2013-16 (ECONOMIC ELEMENT);
ORDINANCE 2013-17 (PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES
ELEMENT) — ADOPTED W/CHANGES 5/0
MR. OCHS: 9.B is an item that was continued from your
December 1 lth, 2012 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to review
and adopt proposed amendments to the Collier County Growth
Page 336
January 8-9, 2013
Management Plan Ordinance, 89-05, as amended, based on the Collier
County Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in 2011 and 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.
Mr. Bosi will present or answer questions that the Board may
have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me again ask the question: The
information was presented to us by Mr. Bosi well ahead of this
meeting. Would anyone on this Board like a presentation or would
you like to go directly to questions and discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just -- questions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Questions and discussion?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Bosi, we're going to -- yes?
MR. MILLER: We do have one registered public speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for letting me know.
Mr. Bosi, we're going to go directly to questions.
MR. BOSI: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Bosi, I just have one concern
and it relates to the item -- one of the items under conservation and
coastal management element, and it is the change in the delineation of
the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais strand system. It's Policies 6.1.2 and
6.2.5, and specifically 5.2.1, overlays related to wetlands and
environmentally sensitive areas.
And what my concern is, that some of the -- this wetland system
has been enlarged and the exhibits that were used and some of the
materials that were used are part and parcel of some of the Immokalee
Area Master Plan amendments going back to December, 2010. And I
believe that those items should be extracted from the EAR at this time
and taken up when we go back and discuss what we're going to do
Page 337
January 8-9, 2013
with the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment.
MR. BOSI: Thank you. Mike Bosi, Interim Director of Planning
and Zoning, Growth Management Division.
The items that you've mentioned are -- it's bifurcated the way that
we've approached it. At the transmittal hearings there wasn't a
suggestion to modify the updated Lake Traff-- or the Camp Keais
system map within the Immokalee Area Master Plan because that
petition was moving forward.
There was the decision to place the native vegetation
requirements for how development would move forward within that
system. Currently by our Growth Management Plan there's a hole
within this process.
If you wanted to seek development within the Camp Keais
system right now, there's no policy within the CCME that specifically
addresses what that native vegetation requirement would be. We're
suggesting that the neutral lands within the rural fringe mixed use
district of 60 percent be the appropriate native vegetation requirement
until we could provide further study or further clarification.
And I think for your suggestion it probably would be appropriate
maybe to -- we could pull back the revision, the updating of the
system of the map within the Immokalee Area Master Plan. That's a
separate ordinance from the CCME.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm particularly concerned about
that, because it goes into new properties, and I'm not sure that those
property owners are even aware of it. And particularly it goes into
some tribal lands. I don't know if we have any jurisdiction over what
it does to them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have no jurisdiction over the
tribal lands, and that portion of the map is --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, it spans both sides of that,
though. It extends, you know, quite a bit farther.
MR. BOSI: If it would be the direction of the Board, we could
Page 338
January 8-9, 2013
remove that suggested amendment to the Immokalee Area Master
Plan. I would suggest leaving the native preservation standards as
added, because that map still exists, that map currently exists. But we
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have no problem with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's do that.
MR. BOSI: And staff would take that direction and modify the
transmittal that would go to the Department of Economic Opportunity.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Because we need to take this
up with these property owners and make sure they're aware that there's
going to be this overlay.
That's the only comment that I have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to have to do land
development codes subject to the approval of this document?
MR. BOSI: I believe there are a few minor -- minor amendments
to the LDC that will be consent from the adoption of the EAR-based
amendments, the updating of the policies, but it's going to be very -- it
will be very few and minor in nature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, isn't the Land
Development Code a higher document?
MR. BOSI: No. The way that the process works, the way that
the planning environment, everything that comes from the Land
Development Code has to have a rational nexus to a policy objective
or a goal within the Growth Management Plan. So in the hierarchy of
things, the Growth Management Plan and then the land development
comes from the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take note of that, Leo, we're
going to have a serious conversation.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was correct. That was well
articulated.
Page 339
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it was.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for stating that, because
that is absolutely true.
Is there any further discussion, commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make the motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I will make the motion to approve
subject to the withdrawal of the map for further study by staff.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no dis --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David has something.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: David?
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, David Weeks again for the record.
I do have a couple of corrections I need to have placed on the
record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Both pertain to the Future Land Use Element.
And the Future Land Use Map that is in your packet and that was
attached to the ordinance is the same version that you saw at
transmittal. And that's the incorrect version.
The changes that have occurred and that are noted in the text, so
you -- again, the changes are noted in your text, simply the map did
not reflect what the text stated.
There are a total of four changes. The first is up at the very top
of the map. The date at the top of the map is now -- it should be 2012
to 2025. Again, that's stated in the text. But the map in your backup
in fact is the one that states 2006 to 2016. So that has been updated as
it needs to be.
The other three changes are all names to parks and preserves.
They're corrections. For example, this one here reads Fakahatchee
Strand Preserve State Park. That's the correct name. The incorrect
Page 340
January 8-9, 2013
name is shown on your map and there's two parks similarly changed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So you're basically going to
substitute this map for the map that we have in our packet?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And those are the only changes?
MR. WEEKS: Well, the other one is not something that you
would be adopting today. It's part of the backup materials. But I just
wanted to put on the record, there's a reference to this. This is from
the, what we call the ORC, which stands for Objections,
Recommendations and Comments, response comments. So it's part of
the materials that we will be providing to the Department of Economic
Opportunity.
The map that is in your binder does not have these handwritten
notes on it that you see here. And this is in the context of responding
to one of the comments from the Florida Department of
Transportation. I just wanted to get that on the record.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have to incorporate that in
our motion or not? Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Is it part of the executive summary?
MR. WEEKS: Well, the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I'll just -- to make it easy and
safe, I'll just incorporate it.
So I'll modify my motion to accept what has been presented, with
the exception of the map, which will be withdrawn and resubmitted to
staff for further review and subject to the changes presented by Mr.
Weeks on the record.
Do I have a second --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to the amended motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Page 341
January 8-9, 2013
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: One speaker, ma'am.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair? Yeah, your public speaker is
Marjorie Student-Stirling.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hi, Marjorie. How are you?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm fine, thank you. Good
afternoon, Commissioners, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Happy New Year.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'll be brief.
I represent Habitat for Humanity. The client just asked me to
come and put on the record that we thank the county very much for
giving us the opportunity to work with the county on a housing
element amendment.
We have some issues with Policy 110 of the housing element,
and we still have some concerns about the general nature of the
language, but we look forward to working with the county on
implementation, so we'll reserve any further comments until that time.
Thank you again and Happy New Year.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks, Marjorie.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
The next item is 10.D, Leo?
Item #10D
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
TERMINATING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH
Page 342
January 8-9, 2013
THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS. (THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR
RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC
MEETING) — MOTION TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION OF
TERMINATION AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS
ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT WITH MR. MITCHELL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner. 10D is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution terminating the employment agreement with the
Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners. This item
was approved for reconsideration at the December 11th, 2012 BCC
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, I
reviewed the printed minutes, I reviewed the tape twice, and there's no
question, Ian Mitchell resigned. There's no question at all that he
resigned. So I don't see how we can do a payout of-- you know, and,
you know, honoring the contract. The contract is the governing
document.
So I make a motion -- well, let me say another thing: There are
provisions within the contract that was not followed, okay. So -- and
that's something that -- some of the things we cannot go back on.
It was stated at an earlier meeting that all of Ian Mitchell's (sic)
are public. And that's true. However, the confidentiality agreement is
all about, you know, don't go out to the media and share information
that should be stayed in the office. That's what that is. And that
should be enforced. He should sign that. And that's one of the things
that we should direct the County Attorney to do.
So I'm not sure what the motion should be, but, you know, based
on what I said --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me make a suggestion. I have a
Page 343
January 8-9, 2013
number of lights on and we should also consult with the County
Attorney. Let me allow everybody to speak and then maybe you can
in the meantime as you hear the comments of the Board consider what
you would like to make as your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good idea.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to see some
proof that Ian Mitchell resigned. I would like to see that in writing.
Or the minutes or whatever. So if you have that, Commissioner
Henning, could you please display it for us so we could all see it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you approved those
minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not my question. Do you
have it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't have to show you
anything, you already approved it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we have to take your
interpretation of what you think the minutes said; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's stated on the record. Even
the County Attorney agreed that he was resigning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's stated on the record that he said
I am resigning? Is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The record's clear. Go ahead
and review it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to be adversarial,
sir, so I'm not --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want you to be honest and
complete.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- going to participate in the
conversation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if the reason for making a
Page 344
January 8-9, 2013
motion here is the fact that you believe that Ian Mitchell resigned, in
order for any of us to make an informed decision I think we need to
have that information shared with us.
Because I remember very clearly when Ian Mitchell sat there in
that chair right there and said I am not resigning. Very clearly. So if
there's something in the record that says he did resign, then I think you
should share that with the public.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have in front of me a transcript.
And I'd just like to go over this with you, Mr. Klatzkow, to make sure
that my thinking is straight. I think it is. But as far as I know, there's
three ways Mr. Mitchell could leave our employment: He could
resign, he could be fired with cause, he could be fired without cause.
Is that correct, according to his con -- I mean, that's the three ways he
could leave us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And none of them are under happy
circumstances.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. The transcript that I have in
front of me is Mr. Klatzkow speaking, and he's opining, he's trying to
give direction to us -- to the Board at the time. Didn't include me.
Somebody said they wanted to make a motion. Mr. Klatzkow
said: "Before you do it, because this is not clear, I'm going to tell you
right now, all right, the way the contract, and Leo's contract is like this
and my contract, the way these contracts are structured says you can
fire us with cause and without cause, all right. Ian is on the without
cause structure here. But the contracts provide that he's being
terminated despite the fact that he is willing and able to perform the
duties as Executive Manager to the Board, Commissioners, and he is
telling you here that he is not."
And on the next page, Mr. Klatzkow asked Ian directly, he says:
Page 345
January 8-9, 2013
"I mean, at the end of the day, Ian, are you willing and able to perform
the duties as Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners?"
Mr. Mitchell replies: "No."
So how is it that we are going to as a Board find that he is willing
and able to serve and therefore we're going to give him severance
when the gentleman testified that he was not in fact able to serve? So
how do we get to a severance package within the legalities of the
contract with which he was employed?
MR. KLATZKOW: You got there by Board approval of a
resolution wherein the Board of County Commissioners found that
Mr. Mitchell had continued to indicate that he remains willing and
able to perform the duties of Executive Manager to the Board of
County Commissioners and the Board no longer wishes to employ the
services of Mr. Mitchell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you read that into your
microphone, please?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mike, could you raise Jeff s -- his --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's in your packet, Page 21 -- Page 432.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: My concern is that the Clerk --
we're going to get into a big fight with the Clerk because the Clerk is
going to say we didn't follow the rules of the contract. We're paying
the man arbitrarily outside of his --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you're in a fight with the Clerk
because my understanding is the Clerk hasn't paid. There's no dispute
at this point in time. The only dispute would be is if Mr. Mitchell
would --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: With Mr. Mitchell. Where do you
think we stand on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I heard from his attorney maybe a month
ago. I haven't heard from him since then.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Coyle -- Commissioner Coyle?
Page 346
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's nothing I've heard so far
that says Mr. Mitchell resigned. His response to the County Attorney
could very easily have been -- his question could have been
misunderstood. Certainly he's able to -- he was able to.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Able to what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Able to continue serving.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: His direct response to the question,
sir, was no. Mr. Klatzkow asked him: At the end of the day, are you
willing and able to perform the duties, and he said no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think that's controversial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you read the one that says I
am not resigning?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Does it say that in this text?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It says he's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I remember very clearly he sat
there in that chair and says I am not resigning. That is clear and
unequivocal. So at the very least there is some confusion about that.
But in my mind it was very clear that he was saying you've created a
situation that makes this untenable. I would prefer that you fire me.
And after some discussion the motion was made to terminate Mr.
Mitchell. And my justification for voting in favor of that motion was
because it would save us money. We had already reached the
conclusion that the way the office was organized was not effective and
was not working and we'd had this same problem with two successive
managers, and so we were proceeding down a path of perhaps
reorganizing the office and having discussions. By terminating Mr.
Mitchell we saved the cost of the manager, even with the payment of
the severance pay. We would recover that total cost within a year. So
it would give us the opportunity to reorganize the office and do what
all of you have said you want to do right now, which is to have the
Page 347
January 8-9, 2013
aides work directly for the Commissioners. We could not do that if
we kept Mr. Mitchell in the job.
So there was clear rationale as to why we wanted to take that
action. Yes, Mr. Mitchell asked us to do that, and it seemed like an
appropriate idea then and it is an appropriate idea now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, your thoughts?
MR. KLATZKOW: The Board took the action that it took. And
the Clerk is taking the action that the Clerk has taken, or no action.
And that's where we stand right now.
You know, the Board has the prerogative to reconsider its
decisions. I don't know how that's going to impact this issue one way
or the other. I don't know how you un-fire somebody. But, you know,
we'll implement Board direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just add one thing,
we can't do what we're doing here if you had Mr. Mitchell here. You
couldn't have an aide working for you if Mr. Mitchell were here. So
by taking that action --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Why do you say that, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, because he was supervising
and managing all of the aides. He was responsible for evaluating
them, administering any guidance or whatever, and making
recommendations concerning termination. So those are things that we
don't have now, and most of the Commissioners have said they don't
want those -- someone doing that for them.
So if we had -- if we say to Mr. Mitchell, you're not really fired
so come back to work for us, what would you do then? You can't do
the things that we've already begun to do. You can't save the money
that we've already begun to save.
So I don't -- I just don't understand why we don't look at this
from a standpoint of it was a decision that was made for the efficiency
Page 348
January 8-9, 2013
of the office and to save some money and to let us do what we had
decided we wanted to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, part of the problem in the
contract, the evaluations was not done. And furthermore, it states that
the aide and the commissioner can work freely without interruption.
So, you know, I see it where Mr. Mitchell -- it has nothing to do with
the efficiencies'of it. He clearly stated, you know, I'm going to quit
unless the Board changes the way they operate. So to me he resigned.
It was clear that Commissioner Nance read it into the record. So
therefore, I'm going to make a motion that -- to deny the attached
resolution within the executive summary and deem that Mr. Mitchell
resigned and direct the County Attorney to enforce the provisions in
the contract, which was a confidentiality agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, what are you going to do if he
doesn't enforce the confidentiality agreement? We can't dock him if
you don't want to pay him in the first place. You can't fire him,
because he's already gone. What are you going to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a breach of contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what does that mean?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe you sue him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I'm just trying to
figure out what that means.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody knows what that means,
they haven't thought that far ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question I have for you is
you're going to fire him effective when? What's the effective date of
-- I'm sorry, what's the effective date of his resignation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He didn't resign.
Page 349
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course he didn't resign. But
now you're saying he resigned, so is his effective date of resignation
now? Now that this Board makes a new interpretation, is his effective
date of resignation now? What do you do, do you owe him money
from that time to this time? What was his status? You're likely to
spend $60,000 on legal fees just trying to sort this out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, I have a couple of questions.
You know, at one point you asked Mr. Mitchell if he was able to
do his job. And you indicated that if he said -- yeah, I know, I have
that here. I have the same minutes. But thank you. This is from --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't get any of those minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They're just minutes from the --
here, let me share with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just put them in a book.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Find the one where he says I am
not resigning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Here, and I'm going to read the
same thing. But yeah, you see, this is very interesting. Because when
Jeff-- at some point --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's my turn, hang on.
And this is what's interesting. Jeff said that he could be
terminated without cause provided he said he was willing and able to
perform the duties as Executive Manager to the Board. And he's
telling you here that he's not. And that's a quote from Jeff, right?
And then Jeff goes on to add a few other clarifications. And then
finally he says to Mr. Mitchell, I mean, at the end of the day, Ian, are
you willing and able to perform the duties as Executive Manager to
the Board of County Commissioners? To which Mr. Mitchell says:
No. And then Mr. Klatzkow says: Then there's no severance.
Now, then Mr. Mitchell goes on and he says: So Mr. Klatzkow
Page 350
January 8-9, 2013
said he can be terminated but he's not willing to do his job now and
that's why people quit.
To which Mr. Mitchell responds: I stated in the statements I
made that I was able to do it but not -- if I was going to do that, then it
would have to be under different conditions. And as Chairman Coyle
has said, he does not anticipate that that's going to happen.
And so essentially -- and actually further on, and I would have to
pull this out in the minutes through the various times we've met on
this, at some point Mr. Mitchell then turned around and said in order
to qualify for the severance, he changed his statement from no, I
cannot do my job to yes, I can do my job in order for the Board to be
able to give him the severance pay.
So we have a situation where one of two things has occurred:
Either Mr. Mitchell was able to do his job and the previous actions of
the Board terminated him, which is now under reconsideration, which
could allow this Board to reinstate him because he said he was able to
do his job so we're going to reinstate him under those terms, or what
Mr. Mitchell first said is true and that is he said he could not perform
his job, in which case he does not receive severance pay.
So it's one of two scenarios: Either we reinstate him and pay him
back pay -- to answer your question we would pay him back pay from
now to when the other -- you know, when that resolution was passed
terminating him with pay and bring him back on board, or we accept
his first statement as true, which is what he said several times, that no,
he could not do his job, and as a consequence is not entitled to
severance. And those are really our two choices.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, the reconsideration is a
resolution which was adopted on October 23rd, 2012.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so --
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's the back of Page 432. That's really
what you're reconsidering here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if we're reconsidering the
Page 351
January 8-9, 2013
resolution, the resolution is based on the premise that he is willing and
able to do his job. And if he is willing and able to do his job, which is
the only way that that severance can be deemed legitimate, then we
will reverse it and reinstate him and give him back pay from now to
when that resolution was passed.
And the contract also provided, and I had brought this up back
then, that his evaluation was to have occurred in November when the
new Board was seated, not in October when it actually was done. And
so Mr. Mitchell should be reinstated with back pay, he should
reassume his job, and this Board should evaluate him, which has not
happened.
MR. KLATZKOW: You want to rescind the termination and
offer his job back?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not offer. I mean, he said he was
able to do it. I mean, if he doesn't come back, now he's resigning.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, because -- I mean, he --
MR. KLATZKOW: With all due respect, I think you're entitled
to rescind the resolution of termination, offer him his job back with
back pay and everything else. You can't force him back here and you
certainly can't say, well now that we've changed our minds, you quit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no, it's -- no, you
misunderstand the last part. It certainly isn't what you just said in the
last sentence. It's not that if we reinstate him -- we're reinstating him.
We're not offering him his job back, we are reinstating him properly to
where he should be.
He said he could do his job. That was the only way this Board
could legally adopt this resolution. Therefore, we have the ability to
reverse it and reinstate him to be able to perform as he said he could.
Because he did contradict himself. He started off saying he couldn't,
Page 352
January 8-9, 2013
and then later on when you made it clear to him that he had to, say he
could do his job to receive that severance pay, he changed his
position, okay.
So now we adopted a resolution based on his representation that
he could do his job. If this Board chooses to reverse that termination,
he's back where he was, which is able to do his job. And therefore he
needs to come back to work. It's not extending him a new offer, it's
merely reversing the termination. He said he could do his job in the
latter part. Otherwise, you have a sham resolution. Do you have a
sham resolution, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: The majority of the Board, 3-2 vote, voted
for this resolution.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But predicated on him stating he
could do his job. Because if he says he can't do his job, he resigned.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think there may be an alternative.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: One of the things that was
discussed back in September was to have a termination with a
settlement similar to what was done with Mr. Jackson, which was six
weeks and not six months. I think if we stick with what we've got
right now Mr. Mitchell is going to get nothing. I think we may have
exposure to a lawsuit, because I don't think Mr. Brock is going to pay
the severance. He's not going to pay it.
So if we want to end this whole thing with some finality, we
could go back in the resolution, pay him his back pay up to today and
offer him six weeks settlement in lieu of the severance. If that is
acceptable to him, then he won't feel like maybe perhaps he's going to
sue us and maybe we could be done with this. Because I don't think
it's going to be concluded if Mr. Brock doesn't pay him. It's not like
we haven't done this -- even if you like Mr. Mitchell and you want to
do something and you say hey, it's all unfortunate, we want to -- we're
not giving him anything, because Mr. Brock's not going to pay him.
Page 353
January 8-9, 2013
Mr. Brock is not going to pay him the severance. Does anybody
disagree?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He's not going to pay him. So if
we want to give him some sort of a settlement, we should do what we
did with Mr. Jackson, pay him his back pay from the time the
resolution was passed till now, plus give him the six weeks and see if
we can call it good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think that's the right
direction. I think the man served the county for a long time favorably.
He was in a situation where not one member of this Board could have
done that job any better. And that whole position is an untenable
position for anybody. And it was not his fault.
But that is I think the right direction the Board should be going
in. But I'd like to just get one point clear. Commissioner Hiller, did
you say that there was supposed to be an evaluation in November?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I don't know, maybe
you have information I don't have, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the information I have here in his
contract says that the written evaluations based on said performance
system will be provided by each County Commissioner to employee
prior to October the 1st, 2010 and prior to October the 1st thereafter
for the term of the agreement. So my recollection is that we had
evaluations during that time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Unfortunately the contract
that you executed is incorrect. What happened was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, of course.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- when the Board approved Ian
Mitchell's contract, there was quite a bit of discussion as to when -- or
Page 354
January 8-9, 2013
some discussion, I should say, as to when he was to be evaluated.
And the decision was made by the Board that it would be in
November. And it was voted on as such.
And the contract you executed was what was in the backup and
was never subsequently modified before your execution.
So not through any fault of your own, but the contract that you
received for signature was incorrect, based on the Board's action at
that time. So it clearly -- the direction voted on by the Board was that
he was to be evaluated in November.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't find that anywhere in any
documentation I have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's in the minutes. You have to look
at the minutes. No, I don't have them in here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The minutes you don't have?
Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I make a suggestion? Having heard
there's a concern here that Mr. Mitchell signed a confidentiality
agreement, there's been some discussion that perhaps the best way for
severance would be for back pay up to today plus six weeks. I can
make that offer to him and see if that ends it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then I think what we'll do is we'll
reverse the termination, because obviously if he can do his job, then
he can come back and we can negotiate the settlement. If you're
saying he can't come back, then he clearly resigned. So I think the
direction for the Board would be to reverse what was done by the
previous Board, to reinstate Mr. Mitchell with back pay, and to ask
you, Jeff, to communicate with him and offer him the settlement under
the terms that Mr. Nance described and adding what you just said,
which is the execution of the whatever that agreement is, pursuant to
the contract. Because if I understand correctly, that agreement, that
confidentiality agreement is --
Page 355
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Was required by the contract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was required by the contract. It
was also required of all the aides.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was Mr. Mitchell's obligation to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And that wasn't done, so
could you see to it that's it's executed with all the aides as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't worry about mine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. There was -- I mean, it doesn't
-- I mean, personally I don't agree with the confidentiality agreements,
period. I mean,.I don't think there should be a confidentiality
agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I think it has to be addressed.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- if you could take the case off the table for
now I think is much cleaner. And I will proceed with that direction
with Board approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me what direction you're
proceeding with?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we'll vote on it.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- okay, that you are rescinding the
resolution --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let him finish and then we'll --
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is you are rescinding the
resolution of termination.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're offering his job back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're also saying to him that we would
like you to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we're not offering his job
Page 356
January 8-9, 2013
back. He should report back to work because he did not resign.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. We're going to give him his back
pay from the time he left the employ of the county plus six weeks
severance, in the same manner Mr. Jackson received. But as a
condition of that, he must execute the confidentiality agreement.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Should -- we're going to reinstate
him, but should he not wish to return we will terminate him effective
at the time of your offer with a settlement agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, if you reinstate him --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- okay, and he doesn't want to leave --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Then we got him back.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- then you got him back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to terminate him, his contract
provides for six months severance. So before you undo this, okay,
because you have an item later up for discussion of reorganizing your
office. And Commissioner Coyle is correct; you may not want that
function. So maybe what we should do is table this, let me contact
Mr. Mitchell and see if I just can't work that out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let's go ahead and reverse the
resolution.
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, be careful what you ask for, because
he may come back and say okay, I'll take my two months back pay
and I'm here --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and report for work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You may decide later in the meeting --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You don't wish to have that
position.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- you don't wish to have that position.
Page 357
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But here's the thing: And that's
questionable. And the reason I say that is, you know, we may not
need him. First of all, the obligations to perform are up to us to
enforce. So if we don't want him to supervise or hire/fire the aides, we
can choose not to have him do that by simply waiving that portion of
the contract and simply have him do all the other stuff that he was
obligated to do. Like, for example, your position, you know, the
agenda, the advisory boards, the management of the --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to lose Troy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Troy.
MR. MILLER: Not my entire position.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Troy, I get it, you like it.
But the point is, is there's a lot that we added to a lot of other
people that we could re-centralize back in him while still maintaining
our ability to directly manage our aides. We simply carve out that
portion of what we want him to do.
And we can do that unilaterally. Because we can unilaterally
waive whatever it is that he is obligated to do for us. I mean, he can't
say no, he won't do something, but we can say no, we don't want you
to do something or we don't need you to do something because it's
either for or against our benefit. So I'm not sure that that's -- and I
think, you know, having --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're next.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I personally would not have -- and I
didn't recommend his termination. And I think there is value to having
him do all this other stuff and have it centralized and with one person.
Now, I don't think the Commissioners need him in between them
and their aides. But I do think there is value in a centralized position:
Purchasing, payroll, minutes, et cetera.
So I go back to my position. I mean, we can -- even if we
restructure the office to say we don't need him to supervise the aides,
we still can and I think would benefit to use him for centralized
Page 358
January 8-9, 2013
administration of the administrative functions of the Manager's office
-- of the Commissioners' office.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Commissioner Fiala was
before me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, then Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The first thing I was going to say
was -- rather, the only thing I was going to say was I liked Jeff s
suggestion that we table this until he talks with other people, till we
discuss the other items on here and bring it back to us, what, the next
meeting or something, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: My suggestion is let me talk to Mr. Mitchell
and then come back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I like that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just table it for one meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- idea.
MR. KLATZKOW: But majority rules.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that I'm not part of that
thirty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've noticed that, we've noticed
that.
Is it my turn yet?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is, I'm done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, just some
observations. If we were to bring him back here, who would he report
to? Who would evaluate him? Who would assign the jobs to him?
You can't bring him back into our organization.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why not?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you just created a situation
where -- are you going to supervise him?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be a great
idea.
Page 359
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it might very well be.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That was sarcastic.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it could very well be true. But
we're creating more problems in trying to solve this one.
But let's look at this. We're probably quibbling over $30,000
total between the decision that was made by the last Board and the
cost of what's going to happen with this particular proposal. I don't
have a problem with trying to reach a settlement, but let's not make
this more complicated than it really is. If you want to bring Ian back,
maybe there's a place in the government where he can work. He did a
good job with the county --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Like back in housing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wherever. If the County Manager
has a position that Ian would feel comfortable with. And you could
bring him back, and he could work under circumstances that are far
better than the circumstances he was working under here.
So I think it's worth exploring those kinds of things, as Jeff has
suggested. But in the final analysis when we start trying to manipulate
things around bringing him back, it gets really messy and it's
ultimately going to be more costly to the government.
So I think you'd save the taxpayers a lot of grief and a lot of
money if you just left the termination the way it was and let it go. But
if that's not going to happen, I'll back a --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- back an attempt to reach a
compromise on it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, it's clear to me that Mr.
Mitchell does not want to come back to work here. He made it pretty
abundantly clear from what all the testimony I heard, that he did not
want to work here further.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did not want to work in this
position further.
Page 360
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. Yes. So I don't feel like
it's in his interest to bring him back just for the sake of bringing him
back. It's also clear to me that he's not going to get his severance from
the Clerk's Office. So I'm just trying to find a way so that we can get
some finality on this.
And if you want to give him a severance, I suggest we let Mr.
Klatzkow use his negotiation skills to try to find something Mr.
Mitchell finds acceptable and hopefully we can just be done with this.
So I'm going to make a motion that we allow Mr. Klatzkow to
work on this and that we bring this back after Mr. Klatzkow's had a
chance to talk to him, and perhaps after we talk about the rest of our
office reorganization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
And may I suggest that while Mr. Klatzkow is talking with him, I
liked your suggestion before, I thought that that was a -- I thought that
that was something that he could live with and I certainly could live
with. And that might just be -- and it seemed to be very fair. So I like
that suggestion, if we could include that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What was that last thing you said?
What suggestion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The one that Commissioner Nance
suggested, where -- pay him up till today --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then give him six weeks
severance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Which is the statutory
severance. Yeah. As part of the settlement which includes execution
of whatever document he was obligated to sign pursuant to his
contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then we would table this and
then bring this item back once you have a position for us.
Page 361
January 8-9, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you modify your motion to
that effect?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And second, would you accept the
modification?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Item #10P
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO ADD SCHEDULED BCC SUPPLEMENTARY
MEETING DATES ON FIRST AND THIRD TUESDAYS EACH
MONTH, (WITH APPROPRIATE CALENDAR MONTH BREAKS
TO COORDINATE WITH THE ANNUAL BCC MEETING
CALENDAR), TO FACILITATE TIMELY SCHEDULING AND
PRESENTATION OF WORKSHOPS, PRESENTATIONS, PUBLIC
MEETINGS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS DETERMINED BY
THE BOARD. FURTHER, AUTHORIZE THE BCC CHAIR TO
Page 362
January 8-9, 2013
PRIORITIZE PLACEMENT OF ITEMS ON THESE DEDICATED
SUPPLEMENTARY MEETING DATES FOR FINAL APPROVAL
BY THE BOARD AT EACH REGULAR MEETING — MOTION
DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A
BOARD WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS SCHEDULES, DEADLINES,
WORKSHOP TOPICS, ETC — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Okay. Commissioners, we have Items M, N and P
that are all somewhat related. 10.M, N and P. I don't know if you
want to take these in any particular order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Madam Chair, you're
going to lose me in a half an hour.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we go to P,
recommendation to direct the County Manager to add a scheduled
BCC supplementary meeting?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm going to make a
motion to approve. Here we are, the second day at 2:00. I think that it
should be a regular meeting and also it could be a date for workshops,
presentation, public meetings and special meetings. So that's my
motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me share my view on this. I
don't think it's fair to staff to have a meeting of this nature every week.
It takes --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it's fair to us to have a
meeting like this every week.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, you're out of
order. I'm just kidding.
Okay, so here's the thing. We are not typically -- and we haven't
typically had two-day meetings. The reason we have longer meetings
right now is because we have a great deal of old business in addition
Page 363
January 8-9, 2013
to new business.
Now, I think to the extent that we may need two days, it makes
more sense to have meetings twice a week as we are, but reserving
two days to accommodate larger agendas. With the understanding that
we finish at, you know, 5:30 day one and continue into day two in
order to be effective and productive the second day.
I further think it's extremely important that we have one day a
month reserved for workshops. And it doesn't have to be a structured
workshop like staff coming forward and presenting, you know, a
whole presentation and then, you know, a discussion on some
developed agenda. But we have to have the ability to communicate.
And you made a really good point this morning, Commissioner
Nance, when you said, you know, because of Sunshine we can't talk.
And there's a lot of discussion that goes on at the Board level when
we're deliberating an agenda item that's unrelated to the agenda item.
Like for example, Commissioner Coyle was making certain points
about security at the airport. Those are important points to discuss, but
they didn't relate to that agenda item. And so that's why we need the
workshop scheduled, to be able to talk about that and to have a
free-flowing conversation that we have the ability to exchange ideas
and come to some consensus position. Then we, you know, formulate
an executive summary. And then when we come to the table we vote
and we can agree or disagree, but we're not going to sit here trying to,
you know, formulate a position based on rapid-fire debate in a very
constrained amount of time.
So the only thing I would add -- the last thing I would add to that
is that we do need to get the agendas out earlier for the public's
benefit. Which is I know hard for Leo to do. But I think the difficulty
will only be with the first few agendas until the transition is
established. Like, for example, instead of dropping it on Wednesday
before that meeting, drop it on the previous Friday, basically two work
days ahead. Which then gives the Commissioners a reasonable
Page 364
January 8-9, 2013
amount of time to review the material and meet with the constituency.
Allowing for only what amounts to in effect three working days
to meet with constituents and review the agenda is just not reasonable.
It's just -- and most, at least from what I found is most communities
do give at least a week notice.
All right, I've said my peace. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just on that comment about --
it certainly is a lot of work preparing for the meeting, because you lose
every other weekend. Because I read everything myself. I don't have
anybody helping me, I just do it on my own. So I have to just chalk
off every other weekend as I prepare.
But if I were getting it early, I wouldn't be able to do anything,
because we're still in meetings all the time, whether it be meetings in
our office, whether it be called meetings, whether other meetings that
we have to attend for our constituents and supporting the community.
I don't know how that would really be advantageous. I don't know
when I'd get to read during work days anyway, to be perfectly honest
with you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I can respond, it's not just for
our benefit. I would. I mean, I'd be reading all the time, every
moment that I wasn't meeting with someone. But it gives the public
the opportunity to have time to review and more time to meet with us.
Because the public only getting the agenda as of Thursday morning
just doesn't really allow them as much time as they deserve to have to
meet with us.
I mean, I find myself sometimes where, you know, someone will
want to meet with me but I've got so many other people and I only
have three days and I have to review the material. Where it becomes --
it's unfair to the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had another comment, but I've
already forgotten because you made that other comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry.
Page 365
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll have to go back to it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, you just let me know and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- I'll call on you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. The reason that I am
proposing this is not to schedule an additional regular Board meeting.
It is exactly what I tried to elucidate in some of the attachments and
that is to provide for workshops, presentations and public meetings.
And additionally, things that may come up. The intention is to block
out some time so if we have something of importance that somebody
would like to discuss, we have some dedicated time on all our
calendars and we've provided that block of time available for that.
I discussed with Mr. Ochs that I feel it would be very -- have a
lot of utility for the Board members to take a look at our annual
calendar and make sure that our workshops -- that our presentations by
the managers of our business units like the CRA's and so on and so
forth are scheduled during the year in a timely fashion to work well,
together with their evaluations, together with planning for the next
year, together with the budget and so on and so forth. And having a
time available for those workshops would provide that. And that's
basically what it is. And I -- take for example what would have
happened had we had been able to have this time blocked out and we
would have had a workshop on the airport and on the maintenance of
the airport. We would have had a much more productive discussion.
As it was, it went over two days, it kept everybody that was trying to
have public hearings standing around for two complete days trying to
figure out what it was, and I don't think we would have had -- we
certainly would have had a more productive discussion than we did
today trying to talk about all these things spread over four agenda
items. It wasn't very productive and I don't think it promotes good
decision-making.
Page 366
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I totally agree. I totally agree.
The only thing, if I may respond, because I think there's
confusion, because what Commissioner Henning started out with
saying, which is basically, you know, a meeting every Tuesday so that
we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today is very different than
what you're proposing. Because we will have situations where a
meeting may last two days, like today.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what you're suggesting is
something different. You're --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But we can probably avoid that if
we recognize the items that need a workshop or more, you know, and
avoid having an agenda that's loaded with related things.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we clarify? Are you saying
that the alternative Tuesdays will be reserved for workshops?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Or special needs, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, what's your position on this?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, operationally that's difficult
for staff, because it essentially means all of the senior management
team clears their calendars for those days in anticipation of perhaps
the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It also means --
MR. OCHS: -- having a workshop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the Board would have to do that.
I mean, I would not be able to go to a single meeting on that day if I
have to make it --
MR. OCHS: Are we going to get the same amount of lead time
to prepare the agenda for that workshop and whatever backup
materials, or is the expectation different for those workshops in terms
of the preparation? We still have to notice them and I'm sure the
public will still want to see the backup in --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me make a suggestion.
Page 367
January 8-9, 2013
MR. OCHS: -- some reasonable time.
I had told Commissioner Nance when we talked about this during
the one-on-one that I was doing some research of my own survey
work with other counties to gather some ideas about how they manage
their agendas and workshops and other public meetings, and would be
happy to work with him to gather that data and go over some more
ideas.
They're all good suggestions. I just don't want to make a snap
decision here.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: For example, if we had a block of
time right now that we knew we could utilize, right today we could
say look, two weeks from now we're going to have that workshop on
the airport. Boom, it's right in that slot.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let me make this --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You wouldn't have to run around
wondering if everybody could do it, because everybody would be
prepared two weeks from now if we're doing something that that
would just be a decision that would be made by this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I make a suggestion? Can we
maybe take a hybrid approach and I think this will satisfy everyone's
objectives?
We all have to reserve the second day for overflow. And
everyone does that automatically, but we can formalize that. And that
way we're sure that we're always covered with respect to general
meetings. One Tuesday a month, and it will -- maybe we make it
always the third Tuesday is a workshop day. And that way it's a given
that every third Tuesday of the month we have a workshop, which can
last as long as we want, to discuss the issues that we have before us.
And we get together and we talk, you know, whether with a formal or
informal agenda. And if there's something that ought to be placed
formally on the agenda for the workshop that we during our regular
Board meeting give direction to the County Manager and tell him we
Page 368
January 8-9, 2013
would like to address the airports -- or like utilities specifically and
then you -- on what issue and then you prepare the presentation and
we know for that workshop day we have a formalized agenda.
And otherwise, you know, everyone comes to the table with what
they want to talk about. Like be it, you know, Commissioner Coyle's
ideas on airport security management or Commissioner Fiala's
concerns about Habitat. Whatever the case may be. And at least we
have one workshop day earmarked to promote dialogue. And that way
it doesn't put any pressure on staff and we -- you know, and the other
thing we can do, we always have the right to waive it. I mean, at a
Board meeting, at the end of every second Board meeting we can --
we will put it on the agenda as a standing item would we like a
workshop as scheduled. And if the consensus of the Board is we have
nothing to do to talk about, then we're not going to have the workshop.
We're not going to waste people's time and force them to come
someplace.
But it is a good idea.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, that was my -- that's why I
said too, you can always waive these.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. Like maybe two is too much
and one is, you know, a good marker without the need to over commit.
And like I said, we do it by giving the County Manager notice if we
want a formal workshop and two, by approval of the Board at the end
of the meeting as to whether or not we actually want to have one
because there's a need. If there's no need, we just don't do it, but at
least it's marked in the calendar.
Would that be a fair compromise, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have some observations --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if you don't mind. Am I going
out of sequence?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You are, but that's all right.
Page 369
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have -- I've analyzed this myself
in the past, and my calculations indicate that we have on average
about two and a half meeting days, official meeting days per week
throughout the year. So that you understand how I came to that figure,
we're talking about regularly scheduled BCC meetings. And it looks
like we're doing about two and a half days of that every other week
now, so the number might be higher. But we have the BCC meetings.
We have all of our budget meetings. We have a series of budget
meetings from -- well, starting probably February, March, and then
going right on through until September. We have joint MPO meetings
with Lee County. We have MPO meetings ourselves. We have
meetings with the city councils on occasion. One or more
commissioners are attending the TDC meetings, Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council meeting, the Public Safety Council
meeting, the Florida Association of Council (sic) meeting. We have
legislative workshops, we have legislative --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We got it, we got it, we got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, it just keeps going on and
on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- and that doesn't include the
workshops that we normally schedule anyway every year.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it gets real complicated to do
these things. But it appears to me that the desire is to have workshops
on some important topics. And I think we could pick a couple of days
this year, maybe for each quarter.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's actually -- we can refine it
like that. And in fact, you know, this whole discussion that we're
having here should be a workshop discussion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And in fact what I'm going to do is
Page 370
January 8-9, 2013
make a motion -- well, you already made a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, that's what Mr. Ochs had
also suggested. If I might just say one --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's what we need to do.
And I think that should be incorporated -- and I just want to add one
thing, because this ties in. We were going to have a discussion of the
reorganization of the Board's office and staffing. This is all a
workshop discussion. And I think all of these items, in my opinion, I
know we have a motion on the table to accept it, but I would like to
recommend that this and the other agenda item both be tabled and that
we have a workshop and schedule it on that third Tuesday or make it
the fourth Tuesday and let's sit down and let's talk about it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will withdraw --
MR. OCHS: Fourth Tuesday is a Board meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean the -- you know what I
mean.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will withdraw my motion, but I'd
like to say one more thing, Mr. Coyle. I agree with what you're
saying. What I'm suggesting to you here is that if we utilize this tool
properly, we're going to have less two-day regular Board meetings,
because we're going to resolve some of these discussions and we're
going to better serve the public and get across the public hearings
easily. Because if we can identify that we've got all these agenda
items coming up over the next couple of meetings that when really all
of them should be coalesced into a workshop, we'll actually be able to
get out of the regular meetings easier and serve the public better if we
utilize another tool to assist us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you a betting man?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Here's the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I'm going to make a lot of
money off of you.
Page 371
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'm going to tell you
something. I'm going to side with Commissioner Coyle. And the
reason I say that is yes, it will allow for a more efficient
decision-making process during the regular meetings because we
won't have the discussions like we're having here. It will properly be
in the workshop forum.
The problem is, is if we have a public that's as involved and
interested as we do, if we have 15 public speakers on one item, that
takes a lot of time. And we encourage that and we want that. I want
to see a roomful of people addressing issues, because that shows they
care and that, you know, we can be truly responsive to them.
So you're not going to really be able to control --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But if you have four agenda items
that are spread out over an entire day when you're holding them here
and you could have had those dedicated people --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- at one focused workshop,
everybody is going to be happier. And we could be more productive.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are certainly -- it will improve
the efficiency and the effectiveness of the meetings for sure. But, you
know, can we guarantee that it won't be two days? Maybe, maybe
not. We'll see. Time will tell.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That could just be a side benefit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And along with what you just said --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning? Wait a
second, it was Commissioner Henning's turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We need facilitation of
these meetings so everybody has equal time.
Page 372
January 8-9, 2013
I understood what Commissioner Nance's suggestion was
completely. I made a motion different what he had suggested to fit
my need. I can't do two meetings. I have my son at 3:00, okay, so I
can't stretch myself two ways. And so the two-day meetings just
doesn't work. I don't think it's productive for the public to sit here and
wait and wait and wait for their item to come up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, I go along with
let's have a workshop and we'll talk about it more.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So you're pulling your
motion? Are you amending your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion wasn't seconded so
it died a long time ago.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I was waiting for the
discussion.
Okay, do you want to make the motion then?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Mr. Ochs, I want to make a
motion to allow you to put together a workshop to talk about the
meeting schedule of the BCC, and I'd like you to also include some
discussion together with that of the annual calendar --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- the benchmarks that we need to
do each calendar year and, you know, the deadlines that we have to
meet so we can see what those are. And the purpose of that workshop
would be to consider if we were to block out time for a secondary
meeting or two during the month at the approval of the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What was that last part? You want
to -- no, we're not blocking anything off. We're just going to put it --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: To consider --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No -- right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're going to have a workshop to
consider if we want to --
Page 373
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- if we want to propose having an
additional meeting --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- or two during the month --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- at the approval of the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we tentatively schedule that
for the third Tuesday in the second March of this year?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're so funny.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What phase of the moon is that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The dark phase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, can you please schedule it
for this month? Because we need to get this done and resolved.
MR. OCHS: Can you give me 30 days, roughly? That's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, no, we don't need -- you don't
need -- well --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He wants to include, at my
suggestion, the annual calendar. So he needs a little time to gather his
information.
MR. OCHS: Plus complete some of the outside --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Research?
MR. OCHS: -- survey.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is it going to take that long, 30
days? Really?
MR. OCHS: Well, it won't take that long to complete the
research, but we've got to get it compiled and --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is why we need a dedicated
day for workshops, Ms. Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let him talk.
Page 374
January 8-9, 2013
What?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He needs a month.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, if you want it sooner --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could we do it in three weeks? I
mean, just -- can we do it as soon as possible, not to exceed a month?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would that be acceptable?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if you can get it done faster.
Because the reason is the opportunity to implement this would be
great.
Can we address M and N, because I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on that, if I may, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, now we're talking about
workshops and about efficiency. So say for instance we already have
two workshops scheduled in front of us right now; one of them is the
airports and the other one is the CRA's. But yet today we spent and
yesterday we spent hours and hours on airports. Does that mean if we
have a workshop scheduled -- I almost didn't get that out, workshop
scheduled -- for a meeting that we instead don't discuss those things
until after the workshop?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Absolutely, Commissioner Fiala,
absolutely. We need to have these workshops ahead of all this other
deliberation, that way we can I think buzz through them pretty good,
don't you think?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, like a couple
times it was mentioned that we should wait till the workshop and yet
we just kept plowing ahead --
Page 375
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- even though we knew we had one
scheduled.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So my current motion is to hold a
workshop on workshops.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is correct. That is the correct
motion, we want a workshop on workshops.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that was left over from last
time.
I'm supportive of taking a look at it, and I think it's good.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it won't reach the goal you
desire.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now, Commissioner Coyle, I'm
going to ask you to have a positive attitude about this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will maintain a positive attitude.
I'll smile throughout this thing and then I'll tell you I told you so.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, sir, I look forward to
that.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, if I may, you do have one
registered public speaker. I do not believe he's here any longer, but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who is that?
MR. MILLER: -- I would like to just -- Bob Krasowski? I don't
believe he's here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor of a workshop for
workshops.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 376
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's so funny.
Okay, is there another item you would like to now address?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Item N.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
Item #10N
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP A NEW STAFF
POSITION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ENTITLED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT IN PAY GRADE 19 WITH
EXEMPT STATUS. STAFF SERVING AS AN EXECUTIVE
ASSISTANT ARE TO BE AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE, TO BE
HIRED, FIRED, AND REPORTING DIRECTLY AND SOLELY
TO INDIVIDUAL COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
DIRECT FURTHER THAT THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THIS
NEW POSITION BE DEVELOPED WITH INPUT FROM EACH
CURRENT SITTING COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY
MANAGER TO INTEGRATE EFFECTIVELY WITH THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE BCC OFFICE, AND BRING BACK
TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL — MOTION TO TABLE
ITEMS #10M, #10N AND #10P UNTIL THE BOARD'S
WORKSHOP WITH INPUT GIVEN BY STAFF AND COUNTY
MANAGER — APPROVED
Item #10M
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR
RESTRUCTURING THE BOARD OFFICE. (THIS ITEM WAS
Page 377
January 8-9, 2013
APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER
11, 2012 BCC MEETING) — THIS ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED
WITH #10N AND #10P IN A BOARD WORKSHOP
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which is recommendation to
direct the Human Resources Department to develop a new staff
position for the Board of County Commissioners entitled Executive
Assistant, in pay grade 19, exempt from staff service (sic).
My only comment on that, I don't want to limit myself to having
to hire -- I want to hire the best person for -- that works for me and
works for my constituents, regardless of their background or
education.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I put this on the agenda. Let me
tell you what I had in mind. My particular situation with District 5 is,
it's very large and it has a very varied demographic and it has all sorts
of disparate interests that have to be accommodated.
And in my view, and this is not with any prejudice towards any
of the people that serve commissioners now in the position of
executive aide, the creation of this position at a pay grade which is one
grade higher than the one for executive aides, which is currently 18, a
pay grade 19 is the pay grade in which you start to attract people with
four-year degrees, professional skills and professional certifications
that would allow a commissioner under a new arrangement to hire an
assistant that matches their needs as commissioners, as well as needs
of their district.
And what it would do, it -- and you'd have to look at the -- you
know, what HR would come up with, but it allows you to hire some
people that do have a few more competencies that might be of
assistance to commissioners. And of course those -- this would not be
in a position that would be in addition to an executive aide, it would
be in place of the current executive aide position, if you chose to do
so, and that the salary and benefit package is tremendously
Page 378
January 8-9, 2013
overlapping.
The only thing that I included that would be a difference that
would have some importance is that it would be an exempt position,
which means that people that work on weekends, holidays, at night,
wouldn't make everybody crazy trying to account for a 40-hour week.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So basically a salary versus an
hourly position?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Within the definition of an exempt
employee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which means salary versus hourly.
In other words, no overtime.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Right. And we can do that if
the employee's primary duty includes exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance, we can
do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And this would be for all the
positions, not -- we wouldn't have two different types of positions, one
hourly and one salary.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You would have the ability to
continue to have an executive aide, if you chose to have one, or you
could have an executive assistant at this pay grade. And they might be
making the same amount of money.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not possible.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's completely possible. The pay
scale is almost 80 percent overlapping.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But you've got --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The range is 80 percent overlap.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But here's the problem. You're
looking -- I mean, you've got two different types of individuals.
You've got the executive aide and the executive assistant --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who would be much more
Page 379
January 8-9, 2013
qualified.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Not necessarily. Depends on your
needs. If you have a need for a tremendous amount of clerical ability,
you're going to want to have an executive aide that doesn't have a
requirement of a four-year degree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to suggest that this be part
of the workshop too. But go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick -- I'd like to preface
my remarks by saying to you that I happen to have an aide who has a
four-year college degree, and it would certainly benefit her, I would
like to see an opportunity for advancement and higher salary as it's
warranted in the future.
The thing we must be careful about, however, is that we have
people in the office and have had people in the office who don't have
four-year college degrees but they are absolutely exceptional when it
comes to personal relations with the public. And I wouldn't trade that
skill for all the college degrees that they can possibly amass. Because
the first impression constituents have of us is influenced by their
impression of our aides.
So I'm not opposed to having HR look at this. I'm only
concerned that we don't do something that demoralizes some existing
aide, that's applied indiscriminately without giving great consideration
to the duties that people perform here. We can't be paying one group
of aides a particular salary or have them in a particular grade when
they are having to do all of the grunge work in the office, answering
the telephones and sitting on the front desk being receptionist for a
while and taking their shift at that, while juggling all the other tasks
that we throw at them, and some other people not being involved in
that sort of stuff.
We've got to share the load equally without regard to whether
they have a college degree or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
Page 380
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we have duties in the office
that have to be divided up.
So I'm saying great, let's have HR look at it. But they need to be
sensitive to these kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Absolutely, Commissioner Coyle.
It's not intended to do that. For example, if you -- and you'll have that
information available, the two different pay grades substantially
overlap. In other words, the personnel that we have now, if they're
well skilled and highly compensated in Class 18 would be making
more money than a lower skilled person in this grade at 19. Because
there's that overlap. You understand what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do. But even though you've got
overlap, it means that the upper point of the compensation limit is
always higher for the higher grade.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. And that would be related to
the qualifications of the employee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me interrupt everyone.
This is a perfect discussion for a workshop. And it will give HR
the opportunity to come back and present us with alternatives and will
give Mr. Ochs the opportunity to come back and show us what other
commissioners in other counties do with respect to executive
assistants and aides. So I'm going to make a motion that this be
addressed in a workshop and ask that we table the discussion till we
come to that forum with more information from staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our first workshop.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, it's our second workshop.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, this is incorporated in that other
workshop. We're not having --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's a workshop on workshops,
that's not a workshop on pay grade. If you want to add restructuring of
the board together with this in a workshop, I'll go along with it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're going to do the meetings. I'm
Page 381
January 8-9, 2013
going to make the proposal that we do the restructuring of the Board
of County Commissioners office, the consideration for how we -- you
know, salary and staff, our aides or assistants, and the schedule of the
meetings all as one workshop, all as an administrative workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's not talk about those now,
let's just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, that's what I want to do. I want
to basically table all of these motions and we just agree that all of
these will be part of the discussion and allow Leo to come forward
with the research he does with the help of HR and come up with a
restructuring on these issues. Which will include the physical
restructuring of the board office to go along with --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now, are you going to allow him
more time to do this since you just tripled the workload?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. It's all actually part and parcel
of the same research. And just -- I mean, to share with you, I had
raised -- all the things that we're discussing here I had independently
raised with Leo about three weeks ago, and I had actually
independently started researching these, looking at other counties.
So I think everybody is on the same page, and I think Leo just
needs the time to complete his analysis and come back to us as soon as
possible with a workshop date and the information so we can make
some informed decisions and have some open dialogue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just say something?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, I've had my button on all
this time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know, but we really --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to know how -- when
you're doing this I want to also know how it's going to affect the other
employees. I mean, I would suggest to you that almost all the other
aides are going to say, well then I want to be in that same grade. So
Page 382
January 8-9, 2013
then how does it affect us financially as well? I mean, this is -- we're
talking about fiscal responsibility. But I don't know if this is it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's why we bring it back to a
workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your aide does so much
research, background. She does everything that you need her to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, she doesn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, she doesn't do it anymore?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I never had her do research for
me. She has limited research, but I primarily do my own research.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was saying how much she --
you know, she would want to have the same thing because -- I'm sorry
if she doesn't do any research for you, I thought she did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, she does some, but very -- she
doesn't really research material for me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay, she works hard anyway.
I know mine works like a dog and she does anything I need her to do.
She does anything -- she makes my calls, she does everything. And
she has a college degree. And -- not a four-year but a two-year. And
not only that, but I think that she deserves -- if somebody else is given
raises, then she should. I mean, everybody should. So this is a really
prickly subject.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's why we're going to have
a workshop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't turn that light off.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a Board of five, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But you know what? You guys are
not used to Commissioner —
Page 383
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a board of-- no, no, you just
recognized me so you need to conduct your own meeting and be quiet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I recognize -- and that includes
Coyle too. I recognize that District 5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I talk --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is so diverse and there is such
a demand for representation. I recognize that. It is very, very diverse.
And there has to be some kind of consideration for that office. And it
would make my job a lot easier if we do that, because over the last
four years I've been dealing with District 5 stuff.
So I wish you well, and I'm very supportive.
I'm done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
that this be brought forward, as I said, at a workshop and that these
very good ideas be addressed in that forum, supported by staff
research.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's M and N, right?
MR. OCHS: M, N --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And P.
MR. OCHS: -- and P, yes, one workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 384
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
So that's M -- that is M, N and P which will all be work-shopped
and tabled and then brought back.
The next --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, it's about time for your court
reporter to get a short break.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll take a 10-minute break.
Is there any item, Commissioner Henning, that you would like
addressed in any order before 3:00 when you're leaving?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have my son at 3:00 and I
have travel time. So I'll take my break and I'll see you at the next
meeting. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sounds good, thank you.
(Recess.)
(Commissioner Henning is not present for the remainder of the
Board meeting.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Next item, Leo?
Item #10I — DISCUSSION CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS DAY
(1/9/2013) RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
CONTRACT #12-5885 "DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 9-27
REHABILITATION PROJECT" IN THE AMOUNT $761,000
WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. (THIS ITEM APPROVED FOR
Page 385
January 8-9, 2013
RECONSIDERATION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC
MEETING) — MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I think at this point we're ready to
go back to the discussion under Item 10.I, which was the discussion
that was tabled previously regarding the design service contract and
related FAA and FDOT grant agreements related to the runway
projects at Marco and Immokalee Airport.
Mr. Curry?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we do that at the workshop?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you serious? I mean, that's not
a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, seriously. Would you rather do
both of these --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- at the workshop?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, because I know what's going to
happen, we'll do it twice. We'll do it once at a workshop and then we'll
do it again at another meeting. But that's the way it's going to be.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll make a promise not to say
anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I know, I know how it works.
MR. OCHS: Hold on, Mike.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. CURRY: What we put on the overhead, if you can see it, is
the scope of services that were identified in the grant application to the
FAA. It's about 13 pages that summarized it, but if needed I can read
the scope.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you don't. What -- and you are
correct, that does define the broader scope. And the underlying tasks,
if you will, flow through those 13 pages.
Page 386
January 8-9, 2013
I think what would be best, Chris, is if you could just go back and
answer the narrow question that was asked and that is, we have a grant
application, we have what was approved by the state -- I'm sorry, by
the feds, and then we have a contract that was executed. And I think
what we need clarification on is are we looking at resurfacing or are
we looking at a reengineering. And if we're looking at a
reengineering, what specifically are we reengineering for? And that
goes back to, you know, what is the objective of this project. And I
think that's where clarification is needed on the record.
MR. CURRY: Well, we're certainly going through a
rehabilitation, which I guess in essence is kind of reengineering,
restoration type of a project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if you are not simply resurfacing
this because of the degradation of the runway and we are going in
effect through a reengineering to redesign the runway, what are we
looking to reengineer this runway to, and for what reason?
MR. CURRY: We are looking to rehabilitate the runway back to
the condition that it was built upon, a 5,000-foot runway, same
weight-bearing capacity. Again, if you want to increase the
weight-bearing capacity, that will be done at a later date and it can be
done by an additional overlay or two.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And are we -- when we are doing
the current engineering, are we contemplating these alternatives or are
we limiting ourselves to just what we had?
MR. CURRY: Well, we're contemplating some other
alternatives that will be provided as options. And some of these
alternatives was suggested to us by the FAA while we were going
through the design phase to look at those items that can make the
airport safer and a little more functional.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And can you elaborate for us what
the FAA is recommending that we should be considering? Not
required, but suggested.
Page 387
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: You can go through it.
MR. VERGO: Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager, Immokalee
Airport.
What we put up here is the airport and a picture, an overhead
picture of the airport. And 927 is this runway right here.
What the FAA has asked us to look into as far as options is right
here where -- actually I'll start on the east end -- is at the approach to
runway 9 we have an issue where the taxiway is actually not aligned
with the runway. It makes an inner curve towards the end of the
runway, which brings aircraft into safety areas and also requires us to
pull the hold short line so far back that an airplane holding for takeoff
is actually almost parallel to the runway.
And what that does is they have to actually taxi forward and stop
around facing basically north to make sure there's no aircraft on final
coming in on the other runway.
What the FAA is asking us to do is actually modify -- as part of
this rehabilitation is look at the option of straightening this taxiway
out, maintaining the required separations with the runway, and then
what that would allow aircraft to do is actually hold facing north
outside of the required safety areas and allow them to ensure --
because we are a non-towered airport -- ensure that there's no aircraft
or basically minimize the possibility of an aircraft incident on our
runways.
The second would be this area here, which is actually a third
closed-down runway, which is Runway 422. This has -- is aligned on
an angle to the runway. Once again, the FAA likes 90-degree
connectors. And also has a substantial amount of concrete that is
close to failing or is in very poor condition as well, and also in one
area does retain a little bit of water near the edge of the pavement. So
that would be addressed as another option.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's the closed-down runway,
right?
Page 388
January 8-9, 2013
MR. VERGO: That is correct. That runway is decommissioned,
there's no aircraft traffic on there.
This small segment here is used as a taxiway basically. Aircraft
can exit the runway using it. But as part of this also, we would take
that 150 feet and narrow it down to taxiway width, which is part of
that option.
The last thing that they asked us to do as well is look at this
corner of the airport with a possible decoupling as an alternative in a
future project.
As it's shown here, aircraft once again taxi up taxiway Alpha and
actually to get to either of the runways they have to hold well beyond
once again the -- what's considered a standard distance. And aircraft
holding to take off on either runway 18 or -- runway 18 or 9, actually
have their backs to the aircraft using runway 36. So once again,
posing a possible threat when we actually -- they taxi out for takeoff.
And there has been documented occurrences of exactly that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Vergo, just so I understand --
MR. VERGO: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- clearly, these alternatives are
going to be included in the engineering in this project, but they don't
relate to the resurfacing of this runway. They will be future projects
under different grants.
MR. VERGO: With -- as far as the taxiway straightening,
everything, that is something that is -- could, if I'm correct, possibly be
part of this project, because it goes with the rehabilitation or
reengineering, as you stated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And that -- and again, just to
clarify, the reengineering is because of these alternatives. And in the
absence of these alternatives, we would not be reengineering this
runway and we would be simply doing the restoration of the concrete.
MR. VERGO: I couldn't say for certain on that. If we were to
rehabilitate, reengineer the runway exactly as it sits, 150 feet wide by
Page 389
January 8-9, 2013
5,000 feet, leave everything as-is, the FAA may still come back
through this design process and say due to the typical traffic at your
airport we will only fund, I'm going to give a number, 75 feet wide.
So with that stipulation of that's what they're willing to fund, if that's
all we as -- or excuse me, you as a Board make the decision to go
with, then that would require marking -- excuse me, pavement
deletion or additional markings, as well as edge lighting on the
runways would have to be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Moved in.
MR. VERGO: -- brought in closer to maintain the required
design standards of the runway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the reason that the cost is as high
as it is, is because we are looking at these alternatives, the decoupling
and changes in the taxiways, and we are looking at the possibility the
FAA is going to direct that it is going to shrink, not expand, but rather
shrink, at least in this case the width of these runways, potentially,
because they're more likely than not saying the demand isn't there to
keep a 150-foot wide runway, that the forecasted demand serves lesser
traffic, smaller planes and therefore we need 75 feet, not 150.
MR. VERGO: If I understand you correctly, that is correct.
They may -- they've asked us to evaluate 150, 175 -- excuse me, let
me be sure I make that clear. 150, 75 feet and 100 feet. I just want to
make sure it's not 175.
But -- and with that, that is coming from them. That was part of
our instructions from them as far as for the design phase to bring -- for
the engineers and design professionals to come back with their
estimated numbers on doing those modifications.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are they asking for forecasted
demand, you know, type and volume?
MR. CURRY: No, they're not. This is basically done based on
time and wear and tear.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh. In other words, the 75 -- the
Page 390
January 8-9, 2013
150, the 75 are being done based on wear and tear?
MR. CURRY: Well, the 150 and 175 options are really based on
their new evaluation criteria for general aviation airports. I imagine
what they're trying to do with limited funding is trying to cut down on
the amount of pavement necessary, because, you know, everybody in
the world feels that, you know, their airport or they want their airport
to be the next Atlanta. So they're trying to do this to cut down on the
amount of pavement that you have to maintain that's necessary for
your type of operation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Curry, is there additional
information that's going to be a result of this study that's going to
allow for other options? For example, I notice that there's ground
penetrating radar evaluations and so on and so forth. Should an option
come up that you want to have, for example, higher weight-bearing
capabilities on that runway, is that information going to be of utility to
you going forward?
I'm trying to figure out why -- you know, I understand we only
have $38,000 committed, but, I mean, this is a very expensive study.
Obviously it's got a great deal of information we're going to receive.
Is there additional information for options in the future included in this
package of evaluation?
MR. CURRY: Yes, it will be.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Well, you know, the one
concern that I have is that when we get this evaluation that we are not
then obligated for monies that we haven't yet determined. In other
words, we're going to get bids for this work and so on and so forth,
and then at some point we're going to have to evaluate -- you know, I
believe this Board clearly understands that we have to do some
rehabilitation to the runway that we're obligated to, to continue to do
business with the FAA. But, you know, if there are other things that
Page 391
January 8-9, 2013
could be done that would make things even better, are we obligated to
do those as a result of utilizing this grant? Above and beyond the
minimum is basically what I'm asking you.
MR. CURRY: No, it's not. And you would not be obligated to
do anything without the other funding mechanism kicking in first.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. They're not in any way -- as
they go through all of these studies, they're not in any way going to
tell us what's good for business or what isn't good for business. That
has nothing to do with this study, does it?
MR. CURRY: Nothing at all. Just an infrastructure project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Chris, you said other options. What
other options are they engineering for, other than these ones that you
described under FAA?
MR. CURRY: When we talk about the, for example, the
weight-bearing capacity, there may be something contained in the
report that says well, if you want additional weight or a different
strength to the runway, you know, this is what you -- this is the type of
overlay that you need or this is the thickness that you need. But again,
those are all just additional information sources that may be beneficial
to us.
Because, you know, as we're going through this, the way airports
work, you can have a dynamic that takes place that changes the course
that we're on. For example, you may have a user that comes in and
says hey, I want to do something at Immokalee and I need a runway
that can handle this kind of weight.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that is basically -- the
weight-bearing, the extension, those options are also included in this
engineering as --
MR. CURRY: Well, the only extension -- we don't necessarily
Page 392
January 8-9, 2013
call it an extension, but we call it more of a shifting. But there's no
extension --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, I'm using maybe the wrong
terminology.
MR. CURRY: Yeah, there's no extension that's evaluated as part
of this study.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The shifting?
MR. CURRY: The shifting is. Shifting 400 -- I believe 450 feet
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Five hundred feet?
MR. VERGO: It's 495 feet.
MR. CURRY: Okay, 495 feet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, 500 feet.
So basically in addition to what the FAA has suggested we
explore in this engineering, we are in this engineering looking at other
possibilities like the increase in the weight-bearing capacity, the
shifting, et cetera.
Now, has the FAA approved those for funding? I mean, have
they said we can go ahead and explore all of this? Because my
concern is -- you know, I understand that we need to resurface that
runway. And I understand you need some engineering to do that.
And I understand that the FAA has come back and has suggested we
look at certain things.
Now we're moving into a realm of exploring other issues from an
engineering perspective that was not really in our original scope.
We're looking at, as you said, the alternatives. And my concern
always is that when we start exploring issues that are not approved in
the approved scope by the feds that what will happen is, you know, we
are going to incur local taxpayer dollars and then we are going to
request reimbursement. We're not getting the money from the feds up
front. And there's always the potential of denial.
What assures us that the feds are going to pay for the exploration
Page 393
January 8-9, 2013
of these additional alternatives?
MR. CURRY: Well, the FAA has not agreed to pay for anything
such as decoupling or even the re-- or the rehabilitation of the runway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm talking just in terms of the
engineering. Just the narrow focus of the contract in front of us. The
$800,000.
MR. CURRY: Yeah, the FAA has agreed within the scope in the
grant application to pay for those.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So they are agreeable to doing the
analysis of the weight-bearing capacity? Because that's not -- we're
not doing the weight-bearing capacity, but they are -- I just -- are
they? Are they agreeing to the study of--
MR. CURRY: Well, the -- what they've agreed to is to bring us
to a standard like we've always functioned. They're not going out to
evaluate the runway based on a different weight-bearing capacity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. CURRY: That's not what they're -- that's not what they're
contracted to do. But that's certainly information that we may obtain
through this study.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And they'll pay for it. And they will pay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we address one last issue and
that's the timing? You said 300 days is not going to work. You said
yesterday that we have to get this done by May, or April?
MR. CURRY: Well, what I said yesterday is that if we have this
project done by April, it will allow the airport to bid and be in the
running for the next pot of discretionary money in fiscal year 2014.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. CURRY: If it takes us 300 days, then of course we'll miss
that cycle and then we would not be eligible until fiscal year 2015.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So shouldn't this Board direct that
this contract be modified to arrive at that April deadline? Because, I
Page 394
January 8-9, 2013
mean, if we don't give direction, we are very clearly going to miss that
MR. CURRY: Well, the consultants have already been hired.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand.
MR. CURRY: So, you know, I don't, you know, know if we can
go in and then amend their time line since they've started working.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So right now, Jeff, is there any way
for us to recommend a modification to amend the time line so we can
meet the next cycle? Otherwise we're -- you know, otherwise it's clear
based on the time line presented that we're going to miss next cycle.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know Chris, is that something we can
do?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This contract probably should have
been executed with a different cycle.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It already has been.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, if we have a funding cycle
coming up the timeline should never have accepted as 300 days.
MR. CURRY: I mean, again, I guess we would have to negotiate
that with the contractor.
MR. KLATZKOW: Has the feds approved this contract?
MR. CURRY: They have.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have to go back to the feds to get it
changed?
MR. CURRY: Well, any amendment that we would make we
would certainly coordinate with the FAA as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: So if the feds are amenable to changing and
the contractor is amenable to changing it, then you can change.
MR. CURRY: Then we could do it. But I think, you know,
perhaps by the time we -- I'm not so sure how the timing allowed
works with us coming back to the Board to try to do it in a way that
makes sense.
Page 395
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you think the contractor can get
it done by that first cycle?
MR. CURRY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, then it's not too much
of a deal. I mean, otherwise we're going to miss out.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached contract
in the amount of$761,000 with Hole-Montes for design and related
services for the Immokalee Regional Airport Runway 927
rehabilitation project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10J
(1/9/2013) 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
Page 396
January 8-9, 2013
SERVICES FOR MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
RUNWAY 17-35 REHABILITATION PROJECT" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $660,000 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. (THIS
ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE
DECEMBER 11, 2012 BCC MEETING) — MOTION TO APPROVE
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 10.J, which
is a recommendation that the Board, acting at the Airport Authority
approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Contract 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 FIALA: Chris, wrong way. Wrong way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Chris, can you go through the same
analysis and tell us, you know, is this strictly for repaving or is this for
reengineering, you know, what are the alternatives being considered
and for what reason.
MR. CURRY: Well, Marco's, I'll tell you, is a little bit less
intensive than Marco (sic), because you're dealing with one particular
runway. It is a rehabilitation as well.
One of the things that we just found out about Marco is -- one of
the things that we found out is through their geotechnical survey that
was done just a couple of days ago that the sub-base for the runway is
gone. So we know from that study that a full rehabilitation to even.
include replacing the sub-base is necessary for Marco.
Again, I guess you can read the scope of services that were for
Marco.
You know, they say it takes a village to raise kids. It takes a
village to run airports too, trying to sort through all this paperwork.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you just maybe off the top of
your head just generally again -- and again, the scope as described in
Page 397
January 8-9, 2013
these documents is always broad, it's always in the detail and the tasks
that you get an understanding of, you know, what's being proposed.
MR. CURRY: Yeah, Tom may know more than I do about the
specifics.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. VERGO: Okay, much like Immokalee with this what will
turn into logically by the results we got today and yesterday is the
reconstruction of this runway will also involve options for doing some
ramp rehabilitation or reconstruction, depending on what's under the
ramps.
Keep in mind the aircraft at Marco that utilize that airport are of
substantial difference in size on a daily basis than what uses
Immokalee, so you have aircraft up 100,000 pounds utilizing that
airport.
So what they're doing is any of the ramp areas that were not part
of the taxiway and ramp expansion project that was completed I
believe earlier last year are an option as far as this project as well.
Also, with the runway they're also looking at with the
degradation of the edge lighting, they're looking at a replacement of
the edge lighting, much like as an option in Immokalee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What are the other --
MR. VERGO: And then I know one thing that we were directed
in Marco is to look at the safety areas for the runways. I know on the
approach ends they're not of the correct size so they're looking at
doing some filling in of those areas, slight filling in to ensure that we
meet the required compliance with -- as far as safety areas on the
approaches or departure ends of the runways.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. What alternative --
what engineering alternatives are we looking at with respect to
Marco? Like for example, you know, we identified weight-bearing
capacity as an issue for Immokalee. Are we exploring anything above
and beyond in Marco?
Page 398
January 8-9, 2013
MR. CURRY: No, not really. Marco we pretty much know our
limitations there. Runway's never going to be any longer than 5,000
unless you get in one heck of a battle with the environmentalists and I
don't think we plan to do that. So we kind of know what we're limited
to in Marco, so there's no need for a lot of advanced study there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So there we're really limited to what
you described and nothing more. And that was more or less my
conclusion on that one.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We have the same -- basically
you've got a similar project with the same sorts of items. It looked
like the scope of work was substantially the same on your basic
determination, sorts of things they were looking at, so on and so forth,
so we don't have any obligations on that either, do we, other than --
MR. CURRY: No, we do not. And one thing that we do know
that we didn't mention before is that we know we can keep 100 feet
width with Marco because of the type of jets they serve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just what I was going to ask.
It's 100 feet wide?
MR. CURRY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to make a motion,
Commissioner Fiala? Since it's your airport.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much. I want
for approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
contract number in the amount of$660,000 with Hole-Montes for
design and related services for the Marco Island Executive Airport
Runway 17-35 rehabilitation project.
And I shouldn't say I want to approve, I want to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 399
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion and a second is on the table.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, if I may, I'm sure he's not here,
but I just wanted -- his slip is in so I want to call it. Frank Halas?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Leo?
Item #14A
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE A SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE & SUB-
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH TURBO SERVICES, INC. —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioners, Chris -- while Mr. Curry is
here, I wondered if you wanted to take his remaining item, which is
Item 14.A.1 on your agenda. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners, acting in its capacity as the Collier County
Airport Authority, approve the attached Second Amendment to the
Page 400
January 8-9, 2013
long-term ground lease and sublease agreement with Turbo Services,
Incorporated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure, I think that's a very good idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wait a second.
Do we have any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have one registered public speaker,
ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, let's have the public speaker.
MR. MILLER: Marvin Courtright.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Chris, there wasn't anything you
wanted to present ahead of--
MR. CURRY: No, there was nothing presented. We just
brought the amendment forward at the request of the business owner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
Go ahead.
MR. COURTRIGHT: For the record, Marvin Courtright.
I'd like to clarify something immediately. In my capacity as an
aircraft and engine mechanic and an authorized FAA inspector for air
worthiness of parts, aircraft and other associated flight pieces, I
became concerned with the turbine engine facility because I was asked.
to identify why the original request for proposal was denied 27 times.
It was submitted to the -- I'll find it here in a second -- to the
Office of the Fire Code Official who is in the Horseshoe Drive area,
and they communicated with, I believe Mr. Tom Vergo, many times,
27 times back and forth, and ultimately the project was continued
without ever addressing the questions or subjects in regard to the
development of the facility. Instead, they circumvented the project and
got the documents and paperwork approved and ultimately issued a
building permit and occupational -- I'm sorry, certificate of occupancy
without ever addressing the specific requests of the State of Florida,
the Office of Fire Code Officials.
Page 401
January 8-9, 2013
And my position on this is I'm mandated as an aircraft inspector
with the FAA and multiple different organizations. And there are --
and I've provided here, I will, House Rule 1000 addresses it, the FAA
has AD notes out, the Office of Inspector General, Aviation Safety
Investigations, none of this was addressed.
What it's about is the possibility that the company who was
testing these engines, they're testing aircraft engines off of certified
fighter planes, transport planes and all, and some of them are still
flying. And the concern is by the FAA, all these different
organizations, that it might accidentally, not on purpose, some of these
parts might end up being sold or passed on to out of the area aircraft as
a safety factor.
All of this is documented. And I'm asking for a reconsideration
to comply with the documents that I've shown here confirming that the
organization is complying with all of the safety factors before they get
to the point to where possibly an engine -- and I recognize some of the
engines. One in particular I was in the U-2 program for five years --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Marvin?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Yes?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your time has expired.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If the Board has any questions, you
might want to stay there to be able to be responsive to those.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I welcome any questions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Curry, would you like to
respond to Marvin's concerns?
MR. CURRY: Well, certainly. This is the first time I've heard of
27 times that they were denied. And certainly if they do not meet the
standards of codes that they should, they should be shut down. And I
would be more than willing to get in touch with Fire -- is that the
Page 402
January 8-9, 2013
agency that you're referring to?
MR. COURTRIGHT: The main agency is on Horseshoe Drive.
They're the ones -- I have the itinerary.
MR. CURRY: Yeah, I think you're talking about the fire review.
And I will not hesitate to get in touch with them tomorrow and ask
them the question. And if they do not meet those requirements, then
they shouldn't be operating on the airport.
MR. COURTRIGHT: There is a second area addressed as well,
and that is the provision of fuel to the engine to be run. And the fact
that we are providing fuel through the fence in an airport authority
truck, hooking it up into the building without a storage facility or other
safety factors and they're running engines under that capacity. It is a
safety factor. It also is identified in here.
So perhaps if you would review both factors, it would be
appreciated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Nick, do you have any
comments on this? I know we've had some interesting things
happening with fire review.
MR. CURRY: I thought I maybe should clarify what through the
fence means. It's normally when you have an entity that's off the
airport, does not do any business with the airport, but they come and
basically use the facilities on the airport without paying their just dues.
So I'm not sure how that applies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought it was actually
through the fence. I'm glad you -- I was trying to figure out how the
gas tank goes through the fence.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I would like to clarify that, if I may.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Not a lot to add. We had some follow-up when we issued a CO.
And Jack McKenna, the county engineer, went out and visited.
But Fire did have some stipulations and concerns that they listed.
Page 403
January 8-9, 2013
So certainly, they're pretty adamant about checking up. So I think
Chris is pretty well confident to talk to them and see that there are no
issues. But Fire went through the process with them and tried to get
them their CO as quick as possible.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What about the issue of the type of
engines they're using?
MR. CURRY: I guess I would ask you to kind of expound on
that. The engines they use or they test are engines that will never go
back on an aircraft. They come from aircraft, they're overhauled and
used as generators. And they test several types of engines on the
airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, do we have to have any
concern that they're not using the type of engine that would be on
some sort of federal restrictive list?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think the lessee may have a concern,
but I don't see how it's our concern.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's what I want to be sure of.
I mean, do we have any duty --
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have any ordinance that has
anything to do with this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't. So if, for example, Turbo
Services -- and I'm not saying that they are by any means, but if they
were using engines that legally cannot be exported and then house
them in a unit and ship it out that way, I mean, that wouldn't be our
liability or our duty to investigate or question?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's a federal issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I just want to be sure that
that's the case. I want to make sure that we have no liability or
responsibility to do anything to that end.
MR. COURTRIGHT: That's the reason I brought it to your
attention, because it is my responsibility. I've been in this business for
45 to 50 years as an inspector. I'm charged with watching every time
Page 404
January 8-9, 2013
on every airplane that I work on or in the community, making sure --
and I work with the Sheriffs Department in regard to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, Mr. Courtright, let me --
because we are limited on time, let me make a suggestion. If you have
any observations that you think are of concern, if you'd report it to the
FBI or --
MR. COURTRIGHT: That's what I have to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- the proper authorities as the case
may be -- thank you for your presentation.
Commissioner Fiala, do you want to make a presentation to
approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- since you're in the mode. I figure
you're a good one to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the attached Second Amendment to the long-term ground lease with
Turbo Services at Immokalee Regional Airport.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. CURRY: I will send you an email if there are issues with
Fire.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, please do. Thank you.
Page 405
January 8-9, 2013
Leo, do we need to give the court reporter a break? Are you
okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Are we almost done?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I don't think so. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You never can tell.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, you tell me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Another five hours and we'll have
it finished.
MR. OCHS: We had a break at 2:30.
THE COURT REPORTER: Then I'm fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want to make sure --
MR. OCHS: I know, I'm watching.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- because it's a long day.
MR. OCHS: I'm keeping an eye on Cherie'.
THE COURT REPORTER: I appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, then I'm going to delegate that
responsibility to you, Leo, so I can stay in her good graces.
Where would you like us to go from here?
Item #1 1 A
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD INVITATION TO
BID #12-5981, ROADWAY PAINT, THERMOPLASTIC
MARKINGS AND RAISED MARKERS TO TRAFFIC
SOLUTION, LLC AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND MCSHEA
CONTRACTING, LLC AS SECONDARY VENDOR— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I would like to move to Item 11 .A on your agenda,
Commissioners. It's a recommendation to award Invitation to Bid
12-5981, Roadway Paint, Thermoplastic Markings and Raised
Markers to Traffic Solution, LLC as the primary vendor, and McShea
Contracting, LLC as the secondary vendor.
Page 406
January 8-9, 2013
Mr. John Vliet is available to answer any questions on this
matter. It's a sealed bid to the low bidders.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
That takes us to Item 10.C. This is a recommendation to retain
from --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 11 .C.
Item #11C
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN ACTIVE SALES
FROM VARIOUS PROPERTIES OBTAINED FROM AVATAR
PROPERTIES, INC., THAT ARE PART OF THE GULF
AMERICAN CORPORATION LAND TRUST — MOTION
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW
LEGALITIES OF THE AVATAR AGREEMENT, PROVIDE
A LIST OF PROPERTIES TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
INPUT AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, thank you, Commissioner Coyle, 11 .C.
Recommendation to retain from active sales, various properties
Page 407
January 8-9, 2013
obtained from Avatar Properties, Incorporated that are part of the Gulf
American Corporation Land Trust.
This item was moved at a prior meeting from the consent agenda
by Commissioner Nance, and we continued it over to this meeting. So
Commissioner, we'd be happy to address your specific issue.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. The Golden Gate Land
Trust are properties that were conveyed to the trust from Avatar that
had to do with the failed community that they had at the time. And
those properties were dedicated to ultimately have their value and use
accrue to the property owners in Golden Gate Estates.
Some of the properties in the current arrangement are dedicated
and reserved for Collier district schools and Collier fire districts for
their benefit.
After talking to the committee and talking to the chairman and
taking a look at the properties that were reserved, I would make a
recommendation to return the list to the committee and to ask Mr.
Klatzkow to look at our arrangement with Avatar to see if there's a
possibility we could D, take the list of properties that are reserved for
the schools and for the fire districts and put them back into the general
inventory.
It's my understanding that the schools and the fire districts have
no dedicated desire for those properties, that they've made other
arrangements, they have other properties in their long-term plans and
they have no desire basically to have the properties.
What I'd like to do is I'd like to take those properties and put
them back into the general listing of properties so they could be sold
or otherwise utilized to give benefit to the residents of Golden Gate
Estates for parks or other needs that the residents have out there, rather
than just endlessly reserve these for entities that have their own taxing
authority and have no interest in the properties, per se, as a piece of
real estate that they would use.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're happy to do that. I just want
Page 408
January 8-9, 2013
you to know that we don't reserve those on our own accord. We
contact the school districts and the fire districts and ask them through
letter, I presume, Tony, that if they still want to keep those properties
in reserve status.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right.
MR. OCHS: So we could send them a notice that the Board has
directed, unless they can document otherwise a need that --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If they have a specific desire for a
piece of property for a dedicated use, I have no problem reserving it.
But just to reserve properties when they already have a long-range
development plan, they already have properties, they've already come
back to the citizens of the county and say we want to take our capital
funds and we want to put them into operation, because we don't plan
any capital funding because we don't plan any capital projects, when
the people in Golden Gate Estates have a need for those dollars for
other things that can benefit them in the short term that they really do
need.
MR. OCHS: Oh, I understand.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think the committee is interested
in that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I would make a motion to
ask Mr. Klatzkow to take a look at the legalities of our agreement with
Avatar and the Golden Gate Land Trust and return the list for
reconsideration to the -- maybe it's a bad word, for review of the
committee to see if they would like to suggest that we remove those
properties from dedication to those agencies and put them to other
uses for the citizens.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 409
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Do we have to get like a release form or something from the fire
or from schools or from Avatar?
MS. MOTT: Well, what we can --
MR. OCHS: Tony, identify --
MS. MOTT: For the record, Toni Mott, Real Property
Management. Sorry about that.
What we can do is re-contact the school board and fire district
and ask them if they have an immediate need for those properties. And
if they can show that, we'll bring the item back to the Board with that
documentation. And if not, then it's up to the Board if you want them
to be on the reserve list or put on the active list or reserved for some
other entity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have public speakers on this?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #11F
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Page 410
January 8-9, 2013
SUBGRANT AGREEMENT FOR TROPICAL STORM DEBBY —
MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves us to Item
11.F. That was previously 16.E.11 . And that is a recommendation to
authorize the Chairperson to execute the Public Assistance Subgrant
Agreement for Tropical Storm Debby.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Commissioner, we would present or answer questions, whatever
is easier for you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think answering questions would
be simpler for me.
I had requested certain information to supplement what was in
the backup. And those were the surveys that were used. And really
what I'd like to see is those surveys presented here today with an
explanation of why there is a claim that there is damage only to the
Naples Beach and why there is no claim being made for Park Shore or
Vanderbilt as it relates to that storm. There was a small request
related to Marco, but about 2.2 million relates to Naples Beach.
MS. PRICE: I'm going to let Gary McAlpin field that one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can't answer this one?
MS. PRICE: I could try, but all I can do is build sandcastles in
the sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin.
Commissioner, what we did, the FEMA beach specialists and the
State Department of Emergency Management came down. They
surveyed our -- they looked at our beaches initially. They agreed that
there was damage. We did a detailed survey after the fact, right after
the storm. We compared that to the yearly monitoring report and
discounted for any months that -- between when the storm had hit and
Page 411
January 8-9, 2013
when the last renourishment was -- when the last monitoring report
was completed.
We got a net amount for the results specific for Tropical Storm
Debby. We had damages on Marco Island, we had damages on the
Naples Beach. There were no damages on Vanderbilt or Park Shore
beaches, which were the northern beaches.
That was directly as a result of physically monitoring the
beaches. And we did the dry beach where we actually did the actual
surveys, and we did the wet beaches too, which goes out to minus
almost 11 feet point two feet of closure, 11 .2 feet of closure, which is
about 2,000 feet out. And that's what they consider.
So when we did this, then we presented that information to
FEMA and DEP, and that's the report that I sent you, you asked for,
and I'm in the process of copying that and sending it to you.
Based on that, they estimated the mobilizations and the costs
associated with beach the engineering and the monitoring and the
beach renourishment and they come up with a price and then that price
is where we stand right now, and then that price if approved would be
approved by FEMA in Atlanta, Region 4, then it will come back to the
Board of County Commissioners for approval at this point in time.
So what this is, is a preliminary number. It isn't even a PW at this
point in time. It's still a document that is a preliminary number based
on the losses that we experienced on the beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Gary, can I ask a quick question --
MR. McALPIN: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- just to segue a little bit?
So what are we restoring to? Are we restoring it to the
pre-Debby profile?
MR. McALPIN: We are restoring for the difference -- no,
ma'am, what FEMA will pay for is the way the beach was prior to
Debby hitting, the actual condition of the beach prior to Debby hitting.
And then after Debby hit, the specific damage done by Debby.
Page 412
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. And the reason I'm asking
is, you know, how this impacts the general renourishment. I mean, if
this is going just to pre-Debby and post-Debby, that's obviously
different than going from pre-Debby to -- or renourishing it back to
the 2006, the six-year profile. I mean, we're not -- it's just a very -- it's
just restoring it back to the condition that it was in before the storm.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So that profile calculation up to the
six-year profile remains. So this is not going to in any way offset
anything we have in the general renourishment.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: And what we did when we looked at the
general renourishment, we anticipated what the damage would be for
Debby, we had Debby profiles, and we factored that into the
quantities. So with the general renourishment that we bring back to
you in a short time, that will not affect the quantities associated with
that, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm still surprised it didn't affect
Park Shore and Vande. I know the storm was moving south to north
so --
MR. McALPIN: Yeah, but you look --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- I understand that. But I'm still --
MR. McALPIN: If you look at the storm, you know, from a very
preliminary look at it, the storm came from the southeast. We had
four days off the coast where it's the run-up to the coast, it's the run-up
to the southern beaches at that point. You had a greater intensity of
the storm, you had a greater number of days in terms of the run-up.
Plus those beaches on the south -- so you would expect the
beaches on the south end of the county to get hit and damaged more
than on the north end.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No question.
Page 413
January 8-9, 2013
MR. McALPIN: Plus the other thing with the beaches off of
Marco and South Naples is they don't have what we call near shore
hard bottom, which is small reefs out there. Those small reefs tend to
protect the erosion, minimize the erosion on the beaches.
So for those two reasons, you know, it's very explainable that we
had damage to the southern beaches as opposed to northern beaches.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I appreciate that.
The last question I have is we as a Board during Tropical Storm
Debby had said that we were going to cap the expenditures related to
that storm on an emergency basis I believe to 500,000. And I'm not
talking about, you know, sand renourishment but basically
administrative expenses.
Have we done anything to recover those funds, and how much of
those funds did we expend? Do you remember that, Leo, when we
had the emergency meeting? And I didn't know if that was in any way
going to factor into this request or if it should.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure, ma'am. I'll have to get you a
follow-on report. I don't want to shoot from the hip.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think it's important that we
consider that. Because if those expenditures are reimbursable, you
know, in light of what the federal government has said, we should get
a reimbursement request in as soon as possible --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- since they've authorized this
funding. And maybe it should be a companion item to this request.
MR. OCHS: We'll evaluate that and bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gary, you were saying something
about the south end has a hard bottomed beach?
MR. McALPIN: No, no, let me explain a little bit more. The
south end of the county does not have small coral reefs, okay, what we
call near shore hard bottom, Commissioner. And that acts --
Page 414
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Then that's like their
natural erosion control structures?
MR. McALPIN: That's right. It's like a natural sand bar, an
erosion control structure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But they don't have them in
the south. Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you making a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll make a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm making you the head of
motions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're officially the head of all the
motions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, at least the last couple of
hours. It's been wonderful.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Keep going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Board -- I make a motion that --
oh, this is the wrong one. Let me see.
I make a motion that we approve the sub-agreement -- subgrant
agreement for Tropical Storm Debby.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- a second? Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 415
January 8-9, 2013
Item #11G
(1/9/2013) RESOLUTION 2013-15: A LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CONGRESSMAN TREY
RADEL TO ASSUME LEASE SPACE USED BY FORMER
CONGRESSMAN CONNIE MACK PRIOR TO THE RECENT
ELECTION — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to your next add-on
item, which is 11.G that you received right after your lunch break.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Tray Radel's lease agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. OCHS: This is a lease --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion --
MR. OCHS: -- agreement with Congressman Radel for --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
the next item is Item 14.B.1 on your agenda this afternoon --
MR. KLATZKOW: 12.E.
Page 416
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 12.E.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's about the parcels.
Item #12E
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE A REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BID ON EIGHT
PARCELS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY AT CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN FORECLOSURE SALES SCHEDULED
BY THE CLERK IN THE CASE STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY V. HENRY J.TESNO,
ET AL., NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 11-904-CA. — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Jeff, I'm sorry. It's 12.E. That is the
recommendation to authorize a representative of the County
Attorney's Office to bid on eight parcels on behalf of the county at
code enforcement lien foreclosure sale scheduled by the Clerk in the
case styled Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus
Henry J. Tesno, et al, now pending in the Circuit Court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to comment on this.
I have some real concerns. What happened in this case is there
were liens placed on these properties and the liens accumulated and
accumulated and accumulated to the point where now there's a
foreclosure action. And we are proposing to buy these properties.
And we are the ones who imposed the liens on them.
And I am so concerned that -- I want to be sure that we're not
using the code enforcement process, if you will -- and I really
Page 417
January 8-9, 2013
appreciate that you're here to discuss this, because I know you have a
particular interest in code enforcement -- to target properties that we
can't take because they're blighted. And so, you know, statutorily
we're not allowed to take because of blight. And I want to make sure
that we're not circumventing the statute by using code enforcement to
just slap liens.
And, you know, you're dealing with people who don't have the
means to hire an attorney to defend themselves. So, you know, we
obviously have a well-funded legal team, and we're going against
people who don't have the means to defend themselves or represent
themselves.
MR. WRIGHT: If I may respond?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. So it's really a policy concern
for me.
MR. WRIGHT: I understand.
For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff, can I just stop you for just a
moment?
What is the number in the consent agenda?
MR. WRIGHT: It was 16, I think K.5, but it's now 11 .E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 12.E.
MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me, 12.E. Thank you.
To answer your question about -- there is a prohibition in Florida
statutes within the eminent domain chapter saying that you can't use
eminent domain to correct the blight.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. WRIGHT: And I think that was a reaction to the Kilo
decision which you may be familiar with where it was perceived to be
maybe abusive use of government power.
We're operating under Chapter 162.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand that.
Page 418
January 8-9, 2013
MR. WRIGHT: And I want to make clear on the front end that
these folks were represented by counsel --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Were they?
MR. WRIGHT: -- all the way to judgment. Yes.
And before the judge they said we willingly accept this
judgment. And they had their attorney present. In fact, their attorney
didn't show up at the first hearing. Judge Schoonover demanded that
he show up to the second one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great. Well, I appreciate the judge
did that, because he was right. That's very important.
MR. WRIGHT: I agree too.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. I'm happy about that.
MR. WRIGHT: That was an awkward situation there with the
client there and not the attorney.
So we got the judgment. And this was something that was
initiated originally back in 2009, we got Board approval to go forward
with these properties.
We don't like doing this. We do this when it's the last resort. In
this case there were. If you look back on the aerials to, let's say, '05 on
these properties. There were dilapidated mobile homes units on these
properties causing a lot of problems. They had tenants in them, they
had minimum housing problems. And eventually code enforcement
brought cases against them, like they do, and it led to the
accumulation of huge lien amounts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. WRIGHT: Over a million dollars.
We're not seeking a million dollars. We're just seeking to recoup
our hard costs. And our hard costs are right now are around $40,000.
So I'm comfortable that we're not circumventing the eminent domain,
that prohibition within the eminent domain statutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that we're not -- okay. Because
I really want to be sure of that. Because I was concerned. And I'm
Page 419
January 8-9, 2013
glad to hear they had representation.
My concern is, you know, there are a lot of situations like what
you're describing, for example, with mobile homes where they don't
have the means to defend themselves, and you're right, that that statute
was created to prevent this type of action.
And so I want to be sure that as a matter of policy that we never
use code enforcement to do that.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, and you always have in the statutes there
as a tool in your tool box, and if ever the staff thinks it's appropriate to
bring something like that, you would have the say on whether to give
the green light to that proposal.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand.
The other issue was, you know, I think you were asking for
approval up to a million dollars. But I think the total value of the
properties was about 100 or so based on the underlying value in the
property appraiser's -- at the Property Appraiser's website.
But what are you going to do? And what funding source are you
going to use to pay for these properties?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, right now we have a judgment in hand for
over a million dollars.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. WRIGHT: That judgment specifies that we're not entitled
to deficiency, which means after the sales go up there's still a delta
between what we get and what that judgment amount is. We don't get
any of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. WRIGHT: So we're (sic) really just get what we get from
the auction.
Now, right now the preliminary -- actually it's a certified 2012
tax roll lists the collective value of these properties as $113,000 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, that's what I saw.
MR. WRIGHT: -- average of 14 issue thousand. And we have
Page 420
January 8-9, 2013
an average of 5,000 taxpayers dollars spend on each of these
properties. So if we get 5,001, we will have reimbursed -- made the
taxpayers whole. And that's our goal, just to recoup those hard costs
and make the taxpayers whole.
MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff, what are the hard costs for, would you
tell the Board?
MR. WRIGHT: The hard costs -- there were 22 different liens,
so it's quite a breakdown. But generally speaking, demolition costs
were the biggest component. There were some chunks of 3,000,
4,000, $5,000 on these properties. It adds up in the total numbers, right
around 40 now that we're on the hole on. So --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, generally speaking we very
rarely come to you to foreclose on property.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we do, it's a two-step process. First we
ask for the foreclosure, then we do this one to make sure that
everybody is aware of what's going on.
Generally what happens is we'll have homes that have significant
health/safety issues. And that's where the liens start accumulating.
What will happen is that the owners, and they're almost always
rentals, will not put the money into it. They take the money out of it
but they never put the money into it. Gets to a point where the county
has to demolish the homes. So I believe most of these are now vacant
parcels?
MR. WRIGHT: They're all unimproved now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And one of the reasons -- you know,
I didn't look back in the history, but for as long as I've been here, I
don't recall this happening. Which is -- so I appreciate what you're
saying, that you don't do it often.
But in my memory this was done in the past in that same area,
and I just wanted to be sure that this wasn't targeting a specific area to
deal with blight in this fashion.
Page 421
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me -- I'm sorry, but you keep
talking and I wanted to just mention --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't see
your light.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, there were many others that
were by the same owners. These -- they were being used as
flophouses. These people had no electricity and no water. Very, very
unsafe. And they were crowding people in there, yet they were
collecting their dollars all the time. They got to a point where it was
uninhabitable for human beings, and there was no way you could ever
refurbish them. These were -- and this is not the first that these people
have owned. And this was -- it needed to be removed from that whole
community entirely rather than endanger anybody else.
So I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- make a motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think Commissioner Coyle had
already done it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did he? Okay, I second it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, after we acquire these
properties, we then take them to real estate. And then they put it out
for the general public to purchase again, and hopefully to build quality
homes on them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Jeff.
MR. WRIGHT: And one other clarification.
Last time this came to the Board, a similar item in this area, it
was back in February of 2011. And one of the requests I received
from the Board was to provide a post-auction memo explaining
exactly what happened at the memo. There will be eight sales. I'm
not sure whether we'll end up with these properties or some private
participant in the auction will get them, but I'm happy to come back or
provide a memo to the Board.
Page 422
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, that would be fantastic.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you anticipate you're going to
recoup your hard costs?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, like I said, the appraised value of-- the
average appraised value of these properties is about $14,000. We
need to recoup five on each. So if it's a true market, this auction that
we're going to, they should look at the appraised value, the private
bidders, and we should end up in the black.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What's going to happen to the
profit?
MR. WRIGHT: The profit goes back, in my understanding, in
the code enforcement operating budget.
Diane tells me it's the general fund. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I can't support that if we make a
profit. If you want to give the profit to Habitat or something, I can
support it. But I can't support taking properties and making a profit on
them. I'm sorry. Just on principle.
If you can recoup your cost -- anything over your cost I think
ought to go to somewhere other than the government. I think that just
tastes really bad in my mouth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about it going to the CRA
who's trying to improve that area?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's got to go to something other
than the government. I could support some other use for it. But I
don't want to see us engaging in this and then making a profit. I think
that's real unseemly.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Like I said, we'll be giving you a --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, you --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- post-settlement report.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- come up with something that
Page 423
January 8-9, 2013
makes it look right. But I don't want the government to become
engaging and taking properties through code enforcement and then
making a profit. I can't support that.
MR. WRIGHT: I just received some clarification, if I may.
The hard costs are reimbursed to the code enforcement operating
budget. Any profit would go to the general fund.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll come back and let you know what that
delta is, and then the Board can decide how they want to use it.
MR. OCHS: If there is one.
MR. WRIGHT: And that's part of the uncertainty of an auction,
we really don't know what the numbers are going to be until you --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, I have absolutely no problem
with you getting your cost back. But if we start to realize profits from
things like this, I just have -- I just think it's wrong on principle. I
don't think that should ever happen.
If we take that money and put it back to -- you know, if we want
to deal with low-cost housing or to fund one of our other efforts or
something, I could support that, but I don't want the government to be
making a profit through this. I understand that we're solving a
problem, but I just don't want us to be gaining revenue through this
whole process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the benefit of course is to the
safety and health of the people in the area. And as far as low-cost
housing, it's got so much of it, we don't need any more of that. What
we need is housing that is up a few notches as the Bayshore CRA is
trying to encourage. So --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, I agree with
you. But that's a whole other idea. It's just the fact that the
government has seized property and then it's going to -- you know,
trying to do something good but is making money on the deal, I don't
-- I can't support that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, let's go ahead and table this
Page 424
January 8-9, 2013
discussion till we get that report back, because there may be no profit
so this might --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, we have to authorize him to
do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: We need to conduct the auction. But what
I'm saying is what I'd like to do --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we're not tabling this issue.
I'm just saying this part of the discussion --
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- as to if there is a profit, how it
will be applied.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll bring it back to the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And that can be a -- you
know, after you give us that post-auction report, if there is, you know,
a delta, then please let the Board know and then at that point in time
we can have a policy discussion as to how that money should be
applied.
MR. WRIGHT: If it's acceptable I'll include that number in my
memo.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. That's what I was
hoping.
MR. WRIGHT: Thanks very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks.
We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Nothing further?
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Page 425
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm all in favor.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Well, you made the motion,
I should have known that.
Motion carries unanimously.
And thank you for -- thank you so much for your presentation. It
was chalk full of information to allow us to make --
MR. WRIGHT: My pleasure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- a good decision. Thank you.
Item #14B1
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ELECT A
VICE CHAIRMAN TO FILL THE INCOMPLETE TERM OF
THE VACATED OFFICE — MOTION APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER NANCE VICE-CHAIRMAN — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 14.B1 on your
agenda. It's a recomm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make a motion to
approve --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner? Commissioner, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nance. Should be --
MR. OCHS: The Board for this action will convene as the CRA,
please.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah, me, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I nominate Commissioner Nance to
be the Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Vice chair.
Page 426
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vice chair, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think there's another CRA.
MR. OCHS: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the 100,000 for the MSTU.
Item #14B2
(1/9/2013) RECOMMENDATION THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING
AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE THE AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE IMMOKALEE CRA/MSTU SEEKING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO SUPPORT
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMMOKALEE MAIN STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE IMMOKALEE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14.B2 is a recommendation that the Collier County
Board of Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency, approve the after-the-fact submittal of the attached Florida
Department of Transportation Highway Beautification Council grant
Page 427
January 8-9, 2013
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.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Any discussion? I'm helping her.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Call the question. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It's approved by unanimous
vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. You did that so well.
MR. OCHS: Okay, we're back in session as the Board of County
Commissioners.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
That moves us to Item 15, Staff and Commission General
Communications.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I go first? Only because I
have somebody waiting out there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go right ahead.
Is that acceptable, Leo? Do you mind?
MR. OCHS: Oh, I don't have anything anyhow, Commissioners.
Page 428
January 8-9, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. No? No, I don't have
anything either. Thank you very much. See you at the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was funny.
Do you really have nothing, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No, nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff--
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- is there anything you'd like to
contribute?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, but I'll have to go down there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It won't take more than 25 or 30
minutes.
At our last -- well, actually, it was our meeting November 13th,
there was some confusion in discussion about responsibilities for
routing and signing documents for the Chair. And Commissioner
Hiller expressed concerns that the contracts that are being presented
for signature are the ones that are approved by the Board at the
meeting -- at the Board meeting, that all the contracts are signed
immediately after the Board meeting.
There was some discussion about who was responsible for doing
that since Ian was not going to be here any longer.
I made the observation that the County Attorney's Office reviews
all those things and makes sure that the contracts are in accordance
with what the Board approves, and they essentially sign off before the
Chair signs them.
Commissioner Hiller said no, he doesn't do that. I tried to reply.
Commissioner Hiller says no, he doesn't do that. Mr. Klatzkow says,
no, we don't do that. So who does it?
And I said but when you for a lawyer sign it for legal sufficiency
Page 429
January 8-9, 2013
-- Mr. Klatzkow cuts me off and says that's before it comes to you.
Commissioner Hiller correctly then stated: And then it gets
changed. Many of them do.
That's right, I said.
And Klatzkow says right. And some of that's not necessarily
what the Board approves.
And I replied: Listen, I don't sign anything unless it has a
lawyer's signature on it.
Mr. Klatzkow replied: We sign off on everything before it comes
to the Board. After that we don't necessarily see it.
So what I have here is a pink sheet. And we -- and I'll show that
to you in just a second.
Mr. Klatzkow then says: That's not how our system is set up.
Mr. Mitchell and before that Sue Filson, that was their job to make
sure what you approve was sent to the Chair for signature.
And I observed that it's not a good idea. I think that's the County
Attorney's job.
So I'd like to draw your attention to the pink sheet. That's the
pink sheet. It accompanies all things for the Chair's signature. So this
is very important, since we have a new Chair, as to what it is that
we're doing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I am so glad that you bring this up.
Can I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not finished.
You'll see at the top of the page there it says the completed
routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board
office only after the Board has taken action on the item.
Then you will see further down the sheet that this will include all
signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, et cetera, signed by the
County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts,
agreements that have been fully executed by all parties.
Then we go down further. All handwritten strike-throughs and
Page 430
January 8-9, 2013
revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office, and all
other parties except the BCC chairman and the Clerk to the Board.
So the item is complete for signature by the chair person.
And then lastly, the document was approved by the BCC on such
and such a date, and in this case it was 9/11/2012, and all changes
made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached
documents. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the changes if
appropriate.
So rest assured that the procedure requires the County Attorney
to review the documents where changes have been made during a
BCC meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it is something that, by the
way, it has been happening all along.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. I don't know about that, but I
will say this, and I'm so glad you bring this forward, because as a
consequence of a number of observations I made, I actually already
recommended an improvement to the circulation of these documents
that do need signature. And I have met with Jeff. And I was going to
bring it forward as an executive summary but we had so many on this
agenda that I didn't. And I'm not even sure that we really need one.
But the real issue, and I'm so glad you bring this up, and your
presentation is excellent, because the heart and soul of the matter is
the routing. And what happens is in the past there were so many
people that had their hands on these documents that inadvertently, I
believe, things would happen. Like for example, Ian's contract where
the Board approved that the review would be in November. The
contract actually never was modified and it was executed in
September as being in September. It might have been viewed by the
County Attorney's Office, it might have been missed.
That being the case, it doesn't really matter. The whole point is,
is, I mean, there clearly are issues, and it did require some sort of
Page 431
January 8-9, 2013
modification. And so to me the chain of custody is really simple. It's
all Jeff.
And so what we do is we're not going to route all these
documents through all these different people. What will happen is Jeff
will review the document before it comes to the Board and then after
the Board has had its discussion, he will note what has to be changed,
he will be responsible to make the modification per the Board's vote.
After he has completed that modification, he will call me up, I will go
to his office and I will sign the documents. And then he will be
responsible to take them to the Clerk's Office for recording. The Clerk
will give him a receipt. And once he has finished that, he well then
compile -- and actually what we're going to use as the agenda, if you
will, for what needs to be executed will be the recap of the minutes of
the Board. And then that way we know that everything --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bottom line here is that I have
stacks of hundreds of these that show that this has been going on all
along. Wait, wait.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And there might be exceptions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I get my three minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can more than three minutes.
You can speak as long as you like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The important thing here is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're special.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that it has been routed through
the County Attorney's Office all along whenever there is something
we should be reviewing. There is some things that he clearly should
not be and doesn't have to. But the County Attorney's Office and his
staff have been signing off on these changes as far back as we can
check. So it has always been the policy for the County Attorney to
review this information or his staff and make sure it is accurate before
it's presented to the Chair for signature. So that's my --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Thank you for --
Page 432
January 8-9, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my conclusion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- bringing that up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because there seemed to be a lot of
confusion about whose responsibility it was. And I think we're in
agreement that it is the County Attorney's responsibility.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think the most important thing is
looking to the future and the future is that, you know, we have now
very clearly established what the chain of custody is, and that
basically there is no chain. It's going to be one person, one office.
And that will address, you know, the flow of the documents.
And because the chain of custody is centered in one individual
and his office, his review will be guaranteed and we don't have to have
any worries about contracts that are approved but not signed, like in
the case for example of Salazar or contracts that have the wrong
review date, like in the case of Ian Mitchell.
You know, and there -- mistakes can happen. And it's never
perceived as intentional. So I think that discussion was a very fruitful
discussion and I think it has refined the process and simplified it to
make it even stronger than it was. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You did a great job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can present any time.
Leo, you can hire him. He could --
MR. OCHS: I don't know about that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That was so good. Exhibit A for the
prosecution. I mean, he was good. No, you did great, thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now I must apologize, I said I had
to rush out, but
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Change your mind?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, my appointment couldn't wait
Page 433
January 8-9, 2013
anymore, so he had to leave.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I still don't have anything to
say.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Not a word.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not a word.
Well happy new year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to adjourn.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're adjourned.
*****
*** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Nance and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes.
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2013-01 : FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
(PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, EXCEPT
STREET LIGHTING, FOR A PORTION OF VETERAN'S
MEMORIAL BOULEVARD FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD TO
STRAND BOULEVARD, WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY AND
Page 434
January 8-9, 2013
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2013-02: AUTHORIZING SPEED LIMIT
REDUCTIONS IN THE PINE WOODS COMMUNITY FROM
30 MPH TO 25 MPH FOR AN APPROXIMATE COST OF $600 —
REDUCING SPEED ON PINE WOODS CIRCLE, INGLEWOOD
COURT, WILDER COURT, MAYFIELD COURT AND CAMDEN
COURT FOR THE COMMUNITY LOCATED BETWEEN
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY & PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #16A3
AN EXTENSION TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH ROYAL PALM GOLF ESTATES REPLAT
#3 (AR-6774) SUBDIVISION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05
B.11 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE — EXTENDS THE DATE TO AUGUST 2, 2014 OR AN
ADDITIONAL EXTENSION MUST BE REQUESTED PRIOR TO
THE NEW DATE
Item #16A4
THE 2013 SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTALS TO AMEND THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP),
AS ALIGNED WITH FLORIDA STATUTES — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item 416A5 — Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECORDING THE LANTANA FINAL PLAT (PL20120001529),
Page 435
January 8-9, 2013
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & APPROVING THE AMOUNT
OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #12-
5979, INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
COMPONENTS, DUE TO NONCOMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
ISSUE A MODIFIED ITB
Item #16A7
REIMBURSING FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT $7,410.32 FOR
UTILITY RELOCATION AND A UTILITY RELOCATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FPL FOR
"ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS;
WHITE BOULEVARD BRIDGE #034021 REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT NO. 66066) — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE QUARRY PHASE 5
(PL20120001514), APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
Page 436
January 8-9, 2013
RESOLUTION 2013-03: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VALENCIA LAKES PHASE 1A, (FP00-53)
WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF
PLAT DEDICATIONS;
RESOLUTION 2013-04: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VALENCIA LAKES PHASE 2A, (AR-992)
WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF
PLAT DEDICATIONS;
RESOLUTION 2013-05: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VALENCIA LAKES PHASE 3A, (AR-1415)
WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF
PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE QUARRY ENTRY ROAD (AR-5360),
ENTRY ROAD PHASE 2 (AR-5360), PHASE 1-1 (8958) AND
PHASE 1-2 (AR-9541) AND RELEASE A FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A
FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING
SERVICES IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 437
January 8-9, 2013
THAT FOUND THE FACILITIES ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A11
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,362.47 FOR
PAYMENT OF $562.47, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE OF THE
BENEFIT OF HARBORVIEW 2005-16 TRUST FUND, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE CEPM20110014961, FOR FINES ON
PROPERTY AT 378 EGRET AVE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
— BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE OCTOBER 12, 2012 WITH
FINES BASED ON 193 DAYS OF NON-COMPLIANCE FOR
MULTIPLE MAINTENANCE ISSUES AND
Item #16Al2
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,483.15 FOR A
PAYMENT OF $50,483.15, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. TRICIA
JENKS, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE CESD20090001470, FOR
PROPERTY AT 830 3RD STREET NW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — BASED ON 622 DAYS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
AT $200 PER DAY FOR AN UNPERMITTED GARAGE; THE
LENDER, RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, BROUGHT
THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE JANUARY 31, 2012
Item #16A13
INCREASING ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR COUNTYWIDE
BID #10-5507 "STORM DRAIN CLEANING, DOCUMENTATION
& REPAIR" WITH SHENANDOAH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
Page 438
January 8-9, 2013
COMPANY FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF
$250,000 — THE ROAD & BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT LACKS THE STAFF TO PERFORM SERVICES
THAT CAN BE OBTAINED BY USING THIS CONTRACT THAT
INCLUDE SLIP LINING, CURED IN-PLACE PIPE AND OPEN
CUT/HEADWALL REPAIRS
Item #16A14
REFUNDING INSPECTION FEES REQUESTED BY CH2MHILL,
THAT TOTAL $96,854.53, DUE TO CANCELLATION OF THE
AVE MARIA PHASE 4 PROJECT (AR-10816) — AVE MARIA
DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, REQUESTED A REFUND GIVEN NO
INSPECTION SERVICES WERE NEEDED AND DID SUBMIT A
REQUEST TO CANCEL THE PROJECT MAY 23, 2012
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2013-06: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2011-182
TO ESTABLISH COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION FEE SCHEDULE
FOR DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING
FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-11 OF COLLIER COUNTY'S
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A16
RECORDING THE SABAL BAY FINAL PLAT, (PL20120001474)
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Page 439
January 8-9, 2013
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT #12-5950 WITH SOUTHWEST DIRECT, INC.,
TO OUTSOURCE PRINTING AND MAILING OF COLLIER
COUNTY'S WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UTILITY BILLS —
OUTSOURCING THE WORK HAS PROVIDED SEVERAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING A FLEXIBLE BILLING FORMAT,
ADDED PAYMENT OPTIONS AND OPERATIONAL SAVINGS
Item #16C2
A WORK ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION TASKS UNDER
RFQ #08-5011-75 FOR $405,000 WITH HASKINS, INC., FOR IQ
WATER SITES PRIORITY GROUP #3 — MOTOR OPERATED
VALVES CONTROLLED REMOTELY ARE BEING INSTALLED
TO DELIVER WATER, IMPROVING EFFICIENCY TO ENSURE
CONTRACTUAL DEMANDS ARE BEING MET AT IQ SITE
LOCATIONS THAT INCLUDE OAKES BOULEVARD AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
AND I-75, VINEYARDS PRESS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WELLS
ON IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16D1
AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE IMMOKALEE CRA TO EXTEND THE
TIME OF PERFORMANCE, ADD A PROVISION REQUIRING
COMPLIANCE WITH FY10 HUD GRANT 24 CFR 570, AND
CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND MODIFY EXHIBIT
A, SCOPE OF SERVICES, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
Page 440
January 8-9, 2013
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN (FISCAL IMPACT: $0) —
AMENDING HUD GRANT #B-10-UC-12-0016 FOR THE
FIRST STREET PLAZA PROJECT IN IMMOKALEE BY
MODIFYING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND EXTENDING
THE PROJECT'S COMPLETION DATE TO OCTOBER 30, 2013
Item #16D2
SEVEN (7) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $74,614.01 FOR OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING
UNITS THAT HAVE SATISFIED TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY
PERIODS — FOR RESIDENTIAL REHAB AT PROPERTY WITH
THE FOLIO #56405800008, #36301200007, #6512040007,
#65170920000, #65170160006, #63375000206 AND #65070440004
Item #16D3
REJECT ALL BIDS FOR INIVITATION TO BID #12-5918, BOAT
RAMP REPAIR, FOR PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA AND
RE-SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE PROJECT — STAFF PLANS TO
REBID THE PROJECT BY APRIL, 2013
Item #16D4
THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 11, 2012
BCC MEETING. 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. THIS
ITEM DOES NOT PROPOSE TO ALTER THE GEOGRAPHIC
Page 441
January 8-9, 2013
BOUNDARIES OF BOARD APPROVED TARGET AREAS —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A FY2013 CONTINUUM OF
CARE (COC) GRANT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
CATHOLIC CHARITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,662 TO THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE COC HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (HMIS) PROGRAM TO ASSIST AND BENEFIT THE
COLLIER COUNTY HOMELESS POPULATION — IF AWARDED
THE GRANT WILL BE ACCEPTED BY CATHOLIC CHARITIES
AND COLLIER COUNTY WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR COMPLIANCE OF GRANT TERMS
Item #16E1
THE PURCHASE OF NETAPP HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FROM TERREMARK
ADVANCED DATA SERVICES DIVISION FOR THE COUNTY'S
NETAPP HARDWARE/SOFTWARE IN THE AMOUNT $132,693,
UTILIZING FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT #250-000-09-1 — AN
AGREEMENT THAT EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 7, 2013 FOR THE
PROGRAM THAT IS USED TO STORE BCC COMPUTER DATA
FILES AND EMAIL
Item #16E2
AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT #09-5254, TO AUTHORIZE
AN INCREASE TO ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
FOR COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT FACILITY GROUND
Page 442
January 8-9, 2013
MAINTENANCE TO $750,000 — A CONTRACT W/HANNUALA
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, INC., TO REFLECT
ACTUAL AVERAGE EXPENDITURES THAT WERE $698,549
IN FY10; $934,557 IN FY11 AND $724,874 IN FY12
Item #16E3
INCREASING ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON
CONTRACT #09-5187 "ON-CALL MECHANICAL
CONTRACTOR" TO $850,000 — FOR CONTRACTS WITH
CONDITIONED AIR CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC. AND
PAGE MECHANICAL, INC. THAT WHEN AWARDED WERE
BASED ON HISTORICAL AND ANTICIPATED NEEDS BUT
DID NOT TAKE UNEXPECTED VARIABLES INTO ACCOUNT
Item #16E4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CIVIL AIR PATROL (CAP) IN SUPPORT
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL & MANMADE HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
— THE CIVIL AIR PATROL HAS SERVED THE COUNTY FOR
7 YRS WITH SERVICES THAT INCLUDE: AIR/GROUND
SEARCH & RESCUE OPERATIONS, DISASTER AND RELIEF,
MERCY MISSIONS, HOMELAND SECURITY AND SURFACE
TRAFFIC MISSIONS, AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE AND
SURFACE TRAFFIC MISSIONS, PASSENGER AND CARGO
TRANSPORT (HUMAN ORGANS, TISSUES, MEDICAL
SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORTING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Item #16E5
Page 443
January 8-9, 2013
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS INCREASING ESTIMATED
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES UNDER AGREEMENT #10-5373,
"ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES," TO $750,000, TO
ALLOW FOR PROJECTED COUNTYWIDE EXPENDITURES -
DUE TO UNANTICIPATED VARIABLES FOR THE
CONTRACTS WITH JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. (PRIMARY
VENDOR) AND TAMPA BAY SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A TAMPA
BAY TRANE ENERGY SERVICES (SECONDARY) FOR
REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF ALL HVAC EQUIPMENT IN COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Item #16E6
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT
APPLICATION TO PURCHASE CLASS A FOAM FOR ISLES OF
CAPRI FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT, THAT REQUESTS $1,260 IN
GRANT FUNDS AND REQUIRES A LOCAL MATCH OF $1,260
- THE FUNDS WILL BE USED TO PURCHASE 36 FIVE-
GALLON PAILS OF CLASS A FOAM THAT WILL ENABLE
THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT TO INCREASE
FIRE SUPPRESSION CAPABILITIES DURING THE UPCOMING
BRUSH FIRE SEASON
Item #16E7
PURCHASE OF COMPUTER HARDWARE REPLACEMENTS
UP TO $200,000 THROUGH FY13 UTILIZING NATIONAL IPA
CONTRACT #083052-01 - THE IT DEPARTMENT WILL BE
PURCHASING PCS IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,181 TO REPLACE
THOSE THAT ARE NO LONGER COVERED BY WARRANTIES
OR THAT MEET BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS
Page 444
January 8-9, 2013
Item #16E8
PURCHASE NEW DATA DOMAIN (EMC) HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE FROM CDWG FOR COUNTY DATA BACKUP
SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,754 UTILIZING FLORIDA
STATE CONTRACT #250-000-09-1 — THE NEW HARDWARE/
SOFTWARE WILL SHORTEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME USED
TO BACKUP THE COUNTY DATA
Item #16E9
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #07-4180 "GASOLINE &
DIESEL FUEL" WITH EVANS ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC,
D/B/A EVANS OIL COMPANY, AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN
THE PAYMENT TERMS TO "NET IMMEDIATE" — COUNTY
STAFF WAS NOTIFIED BY EVANS OIL THEY WILL NO
LONGER BE EXTENDING 30 DAY CREDIT TERMS TO
CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF REQUIREMENTS PLACED ON
THEM BY THEIR SUPPLIER, CHEVRON AND UNTIL NEW
PAYMENT TERMS ARE AGREED UPON THEY MAY BE
UNABLE TO PROVIDE FUEL DELIVERIES
Item #16E10
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY
STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS — FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 27, 2012
TO DECEMBER 11, 2012
Item #16E11 — Moved to Item #11F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 445
January 8-9, 2013
Item #16E12
A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FOUR
AMBULANCE MODIFICATIONS TOTALING $586,000, AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE FY13 BUDGET — SPECIFICATIONS
WERE DRAFTED BETWEEN FLEET MANAGEMENT, EMS
STAFF AND THE MANUFACTURER, HALL-MARK FIRE
APPARATUS BECAUSE OF A RECENT CHANGE THAT
REQUIRES NEW AMBULANCES ARE DESIGNED UNDER
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA)
SPECIFICATIONS
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2013-07: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FY 12-13 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16G1
A COMMERCIAL AVIATION OPERATION LICENSE
AGREEMENT WITH HISTORY FLIGHT INC., FOR LIMITED
COMMERCIAL AVIATION OPERATIONS AT MARCO
ISLAND'S EXECUTIVE AIRPORT — DURING THEIR ANNUAL
TOUR HELD JANUARY 19-20, 2013 ALLOWING AIRCRAFT
DISPLAY, TOURS OF WWII VINTAGE AIRCRAFT AND THE
SALE OF RELATED MERCHANDISE, SOUVENIRS, AND
LICENSED MEMORABILIA
Item #16G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
Page 446
January 8-9, 2013
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVES A REVISED T-HANGAR
STANDARD LEASE AGREEMENT FOR EVERGLADES
AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO
ISLAND'S EXECUTIVE AIRPORT — ELIMINATES INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ULTRA LIGHT VEHICLES BECAUSE
OF THE DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING INSURANCE FOR
THESE VEHICLES AND BECAUSE ANY POTENTIAL
DAMAGE THESE VEHICLES WOULD CAUSE IS MINIMAL
Item #16G3
AA RESOLUTION 2013-08: THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVES THE PROPOSED 2013 RATE SCHEDULES FOR
EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED SERVICE CORPS OF RETIRED
EXECUTIVES (SCORE) NAPLES ANNUAL PROGRAM
KICKOFF AND LUNCH DECEMBER 3, 2012. A SUM OF $25 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
— HELD AT THE BEAR'S PAW COUNTRY CLUB, 2500
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 447
January 8-9, 2013
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ARLINGTON OF NAPLES
ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY DECEMBER 11, 2012. A SUM
OF $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT THE NAPLES HILTON, 5111 TAMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED CHRISTMAS ISLAND STYLE
SILVER ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION NOVEMBER 18, 2012.
A SUM OF $65 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB,
500 NASSAU ROAD, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE FOR THE
RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED
Item #16I2
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES AND AGENDAS TO FILE FOR
THE RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 448
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 8, 2013
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Riviera Golf Estates Homeowner Association, Inc.:
Notice of Budget Meeting 11.27.12
2) Sheriff Kevin J. Rambosk:
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Surplus Funds 10.30.12
3) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District:
Meeting Minutes 8.17.12; 9.21.12; Financial Report and Unaudited
Financial Statements July and August 2012; Annual Budget for
FY13 and Appropriation Resolution; Resolution levying and
imposing Special Assessments; District Board's 2013 Public
Meeting Schedule
4) Quarry Community Development District:
FY12/13 Quarry CDD Meeting Schedule
5) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District:
District's FY 12/13 Meeting Schedule; District Map; FY 12/13 Final
Budget and declaration of having no outstanding bonds; Registered
Agent Designation Form filed with the Dept. of Economic
Opportunity f/k/a the Dept. of Community Affairs
6) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
District's FY 12/13 Meeting Schedule
7) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council:
2013 Work Plan and Budget
f
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
January 8, 2013
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Minutes of 9.19.12
2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 8.9.12; 9.13.12 (Workshop w/TDC); 9.13.12; 10.11.12
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 9.7.12; 10.5.12
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of 9.6.12; 9.20.12; 9.28.12
5) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 9.19.12
6) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 9.5.12; 10.3.12
7) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 9.4.12
Minutes of 9.4.12
8) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Minutes of 6.11.12
9) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of 9.27.12
10) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 10.24.12
Minutes of 8.22.12; 9.26.12; 10.24.12
11) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of 10.17.12
Minutes of 8.15.12
12) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of 10.17.12
Minutes of 9.19.12
13) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 4.19.12
14) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 7.9.12; 10.8.12
15) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 9.20.12
Minutes of 9.20.12
16) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of 3.21.12; 4.18.12; 5.16.12; 6.20.12; 8.15.12; 8.15.12
(Annual Meeting)
17) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 9.24.12 (Ad-Hoc Committee); 10.9.12; 10.18.12
(Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 11.7.12
18) Public Safety Authority:
Minutes of 10.17.12
19) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of 9.18.12
Minutes of 9.18.12
20) Tourist Development Council:
Minutes of 9.13.12 (Workshop w/CAC)
21) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5.3.12; 10.11.12
January 8-9, 2013
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 24, 2012
THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1, 2012
THROUGH DECEMBER 7, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 8, 2012
THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15, 2012
THROUGH DECEMBER 21, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGAINST
MARY MUNGUTA AND JOSHUA E. CRUMP IN THE COUNTY
COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES
Page 449
January 8-9, 2013
INCURRED BY THE COUNTY FOR REPAIR OF A LIGHT POLE
IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,408.19, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION
— FOR A JUNE 18, 2012 ACCIDENT ON CR846 WHEREBY MR.
CRUMP RECKLESSLY COLLIDED WITH A MEDIAN AND
COUNTY OWNED LIGHT POLE
Item #16K2
AN AMENDMENT TO THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH
ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. FOR LEGAL SERVICES, TO
EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE TO FEBRUARY 26, 2016.
NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
AMENDMENT — FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES
Item #16K3
ACCEPTING A RIGHT-OF-WAY & UTILITY EASEMENT
FROM THOMAS SBROCCO AND CARMEN SBROCCO,
HUSBAND & WIFE, AS PART OF A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED SBROCCO V.
COLLIER COUNTY V. A GNOLI BARBER & BR UNDAGE (ABB),
FILED IN TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FL (CASE NO. 12-CA-2707) WHICH
INCLUDES A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF, THOMAS SBROCCO AND THIRD
PARTY DEFENDANT, ABB, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT (FISCAL
IMPACT: APPROXIMATELY $8,000) — SURROUNDING THE
BAYSHORE DRIVE SOUTH CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT WITH MR. SBROCCO ALLEGING THE COUNTY
BUILT A SIDEWALK AND MADE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
ON HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT HIS CONSENT
Page 450
January 8-9, 2013
*** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Summary Agenda be adopted.
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2013-09 : CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR FOUND IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION VACATING A
PORTION OF RAILROAD STREET IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA,
PART OF RESOLUTION NO. 84-166, RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 1099, PAGE 1655 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2013-01 : AMENDING ORDINANCE 2011-25,
THAT REZONED THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK
TO A PUBLIC USE (P) ZONING DISTRICT, TO CORRECT A
SCRIVENER'S ERROR THAT THE PUBLIC PARK IS FOR A
PASSIVE PARK. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTIONS
27 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FL. (COMPANION ITEM #9A; PL20120000371/CP-
2012-1, GMPA-GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2013-02: ESTABLISHING PROHIBITIONS TO
POSSESSION, PROVISION, SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF
ILLICIT SYNTHETIC DRUGS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Page 451
January 8-9, 2013
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:58 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
GEORA A A. HILLER, ESQ., CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST:
bA, + 41C
Q2sW tci jHtT . :1'•-.c , CLERK
t nature
These minutes a owed by the Board on bitrinj 12, 2D13 , as
presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting, Inc.
by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 452