BCC Minutes 05/14/2013 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 14, 2013
May 14, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
May 14, 2013
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRWOMAN: Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
Tim Nance
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
oi [ 1,
44 rtt//
r uak.
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
May 14, 2013
9:00 AM
Georgia Hiller - BCC Chairwoman; BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Vice-Chairman; BCC Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice- Chairman
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Commissioner, District 4
Tim Nance - BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
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
May 14, 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. Reverend Sheila Zellers - Motivated by Love Ministries
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's consent agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
B. Approval of today's summary agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
C. Approval of today's regular agenda as amended.
Page 2
May 14, 2013
D. April 2, 2013 - BCC/2014 Beach Renourishment Peer Review/Affordable
Housing Inventory Report Workshop
E. April 9, 2013 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 2013 as Physicians Led Action Network
(PLAN) Month in Collier County in recognition of its 10th anniversary and
contribution of$18 million in donated specialty medical care to Collier
County's uninsured. To be accepted by Bill Kuzbyt, Psy.D., JD, PLAN
Board Chairman; Michelle Jay, PLAN Program Manager; Joan Colfer, MD,
MPH, Collier County Department of Health; and Margaret Eadington,
Executive Director, Collier County Medical Society. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating May 19-25, 2013 as Water Reuse Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by G. George Yilmaz, Ph.D, P.E., P.H., Public
Utilities Administrator; Beth Johnssen, Wastewater Department Director;
Danette Kinaszczuk, Reuse Manager, Wastewater Department; Lisa
Koehler, Big Cypress Basin Administrator, South Florida Water
Management District. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation designating May 18-25, 2013 as Safe Boating Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Robert A. Abubato, Flotilla Commander, U.S.
Coast Guard Auxuliary, Flotilla 93. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
D. Proclamation designating May 2013 as Drowning Prevention Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Dr. Todd Vedder, Chairman, Safe and
Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County and Paula DiGrigoli,
Executive Director, Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County.
Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
E. Proclamation recognizing Alma Cambridge as a Woman of Distinction for
her positive community influence and role in establishing the Bethel African
Methodist Episcopal Church. To be accepted by Dr. Rozalyne Wright,
Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Sponsored by Commissioner
Page 3
May 14, 2013
Henning.
F. Proclamation designating May 2013 as Drug Court Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by the Honorable Janeice T. Martin, Collier County
Judge. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
G. Proclamation designating May 19-25, 2013 as Emergency Medical Services
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Walter Kopka, Chief, EMS.
Sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the PHOENIX AWARD to recognize those EMS
Paramedics, EMT's, Firefighters, Sheriff's Deputies and Police Officers,
who through their skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to
life individuals who have died.
B. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for May 2013 to
MiraMare Ristorante at Venetian Village. To be accepted by Sal Sinzieri,
Owner and Freddy Velez, General Manager.
C. Recommendation to recognize Glenn Rager, Instrumentation and Electrical
Technician, Wastewater Department/Power Systems, as the Employee of the
Month for April 2013.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item #8 and Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 4
May 14,2013
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Agency.
C. Appointment of member to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Public Transit Ad Hoc Advisory Board.
E. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to issue the attached Notice
of Default to KPK Management, Inc., assignee of Global Manufacturing
Technologies, Inc., relating to a Sublease dated August 15, 1999, of the
Immokalee Airport Incubator Building, setting forth that if certain lease
violations are not rectified within 30 days of the Notice, that the Airport
Authority will terminate the Sublease and, if necessary, pursue its legal
remedies, and to grant the Airport Executive Director the authority to work
with the County Attorney to terminate the Sublease and pursue legal action,
including eviction proceedings, if the defaults are not cured. (Commissioner
Henning)
F. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to bring back to the Board
for its future consideration an ordinance abolishing the Environmental
Advisory Council, together with an ordinance amending the Collier County
Planning Commission Ordinance to (1) absorb the responsibilities of the
EAC; and (2) change the membership composition of the Collier County
Planning Commission from 9 members to 7, with a single member from
each Commission District, plus two at-large members. (Commissioner
Henning)
G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners clarify its
intent/direction with respect to the role of the PSA in the evaluation of
applicants for the position of Medical Director/Deputy Medical Director. It
was neither the intent, nor the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners to have county staff, nor the PSA, develop ranking criteria
and score the applicants. In fact, according to Ed Morton of the Blue Ribbon
Committee, the Blue Ribbon Committee did not envision the PSA being the
selection committee for the position of Medical Director/Deputy Medical
Page 5
May 14, 2013
Director; the PSA would be conflicted in such a role. The Board of County
Commissioners requested that the PSA provide a list of the top ten
candidates, unranked, along with the applications of all other candidates.
Had the Board of County Commissioners wanted rankings based on scored
criteria, the commissioners would have defined the criteria and the
weighting. This was intentionally avoided to ensure fairness in the process,
since criteria and weightings could be skewed so as to benefit or prejudice a
particular candidate. Given that there are five applicants that have submitted
for the position of Medical Director/Deputy Medical Director, the PSA
should be given the opportunity to meet the applicants and then forward the
list of all five candidates, unranked, to the Board of County Commissioners
along with PSA comments/observations (taken as a whole) that would allow
the Commissioners to make a well informed final decision. (Commissioner
Hiller)
H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the
creation of a countywide Office of the Medical Director ("OMD") to provide
outstanding clinical oversight to all of Collier County's emergency care
providers, so that collectively these providers can deliver compassionate and
professional services at the highest standard of emergency response and
patient clinical care. The OMD would consist of the Medical Director,
Deputy Medical Director, Associate Medical Directors (representing the
ALS service providers and BLS Transport providers from organizations
throughout the county), an Executive Director, and an Assistant Executive
Director. (Only the positions of the Medical Director and Deputy Medical
Director would be county funded.) The OMD would consist of 5 divisions:
1. Clinical Practice of Medicine/Medical Protocol Coordination - to include
for example, protocol development, controlled substance management,
equipment review, quality assurance. 2. Performance Measure/Research - to
include for example, the development of performance bench marks, provide
an annual report, and develop an information web page. 3. Emergency
Preparedness - to include for example, Infectious Diseases, Immunizations,
SWAT, HAZMAT, and EOC liaison. 4. Continuing Education
Development and Coordination - for both ALS and BLS providers.
5. Strategic Initiative Coordination - to include for example, the AED
program, injury prevention, Code Save-A-Heart, and Stroke Alert. These
divisions would be staffed by representatives from the EMS provider
agencies. The OMD would be advised/reviewed by the Public Safety
Authority and the EMS council. Such a coordinated, professional and
Page 6
May 14, 2013
comprehensive approach to EMS management will lead to the highest level
of emergency services that the residents and visitors of Collier County can
expect. That the Board of County Commissioners put forth the above
recommendation for review and input from the PSA to be brought back for
adoption at the second meeting of the Board of County Commissioners in
September, 2013. (Commissioner Hiller)
I. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
`Medical Director Subcommittee' of the PSA investigate claims of actual
and potential failed calls as they relate to protocols and training promulgated
under the current county Medical Director. A full investigation is required
to be conducted given the PSA's obligation to provide a quality assurance
process and a duty to investigate problems as they arise and recommend
solutions promptly. There are three matters that require such investigation:
1. In January, 2013 the county's Medical Director released updated
protocols as final without allowing for review. The consequence
was that protocols were released as official which contained life
threatening standards. For example - a protocol was released with
respect to pediatric rescue breathing which was incorrect, and, if
administered by an EMS provider as prescribed would result in the
death of the child. Protocols should not be released as official until
validated by the appropriate agencies/boards. Medical accuracy is
mandatory.
2. A young man passed away, allegedly because EMS failed to timely
arrive at the scene. EMS claimed that no emergency tone was
heard. There are complaints that the county's 800 Mega Hertz
communications system is failing to set off the appropriate tones
which are used to alert emergency vehicles of an incoming call.
These failures are being reported as happening daily and may have
contributed towards the death of one resident, and is threatening
the lives of all. This matter must be immediately investigated and
addressed.
3. A letter received from Physician's Regional Hospital, dated May 6,
2013 explains that the county's medical director was working
"extremely closely with NCH to promulgate protocols seemingly
effectuated by the threat of loss of market share to NCH." In an
Page 7
May 14,2013
email dated December 20, 2012, the county's medical director
advocated against certain stroke protocols because these protocols
would "divert 40% of the patients currently going to NCH." The
medical director was in effect seemingly making decisions about
which protocols were to be adopted based on how NCH's market
share would be affected if stroke patients were transported to
Physician Regional's new Comprehensive Stroke Center (the only
such accredited stroke center in SW Florida) rather than to NCH.
Protocols must be developed on what is in the best interest of the
patient, not in any way based on the market share a hospital might
lose. It appears that only 12-15% of the county's stroke victims are
being transported to Physicians Regional notwithstanding the
current protocol. There are two recent stroke related deaths where
the patients were transported to NCH rather than the Physician's
Regional stroke center begging the question as to whether these
patients might have survived if transported to the stroke center.
What has transpired is of the utmost seriousness. A full study into
how many patients are being transported by county EMS to one
hospital over another hospital is needed. Further, the timeliness
and basis on which protocols are being established needs to be
fully investigated. Lastly, the training of providers as to directions
on where patients shall be transported under which conditions
needs to be investigated. The development of protocols and
training of the EMS providers are the responsibility of the
County's Medical Director. (Commissioner Hiller)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to consider candidates who have applied to the position of
Chief Hearing Examiner. (Len Golden Price, Administrative Services
Division Administrator)
B. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to reject all bids
received for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #13-6076 Collier County Beach
Renourishment Project; re-solicit the project with target volumes per beach
segment; reduced bid acceptance/validity timeframe; approve the project
price submittal form and bidding approach; approve a sand placement
renourishment approach and make a finding that this project promotes
Page 8
May 14, 2013
tourism. (Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director)
C. Companion to Item #14B1 and to be heard immediately following
#14B1. Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to enter into a
$7,557,900 Term Loan Agreement with Fifth Third Bank - the Series 2013
Taxable Note; approve the actions taken by the CRA with respect to its
approval of the Loan Agreement; and authorize all necessary budget
amendments. (Mark Isackson, Corporate Finance and Management Services
Director)
D. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation to review the history
and public benefit associated with the proposed Whippoorwill Lane and
Marbella Lakes Drive connection project, consider current comments from
the public and after consideration, provide direction to the County Manager
prior to soliciting an invitation to bid for this project. (Nick Casalanguida,
Growth Management Administrator)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Recommendation to accept the proposal for Request for Proposal
(RFP) #13-6083 Airport Management Consultant from Unison
Consulting Inc. and direct the County Manager to negotiate a contract
to be brought back to the Board for approval.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approves a resolution
containing the form of a Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA
restructuring Loan Agreement with Fifth Third Bank - the Series 2013
Taxable Note - in the amount of$7,557,900; authorize the CRA
Page 9
May 14, 2013
Chairman to sign the authorizing resolution; and authorize all
necessary budget amendments. Pursuant to Notice required under
Section 163.346, Florida Statutes.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Summit Place in Naples, Phase II AR 11444 and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or
the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Summit Place in Naples, Phase III AR 10053 and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or
the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve an Easement Purchase Agreement as
part of the US-41/Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvement
project. (County Project No. 60116). Fiscal Impact: $2,994
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to adopt
a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of
a 12.5-foot wide Drainage Easement, being a part of Lot 39, Block
KK, Quail West Phase III, Unit 7, Plat Book 46, pages 89 through 102
of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, also being a part of
Section 8, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Page 10
May 14, 2013
Florida. Application No. VAC-PL20130000515.
5) Recommendation to award Bid #13-6066 "Signal Communications
Fiber Optic Network Extension" for construction of a fiber optic
network extension to Traffic Control Devices, Inc., in the amount of
$597,559 (Project #33208).
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a request from the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest
Florida to grant preliminary acceptance of the subdivision
improvements within Hatchers Preserve subdivision and allow the
installation of the required landscape buffer to occur concurrently
with Certificates of Occupancy for each individual lot.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a cash bond in the amount of
$6,312.60 which had been posted as security for clearing associated
with the Saturnia Lakes subdivision (AR-2071).
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 Cordoba at Lely Resort, Lots 5
- 13, Lots 18 - 26 Replat, Application Number FP-PL20120002957.
9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve extensions for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Moorgate Point subdivision (AR-7618) and
Classics Plantation Estates, Phase Three subdivision (AR-7433)
pursuant to Section 10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
Page 11
May 14, 2013
10) Recommendation to increase the collective annual limit for multiple
contracts resulting from RFP No. 12-5892, "Fixed Term Landscape
Architectural Services."
11) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Collier
County, the City of Marco Island, and the Hideaway Beach District
for Collier County to provide $350,000 in Tourist Development
Category "A" Funding representing Collier County's proportionate
share for three erosion control structures and future maintenance costs
as part of the 2013 Hideaway Beach Renourishment and erosion
control project and authorize the Chairwoman to sign the Agreement.
12) Recommendation to award Bid No. 13-6023 to Stultz Construction,
Inc. in the amount of$205,585 for the construction contract of the
Tigertail Beach New Restroom Facility Project No. 90093, make a
finding that this project promotes tourism, and authorize the
Chairwoman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney
approval.
13) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to adopt
a Resolution to set a public hearing to consider vacating a 20-foot
wide Lake Maintenance Easement (L.M.E.), being a part of Tract E of
Fiddlers Creek Phase 5, Aviamar Unit One, Plat Book 45, pages 34
through 39 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, also
being a part of Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. Application No. VAC-PL20130000583.
14) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of$214,455.98.
15) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$77,410.86 for payment of$7,060.86, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Terry Hernandez
and Brian K. Fults, Code Enforcement Case Number
CELU20110009421, relating to property located at 2700 47th Terrace
Page 12
May 14, 2013
SW, Collier County, Florida.
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 Torino Replat, Application
Number FP-PL20130000083.
17) Recommendation to provide an after-the-fact approval of Change
Order No. 3 to WO #45-141808, authorize the expenditure of Tourist
Development Category "A" tax funds for a Peer Review of the Collier
County Beaches volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. under
Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump sum amount of$12,472, make a
finding that this item promotes tourism, and authorize the County
Manager or his designee to execute the Work Order.
18) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$467,330.40 for payment of$1,030.40, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Curtis D. Blocker
& Curtis Blocker, Jr., Code Enforcement Case Number 2002120732,
relating to property located at 2900 Bradley Drive, Collier County,
Florida.
19) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$87,868.25 for payment of$1,418.25, in the Code Enforcement
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Curtis D. Blocker
& Curtis Blocker, Jr., Code Enforcement Case Number 2003091169,
relating to property located at 423 Taylor Road, Collier County,
Florida.
20) 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 extensions for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with Orange Blossom Ranch Phase lA (AR-7186) and
Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 1B (AR-7431) pursuant to Section
10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Page 13
May 14, 2013
21) 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 Esplanade Golf and Country
Club of Naples, (Application Number PL20120001261) approval of
the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
22) Recommendation to ratify and approve a stipulated Final Judgment as
to Parcel 103FEE and 103TCE as part of the US-41/Collier Boulevard
Intersection Improvement project (Project No. 60116) Fiscal Impact:
$7,447.50.
23) Recommendation to ratify and approve a stipulated Final Judgment as
to the interest of 7-Eleven, Inc., in Parcels 105FEE1, 105FEE2,
105FEE3, 105TCE1, 105TCE2, 105TCE3, 105TCE4, 107FEE,
107TCE1, 107TCE2 and 109FEE as part of the US-4 /Collier
Boulevard Intersection Improvement project (Project No. 60116)
Fiscal Impact: $5,205.50.
24) Recommendation to ratify and approve a stipulated Final Judgment as
to the interest of Carrabba's Italian Grill, LLC, in Parcel 113FEE and
Parcel 113TCE as part of the US-41/Collier Boulevard Intersection
Improvement project (Project No. 60116) Fiscal Impact: $5,214.
25) Recommendation to ratify and approve a stipulated Final Judgment as
to the interest of Regions Bank in Parcel 113FEE and Parcel 113TCE
as part of the US-41/Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvement
project (Project No. 60116) Fiscal Impact: $5,214.
26) Recommendation to ratify and approve a stipulated Final Judgment as
to Parcels 109FEE, 109SWE1, 109SWE2 and 109TCE as part of the
US-41/Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvement project (Project
No. 60116) Fiscal Impact: $8,907.50.
27) Recommendation to ratify and approve two Stipulated Final
Judgments as to Parcel 102FEE, et al, as part of the US-41/Collier
Boulevard Intersection Improvement project (Project No. 60116)
Page 14
May 14,2013
Fiscal Impact: $198.50
28) Recommendation to approve award of Bid No. 12-5985 Fiber Optic
Installation, Repair and Maintenance to primary contractor, Aztec
Communications, Inc., and secondary contractor, SPE Utility
Contractors, Inc., for an annual estimated expenditure of$450,000,
and authorize the Chairwoman to execute contracts to each.
29) Recommendation to recognize revenue from a multi-year Joint
Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of
Transportation and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization for
fixed route transit planning activities that includes Federal pass-
through 49 USC § 5303 funding and to authorize necessary budget
amendments for grant revenue in the amount of$109,344 and a local
match in the amount of$12,150.
30) Recommendation to approve a Work Order with Humiston & Moore
for Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging engineering and construction
support services for a not to exceed time and material amount of
$36,910, make a finding that this item promotes tourism, authorize the
County Manager or his designee to execute the Work Order, and
approve necessary budget amendments.
31) Recommendation to reinitiate the Limerock Road Conversion
Program (LRCP) in FY 2013 in the amount of$276,500, and approve
all necessary budget amendments.
32) Recommendation to approve and authorize the County Attorney's
Office to retain consulting and expert witness services for Eminent
Domain Litigation for the US-41/Collier Boulevard Intersection
Improvement Project (Project No. 60116) in compliance with Section
VII H of the Purchasing Policy. The estimated fiscal impact is
approximately $150,000 for three consulting firms.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), approve an amendment to the previously approved Disaster
Page 15
May 14, 2013
Recovery Initiative (DRI) grant agreement between the BCC and the
CRA.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a standard process for applicants seeking
to convert from an individually metered potable water system to a
master metered potable water system, at no cost to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District.
2) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of a new Case 580N
Backhoe from Trekker Tractor LLC, in the amount of$65,050.07,
utilizing the Florida Sheriffs Association State Contract #12-10-0905.
3) Recommendation to award Bid Number 13-6025 for purchase of
cyber lock security access control components for public utilities
facilities to E.A. Waetjen, Incorporated in an estimated annual amount
of$100,000.
4) Recommendation to approve and execute the document necessary to
convey water infrastructure located at the Collier County Landfill,
3730 White Lake Blvd., Naples Florida, to the Collier County Water-
Sewer District.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing an Appendix
(Amendment Number 1) to an approved Utility Work by Highway
Contractor Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation.
6) Recommendation to approve a work order under Request for
Quotation #08-5011-81 in the amount of$494,886 to Mitchell &
Stark Construction Co., Inc., to replace the aerators on Oxidation
Ditch No. 3 under North County Water Reclamation Facility
Technical Support Project Number 73968.
7) Recommendation to approve payment in the amount of$21,647.81 to
Higgins Construction, Inc., for repairs to the North County Water
Reclamation Facility, Project Number 73968.
Page 16
May 14, 2013
8) Recommendation to approve a Work Order for $590,318.25 to Kyle
Construction under Request for Quotation #08-5011-78 for
Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Wastewater Pump
Station 158.00 Rehabilitation Project, Project Numbers 70046 and
70051.
9) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement prior
to trial in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. John Reynolds &
Sons, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-6658-CA, filed in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Consolidated with
Case No. 10-6670-CA), which settlement includes payment to the
Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-Officio the Governing Board
of the Collier County Water Sewer District, in the total amount of
$4,500,000 paid by John Reynolds & Sons, Inc., Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc., Hazen and Sawyer, P.C./Hole Montes, Inc. and
Greeley and Hansen, LLC, an Addendum No. 1 to the Mediated
Settlement Agreement, and to authorize the Chairwoman to execute
the Mediated Settlement Agreement and Addendum No. 1.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve releases of lien of Collier County impact
fees, Collier County Immokalee Residential impact fees and Collier
County State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) impact fees for
owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units that have been
repaid in full.
2) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for State
Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) in accordance with
the Board's Short Sale Policy, accepting $2,295 to satisfy a $38,250
mortgage.
3) Recommendation to approve three (3) mortgage satisfactions for the
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan in the combined
amount of$50,444.50.
4) Recommendation to approve two (2) Agreements with the District
School Board of Collier County for transportation services for county
recreation program participants at an estimated annual cost of
Page 17
May 14,2013
$40,000.
5) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact grant application for a 3
year FY2013-2014 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) grant for expansion of Drug Court programs (Fiscal
Impact $835,370 over 3 years).
6) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #13-6028 "Lely
Golf Estates MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" to Florida Land
Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a Commercial Land Maintenance Inc. and
authorize the Chairwoman to sign the County Attorney approved
contract.
7) Recommendation to request authorization to advertise and bring back
an Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 96-84, as
amended (The Radio Road Beautification Municipal Service Taxing
Unit), to incorporate provisions to facilitate improvements to the Rich
King Memorial Greenway within the MSTU boundaries.
8) Recommendation to adopt by Resolution, an amendment to the State
Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program 2010-11, 2011-12,-
2012-13 Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) and approve funding
allocation in the amount of$150,000 for an owner occupied
rehabilitation program, and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
9) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact amendment between
Collier County and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida to amend the effective
date of the unit rate increase per meal served in the Nutritional
Services Incentive Program (NSIP) for FY 2012/2013.
10) Recommendation to approve nine (9) substantial amendments
amending previous Annual Action Plans for the purpose of
recognizing and reprogramming unspent U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME Partnership Investment (HOME) funds in
the aggregate amount of$2,771,188.90 and approve any necessary
Page 18
May 14,2013
budget amendments. This item is a companion to Item #16D11.
11) Recommendation to approve eight (8) Subrecipient Agreements for
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects
previously approved for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) funding in Amended Action Plans between
FY2004-2005 and FY2012-2013 approved by the Board on May 14,
2013. This item is a companion to Item #16D10.
12) Recommendation to approve Change Order #5 in the amount of
$26,991.55 and time extension to Contract #12-5878 Radio Road East
MSTU Landscape & Irrigation Project for Hannula Landscape and
Irrigation, Inc. and approve budget amendments.
13) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact amendment between
Collier County and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida (Senior Choices) and
budget amendment that reflects a decrease of grant funding in the
amount of$1,689 in the Nutritional Services Incentive Program
(NSIP) for FY 2012/2013.
14) Recommendation to approve the necessary budget amendment to
recognize revenue received from the State Aid to Libraries Grant in
the amount of$208,420.
15) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
Custom Industries of Naples, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and
pursue all other avenues of collection to recover materials and
services paid for in full by Collier County Parks and Recreation, in the
amount of$20,490, plus the costs of litigation.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Amateur Radio Association of Southwest
Florida in support of Emergency Management activities related to
Page 19
May 14,2013
natural and manmade hazards emergency response.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to a contract with
Turbomeca USA for helicopter maintenance support and authorize the
Chairwoman to sign the agreement.
3) Recommendation to approve a License Agreement with Naples
Seventh-Day Adventist Church for use of parking spaces for the
public to access the Rich King Greenway.
4) Recommendation to approve proposed amendments to Ordinance No.
04-52, as amended, Criminal History Record Checks and authorize
Staff to advertise the amendments and return to the Board for final
approval.
5) Recommendation to approve a Lease and License Agreement with
East Naples United Methodist Church, Inc., a Florida Non Profit
Corporation, for the continued use of the parking area located in the
northern most portion of the Government Center.
6) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of 14
replacement ambulance cots from Ferno in the amount of$67,274
plus shipping and approve a budget amendment.
7) Recommendation to retroactively approve the competitively solicited
US Communities Contract #MA-IS-1340234 with Graybar Electrical.
8) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution 2004-15 for the
second quarter of FY13.
9) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
the Kirk Family Trust, which contains as its res, 3 Las Brisas Way,
Naples, Florida, c/o Allen Kirk, Trustee, and Kathleen Corbett Kirk,
Trustee, and the Las Brisas Neighborhood Association, Inc., in the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, to recover damages to the County's main gravity
Page 20
May 14, 2013
line, at the location of the property, in the amount of$37,987.95, plus
the costs of suit.
10) Recommendation to award Bid #13-6088 Surplus Sale of Fare Boxes
and Counters.
11) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairwoman to sign
the Collier County Government Equal Employment Opportunity Plan.
13) Recommendation to approve the award of ITB #13-6058, "Filters for
Fleet Vehicles," to Sam Galloway Ford, Inc. as primary vendor, and;
Uni-Select USA, Inc., and Sunbelt Automotive, Inc. d/b/a NAPA
Auto Parts, as secondary vendors.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Collier County 2013 Federal
Legislative Agenda and policy priorities.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation to approve a report covering a budget amendment
impacting reserves in an amount up to and including $16,000 and
budget amendment moving funds.
4) Recommendation to determine that the latest public petition submitted
by Randall Cohen is a repetitive Public Petition, per County
Resolution 2010-87.
5) Recommendation to determine that the latest public petition submitted
by Charles Minard is a repetitive Public Petition, per County
Resolution 2010-87.
Page 21
May 14,2013
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation recognizing May 25, 2013 as National Missing
Children's Day in support of the National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children's (NCMEC) Take 25 campaign. Proclamation to
be sent to the NCMEC regional office. Sponsored by the Board of
County Commissioners.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. To
attend the 16th Annual Scripps Howard Foundation National
Journalism Awards Dinner on May 9, 2013. The sum of$128 to be
paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. To
attend/Attended the 11th Annual Tourism Star Awards Luncheon on
May 8, 2013. The sum of$30 to be paid from Commissioner travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
11, 2013 through April 17, 2013 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
18, 2013 through April 24, 2013 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) Recommendation that the Board accept the investment status update
report for the quarter ending March 31, 2013.
4) Recommendation to approve the seventeenth year State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) letter delegating authority to
Page 22
May 14,2013
Sheriff Kevin Rambosk to be the official grant applicant and contact
person, or his designee, and to receive and expend the payment of the
seventeenth year of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) grant funds.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, an Ordinance amending
Ordinance Number 2009-15, The Heavenly CFPUD, to revise the accessory
uses to increase the maximum grade level for a school from third grade to
eighth grade; and to replace all references to third grade with eighth grade in
the developer commitments for property located in Section 3, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 15.93± acres;
and by providing an effective date.
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. An Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number
2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit
Development, PUDZA-PL20120000650, by increasing the permissible
number of dwelling units from 671 to 754; by amending Ordinance Number
Page 23
May 14,2013
2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of an additional 5± acres of land from RMF-6(4) Scenic Woods Rezone to
the Wolf Creek RPUD and by changing the zoning classification of an
additional 16± acres from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD; by
revising the development standards; by adding Exhibit A-1, the amended
Master Plan for parcels 1A through 3A; by adding Exhibit "D", Private Road
Cross-Section for Parcels 1A through 3A; by adding Table II, Development
Standards for Parcels lA through 3A; and by adding deviations and revising
developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) approximately one-half mile west of
Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 189± acres; providing for repeal
of Ordinance Number 2007-03, the Scenic Woods Rezone; and by providing
an effective date. (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000680: Palermo Cove
PUD)
C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. An Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 04-
41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by removing approximately 16 acres from the Palermo Cove
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from a RPUD zoning
district to a RPUD zoning district for a project known as the Palermo Cove
RPUD, PUDZA-PL20120000680, by revising project development
standards, adding deviations, adopting a new conceptual master plan,
revising developer commitments and reducing the permitted number of
dwelling units from 564 to 237 on property located north of Wolfe Road and
west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 115± acres; providing
for the repeal of Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30, the former
Palermo Cove RPUD; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to
PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD)
Page 24
May 14,2013
D. Recommendation to approve two proposed Land Development Code
amendments to section 5.05.08. The first is to subsection 5.05.08 C.9 to
allow freestanding buildings and buildings located on outparcels within a
Planned Unit Development or a common ownership development to have
one secondary façade. Further, to amend subsection 5.05.08 F, to allow
buildings within Planned Unit Developments to seek an architectural
deviation through the Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance
process identified within the Land Development Code.
E. Recommendation to repeal and replace the Animal Control Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 2008-51, as amended).
F. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance, to be known as "Collier County
Attorney's Ordinance."
G. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2003-53,
as amended, the "Collier County Ethics Ordinance."
H. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 76-48, as
amended, to permit dogs on leashes within designated county parks.
I. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-72, as
amended, the "Collier County Administrator's Ordinance."
J. Recommendation to approve an ordinance providing for an additional
homestead exemption for certain qualifying senior citizens pursuant to
passage of Florida Constitutional Amendment 11 on November 6, 2012.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 25
May 14,2013
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good morning. I'm calling this
meeting to order.
If we could all rise, the Reverend Sheila Zellers will be leading
us in the invocation. And then I'd like to ask Mike Sheffield to please
lead us in the pledge.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVEREND ZELLERS: Good morning, Madam Chair and
County Commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to be here today,
it's a blessing. Being a native Floridian and from Naples since 1967, I
can appreciate truly what you all do and the diversity of the
leadership. So thank you.
May we all join our hearts and prayers today.
Precious Heavenly Father in heaven, we are blessed to live in
such a great county, for the world desires to come in this place, Lord
God, to either visit or to live. And it truly is a great task the Collier
County Commissioners have to stay in harmony and unity, to keep
this place, Naples, Florida, Collier County, as it was created to be, to
see all the splendor and the beauty of Your creation.
The task of keeping it is in the hands of these leaders, Lord God,
and I ask you to give them the wisdom, the knowledge, the
understanding that you want them to have for such a day as this. And,
Father, to protect us in health, safety, welfare and the quality of life of
the citizens of Collier County. For this we ask Your wisdom on each
of these precious, precious Commissioners and each person that will
speak to bring light, life and love to our community. Father, for each
decision to be an example of new hope and a great future that will
reflect the unity of the minds, the spirits and the hearts of the people of
Page 2
May 14, 2013
Collier County. I ask this in the name of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit, in the name of the Father, Jehovah God, in Jesus' name,
Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of March 14, 2013.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 16.A.10 to the May
28th, 2013 BCC meeting.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.C.2 to the May
28th, 2013 BCC meeting.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.D.7 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11.E. It's a recommendation from the
Radio Road Beautification MSTU to amend their boundaries. That
item is moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.E.4 to the May
28th, 2013 BCC meeting.
Next proposed change is to move two items from your summary
agenda that are companion items. The first is Item 17.B. That will
become Item 9.0 under your advertised public hearings. It is an
ordinance amending the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit
Development. Commissioners, we receive received a letter of
objection late yesterday from a constituent. So under your procedural
rules that requires that we move this item from your summary agenda
to your regular agenda for hearing.
And the companion item also related to that is Item 17.C. That
will become Item 9.D under your advertised public hearing. And it is
an ordinance amending the Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit
Development. Again, these are moved at staffs request, due to the
receipt of a letter of objection from a constituent.
Page 3
May 14, 2013
The next proposed change is to move Item 17.G from your
summary agenda to become Item 9.A under advertised public
hearings. That's a discussion of the proposed Collier County Ethics
Ordinance. That is moved at the request of Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Fiala separately.
Next proposed change is to move Item 17.I from your consent
agenda to become Item 9.B under advertised public hearings. It's an
ordinance adopting the Collier County Administrator's Ordinance.
That item is moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Commissioners, we have a series of time certain items this
morning that you will note on the bottom of your change sheet. At
10:00 a.m. we're scheduled to hear Item 10.I, to be immediately
followed by Items 10.G and 10.H. At 11:00 a.m. you will hear Item
11.B. That's the beach renourishment bid war discussion. That's 11:00
a.m.
At 1:00 p.m. you will hear Item 14.B.1 under your CRA,
immediately followed by Item 11.C. Those are both companion items
relating to the proposed restructuring of the loan agreement with the
Bayshore/Gateway CRA.
And finally, Item 11.D, which is a discussion of the extension of
Whippoorwill Lane will be heard at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon.
And those are all the changes I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED
(EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll now move to agenda Item
Page 4
May 14, 2013
2.A, which is the approval of today's consent agenda.
Is there any motion with respect to the consent? Would anyone
like to move anything from consent to the general, or would anyone
like to make a motion to object to any item on the consent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Item 16.F.4, I don't agree with
staffs interpretation of the public petition request by Randy Cohen. I
would -- if Randy Cohen's here, I'd like to move that to the regular
agenda or make a motion to vote no on it. Is Mr. Cohen here?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is Mr. Cohen here?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would -- Madam Chair, I'd like
to make a motion not to approve 16.F.4.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second it.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 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.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to make a statement
or recommendation. On 16.D.15 is a recommendation to ask the
Page 5
May 14, 2013
County Attorney to file suit for a vendor that did not perform.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which item is that again,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16.D.15.
And that's where a staff member has submitted a request for
payment and it was paid for services that was not performed. Material
was not received. I think it's appropriate to direct -- also direct the
County Attorney to communicate with the Sheriffs Department or the
State's Attorney's Office to see if there's any malfeasance with the
employee involved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: The employee is -- has been terminated.
The employee is fighting the termination. We are in the process of
having a hearing. There will be a hearing officer. The hearing officer
will prepare a report. Based upon the hearing officer's findings we'll
either move this to the sheriffs office or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So how would you like to proceed
on 16.D.15, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: In that manner. We already have this going
through a process. We'll have a hearing officer -- we'll have a hearing
officer prepare a report and we'll do it that way. As far as bringing
suit against the vendor, completely separate issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So at this point with respect to
16.D.5 (sic), leave it as is without any amendment and just vote it on it
as presented?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion on the
consent?
Page 6
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would actually, before you make
that motion, Commissioner Henning, would like to ask that 16.F.5 be
put forward on the general.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve with the
amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16.F.5 was the Randy Cohen?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it's Charles Minard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to ask that 16.F.5 be moved
to the general.
County Manager, can you reference what the new number would
be?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It would be Item 6.A, if we have a
majority vote for that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With respect to the motion, do I
have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is this -- is it a different
subject or is it a repetitive subject?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll discuss that when we move it
to general, because the discussion would occur on the general. On
consent we don't discuss issues. On the general --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand that. But do you
have knowledge that this is a different subject?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The reason I'm bring it forward is
because our ordinance allows us by a vote of three to waive the
six-month requirement, and so I would like to ask the board to waive
Page 7
May 14, 2013
that to allow Mr. Minard to speak to this matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries -- is it nay on your
part?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, motion carries 3-2. So 16.F.5
will move to the agenda --
THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the other nay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Fiala both have dissented.
Commissioners, please verbalize your either acceptance or
objection to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't ask for nays.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry. Forgive me. I'm sorry. My
presumption.
So just please verbalize and I promise I'll ask.
So that being said, 16.F.5 will now become 6.A?
MR. OCHS: 6.A, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 6.A, thank you.
There being -- is there is any further discussion on the consent?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before we continue to the vote, can
I have ex parte disclosure on the consent?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No ex parte for me.
Page 8
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No ex parte.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have received emails on
16.A.9. And I have no other disclosures on the consent agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I have no disclosures either
with respect to ex parte as to the consent.
We have a motion to accept the consent agenda as amended.
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a second from
Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #2B
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED
(EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS FOR SUMMARY AGENDA) — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to Item 2.B on your
agenda, approval of today's summary agenda as amended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion on the
Page 9
May 14, 2013
summary?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have ex parte.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would anyone like to move
anything from summary to the general agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If not, then I'll call for ex parte.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: None.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For 17.A, B and C, I have read the
staff reports only.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 17.B. I have 17.B and C, I also
have read the staff reports.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I have no ex parte.
Is there any further discussion on the summary?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor of accepting the summary agenda as amended.
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.
Item #2C
Page 10
May 14, 2013
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR AGENDA AS AMENDED
— APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Item 2.0 is approval of today's regular agenda as
amended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion on the
regular agenda?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 11
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 14,2013
Continue Item 16A10 to the Mav 28,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to increase the collective annual
limit for multiple contracts resulting from RFP No. 12-5892, "Fixed Term Landscape Architectural
Services." (Staff's request)
Continue Item 16C2 to the Mav 28,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to authorize the purchase of a
new Case 580N Backhoe from Trekker Tractor LLC,in the amount of$65,050.07,utilizing the Florida
Sheriffs Association State Contract#12-10-0905. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16D7 to Item 11E: Recommendation to request authorization to advertise and bring back an
Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No.96-84,as amended(The Radio Road Beautification
Municipal Service Taxing Unit),to incorporate provisions to facilitate improvements to the Rich King
Memorial Greenway within the MSTU boundaries. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Continue Item 16E4 to the Mav 28,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve proposed amendments
to Ordinance No.04-52,as amended,Criminal History Record Checks and authorize Staff to advertise the
amendments and return to the Board for final approval. (Staff's request)
Move Item 17B to Item 9C: 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.An Ordinance
of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2007-46,as
amended,the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development,PUDZA-PL20120000650,by increasing the
permissible number of dwelling units from 671 to 754; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41,the Collier
County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of an additional 5±acres of land from RMF-6(4)Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf
Creek RPUD and by changing the zoning classification of an additional 16±acres from Palermo Cove PUD to
Wolf Creek PUD; by revising the development standards; by adding Exhibit A-1,the amended Master Plan
for parcels lA through 3A; by adding Exhibit "D",Private Road Cross-Section for Parcels 1A through 3A;
by adding Table II,Development Standards for Parcels 1A through 3A; and by adding deviations and
revising developer commitments.The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road
(C.R. 862)approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard(C.R.951)in Section 34,Township 48
South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 189±acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance
Number 2007-03,the Scenic Woods Rezone; and by providing an effective date.(Companion to PUDZA-
PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD) (Staff's request due to receipt of letter of objection)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 14,2013
Page 2
Move Item 17C to Item 9D: 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.An Ordinance
of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 04-41,as
amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by removing approximately 16 acres from the Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit
Development(RPUD); and by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a
RPUD zoning district to a RPUD zoning district for a project known as the Palermo Cove RPUD,PUDZA-
PL20120000680,by revising project development standards,adding deviations,adopting a new conceptual
master plan,revising developer commitments and reducing the permitted number of dwelling units from 564
to 237 on property located north of Wolfe Road and west of Collier Boulevard(C.R.951)in Section 34,
Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,consisting of 115±acres; providing for the repeal
of Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30,the former Palermo Cove RPUD; and by providing an effective
date.(Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD) (Staff's request due to receipt of letter of
objection)
Move Item 17G to Item 9A: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No.2003-53,
as amended,the "Collier County Ethics Ordinance." (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala's
separate requests)
Move Item 17I to Item 9B: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No.93-72,as
amended,the"Collier County Administrator's Ordinance." (Commissioner Coyle's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10I to be heard at 10:00 a.m.,followed by Items 10G and 10H
Item 11B to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 14B1 to be heard at 1:00 p.m.,immediately followed by Item 11C
Item 11D to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
5/14/2013 8:28 AM
May 14, 2013
Item #2D
MINUTES FROM APRIL 2, 2013 BCC/2014 BEACH
RENOURISHMENT PEER REVIEW/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INVENTORY REPORT WORKSHOP — APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2.D is approval of the minutes from the April
2nd, 2013 BCC Beach Renourishment Peer Review and Affordable
Housing Inventory Workshop.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, may I
have a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's 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.
Item #2E
MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 9, 2013 BCC/REGULAR MEETING
— APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2.E is approval of the BCC regular meeting
minutes of April 9th --
Page 12
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
MR. OCHS: -- 2013.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Move approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no 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.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2013 AS PHYSICIANS
LED ACTION NETWORK (PLAN) MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY IN RECOGNITION OF ITS 10TH ANNIVERSARY AND
CONTRIBUTION OF $18 MILLION IN DONATED SPECIALTY
MEDICAL CARE TO COLLIER COUNTY UNINSURED.
ACCEPTED BY BILL KUZBYT, PSY.D., JD, PLAN, MPH,
COLLIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; AND
MARGARET EADINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLLIER
COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY. SPONSORED BY
Page 13
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 4 on your
agenda, Proclamations. Item 4.A is a proclamation designating May,
2013 as Physicians Led Action Network, PLAN, Month in Collier
County, in recognition of its tenth anniversary and contribution of $18
million in donated specialty medical care to Collier County's
uninsured. To be accepted by Dr. Bill Kuzbyt, PLAN Board
Chairman; Michelle Jay, PLAN Program Manager; Dr. Joan Colfer,
Collier County Department of Health; Dr. Rebecca Rock and Danny
Morgan. And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to say a few words?
Would you like to step up?
DR. ROCK: Good morning, and thank you to all of the
Commissioners. I'm Dr. Rebecca Rock. And I am so pleased to
humbly accept this proclamation on behalf of PLAN, which is the
Physicians Led Access Network of Collier County who has donated
physician and hospital services to needy patients.
And I'm accepting on behalf of the board of directors of our 270
participating physicians, the generous hospitals and diagnostic
organizations who provide services for our at-risk patients, and most
of all for the patients themselves.
As a physician I know my colleagues' hearts and I know that we
want to serve. And PLAN allows us to do so in an organized,
coordinated and efficient way.
When Mr. CT was referred to me through PLAN after several ER
visits for abdominal pain and weight loss, he was unable to get into his
taxi cab so that he could go to work because he had so much weakness
and pain. It was clear to me from observing his gait that he needed an
urgent MRI, which was unavailable through our PLAN network. But
Page 14
May 14, 2013
through a simple phone call to another imaging center who doesn't
usually participate with PLAN, they were able to accommodate us in
this patient. My patient got an immediate evaluation by a
neurosurgeon, a radiation oncologist, a medical oncologist and an
interventional radiologist, all at no cost of course to him.
He was treated immediately with radiation for a cancer that had
wrapped around his spinal cord, and he was eventually able to walk, to
eat and to be able to attend his son's wedding in the upcoming months.
Since he had been able to be appropriately dispositioned to the
Medicaid system subsequently, he had -- but he may not have been
able to if not for the safety net that PLAN provides, and he may have
ended up a paraplegic with immensely greater suffering.
Thank you for this recognition, because it brings crucial
awareness to our program, which is another essential component for
us, exceeded only by our satisfaction in doing our part to keep all of
Collier County citizens healthy. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 19-25, 2013 AS WATER
REUSE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY G.
GEORGE YILMAZ, PH.D, P.E., PUBLIC UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATOR; BETH JOHNSSEN, WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR; DANETTE KINASZCZUK, REUSE
MANAGER, WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT; LISA KOEHLER,
BIG CYPRESS BASIN ADMINISTRATOR, SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COYLE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating May 19th
through the 25th, 2013 as Water Reuse Week in Collier County. To
Page 15
May 14, 2013
be accepted by Dr. George Yilmez, Public Utilities Administrator;
Beth Johnssen, Wastewater Department Director; Danette Kinaszczuk,
Reuse Manager of Wastewater Department; Lisa Koehler, Big
Cypress Basin Administrator of the South Florida Water Management
District. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one of you is George?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to say a few words?
You don't have to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let George say a few words.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, let George.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18-25, 2013 AS SAFE
BOATING WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
ROBERT A. ABUBATO, FLOTILLA COMMANDER, U.S.
COAST GUARD AUXULIARY, FLOTILLA 93. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COYLE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating May 18th --
excuse me. Proclamation designating May 18th through the 25th, 2013
as Safe Boating Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Robert
A. Abubato, Flotilla Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Flotilla
93. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
COMMANDER ABUBATO: On behalf of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary, Naples Flotilla 93, I'd like to thank the Commissioners for
their support, as always.
National Safe Boating Week begins this Saturday and runs for
Page 16
May 14, 2013
one week. And we are starting National Safe Boating Week with a
recreational boating safety booth on City Dock from 10:00 'til 1:00, a
little advertisement for us. And we will also have people at West
Marine distributing pamphlets. And we'll have safe boating
demonstrations, visual distress signals beginning at 1:00 in front of our
facility just around the block on 1099 Ninth Street.
And one other thing, the big push for the National Safe Boating
Council is wearing a life jacket. So we want to encourage everyone,
every boater, to wear his life jacket.
The number of fatalities each year is approximately 700, and
over 70 percent of these people, when they are killed, are not wearing
life jackets. So life jackets do save lives. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2013 AS DROWNING
PREVENTION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
DR. TODD VEDDER, CHAIRMAN, SAFE AND HEALTHY
CHILDREN'S COALITION OF COLLIER COUNTY AND PAULA
DIGRIGOLI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAFE AND HEALTHY
CHILDREN'S COALITION OF COLLIER COUNTY.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER FIALA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating May, 2013
as Drowning Provision Month in Collier County. To be accepted by
Dr. Todd Vedder, Chairman, Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition of
Collier County; and Paula DiGrigoli, Executive Director, Safe and
Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County. This item is sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
Page 17
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to say a few words?
MS. DiGRIGOLI: Good morning. My name is Paula DiGrigoli,
the Executive Director of the Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition of
Collier County.
On behalf of the 45 agencies as part of the coalition of the board
of directors, I'm honored to accept this proclamation. Thank you
again for proclaiming once again May to be Drowning Prevention
Month and for taking a stand against this preventable tragedy.
Drowning continues being the leading cause of death of children
in Collier County ages one to four.
In 2012 Collier County didn't have any drowning deaths among
children. Sadly, so far this year in 2013 we have had three children
die because of drowning. A 14-month-old baby girl who drowned in
her parents pool and two sisters, a three and a four-year old who died
on Alligator Alley when their mother's car went off the road in a
canal. This is a reminder why the coalition's work must continue.
I would like to take the opportunity to share some of the
coalition's successes. We believe in the layers of protection to prevent
this tragedy. The most layers that we can have, the less likelihood we
going to go through these horrible incidents.
Swim Central is a water safety program that we implemented last
year. As of today 787 children in Collier County, ages three to five,
have participated in this water safety program, which provides 10
sessions of 30 minutes over the period of two weeks. Each session
begins with an evaluation of each children's water safety skills.
Not only do the children learn a lifesaving skill, they also start to
develop a healthy relationship with the water that can open doors of
opportunity. Golden Gate Aquatic facilities and Immokalee Aquatic
facilities staff have been very instrumental to develop an
implementation of this program.
We always say the kids, the first day they are crying because
they are scared of the water. But by the last day, the 10th class, they
Page 18
May 14, 2013
are crying because they don't want to get out of the pool.
Another program that we hosted a couple weeks ago was The
Hot Summer, Making a Splash. It was on May 3rd at the Sun-N-Fun
Lagoon. 1,650 middle school and high schoolers of Collier County
attended this event. And the reason of this event is because 60 to 70
percent minority kids do not know how to swim.
I don't know if you're aware but Immokalee is the only school in
town that the kids can walk to a community pool but they don't have a
swimming team. And it shows the problem that we have with
minority kids.
We did a mock drowning and rescue CPR demonstration with the
help with many agencies in Collier County, including EMS, Chief
Kopka, North Naples Fire Department, the Sheriffs Department.
Thank you so much for your continued support.
And lastly, after the horrible accident in Alligator Alley and
because 28 percent of the drowning deaths in children in Collier
County are related to submerged vehicles, we hosted a submerged
vehicle protocol workshop in Collier County where we had Dr.
Ginsberg, world renown expert in submerged vehicles, come to
Naples to provide this exercise. We had Collier County Sheriffs
officers -- divers, certified divers inside the car to show the different
scenarios, what we need to do to get out of a car safely. And he
recommended, and this is just a lesson for all to know, what to do in
the case your car goes in a canal. The first thing, never get on your
phone to call 9-1-1. You're going to be wasting your time. The first
thing that you have to do is get your seat belt off, window down and
get out. If you have children, you have to start with older ones first,
because they can help themselves. If in the case that you can't open
your window, you have to have these special tools, the center punch is
to be able to break the window and be able to get out.
Thank you again for helping us to build these layers of
protection. And Collier County is very fortunate to have this many
Page 19
May 14, 2013
agencies working together to keep our children safer. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ALMA CAMBRIDGE AS A
WOMAN OF DISTINCTION FOR HER POSITIVE COMMUNITY
INFLUENCE AND ROLE IN ESTABLISHING THE BETHEL
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. ACCEPTED BY
DR. DR. DELLA BURT-BRADLEY, BETHEL AFRICAN
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER HENNING — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation recognizing Alma
Cambridge as a Woman of Distinction for her positive community
influence and role in establishing the Bethel African Methodist
Episcopal Church. To be accepted by Dr. Della Burt-Bradley, Bethel
African Methodist Episcopal Church. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Henning.
Please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
DR. BURT-BRADLEY: I'm sure many of you know Mrs.
Cambridge. And it's my pleasure to tell you that this will be presented
on Sunday, May 26th at the women's day celebration at Bethel A.M.E.
Church. And by the way, all of you are invited.
And to the Commission, we thank you very, very much for this
proclamation, for a very dedicated educator and community leader. It
certainly will be an inspiration for others to give of community
service. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
Page 20
May 14, 2013
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2013 AS DRUG
COURT MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY THE
HONORABLE JANEICE T. MARTIN, COLLIER COUNTY
JUDGE. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER HILLER —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.F is a proclamation designating May, 2013
as Drug Court Month in Collier County. To be accepted by the
Honorable Janeice T. Martin, Collier County Judge. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
Judge Martin?
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we have a picture? Wait a
second. Can you turn around? Can we have a picture with all of you
lined up, just you backwards, so everyone can see the back? Because
it's like awesome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe he should have been looking
over his shoulder.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That message, you know, Honesty,
Responsibility and Recovery is so worthy of note. You know, you
wear it proudly. Thank you.
JUDGE MARTIN: Good morning. As you noted, I'm Judge
Janeice Martin. I have the sincere privilege of presiding over Collier
County's Drug Court. And on behalf of the Drug Court team and the
Drug Court participants, it's my honor to accept the proclamation.
Just a few words about Drug Court. It's my goal to sort of
demystify some of what we do across the way here.
Our motto is Changing and Saving Lives through Honesty,
Personal Responsibility and Recovery.
Our participants are citizens with nonviolent drug-related felony
Page 21
May 14, 2013
charges; most often things like the possession of drugs or theft and
fraudulent pawning to support the drug habit.
Our program is voluntary. If participants are approved by the
state attorney for admission, then they accept a suspended sentence of
at least a year in jail or perhaps several years in prison and go on an
intensive probation with us that will last at least two years. On
average it will take 18 months for someone to complete our program,
which includes a very strict curfew, daily meetings of AA, NA or the
like, group therapy sessions at least three times a week, weekly court
appearances with yours truly, individual counseling as needed, and
constant random drug testing.
Our goal is to assist participants in achieving a lasting recovery
that will allow them to become contributing members of our
community and to stay out of the criminal justice system.
Many don't make it. But the ones that do have a far lower
recidivism rate than those who don't try Drug Court. Impressively,
even those who are terminated unsuccessfully from our Drug Court
have a far better rate of reoffending than people who never come in.
Our participants are accountable for their every action with us.
They're responsible for all the cost of their treatment and their
supervision, in addition of course to making full restitution to any
victims.
All of this amounts to substantial savings to the citizens,
businesses and government of Collier County, and for all of these
reasons we sincerely believe, as the shirt proclaims, that Drug Court
works. And we thank the county for its continued support of the
Collier County Adult Drug Court. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 19-25, 2013 AS
Page 22
May 14, 2013
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY WALTER KOPKA, CHIEF, EMS.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER HENNING — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.G is a proclamation designating May 19th
through the 25th, 2013 as emergency medical services week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Chief Walter Kopka, Collier County
Emergency Medical Services. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Henning.?
Chief?
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning, Commissioners. This year
National Emergency Medical Services Week is May 19th through
25th. The purpose is to honor and recognize the dedication of those
who provide day-to-day life-saving services of medicine's front line.
This year's theme is EMS, One Mission, One Team. This is a
very fitting theme, since Collier County EMS, North Naples Fire
Department and Golden Gate Fire Department were just awarded
Photo and Video of the Year for exercises recently completed in a
collaborative fashion.
EMS consists of nearly 200 dedicated support and field staff,
professional dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line
to save others. Please join me in congratulating and recognizing them
for EMS Week 2013.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
proclamations --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as presented.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
Page 23
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any posed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE PHOENIX AWARD TO RECOGNIZE
THOSE EMS PARAMEDICS, EMT'S, FIREFIGHTERS,
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES AND POLICE OFFICERS, WHO
THROUGH THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE DIED — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to Item 5 on your
agenda: Presentations.
Item 5.A is a presentation of the Phoenix Award, Commissioners
and ladies and gentlemen. The Phoenix is a mythological bird that
died and rose renewed from its ashes.
The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department has
adopted the Phoenix Award to recognize those EMS paramedics,
EMTs, firefighters and law enforcement officers who through their
skill and knowledge have successfully brought back to life individuals
who had died.
I'd like to call on Captain Les Williams to please step forward
and read the names of our recipients this morning.
Captain?
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS: Thank you, County Manager,
Page 24
May 14, 2013
Commissioners.
We have quite a few recipients today. And I'm going to call
them up by department, and please come forward and we'll hold the
applause until we're finished.
From Marco Island Fire Department we have Paramedic
Firefighter Scott Cory.
From Big Corkscrew Island Fire Department, Firefighter/EMT
Fred Lehman, Firefighter/EMT Kevin Lynch, Firefighter/Paramedic
Adam Abadir, and Captain Eric Watson.
From North Naples Fire Department, Paramedic/Firefighter
Dustin Gourley, Paramedic/Firefighter David Perez,
Paramedic/Engineer John Garlotta and Lieutenant/EMT Jeff
Vanortwick.
From Naples Fire Department we have Lieutenant Dave Howard,
Engineer Steve Hunton, Firefighter Andrew Johnson.
From East Naples Fire Department, Firefighter Aaron Cline,
Firefighter Ray Kilmer, Lieutenant Kevin Nelmes, Firefighter Adam
Orsolin, and Firefighter Eric Clere is receiving two awards today.
From Collier EMS we have Paramedic Tim Baker, EMT Gardy
Bradley, Lieutenant Amy Delucca, EMT Alex Hancock, Lieutenant
Anthony Hiserodt, Paramedic Gabielle Klock, Lieutenant Lenny Pohl,
Lieutenant Diane Smith, Lieutenant Scott Wernert, Paramedic Andrew
Seager, Paramedic John Beckman, Paramedic Jesus Cabezas, EMT
Adam Hanft, who's receiving two awards, Paramedic Joseph Maguire,
Paramedic Joseph Murray, Lieutenant Paul Passaretti, Paramedic
Christian Quintana, Paramedic Michael Sanchez, Lieutenant Michael
Sullivan, EMT Crystal Smith, Paramedic Danielle Brown, Paramedic
Todd Fiala, Paramedic Jake Harcarik, Lieutenant Laura McKenney,
EMT Armando Negrin, who was at EMS and is now back with
Immokalee Fire Department, Paramedic Yanny Presilla, EMT Jennifer
Reidy, Lieutenant Joseph Saldana, Lieutenant Jim Schnering, and
Paramedic Matthew Zaleznik.
Page 25
May 14, 2013
And if someone snuck in behind me that is due for a Phoenix,
please step forward. All right.
The citizens and visitors of Collier County have truly received
consistent countywide care due to the desire, dedication and
determination of local law enforcement, fire department and EMS
personnel. I present this year's Phoenix Award recipients.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala would like to
say a few words and then I would like to also. So if you'd remain
standing just for a moment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you wouldn't mind. I have some
close ties with many people up here. Especially one, actually. And
I've heard some of the heroic stories that you all have done to actually
bring people who were considered dead back to life. And because of
you and your heroism and your steady work and working as a team, I
might add, I think that that's so important. It's team work here. It's not
just one person that goes in, it's a group that work together.
It just makes us all so proud and feel very good about what you
can do for the citizens, and you never even ask for a pat on the back
and thank you so much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what I would like to say is
these heroic individuals represent a life saved in each case and in some
cases two. So what you see here before you are lives that otherwise
might not be here today. Can you imagine how many people are here
because of these wonderful brave men and women? It's just -- it
brings tears to my eyes. I wish my husband had been so lucky. So
thank you all for what you're doing, it means so much to me. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're just going to take a minute
break while the room clears and Commissioner Fiala gives her son a
kiss.
Page 26
May 14, 2013
(Brief recess.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR MAY 2013 TO MIRAMARE RISTORANTE
AT VENETIAN VILLAGE. ACCEPTED BY SAL SINZIERI,
OWNER AND FREDDY VELEZ, GENERAL MANAGER —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5.B on your
agenda this morning. It's a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for May, 2013 to MireMare Ristorante at
Venetian Village. To be accepted by Sal Sinzieri, owner, and Freddy
Velez, the General Manager.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we all leave and go to his
restaurant?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Say something nice about your
restaurant.
MR. SINZIERI: The restaurant is great, there's no doubt about it.
We now have Fish that we just opened up, we employed about
another 45 people.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's commendable.
MR. SINZIERI: Which is good. And we want to be part of the
community. And I just -- I'm overwhelmed. Thank you very much.
Seriously.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We thank you. You're doing a
wonderful job. We appreciate it.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
Page 27
May 14, 2013
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE GLENN RAGER,
INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN,
WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT/POWER SYSTEMS, AS THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL 2013 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5.0 is a recommendation to recognize Glenn
Rager, Instrumentation and Electrical Technician from our
Wastewater Department, as Employee of the Month for April, 2013.
Glenn, if you'd please step forward and receive your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We really appreciate all you've
done. Thank you so much.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Glenn has been an employee of
our Public Utilities Division since 2010. He's primarily responsible
for performing specialized electrical work associated with the
installation, programming and repair of equipment and machinery at
our wastewater treatment plants, our wastewater collection facilities,
all of our off-site operations and those related facilities.
Glenn has built and programmed a standalone temporary fiber
test equipment piece, allowing changes and upgrades to be tested
without affecting the permanent system and saving the county many
thousands of dollars.
He is energetic, sincere and enthusiastic. His positive attitude and
easy going demeanor, paired with his knowledge and skills, make him
a valued member of the team and truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Glenn Rager, Employee
of the Month for April, 2013. Congratulations, Glenn.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, the only thing you didn't
include in that letter was his effervescent wit and his scintillating
charm. So let me just make an amendment to that.
Page 28
May 14, 2013
Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Just oozes from him, Commissioner.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITIONS — RECOMMENDATION TO DETERMINE
THAT THE LATEST PUBLIC PETITION SUBMITTED BY
CHARLES MINARD IS A REPETITIVE PUBLIC PETITION, PER
COUNTY RESOLUTION 2010-87 — MR. MINARD SPOKE
REGARDING ITEM #10I
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your
agenda this morning, public petitions. 6.A is a public petition from
Charles Minard, which was previously Item 16.F.5 on your consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'd like to find
out what is different. After reading the petitioner's writeup, I don't see
anything different. So I would like to know from him what's different
than his previous public petitions.
MR. MINARD: Actually, I didn't even expect to speak here
today. When you all voted on it, it surprised me. I just came in
because of Item 10.
Anyway, I want to take a minute to apologize to Madam
Commissioner and our fellow Commissioners for the way I acted last
time I was in here. I guess if you have kids and loved ones, you'd
understand why.
But Item 10, when it comes up, I just would hope that all the
Commissioners would listen and reach deep in their hearts to --
Madam Commissioner is going to speak about it in a little while, and
just everything that's going to go on and investigate this and look into
this further. So that's --
MRS. MINARD: There are other cases. It's not just our son.
Page 29
May 14, 2013
There are other people that have had poor response times and trouble
with EMS and medical assistance and stuff. So there are other cases.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The reason that I wanted to bring
this forward and I wanted to give the Minards an opportunity to speak
-- and I'm sorry we caught you unprepared and unaware that the
opportunity would be presented -- was the issue of what is going on
with our communication system is very serious. And the fact that in
this particular case representations were made by our EMS staff that
they did not hear the tone, that the tone had not come through, is
obviously of great concern.
The delays in response times have to be addressed.
I found an article which was written on February the 15th by
Matt Grant of Fox News. And he actually did an investigative report
about the delayed response times in the recent past. And the headline
is: Collier Ambulance Delayed an Hour in Past Six Months. Nearly
two dozen calls took ambulance longer than 30 minutes to arrive.
And I will bring this up later. Had the Minards had information
to present today, I would have addressed these details.
And I'll just briefly state this for the record now and then I'll
repeat it in more detail when we get to that discussion. And I'm going
to quote: Fox 4 requested and received the last six months of
ambulance response times in Collier County. With the help of staff
members and our news director, we began sifting through logs of more
than 14,000 response calls dating back to last August. Our
investigation found more than 1,000 cases where EMTs --
MRS. MINARD: That's right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- took 10 minutes or longer to
arrive, and nearly two dozen examples where it took more than a half
an hour.
I'm not going to read anymore at this time or discuss this further.
MR. MINARD: I've met some of these people.
MRS. MINARD: Yes.
Page 30
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is very, very serious. Just so you
know, in the case of cardiac arrest, for example, all the paramedics
and EMTs who were awarded here today, had they arrived beyond
five minutes, those individuals would have been either completely
paralyzed or if it was at 10 minutes, they would have been dead.
MRS. MINARD: And our son was -- it was six minutes before
they even heard the tones, before they even realized.
MR. MINARD: Before an ambulance even left. Six minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. I think the --
MRS. MINARD: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- opportunity has been presented.
You may have a seat.
MR. MINARD: Again, I apologize.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Accepted. We understand.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS (PRESENTED
AND THEN ITEM CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, that takes you to Item 10 on
your agenda, Board of County Commissioners. Item 10.A is an
appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory --
excuse me, Commissioners, I'm so sorry. I went past number seven,
public comments on general topics. Excuse me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many public speakers do we
have?
MR. MILLER: We have five registered speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we're going to have a problem
because we have a 10:00 time certain. So we can start and that
basically will give us the opportunity to hear one public speaker. But
we're going to have to interrupt the process to address the time certain
Page 31
May 14, 2013
and then come back to the public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Absolutely.
Your first public speaker is Carroll Booher.
MS. BOOHER: Good morning. And I'll be brief, actually.
I'm here in regards to agenda 10, the issue that you're going to be
talking about this morning. I'd just like to ask all of you, this really
needs to be investigated. You know, my husband was sick and he was
going to go in the hospital about a month ago. He was so ill that he
was there 13 days. I was afraid to call EMS, so I took him myself. By
all rights we should have called EMS.
But I've lived here for 26 years and, you know, Chaz Minard was
my nephew.
I don't have a lot of faith in this and I don't think a lot of people
here do. So it really needs to be investigated. We need to know why
this is happening, why our citizens are dying and where our taxpayer
money is going.
So I just hope all of you guys will address this issue, somebody
will look into this and get to the bottom of it and find out what's going
on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And just so you know and for
anyone else in the audience, if you would like to sign up to speak
under a specific agenda item, notwithstanding that you've spoken
under public comment, as you hear the discussion and you would like
to add to it, you may do so. But you have to sign up before the agenda
item is brought forward, not in the middle of the discussion.
MS. BOOHER: Okay. I don't know, this is my first time here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the County Attorney can
assist you for signing up.
MS. BOOHER: All right. Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's for anyone in the
audience who'd like to speak.
We have time for one more?
Page 32
May 14, 2013
MR. MILLER: Yes. And this is Victor Valdes. I believe this is
probably related to the same item.
MR. VALDES: Yes.
Good morning. For the record, my name is Victor Ray Valdes,
resident of Collier County for the last 32 years.
I am here with one issue. Two years ago my sister was in bed,
very bad. I called the EMS to my home. They came. They saw my
sister. They refused to take my sister to the hospital. I have
witnesses, including the nurse that was present at this moment.
We insist, we implore, we demanded, and they don't pay
attention. After a few hours we call again, but the second time was
less, was late, and my sister, a good citizen, American, died before his
(sic) time. He was younger than me, 10 or 12 years younger than me.
He pass away unnecessarily.
The first ambulance that came refused -- the staff refused to take
her. I understand because my sister was heavy weigh and they saw
her. They try to remove. It was very heavy. And the main officer said
no, no, we don't need because she's okay, she's okay. The nurse said
we need to take her. But they refused.
And at this time I make a complaint to the sheriffs office for this.
I have copies. I want to -- if you want copies for each of you and one
for the records, please.
Also, I have an article in my newspaper, The Las Naciones
News, maybe you know about Las Naciones News. I have an article
that I wrote about this and about Mr. Minard.
I know that the -- the majority of those men and women here are
good people at times, but we have one, maybe two that we need to ask
to you, make investigation, please, of this case. My sister, a good
American citizen, die unnecessarily. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And it's not about any
individual paramedic or EMT, it's about the protocols and it's about
the training. Because with the correct protocols and the proper
Page 33
May 14, 2013
implementation of those protocols through proper training, things like
what happened to your sister should not have happened.
MR. VALDES: Okay, I request an investigation of this, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I am asking for the same.
Thank you.
MR. VALDES: You're welcome.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, would you like to move to your
time certain hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please.
Item #10I
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT THE
`MEDICAL DIRECTOR SUBCOMMITTEE' OF THE PSA
INVESTIGATE CLAIMS OF ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL
FAILED CALLS AS THEY RELATE TO PROTOCOLS AND
TRAINING PROMULGATED UNDER THE CURRENT COUNTY
MEDICAL DIRECTOR. A FULL INVESTIGATION IS
REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE PSA'S
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROCESS AND A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE PROBLEMS AS
THEY ARISE AND RECOMMEND SOLUTIONS PROMPTLY —
MOTION TO REQUEST THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WITH
FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INVESTIGATE
CLAIMS — FAILED; MOTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM ALL
AGENCIES (PSA, EMS, MEDICAL DIRECTOR AND
PHYSICIANS REGIONAL) AND REPORT BACK TO THE
BOARD FOR DETERMINING ACCURACY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This is a 10:00 a.m. time certain hearing. It's Item
Page 34
May 14, 2013
10.I. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
direct the Medical Director Sub-committee of the Public Safety
Authority investigate claims of actual and potential failed calls as they
relate to protocols in training promulgated under the current county
Medical Director. This item was brought forward on the agenda by
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. I'm just going to read
for the record the three matters that I believe require investigation.
And I'm actually going to change my recommendation, and I will
explain why when I get to that point in the discussion.
The three matters that I believe require investigation are as
follows:
Number one: In January, 2013, the county's Medical Director
releases updated protocols as final without relying for review. The
consequence was that protocols were released as official which
contain life-threatening standards. For example, a protocol was
released with respect to pediatric rescue breathing which was
incorrect, and if administered by an EMS provider as prescribed,
could result in the death of the child. Protocols should not be released
as official until validated by the appropriate agencies or board's
medical accuracy as mandatory.
Number two: A young man passed away allegedly because EMS
failed to timely arrive at the scene. EMS claimed that no emergency
tone was heard, their complaints that the county's 800 megahertz
communication system is failing to set off the appropriate tones which
are used to alert emergency vehicles of an incoming call.
These failures are being reported as happening daily and may
have contributed towards the death of one resident and is threatening
the lives of all. This matter must be immediately investigated and
addressed.
Number three: A letter received from Physicians Regional
Hospital dated May 6th, 2013 explains that the county's Medical
Page 35
May 14, 2013
Director was working extremely closely -- and this is a quote -- with
NCH to promulgate protocols seemingly effectuated by the threat of
loss of market share to NCH, closed quotes.
In an email dated December 20th, 2012, the county's Medical
Director advocated against certain stroke protocols because these
protocols would, quote, divert 40 percent of the patients currently
going to NCH, closed quotes.
The Medical Director was in effect seemingly making decisions
about which protocols were to be adopted based on how NCH's
market share would be affected if stroke patients were transported to
Physicians Regional new comprehensive Stroke Center, the only such
accredited stroke center in Southwest Florida, rather than to NCH.
Protocols must be developed on what is in the best interest of the
patient, not in any way based on the market share a hospital might
lose.
It appears that only 12 to 15 percent of the county's stroke
victims are being transported to Physicians Regional, notwithstanding
the current protocol.
There are two reasons stroke related deaths where the patients
were transported to NCH rather than to Physicians Regional Stroke
Center, begging the question as to whether these patients might have
survived if transported to the stroke center.
What has transpired is of the utmost seriousness. A full study
into how many patients are being transported by county EMS to one
hospital over another hospital is needed.
Further, the timeliness and basis on which protocols are being
established needs to be fully investigated.
Lastly, the training of providers as to directions on where patients
shall be transported under which conditions needs to be investigated.
The development of protocols and training of the EMS providers
are the responsibility of the county's Medical Director.
My recommendation was to have the Public Safety Advisory
Page 36
May 14, 2013
Board, the PSA, investigate this matter. But upon further
consideration, it would be most inappropriate to have the PSA
investigate, for the simple reason that the PSA is conflicted. The very
sub-committee that would be evaluating and studying and analyzing
the facts behind these incidents is made up of physicians from both
Physicians Regional and NCH, and obviously there would be a
conflict.
So my recommendation is that this matter be moved out of the
county and be moved to the state level to be brought to the attention of
the Inspector General of the Department of Health and have an
independent investigation done by the state into what is going on with
respect to the issues that I have raised.
I'm not coming to any conclusions with respect to what I have
described, I am merely asking for an independent investigation in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Collier County.
So my motion is that we request the Inspector General of the
Department of Health of the State of Florida to investigate these issues
and let us know if there are any deficiencies, or if we are incompliant
in doing what is in the best interest of the community.
May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it for the sake of
conversation. That does not mean that I'll vote for it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We have a number of public speakers. Commissioner Henning,
would you like to speak now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you don't mind.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, did you look at any of
these allegations?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we did. Chief Kopka is prepared, if the
Board wants, to get into a detailed discussion on each one. We're
Page 37
May 14, 2013
happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there a report on that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I have a report on the second item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't -- if -- well, first of
all, I mean, I haven't looked up the statute on what the health inspector
general -- is that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Inspector General, the Department
of Health.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the Department of Health.
What his duties or his or her duties are.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: His duties are to oversee the review
of the proper implementation of protocols and training. Essentially
oversight over, you know, what is being done with respect to protocols
and training by a medical director and the organization.
It is the appropriate state agency and the appropriate office of
that state agency to investigate matters such as those that I'm raising
questions about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, since the County Manager
is in charge of these agencies and has looked into it, I think that report
should go up to the Inspector General and ask them, you know,
basically, you know, are we doing the right thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely. I have not seen that
report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't either.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Manager, when was that
report produced?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a report to the County
Manager, I believe.
MR. OCHS: Yes, it was. And it was produced on March 12th,
2013. That's as it relates to the second item.
(At which time, Commissioner Henning left the boardroom.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which is the -- the megahertz
Page 38
May 14, 2013
communication system?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair, that's correct. That is one that
is squarely within my prerogative. The other two frankly are --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not related.
MR. OCHS: -- medical protocol items that are dictated by the
Medical Director, which is a direct report to the Board of County
Commissioners, not to the County Manager.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Could we have a copy of
your report and could we introduce a copy of it into the record?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Let me get a clean copy of it, because
I made my own underlinings on some of this. So I'll be happy to do
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
Commissioner Henning just stepped out, but he was still
speaking. I don't know if there was anything further he wanted to
address. We'll get back to him.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Fiala was first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She keeps wanting to overlook me
today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't. You just have to poke me,
you know, like on Facebook do a poke.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I received some information
regarding the pediatric rescue breathing. According to Item 1 it says
which was incorrect. But apparently the professionals who have
written about this say no, indeed, it was absolutely correct. So we've
got a difference of opinion there. The doctors who have written have
stated in effect that this is exactly what they would do.
And on the second one, Leo, you gave -- when we talked
yesterday, you gave me some more information. Would you like to
expound upon that just a little, please?
Page 39
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I just -- if you don't mind, I'd just
like to let the report of the incident be the record --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to read it or do you
want to just --
MR. OCHS: Well, it's lengthy. I'd prefer just to, as the Chair
suggested, put it on file and then make sure you all get a copy of it
today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I just want to say that so
often statements are made but it isn't the whole picture. If you just
give half of a picture it sounds like nothing was followed through.
Like the Minards, for instance, their son. And I understand exactly
how they feel. They forgot to mention that the fire departments were
already there and working with him, giving him BLS and so forth, and
that he lived six days afterwards. And that just -- that gives us a little
bit of a different picture. But that doesn't take away their heartbreak,
obviously.
But on each of these things it's -- I think we should be more
forthcoming in providing the whole picture rather than just a partial
picture.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I may respond,
Commissioner Fiala, the whole picture was presented. In fact, the
whole picture -- and I'm going to introduce this into the record, and
you're welcome to read it -- the whole picture was presented at the
meeting of the Collier County Public Safety Authority Medical
Director's Sub-committee meeting dated April 17th, 2013 here in
Naples, Florida. And in attendance were Dr. Tober, Dr. Panozzo, Dr.
Bethel, Justin Gibson, David Mennini and Bobby Allen. Also present
was Maria Franko, EMS Administrative Assistant.
At that meeting a final doctor was in attendance and that doctor
was Dr. Deborah Lopez, who identified the error in the protocol. And
Page 40
May 14, 2013
she was present to address, and I'm reading from the minutes, the
protocol changes for pediatric head injuries. She reviewed the
protocols and identified items in need of change, and specifically
addressed the ventilation rate as 10 breaths per minute has been
determined to be inadequate.
And Dr. Tober responded by saying that -- and I'm just going to
read from the minutes. Dr. Tober reported a change will be made to
this protocol to address this concern.
And so as a consequence of Dr. Lopez's identification of the
error, Dr. Tober did agree to make the change to the protocol and the
protocol was changed.
So this subsequent opinion of some expert in Miami goes
contrary to what our PSA has determined to be the correct protocol
with respect to this issue. So the complete story is on the record and is
made part of the county's public record, clearly providing the facts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I also have a letter here from
Dr. Patricia Cantwell, a Professor and Chief of Pediatric Critical Care
Medicine, Director of Pediatric Care at the University of Miami. And
you know, that was just a bit of a different -- they suggest that the
respiratory rates of 10 to 12 would be acceptable.
I have another one from Dr. Michael Gordon. So it's interesting,
even physicians I guess have an opinion about things.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the issue is is that we have a
Public Safety Advisory Board that reviewed the protocol, and the
determination made by the physician that the PSA chose to rely on
was that it was incorrect and Dr. Tober concurred.
This is not about a battle of experts and which opinion is more
right. The decision was made by the Public Safety Advisory Board
that Dr. Tober's protocol was incorrect. He accepted that it needed to
be changed, and it was changed accordingly. The evidence speaks for
itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just add this, though. We
Page 41
May 14, 2013
can always do better. We can always do better. Even if one case is
identified as needing to be corrected, we can always study that and see
what we can do to do a better job. I do not ever say --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're absolutely right. And the
solution is to have the process examined, because what should have
happened is that these protocols should have been reviewed by the
appropriate advisory boards or board as the case may be, to ensure that
they were correct before they were released as final and accurate.
And that preliminary review would help address exactly what you're
proposing, which is to ensure that we have the best protocols to save
lives.
So thank you for your comments.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To get back to Commissioner
Henning's suggestion, and I think it is a good one -- and it is not true
that all the facts have been presented. Only facts that justify your
conclusion have been presented, and you've dismissed even those of a
doctor in Miami who is perhaps equally as qualified as the doctor here
who disagrees with him.
The whole process here is very suspect to me. Why are these
issues being raised at this point in time when we're in the process of
trying to decide between a number of applicants for our future medical
director? Why were these issues not brought to the Board of County
Commissioners a long time ago? This particular protocol has been in
existence for quite some time. And it is normal I believe for
physicians to update protocols as they learn more and more about the
process. And to suggest that because a protocol was updated is an
error on someone's part is a completely fallacious assumption. That's
what we should be doing. We should in constant review and we
should be updating these things from time to time.
So I am not fearful of an investigation or an examination by
anybody, but I think the facts that are presented to any agency in the
Page 42
May 14, 2013
state for the purpose of conducting an investigation should be
balanced and accurate. And statements such as had this protocol been
used as prescribed it would result in the death of a child. Boy, I wish
we could all be that smart to know when people are going to die if we
don't do something.
But this is a continuation of a pattern of character assassination
which seems to come about at a very, very strange time. And I want
to get the facts on the table. I want to know why these issues weren't
sorted out before, why they have been apparently festering, why there
is miscommunication with some hospitals about what is being done,
and we need to get that straightened out. And that is our
responsibility.
And the way you get it straightened out is to present it to the
Board of County Commissioners and ask us to do something about it.
It's not to use it as a tool for maneuvering to select a candidate of your
own choosing.
So I'm very suspicious of this whole process, and I want to learn
more about that as we go through this. So I hope we have some
speakers who are going to shed some light on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think it is very important
that we have a system that enables us to deal with failures that we feel
are above and beyond the unhappy nature of a lot of the work that
we're reviewing today. There's a lot of circumstances that occur when
you have medical emergencies that are not going to have the outcomes
that we had hoped for.
But when you have a situation that indicates there is a problem,
certainly you need to have a mechanism to review those. And I'm
quite certain, since the Board of County Commissioners is directly
responsible for EMS and hires and fires the County Medical Director,
that there should be some system for review on issues that arise that
come to our attention.
Page 43
May 14, 2013
And however, I can't support sending these immediately to the
state when they arise. I'd much prefer before we get to the point of
asking the state to intervene that we go through our normal processes
to have our agencies review those and provide us with reports on what
the facts indeed are, with accurate information so that we can review
those. And then if we feel furthermore that there's something that
arises to a level where we can't handle it and a PSA can't help us
resolve it and somehow it's above and beyond what's local, then we
should invoke the state. But I don't think we should do so before that
time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There are allegations that have
been throwed (sic) out in the public, okay. I think it's prudent for us to
act now on that instead of waiting to either address the issue or clear
people's names. So --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that's a motion, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, actually I think
there's a motion and a second now to send that up to the state.
Commissioner Nance, I think your comments --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Nance, I think
your comments are appropriate. However, being that this is out in the
public, I don't think we should wait and let anything fester in the
future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with that. But the motion
that's on the table is a motion to send it to the state. It was seconded
by Commissioner Fiala and made by Commissioner Hiller. So if --
yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't it made by Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Henning made
a second motion and we have to dispose of the first motion before we
Page 44
May 14, 2013
get to his motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I said if it was a motion I'd second
it and you said okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, there's a motion already on the
table and a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, there was a motion --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the one I seconded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the motion is to send this
matter up to the state for investigation by the Inspector General of the
Department of Health.
If I could comment on Commissioner Nance's statements. We
have a conflict of interest, Commissioner Nance. The board has a
conflict of interest, staff has a conflict of interest, the County Attorney
has a conflict of interest. There is no way we can independently
review -- the PSA has a conflict of interest. We have to allow the state
to come in and investigate and make an independent determination of
what is going on. We do not have the means to do so without a
material conflict.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, I don't think there's
a material conflict. There's been some things alleged here that I'm not
even certain are true. I'm remiss to send those to the state before we
understand if there is actually a problem. It says here there's a letter
was received and it says it appears and it gives a number. I would like
to know if that's the case before I ask the state to act on something that
I don't even know what it is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so let me give you an example.
You do your investigation and you will come up with it does not
appear and therefore make the decision, since it's in your self interest
not to send it to the state.
We are not here acting on our behalf, we are here acting on
Page 45
May 14, 2013
behalf of the residents of Collier County. And we need to do what's
necessary to protect their interest.
(Applause.)
MRS. MINARD: That's right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is about getting an independent
investigation. If nothing is wrong, the Board, the staff and anybody
else involved in this through county government will be appropriately
exonerated. If not, then we have to do what is necessary to ensure that
the public safety is guarded to the highest standard.
Can we have our public speakers now?
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Eric Eskioglu. He'll
be followed by Scott Campbell.
DR. ESKIOGLU: Can I have the power point presentation,
please?
Madam Commissioner, Commissioners, good morning. My
name is Eric Eskioglue. I'm a neurosurgeon and Medical Director of
the Comprehensive Stroke Center at Physicians Regional Medical
Center.
And I am here in front of you because I am gravely concerned
about the stroke care that our citizens in Collier County are getting.
And I just want to present to you that there is a Florida Stroke Act that
started back in 2004 that was passed. And it clearly stated that the
EMS has a responsibility for directing the stroke patients with
protocols to the nearest most appropriate hospital.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said nearest, didn't you?
DR. ESKIOGLU: Nearest, closest nearest, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just want to emphasize that.
DR. ESKIOGLU: So here's the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go back to that?
And any time we interrupt the Doctor, we need to give him
additional time.
Go back to that slide, please.
Page 46
May 14, 2013
DR. ESKIOGLU: One slide back, please.
The most appropriate hospital is the designation. State of Florida
was one of the first states to recognize stroke as an epidemic, and it
needs emergent acute care, just like a heart attack and the designated
Stroke Act to clarify the position of the hospitals and where the EMS
should take these patients to.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you said nearest.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, let me --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that part of the statute? And
that's the reason I'm asking --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Yes, sir. It says nearest appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Then they designate the levels of the hospital,
according to the appropriateness, just like a trauma center.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I please read what it says here?
Because it must be read as it's written in the law.
And if I'm reading this correctly, Section 5, emergency medical
service providers, triage and transportation of stroke victims to a
stroke center. Subsection 3: The medical director of each licensed
emergency medical services provider shall develop and implement
assessment, treatment and transport destination protocols for stroke
patients with the intent to assess, treat and transport stroke patients to
the most appropriate hospital. It is not the nearest hospital, it is the
most appropriate hospital.
Can you continue the timer, please?
DR. ESKIOGLU: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask a question.
There is --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Commissioner, if you'd like to talk to me, this
is my time to discuss, I'd be happy to make an appointment and
discuss with you at a later time.
Page 47
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Understand.
DR. ESKIOGLU: But I'd like to speak --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I get a right to speak too.
Thank you very much, Doctor.
Now, what I would like to find out is this is an extract from the
Florida Law.
DR. ESKIOGLU: You can get the full law. It's written there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what I'm asking you for.
You said it would be the nearest appropriate hospital.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
DR. ESKIOGLU: It's the most appropriate hospital.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so it --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Most appropriate hospital.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you go back and read,
please, for me that he said the nearest appropriate hospital?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Dr. Eskioglue, if you would like to
correct your statement to reflect what the law says, then please do so,
because you are being --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Yes, I would, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- trapped based on your --
DR. ESKIOGLU: I would like to correct my --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- words.
DR. ESKIOGLU: -- statement based on what the law reads is the
most appropriate hospital.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
That's all I needed to know.
DR. ESKIOGLU: So the designation from the State of Florida is
three levels of appropriate stroke hospitals, comprehensive stroke
center, just like a Level 1 trauma center. Physicians Regional is the
only one in the whole Southwest Florida area. The closest center is
Miami or Sarasota.
Page 48
May 14, 2013
Primary stroke center is the next level which treats lower level of
care and that is NCH downtown and NCH north campus. And there's
also acute ready hospice, which we do not have in this area.
Next slide, please.
This is just our data from Physicians Regional from December,
2012 to May, 2013. We became a comprehensive stroke center at that
time. You can see we have received 106 patients and we have treated
30 patients, a total treatment ratio of about 28.3 percent. Now, you're
going to say that seems low. The national average is about 10 percent
for Medicare hospitals.
Now, you compare that from AHCA data. I got this from
AHCA, from NCH back starting a year earlier from 10/11 through
9/12. They received a total of 424 stroke victims and treated 32. And
in a span where we became a comprehensive stroke center, we
received 106 patients and treated 30. So the treatment ratios, which is
giving the clot-busting life-saving drug to the patients to open up the
blocked artery, or in our case we also do surgical intervascular
treatment where the clot-busting drug won't work or they're out of the
window, we go and mechanically, just like a cardiologist removes a
clot from the heart artery. Our treatment ratio is about 28.3 percent.
Next, please.
We received this from the Collier County EMS stroke run
distribution. I know it's small; I'll be happy to give you a copy of this.
This is from January through May.
Next slide, please.
And you can see we are in the red, Physicians Regional, and the
two primary stroke centers as opposed to the comprehensive stroke
centers. And you can see the EMS runs from that. And it would
behoove you to understand that most of the strokes should have come
to Physicians Regional.
Next slide, please.
You can see from the runs provided by Chief Kopka from Collier
Page 49
May 14, 2013
County EMS through January through April, despite the fact that
Physicians Regional is the highest level of comprehensive stroke
center, just a Level I trauma center, we are only receiving about 12
and a half to 15 percent of the patients.
Next, please.
The study that some of the people have been quoting is the New
England Journal of Medicine article. Unfortunately you can see the
patients that were treated in that article was less than five percent of
the patients that were eligible for what we could do. So that article
has already been debunked.
Next, please.
And there are guidelines from American Heart Association that
just came out new. And as you can see, stroke patients are to be
dispatched to the highest level of care available in the shortest period
of time to save lives.
Next.
Again, you can see there's more articles about stroke severity and
how time saves lives.
Next, please.
And more articles about how the stroke care matters in a timely
fashion at the highest level you can give.
Next, please.
This is a letter. Unfortunately -- I trained at Vanderbilt, I was the
assistant professor there. I was lucky to work with very smart stroke
neurologists to put together a comprehensive stroke center. After a
protracted six-month discussions with over 22 discussions made, we
had come to a conclusion with the EMS director, as well as the
involved parties from both hospitals on EMS protocols.
Next, please.
The EMS protocol that was adopted that was supposed to be used
on the field was only this sheet. This is again 1/29/2013. This is to
stratify the patients. This has nothing to do with bringing certain
Page 50
May 14, 2013
patients to a certain hospital. This is to stratify the patients so they
end up getting the best care where they need. And it is the sickest
patients that I'm worried about that are not getting the care they need.
Next, please.
And as you can tell, that's the identical flow sheet, almost
identical, that has been adopted at Broward County just this past
month. This is adopted. It's the same thing. Miami-Dade County
adopted the same protocol. This has been an award winning protocol.
And the goal is again to stratify the patients so the sickest patients go
to the highest level of care, just like you would for a trauma center.
Next, please.
Unfortunately to this date this is the stroke protocols we get. I
think deliberately the stroke protocols have been made very confusing.
We did not agree to this form, which is on the stroke assessment of
one of our patients that came in. Has nothing to represent what our
protocol, what we agreed on, our meaning the county's protocol we
agreed on.
Next, please.
And the men's protocol was left behind, which we did not agree
to.
So I think in closing, EMS definitely has a huge responsibility for
the patients of Collier County, just like I have a responsibility as a
neurosurgeon and neurovascular surgeon for the well-being of our
patients here.
And I appreciate your time. What I'd like to ask the
commissioners, if you have a stroke today, and it can happen to
anybody, where would you like to be taken? Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Scott Campbell. He'll be
followed by Mike Pettit.
MR. CAMPBELL: To the Board of Commissioners,
Commissioner Hiller and the others, thank you so much for your time
Page 51
May 14, 2013
today.
Essentially Dr. Eskioglu, who's an expert in obviously
stroke-related events and has national recognition has done an
excellent job of describing and laying out and clarifying what is a
comprehensive stroke center.
In my letter of May 6th, it really outlines any comments that I
would have today. So I was planning to defer my time to him to give
him more than the three minutes which he enjoyed. And thank you
for allowing him to elaborate.
Intent is to bring to the attention of the Board of County
Commissioners what we think is a deviation from the norm. A
deviation from national and from state standards. And we think it
does behoove you to investigate it further.
We realize it goes beyond the course of today's conversation, but
it does warrant we think a deeper dive into what is occurring, why are
the protocols not being adhered to, why did it take so long for the
protocols to be formulated and put into place, as Dr. Eskioglu just
mentioned. Why we're getting 12, 15 percent of the strokes when the
number should be much higher.
Our intent is only to bring it to your attention for the betterment
of patient care. At the heart of Physicians Regional, at the heart of
everyone today that I've listened to, from the recognition of EMS
week to the Phoenix awards, to the conversations that have taken
place regarding patient care, that's why I stand here today. We care
about people. We care about the best practice.
You hear that term often in medicine, what is the highest
standard of care, what is the best practice. And to that you should
adhere. So that essentially would sum up what represents my writing
to you today, which was not to antagonize but to bring interest, to
bring knowledge, to bring to the forefront of the community, to the
leadership of the county which gives oversight to EMS, to the Medical
Director at a very timely event when you're making selection. We
Page 52
May 14, 2013
want you to dive into the data and make we think the best choice,
which is to recognize a comprehensive stroke center. As Dr. Eskioglu
mentioned, it would be where I would want a family member of mine
to be treated.
So with that, I thank you very much and continue to submit this
letter into your record. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Dr. Eskioglu --
DR. ESKIOGLU: Eskioglu.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. The Doctor mentioned, and he
had a very, very good question: If you were having a stroke, doesn't
make any difference what level it is, where do you want to go? You
want to go to the most comprehensive stroke center in the county.
And it appears that that isn't always the case as to where they are
transported. And I think this is something else that ought to be studied
and quickly. We don't have time to be wasting with this. Because the
next stroke victim is just around the corner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, you're
absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I want to make sure that we send
these patients to where they're going to get the best most
comprehensive care for stroke.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You hit the nail on the head,
Commissioner Fiala. That what the law requires. That isn't what's
happening, based on the information we have received today. And we
need to do what the law prescribes, which is what you have concluded
very logically on your own. So I commend you for that.
Anybody can request the Department of Health, the Inspector
General, to do an investigation in any of these matters. So if anybody
has concerns, you can do it independently as well, and should consider
doing so if you feel that there is something that needs further
questioning, further investigation.
Page 53
May 14, 2013
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Mike Pettit. He'll be
followed by the final speaker on this item, Doug Fee.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit. I'm
here on behalf of Dr. Tober.
I'm going to deal with the stroke protocol issue first. I think
some history is warranted here, because I think one of the suggestions
that's being made -- and I agree with Commissioner Coyle that it's
very curious that these issues are being brought up after the Chair
directed that an RFP be put on the street for a new Medical Director.
Be that as it may, in approximately October Physicians Regional
made it clear that they were going to come on line as a stroke center
and eventually as a certified comprehensive stroke center. They
weren't at that time.
My understanding is that changes were made in transport
protocols by EMS at that point to get to the closest appropriate
facility.
In January of this year, nine training sessions conducted in part
by Dr. Eskioglu from Physicians Regional were held with your
paramedics. Your paramedics. And he explained, and his colleagues
at Physicians Regional explained in those meetings the differences
between the two types of hospitals, primary stroke center,
comprehensive stroke center, Naples Community Hospital being a
primary. And there was development of a field protocol about how to
transport.
I have a copy of it here. It was put up on your finder there. And
I can give copies to the Board and I'd like to give a copy and have it
put in the record.
But I want to -- this is something that a non-medical person like
me and like yourselves can understand.
It says under assessment four: Are any of the boxes in
assessment four checked? If the answer is yes, quote, initiate
immediate transport to comprehensive stroke center, unquote. That
Page 54
May 14, 2013
was developed through the in-service. I think that the Doctor said it
was around January 29.
Under assessment five: Stroke severity scoring. It says -- and
the methodology is called a LAMS, don't ask me what it stands for but
I don't need to know that. What I need to know is if your score is four
or higher and your paramedics have been trained to do that
assessment, immediate transport to comprehensive stroke center.
On January 21, Dr. Tober and Chief Kopka got this email from
Dr. Eskioglu. On behalf of the PRHS Comprehensive Stroke Center
Program. We appreciate all the hard work that went into this protocol
and we agree to the final version that you submitted. Thanks again,
and we look forward to working with you in getting the best clinical
outcomes for treatment of stroke patients in this county.
There has been no attempt to block transports to Physicians
Regional. I have different statistics that are remarkably different than
the statistics there were shown on your Board. My understanding is
those statistics came from your EMS. Maybe somebody needs to look
at the statistics and find out where they come from. But the numbers
we have are 49 percent in the last five months to Physicians Regional,
46 percent to Naples Community Hospital.
MR. MILLER: Your final --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just ask -- may I ask a
question before he leaves?
You had said in your presentation something about closest
appropriate center.
MR. PETTIT: That was an initial protocol, transport protocol.
My understanding was that was done back when Physicians Regional
hadn't achieved comprehensive stroke center status but was prepared
to start receiving stroke patients, in the process of getting their
certification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But now it's supposed to be
most appropriate center.
Page 55
May 14, 2013
MR. PETTIT: Well, I have to be honest, the document that was
put up there said Laws of Florida. It was not clear for me that was in a
statute. And if it is, fine. But I need to go and look at the actual
statute. That looked to me like it was some legislative document or
piece of legislation. I'm not saying that it was misquoted, I'm just
saying I'd like to look at the actual statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my last question: You
mentioned something about 49 percent went to Physicians Regional
and 46 percent of stroke patients went to NCH. May I ask, how many
heart patients went to NCH versus Physicians Regional?
MR. PETTIT: That I can't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So my point of asking that is
if they send most of the heart patients to NCH because they're known
to be the best heart hospital around, not only in Florida but around the
country, wouldn't you then want to take the most stroke patients and
send them to the most comprehensive center? I mean, I could not
understand why it's not handled that way, heart to one, stroke to the
other. To me 49 percent to 46 percent sure doesn't show that they're
trying to take those stroke patients to Physicians Regional.
MR. PETTIT: I don't want to stray too far into medicine because
I'm not qualified to do that. But my understanding would be that the
development of this field protocol identified those patients. It was a
tool to identify those patients who clearly had to go to the
comprehensive stroke center, regardless of proximity.
You asked the question, I'll give you my answer. If I have a
stroke and I'm way down on Gordon Drive, I don't want to drive 30
minutes in season traffic out to Regional. I just don't. Because I think
time is going to be important. And you do have a primary stroke
center right here.
If the paramedics who have been trained to apply that document
decide I'm having the kind of event that can be better treated and that
the value of the longer transport is there, they'll take me there. And I
Page 56
May 14, 2013
rely on them to do that. But if it's not that particular type of stroke, I'd
rather get the treatment first.
Now, I'm not a doctor, so -- I'm just a lay person in that field.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
I just -- this is the conflict that I was referring to earlier. How do
we resolve this? How can resolve the differences in perception about
what we're doing between Physicians Regional and other hospitals?
Do you have a recommendation as to how we could go about getting
this issue resolved and determining what the statistics really show?
MR. PETTIT: Well, with respect to trying to get the issue
resolved, again, I think there was a resolution of transport protocols
that was agreed to by Physicians Regional. But given that this issue
has reared its head again, it seems to me that the neurosurgeons who
practice in those hospitals need to sit down and work this out.
Because the most important thing is patient care. And Dr. Tober tried
to bring those neurosurgeons together several times and did on these
very issues. So that would be my first suggestion.
And maybe -- unfortunately -- and understand, there's talk about
market share from the marketing I think director from Physicians
Regional. Remember, they have a stake here too in the market.
They've invested millions of dollars, and they need to feed that beast,
quite frankly.
So to suggest that there is not a monetary aspect to all of this on
the other side of the coin, I'm sorry, I was born at night but you know
the rest of that story.
So -- but I do think that good doctors, of which Dr. Tober is one
and I think Dr. Eskioglu is one, can get together and make sure that
patients are being transported to the right place.
As far as the statistics go, my understanding is my statistics came
from EMS. They have statistics that they've apparently taken through
their own methods. Maybe we need to look at those statistics.
Page 57
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to comment. An independent
investigation into the facts is what has to occur to make a
determination of what statistics are true and which are false, which
protocols are correct, which are incorrect, where training has been
inappropriate or appropriate. That needs to be done by an independent
agency.
With respect to market share, under no circumstances, under no
circumstances should any protocol or any training or any practice be
predicated on financial gain to any hospital. And I will read again
what was in Dr. Tober's email. I quote, and I'm not reading the whole
MR. PETTIT: Can you tell the audience, Madam Chair, what
you're reading from?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- 40 percent of the patients -- I'm
actually reading from my executive summary which I pulled off the
email -- I'm sorry, off the letter from -- not the email but the reference
to the e-mail in the letter from Physicians Regional.
I quote: Divert 40 percent of the patients currently going to
NCH, that the stroke protocols which were essentially desired, the
desirable, the best protocols, in the interest of the patient, would have
the effect of diverting 40 percent of the patients currently going to
NCH, okay. Straight out of Dr. Tober's email.
MR. PETTIT: Which is quoted in a letter selectively written by
Physicians Regional.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So why don't we do this: Let's do a
public records request for Dr. Tober's email of December 20th. In
fact, let's do a public -- it's not a public records request, just so you
know, because they are our records. But we request that Dr. Tober
produce those emails referencing the diversion of 40 percent of the
patients currently going to NCH, and any other email that he has
written to or from anybody with respect to market share and protocols.
So if you could produce those, the Board would appreciate it, and
Page 58
May 14, 2013
then the Board could review it.
MR. PETTIT: Well, I would think that since you're putting that
out in the public record, Madam Chair, that you would have already
had that email and not relied on a selective quote in a letter. I don't
have the email; I haven't seen it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're asking for it to be produced.
So if you could -- Mike Sheffield, if you could alert Dr. Tober that we
would like those emails produced for the record, that would be
appreciated.
MR. PETTIT: I do have one other question. When you read
from the executive summary with respect to the pediatric head injury
protocol, when you read you said that it could result in the death of the
child, but isn't it a fact the summary said would result in the death of
the child? Isn't that what you wrote?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That is what I wrote.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Doug
Fee.
MR. FEE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Doug
Fee. I'm here to speak specifically on number two of this agenda item.
And it reads: A young man passed way allegedly because EMS
failed to timely arrive at the scene. It goes on further to say: These
failures are being reported as happening daily and may have
contributed towards the death of one resident and is threatening the
lives of all. This matter must immediately be investigated and
addressed.
I appreciate that this is on your agenda today. I had come to the
Board of County Commission last September in reference to an area in
North Naples called Zone 42. I don't know the particulars of this case
right here. I don't know where that person was located. However, I
have come before the Board of County Commission. And specifically
in Zone 42, from a period of October 1st, '11 to June 30th, 2012 with
Page 59
May 14, 2013
only EMS response times, the county's goal happens to be eight
minutes for 90 percent of the calls. And in Zone 42 under eight
minutes the percentage was 68.8. It does not reach 90 percent until
under 11 minutes, okay?
I had raised that about nine months ago. I had planned on waiting
until June 30th, 2013 and requesting the same information from EMS
to see how that zone -- and I live in that area, so that's why it's of
concern. It's a big area.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So by definition, if you would into
cardiac arrest, you're dead.
MR. FEE: Well, I wouldn't have the same care, possibly --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You'd be dead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that another zone would have. So
I want to -- I wanted to make that comment.
And I know you all have tough jobs. I'm not blaming anyone, I
just know it's an issue that needs to be looked into.
And the other thing is with the ALS engines from North Naples
included in that, it does show that it gets closer to the 90 percent level
at eight minutes. It actually reaches 82.9, which is almost 20 percent.
The point I would make is it's very important as you have these
discussions to remember that we're all in this together. And we've got
to figure out a way to include the fire districts to help out EMS come
up with something comprehensive so that these things do not happen.
I appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
So if there's no further discussion, we have a motion on the table
and a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask, what was
Commissioner Henning's motion after yours? So I could hear again
what he was mentioning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, no, you just mentioned what
Page 60
May 14, 2013
you would do to make a motion which then Coyle said if you make
that motion, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made an observation that
there's allegations being made and these allegations need to be cleared
up since they were made public. And it was a response to
Commissioner Nance's comments, which are warranted, for us to take
a look into having our staff provide as information. That was only a
comment, it wasn't a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I made my comments because
I sincerely cannot send something to the State of Florida based on the
concern expressed in an executive summary. I understand that there
are serious issues before us. And I expect if the Board of County
Commissioners is going to make decisions on these that these
questions are addressed by our staff immediately. And if we have
issues, EMS should be addressing them. The Medical Director should
be addressing them. We should be getting all the facts. I don't think
we should be jumping over it regardless of somebody's concern or
statements.
You know, I want to see more information that I think is local
and available. I don't think we need to call in, you know, the state
when we first express a concern. I expect there to be many concerns.
I expect every time we have a chronic failure that we have a concern.
And we should have internal investigations and internal affairs
capabilities that allows us to get to the bottom of some of these and
take action immediately. We don't need to wait for the state to
evaluate them, that could be six months from now. We don't know
when we're going to get a determination back from the state.
So I just believe that before we should do that we should jump on
some of these things locally and we should get all the facts on the
table as we know them or the opinions of the people that we have
Page 61
May 14, 2013
hired and placed in those positions of responsibility to do something
immediately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a fair statement.
However -- it's a fair statement, however, allegations have been made
and if staff finds that there is no wrongdoing by anybody, there's
going to be questions in people's mind. We need to in my opinion end
it with an independent -- I don't want anybody to criticize our staff
unwarranted. Again, there's allegations being made -- allegations been
made publicly. And I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The Minards are an example.
They're sitting right there in the audience.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I just think that if there's
allegations been made, the first step is to allow the people that are
alleged to have done the wrong thing an opportunity to respond before
we jump to the state.
MR. FEE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, my light is on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know, we seem to be caught
up in a do-loop here. Nobody wants to make a motion. I'll be happy
to make a motion, but there's a motion on the table.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's a motion on the table and a
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we need to get rid of that. But
I'll be happy to make a motion, if that motion fails, to have an
immediate investigation by the staff to substantiate the comments here
so that if we feel there is something wrong we can make a decision as
to whether or not we should forward it for an independent --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Coyle. The staff lacks independence to be able to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, call the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- make its own investigation of
Page 62
May 14, 2013
itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Call the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can't investigate yourself. We
have three deaths that have been cited. And we're dealing with life
and death. You know, we're not dealing with -- let me restate that. We
are dealing with the most significant issue that we as members of the
Board could possibly deal with. The most serious, the most
significant, the most onerous responsibility that we have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so let's call the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it should be done --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion fails 2-3 with
Commissioners Nance, Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I'll add to your remarks
about this is an important issue and we must deal with it. We must
deal with it from the standpoint of honesty and truth.
And so consequently I will make a motion that we ask the staff,
county staff, to investigate the allegations and provide us information
to determine the accuracy of the allegations that have been made and
present them to the Board of County Commissioners, and then we can
make a decision as to whether or not we want to have an independent
investigation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
For clarification purposes, Commissioner Coyle, on your motion,
specifically on this Item 10.I, there's three issues raised in the
Page 63
May 14, 2013
executive summary. In my view item one and item three are better
responded to by your Medical Director than by County Manager. And
item two would certainly be one that should be responded to from my
office, unless you have another direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with
involving them in the process. We have to get information from them.
But I think the PSA should be involved in this process too. They have
a responsibility with respect to protocols.
So I think if your staff could coordinate the collection of the
information from all of the agencies that have responsibility here,
including, and this can't be a demand, it can be a request, for
Physicians Regional to provide documentation that they have that
would be helpful in this process, then maybe we can get to the bottom
of this and solve any communication problems at the very least before
we refer it for investigation that are responsible for these different
interpretations of referral rates.
But you've got the PSA and you've got EMS, you've got the
Medical Director. And if -- we need somebody to coordinate that and
we're asking that you do it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think that it would be very
difficult for the EMS director -- rather the Medical Director to give a
report on these things when it was his call in the first place. It's kind
of like judging yourself, so I don't think that that's right at all. I feel
that we should have a thorough investigation first locally so we can --
as Commissioner Nance mentioned, 'til we come up with an answer
and soon. And then once we see that answer to then -- to verify it
through the state would be fine with me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to comment on that. I mean,
it's -- I mean, this is absolutely ludicrous. The County Attorney in his
comments to my executive summary said that, you know, when I
Page 64
May 14, 2013
suggested that we conduct our own investigation said well, the County
Attorney and the County Manager ought to be involved because we
need to make sure that the information is appropriately handled in
light of the threat of litigation. So tell me that this isn't a coverup.
Tell me this isn't a coverup. Right? You guys have a conflict of
interest in investigating yourself.
Fine, I mean, go ahead, make the motion, but I will tell you, any
citizen out there who wants to can and should call the Department of
Health Inspector General and state what has happened and get them to
independently investigate what is going on, and let the truth come out
through an independent agency.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We do not have the ability to
investigate ourselves.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: I will
make the call today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please do.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: I will.
You can bet on that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I encourage everybody who feels
wronged --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: This is for
the people, for the county, for the citizens, it's for you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, you need to get a
handle on your meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And furthermore, we don't need
to sensationalize our meeting. Let's let the Naples Daily News do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's not a sensation, Commissioner
Henning. We're dealing with life and death.
Page 65
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not pointing fingers. We do
not need to sensationalize our meeting. Let's act as adults and move
forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Call the question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What is the motion; could you
restate it for the record?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion is for the County
Manager to collect information from the PSA, the Medical Director,
EMS and if Physicians Regional wishes to participate, information
from them, and compile it and send it to the Board of County
Commissioners for the purpose of resolving what apparently are
differences in interpretation of the protocol and the applicability to
protocol.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: There's a second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So Commissioner Coyle has made a
motion, Commissioner Nance has made a second.
There being no further 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.
And my comment is this is an attempt at a coverup.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The court reporter needs a break.
MR. OCHS: Yes, that's what I was going to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're going to give the court
reporter a break. We have an 11:00 time certain. The only problem is
we also have two other items which are a continuation of the 10:00
time certain. So when we get back we'll address who's in the audience
and make a determination which direction to take.
Page 66
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think from here on in we're going
to have to be careful about how close we put these things together --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- when they're major subjects.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree with you, Commissioner
Fiala.
So a 10-minute break. We'll be back -- actually let's make it
11:15. Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
How many individuals are here to address Item 10.H and 10.G,
which were set at the 10:00 time certain? How many individuals are
here for those items?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Raise your hand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, three individuals?
How many individuals are here for -- what is the item number for
the 11:00 time certain?
MR. OCHS: It's 11.B, having to do with the beach
renourishment project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many individuals are here for
11.B?
Let's go ahead and take 11.B in light of the fact that there's so
many individuals here. I'm sorry to the three who are here for the
Medical Director discussion, but we'll return to that.
Item #11B
REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB)
#13-6076, COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT; RE-SOLICIT THE PROJECT WITH TARGET
VOLUMES PER BEACH SEGMENT; REDUCED BID
Page 67
May 14, 2013
ACCEPTANCE/VALIDITY TIMEFRAME; APPROVE THE
PROJECT PRICE SUBMITTAL FORM AND BIDDING
APPROACH; APPROVE A SAND PLACEMENT
RENOURISHMENT APPROACH AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS PROJECT PROMOTES TOURISM - MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND PELICAN
BAY IS REQUESTING 35,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND THAT
THEY WILL PAY FOR — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Item 11.B is a
recommendation to reject all bids received for Invitation to Bid
13-6076, Collier County Beach Renourishment Project; re-solicit the
project with target volumes per beach segment; reduce bid
acceptance/validity timeframe; approve the project price submittal
form and bidding approach; approve a sand placement renourishment
approach and make a finding that this project promotes tourism. Mr.
Bill --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before we get started, how many
public speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: We have seven public speakers on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Seven? Before we get into the
details, how many of the public speakers are here because of the
concern over truck hauling?
Okay, then I would like to begin the discussion with that to see
whether or not you want to speak. I personally don't support truck
hauling as the means to renourish the beaches. The proposal to
include truck hauling was intended so we get the pricing to
supplement any major dredge, if that was needed. And at least that
was my understanding. And I asked for clarification of that in the
presentation that was coming forward today.
So for example if an area is renourished and let's say an
additional 10,000 cubic yards of sand is needed beyond what was put
Page 68
May 14, 2013
on the beach after the dredge was completed, that minor supplemental
addition could be made, you know, by way of a truck haul, then
reinstituting another dredge.
So if your concern is about truck hauling, I don't know how the
rest of the Board feels about that, but maybe we can address that right
now so these individuals can either continue to remain as speakers or
they can feel comfortable that their concerns have been addressed and
can leave.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I personally think that what we have
before us is a good recommendation, and we go back and reject all of
them. To me that's the only thing that makes common sense.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So is that acceptable to the rest of
the Board? I mean, we agree -- and I'm not getting into the details of
the full bid, I'm just addressing the truck hauling. I mean, we still
need the pricing on the truck hauling but only as an alternative for
minor placement, not as an alternative for all of the renourishment
project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, my light is on, if
you don't mind.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ladies and Gentlemen, if you want
to have beach renourishment, I encourage you to stay here for the
entire hearing. This is the eighth time this item has come before this
Board for consideration and it has been consistently postponed by
nitpicking and changes that people want to make. You should insist
on a decision being made today to replenish those beaches in
accordance with the engineers and the staffs specifications. It has
been peer reviewed by an additional engineering company to
substantiate the quantities that are necessary. Don't be fooled into
leaving just because truck hauling is taken across -- off the table.
Because the greater issue is to get this beach renourishment project
approved today and get it out for bid.
Page 69
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I absolutely agree with you. So why
don't you make a motion? I realize we have speakers, but make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to approve the
staffs recommendations as they're written in the executive summary
and get this RFP out immediately for bid and let's get this work
started.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And I'd like to comment on
that. First of all, the county is late in doing the beach renourishment.
It should have been done in 2012. The county failed to timely
proceed, and then came forward with a proposal of 580,000 cubic
yards of sand. We're talking a proposal of about I think it was about
somewhere between 32 and $35 million.
Would you like to know where we are today? And if you'd like to
call this nitpicking, then we have -- we'll have a debate over
definition. We are down to, what is it, 340,000 cubic yards of sand and
a project which is now valued at how much, 15 million?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Lorenz?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was it one for 10 years and one for
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not the issue. That's what was
proposed. We were given a proposal of 580,000 cubic yards of sand,
which I objected to. And we are now down to 340,000 from basically
35 million to 15 million. In my opinion $20 million is hardly
nitpicking.
And by the way, in the course of the nitpicking, it was uncovered
that staff had intentionally withheld from the Board of County
Commissioners and from the public that the State of Florida --
actually, let me restate that, that the federal government, through
FEMA de-obligated us to the tune of 11 million because they stated
Page 70
May 14, 2013
that our engineers commingled renourishment, general renourishment
and storm renourishment dollars, inflating the request -- improperly
inflating the request. We have lost appeal after appeal. And we're now
on I believe like a third appeal on that.
Not only that, FEMA said that we inflated the numbers with
respect to a $9 million reimbursement request. Exact same way. $20
million. The reason it went down from 580,000 cubic yards to where
we are today is because we have lost potentially -- well for sure in the
case of nine and potentially in the case of the 11, but almost certainly
$20 million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, could we just
address this subject?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This subject -- the public needs to
know the truth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're not talking --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle made false
statements of fact. The public deserves to know the truth. And then
of course what the county tried to do through certain commissioners is
raise the tourist tax to make up for the deficit, which I objected to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we are where we are today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is absolutely false.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's absolutely true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Most of what you're saying is
irrelevant and untrue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's relevant and true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was a 10-year program in the
beginning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because it was inflated without
Board approval and unnecessary. And if it was necessary, then we
should have found means to get it done and we wouldn't be where we
are today.
Page 71
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Lorenz, would you like to
present?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager, do you want to
make any statements concerning this?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I guess I'm forced to, because we are
mixing some projects and some apples with oranges.
Commissioner Hiller is correct, we did bring a large project in
terms of sand volume and cost. We did that based on direction from
the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples City Council in a
joint workshop back in 2011.
I don't want to, you know, go over this ground again and again
like we have, but that was the genesis of that first proposal, Madam
Chair. The Board has since sent us back on a six-year design, not a
10-year design.
With regard to the FEMA de-obligation, that is still on appeal. I
still believe that we have a very strong appeal. We have outside
counsel through the County Attorney's Office working on that, and,
you know, I reserve until we get that final decision to tell whether or
not we were correct or not in the way we approached that FEMA
reimbursement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And with all due respect, County
Manager, I did review the minutes of that workshop which,
incidentally, Commissioner Henning and I were absent --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so I took the liberty of reviewing
it.
No, the direction was never to do a 10-year renourishment. So I
just want to make that clear.
MR. OCHS: You're right, it was to extend beyond the traditional
six-year window.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No direction can be given from a
Page 72
May 14, 2013
workshop with respect to a Board policy decision, by the way. So
there was no vote on it by the Board of County Commissioners. But
let's proceed with the presentation.
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources
Director.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. LORENZ: We're here today to get direction and final
decision for what essentially is our third major project this year.
We're winding up the Marco Island project and also the Wiggins Pass
project as well. So we'll fully turn our attention to this project.
And we really need to have -- there's some urgency to receive
direction from the Board so that we can rebid the project and get the
contract started in a timely manner in order to complete the project
outside of sea turtle nesting season.
Our objectives for today are contained in this first slide. First, we
specifically need the Board to reject all bids and re-solicit the project.
We'll present the reasons for this recommendation in subsequent slides
in the presentation.
For the re-solicitation we have several recommendations,
including recommended target volumes per beach segment, which
we'll cover extensively in today's presentation.
The reduction of bid acceptance from 180 days to not exceed 60
days. And also a recommended bid approach and bid forms.
We also have a recommendation for the Board to consider
regarding the approach to sand placement, either off-shore dredging or
truck haul.
And finally, the Board will need a make a finding that the project
promotes tourism.
We only received three bids, and these were just truck haul
vendors. We did not receive any bids from dredging companies. Two
of these truck haul bids were judged as nonresponsive, and the third
bidder was deemed to be not qualified based on experience.
Page 73
May 14, 2013
We did receive some valuable feedback, however, from one of
the dredgers representing concerns from the dredging industry. And
these recommendations include specific target volumes must be
specified for each beach segment. Also, there should be an allowance
of a plus or minus 25 percent volume variation to hold the unit per
cubic yard bid price. This gives the county pricing flexibility, since
our target volumes are still estimates.
When we conduct the preconstruction survey before the project
begins and the volume is different than the target but within that
percent variation, we can then apply the bid unit price to this different
volume. And that's the purpose of that bid, the percent variation.
And the bid acceptance time frame is too long. Staff now
recommends a maximum of 60 days from bid award to contract.
And of course staff recommends that the board re-bid the project,
since the lack of dredging bids limits the county's options.
Let's kind of begin to provide the reasons for identifying our
target sand volumes and their rationale. I'll take a little time here to
orient us to what this and subsequent slides are depicting.
The best way to orient ourselves is to imagine we're hovering
high in the air right above this big monument, R-30 right out here. As
we look to the north, we see Wiggins Pass in the distance. As we look
left or south, we see Clam Pass in the distance. Ahead of us is the
Gulf and behind us is the land. So this is the orientation of the slide.
We'll use this slide to show how the beach width has changed
over time for the Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt Beach segments.
As we look down on the beach from our hovering point -- let me
back up. As we look down the beach from that hovering point, we see
that red line. That represents the design beach width standard right
here. And this is 100 feet. It represents the width of the beach at
mean high tide.
And this is the width of the beach that we want to maintain
throughout a six-year design period.
Page 74
May 14, 2013
Now, let's turn the clock back to November, 2005 when we
measured the beach widths depicted by the solid green line right here.
Note that the 2005 widths were less than our standard for much
of the segment.
Now we advance the clock to June, 2006 when the beach widths
were measured just after the 2006 renourishment project. And this is
depicted by the red dashed line.
Remember we are looking at the beach widths. And as an
example we can see that we increased the beach width to almost 150
feet at this location in 2006.
A little more than six years passes from the June, 2006
measurements to the August, 2012 measurements right here in the
blue line. That's where we surveyed the beach and measured the
widths, in August, 2012.
Note how the beach has eroded in the six-year period when
comparing the solid blue line to the dashed red line.
The beaches faired well in the six-year period except for these
locations where the beach width in 2012 measurement is less than our
design standard. We're calling these out as the Pelican Bay and
Vanderbilt Beach hotspots.
For the proposed 2013 renourishment project our consultants
have used the August, 2012 measured widths, the erosion that we see
from six years between the 2006 project and the August, 2012
measurements and other information to propose where and how much
sand we need to increase our beach widths in order to give us that
six-year design life.
Now, the black dash line located here represents the proposed
beach width for the Vanderbilt fill template. Pelican Bay sand
quantity and funding has not yet been finally resolved.
The proposed widths match up closely to the 2006 project you
can see here, albeit a little less comparing the black dashed line to the
red dashed line.
Page 75
May 14, 2013
We've also depicted on these slides the extent of fill limits for the
2006 project in yellow. So this is what we renourished in 2006,
including this green area.
But in 2013, the 2013 project covers less beach length than the
2006 project. So we have gaps along the length of beach where fill
was not required. So we're just proposing fill in this particular length
of beach.
Up until now we focused our discussion on beach width. But in
order to construct our beaches to maintain that standard beach width
for a six-year design life we must calculate the volume of sand needed
to be placed in the proposed areas. As you can see, our consultants
have calculated a target volume of 53,000 cubic yards for the
Vanderbilt section. And we're estimating 25,000 cubic yards for the
Pelican Bay section. So it's these target volumes that we propose to be
used for the bidding process.
So let's explore the basis for understanding our target volume for
this beach segment. We start with the Atkins peer review of 60,000
cubic yards. And this is the review of Coastal Planning and
Engineering's six-year design life analysis.
And remember, there was a fairly small difference for this
segment between the Atkins peer review and CP&E's target volume.
Also note that both firms use the August, 2012 beach
measurements in their design. But we need to adjust the volumes
based upon what has occurred after August, 2012.
So for this segment we have reduced the 60,000 cubic yards by
7,000 cubic yards, which is an estimated volume remaining from our
emergency truck haul renourishment in the fall of 2012.
So this leaves us with 53,000 cubic yards for the Vanderbilt
Beach. And this volume is also in the recommended volume for the
bid specifications.
Now, let me emphasize that this is a target volume. That is, it's
our estimate of what we expect to need when we perform our survey
Page 76
May 14, 2013
measurements just before the project begins. Based on this future
survey we may need to adjust our volumes to ensure we place
sufficient sand to maintain a six-year design life.
And this is the reason for having a plus or minus percentage of
target volumes for our bid, to fix the per cubic yard price within this
percentage range.
Let me also add that the Board will approve these quantities as
we make these preconstruction surveys.
So let's kind of do the same analysis for the Park Shore segment.
So we moved our hovering point southward, so let's pretend we're up
in the air at R-49. And we look to the north, and now we see Clam
Pass. We look to the south, we see Doctors Pass.
Looking down the beach we see the beach design standard width
is pretty much 85 feet through the whole segment. The required
protection of off-shore hard bottom limits the designed beach width in
this particular location.
As we did before, let's turn the clock back to November, 2005
survey and note that before the 2006 project the beach was much more
narrower than our design in the southern section. So if you look right
in here.
Not too bad as we move in the middle. In fact, it's above the
design width. And a little less than desirable in the northern section.
So here's the beach width just after the 2006 project in the red
dashed lines.
And now let's see how the beach width reacted in the six years
between the 2006 project and our August, 2012 survey, which is the
blue line.
Between 2006 and 2012 the southern section erodes fairly
significantly, resulting in the beach width becoming narrower than our
design standard for this section and results in what we call the horizon
way hotspot. The middle section holds up fairly well. The northern
section has eroded to the point where in the Seagate hotspot the width
Page 77
May 14, 2013
of the beach has eroded back to almost 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. We have a
motion and a second on the floor. But my question is, to make it that
it's not a valid -- that it promotes tourism, don't we have to do that
when we do the actual expense? Or just prior to doing the -- awarding
the bid?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we'll do it again. Just in an abundance of
caution, every time we bring this matter forward we roll that into the
recommendation. But certainly before we would ask you to award the
contract we would need a finding that the expenditure of those TDC
funds obviously would promote tourism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can support the motion. I don't
want to miss the public speakers prior to going on lunch break, so --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we were asked to proceed, but we'll stop at
any point that the Board's comfortable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll vote for stopping it and get to
the speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's proceed with the speakers.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker on this item is Marcia
Cravens. And I believe Linda Roth has ceded three minutes of time to
Marcia.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm going to change my
position.
MR. MILLER: She'll be followed by Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's inappropriate to disparage
members of the public who have taken their free time --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a joke. Get a sense of
humor.
MS. CRAVENS: No love lost.
Marcia Cravens. I am not speaking for the Sierra Club or any of
the other conservation organizations that I am on the board of.
There's a number of things that make this a very complex and
Page 78
May 14, 2013
interesting topic.
What I have placed on the overhead I took from an October,
2008 report on Tropical Storm Faye's impacts to Collier County
beaches that was written by Coastal Planning and Engineering.
It's interesting, because they pointed out the county -- and I'm
citing directly from this report: The county has not gone longer than
four years without renourishing their beaches by some means.
This is a table that I took data from that shows the amount of
periodic beach renourishment, beginning with the initial one in 1996.
Data on this report ended at the point at which the report commenced,
which was in 2008. So I've added the bold years with the asterisk is
additional data that I've added for additional beach nourishment
projects.
And the reason that I highlight this is because there is no such
thing as a beach nourishment project that anyone can give any
assurance of that will last for six years or eight years or 10 years. It is
unconsolidated sand. It moves around.
And I'm going to read you from the Strategic Beach Management
Plan of the State of Florida for Southwest Area. This is something
that apparently the planners don't seem to have a good handle on.
Beaches are dynamic land forms, subject to both natural and
man-induced erosion. Sand moves along the shore due to wind driven
currents and tides and storms can cause dramatic changes to the beach.
The majority of man-induced erosion is due to the creation and
maintenance of inlets.
So the prospective that you're planning is counting in large
respect on what they call sand bypassing of inlets where they are
expanding the actual dredging projects at the inlets goes counter to
responsible, prudent and physically conservative beach planning for
renourishment and for the inlets.
They misquote the strategic plan.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They being the staff?
Page 79
May 14, 2013
MS. CRAVENS: Yes.
In these slides and various reports, statements that have been
made, they claim that the state -- they give the appearance that the
state encourages or recommends sand bypassing at inlets for the
purpose of sand source to renourish the beach. That's not the truth at
all. I mean, obviously if you know that larger -- all inlets have an
impact on the adjacent beaches. All inlets cause erosion to the
adjacent beaches. Smaller inlets cause little to no; larger inlets, the
larger the inlet is the greater the erosion is to the adjacent beaches.
And so the state recognizes this and they require when you
dredge an inlet -- that's why you're required to put the beach quality
dredged sand onto the most impacted, most eroded shoreline adjacent
to the inlet. You're mitigating for the impacts from the dredging.
So it's disturbing to me, someone who is very passionate about
our coastal water bodies and our coastal beaches, to see this kind of
planning going on.
And I would point out that it's interesting that -- you know, you
talk about how FEMA de-obligated funds that had already been
promised to Collier County. In fact, when I go through all these
reports, what stands out to me is the inconsistency among them. I'm
looking at the local grant fund request that is dated 2012-13. I'm
looking at the Strategic Beach Management Plan. I'm looking at the
report on Tropical Storm Faye and the indications there. And
actually, I took a look at the contract for CP&E and I can see how
kind of all this came together.
And it's clear that there is a bias towards very big, very expensive
projects. There is an apparent desire to take as much of the TDC
dollars as possible, and actually there are statements in the materials
by staff that an objective is to maximize reimbursement from FEMA.
Now, I want to point out something here. Besides the fact that if
you look at those volumes on that table and you see there's large
volumes of what they call mechanical bypassing of inlet dredging, and
Page 80
May 14, 2013
even truck haul sand, which makes one wonder why in particular the
City of Naples is throwing a tantrum about truck haul sand being used
to renourish beaches when for 16 years there were multiple truck haul
sand projects and a majority of that sand went to beaches within the
City of Naples. Most of the time I understand that sand work pretty
well.
My point about that table though is the 1996 beach nourishment,
the initial one placed roughly -- I'm not quite sure what the amount is
because in one report it says 667,000, and in another one it says 1.2
million cubic yards of sand.
But all this dredging that occurred after that sand was placed goes
to the point that sand doesn't stay put, it moves around. And when
you dump a large volume of sand on our beaches in one fell swoop,
you lose about a third of it that's just going to migrate into your inlets,
about a third of it stays put, and about another third apparently goes
offshore and into other areas. And so you have to do a continuous
renourishment.
MR. MILLER: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, your time is up. I wasn't
sure because I saw the light go off but I wasn't sure you got six
minutes. So thank you.
MS. CRAVENS: So I just would like to point out that if you
look at this data from --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your time is up, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski. Bob will
be followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your point is well made, Marcia.
What you're saying is large renourishment projects are a waste of
money.
MS. CRAVENS: Well, there's a problem with that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Well, we can address that
after.
Page 81
May 14, 2013
Bob, go ahead.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi. I'm Bob Krasowski.
We've been doing this for over a year so it's kind of hard to make
comments in three minutes that would cover every aspect of it. But let
me just try to focus in on something.
Truck haul. Truck haul had three potential benefits. One was we
could spend the money locally if we got bids from local truck haulers
and using local sand.
The other one, it gives us a comparison cost. This way we just
don't get one industry giving us a cost assessment.
And then there's the flexibility. The truck haul, you can dump
sand where you want it, okay.
That's up to you to decide how you want to do it. I have no
negative perception towards the dredge and fill as well, because that's
another way of doing it. My main interest was that in the design of
this project, being that now we're talking about 325 plus or minus
thousand cubic yards, six years ago when we -- or seven years ago
when we did the project we did 650,000 cubic yards, we did that in 92
days. You're looking to use half the amount of sand, so you could do
that in 45 to 50 days. You have 180 days outside of turtle nesting
season to do this, to perform the task.
So number one, I'm against doing it in turtle nesting season at all.
And I hope you keep your bid option of staying outside of turtle
nesting season as well as some encroachment of whatever you want to
do. Don't give that up.
And I wish that we could put up the recommendations of the staff
now so I could make comments to that, because that's what they're
asking you to vote on. We haven't even seen that yet.
So could I ask that that be put up there? And then I'll continue to
talk.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you hold the time please while
that's being done.
Page 82
May 14, 2013
MR. KRASOWSKI: Let me go on. The -- every time I do this I
lose my train of thought. But I apologize.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which slide do you want?
MR. KRASOWSKI: The recommendations.
So I suggest that you keep the truck haul as an option. Word
your RFP however you want. Tell the truck haulers that if they bid it
might be only for a spot use or as an alternative. You don't even have
to bid it for Naples if they're so upset about that. That just that we
have -- well, do it for Naples but we have a comparison as far as cost
goes.
Here on the recommendations you see on number three it says
plus or minus 15 percent volume. The letter that the dredging
companies sent when they did not bid on the bid, it said plus or minus
25 percent. So I don't know who changed that, where that came from.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Fifteen is the industry standard and
25 basically puts you at the span of -- at such a wide span that you
basically are losing control of pricing, you know, within segments, so
15 percent is the norm.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. If 15 percent is the standard, why
did the dredging company allow you 25 percent?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I can't speak to what the dredging
companies -- one company's opinion of what ought to be done. I don't
even know if what they stated is even correct. It was their opinion.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, they're going to be bidding. And --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Again.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And then it says here, preferred
nourishment timing outside of turtle nesting season. What's preferred?
What does that mean? So we should stick to either committing to do
it outside of turtle nesting season or we do the double bid option
where they can bid within the non-turtle nesting season or outside the
turtle nesting season.
And if I can indulge you for just an additional minute, I'd like to
Page 83
May 14, 2013
say that I appreciate your scrutinizing this project. It has resulted in
better understanding of what might be taken up in the performance. A
joint meeting is exactly as you said it. And in my study of this over
the year I've come to the conclusion, mainly what's being done is
accommodating the Army Corps of Engineers' strategy to allow the
accommodation of the dredge industry that cannot work on the other
coast because there's so many turtles during turtle nesting season that
they're allowing them to shift and bring their equipment over here.
It's not just Naples, it's Long Boat Key, it's Sanibel Island,
Captiva Island. They're all planning to do their renourishment in turtle
nesting season. So it's just really a shame that they didn't give a
deeper thought and analysis to what their options might have been.
It's just really too bad.
You have to two things you can do: The one is to put out the bid
to respect turtle nesting season. The other is you can pass a local law
saying that Collier County is not open for beach renourishment during
turtle nesting season. So those are the two things that are up to you.
Thank you very much for your accommodation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll be
followed by Bob Naegele.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Just three points that I'd like to make. Pelican Bay as a
community is absolutely committed to a healthy shoreline, both for its
barrier and protection purposes, as well as its recreation.
To that end we would ask your consideration on item two here
for three areas. And maybe I can ask Bill also to come up and help me
in here a second.
Pelican Bay would like to add another $10,000 (sic) to the
Pelican Bay beach segment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 10,000 cubic yards of sand.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Cubic yards, thank you.
Page 84
May 14, 2013
Recognizing that that would be Pelican Bay's responsibility.
We would also like you to consider extending the Vanderbilt
Beach section a little bit further south and the Park Shore section a
little bit further north. The purpose for Park Shore -- and Leo, I don't
know, how do you put this on and convert it?
The purpose for Park Shore, if you can zoom in right there at
Clam Pass.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where the N is.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes, so where the N is, right there.
That's going to bounce off everything.
Mile marker 42 -- well, marker 42 you can see is where they
have ended it.
To Commissioner Henning's point about beach renourishment
and TDC funds, Pelican Bay provides for two critical beach access
points: Clam Pass Park and Vanderbilt Beach. The garages in Pelican
Bay PUD, Clam Pass Park Beach is within the Pelican Bay PUD.
As it stands right now the section of beach from 42, which is
right at the Clam Pass Park Beach facilities north is not receiving any
sand. And that would seem like a critical beach to put some sand on.
And then the only other question would be here it's always
fascinating to look at how big Vanderbilt Beach -- the county beach is
at Vanderbilt. You can see in the yellow area, that's actually the
county beach and the county property. Everything south of that is The
Ritz and the Pelican Bay PUD.
You can see on here really hard but that there's a lot of dots on
the beach. Which means that people who are using this garage are
coming in and they're setting their umbrellas south. And we would
just ask that you consider renourishing a little bit further south than the
current template provides for, recognizing that much further south,
again, Pelican Bay understands that we need to pick up that and we
are prepared to do that.
But clearly there's a lot of public access that comes off from that
Page 85
May 14, 2013
340-spot garage and moves south and utilizes that beach. So we
would just suggest that that would be a section of beach you'd want to
keep as large and wide as you can.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think it should also be noted
that as far as the entire beach -- could you leave that diagram back up
there? That whole beach immediately to the south of Vanderbilt
Beach Park is half private and half public. So everything to the land
side of the erosion control line is private, everything to the water side
is public. So any sand that's placed down that corridor on the wet sand
side is all public beach, that it isn't benefiting private property, that it
is benefiting the public. And that should be made clear.
And that strip from Vande down to Clam Pass is so heavily
traveled by tourists, it's really remarkable. I was out there a few
weekends ago on a Saturday just to observe, you know, how much
traffic there was. And it is definitely a heavily frequented corridor by
the public.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Bob Naegele, he'll
be followed by Sandra Leddy.
MR. NAEGELE: I have ceded my time to Bob Krasowski.
MR. MILLER: I did give Bob extra time for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Bob, would you like to speak to the
renourishment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He already did.
MR. OCHS: He did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry. But Bob didn't use
all his time.
MR. MILLER: Actually, ma'am, I did give him the extra time. I
just didn't get a chance to edge that into the conversation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because your red light didn't go off.
You were still in green when you left the podium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It did go off and then he --
MR. MILLER: I reset it.
Page 86
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, reset it? My bad, sorry.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker then is Sandra Leddy. She'll
be followed by John Sorey.
MS. LEDDY: Hi, I'm going to be very short. I just made a few
notes.
And I'm speaking against the truck hauling. I live in Park Shore.
I live very close to Park Shore Drive. I remember the last time we
had truck hauling, which was not in 2006, I think it was the one before
that, whenever that was. Trying to get out of any of the side streets
onto Park Shore Drive was impossible.
Now, in season it's impossible anyway, just with the seasonal
residents. You add those trucks to it and nothing moves.
Also, when I came in earlier we were talking about the EMS and
the medical and emergency situations. If you take a look at the
amount of trips that the emergency personnel and vehicles take going
down Park Shore Drive to get to Gulf Shore Boulevard and so forth in
a day, it's amazing. You block that up with those trucks and we're
going to have a lot of problems, situations like you're talking about,
unnecessarily.
The other problem that we have there, very often commercial
traffic, not just the truck haulers but other commercial traffic going
down Park Shore Drive, they see fit to take a shortcut to avoid the
traffic light at Crayton. So they take a little shortcut down Park View
Lane, which happens to be my street, and a couple of the other streets.
Old Trail for example is one that gets a lot of it and so forth.
These side streets are just not built for those big trucks. It's bad
enough that we have the army of landscapers going by with bigger and
bigger vehicles, but we need them. We cannot have the sand going
down there.
One other thing I'd like to mention, as was brought up before, the
sand coming from elsewhere, whether it's Immokalee or wherever, is
not native sand to those beaches -- it's not sand native to those
Page 87
May 14, 2013
beaches. I'm a shell collector. I can't find a single shell on the beach
anywhere in our area anymore. Years ago when we first came here,
oh, my goodness, you could take a walk and at least find a handful.
Now there's nothing. And it's strictly because of the foreign sand --
well, many factors, but one of them is the foreign sand being brought
there and killing what's underneath. Also diving and snorkeling along
there you see nothing. Sand dollars, lots of sand dollars, which is also
not a good thing to see too many of.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You make a very, very good point.
The point you just made about the quality of the sand --
MS. LEDDY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- is critical. And I want to make
sure that that bid specifies like kind and quality sand. Because as I
understand, there's litigation going on up and please hold her time --
that there's litigation I think going on somewhere in the Panhandle, if
I'm not mistaken, I'm not quite sure where, regarding a dispute over
like kind and quality sand. And I think in the instance of that beach
that it involves the color, where the color is different than the color of
the sand on the beach and you have the variation which looks terrible.
So thank you for making that point; that's an excellent
recommendation.
MS. LEDDY: The color of course is reflective of the consistency
of the sand and whatever else is in there. I'm not a geologist but I can
see that.
One other little point I just want to make and then I'll go. The
last time when we had the dredging done, it was as smooth an
operation as could be done. They had a big pipe went along the
beach, you could still get onto the sand, you could still get into the
water, it did not disrupt anything. And it was a pleasure dealing with I
think it was Great Lakes that did that. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Sorey. He'll be
followed by Erika Hanson.
Page 88
May 14, 2013
MAYOR SOREY: Thank you. Thank you, County
Commission.
John Sorey, Mayor, City of Naples and Chair of your Coastal
Advisory Committee.
I'm not going to get into the details of my letter of May 3rd, you
have that and I'll submit a copy to the clerk for the record.
But the key thing is to get this moving. And I do want to thank
Chairwoman Hiller for her position on truck hauls.
The City of Naples has consistently supported spot
renourishment. That's the best way to do hotspots and that sort of
thing.
As far as the quality of the sand, that is clearly in the
specifications, it has to be a certain particle size, has to be certain
organic.
As far as the shells, some of us that have been through this
process multiple times, the reason you don't get the shells now is
because we screen the sand, because some of you remember the rocks.
I think Commissioner Henning well remembers that. So you have to
decide what you want. And I think screening is the proper situation.
We all know how critical the beaches are, and we've got to get
moving.
The key to this is to accept the engineering studies and the
advanced beach renourishment concepts. We shouldn't get bogged
down into the exact quantities, because the quantities, if you accept
the template, the quantities -- we'll do a survey and whatever the
numbers are, that's what the numbers are. And that's why that we need
some plus or minus factor, and I think Chairwoman's 15 percent is
fine.
So the City of Naples supports the recommendations of the staff
and most important request you adopt the dredge concept with a clean
bid today so the staff can immediately begin the process to obtain
these bids. Because if we don't, we're not going to make November 1,
Page 89
May 14, 2013
and we'll have another year without the beaches being renourished.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Erika Hanson. She'll
be followed by Penny Taylor.
MS. HANSON: Thank you for letting me address you. My
name is Erika Hanson. I'm here on behalf of the Board of the Old
Naples Association, of which I sit on. We represent over 2,400
residents in the Old Naples area.
We call on you to reconsider your approach to renourishment of
our beaches. We believe, as Mayor Sorey said, in behalf of the City
Council, pointed out to you in his letter dated May 3rd, that the
thousands of truck trips hauling sand through our neighborhoods to the
beach would create serious disruption and convenience and damage to
our infrastructure, all that being environmentally insensitive.
We hope you will reject the trucking option, decide on a dredging
option the least intrusive and environmentally superior choice. We ask
that you change your bid form and non-site specific approach to
acquiring sand and seek a new bid from a dredging company as soon
as possible.
Thank you for your consideration. The Board of the Old Naples
Association.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Penny
Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman.
I'm here to support a decision being made today. I'm a 30-year
resident of Naples so I've seen what happens when the beach hasn't
been renourished. I've watched people with their homes, concerned
about it. In fact, a friend who was a German woman just was
marveling why aren't these beaches -- this was years ago -- why aren't
these beaches being renourished?
Page 90
May 14, 2013
We live in an extraordinary community, a community with great
beaches and a wonderful reputation. And we need to keep that in
pristine (sic). Because going forward, the competition's out there.
Beach renourishment is a fact of life in Collier County. And I really
appreciate your deliberation and your time, but I would urge you to
take the dredging aspect and to make the decision today. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And that was your final speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
I just want to confirm with staff, is like kind and quality, color all
included in the specs for the bid?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, they were.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I'd just like to say that I'm in
support of the motion. However, I would also like to remind the public
the process that we've been through. Commissioner Hiller rightfully
said that there's been a great movement in the recommendation of staff
and I think it's in the great benefit of this project and the great benefit
of the taxpayers of Collier County.
The original Coastal Planning estimate was over 419,000 cubic
yards. As recently as the April beach renourishment workshop the
number was still 387,000 cubic yards. And today, by going through
and rightfully placing past dredging and other considerations into the
number we now have a final recommended number by staff of
337,000 cubic yards which meets all the criteria and gives us a savings
of 80,000 cubic yards, which I assure the public we will need in the
not too distant future.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, we started at 580.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, what I'm trying to say is I
think we've done journeyman's work here. I know it somehow seemed
tedious. I think the bidding of the truck hauling was also of great
value too, because as sure as God made little green apples we're going
Page 91
May 14, 2013
to do a major beach renourishment and we're going to have a storm
event and we're going to need to do that spot renourishing. And we
need to know who our truckers are what quality of sand they have and
what their capabilities are.
So I think all this puts us in a good stead. I support the motion; I
thank everybody for their tolerance and everybody for their work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any other comments?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I may, just so we're all clear on the Pelican Bay
stretch of the beach and the renourishment proposal, the staff
recommendation was 25,000 cubic yards to be paid for by Pelican
Bay. And that is based on the traditional guidelines that we've used.
Mr. Hoppensteadt made a comment that they would like to have
35,000 cubic yards, and they would be responsible for 10. I just want
to make sure that I have clear direction from this Board on what --
who is going to pay for the Pelican Bay Beach.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's a very difficult question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I assist with --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please come forward,
Mr. Hoppensteadt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board adopted the policy on
beach renourishment based upon public access. Now, your
determination on the placement in Pelican Bay was based upon that
policy?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we've applied two criteria in our
past renourishments. One -- two qualifications, if you will, to use
TDC funding for beach renourishment: One is the definition of a
critically eroded beach that's used by the State of Florida. And your
resolution, Commissioner, as you rightly point out about what
constitutes a public beach, and that is basically defined as access
within a half mile.
Page 92
May 14, 2013
So the staff has a graphic, I think, sir, that would hone in on your
question, if you'd allow us to show that real quickly.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: So Commissioners, just to clarify, the
consultants that the foundation used is Coastal Planning and
Engineering, one that the county has also used. They had
recommended a placement of roughly 35,000 cubic yards, which
would fill -- it's the 25 -- that includes the 25 that's included in that
hotspot, and another 10, which would put some additional sand further
north.
The only thing we're -- and we recognize that as Pelican Bay's
responsibility.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What do you recognize as Pelican
Bay's responsibility?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: The 35.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: What we have asked for is that on this
graphic that where that black dotted line terminates now be extended
further south to be consistent with the half mile guidelines, which will
be into that 35,000 cubic yards a little bit but still recognizes that --
and that was the point of my putting up the map.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And how much more sand would be
needed for that additional renourishment?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: From the -- where is that curser? Does
that come up on this? Oh, yeah.
From this point here to this point here I think we're in agreement
is 35,000. From R30 plus 500 to R37, we believe is a 35,000 cubic
yard number.
All we're asking for is that this -- where this terminates now, as
you can see it projected further out into here. There's a distance here
that still qualifies as beach access from the half a mile within the
distance of the Vanderbilt Beach restrooms that we would like
included in the county's portion.
Page 93
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And how much that is?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Commissioner, I don't know. They'd
have to figure that out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does staff have any idea about what
the quantity might be?
MR. OCHS: Let's go ahead and present. Put that graphic up
there. Take the Board through --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to comment while they're putting up the visual?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the explanation on
the Board's policy. That graph, that last item on the visualizer, Leo, is
that true? Because it really didn't answer my question.
MR. OCHS: No, and that's what we want to cover right now.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, from a renourishment point of
view, what we have used as practice which conforms to the state
guidelines, we've utilized state guidelines, has to have two qualities
associated with it. One is that it has to be designated as a critically
eroded beach and the second is that it has to have public access.
So what we have in Pelican Bay and what you have seen before
-- what you have in Pelican Bay and what you have seen before is that
the critical by yard resolution, the resolution public beach access stops
at 31.5. However, the critical erosion designation stops at 30.5. So
there's 1,000 feet that is in -- that is potentially in dispute at this point
in time.
We renourished to the last -- in 2006, the county renourished to
30.5 and then the Pelican Bay community paid for 30 -- from 30.5 all
the way down to 37.
This is the same thing as what we're proposing at this point in
time. So our proposal to the Pelican Bay community would be from
30.5 to 37, which is the same thing as what we have done before.
However, it is a Board decision whether you would want to
renourish from 30.5 to 31.5. It may be a moot point because in this
Page 94
May 14, 2013
location right in through here the beaches are relatively stable and the
beaches are not in need of renourishment. Where you have seen the
hotspot is further to the south and that's the area where the 25,000
cubic yards are.
So even if the Board decides to renourish down to 31 and a half,
staff would not recommend any sand in that location because sand on
the beach is not needed. But this is a Board decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Hoppensteadt, would you like
to comment?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, while he's coming up I will only say
it again, your past guidelines has been an and, not an or. You've
applied both the critically eroded beach and your resolution on public
beach --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does Doctors Pass qualify for the
and?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't told us yet where the
half mile marker is, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it was a quarter mile in
our policy. We don't even have it. We're being asked to make
decisions and we don't have all the information.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you could show us on the
map where the half mile policy takes us. Is that the 30.5?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: No.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, the half mile policy is identified
in green. It takes you to the 31.5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: Okay? What we have -- the critical erosion
policy is from 30 and a half down to 37. And that's exactly what we
have done before. And that's where that overlap location is of 1,000
lineal feet of beach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, explain to me, if our policy
says that we are to renourish beaches within a half mile of parking
Page 95
May 14, 2013
space, then why are we not renourishing it? Are you saying it doesn't
need to be renourished?
MR. McALPIN: Well, our past practice has been that we use
both criteria, critical erosion and beach access to do that. And that's
the past policy that we've used before.
And in this location right here beach renourishment would not be
needed because of the condition of the beach right now. So staff
would not recommend for this 1,000 feet from 30 and a half to 31 and
a half that that beach be renourished.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then that gets fairly
definitive.
Mr. Hoppensteadt, if the staff doesn't feel it needs to be
renourished, what is your reason for asking that we pay to put sand
there?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: If we can go back to the Park Shore
one?
To clarify, we have different records -- our records may not be as
accurate as county staffs -- that the 2006 renourishment in fact did go
down to the 31.5 marker.
But again, here the areas that the county is renourishing, again is
to the 30 plus 500. This -- by definition, this is not critically eroded
then either. And so all we're asking is that if you're not going to
renourish this cri -- if you're going to renourish this non-critically
eroded area here, that you continue down to the 31.5 and be consistent
with the half mile.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Hoppensteadt, the existing
sand is depicted by the blue line, which shows there's a ton of sand
there where you're asking to put more sand.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: The black line, as I understand it, is the
proposed renourishment standard --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, but the blue line is the
August, 2012 measurement. So as you can see right in segment you're
Page 96
May 14, 2013
looking at, there's way more sand there than your 100 feet. I mean,
you're up to almost 125 feet of beach right now; am I right?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Commissioner Nance, the delta
between your black dotted line and your blue line is not significantly
different here than it is here.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: And so all we're asking for is if you're
going to do renourishment here that you stay consistent and you go
with the 31 and a half and go down to here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion does not include that.
So if there's a good argument for doing it, I'll be happy to revise the
motion. But I don't know why we want to throw sand on a beach that
doesn't need sand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jim, would you like to explain why
it's necessary?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think that's what the Board
needs. I mean, the Board needs an understanding of why this is
needed. I mean, consistency is not a good argument. I mean, if there's
a need and it's a demonstrated need, it can be justified.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Right. This is a -- goes back to my
opening comments. These two beaches are two of your most
important beaches. And obviously we're putting sand on Vanderbilt
Beach for good reasons. I still think that you should renourish Clam
Pass Park, but you haven't included that in your scope of work. That's
fine. Six years is an awful long time to say that the beach isn't going
to need renourishment.
In this section here you've got a critically eroded area. No one
disputes that. From this point forward, if you say the consistency isn't
an issue, then if you're not -- why are you putting sand there? I mean,
you know, you're asking me to answer a question that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand. And that's a question
Page 97
May 14, 2013
I would have of county staff. What I'm asking you is, is there a
problem there or is there an added benefit derived by putting this in in
that location that you're proposing? And then I want staff to explain,
you know, why are we doing what we're doing, you know, with
respect to the argument you just made?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: The only argument that I would say is
that as you can see from this graph that over time erosion happens.
And a part of beach renourishment is to prevent future erosion. And
as Commissioner Nance has pointed out, there has been some
accretive benefits of beach renourishment in Collier County. The
more you renourish the less sand you need each time you have a
renourishment event.
So you have an opportunity now, you're going to renourish.
Renourish down to where you have public beach access and know that
it's going to be there for the next six years. I don't understand why
you'd stop. But that's up to you.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if I may, I think Commissioner
Nance is correct in that if you look at this area, in 2012 you could see
that it is above our standard and it is not in need of a renourishment.
The other thing that we have to consider, that as we place sand in
this location here you'll get a down drift effect. So in fact this -- this
beach will equilibrate and the sand will go down drift, so there will be
some natural renourishment of this location right in through here as
this sand goes to the down drift portion of the beach.
We simply did not renourish this area in here because it wasn't
needed and because it wasn't a critically eroded designation by the
state.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The one thing that's perplexing to
me is CP&E represents the Pelican Bay and CP&E represents the
county. I really don't understand how CP&E could have two different
opinions on the same issue.
MR. LORENZ: Well, they don't.
Page 98
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: It's not a question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They did not recommend that?
CP&E did not recommend what you're proposing?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: No, I think the representation that you
have here of the critically eroded areas is consistent in both reports.
CP&E recognized that this area was critically eroded in Pelican Bay
and needed it, and recommended that if we wanted a longer term
beach renourishment approach that we put the additional 10,000 cubic
yards of sand back north, and so we're going to do that. But this is
consistent with CP&E's report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
I'd like to see, with respect to Doctors Pass, where both criteria, if
you say both criteria are required, are satisfied, the critical erosion
plus access. And I'm talking the area immediately to the south of
Doctors Pass where the substantial erosion has occurred.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioner. If you look on this,
you'll see the same --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what is the criteria? You aid a
half a mile or a quarter mile?
MR. McALPIN: It is a half a mile. The -- a half a mile of public
beach access at Doctors Pass. Doctors Pass is -- what we have done is
this whole area of the beach has beach access to it. So this whole
beach segment has beach access, as per our ordinance. And what we
were doing is this is what the planned renourishment would be for the
Naples Beach. You'd hit from Doctors Pass south to R64 and then
you'd pick up again from R69 to R72. And so that's what we would
look at.
But the public beach access is all the way to R79. This whole
section is also designated as critically eroded by the state.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Let me just focus again on
the -- I guess R59, R58 and up to the mouth of the pass. Is it R58
where -- from the mouth of the pass to R58 where the predominant
Page 99
May 14, 2013
erosion is?
McALPIN: This area right in through here is where the
predominant erosion is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's where the bulk of the
renourishment is going to go.
MR. McALPIN: The bulk of the renourishment would go from
the Pass down to R60, ma'am, and that's where --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That area --
MR. McALPIN: -- the majority of work --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That area from the Pass to R58,
what is the distance to the public access?
MR. McALPIN: This distance to the public access -- the public
access is at Lowdermilk Park. And the distance to the public access, a
half mile stops in this location here. But if you read the ordinance, the
ordinance says if 80 percent of the entire beach segment is -- has
public beach access, then the entire beach segment has public beach
access.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that's also critically eroded?
MR. McALPIN: And it is also critically eroded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that 80 percent rule doesn't
apply to the Vanderbilt Beach?
MR. McALPIN: It would, Madam Chair. I mean, I think that we
would interpret it that way. But the Vanderbilt Beach area would be
not critically eroded.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
If we could have a copy of that policy also. Thank you. Maybe
you could email a copy to all members of the Board?
MR. McALPIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can I call for the question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further comment or
Page 100
May 14, 2013
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.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we have two choices. We can
break for lunch now or we can hear the two EMS items and break at
1:00.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would ask the individuals who are
present for the EMS items if they would like to break for lunch now or
if they would like to hear those two items and then we would have a
hard break at 1:00. If the court reporter is willing.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, just a remainder to the Board, you
have a 1:00 p.m. time certain, but it's the CRA loan extension, so I
don't think there's any outside interest in that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, there isn't.
MR. OCHS: We can slide that. You also have the 3:00 p.m. --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not a problem.
MR. OCHS: -- Whippoorwill extension.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. That we definitely have to
hold.
So would it be the pleasure of the EMS speakers to be heard now
or wait 'til after lunch at 1:30?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. If it goes longer
than a half an hour, because there's two items to be discussed, then --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll have to come back after
Page 101
May 14, 2013
lunch. We're going to break at 1:00 regardless, because our court
reporter needs to take a break..
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have somebody waiting in my
office, so if you excuse me just a moment, I'll just have to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- send them on their way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is it we're going to do?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think it looks like the people
who want to speak to EMS would like to be heard now? Janet? Yeah,
I think it looks like they would like to be heard now. So let's go ahead
and hear the EMS items.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, would you like to hear 10.G for 10.H?
10.G has to do with clarification from the Board on the evaluation
criteria and process for the Medical Director candidates, and 10.H has
to do --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's start with 10.H, because I
think that will be much shorter. We can make sure we get rid of that
item to be able to devote more time to the other, if need be.
(At which time, Commissioner Henning exited the Boardroom.)
Item #10H
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THE
CREATION OF A COUNTYWIDE OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL
DIRECTOR ("OMD") TO PROVIDE OUTSTANDING CLINICAL
OVERSIGHT TO ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY'S EMERGENCY
CARE PROVIDERS, SO THAT COLLECTIVELY THESE
PROVIDERS CAN DELIVER COMPASSIONATE AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AT THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PATIENT CLINICAL CARE.
THE OMD WOULD CONSIST OF THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
Page 102
May 14, 2013
DEPUTY MEDICAL DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE MEDICAL
DIRECTORS (REPRESENTING THE ALS SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND BLS TRANSPORT PROVIDERS FROM
ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY), AN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND AN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR. (ONLY THE POSITIONS OF THE MEDICAL
DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY MEDICAL DIRECTOR WOULD BE
COUNTY FUNDED.) THE OMD WOULD CONSIST OF 5
DIVISIONS: 1. CLINICAL PRACTICE OF MEDICINE/MEDICAL
PROTOCOL COORDINATION 2. PERFORMANCE
MEASURE/RESEARCH 3. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 4.
CONTINUING EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AND
COORDINATION 5. STRATEGIC INITIATIVE COORDINATION
- MOTION TO FORWARD THE IDEA TO THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AUTHORITY FOR THEIR REVIEW AND INPUT AND
FOR THEM TO BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE
SECOND BOARD MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, 2013 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10.H, Commissioners, was a recommendation that
the Board consider the creation of a countywide office of Medical
Director. It was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller. And I will
turn that back to the Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
This idea was actually brought to me by George Aguilar of the
North Naples Fire District. And I thought it was a very good idea and
one that I wanted to document as a suggestion for the PSA to review.
And of course the PSA can explore this idea in any way they want.
They can accept it, reject it, modify it and then bring it back to the
Board and then the Board with PSA's input can make a decision
whether or not they would like to see a restructuring of the office of
the Medical Director.
Page 103
May 14, 2013
What I liked about this is that it basically brought all the medical
directors within the county from both the private and the
governmental agencies under one umbrella. Obviously these medical
directors remain hired by their -- by the entities that they represent.
But in terms of working together, they fall under the office of the
Medical Director. And then the idea further proposed, having
divisions within that office of the Medical Director, staffed by
volunteers from the various service providers to address the critical
projects and objectives of the office of the Medical Director. Again,
under a comprehensive umbrella.
And it was the inclusiveness and the intent to have people
working together that I really liked -- that is the reason I really liked
this model and why I wanted to suggest that the PSA look at it and
deliberate it and bring it back to the Board.
And again, you know, the PSA may have a different opinion or
maybe a different alternative recommendation. And if there are other
recommendations put forward, you know, multiple models, and after
the office -- after the Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director
are selected down the road, have them involved and then consider, you
know, potentially a redesign of that office.
So my motion is to move this down to the PSA, let them review
it, let them come back with their recommendations for Board
consideration in the fall, in September, and then the Board can make
an informed decision as to either maintaining or changing what we
have.
Yes, Commissioner Nance -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle was
first, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- just a reaction. I think
this is an unnecessary addition of bureaucracy and complexity to the
process that we already have. And I don't quite understand about the
EMS counsel. As I understand about the EMS council. As I
understand the EMS council, that's something that's pretty much
Page 104
May 14, 2013
directed by the North Naples Fire District. So I think we've created a
public safety authority and we need to let the public safety authority
get started and we need to get a Medical Director appointed. And to
start changing the organization in the middle of that I think is
inappropriate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It would be changed subsequent to
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It would be changed subsequent to
that, if the recommendation is to change. One of the
recommendations could be to maintain. I mean, the PSA may come
back and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why waste their time on
something until -- if we don't even have a decision on a Medical
Director? Certainly you need a Medical Director involved in the
process of evaluating this, and I just think it's premature, even if it has
some good benefits. And I really don't think it does.
But in any event, I would not vote in favor of it and I would leave
it up to the public safety administration -- or authority, and deal with it
after we have gotten through the process of selecting a Medical
Director.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: When is the Medical Director going
to be selected? Next meeting, probably?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Probably never.
MR. OCHS: It was due to come to you at the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. So we'll just assume it will
come to us at the next meeting.
So this would actually be brought back to us in September, so the
PSA would have the opportunity to work with the newly appointed
Medical Director and Deputy to consider a restructuring if the
decision is made that that is the direction to go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me finish.
Page 105
May 14, 2013
There is no way of knowing right now when it's coming back,
okay? There is no way of knowing when the Medical Director is
going to be selected because, as I have pointed out before to this
Board, there is no urgency to choosing a new Medical Director, that
the PSA should have time to do an adequate job. Even next week isn't
time for an adequate job. The week after that is not time to do an
adequate job. We need to give them the time they think they require
in order to go through the process of selecting a Medical Director, or
not selecting a Medical Director but to review the applicants and make
recommendations to us.
But we haven't even heard that item yet, so we cannot say that
they're going to be making recommendations at the next meeting or
next week or even next month.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. You know, I tend to agree
with Commissioner Coyle, that it could be a lot more bureaucratic
than the arrangement we have now. However, that said, if the Chair's
motion is to allow the Public Safety Authority an open opportunity to
contemplate this, I see no reason, if we don't restrict them to the way
this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There is no restriction, it's definitely
open.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- the way the item reads and
there's no time line, and allow them to engage in conversations at will,
I see no reason that, you know, they shouldn't consider it at their
leisure when it's appropriate. If it's open --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's open.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- I would support it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's open, but it should have a time
line. Everything needs a time line. Otherwise things don't come back.
So the time line is September, the second meeting in September,
2013, which is months away.
Page 106
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a point of clarification
here. Is this going to be a suggestion to the PSA to make
recommendations to us concerning how the Medical Director will
function within the PSA, or are you saying that it is a suggestion that
the Public Safety Administration consider the adoption of these
particular procedures?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The recommendation is that we put
this forward to the PSA for review and input to be brought back for,
you know, adoption or rejection, as the case may be, by the Board.
So the PSA can take this, they can say it sounds great, the PSA
can take this and say we think half of this is great, and they can take
this and they can say we don't like it at all. And whatever they
recommend they can bring back.
But I thought when the idea was presented it had merit and so I
thought it would be a good idea to let the PSA explore it. This could
be the starting point for some sort of a reorganization or it could be
rejected in whole. But why not allow the PSA the opportunity to
consider an idea?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have a problem with
that. But you see, the way it is written is it is not an idea at all, it's
written so that they will bring it back for adoption at the second
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Now, if you wanted
to change that to say we want to get their recommendations
concerning this by the second meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, I have no problem with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we are asking for that, for
review and input for the PSA. And as far as bringing something back
for adoption in the second meeting of the board, the PSA doesn't
provide direction for adoption, the Board does. So that decision
would be made by one of the members of the board. Like in this
particular case I would bring something back. If the PSA came back
and said it was a great idea, I would put it up on the agenda for the
Page 107
May 14, 2013
second meeting of September. If the PSA would say it's not a good
idea, I wouldn't do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then for the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, the recommendation for
adoption would come from a member of this Board. And the
recommendation as to whether it should be considered for adoption
would come from the PSA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then what we're asking the PSA is
to give us their recommendations concerning this suggestion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, review and input.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And give us those
suggestions and their recommendations at the second meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners, okay? And then when it's heard by
the Board of County Commissioners you can make a motion that it be
adopted.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But right now talking about
adoption is very premature.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're not talking about adoption.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please forgive me, but the
executive summary says exactly that. And you can't have an executive
summary that says for adoption if you're talking about giving -- asking
them for input.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, the executive summary says for
review and input from the PSA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For adoption.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, to be brought back for adoption
by the Board. It's not adoption by the PSA. It's review and input by
the PSA. We're looking for a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then say that.
Page 108
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it in a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any speakers?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. MILLER: Not for 10.H, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So again, the motion is to take this
idea which was presented by Chief Aguilar and push it down to the
PSA to allow them to review what's being proposed for them to
provide input back to the Board so that if the Board wants it can
accept or reject, whatever the PSA recommends, with respect to any
sort of possible restructuring, this being one possible example.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just ask a couple questions?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've had my button on. So if you
don't mind?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, first thing is, doesn't the PSA
have a sub-committee already that addresses all of the medical
directors together --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and they meet?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it sounds like it's already being
done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I don't know if it's being done
or not. Again, this is just an idea of a structure that they could
consider. If they're doing it, then this might be a structure they might
want to contemplate. It might be a structure they would like to reject.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how much are we talking about
as far as dollars go?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There are no costs involved. It's
Page 109
May 14, 2013
staffed by people who are already, you know, volunteers. The only
two staff --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No costs involved at all?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The two costs that we have already
are the Medical Director and the Deputy Medical Director. And the
only cost to the county would be the office space, which I believe we
-- do we already provide office space for the Medical Director and
Deputy Medical Director?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. So basically then -- and I
wasn't sure about that, so I included that as a possible cost. So
basically no cost.
MR. OCHS: The question is on the executive director and the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no cost.
MR. OCHS: -- assistant executive director.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It would have to come back in a
future recommendation, so at that time if there was a recommendation
to incur costs, we would have to review --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- it and approve it at that time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the suggestion I said was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says besides the Medical Director,
it says an executive director and an assistant executive --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if you read the parenthetical it
said only the positions of Medical Director and Deputy Medical
Director would be county funded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So how did the other things
get funded? That's my --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They're volunteers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: An executive director would be
volunteer?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, volunteer positions.
Page 110
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would like to add that there
is a --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And like I said, this idea was
originated --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please don't interrupt me. Let me
talk, please.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Anyone who occupies one of these
positions I hope would be spending enough time in those positions to
do a good job. And when that happens, there's always a cost. If
you're going to staff those positions with people from the fire districts,
the people who pay for it are taxpayers, so there's going to be a cost to
the taxpayers one way or another for creating this additional
bureaucracy. It does not happen free of charge. And you don't want
to just have volunteers whose do it on a part-time basis dealing with
such important matters. So it's a pipe dream that this thing is going to
be no cost to taxpayers. It's going to cost taxpayers.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's like all of our advisory boards.
You know, our advisory boards cost how much? I'd like to see that.
I'd like to see the cost of all of our advisory boards to the taxpayers.
I'd like that analysis to come back.
I think Commissioner Coyle makes a good point. Let's evaluate
all advisory boards and make a determination if they should be kept.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How -- I don't think that's what you
said at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But why don't we select the
volunteers -- excuse me, but who selects the volunteers that work on
this? Do they -- you know, that's another criteria. So then now we're
going to have volunteers to run this very, very important office, and
who selects those volunteers?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let the PSA --
Page 111
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: North Naples Fire District.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let the PSA make that
determination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you should have that
conversation over lunch.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Me too.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree.
So that's my motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second the motion to let
them take it under advisement and come back to us with some
thoughts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In September?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: At the end of September.
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? Who's opposed? Is
anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as it's coming back for just
input. I'm not opposed to input.
Item #10G
Page 112
May 14, 2013
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CLARIFY IT'S
INTENT/DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ROLE OF THE
PSA IN THE EVALUATION OF APPLICANTS FOR THE
POSITION OF MEDICAL DIRECTOR/DEPUTY MEDICAL
DIRECTOR - MOTION DIRECTING THE PSA TO PROCEED
WITH THEIR SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF
CANDIDATES — APPROVED; MOTION TO PROVIDE THE PSA
A STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE LIAISON AND A COUNTY
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE — APPROVED; MOTION
AMENDED TO ALLOW THE PSA TIME TO GATHER
RANKINGS AND TO BRING THE RANKINGS BACK TO THE
JUNE 25TH BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to 10.G, and that's a
recommendation that the Board clarify its intent/direction with respect
to the role of the PSA in the evaluation of applicants for the position
of Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I bought brought this forward
because the chair of the -- thank you. What is this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's just something I wanted to
pass out with regard to this particular item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, at the PSA meeting there was
some question, and actually the director -- the chair, I should say -- of
the PSA called me and asked for clarification. And I gave him what I
thought was the conclusion of the Board on this matter.
And certainly since I had brought the executive summary
forward on this matter, what I interpreted would be the role of the
PSA. But quite frankly, my recommendation that this go back to the
PSA for them to give input I think is completely inappropriate. I don't
think the PSA can play any role in the selection of the Medical
Director as a selection committee, for the very reason that it's
completely conflicted in doing so.
Page 113
May 14, 2013
I think what the County Manager did in hiring the business
development director for Collier County, Mr. Bruce Register, was
very appropriate. What he did was he had a meet and greet to allow
people to get to know the various candidates and then, you know,
basically in an informal manner solicited input and then made a
decision.
We as a county, as I understand, when we form our selection
committees for purchasing, do not allow the department that is going
to basically be doing business with that particular vendor to be the
selection committee. We put together a selection committee of --
actually a whole bunch of people, not including that department, to
avoid the conflict issue, for obviously reasons.
So while I initially felt that it should go back to the PSA, my
motion is that it not go back to the PSA where the PSA would act as a
selection committee but rather that the PSA be allowed to do exactly
what the County Manager did with our Economic Development
Director, have a meet and greet and then let the individual candidates
meet with the Board of County Commissioners either individually or
in another meet and greet and then let the Board make the decisions
based on the evaluations that have been presented -- or not the
evaluations, I'm sorry, the resumes that have been presented.
So that's my recommendation, and I'm going to make a motion to
that effect.
Do I have a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, there being no second,
further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion fails for lack of a second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion fails for lack of a second.
Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I was the first one.
Page 114
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you mentioned a couple of
times the word selection committee, PSA being the selection. I don't
think we ever asked them to be a selection committee. We asked them
to rate everybody. And I certainly think that they could do that, and
they can help us along in that line before any selection committee
would even convene.
So I just want -- unless I'm understanding what selection and
rating mean as something different than what you mean, I don't think
that applies.
And I had so many other questions. I wanted to read a note from
Ed Morton. In here it said according to Ed Morton --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, that's what he had said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I emailed him and said, did
you say this? Is this what you meant? And he wrote me a letter back.
And I wouldn't mind reading it into the record, if that would be all
right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure, why don't you put it on the
overhead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Leo, do you have a copy of
that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But read it also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was going to call you
regarding this reprehensible attempt to assassinate the character of a
man who has devoted his life to emergency medicine and the citizens
of Collier County. Obviously Dr. Tober is not perfect and the BCC
has every right to select another Medical Director when his contract
expires. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do so. I should
add that in working with Dr. Tober for 30 years I never once
witnessed him making a decision that was not motivated by what was
best for the patient. That being said, in my opinion, the PSA was
conceived as a mechanism whereby complicated issues, being clinical,
Page 115
May 14, 2013
procedural or administrative, could be vetted by a panel of experts,
who in turn would make a thoughtful recommendation to the BCC.
When I was originally asked the question at last week's PSA
meeting whether or not in my opinion the PSA as originally conceived
by the Blue Ribbon committee would be responsible for selecting the
Medical Director of Collier County, my answer was no. In my
opinion, at the time we recommended that the PSA be formed, I
believed that the selection of the Medical Director of Collier County
EMS had been already been made and a contract was in place for Dr.
Tober. I was not asked whether the PSA or the BCC is best equipped
to vet candidates for the position of Medical Director of Collier
County EMS.
The PSA is an entity whose mission will evolve over time. Its
mission is not nor should it be rigid. Just as situations change, so do
missions. If the BCC is going to seek applicants for the position of
Medical Director prior to the expiration of Dr. Tober's contract, which
I believe is unwarranted, then who better to vet applicants for said
position than the PSA. The agenda item suggesting that Dr. Tober's
clinical protocols are responsible for untold outcomes is sophistry of
the first order and we have no place in civil society. This is all about
power and money and the victims are the citizens of Collier County.
So in summary, I believe the PSA is far better suited to rank and
evaluate candidates for the position of Medical Director of Collier
County EMS than is the BCC. Feel free to use anything I have said in
this email as you see fit. All the best, Ed.
And he called me and said he would be here today, except he's on
his way to Detroit. So I said if he wouldn't mind I'd read it, and I
wanted to put it in the public record. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I -- since the first
motion failed, I would merely like to make a motion that we reiterate
our former direction to the PSA, that they are to review, interview the
Page 116
May 14, 2013
applicants and to rank the applicants and forward them to the Board of
County Commissioners for final decision. That was what we said at
that meeting, that was what we meant at that meeting. And no single
commissioner sitting on this dais has the right or the responsibility to
undermine a decision made by the majority of the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion. But let me
add, Commissioner Hiller made a point before and I liked that point,
and that was maybe after they rank them and so forth, maybe we could
have a coffee or something in the back so we can talk with each of
them ourselves before any selection is made.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do anything we want to. I
just want to give direction to the PSA to proceed as they were
proceeding before they were told to change their procedures. And I
strongly object to the manner in which that was done. And none of us
is more important than the other one. We all have one vote. And we
should not be interfering in the activities of what we hope is an
unbiased advisory board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which is exactly why I put this on
the agenda, to bring it back to the Board for clarification, since it was
clear that it wasn't clear in the mind of the Chair or the members of the
PSA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was clear in the minds of every
member of that committee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it wasn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not one of them said that the
procedure was not clear. They said we don't have enough time to do
this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, they --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, they did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: When the chair called me, he said it
wasn't clear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I watched the entire meeting,
Page 117
May 14, 2013
and I know what each person said. And not one of them said we don't
know what you wanted us to do. They said we don't have time to do
it.
And I fully agree with that. It is absolutely stupid to try to ram
this thing through in such a short period of time. And we should let
the PSA get the job done properly rather than trying to meet some
artificially imposed deadline.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, thank you, Commissioner
Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I could support the
motion if we lose the sensationalism of the issue and move on. I'm
getting hungry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me too.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I look forward to any and all
information from the Public Service Authority. I think it's clear to the
public and to everybody involved that there are many interests
involved. And I don't have absolutely any problem with somebody
recommending somebody they know, somebody that's their boss,
somebody that they work for or anything else. Because I'll tell you
why: They are the people that know those folks best. So if somebody
wants to recommend somebody for a position to me and they know
them well and I know what their interests and their relationship are,
I'm fine with that. It's subjective information coming to the Board. I
look forward to any and all in any level of detail anybody cares to
advise me, and I appreciate it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I personally look
forward to objective information as opposed to subjective information.
In the interest of the public, I think everything ought to be objective.
Our public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have three speakers. Your first speaker
Page 118
May 14, 2013
is Michael Ramsey and he will be followed by Janet Vasey.
MR. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Michael R. Ramsey. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association, a resident of the county and I also live in the
Estates.
I'm standing here today representing I think what is an unheard
voice in most of this most of the time. I'm the area consumer in this.
I believe and our group believes that the creation of the PSA is
the result of a process that continues a good idea from the Blue
Ribbon committee. But most important issue I feel today before the
BCC is to make a decision to develop a process in order to create a
more effective emergency medical delivery system and oversight for
the end consumer, now and in the future.
Today the PSA is in a growth -- in its growth and development is
still an infant, I believe in the experience and knowledge it needs as a
group. To become an effective advisory board, it's not there yet. The
current debacle in the PSA in regards to the Medical Director's
position points out what we feel are five areas that need to be
addressed to continue the development of the PSA as an effective
advisory board trying to cultivate an emergency medical delivery
system.
First: The PSA's primary task I thought was to make
recommendations to develop a cost-effective and efficient emergency
medical services delivery division.
Second: The PSA should not be choosing the candidates to
evaluate for Medical Director. The committee doesn't have enough
experience at this point we believe to weather this fire storm. It needs
more time.
Third: The search for candidates should be statewide, we
believe. This deprives the BCC, the PSA and the end consumer
exposure to other qualified candidates and the valuable experience that
goes along with that process.
Page 119
May 14, 2013
Fourth: Candidates for the medical director's position should be
determined by an outside firm objectively as to medical certifications,
requirements and accomplishments.
And last: The top five candidates should be sent to the BCC and
PSA for interviews after that process where they focus primarily on
emergency medical service delivery system, which is what we've been
working on.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You have a lot of good ideas.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be
followed by Michael Pettit.
MS. VASEY: Good afternoon. Janet Vasey, for the record.
I have two parts to my discussion.
One: For the record, I would like to draw -- I mean, as a
deputized member of the committee, I would like to draw your
attention to Reg Buxton's email wherein he was -- our committee
voted that we needed to know how we should proceed with these
applications. And also we asked for a county liaison. And that was in
his email. He's not here, so I bring it to your attention.
Now I would like to do my part, which is where I'm just speaking
for myself. And here I'd like to say that I hope you do reaffirm your
previous direction to have the PSA interview and rank candidates for
the Medical Director. We have amazing qualifications on the
committee to be able to do this work. We have emergency room
doctors. We will absolutely take Dr. Tober and Dr. Panozzo away
from any consideration since they are applicants. But still left on the
committee, we have emergency room doctors who see patients that are
transported to the hospitals by EMS. They can tell if protocols are
working or not. We have paramedics and EMTs on the committee that
execute the protocols of the Medical Director. Who else -- I mean,
this is totally knowledgeable about what is required for a Medical
Director to do.
Page 120
May 14, 2013
We have hospital administrators; we have the chief of EMS; we
have a fire chief who also supports with ALS, Advanced Life Support;
we have Sheriff and police representatives at the committee. I can't
imagine another committee that would be better suited to take a look
at the experience and the education and the contributions of these
candidates.
Also, you have already entrusted us to evaluate your Medical
Director. I think -- we do this annually. I think it starts when he turns
his information in in the beginning of June and we come to you the
end of July. You've entrusted us to do that kind of an evaluation. I
think if we can evaluate that, we can certainly evaluate candidates.
On the county liaison, the committee voted to ask you to appoint
a county liaison to work with us. All of your major committees have
county liaisons. Senior staff who facilitate all the kinds of issues that
we deal with, make sure information is available, since none of the
people can talk to each other under the sunshine, that person is used to
make sure that information is disseminated properly.
It's a very important situation. And most of you are familiar with
it from -- I know from the Productivity Committee where we had
several excellent county liaison members, including Mike Sheffield.
And so we would really hope that you would appoint someone to this
position and allow us to work efficiently.
And also, I think if you want us to be successful, this is an
integral part of it. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Mike Pettit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excuse me, Madam Chair, can I
just add one thing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The committee also suggested that
they have a legal representative present, because they raised some
questions that they couldn't answer themselves. There's even a
suggestion that the members of the Sheriffs Department, if they
Page 121
May 14, 2013
participate on this particular committee for the purpose of
recommending medical directors, that they are somehow serving dual
agency status, which is illegal.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which wouldn't that be true of all
the other members in the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- probably not, because the
others aren't sworn people. But I'm not sure, but it probably would be
good to have a member of our legal staff there. But it is certainly true
that a lot of administrative coordination has to be done.
So I would suggest that we provide them the administrative
support and we also have an attorney there at least initially in their
meetings for this purpose so that they feel more comfortable about the
legal requirements.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah it would be fine to do that. I would
just tell you that we don't give legal advice to the Sheriff. They have
their own attorneys. I mean, the Sheriff is his own constitutional
offer. I talk to their attorneys all the time. So that's really the
approach I would take with the Sheriff. But we'd be happy to send
somebody there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the question becomes, you
know, how are you advising these members in their capacity as
members of this advisory board, you know, given that they all have
attorneys of their own from all their respective agencies?
MR. KLATZKOW: It would just be as a county advisory board,
no more.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's important.
Yes, go ahead.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit
here for Dr. Tober again. I'll try to be as brief as possible, because
like Commissioner Henning, I'm hungry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's buying?
Page 122
May 14, 2013
MR. PETTIT: I can't buy for you, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe after tomorrow.
MR. PETTIT: Let me use my three minutes up here.
This is a very important issue. This is an issue about the integrity
of your process.
I wrote to all of you prior to the March 12th meeting and I said
Dr. Tober was not opposed to a genuinely competitive process. The
concern we had was that the criteria that were being injected into the
process at that point seemed to screen him and Dr. Lee out, because
affiliations of a hospital, highly qualified candidates. We felt perhaps
the favor of political supporters or favor of people who were favored
by political supporters of the Chair. We had debate and discussion
here in the sunshine, and it came out pretty well.
And I'll also tell you that I applaud the Chair for changing her
mind on those criteria. And she agreed, along with everyone else, I
think Commissioner Henning dissenting, to send this matter to the
PSA, and she said, and she used the words, and you've all read the
minutes, she used the words rank the applicants. It was crystal clear
what the Board decided to do that day. I think that the staff created an
RFP. And if you look at the RFP, which was out on the street for a
while, it had criteria in it, it had points attached to them. This didn't
come out before the RFPs were open.
Which again raises this concern about the integrity of your
process. I'm not sure who called whom. I know that the advisory
board member, a PSA member says in the paper and quoted in the
paper, for whatever that's worth, I don't remember who called whom.
The bottom line is the integrity of the process is important. I
think you just reiterate what you did before, you tell the PSA to do its
work, rank the candidates and bring all the applicants back to the
Board. It's as simple as that.
MR. MILLER: And that was your final speaker on this item.
Page 123
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And the motion again is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To reiterate our former guidance to
the PSA to review the applications, interview the applicants and rank
them and provide that information to the Board of County
Commissioners. And that we should also direct staff to provide an
administrative liaison to the PSA and to have an attorney available to
answer their questions concerning their functions during this election
process.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would prefer if you -- could you
bifurcate that in two separate motions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to, whatever is easier.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So separate the administrative
liaison, the County Attorney as a separate motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I can do that. Just consider
them separate motions then.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'll second the second motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
let's vote on the first motion, which is to send it back to the PSA for
ranking. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Next motion is to provide an administrative liaison, the presence
of the County Attorney at the PSA meetings. All in favor?
Page 124
May 14, 2013
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: Lunch.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Lunch.
County Manager, how do you want to handle this?
MR. OCHS: Well, we'll come back at 2:00 with your 1:00 time
certain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. Which we don't have
any speakers on. It really probably should not have been made a time
certain.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Meeting is back to order.
The next item on the agenda, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair, it's Item 14.B.1, your 1:00 p.m.
time certain, if you would like to go into session as the CRA, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you do that, could I just
make a brief comment, Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: During the last debate concerning
the PSA, I failed to include in my motion a suggestion that we give
them a little more time. I included that in my motion initially, but
when you asked me to restate it I failed to restate that portion. So I
would just like to see if the Board has any objections to providing that
instruction to the staff to give the PSA a little more time to do their
Page 125
May 14, 2013
job.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How much more time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I think they should be able to
determine that. I think at least two or three weeks. But I think they
might be best qualitied to make that decision.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So when would the Board like to
have the PSA bring back the Medical Director ranking?
MR. OCHS: You have two opportunities for regular meetings in
June, Commissioners, the 11th of June and the 25th of June.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Either one of those would be fine
with me, whichever the Board would --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What would the Board like? Would
the Board like to see it come back at the 11th or the 25th?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 25th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll go with the 25th.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm fine with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the motion has been amended to
include that the PSA do its rankings and that the Board review the
rankings and make a decision as to who the medical director will be
June 25th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Page 126
May 14, 2013
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Chairman Nance, would you like to convene the
CRA board, sir?
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. The Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency is now in session. We're on Item
14.B.1; is that correct, sir?
Item #14B1
CRA RESOLUTION 2013-108: THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVES A
RESOLUTION CONTAINING THE FORM OF A BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA RESTRUCTURING LOAN
AGREEMENT WITH FIFTH THIRD BANK - THE SERIES 2013
TAXABLE NOTE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,557,900;
AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION; AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. PURSUANT TO
NOTICE REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 163.346, FLORIDA
STATUTES — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This item is a recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency approves a resolution containing the form of
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA restructuring loan agreement
with Fifth/Third Bank, the Series 2013 Taxable Note, in the amount of
$7,557,900; authorize the CRA chairman to sign the authorizing
resolution; and authorize all necessary budget amendments pursuant to
the notice required under Section 163.346, Florida Statutes.
Commissioners, I'll remind you there's a companion item on the
Board of County Commissioners agenda that will immediately follow
this item, and it's in fact an identical agreement.
Page 127
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's 11.C.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr.
Isackson for a brief presentation.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, County Manager.
For the record, Mark Isackson with the County Manager's Office.
Item 14.B.1 begins on Page -- Packet Page 728. And essentially
you have a resolution before you. The Board as the CRA, which
contains the form of a restructuring loan agreement with Fifth/Third
Bank, the series 2013 taxable note in the amount of $7,557,900. This
was noticed pursuant to the Statute 163.346.
The executive summary contains quite a bit of information
regarding the lineage of this process taken over about 24 months.
We've been able to what we think strike a reasonable deal with
Fifth/Third Bank to extend this note another five years to June, 2018.
And I'd be happy to entertain any questions --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to accept
the resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I just have one question, Mr.
Isackson. And it's a link here. But I'd just like to know if you knew
off the top of your head what the current asset value is that the CRA --
the Bayshore CRA inventory consists of and how does it compare
with its indebtedness.
MR. ISACKSON: I don't have that information, Mr. Chairman,
but I'd be happy to give you the latest appraisal reports that we have. I
don't recall that information off the top of my head.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's see if there's -- is
there any further discussion on this agenda item from any members?
Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The appraised value is what
matters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, what did you say?
Page 128
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The appraised values are what
matters so --
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah, I think they're -- I'm guessing right
now, but I think they're still well below what we purchased for the
property.
I think what you're going to do is by extending the term of this,
you're going to allow the market hopefully to catch up. If there can be
some redevelopment opportunity with those properties under an
increasing market value and then a possible selloff of that, you'll be in
a better position to hopefully pay this loan off within this five-year
window that you've got.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you could go ahead and give us
the appraised values, what we acquired those assets for --
MR. ISACKSON: We'll provide that information to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- what the loss is and then the
loan to value ratio also. Thank you.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there no further discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: The motion passes unanimously.
I'd like to make one -- just one more comment. I believe that we
have -- I'm very interested in the information, I'm sure the other
commissioners are too, in what you're going to bring forward to tell us
what the status is.
Page 129
May 14, 2013
But I think after that when we realize what our situation is, I
believe although we now have five years to try to figure out what to
do, I believe at some point we should have you, Mr. Isackson, and
perhaps other people from perhaps the Clerk's financial people,
perhaps some of our real estate people sit down and consider what sort
of suggested strategy we can have to take us to a good area.
And, you know, I don't want to delay it too long. I just want to
make sure everybody understands what the circumstances are and you
know we have a difference --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance, the finance
committee has been doing that. And we had already directed that they
develop a strategy. So, you know, they have actually given us one,
this being one of the components of it.
And what you might want to do is review what they have
proposed and see where we are and then have them give us an update.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: That would be fine.
If nothing further --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll add to that. Just one thing. One
of the things about a CRA, they operate very differently than other
parts of the government, as you well know, because they're all about
changing the location and improving it, upgrading it to then in the end
have better tax value. But, you know, there's some different
investment opportunities than you would have in other areas.
And if -- I think when any evaluation is done, that consideration
ought to be taken into effect. You can't judge an area in the same way
you would judge like -- I mean, you can't judge Bayshore like you
would Pelican Bay. It's just they're different animals and they have
different objectives. So I think that ought to be taken into
consideration. Thank you.
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Hearing no other
comments, Commissioner Henning, anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
Page 130
May 14, 2013
CRA CHAIRMAN NANCE: Then we'll close the session of the
Community Redevelopment Agency.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, that takes
us now to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Did you call the vote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think he did.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I didn't call the vote?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you didn't call it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, we're going to open it again
and call the vote. All those -- I called the vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Did you?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, it was unanimous.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was it?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Is that true?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Senior moment. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Close it again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Close it again.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Closed.
You want to open it again?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm opening it now.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2013-109: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) TO ENTER INTO A $7,557,900 TERM LOAN
AGREEMENT WITH FIFTH THIRD BANK - THE SERIES 2013
TAXABLE NOTE; APPROVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CRA
WITH RESPECT TO ITS APPROVAL OF THE LOAN
Page 131
May 14, 2013
AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we're on Item 11.C, which was a
companion item to 14.B.1 that you just heard. Again, I'll ask Mr.
Isackson to present. This matter now is the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. ISACKSON: Again for the record, Mike Isackson with the
County Manager's Office.
You have a similar resolution beginning on Packet Page 4.4.3.
that approves a resolution authorizing the CRA to enter into a
$7,557,900 term loan agreement with Fifth/Third Bank --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
MR. ISACKSON: -- Series 2013 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a motion and a second.
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.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Mark.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks for getting it done. Good
job.
Page 132
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we typically move now to our
advertised public hearings. We have four that have been moved this
morning to the advertised public hearing section of your agenda.
Is there any particular order the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please.
MR. OCHS: -- Board would like to pursue?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In light of the fact that we have
representatives of one of the petitioners here that are professionals, I'd
like to ask that 9.0 and 9.D be moved ahead of 9.A and 9.B.
Item #9C
ORDINANCE 2013-37: ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE 2007-46, AS AMENDED, THE WOLF
CREEK RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
PUDZA-PL20120000650, BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 671 TO 754; BY
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 5± ACRES OF LAND FROM RMF-6(4) SCENIC
WOODS REZONE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD AND BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 16± ACRES FROM PALERMO COVE PUD TO
WOLF CREEK PUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; BY ADDING EXHIBIT A-1, THE AMENDED
MASTER PLAN FOR PARCELS 1A THROUGH 3A; BY ADDING
EXHIBIT "D", PRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION FOR
PARCELS 1 A THROUGH 3A; BY ADDING TABLE II,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS lA THROUGH
Page 133
May 14, 2013
3A; AND BY ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R.
862) APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONSISTING OF 189± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-03, THE SCENIC WOODS
REZONE; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(COMPANION PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE
PUD) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES (REVERTED BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE BY REMOVING "0")
MR. OCHS: We'll begin with Item 9.C, which was previously
Item 17.B on your summary agenda. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. All participants are
required to be sworn in.
This is an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as
amended, the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development,
PUDZA-PL20120000650, by increasing the permissible number of
dwelling units from 671 to 754; by amending Ordinance No. 2004-41,
the Collier County Land Development Code; by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of an additional five plus or minus acres of land from
RMF-6 for Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek RPUD; and by
changing the zoning classification of an additional 16 plus or minus
acres from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD; by revising the
development standards by adding Exhibit A-1, the amended master
plan for parcels 1-A through 3-A; by adding Exhibit D, private road
cross-section for parcels 1-A through 3-A; by adding Table II,
development standards for parcels 1A through 3A and by adding
Page 134
May 14, 2013
deviations and revising developer commitments.
Subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach
Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard in
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 189 plus or minus acres, providing for repeal of
Ordinance No. 2007-03, the Scenic Woods Rezone, and by providing
an effective date.
And as I mentioned, this is a companion to
PUDZA-PL20120000680, Palermo Cove PUD, which you'll hear
immediately after this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning wants to
make a comment before we swear in the parties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, sense this was a
late objection from somebody, if that person is not here, I think it's an
appropriate --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They're here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're here and ready to
comment, then we ought to hear the comments before proceeding
forward. We have to swear them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, we have to swear everybody
in and have disclosure and then we'll proceed with the comment.
Does the constituent that has the objection need to have a sign-in
sheet or are they automatically a part of the hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it (sic) needs to be sworn in. He's part
of the hearings.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's more of a co-owner than a constituent
is my understanding. I think this can get resolved very quickly if we
just hear the objection and go to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. Then let's do that, let's
swear the parties in, including the speaker with the objection.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 135
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With that, ex parte communications.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I've read the staff reports.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've read the staff report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And myself the same.
Let's go ahead and proceed with the presentation from the
objecting constituent.
If you could state your name for the record?
MR. ABBO: Yes, of course. I'm Larry Abbo. I'm representing
Portofino Falls Builders, LLC, owner of what currently is referred to
as Parcel 3 and a portion of Parcel 4 within the existing Wolf Creek
PUD.
Do you need address? No.
Our objection, by the way, was filed about a month ago. And
then trying to work out an agreement with the applicant for the past
month, the idea was to allow this to move forward. We don't want to
obstruct the process, we'd like to see development as well. But the
issue of Pristine Drive is an important one for us, since the majority of
the cost based on a recorded cost-sharing agreement is borne by the
applicant.
And so we've attempted to mitigate our differences over the past
month. There is no signed agreement as of yet. We thought we were
close a few times, but it hasn't rendered a final signed document.
At this point and to simplify the issue, there are two things that
we would ask, if it is your desire to move forward with accepting the
PUD modification as proposed. We would ask that one, an or, O-R,
be added to a section I believe number two. We sent an email about
Page 136
May 14, 2013
this on April 19th, asking for that inclusion. Rather than it being both
conditions, it is an alternate condition within the language as it exists.
And the second thing that we asked for is that the trigger for the
construction of Pristine Drive would also incorporate the need or the
desire of the owner of these parcels, that being us at this particular
point in time, to include a connection to Pristine Drive within the SDP
that would be submitted and ultimately approved. And then that
would trigger the construction.
With those two additional considerations, we would remove our
objection to this PUD monitoring --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, have you
modified what's being presented to consider these two proposals?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I haven't modified it. I think I had a
different thought about how this was going to go, but I'd like to hear
from Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is Mr. Abbo through with his comments?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you through with your
comments?
MR. ABBO: For now, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Please have a seat.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What we understood the issue to be is --
Rich Yovanovich, for the record. And I have a whole host of people
who can answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
But what we understood the issue to be regarding -- and I'll put it
on the visualizer. In your packet -- and this is from the Wolf Creek
PUD. And what we're doing for the Wolf Creek PUD is we're
bringing 21 acres in and 84 units with that 21 acres from the Palermo
Cove PUD. We're essentially reducing density in the area, as you all
are aware.
What we originally wanted to do was since we are reducing
overall density, we wanted to be able to delay when we would have to
Page 137
May 14, 2013
build Pristine Drive until we hit 100 COs on the project in the
northwest corner of this project.
We received an objection from Prime Homebuilders saying they
want basically Pristine Drive to be built as it's currently worded,
which is letter 0 on the visualizer and is shown as a strike-through.
And originally letter 0 basically says that you can get SDPs once you
commence construction of Pristine Drive, but you can't get any COs
until Pristine Drive is completed. That was the original provision.
We had provided a modification that basically would let us get
our first 100 COs first for cash flow purposes to build Pristine. They
objected to that.
The language you see in front of you as an underlined was
language that was worked out at the Planning Commission,
conditioned upon there being a separate amendment to the existing
cost-sharing agreement. That didn't happen. There isn't an amendment
to the cost-sharing agreement.
So what we understood their objection to be is if we don't reach
an agreement on a cost-sharing agreement, we would go back to the
original letter 0 language that basically says we don't get anymore
plats, they don't get anymore plats or SDPs until Pristine Drive
commences. That's the way the language is today. We'll live with
that because the interpretation we received from the County Attorney's
Office is that since they're an owner in the PUD, we can't change any
PUD commitments without their consent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would agree with that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're back to the original -- we
thought today's hearing was about putting the original letter 0 back in
and deleting the new letter 0 from the agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that -- can you step up to the --
step up to the other podium, please.
Basically what Mr. Yovanovich is saying is that they're
reinstating what the original provision is. And it can't be changed,
Page 138
May 14, 2013
because there are other people besides you who would be affected if
you're suggesting something different than what's originally proposed.
MR. ABBO: Correct. And we would be fine with the current
language.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. So if we reverted back to
the original language, you're fine?
MR. ABBO: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does that address both the
objections then?
MR. ABBO: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Fine. So is that acceptable?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Fine. That being said, is there any
further discussion.
MR. KLATZKOW: So what's on your viewer all remains within
the PUD.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the proposed insertion 0, starting with
the developer shall commence, comes out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct. And it reverts back to what
was originally provided in the PUD.
MR. KLATZKOW: For this particular page --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- there were other changes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just for this particular page with
respect to this particular issue which was raised as an objection.
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely, ma'am, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion with respect
to the approval of this aside from this objection that's being raised and
resolved?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion --
Page 139
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, we have a motion to approve
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.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's for Wolf Creek. You've got to do
Palermo Cove as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're going to do that next.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry.
MR. ABBO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Item #9D
ORDINANCE 2013-38: ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES FROM THE
PALERMO COVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD); AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING
Page 140
May 14, 2013
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM A RPUD ZONING DISTRICT TO A RPUD
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
PALERMO COVE RPUD, PUDZA-PL20120000680, BY
REVISING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ADDING
DEVIATIONS, ADOPTING A NEW CONCEPTUAL MASTER
PLAN, REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS AND
REDUCING THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
FROM 564 TO 237 ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
WOL1 E ROAD AND WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R.
951) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 115± ACRES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBERS
2005-34 AND 2006-30, THE FORMER PALERMO COVE RPUD;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (COMPANION
TO PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD) — ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Next item is 9.D.
MR. OCHS: Yes. This item also requires ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. All participants are required to be
sworn in. It's an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by removing approximately 16 acres from the Palermo
Cove Residential Planned Unit Development and by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from an
RPUD zoning district to an RPUD zoning district for a project known
as the Palermo Cove RPUD, PUDZA-PL2012000680, by revising
project development standards, adding deviations, adopting a new
conceptual master plan, advising developer commitments and
Page 141
May 14, 2013
reducing the permitted number of dwelling units from 564 to 237 on
property located north of Wolf Road and west of Collier Boulevard in
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida; consisting of 115 plus or minus acres; providing for the repeal
of Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30, the former Palermo
Cove PUD; and by providing an effective day.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Can we swear in all
parties, including any speakers.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ex parte communication, please.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The staff report as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Myself the same, staff report.
The objection that is involved in this case is by another
developer, same issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: There are no objections on this particular
one, ma'am, to my knowledge.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No objections?
There being no objections, is there any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 142
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2013-39: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, THE "COLLIER
COUNTY ETHICS ORDINANCE." — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that would take us to Item 9.A under
advertised public hearings. It was previously 17.G. It's a
recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No.
2003-53, as amended, the Collier County Ethics Ordinance. This item
was moved at separate request by Commissioners Coyle and Fiala.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, do you want
to explain why you moved it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. Just a couple questions.
Number one, has our revised ordinance been checked with the most
recent action of the state legislature? I'm uncertain if the Governor
has signed it, but I've read the legislation of the new ethics ordinance.
So what is the status of incorporating that into the document we're
about to approve?
MR. KLATZKOW: Last time I read, it was in bill form. I'm not
sure if it's been signed or not at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my question is why do we
want to approve it if we're going to get a new state ethics ordinance?
There are some changes. I'm uncertain as to whether it really impacts
what we're doing, but the least we should do is to make sure that the
changes to the state's ethics ordinance are in fact properly incorporated
Page 143
May 14, 2013
or referenced here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They are. The way the County
Attorney drafted the ordinance, he provided that we incorporate the
state ordinance into our own -- or the state statute into our own
ordinance. And so anything that changes with respect to the state
ethics ordinance automatically is incorporated into our local
ordinance. So it has an immediate effect.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, the second question is
explain to me one more time how this can be called a zero gift ethics
ordinance when it actually allows gifts of value?
MR. KLATZKOW: You always did. You had a $4.00 at one
point in time. We're increasing the $4.00 to $25. And then you had
another provision which talked about per diem rates. And to simplify
the per diem rate, because I -- I can't tell you what the per diem rate is
on any given day, we simply said $25. And the reason for the $25,
was because that was the line set by the legislature of, you know, we
don't really care about anything less than $25 as far as being reported.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's a zero gift ethics ordinance
because we've redefined the gift level from $4.00 to $25.
MR. KLATZKOW: You still cannot take anything from a
lobbyist. That's your essential difference between your ordinance and
the state's ordinance. Zero gift from a lobbyist. Zero gift from people
doing business with the county. All right, the legislature lets you take
up to $25. Between $25 and I think it's $100 you get to file paperwork
with them. And after $100 you can't do it.
So when it comes to people dealing with the county, okay,
nobody here, okay, can take anything. All we've done -- and I don't
want to be facetious about this, but all we have done is say if you want
to get a roast beef sandwich while you're at a convention or if you're at
a business meeting, that's okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's exactly what we did.
Page 144
May 14, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: That's all we did there with that changing it
from the per diem to 25 and $4.00 to 25. That's all we did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just think that that phrase
then should be changed. If it's zero gifts from lobbyists, I think that's
what we ought to say. It just is a little confusing. And it was
confusing in the last one. But the level of gifts has increased by six
times or more, and it just is a little misleading to call it a zero gift
policy.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your standards of conduct which we did not
change specifically provide that you cannot take anything from
anybody who has a contractual relationship, anybody who's a lobbyist,
et cetera. It's right in your ordinance; that wasn't changed.
And our office has been very clear about this. Our office's
position has been you can't take anything from anybody for any reason
if it deals with your county business. Period.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How about honorariums?
MR. KLATZKOW: Honorariums. Honorariums you've got a --
I think it's up to $25, Leo? You've got it defined in here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No, Honorariums are excluded
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- as gifts. Any amount of
honorarium is not considered a gift. And that's the thing that has been
bothering me for the last several times we've talked about this --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to amend your ordinance,
because I haven't changed that, if you want to amend your ordinance
that we exclude -- that we disallow honorariums, I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then what we need to do is make
that change. Otherwise you're just opening up the door. If I could
give somebody who was dumb enough to pay me $1,000 to go out and
make a speech somewhere, I could take it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, you've got state laws on that. But
Page 145
May 14, 2013
having said that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, the state doesn't consider
honorariums as a gift.
MR. KLATZKOW: The state has its own honorarium statute.
But if you want to forbid honorariums by Collier County public
officials, we can do that. You've never done that before, but we could
include that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be appropriate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We've never done that before, have
we?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've never done that before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It leaves open an opportunity to
take -- to get gifts, to get money.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it's the first time that this has
ever been brought up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not. I've brought it up the
last two meetings we've discussed --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, this is the first time -- how long
have you sat on this board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know, maybe a couple
hours.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ten years, 15 years? This is the first
time you bring it up?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think if you're --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you're updating the ordinance,
you ought to give some consideration to it. And that's --
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, we could bring that back at a later
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I've got.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would approve this as presented
and then bring back that change as another change. Adopt this and
Page 146
May 14, 2013
then --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll tell you what, why don't I do this: The
state is in the process of amending their ethics laws anyway. I can
give you a report as to differences that the state has done. We should
know that anyway. And as part of that talk about the honorarium
issue, if the Board wants to give direction to amend the ordinance
based on that discussion, we can do so.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. It makes perfect sense.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I had an opportunity to
talk to Judge Carr. In his previous life he was involved in the
Republican Party in Collier County. And he was part with now Judge
Hardt in crafting the ethics ordinance, okay.
And he says: Tom, I don't have a problem with it as long as you
just change the amounts. I recognize that we're in a different time,
$4.00 then is not $4.00 now.
So I told him I'd review it. And I reported back to him that's
exactly what we're doing.
He actually said: If you're going up from $4.00 to $25, I don't
have a problem with it. I think it's most appropriate because of the
changing times and inflation and that.
That's exactly what we're doing. We're adding certain
employees; we're still giving a zero gift from lobbyists or anybody --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Procurement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- comes before --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the Board. Procurement
officers cannot do it as long as it's dealing with county business.
The only exception is our present employees, in which Leo has --
or and our CCNA -- no, that's a different one, that's the state
procurement. The county's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: CMA.
Page 147
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: Administrative -- HR administrative CMA's, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that addresses --
MR. OCHS: Yes, we still have the standard of conduct in ethics
that govern the employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the only change there is, is
exactly what Mike Can said that we ought to do and that is go from --
you know, if you're going to do any changes, I recognize that times
are different, go from $4.00 to $25. I'm okay with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we've done this. We've
clarified. You know, we've made it clear that this obviously doesn't
affect gifts from people who don't do business with the county. We've
made it clear that where we're going to events or lunches or whatever,
you know, $25 is acceptable. And obviously it's because of inflation.
I mean, let's face it. You know, this was passed what, 15 years ago or
something like that?
And yeah, and we've tied it into state law. So in effect what we
have made very clear is that bribes and kickbacks are not allowed to
any degree, including $25. And to the extent that there's a violation,
it's now criminalized, which it wasn't before. So we've actually
bolstered our position with respect to ethics.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle's
comments about honorarium, if we feel that the state is not appropriate
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can modify it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we can modify our --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And I think what the County
Attorney has proposed is very reasonable, by suggesting that when
you come back and give us an update we can address the honorarium
issue, which no one takes anyway. But to the extent if we decide we
want to eliminate and ban it completely for whatever reason, that's
fine.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 148
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
I agree with you, Commissioner Henning, and also with Judge
Carr, I think $25 is reasonable. You know, we were a little antiquated
there and I can see that.
But I had a question. Under Standards of Conduct, under B it
says no public official. Who's a public official?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody else?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The members of staff who are
involved in making decisions about planning and procurement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry, zoning and procurement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In here it says no public official, and
I just wanted --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's defined.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to find -- yeah, I know that, but no
public official. Being that it's both, we should --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, but the definition in the statute
MR. KLATZKOW: The definition's in your ordinance. It's the
Board of County Commissioners, it's your advisory board members
and county managerial employees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm trying to say is no public
official -- now, that means us -- shall participate in the selection of a
vendor or the approval of a contract if that employee, now listen
carefully, if that employee has received a gift, directly or indirectly
from someone representing the vendor. Well, my goodness, first of
all, we as County Commissioners, we should never be involved in
vendors anyway. We shouldn't -- you know, there should never be
anything about a selection of a vendor coming from us --
MR. KLATZKOW: You do it all the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it should only be from staff.
Page 149
May 14, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you do it all the time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We approve vendors all the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, the selection of. We
approve them but we don't give the selection of.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We do. We do.
MR. OCHS: Well, we recommend the vendor and then the
Board makes the award.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's right. I know, you
recommend. That's what I'm talking about --
MR. OCHS: Technically you're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we don't select.
MR. OCHS: Well, you're making -- technically you're making
the final selection. We're making a recommendation based on our
ranking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make that
clear. Because, you know, we have no business getting into the
vendor business up here. We just approve --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, we very much are in the
vendor business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay, maybe I'm just looking
at it differently. We have no -- I think we have no business going and
talking to vendors and deciding who -- you know, what we're
supposed to be doing with vendors. Because I think that that puts us in
some kind of jeopardy there.
We don't -- we vote on it but we sure don't call vendors. Well, at
least we shouldn't be. Because then, you know, then it could go into
something that could be construed as trying to influence, and we don't
want to do that.
I just wanted to put that on the record, just to make sure that, you
know, no doubts cast upon us if we're --
Page 150
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, if you look -- like take an
advisory board. Members of the PSA, for example, have been
communicating with Tober, making a selection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe I'm just getting --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think you're right. I think that more
public officials get into more problems than any other reason when
they start affiliating themselves with vendors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly where I'm going.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we --
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why we have the process we have
with the recommendation that comes to you. But at the end of the day
you are making a selection, but we do try to insulate you as much as
we can.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This applies to advisory board
members, it applies to the Board and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm just talking about us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it makes no difference.
Whether it's an advisory board or us, it's the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It does make a difference in the
public's eye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The law -- no, no, you
misunderstand. The law applies to us and advisory board members
equally. All right? That's what the law provides.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Advisory board members don't vote
on it. We do. And I just don't want anybody to confuse or talk about
corruption or anything like that if there's even a shadowy line there.
And that's all I'm bringing to the forefront. If no one agrees with me,
that's okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I just feel it's really important
and so I do. I don't ever want us to be looked at like what happened in
the Nineties. Thank you.
Page 151
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And again, I'll repeat, it applies to
advisory board members and staff involved in those decisions alike.
I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: 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 NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously with
Commissioner Coyle being absent.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Next item is 17.1 moved to 9.B?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that is the Collier County
Administrator's Ordinance. And it was moved at Commissioner
Coyle's request but he's not here.
Do you know why he moved it?
MR. OCHS: I have no idea, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, he's not here.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we go back to that when he's
back? I don't know where he went but he's got everything open and
ready to go, so -- what's the next item?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We'll come back. Why don't we
take care of the appointees very quickly.
Item #10A
Page 152
May 14, 2013
RESOLUTION 2013-110: RE-APPOINTING VICTOR RIOS (CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND REPRESENTATIVE) AND JOHN SOREY
(CITY OF NAPLES REPRESENTATIVE) TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That takes us then to Item 10.A under
Board of County Commissioners. 10.A is appointment of members to
the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, specifically to
confirm one reappointment of Victor Rios by the City of Marco Island
and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approved.
MR. OCHS: -- one reappointment --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no discussion, all in
favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Next item, 10.B.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2013-111: RE-APPOINTING KAREN BEATTY,
PETER DVORAK AND CHUCK GUNTHER (TERMS EXPIRING
MAY 22, 2016) AND APPOINTING MICHAEL CORRADI (TERM
EXPIRING MAY 22, 2015) AND SHANE SHADIS (TERM
EXPIRING MAY 22, 2014) TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Local Redevelopment Agency.
Page 153
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and let's add one more. The
committee didn't recommend Shane Shaddes, but I think that they
would agree that he's at every one of the meetings and he would be a
very good candidate. His name is on the list. I checked, did a little bit
of research and I feel that he -- he lives in the area and he would be a
good member, so I'd like to take the committee's recommendations
plus Shane Shaddes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that's how you say his name.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, you made the original
motion, Commissioner Henning, so do you want to just modify your
original motion and let Commissioner Fiala second it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, great, second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, there being no discussion, all
in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
10.C?
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2013-112: RE-APPOINTING JOHN WEBER TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Appointment of member to the Radio Road
Page 154
May 14, 2013
Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to reappointment John
Webber.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2013-113: APPOINTING KIMBERLY S.
BOWERS, JOHN DIMARCO, III, W. JAMES KLUG, III, NANCY
LASHEID, MORTON ROSENBERG AND DYLAN MICHAEL
VOGEL — MOTION TO ACCEPT ALL APPLICANTS EXCEPT
TU CHI TO THE PUBLIC TRANSIT AD HOC ADVISORY
BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.D is appointment of members to the Public
Transit Ad Hoc Advisory Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you read the names, please?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They all qualify except for one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and that one they said -- they
ask that we overlook what they said because they feel even though
he's not a registered voter, he is employed by the Marriott, which
would give them -- they feel that they would want that on their
committee as well, and so they asked us to please waive those
recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have the ability to waive
Page 155
May 14, 2013
that? Because we --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your committee, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
So does everyone want to waive that and allow for that individual
to be on the board, notwithstanding that he's not a resident?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, he's not an elector.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, a voter.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see what the issue is of
becoming a voter, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If he doesn't like us, he --
MR. KLATZKOW: He may not be a citizen.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I was wondering.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oops.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that's even another
reason not to appoint, in my opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, ATM staff would request that
the Board entertain an exemption which requires members to be
electors of the county. Mr. Tocci is that person there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, what we could do is we could
accept him subject to him providing proof that he's either a resident
alien or a citizen, whichever he chooses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or maybe he lives in Lee County or
something like that so he can't vote here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we just have to have proof of --
some sort of proof of citizenship or legal status, whichever the Board
wants, or whichever the County Attorney recommends.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, he does live in Collier County. I'm
Page 156
May 14, 2013
just looking at his --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, South Collier Boulevard,
that's the address of the Marriott.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't support it. If you want to
go ahead and make a motion, I just won't support it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, you can make a motion to
approve everyone except him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since there's no motion, I'll do
so.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, you said all but him.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
Yes, you agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So it passes unanimously,
4-1 with Commissioner Coyle being absent -- I'm sorry, 4-0.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to move back to
finish off your public comments on general topics?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a very good suggestion.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS (CONTINUED
FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING)
Page 157
May 14, 2013
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have four remaining public comments.
First off, Stan Chrzanowski. He'll be followed by Doug Fee.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski. I used to be the county engineer. I retired in October of
2010.
A couple years after I retired there was a letter sent to all the
Commissioners, the Naples Daily News, every environmental agency
I can think of, and a copy was sent to Colgate. Now, I use Crest so I
don't know why they sent a copy to Colgate.
Basically it was a five-page memo and the first page --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may interrupt, all the candidates
also.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All the candidates?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Candidates running at that time for
County Commission.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was a five-page memo. The first page
said that Nick Casalanguida is evil. The next three pages said that
Tom Cook and Stan Chrzanowski were evil. And the last page said
that Nick Casalanguida was evil. Okay, I'll let it slide.
There was a recent article in Brent Batton's column about Mr.
Casalanguida. The comments under the article, the second comment,
all of a sudden Stan Chrzanowski and Tom Cook are evil. And, you
know, you can only let things slide for so long.
And in June or July of 2006 the Board raised impact fees for the
last time. They were supposed to take effect in November of 2006.
They did. At about that time all the positions in Community
Development were frozen. No new hires. For some reason about 40
new positions had been added to Community Development and they
were frozen at the same time. So total lack of foresight there.
The conditions in CDES became pretty bad, freezes and lay-offs.
One of the division administrators was quoted as saying that the
Page 158
May 14, 2013
actions of CDES staff were akin to subhuman. People were trying to
make sure that their jobs were safe at the expense of other people.
This is the kind of nonsense that happened for years. And a lot of
people were pushed out of CDES for good reason.
And, you know, I hear now that somebody has got a problem
with me being on DSAC. Well, the Development Services Advisory
Committee, I was the county engineer, it's a logical place for me to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who has a problem with you?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- spend some time.
I think you'll find that out maybe in two weeks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we need to know, and the
public needs to know.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, no, it's not a problem for me.
You know, I'm retired. If you guys kick me off DSAC, I'll go to the
meetings anyway. And the advantage is I'll be able to talk to the other
DSAC members.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I would like to know --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I can't do that now. So -- it doesn't
bother me, really. None of this really bothers me. But what they're
trying to do is it's like --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- people know they're going to get
money if they cause enough trouble at the county because you guys
don't like --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- to spend --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We need to know who is doing this.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it's Mr. Cohen for one thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You know, he's -- I don't know what his
problem is.
But my time is done. I have something here for Leo that he
Page 159
May 14, 2013
might want to give Crystal a copy of this too.
But that's -- all my comments are in there. I also sent you guys
copies of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be
followed by John Lundin.
(At which time, Commissioner Coyle entered the boardroom.)
MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug
Fee.
And I would like to speak on taxes this afternoon. And I know
that you gave guidance back in February in reference to the TRIM
notice or tax bill. And I believe at that point you -- the County
Manager was proposing a millage neutral budget. And I think at the
time the documents indicated a flat -- basically our assessed values
remaining the same.
I recently took the opportunity to call the budget office. And
whereas the state had projected a two percent increase or a 2.1 percent
increase in this document, I think that the budget office is now coming
back saying it may be closer to a two percent increase in our
assessment.
And so I'm here because I know that your budget process will
begin in about six weeks and they're getting ready for these meetings.
I'd like to consider or suggest that you go with a roll-back if in fact it
shows some type of assessment increase rather than millage neutral.
One of the issues is and what they were telling me is on the coast
you're going to see a five to 10 percent increase, and out in the eastern
lands you're going to see flat to a little bit decrease. So when you
average it all together it was a flat. But now it's being suggested it
will be a two percent increase.
So with that I would like to see if the county would consider
during those meetings a roll-back.
Page 160
May 14, 2013
The second thing that I wanted to ask was Commissioner Fiala I
believe at the last meeting mentioned the median maintenance, okay.
And with our budget getting -- with the economy getting better, that's
a topic that we would be talking about.
But I was reading here where it says recognize the
unincorporated area general fund, Fund 111, as the appropriate
dedicated funding source for median beautification maintenance cost.
And when I was reading that I wondered if that is the appropriate
funding source for our medians in the county. We have a general fund
but we also have an unincorporated general fund. And I would
wonder if that shouldn't be paid for out of the general fund, not the
111.
And also I'd like to, before you get to your budget hearings,
request from the county some kind of a document that states what's
paid out of the 111 account and not out of the general fund so it's
easier for the citizens to figure out the rationale behind that. So I
appreciate your help.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning wants to
comment, but I just want to say we're going to have a workshop where
we're going to talk about funding a median maintenance and
improvement. So why don't you come to that. The County Manager
can tell you when that is and you can listen and make comments at
that time on that point.
MR. FEE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's a simple explanation
for it, and I'm not going to waste your time explaining it.
And you realize that we gave direction to the County Manager
and his staff about setting up the budget, and we cannot reconsider
that.
Recently I was at a public meeting where you were asking for a
public road to be built, constructed. You realize that takes dollars to
do so?
Page 161
May 14, 2013
MR. FEE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to remind you of
your comments today every time that you bring that up. Okay?
MR. FEE: I want that road built.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know.
MR. FEE: I'm not exactly sure how it gets paid for, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not by rolling back taxes.
MR. FEE: If I may comment, and I'm not here to debate or
anything, but some of the comments I will make relate to the MPO
budget which I'm not certain is the county dollars. But I know there's a
joint process there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you call me and I'll
explain it to you?
MR. FEE: I will. Thank you, Tom.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Lundin. Now Mr.
Lundin expressed to me that he would probably not be here this
afternoon. I do not see him, but I wanted to call the name.
Marcia Cravens is the last registered public speaker for public
comment. I do not know that Ms. Cravens is here either.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't believe she is.
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2013-40: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 93-72, AS AMENDED, THE "COLLIER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDINANCE." — ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let's move back to 9.B.
Commissioner Coyle, can you explain why you moved 17.1 to the
general?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Just because I wanted to
Page 162
May 14, 2013
record my vote against this and I couldn't do it on the consent agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can. I just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in any event -- no, I wanted to
explain --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. I just wanted to tell you you
can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that I oppose it only for one
reason and that is because you have removed the penalty provisions
there and specifically removed malfeasance. And I object to that.
And that's all I want to do. Okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, did you
want to comment or not? Was this from the previous discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was from the previous --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great. There being no further
discussion --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second it.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #10E
DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ISSUE A NOTICE OF
DEFAULT TO KPK MANAGEMENT, INC., ASSIGNEE OF
GLOBAL MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
RELATING TO A SUBLEASE DATED AUGUST 15, 1999, OF
THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT INCUBATOR BUILDING,
Page 163
May 14, 2013
SETTING FORTH THAT IF CERTAIN LEASE VIOLATIONS
ARE NOT RECTIFIED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE NOTICE, THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY WILL TERMINATE THE SUBLEASE
AND, IF NECESSARY, PURSUE ITS LEGAL REMEDIES, AND
TO GRANT THE AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE
AUTHORITY TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
TERMINATE THE SUBLEASE AND PURSUE LEGAL ACTION,
INCLUDING EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, IF THE DEFAULTS
ARE NOT CURED - MOTION DIRECTING THE AIRPORT
DIRECTOR TO NOTIFY THE TENANT THAT THE ISSUES BE
CURED WITHIN 30 DAYS; IF NOT TAKEN CARE OF WITHIN
THE 30 DAYS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE AIRPORT
DIRECTOR TO PROCEED WITH A NOTICE OF TERMINATION
OF LEASE
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next item would be 10.E.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It's a recommendation to direct the
County Attorney to issue the attached notice of default to KPK
Management, Incorporated, assignee of Global Manufacturing
Technologies, Incorporated relating to a sublease dated August 15,
1999 of the Immokalee Airport Incubator Building, setting forth that if
certain lease violations are not rectified within 30 days of the notice
that the Airport Authority will terminate the sublease and if necessary
pursue its legal remedies and to grant the Airport Executive Director
the authority to work with the County Attorney to terminate the
sublease and pursue legal action, including eviction proceedings, if the
defaults are not cured.
And this item was brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's items within backup on
this particular item.
One thing that I failed to provide, and I apologize, it was
Page 164
May 14, 2013
forwarded to you, was the lease between the parties. And I want to
point out, on the maintenance of this it said: This agreement shall -- in
every sense shall be without cost to the Authority for operation,
maintenance and improvements of the subleased premises or common
area subject to Article 5.
Article 5, there's a maintenance of the common area for a
particular time. But the maintenance item within question is in your
backup material.
I also want to put it in to say that under the item of maintenance
in the agreement it says the Executive Director shall be the sole
judgment on the quality of maintenance. The Executive Director's
designee may at any reasonable time without prior notice enter upon
the subleased premises and any part of the determine (sic) if the
maintenance is satisfactory to the Executive Director.
And it goes on. And Mr. Curry and his staff did inspect. Mr.
Curry, if you want to explain some of the defaults. And after you
explain that, I want to continue.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County
Airport Authority.
Since I've been the Executive Director we've performed two lease
compliant inspections on the premises: One in January, 2012, the
other in January, 2013.
In January, 2012 we found several deficiencies in the inspection
which I think you may have a copy of that in your backup material.
Then the facility was reinspected again in January of 2013, which
we saw very little improvement since the inspection in 2012.
We did a follow-up inspection in February of 2013 as well.
In March of 2013 we sent a letter requesting an action plan as to
how to resolve these maintenance issues. In April of 2013 we
requested a copy of the subleases, because within the lease the Airport
Authority must approve of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing
businesses that reside within that facility.
Page 165
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does the lease say manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing? I got an email from the County Attorney that
I believe only addressed the nonmanufacturing.
County Attorney, can you clarify just to refresh my recollection?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can we pull the lease provision and put it
on the overhead, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: While you're looking for that and
putting it on the overhead, I just want to identify that there's a lack of
clarity in the master lease agreement in that it provides for
maintenance, but maintenance by definition doesn't include capital
improvements. And anything that basically extends the life of the
asset would be considered a capital improvement, not maintenance.
So I think the problem with respect to this particular issue is that
items have been identified that would more properly be classified as
capital improvements as opposed to routine maintenance. And I don't
believe it would be fair to obligate the tenant to make capital
improvements in the absence of the lease requiring that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Airport Authority Director,
in his determination, is not saying these are capital improvements. So
who's making the allegation --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The capital improvement is any
type of -- anything you do to a piece of property that extends the life
of the piece of property is by definition a capital improvement and not
routine maintenance. That's just a standard finance and accounting
definition.
So in the absence of the lease providing for the definition, the
standard definition is that maintenance is routine maintenance and not
capital improvements. I mean, it would be completely unreasonable
to ask the tenant to make capital improvements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which item is our capital
improvements?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It wouldn't be stated. We're
Page 166
May 14, 2013
obligating him to be responsible for routine maintenance. That's what
the lease provides.
So the issue that you have is that the Executive Director has
lumped in capital improvement expenditures with routine maintenance
expenditures. And so what the County Attorney advised the tenant is
don't do anything 'til there's clarification as to what you are properly
responsible for.
So you bringing it before the Board, Commissioner Henning, is a
good thing. Although to say that he's in default for not performing as
of right now wouldn't be fair until we clarify what his obligations are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to clar --
MR. KLATZKOW: From the photographs I saw, a lot of that
stuff is straight maintenance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, whatever is maintenance he's
responsible for. Whatever is capital -- like for example, you know,
repaving the parking lot, I mean, that -- or re-striping or replacing --
MR. KLATZKOW: Is maintenance. Ongoing maintenance.
Capital improvement for would be for example you have a statute
requiring a security fence be put around there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: That would be a capital --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Put some of the pictures up on the
overhead so everybody can see what we're talking about?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Whatever is routine maintenance. If
it extends the life of the asset, it's a capital improvement. If it is, you
know, touching up paint, cleaning up, cutting grass, that kind of stuff,
maintaining the grass, that's maintenance.
Commissioner Nance?
And I have not each seen the facility so I don't know what the
specific issues are --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I reviewed all the backup. And it's
clear that there's a lot of things in there that, you know, should be
Page 167
May 14, 2013
rectified, particularly things that relate to safety and whatnot. So I'm
very interested. I hope at some point we're going to get to hear from
Mr. Fox on that.
But, you know, we -- other than the fact that he's not responsible
-- I mean, Mr. Curry, is he a reasonable tenant in your estimation? I
mean, is there a reason for us to work through this, or what are your
thoughts on the management of Global Manufacturing Technologies
and their successors?
MR. CURRY: Well, I really don't have any thoughts as to the
management. I mean, my objective is seeking compliance with the
terms that are identified in the lease.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I mean, other than the maintenance
issues here, are there other performance issues with Mr. Fox that we
don't know about other than just these maintenance things that give us
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I want to continue. I
mean, the agreement spells out that the sub-lessee shall provide any
other lessees within the building. And that's not being provided.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the sublessee is to provide
any other tenants within the building. And actually has to get
approval by the Airport Director.
My understanding -- Mr. Curry, do you know, are you aware of
any previous acknowledgment of sublessees to the sublease?
MR. CURRY: No, we have not been provided any lease for us to
approve prior to a tenant moving into the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And would that be the same as
prior to your coming to the Airport Authority? Have you reviewed the
file and found out any approvals from previous airport directors?
MR. CURRY: I'm not sure if that's ever been done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But I'm reading this, it says only as
it relates to nonmanufacturing. That the Airport Authority is only
Page 168
May 14, 2013
required to approve sublessees that are nonmanufacturing or, you
know, directly related to manufacturing.
That is not manufacturing or directly related to manufacturing.
So they're only required to get approval for any sublessees that are not
manufacturing or not directly related to manufacturing. But if they
have tenants in there -- I mean, I'm just reading it here. If they've got
a tenant in here that is a manufacturing tenant, they don't need
authority or approval.
MR. CURRY: Well, I would tell you based on documents that
I've received from licensed businesses to be in that building, there are
some that are not manufacturing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Those leases, according to this, and
you should be able to -- you know, the Airport Authority has to
approve those, but not the others.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And furthermore, Commissioner
Nance, to answer your question, and my understanding, Mr. Curry,
that there is a cost share to the maintenance of the landscaping and
irrigation. In the lease it calls for after said five years, which started
August 15th, '99, the subtenants shall be solely responsible for the cost
of irrigation, maintenance and landscaping in the surrounding
subleased premises, unless otherwise agreed into writing by the
Authority.
So my question is, is there anything in writing to say that there
will still be a cost share?
MR. VERGO: There was a lease amendment done I believe two
years ago, two and a half years ago under the Interim Executive
Director, and it does bring back I believe that 50/50 share.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It has to be written by
the Authority.
MR. VERGO: I can -- we've got a copy right there. I can put it
on the visualizer, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so the Authority
Page 169
May 14, 2013
approved --
MR. VERGO: It is a signed executed document, yes, sir.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the
record.
MR. VERGO: For the record, Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager,
Immokalee Airport.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hate to acknowledge this, but you
really have confused me, guys. Is this the real lease or has it been
changed and is there something that you've changed about it?
MR. CURRY: No, that is the real lease. There has been a couple
amendments to the lease, but that is the real lease and nothing's been
changed by --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing has --
MR. CURRY: -- me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- been changed with respect to
Article 8, maintenance?
MR. CURRY: Not as far as I'm aware.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then it's very clear. And
don't take it away, I want to read that, okay?
This agreement in every sense shall be without cost to the
Authority for the operation, maintenance and improvement of the
subleased premises or common areas.
That's very clear. They are responsible for all costs,
improvements, which would be capital projects, and maintenance and
operation.
Furthermore, down below: The subtenant shall without cost to
the Authority maintain a subleased premises/common area subject to
all of these provisions and shall repair all damage to the premises
caused by its employees, patrons, invitees, permittees, contractors,
laborers, suppliers, et cetera, or its operation therein.
There is no question here that this damage is the responsibility of
Page 170
May 14, 2013
the person who's leasing the premises. And the fact that they have not
sought approval for their sublessees, that's a violation of the basic
contract and should be a cause for cancellation immediately. So there's
no debate here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, thank
you. However, I do want to point out if you look at the second line of
the maintenance it says subleased premise or common area subject to
Article 5, paragraph E. And that's where you get into this agreement
with the Authority -- well, it goes into, you know, up to five years
there will be a cost share. Then after that, unless agreed by the
Authority, the subtenant will take care of it.
Obviously Mr. Vergo has addressed that, so I feel that that part of
it is. However, it's recommended by the County Attorney that we give
30 days to the person with this contract, 30 days to cure. And if not, at
that time start the -- give the County Attorney authorization to start the
eviction process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that's your motion, I'll support it.
I'll second it.
MR. CURRY: I do have some pictures, if you guys wanted to
see the pictures.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They're in the backup.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we owe any speakers
that want to speak on this topic.
MR. MILLER: Yeah, we have one registered speaker. Larry
Fox.
MR. FOX: Good afternoon. I brought some documents along,
I'd like to pass along.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Just make sure that the court
reporter receives a copy.
MR. FOX: First off, I want to say I've been at the building for 14
years. I've paid approximately a half a million dollars in rent, I would
Page 171
May 14, 2013
say. There's many things old in the building. But I will -- want to say
to you that I do maintain that building.
The cover sheet indicates over $1,000 in repairs to fire issues.
Some of the repairs were not even there when the building was built.
And I had to deal with this several times. There were no pole stations
ever installed in that building. However, when it comes to fire
violations or safety violations, we take care of those immediately.
There's a second page of a first inspection that ever took place in
that building, 2010. If you read through that in general comments and
findings, you'll find that Bob Tweedie came with an electrical
engineer, maybe an architect, mechanical engineer, and they wrote in
there that the building, for being that old, for doing that kind of work,
heavy duty industrial metal work, was in very good condition.
Something's changed. As I go into the second year of an
inspection where we have quote, unquote, violations for dust on the
table, dirt on the floor, the carpeting equal to this carpeting. There's
something different there. Something's changed. And I need help. I
don't mind doing maintenance and repairs. But I've lost a tenant
recently and I can't -- I don't have the income to make repairs within
30 days. But I do make repairs. If justifiable.
Now, who's the expertise on what's wrong? I think Mr. Henning
said maybe the Executive Director.
The parking lot last year, was told to re-stripe all the parking lot.
This year's inspection, seal over and re-stripe. So how much money
would that have cost me to do things twice?
By the way, I contacted a civil engineer for the county, asked
him about the sealing process and he said he would not recommend it,
it's not recommended. It could be dangerous because it's slippery.
I don't believe what we are being written up for, violations, are
true violations. Fourteen years, never failed a Fire Marshal inspection.
I'm sorry, I had more backup data, but I didn't know this meeting
was going to happen today.
Page 172
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. FOX: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you show us the pictures?
MR. CURRY: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't mean to rush this item, but
we do have a 3:00 time certain, so if you could get through them
relatively quickly so we can come to a conclusion how we'd like to
proceed?
MR. CURRY: Okay, I'll just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, after the
pictures are shown, can you make a motion as to what you would like
to see done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. CURRY: Okay, here's a picture of the floor and the storage
room. And you'll see how -- the condition of the tiles in that room.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I ask one question just very
quickly? With respect to the facility, if it's a manufacturing facility,
you're taking into consideration that they're manufacturing, right?
MR. CURRY: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So none of these issues are
related to the work they do or anything like that?
MR. CURRY: This is a picture of the tiles on the bathroom
floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's at the top of the picture?
Guys, you're going to have to show us those pictures if you expect us
to understand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's in the backup.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've read it but the public has
not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're not in color either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. What's at the top?
We can't see the top picture.
Page 173
May 14, 2013
MR. OCHS: You've got to move it down.
MR. CURRY: Well, the top is where Othe fresh air vent seal.
That's a minor, very minor infraction for us.
There's two pictures per page, so the bottom is probably the one
that's a little more I guess unsanitary, if you will. That's the bathroom
floor near the tool room.
The top is where the ceiling insulation is falling down.
The bottom is where unsealed pipe is missing its insulation.
The top is in another bay where the ceiling tiles is falling down.
At the bottom there's various electrical conduits broke. And
these are live wires that are within the insulation.
MR. FOX: Not true.
MR. VERGO: Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager.
At the time of the inspection those outlets were tested with the
Fire Marshal present, and they were live.
MR. CURRY: The top is some other loose wires at the rear of
the building. And the bottom is various items and debris that's piled
outside.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't see where the cost to any of
this is. I mean, maybe a little bit with respect to the electrical, but,
you know, I didn't know that part of inspecting a tenant facility
includes determining how clean the bathroom is. But that's --
MR. CURRY: Well, it's a county owned building.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand. I'm just curious.
I mean, it's interesting. I mean, these are not, you know, major cost
issues.
MR. VERGO: If I may speak just a little more.
Those pictures that Mr. Curry showed were some of the pictures
that were included with the inspection report. We do have the
remaining pictures here. Other items that, I mean, weren't even -- for
some reason the pictures didn't come out during the inspection -- are a
bathroom missing a faucet, fire walls or smoke barriers having
Page 174
May 14, 2013
penetrations in them.
He showed a picture of a -- of wiring that's wrapped around a
metal pipe. That is shut off; however, that electrical is only controlled
by a big pull handle and it's not locked out. And to date, I was there
last week, that still hasn't been remedied per the Fire Marshal, which
is in his report.
A lot of these items we worked with last year to work to have
remedied, and unfortunately they haven't even been resolved. The
ones that have been resolved are as you can see, the fire system has
been updated and also there was a repair done to it last year.
Other than that, the major items weren't even attempted. And
Mr. Curry left out we -- there was a year -- there was an agreement,
we met at least two or three times after last year's inspection, I did and
with my staff, to get Mr. Fox on the right path. And a lot of these
items -- and the Fire Marshal said the same thing, some of these items
are repeat items from last year, which is a concern, and that's why
we're here today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So Commissioner Henning, what
would you like to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me say that last week
my aide and I went to Immokalee for several reasons. One, I had the
opportunity to -- or we had the opportunity to view the concerns of the
airport management.
My aide, who has no background in maintenance or buildings
and things like that, it was clear, it was very clear to both of us that
there is a problem with the lease.
And mind you that this is a public asset owned by the public.
And the Airport Authority has directed the Airport Director to inspect
and per his judgment determine what needs to -- what is maintenance.
There's no question in the lease that that has happened.
So I'm going to make the motion that we direct the Airport
Director to notify the tenant, with the assistance of the County
Page 175
May 14, 2013
Attorney, to notify the tenant that these issues be cured within 30
days. And again, it's up to the executor of the airport to determine
what the maintenance is.
And if that is not cured within 30 days, that the county -- or the
Airport Director will work with the County Attorney to execute a
notice of termination of the lease and eviction.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, is that acceptable
in light of the lease?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. What I do is before we commence
any action we would get approval from the Authority. So it would be
probably on consent at that point in time detailing what happened,
assuming that it wasn't cured.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Does the lease provide a term in
which performance is required?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifteen days.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So 30 days is double that. And
you're okay with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think it's commercially reasonable.
Quite frankly, if he's working through the problems, there's no reason
why we couldn't extend that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo, do
you have at this time a complete and comprehensive list of your
expectations that you're going to deliver to Mr. Fox to let him know
exactly what is expected of him in the next 30 days? Are we going to
be able to communicate with him in that fashion or are we just -- I
know there's a lot of backup, a lot of materials here and there's a lot of
suggestions, a lot of things wrong. But, I mean, if Mr. Fox indicates
that he's willing to go ahead and do this, I think we need to be working
off a list so everybody understands what your expectations are. Is that
Page 176
May 14, 2013
going to be your approach?
MR. CURRY: I can meet with him as early as tomorrow. I'm
actually out at Immokalee every Wednesday. So I can certainly meet
with him and explain what the expectations are.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. I just think we ought to
have a written list of things so we can check them off the list and
make sure that everything is understood and everything is
accomplished that meets your expectations or not.
MR. CURRY: That's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
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: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your next item is the 3:00 p.m. time
certain.
Madam Chair, I don't know if you want to take a short break for
the court reporter before we get into a lengthy presentation? We
normally go an hour and a half before --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I was going to ask the court
reporter, how do you feel? Do you want to take a 10-minute break
now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It might be an hour and a half before
Page 177
May 14, 2013
you have one.
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, I would.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we can always interrupt also
in the middle of the hearing to take a break. And it may be beneficial
for the community to meet with Commissioners one-on-one.
Yeah, so let's say at 4:00 we'll take a break. So at 4:00 we'll take
a 10-minute break and we'll proceed with the next item.
Item #11D
REVIEW THE HISTORY AND PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PROPOSED WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND
MARBELLA LAKES DRIVE CONNECTION PROJECT,
CONSIDER CURRENT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND
AFTER CONSIDERATION, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE
COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO SOLICITING AN INVITATION
TO BID FOR THIS PROJECT - MOTION TO DENY THE
PROJECT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Then that takes us to
11.D. It's a recommendation to review the history and public benefit
associated with the proposed Whippoorwill Lane and Marbella Lakes
Drive connection project, consider current comments from the public,
and after consideration provide direction to the County Manager prior
to soliciting an invitation to bid for this project.
Mr. Casalanguida, your growth management administrator, will
present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. Thank you, County
Manager.
Good afternoon, Board members. Again, Nick Casalanguida for
the record.
I'm going to pass this over to Mr. Jarvi, our professional planning
Page 178
May 14, 2013
manager, to go over the slides. But I'd like to cover a couple of points.
This project was reviewed last year as part of your budget. We
usually have a public information meeting to let the citizens know
we're about to start a project and if they have any questions or
concerns.
We had one scheduled a while back and a lot of questions or
concerns came up.
At their request they asked us to work with them some more to
try to understand the project and see if they could maybe change our
mind or we could glean some information as to why we wouldn't do
this project.
Our recommendation ultimately is to continue forward with it.
With that, I'm going to have Reed take you through the slides and
explain a little bit about the project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Before we begin, first of all, how
many public speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: We have seven. Some have ceded time to other
speakers, but seven total registered.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what's the total time for the --
MR. MILLER: Twenty-one minutes. It's seven total.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, seven inclusive of the ceded
time --
MR. MILLER: Inclusive, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so 21 minutes?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And how long is your presentation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd say about 10, 15 minutes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead then.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Reed
Jarvi, I'm the Collier County Transportation Planning Manager. And
I'm going to run through this presentation relatively quickly, but if you
need me to slow down or ask questions, please do.
Page 179
May 14, 2013
As Nick said, we have a county road network and it's roughly a
two-by-two grid. Some places have other connections and we try to do
as many connections as we can. And as you can see on this, there are
several connections around intersections that would be somewhat
similar to what we're proposing at Whippoorwill and Marbella Lakes.
And I'd like to take you through those quickly.
We're working on Tree Farm -- excuse me, Woodcrest, Massey
and Tree Farm. This is up in Northeast Collier, around 951 and
Immokalee Road. And the green is what's been built today on Tree
Farm, the east-west road, and on the north-south road is Woodcrest;
Bent Creek Preserve is planning on that one.
And you can see that we're working on completing that network
which will then provide a collector network around that intersection.
We also have a similar one, this is Woodcrest -- excuse me, Wolf
Road and Pristine, you heard about this earlier today, northwest of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951. And the green is what's roughly
built today. And then when Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove come
through, they'll be creating that network around that intersection.
Goodlette-Frank, Immokalee Road had discussions recently with
Creekside. And you can see that the green is all built, but there are
connections that can take people around those major intersections, if
necessary.
Devonshire Boulevard, Santa Barbara and Radio Road is another
example. Berkshire Lakes.
The Madison Park community has -- actually is a Pulte
development and has a public road through the middle of it which
could work to go around the Radio Road and Davis Boulevard
intersections, if necessary.
And around --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you mind?
MR. JARVI: I'm sorry?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We get the picture. Get to the issue
Page 180
May 14, 2013
that is the subject matter before us, please. Thank you.
MR. JARVI: The Whippoorwill Lane, Marbella Lakes is the one
we're talking about now. The green is approximately what's built
today. And we're talking about this last connection.
In 2002 the master plan for the Whippoorwill area was done. It
shows the traffic and water management and utilities for the northern
-- or the Whippoorwill area. And since 2005 with the 2030 long-range
plan and then subsequently the 2035 long-range plan, they have the
Green Boulevard Whippoorwill extension on the needs plan. Not
funded but on the needs plan.
In 2006 the Board unanimously approved the dedication
right-of-way from Livingston Village Planned Unit Developed for the
future Green Boulevard extension, which is what we're talking about
today as Whippoorwill or Marbella Lakes extension.
And as you can see on the bottom, this is the minutes in part.
What's underlined says the Whippoorwill Lane extension down to
connect over to Livingston, kind of a backwards L, was quoted.
Livingston Village, there's acreage along the north property line.
That's what is currently Marbella Lakes.
And this is the developer contribution agreement exhibit for
2006, which clearly shows the inserted L or backwards L, extending
Whippoorwill south and Marbella Lakes Drive to the east.
In the original DCA the developer was to design, obtain permits
and construct the road we're talking about today.
The design and permitting was completed and then the recession
started and the developer had a problem. The development was
subsequently picked up by another developer and the amendment was
amended.
And this is from the 2009 Marbella Lakes DCA. You can see it's
still in there as a backwards L. And this is from a sales brochure from
Marbella Lakes. You'll notice that the round circle and the arrow says
future roadway. And you go to the far right top corner, that's the
Page 181
May 14, 2013
backwards L that goes up towards Whippoorwill.
You can see on the very left side is the entrance to Marbella
Lakes.
The Livingston Village developer contribution had that the
developer shall notify all the buyers of the future roadway. And in the
bottom we have a portion of the sales contract which has the purchaser
acknowledges and agrees that this will happen.
Cayo Whippoorwill Ordinance 06-61 was approved in 2006, and
it cannot be developed until there is a connection. And that's where
the location is. It's about the only undeveloped parcel in that area.
There's some development remaining on other parcels, but that's like
almost the only one that's not developed.
And you'll notice in the area there are many developments and
they all come in here. And there are about 1,948 units constructed,
about 350 more are allowed. 600,000 of commercial constructed and
about 145 more is allowed.
And this is the Whippoorwill area interconnection plan. We've
been very diligent over the years, and I've worked with Mr.
Casalanguida on the other side, and many of these connections are
shown in green, and then with two additions we'll have a local area
network for the residents of the Whippoorwill/Marbella Lakes area.
We looked at traffic in the area, and you can see that this is a plot
of traffic versus time. And you can see that there is a spike in '04 and
it went down. That's about the time Golden Gate Parkway opened,
interchange at 1-75. And then down with the recession. And now it
seems to be creeping back up.
If we go with the two percent growth, that's the solid line off to
the right, looks like somewhere around 2020 Pine Ridge Road may go
over capacity. The dotted line is just extending the recent one-year
growth rate and shows 2015 may be the answer.
During our meetings with the public, they brought up many
concerns that we attempted to address. First one being speed and
Page 182
May 14, 2013
crime. The connection to Whippoorwill -- excuse me, the connection
will make Whippoorwill's -- excuse me, Marbella Lakes Drive and
Whippoorwill Lane a county collector road, and staff will coordinate
with the Sheriffs Office to prioritize, enforcement and awareness of
the area.
Other -- was congestion at the Marbella Lakes entrance. And
they've talked about that they are the only development in this area
that doesn't have right and left turn lanes. We have agreed that we
will add right and left turn lanes to this -- to the extension connection.
And a final configuration of Livingston Road and Marbella
Lakes intersection was a concern. So we looked at do nothing, which
would be the current open median; Directionalize (sic) the
intersection, provide a U-turn to the north, that was the original plan
for the connection; or signalization.
Do nothing is this is what's out there now. This is with north to
the right. And the people leaving Marbella Lakes Drive to the left,
they want to take a left to the southbound Livingston have to cross
three lanes of Livingston Road and then get in the traffic stream of
southbound Livingston Road.
Doing a directionalized intersection will allow southbound traffic
to turn left into Marbella Lakes Drive and access Marbella Lakes. And
then to the north we would put a U-turn in approximately opposite
Biscayne Court, which would allow the people to do northbound to a
southbound u-turn.
And the last option is signalization of the road -- signalization of
the intersection, excuse me.
Also talked about a lot of people, they said Golden Gate Parkway
is an alternative to Pine Ridge Road. So we had our cameras, our
traffic cameras from the operations center look at this on the evening
of 4/4, April 4th. And this is Pine Ridge Road at I-75 looking west.
And you can see that it's backed up.
This is Livingston Road at Pine Ridge, and it's backed up.
Page 183
May 14, 2013
And Golden Gate Parkway at I-75, backed up.
And Livingston at Golden Gate Parkway. So this is the peak
season -- end of the peak season.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So what you're expecting is that all
this traffic now is going to cut through this residential community?
I'm just curious. Is that what you're proposing?
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll tell you, I'm voting no.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All the way.
You can't be serious.
MR. JARVI: What we're telling you is that using Golden Gate
Parkway as an alternative to Pine Ridge is no better than staying on
Pine Ridge.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, I see the benefit of the
connectivity for the benefit of the local users. I don't see it as creating
a gateway for these guys to cut through. And that's what you're
proposing by showing us these pictures. I can't support this.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to make a motion to deny.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, you need to get
Page 184
May 14, 2013
your meeting under control.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The people have the right to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they do.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes, thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's why we have public
-- you sign up for public speaking.
I went to the meeting, and it wasn't like any other meeting that
was conducted that I ever went to. It wasn't professional at all. I
mean, the meeting was conducted professional --
(Audience makes negative noises.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And see, it's just like it is now,
okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Don't say
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? And we need to conduct
the public's business in a proper, professional way.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: We're the
public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm asking you to get control
of your meeting, okay?
Now, why I have the floor --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me -- may I comment to the
public?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ladies and gentlemen, please
remain silent. Commissioner Henning does not want to hear how you
feel.
When you want to express how you feel, you will come up to the
podium and in the three minutes you have, you can articulate any way
you like.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
Page 185
May 14, 2013
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I want to continue.
To do nothing is to the same thing that happened in the Nineties
when roads wasn't built. When former County Commissioner Jim
Coletta, myself and Donna Fiala got on board, we had to deal with
that. And if this is what we're going to do and do in the future, a
future board is going to have to deal with this and other roads too,
okay.
Pine Ridge Road is going to fail. Now, my constituents travel
that to get to work every morning, okay, and so I have to object to
allowing my constituents having to drive on a failed road because we
won't provide interconnection.
I don't want to go back to the days when we wasn't doing capital
improvements only to rush and get capital improvements done where
all the roads were under gridlock.
Now, an alternative to this would be the Green Boulevard
extension, which is very, very costly to relieve the east-west corridors.
I can't support the motion because I think it's a step behind like it
was prior to my coming on board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you finish, Mr. Jarvi?
MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am. Unless you have questions, I finished
the presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I fully recognize the work that staff
has done on this item, Mr. Jarvi and Mr. Casalanguida. And I
recognize the concern that Commissioner Henning has just brought
up, and it's very, very true. I only -- I can't support this for only one
reason and that is I know in my heart there are hundreds of situations
like this that Mr. Jarvi and Mr. Casalanguida have identified that are
very, very good improvements to our system, very good
improvements. Very -- and I take off my hat to planning to identify
Page 186
May 14, 2013
those to figure out how to maximize it.
The concern that I have is that each one of these little
connections cost millions of dollars. I have no doubt that we could --
we could probably come up with 200 millions of dollars of things that
would help us quite a bit.
But my point is this: I think every Commissioner, all of my
fellow Commissioners, each one of their districts has issues in their
districts right now today that are actually more important we could
actually use that money for. I think that in the economic situations --
please. In the economic situation we have now, we don't have the
luxury of doing things that are actually as smart. And I regret that.
But, you know, somewhere somebody's got to prioritize things. And I
just think that some of the needed things in each of these districts are
more important than these sorts of projects. And for that reason not
only will I not support this project but I won't support others like it for
a period of time. And my apologies to everybody for that, but that's
just the way I feel about it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's about what they did in
the Nineties too, and that's why nothing was built and then we had to
come up with all of the money and try and fill in for everything that
didn't happen. And that's why we've been trying to create
interconnections throughout the county everyplace.
Now, I felt really bad for these people when I started reading all
of this backup material and everything, and I started doing a little
research. And I said -- I just couldn't see all that traffic going through
their neighborhood. You see, I have it in mine, right on my road. And
when I found out it wasn't in your community but it was alongside of
the community and you have a wall between your community and the
road, I was so surprised. I said well, nobody said that at all. And they
said that everybody had to sign an agreement when they bought their
house that they knew the road was coming through. And so this is
Page 187
May 14, 2013
what I understood.
I did not realize you had a wall. I was thinking of all kinds of
people creeping across the road and running into the neighborhood
when you talked about crime. But there's a wall there. And I was
very concerned about that until I found that I wasn't getting a complete
picture.
And Reed, Commissioner Nance mentioned something about
money. Do we have the money for this already? And it's dedicated to
this?
MR. JARVI: It's budgeted in this year, right? Budgeted in 2013
dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Those are the things I
wanted to mention. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this adding capacity, this
interconnection?
MR. JARVI: It would increase the longevity of the intersection
capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not --
MR. JARVI: But it takes away background traffic versus adding
more capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it is not impact fee
eligible. We cannot spend impact fees to do this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, technically any time you add a
lane, physically build a new lane, you could use impact fees for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you use impact fees
to pave roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not to pave roads, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or repave roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Landscaping?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
Page 188
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a comment.
I paid very close attention to the presentation, and it lacks
substance. The last time this matter was discussed, it was made clear
that there had to be a reason to do this. We had to show -- or it should
be shown that there was a need to do this now. And that hasn't been
demonstrated in this presentation at all.
You know, these pictures are here to essentially inflame the
Board, inflame the audience, and it is really unfair to make an
argument that this has to happen now without the numerical evidence
to show that it's needed now.
I had spoken to Mr. Casalanguida prior when this matter came
forward the last time, and my understanding was the evidence did not
show that this was needed at this time. But it would be needed in the
future. So I have a concern with the proposed timing of this project,
and I don't see any evidence presented here today that supports
approving this today.
And by the way, what it says in the DCA is potential, not certain,
okay, that could happen, not that it will happen. So it's not necessarily
so that it will happen. But assuming that it is needed, it needs to be
done when the need arises, and when that is supported by numbers.
And nothing you have presented today supports that.
And the last conversation I had with staff suggested that it wasn't
needed now and could be delayed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, certainly I think you've
got a window between 2015 and 2022 when you overreach capacity.
Mr. Jarvi asked me if I was going to put up the last slide. These
are the things we try and, you know, plan ahead for. This is the
Physicians Regional expansion that they're talking about doing at I-75
and Pine Ridge. When you look at something like this that comes
on-line, they'll add 102 p.m. peak hour trips in an instant to that
location.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But we knew that. I mean, all that
Page 189
May 14, 2013
data, we have that data in the system.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. That's -- we have a model
and the model grows at -- the MPO model grows at roughly one
percent. Your actual growth rate is front loaded and it grows at one
percent over 35 years.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's not my point. We know
what densities were provided and what uses were provided for in that
surrounding area. I mean, we anticipated that this was going to
develop in the manner it's developing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is in a model at one percent over 25
years. What Mr. Perry will tell you and anybody else who does
transportation modeling will do, in an urban area, as it's built out it's
front end loaded. So most of your growth occurs on the front end, if
you can look at what's happened in the last 10 years, and then the back
end starts to taper off. So the infill takes place pretty quickly, or later
on, in the front end growth. Yet short-term growth is a lot quicker in
the first five or 10 years and then it tapers off. So it averages one
percent, but you might get three percent in the first five years.
This came on after we did our analysis. So it goes to show that,
you know, a project like this comes on-line, it adds a significant
amount of traffic to Pine Ridge. And it's not about just adding
capacity every time, it's about mobility. The ideal would be is you get
faster response times, driver choice. They can take -- you know,
choose which way they want to come out, depending on the traffic.
They may decide hey, I'm in the p.m. peak hour and eastbound Pine
Ridge is heavily loaded, so you know what, I'm going to go the back
way out.
That's what it's about. And that pulls trips off the roads. So I
think you've got a window between 2015 and 2022. I think things like
Physicians Regional come on-line and tell you that we are definitely
growing faster and things are happening. You know, we'd like to plan
ahead, and it's obviously a policy decision whether we build it or not.
Page 190
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We haven't heard from
Commissioner Coyle, and part of this is in his district.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a couple of questions for
you.
You say that there is a development that cannot really proceed
until you have developed this road.
(Unidentified members of the audience speaking.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to let me speak or
not? Thank you.
Is that true or not?
MR. JARVI: The current PUD says it has to have the connection
prior to C.O.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if the Board disapproves this
project, what are the ramifications of that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think I would have to get with
County Attorney Klatzkow, contact the owner and after that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, here's where the headache comes in.
Because it's three votes on this item, you're going to have to amend
your PUD after a public hearing process, and that's going to be four
votes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: On what issue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so if you -- if the Board
disapproves this project, it means that in order to avoid legal
ramifications with the PUD that's already well approved we're going
to have to modify the PUD and remove that contingency.
MR. KLATZKOW: The fair thing would be to remove the
requirement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is a way out of that, if we
have to go that way.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you get super majority vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then let me take a couple
Page 191
May 14, 2013
minutes to explain where I think we really ought to go on this.
Commissioner Henning's statements concerning the mistakes
made in the past are absolutely correct. Along the coastal corridor we
don't have a standard road grid. You can drive for a mile and a half to
two miles north or south without finding a single through street going
eastward. That is ridiculous. And it has caused us a lot of problems
and it will cause future residents even more problems if we continue to
let that happen. We made a conscious decision that we were going to
have a more standard road grid as the population moved eastward.
And that's the purpose of this particular project. I do not believe the
staff could have done a better job of planning this and making sure the
people who bought property there were properly informed. If you
were not, it's not because of a lack of effort by the staff. So don't
blame the staff for that. They went way beyond what is required by
regulations to make sure you were properly informed.
But here's my problem: I find very little credence in the
argument that creating an L-shaped road will solve any traffic
problems whatsoever. I just don't see that happening. But the
extension of Green Boulevard is more consistent with our strategy of
getting more east-west roads built. And I would say that I would
sacrifice the L-shaped portion of this road for the Green Boulevard
extension.
But you need to understand the implications of that. It will mean
a much higher volume of traffic coming along Green Boulevard and
going east and west. But that's not going to happen until most of the
people in this audience are gone. Me included. Okay? And I'll
probably go before you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be around, though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's been around since the 1700's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I invented the dirt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, she did, she did.
But -- she's the oldest member of the Board of County
Page 192
May 14, 2013
Commissioners. Believe it or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's 39 years old.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he never lets me forget it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But anyway, I see an incremental
improvement with Whippoorwill improvements here. I don't think
they're worth the investment at the present time. But I've got to tell
you, I'll be hovering around here perhaps in spirit form when Green
Boulevard comes along, and I will be in favor of Green Boulevard.
Because that provides a very substantial improvement in east-west
flow of traffic.
But I'm inclined not to proceed with this particular project, and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
Are you done?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe it's more prudent
to include in the motion to direct staff to change the long-range
transportation to put the Green Boulevard extension within the
planning process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's identified as a future
project. I don't think we need to build it tomorrow. But we should
begin planning for it, and we should notify people that that's one of
our future plans.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's outside that 2035 plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying let's put it back in the
2035 plan.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's not outside of the 2035 plan.
It's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on, I need to understand.
I'm not sure who's going to tell me the answer.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in the 2035 plan but not in the cost
Page 193
May 14, 2013
feasible plan. It's in the needs portion of it. In other words, you need
it but you can't afford it. It's extremely expensive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's the solution?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I would tell you,
again, to be consistent, that's probably one of the things you want the
most from your staff is you need both. You need these little
connections and you need the long-term connections. They function
together.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why would those two be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hey, look, build Green Boulevard
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then see if --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then once they get used to the
traffic --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the other one won't be a big
problem for them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or we could just have a moratorium
on development --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In 2035 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And all your problems would be
over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- they're not going to care.
If I could --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, it's Commissioner Fiala's
turn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Green Boulevard is a
completely different subject than this. Because this one is just like a
neighborhood interconnectivity. I know, I have one in mine. I live on
Lakewood Boulevard, for anybody -- I don't know if any of you drive
at this end of town, but it is a major cut through, except it's right in the
Page 194
May 14, 2013
middle of my neighborhood, you know, right down my driveway. We
have all cars cutting through between U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard
take this road. It was never planned that way when I moved there.
There was no road that connected through.
Since -- when they put it through, there was really nothing we
could do. But okay, fine, so we lived with it. And what I find is I
never have to go out onto U.S. 41 or to Davis Boulevard. I can go
over to Publix around one back road, I can go another one and go over
to Home Depot, I can go to another one and I can get to the movie
theater or to Beall's. I can -- so I can get to a lot of places and never
have to be on the main road.
And I think that's what this is for is a convenience road more than
anything else. Now, it's true it's on the other side of a wall so you
can't get to it as easily as I can, because it's out my driveway. But I
think that's it. Whereas Green Boulevard is supposed to handle
massive traffic from one section of a town to another, rather than --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a more of a neighborhood thing.
Second of all, somebody said, it might have been you,
Commissioner Hiller, but I don't know, somebody said it doesn't have
to be built now, we should build it later. Maybe that was -- I don't
know. Anyway, what makes it better later? More people move into
the area, and then you even have a worse problem, because people are
going to say no, you didn't build it before, we don't ever want to have
it.
So when is the right time is my question. Is there a better time to
build it than now? I'm just asking you that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Before we go to
Commissioner Coyle, I'm just curious. Of all the people in the
audience, does anybody want it?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: No, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on.
Page 195
May 14, 2013
You want it?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, you want it.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's a
builder.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we still have the
complication of what we do with that PUD. Now, there's no way that
I'm aware of that we combined any of the Commissioners to vote for a
PUD revision. So whatever decision we make today, if we refuse this
project, it still leaves the problem of getting four votes to do a PUD
revision.
I would hope that Commissioners would at least consider that
possibility when the time comes so that we can resolve the problem
for the builder because it's not his fault, it is our fault. And we're
causing this problem and we have to be fair with the developer. But
that's all I had to say.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can the other developer sue us now
for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Burt Harris because --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- he can't use his property?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, you're going to have to change the
PUD. I mean, we had one plan and now we've got another, and that's
fine. But now we've got to change the PUD to be fair to everybody.
It's not hard, but I think you should direct staff to come back. You
know, we're the ones that bear the cost for whatever, you know, is
incurred in that PUD amendment. Shouldn't take that long. And
remove the restriction.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In other words, that he can build
notwithstanding that we're not building the road.
Page 196
May 14, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you've got to remove the restrictions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, that's not unreasonable.
Can I ask a favor, for what it's worth? I mean, I can call the vote
now, but I would like to hear the one person who wants it, since we all
know you don't. And then what I was going to ask, instead of all of
you speaking, if you could all just line up and stand up at the mic and
say you object to it. We understand why. And just state your name so
that you're on the record. Then we'd have one speaker and every
single one of you just stating your name for the record, just say that
you object to it so that we have that for future reference.
So would you all mind if I ask the one person who would like to
see this happen to speak before you all come forward? Would that be
acceptable?
Okay, so are you for it?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's for it.
I'm against it. What you suggest is to save time with everyone going
and saying --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, you just -- everybody will
line up, everyone will state their name, say you live in the community,
you object. Because I want to make sure, since you've taken the time
to come here, that every single one of you gets your name on the
record as being an objection to this, and then I'll call the vote.
Because I promised our court reporter that we would be done at 4:00,
but we're not going to be done at 4:00, we're going to be done at 4:05.
Go ahead.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want to swear in witnesses?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we need -- we don't need to
swear him in on this.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unless you want to be sworn and
then we can use it in court against you sometime in the future. We
could charge you with perjury and all sorts of great stuff. No, I'm
Page 197
May 14, 2013
kidding. Go ahead.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I had prepared words but really listening
today -- just to let you know, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a
transportation engineer and planner. I've been in Collier County since
1990. And I helped prepare the 2002 master plan for this area for the
Whippoorwill area. I also worked on numerous of the developments
in this area.
And a big part of this roadway going through from the outset of
us doing the 2002 master plan, the Board of County Commissioners
was going to have a moratorium in this area for a lack of planning of
facilities. There was an underlying understanding that this east-west
roadway was part and parcel to be built, always, as part of this area
developing out. It was understood that it's not desirable to have 1,400
units in this area to have a long cul-de-sac end that ultimately -- this
east-west road.
So there is, in my mind and professional opinion, a health, safety
and welfare and need for this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a question --
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- a dire need of one.
And I would submit to you that the need is now. Because these
units exist now.
And there was another commitment that the staff was looking at
too, was to look at the intersection of Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill
Lane, and that's woefully inadequate right now. It is. This facility
would relieve that traffic, take 2,000 trips per day off of that
intersection and put it more appropriately and evenly distribute the
traffic. It's to everyone's benefit.
The information was out there from day one to understand. The
developer that came in to build this in 2003, the staff was going to
look at alternate alignment analyses, and that became a moot point
when this developer came in in 2003 and said they would put this
roadway in place in terms of reserving for it.
Page 198
May 14, 2013
Again, I submit to you that the need is now. It has long passed
the need for it. Your investment of dollars is insignificant considering
the benefit that you actually achieve from this versus going to address
the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road, which
was a commitment that you had made years ago as far as staff. And
that really has not been addressed. You will relieve the need for that
by building this facility. And it will relieve, it will create a safety
improvement.
Again, the staff has good, competent evidence as shown
statistically that 2,000 trips per day will be relieved by this. This
community will also benefit by having a signalized intersection at
Whippoorwill and Livingston Road.
Where I live, I'm a District 2 resident, I will benefit from this by
having the relief of traffic off of Pine Ridge Road. So there's a
community-wide gain. It is significant for you all to make these kind
of decisions. It's a hard decision to make. And I understand that. It's
hard for me to get up here and speak on something that is so
unpopular. And I don't have a developer I'm serving or anything like
that for this. I've worked in this area, I understand this area, and I
submit to you that this is very necessary to be built and not to shelve it
for another day. This is deja vu with the old Livingston Road facility
with Wyndemere when that was a two-lane road as front entrance to
that community. And they put that road off for years.
And I ask you, please, let's not repeat history with those kind of
issues. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, just to
understand, you're going to ask the seven speakers to come up and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm going to ask every single
person who's in the audience to line up, just state their name, say they
object and sit down so that their name is on the record. They took the
Page 199
May 14, 2013
time to come here and I really think they should be afforded the
opportunity of having their name on the record, recognizing their
presence. They're not going to comment. They've already
commented they don't want it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Madam Chair, that's
against our rules, the ordinance that we adopted. They must sign up
prior to the item in order to address the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only way that could be
waived is by the Board of Commissioners --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then let me --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- not the Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. Well, that's fine, and I respect
that.
So let me ask the Board, would the Board be willing to allow
these good people who took their time to come here to get their name
on the record to state their position and objection to it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what difference it
makes?
Does anybody feel compelled to get your name on the record?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do? Did you sign up to
speak?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: We do have
some people that did.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it seems like --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, for those who signed up to
speak --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, so the bottom line is it
seems the Board of County Commissioners does not want to let you
come to the podium and put your --
Page 200
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's not true.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I just asked. No one's
answered.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's okay by me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, so Commissioner Nance
says yes.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For those people who have
registered to speak.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Only? Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's fine with me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Everybody or just the people who
signed up to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't want everybody in the
audience to come up if they're not even involved in this. I mean, it's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's the individuals who are
involved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There are people sitting in the back
for other things. But the people who want to come up and say yes or
no, fine and dandy.
But I hope that somebody will tell me -- I hear everybody saying
they object, but I don't understand why if it isn't going through your
neighborhood and if there's a wall between you and the road, it just
doesn't --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, under the circumstances
we promised the court reporter a break at 4:00. It's now 4:05.
Since we can't proceed in the manner in which I had hoped, we're
going to take a break till 4:15 and then return.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to finish up my
comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure, go ahead.
Page 201
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want me to do it now or
give the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's go ahead and finish your
comments. I don't want to interrupt your train of thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the gentleman's right,
Livingston Road was delayed for years and years of even going
through. And it's because of objections.
I can tell you, when Livingston Road was planned from Golden
Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge, this community, now Marbella, was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, it could not go
through because there was not that access. Okay?
There are a lot of delays of roads in Collier County. And there
was a lot of communities that could not be built. And you're going to
have the same thing over and over. You will have the same thing with
Wolf, Massey. You will get some objections from that and it will just
go on and on.
So we can do what we did in the past, that's fine. But I lived it
and I can't do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We'll be back in 10 minutes. So we'll be back at 4:15.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. The -- we
need one more person for a quorum. Unless Commissioner Coyle is
doing his, you know, floating in spirit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I hope not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, it's really funny, while
we're sitting here waiting, I always thought that Commissioner Coyle
looked older than Commissioner Fiala. I mean, honestly. I mean,
really, I had no idea. I really thought he was the oldest. Just a
comment.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's not
very gallant for him to say she's older than dirt.
Page 202
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I
mean, she's very gracious that she didn't do anything. If it was me of
course it would have been a different story.
All right, while we're waiting, let's talk about what's important.
The executive directors -- I'm sorry, the County Manager's right hand,
actually probably right brain, Mary-Jo Brock bought me this chocolate
that I absolutely love called Chili Pilly dark chocolate. I mean, it's so
hot. And I actually gave Commissioner Coyle a piece and he choked
on it. It was the first time I actually ever made him choke. It was
actually -- it was a special moment for me.
And actually today if I had had that chocolate, I would have
given it to Henning, but we ate it all.
But anyway, so because we have this ethics ordinance that
actually didn't get approved till today, I wouldn't want anyone to think
that Mary-Jo was trying to bribe me, because the chocolate was more
than $5.00, and you know how that is. So I actually thought that one
good turn deserved two, so I got her two chocolate bars. So Leo,
could you come up to the dais here so I can present you with two of
the Theo chocolate bars for Mary-Jo in.
And just so you know, for the record, they're not the chili.
Because I don't want here to choke like Coyle did. I have very
different feelings about her. And they're the sea salt dark, which is
absolutely to die for. I highly recommend it with a glass of red wine.
And the toasted coconut dark chocolate, delicious with coffee.
MR. OCHS: On behalf of Mary-Jo, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much, Leo.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's the culinary part of our
meeting today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Now we're back in session, we have
a quorum, and we've taken care of important county business.
Could we call the first speaker? And then what we'll do -- how
many speakers are actually going to use their three minutes? Can you
Page 203
May 14, 2013
raise your hands, just tell me very quickly? How many speakers are
going to use three minutes and then the rest of you are going to line
up? Because I believe there were three who wanted to actually speak.
All right, so Mr. Brett Cohan and Mr. Ed Barr actually will be
speaking for three minutes. Anybody else? No, okay. And this other
gentleman over here. What is it?
MR. CONFOY: Bill Confoy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. Could the three of you
line up at the podium.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I actually had a registered speak
who had ceded three minutes of time to Brett Cohan.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, that's fine. But I believe Brett
is going to limit himself to three minutes.
So if the three of you could stand up at the podium. Why don't
the three of you stand up at this podium over here.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Could I use
a visual, or no?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you want to.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Are you
asking people to talk --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who knows?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, we have a
majority of the Board that said the rest of the residents could mention
their name.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, what was said is all the
people will get up there and tell us whether they're for it or oppose it --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, and state their name.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now you're changing it. That's
fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I'm happy to accommodate you.
I'd like to clarify. I don't want you to be unhappy. What would you
Page 204
May 14, 2013
like me to clarify to make sure that the process works the way you
would like to see it happen? What would you like?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said I'm fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to withdraw my vote.
Go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, Commissioner Fiala said she
had no problem with these people stating their name for the record.
Commissioner Nance said he had no problem with it. I don't have a
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that's the majority, you do what
the majority says.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's what I'm asking. I
mean, if the majority --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got a lot of work to do. We
can do it a lot faster than this. Let's go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we've got tomorrow and
Thursday.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let's go ahead.
Mr. Barr? State your name for the record and please spell it.
MR. COHAN: I'm sorry --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or Mr. Cohan.
MR. COHAN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. My name is Brett Cohan. I said it at your last
meeting, I'll say it again, while I don't agree with the staff on this
subject, I appreciate the time they've given us.
I just want to point to a couple things and then read a very brief
letter from our association president, Jim Smith. I was going to speak
for six minutes, but it shall just be three minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought they were waiving
speaking.
MR. COHAN: There was some discussion about the green in our
contract. And I just want to point out what's in our contract is Green
Page 205
May 14, 2013
Boulevard extension, and it says here -- I'm not going to go through
the whole thing, but purchaser acknowledges and agrees that Green
Boulevard, a/k/a Whippoorwill Way -- what's important about
Whippoorwill Way is at the east-west section. If you go through this
whole thing, you'll see that it refers to I-75, a flyover, et cetera.
There's nothing in our sales contract that as far as I can see that refers
to this particular project on your agenda.
And I want to flip over to the developer contribution agreement.
Mr. Ochs, I'm going to need you to help me on this one here.
This was what was signed I believe by Commissioner Fiala back
in 2009. And it says here: The developer acknowledges that the
dedication of the eastern roadway reservation area pursuant to this
agreement is anticipation of a potential four-lane Green Boulevard
extension. The developer shall notify all buyers of the future
roadway.
What was signed here is what was done. That's what was in our
contract. There's nothing in here or in our contract that refers to this
particular project. So I think when Mr. Jarvi mentioned something
about this was included, I don't see that; I don't believe that to be the
case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a very significant fact.
Mr. Jarvi, could you respond to that?
Could you hold the time for a moment.
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record.
The Green Boulevard extension will run from the west, from
Livingston Road across the frontage of Marbella Lakes over I-75 and
eventually run into the -- where Green Boulevard is now, at the corner
of Green Boulevard and Santa Barbara, Logan.
This road that we are talking about could be construed as a first
phase, a beginning. Because it sets up the corridor for the Green
Boulevard extension. And that's what we were looking at.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There is no nexus between the two.
Page 206
May 14, 2013
How can you suggest that these people were put on notice that that
interconnectivity has anything to do with what's either in the contract
or in the developer agreement? One has nothing to do with the other.
In fact, our discussion here of the Board was one is instead of the
other.
MR. JARVI: I think we said today that it would supplement or
help the intersection of Pine Ridge and Livingston Road, that it
wouldn't -- and I think one of the commissioners talked about the
ultimate solution.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, what was said in your
presentation, as I understood it, and I'm interpreting, was that these
people were put on notice in their sales contracts and in the DCA that
this loop was going to be created, this inner road was going to be
created. And based on what this gentleman presented, that's not the
case at all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ms. Chairwoman, I feel bad, I put
Reed on the spot. He's still relatively new here.
I worked on all the DCA's. The worst case scenario was put in
the agreement. The agreement itself actually had the L-shape in there.
The agreement itself --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: No, no.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it does, because I worked on it.
The agreement itself does have the L-shape. They gave us the
plans. What we -- when we did this agreement, it was a notification to
the buyer. We said you've got to make sure they know the worst case
that's going to happen is a four-lane road.
The original developer agreement had the developer build in the
L-shape connection. So the L-shape was supposed to be done by G.L.
Homes. And when G.L. Homes -- when we -- the reason we amended
the DCA, simply we wanted to prioritize our impact fee money
towards the capital projects we were working on at that time. So we
said to the developer, we're not going to give you a million dollars in
Page 207
May 14, 2013
impact fee credits. We'll do this project later because we have to
finish Santa Barbara, Vanderbilt, a couple other projects, and so we
deferred it.
When we did the DCA, he gave us the right-of-way plans and the
permits. So they became ours. So what we said to the developer was
please make sure that the citizens know, the worst case scenario
they're going to get a four-lane road.
And then Kevin Rattery from G.L. Homes, that's why he put on
that sales buyer notification plan. Some people saw it and some
people didn't.
And again, to Commissioner Coyle's comment, I wish the
developer had been a little more poignant with their notification. But
we had done everything possible to let the folks know --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it sounds to me like from
what I just saw in that sales contract, that they were absolutely correct
and clearly stated what the DCA states. So I don't see where the
developer in any way failed to disclose what the obligation was. And
the DCA is clear what the obligation is, and it isn't what we're talking
about today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the 2009 DCA. That's the
agreement attached as Exhibit C in the general location map showing
the connection. It shows the Whippoorwill project. So it was in the
agreement.
What we said is make sure the people know there's going to be a
four-lane road. We figured this was a no-brainer because they had
already built the first leg. We were more concerned that they were
going to buy in a project where there was going to be a four-lane road,
not a two-lane connection.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I see.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. So I think they were notified of
the worst case scenario.
And then that -- you know, Kevin Rattery had given me a call.
Page 208
May 14, 2013
He's from G.L. Homes. He said that's part of what was presented in
the package which shows the future roadway and the L-shape. So we
don't want to argue with the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The sales package, you know,
obviously is totally nonbinding because usually, you know, the
contracts --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And ma'am, I'll tell you, the folks
from Marbella, this gentleman --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- usually discounts that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and a few others, they've been really
good to work with. We recommend you do it. We can wait to do it
another time. You know, I don't want to make this an argument,
because it's not really, you know, for us to argue with you. It's a good
project, it will be a good project later. I think you should do it now. If
you don't do it now, we'll come back at another time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
MR. COHAN: Madam Chair, I can read a letter from our
president, if you wish.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why don't you introduce it on the
record, unless it says something that provides additional information.
MR. COHAN: Okay. Now, introduce, meaning read it, or --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, just introduce it on -- a letter of
objection, right?
MR. COHAN: Yes, ma'am. This would be a letter to the County
Commissioners from Jim Smith, president of Marbella Lakes
Homeowners Association.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And you can give it to
the court reporter.
Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- well, go ahead, sir, I don't
know who --
Page 209
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: When you state your name for the
record, please spell your last name for the benefit of the court reporter.
MR. BARR: Yeah, my name is Ed Barr. That's B-A-R-R.
I'm a resident of Marbella Lakes and I want to go on record in
objection to the road and the project. I do have some notes here I'd
like to get into the record as well.
And with regards to some of the comments that were made this
morning and some of the discussion, we have lots of answers for
those. I'm not sure it's necessary at this point. But if there are any
questions, I know Commissioner Fiala, you had mentioned a few
things.
I think without actually being at this site it's almost impossible to
understand. It looks really great on paper, but it's not. And we have
all kinds of statistical information and it's available. A lot of
documentation has been sent in. We've emailed, we've delivered
documentation, there have been news articles on this. If anything, you
should all have more information than you probably want on this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you could introduce, you know,
your comments on the record and it will be an exhibit to this agenda
item. And if you have any thoughts you'd like to share with
Commissioner Fiala or any of the other commissioners, you can email
us with, you know, any details that you would like us to consider.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe without belaboring,
they said -- I've heard people say that they would prefer to have it built
later rather than sooner. And this is what Nick just said. So is that
how you agree, build it in a couple more years?
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
MR. BARR: No, we don't want it built at all. But if we had a
choice between now and later, we're certainly going to opt for later.
Because I think if we spend more time reviewing this and really
analyzing, it's not quite as simple as Commissioner Henning said.
And I completely relate to what might have historically happened.
Page 210
May 14, 2013
But lots of things have changed and we are not out in front of this
project. We have developments in place. There's a 90-degree turn. I
mean, I can go on for a long time. I don't think that's my objective
here today.
But I'll be more than happy to share details with you and email
you, whatever you need to know to make you more comfortable with
what, you know, our position is.
If I could just read one paragraph, because I kind of represent the
residents of --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of course.
MR. BARR: -- Marbella Lakes and the surrounding
communities. And they wanted me to have a closing statement.
It says: We respectfully ask that you listen to the concerns of
positions of the residents of Marbella Lakes community and the
surrounding communities. These are hard-working people who came
to Collier County to retire -- sorry, I've had a lot of discussions with
these folks, they're very passionate -- and to raise their families. Many
of them have saved their entire lifetime to make this move to paradise.
There is no apparent urgency to build this road and there might be no
demonstrable reason for the road at all. More time is needed to
reconsider this project and evaluate alternative possibilities. There is
plenty of time to create a better plan for the future.
And that's really the sentiment of at least 1,000 people that I've
had either direct or indirect contact with.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. BARR: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. If you would
introduce your statement. Thank you.
MR. CONFOY: Hi. I'm bill Confoy and I am with Wyndemere.
And that's why I wanted to speak separately. Because it's not just a
Marbella issue.
We effectively agree with the presentations that Marbella has put
Page 211
May 14, 2013
forward. We think there are other -- our reason was primarily because
you're going to put another light on Livingston Road which we feel we
don't need. And that we also feel that the roadway is to prevent it
from being a cut-through. And even if it was built to being a
cut-through and that's because at Livingston Road and Pine Ridge
Road there's no right turn on red and I've had people tell me hey, if
that right turn way you could make a right on red from the right lane,
we wouldn't use that as a cut-through (sic). But if it still remains that,
it's going to be a cut-through. And I know Nick has always said that,
well, we don't want it to be a cut-through. But life is life, and people
will cut through if they're going to beat the clock.
We just think that that 2,000 cars or so they're going to take off
of Pine Ridge and put through is a pittance compared to the 72,000
cars that run there a day. It's only three and a half percent. That isn't
going to solve the Pine Ridge Road problem.
And there are -- Marquesa Plaza, which is the shopping center,
I'm sure people would -- that go back down south would like to not
have to make a U-turn all the time. And if that was there, that would
be a benefit. But it's not a benefit for Pine Ridge Road because there's
no way to get from that Marquesa Plaza without having to go back on
Pine Ridge Road, even after this is completed.
So we think that their suggestion that you can look at things in
more depth if you have more time to do it is well taken.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And now because it is the will of the majority of the board, if
everyone could just line up. And everybody that's lining up is not
going to speak, they're not going to comment, they're all in opposition
to this and they're merely stating their name for the record.
When you state your name, please spell it for the court reporter
and sit down immediately after you've put your name on. So if you
would just all quickly line up.
MR. MILLER: We have one more speaker.
Page 212
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, we have one more
speaker. I'm sorry, I thought we -- I had notes here that we only had
three, so I apologize. Forgive me.
MR. WESLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good afternoon.
MR. WESLEY: My name is Robert Wesley. W-E-S-L-E-Y.
And I live at 65 77th Marbella Lane in Naples -- in Marbella Lakes
subdivision. My wife Wilma and I moved here from Scottsdale,
Arizona approximately two years ago because we believed that
Naples, Collier County community, is one of the best retirement areas
in the United States. And we live here full-time.
Marbella Lakes is a wonderful subdivision in the Naples, Collier
County community. This subdivision and community has an
outstanding reputation now today. And we the residents would like
for you the Commissioners to help us to keep it that way.
When we started to look for a community in South Florida to
retire, the most important issues to us and any homeowner we believe
is security, a place, stability and to hold the real estate value of your
location. We don't want to lose any of these values of our homes due
to the following: Increased traffic concerns; two, noise pollution
concerns; security concerns; safety concerns; loss of natural
environment concern; loss of privacy concern; and negative visual
impact concerns.
My wife and I believe all of the previously mentioned variables
are very positive in our Marbella Lakes community today. However,
implementing the proposed new Whippoorwill extension plans will
have a very negative impact on our wonderful community if the
project is executed as planned and designed.
In conclusion, due to the previously noted negative impacts and
due to the extreme proximity of the proposed east-west section of the
roadway project to many of our Marbella Lakes homes, especially
those properties on the northern boundaries, for instance, the east-west
Page 213
May 14, 2013
section south curve would -- it's about four feet north of the wall
which is approximately six feet high. And then the property setback
line to the rear homes is approximately 15 feet. So if I have a family
room or if I'm in my lanai, I can build out to that point and I'm going
to be approximately 25 to 30 feet. That's from where I'm standing
maybe to that wall from traffic. And so this is the kind of impact.
Therefore, I am respectfully requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners reconsider this project and either cancel it or place the
project on hold until you have determined some time in the future --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sir, your time is up.
MR. WESLEY: I'm sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We get the message. Thank you.
So would everybody please quickly line up. And then just, like I
said, no comment, it's just we -- this is to acknowledge your presence
and your opposition to this. So just state your name and spell it.
MS. ALEXY: Sue Alexy. A-L-E-X-Y. I oppose.
MR. TRAPANI: My name is Rich Trapani. T-R-A-P-A-N-I.
And thank you for upholding the second amendment.
MR. FIANDACA: Joseph Fiandaca. F-I-A-N-D-A-C-A.
Opposed.
MS. FIANDACA: Lorraine Fiandaca. And that's
F-I-A-N-D-A-C-A. Opposed.
MR. KAPLAN: Bert Kaplan. K-A-P-L-A-N. Opposed.
MS. KAPLAN: Nancy Kaplan. K-A-P-L-A-N. Opposed.
MS. BONELLI: Maria Bonelli. B-O-N-E-L-L-I. Opposed.
MR. BONELLI: John Bonelli. B-O-N-E-L-L-I. Opposed.
MS. RANTA: Chris Ranta, R-A-N-T-A. Opposed.
MS. BARR: Barbara Barr, B-A-R-R. Opposed.
MS. DALLESSANDRO: Norma Dallessandro.
D-A-L-L-E-S-S-A-N-D-R-O. Opposed.
MR. DALLESSANDRO: Richard Dallessandro.
D-A-L-L-E-S-S-A-N-D-R-O. Opposed.
Page 214
May 14, 2013
MR. RIZZA: John Rizza, R-I-Z-Z-A. Opposed.
MS. WESLEY: Wilma Wesley. Opposed. W-E-S-L-E-Y.
MS. NELSON: Linda Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N. Opposed.
MR. NELSON: Harry Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N. Opposed.
MS. GULER: Didem Guler, G-U-L-E-R. Opposed.
MS. ROLLER: Pauline Roller, R-O-L-L-E-R. Opposed.
MR. ROLLER: Robert Roller, R=O-L-L-E-R. Opposed.
MS. SPAHL: Nancy Spahl, S-P-A-H-L. Opposed.
MR. BARZANA: Cesar Barzana, B-A-R-Z-A-N-A. Opposed.
MS. BARZANA: Rita Barzana, B-A-R-Z-A-N-A. Opposed.
MS. MARTIN: Mary Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N. Opposed.
MR. MARTIN: Don Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N. Opposed.
MS. KESSLER: Amy Kessler, K-E-S-S-L-E-R, of Stratford
Place. Opposed.
MS. VASILOFF: Carol Vasiloff, V-A-S-I-L-O-F-F, a resident of
Stratford Place. Opposed.
MS. CARMINUCCI: Lauren C-A-R-M-I-N-U-C-C-I. Opposed.
MR. RANTA: Impor (phonetic) Ranta, R-A-N-T-A. Opposed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you all very much for being
here this afternoon. I think we had about 40 or 50 people that just
opposed and that took -- or speak, I should say, and that took three
minutes. So well done.
With that, there being no further discussion, we have a motion
and a second on the table.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Were you opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 215
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Henning dissent. Motion carries 3-2.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I might, if we could get a motion from the Board,
if it would be appropriate, to direct the staff to bring forward at the
county's expense the amendment to the Cayo Whippoorwill PUD that
we discussed?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. I'd like to make a motion to
have staff bring forward a -- how would you like to describe it?
Basically a PUD amendment to amend the PUD to allow the
developer to proceed, given that we have decided not to build that
road at this time.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you need to go back on
the record and find out why there was concerns about traffic on --
more traffic on Whippoorwill. I think the most appropriate thing to do
is demand that this developer connect to what is now called Marbella,
okay?
We cannot deviate from our requirements of level of service. So,
you know, just to direct the County Manager to have staff do the
amendments, there still needs to be an analysis on the impacts. Okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I'll modify my motion to have
staff analyze --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think it would be better if
the developer come forward and make the request instead of the
County Commission. Because it needs a super majority and it might
not pass. I mean, there has been commitments, even by
Commissioners who voted not to build this, that we will not lower the
Page 216
May 14, 2013
level of service.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know one of the things --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or we were forbidden from
voting on contrary to our Growth Management Plan. So all those
analyses need to be done, and I think they're going to be focused
around traffic impacts.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Attorney, how would you
like us to proceed?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got to unscramble the egg somehow.
And Commissioner Henning's right. And I think what you do is you
direct the County Manager to bring it back and it will go through a
typical staff process. It will have to go to your Planning Commission,
and it will get to the Board, you'll have a staff report the issues and
we'll deal with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it has to be an analysis by
staff whether or meets the Growth Management --
MR. KLATZKOW: It is a PUD amendment. It's -- you've got a
whole list of requirements on how to amend the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And where's the money going to
come from? Is it going to come out of Community Development
funds or is it going to come out of general funds?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we even know if this developer
wants to develop at this time?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think someone needs to contact
that developer. Because if he has no desire to develop at this time,
there's no real need to do it right now.
MR. OCHS: Well, the alternative, as Commissioner Henning
said, is to let the developer bring it forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And again, with the
understanding when the developer is ready, we agree to pay for
whatever needs to be done to make that amendment a possibility to
Page 217
May 14, 2013
allow him to proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm just saying that's very
dangerous, because again, it needs a super majority vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But the thing is we don't have an
obligation to build this now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, Commiss --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't. So I'm not really sure -- I
mean, I understand what you're saying to help the developer, but we
don't have an obligation to build this road now. So why are we talking
about this PUD amendment?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think that our obligation right
now is to notify the developer and maybe see what happens from
there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But again, we don't have an
obligation to build this road now under any circumstances. So the
developer is not being harmed because we're not doing something,
you know, contrary to an obligation we have.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know where he stands, if he's
marketing this piece right now -- property's been hot in Collier County
-- with the understanding that hey, the county's going to build this
road. I think the only obligation we have right now that I -- I need to
get ahold of the person and say, you know, we've deferred this project
indefinitely. So if you intend to market or do something with this
project on the grounds that the county had this in the budget last year,
you --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But the budget is not binding.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's absolutely no obligation
there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood.
So I think I need to at least contact him in fairness to him --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can.
Page 218
May 14, 2013
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and just let him know what's going
on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't think it's appropriate to make
a motion with respect to this issue right now. I think more research
needs to be done and a determination needs to be made if it even has
to be done. So I don't -- I wouldn't think it's appropriate to make a
motion. I don't think there's scrambling or unscrambling that's
required at this time.
MR. KLATZKOW: At the very least I concur with Nick.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Well, at the very least I
concur with Nick too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. I'll take that action --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and we'll go from there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks.
Commissioner Coyle -- Commissioner Henning, were you done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning (sic)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm done too.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So this item is concluded. Thank
you for being here today.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank
you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Next item, Commissioner -- I'm
sorry, County Manager? 10.F?
Item #10F
DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK TO THE
BOARD FOR ITS FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE
ABOLISHING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Page 219
May 14, 2013
TOGETHER WITH AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE
TO (1) ABSORB THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EAC; AND
(2) CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM 9
MEMBERS TO 7, WITH A SINGLE MEMBER FROM EACH
COMMISSION DISTRICT, PLUS TWO AT-LARGE MEMBERS -
DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO EVALUATE HOW TO ELIMINATE THE EAC AND
CONSOLIDATE IT INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CONFIGURING THE NUMEROSITY AS WELL AS THE
BACKGROUND OF THE MEMBERS CREATING THE BEST
POSSIBLE COMMISSION FOR THE COUNTY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. 10.F is a recommendation to direct the
County Attorney to bring back to the Board for its future consideration
an ordinance abolishing the Environmental Advisory Council,
together with an ordinance amending the Collier County Planning
Commission ordinance to, number one, absorb the responsibility of
the EAC; and number two, to change the membership composition of
the Collier County Planning Commission from nine members to
seven, with a single member from each commission district plus two
at large members. This item was brought forward by Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I think Nicole Ryan
has -- is going to speak on this. She has even a better idea than this
item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead, Nicole.
Are there any other public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Madam Chair, we have four total. Nicole is
first.
Page 220
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who are the four?
MR. MILLER: Nicole Johnson, Brad Cornell, Bob Krasowski
and Marcia Cravens.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, Brad and Marcia are not
here, so there's only Bob. Go ahead.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy.
And since 1991 the county has had an environmental advisory
board giving you technical, impartial, objective feedback, not only on
development projects but also proactively on how best to protect
natural resources in Collier County.
It was the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board in
1991 and then it transitioned to the EAC in 1999.
And certainly having that function of an advisory board with
experts on it to give feedback to the county is something that's very
important, perhaps now more than ever because of the additional
home rule that the most recent Growth Management Act changes have
given to the county.
When I initially saw this agenda item the knee jerk reaction was
oh, no, we can't do that. But in looking at it a little bit more, I think
that there's some merit in taking a look at how best to really wrap in
the environmental review and see if there can be some coordination
with the Planning Commission.
As we know, the environment is so tied to quality of
environment, quality of life, that we have to have all of those
functions put together.
The issue really becomes how do we take the responsibilities of
the EAC and mesh that in with the responsibilities of the Planning
Commission and have both of those bodies really function as one unit.
And one of the things that I would ask you to consider is first of
all those two at large positions. You need to have some positions that
are designated for technical environmental folks. So taking a look at
Page 221
May 14, 2013
having that designated.
And I would also ask that you take a look at this concept of
shrinking down the size of the Planning Commission. They're going
to be taking on additional roles, responsibilities with the environment.
This might not be the time to shrink it from nine to seven.
The Conservancy would ask that staff study this, get some input
from the community, bring that back, is seven the right number,
should it maybe be nine; how do we make sure that we're not losing
that natural resources component of it.
And then once it's brought back with input, then it move to
ordinance. So it's one more step, but it's really important, so we would
ask that you consider that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to make a motion to that
effect, that we direct staff to -- and actually, and the County Attorney's
Office to evaluate how we can eliminate the EAC, consolidate it into
the Planning Commission and then decide what the appropriate
configuration in terms of numbers, numerosity, as well as background
of commission members would be to create the best possible Planning
Commission for the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Bob Krasowski.
I take a different tact on this. I think the Planning Commission
does a very good job, but they are fairly much limited to development
issues.
The Environmental Advisory Council, while on the one hand it
does develop and contribute to discussions along the environment, it's
very restricted and limited and always has been. Like the
Environmental Advisory Council had no role to play in the beach
renourishment scenario that we just went through and still is coming
Page 222
May 14, 2013
up. I would think that maybe you could take the Environmental
Advisory Council, they're somewhat technical and professional in
environmental issues, I believe, I'm not familiar with all the
background, but to raise them up a bit with being a more technical and
more professionally orientated -- blend them with the Coastal
Advisory Commission. Because the Coastal Advisory Commission
should be very sensitive to the environmental aspects, which they
really have not shown themselves to be. I was wishing to be here
earlier when you were discussing some appointments. And I'm sure
you made the right choices, but I would love to see over time maybe I
would have suggested that if you reappointed, you reappoint it for a
short period of time.
And at some point in time, I've heard it mentioned by you today
and before, that maybe you should do a review of your advisory
council. Things change all the time. You can kind of come to terms
with what your expectations are, of what the needs are, what
information do we have to process and review, and then funnel into
you and how that serves you best, and then what groups, because you
have -- I think you have like 60 advisory councils or something like
that. I mean, you have a lot. So maybe we have to blend some.
But I think if you put the Environmental Advisory Council in
with the Planning Council, whoever has the strongest representation,
which would probably be planning, they'll run the whole shown. So
you need the two separated and a more substantial, stronger
environmental analysis, as well as planning. Planning is the best
you've got.
So that's my two cents, and I hope you'll consider it at some point
in the future. I must have been up here for like six minutes. What's
going on?
MR. MILLER: Thirty-seven seconds left, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Wow, gee, time's stretching out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Time flies when you're having fun.
Page 223
May 14, 2013
Commissioner Fiala?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. Well, I'd just like to end --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, sorry, I thought you -- go
ahead.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I just hope that, you know, you really
pursue your analysis of what the -- the council you have --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- and blend them. Thanks a lot.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I like that idea of
letting staff work on this just a little bit more. I think that's good. And
that was one of my notes, by the way.
Another one of my notes is if they were going to have just five
commission districts represented plus the two at large and yet we're
abolishing the EAC. And I agree with Nicole, I was saying we should
have at least one environmental expert on there, if not, two, at the at
large. And if it's only one, then we should have an urban planning
man or person or background person on there. I felt that that would be
a good one.
And then we should probably have some kind of requirements or
qualifications. If we're pairing this down, we can't just take anybody
that's a favorite, we have to be really careful of who we put on there,
because it's going to be very short. But luckily we're going to be
taking a good look at it.
And if we're going to have two at large and they don't take the
suggestion of, say, an environmental expert or urban planning expert,
maybe we should require that to have a super majority vote rather than
a majority vote when we vote in two at large.
And finally, when you're studying this, maybe you can tell us if
you decide that's what you want to do is five people plus two, when do
we advise the extra people that we have on there right now that they're
Page 224
May 14, 2013
no longer a volunteer? So those are all things --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Those are good ideas. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if I made -- did I
say Nicole Ryan? I said that? Maybe you should wear name tags.
MS. JOHNSON: That's okay, I answer to both.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I get conditioned and I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And anyways, what I was going
to say is it isn't what we agreed on, Nicole, but I understand where
you're coming from. I just -- it just was a surprise.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You shouldn't have given the
preamble that was so rosy and glowing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot that females can always
change their mind.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, it's that interrogation
technique that, you know, criminal investigators use. You have like
just leave an open mind and let it be filled in. So he set me up, and I
just like went yes, absolutely, whatever you say.
Go ahead, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I wasn't done. I was waiting
for you to get done on my time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, I was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You done?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- so excited about you.
Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you sure?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Promise. My lips are sealed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eleven members is a little
wieldy. That's why I recommended a seven member. I mean, if you
had two more at large, you'll be at 11. We don't have 11 seats here.
That's another reason.
And the main reason why I brought this forward is, you know,
Page 225
May 14, 2013
we're saying that we're pro business. With the work that staff and the
environmental community and the change of the board, you know, the
Environmental Advisory Board has little to no work to do now. And
to roll it over --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- into the Planning Commission
makes sense. It will save staff time and should save -- further reduce
fees that is charged and so on and so forth.
You know, my idea was keep the -- this committee, which is very
important, and is required by law, the Planning Commission, is to
keep it at five, one per district. And then Nicole and I talked about
having the two at large have environmental experience. However,
whatever the Board wants to do on this issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion and a second
on the floor.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, which I presented.
You know, one thing that's interesting is that we -- like the City
of Naples and the City of Marco have planning commissions, correct?
You each have a Planning Commission. And the reason why
Commissioner Coyle's district has one representative is because he's
got a Planning Commission. Well, Marco Island actually has three
representatives because it currently has two on the Planning
Commission plus the City of Marco Planning Commission. So you
could reduce --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marco Island has two on the
Planning Commission?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you have two -- your district
has two representatives on the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they're both from East Naples,
right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then on top of that -- we're
Page 226
May 14, 2013
talking about your district. It doesn't matter where they're from
specifically but they're from your district.
And then in addition you have the Marco Island Planning
Commission, similar to the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that have nothing to do with
county, though.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand. But the reason
that Commissioner Coyle's district only has one representative is
because it was decided that the Planning Commission from the city
takes care of part of his community and then he has one representative
for the balance. The same thing could be done for your district. That
eliminates one person, potentially. In other words, if your district was
handled the same way as Commissioner Coyle's district was handled
on the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look how much bigger mine is.
I've got 92,000 people in East Naples. I don't like that idea at all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. We all have the same
number of people in our districts by law. Everybody has 65,000 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, district. I'm talk -- you're
talking district, I'm talking East Naples.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we are -- we have our
appointments by district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So we all have 65,000
people.
You know what, I don't think we should get in this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think so either.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The only reason I say that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want to go there right
now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. Let's -- Commissioner
Henning, is there some way you would like me to modify this to more
Page 227
May 14, 2013
closely reflect what you expected Nicole to say? Because, I mean,
obviously if she surprised you out of the box, I really -- I want to
respect your preamble. What was it that you liked that she said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we really need to work with
the environmental community. If we're saying an advisory board that
deals with their issues that we want to reduce it tremendously and
eliminate it and roll it into something else, I think we need to respect
that, give it a little bit more time and bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So then my motion stands.
Commissioner Henning -- I mean Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'll never do that again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What, call him Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I just wanted to mention --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You better blow me a kiss at the end
of this meeting, okay? I'm like --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There you go with rumors
again.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If only I lived up to all of them, my
God, my life would be just amazing.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I support Commissioner Henning's
effort in this. And one of the main reasons, and I was saying it half
joking to Nicole but it's true is that we have three tremendous
environmental NGOs that this government has an excellent working
relationship with, The Conservancy, The Federation and Audubon.
And we are well aware that these people come very well prepared
with the issues, knowing what they're talking about. They almost
never give us false information. And we have come to rely upon them.
And I see no reason to duplicate some of this effort needlessly.
Page 228
May 14, 2013
I support this consolidation. I will say that I am in favor of -- if
we have a couple of seats that are uncommitted to districts, I would
like to see one personally in natural resources, and I would like to see
one dedicated to issues that are rural in nature. Only because I don't
think those issues are represented in a lot of different cases. Because
not only do we have the five county districts, but if Marco Island has
an issue or Pelican Bay has an issue or the City of Naples has an issue,
they all have agencies and groups that rally to the cause and to the
issue, whereas the extended rural areas of the county rarely have
anybody that addresses their particular --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me for jumping in, but I
think that's an excellent idea. Because so much of our area is rural.
And I don't think we've had enough representation. I think that's an
excellent idea.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But it doesn't get developed. We're
talking about a Planning Commission that talks about development.
So the rural area is agricultural, intended to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, but there's development
taking place out there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's where a lot of this
development is scheduled to occur, and a lot of the discussions will be
revolving around what happens in some of these areas that are
otherwise rural at present.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's just a suggestion. I have no
other comment. Thank you, I'll shut up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
All right, can I call the vote?
MR. OCHS: Would you please --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Clarify?
MR. OCHS: -- restate or clarify the motion so Jeff and I know
Page 229
May 14, 2013
exactly what it is you want us to do? I mean --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Reconfigure the Planning
Commission to make it more streamlined; dissolve the EAC and wrap
up the environmental component in a new Planning Commission that
is lean and effective and efficient.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you're looking for public input on that,
correct?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, talk to the NGOs, talk to the
development community.
MR. KLATZKOW: But if we're going to have public input on
that, would it be all right if we essentially use the Planning
Commission to hold this debate?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. I think that's a really good --
MR. KLATZKOW: At least we'll have a public forum for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: In fact, I was thinking that. That's a
great idea. That's a very good idea. Have a discussion.
Yeah. And does that make sense?
MR. OCHS: That makes perfect sense.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And that's just clarifying
what the motion was.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously with
Commissioner Henning being absent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just don't want any tree
huggers from District 4 to be put on the Planning Commission, okay?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No tree huggers?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Just tree huggers or District 4
under any of those, Commissioner Coyle?
Page 230
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes, yes. She represents a
group of them in District 4.
Item #11A
CONSIDERATION OF THE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE
APPLIED TO THE POSITION OF CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER
- MOTION TO ELECT MARK STRAIN AS THE CHIEF
HEARING EXAMINER — APPROVED; MOTION AUTHORIZING
HR, COUNTY MANAGER AND THE CHAIRWOMAN TO
NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT, SALARY AND START DATE
WITH MR. STRAIN STAYING WITHIN THE SALARY RANGE
ALREADY DETERMINED BY THE BCC — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11.A. That is a
recommendation to consider candidates who have applied to the -- to
fill the position of Chief Hearing Examiner. Ms. Price will make a
brief presentation.
MR. MILLER: I have two registered speakers for this item,
Madam Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And who are they?
MR. MILLER: Nicole Johnson and Diane Ebert.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, wonderful. Do you want to
come up to the podiums?
MS. PRICE: I don't have a whole lot to say. Len Price, for the
record, Administrative Services Division Administrator.
You asked us to solicit resumes and applications and we've done
so. HR and myself have reviewed those applications and tried to sort
them out for you by the most qualified, the qualified and the three that
we felt did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position.
I'm not sure exactly what the next steps you wanted to take are,
so --
Page 231
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think the next step is we make the
motion to select the candidates that you've presented and -- do you
want to read the list of candidates?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, not necessarily. Unnecessary you'd like
us to. We stand ready to either respond to questions the Board has or
listen to public speakers and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll make the motion that we
recommend Mark Strain for the position of Chief Hearing Examiner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We haven't heard from the speakers
yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I know. But they wanted to let this
finish and I decided to make a motion and now they can come up and
comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make any difference what
they say.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Nicole Johnson and she'll be
followed by Diane Ebert.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did she change her name?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Under duress.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And don't ever think of changing
your name. The Naples Daily News might put you on the front page.
MS. JOHNSON: You know, it hasn't been --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: God help every woman that marries.
MS. JOHNSON: -- legally officially done, but I'm getting there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Now you're telling us about illegal
acts?
MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson -- Nicole Ryan
Johnson from The Conservancy.
And first of all, I do want to apologize to Commissioner
Henning, we did talk about one item, but I did have some other things
to bring up, so I apologize if I surprised you on that.
Page 232
May 14, 2013
As far as the hearing examiner, as you know, The Conservancy
was very involved in the process of establishing the ordinance. We
were nitpicking about some of the ordinance language, suggesting
process related issues be in the ordinance, and the response was the
ordinance needs to be general, though you did make I think some very
good changes, we appreciate that.
But the process is going to come in the LDC and that's going to
be after you hiring the hearing examiner. Which makes it so critical
that you get the right hearing examiner for this, especially this first
hearing examiner, because they will be setting up the process. And
you need someone, in The Conservancy's opinion, that has working
knowledge of county code, county laws and the stakeholders that are
involved. Because this hearing examiner will be working with the
community, with stakeholders, listening to their input.
And we believe that Mark Strain is the best person for the job,
and we would ask that you vote in favor of Mr. Strain being hired for
this position. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Nicole Ryan Johnson.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker is Diane Ebert.
MS. EBERT: Good afternoon, Commission.
I am going to just echo with Nicole said. I am on the Planning
Commission. And with as many land development codes, as many
things as we have to go through, Mark knows every one of them just
so perfectly.
And Nicole is right, being that this is the first one, you really
need someone who understands it very well, and I believe Mark would
do a perfect job. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. I'm glad we
don't know your maiden name.
There being no further discussion --
MR. OCHS: Hold on, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or almost no further discussion.
Page 233
May 14, 2013
MR. MILLER: No, go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, there being no further
discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: As a follow-up, now that you've made a selection,
would the Board want to authorize the chair person to complete the
final negotiations? The Board has already adopted a standard form
contract, but you still have the final start date and the specific salary to
conclude the selection. So --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What has the Board decided as a
specific salary? Did we come up with that?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. Typically when you have a contract
employee that works for the Board, the Board historically has
authorized the Chairperson to negotiate and then bring back the final
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right.
MR. OCHS: -- contract.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make a motion to authorize the
Chair to work with Human Resources and the County Manager to
arrange final details of the contract and the salary.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To negotiate with Mr. Strain?
MR. OCHS: With Mr. Strain, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right, thank you. And I'll bring it
Page 234
May 14, 2013
back at the next meeting for approval.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, you did approve a range already.
So you'll stay within that range?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
Thank you.
THE COURT REPORTER: Was there a second on that?
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 #11E
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 96-84, AS AMENDED (THE RADIO ROAD
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT), TO
INCORPORATE PROVISIONS TO FACILITATE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RICH KING MEMORIAL
GREENWAY WITHIN THE MSTU BOUNDARIES — APPROVED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Next item is 11.E.
I'd like to make a motion to approve.
MR. OCHS: This item was moved at Commissioner Henning's
request for discussion, Madam Chair.
This is -- was formally 16.D.7. It's the recommendation to
request authorization to advertise and bring back an ordinance
Page 235
May 14, 2013
amending Collier County Ordinance 96-84, as amended, the Radio
Road Beautification MSTU to incorporate provisions to facilitate
improvements to the Rich King Memorial Greenway within the
MSTU boundaries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I just want to give a
little bit of historical perspective on this MSTU.
Most of it was at one time in my district, from Foxfire to the east.
However, that has changed. It's all in Commissioner Coyle's district
now.
Over and over again I've heard from constituents, when is the
county going to take over Radio Road since they're doing other
landscaping. And now we're expanding it, further complicating the
issue about the county taking over the maintenance of it. Because
right now it doesn't fit our requirements for taking it over.
Then we took on Devonshire, which is a collector road. We don't
have a policy for landscaping collector roads. And now we're doing
the ends of a greenway through this MSTU. And this idea came from
the advisory board; is that right?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. For the record, Michele Arnold,
the Alternative Transportation Modes Director.
The advisory board has offered to do some improvements at the
entrance of the greenway on -- that fronts on Radio Road. And this
ordinance would allow them to do that improvement.
You know, in our executive summary we did note that the MSTU
offered to maintain it, but if the county wants to maintain it, that's not
something they would object to, obviously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have the budget for that,
right, in your budget?
MS. ARNOLD: Not in my budget, no. They've slashed my
budget.
MR. OCHS: And we're going to slash it some more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're making that suggestion,
Page 236
May 14, 2013
right?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, can I make
a suggestion? Why not continue this item? The next workshop is
going to address these beautification projects and the MSTUs. It
maybe makes sense for us to address it in more detail during that
discussion, since there are a number of projects like this --
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just clarify one thing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- that need to be addressed.
MS. ARNOLD: That Radio Road is being maintained by the
county currently, from Airport Road to Santa Barbara. The MSTU is
not responsible for that maintenance project.
MR. OCHS: In the median?
MS. ARNOLD: In the median.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the budget?
MS. ARNOLD: In the median, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll need some
history on that one.
MS. ARNOLD: The only thing under their current maintenance
responsibility is Devonshire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is Commissioner Coyle's
district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that was one of the
improvements we made when I took over the district, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, is that right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, those poor people had
fought with you for so long to get that done.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this is
Commissioner Coyle's district and I just want to point out, I can't
support it because my knowledge of it. But whatever Commissioner
Page 237
May 14, 2013
Coyle wants to do I think is what the majority of the board should do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I move to approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I say one other thing?
Now, those communities along that greenway were concerned
about their safety. And if you block the view for law enforcement to
secure that, then that could be a problem.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. What's planned was along the fence way
is just some Bougainvilleas and some small grasses. It's not anything
extensive at all. Something to complement what's already on the
median.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How high?
MS. ARNOLD: Not very high. FP&L was very specific that we
could not do anything with any height to it.
The plans that are being proposed did go to FP&L because of
their underlying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did it go to the Sheriffs
Department?
MS. ARNOLD: -- ownership.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did it go to the Sheriffs
Department?
MS. ARNOLD: No, but we can surely share that with them,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, we have a motion and a
second. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 238
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're the decider.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm the swing vote. All right, what
do I get? Just kidding.
MR. OCHS: Three to two, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Flip a coin.
MR. OCHS: What was the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This is really difficult.
The members of the MSTU have agreed to this, correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Michele is saying yes. You can't
hear her nod, but that's what she's actually saying.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, you know, I don't see any
reason why we can't bring it up then at that landscape median
workshop as to -- you know, we can approve this now because this is
what they want to do, but then at one point in time if they -- you
know, if we changed it around how we're going to be maintaining the
medians, if we're going to be expanding them or whatever, we can
incorporate this right into it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Then I'll vote in favor with
Commissioner Fiala and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want to expand
government, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry?
I want two kisses, all right? This is like --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, you're blushing right now,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I want two kisses.
All right, motion survives.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Barely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, wholeheartedly. Three to two,
because I know some day later we can change it. No, I'm kidding.
Page 239
May 14, 2013
Because it's the will of the people. Because these people in this
MSTU want to tax themselves for this improvement. And I think if
they want it and they are willing to pay for it on their own, I don't see
any reason why we should object. It's their choice.
So I support it and motion carries 3-2 with Commissioners
Henning and Nance dissenting. It's getting late.
All right, 14.A.1.
Item #14A1
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) #13-6083 AIRPORT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
FROM UNISON CONSULTING INC. AND DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT TO BE
BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL -
CONTINUE TO THE MEETING JUST PRIOR TO THE 180 DAY
DEADLINE (SEPTEMBER) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14.A.1 is a recommendation to accept the proposal
for Requests For Proposal 13-6083, Airport Management Consultant
from Unison Consulting, and direct the County Manager to negotiate a
contract to be brought back to the Board for final approval.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I just want to point out,
the County Finance Director and the Clerk and the Airport Director is
coming back with a plan. We never did pass it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, they weren't coming back with
a plan. What they were coming back with was a financial analysis to
show -- to actually correct what Mr. Curry had presented as possible
sources of revenue to repay the county debt. That's completely
different from, you know, what the development plan of the airport
should be and how we can maximize revenues in terms of businesses
Page 240
May 14, 2013
and gas sales and type of flight services.
So I think it's important that we get the advice of an outside
consultant to get the right information.
What the Clerk and Mr. Curry are bringing back is very different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you remember, we
directed the Airport Director to bring back a plan to become
financially neutral on this. This is, if it's not the same, it is similar.
The only thing I'm asking is why don't we delay this until we get a
report back?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, because by the time this
gentleman is hired, that report will be back. And the question as to
whether or not the recommendations in that basically loan payback
plan are even realistic is something that has to be assessed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just adding $100,000 onto it
by hiring this consultant.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, it's more than that. It's, you
know, giving us the guidance to maximize the return on the
investment we already have in there. And, you know, if what is
recommended gives us the ability not just to go neutral but to actually
go positive and show growth and economic development in that area,
then it's something that's well worth the investment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Lights are on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, you can go first,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Yes, first of all, I don't see why we're spending the money. We're
asking them to be -- to somehow reduce their debt and then we're
going in and spending money when they're going to be coming back
with a report anyway. I would certainly want to wait 'til that comes to
be.
And not only that, this is what, $99,000, plus you've got -- they're
Page 241
May 14, 2013
out of Chicago so we have to pay all their expenses, 84 days, travel,
because they're going to have to go back and forth, they're not going
to stay here for 84 days. And then they have lodging for the 84 days
and food for all of those things and rental cars and so forth. It's going
to cost us an awful lot of money and we don't even know what the
report is that we're going to get from our own people. I hate to see us
spending money so frivolously, so I can't vote for this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree, we're not being
realistic about this.
What Mr. Curry has been asked to do is bring back a pro forma
report about what his projected revenues and expenses are going to be
and how he can pay down the debt over time. And the point is that this
consultant will not have a report to us for I think what, 90 days. You're
going to be without even an airport director at that point in time.
There will be nobody here to administer the plan whatsoever. So we'll
go immediately from there to hiring an airport director who wasn't
involved in the plan itself and has very little knowledge of it.
You're talking about years of disruption in the airport. And that
is more damaging than anything I can imagine. Because Mr. Curry,
you have rescinded his former contract, you have refused to provide
him an extension. He cannot depend upon being employed here. He's
going to have to start looking for a place to work. And he's going to
have to start selling his house. Once he starts doing that, those things
commit him to leave.
This is a very destructive process we're launching here. And I
strongly ask that the Board look at this logically. Mr. Curry, even in
the face of all these difficulties, has remained loyal to this Board, he
has done his best to give you information that he thinks is accurate,
and I believe is accurate. He has plans for increasing revenue. He has
in fact shown that he can increase revenue and has done so. So I don't
know why we want to spend well over $100,000 telling us things that
Page 242
May 14, 2013
we probably already know. I think we would be best advised to say to
Mr. Curry we'll reinstate your contract as it was before and let's go
ahead with the things you've recommended and see how it works out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to recommend that -- I'm
going to make a motion that rather than consider this at this time, that
we take Commissioner Henning's suggestion and we continue it for a
period of time until we collect a little more information.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All right. I think I'll second that.
Continuing this is a good idea. Let's continue it. Let's continue it for
three months.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You're going to second my
motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm seconding it. But I'm asking
you to amend it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: For how -- okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Time, time, time. Put a -- we need
to have --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Continue it for 90 days?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, continue it for 90 days. So
we're not rejecting, we're not accepting, we're continuing it for 90
days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That brings us, what, into July?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, actually, let's count that. We
need to skip over our summer break. So 90 active -- three active
months.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Three business months.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, so three business months. So
where are we now in the calendar?
MS. PRICE: We've got 180 days on the proposal. So I think that
everybody back here in September, we're still within that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So within 180 days, whatever
Page 243
May 14, 2013
meeting comes to the end of that 180 days. That's fine. Thank you.
Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine. I'll take that
amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask you a question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At the end of the 180 days, what
would you think you would do?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I can't predict. I can't look ahead
180 days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You won't have an airport director,
so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We might.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what is it you're going to do?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We may.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, we're waiting for him to
bring back information, are we not?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We may or we may not.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, let's hear what the gentleman
has to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want the information
delivered 180 days from now, do you?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, whenever he has it ready.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So there being no --
MR. OCHS: We're continuing this for 180 days?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we're going to continue this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 180 days?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to the meeting immediately
before 180 days.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
Page 244
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a motion and a second.
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.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're now moving on to staff and
commission and general communications.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I have a couple of quick items for the
Commission this afternoon. The first is to follow up on some of the
discussion we had today among Board members on the topic of your
workshops, specifically the schedule going forward.
And I had a good discussion with Commissioner Nance
yesterday about perhaps --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Having it every week? Just kidding.
MR. OCHS: You know, he brought up some good points about
maybe we need a more structured process for placing items on future
workshops agendas and having a better visibility on a regular basis of
the schedule. So if the Board does not object to that, I'd like to work
toward that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What do you mean, have the Board
formalize a vote like if you want to put something on an agenda?
MR. OCHS: Well, for example, Commissioner, a few meetings
Page 245
May 14, 2013
ago I gave you the schedule of what I believed to be what your
intention as a Board was for workshops through September. And then
we decided at my request to postpone the May agenda, so we had a
couple of items there.
I would like to move the landscape discussion into your June
workshop, if time allows. And I just need some endorsement. I want
to get some feedback from the Board if I'm meeting your intent or not
with the workshop schedule.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think you're meeting our intent.
MR. OCHS: This is --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we understand if things come
up. I mean, because workshops are not necessarily time sensitive
issues, it's okay if, you know, you haven't had the opportunity to do as
much research, you know, to bring forward to us at a particular
meeting, so --
MR. OCHS: If a commissioner or a group of commissioners
wants to have another item identified for a future workshop, is there a
-- would you do that through your communication process or --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think you should do it under
commissioner communications at the end of a board meeting and just
bring it up as a regular item and just say, you know, here's the future
agenda, would you like to amend or not or is there something you'd
like to delete, add.
MR. OCHS: I can bring this at every communication --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- and just make sure everyone's still fine with the
agenda going forward.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I actually would like to suggest that
the county landscape program design standards and funding plan be
moved to September. Because the two subjects of economic
development and impact fees are big ones, and we're going to need the
full meeting to address those.
Page 246
May 14, 2013
And I would like to propose in the interest of equity to divide the
time at that workshop between those two items 50/50. Because I think
both are going to merit at least an equal amount of time.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I just want to mention a
couple of things that I just mentioned in passing with Mr. Ochs when
we talked about this. Something that I personally would find some
utility in is I would like to have at each of our BCC meetings the
current calendar published for the workshops so it's a matter of the
record and people can see, the public can see what's coming up and
what we've got at least in the queue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What we can do is under County
Manager communications, he'll just attach that as a backup to the
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine. But I would like
everybody to see what's coming up. I would like to know -- I would
like to have a process where we suggest among us for new topics for
workshops, and I also think we owe it to the public some guidelines
for presentations when someone wants to attend one of our
workshops. For example, I know several groups that are going to
want to come and represent their groups on impact fees. The fact that
they have, you know, 10 minutes to present and if they have an
outside pres -- if they have a formal presentation, I think it would be in
everybody's interest if they were required to provide that as backup a
certain number of days in advance of the workshop so that we can see
it and be prepared to respond to their questions or ask questions
regarding the information that the public plans to present. So I just
thought we should --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There's another issue with respect to
that. For example, the CBIA with respect to impact fees wants to do a
30-minute presentation. Well, how are we going to accommodate a
30-minute presentation, because the intent is for us to be able to
Page 247
May 14, 2013
communicate as Commissioners, not to have public presentations at
these meetings.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's why I'm suggesting we put
some limits and ask them to provide us with information in lieu of
taking up 30 minutes on a two-hour time frame that you have --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's impossible. It's impossible.
MR. OCHS: I've limited my staff to no more than 10 minutes, as
an example, for presentation at a Board workshop.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But that doesn't mean that there's
not going to be followup conversation --
MR. OCHS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- that's going to allow --
MR. OCHS: Formal presentation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I really don't want somebody
coming in with a 30-minute power point.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And I don't either. And the
problem is -- maybe what we ought to do is maybe I could sit down
with Leo, get some feedback on how this could be structured, and then
maybe Leo could send out a one-way communication to the Board
suggesting a format addressing what I think is all our concerns and try
it out at the next workshop. Since these workshops are a new animal
for us, we need to experiment and see what approach works best.
And, you know, nothing wrong with making a mistake, correcting it
and then trying again, you know.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But I really want to know what the
calendar is on a current basis. You know, if you make a change, I
would appreciate current information so I can prepare myself also for
what I -- you know, or inquiries that I get as well.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, will do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What else, Leo?
MR. OCHS: We also spoke a little bit today about the advisory
boards and whether or not the Board as a whole or as a majority at
Page 248
May 14, 2013
least has any interest in evaluating the number of advisory boards that
you currently have and would like any information on what it cost to
staff those advisory boards.
And before I launch into that, I want to know that at least I have
three nods of approval from the Commission to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how about talking about the
value of them? I mean, I bet there are 30 that meet and we don't even
know what they say.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I don't know if they benefit the
community or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes maybe they're just a pow
wow session. There are some, like code enforcement, you have to
have code enforcement. Planning Commission, you have to have
those things. But there are others that might not make an effect on the
community. They could still meet in different places if they'd like, but
not have it be our county responsibility.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's a very good point. I agree
with Commissioner Fiala. I think a fiscal analysis of these groups and
getting an understanding -- if you could like put together like a
summary of all of the advisory groups we have with a summary of,
you know, what function they serve. There are so many, I think we
have like somewhere between 40 and 50 or maybe even over 50
advisory groups and we have no idea what so many of them are doing,
so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if they benefit the community.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, and if they benefit.
So we really need to do -- let's put it this way, like a cost benefit
analysis.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I concur with Commissioner
Page 249
May 14, 2013
Fiala.
What's the position of the rest of the Board? Would you like Leo
-- and obviously we have legally required advisory boards like the
TDC and Code Enforcement and so forth, Planning Commission, that
we must have. And Jeff can provide input on the ones we must have
and those we don't want to toy with. But what we do want to look at
are basically the discretionarily created advisory boards and consider,
you know, maybe some sort of consolidation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great idea, County Manager.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great idea, County Manager. We
all love you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right now there's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We all love you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- there's 53 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We love you too, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-three committees.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You too, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That means there's 12 meetings
a week somewhere in this county.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I tell you something? What
can I say?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can't even get across the
minutes of that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, we can't.
All right, so --
MR. OCHS: Okay, I have your guidance. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You've got like lots of nods.
MR. OCHS: Just a couple more quick things. At your April
23rd meeting you had directed me to write a letter to all of the
directors and officers of the Home, Incorporated, asking them to
provide whatever information that the Clerk was looking for. I just
Page 250
May 14, 2013
wanted to report that those letters went out that next day and that we
received a binder from Mr. Barlow of information on April 26th that I
immediately sent on to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To the Clerk.
MR. OCHS: -- Mr. Brock and Ms. Kenzel, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we'll wait to hear back.
MR. OCHS: I have not heard from any of the other officers or
directors. And I'm not sure --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So only Mr. Barlow was
responsive?
MR. OCHS: So far, yes, ma'am. But my suspicion is that any
documents that were out there were only in his possession, but I'm not
sure. I'm just reporting what I have so far.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. You're very kind. And
what we'll do is we'll let the Clerk evaluate and make a determination
if further action is required. So until we hear back from your office,
Crystal, we're not going to do anything further until you advise us.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MS. KENZEL: We have the information that was provided to
Leo, thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thanks for doing that, Leo.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we also -- you received a report
from Jack Wert that you had directed to receive that provided some
information on occupancy and average daily rates. And I would just
encourage, if you have any feedback in terms of different data or
different format that you'd like to see --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's good.
MR. OCHS: -- please let me know. But we thought this was a
first good shot at that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: One thing I've heard from the
community regarding TDC dollars is people are very upset that there
isn't -- there seems to be a lack of enforcement of the tax with respect
Page 251
May 14, 2013
to people who lease their private property. And there's a lack of
enforcement and there's a lack of compliance, you know, where
you've got some people who do it and some people who don't, and
there's no enforcement and sometimes there's enforcement. And if
there's some way that that could be looked at.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We try to coordinate closely with Mr.
Ray and his office who is the office that really --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, it is --
MR. OCHS: -- has the unenviable task of policing that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It just -- you know, the question is
how much revenue are we bringing in and is it fair that, you know,
there's really selective compliance. I mean, I don't know how -- what
the total dollars coming in from that source is right now. Which also
raises the question, wouldn't it be nice if some people could rent their
guest houses and maybe allow for bed and breakfast? I don't know.
MR. OCHS: Moving right along.
The last thing I have is a reminder --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Four votes. Okay, skip that one.
MR. OCHS: For those members that can make it tomorrow, we
have the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The Greenway.
MR. OCHS: -- groundbreaking for the Gordon River Greenway
at 8:30 tomorrow morning.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. You did an excellent
presentation. I've never heard so much come out of --
MR. OCHS: My mouth? Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- your mouth.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He ate some of that hot chocolate.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, exactly. Do eat Mary-Jo's
chocolate, Leo.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Page 252
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just looking forward to going home and
having a cold beer, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, I'm with you. Well, actually,
I don't drink beer, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give me your address.
MR. MILLER: Just follow me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, are you
looking forward to going home and having some red wine with your
chocolate?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I've already started. I started a
couple of hours ago.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, I noticed that your
disposition became much more --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have mellowed since lunchtime.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- shall we say relaxed.
Yeah, you have. I don't know what happened after lunch, but --
or during lunch.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to have to look over that
office re-management fund and make sure he's not installing a bar in
his office when he moves the door. I've seen it closed a lot. There
might be some construction going on in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's when I'm asleep.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things. Number one, I
wanted to ask the Commissioners if they would allow me to
participate by telephone at the July 9th meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we changed it to the 9th I had
already made reservations.
Page 253
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Where are you going to be?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be in Ohio. But I have a
computer there and I have a phone there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They let you have a computer
there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to run away from the Amish
to do it though.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I say yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be great.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And Commissioner Coyle, if you
want to go to Oregon, you can go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I object.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't ask you, I'm asking this way.
And the second thing is, just a fast story. Today when we
honored the Phoenix awardees, and a lot of people don't even
understand what the Phoenix award was, even though they mentioned
and described what it was.
And so my son told me one of the stories that he was involved in.
And it's not just he, it's a team. You know, I want to tell you it was a
whole team. They went in and they were told when they got there not
to bother because the person was already dead. And our guys went in
anyway, our EMS guys, and said we don't give up until the last
moment. And they went in and the family or whoever was there said
well, you know, I don't think you can revive him, it's too late.
Well, they worked and worked and then they started getting
sparks of life and the blip blip started to go up and they actually
brought the guy back to life without any brain damage or anything.
So it was a wonderful story, so I think that's why you saw so much
pride today. I'm sure there were many, many other stories just like that
in the group of those nice young EMS guys.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It goes to show you AD's work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it was an AD.
Page 254
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I have no comment. And I'm
going to say good-bye. I'm going to turn the gavel over to
Commissioner Henning because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you can't go yet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I have to go. I have a meeting I
have to be at at 6:20. And I have to make it up north and be there at
6:20.
But I want you to know, Commissioner Henning, you are
welcome to drag this on for as long as you like. And if you guys want
to stay here all night and just keep -- I'm out of here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no reason for you to hurry.
Happy hour continues until 7:00.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I just want you know, the last
hour for me has been a happy hour, so I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have no further comments, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'd like to report my
office has been working on the Fletcher lease, and it's been going very
well. We've learned -- Camden, my aide, we've learned a lot. She's
been very helpful.
I think the -- at the end of the day, the Board will be happy with
suggesting a proposed lease.
I can also tell you that I think it's important that Mr. Curry has
input on the lease. And so that's my goal.
The only problem is it was directed to bring it back at the end of
May. Mr. Fletcher is to be out of town at that date. So most likely
we'll bring it back in the first of June.
I also want to point out that I feel I've been consistent. I've
picked on Commissioner Coyle when he was the Chair about how
running the meeting. I think you've seen a little bit of that today. I
tend to continue --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your turn is coming.
Page 255
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I tend to continue on
another Chair.
The Isle of Capri issue I think in the future the Board needs to
talk about. As we all know, the advisory board decided not to merge
with East Naples. And the reason that I'm told is because East Naples
will not agree to take over the personnel from Isle of Capri. However,
we know that Fiddler's Creek is wanting to merge with East Naples.
So there goes ad valorem taxes that support salaries and other things,
okay. So that's a problem for Isle of Capri.
Besides, I read that they're looking to hire a chief. I think that's
very problematic. So that will be -- those issues will be coming to us
in the future, right?
MR. OCHS: At your next board meeting, sir.
And let me just assure the Board right now there's not going to be
any chief hired until we get direction from this Board on the future of
that district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I chime in on that one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiddler's Creek is going. And I've
already given them my support. I understand where they're coming
from and where they're going, and I already announced to the people
on Capris that our Board isn't really excited about staying in the fire
business. And I said we're looking to seek consolidation. But I said I
couldn't tell them how anybody else would vote so I have no idea. I
said that's just been the talk on our dais. And I said how it ever comes
out, I do not know.
I think some of the -- a lot of the people on Capris have felt that
maybe the way to go is to consolidate, but they just want to protect
their fire guys.
Now, when I went to that meeting and the East Naples fire chief
was there, as well as the East Naples chairman of their board, the fire
board, and I said it seems that the clincher right here is keeping those
Page 256
May 14, 2013
people. And I said, can you agree to do that? And they said something
along the line that yeah, they thought that they could do that. But then
somebody on the Capris fire board said I make a motion that we don't
move forward with it. And I was kind of surprised at that.
I think most of the people in the room were, because most of
them felt that maybe the best thing to do is to consolidate if they could
come up with a working arrangement.
So I don't know where that's going. But I think when we bring it
back next month -- I mean next meeting, I will have some answers for
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I got that same note, by the way,
about the meeting on Friday to talk about a fire chief. And I passed
that on to Leo. I was kind of surprised about that myself, because I
hadn't heard that. And I don't know if everybody else has or what's
going on there. It's interesting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last item, during our budget
we approve each department's budget. In our budget we approve --
one of the things we approve, each other's travel, okay. Within the
departmental budget, within there is travel also for employees to go to
different events. The difference is that we put our travel on our budget
for approval, but we don't approve the staffs travel. And I think that's
a disparity that we need to talk about in the future and whether all
travel should be on there to make sure that those are expended
properly.
Other than that, I don't have anything else.
Does anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I will entertain a motion to
adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
Page 257
May 14, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was motion by
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle seconded it. We are
adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent Agenda as amended, be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES, PHASE II
AR 11444 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR
HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE A FINAL OBLIGATION BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT— LOCATED IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES, PHASE III AR 10053 AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE A FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
Page 258
May 14, 2013
DESIGNATED AGENT — LOCATED IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A3
AN EASEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT PART OF US 41
COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $2,994) — FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY IN FALLING WATERS
BEACH RESORT
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2013-103: DECLARING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF A 12.5-FOOT WIDE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BEING PART OF LOT 39, BLOCK KK,
QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT 7, PLAT BOOK 46, PAGES 89
THROUGH 102 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALSO BEING A PART OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. APPLICATION VAC-PL20130000515 — ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE
PETITION TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 25, 2013
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING
Item #16A5
AWARD BID #13-6066 "SIGNAL COMMUNICATIONS FIBER
OPTIC NETWORK EXTENSION" FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
FIBER OPTIC NETWORK EXTENSION TO TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $597,559 (PROJECT
#33208) — INSTALLATION ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY,
Page 259
May 14, 2013
(GOODLETTE-FRANK TO I-75) ON IMMOKALEE ROAD,
(COLLIER BOULEVARD TO OIL WELL ROAD) AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (MANATEE ROAD TO ISLES OF CAPRI BLVD)
Item #16A6
A REQUEST BY THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE
OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE HATCHERS
PRESERVE SUBDIVISION AND TO ALLOW INSTALLATION
OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO OCCUR
CONCURRENTLY WITH CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT — A PROCESS OF PHASED
REQUIRED LANDSCAPING WILL BE DISCUSSED FURTHER
DURING THE NEXT LDC REVISION CYCLE
Item #16A7
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,312.60 THAT WAS POSTED AS SECURITY
FOR THE CLEARING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SATURNIA
LAKES SUBDIVISION (AR-2071) —WORK WAS COMPLETE IN
2005 BUT DEVELOPER HAD NOT REQUESTED RELEASE OF
THE SECURITY UNTIL THIS TIME
Item #16A8
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT,
LOTS 5 - 13, LOTS 18 - 26 REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER
FP-PL20120002957 — DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR
Page 260
May 14, 2013
TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL APPROVAL LETTER AND
PLAT RECORDATION
Item #16A9
TIME EXTENSIONS TO COMPLETE SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH MOORGATE POINT
AND CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES, PHASE THREE —
BOTH PROJECTS ARE WITHIN THE LELY RESORT PUD AND
THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID THE APPROPRIATE FEES FOR
ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS
Item #16A10 — Continued to the May 28, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
INCREASING THE COLLECTIVE ANNUAL LIMIT FOR
MULTIPLE CONTRACTS RESULTING FROM RFP #12-5892,
"FIXED TERM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES"
Item #16A 11
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY,
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND HIDEAWAY BEACH
DISTRICT FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE $350,000
IN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" FUNDS TO
REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE
FOR THREE EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES AND ALSO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR THE LIFE OF THE EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES AS
PART OF THE 2013 HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT
AND EROSION CONTROL PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE
Page 261
May 14, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT— AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Al2
AWARD BID #13-6023 TO STULTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $205,585 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
NEW TIGERTAIL BEACH RESTROOM FACILITY, PROJECT
#90093, TO MAKE A FINDING THE PROJECT PROMOTES
TOURISM AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRWOMAN TO
EXECUTE THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2013-104: DECLARING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE VACATING OF A 20-FOOT WIDE LAKE
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (L.M.E.), A PART OF TRACT "E"
OF FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 5, AVIAMAR UNIT ONE, PLAT
BOOK 45, PAGES 34 THROUGH 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALSO BEING A PART OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FL (APPLICATION VAC-PL20130000583)
Item #16A14
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,455.98 —
PROGRAMS INCLUDE PUD MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS
PAYMENT-IN-LIEU, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW,
PATHWAYS AND FAIR SHARE INTERSECTION PROGRAM
Page 262
May 14, 2013
Item #16A15
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,410.86 FOR
PAYMENT OF $7,060.86, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. TERRY HERNANDEZ AND BRIAN K. FULTS, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER CELU20 1 1 000942 1,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2700 47TH
TERRACE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FROM
ACCRUED FINES FOR THE NON-COMPLIANT PERIOD OF
472 DAYS FOR AN UNMAINTAINED POOL ON PROPERTY
WITH NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT WAS BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE ON MARCH 28, 2013
Item #16A16
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TORINO REPLAT,
APPLICATION NUMBER FP-PL20130000083 — LOCATED IN
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
Item #16A17
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
TO WORK ORDER #45-141808, AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE
OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" TAX FUNDS
FOR A PEER REVIEW OF COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES
VOLUME DESIGN BY ATKINS NORTH AMERICAN, INC.
UNDER CONTRACT #09-5262-CZ FOR A LUMP SUM OF
$12,472, MAKE A FINDING THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM,
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR A DESIGNEE
TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER
Page 263
May 14, 2013
Item #16A18
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $467,330.40 FOR
PAYMENT OF $1,030.40, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
CURTIS D. BLOCKER & CURTIS BLOCKER, JR., CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER 2002120732, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2900 BRADLEY DRIVE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — FINES ARE FOR A NON-COMPLIANT
PERIOD OF 1,867 DAYS PERTAINING TO MOBILE HOMES,
SHEDS & CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURES IN IMMOKALEE
AND BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON NOVEMBER 18, 2011
Item #16A19
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,868.25 FOR
PAYMENT OF $1,418.25, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
CURTIS D. BLOCKER & CURTIS BLOCKER, JR., CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER 2003091169, RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 423 TAYLOR ROAD, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — FINES FOR THE NON-COMPLIANT
PERIOD OF 869 DAYS FOR IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO
PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRED SITE IMPROVEMENT
PLANS, BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS & CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION IN IMMOKALEE THAT WAS BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE ON JUNE 10, 2008
Item #16A20
Page 264
May 14, 2013
TIME EXTENSIONS TO COMPLETE SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ORANGE BLOSSOM
RANCH PHASE 1A (AR-7186) AND ORANGE BLOSSOM
RANCH PHASE 1B (AR-7431) PURSUANT TO SECTION
10.02.05 B.11 OF COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE — PHASE 1A HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM FEBRUARY
6, 2013 TO FEBRUARY 6, 2014 AND PHASE 1B IS EXTENDED
FROM JANUARY 13, 2013 TO JANUARY 13, 2014
Item #16A21
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPLANADE GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20120001261) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS INCLUDING WITHHOLDING
CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY UNTIL REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS RECEIVE PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE
Item #16A22
RATIFY AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO PARCEL 103FEE AND 103TCE AS PART OF THE US-41/
COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $7,447.50) — TO
ELIMINATE FURTHER COSTS OF EXTENDED LITIGATION
Item #16A23
RATIFY AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO THE INTEREST OF 7-ELEVEN, INC., IN PARCELS
Page 265
May 14, 2013
105FEE 1, 105FEE2, 105FEE3, 105TCE 1, 105TCE2, 105TCE3,
105TCE4, 107FEE, 107TCE1, 107TCE2 AND 109FEE AS PART
OF THE US-41/COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT:
$5,205.50) — TO ELIMINATE FURTHER COSTS OF EXTENDED
LITIGATION
Item #16A24
RATIFY AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO AN INTEREST OF CARRABBA'S ITALIAN GRILL, LLC,
IN PARCEL 113FEE AND PARCEL 113TCE AS PART OF US-
41/COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $5,214) — TO
ELIMINATE FURTHER COSTS OF EXTENDED LITIGATION
Item #16A25
RATIFY AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO AN INTEREST OF REGIONS BANK IN PARCEL 113FEE
AND 113TCE AS PART OF THE US-41/COLLIER BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL
IMPACT: $5,214) — TO ELIMINATE FURTHER COSTS OF
EXTENDED LITIGATION
Item #16A26
RATIFY AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO PARCEL 109FEE, 109SWE1, 109SWE2 AND 109TCE AS
PART OF THE US-41/COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $8,907.50)
— TO ELIMINATE COSTS OF EXTENDED LITIGATION
Page 266
May 14, 2013
Item #16A27
RATIFY AND APPROVE TWO STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENTS AS TO PARCEL 102FEE, ET AL, AS PART OF
THE US-41/COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $198.50) —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A28
AWARD BID #12-5985 FIBER OPTIC INSTALLATION, REPAIR
AND MAINTENANCE TO PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AZTEC
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SECONDARY CONTRACTOR,
SPE UTILITY CONTRACTORS, INC., FOR THE ANNUAL
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF $450,000, AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRWOMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS — 1-YEAR
CONTRACTS WITH THE POSSIBLE RENEWAL OF THREE (3)
ADDITIONAL 1-YEAR PERIODS
Item #16A29
REVENUE FROM A MULTI-YEAR JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT
PLANNING ACTIVITIES THAT INCLUDE FEDERAL PASS-
THROUGH 49 USC § 5303 FUNDING AND TO AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR GRANT
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT $109,344 AND LOCAL MATCH IN
THE AMOUNT OF $12,150
Page 267
May 14, 2013
Item #16A30
WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON & MOORE FOR DOCTORS
PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR A NOT TO
EXCEED TIME AND MATERIAL AMOUNT OF $36,910, MAKE
A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM,
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, AND APPROVE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR A SITE AT LOWDERMILK
PARK AND THE OTHER JUST SOUTH OF DOCTORS PASS
Item #16A31
REINITIATING THE LIMEROCK ROAD CONVERSION
PROGRAM (LRCP) IN FY 13 IN THE AMOUNT OF $276,500,
AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A32
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RETAIN CONSULTING
AND EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES FOR EMINENT DOMAIN
LITIGATION FOR US-41/COLLIER BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60116 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION VII H OF THE PURCHASING
POLICY. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: APPROXIMATELY
$150,000 FOR 3 FIRMS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B1
Page 268
May 14, 2013
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(BCC), AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(CRA), APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE CRA — FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMMOKALEE STORMWATER
MASTER PLAN
Item #16C1
ESTABLISH A STANDARD PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS WHO
WANT TO CONVERT FROM AN INDIVIDUALLY METERED
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM TO A MASTER METERED
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM, AT NO COST TO COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT — MAINTENANCE AND
REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
BEHIND THE MASTER METER WOULD SHIFT FROM THE
DISTRICT TO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS, EFFECTIVELY
REDUCING THE DISTRICT'S OPERATING EXPENSE
Item #16C2 — Continued to the May 28, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
PURCHASE OF A NEW CASE 580N BACKHOE FROM
TREKKER TRACTOR LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,050.07,
UTILIZING FLORIDA SHERIFF ASSOCIATION'S STATE
CONTRACT #12-10-0905
Item #16C3
AWARD BID #13-6025 FOR PURCHASE OF CYBER LOCK
SECURITY ACCESS CONTROL COMPONENTS FOR PUBLIC
Page 269
May 14, 2013
UTILITIES FACILITIES TO E.A. WAETJEN, INCORPORATED
IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000 — THE
COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS 1,146 CYBER LOCKS USED BY
APPROXIMATELY 300 USERS
Item #16C4
TO CONVEY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL, 3730 WHITE LAKE BLVD., TO
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT — WILL BE
USED TO PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE
FOR THE NEW HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW)
FACILITY AT THE LANDFILL THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR
COMPLETION THIS SUMMER
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2013-105: AUTHORIZING AN APPENDIX
(AMENDMENT NUMBER 1) TO AN APPROVED UTILITY
WORK BY HIGHWAY CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Item #16C6
WORK ORDER UNDER RFQ #08-5011-81 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$494,886 TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
TO REPLACE AERATORS ON OXIDATION DITCH NO. 3
UNDER NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROJECT #73968 — THE AERATORS
ARE APPROXIMATELY 18-YEARS OLD AND HAVE
REACHED THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIVES
Page 270
May 14, 2013
Item #16C7
PAYMENT OF $21,647.81 TO HIGGINS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
FOR REPAIRS TO NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY PROJECT NUMBER 73968 — FOR WORK ISSUED
UNDER PURCHASE ORDER 4500141939 AND PERFORMED
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE TO PROCEED
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER FOR $590,318.25 WITH KYLE CONSTRUCTION
UNDER RFQ #08-5011-78, UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR WASTEWATER PUMP
STATION 158.00 REHABILITATION PROJECT NUMBER 70046
& 70051 — INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR UNFORESEEN
CONDITIONS
Item #16C9
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN
REYNOLDS & SONS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-6658-CA,
FILED IN TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE
NO. 10-6670-CA) WHICH SETTLEMENT INCLUDES PAYMENT
TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
GOVERNING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER
DISTRICT, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,500,000 PAID BY
JOHN REYNOLDS & SONS, INC., FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,
INC., HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C./HOLE MONTES, INC. AND
GREELEY& HANSEN, LLC, AND ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE
Page 271
May 14, 2013
THE CHAIRWOMAN TO EXECUTE THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM NO.1 — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D1
RELEASES OF LIEN FOR COLLIER COUNTY IMMOKALEE
RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES AND COLLIER COUNTY STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) IMPACT FEES
FOR OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
THAT HAVE BEEN REPAID IN FULL — LOCATED AT THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 13686 LEGACY LANE, NAPLES;
9055 GERVAIS CIRCLE #1403, NAPLES; 7512 BRISTOL
CIRCLE, NAPLES; 1292 ALLEGIANCE WAY, IMMOKALEE;
710 BREEZEWOOD, IMMOKALEE
Item #16D2
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S SHORT SALE POLICY,
ACCEPTING $2,295 TO SATISFY A $38,250 MORTGAGE —
LOCATED AT 4421 66TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES
Item #16D3
THREE (3) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN IN THE
COMBINED AMOUNT OF $50,444.50 — LOCATED AT THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 13686 LEGACY LANE, LOT 149,
NAPLES; 9055 GREVAIS CIRCLE #1403, NAPLES; 3180 36TH
AVE SE, NAPLES
Page 272
May 14, 2013
Item #16D4
TWO (2) AGREEMENTS WITH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR
COUNTY RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AT THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF $40,000 — SUMMER
TRANSPORTATION FOR PARKS AND REC PROGRAMS
Item #16D5
AFTER-THE-FACT GRANT APPLICATION FOR A 3-YEAR
FY 13/14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA) GRANT FOR
EXPANDING DRUG COURT PROGRAMS (FISCAL IMPACT:
$835,370 OVER 3 YEARS) — IF AWARDED FUNDS WILL BE
USED TO PROVIDE CASE MANAGEMENT/COURT PROGRAM
COORDINATION, IMPROVE PARTICIPANT DRUG TESTING,
INCENTIVES FOR COMPLIANCE AND RECOVERY SERVICES
TO SUPPORT SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Item #16D6
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #13-6028 "LELY GOLF
ESTATES MSTU ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" TO
FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. D/B/A COMMERCIAL
LAND MAINTENANCE INC. AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRWOMAN TO SIGN A COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED
CONTRACT — PROVIDING ON-GOING LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION INSTALLED IN THE LELY MSTU BOUNDARY
Page 273
May 14, 2013
Item #16D7 — Moved to Item #11E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2013-106: AMENDING THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM 2010-11, 2011-
12,-2012-13 LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP)
AND APPROVE FUNDING ALLOCATION IN THE AMOUNT
OF $150,000 FOR AN OWNER OCCUPIED REHABILITATION
PROGRAM, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16D9
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA TO AMEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE UNIT
RATE INCREASE PER MEAL SERVED IN THE NUTRITIONAL
SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) FOR FY 2012/2013 —
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CONGREGATE MEALS
SERVED FOR THE ELDERLY AND FRAIL IN THE COUNTY
Item #16D10
NINE (9) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS AMENDING
PREVIOUS ANNUAL ACTION PLANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RECOGNIZING AND REPROGRAMMING UNSPENT U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) AND HOME PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT (HOME)
FUNDS IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $2,771,188.90 AND
Page 274
May 14, 2013
APPROVE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (A
COMPANION TO ITEM #16D11) — UNSPENT FUNDS FOR
PROJECTS COMPLETED UNDER BUDGET, PROJECTS NOT
STARTED, FOR UN- PROGRAMMED FUNDS AND UNUSED
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS
Item #16D11
EIGHT (8) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDING IN
AMENDED ACTION PLANS BETWEEN FY2004-2005 AND
FY2012-2013 APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON MAY 14, 2013.
(A COMPANION TO ITEM #16D10) — UNSPENT FUNDS FOR
PROJECTS COMPLETED UNDER BUDGET, PROJECTS NOT
STARTED, FOR UN- PROGRAMMED FUNDS AND UNUSED
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS
Item #16D12
CHANGE ORDER #5 IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,991.55 AND A
TIME EXTENSION ON CONTRACT #12-5878, RADIO ROAD
EAST MSTU LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION PROJECT, WITH
HANNULA LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION, INC. AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS — TO COMPLETE THE
INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IN
MEDIANS ON RADIO ROAD EAST
Item #16D13
Page 275
May 14, 2013
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA (SENIOR CHOICES) AND BUDGET
AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS A DECREASE OF GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,689 IN THE NUTRITIONAL
SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) FOR FY 2012/2013 —
TO CONTINUE PROVIDING MEALS TO THE ELDERLY
Item #16D14
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE RECEIVED
FOR A STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $208,420 — USED TO PURCHASE LIBRARY MATERIALS,
SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND TO HIRE 2 FULL-TIME JOB
BANK EMPLOYEES IN FY 13
Item #16D15
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AGAINST CUSTOM INDUSTRIES OF NAPLES, INC., IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND PURSUE ALL
OTHER AVENUES OF COLLECTION TO RECOVER
MATERIAL AND SERVICES PAID FOR IN FULL BY COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,490, PLUS THE COSTS OF LITIGATION — INVOICES
WERE PAID IN FULL BY THE COUNTY IN OCTOBER, 2012
FOR THE MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION OF 3
SOCCER/SOFTBALL AWNINGS AND TO DATE NO WORK
HAS NOT BEEN DONE
Page 276
May 14, 2013
Item #16E1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE AMATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND
MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Item #16E2
AMENDMENT #1 TO A CONTRACT WITH TURBOMECA USA
FOR HELICOPTER MAINTENANCE SUPPORT AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRWOMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT — FOR THE USE OF TOOLS AT NO COST
Item #16E3
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH FOR THE USE OF PARKING SPACES
FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE RICH KING GREENWAY — FOR
THE USE OF 4 PARKING SPACES SO THE PUBLIC CAN
ACCESS RICH KING GREENWAY FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD
Item #16E4 — Continued to the May 28, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
STAFF TO ADVERTISE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ORDINANCE NO. 04-52, AS AMENDED, CRIMINAL HISTORY
RECORD CHECKS AND RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL
APPROVAL
Page 277
May 14, 2013
Item #16E5
LEASE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH EAST NAPLES
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., A FLORIDA NON
PROFIT CORPORATION, FOR CONTINUED USE OF A
PARKING AREA LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN MOST
PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16E6
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF 14 REPLACEMENT
AMBULANCE COTS FROM FERNO IN THE AMOUNT OF
$67,274 PLUS SHIPPING AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT — FOR H-FRAME COTS THAT NEED TO BE
REPLACED DUE TO AGE AND WEAR AND TEAR
Item #16E7
TO RETROACTIVELY APPROVE CONTRACT #MA-IS-1340234
WITH GRAYBAR ELECTRICAL — FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ELECTRICAL PARTS AND SUPPLIES NEEDED FOR
MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR
Item #16E8
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKER COMPENSATION
AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED
BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION 2004-15 FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FY 13
Item #16E9
Page 278
May 14, 2013
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AGAINST KIRK FAMILY TRUST, WHICH CONTAINS AS ITS
RES, 3 LAS BRISAS WAY, NAPLES, FLORIDA, C/O ALLEN
KIRK, TRUSTEE AND KATHLEEN CORBETT KIRK, TRUSTEE,
AND LAS BRISAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., IN
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER
DAMAGES TO THE COUNTY'S MAIN GRAVITY LINE, AT
THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$37,987.95, PLUS COSTS OF THE LAWSUIT
Item #16E10
AWARD BID #13-6088, SURPLUS SALE OF FARE BOXES AND
COUNTERS — AWARDING 16 FARE BOXES & 8 COUNTERS
TO MARTIN COUNTY FOR $8,600
Item #16E11
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR
THE PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 21, 2013 TO APRIL 17, 2013
Item #16E12
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRWOMAN TO SIGN THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY PLAN — EFFECTIVE MAY 18, 2013
Item #16E13
Page 279
May 14, 2013
AWARD ITB #13-6058, "FILTERS FOR FLEET VEHICLES," TO
SAM GALLOWAY FORD, INC. AS PRIMARY VENDOR, AND;
UNI-SELECT USA, INC., AND SUNBELT AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
DB/A NAPA AUTO PARTS, AS SECONDARY VENDORS
Item #16F1
COLLIER COUNTY 2013 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
AND POLICY PRIORITIES — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2013-107: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FY12/13 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F3
REPORT COVERING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IMPACTING
RESERVES IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $16,000
AND BUDGET AMENDMENT MOVING FUNDS — FOR THE
PERIOD THROUGH MAY 14, 2013
Item #16F4
A DETERMINATION THAT THE LATEST PUBLIC PETITION
SUBMITTED BY RANDALL COHEN IS A REPETITIVE PUBLIC
PETITION, PER COUNTY RESOLUTION 2010-87
Item #16F5 — Moved to Item #6A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 280
May 14, 2013
Item #16H1
A PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE MAY 25, 2013 AS
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY IN SUPPORT OF THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED
CHILDREN'S (NCMEC) TAKE 25 CAMPAIGN — ADOPTED
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 16TH ANNUAL SCRIPPS
HOWARD FOUNDATION NATIONAL JOURNALISM AWARDS
DINNER MAY 9, 2013. A SUM OF $128 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE
WALDORF ASTORIA, 475 SEAGATE DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 11TH ANNUAL TOURISM
STAR AWARDS LUNCHEON MAY 8, 2013. $30 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET — AT
NAPLES HILTON, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 11, 2013
THROUGH APRIL 17, 2013 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Page 281
May 14, 2013
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 18, 2013
THROUGH APRIL 24, 2013 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
BOARD ACCEPT THE INVESTMENT STATUS UPDATE
REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2013
Item #16J4
SEVENTEENTH YEAR STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) LETTER DELEGATING
AUTHORITY TO SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK TO BE THE
OFFICIAL GRANT APPLICANT AND CONTACT PERSON,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND RECEIVE AND EXPEND PAYMENT
OF THE SEVENTEENTH YEAR OF STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS — FOR THE
GRANT SUBMITTED ON MAY 13, 2013
**** Commissioner voted unanimously that the following items
under the Summary Agenda as amended be approved
and/or adopted ****
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2013-31 : AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2009-15, HEAVENLY CFPUD, TO REVISE ACCESSORY USES
TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM GRADE LEVEL FOR THE
SCHOOL FROM THIRD GRADE TO EIGHTH GRADE; AND
Page 282
May 14, 2013
TO REPLACE ALL REFERENCES TO THIRD GRADE WITH
EIGHTH GRADE IN THE DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING
OF 15.93± ACRES AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B — Moved to Item #9C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17C — Moved to Item #9D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2013-32: ADOPTING TWO AMENDMENT TO
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION
5.05.08; FIRST TO SUBSECTION 5.05.08 C.9 TO ALLOW
FREESTANDING BUILDINGS AND BUILDINGS LOCATED ON
OUTPARCELS WITHIN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
OR COMMON OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ONE
SECONDARY FACADE; SECONDTO SUBSECTION 5.05.08 F,
TO ALLOW BUILDINGS IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
TO SEEK ARCHITECTURAL DEVIATIONS THROUGH AN
ARCHITECTURAL DEVIATION & ALTERNATE
COMPLIANCE PROCESS IDENTIFIED IN THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2013-33: REPEALING THE ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE 2008-51, AS AMENDED)
Item #17F
Page 283
May 14, 2013
ORDINANCE 2013-34: SETTING FORTH THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY AND TO BE KNOWN AS "COLLIER
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ORDINANCE"
Item #17G — Moved to Item #9A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17H
ORDINANCE 2013-35: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 76-48, AS
AMENDED, TO PERMIT DOGS ON LEASHES IN DESIGNATED
COUNTY PARKS
Item #17I — Moved to Item #9B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17J
ORDINANCE 2013-36: PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN QUALIFYING
SENIOR CITIZENS PURSUANT TO PASSAGE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 11 ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012
Page 284
May 14, 2013
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice-Chair at 5:45 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFF IO GOV ING BOARD(S) OF
SP dIA DIS CTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
G GIA A. HILLER, ESQ., CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST 6
DWIGHT . 14 ROCK, CLERK
/14:0IL arpx;r"
Attest es to Chha+rtm )
signature only.
These minutes approved by the Board on (p Ii I 13 , as
presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 285