BCC Minutes 03/25/2014 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
March 25, 2014
March 25, 2014
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 25, 2014
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tim Nance
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director
Tim Durham, Executive Manager of Business Operations
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
`,' I //.
L
r ztreato. -
(41
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
March 25, 2014
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 - BCC Chair
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 - BCC Vice-Chair; TDC Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 - CRAB Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2
Commissioner Fred W. Coyle, District 4 - CRAB Vice-Chair
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
March 25, 2014
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 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Bob Scudieri - Faith Lutheran Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. February 25, 2014 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
March 25, 2014
A. Proclamation recognizing April 2014 as Aviation Appreciation Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Gene Shue, Director-Operations Support,
Transportation Administration; Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager,
Immokalee Airport; and Debbie Brueggeman, Executive
Assistant/Operations Coordinator, Airport Authority. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating the second week in April 2014 as Everglades
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Franklin Adams and Brad
Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society; Nancy Payton, Florida Fish and
Wildlife; Melissa Corrozzo, Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Lyle
McCandless, Big Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance, Inc.; and Wayne Jenkins,
Collier Sportsman & Conservation Club. Sponsored by Commissioner
Nance.
C. Proclamation recognizing Ananta Nath for his contributions to Collier
County and his retirement from South Florida Water Management
District/Big Cypress Basin. To be accepted by Ananta Nath. Sponsored by
Commissioner Nance.
D. Proclamation designating April 2-9, 2014 as the 10th Annual Honor the Free
Press Week and recognizing Peter Thomas as the 2014 honoree. To be
accepted by Peter Thomas, Lois Bolin, Carol Green, Christine Sutherland,
Mike Trephan and Bob Young, members of the Honor the Free Press
Committee. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Jolene Apicella, Paramedic II, Emergency
Services Division, as the Employee of the Month for February 2014.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
March 25, 2014
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Item 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending
Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II Planned Unit
Development (PUD), to allow 87 single-family detached, attached and zero
lot line units or 152 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the
Residential (R-1) District by providing for: Section One, Amendments to
Cover Page; Section Two, Amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits
page; Section Three, Amendment to Statement of Compliance section;
Section Four, Amendments to Project Description section; Section Five,
Amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards section
including a revised legal description and removal of requirement to
contribute to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R-1
District; providing for addition of Deviations; Section Six, Amendments to
Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan and Addition of Exhibit B, R-1 District
Master Plan, Exhibit C, Sidewalk Exhibit, Exhibit D, Turn Lane Detail; and
Section Seven, Effective Date. The subject property is located north of
Immokalee Road and east of Valewood Drive in Section 20, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (PUDZ-A-PL20090001891)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve two
separate Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with both the East Naples
Fire Control and Rescue District (ENFD) and the Golden Gate Fire Control
and Rescue District (GGFD) that will authorize Collier County to assume
fire plans review duties on behalf of these two Independent Fire Districts.
(Commissioner Henning)
B. Recommendation to direct the County Manager to work the East Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District (ENFD), the Ochopee Fire District Advisory
Board, and the City of Everglades to develop a plan to merge the Ochopee
Fire District with the ENFD, and to return to the Board of County
Page 4
March 25, 2014
Commissioners with a recommendation. (Commissioner Henning)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to authorize staff to upgrade the current Harris
Corporation Public Safety Radio System to P25 technology using the State
of Florida Contract. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
B. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #14-6224, Facility
Improvements at 8300 Radio Road for construction of improvements at the
Collier Area Transit Administration and Operations Facility, to Compass
Construction, Inc., in the amount of$3,721,994 and authorize the Chairman
to sign the attached contract. (Steve Camel!, Public Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation to accept a status report describing the RESTORE
Evaluation Committee's rankings of proposed projects submitted for possible
RESTORE funds. (Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director)
D. Recommendation to approve County grant application submittals for the Big
Cypress Basin Local Partnership Grant FY2015 Request totaling
$5,011,900, South Florida Water Management District Grant process, and
approve the ranking of the proposed County submittals. (Bill Lorenz,
Natural Resources Director)
E. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance effective
April 1, 2014 in the estimated amount of$3,309,048, a decrease of
$243,614. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 5
March 25, 2014
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule.
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 Utility
Facility for Naples Elk Lodge 2010, PL20120002153, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utility
Performance Security Bond (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the
total amount of$8,079.15 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the Water and Sewer
Utility Facilities for The Quarry Phase 3 and Phase 3 Replat,
PL20120000731, 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 authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond No. 105870788 in the amount of$30,000 which
was posted as a Development Guaranty for work associated with
Creekside Commerce Park East, Early Work Authorization,
PL20130002180.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 6177469 amount of$500,000 which was
posted as a Development Guaranty for work associated with
Veronawalk, Excavation Permit No. 59.834, Application Request No.
AR-2963.
Page 6
March 25, 2014
5) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 929563702 in the amount of$66,000 which
was posted as a Development Guaranty for work associated with
Riverstone Plat 4 - Lake 12, Excavation Permit No. 59.912-1,
Application Request No. 20120002198.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Hacienda Lakes of Naples
(Application Number PPL-PL20130001050) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Hacienda Lakes of Naples
Phase II, (Application Number PPL-PL20130000589) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the Performance Security.
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 Winding Cypress Phase One,
(Application Number PPL-PL20130001373) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
9) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Security in the amount of$13,820 which was posted as a
development guaranty for work associated with Sierra Meadows Lot 8
(PL20130001422).
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the private roadway
and drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase
4D, (Application Number PL20110000202) with the roadway and
drainage improvements being privately maintained and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, acceptance of the plat
Page 7
March 25, 2014
dedications and to release the maintenance security in the amount of
$57,774.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Agreement)
between Collier County and Camden Lakes Property Owners
Association, Inc. (Association) for the landscape and irrigation
improvements at the intersection of Learning Lane and Livingston
Road.
12) Recommendation to approve a release of lien in the accrued amount
of$14,932.34 for payment of$1,882.34, in the Code Enforcement
action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. John P. Waara,
Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM20130001261, relating to property
located at 223 Kirtland Drive, Collier County, Florida.
13) Recommendation to approve the partial release of a lien in the accrued
amount of$56,555.06 for payment of$2,005.06, in the Code
Enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation, Special Magistrate
Case No. CEPM20120012329, relating to property known as 8010
Kilkenny Court, Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to approve the payment of$4,600 to the Marco
Island Civic Association, Inc. for repairs and restoration to their
property caused by damages that occurred during the South Marco
Beach Renourishment and Erosion Control Rebuild Project (#195-
80211), and the Maintenance Grading of the North Marco Island
Beach Project (#195-90533) this past year and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism.
15) Recommendation to direct staff to bring back an expedited
amendment to Land Development Code (LDC), Section
2.03.07.G.6.b, adjusting the date for program participation regarding
Immokalee Nonconforming Mobile Home Parks to January 9, 2020.
16) Recommendation to approve the short list of design professionals
pursuant to RFP No. 14-6190, "Golden Gate City Stormwater
Drainage Improvement Project Engineering Design," Project Number
50129 and authorize staff to negotiate contracts with the top ranked
Page 8
March 25, 2014
firms for subsequent Board approval.
17) Recommendation to grant final approval and acceptance of the private
roadway improvements and the associated maintenance
responsibilities for Tract "B" of the plat of Treasure Point.
18) Recommendation to authorize the necessary budget amendment to
purchase an International, 20 cubic yard Model 7500, dump truck with
funding from fuel cost savings in fiscal year 2014.
19) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution granting a design variance
that authorizes a speed limit increase from forty-five miles per hour
(45 mph) to fifty miles per hour (50 mph) on Collier Boulevard from
Davis Boulevard to US41.
20) Recommendation to enter into a Cooperative Public-Private
Agreement with Wallace Homes of Southwest Florida, Inc., and the
Palm River Homeowners and Civic Association to share in the cost of
improvements that enhance the character of the neighborhood and
concurrently rehabilitates the pedestrian transportation infrastructure
on Piper Boulevard (Project Number 60184).
21) Recommendation to approve an amended and restated Developer
Contribution Agreement (DCA) between DR Horton, Inc. (Developer)
and Collier County (County) to provide water management and
financial contributions for the construction of Tree Farm Road.
22) This item has been continued from the March 11, 2014 BCC
meeting. Recommendation to approve the prioritization of five
limerock roads for the purpose of limerock road conversion, from the
Road Maintenance Limerock Road Conversion Program (LRCP),
Project #60128, in FY2014.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
acting in its capacity as the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve an extension to the
previously approved exit strategy document further extending the
dissolution date of the Immokalee Business Development Center
Page 9
March 25, 2014
(IBDC) from March 31, 2014 to July 31, 2014 so that the IBDC can
carry out its grant funded obligations.
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency accept the Bayshore Gateway Triangle and Immokalee
CRA's 2013 Annual Reports, forward the reports to the Board of
County Commissioners and Clerk of Courts and publish public notice
of the filing.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Notice of
Promise to Pay and Agreement to Extend Payment of Water and/or
Sewer System Impact Fees. Fiscal impact is $18.50 to record the
Satisfaction of Lien.
2) Recommendation to approve the rankings of firms under Request for
Proposal #14-6221, "CEI and Related Services - U.S. 41 from C.R.
951 to Greenway Road," and to direct staff to negotiate a contract
with the top ranked firm, Atkins North America, Inc.
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment Four closing out the State
Revolving Fund Loan Agreement through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant 12 Million Gallons per Day Reverse Osmosis Plant
Expansion (Project Number 700971).
4) Recommendation to approve Amendment Four closing out the State
Revolving Fund Loan Agreement through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant 20-Million Gallons Per Day Wellfield Expansion,
(Project #708921).
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize execution of the 2012/2013 Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Flexible Funds grant award in the
amount of$1,186,055 and appropriate the necessary budget
amendments to allow capital improvement construction of the Collier
Area Transit facility located at 8300 Radio Road prior to execution of
Page 10
March 25,2014
said grant award.
2) Recommendation to authorize execution of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) 49 U.S.C. § 5339 Federal FY13 grant award in
the amount of$353,562 and authorize the necessary budget
amendments to support capital improvement construction at the
Collier Area Transit Facility located at 8300 Radio Road, prior to the
execution of said grant award.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution adopting the Collier Area
Transit Title VI Program.
4) Recommendation to approve proposed route modifications within the
fixed route transit system.
5) Recommendation to approve a mortgage satisfaction for a State
Housing Initiatives Partnership loan in the amount of$3,000.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$220,627 in State Aid to Libraries grant revenue and appropriating
expenditures on library materials, services, and equipment.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Manager or his designee to submit a grant application in the amount
of$72,500 to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Boating Improvement Program for improvements to Ann
Olesky Park with an in-kind financial match of$7,500.
8) Recommendation to approve Amendments and Attestation Statements
with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a Senior
Choices of Southwest Florida for the Community Care for the Elderly
and Alzheimer's Disease Initiative programs to ensure continuous
funding for FY 2013/2014.
9) Recommendation to Award Invitation to Bid No. 14-6199, Older
Americans Act Title IIIE Facility Respite and Adult Daycare, to
Arden Courts-Lely Palms of Naples Florida, LLC.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
Page 11
March 25, 2014
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute
Amendment #1 to Agreement #11-5689, "Brokerage and Insurance
Coverage" to reflect Federal Emergency Management Administration
directives on the payment of commissions for flood insurance.
2) Recommendation to accept the donation of four and one half(4.5)
acres of land by Avatar Properties, Inc. (formally known as GAC
Properties, Inc.) to Collier County for the Sheriff's Office use as a gun
range, pursuant to the 1983 Agreement with Collier County for
Government Facilities within Golden Gate Estates.
3) Recommendation to accept the donation of four and one half(4.5)
acres of land by Avatar Properties, Inc. (formally known as GAC
Properties, Inc.) to Collier County for the Sheriff's Office use as a gun
range, pursuant to the 1983 Agreement with Collier County for
government facilities within Golden Gate Estates.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Assumption Agreement assigning Contract #11-5754 "Tourism
Development Council Fulfillment Services" from Phase V Southwest
Florida, Inc. to Answer Pro, LLC.
5) Recommendation to approve the transfer of funds from the "GAC
Trust Fund" and associated Budget Amendment to reimburse the
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of
exercise equipment for the Louise Hasse Community Center in an
amount not to exceed $62,000.
6) Recommendation to approve a process to hire temporary employees
not identified in the award of Invitation to Bid (ITB) #14-6214 for
Temporary Clerical Services to Premier Staffing Source, Inc.,
JuriStaff, Inc. and Balance Professional, Inc.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an Interlocal Agreement for an Advanced Life Support Partnership
between Collier County and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control
and Rescue District.
8) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #14-6231 - Mass
Casualty Ambulance Bus to Sartin Services, Inc. in the amount of
Page 12
March 25,2014
$479,982.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to approve a revised agreement with AVIAREPS
Airline Management Inc., for tourism representation services in Brazil
and authorize the Chairman to sign a County Attorney approved
contract and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, in its
capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, authorize staff to
accept a payment plan that was proposed during discussions with Gulf
Coast Design Products, Inc.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, in its
capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, authorize staff to
accept a payment plan that was proposed during discussions with
Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc.
3) Recommendation to approve the attached Commercial Aviation
Operations License Agreement (Licensee) with Van Wagner Aerial
Media for banner towing operations at the Immokalee Regional
Airport.
4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing execution of
Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement Number One, to Contract
No. AR519 with the Florida Department of Transportation to provide
additional funds in the amount of$688,436 for Runway #9-27
Rehabilitation Construction at the Immokalee Regional Airport
(Project #33300), and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing execution of
Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement, Number One, (JPA) to
Contract No. AQR22 with the Florida Department of Transportation
Page 13
March 25, 2014
to provide additional funds in the amount of$44,623 for the design,
permitting, and bidding of Runway #9-27 Rehabilitation at the
Immokalee Regional Airport (Project #33227), and authorize the
necessary budget amendments.
6) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
Resolution authorizing execution of Supplemental Agreement One to
Joint Participation Agreement No. AR513 with the Florida
Department of Transportation to provide additional funds in the
amount of$135,134 for Runway #17-35 and associated Aircraft
Apron Rehabilitation Construction at the Marco Island Executive
Airport (Project #33301), and authorize the necessary budget
amendments.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Airport Authority approve a Site License Agreement with the
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce for vehicle parking at the
Immokalee Regional Airport for a Harvest Festival on March 29,
2014.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Appointment of member to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
2) Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Board.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the annual Honor the Free Press Luncheon on April 9,
2014. The sum of$30 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March
6, 2014 through March 12, 2014 and for submission into the official
Page 14
March 25,2014
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March
13, 2014 through March 19, 2014 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize application for tax deeds for thirty-
seven (37) County-held tax certificates and the forwarding of a written
notice to proceed with tax deed applications to the Tax Collector.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
increasing a Purchase Order in the amount of$25,000 to cover
attorney fees anticipated in support of eminent domain litigation for
the US-41 / Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvement project
(Project No. 60116). Fiscal Impact $25,000.
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract #12-5890-
NS "Aderant North America, Inc., End User License Agreement" for
software utilized by the County Attorney's office; and authorize the
Chairman to sign the Amendment.
4) Recommendation that the Board approves an expenditure of$5,000
for mediation services for Jim Helinger, Jr. (Project Number 51101),
and authorizes the County Attorney to retain Mr. Helinger for future
mediations under the terms of the attached letter.
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
Page 15
March 25, 2014
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Resolution Number R-73-22-C which established the Naples Bath and
Tennis Club Planned Unit Development, as amended by Ordinance Numbers
74-47, 75-48, 81-61 and 10-05, to allow construction of a single family
dwelling unit within Tract B, Recreational Club Development and to allow
sports instructional schools and camps as a principal use and a private school
accessory to a sports instructional school as an accessory use within Tract B,
Recreational Club Development; and further providing for Development
Standards and adoption of Exhibit E-1, Location Map for Single Family
Home within Tract B. The subject property is located on Airport Road,
south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [PUDA-
PL20130000175]
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider an ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance Number 08-13 which established the Brandon Residential
Planned Unit Development, to retain the density of 204 residential units; to
revise the Master Plan to change the location of the entrance road on
Veterans Memorial Boulevard, to reconfigure the on-site preserve areas and
reconfigure the development area; to revise development standards; to add
deviations; and to modify development commitments including removal of
the affordable housing commitment. The subject property is located on the
southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 51+ acres; and by providing an effective date. [PUDA-
PL20130001056]
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Page 16
March 25, 2014
Fiscal Year 2013-14 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 17
March 25, 2014
March 25, 2014
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm going to call this meeting
to order, March 25th, 2014.
Anybody who has cell phones, pagers, would you please turn it
off or silence it so we can conduct a meaningful meeting.
We're going to start off with the invocation, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Bob Scudieri of Faith Lutheran church is
going to give our invocation. Would you all rise. Thank you.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR SCUDIERI: Let us pray.
Lord, our God, we ask for your presence this morning, that our
conversation be congenial, our discussions be honest, and in all we do,
say or think, the good of the residents of Collier County be assured.
We thank you for a strong job growth and a strong fiscal bottom
line. And ask you to help us always keep in mind the top line, where
honesty, integrity and love prevail. And the interests especially of
those less well off are respected and valued.
Be with us now to guide and guard our meeting. In your name
we pray, amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED
(EXPARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 2
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, would you
announce the additions, correction, deletions on today's agenda?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of March 25th, 2014.
First proposed change is to move Item 16.A.15 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11 .F. That is an item dealing with the
reinstatement of a process to deal with nonconforming mobile home
parks.
The next proposed change is to -- excuse me, that item is moved
at Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.A.21 to the
April 8th, 2014 BCC meeting.
The next proposed change is to add Item 16.A.23 to your consent
agenda. That item was previously sent to the Board last Friday as a
late routine add-on item.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 17.B from your
summary agenda to the April 8th, 2014 BCC meeting. That is an item
having to do with an amendment to a PUD. And that move is made at
staffs request.
Mr. Chairman, we have two scheduled breaks for your court
reporter, one at 10:30 a.m., the other, if necessary, at 2:50 p.m.
A reminder that Item 7, that's your public comments, are heard
no sooner than 1 :00 p.m. And your advertised public hearings, Items 8
and 9 are heard no sooner than 1 :30 p.m.
And those are all the changes I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Troy, do we have any speakers on
today's agenda?
Page 3
March 25, 2014
MR. MILLER: No, we don't. Not on the consent -- or summary,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, any further
changes or ex parte communication on today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No further changes on the consent
agenda.
For Item 16.A.6 I have had correspondence, and 16.A.7 the same,
I've received correspondence on that item.
And on the summary agenda for 17.A, I have received emails and
I have reviewed the staff report dated February the 16th, 2014.
Item 17.B, I've had meetings and emails and a staff report. Had a
meeting with Rich Yovanovich concerning this on March the 24th,
2014. And that concludes my ex parte disclosure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
On Item 16.A.6, I've met with Rich Yovanovich, David Torres
and George Bauer. It's quite a while back. This is the Hacienda Lakes.
I also have received correspondence, emails and calls, and I've
made some of those calls myself.
16.A.7, same thing, same people. And again, I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails and calls.
And 16.A.8, this is the Winding Cypress, and I've met with Rich
Yovanovich, Chris Hasting and Michael Hoogan. And I've talked
with a couple people from Verona Walk about this item.
And on the summary agenda, 17.A, I've just read the staff report.
And 17.B is taken off the agenda so I won't report on that now I
guess.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we haven't voted on that yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Then I also had the
staff report on that. And I met with Rich Yovanovich, Mark Walker,
and updates from our staff.
Page 4
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
On the consent agenda, 16.A.6, 16.A.7, 16.A.8, they are plats.
I know that we've heard the rezoning before, but if we're going to give
ex parte communications, it might be prudent for our staff to look see
if we have any ex parte communication on the subject, these three
being plats.
Is that a correct statement, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 16.A.8 -- or excuse me, 17.A, I
received staffs report. Also 17.B.
That's all I have on today's consent and summary. And I have no
changes.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda. On
consent for 16.A.6 and A.7 I've received emails. 16.A.8 no disclosure.
On the summary on 17.A I've received emails and reviewed the
staff report. And on 17.B I've had emails, calls, and reviewed the staff
report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance, good morning.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Good morning, sir. Mr. Chairman,
no further changes to the agenda on my part.
On today's regular agenda on Item 9.A I have reviewed the staff
report and met with Mr. Yovanovich. On today's consent agenda on
Item 16.A.8, the Winding Cypress, I've had meetings with Mr.
Yovanovich. And on today's summary agenda, Item 17.A, I've
reviewed the staff report. And on Item 17.B I've read the staff report,
had meetings with Mr. Yovanovich on the 21st of this month, and also
received emails.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
I'd entertain a motion to approve today's agenda as amended.
Page 5
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Nance, pair
of seconds by Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 6
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 25, 2014
Move Item 16A15 to Item 11F: Recommendation to direct staff to bring back an expedited
amendment to Land Development Code (LDC), Section 2.03.07.G.6.b,adjusting the date for
program participation regarding Immokalee Nonconforming Mobile Home Parks to January 9,
2020. (Commissioner Coyle's request)
Continue Item 16A21 to the April 8,2014 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve an amended
and restated Developer Contribution Agreement(DCA) between DR Horton, Inc. (Developer) and
Collier County(County)to provide water management and financial contributions for the
construction of Tree Farm Road. (Commissioner Nance's request)
Add On Item 16A23: Recommendation to approve an Easement Use Agreement as it relates to
Lot 4,L'Ermitage at Grey Oaks. (Staffs request)
Continue Item 17B to the April 8,2014 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider an ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 08-13 which established
the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development,to retain the density of 204 residential units;
to revise the Master Plan to change the location of the entrance road on Veterans Memorial
Boulevard,to reconfigure the on-site preserve areas and reconfigure the development area; to
revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify development commitments
including removal of the affordable housing commitment. The subject property is located on the
southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Section 13,Township
48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,consisting of 51±acres; and by providing an
effective date. [PUDA-PL201300010561 (Staffs request)
March 25, 2014
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2014 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve
February 25th, '14 BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Now we'll go to proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2014 AS AVIATION
APPRECIATION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY GENE SHUE, DIRECTOR-OPERATIONS SUPPORT,
Page 7
March 25, 2014
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION; THOMAS VERGO,
AIRPORT MANAGER, IMMOKALEE AIRPORT; AND DEBBIE
BRUEGGEMAN, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT/OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item 4.A is a proclamation recognizing
April, 2014 as Aviation Appreciation Month in Collier County, to be
accepted by Gene Shue, Director-Operations Support for
Transportation Administration; Tom Vergo, Airport Manager,
Immokalee Airport; and Debbie Brueggeman, Executive Assistant
Operations Coordinator from the Collier County Airport Authority.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. If you'd step
forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2014 AS FAIR
HOUSING MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
ANGELA EDISON, COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
AND KRISTI SONNTAG, HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERANS
SERVICES MANAGER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation recognizing April, 2014
as Fair Housing Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Angela
Edison, Collier County Housing Authority, and Kristi Sonntag,
Housing, Human and Veterans Services Manager for Collier County.
This item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners. Please step forward.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
Page 8
March 25, 2014
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE SECOND WEEK IN
APRIL 2014 AS EVERGLADES WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY FRANKLIN ADAMS AND BRAD CORNELL,
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY; NANCY PAYTON,
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE; MELISSA CORROZZO,
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; LYLE
MCCANDLESS, BIG CYPRESS SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE,
INC.; AND WAYNE JENKINS, COLLIER SPORTSMAN &
CONSERVATION CLUB — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating the second
week in April, 2014 as Everglades Week in Collier County. To be
accepted by Franklin Adams and Brad Cornell, Collier County
Audubon Society; Nancy Payton, Florida Fish and Wildlife; Melissa
Corrozzo, Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Lyle McCandless, Big
Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance, Incorporated; and Wayne Jenkins,
Collier Sportsman and conservation Club.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Nance. If you'd please
step forward.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ANANTA NATH FOR HIS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY AND HIS
RETIREMENT FROM SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/BIG CYPRESS BASIN. ACCEPTED
BY ANANTA NATH — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.D is a particular pleasure
for me to announce the proclamation recognizing Ananta Nath for his
contributions to Collier County upon his retirement from the South
Page 9
March 25, 2014
Florida Water Management District and the Big Cypress Basin.
This item is to be accepted by Mr. Nath and is sponsored by
Commissioner Nance.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a
very special moment. Ananta has worked in this county and he's
served everybody for a very, very long time on one of our least front
page issues, but one of the most important ones. All the
municipalities, all the counties, all the people here that don't have to
wade in water on a daily basis can give a great deal of thanks to
Ananta for his steadfast work on surface water management with the
Big Cypress Basin.
He's a gentleman that's very quietly and very efficiently helped,
not only with surface water management that affects all the citizens,
but also impacts the environment in a very, very positive way. I have
worked with him professionally, personally and of course now in your
service to the county, so it's a great pleasure to have him, his wife
Manju and his lovely daughters in attendance here to help celebrate
this day. Congratulations, Ananta.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I add one more comment?
Ananta has work with us at CREW for as long as I can remember and
I've been on there 13 years. Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed. And you've been a mainstay there. You're going to be
really missed. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please go up to the microphone.
Thank you.
MR. NATH: Honorable Commissioners and ladies and
gentlemen, I'm very, very humbled by this honor, and it's more that I
could ever dream of
And rather this appreciation should have come from me to the
citizens of Collier County and you all for providing me the
Page 10
March 25, 2014
opportunity to do things what I love doing over nearly two decades of
time in this lovely place called Collier County.
And I also, I had the opportunity to work with so many dedicated
and talented partners. I can name -- it will take an hour to name all the
people that I worked with. First my fondest remember experience
from the county engineer and County Manager called Jim Mudd. He
inspired me immensely, and I'm sure he's smiling at a few of the
things that he would have loved to see, like Lely Stormwater
Management -- Lely Stormwater Improvement Plan, LASIP, we
called. Because that plan got brought down and almost stopped for
almost 13 years, and then eventually got together and then he met --
you know, he never -- after he came to the picture, he never -- instead
of 13 years waiting, in less than 13 weeks he got a permit working
with the Corps from a compatriot of the Corps that he knew. And it's
a fabulous project.
And also, the many partners in county. To name a few in the
audience, like Bill Lorenz, George Yilmez, Nick Casalanguida, and
people like Rhonda Watkins, my partners in crime. Mac Hatcher. And
then also the county road and bridge. People including -- and the
stormwater manager Jerry Kurtz, and many others that I have -- sorry,
my mind troubled.
And also most of all, the secretaries from my employment at
South Florida Water Management District, Lee Seculer (phonetic) and
her predecessor, and then also -- most of all, from the basin board,
Rick Barber, Deb Framer and many of my colleagues here. And I
thank you again so very, very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2-9, 2014 AS THE
10TH ANNUAL HONOR THE FREE PRESS WEEK AND
Page 11
March 25, 2014
RECOGNIZING PETER THOMAS AS THE 2014 HONOREE.
ACCEPTED BY PETER THOMAS, LOIS BOLIN, CAROL
GREEN, CHRISTINE SUTHERLAND, MIKE TREPHAN AND
BOB YOUNG, MEMBERS OF THE HONOR THE FREE PRESS
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation designating April 2nd
through April 9th, 2014 as the 10th annual Honor the Free Press
Week, and recognizing Peter Thomas as the 2014 honoree. To be
accepted by Peter Thomas, the honoree, Michael Trephan, Chairman,
Lois Bolin, Vice President, Christine Sutherland, Vice President, Jack
Mehaffey, Joel Kessler and Jerry Sanford.
And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. If you'd
please step forward and accept your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, entertain a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve the
proclamations as presented.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Nance.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Now we'll go to presentations.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 12
March 25, 2014
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE JOLENE APICELLA,
PARAMEDIC II, EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION, AS THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2014 —
PRESENTED
Item 5.A is a recommendation to recognize Jolene Apicella,
Paramedic, Emergency Medical Services Division, as Employee of the
Month for February, 2014. Jolene, if you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'll tell you a little bit about Jolene.
She's been an employee with the county for almost eight years. And
in addition to her regular responsibilities as a paramedic, in 2012 she
volunteered to become the project manager for the Hug a Tree and
Survive Program which is sponsored by Collier County Search and
Rescue. This is a program that educates children ages six through 12
in life-saving survival skills and basic actions to take if lost in the
wilderness.
She's currently in discussions with the Collier County Public
School System exploring the possibility of providing the program to
all of our elementary level students.
She was recently selected by the chief of EMS to become a
certified child passenger safety technician, completing a 40-hour
training program. And she'll be instrumental in the development and
implementation of the department's Child Seat Safety Program.
Jolene's certainly passionate about her community outreach and
public education programs on behalf of our residents and visitors, and
she's very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my pleasure to recommend Jolene Apicella,
and congratulate her as the employee of the month for February, 2014.
Congratulations, Jolene.
Page 13
March 25, 2014
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Jolene.
Item #1 OA
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE TWO SEPARATE
MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH BOTH
EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
(ENFD) AND GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT (GGFD) THAT WILL AUTHORIZE COLLIER
COUNTY TO ASSUME FIRE PLANS REVIEW DUTIES ON
BEHALF OF THESE TWO INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 10 this
morning, Board of County Commissioners.
Item 10.A is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve two separate Memorandums of
Understanding with both the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue
District and the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District that will
authorize Collier County to assume fire plan review duties on behalf
of these two independent fire districts. And this item was placed on
the agenda by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: First of all, I want to recognize the
great staff, the fire departments, Chairman Hemping of East Naples
Fire and Rescue, Commissioner Jeff Page of East Naples Fire and
Rescue, the chief of both Golden Gate and East Naples Fire and
Rescue, Chief Schultz, and chief-- Deputy Chief Nolan Sapp, and
Allen McLaughlin from Ochopee Fire District.
Commissioners, as you know, your staff has been communicating
with the staff at both these fire districts, and I've been communicating
Page 14
March 25, 2014
and meeting with the fire commissioners from both -- all the districts
as much as possible. And at the last meeting of Golden Gate and East
Naples, they have decided to partnership with the county by
requesting the county to enter in a MOU, and it will be an interlocal
agreement coming back to the Board of Commissioners of the details
on how this is going to work.
So I'll entertain any questions. And of course if you have any
questions by the fire commissioners of the districts or the chief, we'll
get them up here.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just have one question and that is
how do the fire districts ratify the plan reviews? And maybe I'm
mistaken, but I thought that the fire chiefs were the ones who had to
basically approve the plans. Or maybe I'm mistaken about that. I
didn't know, I thought there was some sort of legal requirement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Their legal requirement for the fire districts
is to inspect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's the inspection, not the plan
review.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And will the inspectors in
these districts respect the plan reviewed decisions made by the
county? Is that understood? So we don't have the conflicts that
existed before.
In the past the problem was when the fire inspector was
reviewing the plans, his inspectors would go in the field and they
would actually come up with a different opinion as to what should be
going on than what was approved in the planning phase, which created
a lot of problems.
And so I just want to make sure that whatever decision is made
by our staff during the fire plan review stage, that those decisions will
be respected by the inspectors when they go out in the field.
Page 15
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what's -- and I agree, there has
been different interpretations of the NFPA, the National Fire
Protection Association.
What's going to happen is the fire marshall for the district is
going to be the final say-so. So if there is any conflict, that fire
marshall will have the final ruling on it.
There's going to be increased cooperation and communication
between the county, Jamie French and Nick Casalanguida, along with
Shawn from -- who is the fire marshall for East Naples and Golden
Gate. And with communication cooperation, I think we're going to
provide a lot better product to the customers.
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And where will the fees be
collected? The fees will be collected by the county for the plan
review?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the plan review, yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner. They'll be working out of the
central building over on Horseshoe Drive in the growth management
building.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the inspections will be
paid for separately through the fire districts?
MR. OCHS: No. Nick, if you'd like to explain the process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In that interlocal, it can be collected at
Horseshoe or they can be collected by the district. So we'll leave that
up to them. The inspectors will be district employees. So if they want
to have accounting, we're fine with that. But the initial plan review
and inspection will be done on Horseshoe Drive, and we'll offer that
service to them, if they would like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So we're not going to be
responsible to see that these applications are closed out. We're strictly
doing the review initially to set the parameters, and then the rest turns
over to the fire districts for closure?
Page 16
March 25, 2014
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the certificate of occupancy is
issued by us with the review by them and our staff as well too. So we
close out the inspections.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we will close out after they
have completed their inspections.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As we do right now, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that many stays the same.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I want for thank
you for all the work you've been doing on this. You've really been
steadfastly moving forward, diligently working with everybody. And
I think everyone appreciates that.
One of the things that we had noticed in the past, or at least I did,
was so many times people would say something about the county
doing these inspections and making the decisions. And when you ask
questions, it comes down to fire. And people who on the outside could
never tell the difference between who's making decisions on what, I
think it's good that we're putting these groups together now and all
operating together to make these decisions. It's going to make it easier
for the public as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think this is a great step
forward. I would just like some clarification concerning how this
eliminates potential conflicts between the reviewers and the
inspectors. If we're going to be reviewing and approving a plan, what
keeps the inspectors from inspecting on a different page?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioner Coyle, Nick
Casalanguida for the record.
It will be that AHJ.
Page 17
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The authority having jurisdiction
representative, the fire marshall. Because that fire marshall will be
working closely with our plans reviewers, so that person will be the
final say in plans review and the final say in plans inspections or field
inspections. So it will be one authority that has that review on both
ends.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But there can always be
something that arises on the review -- I'm sorry, inspection that was
not thought of at the time of the review.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, sir. I'll give you an
example that comes up all the time. A builder submits a set of plans to
the county -- and this applies to both county teams as well as fire
teams -- and says I'm going to replace this wall and do this, and we
sign off. We say that's fine, we reviewed it.
Then the inspectors go out in the field. And the work that's
actually being done is quite different than what was submitted in the
plan set. You're never going to avoid that. That is -- and there's no
way to do that unless as part of the plan review you send someone out
to do a field inspection of the plan review.
So that's something that's plagued us as well as fire. But I think
your coordination on plan review and plan inspection will be better
with one person having that authority, which is that AHJ designation
as the fire marshall.
But what you've discussed earl-- you brought up is a function of
people submitting a set of plans and then actually in the field doing
something different than what those plans do. And that is human
nature and cannot be avoided without clearly letting the general
contractor know that when we get to inspection, if it's different than
the plan set you're going to haves issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So although the county is going to
do the fire review, that fire review is subject to approval by the fire
Page 18
March 25, 2014
district employee?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fire marshall, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fire marshall.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Oversight, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As it is today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As it is today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The one thing that I have a learned
through this process, you speak to our staff down in community
development, they speak highly of East Naples and Golden Gate's Fire
Marshall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For good reason.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, there's
constant communication. And this is just a higher level of
communication cooperation to serve the customer.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think this is a very, very
positive development. I would like to give praise to all involved,
including staff, members of the independent fire districts and
recognize the leadership of Chairman Henning in moving this forward.
I think it's very, very good and I think it's going to serve our citizens
and our businesses very, very well. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you'll make a motion to approve
it, Commissioner Henning, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve both
MOUs with East Naples Fire District and Golden Gate Fire District.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second on the floor.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 19
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OB
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
TO WORK THE EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT (ENFD), THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY
BOARD, AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES TO DEVELOP A
PLAN TO MERGE THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT WITH THE
ENFD, AND TO RETURN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS WITH A RECOMMENDATION — MOTION
TO APPROVE WITH DIRECTION THE COUNTY MANAGER'S
OFFICE AND MAYOR HAMILTON WORK TOGETHER TO
ENHANCE SERVICE, RETAIN FIREFIGHTERS FROM
OCHOPEE, EQUIPMENT AND BRING BACK TO THE BCC —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10.B this
morning, and it's a recommendation to direct the County Manager to
work with the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, the
Ochopee Fire District Advisory Board and the City of Everglades to
develop a plan to merge the Ochopee Fire District with the East
Naples Fire District, and to return to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Henning.
Page 20
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And again, we have the chiefs of both
the districts and fire commissioners, if anybody has any questions of
them.
When I went to the East Naples Fire Commission meeting, there
was a desire to take a look at the merger of the Ochopee Fire District
into the East Naples Fire District, and subsequently it would be the
Greater Naples Fire District.
What's on the agenda is just a -- is just directing staff to
communicate with the East Naples Fire District to look at all the
issues. There's a lot of issues that -- that before any final decision can
be made we need to take a look at the staffing, we need to take a look
at the budgets. There's a whole host of things that we need to take a
look at.
And quite frankly, the -- our goal should be to retain the staff that
we have out there and the administration. Our goal is to how we can
improve service and possibly lower the insurance rating. Our goal
should be is there a way to lower the millage rate.
This item is -- will definitely have to come back to the Board for
ratification or what other hurdles. So with that, I'll go to the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think we need to hear from
Mayor Hamilton --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to get his input on whether or
not --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, he is our registered speaker. Do
you want him limited to three minutes or just whatever?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whatever.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Thank you, Tom.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I got kind of
Page 21
March 25, 2014
a -- it's not a cold, but my whole ear is stopped up here, so if I say
what did you say, you know -- but it's true.
And I want to thank you Commissioners for allowing me to come
up. And as Mayor of Everglades City and the surrounding area there,
I would really like to have this kind of-- if it's any way possible, it's
hit me very quick like, it's all new to me and we got a lot of things
going on down there.
But the thing is I think we're doing great there. And I know Tom,
what he said is true, trying to lower the millage rates and things like
that. But overall I would like to see if we could put this back a few
years, several years, whatever, and go along with these other issues
that's come up now and give us a chance to really look this over.
Because I'm very interested, and I am completely against -- I always
say Everglades City, I know it's Ochopee -- but I'd like to see a big
sign saying Everglades City.
But the thing is, I would like to have time and the Commissioners
have time, I'd like to hear today that we could try to put this off a few
years while we go ahead and do the other issues that's coming up now.
And I won't take long but I am against that and my people are
against it and for lots of reasons. We have our own building, we have
the fire docks there, we have everything. And I'd really appreciate the
Commissioners and County Manager, everybody to kind of slow this
part down, go along with the other people, finish up with that, and
come back to this issue and we'll all be better prepared. I will. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
continue this item and ask the various parties, the county and East
Naples, to sit down with Mayor Hamilton and talk about his concerns.
Because I'm personally very concerned, Mayor Hamilton, that
you were not aware of this ahead of time sufficiently so that you
Page 22
March 25, 2014
would have had the opportunity to vet your concerns with the various
parties; in other words, the county and East Naples.
So I think you should have that opportunity. And then this
should be brought back after that discussion is had. And, you know, if
it is still the will of this Board to move forward, notwithstanding your
objections, that may be the case, but at least you have had the
opportunity representing your community to vet this with the parties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, actually, that's the
recommendation, is to work with East Naples Fire Rescue, Ochopee
Fire District Advisory Board and the City of Naples to develop a
merge plan --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: City of Everglades.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: City of Everglades, I'm sorry.
So it is working with them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I mean, as long as that, you
know, we're not moving forward with a plan but that they're in effect
working together.
Is that okay with you, if you have the opportunity to work with
everyone to see whether or not you want to or what your objections
are?
MAYOR HAMILTON: Yes, that would be okay, Georgia. But
yeah, I'd like to, like you say, have time, more time to study this all
over and work with the people on the Board, Manager, whoever you
decide, Commissioners. That would be okay.
But I would like to be able to be on that board and give my
opinion of our city and our little surrounding area.
And we cover a lot of ground there. It would be quicker actually
-- I won't get into that this morning, other people wants to talk too.
But we cover a lot of ground there, our firemen, probably a lot more
than East Naples and some of them put together. But we all go over to
the end of the county, to edge of Dade County and everything else.
And I'm sorry I talk the way I'm talking this morning, I don't have that
Page 23
March 25, 2014
Elvis voice like I usually do, I lost that this morning.
But I do really appreciate you Commissioners, and I would like
to be able to be on the board to be able to give my opinion a lot better
than I'm doing this morning. But I'm really -- I'm against it, my
people are against it. We do have a lot of issues about that. But I do
want to thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner, would it be okay if
I made a motion to approve your recommendation with a qualifier and
that is that this not come back to the Board 'til Mayor Hamilton feels
comfortable that he has had the opportunity to fully vet all of his
concerns and his community's concerns with the participants. Within
a reasonable time?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your recommendation is to direct the
County Manager to work with all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Urn-hum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- entities involved, including the
Mayor of Everglades.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And to make sure that it's
done with, you know, enough time so that Mayor Hamilton can bring
all his -- that we don't rush through this but that he has the opportunity
to fully vet his concerns with the county and with the fire district
before it comes back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I could support a motion like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we have speakers -- or Commissioners. I think
Commissioner Fiala was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was, thank you. And I have
the same voice, by the way, as you do this morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She always sounds that way.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Very sultry.
Page 24
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a little bit suspicious. I'm not
going there, Mrs. Hamilton, just saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the things that I noticed
immediately, and it kind of goes along with what you're saying, and
certainly with Commissioner Hiller's motion, is it gave no time
limitation, doesn't look like anybody's trying to rush through this, so it
gives it the time I think that you need and everyone else needs to be
able to talk with everybody and feel comfortable with the final
outcome, whatever it will be.
MAYOR HAMILTON: I really appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just two points. Mayor
Hamilton, with respect to the timing, when the County Board of
Commissioners requests a study and some recommendations, it
seldom happens quickly. I think we started -- somebody back about
30 years ago started talking about consolidating fire districts. And you
can see that just now we're beginning to do it. So I'm not sure
anything will happen quickly.
But one of the other things that could be an improvement on the
guidance would be to assure that the fire support for Glades and their
surrounding area would be strengthened rather than reduced. So I'm
sure that Mayor Hamilton is concerned that somebody's going to take
away some of the good fire support you have there. And I really
believe that the intent of this process is to make it more effective
rather than less effective. And if that were included in the guidance to
staff, that might provide some comfort to the people in Everglades
City.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I totally agree
with you.
Commissioner Hiller, would you enter -- amend your motion to
include to enhance the present day service and also to retain the staff
Page 25
March 25, 2014
and the firefighters in Ochopee?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'll amend my motion in that
regard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, will you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally agree with you.
Thank you very much.
I think the Ochopee firemen are the ones who best know where
everything is and they won't get lost on the way to a fire, whether it be
in Everglades City or in the forest.
MAYOR HAMILTON: That's true.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Nance, I
just want to say we have great staff at Ochopee Fire District. We have
great firefighters at Ochopee Fire District. However it's been the
wishes of the Board individually and collectively and citizens to
merge these districts for enhanced service. That's what they voted for.
Or cheaper price. Not a cheaper price, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Better overall MSTUs or taxes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, for a lack of words. But just a
better service to the customers.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I do think that gathering
together all of these staffs is very timely. And I think as we've
recently seen on this Board, having comprehensive services and well
administered services is going to bring better service. So I look
forward to this evaluation.
And once again, I'm thanking Chair -- Commissioner Henning
for continuing to move this whole process forward. So I fully support
the motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One other thing on the direction,
Commissioner Hiller. We are building a station, actually it's probably
CO'd by now, we're going to order some equipment for the Alligator
Alley. That's supposed to be a shared facility with Ochopee Fire
Page 26
March 25, 2014
District and EMS that -- I think that -- County Manager, correct me if
I'm wrong, we're supposed to have an ambulance out there?
MR. OCHS: Sir, we're going to -- yes, we're bringing an MOU
and we'll have both ALS and Ochopee firefighting capability at that
station.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we want to recognize that it's
going to be a shared facility with the district and the county EMS
department.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've already -- I think we've
already done that, haven't we, in the past? And I'm not sure, should
that be part of this? Because do you have a concern that if we don't
make mention of that in this motion that somehow that facility will get
excluded from the discussion in -- the merger discussion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think everything should be laid out
on the table so everybody has an understanding, you know, about the
facilities and equipment and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not just say, you know, to
consider all facilities, equipment and staffing --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that might involve either
Ochopee or East Naples as they work together.
MR. OCHS: That's fine, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you okay with
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm okay with that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I just want to remind
everybody, we did agree that the fire staff from Isles of Capri would
have dibs on those jobs at that station.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I don't think that's quite the
direction, but it was something similar to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was basically wouldn't they have
Page 27
March 25, 2014
priority, like first in line applying for those positions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the direction from the staff
was to take a look at the staffing level at Isles of Capri and see if they
can fit in within the -- and Chief McLaughlin is shaking his head yes
-- see if they could fit in within that new station.
Mayor Hamilton, are you okay with the direction?
MAYOR HAMILTON: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
want to thank the whole Board. Thank you, Georgia, for the motion.
Thank you all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Glad you were here.
MAYOR HAMILTON: I'll try to get my voice better. Thank
you. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a quick question.
Did we -- we finally opened the station at Port of the Islands,
right? I guess the guys moved out of the hotel, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. And I'll ask Chief McLaughlin to give
you a very brief update on the status of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my question was and do we
also have an ambulance there, or not?
MR. OCHS: Chief?
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning, Chairman,
Commissioners. Chief McLaughlin, Ochopee Fire Control District,
for the record.
We have moved into the Port of the Isles station effective last
Monday, officially. We're having an open house coming up on the
19th which you'll be invited to.
We do not have an ambulance at that facility. We have an ALS
engine there, which you're very familiar with. It's a shared facility
with an EMS fire medic on board with one of our firefighters. That's
the same agreement we have with mile marker 63. There'll be a fire
medic on board with the crew out there. There's no ambulance
Page 28
March 25, 2014
scheduled to be at that facility either, just as an update.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I do want to say, I want to thank all of
the fire commissioners in Collier County. It's a real honor to work
with them and your staff. Very professional people and dedication
from the fire commissioners. I'm looking forward to continuing that
relationship.
Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you, Mayor, for being here.
Next item?
Item #1 1 A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO UPGRADE
THE CURRENT HARRIS CORPORATION PUBLIC SAFETY
RADIO SYSTEM TO P25 TECHNOLOGY USING THE STATE
OF FLORIDA CONTRACT — MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO
COMPETITIVELY SOLICIT FOR A COMMUNICATIONS
ENGINEER TO EVALUATE WHAT IS NEEDED AND COSTS
INVOLVED AND BRING BACK A DETAILED ANALYSIS AND
Page 29
March 25, 2014
COORDINATE WITH ALL END USERS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Next item is 11 .A. It's a recommendation
to authorize staff to upgrade the current Harris Corporation Public
Safety Radio System to P25 technology, using the State of Florida
contract.
Ms. Len Price, your Administrative Services Administrator, will
begin the presentation.
Ms. Price?
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Len
Price, Administrative Services and Emergency Services
Administrator.
The item that we brought before you today, I just would like to
clarify, it's not a request for sole source waiver. This is a request for a
cooperative purchase using the State of Florida contract.
The $15 million figure that we've been using is and has been just
a budgeting number. We recognize it not to have been fully fleshed
out, and we expect that the total would come in less than that because
for budgeting and planning purposes we estimated on the high side.
This was in an effort to spread the capital investment over a period of
three to five years because we've been in somewhat of a financial
constrained position over the last several years.
Nobody is debating whether the system that we have now is
better or whether Motorola does or does not have a quality product. I
can tell you that both systems are exceptional systems.
Before I came to Collier County I oversaw the 9-1-1 system and
it was a Motorola shop, and we were extremely happy with that
product.
So this is really not a debate over quality, it's really just a matter
of our knowledge base, our equipment base. Those decisions were
made back in 1986 when we put in the system. And these sort of
systems, much like our SAP for our financial accounting, we don't,
Page 30
March 25, 2014
you know, just go out and change them unless there's a strong reason
to do so. And that's the reason that we're recommending going
forward under the state contract. It will save us a significant amount
of time over competing through a competitive process. Just the
development of the RFP and all of the selection process itself could
add nine to 12 months to this process. And instead we'd rather really
start working on upgrade the system earlier.
With that, we're here to answer any of your questions, and we'll
follow your direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
I have very grave concerns about what's being put forth today.
The detail doesn't tell me what you are asking us to authorize.
The state contract, if you intend to follow a state contract,
requires that you match it exactly as that contract is written.
We are looking for a tailored system. We are looking at making
a decision whether we should lease versus buy. You know, this is a
$15 million project with approximately $30 million as I understand in
additional potential user revenues. I don't see how this cannot go out
to bid. I think that this should be bid and we should find out from a
cost standpoint and from a design standpoint what is best for the
citizens of Collier County.
I think first there needs to be an evaluation of what we need.
Then we need to have an evaluation of whether we should buy or
lease. And then it should go out to bid with a formal RFP based on A
and B to come back with the lowest possible cost and the highest
possible value to our community.
This proposal doesn't allow for that, so I can't support this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question.
What is the P25?
MS. PRICE: I'm going to let John Daly answer that for you, he
can give you a much better technical answer.
Page 31
March 25, 2014
MR. DALY: John Daly, Telecommunications Manager in the
Information Technology Department.
P25 is the digital standard that the federal government has -- it
has emerged as a technology standard for radio systems. The primary
purpose behind that was inner-operability. And because it's digital it
does afford some additional technical advantages. It's where all the
systems are going, whether they are sophisticated wide area systems
like ours or just simple localized systems in smaller jurisdictions,
they're all using the P25 standard.
And the P25 standard does apply not only to 800 megahertz
systems like Collier County's but it also applies to VHF and UHF
rated systems. So it's the technology that's used across the frequency
spectrum. Which is a little bit different than what we saw in some of
the technologies just, you know, 15 or 20 years ago when we did our
current system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why can't we maintain what we have
today?
MR. DALY: Well, we can maintain it for several more years.
However, because the P25 standard has emerged and because
technology changes, I mean, you see it in computers, you see it in cell
phones. Because of this change in technology, some of the
components we have simply cannot be manufactured anymore. You
know, the signaling protocols have changed, the types of hardware
that make up these components have changed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's being obsoleted.
MR. DALY: Yes. Much like some of your older cell phones
will not work on current cell phone networks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We received a correspondence from
Chief Greg Smith, Sheriffs Department. Have you seen that?
MR. DALY: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think it's important, since he's
the biggest user, that we go over that. 98 percent in building portable
Page 32
March 25, 2014
coverage within the existing simulcast area. He's asking us to support
the implementation of P25.
95 percent of outdoor portable coverage in remaining area of
Collier County. Offshore public mobile coverage to minimum of nine
miles with marine VHF. We can do that?
MR. DALY: I'm not sure about marine VHF. I think they're
referring to the marine units.
We do have in our proposal, you know, before we continually go
forward to utilize a technical consultant to work with the users to
identify coverage expectations and to develop those specifications for
the vendor to review.
I would tell you that our current system meets most of these
standards. We've tested the system twice and it passed our original
specifications. It actually exceeded the original specifications both
times it was tested.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to forward this to Len
Price.
The -- who is our present vendor on this item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Present vendor is Harris
Corporation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The same one you're
recommending?
MR. DALY: Correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why couldn't we go to somebody like
Motorola, like is being suggested us to go out to bid instead of using a
state contract?
MR. DALY: The methodology being proposed in the executive
summary is being used by systems all across the state and all across
the country. It has really emerged as an industry standard. And these
systems are complex. They are complex and require significant
support. And there is not a significant difference between the two
manufacturers in quality. They both provide excellent systems. But it
Page 33
March 25, 2014
becomes a continuity of communication to maintain your critical
communications during the implementation process and minimizing
risk to your critical communications as you go through the process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Chief Smith is here. Anyways,
sounds like we're going to communicate if we're going to move
forward with this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I add to what you've just
raised?
Your comments really concern me. Because basically what
you're telling me is that once you have a system in place you're never
going to change vendors, which I find absolutely unbelievable. I can't
see that being the case.
We have had nothing but problems with Harris. We have had a
history of dropped calls. There are lots of emails, actually through
you, that address dropped calls.
We are -- we've been put on notice, if my memory serves me
correctly, that as a consequence of a dropped call there was a death
and, you know, a potential suit coming forward. It's just -- I can't
believe that a $15 million system is not being put out to bid.
And, you know, to sit here and say oh, we have to correct the
system so let's get it done now and avoid the process because that
would be a delay is disingenuous because the problems with the Harris
system have been known to us for years going back. And something
should have been done earlier. And now we're not going to
compromise the system we made and avoid the process which is in the
best interest of the public because there's been an awakening, which in
fact that isn't the case, because the problems with Harris have been
well documented, you know, going back several years now.
So again, I won't belabor this but I do remain concerned. And
actually, I'm going to make a motion to deny.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, first of all, we gave you two
alternatives; one of which is to go through a competitive process.
Page 34
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what I'd like.
MR. OCHS: Many of the Motorola systems in the state quite
frankly are doing the same type of P25 upgrade, and many of them are
using the same process that we're recommending to you. They have an
established system, they are not going through a competitive process,
they're upgrading to the new technology.
We're simply laying out two alternatives for the Board to
consider. Time is a concern, as you mentioned. We would like to get
the public safety users up and running on the new technology sooner
than later. If we go to a competitive process, which is an option for
the Board, we're simply saying that that puts us probably nine to 12
months out from a decision. We would have to manage two systems
during that. If we end up with a different vendor at the end of that
process, we will have to manage two systems through an integration,
and we will lose to a large extent the ability to phase this in over time,
beginning with the public safety users, then bringing the rest of the
users on as we integrate the new system.
So we're simply trying to point out some of what we believe are
the advantages or disadvantages of one approach versus the other.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really appreciate you mentioning
those points, Leo.
I think we have representatives from Motorola here today who
can comment about your concerns, and I would like to hear what they
have to say. And I would like to hear what Harris's representative has
to say with respect to whatever Motorola has to say with this whole --
with these issues that you raise.
Then I'll make a motion now to recommend that we authorize
staff to put this to competitive bid based on a clear definition of what
we want. We all understand that the intent is to move to a digital
system. I think we have to decide whether it's a lease or buy decision.
Because the notion that this new system will last 20 years, I can't
believe -- the rapid change in this technology I'm sure will make the
Page 35
March 25, 2014
system that we would buy obsolete relatively quickly. So I think
leasing as an option has to be heavily considered for that reason.
So my motion again is that we put this out to competitive bid
based on a clear definition of what we intend, to either acquire a lease
and with an understanding as to whether we are going to acquire or
lease it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So your option is basically alternative
two in our executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, not as it's presented in the
summary.
MR. OCHS: Staff recommendation is for alternative one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, staffs recommendation,
alternative one. And there may be an alternative number three, but
alternative number two is to develop and publish an RFP. Is that a part
of it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, that is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And which part do you object to in
alternative two?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we just want -- we want
alternative two.
The recommendation -- staffs recommendation was to go with a
state contract. And I'm saying that we don't do that. I'm saying that
what we do is develop a specification, make a decision how we want
to acquire this system and put it out to bid with a formal RFP.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And --
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, if I might --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just want to make sure if that's what
the motion is that we have clear direction.
Len, do you feel that you have clear direction?
MS. PRICE: On that motion I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MS. PRICE: Yes. If that motion passes, I think I have clear
Page 36
March 25, 2014
direction as to what you want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to table the motion until we
have further discussion, if that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Nance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Excuse my voice.
Thank you very much.
I wanted to know financially if we have to buy a whole new
system rather than upgrade the system we have, how much longer will
it take and how much more money? How much extra will it cost us to
put a whole new system in rather than upgrade what we have?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, I don't think I can give you
specific numbers on that. I can tell you that the additional time is
going to be approximately nine to 12 months because that's how long
it would take us to go through the process, develop the RFP, you
know, do all of the selection involved. So you're looking at nine to 12
months before we can really get started.
In terms of additional cost, obviously the RFP would tell us that.
But we do know that there are certain things that would be -- that we
would have to do that we would not have to do if we wind up staying
with the same vendor, and that has to do with some sites that we share
with the state. The state system is a Harris system so we would have
to come up with new sites or new equipment on those sites in order to
switch it out.
There would be a lot of switching out of equipment that would
have to take place all at one time as opposed to the phased approach
that we're looking at now, such as the radios, all the antennas would
have to be switched out, et cetera.
We would also have a space issue, because by upgrading the
Harris system we can essentially, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying
this, but as we do each component we can pull out the old and put in
Page 37
March 25, 2014
the new. If we've got to maintain both systems up and operational, we
need to put in the new equipment before we can take out the old
equipment, so there would be some space issues there.
And just finally, I do want to clarify that today we're asking you
to approve the strategy. If you approve this strategy, we'll be looking
at some of the issues that Commissioner Hiller is concerned about,
buy versus lease, whether we can do things more quickly and pay over
time and some of those things we could work through. We would be
bringing back a contract to you to sign for the purchase. So today
we're really talking about the strategy.
Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, ma'am, you did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, any time you have an
infrastructure system as big and expensive as you have here, it's a
relationship business and it's something that you invest in over a very,
very long period of time.
Currently we have a Harris system. We have a great investment
in that Harris system and in that relationship. Not only do you have
an investment in basically this P25 system which is new, is that you
have an ongoing relationship over many years, which is going to
exceed that estimated $15 million. It's probably going to be double
that in operations, upgrades, repair and maintenance and things that
have to be managed over a period of time.
I respect Commissioner Hiller's dedication to going to a bid
process. However, I don't think that a bid process here, because we
have state relationships with both these entities, is going to address the
biggest issue for Collier County in going to P25. And this is why. I
don't think there's going to be a significant cost or performance
difference in the P25 system, regardless of vendor. We may well find
out that the same Chinese company makes the electronics for both of
them.
Page 38
March 25, 2014
I have complete confidence in both Harris Corporation and in
Motorola. I think the issue that we have here and why I would like to
go to a third option is I would like staff to go out and work with our
current vendor to address the issues which I think are the biggest and
that is how we're going to make this transition. The transition and how
we're going to go from the way we currently operate with non-P25 to
P25 is the most important thing. I don't think the issue is going to be a
bid cost, per se, because I don't think you're going to get a fully-loaded
cost because you're not going to be able to know what the costs are of
that transition.
So I think we really need to let staff go in and bring a little bit
more information back to this board about how we're going to
transition, what the difference would be if we have to go to one new
company, if we decide to go to Motorola, as opposed to continuing the
relationship that we have now.
As to failures and things that -- problems and things that we have
to address, there's a lot of reasons for that. And we have to evaluate
right now whether we do have confidence in our current relationship
with Harris going forward as far as service is concerned and what
issues are in fact a system issue, a performance issue of hardware
that's going to be addressed by P25 or what those issues might be.
So I think going directly to a bid process today is going to
prevent us from making a good decision, because I don't think we're
going to have all the issues identified and all the possibilities
identified by staff. I think we should go forward and let staff go ahead
and talk to our current provider to talk about transition and lay some
of these choices out to us before we jump right to bid.
If staff does not have confidence in Harris or they don't see any
utility in remaining with a vendor, then they can come back and
recommend that we go to bid. But I think we need to let staff present
more of these issues to this Board before we make that decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to the public speakers?
Page 39
March 25, 2014
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have six registered public
speakers. Your first speaker is Dwaine Parker. He'll be followed by
Lourdes Sori.
MR. PARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you.
My name's Dwaine Parker and I'm a resident of Collier County.
And for the past 13 years I'm an end user of the county's 800
megahertz radio system.
Additionally, for the past three years I have had the pleasure to
actively serve on the Communications Advisory Board.
My sole purpose to address the BOC today is to provide you with
my personal knowledge of our current radio system as an end user's
point of view. Hopefully you will find my perspective valuable in
aiding your decisions on how best to move forward for replacing this
technically challenging and expensive system.
On February 4th, 2014 you held a workshop regarding the
replacement of our current radio system. I'd like to take this time to
publicly thank Commissioner Hiller for stating that the BOC's priority
for public service and for making an informed decision. Her repeated
concerns for using a sole source vendor versus utilizing the RFP
method was a welcomed position stance.
It should be noted that during the workshop Commissioners
Hiller's concern for dropped radio transmissions is extremely valid and
the only the tip of the iceberg relating to the documented radio system
over the last 13 years, which I personally have knowledge of.
It may not be a common knowledge to those who do not use the
system as a main source of communications, but for those who rely
upon this radio system for our safety on a daily basis, there's an
uneasy feeling to only hear partial radio transmissions, or when you
try to key the mic, vital information is unable to be transmitted over
and over again.
The valid perception among the 47 percent of those who use this
system every hour of every day is that it is currently unreliable.
Page 40
March 25, 2014
I have personally been involved in a life and death situation, and
when I pushed my emergency button to notify the world of my
impending parallel, nothing happened. So I pushed it again. And
instead of the world hearing my plea for help, only the dispatcher
heard me, while others continued to talk on the system as if nothing
happened. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
While serving on the Communications Advisory Board I was told
that the current level of D grade and failures which we experience on a
daily basis is an acceptable level within the radio communications
world. Despite my repeated requests, I was never provided
documentation validating that statement.
At what point can we just collectively throw our hands up into
the air and agree that despite all of our best efforts our current radio
system just does not work as well as we need it to? Admitting this
will not bring shame upon anyone, but will give us a level of
self-credibility and a valid starting point to begin fixing the problems.
During the workshop you were told that the majority of the 25
counties who needed replacement staying with their current system
vendors for system replacements. Those decisions were made only
after a factual third-party engineering report was completed, indicating
what was actually needed to obtain the P25 radio system for the
uniqueness of each of those respected counties.
Finally, it's my understanding that the purchase request that is
before you today are for the key elements needed by Harris to install
the core infrastructure of the new P25 system. Although any
manufacturer's rating will work with this core infrastructure, only
Harris, who is the current vendor, can install the remainder of the P25
system.
This, as you know, would result in removing all opportunity to
RFP this project and ultimately allow sole sourcing to occur within the
current vendor. Harris Communications, something that was made
perfectly clear and repeatedly, cautioned against during the workshop.
Page 41
March 25, 2014
Please deny today's request and not spend any money on the P25
project until you have factual information from a third-party
engineering report, just as the other 25 counties have done within the
State of Florida. Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the entity you represent?
MR. PARKER: I represent myself as a civilian, as a citizen of
this county. I happen to have knowledge of this system because I'm a
county employee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but you said you were an
end user.
MR. PARKER: I'm an end user as a county employee. But I'm
not here representing my employer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Under what authority?
MR. PARKER: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What department?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why do you use the current
system?
MR. PARKER: I use the current system because I'm a county
employee. But I'm not here -- I just want to emphasize, anything that I
say is my personal belief from my personal knowledge of the radio
system. I work for the county and my knowledge of the system is
through my county employment. But I don't want to sit here and
represent myself as part of the county, because I've not been given
permission to do so. I'm here for myself as a citizen today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's your own time.
MR. PARKER: That's correct. I'm not on the clock, I'm not
representing anybody. I'm representing myself and what I believe
after 13 years of experience working with Harris in this radio system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 42
March 25, 2014
MR. PARKER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lourdes Sori. She'll be
followed by Burt Saunders.
MS. SORT: Good morning. My name is Lourdes Sori. I'm the
account manager for Motorola with the pleasure to serve Collier
County. Thank you for your time this morning.
Whether we call this a sole source procurement or a cooperative
with the state, the end result is really the same. It would be a sole
source award to Harris Corporation. They are your incumbent and
they can deliver a P25 system. But Motorola is the market leader in
P25 systems. We have over 700 systems nationwide and we have won
100 percent of the bid radio systems, P25 radio systems in the State of
Florida.
We're a competitive option and we would like to be considered
for this. We believe that the overall spend will be significantly higher,
as Commissioner Nance mentioned. We believe it will be
significantly higher probably in the 20 to $30 million range. And we
also believe that this spend would be tied into Harris Corporation only
should you proceed down this path today.
We are an experienced and competitive option. The agenda item
as you have it today mentions things such as credits from Harris
Corporation and discounts of 25 percent. But however, a discount of
25 percent over list price is nothing but an industry standard. By
going through the recommendation as you had it originally on the
agenda, basically it would be reducing your negotiating leverage down
to zero.
It is in the best interest of the county to engage a radio consultant
to look at your user needs, the state of technology, the experience of
vendors and the pricing and to come forward and allow you to make a
decision based on facts of the overall perspective.
I have entered into the record a letter, as well as some detailed
Page 43
March 25, 2014
talking points that was sent out to all the Commissioners, as well as
some of the staff last night, and that has been entered into the record
that has further details on Motorola's position.
And I look forward to your rejection of this recommendation as it
is originally in the agenda and your support of a fair and competitive
process. Motorola would like to compete for this business and earn
your business. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Burt Saunders. He'll be
followed by Matthew Hinckle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, Mr. Saunders, before you
begin, I need to know, since now you're our lobbyist, are you lobbying
us on behalf of another client?
MS. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir, I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you feel that that is somewhat of a
conflict?
MS. SAUNDERS: No, sir, not at all. The issues are totally
unrelated. There is no conflict with -- I'm here simply to express a
client's opinion. There is no conflict. If there was a bid protest or
something of that the nature, obviously there would be.
My lobbying position is limited to the executive and legislative
lobbying, it has nothing to do with this particular issue.
And my comments are to basically deal with some of the staff
comments, but there is no legal conflict in terms of my working with
Harris Corporation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Apologize for putting you on the spot,
but I just find it odd. And obviously I'm going to allow you to speak
on behalf of your client unless there is a conflict.
Jeff?
MS. SAUNDERS: I'll listen to the County Attorney's position.
But if this is a conflict, I would be surprised. But I'll listen to the
County Attorney and then I'll make a decision based on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I really think it's a comfort level between
Page 44
March 25, 2014
you and Mr. Saunders.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it a policy?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's policy. You've got the ability
under the agreement to terminate on convenience if you're
uncomfortable with the relationship.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to allow Mr. Saunders to
continue, unless there's objection from the Board.
(No response.)
MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
My name is Burt Saunders for the record with the Gray Robinson
Law Firm.
I just want to make a couple quick comments. First of all, I want
to congratulate your staff. This is a very, very difficult complex issue.
I think Commissioner Nance was right on in terms of you need
perhaps a little bit more information before you can make the right
decision. But I think Commissioner Nance pointed out that you've got
a relationship with a particular vendor, you have the ability to over a
period of time upgrade your system in a methodical phasing
methodology that will be cheaper in the long run, that will be better
for the end users in the long run, and you'll get a better system doing it
that way.
I do want to read one thing in the staff report, because I think it
really is significant. And then Mr. Hinckle has a couple of comments
in terms of the reliability of the Harris system and the process going
forward.
But your staff summary says changing vendors in a system of
this magnitude is a monumental task that requires full replacement of
all components at one time, eliminates the potential for phrasing the
upgrade or use of current components and erases the institutional
knowledge developed over time. The purchasing director has
reviewed this item and recommends the use of the State of Florida
contract.
Page 45
March 25, 2014
Now, this is the same process that has been used throughout the
state and throughout the country in terms of migrating from an older
system into a new system.
Motorola has been successful in other counties in arguing the
same thing that your staff is arguing today, that the best process is to
migrate using your existing provider. The state contract is a
competitively bid contract. Your staff summary recognizes that even
with that there will be an opportunity to negotiate services.
So I think that option three that was outlined by Commissioner
Nance where you had more information provided to you on how this
phasing will take place and how other counties have accomplished
this, perhaps that's the way to go and that way we can come back in a
few weeks and again outline how this phasing would take place.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matthew Hinckle. He'll be
followed by Jose Vasquez.
MR. HINCKLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
My name is Matt Hinckle, I'm representing Harris Corporation
today.
I can feel for Mr. Parker, if he's still here. I was a law
enforcement officer myself. Obviously from my accent, not from this
state. I actually live up in North Carolina. And I had similar situations
where you had to use your what's called emergency button in
life-threatening situations where you definitely want to have that
communications in. These systems are designed for reliability. But the
industry standard term is nine -- five nines; 99.999 percent of the time
it works. That equates to about 30 minutes of downtime a year.
Nothing is 100 percent. So the Harris equipment and the Motorola
equipment like other speakers have said are very good equipment.
I've actually worked for Motorola. I was Lourdes's counterpart in
Page 46
March 25, 2014
Broward County. So both of the equipment are reliable. The system
that was put in was put in 20 years ago. A lot of the coverage issues
that we're trying to address now, some of that is being addressed with
a receive only signs we're putting in North Naples.
But you've got to remember, the buildings and the topography
was much different 20 years ago. So you --just like yourself on
coverage changes, you know, Verizon, ATT, they have to put in more
towers over time. So this is what we're trying to address now with
coverage.
To dovetail on Mr. Saunders' comment, you could leverage what
was recently done in Palm Beach County. RCC, which is a very
respected consulting firm, has recently done a study for Palm Beach
County on whether they should go out to bid or they should do a
migration.
Their conclusion was because of the complexity of the system
that they should do a migration. That happens to be a be a Motorola
account. They've been a Motorola customer since the late Eighties.
So, you know, it really -- when you're the incumbent and these
systems are so big and they're so complex, especially with you guys
because you actually collocate with some of the State of Florida sites,
it makes it even that much more complex.
I do support what Mr. Saunders said, we'd be more than happy to
sit down with staff. We have not put full pencil to paper on what the
full system cost is going to be, and we'd be more than happy to do that
in the coming weeks. And we'd welcome the opportunity to come
back and address you guys at a later date. That's all I have, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we continue, we have a local
law, a lobbyist law. In other words, if you're getting compensated
asking the Board to take a certain action and you're getting paid for
that, you need to register with the Clerk of Court. Or if you haven't
updated your lobbying status, you need to go up to the Clerk of Court
and register as a lobbyist.
Page 47
March 25, 2014
MR. HINCKLE: I'm an employee of the company, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you getting compensated for
being an employee?
MR. HINCKLE: Yeah. I work for Communications
International. We're a distributor for Harris Corporation. We're the
local Harris distributor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just mention that because it is a
local law.
MR. HINCKLE: Okay. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other --
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jose Vasquez. He'll be
followed by Bob Busch.
MR. VASQUEZ: I have no further comments.
MR. MILLER: Bob Busch will be your final speaker for this
item.
MR. BUSCH: Good morning. Thank you, commissioners, thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bob Busch. I am a sale manager for the State of
Florida for Motorola Solutions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you speak into the mic? I
can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Raise it up. Thank you.
MR. BUSCH: Is that better?
Thank you very much. You guys heard comments so far.
A little bit to Lourdes's comments about Motorola would like to
be able to compete for this business. Motorola has a lot of experience
in the state over P25 systems. Motorola has won 100 percent of the
competitive procurements. Counties do it in their best interest.
Sometimes it's not to go out to RFP.
Motorola can develop. We have engineering and we have project
management officials that can develop a migration plan or -- sorry,
code over-plan that's very detailed that addresses a lot of the concerns
Page 48
March 25, 2014
that Mr. Daly brought up, agency by agency over the course of the
implementation of the system.
Palm Beach County, Mr. Hinckle mentioned, did a life cycle
replacement of one particular component. They still plan to go to P25
via competitive RFP process. They're in the process of going out to
RFP for consultants right now. I'm not going to speak on behalf of
Palm Beach County but they still plan to competitively procure their
P25 system, knowing that this type of investment lasts 10, 15 years
with common replacement really makes the overall total cost of
ownership, you know, pretty substantial for a county to make this
purchase.
Motorola has a lot of flexibility in how we implement projects,
how we cost projects, how we do a phased deployment or a phased
payment. We do lease options. Motorola actually owns and operates
a core site that the county might need in Plantation, Florida in order to
address some of the technology concerns of obsolescence. Broward
County and several municipalities subscribe to that as a service for
Motorola. I think that was one of the items Commissioner Hiller was
bringing up, whether we should be able to lease or not. I mean,
Motorola has lots of options. We've run systems for states and for
counties just for subscription services.
And I'll leave my time just by saying that Motorola can compete
for this business. We'd like the opportunity to do so. And if you guys
go the route of hearing from vendors how they would address your
operational concerns, we'd like to be part of that discussion to tell you
how Motorola could accomplish this for the county and the users of
the public safety radio system. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Are let's see, I think, yeah, I have it in order here.
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner
Nance.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 49
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I was wondering if
we could hear from the Sheriffs Office. Did you want to say
something, Greg? Because they're the biggest user and second
followed up by Dan Summers, I would think.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the fire department is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, are they?
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Greg Smith, Chief of Administration for the Collier County Sheriffs
Office.
I didn't know if you wanted to ask me questions or if you just
want our position. We really don't have a position on whether you
sole source or whether you go out to bid.
What we maintain is that whatever system we go with -- and you
really have to understand that to do a P25, you're really abandoning
anything that we've done here before and going into something new.
And the good news is over the last few years any procurement
from the Sheriffs Office had been for compatible devices with the P25
system. So we're way ahead of the game.
Unfortunately, and I think it's -- this is a well-founded concern by
many members of the Board, is that 15 or 20 years from now there
will be obsolescence in this system. Whatever money you buy here
today, you need to understand, the best analogy I can give you is
you're buying a Betamax and you're not going to be able to use it 15 or
20 years from now. Because what's happening with regard to futures
and, you know, when you look out futuristic, in what's coming ahead
in law enforcement, we're going to go to live stream data and you're
going to have an ear bud in your ear and you're going to get the data
and you'll have facial recognition. You'll know who's in front you.
There's not going to be the back and forth chatter that -- what we rely
upon today.
So whatever solution you go with, you have to understand that
you need to get there as quick and as cheap as you can, because
Page 50
March 25, 2014
whatever you're buying, you're not going to be using 15 or 20 years
from now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are very important points.
Thank you so much, Chief.
MR. SMITH: And those are some of the things that we look at
across the street when we're trying to determine what we're doing.
There have been problems with the current system. There have
been a number of instances where we have concern over dropped
transmissions.
I think the mark of any vendor is not what they do with response
to the daily ongoing operations when things are good but how they
respond when you've got something negative that has to be dealt with.
I can tell you from our experience, Harris has met the mark with
that. Although P25 is something new and we don't know how it's
going to be exactly. But we know that as Commissioner Nance said,
you know, if you've got a relationship that you've developed with a
company, you feel pretty certain going forward that they're going to
address whatever your needs are, and you've got that working
relationship in place.
It's not to say we couldn't develop that with Motorola. It's just to
say it doesn't exist today. Motorola's an excellent company. I've been
doing this for a very long time and way back in the day we had
Motorola and we were all Motorola fans. And I still am, kind of.
But Harris has also proved that they're an industry leader and that
they can deliver a solution that is good for Collier County.
We're unique. You know, most of what is out there in the state is
urbanized corridors. Motorola has done very good, they're one of the
industry leaders in the I-4 corridor, which is basically urbanized.
It's a whole different world when you jump down here into
Collier County and you have a very small urban corridor and the rest
of it is wide open field. And you've got to go out there, you've got to
maintain those sites, get those sites, acquire those sites and then put up
Page 51
March 25, 2014
that infrastructure. And I don't see how that's not going to cost extra.
But then again, I think the point was well made that we need a
consultant to help guide in this process to determine just exactly where
the cost savings can be, what needs to be done with regard to some
system redundancy, which is what we're going to have going forward,
and not only that, but the letter that I had sent to you yesterday really
outlines where we're at with regard to what we think we need from the
world of law enforcement to maintain reliability from the system.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have something for the Chief?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Chief, you make a point
about urbanization versus rural. I think what we have to remember is
that our urban corridor is widening and is moving east. So when you
again talk about the future which is long term and the obsolescence
factor, we need to remember that we are actually going to be looking
at a very different landscape 10 years from now in Eastern Collier
than today. So that needs to be factored in the equation as well.
But your points are excellent and I really appreciate your
comments. Thank you so much.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner.
Anything else?
(No response.)
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I just want to, Chairman,
acknowledge the presence of the Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome, Mr. Brock.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and ask if you would like to
comment on the procurement process.
MR. BROCK: In terms of?
Page 52
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On this whole issue of sole
sourcing versus -- let's call it sole sourcing which really in this case is
piggybacking, because we're not sole sourcing, we're in effect
piggybacking off a state contract.
MR. BROCK: Well, you know, when our finance department
began looking at this, we were told that this is not a contract to
purchase anything, that that would be coming later. But we began
doing some research, and I can tell you that there is a lot of shall I say
disturbance in the governmental community with regard to
piggybacking currently.
I know there is currently a case in Jackson County in which the
court has in fact issued an injunction against the government for doing
that.
One of the issues that we're going to have with what we saw --
and you have to understand that we have been told that this is not
approval of the board to go out and buy something, that that will be
coming later on. But when we began looking at what was in the
agenda packet, one of the problems that we had was as we tried to
marry that to the contract that they were saying they were
piggybacking on, nothing matched.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's a problem.
MR. BROCK: And obviously we're going to have a problem
with that if that continues to be the situation.
You know, you can't just say we're going to contract with
someone who has a state contract. That contract has to match exactly
what we're doing. And that's without even getting into the issues that
had been broached.
I know that Palm Beach County, the Inspector General's Office
there has in fact issued an opinion. You have to understand, that is a
totally different scenario and we have not explored all of those issues
yet. And it's different from the perspective of that's a charter county
and the procurement requirements, they may be a little different. But
Page 53
March 25, 2014
there appears to be a great deal of commotion that is taking place with
regard to attempts to piggyback contracts as they presently exist. And
we've certainly not had time to go through all of that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, are you done?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to go back to what I
said earlier and that is we should do what Palm Beach County is
doing, which is get an expert in this field to do a study on our existing
system and define for us what we really should be acquiring and how
we should be acquiring it, whether it should be a purchase or a lease.
And then with respect to procurement, the approach, I think we
have to work with the Clerk's Office and evaluate whether it's even
possible. Because what I'm hearing is on two counts it's not possible
to do this state contract arrangement, which is in effect a new contract.
We're not continuing what we have and modifying what we have, but
we're actually looking to a new contract that one, we can't piggyback
off the state contract; and two, that since the specifications don't
exactly match the state contract specifications, that we can't do it
regardless.
MR. BROCK: Now, I don't think that's what I said at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did you say? Go ahead.
MR. BROCK: What I said was what is in the agenda packet,
okay, if you look at the agenda packet and you look at what they're
attempting to buy and then you try to foot it, come to the total, they
don't even come to the correct total. But we can't tie the subcategory
to anything in the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's exactly -- I'm
summarizing exactly the same thing.
MR. BROCK: But we have been told that this is not something
that they're attempting to get you to approve today, that this is
something that they will bring back to you at some future point in time
for you to approve -- now, I don't know what's happening. All I know
is what I'm being told.
Page 54
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what -- then I don't even
know what's happening today. I mean, are we making a commitment?
It says here, recommendation. If I'm looking at the agenda, and I'm
not going to the executive summary, recommendation to authorize
staff to upgrade the current Harris Corporation Public Safety System
to P25 technology using the State of Florida contract.
Well, if we're not doing that today, what are we doing today?
MR. BROCK: I can't answer that one.
MR. OCHS: I could answer that, sir, if you'd like me to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- County Manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As it's being presented it doesn't
make sense.
MR. OCHS: No, as it was presented and Ms. Price's original
comment was that we're asking you to choose among two strategies
moving forward for the upgrade of the communications system.
Either work with the current vendor and bring back a specific contract
to the Board at a future time that matches all of the elements that we're
talking about or go out to a competitive request for proposal process
with the two known vendors that provide this service. That's the issue
in front of the Board. It has nothing to do with the procurement today,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the vendor has a current contract
with us?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Harris. So it's --
MR. OCHS: And I'm not aware of local government's inability
to purchase off of the approved state contract. And I don't think Mr.
Brock represented that you can't do that. He just pointed out --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, he said that there's an issue in the
court.
Page 55
March 25, 2014
MR. OCHS: We'd be happy to work with him to learn more
about what those issues are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I go back to -- I pick up on
what Commissioner Nance said. I think we need to have a
professional evaluate our system and come back and tell us exactly
what we need and how we should go about putting out an RFP,
whether it should be a buy or a lease decision, and then have the Clerk
work with county staff to determine what we legally have to do to
procure this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's -- we have a county
attorney to do that, we're not going to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the County Attorney, along
with the Clerk. Because the problem is if the County Attorney says
one thing but the Clerk says I don't think this is legally procured, then
he won't pay on it and we'll have a problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me finish.
We need to work with all, but our legal representation is we have
a contract with him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, absolutely. I mean, no
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: However, we need to work with the
Constitutional Officers, including the users --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- of these systems.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, one of the things that you need
to remember is you have home rule powers. So unless there is a
statute which says you can't do it, and right off of the top of my head,
you know, without going into all of the details of this underlying
contract, I can't think of anything right off the top of my head that says
you have to go through any competitive process whatsoever with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't we have an ordinance that
provides purchases over 50,000 have to go through a competitive
Page 56
March 25, 2014
bidding?
MR. BROCK: But it also says that the Board can waive that.
MR. OCHS: It also has a provision allowing you to use state
contracts and cooperative contracts that have been competitively
solicited.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Really, I think it boils down
to how you see this process. The process we have is multifaceted.
And I think in some respect we're missing where really the decision
point is.
What we're talking about is we're talking about two separate and
distinct transitions here. We're talking about a transition from our
current radio system to P25. I don't think that's controversial.
If it was just a matter of going out and buying a P25 system and
plugging it into the wall over here, it's like getting a new toaster,
anybody can do it. But that's not where -- the devil is in the details.
The devil is in the details on how we move from the current system
we have to this P25 system. I don't think there's any question that we
can source the new P25 system competitively, whether it's through a
state contract or going out to bid.
However, we cannot go out to bid on how Collier County takes
its individual requirements for transition from the old to the new.
Now, you've got two things: You've got to move from the old to
the new. And then if you decide you're going to change vendors, you
have to transition from the old vendor to the new vendor. That is not
without cost. When you have a relationship and you have a system
that's this big, it's not without cost.
That's why I believe that we need to allow our staff to come back
and tell us about the individual issues in making the transition and let
the Board make a decision from that point.
It's wonderful to have these corporate representatives come in
and advocate before us. But here's the good news, and I've seen it so I
Page 57
March 25, 2014
know. The Motorola representative today or the Harris representative
today that comes in and advocates for one position will be dispatched
tomorrow to go to another county where in the opposite position will
say the exact opposite thing.
So one will advocate and say oh, you should definitely go out to
bid because it's in your best interest. And tomorrow they'll say you
know, there's a lot of value in having the incumbent provide the
service to you.
So with all due respect to these kind folks and good people, this
is not something on which we can base this decision.
So once again, I think jumping to bid would be a huge mistake. I
think we need to take a little more guidance from staff and see how we
can overcome the circumstances that we have to overcome, and that's
in the transition, it's not in the new P25 system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm going to go to
Commissioner Coyle and I just want to weigh in on the discussion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard what everybody says and
I've concluded that the only thing we can refer to is the executive
summary. And the executive summary says that the recommendation
is if the Board authorizes staff to implement, to implement, alternative
one and utilize the State of Florida contract for P25 upgrades to the
public safety radio system.
Alternative number one says that the first option is to proceed
with the current system vendor, Harris Corporation.
This is not an authorization to study something, this is an
authorization to take action. And it is not as has been represented.
So I don't know how we can make a motion consistent with this
executive summary that is in the public's best interest. Unless you
were to say yeah, we authorize you to go back and study this problem
and come back with specific recommendations as to how we proceed.
You know, that's the only conceivable decision that this Board can
Page 58
March 25, 2014
make under these circumstances. And this is just crazy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion that was
tabled and I want to address that. Unless there's a motion for (sic) hire
a professional engineer to find out what we truly need --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is how I want to amend my
motion. Because going -- if you don't mind, Commissioner Henning, I
know where you're going.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where am I going?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are going down the path of
righteousness. You are just leading us to the promised land on this
matter. And I commend you because --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I know exactly where you're
coming from.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Hiller knows this
because just recently they encountered a panther roaming around in
her district and they darted it and relocated it. She's suggesting that
you be darted and relocated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In fact -- we're not going to go
there. No comment.
No, I -- you know, going back to what you said, Commissioner
Nance, about, you know, what these companies might say in these
other jurisdictions where they might be in a reverse position, let's go
back to what the gentleman from Motorola said about Palm Beach
County.
Palm Beach County, with respect to upgrading their system to
this new technology, is hiring an engineer to evaluate how that should
be done. And then they are proposing to go out to competitive bid.
And he, Mr. Motorola, is in that market. So obviously a Motorola
market is going to competitively bid and Harris will have the
opportunity to compete against Motorola.
Page 59
March 25, 2014
I think what we -- I'd like to amend my motion to direct staff to
retain an engineer expert in these systems to evaluate what we ought
to do and what we need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Based upon price and utilization of
our existing infrastructure?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. I mean, when he does
an evaluation like that, he has to consider what we've got and where
we want to go and how the county is changing and, you know, what
the cost will be doing it, you know, one way or another way. And, I
mean, we need to find out what we really need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would that be also for this
professional engineer to communicate with our users?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. Absolutely. Without a
question. All users, we need input from all our users. We need input
from the Sheriffs Office, we need input from fire, we need input from
county EMS. We need to have that professional communicate with all
the users of that system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that would be an RFP?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. Yeah, it should be an
RFP.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Price? Would that be an RFP or
do we -- I don't think that we have communication engineers on our
continuing contract.
MS. PRICE: We don't on our continuing contracts. We've used
the GSA, the federal government GSA Schedule 70 in the past to hire
communication specialists.
And in fact the specialist who Palm Beach County used is the
same one that we've used in the past, RCC. I believe there's a
representative here today. So we can develop a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's RCC? Who's the
representative?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's irrelevant.
Page 60
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But are they here?
MS. PRICE: We can develop a scope of services based on your
direction to start this right away.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who is the RCC representative? I
want to know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's getting tired.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we're going to take a break
here in a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are? Can you -- I would like
to have you speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're going to take a break if he
gets up and speaks.
No, there's no --
MR. LOMBARDO: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good morning.
MR. LOMBARDO: Kevin Lombardo, 733 97th Ave. North,
Naples, Florida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who do you represent?
MR. LOMBARDO: RCC Consultants.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what do you do?
MR. LOMBARDO: I'm the vice president of the southeast
region.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't mean in terms of title.
What does your company do? Are you able to evaluate the system? I
mean, if-- you would be able to pick this company because in effect
they're like a shelf contract -- it's like a shelf contract, I'm assuming?
MS. PRICE: I'm sorry, I --
MR. OCHS: We'd have to evaluate.
MS. PRICE: I was just going to say, we'll take a look at it. But I
believe that that firm does the type of consulting you're looking for.
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, ma'am.
Page 61
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you consulting currently for
Palm Beach County?
MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. My team is, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're evaluating their system
to determine what? The transition, the cost --
MR. LOMBARDO: I'm not in a position really to discuss Palm
Beach County today.
What I will say is we're a 30-year professional engineering firm
and we perform the kinds of services that are needed here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're not in any way
affiliated with each of the two companies --
MR. LOMBARDO: No vendor affiliation whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So you'd give us an
independent opinion of--
MR. LOMBARDO: We pride ourselves on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. LOMBARDO: And I would also say for the record that
sometimes that is a sole source recommendation, and sometimes it's
competitive. We look at each case on the merits of each case. And if
it's warranted, we'll support what's the right thing to do.
I can't give you an opinion today as I stand here on what the right
thing is to do because we haven't been retained or done the work yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, okay.
But so it's good to know that you are being retained by Palm
Beach County and that they're in a similar position to us, and I do
believe that is the right approach.
MR. LOMBARDO: As a resident of the county, I also have a
pretty intimate familiarity with the current situation, the current
system and obviously the market.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, before you go on, you remember I
made the observation that Collier County has home rule powers and
unless the statutes prohibit you from dispensing with the competitive
Page 62
March 25, 2014
process that you have the ability to do that? Well, one of the
competitive processes that you cannot dispense with is CCNA,
which encompasses engineers, architects. So keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff is aware of that. And there's a
motion on the floor. I'm going to second the motion.
And let's stay on the topic of the motion.
Does anybody want to speak on the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like a restatement of the
motion before we take the vote --
MR. LOMBARDO: Am I excused?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to make sure that I clearly
understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That we are directing staff to put
out -- to competitively bid a communications engineer that is expert in
these type of systems to come back to us with a proposal of what we
need and how we need to get it done, and in the process of doing that
to communicate with -- for this expert to communicate with all the
users of the system and get input from them in the consideration of
their recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And how we can use our existing
infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Hiller, I'm sorry, just a technical
clarification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: You used the word bid, and I know you didn't mean
to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. OCHS: -- in the case of CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: We would competitively solicit --
Page 63
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Competitively solicit. Thank you.
You confused me when you started talking about -- you start
throwing out these federal numbers and you started impressing me
with, you know, making me sound like a G woman, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I can support the motion if it
includes a detailed evaluation of all the elements of the transition
including --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- anything that staff might want to
present, and that the Board does receive a full presentation on what
those elements of transition consist of and how they're going to be
dealt with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that seems to be an
understanding.
Any further discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only -- no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Glad to hear that.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries unanimously.
Before we go on a break, we have commissioners going out to
Florida Association of Counties.
Commissioner, what time do you have to leave?
Page 64
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to leave later than like
2:30, if that's possible.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm flying up, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're flying up?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm driving.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're going to take a
10-minute break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't you take Commissioner
Fiala with you and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd love to. I would really love to.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
THE COURT: Okay, back in session.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is?
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD ITB #14-6224, FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AT 8300 RADIO ROAD FOR
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS FACILITY TO
COMPASS CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,721,994 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED CONTRACT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.B. And it's a recommendation to award a bid for
facility improvements to the Radio Road Collier Area Transit
Administration and Operations Facilities to Compass Construction,
Incorporated. And Mr. Carnell will present.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Commissioners, Steve Carnell,
Page 65
March 25, 2014
Public Services Administrator.
This contract is for facility improvements to your Radio Road
Transfer Station. I think most of you know the history. We've been at
the site for about nine years and moved in several years ago in kind of
a somewhat itinerate way with some temporary ad hoc facilities.
And so this contract is the first of two phases to, I guess I would
say optimize the site and make some temporary features out there
more permanent and more functional and efficient.
We've got a short presentation we can provide the Board this
morning. As Mr. Ochs said, this is a contract recommendation award
to Compass Construction in the amount of$3.7 million, 221 -- I'm
sorry, $3,721,994.
And I'm prepared to give you the presentation or I can answer
questions from the Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a revised alternative bid.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there going to be any increased cost
in engineering of that alternative if we choose the revised bid?
MR. CARNELL: Well, the revised bid incorporates in cost
reductions into the process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. But in replacing items,
you're going to have to get permits for it. Therefore the engineer's
going to have to submit amendments --
MR. CARNELL: Okay, I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- correct?
MR. CARNELL: -- understand the question.
Trinity?
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Alternative
Transportation Modes.
Yes, we are anticipating a slight redesign with regard to the
relocation of the elevator. The permitting, as part of the contract, is on
the contractor to do, but we will have some slight redesign fees, yes.
Page 66
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm sure that we've
communicated with the engineer. Have we any idea what the
additional costs would be?
MS. SCOTT: We do not have a final number as of yet. My
guess-timate at this point is approximately $40,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just for the elevator redesign?
MS. SCOTT: To redesign the location of the elevator, yes. As
well as re-submittal of permitting the permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
Seconded --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- by Commissioner Nance.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
We are taking a break at noon, okay?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We may be back at 1 :30 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 1 : 15.
Page 67
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 1 : 15.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was told by your aide I was
supposed to be —
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A STATUS REPORT
DESCRIBING THE RESTORE EVALUATION COMMITTEE'S
RANKINGS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR
POSSIBLE RESTORE FUND — MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
REPORT (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, 11 .0 is a recommendation to accept the status
report describing the RESTORE evaluation committee's ranking of
proposed projects submitted for possible RESTORE funds. And Mr.
Lorenz will present.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural
Resources Director.
As Leo had indicated, this is a status report simply describing the
RESTORE program's process over essentially more than a year since
the Board in February of 2013 adopted a particular process and plan to
accept RESTORE proposals and then have a committee rank those
proposals.
I think the one thing that -- to state right upfront is unfortunately
though we still have not received final rolls from the Treasury
Department.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. LORENZ: And two things also. With the rules of course
we'd have some changes in process and procedures that we need to
make sure that we're going to follow as we would come back to you
with a final type of proposal or final set of directions from the Board.
And also we still don't understand exactly what the amount of
Page 68
March 25, 2014
funds that could come to Collier County. Still the estimate is still
between five and $20 million.
But we did have the 35 proposals that were submitted to the
county according to the Board's deadline. The Board had appointed
an evaluation committee made up of eight members from local
governments plus some various organizations.
The committee met on basically three occasions to refine the
process, establish the evaluation form and then rank the project
proposals, finalizing their scores at their July 19th, 2013 meeting.
And that ranking is in attachment six in your executive summary
packet.
Also pursuant to the process from the county -- from the Board,
the County Manager also reviewed the list in August of 2013 and
again we were expecting to come back to the Board fairly quickly
after the treasury rules would have been finalized. However, as I said
earlier, they're not finalized. So without the final treasury rules, we're
somewhat in a holding pattern, and I wouldn't want to get into too
much detail evaluating the projects with the ranking process. We
could find ourselves having to do some additional processes when
final rules come out.
Other than that, that's pretty much the outline of the presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you so much for your
presentation, Bill. I really appreciate you emphasizing that this is
nothing more than a status report and that we are not approving any
final project rankings. Because the Feds have not finalized their regs.
And so as a consequence, this is subject to change.
And with that, I'm going to make a motion to accept the status
report as presented today, with the understanding that it's subject to
possible future change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller.
Page 69
March 25, 2014
Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Nance.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Bill, I just have one
observation that I'd like to assess whether or not there's sufficient
support on the Board to provide guidance to do this. For some of
these projects it's really, really hard to make a nexus with the money
that we're getting and the harm that was caused by the spill.
But with respect to the highest ranked item, I couldn't support it
more wholeheartedly. It is certainly the most innovative process and
gives the greatest return for the investment.
And just as a matter of disclosure, it was a part of my election
campaign platform when I ran for City Council in Naples in 1998. So
it just shows you how slowly government works. It's finally worked its
way to the top. And I think it's a wonderful thing. But now let me get
to my real point.
A lot of these other projects will never get funded. But they're
probably eligible for funding from other sources. And in the valuation
process it would appear to me to be wise to look at these projects from
that standpoint: Is there other funding that would be available for
some of these other projects rather than taking this particular
settlement money from the oil spill? And I think that would be one
way of segregating these and getting it more focused on what the oil
spill's negative effects on us were and how do we get that resolved or
probably mitigated sometime in the future.
And I would just encourage maybe a little expansion of the
evaluation criteria, to take that into consideration when we rank these
projects. And I know you can't complete that until you get complete
guidance from the government, the federal government. So I'm just
throwing that out there to see if the Board would support --
Page 70
March 25, 2014
MR. LORENZ: Actually it's interesting, because when staff was
putting together the evaluation form, that was an item that we initially
had in draft form of what would be the potential funding sources let's
say three or five years out. But it became kind of difficult to make
that identification or definition.
But certainly that was something that we were thinking as well.
And if we -- if the Board so desires, we want to come up with some
more specific criteria to help better define that, we could certainly be
working towards that part of the evaluation process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's up to the Board. But it just
seems to me that you could look at some of these other things and say
have we funded these other things from other sources in the past and
can we reasonably expect that we could do it in the future. And either
from other grants or some other sources.
As an example, just buying more Winchester Head land
acquisition projects. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use this
money for the purpose of continuing Conservation Collier if more
land acquisition is desired than the people who support that should get
Conservation Collier implemented again.
And so those are just some ideas that I've had about the
evaluation criteria.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager and I had the same
conversation with the list of applicants and what the issue's all about.
The treasury needs to come out with the rules. The Board can define
those rules or, you know, take them and apply them in a different way.
But however, they need to fit the rules. We can determine whether it
fits the rules or not. And I'll be happy to work with staff, once the
treasury rules are written, to bring back a policy of criteria.
You know, the main thing is, you know, how does it affect the
estuary system could be one of the rules.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know when they're
supposed to be coming out with the --
Page 71
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I just received an email, and
you probably have too, Commissioner Fiala, that actually it's still in
the court system of BP. The settlement is still in the court system.
That's going to be another year. I think the treasury, from my
understanding, is waiting for that final ruling. And within that ruling
there's going to be -- the judge is going to say how the money is going
to be spent too.
So we're probably a year away. And that's why I'm not going to
Tallahassee tomorrow, because I'm going to participate in the
consortium by phone. I think it's just a waste of taxpayers' money.
And until we have an understanding what and how and how much we
could spend monies, I'm not going to go to these consortiums unless
there's specific things that need to be decided.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I appreciate the guidance and the
comments. And I typically don't bring status reports, because I know
you like to take action items. But I brought this only because, number
one, it's been a while since we gave you an update. And number two,
the item behind it is another list of related projects for grant
applications through the Big Cypress Basin annual funding. So I
wanted the Board to get at least a sense of all the related projects that
are candidates either for the federal funding or state funding through
one of the RESTORE buckets or more locally with Big Cypress Basin.
And we would very much appreciate future guidance and criteria
from the Board that we could take back to the committee that would
help them perhaps better define and prioritize the list of projects that
will ultimately come back to the Board on this RESTORE project. So
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in the favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Page 72
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COUNTY GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMITTALS FOR THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN
LOCAL PARTNERSHIP GRANT FY15 REQUEST TOTALING
$5,011,900 $4,511,900, (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REFERENCED
CORRECT AMOUNT) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GRANT PROCESS, AND APPROVE
THE RANKING OF THE PROPOSED COUNTY SUBMITTALS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11 .D, Commissioners, is a recommendation to
approve the county grant application submittals for the Big Cypress
Basin grant cycle for FY 2015. And Mr. Lorenz again will briefly
present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If there's no questions, I'll entertain a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
MR. LORENZ: I just want to put one thing on the record. In
creating the executive summary within the title and then the agenda
index there's two different values. The value in the executive
summary of$4,511,900 is the correct number. Somewhere there's an
operator error between the two versions, and I was the operator. But I
Page 73
March 25, 2014
just wanted to correct that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. On this item I want to echo
the concept that Commissioner Coyle just elucidated on the previous
item and that is I was looking over on the ranking of some of these
projects and I mentioned it to the County Manager, and some of those
projects are actually items that should be part of enterprise funding.
And I'm concerned that we take some of our Basin grant money that
we might not be able to use elsewhere, and although it is good to have
them support, you know, for example a generator and our wastewater
system, that properly should be enterprise funding.
So I think we need to take a look at these grant monies also and
make sure that they're being applied in areas where they're not just
nice to have but where they're needed the most and really take a look
at some of our enterprise funding. Because that sort of infrastructure
should be paid for by the users, my opinion.
So I support the motion, but I do believe that -- I support
Commissioner Coyle's revaluation of some of these rankings and some
of these monies.
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioners, as we talked yesterday about
this, again I think the larger issue there is at a macro level the Basin
supports the Board's continuing efforts on developing alternative
water supplies. Your wastewater production ultimately allows you to
provide those alternative water supplies for irrigation quality and
ASR. So that is the hook, if you will.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, I understand it supports
tourism, Mr. Ochs (laughter), but just trying to get things in the right
Page 74
March 25, 2014
pot here.
MR. OCHS: So that's the rationale behind those applications and
the support that we've traditionally gotten from Big Cypress Basin.
And no, it doesn't support tourism.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was really good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was funny.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Bill.
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY INSURANCE EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2014 IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $3,309,048, A DECREASE OF
$243,614 — APPROVED
Item 11 .E is a recommendation to approve the purchase of
property insurance effective April 1st, 2014 in the estimated amount
of$3,309,048, a decrease of$243,614. Mr. Walker can present or
answer any questions --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 75
March 25, 2014
MR. OCHS: -- you may have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Walker, can you describe how
you competitively bid this?
MR. WALKER: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Jeff Walker, Risk
Management Director.
As you may be aware, insurance policies have to be placed
through brokers or agents. And the manner in which we go about this,
we competitively select our broker and agent on a routine basis when
those contracts are up.
And what we do is we evaluate their ability to access markets,
the number of markets they can access, their reputation and their
experience with public entity marketing. Because it is a bit different
than other commercial markets, those sorts of things.
We evaluate the brokers and the underwriters who work for those
agencies to determine that they understand the exposures that we deal
with, those sorts of things as part of the criteria that we select.
And then what we do is pay a flat fee commission -- a flat fee for
those services, for the most part. We do have another item today
about commissions for flood. But for the most part we want to do
things net of commission. Which means we pay a flat fee for service
so that it's transparent to us and that it doesn't give any particular
broker a reason to go with a particular market because they're being
paid by that market.
So we go through that process when those contracts are up. And
then they go to market for us. And in this case they went to about 30
different markets.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they do not receive any
commission from any of the insurance companies --
MR. WALKER: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that are considered?
MR. WALKER: It's a requirement that that be done net of
commission. The only exception to that in this case is flood. Because
Page 76
March 25, 2014
flood is mandated, they don't have a choice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 15 at which you typically do
at the end of your meeting. I don't know if you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have one off the consent
agenda.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 16.A.15, not 11 .F.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN
EXPEDITED AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LDC), SECTION 2.03.07.G.6.B, ADJUSTING THE DATE FOR
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REGARDING IMMOKALEE
NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARKS TO JANUARY 9,
2020 — APPROVED
Page 77
March 25, 2014
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. 11 .F. Commissioner Coyle had brought
this item forward. It is a recommendation to direct staff to bring an
expedited amendment to the Land Development Code regarding the
Immokalee nonconforming mobile home parks. Commissioner Coyle
brought this forward from the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. My concern is since
some of these mobile home parks have been nonconforming for a
long, long, long, long time, what leads us to believe that they're going
to be resolved by 2020? What incentive or penalty will be written into
the Land Development Code that would encourage people to get these
issues resolved by that time?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning.
Commissioner Coyle, I wanted to first say that we haven't gotten
or arrived upon that issue yet. One of the things that we're here to do
is back on February 11th on general communications, Commissioner
Nance had asked for a one-word change to the LDC regarding the
nonconforming mobile homes; that is, to extend the date from 2003,
which was the expiration date, to 2020 to open up this opportunity.
And then there was some subsequent discussion amongst the
Board of County Commissioners upon how -- the manifestation of that
Land Development Code amendment, the extent of it. It was
suggested just to exchange the date. Then there was certain
suggestions to expand the program and evaluate the program.
Based upon that, staff wanted to bring this item back to allow the
Board of County Commissioners to provide a little bit more guidance.
But in this regard the stakeholders will have to be engaged and that
will be one of the things, as we discussed with the advisory boards,
should there be also -- there's obviously a carrot approach that's being
provided for within this individual home -- mobile home parks, if they
comply with the SIP process could eventually replace existing units
Page 78
March 25, 2014
and improve where possible the looks of their mobile home park.
There hasn't been any discussion amongst the staff as to what the
punitive side is as to whether they do not comply by that stated time
frame. And we will have to discuss those potential options with the
advisory boards and then bring whatever those conclusions would be
to the Board of County Commissioners as to what they feel is
appropriate.
But really, this was an opportunity to bring back and gain
consensus on the Board of County Commissioners to start engaging
the community to reinitiate the program.
And I'm not quite sure what will be the amount of participation
numbers. Currently there are over 50 mobile home parks that are in
the Immokalee area that have a nonconforming status.
This program has been open -- was open in 2001 into 2003, and
it's been on the books since then. We haven't had the participation rate
that we would have -- had hoped for but with the re-initiation of this
program, we are -- we are anticipating a number of folks to gain
compliance.
One, just simply to be able to replace the units that they have.
Because currently if they were to seek a building permit for those
nonconforming units, there's nothing on the records to allow for the
Building Department to issue that permit for that unit.
So in regards, we haven't developed what the punitive
consequences are of not gaining compliance with the program by the
date that's specified.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the second question is, and I
understand what you're saying, is you're just asking us to give you
guidance to proceed with the study of this issue and to develop
something to bring back to us for approval.
I guess my only response to that is that if people have failed to
abide by prior deadlines and they did nothing, why do we think that
by extending it through 2020 that we're going to get them to do
Page 79
March 25, 2014
something?
And secondly, if all you're asking -- if you're only providing
them with the opportunity to get an SIP in during that period of time,
why is six years necessary to get an SIP prepared if people really truly
want to replace the units that they have right now?
If I owned one of these places and I had units that I really wanted
to replace because I wanted to be a good owner and provide people
with decent housing at a competitive price, I could do that in six
months, okay. I wouldn't have to sit around for 20 years trying to
make up my mind as to whether or not I'm going to do this.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're flexible on the deadline. That
was just the staff swag of what might be a reasonable window, but
we're not married to that. And again, we brought this back based on
board recommendation, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess we'll find out what
you think is appropriate when you bring it back to us for
consideration. But it still is a big puzzle to me. I really think that
people make a lot more money, if they can take cruddy units and jam
as many people into them as they possibly can and charge them an
exorbitant rate, why would they want to spend any more money
upgrading their parks? Probably not.
But anyway, that's all I wanted to say. And I'm sure you're going
to approve it, so -- the guidance at least, and we'll hear more about this
when you come back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Commissioner Coyle, let me
provide you a little -- I don't know that it will change your mind or
your concern, sir, but I want to address a few things that you said.
It has been no secret that the Board of County Commissioners
and most of the people in Collier County have wanted to see the
mobile home parks and the situation with housing in Immokalee
improve. That's not been a secret. And I think the reason that the Site
Page 80
March 25, 2014
Improvement Plan was created was methodology to upgrade the parks.
There's been several problems with the program. One of which is
that there was -- you know, it was a very short window. And through
January 9th, 2003 the program was closed to participation. And in the
intervening years we had three very significant things that have
happened. Not only did people get the sense that since they had not --
since they had not chosen to participate or somehow they didn't that
they would lose their facilities because there was aggressive code
enforcement action and things going on in Immokalee, but you also
had Hurricane Wilma in 2005, you had a recession that impacted
everybody starting in 2007, and you had most recently two of the
worse agribusiness seasons on record in 2011 and 2012.
What that did was that basically stopped people from investing in
their facilities because it was unknown exactly how it was going to be
handled, plus they were broke. And these are not people -- this is not
an industry that's conducted by wealthy people. The clients aren't
wealthy people. It is the working poor.
And everybody should understand, this is not housing for
agricultural migrant labor, this is working poor in Immokalee.
So actually, I support this and I requested that staff look at this
and I brought this to the Board, because what I want to do is I wanted
to start having a situation which we would encourage these people to
upgrade their parks and get this thing back started again.
The reason is that, number one, they asked me to go and do that,
because they want to come into compliance, they want to start
investing in their facilities, but they want to have certainty that their
facilities aren't going to be taken from them because they were out of
previous compliance.
So it's kind of like the chicken and the egg. And also right now
this is a very good farm season. So I think there's every reason for the
Board to support this. Because I think some of these people would
like to start reinvesting and cleaning things up. And that is after all
Page 81
March 25, 2014
what we're hoping to do.
So I don't know if that gives you any comfort, but that's what
some of the owners of these parks are telling me is they want to invest
money, but they want to get on the right side of Collier County
regulations when they start doing it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me how -- when
we first started asking the owners of these parks to start cleaning their
areas up? I mean, I'm sure it's before 2003. But how long have we
been asking them to do it?
MR. BOSI: The SIP, the nonconforming mobile home section
was right around the year 2000, so it was a little over a two-year
window that we allowed for the -- had the window of opportunity for
the mobile home parks to come in and gain compliance with the
program.
And just in defense of a number of the mobile home parks, 37 of
the over 50 plus mobile home parks within the Immokalee area had
started the process but for one reason or another had left the process to
sort of die on the vine. So there was over a little bit of a -- over 50
percent participation of existing mobile home parks that had these
regulatory issues that were partaking, but because of changes within
policy or implementation of the policy, we never followed those
through to the completion.
And staffs hopeful that with the clearer direction and clearer
policy and regulatory steps provided within, that maybe we can satisfy
a number of these mobile homeowners to participate and see it
through the process.
We also understand that we won't get 100 percent participation.
And I guess one of the things we're looking for and one of the things
that I did gain today was potentially the Board of County
Commissioners to say at the end of this period of time if you do not
gain compliance that there could be consequences associated with
Page 82
March 25, 2014
that. And that was something that before prior to this discussion staff
wasn't even in terms thinking in that manner. But it helps define some
of the parameters in terms of what the Board may be looking for as we
go forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you explain to me then, it says
here that we want to adjust the time frame for participation. That
doesn't mean they have to clean them up by then, that means they can
just participate in a program and they could, you know, they could
tack on another 10 years.
And my concern is, Commissioner Nance was saying just before,
you know, these people are working poor. But just because they're
working poor doesn't mean they should have to live in deplorable
conditions.
MR. BOSI: And that was the spirit of why the initiative was
started back in 2000 was to try to gain minimum compliance for the
area in which the working poor would be living, and improve those
conditions but also allow the owner of that mobile home park to
replace the units and continue the use of their properties.
So with the extension to 2020, that's just to be able to participate.
And if they do participate, they gain legal nonconforming status for
the units that are within their park to be able to replace. And that is
the overall intent, to try to bring an improvement to the overall living
conditions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And can you give me a projected
date when you or whoever is working on this would expect to see an
improvement?
MR. BOSI: Well, this discussion would start -- our discussion
with the mobile home -- nonconforming mobile park owners and the
stakeholders in terms of developing our strategy and developing the
LDC amendments that will correspond to the requested change, you
would probably be a year away from the establishment -- the
reestablishment of the program.
Page 83
March 25, 2014
And then from there I could only estimate as to what type of
participation we would have within those programs.
And I will say currently for any mobile home park owner who
would like to take advantage of the program, even though the SIP
route has been closed down, they can always enter an agreement with
the Board of County Commissioners or partake in the site plan with
deviation process through the Hearing Examiner because it would be a
redevelopment project. The problem is those are I don't want to say
cumbersome but they're not as streamlined as anticipated as the SIP
process is, which is a strictly administrative process. Those other two
require public hearings and notifications, therefore the costs
commensurate really higher with those.
But it is an opportunity, if any one of those mobile home park
owners wanted to enter in compliance with the Board of County
Commissioners, those are two avenues that are open today to them.
So this would just be reestablishing more of that streamline
process. One of the things we've heard from our discussions with the
mobile home park owners is they seek to gain compliance, but the cost
consideration is of an imperative important factor. So the
commensurate requirements for improvements have to be in
relationship to those concerns, which is always a delicate and fine line
to have to try to walk through, the regulatory considerations, but also
with their ability to bring these improvements in terms of a cost
feasible manner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let me get this straight: The
SIP process is to make sure that you come into compliance with the
landscaping, correct?
MR. BOSI: For the most part. Landscaping and drainage, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make sure that you have stormwater.
Now, I've heard things like paved roads; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: That is not one of the individual requirements of the
SIPs.
Page 84
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what else are the requirements?
MR. BOSI: Well, what we would do and what we're proposing
to do is to engage in those conversations with the stakeholders and say
here's what the current program as was adopted back in 2000 requires.
And engage those mobile home park owners as to whether they feel
that's a fair and appropriate manner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But just what are required on the SIP
process? So we already established landscaping.
MR. BOSI: Landscaping.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We established stormwater. Is there
any other things?
MR. BOSI: Well, there's -- I mean, those are the major
components that we're looking for in terms of the site design.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the sub-standards would be -- the
mobile home they cannot replace because they don't have their
landscaping, they don't have their stormwater; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: The reason why -- and you're right, that is the
ultimate goal of it is to be able -- to allow these owners to replace
these substandard units. And the substandard units cannot be replaced
today because there's not -- they haven't gained that conformity with
the SIP process. We have no record of--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They haven't gained compliance with
our Land Development Code.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to landscaping and
drainage.
MR. BOSI: In respect to landscaping, drainage and an overall
conforming site. Meaning that these existing sites have not submitted
-- there's no SIP -- there's no Site Development Plan process on
record. There's no building permits sorted on record for a majority of
these units that are out there.
And when they come back to replace them they have to comply
Page 85
March 25, 2014
with the zoning regulations to make sure they're in the spirit of the
regulations. And when they're fighting that request, they can't move
forward. The SIP process was designed to allow for that impediment
to be removed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: By Florida statutes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Zoning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
By Florida statutes we don't issue permits for mobile homes.
What we issue permits for is things like air conditionings. Things like
MR. BOSI: Tie-downs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- tie-downs, things like slabs. But to
replace that mobile home, they don't need that approval.
However, in order for them to bring up the sub-standards of
tie-downs, slabs and air conditionings, they have to get a permit, the
county permit.
So I think there's a misunderstanding by some that substandard
housing or deplorable conditions is really things of landscaping,
stormwater. Or they don't even have a Site Development Plan.
So I just wanted to correct that misunderstanding.
Who's next? Commissioner -- was it Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, there is so much that has not
been determined here that I may as well wait until you come up with
some recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think we really need to
understand what's being requested of landowners.
Commissioner Hiller? Or was it Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you know, the punitive
element that someone recommended is of some concern to me.
Because if these people don't pull permits, they don't have to do
anything to those sites. So to introduce a punitive element to force
Page 86
March 25, 2014
them to do something they're not legally required to do is I don't think
legal.
So I'm not sure when you do your evaluation that you can
actually do what was suggested.
And I think Commissioner Henning is absolutely right, because I
had the very same question, what are we really asking of these people
and why? And it has to be very clear that, you know, whatever we do
doesn't engage in a takings, that we're not requiring something that
they are not required to do and thereby through the regulation process
here doing something which is unconstitutional.
It's certainly, I think from so many people's perspective,
misunderstood that what is being proposed here is because units are
somehow in violation of building standards. And that isn't the case.
And that needs to be made very clear, that this has nothing to do with
these units being substandard vis-a-vis any code, any building code.
Because that is not the case and that is not what we're dealing with.
MR. BOSI: It's simply, this is for zoning compliance, this is not
-- this is no assessment of the building structural integrity of any one
of the these individual units.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And define zoning compliance for
me?
MR. BOSI: Zoning compliance, meaning that the area where
that mobile home sits is zoned for mobile home use, that the standards
contained within the mobile home district are maintained within the
site design of that individual mobile home park.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the question of use within a
zoning district doesn't really have anything to do with this. Because, I
mean, you can go in, you can evaluate the underlined zoning. If the
zoning permits those mobile homes, that's addressed and done. I don't
understand where the connection between that and these SIPs is.
MR. BOSI: Those 45 units, those 45 mobile homes that don't
have zoning issues, in terms of they're in the correct zoning district,
Page 87
March 25, 2014
the zoning issue they have is they've never submitted a Site
Development Plan that shows how they satisfied the zoning
requirements of that mobile home district.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if they existed before the
requirement for a Site Development Plan became a requirement,
unless they're seeking a permit to do one of the various things we've
identified as needing a permit, they don't have to have a Site
Development Plan.
MR. BOSI: No, they don't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So forcing them to get a Site
Development Plan unless they want a permit for some other reason is
COMMISSIONER NANCE: A self-fulfilling prophesy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's -- we're -- it's not going to
happen. And that's why you've had non -- not noncompliance, but
nonparticipation.
MR. BOSI: And that's what I'm seeking direction from. The
issue of a punitive aspect to this program was introduced today and
I'm just trying to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again I don't --
MR. BOSI: -- find out if that's the will of the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- see what you can punish
because you don't have the legal right to force them to do this because
they pre-existed that requirement.
So it's -- I think this has to be very carefully studied from a legal
perspective.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion? I'm going to make
a motion to approve this item.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
MR. BOSI: And just for the Board's understanding, planning
will work directly with Jeff s staff and the County Attorney's Office to
Page 88
March 25, 2014
make sure whatever's being proposed has been reviewed from a legal
perspective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think this all needs to be cleaned
up. I'm not sure it's working the way it was intended as evidenced by
the fact that you don't have participation. So maybe you need to
develop a different program to incentivize. And instead of punishing,
maybe come up with some way that these people do it and get some
sort of credit that induces the second level of improvement, which is
replacing existing units.
MR. BOSI: Well, there's never been a punishment associated
with this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but what I'm saying is maybe
what you should look at is the positive, the flip side, to induce them to
participate where they don't have to.
MR. BOSI: That's how it's always been set up. If you'd like to
replace your existing units, participate in the program. And that's been
the design. And we will continue to construct it that way and try to
find other incentives to increase the participation rate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no incentive in what you
just said.
MR. OCHS: Correct. And what's being suggested is that we try
to design that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A different program. You need a
different program. Because obviously it's not working.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. You know, everybody should
realize that the goal here is to incentivize the people to upgrade their
parks. These are nonconforming entities, most of them. They're
previously existing nonconforming entities. And what we're trying --
staff, if what I tried to ask them to include was the regulatory
flexibility needed to address the unique circumstances of some of the
ones that couldn't comply with the program to begin with. Some of
Page 89
March 25, 2014
them just couldn't comply because they had some unique circumstance
and there was no outlet for them. So they were by definition excluded
from being in compliance, which is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
And then since they're out of compliance, they have anxiety and
they don't want to invest money in their facilities, which is exactly
what we want to incentivize them to do. We want to incentivize them
to invest money, clean up their properties and ultimately, you know,
as Immokalee grows and prospers, these properties will find higher
and better uses and we'll get some of them out of the areas that we
don't want them. And in the meantime we don't bankrupt the small
business people that are relying on this for a living and supplying
much needed housing. So --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How are these nonconforming? I
mean, why are you using the term nonconforming? I think that needs
to be defined.
MR. BOSI: When you have a mobile home park the mobile
home park is normally established by a Site Development Plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again, if these preexisted that
requirement --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're legal nonconforming. You've --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're grandfathered.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so they're not -- so let's
define that accurately. These are not nonconforming units. They are
grandfathered into the program and we would like to see them come
up to the current level, but they don't have to.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. To constantly say
nonconforming makes it sounds like they're illegal.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's an omission on my part.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay.
Page 90
March 25, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: They're legal nonconforming --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're grandfathered. They're
legally grandfathered into the system.
MR. KLATZKOW: They're legal nonconforming. Your point to
the program was to clean them up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is like the discussion of pre-
audit versus post-audit. It's all semantics.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Coyle --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I voted against.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner -- yeah, the
motion carries, dissenting is Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I just want to clarify --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I think it's worthy, and I'm
going to work with staff to see what other trailer parks outside of
Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- I know there is in East Naples. So
if we're going after one, we ought to go after others in other districts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it should be across the
whole county. I think -- I mean, if we're looking to make things
better, it should be across the board. This is not to -- you know, I
mean, it makes no difference where in the county this is. I mean, we
want to incentivize, you know, these mobile park owners to make their
Page 91
March 25, 2014
parks as good as possibly can be, as they can be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we do communications within
four minutes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could I just say one thing?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that my heartbreak in all of
this stuff is that the Health Department took a group of us -- I wasn't
working here at the time, I was working at the hospital, and they took
us around to see all of these different things. The Health Department
only oversees migrant working facilities, they can't go into somebody
who lives there year around. And so they took us in. They were
trying to push people to at least get running water or electricity and fix
the holes in the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long ago was this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this was -- oh, this was before
I was ever in office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So like 20 years ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it was in the Nineties. And I
don't know what has ever happened since then, because I've talked to
the Health Department a couple of times and they're kind of frustrated
because people are living in those conditions. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well really, this is a state issue. It
sounds like it, because we don't have jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: State is only with migrant. They
only have control over migrant. They can't go into the other ones.
The point is, I understand what you all are saying, I hear that. I'm
just saying what can we do to help people who can't help themselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. We need to incentivize the
owners to make it as good as possible.
But we don't have jurisdiction over the units. So the question is,
if the state only looks at the units with respect to migrant worker
tenants -- and maybe what the issue is, is that the state needs to come
Page 92
March 25, 2014
up with some program to evaluate mobile homes. Because we don't
have a jurisdiction to do it.
So it's a state issue that they need to come in and set standards,
you know, for these mobile homes that goes beyond consideration just
for migrant workers, as Commissioner Fiala pointed out. We need to
look at, you know, low income tenants and elderly tenants. It's -- or
owners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go too -- you understand
that what was on our agenda and what you're speaking about,
Commissioner, are two different issues. And in fact the Code
Enforcement and Health Department went out there two years ago and
there was a report on the Board that 95 percent of the housing in
Immokalee comes up to the compliance of health, safety and welfare.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to see that report, because I
didn't see it. And I'm sorry if I've spoken out of concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was on our agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Like I said, two or three years ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo, you could produce that for me,
can't you?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I'll get that for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, you know, I think this is a
carryover -- well, I shouldn't say it's a carryover. But I think it's a
misunderstanding of our jurisdiction and the state's jurisdiction under
migrant housing. It's two different issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two different.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the issue with a Site
Development Plan and the compliance to the Land Development Code
has to do with landscaping, stormwater, things of that nature. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was just thinking more of just
the people living in there. I wasn't --
Page 93
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not within that unit. It's not in that
box where they live in, it's an issue of, again, landscaping if they
haven't landscaped.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- and they can't change the
box that they live in until they conform to this is what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So in other words, they
could change it. But anyway, I understand where your interests lie, I
truly do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you think that is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I won't say, as a matter of fact. But
I will say this: I just want to do anything I can to help those people
who can't help themselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we need to do that through
the state. I'll talk to them. When I go up there, I will talk to our
representatives. I don't know much about this area of law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can even call Dr. Colfer, she'll
tell you. I went with her.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah. But I'll talk to the state
to find out -- when I'm up there I'll ask who -- and I'll talk to the
Florida Association of Counties to find out, you know, what other
counties are doing and who at the state level has jurisdiction to ensure
that these trailers are being properly maintained.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we can go into trailers.
I don't think we can go in there and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's my point. And that's why
we need to find out who.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Health Department can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's only for migrant
workers.
So the question is who is looking at these living units at the state
level beyond migrant worker units. And that's what we need to find
Page 94
March 25, 2014
out. Because that's who needs to be enforcing requirements for the
standards.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go on our time certain at
noon, Commissioner Nance, do you have something?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I just want -- I would like to
close this out and I don't want to belabor conversation, but migrant
labor housing and its regulation by state and federal government is a
separate and distinct thing. It's very, very highly regulated, the
conditions are controlled, and they're inspected frequently. And that's
not what we're talking about here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're talking about free market
economy housing for poor people and how we need to incentivize
people to better that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That happens to be a trailer.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Happens to be a trailer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Got it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is a carryover. We're going to
take a -- when are we coming back, at 1 : 15?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 1 :15. That's what I was told to tell
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard 1 :30.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, subject to change. Do you
want 1 :30?
MR. OCHS: There's no registered speakers right now as we sit
here. Or public comments. And you can't hear your land use item 'til
1 :30, so come back at --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say 1 :30.
MR. OCHS: 1 :30.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm speaking on behalf of the chair
and vice-chair.
(Luncheon recess.)
Page 95
March 25, 2014
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Back from recess. Now we're going
to go to public comments.
And I understand there's a number of speakers that want to speak
about the Cocohatchee PUD. That is not on our agenda. We cannot
make decisions under a petition, land use petition. Our constitution
says people have the right to petition or address their elected body, so
we cannot make a decision not to. And that's about basically it.
So if you guys want to talk about it, you can all day, but we can't
take any action on any request at all. There will be a public hearing in
the future through the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board
of Commissioners.
So with that, let's call our public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Bill Pittman. He'll be
followed by Peter Franck.
MR. PITTMAN: Hi. My name is Bill Pittman. I live at the
Anchorage, which is on Vanderbilt Drive, and I'm a member of the
Pelican Isle Yacht Club.
And I just want to point out that the Cocohatchee PUD
completely surrounds those whole complexes, those 200 plus
residences.
And we attended a meeting last week and have some concerns
about what's going on as far as navigation, as far as traffic. But the
biggest concern we have is revoking an irrevocable settlement. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Peter Franck. He'll be
Page 96
March 25, 2014
followed by Alan Ritchie.
MR. FRANCK: My name is Peter Franck and I'm president of a
local chapter of the International Order of Blue Gavel, which is an
international organization of past commodores. And I live at and boat
in the estuarial waters of the Cocohatchee River near Wiggins Pass.
I attended a public meeting on March 19th where representatives
of Lodge Abbot Associates presented a plan for a change to a 2008
PUD which called for residential multi-family dwellings, as well as a
golf course.
Now they are proposing a substantial change to the original plan
that eliminates the golf course, increases the number of dwellings and
therefore also the population density.
In addition, it also calls for boat docking facilities for boats up to
40 feet in length.
The environmental traffic, esthetic aspects, as well as
navigational issues are all negatively affected.
But that's not what I want to talk about today.
The PUD settlement agreement came after extensive negotiations
and litigation. Vast amounts of public monies were expended to reach
what was agreed to be an irrevocable agreement.
My question to you, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, why
would you want to reopen a can of worms? And I tell you, it will be a
can of worms, based on the 700 people that were voicing, some of
them very loudly, voicing their opposition to this change. And so I
urge you not to reopen this can of worms. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alan Ritchie. He'll be
followed by Joe M.
MR. RITCHIE: Hey, I'm Alan Ritchie. I'm on the board of
directors of the Estuary Conservation Association, which is focused on
the well-being and safe navigation in Wiggins Pass.
The -- my view and the view of the ECA is that this agreement
that was settled a number of years ago shouldn't really be reopened
Page 97
March 25, 2014
because then that will lead to a vast number of new issues dealing with
safe navigation, the narrowing of a very busy channel relative to
docks, and significant changes associated with what was litigated a
number of years ago.
So we see no benefit to the county or to the estuary associated
with reopening this agreement. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Joe M. And sir, we will
need your entire last name for the record. He'll be followed by Jack
Kindsvater.
MR. MORELAND: Joe Moreland. M-O-R-E-L-A-N-D. I
apologize for the shorthand.
Chairman Henning, Commissioners, very nice to see you all
again.
I too am from the Estuary Conservation Association, the
president of it. And I reiterate, obviously, what my colleague the vice
president just testified to.
But I would like to sharpen the pencil just a little bit. And I
certainly don't want to presume to lecture you on our perception of
what your duties are in this particular case.
When we look at it, it was a very expensive process, a lot of
taxpayer dollars, lawsuits, public hearings. It went on and on ad
nauseam.
The end result, without a riot fortunately, was a mutual
agreement signed by all parties that was irrevocable. It addressed
each of the elements which are now being ripped apart, proposed to
now be revisited.
Why? It is pretty clear that the population of residents within
that geographic area, which is largely Commissioner Hiller's District
2, to the best of our knowledge and belief, are adamantly opposed to
that, as is ECA. We cannot conceive of a reason why to take an
agreement that was so generally fought for and it cost -- so expensive
by both parties, when one of those parties years later comes to what in
Page 98
March 25, 2014
part is a new board, in part a new population, and now wants to undo
it to do things which in all probability could not have been done in the
first instance and in all probability were negotiated out of the
agreement at that time. There is no social value to the community to
overcome the disadvantages to the community if this proposal were
granted, as it has been presented.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the presentation.
What do we want out of this, Commissioners? I think we really
want you to do what we think you ought to do, express your reason.
We want you to hold a public hearing on whether it should be
reviewed and opened or whether it should not be because the battle
has been fought, the battle has been won, and all participants have
agreed to an irrevocable settlement.
What in the world stream of logic would convince the public and
you to reopen that now when these developers are simply revisiting
what they wanted to do in the first place? No excuse for that. I would
taint it to almost dishonesty and lack of faithfulness.
I also must say that in --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you wrap it up, please.
MR. MORELAND: -- and I've been to a lot of hearings, that was
the worst hearing by a bunch of people who didn't put their efforts into
it professionally --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Moreland?
MR. MORELAND: It was embarrassing. I apologize, sir, I am
through.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker under public comment is Jack
Kindsvater.
MR. KINDSVATER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and
dedicated staff, for the record, my name is Jack Kindsvater. And in
the interest of full disclosure, I am a member and former officer and
director of the Estuary Conservation Association, which as you know,
Page 99
March 25, 2014
serves community and nature. I'm an equity member and past
commodore of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club. And my 95 year old
mother-in-law is a unit owner and resident of Tower Pointe in Arbor
Trace.
I have five questions that I ask you to consider. Why would the
Commissioners agree to reopen a hard fought settlement made in June,
2008 under threat of a $240 million lawsuit and at great expense to the
taxpayers of Collier County which the developer agreed to never
reopen?
Why would the Commissioners allow the developer to abandon a
designated golf course and then develop it when the agreement
mandated that if the golf course has abandoned the land, except for
two single-family homes allowed there, shall remain forever green,
open space, dedicated to boardwalks, bicycle paths, drainage or a lake,
nature trials, a wildlife sanctuary or other similar uses in its PUD.
Number three: Why would the Commissioners allow docks
currently authorized for non-motorized vessels, canoes and kayaks to
be changed to moor 34 power boats up to 40 feet in length. And most
importantly, dramatically restrict navigation in the channel from the
superactive Collier County boat ramp to the backwaters in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is used by thousands of private commercial and public
service vessels every year.
Four: Why would the Commissioners allow basically
unbuildable land to be added to the PUD and not only increase the
allowed units by 104, the number based upon the current agreed
density, but to 280, increasing the density of the overall development
by 29 percent.
And number five: Do the Commissioners see a demand from the
local community or is the only benefit of reopening this settlement
accruing to the foreign; that is, not Florida, limited liability
corporation based in Detroit?
Commissioners, I respectfully submit that there is no requirement
Page 100
March 25, 2014
to reopen this settled agreement. There is no reason to renegotiate this
settled agreement. It is not in the best interest of the residents of
Collier County to do so. And I respectively submit and suggest that
this Board send a message that in Collier County a settlement
agreement is settled. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, now we go to our public
hearing.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2014-14: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92-41 AND
05-52, QUAIL II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO
ALLOW 87 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, ATTACHED AND
ZERO LOT LINE UNITS OR 152 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS
TO COVER PAGE; SECTION TWO, AMENDMENTS TO TABLE
OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS PAGE; SECTION THREE,
AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION;
SECTION FOUR, AMENDMENTS TO THE PROJECT
DESCRIPTION SECTION; SECTION FIVE, AMENDMENTS TO
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION INCLUDING A REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
AND REMOVAL OF A REQUIREMENT TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR UNITS
DEVELOPED IN R-1 DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR ADDITION
OF DEVIATIONS; SECTION SIX, AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT
A, THE PUD MASTER PLAN AND ADDITION OF EXHIBIT B,
R-1 DISTRICT MASTER PLAN, EXHIBIT C, SIDEWALK
EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT D, TURN LANE DETAIL; AND SECTION
Page 101
March 25, 2014
SEVEN, EFFECTIVE DATE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NORTH
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND EAST OF VALEWOOD DRIVE,
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PUDZ-A-PL20090001891) —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that is Item 9.A on your agenda,
Commissioners. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members and all participants are to be
required to be sworn in.
This is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending
Ordinance numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail Phase II Planned Unit
Development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're going to do -- we're
going to swear in. Anybody wishing to participate in this rezone
action, please rise and the court reporter will swear you in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we have to do ex parte
communication by board members.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I have read the staff report
and had meetings discussing this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have had emails and calls and
read the staff report on this matter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I had meetings, emails and phone
calls on this matter.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had meetings,
correspondence and emails. And my meetings were actually with the
staff members and also with Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 102
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings and received
correspondence. I've read the staff report dated February 6th, 2014,
and I had a meeting with Rich Yovanovich on March the 24th, 2014.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Arnold, are you going to
present?
MR. ARNOLD: I am.
For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, and I'm
here representing Toll Brothers as contract purchaser for the subject
property.
And with me this afternoon is Rich Yovanovich of Coleman,
Yovanovich and Koester Law Firm and Jim Manners and Chris
Adams, both of Toll Brothers.
I put up on the visualizer --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, just before you go on, I
forgot to say that Toll Brothers were also in that meeting. So I'm
sorry, I just wanted to make sure that I didn't not disclose it.
MR. ARNOLD: On the visualizer I have outlined the entire
Quail II PUD. The subject property we're talking about today is a
tract designated as the R-1 tract in the PUD, and it's the vacant 21 .75
acre parcel located in the southeast corner of the project.
That's a closer in aerial.
The proposal we have before you today is fairly straightforward.
The property today was formerly a commercial tract in the PUD.
Several years ago it was rezoned to allow 152 multi-family dwelling
units.
Our request today is to ask for an alternative development
scenario for that, which would be to permit 87 single-family homes as
an alternative to the previously approved 152 dwellings.
We had dialogue with our immediate neighbors of Longshore
Lake and I think it was very productive. And at the Planning
Commission there were several items that were addressed that
addressed most of their concerns. We've had some continued dialogue
Page 103
March 25, 2014
with Longshore Lakes. And I believe that you'll find residents now of
Longshore Lakes here supportive of the project.
I can go through some of the comments that were made by the
Planning Commission. Again, it's fairly straightforward, but there
were some conditions imposed upon us which was unanimously
approved by the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any questions by the Board?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I could just make a comment.
As I was reading through the letters of objection, and then I was
reading through the Planning Commission's final recommendations, it
seemed that in my opinion that all of the concerns that were voiced
from the different people in the surrounding communities were all
answered by the Planning Commission. And I feel comfortable with
that. So I think they've done -- you know, Planning Commission has
paved the way for us, and it's good that the people wrote and could tell
us what their concerns were.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I feel the same way. I think we
had a protective Planning Commission meeting in which there were
compromises agreed to by both parties and I think we're in a good
position today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, can we hear staffs report?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Planning and Zoning Department.
And we are recommending approval of this petition, as it is
consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan.
And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to
answer them today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I understand reading the
backup material that there's deviations, actually deviations from the
Land Development Code. So it doesn't meet our Land Development
Page 104
March 25, 2014
Code; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: The deviation process is a permissible
process for an applicant to seek a different way of doing things from
what our code typically and normally would require.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you clarify that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me go through these deviations,
because it's a mixed message.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you suggesting we have the
right to approve deviations to the LDC through this process? So in
effect that we're waiving the LDC requirements in certain instances?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the LDC. In essence your PUD is a
local zoning ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you mean through the PUD, I
mean, we can have --
MR. OCHS: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Local zoning ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, yeah.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. So I understand. I didn't
understand what Commissioner Henning was saying. It sounded like
something different. I mean, we do that all the time.
MR. BOSI: The PUD process was specifically set up to design
where it was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, because it's an individual
ordinance. But I just -- the way you were describing it, it sounded
different.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what staff says, it meets our
land use code except for certain parts of the land use. So it's a
deviation that doesn't meet our code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your concern is staffs semantics,
essentially.
Page 105
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no, the deviations are my
concern. But however, I wanted to get that straightened out before we
proceed.
MR. BOSI: And the deviations in most PUDs will contain a
number of deviations from our Land Development Code and it's a
process that is provided for within the Land Development Code
specifically for the PUD process because of its unique nature.
But you're right, in the literal sense there are some deviations
from our --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm a black-and-white guy.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You should have been a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Heaven forbid that anybody should
be a lawyer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I should be a pilot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, so we've got deviation of
sidewalks, we've got deviation of buffers, we've got deviation of bike
lanes, bike lanes and pathway requirements. Okay, we've got
deviations of right-of-way standards, roadway right-of-way standards.
So yeah, when we approve this we're approving that we're
deviating from it all, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. And the appropriate staff has
reviewed and recommended approval of those deviations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if-- should we even have those
requirements in the Land Development Code if-- give you an
example, the sidewalks, how many times have we deviated from
sidewalks and only required one sidewalk on one side instead of
sidewalks on both sides?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, in this particular case it is appropriate
to have regulations in our Land Development Code. But I just want to
remind you, like for the example that you've just given for the
Page 106
March 25, 2014
sidewalks, it's only going to apply if the project is developed with
single-family residences. It will not apply to a multi-family product.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they're asking for a combination
of, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's going to be either/or.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Either/or.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Either single-family development or
multi-family development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And multi-family, they require
sidewalks on both sides or is it vice versa?
MS. GUNDLACH: In multi-family it's required on both sides.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So if they build multi-family,
they can still require to only build on one side.
MS. GUNDLACH: If I -- I'm not sure I understood your
question, but if they develop single-family, they do have permission to
have a sidewalk on one side. If they develop multi-family, the
sidewalks will be on both sides.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that's not a deviation then.
Am I misunderstanding?
MR. BOSI: In our subdivision designs for single-family homes,
sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. They are seeking a
deviation from only -- only if they proposed a single-family to have it
on one side of the street.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that answers my question.
Are you done, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to go to the public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Peter Rach. He'll be
followed by John Hayes.
MR. RACH: Good afternoon. My name is Pete Rach, past
president of Longshore Lake. We're the neighbor directly to the east.
Page 107
March 25, 2014
I just want to say that our objections have been met, satisfied, and
we have no objection to be the PUD continuing. I would like to
mention, thank you very much for the attention that we've gotten. I
feel like we've been really listened to, and we appreciate that. Other
than that, I waive my time, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rach?
MR. RACH: Sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was a lot of objection at the
Planning Commission. Has -- after the Planning Commission, has
anything arose to have no objections?
MR. RACH: Yes, sir. We worked out some of the details, some
of the precise language, and then we worked out more recently an
additional agreement about exactly how we're going to manage our
boundary between Toll Brothers and our property. We're the -- as I
said, we're the land directly to the east of them. And we've got an
agreement now that doesn't involve cash, but it involves that they're
going to do the project management. We think they have more
expertise than that and we will pay for the fence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a signed private agreement?
MR. RACH: It's not signed. We have an agreement in principal
at this point, and I think attorneys from both sides have reviewed it. It
will probably be signed within a day or so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MR. RACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your next speaker is John Hayes.
He'll be followed by David Bartley.
MR. HAYES: Good afternoon. I'm John Hayes, President of the
Longshore Lake Foundation.
We have no further objections to the application and we are here
to support the process. And we thank you.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not at this time. I may later.
Page 108
March 25, 2014
MR. HAYES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this matter is David
Bartley.
MR. BARTLEY: Hello, I'm David Bartley, Bartley Realty. I'm
the property manager of Quail Plaza Condominium Association. We
are located just to the south of this project. I represent four of the nine
buildings that are in the commercial area to the south.
Our concern is the entrance that is off of our street, Executive
Drive, to their property. Executive Drive right now is very busy.
They're about to add a school, a preschool, which will add 200 cars a
day in the morning and in the afternoon for the children for pickup.
So the roadway itself is in bad condition. The curbs are broken.
There's potholes. So adding the extra construction traffic through that
entrance and ultimately the residents going through there is a concern.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. Do you realize
that's not going to be their main access entrance?
MR. BARTLEY: I do. But it is an access.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that a private roadway,
Executive Drive?
MR. BARTLEY: It is a private roadway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And who's responsible for repair of
that?
MR. BARTLEY: Well, there's an association manager which
we're trying to remove at this time. We're in the process of doing that.
We have served her notice to do so. And we're trying to gain control
of that so that we can address the issues. There's a reserve supposedly.
But the roadway itself-- I'll give you an example. There's a
doctor right across the street that works with liver patients and dialysis
and things. And there are ambulances that come there on a regular
base, maybe three days a week to pick up people. With the school
Page 109
March 25, 2014
that's -- traffic that's coming back and forth, you know, pickup time
with the cars lined up, it could be difficult for ambulances to get
through or anyone to get through. And then with the construction
traffic going through for this development, it could really hamper our
use of our properties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which road are you talking about?
Can you point it out?
MR. BARTLEY: Right here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's kind of a U-shape?
MR. BARTLEY: Sorry, pardon me. Correct. My building is
right here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a private road, but they have legal
access. The property owner has legal access to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Along that road?
MR. BARTLEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, they have over to the east side
MR. BARTLEY: Around here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- they have legal access.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They have an easement?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They have legal access to Executive
Drive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How do they have legal access to
that drive?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was part of the PUD, I believe. Or
the overall DRI? No, the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can staff answer that? Can staff
answer that? No, I want them to answer. I believe you, Rich, I just
want them to explain.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly what Commissioner Henning
said, ma'am, it's part of the PUD. And it's an interconnection and
everybody within the PUD has the right to use that road.
Page 110
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everybody does?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep, that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a private road, though, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that everyone has the right by
way of that ordinance to use it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Within the PUD, it's a document
connection to that property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we don't have any jurisdiction
over that road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're not -- there's nothing
that we can say with respect to traffic impact on that road because it's
a private road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, our impact would be at
the main road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just like Valewood Drive is a private
road and we couldn't shut off the commercial from Executive Drive
onto Valewood because that is an internal road to all the PUDs out
there.
MR. BARTLEY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Rich, is there any further
commitments that you want to get on the record or put in the PUD that
you committed after our meeting?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Nothing -- for the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
Nothing that we believe needs to be added to the PUD. I'll tell
you what the substance of the agreement we did reach, was Longshore
Lake was concerned about the timing of the replacement of their wall
and also wanted, basically, to have the ability to use Toll Brothers'
buying power, if you will, to get the best price for the replacement of
the wall. And Toll Brothers has basically agreed to be the project
Page 111
March 25, 2014
manager for Longshore Lake to coordinate getting bids, getting a
contractor for Longshore Lakes so Longshore Lakes can replace their
wall concurrent with site work that's going to be done for this PUD so
they don't have to come back later and replace the wall at an
inconvenient time for them, as well as for the residents of this
particular project.
That's been worked out. All the -- we just need to get it signed
by people. But the terms have been worked out. So that's -- we're
basically going to be their project manager for the replacement of their
wall and they'll replace it at their cost.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That wall is on Toll Brothers
property but belongs to Longshore Lake, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Part of the wall is on Toll Brothers
property, part of it is on Longshore Lake property. The PUD already
provides for the wall to remain in place --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's what I wanted to
confirm, that that is being corrected through the PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. And there will be a maintenance
easement in place for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For Longshore Lakes so that they
can access Toll Brothers' property to maintain that wall.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now we've addressed their concern about
the timing when that wall will be done, so it will be cheaper for that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to be sure that the
new ordinance provides that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that wall being incorrectly over
the lot line is accepted.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It has. The PUD addresses both that and
the maintenance easement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
Page 112
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, since the wall's
language is already in there, what is wrong with having further
language about, you know, maintenance and replacement and timing
and all that other stuff?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We think that that's a private agreement
between us and Longshore Lakes. If there comes a need for there to
be changes to it, I don't really want to have to come back through the
PUD amendment process to move a date. And we think that we're all
comfortable that we have an agreement in place to address their
management concerns and we don't believe that that needs to become
something that the County Commission --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a private matter, really.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, hang on a minute. You said you
have concerns about having to come back for an amendment for
language that in my opinion should be in the PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We believe -- first of all, there's no legal
obligation for this property owner to address the wall issue at all.
What we have done is we have worked with our neighbors in a
cooperative manner with a separate agreement, similar deed
restrictions that you all don't enforce. We've reached an agreement
outside of the PUD, and we think that that's the proper method for
addressing their concerns. And we don't believe it is appropriate for it
to be in the PUD document. And we would like to keep the two
matters separate. It's a private agreement between Longshore Lake
Foundation and the owner of the property and the contract purchaser.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So why do we even have any
language in the ordinance about the wall if the case is you don't want
to put in there that the Quail II will coordinate with Longshore Lakes
Master Association on replacing the wall and construction oversight?
The wall's not an issue, it shouldn't be here in all then, right? You
agreed with that at the Planning Commission.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed to include the ability for a
Page 113
March 25, 2014
wall that's practically constructed on our property to remain in place,
and we provided ability for them to access the wall from our property.
We agreed to that at the Planning Commission. That's as far as we
were willing to go at the Planning Commission; it is still as far as
we're willing to go today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're at the Board of
Commissioners now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner, if the Board decides
that it wants to remove any discussion regarding the wall to where we
don't allow it to stay in the PUD and don't allow for maintenance of it
in the PUD, that is certainly within the Board's prerogative. But we're
not -- I don't think that's what we're advocating and I know it's not
what Longshore Lakes is advocating.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I further want to refine what you
agreed at the Planning Commission, that's all. Are you really that
objectionable to my recommendations?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
Commissioners, I have a real grave concern over the continuing
deviations of the Land Development Code. If a -- one builds a
single-family home, there is a requirement for sidewalks on both sides.
It does make sense to keep that within the PUD requirements. The
width of the road really is an issue of emergency response. You know,
these fire trucks are very long and require that kind of width.
What is the other deviation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The first deviation was for a sidewalk on
one side of the road. The second deviation was for the width.
And I just want to address one thing, if you'll allow me. The
width of the pavement doesn't change, the width of the right-of-way
changes, and that's how you basically are addressing the utilities and
what types of easements they go into. But the width of the pavement
doesn't change.
Page 114
March 25, 2014
And the final was a buffer along the southern portion of the
property between us and the commercial. The width changes but the
amount of plantings remains the same.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and so --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were the three deviations we've
requested.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we shortened the width of the
right-of-way, therefore shortening the driveway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, the pavement stays the same. The
width of the pavement stays the same. There's no shortening of any
width of the pavement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a shortening of the width of
the right-of-way; therefore, when you build it your driveway's going
to be shorter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're still required to have the 23
feet separation between a garage and a sidewalk, which is basically
what the Land Development Code requires.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you're only having a sidewalk on
one side.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And for the side that we have one on one
we'll have -- we'll meet the minimum requirement of 23 feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the other --
MR. YOVANOVICH: None of these deviations that we've
requested, as you've pointed out, Commissioner Henning, are unusual.
I would almost call them standard deviations, and perhaps we should
revisit the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think they're going to be
problematic, myself. And the Land Development Code requires a
landscaping separation between a commercial portion and residential.
Why are we lessening it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, you have a wall
and you have the same vegetation. What we're trying to do through
Page 115
March 25, 2014
this PUD amendment is to provide an option to put a single-family
home project next to a single-family home project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that one I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If the deviations aren't approved then
there will not be a single-family home project next to a single-family
home project. I guess the PUD would be denied, because we will not
accept the PUD without the deviations, and we'll have a multi-family
project as our only option in the PUD. That's not what the property
owner wants, it's not what our neighbors want.
We've worked everything out with everybody within Quail II, as
well as Quail Creek, which is north of this project but not within the
PUD, and we're hopeful that the Board of County Commissioners will
support staffs recommendation of approval of the deviations, as well
as the Planning Commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you could also tear down the
wall that's on your property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would replace -- we would help
them replace their wall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, what I'm saying, if it's denied
you have the right to go and tear that wall down.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And they absolutely have no ability to
come on our property -- what they get from this is they get to keep a
wall there and they get a maintenance easement, which they don't
currently have. If there's no maintenance easement, they have to
maintain their wall solely from their side of Longshore Lakes.
We don't want that, they don't want that. I think everybody in the
area appears willing to have the PUD as written, including the
separate private agreement for the replacement of the wall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we just stay on the deviations?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they're related.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're related.
Page 116
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'd just like to address the PUD
ordinance.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I think you're right, the
difference -- well, maybe not. The difference between the -- the
separation between commercial and residential, you have to have a
wall, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay?
So Nancy, you know, why do we have a buffering distance of so
many feet between commercial and residential but here we have a
deviation? Are they deviating between the buffering distance because
it's a commercial next to a residential?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, in this case the wall is already existing
along the southern property line where the commercial property exists.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. GUNDLACH: And they -- normally that wall, if you had
commercial next to it would have to be set back a certain distance and
it would have to have landscaping on that side.
In this case since the wall's already there, they're asking to
provide the 10 feet on the residential side.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it requires a --
MS. GUNDLACH: Normally it's a 15-foot wide buffer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they're going to put -- the
difference is what, two and a half feet?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's five feet difference.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that I can accept. That kind of
makes sense.
Yeah, I mean, you know, without the language of the cooperation
of Toll Brothers and the neighboring -- a buffer wall, which is already
accepted within the PUD, and further refine it, there's no guarantee it's
going to happen. There's absolutely no guarantee that they're going to
Page 117
March 25, 2014
go out and be cooperative with their neighbor for best pricing and
construction maintenance. There's no agreement. So if it's approved
today, they could just go ahead and build.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would be Toll Brothers
incentive not to be cooperative? It's at no cost to them. All they're
doing is lending their ability to get the best possible price. It's not that
they're agreeing to pay for it. So I can't imagine that they wouldn't do
it. I mean, it's not --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why would they object to even
putting it in the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Huh?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why would they object to it, except
for -- it's not a real commitment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, to me it's not something that
really would be in this ordinance. I mean, it's basically a private party
agreement. It's not something that we usually codify as law.
And secondly, you know, they are providing a maintenance
easement and they are accepting the other property's -- the other
project's wall on their private property.
I don't think that we should be introducing, you know, private
agreements into our ordinances. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but
that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me read you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- this, what they already accepted.
The lake maintenance agreement of 12 percent cost shall be
clarified as proposed by a Longshore representative with an additional
language added by applicant.
Isn't that a private -- wouldn't you say that's a private agreement?
Page 118
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What lake are we talking about?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Longshore Lake maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is that? I don't understand
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's stormwater storage
within Longshore. They have the lake over there. And Quail Creek II
is going to utilize that for their stormwater storage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They already do. That system up there,
that whole project up there, which includes Longshore Lake and Quail
II, there's a water management district permit in place that provides
for this property to drain through the Longshore Lake lakes.
And so our PUD addresses how that is going to occur as to cost
sharing and making sure how we address ongoing maintenance of the
water management system that serves this property. This wall does not
serve our property.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The lake is a joint facility.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's not a public facility, it's
between two neighboring --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You make a good point. I mean,
we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, we do this all the
time.
The second one is the applicant shall allow the wall to remain
where were it is unless rebuilt. The applicant shall also allow access
to maintain the existing and remaining easement outside of the
landscaping buffer. So we do this all the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and maybe we shouldn't be
including these private agreements as part of these ordinances.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the reason that we do that is
because in the past things don't happen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we shouldn't be the ones
Page 119
March 25, 2014
having to enforce private agreements. That should be between the
parties. And if they, you know, have an agreement and if someone
breaches it, go to court. I mean, why are we monitoring private
agreements for the benefit of one party or the other? I mean, do we
have some monitoring responsibility if it's in the PUD?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we have -- I mean, staff would
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: It would become a code violation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now what in effect ought to be
a private agreement is a code enforcement matter?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, this whole thing's a private
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I'm thinking.
MR. KLATZKOW: The PUD itself
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But these details are different.
Because the PUD really is the deviation from the Land Development
Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what they're asking, is for a
deviation from the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They do that just about every time
a PUD comes forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And all the time that we put things
within the PUD that has no bearing within our land use laws. We do it
all the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. But that's the reason you
have PUDs. That's the whole -- isn't that the whole purpose of a PUD,
to allow for that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To allow to have certain conditions
within the PUD so everybody, including neighbors, which we're trying
to protect neighbors, neighborhoods, within our Growth Management
Plan. So everybody --
Page 120
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- everybody knows what's being
built.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what is your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion is to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Approve what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approve the executive summary
that specifies the considerations and recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that's the details I'm looking
for.
And you seconded the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I can't support the motion. I
think since we're having some details in it, we ought to refine the
details and put everything in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me say why I seconded it.
I think that we're here to serve the people of the community.
These communities have gotten together, they've talked with one
another, they've ironed things out to their satisfaction so people feel
comfortable, and they're the ones that are going to have to live with it.
So to me, just because we want to get into minute details, the people
there have decided what they want to live with and they've agreed
upon it. I don't see why we would object to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's no agreement. Where's the
agreement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They just said they agree when they
came up to the podium.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't think the community
has the sense that Toll Brothers is going to screw them in some way. I
Page 121
March 25, 2014
think there's a general sense the community believes Toll Brothers is
going to be honorable and do what they committed to do. And quite
frankly, I don't know why Toll Brothers wouldn't. I mean, again, it's at
no cost to them and it's a goodwill gesture. But I don't think we need
to be involved in that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I agree with that. They
have nothing to gain by committing. However -- and I hope everybody
proves me wrong. But the problem is if you don't have things in
writing, there's nothing there.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All the people -- their
representative from Toll Brothers is here, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Didn't they rise and -- do you all
rise and swear that you're going to fix the fence?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's an agreement. It just hasn't been
signed. All the business points have been worked out, we're just
trying to get signatures from the appropriate parties.
I represent the property owner and Toll Brothers, and I have said
to the Longshore Lakes attorney, the document that they provided to
us is acceptable. Their attorney has said to me, the document that he's
provided to us is acceptable. We just need to have the authorized
representatives sign it. There is an agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that has been made part of the
official record here at this meeting. It's been very clearly stated on the
record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's put the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And they testified under oath, so
I'm willing to let the almighty sort it out if they don't build the fence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's put the agreement in the record
then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's call the question.
Page 122
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can support it. Put the agreement in
the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The agreement is in the attorneys hands
for Longshore Lake. When I get a clean copy of it, we'll get it signed.
We have reached an agreement as to how to deal with the wall issue,
and I think that's sufficient. I mean, I think that's all we really need to
do.
I mean, I'm sorry that there's things in other PUDs that probably
don't need to be there. That doesn't mean we should include them in
this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rich, you could introduce that
agreement into the record after you get it executed, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will be happy to provide a copy of that
agreement to county staff if they would like a copy of the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think that would make
Commissioner Henning happy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can't enforce that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a private agreement. It calls for
certain time frames that they have to respond to documents --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can bring it back for
reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I cannot. Only the developer can
bring a land use back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If they have an agreement and
there's a breach, they can go to court.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're talking as if Toll Brothers is an
unknown entity here. They've developed several projects in Collier
County. If they do something that -- I don't want to quote
Commissioner Hiller, but if they were basically going to screw their
neighbors, you all would hear about it. And the next time we came in
front of you, I think that we would pay dearly.
Page 123
March 25, 2014
So we have a lot of incentive to follow through with our word.
And they're an honorable well-financed company who's built nice
projects in Collier County and will be here for a long time in the
future. And I think that their word that they're going to sign the
agreement should be enough.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle called the
question.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman that moves us to Item 15, Staff and
Commission General Communications.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, just a couple quick items this afternoon. I
know everyone wants to get out.
Just a reminder that next Tuesday, April 1st you have a workshop
at 1 :00 p.m. here in the commission chambers.
Also, Commissioner Henning received correspondence from the
Marco Island City Council requesting a joint workshop with the
commissioners. Mr. Chair, I don't know if you had planned to bring
that up under communications.
Page 124
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I do. I have it right here.
MR. OCHS: I'll let you cover that, very good.
And the last thing I have, Commissioners, is unfortunately Ms.
Bartlett is leaving to take a new opportunity. We've been working
with her and the rest of your aides to figure out who's going to pick up
some of the duties and responsibilities that she performed on behalf of
the Board office.
The only thing that we haven't resolved at this point is the
management of the advisory board applications and the scheduling of
those items for appointment on the commission agenda.
I spoke with Chairman Henning about it. The County Attorney
has graciously offered to take that on as a collateral duty of his office
with the Board's consent. I'm just bringing it up for some discussion,
and some direction --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's a great idea.
MR. OCHS: -- back to Jeff and I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
MR. OCHS: -- and would like to move forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's a great idea. I want to
say thank you to Jeff for taking on that responsibility. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: So I really -- you know, I need three nods of
endorsement if you want to do that. If you don't, then guide us in
some other direction so we can --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm giving you three nods.
MR. OCHS: -- move before Kristi leaves with some training
there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I don't think there's any
problem with -- since we're short of staff to have the County Attorney
do what he graciously said he was going to do. However, there's no
reason why if we have a full staff, why that shouldn't go back to the
Board of Commissioner's office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we can evaluate it at that
Page 125
March 25, 2014
time.
We are looking at restructuring the advisory board, so how many
members ultimately will be applying and, you know, how we deal
with, you know, subcommittees and all that is something that staff will
be bringing back to us anyway, and we can evaluate how that's all
handled at that time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think that there has been
some very productive developments, I mean, certainly from my point
of view with the organization of the office of the Board of County
Commissioners to allow us to use our aides out in the community. It's
a big concern to me because I have three different locations and great
physical distance. So it's important for me to be able to do that.
And I am also very supportive of all my other fellow
commissioners being able to use their aides in service to their
constituents, and I'm very appreciative of the County Manager and his
agency and his staff in taking some of these what I consider to be very
routine administrative things, taking those under advisement so that
we don't have to have people physically in this facility to do things.
So I'm very grateful for your consideration, sir, and your
willingness to take on some of these things, and I would like to
continue to do so as much as practicable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've been great, Leo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I chime in on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I'm trying to wait 'til everybody
finishes and then I'm going to get down here. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was something to what you said.
And that's great, you know, and everybody's aides really -- I mean,
we're all -- we all just adore our aides because I don't know what we --
even Jim. I mean, I think you adore him.
Page 126
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I like him. Adore, no. Like, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the problems is that many
times Alex is the only one in the office, and if she's on the telephone
and another one rings, she can't answer it. If she's gone to the
bathroom, she can't answer them. If she -- say for instance she got
sick, heaven help if she got sick, then there's nobody there.
And so I think maybe there's a way we could work on some kind
of a schedule where we could each, like, have one of our aides
assisting her every day so she's not here alone. And then we're going
to need somebody else though to cover her when she goes on vacation
or any sick days.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we address that under your
communications?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The issue right now is to allow the
County Attorney either part-time or full-time takeover of the
appointments of the advisory board members.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I was even thinking was, if
this is something that would appeal to anybody at all. We used to
have a receptionist there who would answer the door and so forth.
And we've got Janet coming back.
Commissioner Hiller, you don't have anybody in the office so we
can't lean on you to do that. And understandably so, I don't begrudge
anybody anything. I'm just saying that sometimes -- I've never seen a
very important yet operate with nobody there. You walk in the door
and there's nobody there, people find an empty office, they don't have
anybody to talk to.
And maybe we could take that person, like Janet for instance, I
mean, I don't know if she'll be up to it or not. And maybe she could
do some of these jobs. I've got a whole list of jobs that really need to
be done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I don't want to
Page 127
March 25, 2014
interrupt you, but do you have an opinion about the County Attorney
managing the advisory boards?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's exactly what I'm
addressing right now, is that if we had somebody, that is on my list of
things that they could do. If we had somebody in there, then covering
for anybody who's there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have three nods on the
County Attorney handling that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, you do.
County Attorney, do you have anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one thing. In view of my
relatively short remaining time on the Board --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 10 more meetings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, 10 more meetings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wasn't counting, I swear. He told
me at lunch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's got the number of hours and
minutes and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't. I'm going to miss him.
He promised he was going to give me a photograph of himself like
chopping this --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: German.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, this German guy, that's it --
signed. And he was very cute in the photograph.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's talking about 50 years ago.
The --
Page 128
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd do anything to roll back time to
then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in view of that and in view of
the fact that the County Manager has done a wonderful job for many,
many, many years here at the county government, I would like to
award him my parking space and switch with him so he would be
more convenient to the office. And if you wouldn't mind granting
that, I would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I give it a nod.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just break in here. You do
know why he wants to give that parking spot away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because of the birds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's under the trees where the birds
all decorate --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't worry --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the car every day and berries.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because Skip personally told me
he was going to take care of the birds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's Commissioner Coyle's turn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and the alternative to that is
for me -- if you don't approve that, it is for me to file a claim for
damages to Collier County for extreme damage to my automobile. So
I would hope that you would approve that transfer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, I do have a suggestion
for that. And if I may, can I respond to Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me go to Commissioner Fiala and
then we can go --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want to comment on
Commissioner Coyle's recommendation. May I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a private agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not. I actually --
Commissioner Coyle, you're on to something.
Page 129
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that is -- we're assigned parking
spaces, and if somebody wants to have a switch, that's between the
two parties. And quite frankly, it doesn't have to be on the official
record, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But no, this is something different.
I do have a proposal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure you do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand exactly how
Commissioner Coyle feels about Leo. I feel the same way. But I
think honoring Leo with something more significant than a parking
spot under that tree --
MR. OCHS: You've already named a restaurant after me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So here's really what I suggest. I
think all the Commissioners, you know those five slots like right at the
front, I think we should have those five slots and allow staff when they
come and visit just for an hour or so when they do come and visit just
for an hour, to have those slots under that tree. That is my proposal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's an even better proposal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This -- I don't think you
understand because your car doesn't seem to be the target.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I wash my car.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I wash my car too, and it
doesn't seem to make a difference, because the birds are not prejudice.
I mean, whether it's -- but alternatively, if something could be done
with that tree or the birds, it would really be wonderful.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A car shed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the alternative, I do recommend
that we move our slots up there and then just have people who are
temporarily coming to visit in those side slots.
MR. OCHS: I'm sure we can arrange that.
Page 130
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that would make sense,
actually.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: As the designated agricultural
commissioner who does have some expertise in manure and related
organic materials, I can attest that a little bit of trimming on the tree on
the proper side might alleviate some of the cascading bird droppings
that seem to be ruining Commissioner Coyle's car.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would a lean-to or a pole barn.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Camp is on it as we speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I really think switching spots
solves the problem in addition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree.
MR. OCHS: Will do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This conversation is going in the
toilet.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have a number of items?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I just had one and that was what
we were talking about before, and I was just hoping that we could
work out something. I don't know where we're going to do that,
though, whereby there's always coverage in our office so that, you
know, one can cover for the other and they can, whether it be take
vacation or go to the restroom, that somebody else will be there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's clarify a few things first.
When a -- the way the system's set up now, when the phone rings, it
rings right into the commissioner's -- right to the commissioner's aide's
telephone. It doesn't go to whoever picks up the phone. Okay? So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know how they're listed in
the phone book, though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, when they call our numbers, it
goes to, you want to speak to Commissioner Hiller's aide, press two.
If you want to speak to Commissioner Fiala's aide, press one. So they
press the button. So your aide doesn't answer calls for all of that, all
Page 131
March 25, 2014
the office.
However, what your concern is is valid. And you all need to step
up to the plate and talk to your aides to coordinate time within the
office. I know that everybody has outside projects. We all do. But
we do need, you know, support staff within the office. So can you do
that? Can everybody do that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a comment on that? I
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's actually only two of you,
because Georgia's isn't here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mine is always in our home office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, the district office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Fred Coyle's will be gone
Thursday. So there's only two of you. And if you could work that out.
And while we're at it, we should also figure out who's going to
order our office supplies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's address one issue at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion on --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know you have several of them, but
let's address one at a time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all have aides, correct?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we do that? Can we allocate
some time within this office?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to comment that there is a
different solution. The different solution that I propose is I don't see
why when people come to visit and have a particular question,
particularly since the commissioners may be at meetings and maybe,
Page 132
March 25, 2014
you know, the aides are with them or at a satellite office -- all of us
commissioners have satellite offices except for Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I take mine with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's your choice. I mean, I
want my aide at the heart of my community because my constituents
would rather --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And understandably so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- go see her there than down here.
But Janet or whoever you have manning your desk, Leo, really
should be -- we don't need two receptionists. You know, if people
want to come to the Commission office, they should go to the County
Manager's Office who can direct them either to the Commission office
or some other staff offices. Because sometimes they'll come to our
office when in fact they really need to go to growth management or to
the legal office.
So as a central point, you know, having people come to the
reception in the County Manager's Office and farmed out from there
makes the most sense. And that way whether or not someone -- you
know, whichever aide is in our office, you know, they can go out
doing the business of the commissioner and let the public be directed.
Because if the commissioner isn't there, I mean, they're not going
to go out to that office anyway. And they should schedule an
appointment. And that way, you know, Janet can direct the public in
the right direction, to either contact our aide and make an appointment
to visit with the aide or us, or to visit with a member of the staff.
Which makes most sense.
Because we want to save money. I mean, there's not enough
traffic that goes directly into that commission office to justify a
full-time receptionist. That would be a complete waste of money.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: There's nobody to receive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no one to receive. That's
not how we do business.
Page 133
March 25, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let me throw a suggestion out.
My aide is here except for Thursday and Friday. So you all work it
out, have your aides come to this office. It is the office of the Board
of Commissioners. And if you do that, I'd appreciate it.
What's your next item, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was everything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I have some happy news. I
had the honor of attending the RSVP luncheon which is the luncheon
that we host for our senior volunteers and had the pleasure of listening
to the East Naples Band. And they send their love to you,
Commissioner Fiala. And they were really outstanding.
And last year when I attended the luncheon I brought the flash
mob -- and this year I promised Leo I wouldn't do anything, but I do
want to say they play beautifully and they should be recognized for a
very nice contribution for the benefit of all who attended.
And only to let you know, Commissioner Fiala and I are both
going to the Florida Association of Counties and we will also be
lobbying the legislature on our priorities when we're up there. So if
anybody would like to -- I know that the IFAS is something that we're
going to be working hard on. And if there's anything that anyone
would like to remind her and I of before we leave for the next two
days, to please let us know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have something for you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'll wait until you're all done.
Wait 'til my turn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And just that's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, can I say one more
thing? You brought up one good point, Commissioner Henning, and
that is the issue of whether we have things in the Land Development
Page 134
March 25, 2014
Code that shouldn't be in the Land Development Code because they
come up as, like you properly pointed out, a deviation in the PUD.
I think staff should carefully look at how often certain requests
keep coming up in PUDs that move us away from what the Land
Development Code is prescribing and then go back to the Land
Development Code as you're doing your review of the Land
Development Code to revisit those items and have them conform more
to what seems to be the request of the community with respect to these
design issues. And then we wouldn't have to be addressing them as
deviations over and over and over again. And maybe you are doing
that in the process of your review, but I thought you made a very good
point to that end and it should be looked at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I just have a couple of items
to report primarily on the IFAS Research and Education Center in
Immokalee. It's mixed news. I'll start out with the good news first.
The good news is that Dr. Calvin Arnold has been selected as the new
center director. This is a first full-time center director that we've had
in approximately a decade out there. Dr. Arnold is coming to us from
the U.S.D.A. station in Fort Pierce. Oddly enough Dr. Arnold was the
director at the IFAS station with the University of Florida and left that
station to open the U.S.D.A. station when it was new many years ago.
So he's returning. He's a wonderful selection to lead the
Research and Education Center forward for a number of reasons;
among them he's very well acquainted with everybody in the
University of Florida system, not only from years ago, but currently.
And secondly, one of the missions of the U.S.D.A. station in Fort
Pierce was citrus greening disease. So he is very well connected with
citrus greening research within the U.S.D.A. and he's going to bring
all that skill and negotiating power back to the center. And I'm certain
we will be able to work toward funding and staffing the center.
The bad news is initial impressions are, with the budget through
Page 135
March 25, 2014
the legislature, is that the center's requested $4.9 million did not make
the House's list, budget list. And it only made the Senate's list as a
placeholder for a very small amount.
So the industry of course, although it is early in the process, the
industry is responding. They're working on this. And I would
certainly request that Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala
reach out to our legislative delegation and to our lobbyists to work on
that to the extent they can.
It's disappointing but it's early in the process yet, and hopefully
maybe will be some resolution to that.
Other than that, Commissioner Henning, nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Tim? Mr. Durham?
MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're pretty close.
MR. DURHAM: Pretty close, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're doing good. I'm sure if-- the
longer you're here, the better you're going to get.
Commissioners, I received --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't work with Leo.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I received correspondence from the
chairman of the City Council requesting a workshop on the topic of
ambulance available to transport on Marco Island. We've already
dealt with that, so I think if you're willing to have a workshop with the
City of Marco, that should be taken off.
The other issue is Goodlette (sic) Road.
Another issue is Tigertail Beach signage and parking.
And the last issue is the city/county relationship.
So if you're willing to have a workshop with the City of Marco,
we have three topics. And I don't know if you want any other things
added.
Commissioner Coyle, are you okay with the workshop?
Page 136
March 25, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For those three items?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You mean Goodlette -- you
said Goodlette Road. It's Goodland.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Goodland. Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll have it here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll arrange -- yeah, we'll have it here.
I'll arrange that with -- coordinate that with the County Manager's
Office.
Commissioners, in your in-box today you received from the
Florida Counties, an alert. I'm really speaking to Commissioner Fiala
and Commissioner Hiller who is going up there. There's a bill which is
blocking local government from regulating, restricting or prohibiting
vacation rental properties in a way that accepts commercial -- well, in
communities and regulations of vacation rentals in places prior to the
passage of this legislation. It is -- there's both a House version and a
Senate version to block our way that we regulate them.
I can tell you that we regulate them right now is (sic) we have
short-term stays, vacation rentals registered with the tax collector so
that we can collect tourist tax. We want to have the County Attorney
probably take a look at that language.
But anyways, it goes right to our home rule.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll look into that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, the proposals of the
bill ought to look at -- really look at regulations they do in the State of
Florida, such as the Florida Building Code and try to improve that
Page 137
March 25, 2014
instead of, you know, taking our abilities to do home rule authority.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, I agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So when you're up there talking to
Representative Hudson on his bill, tell him he ought to focus on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's doing that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He ought to focus on what's
happening in his backyard instead of somebody else's backyard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe he could look into, you
know, take a look at standards for mobile homes for non-migrant
workers instead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do something socially redeeming,
right? I'll talk to him about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, please do.
Other than that, have a safe trip. And return safely, please, and
don't have too much fun.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wouldn't dream of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're up there representing us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll have a good time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are adjourned.
Page 138
March 25, 2014
**** Commissioner Nance moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hiller and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR NAPLES ELK LODGE 2010, PL20120002153, AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
BOND (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,079.15 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — THE UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTED BEYOND THE MASTER
METER AT 11250 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IS MAINTAINED BY
THE OWNER
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE QUARRY PHASE 3 & PHASE 3 REPLAT,
PL20120000731, 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 — A
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AT
9080 SIESTA BAY DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16A3
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND NO.
105870788 IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 THAT WAS POSTED
Page 139
March 25, 2014
AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK EAST EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION PL20130002180 — ASSOCIATED WITH
CLEARING AND SITE FILLING THAT WAS DONE IN
ADVANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION'S FINAL APPROVAL THAT
HAS BEEN INSPECTED, THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
PLAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THEREFORE A BOND IS NO
LONGER REQUIRED
Item #16A4
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND NO.
6177469 IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH VERONAWALK, EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.834,
APPLICATION REQUEST NO. AR-2963 — WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH THE SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED, DEVELOPER
COMMITMENTS FULFILLED AND COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET
Item #16A5
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND NO.
929563702 IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,000 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH RIVERSTONE PLAT 4 - LAKE 12, EXCAVATION
PERMIT NO. 59.912-1, APPLICATION REQUEST #20120002198
— WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECURITY HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS HAVE BEEN
FULFILLED SO A SECURITY IS NO LONGER REQUIRED
Item #16A6
Page 140
March 25, 2014
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HACIENDA LAKES OF
NAPLES (APPLICATION NO. PPL-PL20130001050) APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HACIENDA LAKES OF
NAPLES PHASE II, (APPLICATION NO. PPL-PL20130000589)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WINDING CYPRESS
PHASE ONE, (APPLICATION NO. PPL-PL20130001373)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A PERFORMANCE
SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,820 POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH SIERRA MEADOWS LOT 8 (PL20130001422) — WORK
HAS BEEN INSPECTED, DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS HAVE
Page 141
March 25, 2014
BEEN MET SO A SECURITY IS NO LONGER REQUIRED
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2014-54 : FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VERONAWALK PHASE 4D, (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20110000202) WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE
THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
PLAT DEDICATIONS AND RELEASE OF THE $57,774
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A11
A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT)
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CAMDEN LAKES
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (ASSOCIATION)
FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE INTERSECTION OF LEARNING LANE AND LIVINGSTON
ROAD — ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND
WILL INSURE THE DEVELOPER AND COMMUNITY
MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE ACCORDINGLY
Item #16Al2
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE ACCRUED AMOUNT OF $14,932.34
FOR PAYMENT OF $1,882.34, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. JOHN P. WAARA, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO.
Page 142
March 25, 2014
CEPM20130001261, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
223 KIRTLAND DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — THE
RESULT OF AN UNMAINTAINED POOL VIOLATION ON
PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE IN AUGUST 2013
BY THE COUNTY AND FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS RECORDED IN FAVOR OF
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Item #16A13
PARTIAL RELEASE OF A LIEN IN THE ACCRUED AMOUNT
OF $56,555.06 FOR PAYMENT OF $2,005.06, IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. TAYLOR BEAN & WHITAKER
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE
NO. CEPM20120012329, RELATING TO PROPERTY KNOWN
AS 8010 KILKENNY COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
BECAUSE THE LIEN ENCUMBERS ALL PROPERTY OWNED
BY TAYLOR BEAN & WHITAKER ACCRUED FINES
ACTUALLY INVOLVE POOL AND PROPERTY VIOLATIONS
AT 717 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE THAT HAVE BEEN ABATED
Item #16A14
THE PAYMENT OF $4,600 TO MARCO ISLAND CIVIC
ASSOCIATION TO REPAIR AND RESTORE THEIR PROPERTY
FOR DAMAGES THAT OCCURRED DURING THE SOUTH
MARCO BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL REBUILD PROJECT (#195-80211) AND THE
MAINTENANCE GRADING NORTH MARCO ISLAND BEACH
PROJECT (#195-90533) AND FINDING THE EXPENDITURE
PROMOTES TOURISM — FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY
Page 143
March 25, 2014
CONTRACTORS WHILE THEY USED THE ASSOCIATION'S
ACCESS ROAD WHICH USE WAS NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO TURTLE NESTING SEASON
Item #16A15 — Moved to Item #11F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A16
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS SELECTED FOR RFP #14-6190,
"GOLDEN GATE CITY STORMWATER DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 50129 ENGINEERING
DESIGN," AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
CONTRACTS WITH TOP RANKED FIRMS FOR SUBSEQUENT
BOARD APPROVAL — CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
W/AGNOLI BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, CH2M HILL AND RWA CONSULTING
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2014-55: AUTHORIZING FINAL APPROVAL &
ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
AND ASSOCIATED MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
TRACT "B" OF THE PLAT OF TREASURE POINT
Item #16A18
PURCHASE OF A 20-CUBIC YARD INTERNATIONAL DUMP
TRUCK MODEL 7500 WITH FUNDING FROM FUEL COST
SAVINGS IN FISCAL YEAR 2014 — USING A SHERIFF
ASSOCIATION'S CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE TRUCK
FROM NAVISTAR, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,657 TO
REPLACE A 2003 MODEL AND REDUCE REPAIR COSTS
Page 144
March 25, 2014
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2014-56: AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT
INCREASE FROM FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH)
TO FIFTY MILES PER HOUR (50 MPH) ON COLLIER
BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO US41
Item #16A20
RECOMMENDATION TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE
PUBLIC-PRIVATE AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE HOMES
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND THE PALM RIVER
HOMEOWNERS AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO SHARE
IMPROVEMENT COSTS TO ENHANCE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONCURRENTLY REHABILITATE
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON
PIPER BOULEVARD (PROJECT NUMBER 60184) — FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK AND PARK WITH
LANDSCAPE AND DECORATIVE FEATURES THAT WILL
REPLACE THE SUBSTANDARD SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO
THE EAST-BOUND LANE OF PIPER BOULEVARD
Item #16A21 — Continued to the April 8, 2014 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
(DCA) BETWEEN DR HORTON, INC. (DEVELOPER) AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE WATER MANAGEMENT
AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TREE FARM ROAD
Page 145
March 25, 2014
Item #16A22
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 11, 2014
BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
PRIORITIZING FIVE LIMEROCK ROADS FOR CONVERSION
IN FY 14 FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE LIMEROCK
ROAD CONVERSION PROGRAM (PROJECT #60128) — WITH
COSTS OF $282,600 FOR ROADS INCLUDING: 30TH AVENUE
SE, WEST OF EVERGLADES BLVD; 30TH AVENUE SE, EAST
OF EVERGLADES BLVD; 8TH AVENUE NE, EAST OF
DESOTO BLVD; 2ND STREET NW, SOUTH OF 25TH AVENUE
NW AND 58TH AVENUE NE, WEST OF DESOTO BOULEVARD
Item #16A23 — Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO LOT 4,
L'ERMITAGE AT GREY OAKS FOR THE ENCROACHMENT
OF A POOL DECK AND PLANTERS UPON COUNTY OWNED
MAINTENANCE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS UNDER
TERMS OF THE EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT — A 4.7 FOOT
ENCROACHMENT FOR PROPERTY AT 2606 L'ERMITAGE
LANE THAT ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUED
USE OF THE EASEMENT FOR A POOL DECK AND PLANTERS
AND WITH THE HOA RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE
Item #16A24 — Added and then Withdrawn (Per County Manager's
Office)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE DEVELOPER REMOVAL
OF UP TO 20,000 CUBIC YARDS OF UNANTICIPATED
EXCESS EXCAVATED MATERIAL FROM THE CANOPY
SUBDIVISION SITE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 22-1210(B)(2)
Page 146
March 25, 2014
OF THE CODES OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
Item #16B1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING IN
ITS CAPACITY AS COLLIER COUNTY'S COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVES AN
EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EXIT
STRATEGY DOCUMENT TO EXTEND THE DISSOLUTION
DATE OF THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CENTER (IBDC) FROM MARCH 31, 2014 TO JULY 31, 2014
SO THE IBDC CAN CARRY OUT PREVIOUS USDA GRANT
FUNDED OBLIGATIONS — DUE TO ISSUES WHILE
ATTAINING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR A GRANT-
FUNDED FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT MUST BE COMPLETED
WHILE THE IBDC IS OPERATING UNDER THE CRA AND A
SOLICITATION WILL NEED TO BE RE-RELEASED
Item #16B2
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTS THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AND IMMOKALEE CRA'S
2013 ANNUAL REPORTS, FORWARD REPORTS TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CLERK OF
COURTS AND PUBLISH PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE FILING —
A REPORT FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR THAT INCLUDES
A COMPLETE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, ASSETS,
LIABILITIES, INCOME & OPERATING EXPENSES MUST BE
FILED BY MARCH 31 EVERY YEAR PER FLORIDA STATUTE
Item #16C1
Page 147
March 25, 2014
SATISFACTION FOR A NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AN AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER
AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES (FISCAL IMPACT:
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN) — FOR
PROPERTY AT 170 PINE KEY LANE (FOLIO #81620520002)
Item #16C2
FIRMS RANKED UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #14-6221,
"CEI AND RELATED SERVICES - US41 FROM C.R. 951 TO
GREENWAY ROAD," AND DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
A CONTRACT WITH TOP RANKED FIRM ATKINS NORTH
AMERICA, INC. — CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR RELOCATION OF WATER AND
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG US41 FROM C.R.
951 TO GREENWAY ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE AN FDOT
ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
Item #16C3
AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO CLOSE OUT STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT NO. DW 1111 030
THROUGH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT 12 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER
700971 — ESTABLISHES A FINAL DISBURSABLE AMOUNT
OF $21,039,056
Item #16C4
Page 148
March 25, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO CLOSE OUT STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT NO. DW 1111 040
THROUGH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT 20-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER 708921 —
ESTABLISHES THE FINAL DISBURSABLE AMOUNT OF
$42,122,122 EXCLUDING CAPITALIZED INTEREST
Item #16D1
EXECUTING A 2012/2013 FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT
AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,186,055 AND APPROPRIATE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AT THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT FACILITY AT 8300 RADIO ROAD PRIOR TO
EXECUTING THE AWARD — USING STATE TOLL REVENUE
CREDITS FOR A REQUIRED $296,514 SOFT MATCH
Item #1 6D2
EXECUTING A FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
49 U.S.C. § 5339 FEDERAL FY13 GRANT AWARD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $353,562 AND AUTHORIZING NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AT THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT FACILITY AT 8300 RADIO ROAD PRIOR TO
EXECUTING THE GRANT AWARD — USING STATE TOLL
REVENUE CREDITS FOR A REQUIRED $88,391 SOFT MATCH
Item #16D3
Page 149
March 25, 2014
RESOLUTION 2014-57: ADOPTING THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT TITLE VI PROGRAM — TO ASSURE TRANSIT
SERVICES ARE EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED AND MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE FTA BY APRIL 2014 FOR CONTINUED
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Item #16D4
PROPOSED ROUTE MODIFICATIONS WITHIN THE FIXED
ROUTE TRANSIT SYSTEM — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5
A MORTGAGE SATISFACTION FOR A STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,000 — FOR PROPERTY AT 13585 KOINONIA DRIVE,
NAPLES
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $220,627 IN STATE
AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING
EXPENDITURES ON LIBRARY MATERIAL, SERVICES, AND
EQUIPMENT — FUNDS WILL BE USED TO PURCHASE
MATERIALS, SERVICES AND TO HIRE TEMPORARY
PERSONNEL FOR ASSISTING LIBRARY PATRONS
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2014-58: AUTHORIZING A GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,500 TO FLORIDA
Page 150
March 25, 2014
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO ANN OLESKY PARK WITH AN IN-KIND
FINANCIAL MATCH OF $7,500 — TO FUND ENGINEERING,
PERMITTING AND DESIGN OF A BOAT RAMP AND SEA
WALL IMPROVEMENTS AT ANN OLESKY PARK IN
IMMOKALEE
Item #16D8
AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THE
COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
FUNDING FOR FY13/14 — NEEDED TO SHIFT FUNDS
BETWEEN ALLOCATED GRANT CATEGORIES AND TO
ALLOW FOR CASE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES TO BE
BASED ON CURRENT AND PROJECTED NEEDS
Item #16D9
INVITATION TO BID #14-6199, OLDER AMERICANS ACT
TITLE IIIE FACILITY RESPITE AND ADULT DAYCARE, WITH
ARDEN COURTS-LELY PALMS OF NAPLES FLORIDA, LLC —
THE ONLY BID RESPONSE RECEIVED WITH ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COSTS OF $50,000 PAYABLE THROUGH GRANT
AGREEMENT OAA 203.14 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
INC, D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Item #16E1
Page 151
March 25, 2014
AGREEMENT #11-5689 AMENDMENT NO. 1, "BROKERAGE
AND INSURANCE COVERAGE" TO REFLECT FEMA
DIRECTIVES ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS FOR FLOOD
INSURANCE — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E2
DONATION OF FOUR AND ONE HALF (4.5) ACRES OF LAND
BY AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. (F/K/A GAC PROPERTIES,
INC.) TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO
USE AS A GUN RANGE, PURSUANT TO A 1983 AGREEMENT
WITH COLLIER COUNTY FOR GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES — OFF OF OIL WELL ROAD
AND 70TH AVENUE NE THAT'S BEEN USED BY THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC (ON SCHEDULED
DAYS) SINCE 1990 PURSUANT TO TERMS OF AN
AGREEMENT THAT DEDICATED 1,061 .5 ACRES IN GOLDEN
ESTATES TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16E3
INVITATION TO BID #13-6133 FOR COURT REPORTING
SERVICES WITH GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
INC. AND DIGITAL DEPO SERVICES, INC. — ESTIMATED AT
$44,000 ANNUALLY TO TRANSCRIBE VERBATIM MINUTES
FOR BCC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS
INCLUDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH WORK
AWARDED BASED ON AVAILABILITY, LOCATION AND
VENDOR EXPERTISE
Item #16E4
Page 152
March 25, 2014
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT #11-5754
"TOURISM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FULFILLMENT
SERVICES" FROM PHASE V SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. TO
ANSWER PRO, LLC — TO CARRY OUT THE REMAINDER OF
AN ALREADY EXTENDED CONTRACT DUE TO EXPIRE
DECEMBER 12, 2014
Item #16E5
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE "GAC TRUST FUND" AND
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSE THE
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF EXERCISE EQUIPMENT FOR THE
LOUISE HASSE COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $62,000 — TO REPLACE WORN EQUIPMENT,
PURCHASE OF A STAGE, WINDOW COVERINGS AND
UPGRADING THE SOUND SYSTEM AT THE RECENTLY
COMPLETED MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM AND NEW FITNESS
CENTER AT THE FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN MAX HASSE
COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16E6
A PROCESS TO HIRE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES NOT
IDENTIFIED IN THE AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID (ITB)
#14-6214 FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL SERVICES TO
PREMIER STAFFING SOURCE, INC., JURISTAFF, INC. AND
BALANCE PROFESSIONAL, INC. — IDENTIFYING A PROCESS
TO ADD PERSONNEL AND NEGOTIATED ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES FOR SHORT TERM EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS
THAT MAY INVOLVE WORK NOT SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED IN CONTRACTS APPROVED FEBRUARY 25, 2014
Page 153
March 25, 2014
Item #16E7
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR AN ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT — ALLOWING BIG CORKSCREW DISTRICT
FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDICS AND EMT'S TO WORK WITH
COUNTY EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TRAINED IN ALS TO
PROVIDE FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO
RESIDENTS OF THE BIG CORKSCREW DISTRICT WITH FY14
COSTS OF $132,200 TO ADD PERSONNEL AND WITH
FUTURE RECURRING COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $265,000
PLUS BUDGETED SALARY AND/OR BENEFIT INCREASES
Item #16E8
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #14-6231, PURCHASE OF A
MASS CASUALTY AMBULANCE BUS TO SARTIN SERVICES,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $479,982 — A MULTI-TRANSPORT
MEDICAL VEHICLE FOR TRANSPORTATION WITH FIELD
TREATMENT CAPABILITIES TO SUPPORT RESPONDERS
DURING A DISASTER AND/OR AN EMERGENCY EVENT
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2014-59: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FY13/14 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
A REVISED AGREEMENT WITH AVIAREPS AIRLINE
Page 154
March 25, 2014
MANAGEMENT INC., FOR TOURISM REPRESENTATION
SERVICES IN BRAZIL AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN A COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED CONTRACT AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM — MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH
AVIAREPS APPROVED BY THE BOARD DECEMBER 10, 2013
(ITEM #11A) FOR A 3-YEAR PERIOD AND RENEWABLE FOR
ONE ADDITIONAL 3-YEAR PERIOD
Item #16G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS CAPACITY AS
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZES
STAFF TO ACCEPT A PAYMENT PLAN PROPOSED DURING
DISCUSSIONS WITH GULF COAST DESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.
— AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED GULF COAST DESIGN WAS
$22,864.60 (11 MONTHS) BEHIND ON ITS LEASE AT THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT; IF THE PLAN IS APPROVED THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL PREPARE A FORMAL
AGREEMENT FOR EXECUTION THAT WOULD WAIVE
$3,003.43 IN INTEREST IF BACK RENT IS PAID BY THE END
OF 2014
Item #16G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS CAPACITY AS
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZES
STAFF TO ACCEPT A PAYMENT PLAN PROPOSED DURING
DISCUSSIONS WITH SALAZAR MACHINE & STEEL, INC. —
AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED THE TENANT OWED $51,149.00
IN BACK RENT ON TWO LEASES AT IMMOKALEE AIRPORT
(WHICH THE TENANT HAS SINCE PAID); IF THE PLAN IS
Page 155
March 25, 2014
APPROVED AND IF THE REMAINING $6,810.21 IN LATE FEES
ARE PAID IN FULL BY MARCH 31, 2014 INTEREST CHARGES
OF $8,633.28 WILL BE WAIVED
Item #16G3
A COMMERCIAL AVIATION OPERATIONS LICENSE
AGREEMENT (LICENSEE) WITH VAN WAGNER AERIAL
MEDIA FOR BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — THE AGREEMENT
WILL CONTINUE ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS UNTIL
WRITTEN NOTICE TO TERMINATE IS GIVEN; THE LICENSEE
WILL PAY THE ANNUAL $200 COMMERCIAL OPERATING
FEE AND HAS PROVIDED PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
Item #16G4
RESOLUTION 2014-60: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUPPLEMENTAL JPA NUMBER ONE TO CONTRACT #AR519
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDS OF $688,436 FOR RUNWAY
9-27 REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION AT IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT (PROJECT NO. 33300) AND AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G5
RESOLUTION 2014-61 : AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUPPLEMENTAL JPA NUMBER ONE TO CONTRACT #AQR22
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDS OF $44,623 FOR DESIGN,
PERMITTING AND BIDDING OF RUNWAY 9-27 REHAB AT
Page 156
March 25, 2014
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT (PROJECT NO. 33227)
AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G6
RESOLUTION 2014-62: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUPPLEMENTAL JPA NUMBER ONE TO CONTRACT #AR513
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDS OF $135,134 FOR RUNWAY
17-35 AND ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT REHAB AT THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT (PROJECT NO. 33301) AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G7
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY APPROVES A SITE LICENSE
AGREEMENT WITH IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE FOR VEHICLE PARKING AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR THE MARCH 29, 2014 HARVEST
FESTIVAL — TO ALLOW THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE USE OF A NON-AVIATION PORTION OF THE
AIRPORT FOR A $360.00 USAGE FEE
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2014-63: REAPPOINTING WILLIAM H. POTEET
JR. (AG/BUSINESS/CONSERVATION/REAL ESTATE
CATEGORY) TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A TERM EXIRING
FEBRUARY 11, 2017 — ADOPTED
Page 157
March 25, 2014
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2014-64: REAPPOINTING WILLIAM ARTHUR
TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD TO A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2016 —
ADOPTED
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE ANNUAL HONOR THE
FREE PRESS LUNCHEON APRIL 9, 2014. A SUM OF $30 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
HELD AT THE HILTON-NAPLES, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 6, 2014
THROUGH MARCH 12, 2014 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 13, 2014
THROUGH MARCH 19, 2014 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
TAX DEED APPLICATION FOR THIRTY-SEVEN (37)
COUNTY-HELD TAX CERTIFICATES AND FORWARDING A
Page 158
March 25, 2014
WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TAX COLLECTOR TO PROCEED
WITH TAX DEED APPLICATIONS — FOR 2009 THRU 2011
ELIGIBLE TAX CERTIFICATES ON PROPERTY WITH
ASSESSED VALUES RANGING FROM $350.00 TO $46,350.00
AND FISCAL COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $23,853.16 FOR
THE TAX DEED APPLICATION PROCESS
Item #16K2
A PURCHASE ORDER INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 TO COVER ATTORNEY FEES ANTICIPATED IN
SUPPORT OF EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION FOR THE
US41/COLLIER BLVD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL IMPACT: $25,000) — THE
COUNTY HAS RETAINED THE LAW FIRM OF SMOLKER
BARTLETT TO ASSIST IN PENDING LITIGATION
REGARDING FULL COMPENSATION AND BUSINESS
DAMAGES FOR THE TAKING OF PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Item #16K3
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #12-5890-NS "ADERANT
NORTH AMERICA, INC., END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT"
FOR SOFTWARE UTILIZED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AMENDMENT — TO UPGRADE SOFTWARE CURRENTLY
USED WITH APPROXIMATE COSTS OF $10,550
Item #16K4
A $5,000 EXPENDITURE FOR MEDIATION SERVICES WITH
Page 159
March 25, 2014
JIM HELINGER, JR. (PROJECT NUMBER 51101), AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN MR.
HELINGER FOR FUTURE MEDIATION UNDER WRITTEN
TERMS — TO COMPENSATE MR. HELINGER WHO WAS
RETAINED TO SETTLE PENDING EMINENT DOMAIN
LITIGATION RELATED TO THE LELY AREA STORMWATER
PROJECT AND ALSO APPROVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE USE OF MR. HELINGER IN FUTURE MEDIATION
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2014-13: AMENDING RESOLUTION R-73-22-C
THAT ESTABLISHED THE NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 74-47, 75-48, 81-61 AND 10-05, TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
WITHIN TRACT B, RECREATIONAL CLUB DEVELOPMENT
AND ALLOW SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOLS AND
CAMPS AS A PRINCIPAL USE AND PRIVATE SCHOOL
ACCESSORY TO A SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL AS
AN ACCESSORY USE WITHIN TRACT B, RECREATIONAL
CLUB DEVELOPMENT; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPTION OF EXHIBIT
E-1, LOCATION MAP FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN
TRACT B. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON
AIRPORT ROAD, SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION
14, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE_
DATE [PUDA-PL20130000175]
Item #17B — Continued to the April 8, 2014 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 160
March 25, 2014
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 08-13
THAT ESTABLISHED THE BRANDON RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO RETAIN A DENSITY
OF 204 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; REVISE THE MASTER PLAN
TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF AN ENTRANCE ROAD
ON VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, RECONFIGURE
ON-SITE PRESERVE AREAS AND RECONFIGURE THE
DEVELOPMENT AREA; TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; TO ADD DEVIATIONS; AND TO MODIFY
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT FOR PROPERTY
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND
VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 51+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE [PUDA-PL20130001056]
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2014-65: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY 2013-14 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
Page 161
March 25, 2014
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:47p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
/
TO HENNING, CH) RMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT, E.'. ROCK, CLERK
ss
Attest*to C1 "s •
signature onjy 0, '`y
These minutes yoved by the Board on 1 22, 201(- , as
presented or as corrected .
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 162