BCC Minutes 05/12/2015 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
May 12 , 2015
May 12, 2015
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 12, 2015
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special
districts as have been created according to law and having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Tim Nance
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Katie Albers, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
1.-I% //
/,
. It •
r 0.�
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
May 12, 2015
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 — BCC Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Vice-Chair; CRA Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 - Community & Economic Dev. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — TDC Chair; CRA Vice-Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER 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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR
FUTURE AGENDA TO BE HEARD NO SOONER THAN 1:00 P.M., OR AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE AGENDA; WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
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
Page 1
May 12, 2015
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.
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.
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 DIVISION 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 DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Edward Gleason - Trinity By The Cove Episcopal 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 agenda.)
B. April 14, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Page 2
May 12, 2015
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 18-24 as Water Reuse Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Dr. George Yilmaz, Public Utilities Department
Head; Lisa Koehler, Big Cypress Basin Administrator; Lizabeth Johnssen,
Wastewater Division Director; and Joseph Bellone, Public Utilities
Operations Support Director.
B. Proclamation designating May 17-23 as Emergency Medical Services Week
in Collier County, in recognition of the dedication of all emergency medical
professionals serving in a variety of roles. To be accepted by Walter Kopka,
Chief, Collier County EMS.
C. Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Procurement Services Division
for receiving the Outstanding Agency Accreditation Achievement Award by
the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. To be accepted by
Joanne Markiewicz, Division Director, Collier County Procurement Services
and staff.
D. Proclamation designating May 11-17 as Salvation Army Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Major Francina Proctor, Associate Regional
Coordinator, Salvation Army of Collier County and Alisa Marie Coccari,
Communications, Salvation Army of Collier County.
E. Proclamation designating May 2015 as National Drug Court Awareness
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by The Honorable Janeice Martin,
Presiding Judge; Ashley Swan, Case Manager; members of the Drug Court
team and many participants.
F. Proclamation designating May 2015 as Motor Cycle Safety Month and to
promote motorcycle awareness and safety in Collier County. To be accepted
by representatives of American Bikers Aimed Toward Education - ABATE
of Florida Inc. — Gator Alley Chapter: Lynn Corr, Legislative Trustee;
Laurajo Smith, Communications; and William "Riffraff' Breen, Safety
Director.
G. Proclamation designating May 17-23 as International Association of
Insurance Professionals Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Belinda
Zivich, President of Insurance Professionals of Collier County.
Page 3
May 12, 2015
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for May 2015 to
NCH Healthcare Systems. To be accepted by Dr. Allen Weiss, President and
CEO; Dr. Frank Astor, Chief Medical Officer; Renee Thigpen, Associate
Chief Human Resources Officer; Michelle Zech, Director of Human
Resources; Vicki Thompson, HR Business Partner II; Donna Wisniewski,
HR Business Partner; and Kristi Bartlett, Vice President, Business
Development, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
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
Items #8 and#9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to deny single,
2014 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition
PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 specific to the San Marino Planned Unit
Development. (Adoption Hearing) (Companion to rezone Petition PUDA-
PL20140000100, San Marino Planned Unit Development)
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9A. 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 amending Ordinance
Number 2000-10, the San Marino Planned Unit Development, by increasing
the maximum dwelling units from 352 to 650; by removing the Golf Course
Uses; by establishing two Development Parcels as Parcel A and Parcel B; by
adding Permitted Uses for Parcel B; by adding Development Standards for
Parcel B; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by revising
Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the east side of CR 951
approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard in Section 11, Township
Page 4
May 12,2015
50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida consisting of 235± acres;
and by providing an effective date. (Petition PUDA-PL20140000100)
[Companion to CP-2014-2/PL20140000113]
C. This item had been continued from the April 28, 2015 BCC Meeting,
and is further continued to the May 26, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to deny a single, 2013 Cycle 3 Growth Management Plan
Amendment specific to the Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict petition.
(Adoption Hearing) (Companion to Rezone Petition PUDZ-
PL20130001726, Vincentian Village Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development)
D. This item had been continued from the April 28, 2015 BCC Meeting,
and is further continued to the May 26, 2015 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 approve An Ordinance of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance
Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which established comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described
real property from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project
to be known as the Vincentian Village MPUD, to allow construction of a
maximum of 224 multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 250,000 gross
square feet of commercial land uses, and a hotel limited to 150 rooms and an
assisted living facility (ALF) at 0.6 FAR. The commercial uses are subject to
conversions and limitations if the project is developed as mixed use or if a
hotel or ALF is constructed. The subject property is located at the southeast
corner of Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 in Section 32, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 30.68+/- acres;
providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 99-37, the Vincentian PUD;
and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20130001726. This is a
companion to the Growth Management Plan Amendment establishing the
Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, PL20130001767/CP-2013-10]
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to consider setting a time certain in Board of County
Page 5
May 12, 2015
Commissioner Meetings of 1:00 pm for public comment for items not on the
agenda and, in addition, when a Board of County Commission Meeting ends
before 1:00 pm, it will reconvene at 1:00 pm for the purpose of hearing
public comments. (Commissioner Taylor)
B. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise for future
consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2005-54 with direction
to include revision to Section Nineteen to meet updated market standards for
landscape recycling. (Commissioner Henning)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
accept staff and the MSTU Advisory Board's response to Mr. Bob
Messmer's public comments at the April 28, 2015 BCC Meeting.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Torino and Miramonte at Grey Oaks AR-11363 and to
Page 6
May 12, 2015
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Hacienda Lakes, PL20130002446 and authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance
Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of
$27,881.46 to the Project Engineer or Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to accept a Resolution Amending Exhibit "A"
to Resolution No. 2013-239, the list of speed limits on County
maintained roads, to establish a speed limit of forty (40) mph for
Hacienda Boulevard (f/k/a Benfield Road), approximately 1-mile east
of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to
a point approximately 1.5 miles north.
4) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and
authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with the number one
ranked firm, High Spans Engineering, Inc., for RFP #15-6372,
"Verification Testing for Golden Gate Blvd. Design Build", Project
#60040.
5) Recommendation to approve payment for a Joint Coastal Permit in the
amount of$22,970 for the 15-year FDEP permit under DEP File No.
0311817-001-JC for beach renourishment, authorize all necessary
budget amendments, and make a finding that this item promotes
tourism. (Project No. 80165)
6) Recommendation to approve a waiver, in accordance with the
guidelines set forth in the Advance Street Name Sign Guidelines
policy and Resolution Number 2012-114, for the placement of
advance street name guide signs along Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
upon approaches Naples Lake Boulevard.
7) Recommendation to approve the ranked list of design professionals for
Request for Proposal (RFP) #15-6382, "Grant Funded Professional
Services for Coastal Zone Management," authorize staff to negotiate
contracts with the top ranked firms for subsequent Board approval and
make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
Page 7
May 12,2015
8) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment totaling $176,000
within the Stormwater Capital Fund 325, moving $161,000 from
Project Number 60094, Secondary System Repair and $15,000 from
Project Number 51144, Stormwater Feasibility and Preliminary
Design, to fund Project Number 60140, the Kirkwood Alley
Stormwater Management Project.
9) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$8,643.89 for payment of$593.89, in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Cindy Yablonowski, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CEVR20130009048, relating to property located at 6508 Trail Blvd.,
Collier County, Florida.
10) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$49,500 for payment of$6,000, in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Jon R.
and Denise T.C. Brimmer, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
2007090878, relating to property located at 561 7th St. NW, Collier
County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$30,862.29 for payment of$562.29, in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Christopher S. Cleary Est., Code Enforcement Special Magistrate
Case No. CEPM20130009214, relating to property located at 4951
18th Ct. SW, Collier County, Florida.
12) Recommendation to approve two releases of code enforcement liens
with a combined accrued value of$385,362.30, for payment of
$612.30, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Valorie K. Lojewski and Carol E. Nelson, Code
Enforcement Board Case Nos. CESD20080014926 and
CESD20080015799, relating to property located at 330 Wilson Blvd.
S., Collier County, Florida.
13) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$106,731.43, for payment of$1,597.93, in
the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners
v. Thu-Nhut Nguyen, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
Page 8
May 12,2015
CEPM20120001592, relating to property located at 480 8th St. NE,
Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution appointing membership to the
Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program Technical Advisory
Ad Hoc Committee for 12 months.
15) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 964119218 in the amount of$302,000, which
was posted as a development guaranty for work associated with
Parklands - Plat One, Early Work Authorization (EWA)
PL20140001253.
16) Recommendation to approve a Partnership Agreement (PA) with the
Rotary Club of Marco Island, Florida Sunrise and Collier County; and
authorize Collier County to purchase two Multi-use Bus Stop Shelters
for the Copeland area located at Panther Park and Lake Gloria.
17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
Letter of Intent to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for
Collier County to serve as a non-Federal sponsor for a shoreline
protection feasibility study within Collier County.
18) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for attorney's fees
awarded by the Court for supplemental proceedings in the case of
Collier County v. Andy Morgan, Case No. 07-4400-CA. (Santa
Barbara Extension Project No. 60091) (Fiscal Impact: $58,829)
19) Recommendation to approve a Temporary Use Agreement to permit
the temporary use of a portion of a right-of-way previously acquired
for the expansion of County Barn Road from two lanes to four lanes.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a $365,690.30 work order with Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-20 for
Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Bluebill Avenue
Forcemain Replacement, Project Number 70044.
Page 9
May 12,2015
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a transportation coordination agreement
with Good Wheels, Inc.
2) Recommendation to approve substantial amendments to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant from FY2005-2006 through FY2014-2015
Annual Action Plans; amend a subrecipient agreement with Habitat
for Humanity - Legacy Lakes; approve a subrecipient agreement with
Naples Equestrian Challenge and increase or allocate project delivery
for the following: Habitat for Humanity - Legacy Lakes, Boys & Girls
Club of Collier County, Naples Equestrian Challenge and Direct
Homeownership Assistance.
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to the Home Care
for the Elderly agreement between Collier County and the Area
Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. by transferring funds
between budget lines for FY 14-15.
4) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact Amendment and
Attestation Statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. for the Community Care for the Elderly program and
budget amendment to ensure continuous funding for FY 2014/2015.
5) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal No. 14-6274, Parks
and Recreation Activity Management Software Solution to the Active
Network, LLC, authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, and
authorize the necessary budget amendment.
6) Recommendation to approve a 20% discount on Collier County Parks
and Recreation swimming lesson programs to all Collier County
children (age 5 and under) and to authorize Parks and Recreation to
promote the discount within the NCH Safe and Healthy Children's
Coalition "Water Smart Prescription Booklet".
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Naples United Church of Christ in
Page 10
May 12,2015
•
support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and
manmade hazards emergency response.
2) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation claim files settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Division Director pursuant to Resolution 2004-15
for the second quarter of FY15.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chief of Emergency Medical
Services to sign a Lee Memorial Health System Computer Access
Request form(s) and Physician/Office Staff Security Agreement(s) to
obtain medical records from Lee Memorial Hospital System.
4) Recommendation to approve the price list attachment dated June 12,
2013 from Con-Air Industries and authorize payment of$2,455.92 in
outstanding invoices from 2013 and 2014.
5) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
6) Recommendation that the Board affirms and confirms its prior
authorization to purchase original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
parts from local Ford dealerships until a new solicitation can be
finalized, whether or not the expenditures exceed $50,000, and direct
Finance to promptly pay all outstanding and future invoices that are
otherwise appropriate.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95-632,
that the Board of County Commissioners acknowledges the selection
of outside counsel and approves payment of counsel identified in the
back-up materials to this item to represent Leo Ochs and Joanne
Markiewicz in the case styled Dwight E. Brock v. Leo E. Ochs, Jr., as
Manager/Administrator of Collier County and Joanne Markiewicz, as
Purchasing and General Services Division Director, Case No. 11-
Page 11
May 12, 2015
2015-CA-000595-0001-XX, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial District in and for Collier County, Florida, and in addition to
waive the Purchasing Policy to the extent it applies to the selection of
outside counsel and/or otherwise exempt the selection of outside
counsel from competition pursuant to Purchasing Ordinance Section
Eleven, Procurement of Professional Services.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Code Enforcement
Board, and upon such appointment, accept his resignation from the
Contractor's Licensing Board.
2) Recommendation to reappoint three members to the Contractors
Licensing Board.
3) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Historical
Archaeological Preservation Board.
4) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Tourist
Development Council.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose
and approval of disbursements for the period April 23 through
April 29, 2015.
2) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose
and approval of disbursements for the period April 30 through
May 6, 2015.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 12
May 12,2015
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which includes comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) zoning district to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known
as the Avalon of Naples RPUD to allow a maximum of 160 multi-family
residential dwelling units, or 82 single-family residential dwelling units. The
subject property, consisting of 22.83± acres, is located on the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn
Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140001179]
B. This item was continued from the April 14, 2015 BCC Meeting, then
again from the April 28, 2015 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 approve Petition VAC-PL20140000235, to vacate
the 2.35-foot wide conservation easement as recorded in Official Record
Book 4251, Page 1007 through 1018, public records of Collier County,
Florida, being a part of Tract M-1, Stella Maris, and approve an Amendment
to the Settlement Agreement and General Release, dated June 26, 2007, as
recorded in Official Record Book 4251, Pages 1019 through 1024.
Page 13
May 12,2015
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2014-15 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 14
May 12, 2015
May 12, 2015
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, to
the Board of County Commission meeting of May 12th, 2015.
At this time I would ask each of you to assist us have an orderly
meeting by silencing any devices that you might have.
Please rise while we receive the invocation to be given today by
Reverend Edward Gleason of the Trinity By the Cove Episcopal
Church, and remain standing as we have the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — INVOCATION
GIVEN BY REVEREND EDWARD GLEASON FROM TRINITY
BY THE COVE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
REVEREND GLEASON: Almighty God, teach our people to
rely on your strength and to accept their responsibilities to their fellow
citizens, that they may elect trustworthy leaders and make wise
decisions for the well-being of our society, as we may serve you with
faithfulness in our generation and honor your holy name.
And we pray you, send down upon those who hold office in this
county the spirit of wisdom, charity and justice, that with steadfast
purpose they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the
well-being of all people. We offer these petitions and desires through
your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please join me in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Mr. Ochs, would you introduce our agenda changes for today,
please, sir.
Page 2
May 12, 2015
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners meeting of March 12th, 2015.
The first proposed change is to add Item 11.A to the agenda. This
is a request for an emergency bridge repair pursuant to a Florida
Department of Transportation inspection. That item is added at the
staffs request and the Board has received that executive summary and
backup information prior to the meeting today.
The next proposed change is to move Item 17.A to become Item
9.E on your advertised public hearing agenda. That is a request --
excuse me, a rezoning of an Estates zoning district into a planned
residential planned unit development to be known as Avalon of
Naples, RPUD. That item is moved at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 17.B from your
summary agenda to become Item 9.F on your advertised public hearing
agenda. That is a recommendation to vacate a conservation easement
and approve an amendment to a previous settlement agreement. That
item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
We have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners, and that
relates to Item 16.E.6 and that is to advise the Board that the new
contract for the fleets part is scheduled for board action at your next
meeting on May 26th.
We have a couple of time certain items this morning,
Page 3
May 12, 2015
Commissioners. Item 9.A is scheduled to be heard at 9:30 a.m., and to
be immediately followed by its companion Item 9.B. And then finally
9.E will be heard immediately following 9.B.
And those are all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
At this time we'll do ex parte disclosure and any additional
changes by Commissioners.
We'll take up the ex parte on the summary and public hearings as
we encounter those in our agenda.
Would you like to start, Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, thank you. Yesterday Mr.
Ochs, I requested backup information for 16.E.6. I didn't get any.
Which is the parts, local parts from the Ford dealership. All I've got is
the expenditures exceeding in the executive summary. So I think I'd
like to pull that for discussion, please.
MR. OCHS: That will become Item 11 .B, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And any ex parte I'll declare at
the time of the agenda item on the land development issues. And that
would be it for me this morning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you so much. And good
morning, everyone. Thank you for being here today.
Today on the summary agenda -- well, on the consent agenda I
have nothing. On the summary agenda, 17.A, we'll be discussing that
now in regular meeting, won't we? So I can declare it then.
And 17.B would be the same thing, because that's been pulled.
Looks like I have nothing to talk about today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
I have no further changes to the agenda, and I have no ex parte
disclosure for today's regular or consent agenda.
Page 4
May 12, 2015
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good morning.
No changes, no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
The -- I have no ex parte communication on today's consent or
summary. I do want to move 16.F.2 to the regular agenda.
MR. OCHS: That would be Item 11.C, if it's moved by the
Board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Hearing no other comments, is
there a motion to approve today's regular consent and summary
agendas as amended?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller and a second by Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Fiala
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 5
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, that passes unanimously.
Page 6
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 12,2015
Add On Item 11A: Recommendation that the Board declares a public emergency with respect to bridge
repairs needed for bridge number 030137 on CR-846 indentified by the recent Florida Department of
Transportation(FDOT)inspection,approve installation of vehicle restriction signs,waives the Purchasing
Ordinance in the best interest of the County and authorize staff to proceed with a design-build temporary
bridge repair with a vendor that can complete the work on the most expedited schedule. (Staff's request)
Move Item 17A to Item 9E: 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.A
recommendation to consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41,as amended,the Collier
County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates(E)zoning district to
a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district to be known as the Avalon of Naples RPUD
to allow a maximum of 160 multi-family residential dwelling units,or 82 single-family residential dwelling
units.The subject property,consisting of 22.83±acres,is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of Davis Boulevard(SR 84)and County Barn Road in Section 8,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier
County,Florida,and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20140001179[. (Commissioner Henning's
request)
Move Item 17B to Item 9F: This item has been continued from the April 14,2015 BCC meeting, then
again from the April 28.2015 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 approve Petition VAC-PL20140000235,to vacate the 2.35-foot wide
conservation easement as recorded in Official Record Book 4251,Pages 1007 through 1018,of the
public records of Collier County,Florida,being a part of Tract M-1,Stella Maris,and approve an
Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and General Release,dated June 26,2007,as recorded in
Official Record Book 4251,Pages 1019 through 1024. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 16E6: Please note that the new contract for Fleet parts is scheduled for Board action on the May
26,2015 BCC agenda.
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A to be heard at 9:30 a.m.,immediately followed by Companion Item 9B
Item 9E to be heard immediately following Item 9B
5/12/2015 8:25 AM
May 12, 2015
Item #2B
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 14, 2015 —
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a motion to approve the meeting
minutes from the April 14th, BCC regular meeting?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18 - 24 AS WATER
REUSE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY DR.
Page 7
May 12, 2015
GEORGE YILMAZ, PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HEAD;
LISA KOEHLER, BIG CYPRESS BASIN ADMINISTRATOR;
LIZABETH JOHNSSEN, WASTEWATER DIVISION DIRECTOR;
AND JOSEPH BELLONE, PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS
SUPPORT DIRECTOR — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. All right, Mr. Ochs, I believe
that takes us to today's good news proclamations.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Item 4.A is a proclamation
designating May 18th through the 24th as Water Reuse Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Dr. George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Department Head; Lisa Koehler, Big Cypress Basin Administrator;
Lizabeth Johnson, Wastewater Division Director; and Joe Bellone,
Public Utilities Operator Support Director.
Please step forward.
(Applause.)
MS. KOEHLER: Can I just say one thing?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're waiting, ma'am.
MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. Thank you on behalf of the Water
Management District and the Big Cypress Basin Board for today's
proclamation.
As Commissioner Henning had asked, rainy season has started,
we think. We are expecting lots of rain this week. And so I want to
thank you very much for your leadership and dedication to the
investment in reuse water. We have been -- it has been our pleasure to
partner with you over the years. We enjoy working with Dr. George
and his staff on their plans for the future and continue looking forward
to that relationship in the future. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think everybody can realize from the
constant bad news from the American West how important water is.
Page 8
May 12, 2015
And we should -- just because we are in a situation in Florida where
we have an abundant water supply, at least during part of the year, we
have to be very, very diligent on this and we should strive to conserve
all the water we possibly can.
We're now to 19 million people in the State of Florida, growing
from when I was a little boy there was a little over a million. So we
need that water.
And thank you to Dr. George and the district for keeping it out in
front of us and doing everything we can to manage our water in the
best possible way. Thank you so much.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 17 - 23 AS
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY, IN RECOGNITION OF THE DEDICATION OF ALL
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS SERVING IN A
VARIETY OF ROLES. ACCEPTED BY WALTER KOPKA,
CHIEF, COLLIER COUNTY EMS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating May 17th
through the 23rd as Emergency Medical Services Week in Collier
County, in recognition of the dedication of all emergency medical
professionals serving in a variety of roles. Proclamation to be accepted
by Walter Kopka, Chief, Collier County EMS.
Walter?
(Applause.)
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Walter Kopka, Chief of Emergency
Medical Services.
I'm honored and privileged to receive this proclamation on behalf
Page 9
May 12, 2015
of the nearly 200 emergency medical technician and paramedics who
responded to over 41,000 9-1-1 calls last year. Behind them we also
have a fantastic support and training group that give them the tools
they need to provide the lifesaving skills they do every day. And
mostly I want to thank you, Commissioners, for your support of the
EMS Department. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR RECEIVING THE
OUTSTANDING AGENCY ACCREDITATION ACHIEVEMENT
AWARD BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
GOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING. ACCEPTED BY JOANNE
MARKIEWICZ, DIVISION DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY
PROCUREMENT SERVICES AND STAFF — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation recognizing the Collier
County Procurement Services Division for receiving the Outstanding
Agency Accreditation Achievement Award by the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing. To be accepted by Joanne Markiewicz,
Division Director, Collier County Procurement Services, and the staff.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 11 - 17 AS
SALVATION ARMY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY MAJOR FRANCINA PROCTOR, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL
Page 10
May 12, 2015
COORDINATOR, SALVATION ARMY OF COLLIER COUNTY
AND ALISA MARIE COCCARI, COMMUNICATIONS,
SALVATION ARMY OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating May 11th
through May 17th as Salvation Army Week in Collier County. To be
accepted by Major Francina Proctor, Associate Regional Coordinator,
Salvation Army of Collier County; and Alisa Marie Coccari,
Communications, Salvation Army of Collier County. If you'd please
step forward and receive your proclamation. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MAJOR PROCTOR: Thank you, Commissioners for this
recognition.
May I just add that not only is it National Salvation Army Week,
but we are also celebrating 150 years service around the world this
year. So we are grateful for the support and for the fact that so many
people entrust so much with us. And we will continue to do the most
good. That's our promise. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2015 AS NATIONAL
DRUG COURT AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY THE HONORABLE JANEICE MARTIN,
PRESIDING JUDGE; ASHLEY SWAN, CASE MANAGER;
MEMBERS OF THE DRUG COURT TEAM AND MANY
PARTICIPANTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation designating May, 2015
as National Drug Court Awareness Month in Collier County. To be
Page 11
May 12, 2015
accepted by the Honorable Janeice Martin, Presiding Judge; Ashley
Swan, Case Manager; and members of the Drug Court Team and many
participants.
(Applause.)
JUDGE MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may take just a moment?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE MARTIN: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, fellow citizens
and friends. I just want to take a moment to say thank you for
everything that you have done -- Mr. County Manager -- to support the
drug court effort.
While we don't necessarily receive checks from the county, the
county sets a tone that's supportive of us; the Sheriff sets a tone that's
extremely supportive.
And just for those who don't know, the drug court program is an
intensive accountability based treatment court for addicts facing felony
charges who want to turn their lives around. We know that simply
parking them in our jails and prisons costs an awful lot of money, it
doesn't do anything to make them any better off when they come out,
so we offer the opportunity to do something a whole lot harder than
time, which is to face their demons, work on what brought them there
and turn things around.
And I stand here incredibly proud and humbled to have the
opportunity to bear witness to the hard work that these men and
women do. I'm joined by the David Lawrence Center, the State
Attorney's Office, several community partners, and you all have been
wonderfully supportive. Your vision has set a tone where these folks
are all employed, they're working in our businesses, they're part of the
economic recovery of our county, and they are paying their way to a
better, productive life where they support their family, support
themselves and contribute to our community. So we're eternally
grateful to the county for everything that you do to support us.
Page 12
May 12, 2015
We've got a Moving On Ceremony; we don't call it graduation
because they don't graduate from addiction, but Moving On Ceremony
on Tuesday, May 19th. I don't know if that conflicts with a meeting, it
usually does. May 19th at 4:30, 6th floor of the courthouse. Open to
the public. We hope you'll join us if you're able to. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Judge Martin, thank you very much on
behalf of everybody in the community for your personal dedication
and the effort and enthusiasm you've shown for this program and for
the efforts and enthusiasm for all the staff and cooperators that you
have in this great program. Thank you so very much, ma'am.
JUDGE MARTIN: It's our privilege. Thank you.
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2015 AS MOTOR
CYCLE SAFETY MONTH AND TO PROMOTE MOTORCYCLE
AWARENESS AND SAFETY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF AMERICAN BIKERS
AIMED TOWARD EDUCATION - ABATE OF FLORIDA INC. —
GATOR ALLEY CHAPTER: LYNN CORR, LEGISLATIVE
TRUSTEE; LAURAJO SMITH, COMMUNICATIONS; AND
WILLIAM "RIFFRAFF" BREEN, SAFETY DIRECTOR —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.F is a proclamation designating May, 2015
as Motorcycle Safety Month and to promote motorcycle awareness and
safety in Collier County. To be accepted by representatives of
American Bikers Aimed Toward Education, ABATE of Florida, Inc.,
Gator Ally Chapter; Lynn Corr, Legislative Trustee; Laurajo Smith,
Communications; and William "Riffraff' Breen, the Safety Director.
Page 13
May 12, 2015
Please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MS. CORR: Thank you for this proclamation.
Gator Ally is a local motorcycle organization that supports safety
and legislation. And we think that with our young people who are
learning to ride motorcycles all the way up to some who have been
riding for many, many years, safety is the number one item. And in
order for us to promote our safety, we have to go in and use the
legislation.
And we want to thank you for this proclamation, and we hope that
you see us in the schools more because we do like to teach our young
people to be aware of motorcycles.
We are from all five districts, everybody in our chapter, we're 350
strong, and we support Collier County. And so we want to be out and
about in our area and teaching everybody about motorcycle awareness.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 17 - 23 AS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE
PROFESSIONALS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY BELINDA ZIVICH, PRESIDENT OF INSURANCE
PROFESSIONALS OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.G is a proclamation designating May 17th
through the 23rd as International Association of Insurance
Professionals Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Belinda
Zivich, President of Insurance Professionals of Collier County.
Good morning. Congratulations.
Page 14
May 12, 2015
(Applause.)
MS. ZIVICH: Just a quick thank you for acknowledging this.
We are a professional organization of insurance professionals in
Collier County, and we focus on education and professional
development. And I do want to say a special thank you to Mr.
Casalanguida and Mr. French for joining us last month at our meeting
and speaking. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a comment before
we do that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, there are several things I'd
like to say. The first is really, congratulations to our purchasing
division and to Joanne. It's really outstanding that they received such a
high national recognition. And particularly in light of the lawsuit by
the Clerk against purchasing. I think it's worthy of note that they
received this commendation.
The second thing I'd like to add is that while I appreciate that
Chief Kopka recognized our EMS for rescue, we have to keep in mind
that it's not just our EMS staff but it's also fire that provides rescue and
has responded to so many of those 9-1-1 calls and has saved so many
lives. So we're grateful to all of them.
And lastly, and this raises my concern about this whole issue
about proclamations and which ones are being brought forth and how
they're being brought forward.
It's National Law Enforcement Memorial Week, and there was no
proclamation presented to recognize our fallen law enforcement
officers. And to me that is a very serious oversight. And I don't know
how we correct that.
Page 15
May 12, 2015
I went to the memorial service last night to honor those who died
for our safety from the CCSO, the Collier County Sheriffs Office. We
need to do something about that. And I don't know if we could
possibly bring forward a proclamation to recognize those fallen law
enforcement officers at the next meeting, if that would be possible, if
you could coordinate that with the Sheriffs Office.
MR. OCHS: It would be my pleasure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
So I think everybody here today should take a moment and
remember the law enforcement officers who died for our safety.
Commissioner Nance, can you ask for a moment of silence in
their memory?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Can we bow our heads and thought
for these valiant servants to our community.
(Moment of silence.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in light of what's going on
nationally with law enforcement and so many officers that are being
killed horribly in the line of duty, I think it's extremely important that
we remember them as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I think you have a
very good point. And this has been something that I've also had an
interest and actually I've heard every one of the Commissioners here
say the same thing, and that is the proclamations that we start our
meetings with each morning we hold one are the good news items that
have come forward and that are on our agenda each day. That is not to
say that we don't have many, many more good news items. And sadly
on the consent agenda there are many good news items that go
unrecognized, I think things that are really important. For example, we
had one there today and I meant to mention it when we talked about
the consent agenda, we had Parks and Recreation sponsoring a 20
Page 16
May 12, 2015
percent discount for teaching children under five how to swim, things
of this nature. Things that are really, really good.
And I think it's important that we get those good news items out
there to our community. Because sadly they're barraged by so much
negativity. And, you know, bad news spreads in a hurry these days
with electronics. So, you know, I think it's important that we focus a
little more on the good news. I don't know exactly how to do that, but
if somebody could come up with an idea, I'm in favor of it. Because I
just -- you know, I want to be uplifted each day. And we've got so
many things in Collier County to be thankful for. And, like I say, a lot
of time spent in problem resolution but, you know, it should be a
happy place here in Collier County. We're blessed indeed.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are so right. And maybe what
we can do is give direction to our County Manager to ask him to have
our public information officer peruse the consent agenda for such good
news items and write about them. Now, they might already be getting
in --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing is, if they get a press
release. But if the newspaper chooses not to put it in there, then there's
nothing we can do. But I'm sure we put it on our television.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. And we do that routinely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. See how much I know?
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Chairman Nance, you can always
pull the item and just feature it and say thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Hiller?
Page 17
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, the good news is, is
we're no longer dependent on the Naples Daily News to get the word
out. There's a new newspaper in town, which I think is very exciting,
because this town -- and I shouldn't say the town, but the community,
Collier County as a community -- has not had a second voice. And that
really creates a problem because you don't always hear the truth in the
news when you only have one news source. So it's very exciting.
We now have a newspaper that's come out, it's called the Naples
Herald. And I would ask staff to make sure that all announcements,
any press releases include the Naples Herald as part of its distribution.
So again, if the Naples Daily News doesn't report accurately,
please look to them, because I know that is their commitment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
All right, we have a motion to approve today's proclamations. I
will second that motion.
Any discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR MAY 2015 TO NCH HEALTHCARE
Page 18
May 12, 2015
SYSTEMS. ACCEPTED BY DR. ALLEN WEISS, PRESIDENT
AND CEO; DR. FRANK ASTOR, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER;
RENEE THIGPEN, ASSOCIATE CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES
OFFICER; MICHELLE ZECH, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN
RESOURCES; VICKI THOMPSON, HR BUSINESS PARTNER II;
DONNA WISNIEWSKI, HR BUSINESS PARTNER; AND KRISTI
BARTLETT, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT,
GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 5, presentations
this morning. Item 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for May, 2015 to NCH Healthcare Systems. To
be accepted by Dr. Allen Weiss, President and CEO; Dr. Frank Astor,
Chief Medical Officer; Renee Thigpen, Associate Chief Human
Resources Officer; Michele Zech, Director of Human Resources; Vicki
Thompson, HR Business Partner; Donna Wisniewski, HR Business
Partner; and Kristi Bartlett, Vice President for Business Development,
the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
If you'd step forward and receive your recognition.
(Applause.)
DR. WEISS: Chairman Nance, Commissioners, thank you for
this opportunity.
Just to share a few thoughts. In terms of Business of the Month,
we have 4,000 folks, we are the largest private company in this
community and a budget just short of a half a billion dollars per year.
Fortunately we are profitable and thriving. Our bond rating has just
been improved.
More importantly, our goal over this next decade is to help our
local community with the grassroots movement to make us the
healthiest community in the United States, where more people live to
be 100, do well all their lives, fall off quickly. That is being elsewhere
Page 19
May 12, 2015
around the country. Iowa is well on their way. Florida has aspirations
to be as good as Iowa in terms of overall health that's measured by
Gallop poles and Healthways, which is a very objective measure.
We are in the very beginning stages of this. We hope to have
44,000 folks sign a personal pledge that they're going to do things
healthier. When you get to that point it becomes a whole -- almost like
a political movement that everybody can agree upon going forward.
I think this Blue Zone's movement project has the same impact
that the original building of Tamiami Trail, 1-75, Ritz-Carlton, FGCU,
any of those events coming to this community. So we appreciate
everyone's support.
Downtown Naples will be the first launched, followed by the
Bonita/Estero area, and then out into Ave Maria and Immokalee. It
will be over a period of years. And thank you for your participation
thus far. We have Dan Buettner in town which is really -- helps. He's
thinking of featuring Southwest Florida as a lead community.
We are the 26th community in the country to be involved in this
right now. So there's objectives measures that -- Iowa's already
decreased their healthcare costs. NCH's goal is to get out of healthcare
and get into health. If we're successful we will view a hospital
admission as a failure of healthcare, accept for coming to the hospital
to have a baby. So thank you so much very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you Dr. Weiss. You
make an excellent point. And it is all about let's call it preventive
maintenance, preventive healthcare.
What's so much fun today, in addition to you receiving your
recognition, we have a new fitness facility opening up tonight, Orange
Theory, which is supposed to be quite an enterprise. So I'm looking
forward to them contributing to the initiative.
Page 20
May 12, 2015
And as you know, I'm fully committed to everything health from,
you know, food to lifestyle to medical care, or let's say the avoidance
of it. You scare me. I don't want to see you except for fun.
So thank you for all you're doing. Your hospital and all your staff
are outstanding and we're very grateful that you're such a significant
contributor to our community in so many ways.
Actually, one last thing. My dad died at 99, and he lived the blue
zone life. I will say, he had two things that he said to me that
contradict everything you just said. God favors those who die young,
live fast and leave a beautiful body.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. On that note, Mr. Ochs, I
believe that takes us to our 9:30 time certain, sir, does it not?
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2015-29: A SINGLE, 2014 CYCLE 1 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PETITION
PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 SPECIFIC TO THE SAN MARINO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. (ADOPTION HEARING)
(COMPANION TO REZONE PETITION PUDA-PL20140000100,
SAN MARINO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) — MOTION
TO APPROVE PETITION — ADOPTED
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2015-30: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2000-10, THE SAN MARINO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS FROM
352 TO 650; BY REMOVING THE GOLF COURSE USES; BY
ESTABLISHING TWO DEVELOPMENT PARCELS AS PARCEL
A AND PARCEL B; BY ADDING PERMITTED USES FOR
Page 21
May 12, 2015
PARCEL B; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
PARCEL B; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS; BY REVISING THE
MASTER PLAN; BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CR 951
APPROXIMATELY 1 .5 MILES SOUTH OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 235±
ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(PETITION PUDA-PL20140000100) [COMPANION TO CP-2014-
2/PL20140000113] — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: It does indeed, Mr. Chairman. Item 9.A is a
recommendation to deny the single 2014 Cycle 1 Growth Management
Plan Amendment petition specific to the San Marino Planned Unit
Development.
Commissioners, this is an adoption hearing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I would like to open the public
hearing on the items related to the San Marino Planned Unit
Development which we are going to take sequentially here this
morning. I will now ask Commissioners for their ex parte disclosure
on this item.
Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I've certainly read the
executive summary and the attachments in our packet; I've had
conversations with staff; no meetings about this except on the staff
level; no emails and no phone calls except again on the staff level.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Yes, I've met with
staff, spoken with staff a number of times, actually; met with Rich
Yovanovich, Brian Stock, planners and engineers from the Stock
Development Corporation; with Karen Homiak who is one of the
Page 22
May 12, 2015
planning commissioners, and with East Naples Civic Association and
discussed this with all of them; plus I received emails.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I've had discussions with staff and
with petitioners' representatives.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I've read the staff report; I've
received emails and had some calls.
I'm really interested in what Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Taylor are going to have to say after we hear the
evidence presented in light of the fact that this is a conversion of a golf
course to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's continue before you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, let me finish, please. One
thing that's really important is in a quasi judicial hearing we all have to
have the right to speak as much or as little as we want, because it's very
different than a policy type of decision here.
So as I was saying, I mean, I'm very, very interested to hear their
perspective with respect to this developer as compared to the
Lodge/Abbott hearing that we had that was essentially the exact same
consideration.
And by the way, we have another golf course conversion coming
down the pike shortly, I understand; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know, ma'am, but I can check.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought there was another one
that was --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can take a look.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I believe there is one more
that's coming up.
So yeah. And I'm also very curious about Conservancy's position.
Are they signed up as speakers? Who's speaking to this? Do we have
any public speakers?
Page 23
May 12, 2015
MS. ALBERS: No public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No public speakers, really? Oh,
my goodness.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Henning,
please, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Nicole Harris on this
item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, thank you.
Would all those who are going to testify on this item please stand
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, for the record, are we hearing
both 9.A and 9.B together at the same time?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At the pleasure of the Board. What
would the Board like to do? Would you like to hear those
concurrently?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But if we don't have -- if there's
not a vote to amend the Growth Management Plan, then there's no
PUD; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. You would vote first on the
Growth Management Plan and then vote on the PUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd be -- I would like to hear them
separately, but that's my --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll hear them one at a time, ma'am,
but I'm sure they're going to kind of overlap in the discussion --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- so we're certainly going to take two
distinct separate votes.
Mr. Yovanovich, are you going to present, sir?
Page 24
May 12, 2015
MR. YOVANOVICH: I am, thank you. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today we have several people. I have Brian Stock and
Keith Gelder with Stock Development. They're the applicant. I have
Joe Boff, who is the owner's representative. I have Alexis Crespo and
Jeremy Arnold with Waldrop Engineering, they're both a professional
planning firm and the engineering firm for this project. I have Shane
Johnson with Passarella & Associates; he is the environmental
consultant. And Jim Banks who's our transportation consultant.
I want to go backwards and talk a little history before we move
forward on this particular item.
Many, many years ago Habitat for Humanity and Waterways
Development acquired this property, understanding that there were two
units left. On the visualizer is the property.
The San Marino PUD currently consists of 352 units. It was
originally zoned for a golf course and an apartment complex. The
apartment complex has been constructed. There are two units left for
that project.
Many years ago we proposed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to rezone this property and change the comprehensive plan designation
to allow for affordable housing.
That request was denied three votes in favor, two against.
Unfortunately for Habitat for Humanity at Waterways Development,
they had bought the property prior to the Comprehensive Plan
designation being denied. That's the way the environment was at that
time. You had to buy the property and take the risk that you can get
your zoning in place to make that change.
As we sit here today, I'm sure you've read the backup information,
the current property owner is owned 30 percent by Habitat for
Humanity. The hope is we'll get the GMP amendment approved and
we'll rezone the property. The property will be sold to a developer like
Page 25
May 12, 2015
Stock. The proceeds from the sale will then be utilized by the current
owners to further the goal of affordable housing in other parts of
Collier County.
So there is a public purpose -- there are multiple public purposes
behind this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. One, through this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment we'll be required to purchase 298
TDRs to allow for the development of the single-family community
that we're proposing through the San Marino PUD amendment. And
the proceeds from the sale will make Habitat for Humanity whole and
they'll be able to use those proceeds in other parts of Collier County to
further their mission of providing affordable housing.
We are at the adoption hearing for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The Board voted 4-1 to transmit the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to the State for review. The State came back with no
objections to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So
today we're here for the adoption hearing as well as the PUD hearing
for this particular piece of property.
I can go into much greater detail on the GMP amendment if
necessary, but I believe all of you were here when we went through the
GMP amendment the first time. I think Ms. Taylor was on the Board
at that time; I'm not 100 percent sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What date was it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember the exact date.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Was it in December?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was in December.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So this is the second go-round for
everybody, so I don't want to bore you with rehashing all those details,
but I certainly can.
This PUD right now going through the process, we're in the urban
residential fringe, as you can see. The base density is 1.5 units per
Page 26
May 12, 2015
acre. However, you can go to 2.5 units per acre through the
acquisition of TDRs. So since this PUD amendment applies to 196
units, the first 196 units of what we're asking for are 100 percent
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It's the increase from 196 --
or 198 when you count the two units we already have, to the 300 that
we're requesting for this 196 units per acre that is the subject of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
And we went through this discussion before at the last go-around
where we did the transmittal hearing. The community has asked us to
build a nice upscale single-family community. In order for that to
occur we need to make sure we have enough units to apportion the
infrastructure costs that will occur through both the water and sewer
and other infrastructure we'll place on the property, as well as be able
to buy the TDRs that we're going to acquire.
So your -- what we're proposing is a single-family community
that has been, I believe, well received by the surrounding community,
it's been well received by the Planning Commission, as evidenced by
unanimous recommendation of approval of both the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as well as the PUD.
Your staff supports 100 percent the PUD amendment. Your staff
also supports part of the GMP amendment which would allow us to get
TDRs from any sending lands within Collier County. What your staff
doesn't support is the increase in density. And when I say your staff,
it's your Comprehensive Planning staff, it's not overall staff. Because
your remainder of your staff, transportation, utilities, et cetera, have all
found that the infrastructure is there to serve this increase in density.
Comprehensive Planning staff has taken the position that they
don't think we should be allowed to increase the density.
If you'll remember at both transmittal hearing (sic) there was a
concern about increase in density and what the potential impact would
be on 951 . So there is a concurrent PUD amendment to Lely Resort to
Page 27
May 12, 2015
reduce the Lely Resort density by 204 units to offset the 102 units we
were actually increasing through this project.
When you look at the overall project density for San Marino, it
would be 2.8 units per acre, which is consistent with the density that
was approved for Hacienda Lakes, 2.8 units per acre. So we're not
doing anything out of scale with what is already recently approved.
And in fact we're consistent with other projects and we are furthering
the TDR program, and we are also furthering Habitat's mission on
other properties in this community.
The PUD master plan I've put up on the visualizer. As you can
see the shaded area is where the apartment complex currently exists.
The non-shaded area is where the single-family community will be
built, which would total the 300 units on 196 acres. That is a very low
density when you think about what we're talking about doing on that
property.
I think the fact that there are no registered speakers tells you
we've done our homework with the surrounding community and the
environmental groups.
We're not aware of any objections to what we're requesting
through the PUD. And in fact we came in at a higher requested density
and we have reduced it significantly as we went through the transmittal
hearing process in response to people saying we want to make sure this
is not a multi-family community, that it is in fact a single-family
community.
We have patterned this to make sure it becomes a successful
project on par with what Stock Development would develop and has
developed throughout Collier County.
That's an overview of what we're proposing. I can answer any
specific details you have with this, or if I can't answer it I'm sure
someone on our team can answer any questions you may have
regarding this. But again, it was unanimous recommendation by the
Page 28
May 12, 2015
Planning Commission for both the GMP amendment as well as the
proposed PUD amendment.
And with that, that's my brief overview of what the project
entails.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just wait until all presentations.
You can just leave me on there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Then we'll go to Commissioner
Henning, followed by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When Habitat and Stock
petitioned the Board for the amendment, who's the descending (sic)
votes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The dissenting vote on the Comp. Plan
Amendment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe it was you, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said there was three to two.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, the original. Okay. I'm sorry, I
thought you were talking about the transmittal hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: At the original that was not -- the original
hearing was like I want to say '07 or '05, somewhere back then. The
dissenting votes at that time I think were Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Fiala back in the '05, '06 time period. Those were the
dissenting votes. I think I have that right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, my concern is the
increased density and removing the affordability, or any request for
increased density above base density that doesn't have an affordability
about it.
Now, you stated that Habitat has a stake in this.
Page 29
May 12, 2015
MR. YOVANOVICH: They do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And once they sell it they're
going to further their mission. Now, the increase in density is 102.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What can -- what can Habitat do
with the monies that they receive? How much can they do?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, without getting into the amount --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want you to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- potential amount of the purchase
contract. It's going to be a lot of money that they will be able to use to
build other homes. They have other properties already owned in
Collier County that they can use these proceeds for to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess where I'm getting at is,
you know, is there a net loss of 102 --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a far increase over 102.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A far increase.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Over the 102.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Double? Guesstimate?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I would say you're going to probably get
at least two or three to one on your investment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's important. I mean,
our community is great that we have such wonderful gated
communities that provide high value to the taxing districts. However,
there is an impact to those communities without having the workforce
being able to do things for those communities. We all pay for that.
And when our workforce has to live outside the community, that's an
impact on family. So we -- in my opinion, we're here to do land
planning. And proper land planning is to make sure that we have all
the elements within our plan. Not just infrastructure, but land use.
And without that I just don't feel comfortable that we're doing the right
job.
Page 30
May 12, 2015
So if-- the offset is Habitat's going to take this money and build
in your opinion three times the amount?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's a conservatively safe
number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of 102. So over 300 units they
can build in the community. So it's a net gain -- well, triple net gain
for the community. So I appreciate that information that I didn't have
before.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we have a golf course
conversion here at a density of just a little over two; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I already get the 196 as a matter of
right, so the 102 on the 196 acres, it's less than a one unit per acre
increase.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the overall density
now for this project when you add what exists with the density bonus
that's going to be added on top of it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The overall community density would be
2.8 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 2.8 units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And 2.5 the Comp. Plan currently allows.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 2.5. So we're at 2.8 over 2.5 which
is what the Comp. Plan allows.
And how does that relate to the surrounding area?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, as I had previously -- here's where I
have to confess something. I'm going to put that on the visualizer. But
I forgot to bring my reading glasses, so I can't read any of those
numbers to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay. Leo?
Page 31
May 12, 2015
MR. YOVANOVICH: My speech was big enough and so was
my PUD. I can't read any of those numbers unless someone lets me
borrow a pair of glasses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to borrow my
glasses? These are reading glasses.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We've been here before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They might look girly, but, you
know, who cares, if they work?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Dr. Fiala.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We've been here before.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Come on, Rich, smile for the
cameras.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not proud.
So -- how do I look?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Dashing, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can even make it a little bit
bigger, huh?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So everybody else can see it?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, so everybody else can see.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go.
MR. OCHS: Is that better? Is that enough?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
Hacienda Lakes, as I just mentioned, that is 2.8 units per acre, and
it's right here. And that doesn't include any of the other uses that were
allowed in that DRI, which includes a lot of hotel units, retail, et cetera.
Rocks Edge is currently approved. Where do I lose that one?
MR. OCHS: In the middle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the middle.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right there. Yeah, 5.23 I think is what
that number says. Even with these I can't see them.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, that's what it says.
Page 32
May 12, 2015
MR. YOVANOVICH: 5.23, which is an approved affordable
housing project which we'll be going through the process, actually
come down to 2.5.
But those are the two that were approved recently.
Then you have Naples Reserve. That was also approved at the
higher density because it's a mixed use TDR related project.
Across the street is the urban area which you're allowed to build
at four units per acre. I never understood why you can go four units per
acre on the west side of Collier Boulevard and all of a sudden you're
one and a half units per acre on the east side of Collier Boulevard. But
we are where we are as far as density goes.
so we're consistent with projects around us as far as the density
goes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The other question I have is with respect to those, you know,
potential affordable housing units that Habitat will build. What is the
average cost of, you know, one of these affordable units,
approximately? The cost of construction for one of these units,
approximately. Just ballpark.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Total, 125,000 all in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which I thought was the case.
Hang on, I just want to calculate something. So that's -- that's very
interesting.
So I'm very perplexed that Conservancy isn't saying anything.
And the reason I'm perplexed is because we had a hearing recently,
you may remember, it was the Lodge/Abbott hearing on the
Cocohatchee property and Conservancy stood up here and said, you
know, preserving the golf course was very important and that, you
know, we should not allow 60 homes on 175 acres, which was a
density of approximately I believe 1 .6, significantly lower than yours
by a lot.
Page 33
May 12, 2015
And, you know, we had all these people that said, you know, we
have to keep this property a golf course. And now we've got this
petition which proposes a higher density and is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Now, I will say the other project was even more compatible
because I think the density in the surrounding area on that project was
like 3.5 to start up to I believe about 5.5 compared to the 1.6.
Now, I don't see the difference between that project and this
project. And so I have a -- you know, I personally would not be able
to deny you for the same reasons that I approved the other project. I
find the hypocrisy of Conservancy for their failure to take a similar
stand on this project as they did the other remarkable. And I want to
make that clear for the record.
Similarly, you know, in the previous approval, you know, I had a
commissioner, I believe it was Commissioner Fiala, who said she did
not trust the developer, but for some reason she trusts this developer.
Now, I don't know what the difference between these two developers
are, I see them both as equal. And Commissioner -- what's her name at
the end?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Taylor, that's it -- Taylor said that,
you know, developers are special interests, and there was no public
benefit. And so again, I don't see that as the case.
The issue here is clear. You are applying a density that is
consistent with the surrounding area. You are not creating a burden on
the infrastructure. And we do have a problem in Collier County that
out of 2,000 square miles we only have 323 developable square miles.
Which means we have committed a great deal to conservation.
And we have a program, Conservation Collier, where just
recently we acquired land to put land -- you know, to conserve green
space. And I'm a very strong advocate of green space, but I also don't
Page 34
May 12, 2015
-- I mean, understanding that people need a place to live and given that
we have already invested in this infrastructure, to add where we have
capacity without burdening the system as opposed to building more
infrastructure at more expense -- I mean, a higher density actually is
positive towards conservation. It's not the opposite. It's actually a good
thing, not a bad thing.
So I would like to make a motion to approve the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in whole and I would also like to make a motion to
approve the amendment to the PUD ordinance as is being proposed for
the reasons that I've stated. It will be advantageous to the community;
there is a benefit to the community to this conversion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as was to the other. As there
was to the other. Unfortunately the other did not pass to the detriment
of my community with a risk of potentially 530 units coming on that
parcel down the road to be consistent with the Comp. Plan. But that's a
discussion for another day.
So I'm making a motion to approve both 9.A and 9.B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, I'm going to make a couple of
comments, then I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala.
Do you have additional comments, ma'am, or are you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do, but that's all right. Go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I agree with you. I
think that it's very important that we consider Growth Management
Plan amendments that do make sense. And, you know, the Board of
County Commission is supposed to set policy. And a lot of times, you
know, you have to step back. And I appreciate what Mr. Yovanovich
has supplied us with in this map right here, because it shows you what
the neighboring development style is. I agree with your remarks on the
Page 35
May 12, 2015
earlier issue and, you know, and I supported that plan as well because I
thought it was a thoughtful plan amendment and that it made sense. I
do on both of these and I agree and I support both of them.
Regarding the golf course conversion, of course, you know, golf
courses as they lose favor and they become less popular are likely to be
redeveloped and, you know, that was my concern on the other item, as
I stated at the time.
But, you know, in this part of Collier County, which is the urban
fringe that adjoins the rural fringe, golf courses really are not green
space. And to re-purpose those, I have no issue on. So I will support
both of these and I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller, I appreciate your motion. And I'm going to
just quickly state again why I did not vote for the Cocohatchee, and
that is we were made a promise. And Commissioner Hiller -- and I
hate to bring these things up, but anyway, I will -- she said something
about I didn't trust them and I didn't, because they had broken other
promises in the same manner, and I was just afraid that's where they
were going again, and I was afraid to trust it. They had made a
promise; that's the reason I voted for it in the first place. And then they
were taking back that promise and going the other way. So that's what
happened there. But that's for another time.
I wanted to tell you that I feel that this project is compatible with
the surrounding areas, just as Commissioner Hiller pointed out. I think
you did too. It's compatible and that's what you're trying to look for is
compatibility for the neighbors as well.
And I wanted to say also, at first I was concerned about the
density, except that when I realized they were taking their density on
the same road and just moving it from one place to another, I didn't
have a problem with it anymore. I spoke to staff about this at length, I
Page 36
May 12, 2015
spoke to a planning commission about it, as I mentioned in my ex
parte, and it seemed that everything about this project was a good thing
for this area. So that's why I voted for it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, point of order, Chairman.
This is a public hearing. My understanding, at least my training for 10
years on the City Council, when there's a public hearing you hear from
the petitioner, then you hear from the staff and then you move into
discussion. And I think we've circumvented the staffs presentation
and I would like to hear that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Before we do that, let's go to
Commissioner Hiller and then we will proceed to staff comments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The issue of these golf courses is very concerning to me, because
the EPA has declared golf courses the second worst source of
groundwater contamination next to cemeteries. So -- and it was very
interesting. What my understanding was with respect to the cemeteries
is the bodies are treated with formaldehyde and the formaldehyde
leeches through the concrete into the groundwater and contaminates
the groundwater. And that's horrible. And, you know, any type of
groundwater contamination threat needs to be considered. Because
while we have limited land, we also have limited groundwater. And
we need to preserve and protect that.
So further, to the previous golf course conversion and this one, I
am really concerned about those issues. And so I further, you know,
support that. This conversion makes sense in light of that.
To your point about, you know, promises. If agreements were
entered into in the past that are not in the community's best interest,
which clearly was not the case when that deal was done, considering
that the easements could be removed by three votes, considering the
Page 37
May 12, 2015
fact that you've got a use which contributes to groundwater
contamination and doesn't benefit the community, I think it's important
to consider what we can do to best protect the communities.
And especially in light of the fact that in the other instance the
potential to put 530 units over 60 units and borrowing the difference,
400 and some units, from ever being able to be developed on that site
and giving the easements to the community, control of the -- I'm sorry,
control of the changes to the PUD to the community rather than
keeping it vested in the board and limiting it to three votes, was a real
disservice to that community.
So Commissioner Fiala, notwithstanding that you did not support
what was truly protective of my community and what 16 out of 17
HOA communities wanted, I will still support this because I believe in
being absolutely fair and doing what is in the best interest of our
county.
So I would -- once we hear from staff, I'd like to call the question,
because I would like to see this passed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, would staff like to make a brief
presentation? Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of
the Comprehensive Planning staff.
As Mr. Yovanovich has already pointed out, there's only one
issue, if you will, that staff has with this petition, we are supportive of
the other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and that is
for the density increase. I do not dispute the densities that Mr.
Yovanovich displayed on the map and read to you. However, I would
tell you that in the transmittal staff report to the planning commission,
staff identified the densities of projects along the County Road 951
corridor only. And with the exception of the two projects that Mr.
Yovanovich mentioned, one being Rock Edge, which was approved
with an affordable housing density bonus, which at the time was
Page 38
May 12, 2015
something that the county was strongly in support of, that is,
identifying a need for more affordable housing and so approved the
exception to allow that density there, that required a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to achieve that density for that project.
And then the Hacienda Lakes much more recent in time, and in
that case that also exceeded the two and a half units per acre maximum
allowed in this corridor, and that was -- and supported by staff for a
couple of reasons, one of which the amount of preservation of that
projection exceeded that which was required. They also provided
Benfield Road corridor right-of-way.
The other projects along the Collier Boulevard corridor itself,
including on the west side of 41 where the allowable density is four
units per acre, or possibly higher through density bonuses, are all
approved at less than two units per acre.
The purpose for the limitation on density on the east side of
Collier Boulevard at one and a half units per acre or two and a half
units per acre for the use of TDR credits is to provide a transition so
that we don't go from a potentially stark contrast of a four unit per acre
or higher density on the east side of 951 beyond the one mile to the
what is now sending lands that are limited to one unit per 40 acres.
At the time when the plan was adopted in 1989 the transition
would have been from the one and a half units per acre in the urban
residential fringe to one unit per five acres. That's what was allowed at
the time. But with the rural fringe amendments of 2002, most of the
lands beyond one mile east of 951 are designated as sending lands, so
now again have a density of one unit per 40 acres, a much much lower
density than was previously allowed.
So the reason is to provide a transition from the higher densities
allowed on the west side of 951 to the much lower densities beyond
one mile to the east.
Commissioners, as always, it's a Comprehensive Plan
Page 39
May 12, 2015
Amendment. It is a policy decision for this Board as to whether or not
you believe that the amendment is appropriate. Staff does not support
that part of the amendment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much I appreciate
that.
You make a very good point. And thank you for highlighting
that. Comprehensive Plan amendments are policy decisions; they are
legislative decisions, not land use decisions. And to that end I'm not
sure I understand why we're requiring a supermajority vote on a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment versus land use, which clearly, based
on our special act, has to be four votes. Like a zoning decision, you
know, like the PUD ordinance, which clearly should be a
supermaj ority.
Now, I understand that there is a resolution which created that
supermajority requirement, but I don't believe that the statute regarding
the Comprehensive Plan provides for that. And I believe that -- is
there a preemption with respect to the Comprehensive Plan statute? Or
do we have the ability -- I mean, do we have -- because I don't believe
that that statute requires a supermajority, as compared to our special
act which requires a supermajority.
MR. KLATZKOW: The statute requires majority vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I don't believe that we can
amend it. I don't believe we can go contrary by way of resolution to
require a supermajority on the comprehensive plan amendments. I
don't believe that's legal.
MR. WEEKS: I'd have to defer to the County Attorney's Office,
but I will submit, Commissioners, that the requirement, local
requirement by resolution --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. We just said that.
And that's not the issue. We cannot create law where we are not
Page 40
May 12, 2015
granted the ability to do so. And the state statute for comprehensive
plans is a simple majority.
Now, we have a special statute, a special act for zoning decisions,
and those require a supermajority vote by statute. But the
Comprehensive Plan Statute requires a simple majority. And I do not
believe that the supermajority -- I understand we have a resolution, but
it's not legal, based on the fact that we have a statute that says simple
majority.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, would you give us some
guidance, sir, from your perspective?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have two issues: The first issue is that
you have a special act that was enacted before the Constitution was
amended to allow a home rule power. That special act in essence
requires four votes for any zoning map change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: This would require four votes because
you're increasing density here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the zoning.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, this is in essence a zoning action we're
taking here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, that's 9.B.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's 9.B, sir, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's 9.A too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How is --
MR. KLATZKOW: You are increasing the number of units you
can have, which then allows 9.B.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, hang on a second. Can
I ask for clarification on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We are not increasing the density
in the Comprehensive Plan. We are increasing the right for a
Page 41
May 12, 2015
developer to ask for increased density, which is 9.B. There is a
difference.
The Comprehensive Plan is a planning document. It does not
grant increased density. We constantly amend the Comprehensive Plan
for increased density or decreased density and intensity. But that's
very different than 9.B where you're absolutely correct, 9.B 100
percent goes to the granting by this Board of density in this particular
case. Or just generally the zoning actions under the special act grant
density and intensity, and therefore require a supermajority vote.
But 9.A is the focus here, and 9.A does not grant density. It is a
planning decision. Our staff very appropriately described it -- Mr.
Weeks --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- very appropriately described it
as a legislative act, as a policy decision. We are not granting anything.
We are not awarding anything. We are simply changing the planning
document.
And I understand why the State made it a simple majority. They
made it a simple majority because it is merely a planning document,
and planning documents have to be fluid, and they have to be adaptive.
Whereas the zoning, which is our separate special act, should be more
restrictive. That is where we actually grant density or intensity and
requires a supermajority vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your position I understand. I disagree with,
as have your prior commissioners for decades and prior attorneys for
decades. It has been fought forever on this issue. That is our custom,
that's how we've done business.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's bring this to a conclusion.
Mr. Klatzkow, please give us your opinion on how many votes in
the affirmative we require on 9.A and then how many votes in the
affirmative we require on 9.B.
Page 42
May 12, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: You require four votes on each.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so I'm a little confused.
We're going to get back to the business at hand which is right before us
which is the amendment to the Growth Management Plan.
Mr. Weeks, according to our material here, you have a density of
3.02 dwelling units per acre. And I believe Mr. Yovanovich testified
to 2.98, is that correct, dwelling units per acre?
MR. WEEKS: I think he may have referred to 298 dwelling
units.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, then that's my mistake.
So you're in agreement that the -- that was my mistake, I
apologize.
So you would agree that the density is 3.02 dwelling units per
acre?
MR. WEEKS: I would.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, Heidi Ashton-Cicko,
Assistant County Attorney.
There is a typo in the ordinance that got corrected at the Planning
Commission level. So it is 2.76 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not 3.02?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. That's huge.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, a total of 2.8.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it's 2.76. Okay, thank you.
So Mr. Weeks, the difference between what would be approved
without a denial by staff and what is before us, it looks like it's .26 (sic)
dwelling units per acre; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I -- okay. Okay. We need to make
Page 43
May 12, 2015
the distinction in whether or not we're talking about plan amendments
or the total PUD.
The total PUD, 9.B, would result with these approvals of a
density of 2.76 dwelling units per acre. For the parcel that is subject to
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is only a portion of the
PUD, the density would be 3.02 units per acre. The plan amendment is
-- would allow for 3.02 units per acre. Again, it's a smaller piece of
property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And my concern is, and I can
respect Habitat for Humanity benefiting from this and applaud that.
My concern is the fact that arbitrary or not, agree or not, disagree, we
have zoning areas that frankly make a lot of sense to look at as Collier
County as a whole. And the issue of increasing density in an area that
is not allowed by our Comprehensive Plan is of concern to me.
So I'd like -- Mr. Weeks, you crafted, staff crafted a solution to
this, I thought.
MR. WEEKS: Our solution -- our recommendation is to approve
that portion of the plan amendment except for the density increase.
What that means is that the applicant would be allowed to develop 196
-- excuse me, they could achieve 196 units total on the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment portion of the project by use of TDR credits that
would -- therefore, the result of their plan amendment would simply
allow them to obtain those TDR credits from beyond one mile, which
is currently a restriction. And with the two leftover units from the
already approved PUD, that would give them a total of 198 units. I
believe that's the correct math.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: As versus 200 and --
MR. WEEKS: Versus 300 dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would just like to say that the
development of the urban fringe and the Transfer of Development
Rights Program has been problematic. And it's been very difficult for
Page 44
May 12, 2015
developers to make the numbers work. I believe that some of the
suggestions and discussions that we've had are going to take us to a
very, very good place when we review what takes place in the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District restudy. I think it's all taken into account
and it's been a good and healthy discussion for our community.
I see no great problem with what we have here before. Is there
any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There is a motion and a second to
approve Item 9.A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And a request to call the question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor of the recommendation
to -- the motion to approve Item 9.A, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes 4-1 .
There is a motion and a second to approve Item 9.B which is the
rezone requiring four votes in the affirmative. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 45
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor
in dissent.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. And thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're welcome.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the brownies?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, this might be an appropriate time for
your morning court reporter break.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's an excellent idea,
Commissioner Henning and Mr. Ochs. We will return at 10:33. We
are in recess.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir.
Item #9E
ORDINANCE 2015-31 : AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE AVALON OF NAPLES RPUD TO
ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 160 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS, OR 82 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Page 46
May 12, 2015
DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING
OF 22.83+ ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD
(SR 84) AND COUNTY BARN ROAD IN SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
[PUDZ-PL20140001179] — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is Item 9.E on your
agenda. It's a rezone request for a project known as Avalon of Naples
RPUD. And this item does require ex parte disclosure and swearing in
of participants.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. We will open the hearing on
the item which is 9.E, previously 17.A for ex parte disclosure. I will
begin to allow the commissioners to find their notes.
I have read the staff report and spoken briefly to petitioner for the
agents of the petitioner. Nothing additional.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
I've spoken with staff and I've had meetings and emails and calls.
And some of those meetings were with East Naples Civic Association.
And also, way back when this was a different project, same land, being
sold by the original guy, there was a great uprising in the community,
especially from the Glen Eagle community, and they were totally
against the original plan for this area. Since then they've all met and
they've said now they're in agreement that this is a good project and
they would like to see it move forward.
Also, let's see, I've had a meeting with the resident Evan
Steingart. And I don't know what the NIM means.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Neighborhood information meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I went to the neighborhood
Page 47
May 12, 2015
information meeting. Thank you. Isn't that something. Donna, Donna,
Donna. And I've spoken with Bruce Anderson a few times. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I spoke with Mr. Anderson
briefly at the beginning of this meeting. And other than that I've had
no contact, no communication.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have reviewed the staff report and
I've spoken to staff and I spoke to the petitioner's attorney.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to staff and Mr.
Anderson.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Would all who wish to testify on this hearing, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Mr. Anderson, are you to present, sir?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning.
MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson from the law
firm of Cheffy Passidomo. And here with me today I have my client,
Mr. Craig Perry of Collier Davis, LLC, the applicant. We also have
with us Mr. Michael Greenberg, the Regional President of Neal
Communities, which is a contract purchaser of this property.
Also here, the other members of the project team, are Patrick
Vanasse, Planning Director of RWA Engineering, Project Engineer
Michael Pappas from RWA Engineering, and Transportation
Consultant is Ted Treesh of TR Transportation Consultants.
This property is at the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard and
Page 48
May 12, 2015
County Barn Road. It's just under 23 acres. The request is for either
82 single-family or 160 multi-family dwelling units. This is an all
residential project. No commercial, no affordable housing. This will
be a gated community.
The density comes to seven dwelling units per acre calculated as
follows: Four units per acre for base density, and an additional three
units per acre density bonus for being within an activity center
residential density band.
This project qualifies for but has not requested another density
bonus of one unit per acre because it has access to two major roads,
Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road.
The project is as laid out in the PUD master plan that's on the
overhead projector and it's centered around a large lake with homes
around the perimeter.
As I mentioned earlier, access will be in and out on Davis
Boulevard and out only on County Barn Road.
The zoning building heights are limited to two stories not to
exceed 35 feet.
The property is under contract to Neal Communities, a decades
old highly respected home builder from the Sarasota/Bradenton area.
They are currently building the new community known as The Canopy
that is just off Immokalee Road, east of Collier Boulevard.
We are in agreement with the Planning Commission and staff
approval conditions, and those have been incorporated into the PUD
document. I or other members of the project team will be happy to try
to answer your questions. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, you requested
this to be moved to the regular agenda. Would you like to begin, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
Well, again, I'll state that I believe an increase in density in
county should have at least a provision for some affordability for our
Page 49
May 12, 2015
professionals such as teachers, firefighters, police officers, so on and
so forth. I don't think -- in my opinion I haven't heard anybody
objecting to having those -- our professionals living near them.
But anyways, let me provide you some statements out of our
Growth Management Plan.
The first one: Consistent with the following characters (sic) may
add base density. Density bonus is discretionary and is not an
entitlement and it depend (sic) upon meeting the criteria of the bonus
provisions within the compatibility of the surrounding properties as
well as the zoning criteria within the Land Development Code.
Now, they are -- as Mr. Anderson said, you know, within one
mile of the activity center they can ask for a density increase. And I
don't have a problem with the density increase. But we do have an
element within our Growth Management Plan that provides a housing
bonus for the affordability.
In fact, let me just read from our Land Development Code:
Within the most of coastal urban designation area defined in the Future
Land Use Map, which this is in, a base density of four units, residential
units, per gross area is permitted. However, a base density may be
subject to depending on characteristics of development. One
characteristic of development which would be allowed is an additional
bonus density under the development -- the provisions. Affordable
housing may add up to eight units per gross area.
And that's my stance. If we can get provisions or affordable
housing agreement which I think Kim -- Kim is not here -- said that
anything above base density of four units, in this case three units, 40
percent shall be affordable housing. It's not like we're asking that
anything -- that three units be affordable housing, it's 40 percent of it.
And that is the only thing I'm asking on this project.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who's first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am.
Page 50
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if--
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, you were.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good.
Just to clarify, Commissioner Henning, we have a lot of activity
centers around, some of them activity centers like Pine Ridge and
Airport and things like that, and new activity centers that will be
coming up in the Eastern Lands that are activity meaning shopping
centers. Is that something that you plan to require from all of these
areas in the future?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Now, and, you know, I'm with
you as far as we definitely need housing for young professionals who
are just getting out of college. We're trying to get them back here,
absolutely. And also we most certainly need to have housing for
young skilled workers who come into town and so forth. That's
important. And somehow affordable housing -- I think we ought to be
depicting what we're talking about. And I think that's what you're
talking about.
But in this case this is a project -- I don't think it will -- as much
as I want to see it like Vincentian, that's exactly what we were trying to
add there was that element. But in this case, this was an altogether
different thing. They had those just by right. And it isn't that they're
supposed to be affordable housing.
And as you probably well know, all of you must know this, we
already have 4,000 affordable housing units already permitted and on
the books. Never built, because we haven't needed them, but they're
sitting there waiting. So I don't know that we have this urgency for
affordable housing as it seems is coming from our Affordable Housing
Page 51
May 12, 2015
Department. I think that they should encourage some of those that are
already approved to start building them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you should ask our
teachers and firefighters and police officers that are trying to find
housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what we're trying to do
is try and upgrade that to housing that they would want to live in. And
I can assure you, they don't want to live in tiny little cracker boxes
either. They would like to live in a place where they can then marry,
have children and go on from there.
And -- but I think in this particular case, sir, being that they get
their density bonuses from what has been allowed all of these years
and up until now has not been changed, I think if you want to change it
maybe we ought to do something about putting something on the
agenda, if that's what you want to do, to change all of these activity
centers to require housing for young professionals or something. I don't
think we should be doing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gap housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, gap housing, exactly right.
Gap housing. I don't think we can be doing this on the fly, though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on the fly,
Commissioner, with all due respect.
According to our Growth Management Plan, it's not an
entitlement, okay. It's -- so this is nothing new. And within our
Growth Management Plan there is the -- in the housing element that
calls out for affordable housing. So does our Land Development Code.
So this is nothing new that needs to come on the agenda. The
only thing I'm saying is hey, let's -- Habitat's doing a great job
providing for the very low income residents and workers in the
community; however, there is no housing for our professionals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with you there.
Page 52
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it's nothing I need
to put on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Henning, and I'm
extremely empathetic to your position and I want to support it. I'm in a
conundrum because this is -- ifs not a new position, but you're
forwarding a position, and very strongly and I think very rightly about
gap housing.
What -- I guess my question to you would be, and this is an open
end question. Tell me why this isn't unfair to the developer who has
relied on a philosophical position of this Commission which you are
now offering another one. And certainly I think we're going to have an
affordable housing -- hopefully an agenda item. And I would love to
see this as part of it so that we can vote on it. But we haven't voted on
it as, you know, as a body. But it's need. And I applaud you for doing
this. I just need to under-- I need to be convinced that this is the right
thing to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Convince me that it's not fair.
As I stated, we have great communities in this -- in Collier
County that affords jobs for people that need to be housed. Whether it
be the Habitat model or professionals. They have a demand on the
system just like a demand on the roads, our water and sewer, our
schools, so on and so forth. I don't know anything more to say. I
mean, that is my stance. I cannot support the project. And again, our
Growth Management Plan provides for it. So does our Land
Development Code.
I'm going to pull these off the agenda one at a time and support --
not support it unless we have something for our professionals.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so inclusionary zoning is
what we're talking.
Page 53
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not inclusionary zoning.
We have a base density in Collier County of four units per acre.
Anything above that is not an entitlement. So why would you give
somebody over the base density unless there's a public benefit? And
the public benefit is in my opinion to provide some type of
affordability for our professionals.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's -- if you look at the
piece that I gave you, the first one that's highlighted, it says it's
discretionary.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it's discretionary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not an entitlement. So in my
opinion I'm going to look at, well, how's the community going to
benefit from it? And that's one way I think it can be done. It's going to
be a problem in the future long after I'm gone.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right? So you can deal with
it now or you can deal with it -- or they'll deal with it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make one -- I'm going to
make one comment, and Mr. Bosi, do you have something to add right
at the moment?
MR. BOSI: I was -- Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning.
I was going to describe how the density rating system works
within the Growth Management Plan, and Commissioner Henning has
correctly identified some aspects. Some of the other aspects I think
need to be expanded upon for the full understanding of how the
process works.
Within the density rating system it's a component of our Future
Land Use Element. It's how a project determines its eligibility for the
density that could be sought at the zoning stage.
Page 54
May 12, 2015
And within the urban designated area a density of four dwelling
units per acre may be allowed, but even that base density is recognized
as not an entitlement. So you have a base of four that you're eligible to
ask for. And then there's a series of density bonuses that you could
raise that base eligibility above that four. One of it is a conversion of
commercial zoning to residential. It happened at the Wiggins Pass
Marina where they could have sought 16 units per acre when they
converted to residential.
A second is your proximity to the activity center. This is the
provision that this petition is seeking. This petition is saying we are
within that one mile of the activity center at Davis Boulevard and
Santa Barbara. Because we're within there, we are eligible to ask for
seven units per acre by the density rating system.
And a third is workforce housing. Workforce housing, if you
enter into an affordable housing agreement, you can gain bonus density
by allowing for a percentage of your units to be allocated specifically
for affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that could be --
MR. BOSI: So all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me, just to that point. That's on
top of, for example, B.
MR. BOSI: Yes, that's an additional.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's on top.
And how much units in addition could they have asked for?
MR. BOSI: That could grant you eight additional units.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so they could do eight on top
of what they're actually getting?
MR. BOSI: And as Mr. Anderson pointed out, another density
bonus is the location of access to two arterial roads, which County
Barn and Davis Boulevard would qualify for them. They're not seeking
that under that --
Page 55
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many units could they get for
that?
MR. BOSI: One additional unit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One additional.
MR. BOSI: And let me come back to one thing, and I think it's
important to understand, the concept of the density band. And
originally, and Mr. Weeks has indicated, when we originally set up the
activity centers we had a mandate that residential was also going to be
a percentage. That mandate never made it through the entitlement
process, the legislative process. That was removed.
But they did create these density bands. And the density bands
allows for, as I said, an additional three units per acre. And the theory
behind that is it relates to individuals and where you work and where
you live. And increasing the density around your intense commercial
activities allow for the higher density projects. And the concept is with
a higher density project in a same amount of land, the unit prices that
would be associated with the higher density project would not be as
high as a single-family home. Therefore, those density bands
anticipate that the market will dictate affordability within the price
range of the unit.
And that's the concept. And that's the -- it's the logic behind how
the Future Land Use Map arranges those density allocations. So those
density bands were created for the market to respond to a different type
of a housing product he anticipated. Now, we haven't always seen it
from the marketplace, but that's the concept, the theory behind what --
those density bands, and that's what they're seeking for their eligibility.
And it is strictly, as Commissioner Henning points out, it is only
an eligibility and not an entitlement. I just wanted to -- there are a
number of different density bonuses that could increase your eligibility
above your base floor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then back to
Page 56
May 12, 2015
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you just made the point, that
very clearly they have the eligibility to qualify under the activity center
density bonus criteria. And it makes sense. And you are in fact, as
you properly describe, promoting affordability because again by
putting more on a parcel you're reducing the cost of land.
And the biggest problem we have in creating affordable housing
in Collier County is the high price of the underlying land, coupled with
the impact fees where the project burdens existing infrastructure. So if
you can put a larger number of units, then you reduce both of those
overall costs and make the units far more affordable than they
otherwise would be.
So it does make sense if the objective is to keep the prices lower
in Collier County and more affordable to our essential service
providers. Which is, you know, obviously something that we're
concerned about.
To Commissioner Fiala's point, she said something very
interesting, that we have 4,000 affordable housing units already
awarded in Collier County that have not yet been built. And we just
most recently had a study done by our housing staff that said there is
no single-family affordable housing shortage. And that was done just
about a month ago.
So we consistently monitor. And I really applaud Commissioner
Henning, because his goal to make sure our essential service providers
like teachers and EMS rescue workers, firemen and nurses and other
workers who provide those essential services have the option to buy a
quality home or live in a multi-fam-- you know, quality multi-family
complex is absolutely important.
But based on what we have been told by our staff, based on what
Commissioner Hiller -- sorry, speaking to myself Based on what
Commissioner Fiala has pointed out in terms of what's already been
Page 57
May 12, 2015
permitted or awarded, I should say, not yet permitted, but awarded, I
do feel that we are -- we are being considerate and concerned
appropriately about this issue.
Given that we do have the discretion, given that they do qualify
for the activity center density bonus, given that they also qualify for
the bonus related to being close to those major -- two major
interchanges, I think it does make sense to approve this, and so I'll
make the motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would like to make a couple comments
before I go back to you, Commissioner Henning.
I do support your effort and your focus on workforce housing,
and I will thank you personally for bringing that forward.
As a matter of fact, going forward in our planning processes,
which we have four areas, I think we should require that that is taking
place in our new developments.
That having been said, though, I think there is a compelling
reason to support this particular project, which is really already in the
building out urban coastal zone, strictly because it is proximate to these
activity centers.
And I believe -- Mr. Anderson, are you in a position to commit to
160 multi-family units rather than 82 single-family?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You know, I believe there is a
compelling reason, because I believe that this is going to be an
example of really a mixed use community. And it's what we're striving
for. So I don't know if that helps Commissioner Henning, but I'm
going to go back to him for his comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's a theory that the
higher density will be affordable. It's not a given. It could be -- I mean,
take a look at Mercado, they're selling for over a million dollars.
Page 58
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not high density though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Look at --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's mixed use, but not high
density.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of projects. Look at
the high rises on the beach. Of course it's location, location, location, I
understand that. But it depends on what the elements are. But I
understand it's a theory.
You know, I'm not going to take my marbles and go home if I
don't win this one, you know. I can move on to the next item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? However, I do want a
clarification on a statement.
Mr. Bosi, provide me the policy number to where four units base
density is not an entitlement.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Comprehensive
Planning/Zoning.
Within the density rating system of the Future Land Use Element,
it would be page, I guess it's 47 of our GMP online.
Underneath the density rating system, which is the first
paragraph, there will be -- the first number is the density rating system
is applied in the following manner. And A, specifically, in the first
paragraph says within applicable urban designated areas, the base
density of four residential dwelling units per gross acre may be
allowed, though not an entitlement. That's the opening sentence.
And so it gives the Board of County Commissioners the
discretion within any zoning action to say what they feel is appropriate.
Even when they are seeking a density that would be at four units per
acre if you felt they were conditioned based upon the surrounding land
uses, it does give the Board that ability to make those decisions.
So all zoning, all level of density is at the discretion of the Board
Page 59
May 12, 2015
based upon the criteria that's established in the Land Development
Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: My only concern on this is if we deny
the project that's being brought forth by the commissioner and force
him to develop at a lower density, that the unintended consequence of
our actions is going to be that it produces a smaller number of units
that are actually at a much higher price and is actually going to take
away from the opportunity to capture the benefit of being proximate to
the use center. So that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Neal Community is a high
end builder, okay. But, you know, I understand the theory.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And my -- I would love to have
this issue that you have brought forward, Commissioner Henning, as
an agenda item or when we bring our affordable housing, which I hope
we've talked about this month, which means it's the next meeting, Mr.
Ochs. He's scratching his eyes and thinking oh, my gosh.
But my concern, and I will support this item, and I will support it
with the multi-family, if that's the way we're going. And the reason is I
believe philosophically this Commission has operated in different
ways, or communicated different ways, and now I think there is a sea
change, and I think that the development community needs to know
that.
I think there is an awareness that no longer can we put off until
tomorrow creating housing for the people that support this community.
And I guess Mr. -- Commissioner Henning might say I'm putting it off
'til tomorrow. I don't mean to, but I think for me this is a question of
fairness at this point, so I will support this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I will make a comment before I go
to Commissioner Fiala and that in my district and in the planning
Page 60
May 12, 2015
reviews that I have, I welcome Commissioner Henning's initiative, and
I hope -- and I will support his efforts to move that forward in my
district at any rate.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And although in this instance I
agree with Commissioner Taylor, you know, right now it's a question
of fairness. And I totally agree, we've gotten to this point thinking it's
going to be one way. But when we discuss that again about housing for
-- you know, we're trying to get people to come to this community and
work in businesses that we're trying to I don't want to say lure, I want
to say negotiate.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Attract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Attract, thank you, to this
community, there's also another positive that hasn't been mentioned
right now and that is -- and now I'm going to just strictly focus on
where I live. Up to this point we've had a concentration of very low
income so our schools are Title One schools. If you get people coming
in that are skilled workers, are young professionals just out of college,
what you do is usually they're young people who also want to have
families and then you begin to blend the schools, you begin to balance
them, and it gives those children a much better chance at education
than they have now.
So I agree with what Commissioner Henning has to say, I just
don't think this is the proper time. But I think going forward as I'm
sure all developers will be watching this, they're going to realize
maybe they're going to have to make this provision. And I think he's
led a good stance. I know in my district we have so much low income
it's coming out of our ears. But boy, we sure need some skilled worker
income, some young professional housing here. So that's what I'm
hoping to see happen.
But I am definitely going to approve this one.
Page 61
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I would just like to
confirm one thing from the members of the Board. Are we requesting
that Mr. Anderson commit to 160 multi-family, or we're leaving it
open as a Board? There was some discussion, I just want to clear it up
for him so he's not wondering what he has to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should leave it open.
And the reason is, I mean, it's got to be what the market will bear. You
know, if there is a need for -- and he needs to evaluate that. You
know, we're not here to control the market. We don't know what the
demand is. I think, you know, if there's demand for the single-family
housing, well, then, you know, we want to make sure that demand is
met. If there's a demand for multi-family housing, then let there be
multi-family. I mean, either way both are allowable to the number of
units prescribed. I don't think we should be, you know,
micromanaging it to that level.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I agree, but I'm the one that brought up
the question so I want to provide the clarification.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think we need to leave it
to the developer's discretion. Frankly, the landscaping, the entire layout
is for a specific type of housing, the buffering, everything like that. So
it's a complete package. And I agree with Commissioner Hiller, we
can't be micromanaging and creating a development on the fly up here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any final
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 62
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning dissents, so it
passes 4-1 .
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Item #10A
SETTING A TIME CERTAIN IN BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONER MEETINGS OF 1 :00 PM FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AND, IN
ADDITION, WHEN A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
MEETING ENDS BEFORE 1 :00 PM, IT WILL RECONVENE AT
1 :00 PM FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING PUBLIC
COMMENTS — MOTION TO NOT APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 10.A under
Board of County Commissioners. That is a recommendation to
consider setting a time certain in the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of 1 :00 p.m. for public comments for items not on the agenda.
And in addition when a Board of County Commission meeting ends
before 1 :00 p.m., it will reconvene at 1 :00 p.m. for the purpose of
hearing public comments. This item was placed on the agenda by
Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me one moment. Just a point of
clarification. Don't we have Item 9.F, sir?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we do, but it's not time certain, and your
rules of your agenda say that public hearings on land use items are no
Page 63
May 12, 2015
sooner than 1 :30 unless otherwise noted.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir, I stand corrected. Okay,
fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a --
MR. OCHS: You do have the owners here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they here?
MR. OCHS: I believe they are. And the staff is here. I defer to
your County Attorney about whether or not you can take it any sooner.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's follow our rules and proceed with
10.A. I feel most comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to make a suggestion.
I would like to bring back a recommendation that we move these land
use hearings to first thing after, you know, our proclamations and other
recognitions rather than have it at 1 :00. I think we should have it first
thing and get it done rather than wait 'til the afternoon.
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the board, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because what's been going on, like
what we did this morning is great. And nothing would be worse than if
we have a shorter general agenda and then we have this period of time
where we have a lag 'til we have a hearing after lunch at 1 :00.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's take that up under the item that
we're going to discuss here. Because I think they're all related. So
we're going to continue on 10.A.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, it was your item,
please.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, and this is basically just to
give the public certainty of when they can speak, there's a specific time
frame, they understand that they don't have to sit through hours and
hours of a meeting which I've seen happen. And I just think it's --
that's what we are, we're servants of the public, we need to
Page 64
May 12, 2015
accommodate our schedule so that they have an opportunity to speak.
And that's it, it's simple.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will say this, and I will tell you, I'm
very interested to see what all the other Board members think.
I do not support this for one reason and that is I don't consider any
agenda item more or less important than any other agenda item. And
what we have is we have a multiple methodology for allowing the
public to contact the Board and to discuss in the public each individual
agenda item that we have. And what happens is the individuals that
wish to testify on those items must -- they must have the patience to sit
until their agenda item comes up. Those items that are advertised on
the agenda are items for which a lot of people prepare. And, you
know, they have to wait their turn through the scheduling of the Board.
And I believe the Board needs the maximum amount of flexibility to
arrange the schedule to fit the circumstance. And I think each day
present a different circumstance. Commissioner Hiller just
commented about public hearings. Public hearings early in the
morning may be great if all the people and all the experts required are
proximate to this room. If people have to travel large distances, it
might be more advantageous to those to appear in the afternoon. So
there are many things to consider.
I don't think that fixing a time at 1 :00 p.m., despite the fact that
the meeting might end earlier, is wise, because I believe it commits
staff, I believe it commits the Board of County Commission to return,
security to return, and also we must realize in these public activities
not only do people have a right to speak, but people have a right to
hear. So all those that might want to hear public comments might not
want to wait two hours to hear them. Furthermore, if we have public
comments at 1 :00 p.m., we actually don't know if there's going to be
any public comment, because we don't know if or when people are
going to sign up for public comments. If we have a time certain at
Page 65
May 12, 2015
1 :00 p.m., we could have people come in at 12:58 and sign up or we
could have a person that signed up earlier in the day decide not to
appear, in which case the entire Board and the entire staff would be
showing up for an individual that we don't know is going to testify.
So I believe, you know, as the current chair and having testified
before the Board of County Commission when we had public
comment early in the day and late in the day, that prescribing more
time certains is not going to promote a smooth meeting and I don't
think it's going to -- I don't think it's going to promote efficiency and I
don't think it's in the public interest. But that's just my opinion.
Commissioner Henning, I believe you're next, then Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Taylor, is this
because of the oil item that was on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir. No, it was from last
meeting. And in fact the gentleman's here. One of the gentlemen who
is being part of an agenda item today was under public comment. And
it was a very long meeting, our last meeting, and he spoke at the end.
And frankly, it comes from 10 years of deciding very early when I was
on the City Council that we would just hear the public. There's
nothing more important than hearing from the people who pay our
bills. They pay their taxes, that's why we're here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know I agree with
that. However, every governing board is different.
(Noise from audience.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Every governing board is
different, okay? So welcome to the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's not because we did it in
the city I want it in the county, it's just that I have a great deal of
respect for the public to be able to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so do I. On each and every
Page 66
May 12, 2015
item it's important for the public to be afforded to talk on. And you
understand the public comment, that we really can't take any action, it's
public petition that we take action.
You know, I don't see what's broken with our agenda, whether it
be land use or public comment or any of the other items. It works. I
can see it's going to be a fiscal impact. The only reason we're here at
this time this late is besides items pulled off the summary and consent
is there's an add-on. I can't imagine telling staff to go back for an hour
or two to work, only (sic) have to come back. That's a fiscal impact. I
just don't see where it's broken.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
First of all, every item on the agenda is for the benefit of the
public and is about the public. And every item on the agenda allows
for public comment. To single out a time certain for public comment
for items not on the agenda when all -- just about all the other items on
the agenda which afford public comment are not a time certain is really
not really a fair way to proceed to those members of the public who
want to speak to items that are part of the general agenda, which are
the most important part of the agenda, because those are the set items
that are intended to be acted upon officially by the Board.
And Commissioner Henning is correct, the public element for
items not on the agenda are not items that the Board can act on or give
staff direction on in any way. And the only way to do that is through
the petition process or through contacting an individual commissioner
who has the opportunity to put an item on the agenda.
The process we have here has worked, has been effective. And
there is also another opportunity for the public to comment on items
that are not on the agenda and that is to communicate directly with the
commissioners in writing or in person.
Page 67
May 12, 2015
And another thing that can be done by the public is if they don't
want to necessarily speak at the podium is they can write a comment
and ask a commissioner to introduce it on the record and it becomes a
part of the minutes of a future meeting.
So it is very important to afford the public the opportunity to
speak. The public is afforded the opportunity to speak and I would
agree that, you know, we have worked very hard, we have moved this
item around a number of times to try to figure out what works best, and
it does appear that this has been the best approach of all the approaches
that we've had. And again, I wouldn't want to treat the public that
wants to speak on agenda items differently than the public that wants
to speak on the non-agenda items. So I think, you know, we need to be
consistent.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then I believe Ms.
Albers, we have public speakers, ma'am?
MS. ALBERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: How many public speakers do we
currently have?
MS. ALBERS: We have seven public speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Yes, I too agree that, you know, you don't need to fix it if it ain't
broken. I think however possibly we could tweak it a little bit and that
is, as Commissioner Hiller so rightfully said, we've moved this around
to different parts of the agenda trying to figure out which would work
best for the public, because some people say they don't want to come
in the morning, they have to work, some don't want to come later in the
day because they don't want to stay all day long. So we chose 1 :00 as
a good time after lunch to try and compromise with that. And
sometimes we'll get 30 speakers here all wanting to speak on
something. And probably today we can tell what the subject is just by
Page 68
May 12, 2015
seeing the faces, and that's fine. We've never -- we don't want to
discourage anybody.
But I think what we have possibly not been doing right, and this
would be the only way I would tweak it, and that is many times we've
got some heavy subjects that we're dealing with in the morning and we
haven't finished and it's time to break for lunch. I think what we
should do is with those subjects, those people are going to be here
regardless, we should then start our public hearing at 1 :00, period, and
listen to what they have to say and then get back to the rest of the
subjects and agenda. That would be the only way I would tweak it. I
don't know if anybody else would be in agreement with that or not.
And I'm always here, it doesn't make any difference, I save the
whole day. I'm sure everybody does, you save the whole day to be
here anyway. I don't know, I think there was once we ended before
noon.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We didn't make it, ma'am, we missed by
two minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, was it two minutes? But that's
the only time I ever remember. So we're all going to be coming back
anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, but let me
just say this. That's for -- and we're dealing strictly with comments
that don't relate to items on the agenda. That's unfair to all the other
members of the public. Because we don't do time certains for all the
other items that are on the agenda that the public has the opportunity to
speak to on that specific agenda item. So now all of a sudden, you
know --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Unless it's demonstrated that there's a
need because of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And then sometimes a
commissioner will set that particular item at a time certain. But every
Page 69
May 12, 2015
single item on the agenda invites public comment. And we sometimes
set some of those items at time certains if we know there will be a lot
of speakers to accommodate them. But for the most part we don't. So
now all of a sudden we are treating those public speakers who want to
speak on general agenda items differently. And we're treating those
people who want to speak on non-agenda items with preference. And
that's the problem. And that's the unfairness. Suddenly we're giving --
and again, if someone wants the Board to act, they've got to petition
the Board to act. And in the agenda, that comes like right at the
beginning, right after we do presentations. Then we have, you know,
public petition. And I think there's some confusion between public
speakers on non-agenda items and public petitions.
So that's the only concern I have, that now suddenly we're being
unfair to the other public, the public that wants to speak to items on the
general agenda. And that's the only reason why setting a time certain
then puts those people at a disadvantage. Because now they have to
wait, whereas the non-agenda item speakers don't.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Commissioner Taylor, some final
remarks from you before the public speakers, and we'll hear from
them, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Again, this is just to be very clear
my position on this. I brought this forward because of the last meeting,
not the other meeting where members of the public who wanted to
speak were not present when we ended our meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I think you were very clear, it was very clear what
the procedure was at that time. And it was unfortunate there was a
misunderstanding, but I do not believe there was any willful disregard
of those speakers by this Commission at that time.
And -- but going forward, I just think to clear up -- you know, just
to allow the public, especially public who have not hired attorneys,
attorneys who are -- or who have agenda items and have a lot of time
Page 70
May 12, 2015
invested in it, just sort of the -- our neighbors, you know, our neighbors
and our friends and our people who just want to speak to us. I think it
bodes well to give them an opportunity at a certain time to do so.
So that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, let's go to the public speakers.
MS. ALBERS: Mr. Chairman, your first speaker is Dr. John
Dwyer. He will be followed by Dr. Karen Dwyer.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Thank you. My name is John Dwyer.
And I especially want to affirm Commissioner Taylor's request. And
I'd like to ask you in addition to please listen to the public. It is not
very deep below the surface that there is an attitude toward public
comment that is a little scornful.
We have a number of members of the public who are very well --
understand the issues very well and are well prepared to speak to you
with expertise, and that we have at previous times brought truth and
light into this room. Some of the public come here at considerable
personal sacrifice to speak to you about items important to us. And
possibly not fully understood by all of the commissioners.
Many speakers you must listen to are not fully prepared and when
-- repetitive, quite tedious to you. I understand that. But I also know
how easy it is for elected officials to listen to the wrong voices, voices
of persons they have grown to trust for whatever reason. And you
know the cost of doing that. The public's comments are not always the
right voices, but you cannot discount or restrict our rights to contribute
to the discussion. Tactics like delaying time allotted to the very end of
the meeting, which restricts our time to give a speech. We prepare
something that's going to take three minutes, and sometimes it takes a
lot of hours to do that, to say everything in three minutes. And then at
the last minute the time is changed to two or even less. We know the
legislative thing that happened just three weeks ago in Tallahassee
when people were given 45 seconds at the last minute to comment on
Page 71
May 12, 2015
Mr. Richter's bill.
Particularly those of us who have prepared carefully and crafted
speeches to conform to your original time period to topics that are
scheduled on the agenda, we want you to listen to the public. Thank
you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dr. Karen Dwyer. She will
be followed by Jennifer Hecker.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Yes, please do set a time certain of 1 :00
p.m. for public comment. It would send a strong message that the
Commission is willing to listen to the public who have taken off work
or traveled long distances to share their concerns with you. It would
increase transparency and predictability in your proceedings.
The public has been repeatedly alarmed about being inadvertently
silenced or not allowed to speak. So a time certain is good news. It
would lend a sense of certainty and stability to your meetings and help
us all work together more effectively. I'm grateful that you're
considering it and urge you all to vote yes. Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Jennifer Hecker. She will
be followed by Judith Dempsey.
MS. HECKER: Jennifer Hecker on behalf of The Conservancy
of Southwest Florida.
As a public interest group who represents thousands of Collier
County citizens, we strongly support the recommendation that public
comment on non-agenda items be at 1 :00 p.m. The current system is
not working or fair, because people have to take off time off their work
waiting hours and then are prevented from commenting by changing
the times.
Government is to serve and to represent the public, with the
BOCC being public servants. Although we are professional advocates
who can be present for hours to offer comment, most working citizens
cannot. Agenda items, even when not time certain, can be tracked and
Page 72
May 12, 2015
predicted within a certain time window. Having public comment
being able to be heard any time before or after 1 :00 p.m. does not
provide the public any predictability as to a reasonable window of time
to aim to provide comment, having to plan to be present for the whole
meeting for just three minutes of comment, which is unduly
burdensome.
It's not about waiting our turn. We just don't know when our turn
is.
And I do want to mention that just as evidenced with the
discussion here, having the Board discuss the item before even taking
public comment really circumvents the whole purpose of public
comment, which is to provide information for you to consider and
hopefully inform your decision making. But only making up your
minds before and then stating that and then taking public comment is
really offensive to the public. Because it makes us just a perfunctory
exercise. And really, as a public advocate, I just want to say, I'm
asking each of you to consider thinking about if the roles were
reversed and you were out here, how would you want to be treated?
You would want to be heard, you would want to be treated with
respect, you would want to be given a reasonable window of time to
give your comment, and you'd want to have your comments
considered. And that's all we're asking for.
So I really urge you today to think about this carefully and please,
support this recommendation to go back to the way it used to be where
we had a predictable window of time for the public to be able to
comment on non-agenda items. Thank you so much.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Judith Dempsey. She will
be followed by Dona Knapp.
MR. DEMPSEY: Hi. I'm sorry that you believe -- or that you
feel that public comment is a burden. I'm really saddened to think that
coming back at 1 :00 to hear what people have to say is a bad thing.
Page 73
May 12, 2015
I'm surprised to hear that.
I also want to mention that the last time I came here there was an
agenda item that was removed so I was here to speak on an agenda
item, but then I was made -- I was basically turned into somebody
coming that was coming for a non-agenda item. So it seems even if I
try to petition this Board, I could still be showing up for an agenda
item and then basically become part of the public that's coming for a
non-agenda item. So I don't believe that that helps in any way.
I just hope that you make the right decision and make sure that
you take time to listen to the people that elect you and also pay your
salaries. Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dona Knapp. She will be
followed by Jaime Duran.
MS. KNAPP: Good morning, Commissioners, Dona Knapp.
I can only say how disappointed I was at the last time we were
here and I signed up to speak on the agenda and we were silenced. I
thought to myself, this isn't the America that I came to. This isn't the
democracy that I heard about in my old country of England to be
silenced like this.
You are a public servant. We pay your salaries. You live well
because of us. And I would please urge you to listen to the public. We
have a lot of good things to say and things that you should listen to.
We are quite clued up on very many things, especially after the
last two years where we've been appearing in front of you. We've
waited all day long. Many, many days we've waited all day long just
to be able to speak where other people have been speaking before us.
And I even feel like perhaps this was done on purpose to silence us.
So please, please, from now on give us the respect that we would
afford you as our elected commissioners. Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Jaime Duran, followed by
Pamela Duran.
Page 74
May 12, 2015
MR. DURAN: For the past two years I have come to these
meetings to talk about subjects that should be of concern to all. This
Board for whatever reason has made it difficult to air our concerns,
with either by changing the agenda at the last minute or delaying the
proceedings until late in the afternoon, or limiting the time to a time
that doesn't make sense.
A time certain for public comment will be helpful. It should not
be limited to just items not in the agenda and should confirm and will
confirm to us that you actually want to hear from the public. Thank
you.
MS. ALBERS: Your final speaker is Pamela Duran.
MS. DURAN: Thank you, Commissioner Taylor, for bringing
this subject up. She's the one on the end.
This system is broken. That's all there is to it. You don't care. I
don't know why you're so surprised that no public speaker is here for
public comment on 9.A. The only reason I have been coming to these
meetings is because I believe what you have done by allowing oil
drilling to be in this county was wrong. I only -- I'm retired, I have
better things to do. It's broken when we come up here in these
meetings and we have been refused, you have refused to listen. At one
meeting you took it off the agenda and you said we could not do a
public comment.
So what you're saying, it's not broken, you treat us the same? I
have felt such disrespect from some of these commissioners that I'm
ashamed. I think you should rewind and look at some of the videos
and your actions during these videos, you know? You're going to be
surprised. This is on record.
The only reason that I don't want the water polluted is for the next
generations. I really believe in this subject. I hope you listen. I think
if you had people that were as passionate about the future generation,
about the State of Florida, you should be happy. But all I see is
Page 75
May 12, 2015
disrespect.
MS. ALBERS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, we do have one more
public speaker. Aranza Thigpen, Jr.
MR. THIGPEN: Good morning. And I want to thank you for
being here and understanding the complexity of allowing time certain.
It's very important that you do this, not just because of the items that
you currently have on your agenda that have already been allocated for
those to speak on or on behalf of, but like it was mentioned before, we
need to have transparency between the public and the offices that you
serve.
The issues that I believe that will be discussed this afternoon are
in direct relationship to all of your development, all of your concerns
about promoting social benefit for those that need to have things done
on their behalf. This is a very serious issue. And if you undermine or
make it difficult for the people to respond, they will rebel in ways
unimaginable.
MS. ALBERS: That's your final public speaker.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I believe it's Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let me read. Public
comments on general topics not on the future agenda will be heard at
1 :00 p.m. unless otherwise noted. It's at 1 :00 p.m. Okay? Unless
otherwise noted.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: And you've
done that twice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I had a sneaking suspicion
this was about the oil item that was removed from the agenda because
The Conservancy can't get anybody to listen in Tallahassee. Now, I
noticed.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: This is
incredible.
Page 76
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Stop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I noticed was Jennifer
Hecker marching everybody out of the meeting --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You had
personal comment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir, excuse me.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You' re
breaking a rule.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir, I'm going to have anybody that
speaks out removed from this room. You must allow the
commissioners to respond to your comments. Is that okay with
everybody? Let's agree that we're going to have a respectful
discussion.
Please continue, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Conservancy knows our
agenda, okay? But Jennifer Hecker walked everybody out of the
meeting, knowing where we were within the meeting. So we did
convene.
You know, I -- it's astounding to me on the leadership at The
Conservancy and how they mislead the public on our meetings.
What we have in the afternoon is an emergency bridge repair. It's
not a public petition for land use. It's emergency repair or replacement
of a bridge. Isn't that important? I mean, I'm just astounded that these
items tend to sneak on the agenda that is somebody else's agenda
without disclosing that. Because nobody's listening to them in
Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you know, the -- when we
set the agenda at the beginning of a board meeting, it's a fluid process.
To give you an example, Commissioner Taylor pulled an item off
consent, 11 .B, and so now that's going to be heard later in the day
Page 77
May 12, 2015
without a time certain. And there might be members of the public that
had wanted to speak to that. But because she pulled it off and put it on
the general agenda rather than leave it on consent, you know, now the
public may not be able to come to speak to that or may come and
speak to it but without knowing specifically at what time they're going
to have the opportunity to speak to that item.
That public is actually less privileged than the public that has the
opportunity to speak on items not on the agenda because that item will
-- that opportunity afforded for public comment is always on the
agenda and never is removed.
The Board very much wants to hear from the public on all items
on the agenda, as well as hearing from items of concern that are not on
the agenda. But again, it is not fair to give those who want to speak to
items not on the agenda a time certain when all the other items for the
most part that are on the agenda that we do really want to hear public
input on when we are going to take an official act on what is being
recommended is not afforded a time certain. And there's a real
disparity there.
The agenda items in my opinion are with respect to public
comment even more important to be considered for input. And we
don't make our minds up ahead. In some instances we know who the
speakers are and they have come and said, you know, we're supportive
of a particular action. And, you know, if I look into the audience and I
know a particular speaker, know there are no other speakers and I
know that they're supportive and I make a motion and they stand up
and they say, you know, we're very glad that you made the motion,
that's not negative, that's positive.
There's no intent to cut that input off at all. A lot of these people
who come and speak, speak to us ahead of the meeting in addition to at
the meeting, and they do it either by communicating in writing or by
talking to us.
Page 78
May 12, 2015
So I believe public comment is extremely important on all items
on the agenda. And I don't believe that any member of the public is
being disrespected or disregarded by this Board, by any member of this
Board.
Now, it may be viewed as -- like if Commissioner Henning does
not agree with maybe what Mr. Dyer (sic) says, that may be viewed in
Mr. Dyer's mind as disrespect. But it isn't. It's your right to, you know,
disagree with Commissioner Henning, it's Commissioner Henning's
right to disagree with you, because he is making the representative
decision and his decision may represent a majority and you may
represent a different special interest. That's not negative. That's okay.
That doesn't mean it's disrespectful.
But we value the input you bring. And on every item of the
agenda that you have signed up, we have listened. And I know
personally I have taken a lot of your very good comments into
consideration in my decision making.
And with respect to items not on the agenda, I personally have
also listened and have at times found benefit in what you have said as
well. So I appreciate, you know, your participation.
I do think that the process that we have right now is fair, because
it's treating everybody the same way. I mean, it's treating items --
public comment for items not on the agenda the same way as public
comment for items on the agenda -- on the general agenda. And I
think that's important.
I think the way we've been handling time certains has also been
well contemplated. Because when we have a sense that there are going
to be a lot of speakers on an item that is on the general agenda, we do
try to set time certains for that so we don't inconvenience people in a
large group.
And we've done that, by the way, for the fracking issue, where we
know that we've had a lot of people coming in to speak on the fracking
Page 79
May 12, 2015
issue. And just so you know, the time certains are set by whoever the
Chair is. And the administration of the public meetings is the
responsibility and the role given to the Chair. And he has set time
certains on a lot of these. For example, important issues like fracking
and like other matters that you've very carefully set for a specific time
because you know there are a lot of speakers.
So, you know, I don't feel that favoring one agenda item, public
comment for one agenda item over the others is really fair to the other
members of the public.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I'll just sum it up by saying
I wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues. I feel that the
public that do not have a vested interest in the agenda, i.e., attached to
an agenda item, they're here, sometimes they're retired, many times
they're taking off work so that they can be heard in a public forum and
petition their -- or express their views. Let me rephrase that, express
their views to this Commission.
I see that there would never be any kind of unfairness whatsoever
by just giving them a set time to be able to speak. Because, frankly,
then they can plan their day and they can get back to work. Sometimes
they come here at great sacrifice.
So that's really the intent of what I wanted to bring forward, and I
hope I have some support. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I'd like to make a few comments.
Commissioner Taylor, I recognize your intention, but I will tell
you honestly that every individual, every citizen in Collier County that
comes to testify on a subject on an issue thinks that that item is the
most important item on the agenda or they wouldn't be here.
Sometimes people come and speak to a number of items. You know,
we've had citizens that have done that routinely, and we've gotten to
know them. Like Mr. Pointer who passed away recently, he would
Page 80
May 12, 2015
have a comment on a number of issues, or Mr. Krasowski, who has a
passion for things relating to sea turtles and whatnot, he testifies. And
honestly, many of those comments have been luminary. And
sometimes a comment that comes on items not on the agenda is one of
the most important comments of the day because it brings something
up that nobody had thought about. And I appreciate that.
But also, you know, I'm sensitive -- I'm very sensitive to this issue
because my district is the farthest away from this facility. I have
residents that live in eastern Collier County that have to travel over an
hour by car to get here. So they start an hour ahead of time and they
trudge over here and they wait for their agenda item and it's -- I will
tell you, it's very, very difficult to make these schedules. You might
think it's very simplistic regarding the issue for which you have
passion. But it is not. It's very difficult to schedule these.
And it's been my experience as a witness and as a person sitting in
the audience to testify and as the Chairman, this year as the Chairman
of your Board, to tell you that many times you just can't get a very
satisfactory meeting for one reason or another. And oftentimes it's
because you have too many time certains.
What usually happens, if you have four or five time certains, is
you simply don't -- you're not time certain about any of them. They
carry over one to another, people get upset because they think they
were promised a particular time to speak and the discussion ran long
because there was additional public speakers or there was a specially
vigorous discussion here on the dais.
So I don't know that there is -- that there is anything that we can
do that is going to really honestly improve what we already have.
And, you know, I'm committed to make sure that every citizen that
comes and speaks -- but I want to treat them with equal fairness. I
want to have each person that comes to speak on the agenda item to
which they traveled here to speak which they think is the most
Page 81
May 12, 2015
important is not prejudged by this Board. I don't -- I think it's very
unfair for us to say one agenda item is more important than others.
Now, we do try to accommodate people's convenience when we
are aware that there are many, many people that want to talk on a given
topic. But on items not on the agenda, you honestly don't know if
there's going to be a whole lot of them or if there's going to be none.
So it is hard.
And so I'm simply of the belief that we're doing something that is
as effective and honestly as good as we can make it.
Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there's a solution with
respect to where I see the problem, and that is the fact that we have,
and this is what I was saying earlier, the land use hearings no sooner
than 1 :30. And what I would like to see is that we start with the land
use hearings like we did today and get them out of the way, and then
we'll have far more flexibility in -- you know, when we hear the other
agenda items and public comment and not have -- because one of the
biggest problems we have is when we have these land use issues, if we
don't start them first thing and get them over with as soon as possible
in the beginning of the day, they -- if they start at 1 :30, then if stuff in
the morning runs over or if, you know, we have one that's a time
certain that's later in the morning and then it runs over, I mean, it just
makes it very difficult. I think if we could try that, I think it would
help a lot. I think it would go a long way in freeing up the afternoon
without interruption to allow for public comment on all items.
Would that be a problem?
MR. OCHS: It's not a problem for staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we try it and just to see what
impact it would have? Because again, you know, I want all members
of the public both that speak to the agenda as well as the non-agenda
items. You know, and if the public knows that we have all these land
Page 82
May 12, 2015
use hearings first thing on a particular day, if there are any scheduled,
then they know that they can be here, you know, after lunch and, you
know, speak to the -- those other items, both agenda'd and
non-agenda'd.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because those are the longest
hearings.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor is the one
commissioner that hasn't served as chair on this Board now, with
myself being the second newest individual. And I'm sure you
recognize how difficult it is to set these agendas, depending on these
particular items. That's why I continue to favor the most flexibility.
And clearly stating when public comment can be -- you know, if
we have 1 :00, which we've tried to rely on -- we had one incident
where the meeting was going to end early, and I think that precipitated
this discussion. But normally if you know it's a full agenda and there
are 20 items on there, you know that the meeting is not going to end
early. And it's pretty indicative. There should be very few individuals
that testify here on a regular basis that can't predict when it's going to
be a long meeting.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just finish my comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to say, after listening to the
public, and some were a little unkind with their comments, but after
listening to the public, then I'm thinking about all of the other subjects.
For instance, land use items. One might be very controversial. They
want to be heard. And then I'm thinking about the people under public
comment, we don't know what their comments would be, and they
want to be heard.
Now say for instance they had -- our group that's right here had an
issue that's on the agenda, and then -- but we had to go to a time
Page 83
May 12, 2015
certain. See, I was under the impression we should just do a time
certain. But now after listening to everyone, then if we had a time
certain and they wouldn't be able to finish their subject until after the
time certain for public comment, then we'd be criticized for that.
So now I'm seeing what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It cuts both ways, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And so --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It depends on which shoe is on which
foot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, it depends on which one
you're talking on. Everybody gets the same three minutes, regardless of
whether they have a topic on there or they're going to be here just on
public comments in general.
So after listening to them I'm realizing, oh, wait a minute, okay,
so everybody wants to be heard. And you know what? We've always
listened. And I'll give you one prime example I learned a way long
time ago, but I'm a listener anyway. And that is it was at Pelican Bay.
And some people were coming in and the audience was totally
objecting to this particular thing. They just wanted 18 inches added to
their house. I couldn't see any problem with 18 inches added to the
house. I couldn't understand why everybody was complaining and
they were coming up. Finally one lady way down the list of speakers
said -- but nobody said that they needed the 18 inches in order to put a
second story on their house. What? She said it's against the rules in
our community. And nobody ever said that, whether it be staff or
anybody else. Thank heavens the woman was there, because we all
changed our vote.
So we listened and you have to listen to people. And people
bring in some very good comments. And so I'm listening again. And
I'm thinking, you know, everybody has a right to speak to us no matter
what the subject. So maybe it isn't fair to cut off one subject. Say for
Page 84
May 12, 2015
instance oil was on there, oil and gas were on there at 10:30 and there
were 23 speakers and plus we heard everybody and we still couldn't
finish. Should we put them aside to hear the speakers in the afternoon
who don't have a particular subject? So I hear what they're saying and
it's different than what I thought.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then back to
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion not to approve Item
10.A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There is a motion and a second not to
approve.
Any further comment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make the comment
that I would really like to see the land use moved to the morning rather
than the afternoon. If we could just try that and see what effect that
would have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about all of the, say for
instance employees recognition?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but like we could do it no
sooner than 10:00 or 10:30.
And that's another thing, that goes to the proclamations, when we
should limit the number of proclamations that we actually present
versus what we put on consent to manage that early morning process
better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if it's a subject that is very
controversial and you have 38 speakers here, then what do you do?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they can set a time certain.
That's what we do right now. When we have any issue where we know
there's going to be a lot of speakers, then usually the Chair sets a time
certain in conjunction, you know, with the County Manager so those
Page 85
May 12, 2015
people know that, you know, whether it's a land use issue or whatever
the other issue might be.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I just think flexibility to deal with the
issues that are brought forth by the Commissioners and the Chair is the
best way to handle it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Because I don't -- I don't -- you know,
how many times has this been gone through? It's been gone through a
million times.
Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, there's a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Hiller to deny
the recommendation to set a time certain. Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is denied 4-1, with Commissioner
Taylor dissenting.
Item #10B
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2005-54 WITH DIRECTION TO INCLUDE REVISION TO
Page 86
May 12, 2015
SECTION NINETEEN TO MEET UPDATED MARKET
STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPE RECYCLING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 10.B. It's a
recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise for
future consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2005-54
with direction to include revision to Section 19 to meet updated market
standards for landscape recycling. This item was brought forward by
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we want to talk trash before
lunch?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I say motion to approve. I think it's
a good agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'll second the
motion.
The reason I did it is because of some constituents reached out to
me, you know, stating what kind of container's out there on the market.
And the weight of the item is not going to change. I mean, it still has
to be under 50 pounds.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I think it's a
great item. I actually think this is the sorts of items that we need to
have a lot more of, because it's sure practical, it's going to help
everybody out and it's going to save work and it's going to save debris
in the landfill because we're going to have less bags used. I certainly
support it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It answers a need.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just one quick note. And I spoke
with Commissioner Henning about this. Staff is also fully supportive
of the commissioners's recommendation, with the exception that I
think he specified up to 42 gallon. And I think out in the commercial
Page 87
May 12, 2015
marketplace you can actually get containers up to 45 gallons, so --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's actually more than that. There's
up to 55. There's drum size.
MR. OCHS: Well, at some point you get beyond the weight. But
we would suggest if Commissioner is agreeable just to amend that
42-gallon contain to up to not to exceed 45-gallon container.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of that, but the
motion maker --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll add that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we make that retroactive so
the people that have bought those over 32 gallons can set them out and
put their yard debris in it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have no problem if we just direct Code
not to enforce -- you know, to stay with enforcement on bags. I don't
know how much enforcement on bags we're doing, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I talked to George and he
said we can do that, but I think it needs to be directed by the Board of
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we still could put the -- I see
people buying bags, and they can put up to 10 bags out, right, that they
can throw in there? So that's still there. But for those -- but like me
who just puts them in the trash receptacle -- not a trash receptacle but,
you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yard waste recycle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. That seems to work just
great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Page 88
May 12, 2015
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes unanimously.
I guess we're going to have lunch now, unless the Board wishes to
do otherwise. And we'll return at 1 :01 .
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen,
welcome back. Mr. Ochs, I believe we are at —
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: We're at Item 7, Mr. Chairman, public comments on
general topics not on the future or current agenda.
MS. ALBERS: Mr. Chairman, you have nine public speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MS. ALBERS: The first public speaker is Marlene Gargan.
She'll be followed by Jennifer Hecker.
MS. GARGAN: Marlene Gargan. I'm a resident of Donna Fiala's
Page 89
May 12, 2015
District 1, and I wanted to let you know that I'm not here for any one
specific agenda item, as was suggested earlier that everybody is here
for. I'm here to observe and generally find out what's going on in
Collier County.
The meeting today I thought was productive, but there were some
things that have really bothered me and I feel I must speak on them.
Commissioner Hiller's comment on "that one at the end" was
totally disrespectful and inappropriate.
And another thing is that is it is Dr. John Dwyer, not Mr. Dyer.
I thought that Commissioner Henning's comments about Jennifer
Hecker and The Conservancy were way over the top.
And I do want to mention to Commissioner Fiala that the
unkindness that you saw and comments from the people comes from
your dais. There are -- the aforementioned Commissioners and
sometimes Commissioner Nance's attitude towards people is a little bit
arrogant and I find it unbecoming. And I am embarrassed when I
come here. This is the third time now that I've come here and have
been embarrassed at comments or actions by the Collier County
Commissioners. And I'm asking that all of you act more respectful and
less antagonistic in your comments. And you should be acting as
elected officials of all residents of Collier County. As I said, I for one
am embarrassed by the actions of some of the commissioners today.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Jennifer Hecker. She has
been ceded time by Caitlin Weber. Ms. Weber, are you here?
MS. HECKER: Yes. Caitlin and Gladys.
MS. ALBERS: And Gladys Delgado.
So you get a total of nine minutes.
MS. HECKER: Thank you. I don't think I'll need that much, but
I appreciate it.
Jennifer Hecker on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest
Florida. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Page 90
May 12, 2015
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is a public interest group
who shares the priorities of Collier County in trying to work to protect
the public health and safety of Collier County citizens, as well as the
environment, including public water supplies which they depend upon.
We've been here for 50 years assisting previous Board of County
Commissions, and plan to be here for many years in the future
assisting future County Commissioners with protecting our
environment and quality of life to keep this place a desirable place to
live and to visit.
You may disagree with our organization, but respectfully your
position does not give you the license to insult or defame our
organization or its employees, or to characterize our factually
supported positions as misleading. We're an advocacy organization
charged with advocating for water resource protection. That's what
we're trying to do in assisting your efforts to control irresponsible oil
drilling that put these resources at risk.
As you know, Collier County is ground zero for new extreme oil
extraction techniques that are very different than conventional oil
drilling in that they involve very large amounts of water mixed with
toxic chemicals, including those that are known to cause cancer in
humans. And they were used here in Collier County, injected
underground.
While The Conservancy has never been opposed to responsible
conventional drilling operations in Collier County, we, like the county,
were greatly concerned that fracking and fracking-like well stimulation
treatments were occurring without scientific study as to how they
impact or function in Florida's very unique hydrology and geology.
The bottom line is that without the community knowing how and
where these are actually occurring in our community, it is impossible
to provide appropriate emergency response or medical treatment in the
event of an emergency or to ensure operations are not taking place in a
Page 91
May 12, 2015
manner that won't compromise or contaminate public water supply
sources for Collier County citizens.
That is why we, like the county, desire for legislation to establish
the legal foundation and requirements to regulate and require
disclosure of these chemicals used in fracking and fracking-like well
stimulation treatments that use the same toxic fracking fluids.
However, sadly we stand here today more than a year later
without meaningful legislation having been filed or passed to do so. I
can tell you, just like you all, I've worked on this every single day for
the past year and I'm tired of it. I wish we were past it. Unfortunately
we are exactly where we were a year ago.
The Conservancy has been one of the only groups to try to
support a moderate approach of not immediately abandoning this
technique but trying to get regulatory and disclosure bills passed that
would suspend the techniques until they were studied and until
regulatory standards were put into place to ensure that if they're done
that they are done safely with sufficient regulatory oversight. We
weren't looking for perfection, just for most minimal of safeguards.
And unfortunately the proposed bills that were filed did not provide
that.
We tried to work to strengthen them, to introduce amendments.
We worked -- you know, we respect the efforts of the bill sponsors, we
worked closely with those bill sponsors, but as the Collier County
staffs own analysis showed, there were serious deficiencies with those
bills.
And from the talking points that your own staff created, and I
quote, loopholes in those bills would leave many forms of fracking and
fracking-like well stimulation treatments that also use the same toxic
fracking chemicals from being regulated, studied, suspended or the
chemicals disclosed. None of those other techniques that don't meet
the definition, the very narrow definition of the bills which only
Page 92
May 12, 2015
regulates the high pressure well stimulation using over 100,000
gallons.
There were three work-overs at the Hogan well that were
submitted here in Collier County. The first work-over was for what's
called acidization. Not routine acid cleaning, acid stimulation using
large amounts of acid to dissolve rock rather than fracture rock with
the same exact fracking fluids that were used eventually when the well
was fracked.
So this acidization work-over proposal was submitted in
September and it was conducted with no ado. Most of us didn't know
about it until long after we heard about the fracking-like activity and
started investigating that.
That work-over would not be regulated in these bills the way the
bills are currently constructed.
The second work-over at the Hogan well was to do traditional
hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, but with less than
100,000 gallons total. So you do not need 100,000 gallons, as your
staff accurately said in their own analysis, to have fracking in a well.
So to put a threshold that conditions these bills to only regulating
those techniques that use high pressure, which you don't need in
work-over one at the Hogan well, they did not use pressure that
exceeded the fracture gradient of the rock.
In work-over two they proposed to frack it with less than 100,000
gallons total.
Neither of these two work-overs would have been captured in the
current bills. Only the third work-over would questionably have been
captured, because in the end they used 600,000 gallons. But what they
submitted to DEP before they fracked only indicated under 100,000
gallons of fluid.
And this is evidenced in DEP's own consent order where DEP
asked Hughes how much water did they use, so that they could know
Page 93
May 12, 2015
the total amount of fluid that was used. They didn't know ahead of
time. And that's when they have to make the permitting decision.
So we would hope in the future that they would ask, well, if this is
only stage one and you plan to do other stages, what is the total amount
of fluid that you're going to use?
But the bottom line is, even if we have that 100,000 total
clarified, work-over one, work-over two that use the same types of
chemicals would not be captured.
This is not acceptable to our organization. We require for our
support that it -- all the fracking and fracking-like extraction
techniques that use the same toxic cancer causing chemicals be
regulated and that those chemicals be disclosed. That's not asking for
the sun, the moon and the stars, that's asking for the bottom line to
make sure that what happened at Hogan would be properly regulated
and have some regulatory oversight in the future.
That is not happening in these bills. These fundamental
deficiencies we wanted to have rectified. We were getting
amendments introduced by other legislators and we wanted the county
to get engaged to support those amendments.
Right now with these bills, if they are passed in their current
form, we will continue to have many types of dangerous fracking type
extraction techniques being used in our community virtually
unregulated in total secrecy. So it will be a situation where we won't
know what we won't know.
This is unacceptable. Your staff pointed this out, recommended
talking points for your lobbyists to use, and it's crucial to not only use
your lobbyists to talk to the bill sponsors but -- and we're even the local
legislative delegates, but all of the legislators. Because the majority of
legislators that sit on the committees that vote on these bills are going
to be from outside Southwest Florida.
When I was working in Tallahassee this session for several weeks
Page 94
May 12, 2015
I testified at those committee hearings. At not one committee hearing
were Collier County's representatives giving comment.
And I witnessed the keen interest by all legislators on those
committees to this issue. This is not just a Southwest Florida issue.
They understand that once this takes off there could be pipelines, there
could be roadway expansions, there could be a lot of impacts to other
communities throughout our state as a result of what happens here in
Southwest Florida.
They were concerned. But they noted with perplexity that Collier
County was not present to share its views or its recommendations
about the proposed legislation to say whether it supported those
amendments or not.
We attempted to reach out. We saw that in spite of our efforts,
April 15th there was a letter sent on behalf of the BOCC to support the
proposed legislation without the amendments.
But now we know that the legislators were listening, because The
Conservancy pulled its support and that legislation did not pass. So we
now have a second chance to get it right, to get the legislation that
Collier County citizens need and deserve to protect their water
supplies, and we're asking you today to please take actions, to go back
to your original recommendation that you approved in the AECOM
report and in the e-mails that your own staff produced and
communicated to DEP and advocate for those. We're not asking you
to advocate for our priorities, we're asking you to advocate for your
own. And collectively we can then work together to get the strongest,
best, most protective oil legislation for Collier County's water supplies
and its residents. Thank you so much.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dr. John Dwyer. He will be
followed by Dr. Karen Dwyer.
DR. JOHN DWYER: John Dwyer, Naples, Florida.
When we left this chamber six months ago, we had all agreed to
Page 95
May 12, 2015
adopt the 18 AECOM recommendations and insist that regulations be
put in place and enforcement powers be granted.
You let us down on April 14th. Collier County Lobbyist Keith
Arnold, unnaturally constrained by the description of his job, had not
even been to any committee meetings, nor spoken with either sponsor.
Neither Senator Richter nor Representative Rodriguez's bills represent
Collier County concerns and priorities.
I'm happy these bills failed. Asking the oil industry to write their
own reckless rules that allow fracking to continue in Florida is the
opposite of what we agreed upon in this chamber.
These bills were very tellingly backed by the oil and gas industry.
It was even mentioned in Tallahassee. Where are the people who are
going to be regulated and their objections? None appeared.
Doubtless the Colliers who have attempted to transform one of
the most deadly and dangerous industries into the innocuous sounding
completely safe and sound exploration for mature oil. The regulations
we agreed upon included certain requirements, that the Commission be
notified of every drilling permit applied for, not told to look it up like
the rest of the public.
Further included was guaranteed legal permission for regulators
to inspect the drilling sites whenever they like, and power to apply
significant enforcement fines.
Your support of the Colliers, Governor Scott and the oil industry
are close to criminal. A Guardian investigation of three specific
projects run by Shell, Exxon Mobile and Marathon Petroleum has
revealed that the subsidies were all granted by politicians who received
significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. The
Guardian found a proposed shell petrochemical refinery in
Pennsylvania is in line for $1 .6 billion in state subsidy, according to a
deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of$26.8
billion. Exxon Mobile's upgrades to its Baton Rouge refinery in
Page 96
May 12, 2015
Louisiana are benefiting from 119 million of state subsidy, with the
support starting in 2011 when the company made a $41 billion profit, a
job subsidy scheme where 78 million in Marathon Petroleum in Ohio
began in 2011 when the company made 2.4 billion in profit. Who
knows what the Guardian will find in Collier County.
Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dr. Karen Dwyer. She will
be followed by Pamela Duran.
DR. KAREN DWYER: The oil regulation bills that failed to pass
were heavily criticized. A divided Senate warned that these bills
would not even regulate the type of fracking that occurred at the
Hogan well. Instead they would allow oil and gas companies to frack
in Florida and keep secret the toxic chemicals used. Worse yet, they
would prohibit counties from protecting themselves with fracking
bands, buffer zones and water use regulations, essentially preempting
home rule.
These bills also failed to address county concerns regarding well
stimulation, waste disposal, chemical disclosure, permit notification
and local zoning. We find it more than alarming that the county
supported these deficient bills.
Now is the time to recommit. Since we are still without strong oil
and gas laws to protect public health, make inland oil drilling and
fracking the county's top 2016 legislative priority. Actively lobby for
the strongest oil and gas laws possible. Use your 18 AECOM
recommendations, four Senate and House recommendations, staff
comments to Senators Richter and Rodriguez, and amendments that
address county concerns such as I submit to you today.
Like the county, our number one concern are the regulatory
loopholes in the proposed bill that would enable industry to repeat the
type of fracking that occurred at the Hogan well.
So please broaden the bill's definition of high pressure well
Page 97
May 12, 2015
stimulation to include all well stimulation. Because all involve the
injection of toxic chemicals that pose a risk to our drinking water.
Now is also the time to adopt local resolutions. We need a
one-mile buffer zone between an oil well and any home, school or
environmentally sensitive land. One mile so that residents are moved
outside the emergency evacuation zone mapped out in the drilling
application, which is different in Florida than in Colorado or
Oklahoma. And one mile because Naples is one of the richest
communities in the world and we can do better.
We also need drillers to use alternative water supplies as opposed
to prime drinking water, since we must consider the cumulative impact
of thousands of new wells on the 180,000 acres leased by Collier.
We also need the Commission to support a state-wide ban on
fracking and to ban fracking locally.
It's time we take a step toward true oil independence and join
Miami-Dade, Coconut Creek, Bonita Springs, as well as the State of
New York and countries rights like France and Bulgaria in banning
this extreme extraction technique. It would send a strong message that
Naples is serious about protecting its water and communities.
To conclude, both state and local resolutions to protect our
community. Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Pamela Duran. She'll be
followed by Jamie Duran.
MS. DURAN: The following counties and cities have supported
a state-wide ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing and
well stimulation treatments performed for the purpose of exploration or
production of oil or natural gas in the State of Florida due to the
potential harmful impacts on the environment: Alachua County,
Coconut Creek, Hallandale Beach, Hamilton County, Leon County,
Leon Soil and Water Conservation District, Madison County,
Miami-Dade County, St. Augustine, St. Lucie County, Tallahassee,
Page 98
May 12, 2015
and Union County.
And here are some of the reasons they cited for this statewide
ban. The same ones we have been talking about for the past two years.
Here are their exact words: Exposure to chemicals used in well
stimulation treatment may pose widespread and significant risks to
public health, safety and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing may involve the use of substantial amounts
of freshwater. There have been more than 1,000 documented cases of
water contamination near frack site. Hydraulic fracturing may harm
wildlife, including species that are protected under federal and state
endangered species law. The prohibition of such practices will help
protect the public health, safety and welfare of the state.
The Board is charged generally with safeguarding the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of the county. They all stood up,
they all agreed, all the Commissioners signed this statewide ban. And
the Collier County Commission have been silent. Not even a peep.
And here we are, 18 months after they fracked, there's no deep water
testing well. It hasn't been done yet. There has been no water testing.
And you all know that there's a half a million, 500,000 gallons, of toxic
fluid unaccountable for. The only water test was 13 feet deep. Really?
This is a crime of indifference.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Jaime Duran. He'll be
followed by Judith Dempsey.
MR. DURAN: My name is Jaime Duran and I live on 24th
Avenue Southeast.
The Board of Collier County Commissioners have failed in their
duty to protect its citizens. Your indifference and the -- to the
well-being of Collier County residents prove the lack of leadership in
this county.
This county has become the laughingstock of its peers. The
failure of Florida legislature to pass any significant rulings is a sign of
Page 99
May 12, 2015
the systemic indifference of our so-called leaders.
For nearly two years we have come to these chambers to ask for
action, that you have been unwilling to deliver. You now have the
opportunity and the obligation to do the job to which you were elected.
The evidence of damage from enhanced oil and gas extraction
techniques, more commonly known as fracking, acid fracturing, well
stimulation, is extensive. Millions of gallons of water are used only
once and so permanently polluted that they must be injected deep
underground. Cement casings supposed to protect from leakage fail at
alarming rates, offering no real protection at all. The final product, oil,
gas, fossil fuels, are just as damaging as the extraction processes.
We need true leaders willing to make the hard choices necessary
to protect our water, environment and the welfare of residents, now
and in the future. Are you these leaders? Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dona Knapp. She'll be
followed by Aranza Thigpen, Jr.
MS. DEMPSEY: Hi. I'm Judy Dempsey. And I was really
excited to hear Dr. Weiss talk this morning about a Blue Zone. And I
don't know how we're going to accomplish that if we don't make sure
that this county is safe, especially its water.
There have been cases in the news, I'm not sure if you followed it,
but there have been people that are showing up in hospitals with
chemical injuries and the hospitals don't know what to do because they
don't know what chemicals they've been injured with. So I don't know
if Dr. Weiss is aware of that, but this is going to directly affect him if
we're not on top of this issue in our county. But I am really excited
about him making that movement to make us a Blue Zone.
I'm also concerned that if this Board doesn't do anything that
you're going to leave a bad legacy. And when something terrible
happens they're going to say, who let this happen? Who let this
happen? And they're going to be looking at you and your children and
Page 100
May 12, 2015
your grandchildren. And if we're lucky they'll still be living here. I
want this place to be here forever. And I've been here a long time and
I want you to do what you have to do to make sure that the people here
can live here safely and not have to worry about drinking from the
fountains at school or at the park and wonder, oh, is there something in
this water. I just don't want to go to bed at night worrying about that,
worrying about my children drinking from the water fountains,
knowing that there's no protection. Thank you.
MS. ALBERS: Your next speaker is Dona Knapp.
MS. KNAPP: Hi. Dona Knapp.
Basically there is no safe way to frack. We cannot afford to put
our drinking water at risk.
I was happy when one of the commissioners mentioned that she
was concerned about the contaminants coming from graveyards, the
formaldehyde reaching into our -- going into our groundwater. And
surely that same rule would apply to fracking fluids as well.
And we're quite unique here in Florida with our geology. We're
like Swiss cheese underneath, more than any other state, I think. The
underground is very sensitive.
Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania recently found
fracking fluids from oil wells in the drinking water wells of three
homes. One to two and -- one to eight miles from the oil well. These
fluids migrate. They migrate with the oil and with the gas, and they
then surface in people's wells.
Also, we have to consider the waste of five million gallons of
water every month. And in a world where good water is becoming
scarce, and California is evidence of that, NASA's taken photographs
of the aquifers and they're drying up. Gradually the whole of the West
Coast, you can see it's all drying up.
And I think also about the severe storms and the cold weather that
people are having up north. More people are relocating to Florida. I
Page 101
May 12, 2015
mean, this last winter we were the only place with sunshine literally.
Everywhere else was freezing. So naturally more people are going to
be coming to Florida. How are we going to support them with our
water? We cannot afford to waste it on fracking. That water can never
be used again, as you all know. And I just think it's a terrible waste of
something that's so sacred.
Last week a well in Denton, Texas an oil well, exploded from a
lightning storm. Well, as you all well know, we have terrible lightning
storms. Actually I love them, but we have very, very big storms here
in Florida. And quite often brush fires are caused by lightning. So, you
know, if there's wells scattered through the Everglades, what's to
become of the Everglades? What's to become of Big Cypress? What's
to become of neighborhoods and people's homes?
Where else was I going with this? Then there's the lack of
integrity from the oil companies. We were lied to by Dan A. Hughes,
the very first meeting that we had that was organized, thank you, by
Commissioner Nance. And they told us that they would not frack.
Well, they did. Of course they called it something else, acid
stimulation.
But corporations are not people. They're just there for one reason
and that's to make money.
So I suggest a moratorium on all fracking in Florida, because
obviously a lot more research needs to go, a lot more thought needs to
go into this, not just jump the gun. So thank you, Commissioners.
MS. ALBERS: Your final speaker is Aranza Thigpen, Jr.
MR. THIGPEN: Good afternoon. Unlike most of the speakers
today, I'm from Anchorage, Alaska. So I'm from a state that does oil
and gas exploration. Florida is not Alaska, nor does it have its climate.
I want you to take a good look at yourselves when you wake up in the
morning, and the reason why is because are you like the hundreds of
people or thousands of people rather that have been exposed to
Page 102
May 12, 2015
fracking scenarios?
Florida is a very precious location, not just the state but the water
that surrounds it on both the eastern and western coastlines. If you
allow this fracking to continue, you're going to hurt more than just the
environment, you're going to hurt any chance of someone in the future
having an opportunity to have a good life. If you think that fracking is
good, show me a scenario where it has been good. Don't let
corporations trick you into endorsing a scenario that you cannot
reverse.
See, you're under the impression that maybe there's some silver
lining behind this, maybe there's some technological device that would
allow them to carry on with this fracking. Even if they found that
device it can still fail, because it's just a device. The earth is not a
device of a technological means. The earth is something that was
created years and years ago that has been the home to every species
that's alive that we know of. And now we have a chance of ruining that
because of a neglect with the scenario here.
Every decision you make, comprehensive use plans, PUDs,
CMAS, all of that, means absolutely nothing if you allow fracking or
oil and gas exploration to take place in Florida.
And you guys are not even looking at the fact that you have other
renewable resources that you can create to act as a substitution to oil
and gas. Biofuels. I want Collier County to be unanimous as leaders
to support development in those things that do matter instead of
allowing these people to come into the State of Florida to create
legislation. Because that's what they're doing. They're bribing you into
doing something that's not only inhumane, it's just plain awful.
I don't want to have to fight you on this, I just want you to do
what's responsible. And me being from the upper one state where that
is going on, I can tell you that if you allow these people to do this,
there's no turning back. Thank you.
Page 103
May 12, 2015
MS. ALBERS: Mr. Chairman, that was all your public speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Item #11A
DECLARING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
BRIDGE REPAIRS NEEDED FOR BRIDGE NUMBER 030137 ON
CR-846 IDENTIFIED BY THE RECENT FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) INSPECTION,
APPROVE INSTALLATION OF VEHICLE RESTRICTION
SIGNS, WAIVE THE PURCHASING ORDINANCE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
PROCEED WITH A DESIGN-BUILD TEMPORARY BRIDGE
REPAIR WITH A VENDOR THAT CAN COMPLETE THE
WORK ON THE MOST EXPEDITED SCHEDULE — MOTION TO
APPROVE OPTION #2 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 11 .A on your
agenda. It's a recommendation that the Board declares a public
emergency with respect to bridge repairs needed for bridge number
030137 identified by the recent Florida Department of Transportation
inspection to approve the installation of vehicle restriction size, waive
the purchasing ordinance in the best interest of the county, and
authorize staff to proceed with a design-built temporary bridge repair
with a vendor that can complete the work on the most expedited
schedule. And staff will present.
MR. STOLTZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Anthony Stoltz, I'm a Senior Project Manager with Transportation
Engineering Division. I've been assigned to manage the county's
bridge assets, including the bridge repair and replacement program.
One of my tasks is to evaluate the county's current bridge
Page 104
May 12, 2015
infrastructure through Florida Department of Transportation inspection
reports, studies conducted by county hired consultants and personal
observations.
Working within the limits of available funding, I used this
information to prioritize repairs, replacement and replacements in an
effort to maximize the useful life of these valuable assets.
In the interest of public safety, the Florida Department of
Transportation inspects each county bridge every two years. When a
bridge such as the one we will be discussing today reaches a critical
state, the FDOT increases their frequency of inspection and issues
letters to the owner.
In addition to this, because of the age and construction type of
these bridges and others like it in the county, our department hires
independent consultants to monitor bridge conditions at even greater
frequencies to ensure public safety and allow us to respond quickly to
observe deficiencies.
Today I'm here to talk about agenda Item 11 .A, emergency
repairs to bridge number 030137 on County Road 846.
The bridge is located approximately two and a half miles directly
east of Immokalee, and was constructed in 1948. The concrete
superstructure consists of three 15-foot spans and twos barriers
supported on concrete bent caps. The substructure consists of multiple
timber piles, varying above ground lengths and diameters and
unknown embedding. The bridge experiences heavy agricultural
traffic on a daily basis and is located on a critical route for both the
agricultural industry and the emergency services responders.
Load restrictions imposed on or closures of the bridge extend
emergency response times to locations just east of the bridge to 35
minutes, with a detour length of 29 miles. Consequently, emergency
response is the primary reason for seeking Board approval today.
The first inspection of the county's timber pile monitoring
Page 105
May 12, 2015
program was conducted in June of 2014. No significant repairs were
required for bridge number 130137 at that time.
The second inspection report was issued in January of 2015,
indicating no noticeable changes in the conditions of the timber piles.
The FDOT inspected the bridge in April of 2015. These pictures
here are from the FDOT's prompt corrective action letter dated April
24, 2015. As you can see from the photos, the inspectors were able to
place a ruler approximately nine inches into a void in the top of the
timber piles.
This is excerpts from the letter dated April 24th. Things to note is
the timber piles on the bridge have significant decay which will impact
the capacity of the bridge.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You think?
MR. STOLTZ: A new load rating is being performed to
determine the amount of capacity reduction based on the deterioration.
Preliminary calculations show a considerable reduction.
Upon receiving this letter, I contacted the county's timbering pile
monitoring consultant to immediately begin their final evaluation.
Though the final report has not yet been issued, the consultant verbally
confirmed that the deterioration of the piles has accelerated from the
second report to the final inspection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
MR. STOLTZ: Almost done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we can see --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Remove my motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why don't we hear some comment by
Commissioners, sir, and if you would be so kind as to remain handy,
maybe we'll be able to get this going.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 106
May 12, 2015
I would like to know why the deterioration occurred so rapidly so
suddenly. Because if you had an inspection done in January and then
just four months later the state comes in and sees such a material
change, what happened?
MR. STOLTZ: Basically the timber piles are treated with a
creosote when they're initially installed, and over time that creosote
deteriorates and leeches out.
Once that happens and their cracks form into the piles, the
environment will get into the piles and they will quickly deteriorate the
wood. That appears to be what has happened here in the last few
months. And it was noted by our hired consultant as well, but from
their previous inspection, and they went back here a couple weeks ago,
that it had accelerated significantly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it would seem that -- I mean,
how frequently -- first of all, do we have similar pilings in our other
bridges?
MR. STOLTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they about the same age?
MR. STOLTZ: Yes, ma'am. 1948, 1950. There's about 11 of
them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, has this ever happened
before with any of the other pilings --
MR. STOLTZ: No, we repaired these --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of those previous?
MR. STOLTZ: -- pilings before and actually have repaired these
piles before back in about 2007.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So this is a recurring issue.
MR. STOLTZ: Yes. And we have all of these on our
replacement program, in our five-year program, trying to get them
replaced as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're replacing them with
Page 107
May 12, 2015
what?
MR. STOLTZ: New bridges.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, like in -- not just new -- like an
entirely new --
MR. STOLTZ: Completely replacing the bridge.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not just an individual piling, I
mean the whole thing.
MR. STOLTZ: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the cost of this going to
be?
MR. STOLTZ: Actually, it's in our --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Our estimated cost?
MR. STOLTZ: -- five-year program. And the -- actually all 11
are not currently funded. We're showing a deficit coming up to replace
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, what's the cost of this repair
going to be?
MR. STOLTZ: Oh, the repair --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Approximately. Just estimate.
MR. STOLTZ: We're estimating up to 200,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 200,000?
And what's the cost of the bridge replacement?
MR. STOLTZ: That particular bridge is, let's see, it will probably
be about a million and a half to two million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're looking at the repair as
being 10 percent of the actual cost of the bridge?
MR. STOLTZ: Correct. And the reason for the repair is that the
emergency service, we've actually been in contact with the fire chief in
Immokalee and he's extremely concerned that he cannot get access to
the east of Immokalee because of the load restriction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when is this bridge going to
Page 108
May 12, 2015
be replaced?
MR. STOLTZ: We're hoping to replace it as soon as possible.
We're going to go to design as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this -- wow.
We need to really look at what's going on with these other bridges
because, I mean, if you've got repairs of this magnitude and it -- you
know, it's obviously much more than 10 percent if you're looking at a
million-five as opposed to two million, because that's quite a range.
Then, you. know, my concern is that we're spending money to
repair these bridges for a very short period of time. And in effect we're
wasting hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I don't
know what we need to do to accelerate the time table for these bridge
replacements. But I mean, if this is indicative of what's going to
happen with the other bridges, we don't want to get hit, you know,
repeatedly with, you know, 200,000 every few months as these issues
seem to all of a sudden be creeping up.
I mean, it's just something that I think we need -- this is obviously
symptomatic of a bigger problem that we have at a very high cost. So
maybe we're, you know, looking at that replacement time table if the
repair costs are so high and will be amortized over such a short period
of time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, we will be covering that over
the budget. That's one of the items we'll cover when we do the budget
with you is the bridge program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're going to prioritize that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And aren't we getting any -- are we
going to get any federal funding for --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Bridge repairs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not replacement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
Page 109
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: State funding?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No federal or state, it's all local?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, excuse me. So in there you
gave us three options, but actually you estimated -- or rather you
encouraged option two; is that correct?
MR. STOLTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's the one for $200,000,
right?
MR. STOLTZ: Estimated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that will like suffice until they
can rebuild the bridge.
MR. STOLTZ: That's correct. We're trying to remove the load
restrictions for the fire service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And you're hoping to do
that -- although it's on a five-year work schedule, according to the
agenda, you're hoping to get that done ASAP, right?
MR. STOLTZ: As soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So that is our motion
that's on the table. So I'm in total agreement with option two.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I share Commissioner Hiller's
concern about this. I believe shortly before I was elected or it might
have been a year or two, there was a very vigorous discussion about
asset management. And I am very fearful knowing and understanding
clearly that most of this infrastructure out there in Immokalee was built
by Thomas Edison or Barron Collier or somebody from that era, that
we are going to be in a cascading series of these events.
My worst fear is that we get into a repeated number of emergency
Page 110
May 12, 2015
situations where we have to spend wasted dollars shoring up bridges
or, worse than that, have a first responder failure or have our
agricultural businesses not be able to haul fruit in an efficient manner
where we hurt business and industry out there.
So, you know, I know that nobody wants to talk about good news,
and I know we've had workshops on capital asset management. But I
believe that it's in our best interest to take a look at this whole situation
systemically. If we need to -- what I don't want to see happen is I don't
want to see our entire budget have to have a budget of budget
amendments in it and we have to start cannibalizing other projects that
we've thought about carefully because we don't have funding for
transportation infrastructure.
If it's necessary for us to replace all these bridges, I would rather
see a thoughtful consideration of what it would cost to borrow the
money and to get this done rather than to have a series of very costly
intermediate patches take place. I think it's a mathematical question.
And I think we should do that as soon as practicable before we get in
and pass this budget. Because I believe that we're going to find if we
have this capital asset management problem, this may not be the only
one. If we have it, we need to employ Mr. Isackson and staff to take a
look at what it's going to cost us to do this while money's still cheap
and while the cost of getting these repairs done is still moderate.
Because as our economy recovers, the cost of money is going to go up
and the cost of jobs are going to go up.
So I feel like we've got to be smart and I'd rather somebody jump
on this right away and come back with some thoughtful guidelines. I
certainly support approving the item, but I'm concerned with the
greater issue.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Chairman, I couldn't agree with
you more. And I counted 11 bridges?
Page 111
May 12, 2015
MR. STOLTZ: Eleven east of Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, so -- oh, now that's
forbidding. East of Immokalee.
And what are we looking at in terms of the number of bridges?
MR. STOLTZ: We have about 115 total in the county,
approximately.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Built about that same time frame?
MR. STOLTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, later.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Some of them older. No, just kidding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're right.
MR. STOLTZ: This is basically the prioritization list that I
update on a regular basis of replacements and repair needs.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I like the idea. Money's
cheap right now, let's jump on it. It's before us.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's a -- Commissioner, I think it's a
mathematical question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's a mathematical question.
What I don't want to get into is I don't want to get into the rotten apple
syndrome where okay, we're eating the ones with the spots on them.
And by the time we get done eating those, the ones that were good last
week, well they've got spots on them so we're going to eat a whole
barrel of apples one spot at a time. That's what I'm fearful that we're
going to get into that sort of a scenario here. And I defer to engineers.
Give us the answer.
MR. STOLTZ: We're approaching that time.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm not telling you what to do, I'm
asking, let's sit down with pencil and paper and figure out, you know,
what the cheapest solution to this is. Because I don't --
MR. STOLTZ: It's replacing them.
Page 112
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- think it's one at a time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's replacing them?
MR. STOLTZ: Right. And you don't want to spread it out over
multiple years, because it will affect the route in repetitive years.
MR. OCHS: We're happy to bring that option at your budget
workshop. Just so you know, bridges aren't your only category of
backlog infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I know, sir, but that's -- what I'm saying
is that is this whole -- what I'm trying to address my remarks to, sir, is
the capital asset management conundrum.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And, you know, give us the bad news.
I'm not afraid of the bad news. Let's see if we can find -- all I want to
find is a pathway out. I don't know if everyone agrees with me; maybe
it's just me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. OCHS: And we have. You know, we indicated we're $50
million backlogged in non-enterprise asset infrastructure. So -- and
we'll bring that forward again during your budget workshops and give
you however many options you'd like. And we're already working on
that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But in the meantime, in the
meantime, right, we've got a bridge that needs to be shored up. And
we know there's probably 11 others that --
MR. STOLTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- that needs to be shored you
have up.
I don't want to jump the gun here and make it more complicated,
but could we get something before our budget workshop about dealing
with this specific issue or is that going to throw -- is that not -- do you
need to look at it as a whole?
Page 113
May 12, 2015
MR. OCHS: I would prefer to look at the backlog infrastructure
as a whole so we can give you a complete picture. I would hate for
you to pick these and we get in front of you in the budget and you say
well, wait a minute, these are more important backlog priority for us to
get at than these. So I'd like to have you see the larger picture. If we
could get this temporary repair in place and then that will give us
enough time to get and you a better overall assessment during your
budget workshop in June.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, perfect.
MR. OCHS: Please.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it's June. June, this is May.
It's two meetings away.
MR. OCHS: Right, it's a month away.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and -- is the
motion for -- what's staffs recommendation, number one and number
two? Which does staff prefer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Number two.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, the motion is to approve number
two.
MR. STOLTZ: The installation of the load posting signs.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 114
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I failed to complete the last item
under 9F, and that should have been your next item prior to that, 11A.
So if you don't mind, we can go back to that one.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2015-95: PETITION VAC-PL20140000235, TO
VACATE THE 2.35-FOOT WIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4251, PAGE 1007
THROUGH 1018, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BEING A PART OF TRACT M-1, STELLA MARIS,
AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE, DATED JUNE 26,
2007, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4251,
PAGES 1019 THROUGH 1024 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9F was previously Item 17B on your summary
agenda. This is a recommendation to vacate 2.35-foot-wide
conservation easement in the Port of the Isles at the Stella Maris
development and approve an amendment to the settlement agreement
and general release.
And the item was moved forward to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Is there any ex parte?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sorry. We need to -- this is a
hearing item. We are going to give ex parte now from commissioners,
Page 115
May 12, 2015
starting with Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I was just noticing
our clerk is shifting here. Can we wait just a second to give her a
chance to get herself situated?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me. We have a replacement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shift change.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a shift change in the court
reporter.
Thank you very much. Does that mean we get brownies, ma'am,
after we're done?
THE COURT REPORTER: I don't have any.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are there any speakers on this
item?
We're going to find out.
Ms. Albers, do we have any public speakers registered for this
item?
MS. ALBERS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We do not. Okay. So we're going to do
ex parte, and then we're going to swear everybody in at the
convenience of the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you good, Terri?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure,
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing to declare except reading
the staff notes here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings, emails, and
calls. I spoke with Jeanie Kungle, who is pretty familiar with that area
down there. I met with a man named Dan Truckie (phonetic). I also
Page 116
May 12, 2015
went on a boat ride down there because I wanted to see what this Stella
Maris was all about, what the -- I don't know what you call that little
bay in there, but anyway, the body of water that they're talking about,
and the homes on both sides.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I have no disclosure.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke briefly to the County
Manager and reviewed the material.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: None.
All right. Well, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. In talking to the county
manager, the question I asked was, was this settlement agreement and
general release entered into because of litigation, and the answer I
received was yes. And it seems to me we suddenly have a disparity
standard, you know, depending on what the settlement agreement is.
If there's a settlement agreement and if it's the Board's position
that a deal is a deal, and the public trust is violated to modify any
settlement agreements that are made pursuant to litigation or the threat
of litigation, and particularly in the case where we've got conservation
easements at issue, I think, you know, if-- I don't see how we're
dealing with identical issues in what I assume will be completely
opposite manners.
You know, if-- I mean, this, I assume, should be dealt with
exactly the same as Cocohatchee was going to be dealt with, you
know. A deal is a deal and be done with it and deny it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What staff member has this
item? You do? Come on up here. Don't be bashful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is this?
Page 117
May 12, 2015
MR. BERMAN: Marc Berman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the nature of the original
settlement agreement?
MR. BERMAN: Excuse me?
MR. KLATZKOW: I could tell you that, all right, because I was
involved in that once upon a time.
My recollection is that -- and this goes back a number of years.
Staff had issued a Site Development Plan. The Site Development Plan
included a dock.
The idea why was that the residents here were primarily part time,
so instead of having their boats in the water, the boats would be on dry
dock, and there would be a ramp there that they can then launch.
Staff, having issued the Site Development Plan sometime later,
decided, wait a second, a ramp was not allowed by the Manatee
Protection Plan there. So they told the developer, sorry, but we're not
going to issue any permits.
In between the time they issued the Site Development Plan and
the time they caught their error, the developer had been selling units
telling people you'd be able to keep your boat basically in dry dock and
then, you know, go down this ramp.
The residents were very upset because they had been sold a
certain type of development. The developer disagreed with staffs
interpretation of the Manatee Protection Plan and, ultimately, we sat
down, and what we did was we said, okay, you can have your dry dock
with a ramp, but we're going to calculate the number of boats that you
have there by what would have fit under a marginal loft configuration,
whatever that number was, 37, 39 boats.
And that was the deal that was arrived at. The residents were
happy at that point in time. The developer was happy. Staff felt it met
the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan, and we took it to the Board,
and it was approved.
Page 118
May 12, 2015
There was never any litigation filed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just said a ramp is not
allowed by the Manatee Protection Plan in this area?
MR. KLATZKOW: That was -- this is different staff back then,
but back then there was a position that they could not have the boat
ramp.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the position is different
now?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if that position's different now
or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. Here's the gentleman that
knows all about that.
MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. Stephen Lenberger,
Engineer in Natural Resources Department.
The Manatee Protection Plan uses a rating system to determine
whether you can have a boat ramp or not, but it's different for Port of
the Islands. Port of the Islands already has a boat ramp, and the
Manatee Protection Plan has a boat ramp, just one marina facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. The Manatee
Protection Plan refers to certain areas, and one is Port of the Isles.
MR. LENBERGER: Right. And Port of the Islands has special
criteria. It doesn't follow the regular marina siting criteria in the plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It follows the plan within the
Manatee Protection Plan, the certain criteria for Port of the Isles.
MR. LENBERGER: Special criteria for Port of the Islands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Special criteria, yes. Just like I
think there is Wiggins and other areas that have -- that's what you're
talking about, special criteria.
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm surprised that the
Conservancy didn't have a -- take a position on this.
Page 119
May 12, 2015
MR. LENBERGER: Port of the Islands only has the one marina
there with one boat launch. The seawall basin for Port of the Islands,
the number of boat slips is calculated for the multifamily using the
marginal wharf configuration. You're not allowed to have an
additional boat launch in Port of the Islands seawall basin and,
apparently, that site plan was approved in error, which Jeff alluded to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just want to make sure
that we're protecting the environment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't understand how this can
be reversed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I -- what I'd like to know is how is
this different from Haldeman Creek? It look likes we've got a
conservation easement along the shoreline. We've got no boats there.
I mean, are we going to be besieged by citizens that say, oh, that's too
many boats now, we can't have that many boats, I don't see the boats?
Are we going to have those sort of comments again on this thing?
How are we going to have a path to happiness here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They had letters of no objection.
MR. KLATZKOW: And staff can correct me, because this is
your deal.
My understanding, what we're doing now is we're shutting down
the dry dock and the ramp so there will be no boats there, so the 37 or
39 boats, how many would have been there, are now going to go back
into the water. To put them back into the water, you have to take away
the conservation easement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And put in docks.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the purpose of the conservation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You put in docks.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- easement was not to preserve the
shoreline; it was to preclude boats.
Page 120
May 12, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: Boats, yes. So staff calculated that X
number of boats are permitted. From staffs perspective -- and correct
me if I'm misstating this -- they're indifferent whether it was in a dry
dock with a launch or actually in the water as long as the same number
of boats.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So the sole purpose of the
conservation easement was to prohibit boats. It wasn't a shoreline
stabilization?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's prohibiting boats because
of the Manatee Protection Plan.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the Manatee Protection Plan is
still in place.
MR. LENBERGER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you gave them a wharf by
exception where what you were -- it wasn't like they were being denied
docks. They got a wharf where they shouldn't have gotten anything
because of the Manatee Protection Plan, not that they got a wharf
instead of 37 docks.
MR. LENBERGER: The Manatee Protection Plan allows the
multifamily units to have boat docks configured in a marginal wharf
configuration. Because of the boat launch that was issued, we basically
limited the number of docks that could be launched to the same
number that could be parked in a marginal wharf configuration along
the dock -- on the seawall, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did the Manatee Protection Plan
allow 37 docks?
MR. LENBERGER: It was, I think, 39.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they are permitted?
Page 121
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thirty-seven boats in a --
MR. KLATZKOW: Thirty-seven boats.
MR. LENBERGER: Thirty-seven boat slips.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how many docks are permitted?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: None.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: None.
MR. LENBERGER: Well, 39 boat slips. And because they built
the -- they built the boat ramp, they went through negotiations, and
Fish and Wildlife Service was involved where, since the limiting factor
for the number of boat -- number of boats parked along the seawall is a
marginal wharf configuration, they limited that the number of boats
that could be launched along that -- on that boat ramp that was
permitted would just be up to 39.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So boat use is equivalent?
MR. LENBERGER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So I guess -- again, a deal is
a deal. It's all about the public trust. I mean, this is -- this is -- I mean,
there's no difference between this and, you know -- I mean, we're
looking to change something that was negotiated by way of a
settlement agreement and release, and now all of a sudden we're
saying, oh, we can change.
So, I mean, I just don't understand how we can take the position a
deal is a deal, and we can't change settlement agreements related to
issues because of public trust, but all of a sudden we can do it now. I
mean, we couldn't do it two weeks ago, but we can do it now. I just
don't understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me help.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I totally agree, what you're
saying. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; however,
what I'm hearing is this was a staff error in looking into the Manatee
Page 122
May 12, 2015
Protection Plan. You know, the Board is charged with protecting the
environment. They didn't turn the page to find the specifics about Port
of the Isles, which it is in there, and there is, in the Manatee Protection
Plan, other areas within the county that has specific criteria. That is the
difference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So help me out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The difference --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- help me out. Were slips
allowed back then?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, could I?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: I'm just going to read right out of the executive
summary, if you would bear with me for just a moment.
Okay. The county had originally approved a boat ramp for the
subject property, Stella Maris site development in 2003 but
subsequently rescinded its approval due to environmental concerns that
the boat ramp approval conflicted with the intent of the Collier County
Manatee Protection Plan to limit the number of boats utilizing the Port
of the Islands; however, the developer had already entered into
numerous contracts for sale of the property based in part on the
county's approval of the boat ramp, so the parties entered into a
settlement agreement to avoid potential litigation.
As part of the settlement agreement, the developer agreed to grant
the county a conservation easement over its seawall to ensure that no
boats would dock alongside the seawall in exchange for the county
permitting the use of a private boat ramp that would service no more
boats than could have docked alongside the seawall in a marginal
wharf configuration which, county staff opined, was consistent with
the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan.
The boat ramp was never constructed, and now the current owner
would like to vacate the conservation easement to allow for the
Page 123
May 12, 2015
construction of boat dock improvements in place of the previously
contemplated boat ramp.
County staff and the owner agree that the intent of the Manatee
Protection Plan will be preserved by allowing the construction of boat
docks to accommodate a maximum of 39 boats, each of no more than
22 feet in length, which is consistent with the maximum number and
size of boats that would be permitted under a parallel marginal wharf
configuration along the seawall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you so much.
And so here's my point. It does make sense to modify the
settlement agreement.
MR. OCHS: The ramp was never built.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not the issue. It does
make sense that this is a better alternative than what was proposed,
whether it was built or not, because remember a deal is a deal; whether
he chose to build it or not is irrelevant to the issue.
So I am going to move to approve this, but it goes to show the
absolute unfairness of this notion of a deal is a deal and can't be
changed no matter what the change in circumstances are and that a
better alternative is available. And I find it absolutely ludicrous that
we have such double standards and deal in such unfairness.
So that being said, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second the motion
because Steve has told us it was, you know, staff looking at the
Manatee Protection Plan in detail for this specific area, and it is
allowed. So we're correcting what should have been corrected a long
time ago. I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's not exactly the case
because he wanted to build that dock and he wanted the dry docks.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what he had promised,
Page 124
May 12, 2015
which is why it converted to the other alternative. But that's neither
here nor there. I mean, it's an option that, you know, this community
wants. It's an option that is a change, which is permitted by law, just
like in the previous circumstance where we had both staff recommend
approval and the Planning Commission recommend approval.
And this is -- you know, however you want to look at it, the other
deal was -- the other modification was considered legal and within the
four corners of what was allowable, just like this is.
And so, as I said, thank you for the second and, you know, I don't
like the fact that we act inconsistently on, you know, these kind of
questions.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I support what Commissioner Henning
and Hiller have said. I believe they're correct.
I remain open to thoughtful changes where they produce the best
long-term outcome.
Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, there's a motion and a
second.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HET NING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes unanimously.
Item #1 1 B
Page 125
May 12, 2015
CONFIRMING PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE
ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (OEM) PARTS
FROM LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIPS UNTIL A NEW
SOLICITATION CAN BE FINALIZED, WHETHER OR NOT THE
EXPENDITURES EXCEED $50,000, AND DIRECT FINANCE TO
PROMPTLY PAY ALL OUTSTANDING AND FUTURE
INVOICES THAT ARE OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE - MOTION
TO PAY INVOICES TO DATE AND FOR STAFF TO BRING
EXPENDITURES OVER $50,000 BACK TO THE BOARD FOR
RATIFICATION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 11B, which
was previously Item 16E6. That was a recommendation that the Board
affirms and confirms its prior authorization to purchase original
equipment/manufactured parts from local Ford dealerships until a new
solicitation can be finalized whether or not the expenditures exceed
$50,000 and direct finance to promptly pay all outstanding and future
invoices that are otherwise appropriate.
And Commissioner Taylor moved this item for discussion to the
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, Mr. Ochs, I had requested
some backup material and didn't get it, so I guess we're going to get it
now. So I would be very interested in --
MR. OCHS: Are you referring to the price list that we spoke
about, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just -- I am referring to -- and
maybe the clerk can help, as she's been authorizing, I don't know. But
I'm not sure what I'm paying for here or what the -- what the -- what
the reference is.
I mean, I've -- whether or not expenditures exceed $50,000 -- and
Page 126
May 12, 2015
it's like an ongoing "this is what I want to do going forward until we
get a contract." The contract is supposed to be, from our notes, next
month. But it's a little too loosey-goosy for me.
MS. PRICE: Commission, if I could just remind you how this
occurred. We've always had contracts in place for these types of parts.
The last time that we bid it, we added in some language so that we
could maintain compliance with our grants, and in doing so, I guess we
confused our vendor.
And so the vendors who submitted bids didn't comply with the
terms. And so we got no vendors on contract; therefore, we came to
the Board, and we asked permission to simply purchase parts so that
we can continue our operations until such time as we got contracts in
place. And, you know, we've gone through that process, and next
meeting we will bring you those contracts.
So as a stopgap measure we asked for your permission to go
ahead and purchase parts. As it turns out, both of the vendors that we
generally use have been giving us discounted pricing. They haven't
been charging us full retail, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope so.
MS. PRICE: And that's because we've been doing business with
them for so long. But nonetheless, we were kind of in a bind. That's
not the way we prefer to do business. Obviously, we always want to
have contracts for these types of purchases, you know, so that we've
got, you know, guarantee discounted prices and what have you. But,
you know, we were just kind of in a bind.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What are the -- but what are the
outstanding invoices? I guess I just wanted to see some -- it's just such
a broad umbrella to be under. I don't have any reference. I mean, just
what do we owe, and what do you need to pay and all those good
questions that -- and that's all I needed.
MS. PRICE: At this point, I'm not aware of any invoices that are
Page 127
May 12, 2015
past due, but we had -- we had had questions from the Clerk of Courts
regarding the payment of them. There were questions as to whether or
not we were authorized to go over the $50,000, which is generally our
noncontract thresholds.
So we just wanted to bring this item back to clarify that when we
brought it to the Board the first time, our intent was to be able to use it
until we had the contract, and we didn't -- we couldn't put limits in
place because we didn't know what they might be.
So at this point I'm not aware, necessarily, of any invoices that are
past due, but I want to make sure that we gave all the cover necessary
for the Clerk to be able to pay any invoices up to this point and any
invoices between now and until we get the contract in place.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ms. Price, let me just confirm one thing
with you. What's occurred with these grants is the grants require the
use of original equipment parts; is that what's happening?
MS. PRICE: They do, but it was actually grant compliance
language that -- you know, as the government continues to look for full
transparency in grants, they've tightened up the compliance
requirements, and so we've started making sure that all of our contracts
that may use any grant funding has this language in it.
And, like I say, when our vendors put forth their -- their bids, they
didn't understand that there were some changes in the way -- the
formatting that they needed to provide their pricing, and so they didn't
comply.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And those are the people that we've
traditionally had contracts with, and that's required us to go to people
that don't currently have county contracts, and perhaps we need to do
business with some of those that really aren't that interested in doing
business with the county; is that the case?
MS. PRICE: I'm not sure if it is or it isn't. Our vendors now
Page 128
May 12, 2015
understand what was needed from them --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MS. PRICE: -- and so in this next bid we've got -- you know,
we've got the vendors that we need.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So they're not traditional vendors for us,
for whatever reason.
MS. PRICE: No, they are.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They are, okay. All right. But there's
advanced requirements that they weren't aware of for these --
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- particular vehicles?
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So if we don't do this, we're going to
have to park these vehicles because we're not going to be able to repair
them; is that the case?
MS. PRICE: If we can't get payment on these, at some point our
vendors are going to cut us off
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And we're not going to be able --
MS. PRICE: And we're not going to be able to do business.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. 10-4.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Price, anybody that has a
tax ID number is going to get a discount. We've never been --
hopefully we've never been charged retail price.
MS. PRICE: Not that I'm aware of, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So I think that was a
misstatement that we're not being charged retail. We've never been
charged retail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But without a contract?
MS. PRICE: No, no. We have never paid retail. My point was
that, with absent a contract we didn't have a guarantee of a specific
Page 129
May 12, 2015
either price off or what have you. That was my only point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's probably going to be
different than the average user that has a tax ID number, I would
imagine.
MS. PRICE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll be looking forward to
that. Next meeting, right?
MS. PRICE: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No more delays?
MS. PRICE: Not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we were told that it
takes 30 days for solicitation, and it comes to the Board's agenda.
MR. OCHS: Well, it takes 30 days, normally, to advertise the
solicitation, yes, sir. Then you have to get the bids, open them, do the
staff analysis, schedule that for a board meeting, get through the
review committee, and bring it to the Board. That's the process we've
been engaged in since January when you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how long will it be?
MR. OCHS: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, is it coming forward?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because you were already in the
pipeline?
MS. PRICE: It's already in the pipeline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I heard that thunder.
MS. PRICE: I think that means that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right after you talked.
MS. PRICE: -- that it's so.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He hears us.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Page 130
May 12, 2015
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk's
Office.
One of the issues that we had brought to Ms. Price's attention, we
really need a little more specificity to what the approval here is. The
Board -- it's very general to say all outstanding invoices -- which I'm
not even clear that I know that total population as it exists for your
approval -- and future invoices however, they exist.
That's predetermining without any evidence of what it is you're
actually approving. So I need a little more guidance.
And we had requested that perhaps a list of the outstanding
invoices be attached as well as specificity to the vendors to be used and
the discount rates to be paid and/or if we were using a pricing list from
the prior contracts that had expired.
We understood in January there was a little bit of an issue. We've
been working with them. But the last executive summary also said
within the county's ordinance, which was the 50,000. It has now
exceeded that. We're up into about 85,000 in expenditure. So I do
need some specificity or guidance for Board approval.
MR. OCHS: What have we been using to pay so far?
MS. KINZEL: We had paid, based on the last executive
summary in January, up through the 50,000 based on the pricing from
the prior contract, but we have no explicit approval from the Board to
do that or to continue anything over 50-, if you go back and read the
last executive summary.
MR. OCHS: Well, I did.
MS. KINZEL: At this point in time, even local vendor -- which
vendors are we talking about?
MR. OCHS: It was specified in the --
MS. PRICE: Currently we're using Tamiami Ford and Galloway
Ford. Those are the two that we traditionally use unless neither of
those two have pricing.
Page 131
May 12, 2015
Again, we came to you because we didn't have a contract. I can't
hold either of these two vendors to a specific pricing beyond list
because I don't have a contract with them. They've been offering us
discounted pricing, but I don't have a contract that I can hold them to
because the contract expired, and we started working on that; nor can I
tell you right now exactly what parts I'm going to need between now
and, you know, the time we get the contracts in place or the dollar
value.
When we came to you in January, I thought that our executive
summary was clear, that we were going to use these local vendors, and
we left it open to local vendors, because if Tamiami and Galloway
happen to be out of a specific part that we need, then we want the
flexibility to be able to go to another local Ford vendor. There are a
number of them locally. Generally, their price lists -- their list prices
are generally the same because they -- you know, these are OEM
prices, so they get them from Ford. So most of the time they're the
same anyway.
But we needed the flexibility to be able to get the parts that we
need when the repairs are necessary. Generally it's been these two
vendors. And I'm not aware that we needed to go to any others during
this six-month period, but I can't tell you that tomorrow we wouldn't
call and ask for parts and find ourselves having to go to one of the
other vendors.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioners, I can maybe -- no, I can
maybe add a solution.
The Board has, obviously, a lot of leeway in approving items.
You can ratify staffs action in the same way you would have approved
it originally. So if she does not have a list right now of what is moving
forward, I would just ask that by the time we're asked to pay the bills
that the Board be provided a list of the invoices with the -- and it can
be a link to the actual invoices -- but that the Board then approve those
Page 132
May 12, 2015
invoices for payment so that we have specificity on what vendors and
what it is you're actually looking to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to comment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And, you know, Ms.
Kinzel, that is, in effect, what goes on already every single board
meeting when we approve the list for expenditures prior to
disbursement. So, you know, you're asking to do something which is a
practice that is in place and has been in place for years. I don't see for
-- any need for us to do any more than what we already do.
So, you know, your request for additional detailing and then to
turn around and say but you could do this in the alternative, well, the
good news is the alternative is what's already happened and has
happened forever. So I really don't see what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion --
motion to approve to pay the invoices to date.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the prospective
invoices? Because their issue is not what is now, because what's now,
obviously, like I say, comes up on our, you know, bimonthly meeting
agenda. That's not an issue.
The issue is their ability to have the assurance that they can go
forward without the Clerk not paying these vendors, and that's the
concern.
And if I understand, the concern is because the Clerk now is
alleging that the total exceeds 50,000. And my question to you on that
is, how exactly is it going over 50-? I mean, do you have -- are you
purchasing more than 50,000 with one vendor, or -- you know, if
you've got multiple transactions with multiple different vendors, then I
don't see, as long as you're staying under 50,000, where the issue is.
Page 133
May 12, 2015
MS. PRICE: We have exceeded $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With one vendor?
MS. PRICE: With -- potentially with both of our vendors. That
was the reason we came to you. Under 50,000 we can do --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the issue for you is because you
don't have a contract over the 50,000, you wanted the assurance that it
still will be paid. And do you know how much -- and when is that --
the contract is going to be approved when?
MS. PRICE: The 26th of May.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 26th of May. So that's in how
many weeks?
MR. OCHS: Two.
MS. PRICE: Two.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'm just -- listen, I don't
have a calendar in front of me. What do I know?
MS. PRICE: I was questioning myself. That was more for me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So your concern is for the
expenditures as approved today, in excess of 50,000 for this two-week
period; is that what we're talking about?
MS. PRICE: In the aggregate since January, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're already --
MS. PRICE: We will not be spending $50,000 in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but you're concerned only
about the approval of the excess over $50,000, because that's the issue
that's not --
MS. PRICE: That was the issue in question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that's over the threshold.
MS. PRICE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you just want to basically
extend the policy that we have up to 50,000 to include the excess for
what has been expended between January and May 26th?
Page 134
May 12, 2015
MS. PRICE: Correct. Our current policy allows for purchases up
to $50,000 without Board approval, and it requires board approval
after 50,000. That's why I'm here talking to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no. You actually get board
approval up to 50,000 by the ratification in the agenda.
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the question I have is, what you
want is to be able to apply the same -- because that contract expired --
through January -- through May, between January and May, correct?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let me see if I can help.
Commissioner Henning, you made a motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait, wait. I want to -- can I get
all the facts before we -- we're still under discussion, so I want to make
sure I understand all the facts before we go to the motion. Because the
current motion doesn't address the issue that staff has, because they
don't have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, staff needs --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, ma'am, I was going to make an
amendment to my second and request --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the reason you didn't get
the contract?
MS. PRICE: We didn't get any bidders, any qualified bidders.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so you had to put it back out to
bid?
MS. PRICE: We had to put it back out to bid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. I understand.
So it was not issue -- you know, it was beyond your control. It
wasn't that staff did anything incorrect like wait too long or anything
like that. It's interesting you didn't get any qualified bidders.
MS. PRICE: As I say, it had to do with changing the
requirements in the bid documents.
Page 135
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MS. PRICE: And our vendors didn't realize that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. Well, that's -- you know,
well, I mean, ratification is permitted by law, and we can do it, and we
do that with all these other purchases up to 50,000.
But it's nice that you brought it forward.
MR. OCHS: Again, it was an affirmation just to try to clarify
what the Board had --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And, really, the issue is for
the amount in excess of 50,000 not under contract and not under
contract through no fault of staff because there were no bidders, and
you had to redefine your bidding parameters.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, as the motion
maker, would you be amenable to adding the language, "and further
reauthorize staff to continue to purchase original equipment
manufacturer OEM parts from the local Ford dealerships until a new
solicitation can be finalized on 5/26"?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't know what the
expenditure's going to be, and there's no problem with them bringing it
back after the fact for approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what should be in the
motion, exactly that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just add that to the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're approving the
expenditures up till now, it will have to come back anyways.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But just -- to direct them to
come back for ratification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which they do automatically
anyway.
Page 136
May 12, 2015
MS. PRICE: Now, are we talking about ratification along with
the check register or as a separate Board item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Separate Board item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't make a difference if it's
part of the register or the Board. You can just mention to us that -- you
know, you can highlight it to us in the register.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the registers are based upon
approved contracts.
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
MS. PRICE: No, sir. All checks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, sir, absolutely not. It's
everything. Every single check, and serves to ratify what doesn't have
contracts, you know, in that bracket.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll modify my motion
then.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And the second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have to say, I appreciate
staff coming forward and requesting this but, technically, you didn't
have to, because if you brought it forward afterwards and we ratified --
now, of course, in light of the litigation, I can understand why you did
Page 137
May 12, 2015
what you did. So thank you for --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. The motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Taylor in dissent.
Item #11C
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACKNOWLEDGES THE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL
AND APPROVES PAYMENT OF COUNSEL IDENTIFIED IN
THE BACK-UP MATERIALS TO THIS ITEM TO REPRESENT
LEO OCHS AND JOANNE MARKIEWICZ IN THE CASE
STYLED DWIGHT E. BROCK V. LEO E. OCHS, JR., AS
MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
JOANNE MARKIEWICZ, AS PURCHASING AND GENERAL
SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR, CASE NO. 11-2015-CA-
000595-0001-XX, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND IN ADDITION TO WAIVE THE
PURCHASING POLICY TO THE EXTENT IT APPLIES TO THE
SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND/OR OTHERWISE
EXEMPT THE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL FROM
COMPETITION PURSUANT TO PURCHASING ORDINANCE
SECTION ELEVEN, PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That brings us to -- excuse me -- to Item 11C, which
was previously 16F2. That was a recommendation to acknowledge the
selection of outside counsel and approve defense costs for myself and
Ms. Markiewicz as previously authorized by the Board at the last
meeting.
Commissioner Henning has moved this to the regular agenda.
Page 138
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Jeff, I want to clarify. This is a lawsuit by the Clerk on the same
issue; is that correct? I mean, there's, you know, no lawsuit on either
party, the County Manager or the Purchasing Director, that is different,
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're saying that the County Manager
and the purchasing director share the same common interest, the
answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is there any reason
preventing -- from using one attorney instead of this executive
summary hiring two separate attorneys?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's between Leo, Joanne, and the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, legally, it can be
done where we can hire one attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that was my -- my
only concern about this is at the end of the day the taxpayers are going
to lose and the lawyers are going to win.
We've got a lawyer on the Clerk's side; taxpayers' going to pay for
that. And what's being recommended here is two lawyers; the
taxpayers are going to pay for that. So all I'm saying is, one
representative for both the employees. That's where I'm at.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, I have one question on
that. Ms. Markiewicz is not a contract employee of the Board of
County Commissioners, is she?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, she is not.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is the agreement and the responsibility of
the Board to defend its employees in the event they're sued for
dispatching their responsibility as we so indicate that they should, is
that -- is the protection that Mr. Ochs is provided under his
Page 139
May 12, 2015
employment contract the identical protection that we are bound to
provide Ms. Markiewicz?
MR. KLATZKOW: The obligation arises out of law, and you
have a resolution that implements it. It does not arise out of Mr. Ochs'
contract. So you have a board policy that implements Florida law as
far as getting legal representation for employees involved in suits.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But Mr. Ochs has a choice to do what he
wants to do, does he not, and we have a responsibility to compensate
him? I mean, he has to respond to the suit that's been filed against
him; does he not?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, he does.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who makes that decision how that
response is made?
MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day, the decision is Mr.
Ochs', okay. Your decision is whether or not you want to authorize
two separate counsels or tell the employees to use one counsel. Their
interests are identical. They don't -- they're not being sued for any
financial matter here, all right. They're being sued for implementing
your policy, which the Clerk is challenging.
Unless their interests start to become unidentical, you could use
one counsel.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I would just like to know,
personally, what is your preference?
MR. OCHS: I would prefer to have my own counsel. In fact, this
board authorized at the last meeting for both Ms. Markiewicz and I to
retain counsel, and we have.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And you have done so?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: This item says for the Board to acknowledge the
Page 140
May 12, 2015
selection of the counsel. It doesn't say to reapprove what you already
approved at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I don't see how you can
have the same counsel. You were -- this is not a class-action lawsuit.
You guys were sued individually, and you both hold two very different
positions within the county. And I think if there's anywhere for a
waste of tax dollars is the fact that the Clerk has sued you.
And but for his suit, we wouldn't be dealing with this expenditure
of funds which is, unfortunately, always the case when you get sued.
You have to defend, and there is a cost to that defense.
And you're both entitled to individual representation, and I don't
see how we, as a board, can do otherwise but follow through with what
we have already approved.
So I make a motion to approve their individual representation.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second that.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I don't know if you
need a motion on it if we already approved it to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't think we do either, but
just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to hire a lawyer to, you know,
look at the law, which the law says that the County Manager's in
charge of negotiating contracts and agreements subject to the Board's
approval. That's the issue is what's the judge going to see? Is he going
to see that as the county manager can't approve contracts?
So I'm concerned that this is going to broaden it, and we're going
to drag it out just like we did in 2005.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Clerk can always drop his suit
against Joanne Markiewicz or --
Page 141
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And illegally pay contracts?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can argue it just against Leo,
and I believe the Board will prevail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll bet you on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. How much?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, wait a second now. No side bets
on legal action, for heaven's sake.
I just think we have a responsibility to allow our employees to
defend themselves as they see fit.
I am -- I'm sorry that the messenger is getting sued because the
Clerk doesn't like the message. I don't think it's going to help resolve
it. I would have preferred that the Board of County Commissioners
was the subject of the lawsuit, but it's not.
And I feel like we have an obligation to defend our employees
when they took action based on the policies that we supported, and we
directed them to act within those. And I, personally, as a
commissioner, do not want to meddle in Mr. Ochs conducting his
defense as he sees fit. I think that would be very, very unfair to him,
and the same for Ms. Markiewicz, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree with that. Call the
question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there any other comments?
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who seconded -- who seconded
my motion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify
Page 142
May 12, 2015
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Henning in dissent.
Item #14B1
STAFF AND THE MSTU ADVISORY BOARD'S RESPONSE TO
MR. BOB MESSMER'S PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE APRIL
28, 2015 BCC MEETING - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
RESPONSE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14B1 . This is
a Community Redevelopment Agency item, Mr. Chairman, so the
Board may want to go into session as the CRA board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The CRA meeting is open.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Jourdan,
CRA Operations Manager.
I'd just like to let you know, though, however, the CRA manages
the Bayshore Beautification MSTU, the Bayshore Beautification
MSTU is governed by the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so it's not a CRA issue?
MS. JOURDAN: This is their project, so...
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we shouldn't be CRA then, is
what you're saying? Hang on a second.
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. If you're going to be making -- taking
Page 143
May 12, 2015
action and making some sort of vote based on governing the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU, I would say, yeah, you would want to convene
as the BCC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So we should not be
convening as the CRA, Leo.
MS. JOURDAN: And that's my fault. I'm the one who put it
under CRA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So it's just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Closed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was awesome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: County Commission back open.
MS. ALBERS: Mr. Chairman, you do have public speakers on
this item.
MR. OCHS: Well, let's go ahead and, if you don't mind,
Commissioners, get a brief presentation from staff.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: From staff, and then we'll have the
public speakers.
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. I'm here today based on the BCC asking
staff to come and address public comments that were made by Mr. Bob
Messmer.
I have here before me the professionals who actually have
recommended and done all the work on this project. It's a streetscape
project for Thomasson Drive.
I'd first like to call up Ms. Beth Brainard. She is with the Naples
Pathway Coalition. She's actually been sitting here all day on her own
time and accord and has been so nice to stay here so that she could
actually speak on this.
MS. BRAINARD: Hello, I'm Beth Brainard. I'm the Executive
Director of Naples Pathways Coalition.
We had been brought into this issue quite a while ago. We were
Page 144
May 12, 2015
contacted by Mr. Messmer, who asked us to look at the three plans that
were proposed for the bike paths and to give our opinion as to which
one we thought was the safest.
We have no financial stake in this. All we cared about was what
was the safest, so we looked at it in terms of safety, and we looked at it
in terms of maintenance issues that were related to safety.
The members of our board are experienced cyclists. They are
both sports cyclists and recreational cyclists. In addition, one of our
board members, Joe Bonness, is also a builder of roads, so he has a
very deep and thorough understanding of construction issues.
And what we told Mr. Messmer and the MSTU, is that we believe
that Option 1 was the best option, and that is the bike path along the
street. And the reason we thought that was because it was safer and
could be maintained more easily.
Option 2 -- and I'm not sure if you have these in front of you or if
you know what I'm referring to at this point. Maybe -- you have them
up there, okay.
MS. JOURDAN: They're not up yet.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I can put it on the visualizer if you want.
MS. BRAINARD: And while we're waiting, I just wanted to say
that we do thank Mr. Messmer for his concern over cycling safety.
And while we don't agree with him, we do think it's commendable that
he cares so much that, you know, he did bring us into this, so we thank
him for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which option was approved by
staff and the advisory board?
MS. JOURDAN: Option 1 .
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the same option that Beth is
recommending?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. And the same option that was
recommend by the engineers and the planners.
Page 145
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Mr. Messmer's concern was
bicycle safety. And in the opinion of the pathways coalition, in the
opinion of our expert, and in the opinion of our staff and in the opinion
of our beautification advisory board, No. 1 does provide the necessary
safety to protect the cyclists which, to me is, of course, of great
concern as well, because I'm an advocate for the safety of the
vulnerable users.
So I completely -- I mean, I appreciate Mr. Messmer's bringing
this matter to our attention, but in light of the consensus position that
safety is being achieved, I think that's what we should respect. I'm not
sure that more --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Presentation -- oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I'm not -- I guess my point is,
I'm not sure that more needs to be done to address this issue if the
choice that has been selected by what's clearly a large number of
individuals who have a high level of understanding of this issue -- I'm
not sure, you know, that anything further needs to be done since it was
already approved as the design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would we like to hear their
presentation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're not -- no, we don't --
we've already approved this. What Mr. Messmer wanted was to
change what had already been approved. This is already accepted.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. I'm ready to accept staffs
response.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too. I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'll second it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Further comments?
MS. ALBERS: Do you want to have the public speaker?
Page 146
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Public speakers, yes, ma'am.
MS. ALBERS: The first public speaker is Mr. Robert Messmer.
MR. MESSMER: My name is Bob Messmer, a member of the
Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
I've previously given you background letters, and I spoke to you
at your April 28th meeting. And thank you, Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you speak into the mike so we
can hear you a little better. It's hard to hear.
MR. MESSMER: Can you hear me now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Leo, can you check
the mike, because I'm not hearing Mr. Messmer that clearly.
MR. MESSMER: Can you hear me now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That sounds better. Thank
you.
MR. MESSMER: Anyway, I'd briefly given you background
letters a few weeks ago, and I spoke to you on April 28th. And, thank
you, Commissioners, for asking the -- Mr. Ochs to look into this safety
issue again.
At the Bayshore Beautification Committee's last meeting, May
5th, this bicycle lane issue was again discussed by the committee.
Previously, the consulting engineer, staff, and six committee members,
not including myself, stated that the only reason they preferred Option
1 is because it is less expensive.
On May 5th, staff and the six committee members now claim
Option 1 is also safer. They now believe that bicycle lanes directly
adjacent to vehicle lanes separated by only a white line is safer than
building bicycle pathways away from vehicle roadways separated by
distance, curbs, landscaping, and stormwater drainage swales. That
logic baffles me.
That concludes my remarks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 147
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know that on Bayshore you
have painted those green lines there, the green bicycle path, and I just
wanted to ask you, have you ever had an accident since you've painted
them?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Good afternoon. For the record, my name
is Norman Trebilcock.
And, yes, we checked with staff on the record safety for the
on-street bike lanes and got the accident reports for that.
And since 2013 there's been five accidents on those bike lanes.
No fatalities. One was a pedestrian that was in the bike lane that
stepped into traffic. Three others were at intersections where a vehicle,
a car, failed to yield to the bicycle. So whether it was in the sidewalk
or on the bike lane, it wouldn't make any difference. They just failed to
yield. And one was a bicycle going the wrong way on the bike lane.
So, you know, the key thing with this, the on-street bike lane, it
does offer alternatives for the bicyclists. The more experienced
bicyclists can use the on-street bike lane, and then that leaves the
sidewalk safer for the pedestrians, and then the bicyclists -- the
bicyclists can still be on sidewalk, but they'll tend to be the ones that
are riding a little slower. So it recognizes the different users and
differentiates them as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read some other things about
putting the sidewalk separate from the street altogether with grass in
between, and I'm trying to recall. But what I do remember is
something about, being that there's grass in between it, then you would
have some problems with erosion and water and stuff; is that it?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, there can be maintenance issues with
the one alternative where you have the travel lanes, and then next to it
you have a grass strip, then you have a bike lane, and then further
away you have a sidewalk. It's a little unorthodox, especially the
Page 148
May 12, 2015
context of where we're at in a suburban setting. But you're right, there
can be some maintenance issues.
One thing to understand is your bike lane, it really does
double-duty on a section like this. It also kind of serves as your paved
shoulder to protect the roadway.
So when we looked at the other options, we actually had to extend
the width of the pavement a bit, because we want to protect that edge
of the roadway, because that can be a drop-off type area or something
like that from the vehicles running. So that can be a safety issue.
And, again, it's an unintended consequence of when we do
something, okay, we widen the roadway out. Well, those experienced
bicyclists, they can be on the road, so they'll tend to want to be on that
wider lane. So we've given them less width than we give them when
we really provide a designated on-street bike lane.
So -- and contrary to Mr. Messmer, you know, the committee -- I
wasn't at the December meeting, but I listened to the tape twice, and
they discussed a number of varying issues, and cost was not the only
factor. Of course it's important, but there's permitting, there's context,
there's continuity.
You know, this section of roadway is a missing link. Thomasson
Drive to the east has on-street bike lanes. Bayshore Drive to the north
has on-street bike lanes. This is a missing link.
By putting this in there, we're going to connect a link. Those kind
of things that create continuity, that's a good thing. That adds to safety
in the long run. So it is very important.
And your committee worked very diligently to debate the various
issues. You know, other committee members thought of the safety
issue, too, but balancing it all out, you really have coverage in this. It's
consistent with your sections -- your Land Development Code, state
criteria, and local criteria.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 149
May 12, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. There is added safety when
you have an on-road bike lane. When you consider the different types
of users like, for example, a Peloton when you have the -- you know,
more advanced cyclist, the alternative, as described by Mr. Messmer,
is actually unsafe. And then to have the roads not have that bike lane,
that on-road bike lane for a Peloton and only have the other is unsafe.
So, you know, very clearly, if you're looking at optimizing which
option -- not to be redundant with the word "optimizing" and "option"
-- is the best for the largest number. It's very clearly the one that
you've picked.
And, you know, if we have Beth here from the Naples Pathway
Coalition endorsing the selection, you know, recommended by staff,
then I have to say I can't question that.
MS. BRAINARD: Thank you. I just wanted to make a point to
yours. And along with Pelotons, it goes to the casual rider as well.
But when you have an off-road path that's not on the street, what
you're doing, in a urban area like this where you have all sorts of
driveways, is every one of those driveways is a contact point.
So someone that pulls out of their driveway, they don't stop at the
sidewalk. They stop at the street. So what you've done is add a second
set of contact points all the way along Thomasson Drive.
If you keep the cyclist on the street, there's only one. That's why
multi-use pathways are so wonderful in more rural areas where you
have long stretches of land with no interruptions and no contacts. It's
safer.
Another consideration, also, is if you go with this bike path, then
what you need to take into consideration is the speed on the road,
because what you need -- when bicycles are safe on the road is when
there are traffic-calming mechanisms in place where they're not
high-speed, you know, thoroughfares.
Page 150
May 12, 2015
And, also, you've got Avalon school, and I wanted to make the
point that you could -- this would be a wonderful opportunity for the
county to work on the new Safe Routes to School program, because
you could work with that as you redo this street. You have a
wonderful new director in that program who is anxious to work with
all the schools, so Avalon might be one that you would consider as you
do this program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a great suggestion, Beth. The
point that you made about the intersection of the driveways with a
pathway is something we considered when we were designing the
Vanderbilt Drive multi-use pathway -- well, what do you want to call
it? Not pathway. Whatever it's called. You know the -- you know
what I'm talking about.
And the issue there is exactly the same, which is why one of the
things that, you know, we were very concerned was that we would
consider expanding the on-road bike lane down that corridor, because
there is no way that combining, you know, the cyclist and, you know,
an elderly couple doing an evening stroll and a mother with her baby in
a stroller can co-exist on those pathways and be safe relative to each
other.
So it really -- it is a good thing to have the on-road bike path, and
I really like the connectivity, and I love the idea of the opportunity to
allow for these bike paths to connect with the school. So thank you.
Can we call the question?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm just going to make one comment
before I go to Commissioner Taylor, and that is, ma'am, I appreciate
your comments. I think that this has been a very good discussion.
And, Mr. Messmer, I want to tell you that I appreciate you
bringing your comments forward, and I will tell you why: I am very
much an advocate for a thorough investigation as to what kind of
pathways we have.
Page 151
May 12, 2015
And it's very appropriate, ma'am, to have this discussion,
particularly when we talk about my district, which is the eastern part of
the county, where we do have more space, and we're going to be
talking about what sorts of pathways are appropriate.
So while I have to support, Mr. Messmer, the committee's
decision, I want to let you know that I think that you have served your
community well by bringing this sort of a conversation up more
frequently because, frankly, we don't have that many multi-purpose
pathways in the county, and I think there's a lot of places where they
would be really great.
So I appreciate this conversation as a whole, sir, and I don't think
you should feel bad about bringing it forward, and I thank you for that;
although, I have to go with the committee because I think the
committee -- that's the way we function. There's a lot of people that
volunteer their time, and I certainly support this agenda item. But I
want to thank Mr. Messmer for bringing it forward, because I just
think it's been a productive and a very healthy discussion.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two things with the
multi-purpose pathway -- and it has been my concern.
And I absolutely agree, a car backing out of a driveway is going
to back across that sidewalk into the street. When it's multi-purpose,
you have -- it's not the children that are going to ride on the street. The
children are going to ride on the sidewalks.
So I'm not sure I'm -- this isn't the first place that this has
happened, but it is a great concern when we talk about Avalon school
and children using bikes and all the cuts on Thomasson, a lot of cuts.
So, you know, maybe -- I don't know what the solution is except
you teach the children that they can't assume that because they're riding
along the street the car's not going to back out into them.
MS. BRAINARD: Safe Routes to School does a wonderful job
Page 152
May 12, 2015
of educating both students, teachers, and parents how to manage, you
know, making your way down an urban sidewalk, so it can be done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And then another thing,
Commissioner Nance, which I spoke with Mr. Trebilcock --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Trebilcock, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- Trebilcock about your
expertise. I suggested that, perhaps, on Thomasson there be no more
grass planted that, perhaps, as they are relandscaping it, that they might
look at what you did on Marco Island, but also --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want to look at it now,
though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. This is not part of the
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and that they --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can bring it up on
commissioner comments.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and that we perhaps start
looking at no more grass in medians and start there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's do it under comments, because I've
got some comments to add to that, but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good. All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have -- do we have a motion
and a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
Page 153
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, thank you. Passes unanimously.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that will take us to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, do you have anything?
MR. OCHS: Well, just one important reminder for the Board.
On June 2nd you see you have a fire service proposals workshop. To
refresh the Board's memory, that is a workshop to review the proposals
received in response to the board-directed RFP for agencies that may
be interested in managing your dependent fire districts in the county,
and you asked us to solicit with other fire districts externally and also
to allow our staff, internally, to put together a proposal.
So those RFPs have been out and responded to, and we'd like to
discuss what we've received so that we can get to you for formal action
before you break in the summer. And the importance of that is so that
we'll know -- what decision you make will drive some millage-rate
discussions and decisions as we move through the summer budget
process.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And what was the October 6th
workshop, sir? Sorry, I didn't catch it when it -- it flashed by.
MR. OCHS: Yes. That was a --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Water resources.
MR. OCHS: -- water resources workshop, a topic that all of you
Page 154
May 12, 2015
have expressed, collectively and individually, major interest in, and I
think it would be timely that we get a chance to talk about that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And then November 3rd is the median
landscape options.
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Deputy Administrator Casalanguida,
do you have any comments, sir? Or you're just keeping your head
down.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will not add to this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Nothing.
Ms. Kinzel?
MS. KINZEL: Nothing more.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Would you like to lead off,
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would. Two or three things, I
guess. First of all, the concept of eliminating grass but replacing it
with something that would be more climate friendly and less water
demanding. I think it's an idea that we need to pursue as we create and
relandscape roads, and I'd like to see it implemented. And I'm not sure
how we do this, but I'd like to bring that up.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I concur. And, you know, I will speak
the unspeakable by saying that St. Augustine grass is the enemy. And
we can -- I'll take the pillory for that later.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not finished yet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I thought you
were having a pause there. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then the second thing is I'd
like to talk about process. And a long time ago someone told me that
Page 155
May 12, 2015
-- and I'm going to repeat this, that -- and this is not a personal attack
by any means. It's more an issue of process and responsibility when
someone is a chair.
But the Chair doesn't speak for the Board when the Board doesn't
speak. And your letter to Senator Richter the day after this agenda
item was pulled -- if the agenda item was about lollipops, if it was
about sod, if it was about palm trees, it's the same thing. It just
happens to be specifically about a very --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- sensitive item.
And the Board didn't -- I went back, and I looked at all the
minutes. I went and researched. The Board never took a position on
what was -- in fact, we never discussed what was being presented in
Tallahassee as a board. Individually we did, but certainly not as a
board.
And I think it was incorrect for you to write a letter that the Board
supports what was going on in Tallahassee without the Board taking
action.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, let her finish,
and then I will respond because it was my letter.
Go ahead, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's it. That's it, and --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- I'm not here saying you're a
terrible chairman or it was a horrible thing. I just think it was highly
inappropriate especially when that letter was used on the floor as
evidence of Collier County's support when you didn't know what it
was.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let me respond, okay.
Mr. Bartlett from the Naples Daily News called me and asked me
Page 156
May 12, 2015
about the letter, and I responded to him the exact same way I'll respond
to you, and that is that the letter was a thank you letter for Senator
Richter's work.
Now, realize what the circumstance was with our legislative effort
in Tallahassee. Our effort was to gain the beginning, which would
have been the first legislation regarding the regulation of oil and gas in
the State of Florida.
This was being conducted in a legislature in the State of Florida
which is very, very conservative and, by all measures, adverse to
regulation of any kind on business and industry. It's just not favorable
to regulation, and the Governor the same.
And when we entered into this effort -- and the transformation
that has taken place over the last couple of years as we've worked
through this was one where we did not have a good talking and work
relationship with our own governor who was running for re-election at
the time.
We did not have a good relationship with Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, which is the authority in charge and will be
the authority in charge. It's the regulatory agency. And we did not
have a good relationship with the governor's appointees that manage
that agency.
Senator Richter, as President Pro Tem of the Senate,
Representative Hudson and Passidomo went forward as our legislative
delegation having received guidance from us, having received
guidance from the resource owners, having received guidance from
advocacy groups.
And what was their purpose? Their purpose was to get us the
very best legislation that could be passed by the State of Florida
legislature and signed by the Governor. It's just that simple.
What did we want? The very best legislation that could be passed
and signed by the Governor. Anything less than that, and you got
Page 157
May 12, 2015
exactly what you've got now; you've got nothing. The only thing we
have today is an improved relationship with the Governor, with our
legislative delegation, and with Florida DEP.
That gentleman deserved a letter of thanks from this board for
going to the wall in that effort. That effort was not easy.
And I do not apologize for sending him a thank-you letter. That
was the purpose of the letter. It was not an advocacy letter. It was not
a letter that wanted to get into the details of what he was doing. I
simply mentioned what was going on, and I gave our support.
And that was his duty. That was -- our duty was to put together
our legislative priorities, present the points that we were interested in
and in the best shot that we had, and tell him to do his best, and I think
he did that. And I think anything less than thanking that gentleman is
an oversight on our part, and I just simply won't apologize for it.
Anybody give me any criticism they want to. That man -- we should
be giving him a proclamation for what he did to try to do something
that was one of the most difficult tasks we could ever ask him to do.
That's the way I feel about it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I certainly do not question
your motives. I think you portrayed them or explained them very --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think you are questioning my motives,
ma'am. I don't know what else the criticism is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She sure is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not questioning your motives,
sir. I'm questioning you're not following the fact that you can't thank
-- well, you can thank, but you can thank, but on behalf of the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners; we know that we are in full
support of your efforts.
We never even discussed that. The last discussion we had was in
January. And you don't speak unless the Commission speaks, your
colleagues speak, and that's it. And whether it's about oil, whether it's
Page 158
May 12, 2015
about computers, whether it's about trucks, whether it's about pigs,
whether it's about cats, it doesn't matter; don't represent a vote or
consensus on a commission without getting that consensus, and that's
it.
Finally, I have one, unless --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one last issue. In my
discussions with Ms. Crystal yesterday, I learned something that I
thought we should bring to the attention of this board, and I'm going to
let Crystal -- Ms. Kinzel talk about this, about the -- what you're going
to pay and what you're not going to pay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't think that's where we are in the
agenda, ma'am, with all due respect.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's important to
understand that there's no more payments from the Clerk's Office for
anything under $50,000 that is signed by staff I think that is hugely
important for us as open as doing business in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: This has not been communicated to the
Board, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that's why I wanted Ms.
Kinzel to do so.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ms. Kinzel had no comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's next?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
My subjects are simple.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My subjects -- my first subject is,
the Board had -- I'd approached the Board about creating -- possibly
creating a Hispanic advisory board -- for recreating the Hispanic
Advisory Board that had been here quite a while back. I met with a
Page 159
May 12, 2015
bunch of, I would say, 15 -- and by the way, that suggestion came from
Victor Valdez.
And so I've called in a bunch of people, and I tried to get from all
walks of life within the Hispanic community. It was a great meeting.
We had Tim Durham there who also presented from the manager's side
of things.
And what they all decided in that particular meeting, other than
Victor, was that they just needed a liaison. They're communicating
with one another, and they're doing fine. And so -- and Tim Durham
presented an idea with the liaison, and they're going from there. And I
think they're moving forward with that.
The second thing, while Victor Valdez was there, he mentioned
that what he had -- he had expanded his ideas from just a Hispanic
advisory board. He felt there was need for a more multi-cultural
advisory board or community or committee, however you would --
whatever's going to be finally called, I don't know, but multi-cultural.
And he had been talking to a number of people outside of the
Hispanic community, and we got into blacks and Haitians and
Oriental, and he had quite a few people. Really nice. They all just
wanted to be able to communicate or get their message across.
There's only been one meeting, and that was last week, Thursday.
I was not able to attend, but Tim Durham did, and he said everybody
was so agreeable. They just wanted to alert us if there were any needs
that we weren't aware of or if there were any concerns that we weren't
aware of. And it was just, more or less, an amicable meeting.
And from there, I don't know where it's going yet, but I'm just
kind of bringing you up to date.
And with that, I'm going away tomorrow for a little bit. That's it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Well, since we're talking about
that, I just wanted to hand out one thing under my communications,
and that was I had the opportunity on Cinco de Mayo to go to an event
Page 160
May 12, 2015
at Hodges University which was involving their Hispanic Institute.
And I thought it was a nice program and a pretty interesting thing. So I
just brought a little of their promotional literature. I hope that's all
right. You can take a look at it if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But very active. Jesse Purdon, who is
Congressman Clawson's (sic), was kind of the featured speaker. I
thought he just did a very inspirational job, and I think the effort at
Hodges is outstanding for our Hispanic Institute. I did not realize it,
but they told me at that time that over 40 percent of their students are
Hispanic. They've got language programs. I mean, it was very --
absolutely uplifting. It was a huge group of people. Very, very nice
event.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm glad you attended. I saw
the picture of you with Jesse, and I was jealous, but that's okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I can tell you what, he just gave an
inspirational talk; very, very nice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That goes right along with what we
were talking about previously at our Affordable Housing Workshop
and how the Hispanic population, who really fought to be here, bring
their children here to educate them, is now doing just that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these children are moving up
the line, getting an education, and moving into the business community
of our community.
And so I think it's -- like you said, the farms are suffering
somewhat because they don't want to be farmworkers anymore. They
want to be in the business world.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think it's a wonderful thing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's a good thing.
Page 161
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So there you go. They're on the
right track at Hodges.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The only other thing I have is a
good-news item. And, Mr. Ochs, you have a little picture that I
received. This is a photograph of the last Collier County Honor Flight
in Washington, D.C. This is the group of 71 veterans; the grand
majority of them were World War II and a few Korean veterans.
I think I got some feedback claiming that I was seen at the airport
with Commissioner Fiala at a rendezvous past midnight at the Fort
Myers airport.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: His wife was there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, Gail was there too just to check up
on us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that officially a mOnage a trois?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm telling you. It's something.
It was Saturday, May the 2nd. Tremendous, tremendous. There
was over a thousand people at RSW to greet these people when they
came back. It was a great thing. I think they have another one planned
for June.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twentieth.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: June 20th. Anybody that has a World
War II vet that has not been on an Honor Flight, please take the
opportunity to sign them up.
And it's going to be a very interesting Honor Flight at the next
one, because as you may realize or you may not, I'm going to -- I
always like to bring up these historical things -- we just passed the 70th
anniversary of Victory in Europe Day within the past several days, and
I believe August 14th is really the end of 70th anniversary of the end of
World War II, which I think is August the 14th, which I think is VJ
Day. I might be within a day or two one way or the other of it.
And, of course, that's going to be during a period of time when
Page 162
May 12, 2015
we're out of session. So everybody should take the opportunity to
check out the next Honor Flight coming up. And it is -- it's a
wonderful thing for these vets. They were up almost 24 hours. But I'll
tell you what, for guys between 86 and 102, they were completely
perky; they were perkier than I know I was at 1 :30 in the morning, I
can tell you that.
They had just a great trip. You could see the twinkle in their eye,
and I would encourage everybody to take advantage of this opportunity
if you know any World War II vets. Great thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is a great thing, and I did one
several months ago. I didn't actually fly to Washington. I was there,
you know, as part of the receiving line at, like, what was it, 1 o'clock at
night. And it's just so impressive, so impressive, and it's such a great
community event.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Leo, have you received an engagement letter on the internal audit
which Ms. Kinzel said has been triggered by the Clerk with reference
to the concrete vendor who hasn't been paid?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, not at this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't we have a procedure that
requires the Clerk to provide an engagement letter when he triggers an
internal audit or not?
MR. OCHS: The Clerk has a procedure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so the Clerk has a procedure
that requires an engagement letter?
MS. KINZEL: No.
MR. OCHS: With exceptions, and I'll let --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought -- well, I thought -- and
let me -- and you have to refresh my memory, because I remember we
had a whole procedural issue with how the Clerk was conducting
Page 163
May 12, 2015
audits, and we had come to an agreement that there was going to be a
process as to, you know, engagement letter, what's going to happen,
how it's going to be reported, where it's going to show up on the
agenda, like, all this stuff I thought was hashed out.
But, you know, I'm pulling from memory, so I don't recall. I
didn't research it, so I'm turning to you to guide me.
MR. OCHS: There is a procedure that the Clerk's Office put
together, and I'll let Ms. Kinzel comment, if she'd like, from that point
on.
MS. KINZEL: Under a routine department audit, we would issue
the engagement letter. We would work through the issues with the
department. We have an exit interview. They provide their comments.
We work with them to complete the audit.
On other items, i.e., an expenditure investigation or a
miscellaneous finding, there will not be an engagement letter, and that
was part of what we have explained previously. If it is a departmental
audit and a planned audit, you will certainly -- we have been following
that policy consistently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me -- and the reason I asked
this is because if you're looking at that individual contract, you have a
duty under the Prompt Payment Act to make that payment.
So how do you reconcile and how do you avoid the requirements
of the Prompt Payment Act by triggering an internal audit? Because,
you know, it could be every single time you don't want to pay
something, you could just ask a question and say, oh, okay, it's an
internal audit, and so the Prompt Payment Act doesn't apply.
How does the -- how does the contractor that's subject now
suddenly to this internal audit that entered into a contract on the
presumption he would be paid pursuant to that other statute have the
ability to defend himself against that? How does -- you know, where
is the due process, if you will? Because now he doesn't have what he
Page 164
May 12, 2015
thought he had as a matter of law because of your application of this
power to internally audit a single expenditure which, in fact, is now
substituting for your right to pre-audit the expenditure.
MS. KINZEL: No. Commissioner Hiller, first of all, we're well
aware of the Prompt Payment Act, and that is the Clerk's
responsibility, and we take that very seriously.
I'm not going to engage in any comments regarding the internal
audit as it sits right now. So I will not be discussing that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're not asking -- or I'm not
asking a specific question. I'm asking you a general question. How do
you reconcile your duty to pay under the Prompt Payment Act as
against triggering an internal audit of what should be more properly a
pre-audit?
Because that's really what it is. I mean, I'm not sure what the
internal, you know -- and then to cloak the whole investigation of an
unpaid transaction under an internal audit investigation, which is not
transparent, versus the pre-audit review, which is transparent, concerns
me also.
So can you just explain, what's the reconciliation between the pre-
audit, the internal audit, and the Prompt Payment Act?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, I've answered your
question. I'm not going to engage in any information or comment on
the current internal audit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't ask specifically about the
current internal audit. I'm going to -- again, what's the reconciliation
between the Prompt Payment Act and the internal audit versus a pre-
audit, generally? Not specific to this investigation.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, I'm not going to have this
discussion, but thank you for the question. We'll take the question, and
we will advise at the end of the internal audit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to know at the end of
Page 165
May 12, 2015
the internal audit. This is a legal and procedural question that I want
an answer to, and I think we as a Board have a right to an answer.
And, you know, with respect to what Commissioner Taylor said,
that, you know, you're -- Ms. Kinzel, you're telling Ms. Taylor, or
Commissioner Taylor, that you're not going to make any payments but
you're not informing the Board, you know, to the point that
Commissioner Taylor was talking to, you know, we act as a board.
And, you know, to have these unilateral, you know,
behind-closed-doors conversations with Commissioner Taylor and her
having information that the rest of the Board doesn't have is, you
know, not acting in accordance with your fiduciary duty to the Board
in terms of doing what has to be done.
And that brings me to my next point, and that is I asked the
County Attorney if there was any statute about who has to sign checks,
and he very kindly pointed out that 136.06 does provide as to who is
supposed to sign checks. And 136.06 says that the Board of County
Commissioners will have a secretary. Like we have a chair and a
vice-chair, we're also supposed to have the secretary.
And that when there is a check or warrant issued, that it's the
Chair of the Board that shall sign the check, and it's either the secretary
of the Board or the Clerk to the Board that will attest to that signature
and it -- and affix the seal. So it's an attestation, not a cosigning.
So -- well, we don't have a secretary, and it would seem like we
should have a secretary to the Board and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can have my secretary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I love your secretary okay? She's
like -- and she's not a secretary. She is an executive aide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Assistant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And she's a professional.
So my point is, I think, you know, if the Clerk is going to engage
in these type of shenanigans -- and he's obviously doing it because he's
Page 166
May 12, 2015
issued an injunct- -- or, you know, basically he's looking for injunctive
relief, and he has to create some sort of irrepairable harm to move
forward on this action, it would seem.
So what he's trying to do is create a crisis to support his complaint
against, you know, our staff, which is, you know, just completely
ridiculous. And I don't believe he can do that, especially in light of the
Prompt Payment Act. I'm very, very concerned.
Just like I don't believe he can circumvent the Prompt Payment
Act by suddenly turning a pre-audit into an internal audit of a single
transaction.
So to my point, I think if he's going to try to blackmail this board,
if he's going to try to blackmail our vendors by withholding a signature
on a check for a valid disbursement, which these disbursements are in
the manner in which we approve them, then I think we should look to
see whether or not we can't just appoint a secretary on this board who
attests and have the Chair sign the checks and we approve the checks
as we -- you know, approve the disbursements as we do.
In fact, if I look to this agenda -- where is the agenda -- there is --
there is an item on the agenda. And the agenda says -- oh, where are
we? Hang on a second. Bear with me one moment.
So it's under 16J1 . And it says, board declaration of expenditures
serving a valid public purpose and approval of disbursements in this
particular case for the period of April 23rd to April 29, 2015.
So I think that if the Board would be willing, I would ask staff to
bring back an agenda item to appoint a secretary who shall attest to the
checks signed by the chair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to use your checks?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. I am check (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Because we don't have a
checkbook. So what are you going to sign, a piece of paper?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he --
Page 167
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your checkbook.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: IOUs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, IOUs. There you go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. That's not the way it
works. In fact, all the --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I'm going to need a big pad of
stickie notes, sir, okay? A big, big one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just so you understand, all the
accounts are in the name of the Board of County Commissioners, not
in the name of the clerk.
But anyway, it says here under 136 exactly that, and I'll read it.
Each check or warrant so drawn shall be signed by the Chair of said
board attested by the Clerk or a secretary of said board with the
corporate seal of thereof affixed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got the checkbook, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I didn't think so. We'll
use Commissioner Hiller's checkbook.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyway, I do think we need to
look at that, because if he is going to try to withhold payment by not
cosigning the checks -- and the checks are signed by whom?
MR. OCHS: The Board chair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And by the Clerk?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So jointly?
MR. OCHS: It appears, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the checks -- are the
checks signed -- Crystal, does the Clerk sign the checks?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, ma'am. It's a dual-signature check with the
Clerk and the Chairman of the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So based on 136.06, it
Page 168
May 12, 2015
would appear that the Chair alone is statutorily required to sign it with
an attestation to that signature by the secretary of the Board or by the
Clerk to the Board.
And so if we appoint a second -- if the Clerk is going to engage in
this type of tactic to hurt the vendors and hurt the public -- because
obviously the vendors aren't paid, then the services can't be provided,
you know -- then I think we need to take some action. I mean, we can't
let that happen. And there is a solution, and this is the solution.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, where are we going here?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, until somebody comes back with an
executive summary, we're not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So I'm suggesting that -- I
mean, I can bring back an executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you should.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I could do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The reason I brought this issue up
was, specifically, I want to get vendors paid. So if we're devising
another way of doing it, I'm very, very pleased about this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, thank you, Commissioner
Taylor. I appreciate you saying that, and that is the bottom line. We
do need to get these vendors paid, and we need to, you know, continue
doing business.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But can the chairman --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what it says.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Assuming you're the secretary, so
you attest to Chairman Nance's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or like you could be, the -- and the
attestation is just attesting that that is his signature.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But do we need two signatures on
each --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
Page 169
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You don't?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not according to the statute. The
statute says only one signature. 136.06 says -- you can take a look at it.
Can you -- I don't know if you can put it on the overhead, but it says --
and I haven't looked into any more than just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But can the Chairman sign
something that we haven't reviewed and put on this agenda as an
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, all --just so you understand,
we don't ever sign anything before it's approved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So everything has to come
back to us to be approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything always has come back
to us, and no check is ever signed by the chair till we approve it on the
agenda, until we ratify it on the agenda, and that's for every single
expenditure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically what we have is when
the Chair signs, it's only after full Board approval recognizing that it
serves a valid public purpose, you know, that it's a legal expenditure in
our eyes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- yeah. So you're absolutely
right, it is about ensuring that they get paid. And there is a vehicle here
for doing that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm with you. And that's
what, you know -- I mean, I can -- you know, maybe with the help of
the County Attorney, we can draft an executive summary, and I'll bring
it back.
MR. KLATZKOW: My legal considerations aren't going to
Page 170
May 12, 2015
match your legal opinion on this, ma'am, but you're welcome to bring
an executive summary. I think you need to get an injunction if he's not
paying, but you can have that discussion at your next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and I think so, too. You
know, I think we absolutely have to proceed in that fashion if he does
what Commissioner Taylor says that Ms. Kinzel told her. Yeah, I think
we should look into it and draft something. I'll do it. But I also think
that the county attorney is right. I mean, if he is not going to pay, I do
think we're going to have to go to court.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sooner than later.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, you got
anything better than that, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm not going to try to talk
out of--
Leo, there was several allegations by Jennifer Hecker from the
Conservancy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I forgot one thing. I forgot one
thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our legislative priorities,
particularly on oil, we gave you to manage, to execute, and what she
was alleging, your daily involvement with the lobbyists was not doing
it.
The -- working with Senator Richter and -- well, there's a lot of
finger pointing. So tell us what, how, when, who is going to push our
legislative priorities based upon the consultant's recommendations.
MR. OCHS: Well, the Board, after entering into a stipulated
agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
last fall, directed the staff to advance the 18 recommendations made by
your independent consultant through the FDEP onto the local
delegation for the purpose of crafting new legislation that would help
Page 171
May 12, 2015
tighten the regulatory environment for oil and gas drilling in Florida.
So I would want to be very sure from a staff perspective that we
were following, specifically, the direction of this board. If you will
recall, at the time there was discussion from the dais and from the floor
with other stakeholders about can't we jointly go to FDEP.
And the determination was every stakeholder has its own legal
representation. Some had their own stipulated agreements, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- the Board directed that our staff was going to
work on our recommendations, which were your recommendations
adopted from your consultants. So I was very careful to limit my
communications on this issue with the FDEP, with Senator Richter
directly, with the commissioners, obviously, and I did -- the four
talking points that were referenced earlier in the discussion were, in
fact, offered to the DEP, as previously directed our communication
would go, for consideration and discussion.
The date of that was March 11, 2015. It's two months later. I can
tell you -- and Mr. Casalanguida was present as well -- we had
numerous discussions with Ms. Cobb from the DEP and Mr. Orcado
(phonetic) from the DEP, with Senator Richter directly on these four
topics. I think there was movement on each of them, some of them not
as far as certain stakeholders would want.
But back to Commissioner Nance's point earlier, it's not always
the perfect legislation. It's legislation that you can get passed by both
houses of the legislature and, more importantly, get signed into law by
the Governor.
So the idea that the lobbyists were not engaged is not true. But it
also -- I will tell you, they were not the point person on this particular
item, and that was my decision and my direction to staff, and I'll stand
by that for the reasons I just explained.
They did accompany Commissioner Fiala with the talking points
Page 172
May 12, 2015
to the FAC legislative day. So to represent to this board that the
lobbyists had no involvement or weren't aware of the talking points I
don't think is accurate, sir.
I hope I answered your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I chime in?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I think we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Go ahead. I mean, I'm
not done yet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to chime in --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because, although Leo wasn't up
there with me when I was there -- of course, Jeff Klatzkow was up
there, but I was with the lobbyists sometimes two and sometimes three
of them at the same time as we called on our different legislators up
there.
And Leo called at least every hour, if not every half hour all the
while, just checking to make sure, just making sure that the message is
getting across.
We gave out -- we had printed forms that we could give to each
one. We made sure to give it to their aides as well. We made sure to
work that whole area. We were busy the whole day. In fact, some of
the people were surprised that they couldn't keep up with me, and that
was a wonderful thing. I loved it.
But we called on everybody that we could. We especially called
on Senator Richter, especially called on Representative Rodriguez. Of
course, we certainly saw Matt Hudson and Kathleen Passidomo as well
plus other legislators. We stopped in at the FDEP as well. So we
really covered the gamut up there.
MR. OCHS: And I believe you did leave your talking points with
Page 173
May 12, 2015
each one of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With every single one of them, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. I'm going to
finish up. You-all had a chance, now be quiet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're supporting you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The -- my understanding
there were several facets that we're going to get, to the best of their
ability, from Tallahassee. One is through the rule making; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. There was -- in Senator Richter's bill there
was a call for rule making, and, in fact, the study and no high-pressure
well stimulation activities could occur prior to rule making being
finished.
And, unfortunately, because the House left early, there wasn't an
opportunity to make final reconciliation between Representative
Rodriguez's bill and Senator Richter's bill, but that last draft that came
out of committee, I would be happy. And I will send the Board an
analysis of that, not by me or not by our consultant, but by the staff
committee up there. And I think you will see that the bill from Senator
Richter and Senator Rodriguez, again, in my laymen's opinion,
certainly was an improvement over what we have today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well -- so the chairman's
letter to Senator Richter really met our goal that the senator was -- bill
was our priority?
MR. OCHS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, you know, the notion
that the Chairman is out of line by -- I know he was working with -- at
least I communicate with staff about any particular item, and I know
that -- you know, I worked on some of this oil stuff so we can get
things moving. So Leo communicates with me all the time. So it is
appropriate for the Chairman to thank Senator Richter for his bill.
Page 174
May 12, 2015
You know, we need to communicate with staff. I think you're
going to -- I know some don't trust and some would rather be a donkey
to special interest groups by putting things on the agenda that is really
a reconsideration in that.
But, you know, Commissioner Taylor --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you were wrong, okay, and
continue to be wrong on bringing this issue up over and over again and
delegating your elected authority under the Florida Statutes to a group
that is proclaiming to serve in the best interest, health, safety, and
welfare, of the citizens. That is your duty, ma'am. It also is your duty
to protect the environment under the law. I'm not going to give that up
to any self-appointed group when the people elected us to do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not sure where you're going
with this, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first of all, your item about
the time-certain had everything to do with the oil legislation. Your oil
legislation that you wanted to put on the agenda was removed by the
majority of the Board of Commissioners, which was really the
Conservancy's item, okay.
Have original ideas. Bring -- if you're going to bring something
on there, don't be a donkey to somebody else. Make sure that you
know what you're talking about, because all it is, is bringing a lot of
consternation up here, and it's not serving anything.
There's a lot of allegations here. Talk to staff about what they're
doing on any particular item. This item, the County Manager was
managing the Board's direction on oil legislation.
There are certain things that the Conservancy's not going to get
because they don't want to be a partner in anything. You know, they're
going to be using somebody and, obviously, to me, that they used you
for their agenda because they couldn't be listened to in Tallahassee.
Page 175
May 12, 2015
They couldn't get anything done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, as I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was very interesting this Friday.
I was at a Florida Humanities Council meeting, and the lobbyist for the
Florida Humanities Council spoke to me at a luncheon and, of course,
she was very interested in what was going on with the oil legislation
and what had happened in the House and in the Senate.
And her response was very similar to what we heard today. She
wondered what had happened to Collier. That was one of the first
things she asked me. And then she also indicated that at the detriment
of a lot of other bills that were proposed to the legislature at that time,
the discussion about fracking was statewide, it was extraordinarily
vigorous, and it was extremely divisive.
And she was asking me -- you know, we were talking about what
had happened with the House and how unfortunate it was that we
didn't have legislation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is unfortunate. You know
why? There were too many people, groups that didn't want to be a
partner in further regulating the oil drilling.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I also learned from our
lobbyist, Keith Arnold, that the Conservancy itself stood alone up there
among all the environmental groups because they wanted some kind of
legislation, something for fracking. They were not opposing fracking.
And they alienated other environmental groups who are against this.
So this idea --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just got criticized for our
report and direction to the County Manager was not being
implemented. If you would have talked to staff, you would have found
that staff was working on several angles to get each and every one of
those implemented to their best ability.
Page 176
May 12, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, as we could have very well
discussed it when it was the decision of this commission to not hear the
item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was a --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What I was attempting to do --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a reconsideration item,
Commissioner Taylor. It was not any new --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's your prerogative to
think so. I did not think it was. I thought it was looking at where we
were, what we were -- this is my commission, my commission, that
had the courage to sue FDEP and made them come here and create a
stipulation agreement. This was the commission that did it. I was
proud and excited to be part of it.
What I saw happening was I was not -- I was very confused.
What we wanted wasn't what we're getting. I get -- I get emails that
say that the lobbyists were told to stand down, big bold, "STAND
DOWN" in caps. What's happening? Why are not our lobbyists doing
it? Why are -- what's happening?
And then we don't have much discussion. I would be glad to
show you that email, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what -- you know
why they're doing that? It's because nobody else is listening. And if
you would have talked to staff about those particular items, it could
have been straightened out instead of having an item being withdrawn
from the agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I want to make
a couple comments. I think it's -- when -- Collier County has the
sitting governor of the state and has the second most powerful
gentleman in the Senate leading our legislative delegation. We also
have a gentleman in the House, Representative Hudson.
Why do you want to question their ability to carry the ball at the
Page 177
May 12, 2015
point we make our recommendations and we give it to our legislative
delegation? Why do you want to go in and tell them how to do their
job? I think that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my
life.
Their job was to go up there and get us the very best bill they
could get passed and signed by the Governor. It was clear to me, with
my discussions with Senator Richter, that he understood that. And
guess what? I trust his judgment. He's been up there a long time and,
by all feedback I've gotten, is a gentleman in the highest order and
knows exactly what he's doing.
I'm not going to double-clutch him and say, oh, I'm going to go
talk to another legislator to have him go fix my lead guy's bill. You're
not going to hear that out of me, Commissioner. That's ridiculous.
Senator Richter was our guy. He was our best hope. And guess
what? He couldn't get it done. I'm saying, if he couldn't get it done,
there wasn't anybody that was going to get it done. We weren't going
to be able to go through the back door, talk to somebody else, because
I'll tell you what. It's our issue. It's our issue in Collier County. We're
the only ones that are stakeholders.
You want to know what all the citizens in all these other counties
want? They want cheap gas. I can tell you that right now. They don't
care what goes on in Collier County. They're not going to tell their
legislators to work on it. They're not going to be worried about it.
What they want is cheap fuel, and that's what we're fighting against.
Now, that's hard to say in a public forum, but that's what we're
fighting against. We're fighting a very narrow issue that our legislative
delegation has got to take up there under a very difficult conservative
governance in this state and try to get something done. A nose, camel's
nose under the tent to start getting regulation, to start forming a body.
I think it's awful that we didn't come out of that with something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in closing, I think it would
Page 178
May 12, 2015
be more effective getting both sides of the story and talking to your
staff.
And, in closing, I had a great opportunity have -- well, in
Immokalee there are many diverse restaurants out there that have
original taste, and I encourage everybody to take advantage of those
businesses out in Immokalee.
With that, I'll make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're not going to adjourn yet.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just -- there was -- two
things I wanted to say. The first is did we -- what's the status of the
audit on the vehicles in the fleet?
MR. OCHS: We had an exit conference with the internal audit
team. I don't know if we've received the final version. After that
meeting there was some final edits going. If we don't have it, we'll
have it, I'm sure, within a day or so, and then we have some time to
make our management response to the audit, and it will follow the
process, and it will ultimately get to the Board probably --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Based on -- based on the exit
conference, were there any significant issues? Was there major fraud
or anything like that that was uncovered?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I didn't personally attend. Ms. Price
represented me. And I really would ask for your indulgence to allow
us to make our management response and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: -- the Board will see the full report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, are there going to be any
arrests?
MR. OCHS: Not to my knowledge, no.
(Commissioner Henning has left the boardroom for the remainder
Page 179
May 12, 2015
of the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, good. So two years and no
arrests. That's all I want to know.
I want to make a point to what Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Nance has said. To take, for example, the cycling
legislation that we advanced, we couldn't even get it through the House
without a strike-all amendment, and that's the way it works. And we
had the best lobbyists. We had advocates from all different sorts of
cycling and running organizations. You know, we had Representative
Passidomo working it as hard as she could. And it couldn't advance
without a strike-all amendment and without parts of it being parsed out
and thrown into some of the DOT -- you know, into a DOT bill. And,
you know, there was another representative who came up with a
completely different version. So, you know, that's how it works. And
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's hard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's very hard. And to suggest that
we are going to get 100 percent of what we ask in one sitting and that
somehow all the members of the House and the members of the Senate
are going to buy into our position is unrealistic.
Staff did put forth its best effort. Our lobbyists did as well. And,
most importantly, our entire legislative delegation did absolutely the
best they could to advance what our directive was.
So I agree with you, Commissioner Nance. We'll get another bite
at the apple next session, and we will definitely, you know, stay on the
same path that we were on.
I was very concerned to hear Commissioner Taylor say that
Conservancy alienated even the environmental groups up there, which
tells me that we need to be very careful in partnering when we take a
position, because that could actually be detrimental to advancing the
Board's legislative agenda.
Page 180
May 12, 2015
I mean, support is welcome, but I think we have to stand on our
own two feet as a board, and we should not be partnering with a
special interest to advance our legislative priorities. Because if for
some reason they are not well received, our efforts are for naught.
So, you know, we welcome all input. We consider the best of
what everybody has to offer. They are not the only organization out
there that is concerned about fracking. They're not the only individuals
concerned about fracking.
And we consider the full pool of information available to us when
we craft what we believe is the first step in the solution to this problem
with all legislation, it -- legislation is alive. It's constantly evolving,
constantly changing, and you do not get everything on the first shot.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's making the sausage, that's for sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not even about making the
sausage. It's about the fact that it's an evolution. And, you know, even
if we could have gotten one thing out of the totality of what we asked
for, it would have been the first step in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Groundbreaking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, this is going to
take place over years, you know. I mean, it's like the issue of solar
energy and the utility industry. You know, why does Florida, the
Sunshine State, not have solar panels everywhere? Okay. I mean --
yeah, these are hard fights.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I know that we're starting in January --
we're starting January early with our, you know, legislative action, and
I think we should go back again. And I pledge my, you know,
renewed support for the Board to work on it again. I'm ready to load
up and do it.
My personal apologizes to Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner
Fiala, Commissioner Hiller, and Commissioner Henning, who's not
here, for coming off the rails a little bit. I just got very passionate
Page 181
May 12, 2015
about the circumstance. It's not my style, but I apologize to you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were totally justified.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- publicly and personally.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I respond to it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. What I wanted to respond
to is that the reason I put this agenda item on that was removed was to
assess where we have been, where we are, what Senator Richter was
doing, and how we could support him.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, I don't question your --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Well, I think you did,
but that's the reason.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I don't question your motives. I
think your motives are very pure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're such a respectful man.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you so much. We're adjourned.
And I think -- I believe the citizens got their money's worth today.
**** Commissioner Hiller moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR TORINO AND MIRAMONTE AT GREY OAKS AR-11363
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN
Page 182
May 12, 2015
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT —
FINAL INSPECTION WAS DONE ON DECEMBER 18, 2013 BY
ENGINEERING SERVICES AND FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR HACIENDA LAKES, PL20130002446, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $27,881 .46 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — FINAL INSPECTION
WAS DONE ON JANUARY 29, 2015 BY ENGINEERING
SERVICES AND FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2015-87: AMENDING EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON
COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO ESTABLISH A SPEED
LIMIT OF FORTY (40) MPH FOR HACIENDA BOULEVARD
(F/K/A BENFIELD ROAD), APPROXIMATELY 1-MILE EAST
OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 1 .5 MILES
NORTH
Item #16A4
Page 183
May 12, 2015
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE NUMBER ONE RANKED FIRM, HIGH SPANS
ENGINEERING, INC., FOR RFP #15-6372 FOR "VERIFICATION
TESTING FOR GOLDEN GATE BLVD. DESIGN BUILD,"
PROJECT #60040 — WIDENING FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR
LANES FROM WILSON BLVD TO 16TH STREET
Item #16A5
PAYMENT FOR A JOINT COASTAL PERMIT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $22,970 FOR THE 15-YEAR FDEP PERMIT UNDER DEP
FILE NO. 0311817-001-JC FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT,
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM (PROJECT
NO. 80165) — THE EXISTING PERMIT EXPIRED IN JANUARY
2015 BUT WAS EXTENDED 2 YEARS UNTIL JANUARY 2017
Item #16A6
A WAIVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES SET
FORTH IN THE ADVANCE STREET NAME SIGN GUIDELINES
POLICY AND RESOLUTION NUMBER 2012-114 FOR THE
PLACEMENT OF ADVANCE STREET NAME GUIDE SIGNS
ALONG COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AT THE
APPROACHES TO NAPLES LAKE BOULEVARD — FOR NEW
NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND SIGNS TO IDENTIFY
NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB'S MAIN ENTRANCE
Item #16A7
Page 184
May 12, 2015
THE RANKED LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FOR
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #15-6382, "GRANT FUNDED
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT," STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH
THE TOP RANKED FIRMS FOR SUBSEQUENT BOARD
APPROVAL AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM — FIRMS RANKED AS FOLLOW: CB&I
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., HUMISTON
& MOORE, ATKINS NORTH AMERICA AND OLSEN
ASSOCIATES
Item #16A8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $176,000 WITHIN THE
STORMWATER CAPITAL FUND 325, MOVING $161,000 FROM
PROJECT NUMBER 60094, SECONDARY SYSTEM REPAIR
AND $15,000 FROM PROJECT NUMBER 51144,
STORMWATER FEASIBILITY AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN,
TO FUND PROJECT NUMBER 60140, THE KIRKWOOD ALLEY
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT — LOCATED IN
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY/TRIANGLE CRA AND IS PRONE
TO FLOODING DURING NORMAL RAIN EVENTS
Item #16A9
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $8,643.89 FOR PAYMENT OF $593.89,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. CINDY YABLONOWSKI,
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEVR20130009048,
Page 185
May 12, 2015
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6508 TRAIL BLVD.,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATION FOR
ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED VEGETATION ON
UNIMPROVED PROPERTY AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON MARCH 20, 2014
Item #16A10
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $49,500 FOR PAYMENT OF $6,000, IN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JON R. AND DENISE T.C.
BRIMMER, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO.
2007090878, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 561 7TH
ST. NW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATION FOR A
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITHOUT
REQUIRED PERMITS AND BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
ON JUNE 18, 2014
Item #16A11
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $30,862.29 FOR PAYMENT OF $562.29,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. CHRISTOPHER S. CLEARY
EST., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE
NO. CEPM20130009214, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 4951 18TH CT. SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
VIOLATION FOR A DAMAGED GARAGE DOOR THAT WAS
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2014
Page 186
May 12, 2015
Item #16Al2
TWO RELEASES OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $385,362.30, FOR
PAYMENT OF $612.30, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. VALORIE K. LOJEWSKI AND CAROL E. NELSON, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NOS. CESD20080014926 AND
CESD20080015799, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
330 WILSON BLVD. S., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR
VARIOUS CODE VIOLATIONS AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON JANUARY 13, 2014
Item #16A13
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $106,731 .43, FOR PAYMENT OF
$1,597.93, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. THU-NHUT
NGUYEN, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO.
CEPM20120001592, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
480 8TH ST. NE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATION
FOR AN UNSECURED HOME AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON JANUARY 6, 2015
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2015-88: APPOINTING MEMBERSHIP TO THE
GOLDEN GATE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TECHNICAL ADVISORY AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR 12
MONTHS — APPOINTING JOCELYN NAGEON DE LESTANG,
Page 187
May 12, 2015
DANA DETTMAR, GREGG STRAKALUSE, DENNIS VASEY,
JULIE NEUROHR, BRENT BACHELDER AND JEFFREY
CARTER
Item #16A15
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
BOND NO. 964119218 IN THE AMOUNT OF $302,000 WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH PARKLANDS - PLAT ONE, EARLY
WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) PL20140001253 — WORK
ASSOCAITED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED
AND THE DEVELOPR HAS FULLFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
Item #16A16
A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (PA) WITH THE ROTARY
CLUB OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA SUNRISE AND
COLLIER COUNTY; AND TO AUTHORIZE COLLIER COUNTY
TO PURCHASE TWO MULTI-USE BUS STOP SHELTERS FOR
THE COPELAND AREA LOCATED AT PANTHER PARK AND
LAKE GLORIA — THE COPELAND BAPTIST CHURCH WILL
ASSUME RESPONIBILITY OF THE OVERALL TRASH PICK-
UP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SHELTER AREAS
Item #16A17
A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO SERVE
AS A NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR FOR A SHORELINE
PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY WITHIN COLLIER
Page 188
May 12, 2015
COUNTY — THE COUNTY'S NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE
PARTICIPATION WILL NOT EXCEED $1,500.00 WITH THE
PROPOSED FUNDING FROM TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
Item #16A18
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
AWARDED BY THE COURT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. ANDY
MORGAN, CASE NO. 07-4400-CA. (SANTA BARBARA
EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60091). (FISCAL IMPACT: $58,829)
— MOVING FUNDS FROM DISTRICT 2 IMPACT FEE
RESERVES
Item #16A19
A TEMPORARY USE AGREEMENT TO PERMIT THE
TEMPORARY USE OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF COUNTY
BARN ROAD FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES —
ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PLANT A BUFFER
AROUND THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY UNTIL THE COUNTY
NEEDS TO MAKE USE OF THE EASEMENT
Item #16C1
A $365,690.30 WORK ORDER TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES
USA, INC., UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-20
FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES
FOR THE BLUEBILL AVENUE FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT,
PROJECT NUMBER 70044 — REPLACING THE HDPE FORCE
Page 189
May 12, 2015
MAIN DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED UNDER THE
VANDERBILT CHANNEL
Item #16D1
A TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH
GOOD WHEELS, INC — SUPPORTING THE USE OF FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT FUNDS
Item #16D2
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FROM FY2005-2006
THROUGH FY2014-2015 ANNUAL ACTION PLANS; AMEND A
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY - LEGACY LAKES; APPROVE A SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE
AND INCREASE OR ALLOCATE PROJECT DELIVERY FOR
THE FOLLOWING: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - LEGACY
LAKES, BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY,
NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE AND DIRECT
HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE HOME CARE FOR THE
ELDERLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
Page 190
May 12, 2015
INC. BY TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN BUDGET LINES
FOR FY 14-15 — FOR CONTRACT #HCE 203.14
Item #16D4
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE
FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM AND BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING FOR FY 2014/2015 —
AMENDMENT #3 INCREASES THE OVERALL FUNDING BY
$25,000 TO CONTRACT #CCE 2013. 14
Item #16D5
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 14-6274, PARKS AND
RECREATION ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
SOLUTION TO THE ACTIVE NETWORK, LLC, CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT — FEES INCLUDE UNLIMITED
TECHNICAL SUPPORT, NECESSARY UPGRADES,
HOSTING/MAINTENANCE OF DATA, BACK-UPS AND
INTEGRATED PAYMENT PROCESSING FEES
Item #16D6
A 20% DISCOUNT ON COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION SWIMMING LESSON PROGRAMS TO ALL
COLLIER COUNTY CHILDREN (AGE 5 AND UNDER) AND TO
AUTHORIZING PARKS AND RECREATION TO PROMOTE
THE DISCOUNT WITHIN THE NCH SAFE AND HEALTHY
Page 191
May 12, 2015
CHILDREN'S COALITION "WATER SMART PRESCRIPTION
BOOKLET." — FROM MAY 15 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2015
Item #16E1
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE
HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE — COORDINATING
RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A DISASTER
Item #16E2
RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES
SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT
DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15
FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FY 15
Item #16E3
THE CHIEF OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO SIGN
A LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM COMPUTER ACCESS
REQUEST FORM(S) AND PHYSICIAN/OFFICE STAFF
SECURITY AGREEMENT(S) TO OBTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS
FROM LEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SYSTEM — ALLOWING
COLLIER COUNTY EMS PERSONNEL ACCESS TO RECORDS
OF PATIENTS THEY ARE TRANSPORTATING
Item #16E4
Page 192
May 12, 2015
APPROVAL OF THE PRICE LIST DATED JUNE 12, 2013 FROM
CON-AIR INDUSTRIES AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF
$2,455.92 IN OUTSTANDING INVOICES FROM 2013 AND 2014
Item #16E5
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD OF APRIL 2, 2015 TO APRIL 21, 2015
Item #16E6 — Moved to Item #11B (Per Commissioner Taylor during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2015-89: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET — BUDGET AMENDMENTS #15-351 (EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES) AND #15-353 (ROAD CONSTRUCTION
GAS TAX)
Item #16F2 — Moved to Item #11C (Per Commissioner Henning
during Agenda Changes)
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2015-90: APPOINTING RONALD J. DOINO TO
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND ACCEPT HIS
Page 193
May 12, 2015
RESIGNATION FROM THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING
BOARD
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2015-91 : REAPPOINTING TERRANCE P.
JERULLE, THOMAS X. LYKOS AND RICHARD E. JOSLIN, JR.
TO THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD WITH TERMS
EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2018
Item #16H3
RESOLUTION 2015-92: APPOINTING EUGENE V. ERJAVEC,
JR. TO THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD WITH A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER
1, 2018
Item #16H4
RESOLUTION 2015-93: REAPPOINTING ROBERT A. MILLER
AND CLARK WAKEFIELD HILL TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL WITH TERMS EXPIRING APRIL
21, 2019
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FILED FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Item #16J1
Page 194
May 12, 2015
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 23 THROUGH
APRIL 29, 2015
Item #16J2
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 30 THROUGH
MAY 6, 2015
Item #17A — Moved to Item #9E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17B — Moved to Item #9F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2015-94: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Page 195
May 12, 2015
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
Attest as to tiaian's
signa(UrQ: nfy, z
These minute approved by the Board on (of a / , as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND
TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 196