BCC Minutes 03/22/2016 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
March 22, 2016
March 22, 2016
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida March 22, 2016
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: Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
Tim Nance
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director
Troy Miller, Manager, Television Operations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
It
. Alt '
r •
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
March 22, 2016
9:00 AM
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Chair
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 —BCC Vice-Chair; CRAB Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 — Community & Economic Develop. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Representative
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4— CRAB Vice-Chair; TDC 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
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1
March 22. 2016
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. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples
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. February 23, 2016 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
C. March 1, 2016 - BCC/Affordable Workforce Housing Workshop
Page 2
March 22. 2016
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 22, 2016 as Friends of Barefoot Beach
Preserve Appreciation Day in Collier County, in recognition of the 25 years
and thousands of hours of volunteer service of the Friends of Barefoot Beach
Preserve. To be accepted by Rebecca Edelbrock, President and Margaret
Winn, Board Member.
B. Proclamation designating April 2016 as Children's Advocacy Center of
Collier County month, in recognition of the center's 30th year as the
county's only immediate response facility for young victims of physical and
sexual abuse. To be accepted by CAC's Family Safety Program Director
Gail Tunnock.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Camille Shim-Marinos, Procurement
Technician, Administrative Services Department, as Employee of the Month
February 2016.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item #8 and Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to consider proposals to settle the lawsuit filed against the
County in the litigation titled North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Page 3
March 22. 2016
(District) v. Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (County).
(Case No. 11-2015-CA-001871) (Commissioner Nance)
B. Recommendation to consider a request from the City of Marco Island to
approve a resolution supporting the City's future application for a COPCN
to provide its own EMS paramedic and transport services. (Commissioner
Fiala)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to review the Board initiated analysis of existing golf
course conversion and provide staff with direction to amend the Land
Development Code (LDC) to provide for further open space and storm water
impacts analysis for future golf course conversions. (Mike Bosi, Planning
and Zoning Division Director)
B. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance effective
April 1, 2016 in the estimated amount of$2,407,799, a reduction of
$619,800. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Division Director)
C. Recommendation to declare that emergency conditions exist at Clam Pass
and in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and ratify
staff actions to quickly mobilize a dredging firm to restore sufficient tidal
flushing prior to turtle nesting season, which starts on May 1, 2016. (Neil
Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division)
D. Recommendation to approve a resolution for a technical revision to the
Collier County State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Local Housing
Assistance Plan (LHAP) for Fiscal Years 13/14-15/16 revising the purchase
assistance program and providing clarifying language. (Kimberley Grant,
Community and Human Services Director)
E. Recommendation to award Request for Proposal #15-6508, Roadway
Lighting Upgrade to LED Luminaires to Apollo Metro Solutions, Inc. and
authorize the necessary budget amendment. (Project #60189) (Jay Ahmad,
Transportation Engineering Division Director)
F. Recommendation to codify the Board's previous approval for the use of
industry best practices for lump sum, time and materials, and/or unit price
Page 4
March 22. 2016
methodologies on specific Board approved contracts. (Joanne Markiewicz,
Procurement Services Division Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Quarry Phase
4, PL20130000081, and to 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 and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Quarry Phase
5, PL20130001449, and to 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.
Page 5
March 22. 2016
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement and Release with Atkins
North America, Inc. and to award a contract to Southwest Utility
Systems, Inc. to complete construction of Collier Boulevard and
Davis Boulevard Improvements (Projects #60073 and #60092).
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for The Q Model
Center, PL20110000799, 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$18,997.89 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve an easement agreement for the purchase
of a Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and Utility Easement (Parcel
288RDUE) required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard
from 20th Street East to east of Everglades Boulevard. Project No.
60145 (Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1,300).
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facilities for Racetrac, 1150 Airport Pulling Road N.,
PL20140001312, to accept unconditional conveyance of the off-site
sewer utility facilities, 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$8,228 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Isles of Collier
Preserve, Preview Center, PL20130001848 (water) and
PL20130002516 (sewer), 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$11,227.09 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
facilities for Tamiami Hyundai, PL20140000489, accept
unconditional conveyance of a portion of the water facilities, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total
Page 6
March 22. 2016
amount of$20,754.86 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Naples Dodge, PL20110002402, accept
unconditional conveyance of a portion of the water facilities, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) in the total amount of$3,030 to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
10) Recommendation to amend Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 2013-239,
the list of Speed Limits on County Maintained Roads, to reflect the
temporary reduction of the speed limits on: (1) Golden Gate
Boulevard (CR 876) from 2nd Street (NE/SE) east to 20th Street
(NE/SE), from forty-five (45) miles per hour to thirty-five (35) miles
per hour, due to the construction of"Design-Build Golden Gate
Boulevard 4-Lane, East of Wilson Boulevard Improvements" (Project
60040), and (2) CR 29 / Copeland Avenue from approximately 1,500
feet south to 1,500 feet north of the Chokoloskee Bay Bridge, from
forty-five (45) miles per hour to thirty-five (35) miles per hour due to
construction on this roadway (Project #66066.9).
11) Recommendation to approve a Joint Participation Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to receive
reimbursement up to $759,125 for the acquisition, installation, and
inspection of a signal priority preemption system on the State
Highway System within Collier County for "SHS Signal Priority",
Project #33458.
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Agreement)
between Collier County and the Talis Park Community Development
District (CDD), for landscape and irrigation improvements within the
Veterans Memorial Blvd. Public Right-of-Way.
13) Recommendation to accept the fee-simple conveyance of Coachman
Glen, Tract R (a/k/a Coach House way), a facility currently
maintained by Collier County.
Page 7
March 22. 2016
14) Recommendation to approve an extension date for the 2015 Florida
Highway Beautification Council Grant Project: Landscaping on State
Road 951 from Fiddler's Creek Parkway to Mainsail Drive.
15) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of$113,480 which was posted as a
development guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA)
(PL20150000746) for work associated with Isles of Collier Preserve
Phase 6.
16) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of$81,000 which was posted as a
development guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA)
(PL20150001913) for work associated with Isles of Collier Preserve
Phase 7.
17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Sovereignty Submerged Lands Easement for the Gulf of Mexico
Dredging.
18) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Tract "60" Center,
Application Number PL20150001505.
19) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Caminetto at Mediterra,
(Application Number PL20150000988) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
20) Recommendation to adopt a resolution formally accepting the
dedication of Tract "R" and all lighting easements as dedicated in the
plat of Collier Park of Commerce Retail Center Replat as recorded in
Plat Book 52, Pages 37 and 38 of the official records of Collier
County and accepting maintenance responsibility for these dedications
Page 8
March 22. 2016
and for Parcels 280FEE and 232UE.
21) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Quarry Phase
4, Replat Lots 42-75, PL20130000789, and to 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.
22) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an extension for completion and acceptance of required
subdivision improvements associated with the Royal Palm Golf
Estates Replat #3 (AR-6774) subdivision pursuant to Section 10.02.05
C.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
23) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Maple Ridge at Ave Maria
Phase 2 Application Number PL2013001594 with the roadway and
drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorizing
the release of the maintenance security.
24) Recommendation to award Contract No. 16-6587 - Pine Ridge Weir
Replacement Project, to Kelly Brothers, Inc, in the amount of
$849,408.11, Project No. 60119.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency review and approve the Bayshore Gateway Triangle and
Immokalee CRA's 2015 Annual Reports, forward the reports to the
Board of County Commissioners and Clerk of Courts and publish
public notice of the filing.
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approve, after-the-fact, submittal of the attached
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications to fund
Page 9
March 22. 2016
facade and sidewalk improvements within the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Area, totaling $1,210,000.
3) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
approve an After-The-Fact US Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block Grant application
submittal to fund fire suppression improvements and the Sugden Park
Pathway within the Bayshore Community Redevelopment Area
totaling $1,729,897.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award a Change Order to Contract No. 14-6338
in the amount of$104,200 to Victor J. Latavish Architect, PA to
include additional architectural design, engineering for sitework, and
pool design for the Eagle Lakes Community Park Pool and authorize
the Chair to execute the Change Order.
2) Recommendation to approve an award for Invitation to Bid #16-6554
"Landscape Maintenance for Radio Road East MSTU" to Florida
Land Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a Commercial Land Maintenance in the
amount of$96,961.26, for base plus alternate bid item quotes, approve
additional project and maintenance funding in the amount of$20,000,
and authorize necessary budget amendments.
3) Recommendation to provide direction to staff to prepare and publicly
vet Land Development Code (LDC) amendments to modify current
off-site native vegetation retention alternatives established in LDC
Section 3.05.07 H.1.f.iii.a-b during the 2015 LDC Amendment Cycle
2, and authorize staff to explore adding new off-site native vegetation
retention alternatives as part of a future LDC amendment cycle.
4) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to the Subrecipient
Agreement with Naples Equestrian Challenge, Inc. to combine
related budget activities into one component.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
Page 10
March 22. 2016
$219,849 in State Aid to Libraries grant revenue and appropriating
expenditures on library materials, services, and equipment.
6) Recommendation to approve the Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS) Sub-Recipient Participation Agreement & Data
Quality Standards Between Hunger & Homeless Coalition of Collier
County and Collier County Community & Human Services.
7) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for the submittal
of a Conservation grant application to the Florida Native Plant Society
for a Tropical Hardwood Hammock restoration project at the Gordon
River Greenway in the amount of$966.
8) Recommendation for the Parks and Recreation Division to pursue a
Long Term Lease with the Immokalee Airport to develop an All
Terrain Vehicle (ATV)/Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park and to
authorize the expenditure of$20,000 to perform environmental study
of site for potential development.
9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign, two
(2) lien agreements for deferral of specified Collier County impact
fees for owner-occupied affordable housing units located in Collier
County.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the removal of
7,608 ambulance service accounts and their respective uncollectible
accounts receivable balances which total $5,586,716.09, from the
accounts receivable of Collier County Fund 490 (Emergency Medical
Services) finding diligent efforts to collect have been exhausted and
proved unsuccessful.
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #15-6532 Automotive &
Heavy Equipment Batteries to Taylor & Crowe Battery Company Inc.
as primary vendor and IEH Auto Parts LLC as secondary vendor.
3) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 16-6558 "Immokalee
Jail Center - Reroof- Phase II" to Crowther Roofing & Sheet Metal
Page 11
March 22. 2016
FL, Inc., to remove and replace the deteriorated roofing on the
Immokalee Jail in the amount of$192,400.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Emergency Management Division
to proceed with accreditation to meet comprehensive national
standards through the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
(EMAP).
5) Recommendation to approve the sale and disposal of surplus property
per Resolution 2013-095 for the sale of Collier County Surplus
property on April 16, 2016; ratify the Naples Airport space lease for
the event; authorize the County Manager or designee to sign for the
transfer of vehicle titles.
6) Recommendation to approve a Right of Entry to The District School
Board of Collier County, Florida to provide a temporary construction
staging area and access over County-owned property to facilitate the
installation and construction of a water cooler tank at Vineyards
Elementary School.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to accept a $25,000 donation from the Seminole
Casino Hotel Immokalee for destination marketing and promotion,
authorize the necessary budget amendment and make a finding that
this item promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and Retis designating Collier County exclusive rights to host the Retis
Face 10 Executive Training Program from May 23-25, 2016, and
providing funding for financial support in facilitating the event and for
becoming a partner member of Retis in an amount not to exceed
$12,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Page 12
March 22. 2016
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approve a Site License Agreement with Roush
Industries, Inc., to conduct a Two-Day Defensive Driving Course at
the Immokalee Regional Airport.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approve Amendment #2 to Collier County
Airport Authority Concession Agreement for Car Rental Service with
Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, award Bid No. 16-6551 Fuel Trucks for Airport
Authority in the amount of$503,000 for three fuel trucks to SkyMark
Refuelers, LLC and approve the necessary budget amendments.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between February 25 and March 9, 2016 pursuant to Florida
Statute 136.06.
2) To provide to the Board a "Payables Report" for the period ending
March 16, 2016 pursuant to the Board's request.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Stipulated Final
Judgment for Parcel 266RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Page 13
March 22. 2016
Taimy Morales, Case No. 15-CA-393 for the Golden Gate Boulevard
widening project, Project No. 60040. (Fiscal Impact: $6,470)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number
2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD), as amended, by reducing the allowable square
footage in the Industrial Commercial District by 70,000 square feet for a
total of 550,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses;
by amending the Business District to add permitted uses from the Industrial
and the General Commercial C-4 zoning districts; by amending the Business
District to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from 150,000
square feet to 200,000 square feet of office uses and from 40,000 to 60,000
square feet of retail uses; by amending the business district to allow group
housing east of Goodlette Frank Road at the southeast quadrant of Goodlette
Frank Road to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and actual height to 85
feet; by amending the business district to allow a hotel at the southeast
corner of Goodlette Frank Road and Immokalee Road to reduce the building
setback from Immokalee Road to 350 feet; and by adding a sign deviation
regarding the location of directory signage; and revising the master plan to
depict the sign deviation for the CPUD property located in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
106 acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDA-PL20140001311].
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance that will implement a six month
moratorium on new applications for development orders for new charter
schools in all commercial, residential and estates zoning districts, during
Page 14
March 22. 2016
which time staff will develop and bring forward Growth Management Plan
and Land Development Code amendments regarding the process for charter
schools to be developed within all commercial, residential and estates zoning
districts. Note by County Attorney: This moratorium period commenced
when the Board authorized advertisement of the proposed Ordinance at
its February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting (Item #11C).
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance establishing the Public Transit
Advisory Committee, and to appoint the initial membership.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2015-16 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 15
March 22. 2016
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Meeting will please come to order.
And those that can, take your seats, please.
And with that we begin our morning meeting, our BCC morning
meeting. I welcome you all to be here. I hope everybody stays the
whole day, because sometimes this audience empties out and it's kind
of lonely. So I'm glad you're all here this morning.
With that, I ask that you all stand with me and we will hear the
prayer.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray. Lord God, we're grateful for
this beautiful place that you've entrusted to us. I pray, Father, that you
would make us wise. We pray for our County Commissioners who are
stewards of this place and this people. Pray that you would bless them
with wisdom for the decisions that they need to make today. Pray that
you would give them humility and insight. Pray that you would bless
them with unity. And Father, I pray for we who are citizens of this
county, that you would help us to be partners with them, that it may go
well for us.
So Lord God, we thank you for establishing government, your
servant for our good. And we turn these proceedings over to you. I
pray that you would help us to know you in the way that you would
want to be known. For your glory I pray, Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen.
This was Reverend Michael Bannon from the Crossroads
Community Church, just so everybody knows who he was.
PASTOR BANNON: I'm going to be leaving straightaway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So it's a good thing you're still here.
Page 2
March 22, 2016
PASTOR BANNON: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, folks, I ask you to put your
hands over your heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And County Manager?
Item #2A
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. Good morning, Madam Chair,
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners' meeting of March 22nd, 2016.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16.D.1 from the
consent agenda to become Item 11.G on the regular agenda. This is a
recommended change order in the design work related to the new
aquatics facility at the Eagle Lakes Community Park. This move was
made at Commissioner Taylor's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.1 from the
consent agenda to become Item 11.H on your regular agenda. This is a
recommendation to adopt the resolution to write off uncollectible debts
in your EMS department. This item was also moved at Commissioner
Taylor's request.
Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.J.2 indefinitely until
such time as the Clerk certifies that the payables presented in this
report have been pre-audited as previously specified by the Board.
That item is -- that request is made at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Page 3
March 22, 2016
We have onetime certain item. That is Item 10.B, to be heard this
morning at 10:00 a.m. That is a Board of County Commissioners item
related to a request from the City of Marco Island for a resolution of
the board.
The last change is to request that the Board, with respect to Item
16.J.1 on your agenda, make a finding that the expenditures reported
serve a valid public purpose and authorize the Clerk to make
disbursement.
And those are all the changes that I have.
Madam Chair, I will remind the Board that typical court reporter
breaks are at 10:30 and 2:50 p.m. In the event that we finish before
1 :00 p.m., public comment on general topics not on the current or
future agenda may be heard sooner than 1 :00 p.m. or at the conclusion
of the agenda, whichever occurs first.
And those are all the changes I have this morning, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Very good. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you, Troy.
And with that, I go to the commissioners, ask if there are any
changes, corrections, additions or anything you would like to add and
also to declare your ex parte.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Start with me?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes or corrections.
Nothing on the ex parte.
But I would like to add something, Madam Chair, when you
decide it fitting to do. But as we are a wonderful community sitting
nestled in the sunny climes of Florida, I'd like to maybe have a
moment of silence to remember 25 people or more who died this
morning in Brussels in a terrorist attack. We are reaching out to
Europe, France in particular, for our economic development, and as the
Page 4
March 22, 2016
president of France said this morning, this is war. Again, mentioning
it, or stating it. And I just think it would be appropriate to remember
those folks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please bow your heads for one moment.
Thank you.
(Moment of silence.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And Commissioner Taylor,
thank you for asking.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. Thank you,
Commissioner Taylor.
I have no ex parte for today's consent agenda.
I would like to pull for a couple of brief comments Item 16.D.3. I
just -- I don't want to belabor that consent agenda item, but I think
there are some very important things that I want to bring to the
attention of the Board. 16.D.3.
MR. OCHS: That will become Item 11.I.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, sir.
Nothing else, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you very much. 11.I, 16.D.3.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning. Did you notice my
necklace?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I think it's absolutely
beautiful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For all of you that don't know what that is,
it's a pickleball paddle.
Page 5
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Commissioner Fiala, as we
were talking a little bit earlier, is starting her own pickleball line.
There will be clothes, jewelry, hats.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Accessories.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Accessories, of course. And her
own perfume, pickleball perfume.
No, you look beautiful today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do want to make one
announcement before I get into the agenda, and that is -- and I'm
saying it for the benefit of everyone in the audience. Before I do I
want to say thank you to Commissioner Taylor for remembering who
passed away, those who passed away this morning in what is definitely
an act of war.
But I want to say something on a more -- on a positive note and
that is I believe it's the 23rd, this weekend, there is going to be a
hockey game at Germain Arena between the cops and the firemen.
And it's the Guns and the Hoses is the name of the game. So I want to
encourage all of you to go. And if anyone's wondering -- and Jamie,
don't look at me like I'm supporting fire, because I am going to support
the cops. So FYI.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You heard it here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got to pick a team and I
picked. So good luck to you. I wish you all the best. But I'm going to
tell you, the guns are going to win.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it Collier or Lee or both?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's us, as far as I know. I believe
it's us.
So anyway, so just keep that in mind, it will be a really great
game.
I have no disclosures for the consent and I'm a little bit -- I'm
Page 6
March 22, 2016
wondering what's going on with 16.J.2. I have two -- I was given two
change sheets here. And so I'm not sure, County Manager, which one
I'm supposed to rely on for that item, because they say different things.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Again, it's the one that I just read
asking through Commissioner Fiala that the item be continued
indefinitely until such time as the Clerk would certify that the payables
presented in that report have been pre-audited as previously specified
by the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we need that report.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. So we'll go back and work with the
Clerk's Office on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, because we need it. We
need those payables pre-audited before we receive them. For review.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. You added a fun time to it
with this game. That sounds great.
And Commissioner Henning I'm sure will be arriving soon. So
when he gets here we can ask him for his ex parte.
But right now I will declare that I have only one disclosure and
that's on 16.A.22, which is the Royal Palm Golf Estates. And I spoke
to one of the residents there, Clarence Neuhaus, while he was on one
of my tours. So that's the only declaration I have. No other changes or
corrections.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Then I'll move approval of today's
regular consent --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- and summary agenda as
amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And a second from
Commissioner Hiller.
Page 7
March 22, 2016
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good, that passes 4-0.
II
Page 8
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 22,2016
Move Item 16D1 to Item 11G: Recommendation to award a Change Order to Contract No. 14-
6338 in the amount of$104,200 to Victor J.Latavish Architect,PA to include additional
architectural design,engineering for sitework,and pool design for the Eagle Lakes Community
Park Pool and authorize the Chair to execute the Change Order. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16E1 to Item 11H: Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the removal of
7,608 ambulance service accounts and their respective uncollectible accounts receivable balances
which total$5,586,716.09,from the accounts receivable of Collier County Fund 490(Emergency
Medical Services) finding diligent efforts to collect have been exhausted and proved unsuccessful.
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Continue Item 16J2 Indefinitely until such time as the Clerk certifies that the pavables presented in
this report have been pre-audited as previously specified by the Board: To provide to the Board a
"Payables Report" for the period ending March 16,2016 pursuant to the Board's request.
(Commissioner Fiala's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
4/13/2016 4:09 PM
March 22, 2016
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 23, 2016 BCC REGULAR
MEETING AND THE MARCH 1, 2016 BCC AFFORDABLE
WORKFORCE HOUSING WORKSHOP MEETING — APPROVED
AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, you have the approval of your regular BCC
meeting minutes of the meeting of February 23rd, 2016 and the
approval of your affordable housing workshop meeting minutes that
was held on March 1st, 2016.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I move approval of the minutes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- as indicated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And second.
Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
We move on to 4.A, proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT BOTH
PROCLAMATIONS
Page 9
March 22, 2016
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 22, 2016 AS
FRIENDS OF BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE APPRECIATION
DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY, IN RECOGNITION OF THE 25
YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF VOLUNTEER
SERVICE OF THE FRIENDS OF BAREFOOT BEACH
PRESERVE. ACCEPTED BY REBECCA EDELBROCK,
PRESIDENT AND MARGARET WINN, BOARD MEMBER —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 4.A is a proclamation designating
March 22nd, 2016 as Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve Appreciation
Day in Collier County, in recognition of the 25 years and thousands of
hours of volunteer service of the Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve.
To be accepted by Rebecca Edelbrock, President; Margaret Winn;
Marilyn Graley -- excuse me, Margaret Winn, Board Member. Also
present from the group today is Marilyn Graley, Sharon Trulock,
Bobbie Hickman, Diane Bryant, Michael Bryant, Jay Van Delden and
Terri Van Delden.
And if you would all please step forward and receive your
proclamation. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MS. EDELBROCK: And I'd like to recognize Bobbie. She is the
founder of our organization and we're very proud to be a part of it.
MS. HICKMAN: Which makes me very old.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Everybody's got to get a lot
friendlier.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Barefoot Beach is gorgeous. And
if you haven't had the opportunity to visit it, and it is in North Naples,
Page 10
March 22, 2016
you really ought to. It's a breathtaking park. Thank you for all you've
done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What would we do without friends of
these different beaches?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have absolutely no idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're so dedicated and they get paid
nothing and yet they're there all the time protecting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And you should see what
these ladies and gentlemen have done it in terms of improving the
amenities there for the benefit of the public. It's really commendable.
So thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would anyone like to say anything from
your group?
MS. EDELBROCK: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They have to get out to the beach,
they have things, ma'am.
MS. EDELBROCK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2016 AS
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF COLLIER COUNTY
MONTH, IN RECOGNITION OF THE CENTER'S 30TH YEAR
AS THE COUNTY'S ONLY IMMEDIATE RESPONSE FACILITY
FOR YOUNG VICTIMS OF PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE.
ACCEPTED BY CAC'S FAMILY SAFETY PROGRAM
DIRECTOR GAIL TUNNOCK — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating April, 2016
Page 11
March 22, 2016
as Children's Advocacy Center of Collier County Month, in
recognition of the Center's 30th year as the county's only immediate
response facility for young victims of physical and sexual abuse. To
be accepted this morning by CAC's Family Safety Program Director
Gail Tunnock.
Gail, if you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's really nice with your --
MR. OCHS: Do we have a proclamation, ma'am? Madam Chair,
is there a proclamation for this group?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I have that too. Thank you, I'm so
busy enjoying them.
Would anybody like to say anything?
MR. OCHS: Come to the podium, please, identify yourself for
the record. Thank you.
MS. TUNNOCK: I'm Gail Tunnock, Program Director of the
Children's Advocacy Center.
And I just want to say the reason for the pinwheels, they represent
the carefree fun childhoods that we want for all of the children in
Collier County. And we know that children who are abused and
neglected, exposed to domestic violence, they do experience trauma
and they come to the Children's Advocacy Center for identification and
a case management counseling, healing. And so we want to let
everyone know that April 8th is statewide -- if you didn't notice, we're
all wearing blue -- day. And we'd like everyone to wear blue on April
8th to show your support for the children of Collier County and of the
state. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the Children's Advocacy
Center does incredible work. They work with law enforcement. They
Page 12
March 22, 2016
help interview the children when the children come in as victims of
abuse, they help shelter those children, and then they carry those
children through recovery.
So thank you for all you do, and we are so happy that you are a
part of our Victim Advocacy Coalition, and we want to help any way
we can.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could have a motion to move and
approve today's proclamation?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Moving on.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING CAMILLE SHIM-MARINOS, PROCUREMENT
TECHNICIAN, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2016 —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item S.A. 5.A is a recommendation to
recognize Camille Shim-Marinos, Procurement Technician in
Page 13
March 22, 2016
Administration Services Department, as the Employee of the Month
for February, 2016.
Camille, if you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is for you. Not only a plaque but a
little bit of a check in there too for your hard work.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, while Camille gets her photo taken,
I'll tell you a little bit more about her.
Camille has been with the county since 2015, works for the
Administrative Services Department.
Stand right there, Camille, while I embarrass you a little bit more.
She supports the acquisition and contract procurement functions
including creating tabulation sheets, organizing meetings, preparing
agenda items and assisting with the management of our automative
procurement system. She also maintains the internal and external
websites for the Procurement Services Division --
(At which time, Commissioner Henning enters the boardroom.)
MR. OCHS: -- has created a number of video training modules
for internal staff and external contractors and vendors.
In addition to Camille's procurement responsibilities, as you can
see, she proudly serves our country as a senior airman in support of an
F-16 fighter group in the United States Air Force Reserve.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Camille's dedication to improving the Procurement
Service's Outreach to our customers and her commitment to her
country make her very deserving of this award. And Commissioner's,
it's my honor to present Camille Shim-Marinos as your Employee of
the Month for February, 2016.
Congratulations, Camille.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Now you can run back to your seat.
Page 14 �`
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Leo.
Item #10A
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS TO SETTLE THE LAWSUIT
FILED AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THE LITIGATION TITLED
NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
(DISTRICT) V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY). (CASE NO. 11-2015-CA-
001871) - MOTION TO ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INTO THE RECORD THAT WAS AGREED UPON ON FRIDAY,
MARCH 18TH AND A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we have no public petitions this
morning, so that -- and no advertised public hearing, so that takes us to
Item 10, Board of County Commissioners.
Item 10.A is a recommendation to consider proposals to settle the
lawsuit filed against the county in the litigation titled North Collier
Fire Control and Rescue District versus Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Nance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before we go on, Commissioner
Henning has arrived and I just ask you if you have any ex parte on the
consent or summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that voted on already?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't have any.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
All right, moving on.
Commissioner Nance?
Page 15
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, thank you.
Commissioners, thank you very much. As the Board designee to
the Chapter 164 mediation activities, together with the North Collier
Fire District, I earlier presented to you with a proposed interlocal
agreement that was arrived at through the mediation process.
I want to say that I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the
staff from Collier County who worked on this, and I want to extend my
equal thanks to the very professional group that participated from
North Collier Fire District, their representative designee.
Commissioner Chris Lombardo, Chief Jamie Cunningham and his staff
and counsel I think participated in a wonderful and certainly very, very
thorough process.
I believe that this interlocal agreement produces a wonderful
cooperation, together with North Collier Fire District and the county,
and I think it sets the stage for a great achievement in Collier County;
to wit, the citizens are going to be the greatest beneficiaries of our
efforts together.
So I look forward to moving forward with this agreement. It
comes to you with my recommendation of approval. I apologize that
you did not have it enclosed in the agenda packet itself and you
received it late, but the activities were ongoing until very late in the
day on this Friday last.
So with that, I do recommend that you approve this interlocal
agreement. It's my understanding that North Collier Fire District
Commission voted on it yesterday evening and unanimously approved
it. And so in that spirit I deliver it to you for discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no, that was on the last one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I see -- yes, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a speaker.
Page 16
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's what I was just going to ask.
I'm sorry, I saw your hand go up so I --
MR. MILLER: We have one public speaker. Chris Spencer.
MR. SPENCER: Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning,
public. My name is Christopher Spencer and I am president of the
North Collier Professional Firefighters Association.
And I just wanted to let everybody know that through all this
ordeal, through everything that's been going on through thick and
through thin, the men and women we serve of this community have
risen above the fray and not once have they jeopardized or taken this
into consideration, and they have delivered the finest and best services
available to our people. So we have not had our reputation impugned
by some of the political issues that have been going on here.
I just want to let everybody know that they can rest assured that
they do have the finest and best people out there, and I think
congratulations should be given to them that they do not get swayed or
distracted by the political environment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I believe congratulations also should
be given to Commissioner Nance --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- who worked so closely with both sides,
and both sides seemed to give of themselves to come to a decision that
everyone could live with and could feel comfortable with. And I
congratulate all of you for such a job well done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
approve --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me first call Commissioner Henning
and then you. But we'll get to you for the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was going to make a
motion to approve the county's proposal. And I think that's what was
approved by North Collier.
Page 17
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this the one that Commissioner Nance
just gave us by one-way communication?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is not what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one that's in the agenda that
-- the county's proposed settlement agreement. And it's my
understanding North Collier accepted Collier County's proposed
settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I made a motion. I have a
motion on the table already.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you haven't made the motion yet,
but you asked to make the motion first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I made the motion to approve what
Commissioner Nance put before us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, did you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so we can't take two motions at the
same time.
What is the difference between these two?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's ask what North Collier's
accepted. They had an emergency meeting last night.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did not know about an emergency
meeting, so apparently you guys, whoever did, haven't told us yet.
What are they talking about?
MR. KLATZKOW: The agreement that was approved by the fire
district last night was the agreement that Commissioner Nance sent
Page 18
March 22, 2016
you this weekend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Say that again?
MR. KLATZKOW: The agreement, and it will be on the
overhead, that the fire district approved last night was the agreement
that Commissioner Nance sent to you separately had the agenda had
been printed this weekend.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing was changed on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing was changed with that. I've got
counsel here, she can verify that nothing was changed.
MS. DONALDSON: Laura Donaldson for the record.
Commissioners, what I did is the email that was sent out by
Commissioner Nance, I forwarded it and that was what was approved
by the Board of Fire Commissioners yesterday. The agreement that
was sent out to you on Friday afternoon we approved yesterday.
MR. KLATZKOW: The one-way communication that
Commissioner Nance has sent you, I forwarded to Laura Donaldson.
It contained the agreement. She brought that to her board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that's the same one we're talking about,
there's nothing new from last night?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That is the interlocal agreement
that I am recommending for your consideration and approval. The
items in the agenda packet that were published in the agenda packet
were preliminary and the best information available at that time. But I
would remind you that my one-way communication to you indicated
that the interlocal agreement that I attached to that email and that what
North Collier Fire asserts that they have approved unanimously is the
one that's under discussion at this moment.
So Commissioner Henning, if there's -- I hope that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That clears it up.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, sir, thank you. I'm sorry for
Page 19
March 22, 2016
the confusion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we're talking about one in the same
animal here, right? Everybody, whether it be approved last night or
whether it be approved last Friday, we're talking about the same --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. That was what was
considered and approved by North Collier Fire.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, we don't want to see a shoe drop
afterwards.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was sent to us as a -- we don't
respond to the communication so it's a one-way communication. But
we have not added it to this agenda.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, we have not.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think we need to make a
motion to add the last iteration, which was sent as a one-way
communication, which I believe you have in your hand, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To our agenda. And I make a
motion -- I know there's a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's go to the motion makers. I don't
think that a third motion is needed. Let's just go back to -- well, we
started with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what I'll do is I'll amend my
motion to have the Board accept the interlocal agreement that is the
settlement with respect to this litigation as part of this agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that motion is confusing.
We have three different settlements. We have two on our agenda, one
was passed out Friday. But I have questions on the one that
Page 20
March 22, 2016
Commissioner Nance is proposing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, well ask him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask him.
Now, in there it states that they're going to hire their own medical
director to do training? How is that going to work? Are we telling our
medical director that he must accept --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it's pretty clear when you read the
whole thing here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So who's going to do the
training, Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who is going to do the training?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It says that North Collier can do the
training. Well, the way I read it anyway it says that North Collier can
do the training, but that's under the provision that they're working with
Dr. Tober.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, they're going to have their
own medical doctor do the training?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: We have the chief here from North Collier if there's
questions related to the operation of the department. We also have
your EMS chief here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I do have other questions
too. And I think it's very important to -- let's address that to see how
it's going to work.
Chief?
MR. OCHS: Chief Kopka?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is North Collier's proposal.
MR. OCHS: Well, it's a joint proposal.
Sir, explain how the training departments work.
Page 21
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have three proposals on our
agenda. So --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't see three.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know what he's talking
about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have two in our agenda
packet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no idea what he's talking
about.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that correct, we have two --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in our agenda packet?
MR. OCHS: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We do? Where's the second one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, do we have a third one
that was emailed to us by Commissioner Nance? Is that right?
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So whose -- all of ours are theirs
and ours or -- one is our proposal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let the County Attorney address it.
He's going to make sure that --
MR. KLATZKOW: We were involved in mediation and there
were negotiations. We had a hard deadline to get things on the agenda.
At the time we had to get things on the agenda we had what was our
final offer to North Naples essentially and was their final offer to us.
Afterwards Commissioner Nance continued the negotiation
process. That unfortunately was concluded well after the agenda went
hard so we couldn't get it posted. Commissioner Nance filed the
conclusion of it, then sent you the one-way communication attaching
the document. That is the document that went forward to the fire
Page 22
March 22, 2016
district yesterday and it was approved, and that is the document that is
under consideration today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the one that we
received on Friday was another county -- counteroffer from the county
to the district?
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't call it a counteroffer so much as
the parties had agreed upon that document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning, Commissioners. Chief Walter
Kopka from your EMS Department.
Every department in the county that has ALS has a training
department that works with county staff, but primarily under the office
of the medical director and the county medical director for those
protocols and training and procedures.
So the way I see it is that the county medical director will be the
ultimate oversight for those medical protocols and procedures and will
delegate the training or he'll do the training himself to those county
departments or associate medical director, along with EMS staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the credentialing, is it still,
what is it, 17 months that it's going to take it to get the credentialing for
North Collier?
CHIEF KOPKA: Well, the way I read it is that North Collier
staff just underwent a re-credentialing just this past year and that
credentialing by state standards is good for two years, so they won't
need to re-credential currently under the office of medical director, but
they will need to get into that cycle when that term expires in about
two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. And the ride time on
this?
CHIEF KOPKA: The ride time is on all calls that require ALS
unless deemed not necessary by the office of the medical director.
Page 23
March 22, 2016
And usually we have a few caveats to that, such as a concurrent call. If
there's a concurrent call, those units separate and give the best response
possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can accept that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now, okay, very good. And
who seconded your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so would you repeat your motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. So the motion is to accept the
settlement agreement that Commissioner Nance forwarded to us this
Friday as explained by the County Attorney, and to incorporate that
settlement agreement into this meeting's record.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, and a second by Commissioner
Nance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, just one.
I am remembering Chief Kopka's testimony just now, and he said
as I see it. I want to make sure that's how North Naples sees it also. If
it's so loose for interpretation, that's my concern.
And Mr. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: The way this document's constructed, Dr.
Tober is the medical director not only for Collier County but also for
North Collier. Dr. Tober is the last word on everything.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's accepted -- obviously
that's the way North Naples interprets it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Now, Dr. Tober may use Dr. Lee, for
example, who's our deputy, you know, to handle this because he can
only do so much. But at the end of the day Dr. Tober is the last word.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 24
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, with that, I ask for your approval.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, that passes 5-0.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And thank you very much,
Commissioner Nance, for your hard work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And for going -- seeing Mr.
Nimbles (sic) at the fair, because you were so busy with this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, before we go to the next one, I just
wanted to tell everybody, this is just a little bit of a pat on the back, if
you don't mind.
I got the nicest letter to the editor passed to me from my assistant,
and it's about David Wilkerson and the church, the St. Paul's Episcopal
Men's Club sent a glowing letter to the editor and I just wanted to say
David, good work, thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, David.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, now you can move on.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner, for that.
10.B is a 10:00 a.m. time certain, so we'll move to Item 11,
County Manager report.
Item #1 1 A
REVIEW OF THE BOARD INITIATED ANALYSIS OF
Page 25
March 22, 2016
EXISTING GOLF COURSE CONVERSION AND PROVIDE
STAFF WITH DIRECTION TO AMEND THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TO PROVIDE FOR FURTHER
OPEN SPACE AND STORM WATER IMPACTS ANALYSIS FOR
FUTURE GOLF COURSE CONVERSIONS - MOTION TO
CONTINUE AND HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BRING
BACK CASE LAW ON HOW CONVERSION EFFECTS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND STAFF TO BRING
FORWARD METHODOLOGIES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.A is a recommendation to review the Board
initiated analysis of existing golf course conversion and provide staff
with direction to amend the Land Development Code to provide
further open space and stormwater impacts analysis for future golf
course conversions. And Mr. Bosi will make the presentation this
morning.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Bosi,
Planning/Zoning Director.
Today's item was directed by the Board of County
Commissioners at the second meeting in January of this year. The
Board asked staff to look at the issue of golf course and golf course
conversions. Really, I think the request was based upon trying to gain
an understanding of what was the magnitude of those potential
requests that could be before the Board of County Commissioners
through the public hearing process.
I think the golf course that's located at Golden Gate Parkway and
951 was the first application that the county has received for this type
of conversion. And the Board just wanted to get a better handle upon
the issue of golf course conversion.
Staff put together a short study looking at the number of golf
courses that work within the county. The underlying zoning that's
Page 26
March 22, 2016
contained within those golf courses, because that really has much to do
with their ability and the likelihood of these golf courses eventually
moving forward and seeking an alternative use from the current golf
course designation.
And on the map you'll see a number of different colors. The
green is the largest or the most predominant color. Those are the golf
courses that are contained within individual PUDs. There are a total of
43 golf course developments of that nature.
Within the blue is within agricultural zoning designation. There's
four that we've identified within those. There was one that was
identified within the RMF-16.
And then there were 10 that were identified as zoned golf course.
Seven were in the municipalities, five within the City of Naples, two
within the City of Marco.
This provides a table form summary of those individual golf
courses and the categories of which they're individually zoned. And
we'll go through the process.
And what the conclusion from the study was is those golf courses
that are zoned golf course are the ones that are most likely to seek
conversion and the ones that have -- the one that we do have an
application for in with Growth Management Plan is the one that is
zoned golf course.
Where we looked at the ability for the golf courses within PUDs
to seek conversion, we saw a number of constraints that would
probably be placed against that ultimate conversion. One of them is
within the PUDs, the golf courses within those developments have
been utilized to satisfy that 60 percent open space requirement that we
have for residential PUDs.
The redevelopment of those golf courses could only move
forward if those PUDs could still satisfy that 60 percent. So that's a
constraint against the ability to redevelop.
Page 27
March 22, 2016
A second associated or constrained limitation within the PUD is
related to the density that's assigned within the PUD. The acreage of
the golf courses within those individual PUDs are utilized to seek the
eligibility of density within the overall PUD. So a conversion of those
golf courses to a residential use would be restrained by the density
that's already been allocated to the existing PUD. So that's a second
constraint.
A third constraint relates to the water management functions of
the courses and how they provide that water management functionality
within the individual PUDs.
For the PUD to allow the amendment for the golf course to
change, should an alternative development pattern such as residential,
the water management functionality provided by the course would
have to be retained somewhere within the overall design. So that's a
third constraint within the PUD zoning that would be a limitating (sic)
factor.
And based upon these three limitations and some other issues
associated with -- we really think the likelihood of the PUD seeking a
conversion for the golf course is much lower.
Within the agricultural zoning designation what we have
identified, and there was two courses that just transitioned from
agricultural to PUD. It was in the Golf Club of the Everglades that
was associated with the small Growth Management Plan change as
well as a PUD action that this Board approved.
And what we found is within those agricultural zoning districts
that had golf courses on them, they utilized those golf courses to
amenitize the residential development. So they brought them into an
existing residential development and centered the development around
the golf courses. So it's a little bit different than the urbanized golf
courses. They've actually looked to amenitize the residential
developments with their overall golf course being brought into it.
Page 28
March 22, 2016
The seven courses that are within the municipalities are obviously
outside of the land use control, so there was not a lot of extra time or
attention placed on the study to those individual courses.
The one course within the rural -- or the RMF-16, that course is a
part of the overall residential development and it could not separate,
could not convert because of the density, and the development isn't
contained as part of that zoning district. So that could not seek to
conversion.
So when -- we're left with the ultimate conclusion, is there's 10
golf courses that we've had identified, and that's a total of 1,521 acres
that would be most likely to seek those potential -- is it a guarantee?
No. But they're the ones that are most likely.
And there's a couple of reasons why we think that these golf
courses that are zoned golf course have that likelihood to seek that
conversion.
And one of the things, before I get into that, I just want to kind of
give you an overarching list of the issues that are associated with the
golf course conversions. And one of the first is property rights.
Property rights within those individual golf courses that are zoned golf
course, there's underlying density that's assigned to them by the future
land use element. And as in any private property, the utilization and
types of uses that are governed by the Growth Management Plan and
the zoning designations in -- as these golf courses and as markets
change, the rights associated with that underlying property has to be
and is recognized by the government.
There's environmental concerns that are associated with these golf
courses that have been utilized because of past practices of pesticides
and other chemicals. There is concerns about it. And I'll talk about it
when we talk about the conversion.
One of the things contained within our Land Development Code
that does anticipate a potential conversion of golf courses, we do have
Page 29
March 22, 2016
environmental testing that is required of these individual courses
before they can transition to an alternative use to do ground sampling
to make sure that there's no environmental conditions that need to be
mediated before it could transition.
Open space. One of the things that is associated with is those golf
courses that are zoned golf course provide additional open space to the
surrounding residential areas. So there's a perception that that open
space is entitled to the surrounding residential land uses. And that's a
point of discussion we'll get into a little bit more.
Compatibility is another one of those issues. If you've got an
existing golf course that sits in close proximity to residential
development, how is it that the transition from that golf course to say a
residential development, what are the compatibility measures? And
that will be another focus that we'll talk about.
Water management, traffic patterns, and concurrency
management. Of course any project that goes forward within the
county system has to satisfy our concurrency management system.
Looking at our roads, our utilities, looking at all the levels of service
for the various infrastructure providers, to make sure that those could
be satisfied before anything would move forward.
Like I said, there's 10 golf courses, zoned golf courses, most
likely to seek a residential land use change. The 10 courses, there's no
density that has been allocated by those courses to surrounding
residential development. And that's why the likelihood for these
courses to move forward is inherent within the Future Land Use
Element, because that property has density rights that are associated to
them and they're eligible for the four units per acre that our density
rating system would prescribe in most individual cases.
Additionally, those 10 courses that were identified, they're in the
urban residential sub-district of the Future Land Use Element. What
that urban residential sub-district says is any anticipated development
Page 30
March 22, 2016
within that urban residential sub-district, a residential development is
what would be promoted and what would be expected by the Future
Land Use Element. So an individual could expect a residential
development to be proposed within that residential designation by the
Future Land Use Element.
One of the challenges to the conversion of the courses is the
surrounding property owners and the surrounding property owners'
perception that the golf course is a required component of their
individual development. A lot of times -- two Fridays ago I spent a
Friday with Mr. Wilkinson and Commissioner Fiala talking about the
Lakewood Golf Course and its potential for its conversion. And that
golf course is in close proximity to existing residential development.
And those residents are rightfully concerned about what that transition
would hold for and how that open space would be mitigated.
And those are some of those issues that are -- makes the
conversion process that much more difficult. Because when you've
lived in a community that's in close proximity to a golf course for a
long period of time, to see a transition to it, there will most certainly be
impacts. And that compatibility issue makes it one of the greatest
challenges for how you can make those transitions move forward.
What the study said and what we concluded is for those golf
courses to move forward, though, it's not something that can be done
administratively. And as we described to the owners within the Winter
Park community, they would be required for a rezone process. That
rezone process provides an early opportunity for that community to
interact with the development or with the developer to express their
concerns. So those issue -- and that happens within the neighborhood
information meeting. County staff representatives will be at those
meetings; we'll hear whatever commitments are provided for by the
developer to the community to address those concerns that have been
identified.
Page 31
March 22, 2016
From that neighborhood information meeting those issues are
identified and really kind of highlighted. Those issues are put forward
within a staff report and then they're very much discussed during the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is that next
opportunity for the public to be able to interact with the advisory board
related to planning and related to compatibility issues.
At that Planning Commission meeting all the issues that were
associated and brought up by the neighborhood, were committed to at
the neighborhood information meeting, are discussed and ultimately
that proposal has to go before the Board of County Commissioners.
And the Board of County Commissioners will make that ultimate
arbitration as to whether the project's compatible, whether the project
has satisfied all the levels of concurrency management, whether there
are other issues that need to be incorporated within the overall
neighborhood design to ensure that this project can move forward
within the existing context of the environment in which it will be
associated.
So the review and the rezone process provides for analysis for
infrastructure impacts, compatibility availability, compatibility with
the surrounding built environment, scale of the proposed project, the
water management functionality, transportation impacts, GMP
consistency and environmental considerations.
And then as I said, within the Land Development Code, Section
3.08.A.D requires that soil and groundwater sampling is required at the
time of the first development order for sites that occupy it.
Essentially they have to go and do soil samples, and those
samples will provide whether there's additional environmental
assessment that has to be done. During that environmental assessment
it will make a full analysis of what's contained within the underlying
ground and what needs to be -- what needs to be done if anything to
mitigate any environmental impacts that are associated.
Page 32
March 22, 2016
And the one application that we do have in, La Bonne (phonetic)
of Naples, which is the Golden Gate and Collier Boulevard, that
sampling has been done. There has been -- and there's further analysis
going on to make sure that if that project is ultimately approved that
there will be no underlined environmental issues that would be of
concern of moving forward.
So we say all these steps would have to be satisfied before any of
these conversions could ultimately take place. And the decision for
that will ultimately rest with the Board of County Commissioners after
recommendations from staff and the recommendation from the
Planning Commission.
The greatest I think challenge for these individual conversion
issues deals with the loss of open space and how that loss of open
space will have upon this surrounding individual properties.
In addition to the loss of open space, it's the localized stormwater
management there's (sic) of concern, and can the conversion allow for
the same water management functionality that was happening with that
golf course take place within the alternative design and how is that
alternative design going to accommodate for that maintained level of
service related to water management for the localized area.
Based upon that, staff has recognized that that loss of open space,
water management and compatibility are probably the largest areas.
The conclusion of the study was that the rezone process provides
adequate protection, but there are some additional areas that staff are
seeking direction from the Board of County Commissioners to go
back, look at, see where we can enhance the Land Development Code
for additional review items that would be imposed when we have these
golf course conversions. And those were highlighted within the
executive summary and the recommendations contained.
And with that, that concludes the brief summary of the study, and
I'm open for any discussions the Board may have.
Page 33
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I don't have any registered
speakers, do I?
MR. MILLER: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. So then we'll call on
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And again, this is -- I don't want
to jump the gun, and Commissioner Henning wants to speak also, but,
you know, I am concerned about this. I think this is opening Pandora's
box. I'm very aware of the Lakewood -- the challenges that your
community has faced.
As we go forward you hear back and forth that golf is not going to
be the sport it was maybe 50 years, and there's underlying zoning on
all these golf courses.
I would hate to rush our research that Mr. Bosi says we need to
have. Because we've got an agenda item before us or a golf course that
has a right to expect a timely response to it.
So I would support maybe a six-month moratorium until we can
really get into these issues or ask staff and then they could come back
to us.
And that's pretty much what -- it's not really a question, but would
that help, Mr. Bosi, if we gave you some time to --
MR. BOSI: Well, the application that's in would not affect a
moratorium.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
MR. BOSI: That would be future golf courses that would submit
an application.
Staff conclusion is the rezone process provides adequate
protection. There's additional consideration that could be developed --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- but it's the will of the Board. If the concern is that
for six months' time put a stay on the reception of new applications
Page 34
March 22, 2016
while staff identifies additional areas of analysis, that would be a
Board decision.
Staff feels that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know it's a Board decision, but
what do you -- would that help you in the process?
MR. BOSI: Frankly, staffs confident that the rezone process
provides for public input, provides for the compatibility analysis,
provides for the open space analysis, provides for the water
management analysis, and that the public is provided ample
opportunity to have their concerns and their issues addressed during
the process. Staff doesn't feel a need for a moratorium, but we would
understand if the Board would direct so, and as we develop additional
considerations.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But to develop additional
considerations there's a process, a time process in order for us to
incorporate them. So you can't do that when you have an application
or 10 applications before you. They would be grandfathered in under
the old rules.
MR. BOSI: We have one application today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. But if more came after this
meeting, for instance, if we didn't put a stay to this they would not be
governed by what you might discover doing additional research; isn't
that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is that application going
to have its neighborhood information meeting? That's one question.
MR. BOSI: We've gotten through the first round of reviews, so
they're eligible for it. I could get back to you, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 35
March 22, 2016
MR. BOSI: -- about the specific date. I don't believe it's set yet.
But I know that that's -- after the first round of review that's when
they're eligible and that's when we suggest that they have it so we can
get the issues identified early on in the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, all the golf courses that I
know of, and there could one out there that I'm not aware of, they all
originally had when constructed one common owner that developed
the community, put the roads in, platted the lots, built the golf course.
One common developer. And that developer sold those lots or those
homes on the golf course for a premium. So the owner had an
expectation of the view of open space and paid for that. But the
neighbor across the street did not, he paid a different price for that.
And I know that for a fact in Golden Gate those homes on that
golf course were sold over and over again at a higher price than the
house across the street.
So has that ever been taken under consideration?
MR. BOSI: The market yield or the market bearing for the
individual, the prices of those individual houses is not something that
would be considered from a zoning perspective. We look at the zoning
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's -- if the Board takes
action to affect people's property, that is a compensation issue.
Because -- and I think in a lot of cases people scream it is, but I think
in this case it could be a valid point of people that have property within
that golf-- on that, and then the Board takes action to remove that open
space and devalues their property.
MR. BOSI: It's a two-way street, too, Commissioner. Remember
that the golf course owner has rights associated with that golf course,
and it's zoned golf course. It's not zoned -- it's part of the -- and I can
pull up --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's zoned golf course, right, they
Page 36
March 22, 2016
already have their zoning.
MR. BOSI: If you look on the overhead, I think the residential
community that you're talking about is in the middle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's one of them. And
across what would be the east side of the golf course -- no, I'm sorry,
the west side of the golf course, all those single-family homes that
stretch a mile --
MR. BOSI: All those single-family homes sits in a residential
single-family three zoning district. This golf course sits in a golf
course zoning district. Different ownership, different zoning.
And as much as the property rights of those individuals within the
RSF-3, those individual houses, there's property rights associated with
the owner of that golf course as well. And that golf course is zoned
golf course.
And how it was represented during the resale of those houses I
wasn't aware of. But that golf course is entitled to property rights as
well as those individual homeowners as well. So it's both sides of the
street. I understand --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then that needs to be
looked at.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- of the effects of
government taking action and affecting the neighboring property in a
negative way that can be substantiated.
MR. BOSI: It would be like a residential development sitting
next to an undeveloped piece of property. And oftentimes I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
MR. BOSI: -- of undeveloped properties as open space.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's -- I don't agree with
that. Because these properties -- I know for a fact a golf course --
Page 37
March 22, 2016
adjacent to a golf course, abutting golf course, open space, that's the
way they're advertised and that's what they're sold at and they sold at a
premium for that.
And you're saying no, they didn't do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying and I think what Mr. Bosi
is saying, sir, is that time's changed. And if you get to a point in time
where golf courses are uneconomical, that a person cannot make any
money object them because they're not being used, those courses will
convert. All right? And at that point in time there will be a rezoning
process before a future board and it will have to be compatible with the
neighborhood, but if you're a residential neighborhood around a golf
course and you convert that golf course to a residential neighborhood
with substantially the same density, you've met the compatibility. And
the fact that somebody said, well, I bought my house based on this
promise or that promise is not going to make a difference. This Board
rezones property all the time. And people next to that property had
expectations when they bought that property of a certain zoning. It's
just the nature of the process we do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, oh boy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you really -- I think you're
missing the point. I understand what you're saying, they have rights.
But people -- and again, at one time it was a common developer that
sold these lots in this particular case. No, they built -- GAC built
homes back then too. These people paid a price over and over again.
So all I'm saying is you need to prove to me that by the Board's
action of rezone that we're not negatively impacting the financial of the
people next to it, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, so whose property rights are worth
more, right, the people who live there and pay extra or somebody
who's trying to make a buck on selling it, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think there's a distinction
Page 38
March 22, 2016
between who has higher property rights. People have rights. So, you
know, is there court cases on things like this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, if you have an abandoned
golf course, okay, that premium that you spent for to have it -- your
property is dissipating anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What do we have, one
abandoned golf course in Collier County?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not talking about today, we're talking
about thinking about getting staff to come back with some suggestions
for what happens 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years
from now if nobody's playing golf. You've got a massive amount of
property in this county that may not be used anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. This golf course is
being used right now, all right? It's not abandoned. They have an
application in there. So I would like some kind of response from the
County Attorney's Office of in court cases what has happened in things
like that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a balancing of rights, sir. You've got the
property owner who owns the golf course: I can't make any money, I
am losing money here, I need to convert this.
And then you've got the people surrounding this saying: Well,
wait a second, we love this beautiful golf course, you must stay. You'll
be balancing rights, which you do every time on a rezoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you: Do we
guarantee people in business that they have a right to make a profit?
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have the ability to regulate that.
You have the ability to regulate land use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. If somebody says to me,
I can't make any money in this business, it's not my fault. All I'm
asking for, go show me some court cases. That's all I'm asking.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's fair.
Page 39
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there a legal basis for the
moratorium? Can we legally impose a moratorium on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need a moratorium right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the question that I had, if
there was a basis, and the answer is there is no basis for a moratorium.
So a motion here right now to impose a moratorium can't pass because
it cannot be made. Mr. Bosi said it's the will of the Board if they
wanted to impose a moratorium, and you're telling me we legally can't
impose a moratorium.
MR. KLATZKOW: At this point in time I don't think you have
the basis for a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So a motion cannot be made to
impose a moratorium. Because if we voted on it, it would be illegal.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it would be problematic, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that we would probably face
litigation.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it would be problematic, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I want to talk a little bit about
what Commissioner Henning brought up, because I have a very similar
outlook on this, and I will tell you the way I see it.
When these golf courses that were operated as public golf courses
like the one in Commissioner Henning's district, when those properties
were sold adjacent to the golf course there were monies that changed
hands between the owner and developer and those homeowners.
Connected to that home was the presentation that the adjacent
golf course was to be delivered to them as an amenity of some sort.
Whether it's a golf course or whether it's green space or whatever, I
don't think it really matters.
Page 40
March 22, 2016
But if it's not codified, there is definitely an implicit and inherent
commitment on the part of that developer to provide that amenity to
that homeowner.
Now, that has been codified ever since by Collier County who
have no doubt assessed those properties at a higher valuation because
they are on that golf course.
So to say that there's no value there, I think Commissioner
Henning is absolutely right, I think that's absolutely nonsense to say
that that property has not added value to those homes.
Now, how do you determine what commitment has been made to
that property? I don't know. I think we need to come to grips with that.
Because regardless of the ownership, if the ownership of that
standalone golf course has passed to another, that does not eliminate
that person and that property's commitment to those homeowners, in
my view, who have paid taxes and the government has received those
taxes and spent them in response to an increased value. And I think it's
very obvious that you can go in and look at a house on the course and a
house off the course to make some sort of an estimation on what the
value of that amenity is. And that amenity should travel with that
property, regardless of who owns it.
There is, in my view, an inherent commitment on that property
and an overlay on that property that has to do with the value of the
adjacent homes. Now, how you come to grips with that, I don't know.
Mr. Bosi, I agree, when it comes to, you know, a calculation of
green space or transportation impact or stormwater, all that, I've got no
doubt that you can come to grips with that. That's certainly within our
ability. But when we start to assign values to an amenity or to an
adjacent property that I believe has a very firm and well established
commitment to those homeowners, I don't know how you do that.
Maybe you need to do it on an appraised value or based on, you know,
what's going on.
Page 41
March 22, 2016
But whether it's used as a golf course or not, there's an element
there that I believe has been committed since inception and remains
and the county's validated it through collection of additional taxes in
that way. That's the way I look at it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, how does that -- if this
argument being made by Commissioner Henning is valid, how does
that impact the county if we for example take properties to build a road
as it relates to properties adjacent to the property we're taking?
Because clearly if those properties were, for example, a house next to a
house and now suddenly it's a house next to a major arterial road, it's
going to affect the value of the property.
Does that create an obligation on the part of county government
to pay those properties adjacent to a new road corridor?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the property is adjacent to a taking, you
pay severance damages. So you're paying for the diminution of value.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To the property adjacent to the
road.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we would in addition to
compensating for taking the properties absolutely also pay those
property owners that are adjacent to the road.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but the property owner immediately
behind that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wouldn't have that.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- would not have that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why wouldn't that analogy be
comparable to the properties directly adjacent to the golf course?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a public hearing on a rezoning process.
Sooner or later somebody's going to come in here and say I want to
rezone my golf course.
Page 42
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess my question -- let me
restate it.
Aren't we creating an obligation on Collier County government?
It's not the obligation of the golf course owner, it would be our
obligation towards those properties adjacent, because we're the ones
that are changing the zoning. I mean, he can apply for it, but if we do
create a conversion, don't we then as county government become
obligated to the property owners adjacent to that property for the
diminution in value? No different than if we're --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So who becomes -- who
would be obligated to these owners?
MR. KLATZKOW: What would happen is you could get
appealed into court as your decision by the adjacent property owners to
get it overturned, but you wouldn't have any liability.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's only -- it's hard for me to
understand how there's liability in one case but not in the other.
MR. KLATZKOW: Eminent domain's statutory.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, the em-- because of the nature
of the taking.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a statutory driven process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As opposed to the eminent domain
-- as opposed to this, which wouldn't be eminent domain but just a
rezone.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's the reason. That makes
sense.
So then is there anyone who would be obligated to those property
owners adjacent to the golf course as a result of the diminution in value
Page 43
March 22, 2016
because of the conversion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Once they exhausted their administrative
and legal recourses, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're saying that if we create
that conversion --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, this happens all the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it would not be deemed a taking.
MR. KLATZKOW: Once upon a time Pebblebrook, we
converted residential into commercial and the adjacent property
owners claimed that they suffered a loss in value. It's just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what happened?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. It is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did that go to litigation?
MR. KLATZKOW: -- now a commercial property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was that sued? Was that a
lawsuit?
MR. KLATZKOW: There was some difficulties with that, the
way the developer handled it, and Commissioner Henning was
instrumental in helping with that. But at the end of the day, we do
rezones all the time and it affects people all the time.
It happened to me when I purchased my property. I looked at all
the different surrounding communities and they got rezoned to far
more density. But that's just something this Board does. You do. Ifs
on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sadly we're talking about what you're
allowed to do legally and what you should do morally in thinking
about the people that it affects. Somehow law forgets about people.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor, you're next.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So what I'm understanding, that at
this point we have no basis to say -- there's one application in line right
Page 44
March 22, 2016
now eventually to be heard. It's absolutely being reviewed right now.
We don't have any basis to say let's take three months or two months or
six months?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a pending application. It's a
pending application, you can't stop that trend.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know that. I'm talking not that
application, but stop and let that application go forward but in the
meantime stop anything else from coming in so we have time to
review this.
MR. KLATZKOW: I read Mr. Bosi's report. It doesn't seem to
me that we have a pressing urgency at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we plan for the future, if we
have any vision, we have a pressing urgency. I mean, I'm saying it's --
you can't touch it, you can feel it, it's not an application, but if we're
going to be planning for the future of our residents who live on golf
courses, I'd say that there is a reason.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you can plan for that and staff can
come back six months from now or a year from now, and I don't know,
I mean, Mr. Bosi, can you tell me, do you think there are going to be
substantially getting more applications coming forward?
MR. BOSI: Well, I do think there's going to be the one where we
held that little community meeting at Lakewood. I think that's the only
other one that I know of that would be pending in the very near future.
But the others would be completely speculative, and we haven't
had any indication to think that they were coming in.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you know, one approach would be
to declare a moratorium, and if number cares nobody's going to
challenge it either.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd say we do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
Page 45
March 22, 2016
we continue this item, direct the County Attorney to bring back case
law on government actions and the affecting (sic) adjacent property
owners so we can make an informed decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? I'll second it.
Okay, any further discussion? Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I'd like to -- Commissioner
Henning, I will support your motion, but I would also like to have staff
come back with some recommendations to the Board as to how we can
possibly evaluate the impact on these homes. And I know we're not in
the assessment business, the property appraiser is in that business but,
you know, I think there's a little bit different situation. I respect the
County Attorney's opinion where, you know, you change uses directly
adjacent to a property and it may have some effect on its value.
But I believe that the value of these properties is directly related
to the commitment of the adjacent property. And I believe that there
actually is an implicit commitment of that property. And like I say, I
think the county itself has validated that in the way we've assessed
those properties.
So I would like staff to consider -- you know, I know we can look
at it from a case law perspective, and I support Commissioner
Henning's motion, but I would like to also ask staff to look at that and
see if there's anybody out there, you know, that can come up with any
sort of methodologies that might be appropriate. I just think we're on
-- I think we're on new ground here. I never heard of anybody
addressing it. But I think we need a policy.
I concur with Commissioner Taylor's statement that we need to
come up with some sort of a policy, because it doesn't look like this is
going to be the last time this is going to occur. We're going to find
ourselves right back here having this conversation again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know you're next, Commissioner Taylor.
I would just like to add something. I don't mean to -- you know,
Page 46
March 22, 2016
I've been trying to keep everybody on track here, but I would also like
to add that as we think about this and we think about what these people
-- how they live right now, and if the new owner wants to buy this, first
of all, they're going to use the highest and best use. So all of a sudden
you're going to have a lot of homes where there were no homes and
you're going to have two and three-story buildings right in the
backyard of these people who are facing all of this land. And we
should never allow that to happen.
Also, they just had green space. So maybe there should be -- as
we think about what we want to do and how we want to address this, to
protect not only the property owners there but also the guy that's going
in so that his -- if he's going to be building it's received better than it
would be if he's building two and three-story condominiums right
along these things.
So I'm saying it should have green space, like a wide swath of
green space there separating the new development from the old one.
And also, we should make sure that the homes that are built in
there are compatible with the homes right behind them.
I mean, I'm just throwing in ideas just like everybody else, but I
wanted to make a couple of those statements.
And I agree with Commissioner -- boy, I agree with every single
one of you. I think we're all saying the same thing.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, the other issue too which is
sort of the elephant in the room is stormwater. And we've just passed a
50-year visioning plan of water and how we're going to use it and
looking at stormwater as a commodity.
Right now I heard it this morning in Jacksonville, the aquifer,
they don't have the water in the aquifer. We've heard that Orlando is
down in the aquifer. That's how we get our water, we get it from the
rain. The rain that comes through, it goes into the aquifer, it's
Page 47
March 22, 2016
recharged.
So I don't think we should underestimate what this proposal -- this
concept coming forward, it may make great sense to the bottom line of
developers, but this may be a very bad thing for us as a community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to respond to
Commissioner Nance's comment, I think if the County Attorney comes
back with case law showing a responsibility for diminution of value, at
that time we can direct staff to bring something back.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: At your pleasure, sir. I just thought
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's a very good point.
We need more information before we take any further action on this.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree.
Also, a suggestion has been made that maybe the county would
want to buy one of these golf courses and keep it as a golf course but
as a public golf course that people can enjoy and so forth through the
park system. And I think that that would really work and you can
work in cooperation with LWIT, they could have classes on golf
course maintenance and golf course fertilization and so forth, and pest
control. And possibly do it at a very, very low rate if we just supply
the materials and they supply the classes. It might be something we
could address at the same time.
Okay, with that we have a motion on the floor and a second. Any
further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Page 48
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 5-0.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a 10:00 a.m. time certain.
You may want to consider a 10-minute court reporter break now and
then move into the 10:00 a.m. discussion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that that would be good. I know
we have a lot of people here, but you might enjoy a 10-minute break.
And then we'll be back at 10:32. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will everyone please take their seats.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #10B
A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND TO
APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY'S
FUTURE APPLICATION FOR A COPCN TO PROVIDE ITS
OWN EMS PARAMEDIC AND TRANSPORT SERVICES -
MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED; MOTION TO CONTINUE
AND ALLOWING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO WORK TOGETHER TO REWORD THE
RESOLUTION AND BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD APPROVAL
— FAILED; MOTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SEND A
LETTER TO THE MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL
Page 49
March 22, 2016
ENCOURAGING THE CITY TO SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION
FOR A COPCN — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We have a 10:00 a.m. time certain item. It's Item
10.B on your agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to consider
a request from the City of Marco Island to approve a resolution
supporting the city's future application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity to provide its own EMS paramedic and
transport services.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have somebody presenting or shall
I just call on the first speaker? I'll call first speaker then.
Okay.
MR. MILLER: Ma'am, we have one registered speaker. Rob
Brown.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to welcome all of the Marco Island
people. We've got a few City Councilmen right here today, we've got
the city manager right here today, and we've got the Chamber of
Commerce and we've got Kiwanis. You know, we've got a lot of
people in the audience. And Kurt, he's got a great restaurant. All
kinds of good stuff going on. Plus Mike Murphy, the Chief So we
have a whole group of nice people here.
Go ahead, Bob.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
This is Bob Brown, I'm Chairman of the Marco Island City Council.
Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
for our city and for the residents within our city.
First of all, we've sent this proposal to you all to review, and
perhaps if you have any questions or concerns certainly we'll try to
identify for you anything that we can.
First of all, I'll go down a couple of bullet points that I think
Page 50
March 22, 2016
pertain to this, and wondering why we're where we're at.
Marco Island residents have become concerned with the direction
the county seems to be taking with the EMS program. That was
probably one of the key issues that we've heard throughout our
community.
As discussions move forward these concerns solidified knowing
that while we had control of many of the important functions of
cityhood, the one area of concern with our EMS and the availability of
our firemen and paramedics being able to transport if needed was not
available to us.
Marco Island feels its home rule is important and necessary, and
the missing piece of this could be corrected by incorporating this
capability.
After achieving cityhood we created a police department, even
though we could have stayed with the county at that point in time.
While there were costs associated with this, it was best for us as a city.
We see this as a direct correlation with the EMS transport capability.
The straw poll that was on the ballot a week ago showed our
community that the county was looking in other directions with
long-term implications concerning EMS and fire that will have an
impact on us.
Interestingly enough, I received a document from an advisory
group for the county within 36 hours of the election, and one of the
bullet points stated cities of Marco Island and Naples to discuss
consolidation with independent fire districts. It's hard to convince
people that there's nothing imminent with statements such as this.
The community has come together as a unified body to show
support for us to move forward. Attending the meeting today are
many of the key groups that help us make the great city that we've
become. We have Marco Island Civic Association present; the
Chamber of Commerce; the Board of Realtors; Restaurant Association,
Page 51
March 22, 2016
Marco Island Property Owners Association; Marco Island Police
Foundation and the Fire Foundation, along with many of my City
Councilmen, City Manager and Fire Chief
It's important to understand that having control over ourselves
will help to increase service levels and improve our seamless system
that we currently enjoy. We would certainly maintain our close
working relationship with the county and hopefully improve overall
service.
Help us alleviate the concerns of our citizens by passing this
resolution and showing us the strong bonds and faith we have and
continue to enjoy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for you.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the city submitted its
application for a COPCN?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: It has not at this point in time. We
were concerned with the process and the time it's going to take us to
accomplish that complete task. We're in the process of working in that
direction.
What this does, obviously, today's resolution is just a statement of
intent only and not a formal request for a COPCN. We just feel that
this puts us all on the same program to move forward and get things
accomplished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so there's no application
for a COPCN.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Not today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When are you going to submit
it?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: As soon as we can. I don't have an
exact date. It's actually within our attorney's preview right now and
Page 52
March 22, 2016
we're working on it as we speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you ask your citizens a
question, does it automatically result in action? The question -- and I
don't know where it's coming from, whether it came from you or your
staff or citizens. A question is a, give us a sense on how you feel what
we should be doing. Is it going to happen? Maybe. However, this
Board is not in control of the final decision. The final decision needs
to come from the voters. It needs to go back to the voters on the straw
ballot. It needs to have cooperation from the independent fire districts.
Now you had one fire district very much adamantly opposed to it.
In fact, they campaigned at the poll.
So my response is if Marco Island wants a COPCN, put the
application in. I'm in favor of home rule. So if you want a higher level
of service, great. As long as it doesn't cost the county anything.
So this resolution means nothing to me. I sent a letter to Donna
Fiala's town hall meeting and saying I welcome it. I welcome it. As
long as it complies with our ordinance and it doesn't cost anything to
the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by the way, I had copies of your
letter printed for distribution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I can tell you, we gave
you money for roads and you didn't do what you were supposed to do
with it. I don't think this Board -- if I'm up here and the application
comes through and it says you want money to self govern, it's not
going to fly. Okay? So if you want -- it's not because of the straw
ballot, that's a bunch of hockey puck. If you want to self govern,
provide a home rule authority control or a higher level of service, that's
great. That's what a municipality is supposed to be doing. But it has
nothing to do with the action of the Board of Commissioners. All
right? Nor does -- this resolution is not appropriate.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Well, and on the other end of the
Page 53
March 22, 2016
equation, we feel the resolution is appropriate to show collegiality
between our two governments and we want to work in conjunction
with the county, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You never came to me --
COUNCILMAN BROWN: -- while you may disagree with some
of the reasons where we're at, we certainly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You never came to me and
asked me my opinion. Somebody started this whole media hysteria.
You know, the Florida Statutes is clear what a municipality is.
And this probably is ripe for transportation, the City of Marco Island, if
that's what they want to do, at no cost to the county.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: We've not asked the county for any
money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not yet.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: We have not asked the county for
any money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not going to, you're
saying.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. I welcome the
application.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Councilman Brown, I agree with everything you said, and I
completely appreciate your apprehension and why your community
would have concerns with the COPCN application, in light of what
happened to the North Collier Fire District.
With that being said, I support your desire to have some sort of
overt demonstration of collegiality. I think it's absolutely well
intentioned and well reasoned.
Page 54
March 22, 2016
So while I don't believe that we have to do this in order to be
obligated to hear your COPCN request, I will support it.
And I commend Commissioner Fiala for supporting you in the
effort. This is the right way to get this done. This is what state statute
requires, and I mean specifically the request to be approved for a
COPCN and then apply to the state for the license.
And again, I applaud you for taking the legal route to increasing
the level of service to your constituencies.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that -- would you like to make a motion
to that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will make a motion to approve
the resolution as presented.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? Well, I will second it.
Okay, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
coming. I would just like to say a couple things.
It has I think been the stated goal of the County Commission to
make sure that we improve emergency response across the county.
And certainly I hope that the council, the municipality of Marco, is
basing its decision on data and not on emotional sorts of suggestions
and based on anxieties that you might have.
And the reason I say that is, looking back at the action that the
Board of County Commissioners has taken on behalf of Marco, you'll
recall that there was an analysis that was done on EMS service to
Marco, and the Board of County Commission actually committed
additional resources, which I think has produced some of the most
outstanding results in the county. And that is based on work between
Collier County EMS and Marco Fire, and Chief Murphy and Chief
Kopka working together. And although those gentlemen often have
professional disagreements, what you can't disagree with is the results
that are being achieved.
Page 55
March 22, 2016
The responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners is to
make sure that whatever changes we do, it is to achieve the best
possible results. And one of the things that contributes to that is
agencies of course working together.
So although I cannot support the motion until I see the reason
why you would choose to do so, and although I support home rule, I
want to see the basis for your request and how that system of service
providing is going to make things better and not necessarily make
things worse. And I think there's a journeyman's work that needs to be
done to do that.
And of course the cost is a secondary thing. You know, the first
and foremost we want to do with emergency services is we want to be
effective. But also the community and the taxpayers who pay the
burden have a reasonable expectation that those things are also, in
addition to being effective, which is clearly the most important thing,
that they're also efficient.
So, you know, I would -- at this time I have a problem with it. I
would like to hear the County Attorney weigh in on, you know, his
perspective. I don't know that the Board can really commit itself to
future action.
Mr. Klatzkow, could you give us some guidance?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an ordinance that governs an
application for a Certificate of Public Convenience. That ordinance
requires a public hearing, among other things. It requires that you hear
certain evidence. You cannot commit at this point in time if you will
approve that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're not committing, we're
approving it. We're merely committing --
MR. KLATZKOW: Their resolution, however -- if you look at
the resolution, it says that you will approve the certificate when they
come forward with it. You can't say that.
Page 56
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not just change the
wording to say the Board of County Commissioners will hear the
COPCN application and, you know, apply the law fairly in its review.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because we don't --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that, but you would have to do
that anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand, but this is --
again, the intent is to show goodwill, not to make a commitment. So I
think if we modify the last sentence, then it's doable.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You'd have to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I don't disagree with you,
County Attorney. I totally agree that we can't make a commitment
ahead of the hearing and ahead of the evidence being presented.
MR. KLATZKOW: I encourage them to apply.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And they have every right
to apply and we must hear their application and we have to apply the
law fairly based on the facts presented. But I think this is a motion of
goodwill and I think if we change the last words in the resolution to
state that, you know, we will, you know, fairly review their COPCN
application and, you know, consider it in, you know, the best interest
of the community as required by law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That works, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: It absolutely works.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'll modify my motion to
approve it with the change to number four in the resolution as stated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second will vote for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And thank you for pointing that
out. I think you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance's point as a
result is correct.
Page 57
March 22, 2016
But can you support it now, Commissioner Nance, since it's not a
commitment to approve the COPCN, it's just a sign of good faith?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think we have clearly
demonstrated good faith with the municipality of Marco and it was led
by Commissioner Fiala and myself actually. We made that
commitment of almost a million additional dollars and worked very
closely with Chief Kopka to respond to that need. It was very
important to her in her district.
We did the same thing in Big Corkscrew Island at the time.
And as a matter of fact, we've just developed through that.
Through our interlocal agreement with North Collier Fire, we've just
changed that to I think make the service even better out there.
So I think our commitment is clear. I don't want to get in a -- I
don't want to get in a habit of creating resolutions saying that we're
going to do what we clearly do automatically anyway. If the
municipality of Marco chooses to make an application, I would
certainly consider it, but I don't want to get into a battle of resolutions.
I'm just fearful that we're going to have a whole plethora of these
things coming forward when we clearly respond to their needs, as they
requested of us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we would probably need that
resolution, or they would need the resolution as they applied for their
COPCN. It would help their cause, I would think. And we should
consider that.
They're a municipality rather than part of the county. They make
their own decisions and so forth. And I think we have to -- you know,
we have to honor that. And sometimes, you know, when -- especially
with the Island, sometimes they have two opinions. And, you know,
both sides are adamant about whatever their opinion. I've never seen
the Island so united in any issue as this. Everybody is on the same
page and everybody wants to move forward with that. And so I
Page 58
March 22, 2016
respect that and honor that. They're rather unique. And I think this is
what drives this in the first place.
They're an island. They have no hospital close by, they don't
even have a 24-hour emergency room close by. They have to get the
people out of there. And I don't know if any of you have been to
Marco Island during season, but man, you can't get out of there. It's
really, really tough. So I can understand why they're concerned, more
concerned. They have the most tourism -- I didn't realize that the
Marriott was the largest hotel in the entire county. That was amazing
to me. They have so many more tourists there for that little island.
And they have to be taking that into consideration, as well as all the
high rises. They've got a lot of things going on.
And I have to agree that this -- on their behalf, you know, I think
that they need this in order to move forward and provide a safer
atmosphere for all of the people health-wise.
So that was my two cents.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, in this resolution, the
whereas clause, that's supposed to be a statement of fact. And there's a
couple in there that, you know, it said may, it says possibly. Those
need to be removed. I mean, there's no factual statement when you put
in maybe, possibly.
The other thing is in the now therefore, the Board of
Commissioners acknowledged the addition of Marco Island emergency
resources will have a positive impact to Collier County EMS services'
response time and care (sic).
We don't know that until we see the application.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just totally impossible.
So the resolution needs to be overhauled. You need to remove
those two things in the whereas. You need to remove number two, you
Page 59
March 22, 2016
need to remove number four. Okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And number two, why did you want it
removed again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's saying that we, the
Board of Commissioners, acknowledges. That's a pre-assumption of
their application. Acknowledges the addition of Marco Island
Emergency Resource will be a positive impact to Collier County EMS
services' response times and care.
We haven't seen the application, so we don't know if it's going to
be a positive or not to the county.
However, I do agree with your statement that they do have the
home rule authority. But, you know, this resolution was not vetted
through the County Attorney's Office. Nor was it vetted through staff.
So either we continue it, correct it, bring it back or gut it and
approve it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Councilman Brown, would you like to
comment on that?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: On the legality side of it, I'm far
from a lawyer, so I'm not even going to attempt. Certainly the County
Attorney would probably offer whatever needs that he feels that you all
need to make this acceptable.
What we're trying to state is simply that our level of service has
certainly impacted the county as a whole in the past. We look for it to
impact in the future. We don't plan on making any changes
accordingly other than positive changes. We want to head into the
future still in conjunction with the county, certainly not in any way
parting company at all. So it's a positive thing that we're trying to
accomplish, certainly not a negative thing.
And if there needs to be minor adjustments to the wording, we
would have no difficulty with that. Obviously it was done through our
city attorney and rather than the county attorney, so if there's
Page 60
March 22, 2016
differences of opinion on a couple of the words within, I'm sure we can
work with you all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would you be amenable to continuing
it 'til you work with them and then we could get a vote from the
commissioners in a positive way? I'm looking at you, because it's your
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want me to tell you whether
I'm going to vote for it if it comes back in a different form?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can have a resolution on
resolutions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But for sure we'll consider it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's another one. Number one
needs to be struck also. So we've got one, two and four. So that leaves
three.
And frankly, your application deals with three, the City of Marco
Island will be requesting and applying for a COPCN. You know, that
would bring it.
But, you know, one of your whereas's is kind of fascinating in
here. It says that the straw ballot may rat-- ratifies, because it passed
the position of the voters in unincorporated Collier County.
I don't think you can say that. What the position did was say yes,
continue it. But that continuation of looking at a unified emergency
fire system or emergency response system countywide will incorporate
the entire county. And there's no vote in November at all. This is
telling us up here that there is an interest in this, but that's all it did.
And unfortunately I do believe that it's been blown out of proportion.
And it's unfortunate, because your voice is very important. Marco
Island's voice is very important. Everyone's going to be affected by
this vision in the future. But is this vision five years from now, 10
Page 61
March 22, 2016
years from now, 20 years from now? It might be. It might be. No
one's -- there's no big stone rolling down this hill picking up everything
in its path, or even a snowball, I think I'll use that analogy.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No snow here, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know, well stone.
There isn't. This is just saying okay, well, let's look at this. But
the data, the numbers, are going to be important in this. And there were
no numbers on March the 15th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They haven't even filed anything, so how
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I'm talking about us, as we
proceed or as the public proceeds with a unified emergency response.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That has nothing to do with this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm referring to the whereas. It is
definitely referenced in the resolution. And I'm referring specifically
to that. To that -- this was initiated or the reaction to this resolution or
to this May (sic) 15th straw ballot question was the impetus to bring us
to this day. It wasn't -- this didn't come -- you know, this was in
reaction to that. And I'm saying the reaction was an overreaction. And
I'm saying that respectfully, not criticizing.
So I would welcome your submission of an application for a
COPCN certainly. You are neighbors, you're part of the county. And I
really don't think you're trying to be separate.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At all. And I appreciate you
saying that. And thank you very much, Councilman.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. Certainly I don't want you
to feel like the county is not communicating with you. If that needs to
be fixed, we certainly need to fix that.
Page 62
March 22, 2016
But sir, very respectfully, I think that your anxiety is based on a
great deal of speculation and supposition that's not based in fact. If
there are things that we can do on Marco Island to make emergency
services better, we certainly want to do so. And, you know, if you
have discreet information or ideas on how that can be done, I'm sure
this board would consider them. We want to do that, we have done
that in the past. I think you can count on what we have done, and I
think you should put that before anything anybody says or supposes or
projections that should be made.
But from my perspective as a commissioner, what I want to do is
I want to make sure that when we make a change we have some
problem that we're trying to solve or something, we have a goal in
mind when we do so, and that we understand the implications on the
system as it exists.
So I think frankly and honestly you're going to have a very steep
climb to demonstrate that fragmenting the service is going to be better
than keeping the service unified. But if you can do that, I would sure
like to see how you get there. And thank you for coming.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Just one other comment that goes
along with you, Commissioner Nance, is that one of the areas of
concern that we had is if you remember over the last several years we
asked for an additional ambulance on the Island. Through much
consternation two years ago we were able to pull a second ambulance
on the Island for the major part of season, January through April.
And we had asked for it -- last year we had asked for it actually
for the entire year. We felt that the numbers showed that it was
important to have that secondary ambulance.
And again, we can't drive that ourselves. In fact, we don't even
have a voice in it. But by asking, you did allow one more month, so
we did get it from December through April. And we do appreciate
that.
Page 63
March 22, 2016
But those are the types of things where we feel we don't have a
voice.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are you dissatisfied with the
results?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: We feel that the results can always
be improved, and that's what our goal is.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I hope you include that eval--
if you're dissatisfied with the results, I would certainly like to know
that. Because I think the results are pretty awesome, actually.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Together we are awesome; that's the
way we look at it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he's not saying you're
awesome, he's saying that --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's saying the county EMS
services to Marco are awesome.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think the coordinated effort
between your fire district and EMS are producing extraordinary results
for you. And if you're dissatisfied with that, then I'm frankly kind of
surprised.
But, you know, if you can demonstrate what we can do to make
that even better and make you happier, then by all means don't waste
any time bringing it forward, sir, please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, you know, Commission,
there is a new part of Marco Island that will be open I think in
December of next year or maybe even the summer, and that is the
newly expanded Marriott, which will increase exponentially the
number of people on a year-round basis. Because this isn't going to be
just a seasonal hotel. It's extraordinary.
I'm preaching to the choir here, I know you know about it. So it
Page 64
March 22, 2016
is something we may want to look at again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think they have every right to ask. I
mean, they're their own municipality. And if they feel that they want
to pay for it themselves and have their own COPCN for the safety of
the Island, for the safety of their residents, for the safety of their
visitors who are, you know, well known to flock to Marco Island at
this time, and there's also a lot of accidents and so forth that occur, I
don't see any reason why we would want to refuse them, quite frankly.
And they are their own municipality; that's an important thing.
Any other comments from anybody?
Mr. Brown -- I'm sorry, Councilman Brown?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: No, I'm fine, thank you. I appreciate
your consideration and I think together we're looking to move forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would you like us to do?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I would like to move forward and
do this.
Would you prefer to continue it until the rewording has taken
place, or would you like to just try -- if we don't get three votes, we
have to bring it back again. I don't understand why anybody wouldn't
vote for it. But quite frankly, that's because I'm solidly behind this.
And you're mine, and so I take a special interest because I'm there all
the time and see what's going on. Not many other people get to Marco
Island.
So I would like to do this. But rather than take a no because I'm
hearing three no people right here and only two yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's go ahead and vote on it, and
if the motion fails then I'll restate the motion -- I'll make a new motion
to continue this to allow the County Attorney and the City Attorney to
work together to revise the resolution to bring it back to the Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
Page 65
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
And opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, you didn't vote,
did you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He said opposed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I didn't hear him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'll make a new motion to
continue this item to allow the City Attorney and our County Attorney
to work together to bring back a revised resolution on this matter for
the Board's consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just make a
motion to suggest to the City Council to submit their COPCN.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To encourage them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I'm going to make that
motion that we encourage City of Marco to submit their COPCN. This
is nonsense.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that motion of
Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've already got one motion on the
floor, which was Commissioner Hiller's. And we're making the second
motion over the first motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, there's no second to
Commissioner Hiller's.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nobody's had a chance. Everybody --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning
interrupted.
Page 66
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, folks, we have a motion on the
floor.
Commissioner Hiller, would you mention your motion one more
time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'll restate it. To continue this
item to allow the City Attorney and County Attorney to work together
to reword it to resubmit to the Board for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, and I would second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Okay, that's 3-2 (sic).
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that the
Chairman send a letter to Marco City Council asking them to submit
their application for a COPCN, if that's their wishes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no need to do that. That's a
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and a second.
Any comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to comment on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's absolutely a useless motion.
It's a waste of time to have you write a letter to the City of Marco to
tell them to do what they can or will do if they choose. And we don't
have to say that we are going to encourage them to do it or that we are
going to review it, because that's what we have to do as a matter of
law. So I think it's absolutely the most useless motion in the world.
Page 67
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since it's my motion.
You had a resolution that you obviously didn't read. Because
there's no factual stuff here. Making a commitment on a COPCN,
obviously you didn't read the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I absolutely read it. But since the
County Attorney did not --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, come on, get to the point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- opine that there was anything
negative with it and allowed us to proceed on the issue, I always defer
to the County Attorney --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We already have somebody speaking.
Commissioner Henning, continue on, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and the wishes take this
out of the politics and put it into an application is the most appropriate
thing to do by reaching out to the City of Marco Island and say the
Board supports your application, please submit it.
So that's my response.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, would anybody from the City like
to get up to the podium and make a comment on that?
This is City Manager Roger Hernstadt.
MR. HERNSTADT: Good morning, everybody. I'm Roger
Hernstadt, City Manager for Marco Island.
I think it's important for us together to find a way to send a
message to the people on Marco Island that we can work together to
make sure that we have the best EMS system in Collier County and
that the people on Marco Island feel that they're being protected, as the
county looks at ways to improve the EMS services countywide.
Page 68
March 22, 2016
And I think that perhaps because of a lack of public outreach on
the Island in terms of what the county was doing with the straw ballot
there may have been some concerns, but that's all behind us now. Now
we're going forward, we've hired a consultant who's beginning to look
at providing that exact data that you're asking to see. We have every
intention to submit a licensed application to you for your review.
And we just want to make sure that you're working with us to
move forward so that if the county continues to make the decision that
they can only feel that they can support having a second ambulance for
five months out of the year if Marco Island wanted to provide the
ambulance for the other seven months that we could. And I don't think
anyone would argue that that's augmentation of services.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. HERNSTADT: So that's what we're trying to get to and we
need your help. And we just want to make sure that we're not going to
be spending money, spending energy and spending time to find out
that it's not something that you're interested in pursuing with us.
So any mechanism that you're comfortable with that we can take
back to the people of Marco Island that reassure them that you're
working with us to make sure we have the best possible EMS services
not only countywide but on the Island I think would be very much
appreciated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So this motion then that is on the floor
which we have not voted on yet is maybe what you feel would --
MR. HERNSTADT: I think anything would help. And if that's
the level of comfort of the County Commission, I believe that would --
I think it's a step -- it's not as big a step as we would like to see but it is
a step in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you're going to be still
protecting Goodland as well, right, with ambulance service?
MR. HERNSTADT: My understanding from the people I've
Page 69
March 22, 2016
talked to on Goodland is that they may have separately communicated
to the County Commission or County Commissioners that they're very
interested in making sure that the fire and EMS services provided by
Marco Island are the highest caliber, widest range of service possible,
since we provide services to them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Goodland is very happy. I just wanted to
make sure you were going to continue that service.
MR. HERNSTADT: At your discretion. You're the ones who
make that decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
So in other words, the motion that Commissioner Henning has
made, you feel if that's going in the right direction and it would benefit
all, then that would be something that you would accomplish by, well,
not exactly what you asked for but at least what you put on the agenda,
right, or what you wanted on the agenda, right?
MR. HERNSTADT: I think it's a statement, okay, that the effort
to go through the process to try to obtain a license is going to be well
received by the county and you'll do your do diligence in reviewing it
and putting it through your process in accordance with your ordinance,
and that the money and effort that we spent putting that together, it
won't be wasted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a
second. And you've heard the comments by the people who presented
this resolution in the first place.
Commissioner Henning, you want to repeat it one more time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor of the motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 70
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's 5-0.
We'll move on from there, thank you.
Item #11B
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1, 2016 IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2,407,799, A
REDUCTION OF $619,800 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us on to Item 11.B on this
morning's agenda. It is a recommendation to approve the purchase of
property insurance effective April 1, 2016 in the estimated amount of
$2,407,799, a reduction of$619,800.
And Mr. Walker can present or respond to questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second -- I mean, any second?
Commissioner Hiller, is that you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 71
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, that's a 5-0, Jeff.
MR. OCHS: Good work, Jeff, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wonderful speech.
MR. OCHS: We need more of those, right?
Item 11.0 is a recommendation to declare that emergency
conditions --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, let me interrupt you for just one tiny
moment before I forget to do it again. I wanted to do this before.
There were two gentlemen sitting here from Golden Gate before,
Golden Gate City. And after during our break they came over and
talked to me just a little bit and they said I just want to tell you that we
were over at Horseshoe Drive and they said from the moment they
walked into the door 'til when they left, everybody was so
knowledgeable, so caring, so friendly, and they just went on and on so
I thought I would like to say congratulations to all, thank you for such
a great department.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now you can go on.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2016-57: DECLARING EMERGENCY
CONDITIONS EXIST AT CLAM PASS AND IN THE CLAM BAY
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA (NRPA) AND
RATIFY STAFF ACTIONS TO QUICKLY MOBILIZE A
DREDGING FIRM TO RESTORE SUFFICIENT TIDAL
FLUSHING PRIOR TO TURTLE NESTING SEASON, WHICH
STARTS ON MAY 1, 2016 — ADOPTED
Page 72
March 22, 2016
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. 11.0 is a recommendation to declare
that emergency conditions exist at Clam Pass and in the Clam Bay
Natural Resource Protection Area, and ratify staff actions to quickly
mobilize a dredging firm to restore sufficient tidal flushing prior to
turtle nesting season which starts on May 1 of 2016.
Mr. Dorrill, your Administrator for the Pelican Bay Services
Division, will present.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hear a second.
Any comments? Oh, we have one Commissioner, that's
Commissioner Nance.
Do we have any speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am, we have two speakers on this item.
Your first speaker is Cindi Spanier. She'll be followed by Susan
O'Brien.
MS. SPANIER: Good morning. My name is Cindi Spanier, and
I'm here today to represent Dr. Jan Forszpaniak who's the Director of
Naples Breast Surgery Center.
Unfortunately, Dr. Forszpaniak is not able to attend the meeting
today because he's currently in the operating room treating his breast
cancer patients.
However, I as his business office manager for the last 24 years am
here to express his concerns about Clam Pass and the support -- the
urgent need for the dredging of the pass.
Dr. Forszpaniak is a long-time resident of Pelican Bay. He
represents the International Game Fish Association for their Bonefish
Protection Program, and is a member of the Bonefish and Tarpon
Trust. He is personally involved in observing and collecting data
Page 73
March 22, 2016
about the changes that have occurred in the past. He sees the critical
situation, while observing progression sand migration that almost
completely blocks the Pass.
An avid and experienced fly fisherman and two-time world record
holder, he continually observes the water flow during different tidal
cycles and with the fish and bird migrations.
He has noted that certain species of birds and fish have not been
seen in the Pass for almost two years. He likes to visit the Pass during
the most important tidal cycles, usually during the full and the new
moons, watching the water flow and the water levels.
During the sun tide that occurred the night of February 24th, there
was almost no water flowing in the Pass. Luckily, prevailing strong
northwest winds slowed the water flow out of the bay. Conditions like
this are very unpredictable and will most likely occur again.
There is a critical danger to the habitat and the healthy
environment of Clam Bay, which is so dependent upon the water flow
and nutrients.
Dr. Forszpaniak and many other Pelican Bay residents, nature
lovers and environmentalists strongly recommend the prompt dredging
of the Pass. It is critical in order to prevent what happened in the past
at Clam Bay, most recently two years ago.
He also proposes that there be no swimming, walking or wading
within 50 feet of the shoreline of the Pass. This regulation would
prevent a constant dislodging of the sand into the Pass. This is
witnessed almost daily and is caused by the individuals who swim,
walk and jump while setting up their beach chairs, et cetera, along the
shoreline.
A final note: Dr. Forszpaniak was one of the volunteers who
helped dig sand out of the bottom of the dried out pass to help keep
minimal water flow back and forth during the high tides. It's critical
that the pass is dredged as soon as possible before turtle nesting season
Page 74
March 22, 2016
begins on May 1st. Thank you so much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan O'Brien. She's the
final speaker on this item.
MS. O'BRIEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Susan O'Brien.
I'm the current Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
And with the issuance about two weeks ago of the Army Corps
10-year dredging permit, now the county has both key permits: The
FDEP permit and the Army Corps permit for the first time in seven
years. So when the Pass was dredged three years ago I think you
remember it was an emergency permit and we weren't able to get all of
the sand out of sections B and C. So now the Pass, as you know, it's in
critical condition and for the health of the whole Clam Bay estuary we
really feel that the Pass needs to be dredged, especially with turtle
nesting season beginning in about 40 days.
So we would really appreciate your declaring today the
emergency conditions that exist in Clam Pass to expedite the process
of obtaining a contractor to perform the necessary dredging. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's all of our speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I have a question, please,
about the actual footprint of the dredging.
MR. DORRILL: We have that aerial too, Commissioner, from
the plan set.
There it is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so you are widening the
mouth of the pass; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Debeez (phonetic) is here and can speak to
very technical issues.
Page 75
March 22, 2016
The mouth of the inlet needs to be reconstructed. As you can see
on the aerial, as the system begins to fail it sort of flops from one side
to the other. And its current alignment is sort of diagonally towards
the northwest.
Your management plan and both permits from the DEP and the
Army Corps require that the reconstructed inlet be perpendicular to the
beach on a direct alignment in order to enhance its velocity and
efficiency. So as a result of that, the amount of cuts and fill on either
side of the inlet are to reconstruct the mouth of the inlet in accordance
with the management plan and both sets of permits.
All of this sand that is remaining, 15,000 cubic yards, goes on the
county's beach at the park in the area that's designated on the south side
of the inlet there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so to -- you're going to shore
-- are you not going to shore up the north side of the pass?
MR. DORRILL: The north side of the inlet needs to be filled in
conformance with the management plan and both sets of permits.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So some of the sand will go there.
MR. DORRILL: Yes. And the inlet is considered public.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And will that be on the cost of the
taxpayers? Meaning will they be paying for this? TDC money, I
guess will be paying for it. But will it be paid for by TDC money or
will the sand that is put on the north side be borne by the Pelican Bay
residents?
MR. DORRILL: Consistent with the Florida Administrative
Code, the inlet is considered public and therefore the use of tourist
development taxes are eligible to reconstruct the public portion of the
inlet in this particular case.
The inlet on either side, the north side and the south side, are
considered public and not private, similar to a road right-of-way. And
as I said, in order to reconstruct the inlet, there is sand that will be
Page 76
March 22, 2016
placed on what is currently the north side of the desired cut.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the public part of this inlet, I
mean, it doesn't have to be exact, will you show me please when it
becomes private? Well, not private. The beach is public, it's just
there's no access in Pelican Bay to it but the beach is public.
But the last time I believe the sand that was put on the beaches
was paid for by Pelican Bay in the north side; isn't that correct?
MR. DORRILL: And the only reason for that was that we ran out
of places to put the sand on the south side or the county park side of
the beach based on the permit that we were able to obtain. If you
remember, the permit was an emergency permit and we were not able
to take all of the sand out of the system, nor were we eligible to put
any of the sand on the wet beach. It all had to be placed on the dry
beach or the upland beach. And so we ran out of places to put the sand
based on the permit that we had and that's when we put sand on the
Pelican Bay side of the inlet there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which I think Pelican Bay, if my
memory is correct, they paid for; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: They were not required to, but in that particular
case they did.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They did.
Okay, so we have sand that's going on both sides, the north and
south of the inlet.
MR. DORRILL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And how much sand is going on
the north side of the inlet?
MR. DORRILL: The total amount of sand that you can see in the
system in the major shoals there going to the east, there's sections A, B
and C, there's about 19,000 cubic yards of material that will be
removed. 4,000 yards are required to reconstruct the inlet and the
associated grading both north and south. And then 15,000 cubic yards
Page 77
March 22, 2016
of material will be placed both within the wet beach and the dry beach,
all on the county's park side.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Excellent design and completely consistent with
the management plan that this Board adopted in January of 2015.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds like a good one.
MR. DORRILL: You made that abundantly clear to me when I
was here last.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again, we're emergency
dredging.
MR. DORRILL: Well, in this particular case that's a function of
the receipt of the permit. I can tell you with about 35 years of
experience, it's astounding to me that with the help of your purchasing
department and the engineer that we went within one week from
receipt of the permit at long last to having a complete set of
construction drawings, specifications, a successful pre-bid conference
and an updated bathymetric survey in less than seven days. That's
astounding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor and a second to approve.
Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's 5-0. Thank you.
Page 78
March 22, 2016
MR. DORRILL: Thanks so much. We intend to do a good job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lots of people will be watching. We're
sure that you will.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. County Manager, I would
like to get a cost of the cost of maintaining Clam Pass for the last five
years. And I'd like to have it -- you know, I understand it's tourist
development taxes, but it is taxpayers' money. So if you could get that
information. Thank you very much.
Item #11D
RESOLUTION 2016-58: A TECHNICAL REVISION TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
(LHAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 13/14 - 15/16 REVISING THE
PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND PROVIDING
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE - MOTION TO APPROVE THE
TIERED PURCHASE ASSISTANCE OPTION #2 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11.D. It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution for a technical revision to the
Collier County State Housing Initiatives Partnership Local Housing
Assistance Plan for fiscal years '14 through '16, revising the Purchase
Assistance Program and providing clarifying language.
And Ms. Grant, your Director of Community and Human
Services, will present.
MS. GRANT: Good morning, Commissioners. I can take
questions or I can do a brief presentation, whichever you would prefer.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to make a motion to
accept option two, the tiered moderate approach. Just based on our
extended conversation at the workshop.
Page 79
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. OCHS: Can you put the options up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a question, if I may.
It didn't say this in any place, but these dollars that we're wanting
to give to the people in order to buy a home or whatever, must they be
citizens of the United States?
MS. GRANT: Yes, ma'am, or a permanent resident. A citizen or
a permanent resident.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So a permanent resident doesn't have to be
a citizen but the tax dollars go there, right?
MS. GRANT: Am I correct, guys?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board gave direction long
ago that it has to be U.S. citizen. Back 2006, 2007. That these dollars,
down payment assistance has to be a U.S. citizen. That hasn't changed.
That's when Commissioner Halas was here.
MS. GRANT: We can certainly go back and look at that. The
regulations for the SHIP program provide as I just mentioned. But we
will certainly check that. If there's something that overrides that, we'll
follow that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, how -- when you give these dollars
-- because we never see where they go. We never see who they go to,
where they go, how much is given to whom, where they buy. We have
nothing at all that we see. We used to have all of that stuff. We don't
anymore.
So how do we know, is there something that you can show us like
in writing to prove that they're a U.S. citizen?
MS. GRANT: Well, as part of our review process, we receive
passport, driver's license, various elements of validation that they are a
U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That's reviewed by us.
We currently send all our files to Florida Housing Finance
Page 80
March 22, 2016
Corporation. They validate it. It's also validated by finance as part of
their review before the checks are cut.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I happened to see one just
recently. And the guy, he had a work permit which expires in a couple
of months. His -- I don't know if it's roommate or wife or friend or
whatever, was not a U.S. citizen or not -- there was not even a work
permit or Green Card or anything. And that's what alerted me to this.
And I'm thinking wait a minute, I remember --just like Commissioner
Henning, I remember it had to go -- when you're giving away $30,000
to somebody and if they're only going to be here 'til May and then you
don't know that they're going to stay or that their work permit will be
extended, why would we do that?
MS. GRANT: Well, as I said, we'll go back and we'll follow the
trail that Commissioner Henning has just mentioned.
But permanent resident or citizen. But we are not giving loans to
people who are not here as permanent residents or citizens of the
country. Now, it may be that there's a member of the household that is
not, but the person who receives the loan must meet that criteria.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that permanent citizen who's work
permit expires in May, he's a permanent citizen 'til May, how do we
know that he's going to stay after we give him the money what
happens to it?
See, that's the thing, I think that interpretation has everything to
do with it. And you said permanent resident -- I mean, citizen of the
United States or resident. Well, resident, you know what, you move in
and the next day you're a resident. Oh, and by the way I'm here
permanently.
MS. GRANT: Commissioner, one failsafe element that we have
is each of these mortgages is -- each of these loans is backed by a
mortgage and note. If a person is no longer homesteaded, meaning
they don't live there as their permanent residence, that money is due
Page 81
March 22, 2016
back to the trust fund. So if we have anyone, whether they leave the
country or move to Sarasota, if they're not living in the home for which
we gave them the loan, they're required to repay the funds to us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So somebody deports them for some
reason or another, not that they're a bad guy or anything, you know,
but just they're deported because, I don't know, whatever reasons they
deport people, you're never going to get your money back. I mean, it
was supposed to go to U.S. residents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But these are secured.
MS. GRANT: Yeah, they're secured. That's the greatest extent of
security.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would happen is they would
default on their mortgage payment and there would be a foreclosure
and we're a secured creditor and we would get repaid. It's not like --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Except that if they put a for sale sign on
their home, and I see that all the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The documents have due on sale
clauses.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'm just saying, as long as they're a
U.S. citizen, then they're a taxpayer also, and then they should be
acknowledged. But if that isn't the case, I don't know, it makes me just
a little bit nervous about this. But if I'm the only one --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already gave that direction.
So if they're doing something different --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But she didn't know that that's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not my problem, not the
Board's problem.
MS. GRANT: Right. As I said, that we've been following the
state requirements on this. We will go back and find that direction. If
we are to be more restrictive than the state requirements, we will do
that going forward.
Page 82
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, would you then -- from this day
forward, would you please send us, each time we give somebody
money, would you please send us their credentialing behind it and how
much money we gave them so we know? I mean, I never see anything.
I have nothing to refer to and so I would like to see that. As long as
this is the case. This is a lot of money.
And also in here it says that you want to give the money to
somebody else to dispense, right? Somewhere in here it says that.
Somebody else to spend the funds on our behalf. Right?
MS. GRANT: We would like the option -- we intend at this point
in time to administer this program in-house, but we have tried to give
ourselves the option to do this -- to give this as a sub-recipient
agreement. If we were to exercise that, we would come to the Board,
the Board would make the determination as to whether you were
comfortable with that or not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know the last time we gave something
like $9 million away to somebody else because we just couldn't do
that. I know you needed to spend the money in order to keep it coming
in, but that didn't work very well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They gave it to Habitat.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. GRANT: Not down payment assistance. No, we did not use
a sub-recipient agreement to Habitat --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We gave them $9 million outright.
MS. GRANT: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Didn't we give them $9 million
outright?
MS. GRANT: We gave them -- under the NSP program. There
was no cash given to them, they were given properties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. GRANT: And did we give them -- pardon me.
Page 83
March 22, 2016
So for NSP-1 we transferred a certain number of properties worth,
I forget now, 5 or 6 million. And then under NSP-3 we did give them
a contract for 3.8 million and they acquired properties, then they
rehabbed them with their own money and then resold them.
MR. OCHS: So did they perform on each one of those grants?
MS. GRANT: They did. They did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I remember that. That was several
years ago.
MS. GRANT: It was, it was '11 or '12.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So if you decide to give this money to
somebody else to dispense, you won't do that unless you come back to
us and get approval to do that, right?
MS. GRANT: That's correct. It would be a contract that the
Board would have to approve and the circumstance that the Board
would have to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. In here a number of times I see that
this is also including the City of Naples.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it says for the City of Naples to --
wait a minute, let me get the exact wording here. Come on, Donna,
where is it?
To expand affordable housing opportunities. The City of Naples
receives funds from the state to provide initiatives to expand affordable
housing opportunities.
How are they doing that; do you know?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you know, in the campaign
trail I heard there's no room for affordable housing. They're not doing
it at this point, I mean, that I know of; that I would disagree with the
campaign rhetoric. I think they could if they put their minds to it. So
I'm in dialogue with them about that.
Page 84
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So how much money do we give them to
do that?
MS. GRANT: The way it works, Commissioner, is that the
county has an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples. And under
that interlocal agreement the county accepts the state's allocation,
which is somewhere usually between 50 and 100,000 per year, in with
the county's allocation and we administer the program. And they
appoint members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and
they have certain other roles they review: The local Housing
Assistance Plan. But we administer those funds.
So should we have a resident of the city approach us and meet the
qualifications for purchase assistance, they would receive those funds.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So at the end of the year and you say you
have had $100,000 and no one from the city has approached you, what
happens to the $100,000?
MS. GRANT: It goes to the next qualified person in line.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But not from the city.
MS. GRANT: But not necessarily a city person.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. So it stays in the county funds --
MS. GRANT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Okay, fine.
I wanted to -- let's see. Also they were talking about the
definition for essential service personnel. And, you know, I've noticed
on out in the community, essential service from what we always
thought, you know, school district, educators, teachers, university
employees, police, fire, healthcare personnel, skilled training, that was
what we all thought. But it seems to be that that definition has
expanded some, or are you strictly staying within that definition?
MS. GRANT: Give me one moment to make sure I answer that
correctly.
Here in Collier County we're following the state definition of
Page 85
March 22, 2016
essential services personnel. And that follows because this is state
money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, strictly do you follow that or are
there just these things that are in our agenda packet, or does that get
expanded from there? I mean, essential services to me, there's a lot of
other essential services, like the cooks in restaurants, you need to have
them, and the people that mow the lawns, you need to have them, and
people to clean houses, you need to have them. Is that considered also
essential services?
MS. GRANT: Not according to this definition, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But do you follow this definition?
MS. GRANT: We follow this definition.
And for essential services, the reason that that's outlined here is
that they receive an additional $5,000 on top of whatever allocation is
approved. So we follow the definition that's here.
And what we discovered was that we actually had an
inconsistency in the definition in the document. So all we're doing in
this particular revision is making sure that the same thing in both
places.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, lastly you had mentioned number
two, right, low income? And that's the plan that you -- where was that
one?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am, the discussion that we
had at the workshop, I believe the Board favored option two, which is
the tiered approach. And that was I think the option that we spent the
most time discussing. I believe that we directed staff to bring that one
back to us with that recommendation, based on what the discussion
was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it isn't in here.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am, it's right here. It's all
the discussion.
Page 86
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just this, you mean?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, the reason -- okay, then, I did not
take it as that.
Then the thing that -- tier two, this one, that means $50,000 goes
to extremely low income families, right?
MS. GRANT: And very low, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now let's go to extremely low.
First of all, I don't know anybody else that builds extremely low other
than Habitat, and they do fine of that, you know, and they carry the
mortgage and everything, which is wonderful.
They also allow those people to buy a home, a brand new clean
nice home for I think it's $1,000 down payment, right, plus 500 work
hours? Or at least that's what it was. Is that the same right now?
MS. GRANT: I'm sorry, I don't know.
Do you guys know if it's 500 hours?
MS. SONNTAG: Yes.
MS. GRANT: 500 hours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't understand. If the people, the
families who are in need, and usually it's like a mom and kids or
something like that, if they're in need and they can have this for $1,000
down and $500 (sic) sweat labor, why are we giving them an extra
$50,000? I don't understand that.
MS. GRANT: Well, it's a fair question. Couple of things that are
going on here. First as a sideways for a second and then I'll come back
and directly answer your question.
This program requires that we spend at least 30 percent of our
funding on the very low income. So if we're going to maintain these
funds in our community, we have to find a way to spend them. So we
have to keep that in mind in looking at all of these strategies.
Now, to come back to your question directly. The concept of the
Page 87
March 22, 2016
program is that we make homes more affordable. So whatever the
market rate of the home is, whether Habitat builds it, whether it's a lot
and someone's going to build it on their own, whether it's a resale, the
point is to make the home more affordable for the individual. So the
people who make less money, given the housing prices in our
community, even the Habitat homes, the $50,000 down payment
makes it more affordable so that their monthly payments are less. And
that's the objective of this program and the spirit with which it's
allocated out to the counties to distribute.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. But what we have discussed over
the time is we really need housing for people in that second bracket
there and in the third bracket. Third bracket, moderate income, okay,
that's fine, except that those are the people just getting out of college
and they're burdened with all the college payments that they have to
make. They have no -- you know, they're trying to buy a house too.
And we're not encouraging that at all. We're encouraging, in my
opinion, extremely low income, give them $50,000, instead of
encouraging builders and developers who are always looking for
reasons to build that but we're not doing anything to incentivize them.
Why aren't we giving them more of that $50,000 so that we can
encourage -- this is the stuff that Reinhold Schmieding is talking about,
that kind of housing. And he complains to you, you all have heard
him, over and over, that there's no housing for the skilled workers in
our community, yet we only incentivize in a big way extremely low
income. It doesn't seem that it's working in favor of trying to build a
housing that we know is needed. And that's what the newspaper keeps
saying all the time, we need it for nurses. Well, nurses don't fit in
extremely low.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, in order to
qualify for this program, we have to spend a certain amount on the
very low income. That's not an option for us. If we don't spend that
Page 88
March 22, 2016
money --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- we can't get the program, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't say that. What I said was why is it
$50,000.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What do we have to spend, 30
percent of the money?
MS. GRANT: You have to spend 30 percent of the money on
extremely low or very low. Minimum. They would actually like us to
spend more, but minimally.
Likewise, we have to spend another 30 percent at the low income.
So 60 percent has to be below that 80 percent AMI. And then we're
left with a moderate -- and this program only goes up to 120, right, 120
percent AMI. I mean, I'm talking shorthand here.
But we can spend the maximum again of that third. So it's
approximately the same dollar amount in each pot. And it is up to you
how you want to allocate this.
So we're recommending --just as a reminder, also right now is
$20,000 level. So the people in the moderate level are getting 20,000
now. And so is everyone else.
What we're recommending here, but it's up to the Commission, is
we can help 15 families if we go at 20,000. If we go at 50,000, in that
moderate pot, we can help six families. So part of our thought process
was that we can help a few more families. But it is up to the
Commission. So if you --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But if they only need $1,000 down --
MS. GRANT: -- would prefer, for example, a $50,000 level,
everybody gets 50,000, we can do that. We just serve fewer families.
So we tried to present to you what we thought was a balanced
equation. But Commissioners, it's up to you. If you want to do a level
at 35, a level at 50, we prefer a tier or recommend a tier, but either of
Page 89
March 22, 2016
these is perfectly acceptable and we can administer either one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, before we were given 35, 35, 35,
right?
MS. GRANT: We were giving 20, 20, 20.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, award amount, 35, 35, 35. I don't
understand --
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, these are your new options.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I understand what you're saying.
I just feel that $50,000 to families that can buy their home for
sweat equity and $1,000 is a lot of money. And I just feel that we're
not encouraging at all that low income category or the moderate
income category.
And by the way, from here on in, you have said you will -- for
every time you give out these dollars we're going to see proof of
citizenship; right?
MS. GRANT: Actually, I didn't actually agree to that, but I will
be happy to. My suggestion would be that periodically once every
three months or six months we'd be happy to bring back a report and
show you, you know, characteristics of the people who have received
the money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not characteristics, citizenship papers.
MS. GRANT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, if everybody else agrees. I could
be alone on this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. In reference to what
you're saying, on Page 30, which is packet Page 264 which is
certification to the Florida Housing Finance, it says there's a process --
it's number three, the Collier County I'm assuming is saying -- there is
a process for selection of recipients for funds. So part of that process is
determining the citizenship.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
Page 90
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So what does the state
say? I believe we can be more restrictive than the state, or I might be
incorrect that we may not be. I don't know, that's a question for our
County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: On this particular issue I do not have an
answer for you. I'd have to look at that. On this one particular issue.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's extremely important. I
think there needs to be whatever -- however we decide, whether
permanent resident is okay, whether must be a citizen, I think we need
to know what the law says. And, you know, I am as concerned as you
are, ma'am, about this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, especially when we should be
incentivizing our own citizens of the United States, not somebody that
can leave next year. They can be a permanent resident now, but that
doesn't mean that they will be.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, and the other issue, I think I
understand the rationale behind the award amount. When you have
moderate income, someone who has moderate income may have more
of an opportunity to supplement that $20,000 and more people could
be placed, whereas someone extremely low would never have it. And,
you know, Habitat has a two or three-year waiting of folks who want
to get into this housing.
So am I saying that we shouldn't look at this again? I'm not
saying that. But I'm fairly comfortable with the award amount as it
appears here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo was talking about his daughter who
just got out of college, okay, and she was looking for a place. And he
said she can't find anything --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- because, you know, she's saddled with
all of the bills and so forth from college as well.
Page 91
March 22, 2016
Well, this doesn't help those young people who are coming back
here. We want our young people to come back to our hometown and
work here, but we're not helping them with option two.
And I think -- well, anyway, my opinion is option two does not
help them at all. And it -- but it does help the very, very low income or
extremely low income.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, it depends if you want to help
eight or nine families with 35,000 or you want to help 15 families with
20,000. It's the same amount of money. It's the same amount of
money. It's just do you want to give more money to less families? I
mean, that's the determination that you're making.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, well, I think that we should be trying
to incentivize the people who are coming here for jobs, the people who
are being recruited to come to Collier County but cannot afford a place
to live, so they don't come in. But that's not giving -- the people that
are recruiting are going to be falling into that second and third tier, not
into the first tier.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, ma'am, the amount of money
is divided up into pots. We're just talking about how you spend the
pot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's what I'm saying. So in other
words we're giving $50,000 to the people who could buy a Habitat
home for 1,000, yet we're giving $20,000 to the people who are --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think you're misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is a pot of money across here.
What we're discussing --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're talking about this plan.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, no, from left to right. If you go
with option one we can serve eight or nine families each getting 35,000
or we can serve six families to get 50. That's the discussion. The pot
Page 92
March 22, 2016
of money is the same. Because we have to spend so much on low
income --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You don't have to spend 50, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, you're determining are you
going to spend 50 on each family or 35. You have to spend that
money in that line. That money is divided up into this line, this line
and this line. We're just arguing over how many families we serve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is the tier that you just made a
motion to approve, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. So what the
discussion is between option one and option two, option one would
serve eight to nine families, each one getting 35, or we would get six
families, each getting 50. You can't move this money down here. This
money has to stay in this pot. The low income money has to stay in
that pot and the moderate income money has to stay in that pot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand that. What I'm trying to say
is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Reallocate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, to reallocate this, because I don't
think that that is accomplishing the goal. We're trying to find housing
for nurses, we're trying to find --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know, but you can't. You can't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The program says you have to
spend a certain amount of money at each one of these levels.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but it doesn't say a certain amount, it
says 60 percent -- no, I'm sorry, it --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, it says 30 percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you can spend it in a different way. I
just think that's -- I'm sorry, I -- 60 percent of the funding must be
spent on 80 percent of the AMI or lower. 60 percent.
Page 93
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right. Which means these two
right here have to get 60 percent of the money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, so --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So how do you want to dole it out?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So why can't you do 25 and 35? That's
60.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, no, it goes this way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's option one. Maybe I'm reading
wrong.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The determination of whether it's
50 or 35 is depending on how many families you divide that money
amongst. If you do less families, they get 50,000, if you do more
families, they get -- do you not understand that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I understand what you're saying. I'm
saying the low income, very low income can get -- they don't have to
depend on that, they can buy through Habitat because Habitat builds
whole villages and helps them with their mortgages --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I understand, but what I'm telling
you is you cannot move this money down into the moderate income.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what Commissioner
Fiala wants to do. She wants to move it from the very low income into
the low income for those families who wouldn't qualify for Habitat.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To give them the opportunity.
That's the point she's making. Because the point she's making -- you
know, and as to some waiting line that Habitat has, I actually -- my
recollection, and I don't know what the current status is, but I'd
certainly like to know, Habitat was having problems developing
projects they couldn't -- they couldn't develop some because there was
no demand.
There was a whole project a few years ago that they had to give
Page 94
March 22, 2016
up. Remember when they reverted the project in -- I think it was close
to Immokalee where they had to revert the entire project back because
they couldn't get people to qualify to live there?
So I think the point that Commissioner Fiala is making, you
know, at 80 percent of AMI you're at about 50,000 as the annual
income for a family of four.
And I'm not sure, does an AMI -- you know, does an annual
income of 50,000 qualify for a Habitat home or not? What's the
cut-off for Habitat now?
MS. SONNTAG: They're 60 percent below AMI.
MS. GRANT: I'm somewhat uncomfortable speaking for
Habitat, but in working with them, they typically will put people in the
homes at 60 percent AMI or lower.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So essentially what
Commissioner Fiala is saying, it's for the 60 to 80 percent of AMI that
we should be targeting the assistance, because below the 60 percent
these people have the option of getting a Habitat home without
meeting this down payment assistance. Is that exactly what --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Habitat has come to the rescue over
and over and over again to build housing for the very low. And they
say that, you know, they try and build for 50 percent and below of the
median income. And that's a wonderful thing. But nothing's coming
to the rescue of the others above 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have to commend you,
Commissioner Fiala, because I actually -- when I first analyzed this,
and this is the proposal that staff recommended the very first time they
brought this to the Board and I supported it. And I reviewed it again
this time and supported it again. And I was going to support
Commissioner Nance's motion, but what you are highlighting is
absolutely correct. And we need to help those who can't get into those
Habitat homes, because a lot of them are part of that essential
Page 95
March 22, 2016
workforce pool. Like, you know, there are a lot of in law enforcement
who are, you know, in that 5 0,000 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That don't qualify, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- they wouldn't qualify and they
would be in that $50,000 plus income bracket. And so it would be
those kind of essential workers that would be benefited --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- by the reallocation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I was saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I absolutely understand what
you're saying. So essentially if we were to restructure this to support
your recommendation, which makes sense, you would -- you could put
the money in that low income category, you know, give awards in that
low income category and you could, for example, say all of the amount
to go like, for example, 35,000 to go between the 60 and 80 percent,
however many, you know, would make up 600,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you could have -- like, for
example --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have an idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- do we have to allocate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's vote on the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have to allocate 300,000 for
each tier, or is it --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioners, respectfully,
respectfully --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought it was 600 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 60 percent of the funding must be spent
on those earning 80 percent --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Or lower.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- of the AMI or lower.
Page 96
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's extremely low or low.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. OCHS: Hold on, hold on.
MS. GRANT: Here's the publication directly from Florida
Housing Finance Corporation. I have it circled in red. At least 60
percent must be used to assist low. Of this amount, at least half must be
used to assist very low and extremely low.
But we do not have a choice of moving the money between the
pots. We really are, as Commissioner Nance said, down to a choice of
how many dollars versus how many people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MS. GRANT: So the more you give, the less people, the less you
give the more people in each of these categories.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think what Commissioner
Fiala wants is more people helped in that middle category. And it
would make sense. And you might as well -- because yeah, because, I
mean, really that's the objective. You want more people assisted in the
low income category.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we can do 50 in each category, just
have fewer families served. That -- pick a number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think what Commissioner
Fiala wants is more families assisted in that middle category.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, what I'm trying to do is get the
money to the housing that we are hearing the public say they need.
And they're saying that we need -- of course they say affordable
housing and then they follow it with nurses and paramedics and
healthcare workers and police and so forth. Well, that doesn't fall into
the first category.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. But you don't get any money if you
don't meet the requirements of the program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have -- what they're saying is
Page 97
March 22, 2016
we've got to keep 300,000 in Category 1.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if you take -- for category two,
if you took 300,000 divided by 25,000, you would help 12 families
instead of 10. So, you know, and obviously it just will increase every
single time you drop the down payment.
If you have a -- for the purchase of these homes right now, you're
still looking at an 80/20 loan to value ratio, right? I mean, you're
looking at 20 percent down for these low income families on their
home acquisitions?
MS. GRANT: The lenders make the overall determination.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I understand. But for the
most part they're still looking -- for this category of buyer are they --
the market is pretty --
MS. GRANT: That's correct, for any buyer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- much still at 20 percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I ask one more question --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they could --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- which is really a cool question.
Shelter for Abused Women builds those darling little houses over
there. And for their people then after they've gone through the
program at Shelter For Abused Women. But they're probably not
really safe to go -- and they don't have anything to go on, they escaped
with whatever clothes they had on their back and the same with their
children. They're putting them in those little houses now.
Is there a way that some of that money can help them? Certainly
they would be in the very low income category. And I don't know,
they've never asked, I've never said, but that might help.
MS. GRANT: That's a great question. And actually we've been
in talks with them over the last couple of months. We have another
funding source called Emergency Solutions Grant, which is really spot
Page 98
March 22, 2016
on for that population. And we've been available to serve their clients,
but we're talking with them now about actually giving them an
agreement to be able to do it themselves and then get reimbursement
through us.
So we're going down that path. And that pot of funding is a little
bit better suited.
That being said, if anyone coming out of the shelter wants to
apply and meets the qualifications, absolutely, they get next in line for
this program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we vote on the motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- know what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The motion was to accept option
two.
MR. OCHS: You had a second as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there was a second, yes.
Okay, all in favor of-- oh, wait a minute, there are a bunch of
people on here.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm fine with option two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I spoke, so I'm fine. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So all in favor of option two,
which is the 50,000, 30,000, 20,000 division of money, say aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 99
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Me. I still think we should go with option three. Option three
would accomplish the housing that we do not get built now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think I would qualify for
GAP housing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not GAP, but it would be the middle one
you would.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 120? With my salary here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm talking about the middle one right
there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The middle tier low income, 50 percent to
80 percent.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, you're talking about the tier
and not the category. Got it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I'm sorry, because now we're not going
to be accomplishing building the housing that we need, instead we're
going to continue fostering more very, very low income. But that's up
to you guys.
Thank you, let's move on. Oh, no, we're going to go to lunch.
MR. OCHS: Back at 1 :00 p.m., ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
(Luncheon recess.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please take
your seats. The Chair is going to bring the meeting to order.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There she is.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 11.E on the agenda today. This is
a recommendation to award a request for proposals for roadway
lighting upgrade --
Page 100
March 22, 2016
MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Leo, I do have one registered speaker
for public comment.
MR. OCHS: Troy, I apologize.
MR. MILLER: I didn't know whether to jump in now or not.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Public comment on general topics.
MR. MILLER: Lisa Lefkow from -- go ahead.
MS. LEFKOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
this opportunity.
I wanted to just come over, I understand this morning there was
some conversation around affordable housing and the need for
affordable housing and just wanted to let you know some numbers that
we are seeing in our work at Habitat for Humanity. Of course you
know that we're serving clients that are making between 30 and 60
percent of the area median income. And what we have seen of course
over the last 15 to 18 months is a huge escalation in the number of
families coming to inquire whether they might not become partner
families.
So as I looked at some statistics in this morning, in a seven-month
period from the beginning of our fiscal year on July 1st through the
end of January we had already conducted more than 1,800
prequalifying interviews.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hate to interrupt you only for a second,
to tell you that we don't normally listen to anybody who's discussing
something we've just discussed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I'm sorry, because I had
Page 101
March 22, 2016
called them to get some numbers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, usually once we're done with it they
say we can't.
But being that it's you and being that Penny called you to come
over here, you can finish.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. LEFKOW: I appreciate that, thank you very much.
I do just want to clarify for you that that need is growing. And as
we're working with families, you know that our pace of building is 1
about 100 homes a year. That's what we're able to build with our
support, with support from the community. And we are hoping to be
able to increase that number, but we're clearly not even scraping the tip
of the iceberg.
Of those 1,850 families that are doing prequalifying interviews,
about 1,500 of them will bring back an application, and so we are
vetting each of those applications.
Now, perhaps part of the misunderstanding is that we do not keep
a waiting list, so we are not able to approve families unless we're able
to certainly build a house and provide transfer of property within about
an eight-month period. So we are reviewing and vetting applications
regularly. We either approve them or reject them if they are unable to
-- if we're unable to certainly say yes, we can complete a home within
the time frame.
So we do of course reject a large number of applications. Not
because they don't qualify. There are many, many hundreds of
qualifying applications. But they are unfortunately then encouraged to
come back at a later date and hopefully be able to compete in another
round.
So just wanted to let you know that we are indeed seeing
escalating numbers. We're seeing families living in atrocious
conditions. We have had the second family in six months out of the
Page 102
March 22, 2016
same converted garage with small children living in just very small
quarters. So --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Have you been buying more land -- have
you been buying any land at all in the Eastern Lands where the
construction and growth is about to take place? Are you preparing for
that so that people can get to their new jobs on time? They're going to
be needing a lot of people out there, and I don't know of any effort so
far that has been made to buy out in the Eastern Lands.
MS. LEFKOW: Yes, ma'am. We have actually in the last eight
months been purchasing scattered lots in Golden Gate Estates. So
that's exactly what we are doing. We have -- we'll be completing the
23rd home in the next couple of weeks in Golden Gate Estates. So we
have been indeed purchasing land --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In that new development that's going to be
going out there, they call it the Eastern Lands where they're going to be
building 4,000 homes, I believe it is or something like that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Rural lands west.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Rural lands west, yes. And I'd asked about
that before because I thought you ought to prepare -- while you could
still buy the land and everybody's always saying well, the land's too
expensive.
And I'm hoping to see that. I've been told that you have not, but
MS. LEFKOW: We do not have the financial wherewithal at this
moment to buy land that is not already zoned. So we're making sure
that the -- that we're a part of the conversation on the Eastern Lands
and the rural lands. Certainly we are very interested in what happens
there. We want to be a part of that, absolutely. I think your vision is
right, that that is going to be a prime location. But at this time we have
not purchased land anywhere.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, by that time -- well, you have
Page 103
March 22, 2016
purchased I know 140 acres right out here on the East Trail.
MS. LEFKOW: No, ma'am. 140 acres? No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 80 and 60?
MS. LEFKOW: Those are old purchases. So the 60 acres was
purchased many, many years ago. The 84 was purchased about two
years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'm just saying that you do have --
MS. LEFKOW: Yes, we do have lands still in the eastern area,
yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In the East Naples area.
MS. LEFKOW: Yes. And we are looking at -- you know, we're
under construction right now on a brand new neighborhood in North
Naples. We're very excited about that. That piece of property --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the one you got from the Quarry,
right?
MS. LEFKOW: That's correct, that was --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many homes can you build in there?
MS. LEFKOW: 55. So we are very much looking to diversify
locations, we're working very hard to do --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's very good, because we --
MS. LEFKOW: -- that. But what I want you to hear is that the
demand is great and getting greater. So simply because we do not
keep a waiting list, that does not mean that there is no demand. The
demand is extraordinary. And the living conditions that we're seeing
are also beyond the pale.
So thank you for discussing this important topic, thank you for
giving it your time and consideration and for hearing me out today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Penny Taylor, for --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I thank you for your
deferring. And I'll take that to note going forward. But thank you very
much, Madam Chair.
Page 104
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you very much.
Moving on.
Item #11E
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #15-6508, ROADWAY
LIGHTING UPGRADE TO LED LUMINAIRES TO APOLLO
METRO SOLUTIONS, INC. AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Now that we moved to 11.E, this is a
recommendation to award a contract for roadway lighting upgrades to
LED Luminaires for LED luminaires to Apollo Metro Solutions,
Incorporated, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
Jay Ahmad, your Transportation Engineering Division Director,
will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve and second.
I loved your speech; it was just great.
All in favor, signify by saying aye --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Wait a second. Hold on. I want to
say one thing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's a curmudgeon.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, no, no, no. Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. You have 30 seconds. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I want to tell you how excited I am
about this. And additionally, I think there's another benefit that we
haven't really gotten into but staff has indicated in this executive
summary that they're going to follow up on it, and that is to roll this
Page 105
March 22, 2016
together with considerations of dark sky lighting.
And when I say dark sky lighting, I want to just remind
Commission members that not only does dark sky lighting have
advantage in energy and maintenance cost, but it also has to do with
safety. And there's a lot of elements of that. In addition to the
environment a lot of times you'll see environmental advocates are the
ones who are advocating for dark skies, because there are a lot of
animal benefits and plant benefits into the natural world. But the
safety element should not be understated.
I think Jim Flanagan, my assistant, sent to you a letter that I sent
to the park service and Department of the Interior in support of Dark
Skies application of Big Cypress National Preserve down there. They
want to be the first national park entity to be Dark Sky certified. And I
think there's a lot of tangible and intangible benefits and economic and
noneconomic benefits of Dark Sky. So I certainly want to support this
and I look forward to having the opportunity to talk about dark skies
further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And would you just like to brag a little bit
and tell everybody, not only are you saving so much money but how
much extra lights will that allow you to put in with the extra money
saved? I read that.
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, my name is Jay Ahmad, for the
record. I'm the Director of Transportation Engineering Division.
This is a program of three years to replace our existing lights from
the high pressure sodium that you see out there to the LED.
To answer your question, it's going to depend on a budget and
how many we install in the first year. And if you see my presentation
a bit, it takes about seven to nine years to recover the cost of the initial
cost of-- you don't realize a savings immediately. Because we are
replacing an existing fixture with a new fixture. And that fixture didn't
need to be replaced and we're replacing with LED. So the energy cost
Page 106
March 22, 2016
savings is not instantaneous, although over the years we'll start seeing
it. Because it is an initial investment in replacing those LED fixtures --
the old fixtures with LED fixtures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I didn't even think about this
question until just now. I was talking to FDOT the other day about the
lights out at US 41 where they have no lights, no streetlights, but
they've got quite a few communities along there already.
And they had said that, you know, see us in a year and a half and
we'll talk about it. But when Secretary Hattaway rode out there, he said
oh, my goodness, we can't wait 18 months. He said, we've got to get
this done right now.
My question to you is will he be putting in those same kind of
lights and do they pay that bill or do we pay that bill?
MR. AHMAD: US 41, the section that you're talking about, and
you're absolutely correct, it is dark. We've been trying -- helping the
folks that have been coming to us with FDOT. FDOT is just like we
are, depending on the budget they are going to install lights.
They built that section of the roadway without streetlights. We're
talking east of 951 to Six L Farms near -- 29 to Marco.
They need a project, and their projects take time to initiate, to
design and construct. But they are not completely opposed. They
didn't say no. They are looking at their funding and just like we do and
they're going to consider that as an important project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're going to step that up, from what
they said.
I also took them for a ride from 951 going to Marco Island, and
there's that washboard road, you've heard me all discuss that.
Well, I took him for a ride there too. And he was ready to go, but
he acquiesced. When we started going on that road and he could see
the car tires, he said: This isn't the road, he said, this is the roadbed.
This needs to be fixed. He said, it's the only one in the State of Florida
Page 107
March 22, 2016
that he knows of that's like this. And he said there's water eroding all
the land underneath that road. They're going to have to dig that whole
thing up and fix it properly.
So I just thought I'd let you know what conversations went on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
All in favor signify by -- oh, are you done now?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are we going to put these on the
new roads under construction, the LED lights, or what's the status on
those? I know we've got a couple of new segments that we're building
at present. Is that going to include the new LED lights, or no?
MR. AHMAD: Absolutely, sir. As I -- in the statements that
were made in the executive summary, there's about 60 percent energy
savings. It's -- we're as excited as anyone about this RFP and your
approval of this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. Thank you.
Item #1 1 F
CODIFYING THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR THE
USE OF INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES FOR LUMP SUM, TIME
AND MATERIALS, AND/OR UNIT PRICE METHODOLOGIES
ON SPECIFIC BOARD APPROVED CONTRACTS - MOTION TO
Page 108
March 22, 2016
APPROVE AND ADD THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
SUGGESTION OF "QUANTUM MERUIT": ITEMS TO BE PUT
ON THE AGENDA AND STAFF TO MAKE THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE WORK WAS DONE IN A
WORKMAN-LIKE MANNER, AT A FAIR PRICE, AND
PAYMENT SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED, THE BOARD TO
REVIEW AND MAKE THAT FINDING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Commissioners, Item 11.F is a
recommendation to codify the Board's previous approval for the use of
industry best practices for lump sum time and materials and/or unit
price methodologies on specific Board approved contracts.
Ms. Markiewicz, your Procurement Services Division Director,
will present.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioners, I have a few comments
that I'd like you to consider. I stand before you one last time on this
item to try to get two small local fence contractors paid and indicate to
you that many other contractors are still not being paid.
We were notified last year by these two contractors that they
wished to terminate their contract with the county for nonpayment.
In January, in a unanimous vote, the Board suggested that I bring
back an amendment with lump sum language contained within it. I did
that, and the Board unanimously concurred and the contractors once
again thought they would get paid.
It is now March 22nd and the contractors still have not been paid.
Last week one of the contractors and I called the Clerk of Courts
finance manager and the three of us spoke about his payment. He
asked her again: What do I need to do to get paid?
She replied back to him that she needed a detailed invoice.
He told her again that he didn't have one and would not fabricate
one.
Page 109
March 22, 2016
I mentioned that we had given all that information to the Board as
well in the executive summary.
The manager replied back to him: Well, if you could just jot
down what you paid for the items that your company self-fabricated
for the job in-house, we would review it again and see if it was
reasonable.
He said back to her: You mean you are going to pay it?
She said back: Well, if it seems reasonable.
Commissioners, the contractors and the procurement staff have
honored their commitment and have performed as you have directed us
to perform. The two fence contractors deserve to be paid more than
$37,000 for work performed and actually accepted by the county.
Additionally, there are a number of other contractors who have
honored their commitments and who have been subjected to the same
type of a response when they present their invoice.
I would respectfully request two things from you: That if the
Clerk's position is that the Board cannot mutually amend these
contracts with performance for payment requirements after a
solicitation was issued, then the Board requests that the Clerk place
these invoices on the special interim report under miscellaneous
communication with a clearly articulated explanation for nonpayment
for the specific Board action so that you can determine its
reasonableness and its purpose validity.
And the second item, that the Board codify again its formal
approval of the amendments for all the master contracts.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance -- I mean Henning.
I'm looking at his name and everything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me try to get into that.
Wasn't you (sic) asking to allow you to do amendments to contracts?
Your write-up? I'm sorry, I was on a different item.
Page 110
March 22, 2016
MS. MARKIEWICZ: There were four items, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was your request?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: That you reaffirm the continued approval
for the use of the industry best practices of lump sum, time and
materials and unit price methodology; that you authorize the County
Manager or designee to execute the contracts; you require the Clerk to
pay invoices.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which contracts are you going
to execute?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: The lump sum that I have in the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those were previously approved
contracts that the Board approved?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: All of these contracts were previously
approved by the Board, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they won't be our contracts
anymore, they'll be staffs contracts.
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Sure it will be. If you're
asking to delegate for staff to amend the Board's contracts, it's not our
contract anymore.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Sir, all I'm asking you to do is to allow us
to sign those executed agreements. I've presented those to you and I've
presented to you the contract amendment language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So those contracts were bidded
correctly; is that correct?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were previously bided.
Like the fencing contract was bided for time and material; it was a time
and material contract.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: No, sir. Some had time and material
Page 111
March 22, 2016
language in it, some of them had lump sum, some of them had both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Like the fencing contract had --
it was bided out as a time and material.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir. The fence contract was time and
material, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So are you asking us to
waive our procurement ordinance on those that were already bidded
out a certain way?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: No, sir, I am not asking you to waive your
procurement ordinance. I'm asking for a mutually agreeable
amendment between the contractor and the county. And I believe the
County Attorney has opined, at least to staff, that that's acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll ask him here in
a minute.
So you're saying we went out to bid, we sent out on the street,
give us a -- your labor rate for your different people within the
organization and material cost and we'll give you a markup of-- I think
it was 25 percent or was this one 35 percent? It was one or the other.
Jeff, do we -- since this was bided out, shouldn't we be waiving
the procurement policy?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're going to ask me what the best
practice is on this, all right, my understanding is that we had an
invitation to bid here for a time and materials. We want to amend that
contract now to be lump sum. That was a Board approved contract.
My opinion of best practice is to have the Board amend its own
contract rather than staff amend the contract, or an alternative, the
executive summary could be that the Board direct staff to amend the
contract accordingly, all right. That would be the best practice.
I'm not sure, however, that that's the issue here. I'm still trying to
figure out with clarity why it is that the Clerk's not paying these things.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, again, maybe we
Page 112
March 22, 2016
weren't clear. The Board already acted to amend these contracts on
February 9th of 2016. You had that discussion, you had that item
presented, you took that action.
What we're saying to you is despite that action by the Board
there's been no change in the Clerk's position in terms of processing
those invoices for payment under the modification that the Board made
to those contracts.
Is that fair?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: That's correct. That's correct.
MR. OCHS: So we're back another time suggesting that in the
interest of trying to get some of these invoices moved, at least to the
Board for consideration, that despite the Board's previous action, if the
Clerk still doesn't want to process under the modified contract
language that this Board directed unanimously, that perhaps he would
bring those disputed payments forward so the Board can make some
decisions. Because right now they're basically in limbo, as I
understand it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So instead of what the
executive summary says, you're saying that you request maybe the
Chairman to ask the Clerk to present to the Board why these are not
being paid?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'll read the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you don't have to read it.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just based upon what you said,
you want the Clerk to come back to the Board and tell the Board why
he's not paying it.
Did I misunderstood what you said?
MR. OCHS: No, I want the Clerk to honor the Board's contract.
And if he chooses not to then I think it would be a good idea for him to
indicate that on a report so that the Board understands the reason for
Page 113
March 22, 2016
nonpayment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, he hasn't paid it --
MR. OCHS: So far, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as per action of the Board
asking for more information. So he's not going to pay it. So bottom
line is you want him to come back and tell us why.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the first thing is by
unanimous Board action we modified these agreements.
Jeff, was there a requirement that the modification be in writing?
I mean, do the contracts have a provision that say any modifications
will be in writing and signed by the parties?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sure there are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, it's the best practice anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
So to the extent that these were contracts under 50,000 --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Ma'am, these were in writing. The
amendments were done in writing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And signed by?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Signed by both parties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And staff signed on behalf of the
Board?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Correct, after you approved the item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then we will ratify that when
you bring it forward for payment.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Ma'am, you've already ratified that
amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. No, what we did is we
approved the amendment and we directed you to amend the contract
and execute on our behalf.
Page 114
March 22, 2016
And the Clerk refuses to acknowledge that these contracts have
been amended? Is that essentially what it is? I mean, he's pretending
like they're not fixed price contracts now and he's acting as though they
were still time and material?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or cost plus?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: -- has asked for details.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, what's the basis of him
asking for the details if they're fixed price contracts?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, the Clerk will ask for -- as
you so aptly pointed out at the last meeting, we need to get sufficient
information to determine the legality of payment. Since these
contracts were awarded as time and materials, we're asking for the
sufficient backup to determine that.
Now, if a vendor has stated that they do not have that type of
detail available, even though they had signed a time and materials
agreement, I'm certain that we can look at something to determine the
validity of their pricing or that county staff may have some estimated
pricing by which they determine that the estimate was reasonable and
their approval to pay.
So we routinely ask for that additional backup, and that's what
we've continued to ask on both of the fencing contractors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, you've answered the
question by saying that the Clerk is refusing to acknowledge the
modification of these contracts by the Board. The Board unanimously
voted to modify these contracts and make them fixed price agreements,
which means there is a stated price that will be paid for a specific good
or service. If the goods and services were provided and the Board says
that we're going to pay 10,000, then 10,000 is what needs to be paid if
in fact those goods and services were provided. I mean, this is not a
cost plus agreement.
Page 115
March 22, 2016
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, we're not refusing to
recognize your amendment, we are asking for additional information in
sufficient detail to determine the legality of the payment. And we
continue to ask for that. I'll be glad to meet with the vendor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That doesn't -- go ahead, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding of lump sum, and Crystal,
correct me if I'm wrong as far as your function goes, is that staff will
bid out a job, it will get the lowest bid, then staff will certify that the
job has been done to its satisfaction. All right?
What else do you need? I mean, it doesn't matter if the guy takes
four hours to do it or eight hours or 12 hours to do it, I mean, it was a
lump sum contract.
MS. KINZEL: We audit to the contract in the agreement and
we're looking for some --
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me ask you a question. Is there anything
in the agreements that were amended that are still giving you some
pause?
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What?
MR. KLATZKOW: What?
MS. KINZEL: We would like -- okay, there is a specific statute,
Jeff, that we brought to your attention on numerous occasions. The
Board can't retroactive -- after you have bid a job or you have agreed
to make payments under certain terms and conditions, you cannot
agree to pay more for those services or goods.
We are looking for some backup to what the initial agreed upon
price was to determine that these subsequent lump sum waiver or
whatever was transacted between staff is reasonable to the original cost
that was agreed to by both parties in a contract. And we continue to
ask for that backup.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the statute, Jeff? What
Page 116
March 22, 2016
statute are you referring to, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: 215 I think it's 425.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 215.425?
MS. KINZEL: It's the additional compensations statute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you pull that statute, please? I
mean, essentially --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Crystal is talking about original, but
you're talking about --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think what Crystal is saying is this --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the modified; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think what Crystal is saying, and Crystal,
correct me if I have you wrong. What you're saying is that a vendor
did a particular job under a time and materials, okay. At this point in
time he's billing us as if it was lump sum. But at the time he did it it
was as time and materials. So that what you want to do is see some
backup so that the lump sum is substantially equivalent to the time and
materials?
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if he doesn't have that backup, what --
MS. KINZEL: Then we can work with him to determine some
sort of pricing or reasonableness. We'll be glad to work with the
vendor.
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you be glad to work on a quantum
meruit basis? I mean, the work has been done; staff has signed off on
it.
MS. KINZEL: That's a legal determination.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is your determination. I mean,
we're trying to get these vendors paid, ma'am. I'm trying to figure out
-- I'm simply trying to figure out a methodology to get these people
who did the work paid in a proper manner.
MS. KINZEL: I believe quantum meruit's one of your options,
Page 117
March 22, 2016
yes.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this statute, I'm no lawyer, but it
seems to be based around compensation for employees or contracted
employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I read the statute?
MR. OCHS: It's right there, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the definition of
contractor? Because I looked at the whole statute 215, there is no
determination or definition for contractor. So you have to take the
literal word of what contractor means.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is that? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Contractor?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, what is the literal word?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody that you have
authorized to do work for you or provide a service to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That fits this, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Contractor?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And that's what we're
looking at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, but isn't that what we voted on, to
hire that contractor and pay him?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says no extra compensation
shall be made to any officer, agent, employee or contractor after the
service has been rendered or the contract is made. Okay?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's just not making any sense to
me. How can that possibly be? If conditions change, how can -- I
think this law is being misapplied somehow.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
Page 118
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is ridiculous.
MR. OCHS: This is about employment issues.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, this does not apply to this
circumstance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you scroll up a little further? I
want to continue reading to the bottom of it.
MR. OCHS: Well, there's a second page as well, but it talks
about employee bonuses, severance pay, Workers' Compensation.
Next page, accrued annual sick leave, retirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is for a contract, like you're a
contract employee.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I think you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're the contractor --
MR. OCHS: -- can see what it's really intended for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You and Jeff are both contractors.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, I agree with the County
Manager, I don't know what this has to do with this particular item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has nothing to do with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: But again, at the end of the day, if the
Clerk's going to take a legal position, unless you want to go to court
over it, and I would not recommend that, it's a pointless conversation.
I'm just trying to get from Crystal what it is that staff has to do to
get these vendors paid, period. Rather than say no, no, no, no, no,
what can staff do to get a yes? That's all I want. And I haven't heard
anything.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Fiala, I've said it at least
several times, we need detail from the contractor sufficient on his
costing to determine a reasonableness of the expenditure, which goes
to the legality of an expenditure. So I've asked and asked. I don't
know any other way to say they bid the contract based on time and
materials. They know what their time was on the job and they know
Page 119
March 22, 2016
what the materials were used. It was a fencing job.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but I'm going to tell you is what's
going to happen. These people are going to start making up
documents so they can get paid and the next thing you know they'll be
called for fraud for making up documents.
MS. KINZEL: And no one has ever requested that anyone falsify
documents.
MR. KLATZKOW: I never said you did. I'm just saying it's
human nature. If they want to get paid they're going to start making
stuff up. I mean, I don't know what to tell you.
At the end of the day if these contractors sued us in court, I have
little doubt what would happen there. But they don't have the
wherewithal to do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But if the contract wasn't time and
materials anymore, if it was changed, then what is in effect? I mean,
they want to get paid by the original contract, time and materials,
although that wasn't in effect when they did the job. But what is -- I
mean, what is in effect legally?
MR. OCHS: You have executed modified contracts in place
based on the Board's prior direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. OCHS: Apparently they're not being acknowledged.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow, and we did it,
okay, but it did occur to me, can we modify a contract from time and
materials to lump sum if the contract was bid under time and
materials?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I think the issue here isn't that. And
Crystal can correct me if I'm wrong. On a going forward basis I don't
know that the Clerk would have an issue with work being performed. I
Page 120
ill
March 22, 2016
think it's trying to do the work that's already been performed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. But what I'm saying is,
you know, I bid a job and it's time and materials and I'm the best one,
I'm selected out of five because they did time and materials. But
maybe if I had bid under lump sum I wouldn't have been selected.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying. I think the
only reason staff would do that is if as a practical matter they couldn't
get the work done time and materials, in which case my suggestion to
them, they would rebid this out, put it back on the street and in the
interim do what you can to get the work done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. But what I'm saying is,
can we as a Board, we as a Board, can we amend a contract that was
bid under one way --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We can?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It has to come to you. The staff can't
do it, okay. It's going to have to come to you. You'll have to make the
determination.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have the authority.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got the authority to do -- you've got
the authority to waive your purchasing ordinance at any time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, okay.
MR. OCHS: We've already done it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I knew we did it. I just was
thinking about the ethical part of it for the bidders. But then you have
the people that need to get paid and there's another issue with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we waived the procurement
ordinance when we did this mass --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, we didn't. We amended their
contracts. We didn't waive any ordinance.
Page 121
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENN ING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, if you have a contract
that's bid and it's let as a fixed price contract from the get-go, what
evidence would you ask the contractor for to satisfy yourself?
MS. KINZEL: It would depend on the terms that are articulated,
even in a fixed price contract. Usually with a fixed price contract you
might have engineering determining milestones or points to which you
would make payment. So it would depend on the payment schedule of
a fixed term contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, let's make it really simple --
MS. KINZEL: I'm not going to go over every hypothetical,
Commissioner, I don't know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, this is what I would like to
know. Someone's going to build a fence, they build a fence, we're
going to pay $10,000 for a 200-yard fence. They build it, it's done,
contract says you get $10,000 if you build it. They do it.
What evidence are you going to ask for to support payment?
MS. KINZEL: We would look for staff approval, we would look
for this Board's approval, we would look for determination that it
meets a valid public purpose and we would look to see that the work is
completed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what kind of documentary
evidence would you ask them to support that they constructed this
200-yard fence?
MS. KINZEL: I would probably look first to their solicitation
methodology to make sure that the solicitation was appropriately
managed. But for building the fence, if it's a 200-foot fence for
$10,000 and those were the only terms of the agreement, that's what I
would look for: Is there a fence of that size, was it constructed and has
staff approved the invoice as well as this Board approving valid public
Page 122
March 22, 2016
purpose and the invoice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then you would pay the
$10,000?
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You wouldn't ask them for
underlying evidence of what material -- you know, the cost of their
materials or the hours to complete that project, correct?
MS. KINZEL: Not if it was solicited otherwise, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So your issue is merely because in
this particular instance it was solicited originally as time and materials,
you want to see that underlying evidence of what the time and
materials was to support the switch to fixed price to ensure that we're
actually not paying more than what it would have been under the time
and materials?
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Were there cost overruns on
these projects? I mean, did you -- what was your budgeted amount?
What did you estimate the cost of this project to be for the fences?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Well, there's probably eight or nine
different projects, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let's just take the fence as an
example. Take one of the fence contractors.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: One of them was as low as $842.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just take the one that's $842.
What was the --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Were there cost overruns?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I mean, was the -- did you
expect that it was going to cost about that much? Was that originally
what the contractor proposed, that it was going to be so many hours
and that much material --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, they were quote-based
Page 123
March 22, 2016
contracts. In other words, the vendor went out and said before we start
it's about $800 to do this job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so the fixed price is
approximately --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the POs were issued as lump sum
under the contract. You need a little history to get you to today
without being argumentative with either parties.
The Clerk had been paying these all along. Tensions escalated,
everybody started digging under the contracts. Then a literal
interpretation to the back end of the contracts was this clause about
providing time and materials analysis. It was not always intended to
be time and materials, it was intended to be lump sum. But as Crystal
and I talked and they said we are now interpreting contracts
black-and-white, so this fence contractor and these other contractors
were being paid under a lump sum for a period of time until, I would
say, tensions escalated. And then it went to a literal interpretation of
contracts.
So we said recognizing that, that we're going to modify these
contracts going forward, let's amend this contract to clean this thing up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, I mean, we're the people --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let him finish.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- we're the body that makes the
contract, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, how does he interpret
what's in our head?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't explain that. But I can tell you
the intent was when we brought the lump sum and time and materials
and fixed price amendment forward was to say recognizing you've read
this contract black-and-white, now even though six months before they
were getting paid, we'll agree that there's a little bit of ambiguity here.
Page 124
March 22, 2016
Let's clean it up.
So that was brought forward, figuring this would help this out.
Their I guess interpretation is that you can't amend it, but you
were paying it all along and then at a certain point in time you said
we're not going to do this anymore. So now there's this limbo period
over the last six months where these contractors say we've been getting
paid under a standard practice, we're not getting paid anymore and
we're being asked to provide this information. And in the case of the
fence companies, the person says some of this stuff is stock or
manufactured, I have no backup to give you. And so he's in that
dilemma.
Going forward, you know, our goal would be to work with
Joanne and work with the Clerk's Office and come up with new
solicitations at that point in time that clarify even further so it's not an
amendment as a new contract.
But that still puts you in limbo for this period of time from when
the new interpretation of the contract till today where they're not
getting paid.
So the last recommendation on your executive summary, or
second to last, where I said put it on the Board agenda, articulate why.
I think your articulation would be that you -- there was no backup
available and you believe you can't amend the contract. Let the Board
decide to pay these things if they find that there's value in each one of
those, and then move on going forward.
But we're in limbo right now where there appears to be no way to
get to the end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you a question, Nick?
You said that these contracts were intended as fixed price contracts,
but there was one provision in the contract that provided for time and
materials backup?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're all a little different. They
Page 125
March 22, 2016
allow them to be lump sum, fixed price and time and materials. And
she's got several --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They allow them -- the contracts
provide for any option of the three?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they're all different to a certain
extent. And that's why this language was added to each one of those.
So some of those allowed for a lump sum or a quote but referenced a
time and materials not to exceed.
The idea behind time and materials not to exceed was never
meant for the lump sum contracts, because I'll tell you, they can't make
money on a five percent margin. Industry practice is probably between
15 and 20 percent. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was the Clerk asking for the time
and materials backup before --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- on these fixed price?
So essentially what you're telling me is the Clerk made illegal
payments? Because all of a sudden if he's not making payment now
without this evidence, when he was making payment without that
evidence, was he engaging in making improper payments?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I'm not going to speculate.
What I will tell you is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I mean it's a valid question,
right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not for me. That would be for
someone else to answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, because you can't --
under the same facts and circumstances to suddenly now say that it's
wrong, having had a history of making payment without that evidence
Page 126
March 22, 2016
on these kind of contracts, puts into question what he's been doing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not going to speculate. I can tell
you this: That the vendors were getting paid. And as the contracts
were brought up and discussions came about, it was we're going to
interpret the contract to mean this.
And sat with Joanne, reviewed some of the contracts, said you
could make that finding but it was not being applied in the past. So if
you're going to make that finding going forward, the only way to fix
that is to amend the contract. And then obviously discussion ensued as
a little earlier today, you can't amend these contracts based on this
interpretation of the Florida Statute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So essentially he's admitting that
he improperly audited all the previous payments made, and that he
failed to obtain the evidence but authorized payment notwithstanding.
Advanced it to us. We relied allegedly detrimentally on his improper
audit and we said yes, go ahead and make payment.
And so all these prior payments, I mean, obviously have to be as
improper as whatever is being proposed now. I mean, we can't treat
identical facts and circumstances differently.
I mean, is that the case, Crystal? It sounds to me like you guys
made a big mistake.
MS. KINZEL: No. Commissioner Hiller, you know, it never
ceases to amaze me that somehow with poor contracting vendors being
bid and solicited as time and materials and failing to function that way
that somehow it evolves to become a Clerk's issue in audit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is a Clerk's issue.
MS. KINZEL: No. We have looked at the contracts as written.
There were conflicting language. As your own staff has pointed out,
there was conflicting language.
Yes, we sometimes interpret clauses and we review each
circumstance, because none of these contracts are similar. A lot of
Page 127
March 22, 2016
them have different language, different terms and conditions, different
time frames, and we're responsible for looking at each and every one of
those. So we may look at a contract based on the circumstances of that
contract and make a determination on the facts before us. That's the
audit function.
So to sit and try to say that this is a Clerk's error somehow, when
the language of these contracts was conflicting at best, you know, no,
we did not make a mistake.
MR. KLATZKOW: Crystal, if staff would certify that each and
every one of these particular jobs was done in a workmanlike manner
to the satisfaction and that it was done in a financially appropriate
manner, fair market value and takes that to the Board so the Board can
review it and then the Board, you know, makes that finding and it's for
a proper legal purpose -- public purpose, would you pay then?
MS. KINZEL: Jeff, I think we really need to see some evidence
or documentation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then they're never going to get paid.
MS. KINZEL: Staff approving and attesting to invoices whether
or not the work is even done is imprudent.
MR. KLATZKOW: We've already established that the vendors
don't have the backup because they've been working as if this was
lump sum.
MS. KINZEL: And I have said we will sit with the contractors
and we will look at what evidence they have. Obviously they know
what fencing costs per square foot.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're going around and around and around
and around now.
MS. KINZEL: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: What you've been told is that -- what you've
been told is staff was treating this as if it was a lump sum. Okay, we
can go back and forth whether that was appropriate.
Page 128
March 22, 2016
We've also said that you've paid these in the past. We can talk
about whether that's appropriate. It doesn't matter. At this point in
time there is no backup documentation because the parties' custom was
to treat this as lump sum. So you can ask the vendors for all the
backup you want, they don't have it.
So the only question is how do we get them paid at this point in
time?
MS. KINZEL: So you don't believe that a fencing vendor would
have the price that they charge for a certain amount of fencing by
square foot, linear foot, whatever the measurement is on fencing?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking --
MS. KINZEL: You don't believe that they would have pricing?
MR. KLATZKOW: -- them to make this stuff up on a job-by-job
basis.
MS. KINZEL: No, I'm not asking that they make it up --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I have asked for that --
MS. KINZEL: -- I'm asking that they come to us and we will
work with them to resolve the invoicing. That's a simple request.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I have asked them for that. They do not
have that. It was asked again this week. The fence contractor told the
accounts payable office that they do not have it. They asked whether
or not they should make it up. Everybody said no on the phone. He
doesn't have it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are we talking -- and I hesitate
jumping into this fray, but as a business person, you're telling me this
is what -- that I don't know what it costs to buy, let's just take for a
discussion, film? I don't know what it cost? I don't even know what it
cost to print a picture or to get a reproduction of something? So
therefore if I did a job back then where I produced, and I did, and I
don't have that detail, you're telling me that I don't know that? I know
that. I'm a business person. It's my job. If I don't know the cost of my
Page 129
March 22, 2016
products and the cost of what it takes to do things, I go out of business.
Of course they know that.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Ma'am, what I'm saying is he cannot
produce a detailed invoice for a Collier County fencing project.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think that's what she's
asking for. What she's saying is come to me and tell me, okay, Penny
Taylor, you're taking 30 photographs. What is it going to cost?
I don't have a receipt on it.
Okay, but what is it going to cost to do that? Does this
correspond with the product part of what we're billing?
I mean, I think that's what you're asking for, not real time.
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: She doesn't want real time. What
she says is you're a professional, what are your costs, come and talk to
me, we'll get it paid.
MR. OCHS: And what's the basis for that request if it's a lump
sum quote contract?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, my gosh, that's technicality.
Then we go right back. We're going around in a circle like this fight,
this ridiculous childish fight here.
MR. OCHS: Well, no, ma'am, if--
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It is, if-- we have a solution. Get
the vendor in, talk to her -- the vendor talks about the costs, what his
cost of business is. He knows that, he's a professional.
MR. OCHS: The Board already solved it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh.
MR. OCHS: You did, ma'am. You modified the contracts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it's not accepted, apparently.
MR. OCHS: What does that mean it's not accepted? It's either
legally modified or it's not. And your County Attorney told you, you
can modify your agreement.
Page 130
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So what's the alternative? Okay,
you don't know. I do. Get the vendor in and talk to her. And then if
we still have a donnybrook, then we have to deal with other things.
We have to take them to court. We have to --
MR. OCHS: Our recommendation was present -- have the Clerk
present the invoices with an explanation of why they're not being paid
and the Board can make a determination.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, is that -- Jeff?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me call on her.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: And let me just say, that worked real well for us
for Gillig, because that's exactly what we tried to do. We had a
dispute, we brought forward those types of items related to the bus, we
brought the discrepancies to the Board, and the Board by majority
refused to even okay it, approve it or look at it. So, you know, it is
kind of circular.
We've given you an alternative to which we will review the
invoices and audit to the determination of legality of that payment. I've
given you that option and if you don't -- you know.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for clarity, because I'll work with
Joanne and the vendor. So if I sit with the vendor and he says:
Provided you 800 feet of fence and my average cost and labor rate is
this, and these are averages, and you asked to do this work on a
weekend or it needed to be a three-day rush job. So as the market
allows, as you know, someone calls you up for a photography --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- project and says --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right, it all goes into --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- I want you here this weekend and
you go, okay.
Page 131
March 22, 2016
So if all those factors come in and he says this is roughly what I
spent, this is roughly my materials, you've asked to do this work in this
location, it's a slope, I had to do this X, Y and Z, I think this is
reasonable, is that what you want?
MS. KINZEL: Let's have that discussion with the vendor. Right,
yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I need more --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But is that what you want?
MS. KINZEL: That's what we think is --
MR. KLATZKOW: You already have it, though.
MS. KINZEL: -- a possible solution.
MR. KLATZKOW: When the vendor submitted his bid he gave
you all that information.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that information recorded?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You know, this is government
administration at its absolute worst. I don't know how anybody can
possibly make something like purchasing or run a fence quite this
complicated. It's not rocket science. This idea that this discussion over
dotting I's and crossing T's on something this fundamental of a service
of this sort is -- it's absolutely bizarre to suggest that there's any money
to be saved, there's any public benefit, there's any benefit being
accrued to anybody or anybody's being protected or anything else.
All we're doing is putting these small vendors out of business by
making them do hundreds of dollars of administration on something --
it's just going to certainly ensure that these people are going to lose
money on these projects. They don't have the personal time to engage
in this sort of nonsense to prove what went on. They just were asked
to build a fence, they built a fence. We took a fence. We took
possession of the item. I don't know what to tell you. I think --
Page 132
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, something came up here.
Just forgive me, because our County Attorney said that that
information was given when they bid on it. Is that information
retained when the bid was accepted?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Absolutely, ma'am. That's in the financial
system.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so then can you audit
against that?
MR. KLATZKOW: The only unknown is the number of hours.
We know what their cost of fencing is and everything else. We don't
know how many hours it would take.
MR. OCHS: We'll tell you what we know.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is an example of one of the
estimates that came in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you make it a little bit bigger
so we can see the writing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So it says external key pad for
Caxambus Park is the job title. Talks about a keypad at $400 in the
quote, talks about a gooseneck, aluminum for the telephone entry, a
power supply for 125, concrete pad to mount the gooseneck at $150.
That was the estimate that we received. So it all seems fairly
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What's the total? When you get
done, what are we talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: About $1,100 on this one.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: 1,100 bucks. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go to the next page. What does the
next page say?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, this is -- I'm going to go to the
invoice now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's on the next page of that
Page 133
March 22, 2016
particular bid?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Continue to the next page.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's estimate. So based on --
MR. OCHS: It's a balance of the estimate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the balance of the
estimate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's $1,100, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: It's $1,100.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's put it up there. I want
everyone to see this full invoice. I mean, it's clearly so far a fixed price
invoice.
Go to Page 2?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is Page 2, and it just basically
continues --
MR. OCHS: There it is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it says 1,125. So it talks about a
concrete pad and work. It doesn't give an hourly rate because
remember --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not -- that's a fixed price
contract. That's as fixed price as it comes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And this is the invoice.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's an invoice or an estimate?
Oh, it's the invoice.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the invoice that came with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it matches the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Matches the estimate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it matches the estimate. And
it's exactly the same and it's a fixed price.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can imagine asking the vendor
when you're looking at this to say well, break this down even more.
And he's going to go, so do I need to find a copy --
Page 134
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we accepted this. We
accepted the bid.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it was deemed to be the best
possible price for this particular project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, reasonable quote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a fixed price contract.
And what do you want for this, Crystal? What kind of evidence
do you want for this invoice?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, I've not reviewed this
particular invoice so I'm not going to make that determination right
now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, in your professional
opinion you wouldn't rely just on this if they produced everything that's
in here as what you should be paying? I mean, if staff verifies that this
was done and you go out or you look at the photograph that staff sent
you that shows that all of this stuff was installed, you're not satisfied
with that as evidence that they've completed under the terms of this
contract? I mean, you're not going to ask for backup of hours and
material costs on this, are you?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They're not charging it, are they?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a fixed price contract.
MS. KINZEL: I'm just a little confused by this one, because it
seems to continue to say proposal, even though it's an invoice and there
does not appear to be any installation. So I'm not sure if this was a
portion of the proposal or the actual invoice we received. So I'm just
hesitant to comment without having researched this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyway, if this is the example of
what the rest of the invoices are like -- is that how the rest of them are?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not going to -- this is one of the
ones I looked at. They're all a little different, but --
Page 135
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if I looked at that, if I was
going to pay that, it looks like the labor is included with the product.
Each product is listed with the labor included.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that's what that proposal says.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what it says. It says --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's rolled in, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't say --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now to say the backup to tie it all back
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not how it works.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- you can see where his dilemma is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. That's not a cost plus
agreement, it's a fixed price agreement. This is so basic.
MR. OCHS: The dates on those were October of 2014, I believe.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: October of 2014?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it still hasn't been paid? It still
hasn't been paid?
MR. OCHS: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you know why that hasn't been paid,
Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. No, wait a minute. We didn't
even start talking about the lump sum 'til the end of last year. So to go
back to in October of 2014, I would have to research what this
document even is. They've obviously pulled an example from some
file. I'm not familiar with it, I have not reviewed it, and I'll be glad to
go back and do that. But, you know, there are a variety of reasons that
it may or may not be paid, including staff approval and including staff
validation of the work being done.
MR. OCHS: We're just trying to give you a sense of the scope of
the projects here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When we have something -- this is two
Page 136
March 22, 2016
years old, well a year and a half old, do we pay -- being that we haven't
paid them any dollars, do we pay them interest on what we owe or
some kind of a fee, or they're just stuck carrying that on their own
books and they have no reimbursement for all of the time and effort
that they have to go through? We don't pay them anything?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Leo, can you make that bigger?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: No, ma'am. And this report I pulled at the
end of last week. These are the two fence contractors and these are the
amounts that are owed.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The totals, ma'am, and these
amounts that are above the totals there, those are the different amounts
of different projects that were performed for the county?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are these the two that have said they'll
never work for the county again?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the other, Carter Fence --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me get an answer to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: They wanted their contracts terminated
and they've indicated that they will do no more time and material work
for the county, only lump sum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who are the two vendors? Carter
MR. OCHS: Blue (sic), Inc. you see on the top, and then the
bottom one is Carter Fence Company -- or excuse me, BUE, Inc.
B-U-E.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: BUE doing business as I think it's Gates
Work.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Fiala, could I add to this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Page 137
March 22, 2016
MS. KINZEL: For example, on Carter Fence, when we got to
year end last year we had not received invoices from Carter Fence on a
project that was partially completed. We actually initiated the call
back to the department and said, what's going on with Carter Fencing?
Because we're coming up to year end and this project doesn't appear to
be completed or done.
The response we got was: Based on what happened to BQ,
they're afraid to submit invoices to you.
And I said: Really?
Now, that's Carter Fence, for example, specifically to one of your
departments. So to imply that our delays from 2014 are associated
with Clerk action or inaction would be incorrect, particularly with
Carter Fence that I'm specifically aware of the circumstances.
So I'll be glad to look at each one of these examples. And as I
said, we will sit down with the vendor, as Nick has laid out. That
would work with us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll ask to put the invoice back up.
Because here's the dilemma you're going to have with this invoice.
Do you have a copy of it, Joanne?
MR. OCHS: Which one?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The invoice, the one you just showed,
the total amount.
MR. OCHS: Which one?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The one we just had, which was the
1,125. The one that was 1,125.
It talks about for a price of 125 they list a keypad and a concrete
pad. I don't know what they would provide you in terms of backup.
When they say pad, concrete pad to mount gooseneck, meets all state
and county codes, $150.
So they got concrete from somewhere, they spent a couple hours
probably putting that concrete in.
Page 138
March 22, 2016
What would I ask of them to do that, where did you buy the bags
of concrete, tell me how many hours you worked there? This is the
dilemma I think you get into when you sit down with the contractor
when you've been progressing with these things with a quote and then
an invoice that matches but now you're being asked to explain a little
bit more of these.
And I'm not saying each one of these is applicable, because there
may be good reasons on some of the other contracts to dig a little
deeper. But one as simple as this you say Mr. Vendor, I don't know
what I'd be asking you for. Where did you buy the pads, where did
you buy these controller boxes? You know, that's the dilemma.
Because they were getting paid lump sum. Now they're being asked to
find out if they pulled something off the shelf, when did they purchase
it from their OEM supplier.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Crystal, you can answer.
MS. KINZEL: You know, Commissioners, we can belabor this.
Here's what I would say. No, their contract was a time and materials
contract. They should have been prepared at any point in time to
justify the cost for which they were invoicing.
I've repeated, I was not aware of this particular invoice as an
example. I'll be glad to go back and look at the invoice in particular as
an example, but I'm not able to even comment on the validity of why
or why not, why was this invoice not paid.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Crystal, this is the last I'll say, because
I don't want to get into rhetoric. I think there's a way out of it.
They were being paid under a certain format before. But we went
to a literal interpretation of the contract where now they're saying they
should have the materials handy. So call it a six-month period that we
started looking at these contracts differently.
There's a limbo period. So I would suggest you put these on an
agenda item, you explain that they were paid before, the contract had a
Page 139
March 22, 2016
section that conflicted, that its application is being applied differently
now, and go forward and amend these contracts going forward and
clear these out.
Because I don't think there's a way, once you were doing it in a
certain process to now change the process on these guys and ask them
to kind of find out and make up or create backup that will get them to
that point.
MS. KINZEL: And I can't say enough on the record we have
never ever asked anyone to create or falsify or submit fake documents
to substantiate their costs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't suggest that.
MS. KINZEL: Well, yeah, you somewhat did, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hold on, hold on.
They'll have to go back to their logs and say, well, we think we
were there three hours putting this in and our labor rate's 12.50 an
hour. That doesn't make any sense.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What you're saying is the rules changed in
the middle of these contracts and so they weren't prepared to do it that
way because the rules had changed since then. Is that what you're
trying to say?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that what you understand, Crystal, too?
MS. KINZEL: I understand that's what they're saying. I'm not
saying that was the circumstance for not paying Carter Fence. No. Or
BUE.
And I'll be glad to look at the particulars of each and every
invoice. We've given you potential solutions, several of them legally.
The Board -- you take what action and the Clerk will review it.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, let's not lose sight over the fact that
when this what we deem a change in the way the contracts were
processed for payment, we came to you and asked you and proposed
Page 140
March 22, 2016
this solution. You implemented it. Your County Attorney told you,
you have the legal authority to modify your contracts the way you've
modified them. They've been executed as you directed.
The problem here as I see it is the Clerk's Office has not honored
that amendment because they believe I guess under that other statute
that we put it before that that conflicts some way with your action.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So there's nothing we can do, sir.
If the Clerk simply does not accept the actions of the Board of County
Commission, there's not a thing we can do, is there?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Take them to court.
MR. OCHS: Court.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, we're not going to take them to
court. That's ridiculous. This is never going to end. We're spending
dollars chasing nickels.
I don't see how you can possibly ask somebody for additional
information on a $500 job that he did a year and a half ago when a guy
out there is working out there all day every day. He probably did it
with leftover materials at a request to somebody because something
got broken. He's not going to be able to give you detail on what he
paid for the materials he used. This is un-- it's not possible. It's not
physically problem. I don't know --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we just leave these guys go unpaid
and -- I don't know what to do about this. I just -- I wish we could give
some guidance.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, you did. You took the action to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but it didn't work.
MR. OCHS: -- modify the agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I know, but apparently it didn't
work. What do we do now?
You know, Crystal said one time --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ask the County Attorney.
Page 141
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to make a motion that we
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait just a minute. Let me say this:
Crystal said to me one time, she said, you know, I think we can really
work this out. She said, if you just let Nick and I work on this
together.
Didn't you say that, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She said: We could work this out.
Would that be something that would be acceptable?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, that section --
MR. OCHS: She can work it out with me, ma'am.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That section of the contract or the
recommendation where I said if you come to a disagreement, clearly
articulate it and put it on the agenda. I added that language in
discussions with the County Manager, Joanne and Jeff saying if we get
to the point where the backup's not there, then let's just say the
backup's not there, you got a quote, you got an invoice, the work was
done, list them on the agenda and ask the Board to approve those
specifically. Because you're at a stalemate now.
MR. OCHS: And that's despite the fact that your modified
contracts don't require that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, Clerk -- I mean, County
Attorney? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What can we do legally in this
matter?
MR. KLATZKOW: I used this word before, I'm flummoxed on
this. Because I've asked many times what is it that we need to do to
get paid and I still don't have a path to that.
Page 142
March 22, 2016
I mean, my suggestion was quantum meruit, that we put these on
the agenda that -- you know, staff make the recommendation that the
work was done in a workmanlike manner and that it was a fair price
and that payment should be authorized, the Board review that and
make that finding.
I still don't know if it will get paid. I don't know.
Would that get paid on that?
MS. KINZEL: Jeff, I clearly stated that that was one of your
options, I believe.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, then fine, you are now on record,
okay? So my suggestion, gentlemen, is that you do just that, okay?
Invoice by invoice, all right, make the determination that the work was
done in a reasonable manner, acceptable manner, that the price was
acceptable and fair, take it to the Board for the Board to review, and if
the Clerk doesn't pay it again, I don't know what to tell you because
she just said she would.
MS. KINZEL: Well, wait a minute, Jeff, I can't predetermine
every invoice I've not even seen --
MR. KLATZKOW: And now she won't.
MS. KINZEL: -- nor has it been identified.
What I have said is quantum meruit is one of your legal reliefs.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that's what --
MS. KINZEL: When we see the list of invoices we will make
that determination.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that's we'll bring to you. But if you're
going to ask for backup on quantum meruit, then I am beside myself.
MS. KINZEL: And no one has said that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think we ought to take a full page
ad out in the Naples Daily News every week listing the invoices that
the Board has approved for payment that the Clerk won't pay and ask
any citizen in Collier County that might have some mystical
Page 143
March 22, 2016
information that might be able to deliver to the Clerk that would cause
them to pay the invoice and just tell them to please come to the county
government center and tell us what information so we can forward it to
the Clerk. How about that?
I mean, there's no answer. This is an insoluble problem. I don't
think there's anything we can do or any action that we can take to make
the Clerk do his job. He is the poster child for dysfunction. I'm sorry,
I'm done.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I need to respond to that.
Because Commissioner Nance, there's one very important thing
you could do and that's when these contracts are bid and let they
should not have conflicting documentation. You should not have to
retroactively waive every contract in Collier County so it's no longer
ambiguous. That means you have a procurement issue, and that is
where this starts. The clarity in your procurement is critical.
MR. KLATZKOW: This started when you changed your practice
on payment. That's when this started. Because everybody had a
certain custom on getting this paid, a certain custom on getting this
billed and then you guys decided to change the rules.
MR. OCHS: If you would like us to produce evidence that these
have been paid for years as lump sum agreements, we can certainly do
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please do so. You should.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know what else to do. Crystal says
no, but Leo says he can produce the evidence to prove it. Where do we
go from here?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: There's a whole staff of people in
the Clerk's Office that are running around trying to find some detail to
not pay these invoices. Because there's no substantial public benefit
here. Are we really going to save any money? We're spending tens of
thousands of dollars on staff time running around trying to do I don't
Page 144
March 22, 2016
know what.
I don't know how people think we're saving money here, how
we're protecting the public good or the public interest. The
administrative costs on this are absolutely through the roof. I don't
know what the cost of these little 1,500 and $2,000 fence contracts
have become, but clearly we spent more money chasing them around
in a circle than we paid for the service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How much do we pay for the service?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, a $2,000 fence. I mean, how
much staff time have we spent trying to produce, you know, ticker
tapes or receipts or something trying to chase around a $2,000 job?
The guy probably made 200 bucks. Okay, clearly his little profit
margin has been lost a long time ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know what to do.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I apologize for taking up more time
maybe than we should have on this, but we're just trying to get --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is critical. We have --
MR. OCHS: -- some vendors paid. But we're done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This deserves all the time it takes
to resolve. We've got small businesses who are not getting paid. This
is their livelihood. It is worth every minute that we are investing here,
because these people deserve to be paid, should be paid and they are
hurting as businesses because they're not paid.
This is the most anti-business issue I have seen. There's an
argument that Collier government isn't good to our local businesses.
This is it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This is tangible evidence of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Leo, I guess we just go on to the next
item then and --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we just move on I guess with no action,
ma'am.
Page 145
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- it's unsolved?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we have a recommendation
from the County Attorney. The County Attorney told staff, and
obviously we would have to endorse that, that they bring this forward
and that these invoices be brought forward and that they ask the Board
that the Board approve that they be paid on quantum meruit.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Jeff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, do you want to clarify?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is Leo's item.
MR. OCHS: I mean, I would say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Leo.
MR. OCHS: I would say in addition to perhaps approving the
recommendations in this item, if you want to add that on top of it, that
would be fine.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the recommendation as presented. I don't know what else to
do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And add what the County Attorney
recommended as the solution so that these vendors get paid?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. If you want to modify
it to that, I will agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that all right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that your second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion and a second.
I have no more speakers on this.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 146
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a 4-0 vote. Thank you.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. We move on to Item
11.G that was previously 16.D.1 on your consent agenda -- I'm sorry.
I'm looking at the court reporter. I just noticed it's 2:30.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's take a break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Or do you want to keep going?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good catch, Leo.
MR. OCHS: 10 minutes, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or half an hour.
(Recess.)
(Commissioner Henning is absent from the boardroom.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
Item #11G
CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT #14-6338 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $104,200 TO VICTOR J. LATAVISH ARCHITECT, PA TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN,
ENGINEERING FOR SITE WORK, AND POOL DESIGN FOR
EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK POOL AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CHANGE ORDER —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, we're on Item 11.G, which was previously
16.D.1. This is the recommendation to award a change order to
Contract Number 14-6338 in the amount of$104,200 to Victor J.
Page 147
March 22, 2016
Latavish Architects, to include additional architectural design,
engineering for sitework and pool design for the Eagle Lakes
Community Park Pool.
Mr. Williams, your Parks and Recreation Division Director, can
present or answer questions. This item was brought forward at
Commissioner Taylor's request.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I guess my question is, the
plan was created, it was 60 percent designed and something happened.
How can that happen? I mean, it's a change order, it's more money.
So tell me.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am, that's a valid question.
Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
This pool, we've been working on this pool since last winter. Part
of that process has been to publicly vet the pool. We've had -- we've
worked with Commissioner Fiala on her Town Hall meetings, we've
had multiple conversations with the Parks and Rec Advisory Board,
we've had public input. Our stakeholders included the school board,
for example, they had input into the process of the competitive pool.
So we've had considerable input into the process. We brought our
60 percent plans forward this fall for final approval to our Parks and
Rec Advisory Board. And when we brought it to them -- and I think
what happens often in planning when you're looking at a project on a
piece of paper and you're hearing descriptions of it, there's always
room for improvement. And I think that's what really we saw with the
Parks and Rec Advisory Board in terms of them looking at what we
had proposed. And they made some very good suggestions. There was
again an interest in measuring twice before cutting. And they had this
last opportunity to look at it and had made some recommendations that
we thought valid.
Also, along with this process what we've attempted to do is that
there is a very important need in East Naples for a pool with Eagle
Page 148
March 22, 2016
Lakes. I mean, it's been part of the Board of County Commissioners'
master plan for several years for a pool at this location, as well as Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Those are the two major projects.
So we were trying to move this project along with the public
input. Again, got to 60 percent and had these changes.
The one thing I would tell you, though, and one of the things that
I think it was very heart-wrenching for the Parks and Rec Advisory
Board -- and I must say, you have one of the finest Park and Rec
advisory boards I think anyone could have. They do a very good job
for us.
But one of the heart-wrenching things was looking at a feature
that was in the pool, an interactive water feature, a spray park. And we
have that feature already at Eagle Lakes. And part of the
decision-making that they made was to request that that be removed in
order to allow for more shade and more deck space for the pool, which
I think was a very good move. That is going to save about $700,000
with that removal of that feature.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I read that.
MR. WILLIAMS: So we -- again, that's kind of where we are
today.
And I know we have a member of the Parks and Rec Advisory
Board who could perhaps talk more about it, and we also have our
project manager from facilities management who could talk to the
issue as well, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know, and I understand it.
It's just as we are planning another park, you know, a $50 million park
in Big Corkscrew and, you know, we just -- somehow there needs to
be a -- and I'm not saying there wasn't and I know these things can
change and I'm sure it's much better. And it saved money so it's like a
win/win situation.
But if we don't understand what we're building before we build it,
Page 149
March 22, 2016
we're going to have change orders. And if we don't understand the
community and what their needs are, especially with pools. I mean, if
the purpose of a pool is to help kids to swim and allow families to
recreate in a pool and the splash area is nice, but they can go to Sun 'N
Fun, perfect.
But if it's too -- and if that's the purpose of the pool, which I think
your pool is. I think the learn to swim is extremely important.
Because children usually from disadvantaged homes don't know how
to swim and it's so critical that this happens.
So I guess as we go forward I just would like -- you know, we
need to keep the end in mind before we go design. And I think that's --
and I appreciate your -- and I understand it, I'm not sitting here saying
this is a terrible thing. But -- you know, I think that's my message if
anything this morning. That's my concerns.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our speaker is?
MR. MILLER: Your speaker is Phil Brougham.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we'll -- you can stay up there, Barry.
But go ahead, Phil.
MR. BROUGHAM: Stay up there, Barry, I need your help
probably, so --
I'm Phil Brougham, and I'm the vice-chair of the Parks and
Recreation Board.
And mea culpa.
But Barry's really explained the essentials of what happened here.
And I have to say in response to your comments, Commissioner
Taylor, that the vetting that the Parks and Recreation staff is doing and
has done on Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park is the leading
example of how to conduct these projects. I'll say unfortunately the
Eagle Lakes Pool project didn't quite follow in the same pathway. But
Page 150
March 22, 2016
it got there.
And in October when we first heard of it and saw a conceptual
plan of last year, it was at 30 percent design. And they have a heck of
a fast designer, because by the time the parks board saw it again it was
in December at 60 percent. Well, and then it's oh, me, what have we
got here.
But the improvements that we've made or are now suggesting I
hope is going to be carried forward in the pool design overall in that
whole complex is going to result in a premier product. That product
can serve as a model for Big Corkscrew Island or any other future
parks.
We expanded by 40 percent the family pool. We made the depth
gradual enough that you can crawl in on one end and do aerobics on
the other. We added some features to the lap pool to facilitate slower
swimmers, if you will, and also facilitate the swim teams from the high
school that have to dive off one end and kick around on the other. And
we did eliminate the water feature because there's one within 50 yards
of where the new pool will be.
So overall we've got a good situation. We had good reviews.
Bad situation in that it has to be practically completely redesigned.
Not completely, but you see $104,000, that represents a pretty good
chunk of redesign.
And we suggested a lot of redesigns. We increased the deck
space, we increased the shade area, we expanded it into a grassy area
where you can set up picnic tables and so forth and get off the hot
deck.
So that's all I have to say. It's a good project, it's a great project. I
know you're going to love it and I know you're going to approve it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for your
explanation. I'm sorry you had to wait so long.
MR. BROUGHAM: No problem. It was worth it.
Page 151
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think it's unfortunate that
you had to spend that much money on redesign, but, you know,
interactive people and people like Mr. Brougham bring positive end
results. And, you know, although when you solicit the community you
hope you get most of it at the 30 percent design phase. The 60 percent
design phase is there for a reason. I think this is a classic example
where it proved its value and that's the reason why that's done.
So I would certainly endorse what you did. And if Commissioner
Taylor's ready to make a motion, I'm ready to support it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a comment?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- to approve the change order of
$104,200.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You've got Commissioner Hiller as
well.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, I have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Phil, thanks to you and the advisory board for all you're doing and
for coming up with these savings. $104,000 to save 600 or almost
$700,000 is well worth that change.
We aren't all so smart to have the foresight to know how to design
things perfectly right out of the box. And I will tell you that the pool at
the Sun 'N Fun Lagoon in North Naples could have certainly been
done differently and would have benefited the community far more
substantially had we had the benefit of an advisory board with your
level of involvement and attention to detail. Now we have a fantastic
Page 152
March 22, 2016
park and it's really beautiful and there's no question ifs a lovely facility
and a very nice pool.
But to give you an example, the lap pool up there is pretty much
useless. It's like two lanes. I mean, no one can really use it. We can't
have any high schools there, we can't have any events there. There
was plenty of space where we could have designed it that way. It
would have been well worth it. We need lap pools. Competitive
swimming is a tremendous sport in this county. I love it. I've got to
say, I'm bias.
So it is really outstanding that you guys caught it in the design
phase and that we didn't go to construction and have a suboptimal
product. So this was value engineering at its best. The cost to correct
was far outweighed by the savings. But most importantly, we're going
to get a product that is really going to service Commissioner Fiala's
district optimally. And that's what we want. We're here to serve the
public. And so I think it's absolutely fantastic that you caught these
issues at 60 percent design as opposed to after construction.
And I wish, like I said, that we were all so smart that we could
figure things out, you know, once the gate is open. But the reality is no
one ever is. Not in design.
So thank you and please extend my thanks to the whole team and
tell them why I really admire you for what you've done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They did a super job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Outstanding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to tell you, it's been kind of fun to
watch this. Because originally the pool that we were going to have
was the size of a large bathtub and you couldn't swim in it or anything
like that. It was very, very, very small. So that was changed and that
was nice.
And then they had to find a different home for it because there
was no room for anything. And then we had a town hall meeting, and
Page 153
March 22, 2016
the neatest thing -- all of our staff was there. The neatest thing was we
were asking for ideas about a swimming pool. Well, you know, most
people don't have swimming pools in my area. You know, so that's --
they really don't know too, too much. But we asked Lely High School
to be there and they came in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great swimmers, by the way. Lely
has a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now they'll have a school -- a place for
the swim team.
A little old lady, I hope she isn't listening, got up and she said
what about us seniors?
I'm thinking of the kids. You know, and I mean, I was startled. I
don't know about you guys. I didn't even know what she meant. She
says, well, we want to swim someplace too. She said, and we want to
have exercise classes and we want to use it.
Do you know I never thought about? It was a good thing that we
held an open meeting like that so you get other people's ideas. So the
changes began to surface.
Now, I want to tell you, Phil Brougham has been with us every
step of the way, all the way. His board has been with us and they're
supporting everything, and they're making great ideas. It almost was --
it almost didn't have enough space for the parents to stay with the
children. You needed more deck space, right? Well, you couldn't
really get more deck space too easily. But moving some trees and
some sidewalks we at least got space so they could sit on grass or
something and at least be near the kids.
I mean, a lot of things had to be modified. But I have to say that
now it will be a pool that can really be utilized by the entire
community. And thank you again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have a real shortage of
these type of pools in our county. My daughter is captain of the Barron
Page 154
March 22, 2016
swim team and I go and watch their practices on occasion there at the
pool by Community. I mean, it is packed. It is so overwhelmingly
packed it's unbelievable. And that's just for swim practice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a good place to meet and greet.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Palmetto Ridge has to go all the
way to Immokalee, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is insane.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it's just insane.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're coming up next.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We need the pools. I mean, we
need the pools. It's a dramatic sport, everybody loves it, they're
engaged.
And then you've got the rest of the community, you've got water
aerobics, you've got the mother/baby swim training. I mean, you've
got so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Dr. Vedder and that whole --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's 365 days a year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- children's safety that they have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's amazing too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- they're so excited to start teaching the
children how to swim. That will be wonderful.
So thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Margaret, thank you
for all you're doing. Thank you, Nick. Everybody is working hard to --
you know what we're doing? We're serving the community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. This was a perfect --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're the next one up, pal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- perfect example of good work.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Page 155
March 22, 2016
MR. OCHS: All you need to do now --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a
second.
What did you say?
MR. OCHS: All you need to do now is take the vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have a 4-0. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11.A was previously 16 --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can't let Mr. Brougham fall in
the pool until his left arm heals up or we'll lose him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure, does the
court reporter know that Commissioner Henning has left? And you
did note that. Okay. Just to make sure that when we say 4-0, it's
Commissioner Henning absent. I wasn't sure, because your head is
down all the time. I didn't know if you knew --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She's working.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- who wasn't here.
Item #11H
RESOLUTION 2016-59: AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF
7,608 AMBULANCE SERVICE ACCOUNTS AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
BALANCES WHICH TOTAL $5,586,716.09, FROM THE
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF COLLIER COUNTY FUND 490
Page 156
March 22, 2016
(EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES) FINDING DILIGENT
EFFORTS TO COLLECT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED AND
PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 11.H was previously 16.E.1 on your consent
agenda, and this is a resolution to authorize the write-off of
uncollectible debt for the EMS system for fiscal year 2012.
This item was moved at Commissioner Taylor's request.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it was done for a very
purposeful reason, and it wasn't to question the fact that you had to
write off the debt. But I've heard testimony here from the public and,
you know, from different folks that the county doesn't know how to
run an EMS, they're always in debt. So I thought it was an opportune
time to talk about why we're writing off$5,586,716.09.
CHIEF KOPKA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Walter Kopka, Chief of your EMS Department.
This write-off process is not a budget item. It does not adversely
affect the budget or the general fund transfer to EMS. It's an
accounting process. EMS budgets for revenues each year in the
budget. And that's based upon historical data from payer mix to call
volume and several factors. And that line item is in the budget each
year on what is predicted for revenues each year.
The write-off is based upon two different categories: One is a
contractual write-off. In other words, Medicare, Medicaid, we follow
by federal laws and guidelines to accept that payer amount for those
patients that we transport based upon that contractual write-off.
The other category is for indigent care, transients, migrant
workers, bankruptcy cases where the money is simply not collectable.
EMS does not ask for payment when we respond to patients who
need emergency care. We attempt to collect information for billing
purposes to make it easier on the patient if we can bill those sources
Page 157
March 22, 2016
directly. But we are providing service first and that's most important.
Our crews don't get in the process, the billing process except to attempt
to collect the information.
So in the arrears we are trying to collect payment for some of
these services that we provide. And because of those two different
categories I explained: The contractual write-off, Medicare, Medicaid,
other type of insurance as well as nonpayment for right of other issues,
we write off that amount. But again, that's not a budget process, we
don't budget for the write-off. The write-off is based on an accounting
principle of taking that money off the books.
But what I think is important, yes, we're writing this amount off,
but I don't want the Commissioners to feel that we're not attempting to
collect it. It's an accounting principle to get it off the books so we can
move forward, but those accounts still stay with our collection
company and our billing company to attempt to collect them if at any
time that money does become available. So it's not forgotten, it's just
an accounting principle to write it off.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think sometimes, I mean, a
part of this nonpayment or this amount is the fact that you have to
accept what Medicaid or Medicare will bill you, or will give you; isn't
that correct?
CHIEF KOPKA: That's correct. And that's that contractual
write-off, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, what is that contractual
write-off? Because based on this, I was just quickly running the
numbers, you're billing somewhere between 700 and $800 a ride. So
what does Medicare and Medicaid say the ride should cost?
CHIEF KOPKA: I'm going to give you estimates. It's about
$300 for Medicare and about $100 for Medicaid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So essentially if we're
Page 158
March 22, 2016
billing like $750, you're writing off that much because they're only
going to pay the 300 and the 100.
So what percentage of the 7,608 ambulance rides are
Medicare/Medicaid rides versus just uncollectibles because people are
not paying, like non-Medicare, non-Medicaid rides?
CHIEF KOPKA: I'm sorry, I don't have that breakout for you. I
can get it for you, but I don't know what percent is for that number of
patients.
The way we wrote the executive summary was based on the
dollar amount that's written off, the contractual versus the
uncollectibles.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how many total rides do we
have? If 7,608 are uncollectible, what's the total ride volume?
CHIEF KOPKA: Currently it's about 30,000 -- just under 30,000
transports to the hospital. And that is 2015 numbers, so that may be a
little less for 2012.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So -- all right, and this was
from -- these write-offs were 2012, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So approximately you've got
30,000. So about 25 percent of your rides are uncollectible?
CHIEF KOPKA: Well, remember, some of those are partial
write-offs --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand that.
CHIEF KOPKA: -- some are 100 percent write-offs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the only thing I was
wondering is if-- you know, obviously we're already subsidizing EMS
by adding general fund revenues because we have a shortfall. But my
question is, if you lowered the fee, would you -- and that's why I
wanted to know what the breakdown of the 7,600 rides were. If you
lowered the fee, would you have a higher probability of collection and
Page 159
March 22, 2016
would you potentially be able to recover some of this 5.5 million that
you're writing off?
CHIEF KOPKA: Commissioner, that's a fantastic question and
that's a question that we pose to our billing contract company every
year, what is the option for raising the fee and what is the option for
decreasing the fee. And they provide us with an estimate or an amount
that they recommend what our billing fees should be based upon
what's paying in the state for insurance.
And the reply that they've given us in the past on both those
questions, yes, if you lower the fee you will collect less because some
insurance --
MR. OCHS: Collect more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Collect more.
CHIEF KOPKA: If you lower the fee you'll collect less from
some insurance carriers because the amount that they come up with for
that fee is based upon what some insurance carriers will pay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're going to have that
happen anyway. The issue is, I mean, the insurance company is going
to pay -- let's say you're now charging 750. If the insurance carrier is
only going to pay 500, they're going to pay 500 regardless of the 750.
The question is does it make sense to be billing so high if the insurance
company -- if you know that on average your insurance companies are
-- and all of these are being paid through insurance companies or
Medicare or Medicaid, if you know that those companies are actually
only going to pay you like on average a maximum of, let's say, $500 or
$600, why would you bill 750 when you're not going to get it?
CHIEF KOPKA: It's a great question. Because we do get it with
some insurance companies that do pay that amount.
So what would happen is if we lowered our fee, the write-off
amount will go down, but our revenue will go down as well. So it's
something that our contractual billing company does not recommend,
Page 160
March 22, 2016
lowering the fee. When we look --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By that much?
CHIEF KOPKA: When we look at that fee each year, they do an
analysis of dozens of different EMS providers throughout the state.
And we are never the highest amount paid, the amount billed, nor are
we the lowest amount billed. We're always right in the middle in that
amount that we charge for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you looked at other counties
to see what the write-offs are in other counties by comparison? I
mean, go to the county that, for example, bills the highest. What's the
write-off over there as compared to us?
I mean, this doesn't make sense, because this issue was put on the
agenda several years ago. This is not the first time this is being pulled
off consent and brought forward. And I know that you do this
annually. So there's got to be something there that needs to be looked
at more closely if you consistently have a similar amount of write-offs
year upon year.
But again, I would compare it to what other counties are writing
off, especially the ones that are charging more.
CHIEF KOPKA: We can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because there's no point -- I mean,
we shouldn't be leaving money on the table. And if this is, you know,
as you properly said, from 2012, I mean, these are going to be
uncollectible. I mean, to have them sitting at some collection agency, I
mean, you should just write them off. Because it's, you know, 2016. I
doubt that there's any likelihood of recovery four years later.
So I don't know, it just seems to me that we need to do some more
analysis on this, look at what the pricing is, look at what exactly the
breakdown of the non-collectable accounts is and compare it to what's
going on in other counties, especially the ones that are charging more,
to see if there's something we can do to increase our collections.
Page 161
March 22, 2016
And again, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm saying that I
think a little bit of analysis could potentially -- I mean, if it netted us
one more million, that would be awesome.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're happy to do that. And might
I suggest that we bring that analysis forward as part of your EMS
budget review this June, and that way you'll be able to factor that
analysis into your review of the budget document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And -- yeah. And I don't see -- I
mean, these are just facts, it is what it is. Let's see if we can do
something to make it better.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great idea.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, indeed. And what's going to
happen is I believe that that calculation is primarily based on the
representative sorts of insurances that are out there presently. Because
this Medicare and Medicaid assignment is what it is. And you can see
the adjustment that we've taken on that, because the demographics in
Collier County is over $6 million. And that's going to be whatever it
is.
Now, as Obamacare or public healthcare or whatever else you
want to call it goes forward, we're going to have to be paying attention
to that. Because that's going to change the dynamic on this insurance
because they're probably going to make an assignment on us too.
Some of these insurance payments that you're receiving, they
don't affect the recipient. The recipient's got the insurance and they're
basically, you're going to get what their insurance allows you to get
and it's not going to impact them.
Likewise, the people that disappear, don't have any insurance,
don't have any healthcare, they're zero and they're always going to be
zero. So that's a -- you know, it's really an actuarial calculation for a
gentleman with skills like Mr. Isackson to come and gin up and tell
Page 162
March 22, 2016
you what the sweet spot is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is one other point, though,
and you raised something interesting, Commissioner Nance. Because
the statement that insurance will pay what it will pay and then the
patient doesn't hold -- you know, is no longer liable for the balance
isn't necessarily true. Because -- and I don't know how you bill for the
balance owed. Like if the insurance company only bills 500, do you
go back and say okay, your insurance company paid 500.
You know, when I go to the doctor under our health plan,
Allegiance pays, for example, on a $200 invoice from my dentist, they
may pay 150 and then I get a little bill that says you will owe your
service provider another $50, and then I get a bill from my dentist for
50 bucks.
So the question I have is are you going back and billing for the
spread between the actual invoiced amount and the amount that the
insurance company is charging?
CHIEF KOPKA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are billing --
CHIEF KOPKA: For insurance patients, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Yeah, and I understand you
wouldn't for Medicare and Medicaid, but you are doing it for the
insurance -- the insured companies.
Wow, you know, if Obamacare institutes, for instance, a fixed
price for these services, that would be -- that's going to be -- that could
be a big hit for us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: EMS transport isn't for sissies, let
me tell you that. I mean, you know, I think our County Manager has
said it. This is a service. This is what we provide our public. And we
do provide it and we're very proud of it. But the concept because we
have a significant amount of debt means that we're mismanaging it is
so far from what we do as a county.
Page 163
March 22, 2016
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I appreciate those comments. I
really do. Because this is a special revenue fund. This is not a utility
or an enterprise account where it's obviously a profit-making
enterprise.
When you look at all the other public safety providers in our
organization, like the Sheriff or even emergency management, all the
fire districts, they are health/safety/welfare and their revenues are 100
percent generated by ad valorem tax millages.
So the fact that this Board has chosen, unlike some other counties
that pick up the full bill under ad valorem for their ambulance services,
to bill and try to at least offset some of that ad valorem impact through
fees for service I think is commendable.
And the fact that we call it a subsidy, you know, kind of makes
me cringe a little bit. It's really a transfer from the general fund to help
offset the fees that we charge for the service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the question I have then is if
other counties is funding EMS 100 percent from the general fund as
opposed to billing for transport, how many --
MR. OCHS: And I don't know that, that's part of the analysis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you include that --
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- can you include that in the
analysis?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the question may be, how
much are we actually collecting in total for transport now?
CHIEF KOPKA: About $10 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 10 million. For 30,000 rides.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And frankly, that is the difference
in Collier County, is that really the staff has always encouraged the
Board to support that sort of a methodology and the Board has indeed
Page 164
March 22, 2016
supported that methodology. So that's the difference between here and
most of the other places in the nation, frankly. That's why the service
that we have is as good as it is.
MR. OCHS: Thanks for the discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, good presentation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. 4-0 is that vote.
Item #11I
DIRECTING TO STAFF TO PREPARE AND PUBLICLY VET
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS TO
MODIFY CURRENT OFF-SITE NATIVE VEGETATION
RETENTION ALTERNATIVES ESTABLISHED IN LDC
SECTION 3.05.07 H.1.F.III.A-B DURING THE 2015 LDC
AMENDMENT CYCLE 2, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
EXPLORE ADDING NEW OFF-SITE NATIVE VEGETATION
RETENTION ALTERNATIVES AS PART OF A FUTURE LDC
AMENDMENT CYCLE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us on to 11.I which was
previously 16.D.3 on your consent agenda. This is a recommendation
to provide staff direction to prepare and vet the Land Development
Page 165
March 22, 2016
Code amendments to modify off-site native vegetation requirements
and alternatives.
And Commissioner Nance brought this item forward.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I actually pulled it for a
similar reason that Commissioner Taylor pulled that last item, and that
was I wanted to say how important that I thought that this item actually
is and suggest that another consideration be made. And this is a
consideration that, you know, we've had a number of discussions on
off-site preservation and native vegetation and how we had -- I
particularly have said over and over that I thought how important it
was that we necessarily have the right amount of money to operate and
maintain these properties in perpetuity and how long perpetuity
actually was, what that meant and so on and so forth.
So I'm delighted to see that the Conservation Collier professionals
and DSAC professionals have weighed in on this and have a whole lot
of different thoughts and alternatives and principles.
But there was one very significant thing that I saw lacking and
that's why I pulled this agenda item. And that is I think it's very, very
important, particularly considering what we're doing with our Growth
Management Plan updates in areas such as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District where we have these transfer development rights and we stand
to be in a position to assign some of these acreages to a conservation
entity. Whatever we do as a county, in my view, needs to be
completely compatible and coordinated with what the state agencies
are doing in this regard. And the reason that's so important is that
agencies, primarily in Collier County, probably the premiere one and
one that does it the most is South Florida Water Management District.
We have many properties that we're trying to deal with in the county
that are adjacent to lands that are managed by the South Florida Water
Management District. It's not a big stretch for me to say that look, if
these acreages are adjacent as we get them protected from
Page 166
March 22, 2016
development and we get them into conservation that they ultimately
should be managed together. There's no reason why these properties
should be segmented.
So it's very important to me that as we develop this methodology
for determining how much money it's going to require and how much
money we're going to request from people doing -- participating in this
project, that we don't continually develop an unfunded commitment to
the county. If we're underfunded we're going to have an unfunded
commitment. And we should engage South Florida Water
Management District, I think they would certainly be our partners, to
help us understand how we can get our program coordinated with
theirs. So if one day we have an opportunity to convey a parcel or do a
swap or do something that makes clear sense to everyone, that we can
do it without having a glitch in our funding thinking methodologies.
That's all I wanted to suggest in this item.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. We'll make sure that we incorporate
their comments and analysis and --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And if we could participate with
them and get it all lined up, I would be forever grateful. I think it
would be good in the end.
So with that said, I will move to approve this item.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great presentation.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala, I --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We've got public speakers and
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Commissioner -- oh, do you?
Page 167
March 22, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just one very quick comment on
that issue.
Commissioner Nance has --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't have any public speakers, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, we do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance has been
addressing this issue since he was first elected. And I'm really glad
that you haven't let go of it. Because that is a big deal. We must
ensure that we are properly funded to maintain our obligation with
respect to these preserved lands. And that has always been the issue. I
mean, we went through that with Pepper Ranch, we went through that
with the Starnes -- was it the Starnes property, or whatever it's called?
Anyway, the bottom line is it's critical. And I know that you've
been working on it and I'm glad you haven't let up on it and please
don't.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, Madam Chair, let me add
one more thing. You know, the thing that comes back over and over in
public discussions, there's been a lot of discussion about the
Amendment One money and how the Amendment One money is being
used.
And it should be obvious to everyone that some of this money is
going to be used for operation and maintenance of lands that are in
conservation and protected from development. And I think that's
actually a good thing.
Now, I know many people are disappointed that it wasn't used for
the land south of the lake and that's a whole other argument. But if
you will just take a look at how much land is in preservation in Collier
County through the state, all those state lands are going to be eligible
for that Amendment One money.
I think we need to be very cognizant of that. Because if we
Page 168
March 22, 2016
continue to put lands in conservation through the county, I think those
lands may not be eligible for that Amendment One money. So I think
we need to be careful about how we structure our conservation
program to make sure that we qualify for everything that the other
counties qualify for.
Collier County's already got 1,142,000 acres in public ownership
in conservation. We are only 350,000 people. We can't pay to take
care of that land. We in my view need that Amendment One money in
Collier County for operation and maintenance, not to buy more
property. We've already got 78 percent of our land protected, which is
wonderful.
So I think we need to be a little selfish here in our methodologies
in how we're going to go down the road long term.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are 100 percent right.
May I comment on that, Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You may.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is a really incredible point
you're making.
So Leo, how much -- are we mandated to have a certain
percentage of the county's land put in conservation by our political
entity as opposed to state or federal lands in conservation within our
borders? There's no specific mandate, is there?
MR. OCHS: Not to my knowledge, no, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then why are we acquiring
conservation lands if, for example, these lands could be acquired by
the state or the feds as opposed to us? And, you know, we would
achieve the same end; in other words, we would have all this
conservation land within our borders as we have been doing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick, for the record.
They won't take it ma'am. They've suspended a lot of their land
acquisition at the Water Management District for the same reasons, is
Page 169
March 22, 2016
finance management plans to take these on. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So even if-- and for example if we
-- and I'm not necessarily talking about acquisition, but let's say we
decide we want to preserve land. We go out and we acquire land as we
have through the Conservation Collier program. But rather than keep
it titled in our name we deed it over to the state so the state takes care
of it but we've basically made our contribution by preserving that land
by way of a conservation easement --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They want money to go with it,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so they won't take the land,
they will only take it if it also comes with --
MR. OCHS: Endowment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the County Manager has --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're in the same situation as
we're in.
Because I was just thinking, you know, if they don't have money
to acquire land -- you know, going to your point, if they don't have
money to acquire land but if we, like, just gave them the land and they
maintained it? So they don't even want to do that?
MR. OCHS: No, I would do that yesterday if I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, yeah, that's why -- that's why
-- I hate to say, that's why I was getting a little excited, because I
would bring that as the next Board action. I'd say let's just give it all to
the state. We're happy to buy it. But, I mean, I thought you were
going in that direction and that would be awesome.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, Commissioner Hiller,
remember that the Conservation Collier land also was selected because
those are conservation lands with ancillary benefits to our citizens.
They're not just a piece of land out in the middle of hoo-ha.
But you know what? We have an opportunity to collect some of
Page 170
March 22, 2016
those. And we have. We have taken ownership of some parcels in
Rookery Bay that are physically inaccessible. They're good parcels but
they're inaccessible at the same time they need to be taken care of and
maintained.
So I just think we need to get our head around this whole
philosophy on what has an ancillary benefit to our citizens and how
we're going to take care of it forever and ever amen. Because where I
come from perpetuity is a while.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. That's a big, big --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a
second. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was a 4-0. Thank you very much.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 15, Staff and
Commission General Communications.
My only reminder is you have a CRA workshop that's coming up
on April the 5th at 1 :00 p.m. in this boardroom. Thank you, ma'am,
that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
Page 171
March 22, 2016
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I would just like to say a
couple things. I would like to thank you all for your kind comments
regarding the mediation process. I think really staff worked incredibly
hard on that. I mean, that was -- it was kind of the week that was,
because it flew past because it seemed like it was ongoing. But I think
the effort and I think everybody's energy, including the kind
representation from North Collier Fire, I think we're going to be
reaping the benefits of that for a long, long time. I'm very, very
excited about it and I feel great about where we ended up.
I will say one thing: That as we went through the mediation
process, there were some notations made about some inconsistencies in
our ordinances that we actually uncovered in our work.
And what I would like is I would like to see if we can get enough
nods on the Board of County Commission to ask staff, while those
things are fresh on their mind and before we burn out the County
Attorney on this issue completely, that they go back and bring back to
the Board some changes in our ordinance that clean those up and make
those consistent so we've got a nice package and we don't find
ourselves embarrassed by some inconsistencies that we might have.
So if everybody would support that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- I would ask Mr. Ochs to take that
opportunity while it's fresh in your mind, sir, to go back and tidy some
of those up, because there are a few dangling participles, I think.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see three nods already. Four nods.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Other than that, thank you very
Page 172
March 22, 2016
much. I hope everybody has a happy Easter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's what I wanted to say.
Happy Easter. That's so awesome.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Very, very interesting, huh?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And it's been a tough meeting at
times, and I thank all of you for working with me on this and helping
us to get through it. We're still out a little bit early. And I appreciate
all that you all do to give us a successful meeting.
And with that, happy Easter to everyone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy Easter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Meeting is adjourned.
**** Commissioner Nance moved, seconded by Commissioner Hiller
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
QUARRY PHASE 4, PL20130000081, AND TO 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 — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING, RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES ON DECEMBER 14, 2015 AND THE FACILITIES
HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A2
Page 173
March 22, 2016
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
QUARRY PHASE 5, PL20130001449, AND TO 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 — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING, RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES ON DECEMBER 14, 2015 AND THE FACILITIES
HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A3
AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH ATKINS NORTH
AMERICA, INC. AND TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO
SOUTHWEST UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC. TO COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND DAVIS
BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECTS #60073 AND
#60092) — FOR TWO DRAINAGE STRUCTURES (S-305 AND S-
400A) THAT WERE NEVER CONSTRUCTED AND REQUIRED
TO BE BUILT TO SPECIFICATION IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE
SFWMD PERMIT
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE
Q MODEL CENTER, PL20110000799, AND TO AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
Page 174
March 22, 2016
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$18,997.89 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION
WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 6, 2015 AND THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
(PARCEL 288RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM 20TH STREET EAST TO
EAST OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO. 60145)
(ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $1,300) — FOLIO #39327760007
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR RACETRAC, 1150 AIRPORT PULLING ROAD N.,
PL20140001312, TO ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF THE OFF-SITE SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES, 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 $8,228 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A
FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING
Page 175
March 22, 2016
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY INSPECTIONS STAFF IN
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT ON OCTOBER 9, 2015 AND THE FACILITIES
HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE, PREVIEW CENTER,
PL20130001848 (WATER) AND PL20130002516 (SEWER), 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 $11,227.09 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL
INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION
WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ON NOVEMBER 5, 2015, FOR
THE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES DEPARTMENT AND ON
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 FOR THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES FOR TAMIAMI HYUNDAI, PL20140000489,
ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION
OF THE WATER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
Page 176
March 22, 2016
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $20,754.86
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 16, 2015, THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR NAPLES DODGE, PL20110002402, ACCEPT
UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE
WATER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $3,030 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION
WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
INSPECTIONS STAFF IN COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 13, 2015 AND THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2016-49: AMEND EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON
COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO REFLECT THE
Page 177
March 22, 2016
TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMITS ON: (1)
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (CR 876) FROM 2ND STREET
(NE/SE) EAST TO 20TH STREET (NE/SE), FROM FORTY-FIVE
(45) MILES PER HOUR TO THIRTY-FIVE (35) MILES PER
HOUR, DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF "DESIGN-BUILD
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 4-LANE, EAST OF WILSON
BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS" (PROJECT 60040), AND (2)
CR 29 / COPELAND AVENUE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1,500
FEET SOUTH TO 1,500 FEET NORTH OF THE CHOKOLOSKEE
BAY BRIDGE, FROM FORTY-FIVE (45) MILES PER HOUR TO
THIRTY-FIVE (35) MILES PER HOUR DUE TO
CONSTRUCTION ON THIS ROADWAY (PROJECT 66066.9)
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2016-50: JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT UP TO $759,125 FOR
THE ACQUISITION, INSTALLATION, AND INSPECTION OF A
SIGNAL PRIORITY PREEMPTION SYSTEM ON THE STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY FOR "SHS
SIGNAL PRIORITY" (PROJECT #33458) — FOR AS MANY OF
THE SIXTY-SEVEN SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TO HAVE
THE PREEMPTION SYSTEM
Item #16Al2
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE TALIS PARK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD), FOR LANDSCAPE AND
Page 178
March 22, 2016
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VETERANS
MEMORIAL BLVD. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY — LOCATED IN
PART OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A13
FEE-SIMPLE CONVEYANCE OF COACHMAN GLEN, TRACT
R (A/K/A COACH HOUSE WAY), A FACILITY CURRENTLY
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY — TRACT R IS A
PERPETUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT ALREADY HELD
BY THE COUNTY
Item #16A14
AN EXTENSION DATE FOR THE 2015 FLORIDA HIGHWAY
BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL GRANT PROJECT:
LANDSCAPING ON STATE ROAD 951 FROM FIDDLER'S
CREEK PARKWAY TO MAINSAIL DRIVE — FDOT EXTENDED
THE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE TO JUNE 30, 2017
Item #16A15
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,480 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20150000746) FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 6
— THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A16
Page 179
March 22, 2016
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS
A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20150001913) FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 7
— THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A17
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE SOVEREIGNTY
SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT FOR THE GULF OF
MEXICO DREDGING — FROM DOCTORS PASS SOUTH JETTY
LYING IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST
Item #16A18
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF TRACT "60"
CENTER, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001505 —
LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST
Item #16A19
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAMINETTO AT
MEDITERRA, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000988)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
Page 180
March 22, 2016
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2016-51 : A RESOLUTION FORMALLY
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF TRACT "R" AND ALL
LIGHTING EASEMENTS AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT OF
COLLIER PARK OF COMMERCE RETAIL CENTER REPLAT
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 52, PAGES 37 AND 38 OF THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
ACCEPTING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE
DEDICATIONS AND FOR PARCELS 280FEE AND 232UE
Item #16A21
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
QUARRY PHASE 4, REPLAT LOTS 42-75, PL20130000789, AND
TO 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 — A
FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY ENGINEERING
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY INSPECTIONS STAFF IN
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT ON DECEMBER 14, 2015 AND THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A22
Page 181
March 22, 2016
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
REQUIRED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE ROYAL PALM GOLF ESTATES REPLAT #3 (AR-
6774) SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05 C.2 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
— THE IMPROVEMENTS MUST RECEIVE FINAL
ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO AUGUST 2, 2017
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2016-52: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE AT AVE MARIA PHASE 2
APPLICATION NUMBER PL2013001594 WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A24
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 16-6587 - PINE RIDGE WEIR
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $849,408.11 (PROJECT NO. 60119)
Item #16B1
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REVIEW AND APPROVE THE BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE AND IMMOKALEE CRA'S 2015
ANNUAL REPORTS, FORWARD THE REPORTS TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CLERK OF
Page 182
March 22, 2016
COURTS AND PUBLISH PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE FILING
Item #16B2
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE, AFTER-THE-
FACT, SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATIONS TO
FUND FACADE AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
TOTALING $1,210,000
Item #16B3
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVE
AN AFTER-THE-FACT US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL TO FUND FIRE
SUPPRESSION IMPROVEMENTS AND THE SUGDEN PARK
PATHWAY WITHIN THE BAYSHORE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA TOTALING $1,729,897
Item #16D1 — Moved to Item #11G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D2
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #16-6554 "LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE FOR RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU" TO
FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. D/B/A COMMERCIAL
LAND MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,961 .26, FOR
Page 183
March 22, 2016
BASE PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEM QUOTES, APPROVE
ADDITIONAL PROJECT AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $20,000, AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D3 — Moved to Item #11I (Per Commissioner Nance during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16D4
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE,
INC. TO COMBINE RELATED BUDGET ACTIVITIES INTO
ONE COMPONENT — INCREASING THE FLEXIBILITY IN
ADMINISTERING THE PROJECT
Item #16D5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $219,849 IN STATE
AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING
EXPENDITURES ON LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND
EQUIPMENT — INCLUDING HIRING TEMPORARY
PERSONNEL PROVIDING DIRECT SERVICES TO THE
LIBRARY CUSTOMERS
Item #16D6
THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
(HMIS) SUB-RECIPIENT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT &
DATA QUALITY STANDARDS BETWEEN HUNGER &
HOMELESS COALITION OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
Page 184
March 22, 2016
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES —
THE AGREEMENT IS EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2016
AND CONTINUES UNTIL TERMINATED
Item #16D7
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A
CONSERVATION GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY FOR A TROPICAL HARDWOOD
HAMMOCK RESTORATION PROJECT AT THE GORDON
RIVER GREENWAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $966 — TO
PURCHASE AND INSTALL PLANTS FROM A LOCAL NATIVE
PLANT NURSERY AND RENT A POST HOLE AUGUR
Item #16D8
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION TO PURSUE A LONG
TERM LEASE WITH THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT TO
DEVELOP AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV)/ OFF
HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) PARK AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
EXPENDITURE OF $20,000 TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDY OF SITE FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — THE
LEASE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE FAA BEFORE IT'S
PRESENTED TO THE BCC FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Item #16D9
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, TWO (2) LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR
DEFERRAL OF SPECIFIED COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY — FOR PARCEL ID'S:
Page 185
March 22, 2016
40628840000 AND 40628800008
Item #16E1 — Moved to Item #11H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID #15-6532 AUTOMOTIVE &
HEAVY EQUIPMENT BATTERIES TO TAYLOR & CROWE
BATTERY COMPANY INC. AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND IEH
AUTO PARTS LLC AS SECONDARY VENDOR — FOR PARTS
AND SUPPLIES NEEDED TO MAINTAIN COUNTY VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT
Item #16E3
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 16-6558 "IMMOKALEE
JAIL CENTER - REROOF - PHASE II" TO CROWTHER
ROOFING & SHEET METAL FL, INC., TO REMOVE AND
REPLACE THE DETERIORATED ROOFING ON THE
IMMOKALEE JAIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $192,400 — FOR THE
SECOND HALF OF THE JAIL
Item #16E4
THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO PROCEED
WITH ACCREDITATION TO MEET COMPREHENSIVE
NATIONAL STANDARDS THROUGH THE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACCREDITATION PROGRAM (EMAP) — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E5
Page 186
March 22, 2016
THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PER
RESOLUTION 2013-095 FOR THE SALE OF COLLIER COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY ON APRIL 16, 2016; RATIFY THE
NAPLES AIRPORT SPACE LEASE FOR THE EVENT;
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
SIGN FOR THE TRANSFER OF VEHICLE TITLES
Item #16E6
A RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA AND ACCESS OVER
COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY TO FACILITATE THE
INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER
COOLER TANK AT VINEYARDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL —
THE AGREEMENT WILL TERMINATE UPON COMPLETION
OF THE PROJECT OR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF
EXECUTION
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2016-53: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
A $25,000 DONATION FROM THE SEMINOLE CASINO HOTEL
IMMOKALEE FOR DESTINATION MARKETING AND
Page 187
March 22, 2016
PROMOTION, AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND RETIS
DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO
HOST THE RETIS FACE 10 EXECUTIVE TRAINING
PROGRAM FROM MAY 23-25, 2016, AND PROVIDING
FUNDING FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN FACILITATING THE
EVENT AND FOR BECOMING A PARTNER MEMBER OF
RETIS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $12,000 —
OFFSETTING TRANSPORTATION AND LODGING COSTS FOR
UP TO 7 FRENCH INNOVATION COMPANIES AND 2 RETIS
STAFF PERSONS
Item #16G1
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE A SITE LICENSE
AGREEMENT WITH ROUSH INDUSTRIES, INC., TO
CONDUCT A TWO-DAY DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSE AT
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — IN MARCH OR
APRIL 2016 BASED ON AVAILABILITY AND WEATHER
CONDITIONS AT THE SITE
Item #16G2
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVES AMENDMENT #2 TO
Page 188
March 22, 2016
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY CONCESSION
AGREEMENT FOR CAR RENTAL SERVICE WITH
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC — TO
CONTINUE PROVIDING RENTAL AND/OR COURTESY CAR
SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK
Item #16G3
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AWARD BID NO. 16-6551 FUEL
TRUCKS FOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$503,000 FOR THREE FUEL TRUCKS TO SKYMARK
REFUELERS, LLC AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — FOR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AND IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORTS
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2016-54: REAPPOINT A MEMBER TO THE
RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
REAPPOINTING DALE LEWIS WITH TERM EXPIRING ON
MARCH 3, 2020
Item #16I
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 189
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 22, 2016
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. CLERK OF COURTS:
1) Items to be Authorized by BCC for Payment:
B. DISTRICTS:
C. OTHER:
1) Pineland Avenue Stormwater Project record of Legal Notice:
Record of CRA Invitation to Bid#15-6441 legal advertisement, published
February 15, 2016 and the electronic Affidavit of Publication, for the Pineland
Avenue Stormwater Improvements Project, (Solicitation #15-6441) for
improvements to help alleviate flooding using HUD/CDBG Funds
2) Collier County Code Enforcement Department record of Legal Notice:
Record of legal advertising and electronic Affidavit of Publication for
the Code Enforcement Department's Annual Nuisance Abatement Notice,
notifying property owners of the mandatory requirement to mow weeds and
grass over 18 inches in height, published in Naples Daily News January 17,
January 31, February 14 and February 28, 2016, in accordance with Ordinance
2005-44, as amended
March 22, 2016
Item #16J1
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 25 AND MARCH 9,
2016 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J2 — Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
TO PROVIDE A "PAYABLES REPORT" FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING MARCH 16, 2016 PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S
REQUEST
Item #16K1
A JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR
PARCEL 266RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. TAIMY MORALES, CASE NO. 15-CA-393 FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 60040) (FISCAL IMPACT: $6,470) — LOCATED
IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2016-05: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2006-50, THE CREEKSIDE
COMMERCE PARK COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), AS AMENDED, BY REDUCING THE
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL
Page 190
March 22, 2016
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY 70,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A
TOTAL OF 550,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE USES; BY AMENDING THE
BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ADD PERMITTED USES FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-4
ZONING DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS
DISTRICT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE
FOOTAGE OF FLOOR AREA FROM 150,000 SQUARE FEET TO
200,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES AND FROM 40,000
TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES; BY AMENDING
THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW GROUP HOUSING
EAST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD AT THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD TO INCREASE
THE ZONED HEIGHT TO 75 FEET AND ACTUAL HEIGHT TO
85 FEET; BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
ALLOW A HOTEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD TO
REDUCE THE BUILDING SETBACK FROM IMMOKALEE
ROAD TO 350 FEET; AND BY ADDING A SIGN DEVIATION
REGARDING THE LOCATION OF DIRECTORY SIGNAGE;
AND REVISING THE MASTER PLAN TO DEPICT THE SIGN
DEVIATION FOR THE CPUD PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE [PUDA-
PL20140001311]
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2016-06: AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL
IMPLEMENT A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON NEW
Page 191
March 22, 2016
APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR NEW
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN ALL COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL
AND ESTATES ZONING DISTRICTS, DURING WHICH TIME
STAFF WILL DEVELOP AND BRING FORWARD GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR CHARTER
SCHOOLS TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN ALL COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL AND ESTATES ZONING DISTRICTS. NOTE BY
COUNTY ATTORNEY: THIS MORATORIUM PERIOD
COMMENCED WHEN THE BOARD AUTHORIZED
ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AT
ITS FEBRUARY 23, 2016 REGULAR MEETING (ITEM 11C)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2016-07 AND RESOLUTION 2016-55: AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC TRANSIT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AND TO APPOINT THE INITIAL
MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2016-56: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 192
March 22, 2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:29 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ali/09 l'et&
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
ttest as to Chairman's
signature only. {'
These minutes pproved by the board on 2 ,.as
presented l or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 193