BCC Minutes 01/27/2004 RJanuary 27, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 27, 2004
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 district as has 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
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
January 27, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 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.
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".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 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.
1
January 27, 2004
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
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, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A.
Be
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
January 5, 2004 - BCC/City of Naples Joint Workshop
e
e
SERVICE AWARDS
A. Twenty-Year Attendee:
1) James Scarbrough, Transportation
B. Thirty-Year Attendee:
1) Arturo Herrera, Parks and Recreation
PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate Saturday, January 31, 2004, as Peaceful Paws
Day. To be accepted by March Sanders, Abused Women's Shelter; Steven
Wright, Humane Society of Collier County and Jodi Walters, Domestic
Animal Services.
2
January 27, 2004
Be
Proclamation to recognize the Month of January 2004 as the Reverend Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday celebration. To be accepted by LaVeme
Franklin, President of the NAACP.
PRESENTATIONS
Ae
Presentation by the South Florida Water Management District for watershed
initiatives in Collier County in the amount of $1.3 million.
Bo
Recommendation that Debbi Maxon, Case Manager, Public Services
Division, be recognized as "Employee of the Month" for January 2004.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
As
The Collier County Airport Authority Ordinance; amending powers,
functions and duties of the Board and the authority; amending the authority's
budget and reporting requirements; amendments regarding employment of
the Executive Director; amendments regarding transfer of airports, real and
personal property, systems, materials and personnel; affirming all other
provisions; repealing and superseding Collier County Ordinance Nos. 90-29,
95-67, 99-10 and 2002-28; providing for conflict and severability; providing
for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing an effective
date.
Bo
An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-75, the Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance, to prohibit
the Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee (PVCA) from
authorizing any individual to operate a vehicle for hire if the driver applicant
had been convicted of one or more specified ten year crime less than ten
years prior to the date of the application to the PVCA. Unless the PVCA
grants an exemption; providing for exceptions and exemptions; providing for
inclusion into the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and
severability; providing an effective date.
Co
An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 99-
38, the Collier County Maximum Fees for Non-consent Towing and Storage
of Vehicles Ordinance; amending Section four to clarify that vehicle towing
3
January 27, 2004
e
10.
companies, when engaged in non-consent towing or non-consent storage,
shall not charge any administrative charge or fee unless the towing company
actually incurs such cost as a direct expense and pays that expense;
amending Section Six regarding the County's wrecker operation system and
clarifying penalty provisions; providing for conflict and penalty provisions;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion into the Code
of Laws and Ordinances; providing an effective date.
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to consider and
adopt amendments to the Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 2003-53.
te
Recommendation to approve an ordinance establishing an Animal Services
Advisory Board.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Recommendation to declare 3 vacancies on the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
Ce
Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
De
Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Bayshore/Avalon
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Fe
Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
(Item 10A is a companion to 10B) Approval of the Conservation Collier
Active Acquisition List and direction for staff to actively pursue projects
recommended within the A category. (Joe Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator.)
Be
(Item 1 OB is a companion item to 10A) Recommendation for Board
direction to change the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, currently
Resolution No. 2003-195, to better allow for partnering with other agencies
in the acquisition of land by adopting a revised purchase policy in a
4
danuary 27, 2004
Resolution superceding Resolution No. 2003-195. (Joe Schmitt, CD&ES
Administrator.)
Item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners by the Greater Naples Area Chamber of Commerce and the
Solid Waste Management Department of an eighteen-month and final
progress report regarding the proposed mandatory non-residential recycling
ordinance within the unincorporated areas of Collier County. (Jim DeLony,
Public Utilities Administrator.)
De
Adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple title interests
and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests required for the
construction of a six-lane section of Immokalee Road between U.S.
Highway 41 and Interstate 75 (Capital Improvement Element No. 73, Project
No. 66042). Estimated fiscal impact: $4,500,700. (Norman Feder,
Transportation Services Administrator.)
Ee
This item was continued from the January_ 13, 2004 BCC meeting.
Alternative road impact fee calculation for Shelton Jaguar/Land Rover
dealership replacement facility. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator.)
Fe
Item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. This item to be heard before Items 10A and
1 OB. To approve the purchase of a 50-acre parcel of land located in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden
Gate Parkway for the purpose of providing for drainage improvements,
transportation improvements and environmental protection. (Fiscal impact:
Up to $20,000,000.) (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator.)
Go
That the Board of County Commissioners consider amending the Medic 80
Agreement with Naples Community Hospital to address additional requests
raised by the Hospital. (John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator)
Discussion and decisions regarding the Economic Development Council's
recommendation to provide economic incentives to Satire Aircraft Company
for development of an aircraft manufacturing facility at the Florida
Tradeport. (Joseph Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
5
,January 27, 2004
Ae
Approval of an agreement to waive costs in the Flagg vs. Collier County
Lawsuit, Case #2:02-CV-274-FT.M-29 DNF, in exchange for the Plaintiff's
agreement to forego the right of appeal. (David Weigel, County Attorney)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
To consider the results of the "Naples Park Community Public
Opinion Survey Final Report" prepared by Trullinger Associates, Inc.
and consider this proposal dead.
2)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway and drainage
improvements for the final plat of"Riverchase Shopping Center First
Addition". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, there are no water or sewer improvements associated with
the subdivision.
3)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Majors Phase
Three", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
4)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Maj ors Phase Two"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
5)
Reject all bids received under Bid No. 04-3601 - "Housing
Rehabilitation Inspection and Contract Management Services" and
RFP 04-3600- "General Contractor Contract for Residential Housing
$
danuar¥ 27, 2004
Be
6)
7)
Rehabilitation Services", and authorize the Financial Administration
and Housing Department to utilize one open planning position to
implement and administer the Residential Rehabilitation Program.
Fee Schedule amendment for well permits and inspections of
abandonment and plugging of existing wells.
Approval of an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the City of
Naples to administer contracts with Tomasello Consulting Engineers,
Inc., for engineering services related to Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) restudy and appeal.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Obtain Board authorization for the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Fund to make payment to Four Seasons Banner Company in the
amount of $6,562 for the purchase of holiday banners and bracket
sets.
2)
That the Board authorize the Transportation Administrator or his
designee to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration
Section 5310 grant application and applicable documents, and accept
on behalf of the County any such grant awarded.
3)
That the Board authorize the Transportation Administrator or his
designee to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration
Section 5311 grant application and applicable documents, and to
accept on behalf of the County any such grant awarded.
4)
That the Board approve the Vehicle Lease Agreement between the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and ATC Paratransit
and authorize the Chairman to enter into the agreement.
5)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3599 "Traffic Sign Materials
and Related Items" to multiple firms.
6)
Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) single engine
sweeper truck from Environmental Products of Florida. Bid #04-
3500.
7
January 27, 2004
7)
8)
9)
IO)
Approve Selection Committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiation for RFP #04-3571, "Green Boulevard Extension Corridor
Study."
Request the Board approve a resolution authorizing implementation of
a twenty miles per hour (20 MPH) school zone during school arrival
and dismissal hours, as posted on site, on roads adjacent to Golden
Gate Intermediate Center North and Golden Gate Intermediate Center
South, at a cost of approximately $1250.
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3586 "Installation and
Maintenance of Street Lights" to E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc.
Recommendation to award Bid #04-3603 "Purchase of Lime-Rock
and Fill Material" for the estimated annual amount of $500,000 to Big
Island Excavating, Inc., Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and Southern
Sand and Stone, Inc.
1i)
Recommendation to award Bid #04-3605 "Purchase and delivery of
metal and polyethylene pipe" for the estimated annual amount of
$25,000 to National Waterworks, Inc., Ferguson Waterworks, Metal
Culverts and Contech Construction Products.
12)
Board approval of Adopt-a-Road Program agreements at the Board of
County Commissioners meeting on January 27, 2004.
i3)
Request the Board accept on behalf of the County a private donation
of trees for use within public property from Superior Plant Company
valued at $6,900.
i4)
Board approval of a budget amendment in the amount of $330,055 for
the Florida Department of Transportation State Block Grant Funds.
i5)
Approve supplemental Work Order #2 for the Forest Lakes MSTU to
Wilson Miller, Inc., in the amount of $99,500.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Re-confirm approval of a $60,000 budget amendment and a change
order under the project to renourish Hideaway Beach with Upland
Sand, Project 90541, in the amount of $107,188.53.
8
January 27, 2004
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a solid waste
residential account wherein the County has received payment and said
lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal Impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of
non-exclusive, perpetual utility and maintenance easements,
temporary construction easements, and access easements for the
construction of a sewer force main, raw water mains and well sites
required for the Collier County Water-Sewer District's South County
Regional Water (SCRWTP) 12 - MGD Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Wellfield Expansion Project, Project Number 70892, at a cost not to
exceed $1,300,000.
Award annual contract for instrumentation, control, telemetry, and
SCADA Integration services pursuant to RFP 04-3536, in the
estimated amount of $1,500,000.
Board approval of a budget amendment to recognize additional
revenue from the pollution clean-up and restoration contract GC 623
in the amount of $66,257.
Approval to transfer funds and the associated budget amendments for
Contract No. GC 623 with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (RDEP) from Water Pollution Control Fund (114) to
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (116) in the amount of $201,257 and to
transfer the remaining budget in the amount of $30,300 to Reserve for
Contingencies in Water Pollution Control Fund (114).
Approve a work order with Greeley and Hansen, LLC to perform an
infiltration/inflow study for the North County Wastewater service area
in the amount of $251,980, Project Number 72502.
9
January 27, 2004
De
me
9)
Authorization to execute and record a satisfaction for a certain water
and/or sewer impact fee payment agreement. Fiscal impact is $15.00
to record the satisfaction.
10)
Approve the Satisfactions of Lien documents filed against real
property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
record same in the public records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal
impact is $96.00 to record the liens.
11)
Approve consultant selection and authorize staff to begin negotiations
for Wellfield Reliability Improvement and Expansion Program, RFP
04-3593, Projects 70158, 70899, 70900, 71002, 71006 and 71011 with
estimated fees on the order of $1,000,000 per year for five to eight
years.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a sub-recipient agreement between Collier County
Emergency Medical Services Department and the Florida Department
of Health for domestic security equipment.
2)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $28,048 to upgrade
materials used in the re-roofing of East Naples Community Center.
3)
Approve the award of Bid No. 04-3596 to Gulfshore Pharmacy for the
Human Services Department/Social Services Medication Assistance
Program.
4)
Approve the Older Americans Act Continuation Grant in the amount
of $869,125 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency
on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of
Southwest Florida.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to accept staff's short list for architectural services
for the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, RFP# 04-3582.
2)
Approve a resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida during the 2004
10
January 27, 2004
3)
4)
5)
6)
calendar year to execute agreements, deeds and other documents
required for the sale of GAC Land Trust property.
Award of Contract #03-3548 to Jones Edmunds and Associates, Inc.
for consultant services for developing a Land and Land Rights GIS
database in the estimated initial contract amount of $205,224.
Approve resolution providing for the acceptance of conveyances made
by developers in compliance with development commitment
requirements and ordinances.
Approval of a resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute deed
certificates for the sale of burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial
Gardens Cemetery during the 2004 calendar year.
Authorize conveyance of an easement to Florida Power and Light
Company for utility facilities to service the Grey Oakes Fire/Safety
Station at a cost not to exceed $15.00.
G.
H.
I.
Ke
COUNTY MANAGER
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 2004.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Approval of settlement agreement and mutual release between Collier
County, Texas Industries, N.V. and Collier Cultural and Educational
Center in reference to Case No. 01-4571-CA-HDH that is now
pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court for Naples, Collier
County, Florida.
January 27, 2004
2)
Approve the agreement entitled "Prepayment of Educational Impact
Fee Agreement", which agreement implements that portion of the
Heritage Bay Development Order requiring the repayment of school
impact fees, thereby allowing developer's $1,700,000 prepayment to
be deposited into the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Trust Account,
and to authorize the execution of the agreement by the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners.
3)
Request to the making of four offers ofjudgrnent relative to the fee
taking of Parcels Nos. 113, 125, 127 and 128 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County V. G. Herbst, et al., Case No. 02-5138-CA
(Immokalee Road Project #60018).
4)
Request to approve the making of an offer of judgment to respondent
Nova Capital, L.P., A Delaware Partnership, D/B/A Mastercraft
Homes Limited, for the fee taking of Parcel Nos. 102 and 702 in the
amount of $20,940 in the lawsuit styled Collier County V. Faith Bible
Church of Naples, Inc., ET AL., Case No. 99-2165-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #69101).
5)
Approval of Settlement and Tolling Agreement between Collier
County and Rock Oil Company in reference to Case No. 2:03-CV-65-
FTM-29DNF that is now pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
6)
Accept offer of DeMinimus Settlement Agreement from United States
Environmental Protection Agency to settle all of Collier County's
Potential Liability regarding pollution from former Florida Petroleum
Reprocessing Facility at 3211 SW 50th Avenue, Davie, Broward
County, Florida, and authorize payment of $6,463.12 to USEPA and
$2,154.38 to the City of Fort Lauderdale in full settlement of Collier
County's Potential Total Liability.
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
12
.January 27, 2004
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
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDEX2003-AR-4607 Jeffrey A.
Nunner, P.E., of Nunner Group, LLC, representing Cleveland Clinic Florida,
requesting a two-year extension of the Astron Plaza Planned Unit
Development (PUD), pursuant to LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6, for a 8.56 acre tract
located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Napa Boulevard and
Pine Ridge Road in the southeast quadrant of the 1-75 and Pine Ridge Road
intersection, in Section 17, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Petition AVPLAT2003-AR5000 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's interest in a
portion of the drainage easement located on Tract "F" according to the plat
of"Fountainhead Subdivision Replat" as recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 53
through 54, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 5,
Township 49 south, Range 26 east.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
January 27, 2004
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
will come to order.
Sir, do we have everybody?
You have a hot mike.
Very good. Thank you. The meeting
First and foremost, we'd like to have the invocation by Reverend
Josh Perez from New Hope Ministries. Would you all please stand.
Would you come to a microphone, sir, so everybody can hear.
MR. MUDD: Any one you want.
REVEREND PEREZ: Dear heavenly Father, we come before
you this -- this day, and we thank you for your goodness, we thank
you for your mercy, your faithfulness. We thank you, Father, that you
are a good God.
Father, we just ask that you would -- that you would reveal to us
your plan, your purposes, your ideas, Father, that, our agendas or our
ideas would not be what would go forth but, God, your plan, your
ideas, your agenda.
We thank you, Lord, for this day. We ask that you would lead
us, that you would guide us, that you would direct this meeting.
In your name we pray, amen.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Amen. Thank you.
And Mr. Mudd, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in
unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay. Now, we shall discuss if there are any additions or
Page 2
January 27, 2004
corrections to the agenda. Shall we start with the county attorney,
David Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good morning, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: I have no changes for the agenda. I will have a
comment at staff communication at the end of the meeting. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. And Jim Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: I'm fine.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, we knew you had some,
Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes to Board of County
Commissioners meeting January 27th, 2004.
First item is to add on an item 10(I) to be heard at two p.m. along
with items 10(H) and 10(J), and this is to discuss only a resolution.
And I want to say that again, it's to discuss only, it's not to approve.
To discuss only a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, supporting Satire Aircraft Company as a
qualified applicant pursuant to section 288.106 of the Florida Statutes;
and providing an appropriation of one point-- excuse me, 1,330,000
as a local participation in the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax
Refund Program and Brownfield Area Program; and providing for an
effective date, and that's at staff's request.
A companion item is to add on item 10(J) to be heard also at two
p.m. along with items 10(H) and 10(I). This item is to discuss only,
again, because the -- because the -- if you'll look at the executive
summary, it says to approve. But in this particular case because of
advertising issues, it's to discuss only a resolution by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, make findings;
designating a Brownfield Area within Collier County for the purpose
of environmental rehabilitation and economic development, and
Page 3
January 27, 2004
providing for an effective date.
The third item is, item 17(B) was placed on the agenda in error.
The item was advertised for and will be heard at the February 10th,
2004, BCC meeting, and this issue pertains to a petition, AV -- an AV
plat, 2003-AR5000, to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the county's and
the public's interest in a portion of the drainage easement located at
Tract F according to the plat of "Fountainhead Subdivision Replat," as
recorded in Plat Book 27, page 53 through 54, public records of
Collier County, Florida, located in section 5, township 49 south, range
26 east, and that's at staff's request.
The fourth item is a clarification of item 16(K)1. When the board
approves the revised settlement agreement, the board will also accept
the deed for the 20-acre cultural center parcel that has the Exhibit B
attached. Exhibit B to the deed is a one-page, one-paragraph
attachment.
It sets forth the conditions requested by the board when the
original settlement agreement was presented for acceptance in
November of 2003. All parties to the agreement have signed the
revised one -- the revised one except the county. The agreement also
contains same new terms as though -- as those in Exhibit B.
And then we have time certain items for today, Madam Chair,
and they are:
Item 10(C) will be heard at 11 a.m., and 10(C) is the proposed
mandatory recycling -- the mandatory non-residential recycling
ordinance within the unincorporated area of Collier County.
Item 10(F) to be heard at one p.m. with 10(A) and 10(B)
following, and 10(F) is the purchase of the 50-acre parcel of land
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway, which we finally
call the Fleischmann property.
The third item that's time certain is item 10(G), and that's to be
heard at 2:30 p.m., and that's to consider amending the Medic 80
Page 4
January 27, 2004
Agreement with Naples Community Hospital to address additional
requests raised by the hospital.
And last but not least, item 10(H), 10(I) and 10(J), which all have
to do with Satire Aircraft Company coming to Collier County, will be
heard at two p.m.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Do I have any additions,
corrections, or comments from board members? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, and I don't have any ex parte
on this particular meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, and ex parte as well.
Thank you.
Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have nothing I want to
change, but I just want to declare that I -- on the summary agenda,
17(A), I do have some emails, and they're in my file for anyone that
wishes to see them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first of all, the -- I truly
enjoyed the invocation this morning. It was a great message.
The -- I do have ex parte communication on item 17(A) from a
Nelson Warner quite a few years ago.
The other thing is, I would like to continue 8(D). That's the
towing ordinance. I met with some folks yesterday, and I understand
that there's -- it's going to bring some problems. So I'd like to continue
that and direct our staff to work with the industry and concerned
citizens.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do I need a vote on that from the
other members or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it 8(C)?
Page 5
January 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: It's 8(C). You're talking about the towing
ordinance.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: As part of your revisions to the agenda, you can
take that into consideration at that time, and I would ask, if Mr.
Henning or the board has a desire for a time to bring it back within the
advertisement or if we should continue it generally and then
readvertise to bring it back. We have up to five weeks from this initial
date to bring it back within the current advertisement, but it's
obviously at your pleasure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you know, however you
want to proceed as far as the ordinance and working with the
community on it, you know. Why don't we say continue it
indefinitely, and we can still catch the advertisement if we have it
back in five weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: No. If we don't indicate today a specific time
within the five-week period, we'll have to readvertise altogether. But I
might suggest that we go two meetings from today, which would be
approximately four weeks. Today is the 17th. Would that put us -- is
it the March 9th meeting, Jim?
MR. MUDD: The March 9th meeting would be the first one in
March, and that would give you -- you'd be within the time period
you're talking about, David. That would give you -- it would basically
give you three meetings -- it will be three meetings from today.
MR. WEIGEL: Three -- we don't want to go six weeks. So
maybe the second one in February would be fine, and if we can't make
it, we'll advise the board at that time and work with the people in the
meantime. Two meetings -- two meetings from today, which is --
MR. MUDD: Which would be the 24th of February.
MR. WEIGEL: So in your motion in regard to the agenda
Page 6
January 27, 2004
generally, if you wish to, you could indicated that that item, 8(C),
would be continued to the second meeting in February.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, once we hear from the rest
of the commissioners, then I'll make a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Coyle, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was my comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you're asking me if I have --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- any ex parte disclosures --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, no. I wanted to finish the subject
first. I'm sorry.
Any commissioners -- does anybody have a problem with putting
this off till another agenda? (No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Nor do I. That's fine.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, can we have a motion then to continue
item 8(C) until 24 February, and that's --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to --
MR. MUDD: -- that process -- because it's been advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
continue 8(C) until the second meeting in February, also to approve
today's agenda as amended, today's agenda, the regular, summary and
consent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will second that, except I have not
had a chance to indicate any ex parte disclosures and --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We've got you next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have none.
Page 7
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You have none, and you have no
changes --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have none.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have no changes to the
agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- a second by Commissioner Coyle.
And is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. We will put this on a
furore agenda.
Commissioner Coyle has stated he has no ex parte.
Do you have any changes or anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no changes at all.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I have no ex parte either, and no
changes to the agenda.
So with that--
Page 8
January 27, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman -- pardon me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And by the way, the ex parte is
only for the consent portion of the agenda. If we have ex parte --
MR. WEIGEL: The summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- disclosures -- or the summary,
I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right, which is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we have any ex parte disclosures
for the primary agenda, then we will disclose it at that point in time,
right?
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, I'd like to add for the record
that 16(A)6 involves a fee change, and county attorney office wants to
assure that a resolution is noted on the record for the memorialization
of that fee change. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: 16(A)67
MR. WEIGEL: (A)6. I've so stated on the record, so I think
we're --
MR. MUDD: 16 -- wait -- (A)6 was the well permits, and the
way it had been written was we were collecting $300 when they put in
a new one and they were collecting $150 from when they abandoned.
We thought that those fees were a little bit unfair, and plus, they didn't
incentivize the owners to do the right thing with their wells, so we
reduced the abandonment fee to $50, okay?
And if they come in and they want to do both at the same time,
it's just a straight $300 fee instead of it being $450 as it was before.
So we just tried to straighten this out just a tad.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
May I hear a motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Page 9
January 27, 2004
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good; passes, 5-0.
Page 10
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
January 27, 2004
Add On Item 10(I) to be heard at 2:00 p.m. along with Items 10(H) and 10(J): To
discuss only a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, supporting Safire Aircraft Company as a qualified applicant
pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of
$1,330,000 as local participation in the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund
Program and Brownfield Area Program, and providing for an effective date. (Staff
request.)
Add On Item 10(J) to be heard at 2:00 p.m. alonq with Items 10(H) and 10(I): To
discuss only a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, making findings; designating a Brownfield Area within Collier
County for the purpose of environmental rehabilitation and economic
development, and providing for an effective date. (Staff request.)
Item 17B was placed on this a.qenda in error. Item was advertised for and will be
heard at the February 10, 2004 BCC meetin.~: Petition AVPLAT 2003-AR5000 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's interest in a portion
of the drainage easement located on Tract "F" according to the plat of
"Fountainhead Subdivison Replat" as recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 53 through
54, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 5, Township 49
south, Range 26 east. (Staff request.)
Clarification of Item 16(K)1: When the Board approves the revised settlement
agreement, the Board will also accept the deed for the twenty acre cultural center
parcel that has the "Exhibit B" attached. Exhibit B to the deed is a one page, one
paragraph attachment. It sets forth the conditions requested by the Board when
the original settlement agreement was presented for acceptance in November. All
parties to the agreement have signed the revised one except the County. The
agreement also contains the same new terms as those in the Exhibit "B".
Time Certain Items:
Item 10C to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Proposed mandatory non-residential recycling
ordinance within the unincorporated areas of Collier County.
Item 10F to be heard at 1:00 p.m. with 10A and 10B followinq. 50-acre parcel of
land located in northeast quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road
and Golden Gate Parkway (Fleischman property.)
Item 10G to be heard at 2:30 p.m. Consider amending the Medic 80 Agreement
with Naples Community Hospital to address additional requests raised by the
hospital.
10(H), 10{I) and 10(J) all to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Safire Aircraft Company.
January 27, 2004
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 5, 2004 BCC/CITY OF NAPLES
JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
And now January 5th, BCC -- this must be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve--
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- workshops.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good, 5-0.
Item # 3
SERVICE AWARDS: TWENTY-YEAR TO JAMES
SCARBROUGH OF TRANSPORTATION AND THIRTY-YEAR
TO ARTURO HERRERA OF PARKS AND RECREATION-
PRESENTED
And now we have service awards, and Commissioner Coyle will
be presenting our service awards today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only problem is, I don't have
Page 11
January 27, 2004
any service awards to present.
MR. MUDD: They're down here at the table, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: They're down here at the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: The first awardee -- and I heard that -- I heard that
this was a No Spin Zone. The first awardee is James Scarborough
from the transportation maintenance and R&B section. He is a
20-year awardee. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Twenty years, that's great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next 20 years will be better.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Jim, if we can get your picture with the
commissioners. You've got to smile, Jim. Thanks, Jim.
Our next -- our next awardee -- congratulations.
Our next awardee is a 30-year employee, and that's Armro
Herrera from Parks and Recreation. (Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thirty years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't think the county
government was that old.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some day you'll probably be a
commissioner. After 30 years I got involved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Come back and take a picture.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 12
January 27, 2004
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SATURDAY, JANUARY 31,
2004, AS PEACEFI ~1~ PAWS DAY- ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Next on our agenda we have
proclamations. The first proclamation will be read by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm not too sure
who is going to be able to come up to receive this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Accepted by March Sanders.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jodi Walker (sic) from the
Animal Services here, or the Abused Women's Shelter, March--
MR. MUDD: Steven Wright, Jody Walters, March Sanders. Ah,
there we go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, if I may. Thank you for
coming.
Whereas, we have been endowed with the blessings and benefits
of both our human and animal friends, who give us companionship
and great pleasure in our daily lives; and,
Whereas, we accept our responsibility to protect all creatures
with whom we share the earth from fear, suffering, pain, and need;
and,
Whereas, we recognize the kindness, consideration, and respect
for all living things are the basic values on which a human (sic) and a
civilized society is built; and,
Whereas, the people in this community are deeply indebted to the
Shelter for Abused Women and Children, and the Humane Society of
Collier County, and the Collier County Domestic Animal Services for
their invaluable contributions in caring for victims of domestic
violence and pet abuse, and for promoting a spirit of kindness and
consideration for all creatures in the minds and hearts of all people.
Page 13
January 27, 2004
And therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, by virtue of the power vested
in us as commissioners of Collier County, we do proclaim and
pronounce Saturday, January 31,204 (sic), as Peaceful Paw Day,
dedicated to promote harmony among all family members, and I do
highly recommend to all our citizens a full participation in the events
of this day at Vineyards Community Park.
Done and ordered this, the 27th day of January, 204 (sic), Donna
Fiala, chairman, chair person. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Chairman is good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So moved. Motion for approval,
seconded.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIAIJA: Take a picture, then we'll have
somebody give a speech or something.
MR. WRIGHT: I'd like to thank March Sanders for bringing this
petition forward.
MR. MUDD:
that proclamation.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
If I can get you for a picture; picture? Open up
There we go.
If somebody'd like to make a speech.
Page 14
January 27, 2004
MS. SANDERS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. We
really appreciate this recognition.
The Shelter for Abused Women, the Domestic Animal Services,
and Humane Society have put on this event for four years now, and it's
really to bring awareness to the correlation between domestic violence
and pet abuse. There's a very strong connection. If you find one in
the home, chances are you'll find the other.
And we want to let all the people in the community know about
that so they can increase their awareness. When they see something in
a family home, in a neighbor-- in a neighborhood with a child, there
might be something deeper going on, so we truly appreciate everyone
coming to Vineyards Park on Saturday and participating in our event.
It's a fun event. It's not serious. It's just a good time to get out and to
increase your awareness of this major social issue. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: What time's the event on Saturday, please?
MS. SANDERS: It starts at 8:30.
MR. MUDD: And it's at the Vineyards.
MS. SANDERS: Vineyards Community Park.
MR. MUDD: Great.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF JANUARY
2004 AS THE REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.'S
BIRTHDAY CF.I.F. BRATION- ADOPTF. D
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Our second proclamation this
morning will be read by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Commissioners, it's my honor
today to read this proclamation designating the month of January,
Page 15
January 27, 2004
2004, as peaceful -- no, as -- as Reverend Martin Luther King's
birthday celebration for the whole month of January, and I'd like to at
this time -- to call up Laverne Franklin, president of the double A,
NAACP to accept this proclamation.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has
designated the birthday of rev -- Dr. Reverend-- Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., as a national holiday; and,
Whereas, the President of the United States signed legislation
authorizing the Reverend Dr. King's birthday, January 20th, as a
national holiday; and,
Whereas, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., receives
national and international recognition for his striving (sic) struggle
against injustice and his leadership in espousing brotherhood,
self-discipline, and nonviolence; and,
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the National Association
for the Advanced (sic) of Colored People, NAACP, will hold a
commemorative celebration of the Reverend Dr. King's birthday by
sponsoring a -- community activities and events throughout the month
of January, 2004.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of January,
2004, be designated as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
birthday celebration in Collier County, Florida, and urge all citizens to
remember the Reverend King's outstanding accomplishments and
participating (sic) in commemorative celebration to be held throughout
the month of January.
Commissioners, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor?
Page 16
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
MS. FRANKI.IN:
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you very much.
Laverne, so good to have you here.
Good morning, and thank you very much for
this honor.
On behalf of the NAACP, we accept this proclamation. And we
started celebrating Dr. King's birthday on January the 11 th. His
birthday is the 15th.
We also had an activity on the 19th, and we will have -- what Dr.
King pushed for was voter rights. One of the main issues were voter
rights.
And this Friday at the River Park Community Center, we will
have all the candidates, you know, that are running for office in the
City of Naples there. So that will be at seven o'clock at the River Park
Community Center.
But in addition to that, I would like to say that Dr. King was the
only African-American who has been awarded a national holiday.
And we celebrate maybe -- literally a month or day on his birthday or
his death, but we should celebrate the principles that he fought for and
died for every single day, because he only -- he didn't only affect the
lives of African-Americans, but of all Americans.
And we do honor Dr. King, and we thank you very much for this
proclamation.
(Applause.)
Page 17
January 27, 2004
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF A CHECK 1N THE AMOUNT OF $1.3
MILLION BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT FOR WATERSHED INITIATIVES IN COLLIER
COl JNTY - PRF. SF. NTED
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And now we move forward with the
presentation to the South Florida Water Management District
watershed initiatives. Oh, presentation by, excuse me.
MS. MAC'KIE: I was going to say. We're here to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I almost gave you a present.
MS. MAC'KIE: That'd be good. I always love presents.
Pam Mac'Kie from the South Florida Water Management
District. We are honored to be here today. And it's always fun to
come home, but really exciting to come home and bring the
participation of the Water Management District into Collier County
and the City of Naples to do some very important work that we're
really proud to be able to bring these checks to you.
And we're very, very proud to have with us today the mayor of
the City of Naples, who also comes (sic). We are including the Naples
Bay initiative today, and we're very honored to bring to you this
morning, Ms. Trudy Williams, who is Southwest Florida's
representative on the governing board.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And look at the other cast of
wonderful people here. Bonnie MacKenzie, and then we have Becky
representing Burt-- Senator Saunders, and we have our own
representative Dudley Goodlette and our ever popular Representative
Mike Davis, and, of course, we have -- my goodness, we have a whole
host of wonderful people.
MS. MAC'KIE: And I think Trudy's going to introduce these
Page 18
January 27, 2004
folks.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I just had to say on the
record.
MS. WILLIAMS: No, she did a great job.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Wonderful.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't need to repeat it.
Thank you so much. We're just really excited about being able to
present you with a check for $1.3 million for the initiatives. And we
also really want to thank our state representatives.
We've asked them to sponsor-- to help the Water Management
District sponsor these bills, and they stepped up to the plate, and
Senator Saunders has sponsored the Naples Bay restoration at a--
where -- appropriations of $4.5 million, the Estero Bay initiative for
$5 million, the Big Cypress restoration, $4.8 million; Lake Trafford
restoration for $3 million; Representative Goodlette, the Naples Bay
restoration, $4.5 million; and Representative Davis, the Big Cypress
restoration at $4.8 million.
So the things, from what I understand, are looking really, really
good for these to actually come to fruition. So we really need to give
them a great round of applause and thank them. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MS. MAC'KIE: Oh, we would love to have our elected officials
help us with these check presentations, because even though they
come from the Water Management District, the Water Management
District was able to step up and fill in where -- in the session last year,
these were initiatives that were supported by our -- by our
representatives that just didn't quite make the final cut.
So we, on their behalf and ours, want to bring these checks to
you today, and--
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You know what, I think this is a
perfect time for a picture opportunity. We would all be proud to have
our picture taken with these fine people, so --
Page 19
January27,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
autographed copy.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
We're going to ask for an
Dudley signed that check.
Oh, did he?
MS. Mac'KIE: We thank you, County Commissioners, and look
forward to working with you as we go forward on these important
initiatives for Collier County and the City of Naples.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Bless your heart.
Thank you all for being here today. This is a wonderful
initiative. Boy, this is going to certainly help us in Collier County a
lot as we move forward with our water concerns, to correct our water
concerns.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING DEBBI MAXON, CASE MANAGER, PUBLIC
SERVICES DIVISION AS "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH" FOR
JANI IARY_ 2004- RECOGNIZFD
Next we have Debbi Maxon. She's the case manager from public
services division, to be recognized as Employee of the Month, and I'm
just so delighted that I get to present this.
Debbi, come on up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I've known Debbi from way back
when I worked at the hospital, so this is really a pleasure for me.
Congratulations. You deserve it, Debbi.
I have to find the right place here.
Debbi Maxon has a master's degree from the University of South
Florida in gerontology, and she is viewed as an expert in our
community on geriatric case management services.
Debbi is a certified case manager from the Department of Elder
Page 20
January 27, 2004
Affairs.
Debbi has worked for Collier County for the past 12 years and
has become an expert in her position. And I can vouch for that, by the
way. Not only has she thought of ideas for improving and enhancing
the services she provides elders who seek to remain independent in
our community, but also has eased the workload for her colleagues.
Most recently working with a colleague, she initiated and
completed the entire assessment process for the Services for Seniors
Program.
A staff member associated with the program explained Debbi's
achievements by stating, as case managers, we go into people's homes
to help them access available community resources, which allow the
elders to remain safely in their homes as long as possible.
The state, federal, and county requirements have generated
several hours worth of paperwork to meet the requirements. Debbi
investigated the successful computerized programs in other counties
and extrapolated their information for the use of our program.
Debbi worked on her own time and after hours to fine-tune the
computerizing of the required forms and data gathering instruments.
This has helped us not only to be productive, but to better serve our
citizens and clients.
In addition to the automation of the case management forms,
Debbi constantly gets positive feedback from the customers she
serves. Compliments regarding her professionalism have found its
way to the "Wall of Fame," a section of the administrative offices
where letters received on behalf of good works of Collier County
government staff are displayed and honored.
So for -- it's my pleasure to present you with a check from Collier
County Government, and this is a little token. This is a letter from me.
Thank you. And this is a plaque to put on your wall and display
proudly.
Thank you, Debbi, for all you've done to make us look good.
Page 21
January 27, 2004
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
That was really a pleasure.
Get a picture.
She has her fan club over here, too.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- there's no items on
public petitions, nor are there any items on the board of zoning
appeals on paragraph 7.
That brings us to paragraph 8, advertised public hearings.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-03: THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY ORDINANCE AMENDING POWERS, FUNCTIONS
AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD AND THE AUTHORITY;
AMENDING THE AUTHORITY'S BUDGET AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS; AMENDMENTS REGARDING
EMPLOYMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR;
AMENDMENTS REGARDING TRANSFER OF AIRPORTS, REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, SYSTEMS, MATERIALS AND
PERSONNEL; AFFIRMING ALL OTHER PROVISIONS;
REPEALING AND SUPERSEDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NOS. 90-29, 95-67, 99-10 AND 2002-28;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN F~FFF, CTIVF~ DATE- ADOPTED
The first item is 8(A), which is the Collier County Airport
Authority Ordinance; amending powers, functions, and duties of the
board and the authority; amending the authority's budget and reporting
requirements; amendments regarding employment of the executive
director; amendments regarding transfer of airports, real and personal
Page 22
January 27, 2004
property, systems, materials, and personnel; affirming all other
provisions; repealing and superseding Collier County Ordinance
90-29, 95-67, 99-10, and 2002-28; providing for conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in the code of laws and
ordinances; and providing an effective date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second, but I have --
MR. WEIGEL: I think you'll need to have a public hearing and
then close the public hearing, and you may have some speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, we do have some speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: If there are any questions, county attorney office
or Mr. Mudd are ready to respond, of course. CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
If you have no further discussion before our speakers, I'll call
them to the podium. Very good.
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers, Mr. Chairman-- Madam
Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all right. It confused me a lot.
MS. FILSON: Robert Gretzke, followed by Nick Saum.
MR. GRETZKE: Hi, I'm Robert Gretzke from Everglades City.
We just wanted to make sure that Everglades City still has the
opportunity to have either transferred or buy out the Everglades City
Airport.
I was at the courthouse yesterday talking to them, and they
wanted to make sure someone was down here to represent the
community. And we hope that we can still get a meeting together and
be able to possibly take over or work out something for the Everglades
City Airport.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can-- I already asked that
Page 23
January 27, 2004
question, and I was going to ask it again in public, but I'm glad you
did.
MR. GRETZKE: Yeah, I wanted to bring it up because of the
idea of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not only that, but there's a
petition circulating in Everglades City that states the fact that you, as
the citizens, wish to have the ownership of the airport turned over to
Everglades City.
There seems to be some doubts on the part of the Airport
Authority what the will of the people of Everglades City is, and I
would strongly recommend that you support that petition and move it
forward.
MR. GRETZKF.: Well, it's been a little confusing, that's the
problem, is, it's not -- the point's not getting across right now. We're
hoping to get a meeting together, of course, with the airport com --
airport board and also the authority in order to transfer the airport or
buy it out with Everglades City. And so far, that meeting hasn't come
about.
MR. MUDD: The meeting is set for Mayor Hamilton at nine
o'clock Monday morning.
MR. GRETZKF.: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: And the Airport Authority and myself will be
there to talk to him about the terms and conditions of this particular
transfer.
MR. GRETZKE: Good. We just wanted to make sure that
everybody knew down here that the people are still interested.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sammy's had some extra eye surgery,
and it was kind of tough to get on his schedule, so we got him for
Monday.
MR. GRETZKFJ: Yeah. It's been hard to get ahold of him, too.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm glad you told us. Thank you, sir.
Page 24
January 27, 2004
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Nick Saum.
MR. SAUM: Rumors abound down in Everglades City, and -- so
I'm hearing some rumors.
I was here a few weeks ago and at the Everglades City Council
meeting, and Commissioner Henning had a throw-away motion that
said the airport would never be sold, and it was pretty vaguely
worded, and everybody said okay.
And that also precluded sale to Everglades City, the way it was
worded, but I haven't heard anything more about it.
Then last week, I guess during your budget session in the agenda,
the airport was brought up, and two commissioners are reported to
have said, we want to sell that airport or shut it down, and it needs to
be done in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't --
MR. SAUM: That's the rumor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where'd you hear that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That didn't happen.
MR. SAUM: Okay. That was the rumor. I wasn't here.
We -- we are very much concerned about that airport. We started
having fly-in breakfasts out there. And the first weekend we had 42
planes flew in for a pancake breakfast put on by the Everglades City
Pilots Association.
Last weekend we had 30 planes that flew in. There were two
other competing fly-in breakfasts that day.
Sunday of the -- or Saturday of this week, this last weekend, we
had a bunch of planes came in and as a result of that, and they spent a
lot of money in Everglades City. They all went into town. They
weren't there for free pancakes, which we're doing every two weeks.
So we're doing our part to make the airport economically
important to the City of Everglades, and we would like some help.
But this -- this thing was a little bit of a surprise to all of us too. We
Page 25
January 27, 2004
didn't find out about it until yesterday that you were going to discuss,
quote, getting rid of the airport in one way or another. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to, one
more time, emphasize the importance of the petition that's in
Everglades right now. If we continue with the status quo the way it is,
you can bet your bottom dollar that in another four or five years, this
will be coming up again and again and again. And at some point in
time, you will lose out.
If you can bring that airport under the control of Everglades City
with a reverter clause put in there by the county so that they can never
sell it for anything but an airport, you'll have all the protection you
could ever need. That would be my recommendation.
And so, support that petition, see if you can get it signed and
maybe to Sammy Hamilton's office, at least in partial form, before that
meeting takes place next -- what day is that, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: We meet with him on Monday, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next Monday? That gives you
plenty of time for circulating around town. I believe you'll be able to
-- if you talk to Chris Amberman (phonetic), she'll be able to supply
you with copies of that petition.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We have no further speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to make a comment
also, to reinforce the people down there in Nap -- in Everglades City.
I feel very strongly on that airport, too, and I have been down
there a number of times and see how much traffic flies in and out of
there, that, I think, deals with fishing trips and visiting the Everglades
National Park there, so I feel strongly that we need to keep that airport
also.
So whether the county runs it or whether the city runs it, it needs
to remain as an airport.
Page 26
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: With that, we'll close the public
hearing. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think we have a motion to approve
and a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's already a motion on the
floor to approve, and I second.
I would like to just clarify something with the staff. On the
executive summary, under item number 7, it says, the board must
authorize any national search for the Airport Authority's executive
director position. I don't believe that is included in the changed
ordinance itself. It doesn't refer to a national search.
I just want to make sure that we're not limiting our approval to a
national search, but a local search would be okay.
It's my understanding the intent was that we would be -- approve
any search for an executive director, and I just want to confirm that I
haven't missed something in the ordinance. But I could not find any
reference in the ordinance to prohibition against a national search.
Am I right?
MR. MUDD: The intent -- the intent was just a search.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a search.
MR. MUDD: If they went out looking for a permanent executive
director, that they would come forward to the Board of County
Commissioners and let the board know same. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And with your concurrence, they would go out
there and do that, they would -- they would interview their candidates,
and then they would come back to the Board of County
Commissioners to reaffirm that selection, just like I do when I hire an
administrator.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there's one other item in the
ordinance itself on page 5 -- or 6, paragraph number 7.
Page 27
January 27, 2004
I bring it up because it will have relevance to some of our
discussions a little later today concerning Satire Airlines where we
would have the right of approval for the term of any sublease for real
property that's greater than five years. That's a very important
consideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Comments?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
you through, Commissioner Coyle?
yOU.
I didn't know-- were
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir, I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't want to jump in front of
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That also gave -- I just wanted
to ask what the rationale was about five years. Why would we want to
limit it to five years and not have it where the county commission
would approve leases in general?
MR. MUDD: The reason we did five years is because right now
they can pretty much approve any lease they want to as long as it's
within the term of their lease, which is 29 years. So we wanted to be
more definitive on lease time so that -- we tried -- we tried to constrain
it, okay, so it would be five years.
Now, we've gone through the Airport Authority with all of these
changes to make sure that they concurred in what we were doing in
the process, and they were all right in -- you know, they're not totally
happy with all of this stuff because what you're basically doing is
you're reigning them back just a tad.
And so -- but they were -- they were okay with that particular
provision. But there's nothing that require -- requires it to be five
years. We were just trying to bring it back into the realm so that they
didn't make lease commitments that basically limited the powers of
this board to do with their airports with -- what they may in the future.
Page 28
January 27, 2004
So I tried to keep your options open.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think one of the reasons might be
that, of course, over time they're going to be negotiating leases for
tie-downs or hangars and things like that that are relatively small.
And for us to get involved in reviewing all those might be a bit
troublesome for them.
So I think they're -- they would like to have some flexibility to
deal with the relatively small leases that would be under five years and
then let us deal with those that would have a longer term impact.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So you want to include this in the
motion, both the -- eliminating the word national as well as --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I don't believe the word
national is in the motion--
MR. MUDD: It's not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or in the ordinance. It was in the
executive summary.
MR. MUDD: On page 10 it says, the executive director shall be
hired by an affirmative vote of the membership of the authority
subject to the board, that's you, approving each search for an executive
director, and, two, the board, you, approving the individual
recommended to the board for employment as the executive director
and, three, the board approving the proposed employment agreement.
So you get to look at the agreement, too, that they make with this
particular person to make sure that it's in the realm of reason.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, in essence, what I am doing is I
am -- I am seconding Commissioner Henning's motion to approve the
ordinance as it currently exists, and I merely wanted a clarification
that the contradiction that appeared in the executive summary does not
appear in the ordinance. And that has been confirmed to me.
So I am -- I am seconding Commissioner Henning's motion to
approve the ordinance as it is written.
Page 29
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I still got some concerns. Let me explain with a little more detail
about the five year -- year status that we want to put on this as far as
the leases that the Airport Authority can put on.
If we do go with turning this airport over to Everglades City, I'd
like to see them in charge of making their own decisions. And my
concern is that we might get down to the eleventh hour, and the
Airport Authority -- I'm sure they wouldn't do it, but there's a
possibility they may do something to tie up the future of that airport
and commit Everglades City to something they're not ready to take on.
So I would-- is there some way we might be able to put some
wording in there that would give Everglades City a certain amount of
a timing, so that when that time does come, they can make their own
decisions, or if this isn't going to happen? That's the concern I got.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- this is done for the
Airport Authority, and it's not relating to any one of your airports, so
there's nothing in here that has anything to do with Marco Island or
Everglades City's airport or the Immokalee Airport. It has everything
to do with your Airport Authority.
Your Airport Authority is not entering into any lease agreements
at this particular juncture down in Everglades City. We need to -- we
need to go down there, talk to the mayor on Monday. We've been
trying to do that for a week or so to try to set the schedule up so we
can work out the details in this arrangement to transfer, if that's what
the board is so inclined.
But we're going to run through those options with him and find
out what he, representing the city, wants to do. Once we have that
particular item, we have to come back to the board, if you remember
correctly, because there was one FAA grant item for Everglades City
that needs to -- we need to talk about. And we wanted to do that, and
Page 30
January 27, 2004
I'm going down with the chair and the director of the Airport
Authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, the only thing I'll
say is -- I'm not going to ask to change the motion. But possibly when
you have that meeting with the Airport Authority and Sammy
Hamilton, you bring it up as an item of discussion.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. No problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just an observation. If the
board decides they want to mm over the operation of an airport to any
city, there would be an entirely different agreement. This agreement
would not be binding upon them under those circumstances anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean the leases would be
all null and void?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I wouldn't say the leases
would, but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't think you'd want them
to be, because they're a source of revenue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no. I know that. But I
just want them to be in control of their own destiny when the time
does come. That was the only concern, and I'm sure Mr. Mudd will
bring it up and that everyone will have a good understanding when the
time comes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Hearing no further
discussion, all those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 31
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
Now we're on to -
Aye.
And opposed, like sign.
Very good. Passes 5-0.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2004-04: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-75, THE PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE
ORDINANCE, TO PROHIBIT THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PVAC) FROM
AUTHORIZING ANY INDIVIDUAL TO OPERATE A VEHICLE
FOR HIRE IF THE DRIVER APPLICANT HAS BEEN
CONVICTED OF ONE OR MORE SPECIFIED TEN YEAR CRIME
LESS THAN TEN YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE
APPLICATION TO THE PVAC. UNLESS THE PVAC GRANTS
AN EXEMPTION; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE-
ADOPTF. D
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8(B), and that's an ordinance of
Collier County, Florida, amending Collier County Ordinance number
2001-75, the Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance to prohibit the Collier
County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee from auth -- which is the
PVCA -- from authorizing any individual to operate a vehicle for hire
if the driver/applicant had been convicted of one or more specified
1 O-year crimes less than 10 years prior to the date of the application to
the PVCA, unless the PVCA grants an exemption; providing for
exceptions and exemptions; providing for inclusion into the code of
laws and ordinance; providing for conflict and severability; providing
Page 32
January 27, 2004
an effective date.
And Mr. Weigel will present, I presume.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'd like to close the public hearing
then.
Any discussion from board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to recognize the
efforts of Commissioner Henning to move this forward. I do
appreciate it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. I didn't even realize
that's why it was moved forward. I'm glad you recognized --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The pedophiles in the
taxicabs.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY ETHICS ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 - ADOPTED
Page 33
January 27, 2004
W/CHANGES
That -- and we move on to item 8(C).
MR. MUDD: 8(C) was continued previously by the board in
their -- in their early motions when they were doing the summary and
consent. It's continued until 24 February, and that was an amendment
to the Collier County Towing Ordinance. Again, item 10(C) (sic) has
been continued until 24 February.
The next item on the agenda is 8(D). It's a recommendation for
the Board of County Commissioners to consider and adopt
amendments to the Collier County Ethics Ordinance, number 2003-53.
And Mr. Michael Pettit, assistant county attorney, will present.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Pettit, chief assistant county attorney.
Before I move to the amendments and proposed amendments
before you, I wanted to give a brief update on the status of ethics -- the
ethics ordinance and ethics training.
Your county manager and our office have been working together
to raise consciousness among employees about ethics issues so that
they can spot those issues, and if they're not quite sure how to act, to
contact our office or at least go to their supervisors and discuss those
issues. And we've also been working to educate employees.
And some of the things that have occurred is, first we have an
ethics council which is composed of members of all the divisions,
chaired by Teri Widis from the Human Resources Department. I act as
advisor to that council.
And we have done -- we have now got scheduled mandatory
training on the ethics ordinance and the internal ethics code or county
code of ethics, if you will, for March 11 th. That's a tentative date, but
that's -- that's where we have it at this point -- for division
administrators and directors in the morning, and then professionals
and managers in the afternoon.
Page 34
January 27, 2004
Now, what I will tell you is, that since the most recent version of
the ethics ordinance was adopted in September, I've already conducted
an extensive training for over 100 road and bridge employees. They
wanted to know about it, and so I went out and did a training there and
answered a number of questions that they had.
In addition, our county attorney office has conducted recently
two of its four semiannual seminars for advisory board members,
interested employees, and interested members of the public on public
records, Sunshine Law, and ethic -- and ethics statutes performs a
substantial component of that training.
I can tell you that because of the volume of calls I get every week
with ethics questions, that the word is out, and it's going to be out even
more. This ethics training that the ethics council is putting together
through the HR Department will be treated just as we treat, for
example, sexual harassment training, which is required of every single
county employee. We're going to require every employee to attend
that training.
We've also done a monthly ethics question. Just -- this month we
have a question, may a county employee who owns a small business
make phone calls on behalf of the business during his or her county
working hours? And we've explained, no, and how they may be able
to accomplish business if they take vacation time or personal time or
do it on their lunch hour, but there's a specific internal personnel
policy that governs that conduct.
And we've put that out to all subscribers, and we're trying to
come up with a question every month that may be of interest or may
just make people think, gee, you know, I hadn't thought about that, or
I should be careful of that kind of thing.
We've had to offer some interpretations to employees of the
ethics ordinance as it currently exists. I just want to give you a couple
highlights.
One question that came up several times was whether the
Page 3 5
January 27, 2004
post-employment restrictions applied to employees who left the
county before they became effective, and our office has said, no, it
only went prospectively. And I think we discussed that at the time the
ethics ordinance was adopted in September.
There is also in that provision a discussion about persons
engaged in contract oversight, and the word active or actively engaged
in contract oversight is used. Let me quote it exactly. It says -- if I
can find it here. It should be on page 13 of your agenda package.
No county managerial employee, and there's also a discussion
about persons engaged in contract oversight. And the word active we
have interpreted to mean ongoing, continuous. In other words, what
we don't want to do is say, because one time while you were a county
employee, you sat on a contract selection committee, you are now
barred, and subject to that post-employment restriction, assuming that
you aren't otherwise swept into those restrictions.
We're looking for people, for example, senior project managers
who often are sitting on these RFP committees because of the
numerous projects they're involved with or have to oversee. We're
trying to target that group, and that's the intent of that.
T! ·
here s also been some history on -- issues come up where
citizens are happy with what the county has done, believe it or not.
And what they sometimes do is they come in with cookies, candy, that
kind of thing. And I've taken a position -- it may seem a little silly --
that unless there's an exception, we probably can't take those gifts
because it's -- it's a situation where it would at least look like you're
being rewarded simply for doing your county job. And so, again, I'm
trying to put some history on some of the things we're dealing with.
I can tell you that we've looked again, and we think even without
any amendments you adopt today or in the future, we have the most
restrictive ordinance in the state at this point, at least that we can
locate. In fact, a lot of counties don't have an ordinance. They simply
follow state standards.
Page 36
January 27, 2004
Circuit Court. MR. MUDD:
MR. PETTIT:
MR. MUDD:
MR. PETTIT:
With that, I'd like to talk about the amendments that we have
here. And if you look at your agenda package, page 5 -- I'm using the
agenda package numbers now because I think they're easier to follow.
And we have included a definition of county employee, because
when we were here last time, the commissioners were concerned that
it wasn't quite clear who the county employee -- who a county
employee was. And we've tried to make it clear that that basically
means anybody that gets the check from the Board of County
Commissioners.
Similarly, at page 5, under the definition of gift, and then there's
a term exceptions, and you see at the bottom --
MR. MUDD: Michael, can I make a --
MR. PETTIT: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- make a correction to that? You basically said,
anybody that receives a check from the Board of County
Commissioners. I don't think that's what the county employee
definition said.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I will tell you, the clerk -- when the clerk
folks get a check, they get a check from the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. MITCHELL: No.
MR. MUDD: Is it--
MR. MITCHELL: It's signed by -- it's strictly a Clerk of the
Same thing--
That's what I--
-- with the Supervisor of Elections?
That was my understanding.
MR. MITCHELL: All of the constitutional officers have the
authority to maintain their own funds.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So when they cut their check, it doesn't say
Page 37
January 27, 2004
board on it at all? Okay, good.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. That's -- that was my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the vendors do.
Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: The vendors?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. When we pay a bill for
services rendered, who's it from?
MR. MITCHELL: It comes from the Board of County
Commissioners. It's signed by the chairman and witnessed by the
clerk.
MR. PETTIT: That doesn't make them a county employee.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in any event, the provision that's
underlined on the page specifically provides the county employee
relationship to the county manager. And so, in shorthand statement,
the distinction is there that the constitutional officers, employees,
aren't included. But you're correct -- everyone is correct in what
they're saying to the extent that they've said it, but there's a little more
to say, and that is, it's specifically provided on that page, the
distinction of the county manager relationship. So I think we're good,
quite frankly.
MR. PETTIT: On that same page of the agenda package at the
bottom, page 5 and carrying over to page 6, is an exception to the term
gift as used in the ordinance, and that's the exception for people with
dual employment or who engaged in some sort of noncounty business.
And when we were here last time, you may recall there was
concern by board members that it wasn't clear that somebody could
engage in that kind of business where there was a conflict of interest,
and I've tried to address that in the underlying language.
I also will tell you there was a -- there's an oversight on my part.
Under the -- under that definition, we want to include the word
employee as well as official or director of a corporation or
organization so that it's clear that this would apply to employees, too.
Page 38
January 27, 2004
And I've taken the definition of conflict of interest straight out of
the Florida Statutes. And so we have put a restriction on that
exception. In other words, you can have dual employment, you can
be, for example, a commissioner with another job or a business, but as
written now, if it -- if it would conflict with your county business, you
would be precluded from doing that. So you need to understand what
the ramifications of that are.
I think the next change, at least in your package, is at page 7.
And I don't mean to make light of this, but I call this a doughnut
exception, and frankly I put this in here, and here's why. I was getting
a lot of questions about, when can I have a doughnut or a can of soda
or a bottle of water at a business meeting and when can't I?
And there is a way for those of us who went to law school to,
perhaps, construe this ordinance and allow that to occur, but I didn't
think it was clear, and it obviously wasn't clear or I wouldn't have
been getting all those questions.
Now, I have -- I have come up with this proposed exception on
my own. You can see that it would put a limitation that you would
have to be at the business activity because you had to be or because it
was appropriate in order for you to perform your county
responsibilities, and that to me, is the limiter there. I mean, you
wouldn't -- you can't just go. I mean, there has to be a reason for you
to be there. You have to be there performing county work.
And I put a $4 limitation there because, quite frankly, if
somebody offers you a doughnut and soda these days, we're getting --
we may be bumping up to $4. If you want something different, let me
know. This is just my idea. And what I'm telling you is I'm trying to
address many questions I've gotten from employees on that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: This one is an interesting one.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Suppose you go to a social
event and they have beverages that may be in excess of $4. Do you
Page 39
January 27, 2004
pay the difference?
MR. PETTIT: What I am trying to capture here, Commissioner
Halas, is this situation: You go to an office or a meeting off campus
for county business, not a social event, truly county business -- and I
thinking in terms of, you go there to discuss a contract, you go there to
discuss the status of a contract, you go there to discuss how a
consultant is going to proceed. Sometimes in our office lawyers go to
lawyers' offices for depositions, and somebody comes in and says,
would anybody like a soda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, do you have to ask them, how
much is this doughnut and coffee valued at, and if it's $4.35, then you
say, let me give you the 35 cents?
MR. PETTIT: I don't know how -- and I'm going to tell you,
there's no clean -- there's no absolutely easy way to address these
issues. I -- I'm -- what I'm trying to suggest is that the typical thing is,
there's a dish of candy, a bottled water, a cookie, and most of these
things cost -- but the cost is diminimous, and you are there because
you kind of have to be, it's your county responsibility, and-- and the
other key piece to this, I think it says it's offered to everyone at the
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. PETTIT: It's not, I'm just going to go over to these county
guys and give them a soda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But you can't have a piece of candy
that's worth $4.35, but everybody else in the room can? Is that-- I
mean --
MR. PETTIT: I don't know where to draw the line. I mean,
ultimately I think I'm asking you to help me draw that line.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, what we're dealing with here
is the fact that this ordinance, as Mike indicated, the stiffest in the
state, has criminal sanctions. And so the concept is for the reviewers
of the ordinance and the practitioners under the ordinance and the state
Page 40
January 27, 2004
attorney who may receive random complaints from anyone under this
ordinance and have to follow up, if they have -- and he used the word
reasonably in here, reasonable estimate of $4.
The idea is not to pinpoint it to 3.99 and $4.01, and there's this
threshold that suddenly a person is a criminal, but to provide a
reasonable relationship to the practices that may occur in the
customary comings and goings of business and not social. And so
from --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? Oh.
MR. WEIGEL: So from that standpoint, if you want to make
absolute bright lines and say no gifts, the inadvertent glass of water or
a Pepsi or something that you may receive may be in the eyes of some
an inappropriate gift.
Now today, for instance, just a few minutes ago, someone came
up and gave me a magnifying glass. I'm not sure what it's related to.
Is it a friendly gesture? I'm in the -- I'm doing my business right here.
And I think under the ordinance, I probably have a problem, but
inadvertently, I don't want to become a criminal.
We -- there has to be a rule of reasonability that's applied, and
that's what we're attempting to show here, is that the doughnut is not
going to turn someone into a criminal, nor should it be -- if-- the
consideration is that we talk about intent and deviation from standard
business practice and the -- and the values and the trust and
responsibilities placed upon a commissioner or any county employee.
And in getting through the daily tasks and getting on to the next
day, there can be stumbling blocks that we impose upon ourselves,
which actually prevent us from doing the tasks that we'd like to do.
That's kind of what we're working with here.
And so the idea of $4 in exactitude is not what's stated here. It's
reasonably estimated at about $4. And then if someone does file the
complaint saying, oh, this person took three Cokes and a couple
doughnuts, if they did, maybe that's the facts on a particular occasion,
Page 41
January 27, 2004
the idea will be that the prosecutor themselve.s, will say -- they have
some prosecutorial discretion to analyze what s happened and not be
forced to say, a $4 threshold has been -- has been over transgressed,
and, therefore, I must prosecute this person to the full extent of the
law.
We're looking for some reasonableness in this -- in this aspect
right now. And things happen. They just did (indicating).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Let me tell you where I'm coming
from on this whole ordinance deal.
I spend quite a bit of time outside Collier County -- excuse me --
whereby I attend seminars put on by the Florida Association of
Counties, and they have, a lot of times, social hours after we convene,
or after we're -- complete the day's work, and we end up to where
some outfit may have -- sponsor a social hour, and the social hour
could entail where you have a can of beer or maybe a glass of wine,
and you also sit around there and kibitz with your other fellow
commissioners from other counties. So you're dealing with county
work even after business hours.
It comes to the point where, first of all, there's somebody that's
sponsoring this, okay, it could be more than one sponsor that has this
social hour, and so, therefore, it's gotten to the point where I'm even
reluctant to take a can of soda pop because of the fact that it's put on
by somebody.
The other thing that I run into is where there is dinners that are
put on by people who sponsor a dinner for the county commissioners
when they convene at a meeting. And then at the end of the day, they
may meet at a restaurant or something. I feel that we're at a
disadvantage -- and I'm not -- in no way insinuating that I sell my
integrity.
Page 42
January 27, 2004
But other counties and other commissioners and other employees
of other counties can accept a gift, let's say, up to $25 for a dinner.
What we have to do is find out what the actual cost of that dinner is,
and then -- and then write a check to it, in regards to it, to make sure
that we're not in violation of any ethics code.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Halas? I'm sorry for interrupting,
but I want to -- I'm not sure you have to write that check.
There is an exception that covers, I think, a number of the issues
that you've raised here in the ordinance as it exists -- it's at page 6 in
your agenda book. It's not one of the ones that's being amended at this
point -- and it talks about food or beverage accepted when -- and it's
got some qualifications -- offered free in the course of a professional
or civic meeting or group function, at which attendance is desirable
because it will assist the persons in performing his or her official
duties or provided to all panelists or speakers when a person is
participating as a panelist or speaker in a program, seminar, or
educational conference. I think that those exceptions may assist you
in some of the instances we're describing.
It goes on and talks about the fact that if the amount of the food
or beverage exceeds your per diem and you have no control over that,
it says you may accept it under those circumstances, but there needs to
be a filing of a written disclosure statement. I don't believe our
ordinance requires a payback as long as you meet all those criteria.
Now, again, it's not an easy test to apply. I mean, there are
several criteria you have to know that you're within.
But I will give you an example that I think probably does. Let's
suppose you are at a Florida Association of County (sic) kind of
activity and a lunch is provided there by some group and there's a
speaker, I think that that probably falls within that exception. It's
treated as, for all practical purposes, not a gift.
Now, again, I am -- I understand that on the fly, some of these
exceptions or tests are hard to apply. And I will tell you, I don't -- I
Page 43
January 27, 2004
say that because I get the questions in my office, and I'll think, I think
I know the answer to that, and then I read the ordinance, and I have to
think about it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is -- you just
brought up another subject, and that's per diem. If you look at what
our level of per diem is, it's nowheres near to cover what it costs us to
go out of town and indulge in food even in a restaurant. And a lot of
times, we're held hostage at the hotel because that's where everything
takes place, and you may not have transportation at that point to go
anyplace else or time -- you have a time constraint on you in regards
to when you have to report back to the meeting. MR. PETTIT: Well, then I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's another issue, that this all
comes out of our pocket, basically.
MR. PETTIT: I agree with that, and I believe the legislature has
come up with a solution to that problem.
I think that now -- and I see Mr. Mitchell shaking his head. I
think that the legislature has now determined that we could pass a
local ordinance raising the per diem from the state statute, but the
clerk couldn't pay additional per diem unless that ordinance is
adopted.
MR. MUDD: And I have staff-- Jim Mudd, for the record. I
have staff looking into other counties and what they basically have as
far as ordinances for per diem in order to take a -- to take a look at that
particular case and see if it -- if our rates need to be raised. And we'll
come back to the board here within a month or so with our
recommendations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. I
wanted to mention the fact that I've been to a number of these ethic
seminars trying to get a grip on this, and David Weigel's accompanied
Page 44
January 27, 2004
me to at least two of them, and he's proved to be very knowledgeable.
Once I challenged him on an issue and was proved very wrong by it.
So I have true faith in our county attorney to be able to come up with a
wonderful ordinance.
This ordinance is about as close as you're ever going to get to it.
Pass this ordinance, your own personal integrity or your own personal
desires to cover your own backside on this has to step forward, such as
the Association of Counties, Florida Association of Counties. I
checked before we got an answer back that the -- what they give out
during the meetings themselves comes from the dues that our county
pays, so there's not a problem with that.
Commissioner Halas is correct, the dinners that take place in the
evening are paid for by special interest groups. And, of course, all the
commissioners from all the counties go, and they have very interesting
speakers, and I attend them on a regular basis.
And the simple thing I do is, I find out what the value of the meal
is, write out a check and leave it behind. I also do that when I go on
speaking engagements with the Kiwanis or Rotary, pay for the meal
that I'm getting. It's just a simple way to be able to make sure that no
stones are left unturned. No one can come back later and question
exactly what was the purpose of me being there or that I might have
been bought by a doughnut and a cup of coffee.
I've written out checks as small as $2 to cover the cost of a Coke
at some -- some different events I attended where the special interests
were paying for it. It's just -- I felt like I needed to be there as a
commissioner to be able to talk to the people that were there to be able
to get better insight on it.
But I think that's the only way, my own mind, that's the only way
I think you can cover it. You're never going to get it in one ordinance
that's going to cover everything. Past that point, you have to step
forward and find out where your own comfort level is.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 45
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one other question.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, we've got three more
waiting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. But we'll get back to you, if
you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right, yep.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. The next was me, by the
way, and then we have Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Henning.
I had a couple of comments myself. For instance, now, when
they -- when they open Livingston Road and they offer cookies and
coffee afterwards, do I have to ask them how much the cookies and
coffee amount to, and if it's $4.35, who do I pay the 35 cents to, or am
I not allowed to have any coffee or cookies, or how does that work?
MR. PETTIT: First of all, I don't know who's offering it. Isn't
that county -- isn't it the county offering cookie and coffees (sic)?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, but--
MR. PETTIT: I think you can take the cookie and coffees.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: And I also think that this exception would make
that clear, because the reason you're there, it's part of your county
responsibility as a commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right. Now, let's go on with that.
First of all, at the Florida Association of Counties where many of
us are seeking a certification as a county commissioner and we've
gone to the ethics things -- now, I was just there last week, and one of
the things the Association of Counties said is there's no more
restrictive nor stringent code of ethics in the entire State of Florida
than we have here. They also kind of laughingly say that we -- to be a
little bit ridiculous in some of our rules.
I found, personally, and I'm sure the other commissioners have
Page 46
January 27, 2004
too, it's so much easier with these strict rules -- because we don't have
to -- you know, you can just say, no, I can't take anything, and that's
fine.
There are instances though, for instance, when you're receiving
an honor from, say, the United Arts Council, and they invite you to
this thing. Now, we're going -- and they have wine and cheese and
sodas. I don't drink wine, but sodas would be good, and cheese and
grapes. How many grapes can I have for the $4 limit? See, that's
what I'm saying, is it gets a little bit ridiculous for this --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- as well as -- and I'm sorry, I'm
going to continue right on here.
Say, for instance, they held this function at a private home.
Okay, fine, so the cost would be reduced. But, say, for instance, they
held this same function at the Ritz. A soda in the private home would
be $2, but at the Ritz it would be $6.50. So then, what do you do? Do
you say, no, I can't drink or eat anything because it's at the Ritz and it
costs more than $4? I think the $4 limit is maybe going to a little bit
of the ridiculous, is my point.
MR. PETTIT: Just -- if I could respond to that, just a moment,
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. PETTIT: The $4 limit is in there to deal with what I think is
a very defined situation. I think, again, some of the situations you
described are covered by other exceptions, perhaps.
What I'm trying to get at is -- quite frankly, I will tell you, it's the
employees who run into this, and they're the ones that are asking.
They get invited -- they have a job review meeting at WilsonMiller.
WilsonMiller's a vendor of the county. They go in and somebody
walks in with a platter that says, would anybody like a cookie and a
cup of coffee or soda? And what I'm trying to do is allay those
concerns that if they take that cookie or coffee because it's offered to
Page 47
January 27, 2004
everyone, and they're there truly to perform county work, not to do
anything else, because they have to be there for that, that they can do
that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But it can only amount to $4?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I'm trying to -- trying to capture, I guess,
what I understand is -- this is what is being described to me, Cokes,
candy, cookies, doughnuts, not whole meals, but more the kind of
business courtesy that you get sometimes when you go to a business
meeting. The people come in, they offer a business courtesy of a
drink or something of that sort.
And I want to make it clear that that kind of-- that kind of a
courtesy is not going to be used against someone.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. First of all, before we go any
further, we have no public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And so at this time I'll close the
public hearing and continue on with Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Henning, and then Commissioner Halas. Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. I went over this
ordinance with the legal staff. And during that discussion, I raised a
number of questions. I did not ask the staff to make changes to the
ordinance, because I thought it would be inappropriate to do that.
I think the changes that I would suggest should be made to this
commission, and then the commission can decide whether or not the
changes are appropriate.
So let me just summarize those, if I can. And the first one is
under gift exceptions. It should be on page five. I'm sorry. The top of
page 5 under paragraph A. It says, salary benefits, services, fees,
commissions, gifts, or expenses associated solely with the donee's
noncounty employment, business, or service as an official or director
of a corporation. That's a little restrictive. It should be as an
Page 48
January 27, 2004
employee, official, or director of a corporation. MR. PETTIT: I agree, I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And otherwise, it just applies if
you're an official or director, but I think it should apply if that person
is also an employee, so I'm suggesting that as a possible change.
Now, if we go down to paragraph C on that same page, no
employee shall participate in the selection of a vendor or approval of a
contract if they've received a gift from someone representing the
vendor or contracting party.
I would suggestion we expand this statement and all similar
statements in the ordinance to include -- or to say that, employee shall
not participate in any permitting activity or inspection approval
processes, because there's more than just selecting a vendor or
approving a contract.
There's going out on a job site and inspecting something for
compliance with county codes or there is issuing a permit to do
something. And I believe that if an employee has received a gift of
any kind frOm someone who is soliciting an inspection or permitting,
that employee should not have been involved in that activity and
should exempt themselves from that.
The situation is this: Someone could have inadvertently accepted
something from someone they believed was not a vendor or a
contractor or someone seeking your approval, but two months later
this person walks in with a permit and says, I want to have something
approved.
The employee cannot undo these -- the acceptance of the
so-called gift, if it was a gift, but they can make sure they're not
involved in the approval process.
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to suggest some language, and maybe
we can tinker with it here. I would add at the end of C the words,
likewise, no public servant shall participate in permitting or inspection
decisions if that employee has received a gift from the permit or
Page 49
January 27, 2004
inspection applicant or the applicant's principal, including relatives.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would do it for me.
MR. PETTIT: What I'm trying to get at is, I, again, do not want
to capture the lady at the counter who simply takes the application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I want to -- I want the person making -- who has
the thought process and says yes or no --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. PETTIT: -- to be captured.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Now, if we could go over to page 7, sort of the center of the page
where it talks about lobbyists. And they're making reference here
under paragraph one, it says, lobbyist shall mean one. And then going
down to the second line, it says, to influence governmental
decision-making of a reporting individual or procurement employee.
Now, reporting individual, as it is defined in this particular
ordinance, includes a candidate for public office. In other words, if
you -- if someone wishes to run for public office, then -- then you
cannot accept donations, you can't accept gifts. Theoretically, you
couldn't even meet with a person who would otherwise be a lobbyist.
It has some very, very tricky connotations, and I don't believe the
intent of the state ordinance is to mean that it includes a candidate
upon qualifying. It really is intended to include a candidate who has
been elected to office but has not yet taken office.
Now, that is a good -- a good thing, to prohibit any gifts to those
people, because the election's over. You've already been elected to
office. You haven't assumed office. So -- so you shouldn't be lobbied
by lobbyists or given gifts, or you shouldn't be accepting gifts at that
point in time. But a person who is a candidate for public office before
the election, according to my reading of this ordinance, would be
prohibited from accepting gifts from a wide range of people.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say, you need to add one
Page 50
January 27, 2004
more piece to it, because you have people that run for reelection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right.
MR. MUDD: Now, when you do that, now you've got the
double-edged piece on that particular case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: So I would add that other piece to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But it seems to me that if
you are a candidate for public office and you have not yet been elected
for that period, whether you're an incumbent or not, this a very, very
tricky situation.
How are you to know that a check that you receive in the mail to
contribute to your campaign is from an employee of a lobbying firm?
You don't know. You have no idea.
MR. PETTIT: Let me -- let me suggest -- if you look at this
ordinance at the beginning on agenda page 5 where it talks about
definitions, at the top it says, the definitions in the statutes will control
unless the text or the context of the ordinance provides otherwise.
What I am suggesting we do -- and I think you also have some
issues -- we haven't gotten there yet-- but on procurement employee
that I -- I, frankly, didn't get the whole definition in when it got
published. That was a -- that was a drafting error.
But on reporting individual, what we may do is change that
language to say -- define it in our own ordinance to mean any public
servant who is required by law, pursuant to the statute and
constitution, to file the public disclosures of financial interests, except
that -- and we may need to put an exception in there for people who
are running for reelection, because that will affect all of you if you
seek reelection while you're commissioners, so --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's election or reelection.
MR. PETTIT: Well, in this case -- in this -- we can't reach -- we
wouldn't be reaching out to control people who have never been
county -- who have never been public servants, is my point.
Page 51
January 27, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think Mr. Coyle was indicating that a
candidate, by definition, becomes a reporting individual during that
candidacy, and so he was looking to, at least in regard to the
nonelected candidate, provide a nonelected -- at least a nonelected
candidate exclusion, but he also mentioned that you have your elected
-- already elected candidates who are candidates who run into the
same problem, in which you're wrestling with right now, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My view of that is that the state
law treats a candidate as a separate entity from an elected official
who's running for reelection, because that candidate is permitted to
accept gifts. And his performance as a candidate is entirely separate
from what that person does as a -- an incumbent, perhaps.
And if that were not the case, then everybody on this board and
everybody who is an elected official in Collier County, in the State of
Florida, would be in jail, and that's what I'm trying to avoid here.
It has never been the intent of state election law to place shackles
on candidates, but it has been the objective to recognize the right of
people to contribute to and vote for their candidates of choice.
If we place restrictions on them, as they are here, then we're
opening up a can of worms that I think has already been dealt with by
the Supreme Court of the United States.
MR. PETTIT: The def-- what I was suggesting was that the
definition, reporting individual, would be restricted to public servants,
which would immediately exclude somebody who's not a public
servant, i.e., a county employee or already an elected official, or
advisory board member. So that -- that would be one way to handle
that.
But I will tell you that the issue you raise with respect to persons
running for reelection is going to require some substantial tinkering
under -- page 9 under standards of conduct, section 6(C) 1, because
even by changing reporting individual to exclude the notion of
candidates and having an exception for people running for office, we
Page 52
January 27, 2004
may be -- I think we may be able to work that out, but that's going to
require some tinkering.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, somehow we need to deal
with that issue--
MR. PETTIT: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- otherwise it's going to create a
very, very serious problem for anyone running for office who's
already an incumbent.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because there's no way an
incumbent can look at their list of all of their contributors and
determine if everyone on that list is or is not in some way connected
with someone who might come before the commission sometime in
the future to ask for approval.
MR. PETTIT: Would one way to limit that be to exclude out
candidates for reelection who are announced.9
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's my point. Just as a --
just as a board member, a member of a board, is separate or has a
separate and distinct identity, they might have -- be an officer of
another corporation, they function with the one hat on as a board of--
member of a board of directors of another organization, and that does
not mean that they're acting in the capacity of the corporation for
which they are employed.
I view the candidacy and incumbency situation to be essentially
the same. When you declare candidacy for something, you are -- you
are under-- you operate under the guidelines of the Florida Election
Laws. When you are an incumbent, you operate under the laws of--
the ethics laws of the State of Florida.
And I believe that those are two distinct provisions based upon
the activity in which you're engaged at the time. So that if you are
engaged in activity as a candidate, you should be able to function
under the laws, the state election laws, freely without being impaired
Page 53
January 27, 2004
by the incumbency of your office.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh--
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, one more?
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I think one more. Nope, I'm sorry.
That was it. I'm finished. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good points. Very good points.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- thank you,
Commissioner.
You know, the whole point is not to influence anybody on their
duties. And I said to Commissioner Coyle, would candidate elect
capture what -- what we're trying to get at is -- that means that you
went through the race, whether it be the primary or the general, and
now you're an elected official in waiting, you know, for a better term.
Knowing that there are many a lobbyist on this -- on our lobbyist
there, if we're going by that -- you know, Nancy Payton from Wildlife
Federation is one, and I've seen her name on several contributions for
candidates of an elected office, and the intent is not to influence the
elected officials.
Boys and girls, I -- we are where we are here in Collier County.
It's what the citizens and taxpayers of Collier County want where --
want us to be, and they want us one step above politics as usual or
elected officials as usual.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I think we all want to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's just because of what's
happened in the past that's brought light to this.
And I know that is difficult when we go to Florida Association of
Counties or homeowners' association meetings, and we talk about the
milk and cookies theory, it is what it is.
And I think by the way this ordinance as written is about as close
an explanation as we get. But what I heard was, it makes us think of
what we can and cannot do, and that's good, and that's excellent. That
Page 54
January 27, 2004
makes us knowledgeable of this ordinance in our daily works as the
county commissioners.
So if we haven't-- I'm glad Commissioner Coyle brought up
some further clarifications, and if we haven't muckedy-mucked this up
too much, I would like to make a motion to approve with the
amendments that Commissioner Coyle stated under the ordinance.
MR. PETTIT: Let me respond to that. This may go a long way
to dealing with that situation. But I agree that I want to take the word
candidate out of the ordinance.
In any event, it states in the -- one of the gift exceptions at
agenda package page 6, there is an exception for contributions, and it
would be paragraph b.
So that -- so that I think that by -- by virtue of that exception,
we're going to alleviate a lot of the problems that you've got concern
about, but I also think that we want to take out -- there's someplace
here on page 9 --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Excuse me for interrupting. What
page did you say?
MR. MUDD: It's on -- it's on page --
MR. PETTIT: Six.
MR. MUDD: -- 6 of your agenda packet, and it's page 5 of your
ordinance.
MR. PETTIT: And it's exception -- it's under lower case b there.
MR. MUDD: It says, contributions or expenditures reported
pursuant to chapter 106, Florida Statutes, campaign-related persons
services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering
their time or any other contribution or expenditure by a political party.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine, except for that other
paragraph that includes the person who is a candidate.
My problem is, I don't like what appear to be contradicting
statements in an ethics ordinance because it always results in
misinterpretation, and it's got to be as simple as it possibly can, and
Page 55
January 27, 2004
we've got to make it very, very clear that the intent is not to apply
these provisions to a political candidate.
MR. PETTIT: And I think we can do that by the way we defined
reporting individual --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: -- at the end of the definitional section on agenda
package page 9. I think we can put a qualifier or a limitation there
which, coupled with that exception for campaign contributions, will
address that concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the
floor, but Commissioner Halas has asked to speak.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a couple other
questions. I guess we have to clarify what -- what the value of a gift
is, because a pen could be considered a gift, or a calendar, a desk
calendar. So I think that's the other thing we have to put in there, what
the value of that gift can be so it clarifies that area.
The other thing is, suppose -- I throw out this scenario.
Somebody invites you over to their house -- and you know they're a
lobbyist -- for dinner just as a social gathering. Is it -- is it proper to
take something of equal value, what you think would be equal value,
and that would balance out so that it wouldn't look like a lobbyist or
somebody had invited you over to their house for a particular -- and
I'm talking just a social dinner at their house where you've got your
husband and wife.
MR. PETTIT: Well, it's a difficult question to answer, and I'll
tell you why it's difficult.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you take something of equal
value over to offset it.9 Does that--
MR. PETTIT: I understand that. But the reason it's a difficult
question to answer is that when this ordinance came back in
September, one of the reasons it came back was to eliminate a
Page 56
January 27, 2004
friendship exception. So I get -- I have some concern about what the
intent of the legislature, i.e., the Board of County Commissioners, is.
It seemed that they wanted to take away the notion that a gift from a
friend was okay, regardless of whether they had the hat lobbyist or
not.
MR. WEIGEL: But Mr. Halas is indicating that, does, in fact,
some thing provided by the giftee neutralize the gift aspect of it
because you provided a quid pro quo?
We have, in fact, gone since September to remove the
relationship gift exception. In this particular case, let's say the
lobbyist couple have a dinner for their two guests, a husband and wife
commissioner guest, speaking hypothetically, and maybe the
reasonable cost of the dinner might be $30, maybe it's just hamburgers
on the grill or something like that, $30, and some dip.
But if, in fact, the commissioner-- again, we're speaking
hypothetically -- provides something in kind, I mean, it could say,
here's 15 bucks for the meal, or $30, or provide all the libations, not
taking into account that which the commissioner and his wife may or
may not drink themselves, but purely the value of that which is
received by the dinner provider, have we neutralized the gift?
And I'm so happy that we have these discussions today, because
we'll all walk away -- as well as the interested public and anyone else
that takes an interest along the line -- knowing how we wrestle, and as
Mr. Henning indicates, think about these things and the care we think
(sic) about these things and how we try to live in a community and
have a -- at least a modicum of social interaction with people that we
may know before we ever came into the business or certainly have
come to know since the business, they happen to be nice people at the
same time. And the idea is to show that we're not being bought, we're
not being interfered with.
And so if, in fact, there is a friendliness relationship but no
exception -- we have eliminated the exception of an outright -- saying
Page 57
January 27, 2004
it's a freebie gift. That's not there. But if the receiver of the gift who
happens to be a reporting individual, commissioner, county attorney,
other employees, county manager employees, if they, in fact, bring
something to the picnic, to the meal, does that neutralize the gift?
MR. PETTIT: If it's -- if it's equivalent of value, I think that the
answer would be yes, because we also have situations where meals
may be purchased and subsequently -- and this is by analogy to state
law, you can -- you have a certain period of time to reimburse that
person and that wipes it out as a gift. And it would seem to me to be
analogous, although this is local law, not state law. So if it's
equivalent, I think the answer would be yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or you could just have a child
and you don't have to worry about your social life. MR. PETTIT: You're preaching to the choir.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'd like to state, just for the record, in
case any of the people who happen to be watching want to -- want to
hear this from one of the commissioners, it costs an awful lot of
money to hold this office. Everybody thinks, oh, you make $60,000,
which is -- which is just about what we make.
But by the time you pay all of your dues and your entry fees,
because nobody pays them for you, and all of your car expenses and
all of your memberships and -- and every time we're invited to give --
for instance, I was invited to give an award. There were six of us that
were invited there. It was a dinner at $125 for the dinner.
First of all, I had to go by myself. I couldn't afford to pay for two
of us. And this happens time and time and time again.
Second of all, there was -- they said, oh, no, we're not taking it
from anybody. I said, yeah, I have to pay. Had nothing to do with
county business or anything, but still, I was going.
And I want to tell you, it costs over $10,000 a year-- well over
$10,000 a year to hold this office to make sure that we can hold our
head up and nobody can ever point an accusing finger at us any time.
Page 58
January 27, 2004
But I do think the $4 doughnut rule is a little bit ridiculous,
because I would hate to become a criminal because somebody there
valued my doughnut at $4.3 5.
And so I think that's -- I think that's going -- it's great to have
these things in place because you feel really good about it, no matter
where you go, you know, I can hold my head up and feel proud of
what I do and what I am and what I pay in order to hold this job,
because I'm a little altTuistic, but I think the $4 limit is a little bit
much. But anyway.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, just so you know, that $4 rule
that David put in there is so that you have some ability to accept that
doughnut, because if you accept the doughnut now under the
particular ordinance, it doesn't have a cost limit. You're a criminal
because you took a doughnut, okay? And that's what -- and that's
what the problem is right now that the employees are wrestling with.
There's nothing in there with any sense of reality. And the fact
that, if it's a common thing on a desk that -- you know, somebody
came into my office and I decided that -- and I was a con -- we'll use
WilsonMiller, okay, and it's not because they always do it, but it's the
one I'm thinking about right now -- or Hole Montes or somebody else
-- and you walked into that room and they had candy jars that were
sitting there on the table and they basically had sodas in the back and,
hey, get one, or here's some iced tea or whatever, what do you do?
And what we're trying to do is give that employee that's out there
saying, hey, you know, at this particular juncture, you're sitting there
and you're not taking anything, they're saying, hey, what happens if I
took a glass of water or an iced tea or something like that, am I -- am I
some kind of a thief or a crook? They're -- you know, I'm doing some
kind of business that sits there.
Or an attorney that has a case, one of our county attorneys goes
into one of these law firms. Somebody's trying to sue us or we're suing
them or whatever, and they have some conference where they're
Page 59
January 27, 2004
talking about issues because they're trying to do disclosure and there's
a courtesy that you walk into that office, they have sodas in the back
or cups of coffee or iced tea, are you precluded to take one even
though you're at opposite end of the tables (sic) with each other and
you're fighting tooth and nail for dollars?
Those are the particular issues that people are trying to resolve,
because as the ordinance, as it's presently written, those things aren't
covered, and it's basically saying can't take them, so --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think $4 is a bit ridiculous. But
anyway, I will bow to my commissioners.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Second from Commissioner Coletta,
and third by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
1 O-minute break.
MR. WEIGEL:
appreciate it.
Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
We have a 5-0.
And with that, we're going to take a
Thank you very much for that discussion. I sure
Page 60
January 27, 2004
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Call this meeting to order.
MR. OCHS: You have a hot mike, Madam Chairman
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2004-06 APPROVING ESTABLISHING AN
ANIMAIJ SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. We have one
more subject on -- on number 8, and that is 8(E), recommendation to
approve an ordinance establishing an animal services advisory board.
We'll address this, and then we'll go on to our time certain of 11
o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have speakers?
MR. MUDD: Ms. Jodi Walters will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh.
MS. WALTERS: Good morning. For the record, Jodi Walters,
animal services director.
I come before you today to ask for the approval of an ordinance
establishing an animal services advisory board for Collier County
Domestic Animal Services.
Over the years the old-fashioned dogcatcher has long since been
replaced with professionals who are responsible for health, safety, and
welfare of the community as well as our animals.
Our responsibilities have grown from simply impounding and
housing stray animals, our modem day department is expected to have
a broad knowledge in animal health and disease control, along with
the knowledge of animal zoonotic diseases and -- which could affect
the entire community if left unchecked.
We are reasonable -- reasonably responsible for being aware of
state and local laws relating to animals and are expected to be teachers
Page 61
January 27, 2004
and enforcement officers.
We inspect, permit, and regulate pet shops, groomers and
boarding facilities within our community to ensure proper animal care
and the conditions the animals are housed in are acceptable.
In addition to these added responsibilities, we must be proactive
in solving the county's pet overpopulation problems.
In April of 2002, the National Animal Control Association
summarized its evaluation of Domestic Animal Services by saying,
the agency is committed to improving the service delivery of animal
control services to the citizens of Collier County. Based upon the
on-site analysis, the organization is currently performing at a level
exceeding most animal control and care agencies.
There are a variety of ways to accomplish an animal control
mission in any community. After the National Animal Control
Association observed and evaluated Domestic Animal Services,
recommendations for improving our services were developed.
One of these recommendations was to establish an advisory
board to assist in maintaining an open channel of communication for
new ideas, and Domestic Animal Services believes it is imperative to
the success of our local programs to stay on the cutting edge.
Prior to bringing this item to the Board of County
Commissioners, a meeting was held on January the 6th of 2004 to
allow the public to review and make recommendations relating to this
ordinance.
The following recommendations were incorporated into this
ordinance from that meeting: The size of the advisory board was
increased from five members to seven members; an additional position
specifically for animal rights was added to the board, and also an
additional citizen at large.
We also increased the number of required meetings from
quarterly meetings to monthly meetings.
There was also a desire voiced by some of the citizens to
Page 62
January 27, 2004
postpone the creation of the advisory board until the current
investigation by Friends of Gummi's had been completed.
Staff does not believe there is a need to postpone the creation of
this advisory board. The creation of the advisory board has no
connection to the independent investigation being done by Friends of
Gummi, and postponing the approval of this ordinance will only
postpone the creation of a helpful tool dedicated to assisting the
Collier County Domestic Animals Services in its countywide mission.
An animal services advisory board as a structured professional
group can make invaluable contributions to Collier County Domestic
Animal Services. Experiences in the area of professional sheltering,
veterinary care, law enforcement, retail pet industry, and animal
rights, along with the citizens at large, would benefit the community in
the following manner:
The advisory board with skills and knowledge relating to the
responsibilities of Domestic Animal Services Department can assist in
the efficiency and improvement of services to our community.
The advisory board can draw upon their skills, information, and
experiences of the members to assist Domestic Animal Services.
The advisory board can be used to evaluate, consider, and review
programs, special events and suggestions from the public.
And lastly, and mostly (sic) important, this advisory board would
act as a primary communication link between the community,
Domestic Animal Services, and the Board of County Commissioners.
The International City Managers Association defines animal
control as a program that effectively treats symptoms while seeking to
eliminate the causes by compassionately using the tools of education
and enforcement.
The use of an animal services advisory board will assist Collier
County in finding solutions to our pet problems together as a
community.
There is a minimal cost associated with this advisory board,
Page 63
January 27, 2004
which will be covered in the Domestic Animal Services' budget, and
there is no growth management associated with this item.
The management staff of Domestic Animal Services respectfully
requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
ordinance establishing an animal services advisory board. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle. I have
checked, we have no speakers, so I will close the public hearing.
And are -- is there any discussion from any commissioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine. All those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Okay. That passes, 5-0.
MS. WALTERS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #10C
PRESENTATION BY THE GREATER NAPLES AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF AN EIGHTEEN-MONTH
AND FINAL PROGRESS REPORT REGARDING THE
Page 64
January 27, 2004
PROPOSED MANDATORY NON-RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
ORDINANCE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF
COLLIER COUNTY- STAFF TO BRING BACK ORDINANCE
FOR ADOPTION
Now we go on to our 11 o'clock time certain, and that 11 o'clock
time certain is a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
by the Greater Naples Area Chamber of Commerce and the Solid
Waste Management Department of an 18-month and final progress
report regarding the proposed mandatory non-residential recycling
ordinance within the unincorporated areas of Collier County.
Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator -- oh, no, it's George
And David-- I don't know if you guys have --
Yilmaz, excuse me.
okay. George first.
Thank you, sir.
MR. YILMAZ:
Thank you, Commissioner.
For the record, George Yilmaz, Solid Waste Management
Department Director.
Commissioners, we are here today to present the final progress
report for the voluntary non-residential recycling initiative.
In Collier County we currently generate over half a million tons
of solid waste a year. With the direction and support of this board, we
have been able to divert over 50 percent of the waste stream through
our continuous waste reduction, recycling, and diversion efforts,
including the following:
Construction and demolition debris diversion, yard waste
mulching and composting, artificial reef program, curbside recycling,
and other means such as electronics recycling.
This diversion effort has provided close to 20 years of landfill
airspace and capacity as we have reported to you through AUIR
process, meaning annual update and implemental report under growth
management requirements in December.
Page 65
January 27, 2004
We are here today to address municipal solid waste that goes to
the landfill, which is not being diverted at this time. Approximately
60 percent of what goes to the landfill is commercial waste. Based on
a conservative estimate, approximately 50 percent of the commercial
waste generated could be recycled.
While it is not likely that some businesses will take the maximum
advantage of their opportunity to recycle, it is possible that
implementing an ordinance requiring only one group of items to be
recycled would and could preserve 15 percent of airspace over the life
of the landfill on a conservative basis estimate.
To remind us, our journey. On March 27th 2001, the Board of
County Commissioner directed staff to develop a mandatory
non-residential recycling ordinance. Staff worked diligently with the
county attorney's office and outside special legal counsel over a
14-month period to develop an ordinance.
During that time, a cost benefit analysis was conducted as a pilot
project. Public input was received through the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce and interested citizens and other groups.
On May 28th, 2002, the ordinance was presented to the board for
adoption. The board voted to postpone adoption of this ordinance and
opted instead to allow non-residential recycling to continue on a
voluntary basis for 18 months.
The board directed staff to provide assistance to the chamber to
develop a marketing and an outreach plan to promote voluntary
recycling in business community.
Accordingly, staff personally conducted over 250 site visits,
providing information packets and how best they could optimize their
recycling. Phone contacts were made to 72 (sic) of those businesses to
follow up and get some further feedback.
Furthermore, 25,000 leaflets were inserted in occupational
license renewal forms mailed out by the Tax Collector's Office, and
we thank you and thank our constitutional officer for his help. These
Page 66
January 27, 2004
are the examples of outstanding public and private partnership.
At the same time, the board also directed staff to present jointly
with the chamber interim progress reports so that we have a good idea
where the program has gone on a volunteer basis.
The first interim progress report was presented to the board on
January 28th, 2003. At that -- at that meeting the board directed staff
to work with the chamber to develop joint performance benchmarks
and goals to the progress and monitoring the progress of the voluntary
recycling initiative. Those benchmarks and goals were provided to the
board on April 20th, 2003.
The second interim progress report was presented to the board
jointly with the chamber on June 24th, 2003.
We are here today to present the final progress report as directed
by the board on March 27th, 2001, to revisit the ordinance.
I would now like to introduce David Weston, who will present
the final progress report. Mr. Weston is the immediate past president
of the chamber and chair of the chamber's recycling committee. MR. WESTON: Thank you, George.
Thank you, Commissioners, Madam Chairman. My name's Dave
Weston, for the record.
George really spelled out the details of what we've been through
over the 18 -- last 18 months, but habits and culture within our society
take time to change. Boy, did we learn that over the last 18 months.
Nearly everyone we ran into and spoke to over the last 18 months
embraces the concept of recycling more. Didn't find a soul that said,
the heck with it. Everybody wants to do it. What we face is changing
habits and facilities and really changing the way people approach their
business waste.
The private/public collaborative effort that the Greater Naples
Area Chamber of Commerce and other organizations and the Solid
Waste Department and the county undertook is really, I think, a great
prototype for efforts like this.
Page 67
January 27, 2004
We solicited the help of other organizations like the Collier
Building Industry Association, other area chamber of commerces, and
I think we created a collegial and collaborative effort in going through
this, which I think is excellent.
A lot has been learned. We've learned that this is a very complex
problem. But the bottom line is that the data shows that only nominal
improvements in the number of business clients that are using the
county's franchise waste collector for recycling was achieved.
In addition, only nominal increases in the total percentage of
estimated business solid waste that was being redirected to recycling
was increased.
The nose of the ship may be moved slightly, but we're still
headed in the wrong direction, and we have to admit that.
We knew when we embarked on this effort that unless there was
a significant change and a seed change in what was going on, that the
county really had to look at the other alternative, which was to look at
the mandatory ordinance that was presented 18 months ago. You don't at first succeed, try, try, again.
In the meantime, we appreciate the opportunity to try and do it
without government interference and extra layers of government to try
it voluntary. It's fair to try that first, and we appreciate that
opportunity.
I'd like to thank Mr. DeLony and his staff at solid waste, Dr.
Yilmaz and Denise Kirk specifically, for their work on this effort.
We'd also like to thank the tax collector, Guy Carlton, for his --
working with him and allowing us to mail out those fliers.
There were wonderful, generous business organizations that
helped with promotional campaigns such as the Sprint commercial
cleanup and the Coastland Mall. Great example of people donating
loads and loads of recycled phone books for a charitable cause.
I'd also like to thank Gavin Jones and the people of Keep Collier
Beautiful for their input and assistance on this effort. It's also
Page 68
January 27, 2004
important to thank Bob Krasowski of Zero Waste who, while
maintaining his independence from our committee, provided
invaluable -- or very valuable expertise and contacts in the area of
solid waste handling that helped us further our promotional and
educational efforts.
I'd also like to thank the committee members that worked
throughout the last 18 months on this effort.
I'd be remiss if I did not point out and strongly applaud the
tremendous effort put forth individually by Denise Kirk of solid waste.
I think they spoke -- she and Ellie Krier of the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce would speak to almost any organization and
really did tremendous effort. So those two really, I think, epitomize
this public/private partnership that we can all be proud of.
I think their efforts have laid a necessary and valuable foundation
for all the future recycling efforts that we take -- undertake here in
Collier County, and I think the 18 months was -- as the process that
we underwent is a process that would have had to take place either
way, and that this is a natural progression, and that we would
definitely not object to a passing of an ordinance now so that we can
try to augment this voluntary effort that we just tried. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Colett --
Commissioner Henning, and then we have a speaker and then we'll
hear -- shall we hear -- Commissioner Henning, then we'll hear from
Mr. DeLony, and then we'll hear from our speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr.
Yilmaz. You stated that the data collected on the waste stream shows
no positive results. Where are the -- where is that data coming from?
MR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, if you could go to your
executive summary package, final interim progress report, on page 35,
starting on page 35, and if you flip to page 37, I'd like to bring your
attention to table one at the top of the page.
Page 69
January 27, 2004
As you can see there, this was one of the benchmarks the
chamber and staff, through a great deal of discussion and available
data in the market on how best we could get it as an indicator for us to
see what would be the participation rate and participation trends.
So we did receive this data from the largest contractor as the
benchmark, as the indicator of what our participation rates are.
As you can see, our benchmarks were set at 15 percent to 20
percent, and 25 percent to 30 percent for the last two quarters, and we
fell short somewhat significantly, and the data indicated a little over
10 percent participation rate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- okay. So the data's
coming from Waste Management of Florida, correct? MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, what recycled
items do they collect from the businesses?
MR. YILMAZ: In free market conditions, businesses have the
choice to choose what recyclables they need to include in their
municipal solid waste stream. This is background, so it can range
from glass to mixed paper to cardboard and others.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that Waste
Management collects cardboard, glass, and a few other items from the
business community today?
MR. YILMAZ: They have the infrastructure to collect, if the
business community chooses to. To my knowledge, most of the items
they collect is cardboard and mixed paper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do they pick up the cardboard
from Publix, or does Publix take that to a different source?
MR. YILMAZ: Combination thereof. I have seen some
businesses have -- contracted with Waste Management for cardboard,
or like some businesses, like Wal-Mart, they choose baling their own
cardboard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we don't know what
Page 70
January 27, 2004
Publix does, if they do -- handle it themselves as far as disposal or,
you know, does Waste Management pick it up? We don't -- do we
know that?
MR. YILMAZ: For the purpose of indicator data analysis, the
answer is no. However, indicator data analysis was modeled after, if
you wish, what should be our index approach.
We have so much data out there as if you are looking at the stock
market. And for us to see and look at one or two numbers, what that
general market does, we have chosen the largest contractor and looked
at that market, and there's a certain degree of data integrity due to the
fact that we have contractual arrangements and we're able to get the
date from them much easer and easily than other holders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we know if waste
management is the largest sole business that recycles here in Collier
County?
MR. YILMAZ: They are the largest contractor, but again, it's
been free market. We don't have -- we don't have means to have all
the data being reported to you without the framework.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we know how many other firms
other than Waste Management that -- that businesses here in Collier
County deal with? And is there any way of finding out without them
giving up any information that may be privy to them in regards to how
many pounds they pick up?
MR. YILMAZ: There are two parts to your question. First part,
yes, there are other companies out there providing, in free market,
recycling services. And second part is, they do generate data and they
do report some of that to FDEP if their collection and business
generation rate is over 600 tons a year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six hundred tons a year.
Page 71
January 27, 2004
MR. YILMAZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they don't -- they don't give
you any information as far as how many pounds a week they pick up?
MR. YILMAZ: They don't report to us due to the fact that the
only reporting requirements for those businesses are to the State of
Florida.
MR. WESTON: I would, just, I guess, chime in with George that
we -- and Ellie Krier really did the legwork for this -- went around and
updated this list of independent haulers that are involved in the
recycling business.
MR. DeLONY: Dave, we have about 26 on that list; is that
right? Something like that?
MR. WESTON: I think -- is that the right number? I didn't
actually count them out.
MR. DeLONY: There's like 26 on that list.
MR. WESTON: I'll defer to that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
MR. WESTON: But there's quite a bit. So there's something
going on out there, but being -- and asking them for the proprietary
competitive information, we offered to independently amalgamate and
mush it together and black box it, if you will, so they wouldn't be
divulging any competitive information, but it's a competitive market
out there, and we weren't able to do that.
And so we did -- this list is also on the -- on your county web
page as well, but we did reach out to try and get that information for
them.
MR. DeLONY: Does that answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does, but it also generates
another question.
Suppose we come up with this ordinance. How are we going to
control what ends up in the landfill that would be recyclable if we
don't have this information from the other 26 affiliates that are
Page 72
January 27, 2004
involved in this? And how will we able to control all this?
MR. DeLONY: First of all, the ordinance is not going to keep all
of the recyclables out of the landfill. The ordinance as currently
presented, the one that was presented back in March of 2001,
prescribed only one recyclable item per business.
In other words, you may have 25 or 30 that you generate, but we
were only going to remand or require mandatorily that you provide
one, that you recycle one, and we were looking for that one to be, of
course, the most -- the largest in terms of either cube -- cubic measure
or weight and the most representative of what you generate as far as
waste of the 25 recyclables that are currently on our list. So it won't
keep all the recyclables out.
The challenge here for the Solid Waste Department, sir, and for
me, is that, first of all, we don't have a franchise on commercial waste
when is comes to recyclables. People, as George described, can pretty
much dispose of that in the manner which they want or choose. That's
our current legislated framework that we operate.
Now, this would be the first attempt or first opportunity that we
would have to begin to enter into that, to begin to put, for lack of a
better word, discipline into that system and ensure that, of their waste
stream that potentially could be coming to our landfill in terms of
tipping, fees from commercial -- commercial haulers, other than
Waste Management, you know, other haulers, that it wouldn't go --
wouldn't go in the hill.
And so that's -- that was the -- that was our first attempt to begin
to put a measure or-- put a measure of control on this portion of our
unfranchised waste stream. I think I've -- have I answered your
question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You have.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. As long as you're up there -- I
was going to have our speaker next, but as long as you're up there --
Page 73
January 27, 2004
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- would you like to present?
MR. DeLONY: Really, I was just going to close. And what I
was going to close with is this, is that I think that we've worked very
hard together, and I really do appreciate -- really I do appreciate
greatly the work by the chamber to work with the department, with the
division to get to where we are today and work it. It's disappointing,
to be frank with you.
I would hope that we had been able to move the margin. Even if
we go to a mandatory arrangement, the synergy of what we could
have done voluntarily would just make it that much more effective.
And so it tells us we've got a pretty tall hill to climb, whatever
you, the board, direct us to do in terms of bringing in -- bringing in all
the recyclables in the right spot and not putting them in the hill.
Our goal .is simple. Our goal is to preserve the airspace, the
landfill, to ensure we have that landfill as long as possible. Because,
we know -- we know that that is the way home for Collier County in
terms of assuring that we have the right value and price on handling
our solid waste stream here in Collier County. This is one method to
do that.
You've asked me to come to you later on this year with an
alternative for the residential multi-family waste stream that would
look at maybe a -- potentially look at the pluses and minuses of a
materials recovery facility where we would, at the generator, at the
home or at the apartment, begin to segregate, ask the people to put
putrid garbage, nonrecyclables in one bin, for lack of a better term,
and those other items that have a recyclable potential, the 25 items we
currently list, in another, and then we would have pickup of those, and
then you'd never-- and we would completely be able to segregate
those items going to the hill. We'd never see them in our landfill.
They would go straight from the residence to the recycling center or
transfer station, and they'd never get into the hill.
Page 74
January 27, 2004
Now, George talked to you about the plus -- will talk to you
about the benefits of that and the cost of that and who pays, who
benefits, what happens in the end.
You did not direct me to look at that from the standpoint of the
commercial waste stream. We will work in the mandatory ordinance,
is the only direction I've been given by you, and we're back here today
-- at your direction today to bring that ordinance back up. That's
where we're at today.
And so I have that effort going on now. We could offer you that
option to put this into that mix. We could go forward with the
ordinance as presented back in -- 27 March, 2001.
Just as a reminder to the board, and I know it was in your packet,
but the implementation was one year from your approval date. We'll
have to advertise that ordinance. Three to four months, in theory, we
could be back here with that ordinance for your approval. And then if
you do approve it, it would be a year in its implementation and its
affect by the county commercial industry.
But that's where we're at today, and that's really my closing, other
than your comments or questions or direction.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you foresee the day when we
might get involved with dirty muRF?
MR. DeLONY: You know, that would be one of the things
you-all have asked me to look at, the pluses and mi -- I don't know
that if we were to go to a dirty muRF -- and I'm sitting here today, and
we've got the consultant here, and he hasn't been given a work order to
go to work, so I'm not going to have him talk to it today -- but we may
not get any more real recycling because of cross-contamination than
what we do now.
You're talking about putting them in context or contact with
items that could contaminate them to the point we couldn't put them
Page 75
January 27, 2004
on the recycling market. And as you know, that market's an up and
down market, you know, with regard to taking those items. And the
cleaner you can keep them, the more potential you'll have for the
recycling market.
So it will be something we'll look at where basically everybody
throws everything in one container, and then it comes to materials
recovery facility, and we sort it out for them. I think that is an
alternative, and we want to look at that one. But I will just tell you,
my guess is, that's not going to give us the percentages that we need
because of cross-contamination. Because once it's
cross-contaminated, it's got to go to the hill.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me add -- Jim Mudd, for the
record. Let me add, when you -- when you -- what we're talking about
and what I think Mr. DeLony is alluding to is the clean muRF. The
clean muRF is, you've got two bins, okay, two bins for everybody, and
what he's basically asking you is, do you -- when he's looking at the
dirty -- or the clean muRF, do you want to include the commercial
properties, or commercial ventures?
Now, the issue with mandatory recycling or voluntary recycling
on the commercial side, got to be a space issue. Where do I put two
containers, okay? You know, where do I put the recycling container
and where do I put the regular garbage Dipsey dumpster, okay?
Well, guess what, even if you're talking clean muRF, you've still
got, where am I going to put the two containers. So you really haven't
got away from the two -- space issue as far as they're concerned, and
do I take up a parking space with a container where I used to have it
for a customer that used to be able to come into my business.
So I just want to make sure, you know, if you think that there's a
panacea out there that you're going to have, all of a sudden there's
another -- there's another solution and it's a muRF issue, we're going
to come back to space. Where do you put the second container?
And, oh, by the way, how do you force them to put the stuff in
Page 76
January 27, 2004
the second container? Normally the force is a fine, okay? So you've
got to think about that issue, too. I don't want you not to have all the
information. I don't have it completely in a breakout, but the clean
muRF issue is one way, but there's some other things that come in and
impact that.
One is space, where you put the second one container at, and
then, how do you make people put the recyclables and -- so that
they're not cross-contaminated into the recycling container?
So the can, the plastic, the newspaper, everything goes in that one
recycling container, and then let's call it the yucky stuff, goes in the
other, and so -- that's not recyclable. How do you -- how do you get
them to do that.
And even residential -- residential places -- you know, I'll go for
a walk on a garbage day, you've got some residences that have their
recycling container out there, and by God, they did due diligence as a
citizen and a friend to the environment, and they got it out there and
they've done a great job. Some will even have two containers.
And then you go by another one, and all they've got is their
roll-out, and there's nothing there beside of it, and you know they .just
chucked everything in there because it was easy. So you have to --
you have to work that process out, too, so just some more things to
think about.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner Halas, you know that in your
district we're going to run a pilot program to look at the two container
system for residentials and get the feedback from Willoughby Acres,
who's stepped up to the plated and they're going to help us with
looking at that and see if the sensitivities are there in terms of
participation describing for us, you know, what will be the public
reaction, as Mr. Mudd outlined, of a second container in a home and
the space issues or the habit issues or the usage issues.
You know, our feeling is that it will be -- we're hoping it will be
well accepted and we hope that it will provide us a greater degree -- or
Page 77
January 27, 2004
greater percentage of recycling in a residential area.
The commercial side or the multi-family side's a whole different
ballgame. We've got some that can do it with their current
infrastructure. David spoke to that earlier, talked about change. It's not
just habitual, it's not just cultural, but it's infrastructure changes to get
there. And they found -- I believe the chamber found in talking to
their members, you know, if I wanted to do it, I don't have the space to
do it, David. What can I do about it, as I recall, from some of our
sit-downs and got feedback from the chamber on the issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner--
MR. DeLONY: So we're a ways down the road on that. Yes,
ma'am -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just wanted to
comment. David mentioned that there's a lot of support out there for
recycling. Everybody things it's a great idea, but we're a creature of
habit, especially businesses where everything has to fall in logical
order, you've got so much time to do something. Get it out the door,
it's out of sight, out of mind.
There has to be some incentive to make this work. Obviously,
the volunteer program didn't work, and it was a noble experiment, but
we lost 18 months and we've got more in the landfill than we really
need to have.
We might want to consider a clean muRF, and I'll tell you one of
the things you might want to think about. I'm not happy at all with
one item being recycled. I think that is so contrary to what we should
be aiming for. That doesn't do anything for what we're trying to get
to.
What I would suggest is that we look at possibly a clean muRF,
whereby, those people that want to participate would have an extra
dumpster, and we come up with a two-tier system of charging, where
those that have a dumpster for everything to go into it pay a higher
fee, and they're going to be paying for the next landfill or whatever
Page 78
January 27, 2004
else we have to do. And those people that participate in the recycling
would pay a lesser fee. Same thing as we did with the water, where
we rewarded those people that were conserving it, and those people
that used more pay a much higher rate. MR. DeLONY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That might be a way around it.
So if they say -- have absolutely no space for that second dumpster,
they haven't got the personnel to do it, they have no way to separate it,
okay, this is their way of life, this is the way they do it, they help to
pay for the infrastructure costs that we're going to need to cover it in
the future. That's what I would offer to you. But we've got to come
up with a better system than we have now.
But I don't want to get to the point where we have to have
dumpster police going around and looking inside the dumpsters on a
daily basis to see if people are complying. There's got to be a way this
thing can be smooth, seamless, so that they can see the rewards of
their efforts, or they like the convenience of paying for more and we'll
do it. That's my suggestion.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
Any further comments from the
Our speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have one speaker, Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Nice to see
you again. My name is Bob Krasowski. I'm with the Zero Waste
Collier County Group.
I'd like to start by thanking the Chamber of Commerce for
allowing us to attend, sit in on their meetings and -- as nonmembers of
the committee, because we wanted to maintain our independence and
our -- not be perceived as being part of the chamber's committee, so
Page 79
January27,2004
we could still interact independently with the Solid Waste Department
and you, although it was very frustrating at times having the answers
to many of the chamber's questions and not the full opportunity to
make a full presentation or to express ourselves at all times in all
ways. It was, I think, beneficial.
What you've accomplished over the last 18 months through the
chamber and working this arrangement has been to bring the recycling
issue to the public, to the businesses, and I think that's something that
was worth doing. Although, over the course of 18 months, many,
many -- 50 percent of what is in the commercial waste stream
continues to go into the landfill, and our landfill has just tons and tons
over the last 18 months more of recyclable materials occupying the
space. That's unfortunate.
Today, the -- what I would like to ask of you is a little more time
to work on this ordinance. We, the Zero Waste Collier County Group,
as we have expressed in the past, support much of what's been done.
We think it's kind of on the road in the right direction, as you
might know from us standing in here and talking to you since early
2001, on this particular episode of what to do with Collier's garbage.
But-- so we would like you to consider this ordinance, consider
expanding the requirement of the businesses where appropriate where
we can see a business, for an example, a virtual restaurant or a bar
type of operation, would generate cardboard, glass, food waste, and
paper waste.
Now, we could set criteria to bring to you for review, and where
it's appropriate, where these materials are generating an adequate
amount, that business should be required to recycle.
Because the bottom line is, is once the recyclables and materials
fill our landfill, then all of us, the business community and the
residential community, wind up shipping our waste up to Okeechobee
Landfill, and that's going to add additional cost.
So neither the residents nor the businesses should be allowed to
Page 80
January 27, 2004
be so -- to ignore the responsibility of recycling.
I, in my investigation, have noticed in other parts of the country
-- and we've had our workshop design charette here, there are
programs that we can look at, analyze and model our program from, in
the State of Florida as well, and I think we should do that.
So -- see. You, the Board of County Commissioner, okay, have
the ability to structure, to supply the infrastructure, like Mr. DeLony
was saying, that allows our recycling program to be user friendly. So
by placing the recyclable dumpsters next to garbage dumpsters at
every location, people are encouraged to participate, and I believe that
they will and we can capture a lot of recyclables and divert the
recyclables.
The -- an example of the one item versus multiple items. We've
been working, Zero Waste Collier County Group, as well as your
county staff, have been working with the school system, and the
school system is the largest business, generator of materials
individually to the landfill.
And we've put together a pilot model program over the past of
the -- couple of years that we've -- Zero Waste has contributed to this
effort. It's being done at the school, but -- at Naples Park Elementary
School.
And what we did is we took their eight-yard dumpster, we
diverted the cardboard and the paper from their system into a
cardboard paper dumpster, okay, and diverted enough materials, by
using more than one item, that we've also collected the containers
from the cafeteria, okay.
So we downsized their need for an eight-yard dumpster to
six-yard dumpster today, saved enough money in doing that to pay for
the one cardboard paper dumpster and save $60 a month on that one
school. Now, you could multiply that over all the schools and save a
substantial amount of money.
We also located some other opportunities for savings and
Page 81
January 27, 2004
reduction in volume in that the materials that are used in the cafeteria
other than the containers could be handled in a different way, and we
analyzed a big savings.
But the bottom line here is, multiple materials can oftentimes
reduce the volume of the garbage enough to where you get the benefit
of the downsize, and you've learned that through a previous program,
waste analysis that you did.
I'll finish up. I'll just say, let's let the free market do what it
wants. You look at the benefits of a muRF, but if you let these
different recyclers go out and service the community, they will build
their own muRFs, and there are muRFs in existence today. So you
don't -- taxpayers don't have to pay for it. You just set that
infrastructure and let the free market let businesses go, and they'll do it
-- they'll do it for us. Okay?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That was really interesting, by the
way. I didn't realize you'd experimented with Lake Park, and I think
that --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Naples Park.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, Naples Park.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. And then there was a program in
Immokalee, with only one item, the Immokalee school system. It
didn't -- it didn't give you that cost reduction.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's interesting.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But please, let us work with Mr. DeLony
and improve this ordinance before it comes back to you, or at least get
our ideas in front of him and Mr. Yilmaz. We'd like to, you know,
work from this point on. Okay?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioners?
Oh, Commissioner Henning?
Page 82
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope that we can -- it's the
consensus of the board to direct our staff to bring back a commercial
recycling ordinance.
Like Commissioner Coletta, a one item is not good enough. I
think we can do much better to divert recyclables from our landfill.
But here's my concern. My concern is only collecting data from
a-- from Waste Management is nonproductive. Waste Management is
in the business of collecting and, here in Collier County, dumping
trash at the landfill. They're not into the -- that's not their game, is
recycling.
A fee for the recyclers that come into Collier County, I think, is
nonproductive. I think what we need to try to do is encourage them --
if we're going to be -- get serious about recycling, we're going to have
to encourage people, bring them onboard.
Since we don't have any data from these independent collectors
by charging them a fee, I think it's -- you're going to have some
bandits out there. I think we need to require a permit to pick up
recycling, and I think we need to require to share some information so
we can measure how the program is working, okay?
The other thing I -- what we need to do, if this is going to be a
priority of the board of commissioners, we need to do Land
Development Code changes to state that is a priority, because in the
business community, the problem is where to put the recycling
container.
We have a stormwater requirement for businesses to have their
stormwater, we have a parking requirement, we have a landscaping
requirement. And I would like to see -- you know, if we're going to
make this a priority is, we're going to have to make that a number one
thing. We might have to lose some of our landscaping. We might
have to lose some of our parking requirements for some businesses to
accommodate a recycle bin.
Commissioners, I do agree that a clean muRF, and invite the
Page 83
January 27, 2004
businesses in to participate in that is a great idea. But like Mr.
Krasowski said, a free market is just going to do a heck of a lot better
than we can.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And that may be true,
and I would very much encourage the free market to keep going
forward. But at the source, we have to have a way that it's going to be
separated, so whether it's Waste Management or the free market
picking it up, they have the ability to be able to utilize those
recyclables.
And you're right about the lack of space. And we would be
willing to concede a little bit as far as landscape or parking
requirements to be able to accompany it. And it might be so simple as
just partitioning off an existing dumpster, of course, cleaned out, in
such a way that it takes up no more room and one part of it would be
used for recyclables. I don't know if that's possible. You'd have to
lock it down when you're dumping it.
But I'm sure there's some creative ways that come up to it, or
maybe it would be something phased in with the new dumpster
technology coming onboard where dumpsters could be just -- such as
size -- because you're not going to have more volume. It's going to be
the same volume, it's just going to be in two separate containers.
So I'm sure that if staff goes back and takes a look at it -- but
also, too, I think we should leave that one other option open whereby
business as usual can persist where people can't change or don't want
to change, and they just pay a much higher rate to be able to cover our
cost of doing business.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to measuring the
effectiveness of the program, it seems to me that trying to measure the
effectiveness of the program by requiring private recycling companies
to report to us what they're recycling does not give us the information
Page 84
January 27, 2004
we need to determine the success of the problem -- the program.
It appears to me that our primary objective is to extend the use
time for the landfill. And the key indicator is not how much recycling
material we're collecting and taking somewhere. The key indicator is
how little of it is getting to the landfill.
And since we control the landfill, can we not also determine
whether the rate of disposal at the landfill is declining over time, or is
it increasing at the same rate it was always increasing?
It appears to me that that will give us a better handle on the direct
impact to the program to the landfill from the standpoint of the years
of usage that we have in the landfill.
But I would also support having the staff bring back an
ordinance. You're asking us to authorize you to bring back a
non-residential recycling ordinance to us for adoption. I would
support that very much, and I would also encourage that we not just
limit it to one item, but, perhaps, define those items that are causing us
the greatest difficulty in the landfill and mandating that those items be
recycled.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And I agree wholeheartedly
with Commissioner Coyle.
The end result is, we have to extend the landfill as far out as we
can. And so whether it's -- the recycling takes place at the business or
the residential, the end result is, maybe if we have some way of
monitoring what's coming in and we can dispose of that at that point in
time, and whatever the cost is incurred in that, I think it's going to
have to be adjusted on our -- on our rates as far as tipping fees.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a concern if we just
measure the -- what we take in at the landfill as far as tonnage each
year, because I think what -- I'm afraid what will happen -- not what I
Page 85
January 27, 2004
think-- what I'm afraid will happen in the future is, our staff is going
to come back and say, well, the business is not doing -- generating as
much recyclables as we anticipated. We need to tighten this up a little
bit, when we really don't know if it's coming from the residential.
We have a transient community. Example, Golden Gate City. I
mean, a high rate of turnover there. And the only way that we're
going to measure success is to measure both residential and
commercial, and educate. Education, I think, is a key element of our
goals -- is how much recyclables we divert from the landfill.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to -- Jim Mudd, again, for
the record. I'd like to echo what you just talked about. And it's one of
the things that we wrestle with.
For instance, if you're a commercial establishment -- and we have
some businessmen up on the dais that have had dumpsters before, and
they paid somebody to pick up their trash, they paid that person to
pick up their trash by size of the dumpster and frequency of pickup,
okay, on a weekly basis.
Residentials don't have that incentive. They get a 90 -- they get a
96-gallon container if they want a big one, or they can get a small one,
but they say the -- they pay the same rate no matter what size
container they get to put their garbage in, and then we give them an
18-gallon recycle bin, which is 10 percent of that 96-gallon container,
only 10 percent. And oh, by the way, we'll pick up that 96-gallon
container twice a week, and it's no additional cost because it's a flat
rate.
And so what we're trying to get with the double contain with that
-- with that pilot program with the neighborhood is to get an idea of
having two roll-offs, one for -- one for recycling and one for trash and
figure out what we're seeing as far as volume's concerned in the pilot
program.
And one of the things we need to consider, when you get to see
the RFP for the collection contract that you're going to see this year so
Page 86
January 27, 2004
that we can get it out for bid in 2005, you need to be cognizant of the
fact, maybe we need to have some mechanism in that RFP that says, if
you have a smaller container, you won't pay as much as somebody
that's got a 96-gallon container.
And, oh, by the way -- and it will encourage people to recycle
versus put into their trash can at the residential side. The commercial's
causing 60 percent. The residential's causing the other 40. And so we
need to look at this whole picture in the process and make sure we
incentivize the whole piece. And I think we have the opportunities
this year in order to do that.
MR. DeLONY: The -- just to make sure we're clear. You know,
the residential and multi-family waste stream belongs to the Board of
County Commissioners. You put it on the curb, it's yours. I mean, it's
-- you know, you have the -- you have franchised that portion of our
waste stream.
Commercial side's different. We don't own the franchise or that
waste stream. We -- you can get-- for the recyclables, you can go to
anybody to get them hauled off your property. For your pu -- for your
nonrecyclables, there is a franchise with regard to that.
But the bottom line, our ability to control in the current
legislative arrangements, that waste stream does mitigate a bit to do
some of the things that we would do probably in the optimal in terms
of the measuring.
Because if you're -- if we raise our rates too high, they'll just go
someplace else. If we keep our rates too low, then they'll come to our
landfill.
Yeah, that's really your measure of control is the economics of it.
It's what you charge as a tipping fee at the landfill eventually. Like
Mr. Coyle said, eventually, the bottom pluck of the net is, how much
we put in the hill versus it going somewhere else.
We've worked real hard the last 18 months, two years, to divert to
the practical degree that we can to this point, as much of the waste
Page 87
January 27, 2004
stream away from the hill. Mr. Yilmaz talked to that in -- earlier.
Now we're going after the next -- next piece, and that's the
recyclable market. There's two components, the component dealing
with the residential and the multi-family, which you own, okay? In
our collection contract that Mr. Mudd spoke to, we'll go after that in a
very aggressive way per your-ali's direction that you-all gave me
before the first of the year.
The second part dealing with the commercial side, we're in here
today with a mandatory ordinance. It's difficult, because we don't own
the waste stream, how we discipline it, how we measure it, what's the
most effective means of providing the service, vice (sic) getting what
we want. You know, that, of course, is the reduction of the utilization
of the landfill.
But what -- we'll try to strike that balance and provide the
economics of both sides of that in the proposal, if that's the direction
you want to go. As the board directs.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Coletta, and we've got six minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do believe that the private sector
is the best way to deal with this. We don't own it, as you say. We
have to depend upon somebody else to do that. It's a good way to
proceed.
And the more governmental regulations we place upon those
private companies with respect to reporting, the less incentivized
they're going to be to do the job.
And I think that I would be perfectly happy if all that stuff were
just to disappear somewhere else other than coming into our -- our
landfill. I don't need to know where it goes. I don't want to get
involved in that company's business and try to find out what are you
doing with it and how much are you collecting and publish that and
have it become a member-- matter of public record because they are
competing with other people, and I understand their reluctance to
Page 88
January 27, 2004
share that information.
So I want to -- I'd like to make it as easy as possible for those
people to come by and collect that stuff, take it somewhere and
recycle it so we never see it. And I think we can measure the impact
of that. I think you'll see the impact in the landfill.
But I'm all in favor of the mandatory commercial recycling and
urge you to go do it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to add a
little bit more to Commissioner Coyle's comments there.
I think that privatization is absolutely perfect. I am concerned
where it does go. We have a-- we have a responsibility as
government to make sure it doesn't end up in the wrong place or out
on some private land someplace.
But the whole thing is, is we're concerned about what's going to
go in the landfill today. What's the end result? Whether it's Waste
Management carrying it, private collectors, who's bringing it to the
landfill and what are they putting there.
So what are going to be the incentives? What are going to be the
regulations to be able to bring this to that particular point in time
where we can get some meaningful results?
I think that's the direction we're just -- we're heading for. There's
probably a number of options. I'm sure other communities have come
up against these problems.
MR. DeLONY: And I've got to be honest with you, sir, and if I
might -- and this is something we've talked to (sic) you before. You
know, we're in a great position here in Collier County. We don't have
our backs against the wall. We can make good decisions without the
desperation factor adding and putting stress on what we're trying to
accomplish, because we have done good work, you've done good
work, with regard to what we're doing in the landfill today. This is --
this is the next step.
Page 89
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You've done good work. We're just
along for the ride.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, what I need now is some further
direction to staff to come back with a non-residential recycling
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. MUDD: And do I have -- do I have three nods?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I've got at least three nods -- four nods.
So
MR. DeLONY: I've got my marching orders. I know what to
do.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have five nods here all
in favor of, so thank you very much. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Can we state what's going to --
what the board wants to see when they come back?
MR. DeLONY: Let me see if I've got some notes, Mr. Mudd,
and you can help me if I haven't. We'll see how my great staff here has
been taking good notes.
Now, you want to see a commercial recycling ordinance that
provides a mandatory element of recycling of Collier County's waste
flow, waste stream management. It needs to be more than one item. It
needs to impose more than one item. The previous ordinance had up
to 25 to select from. You were supposed to pick one. We'll come back
with some multiple ones to some degree that we think that is
reasonable and offer up that to you for decision.
You want us to limit its regulatory impact on business, that any
fees or data or demands on business or -- to be at the minimum to
ensure that we get buy-in and not resistance with regard to its
execution and to its effectiveness.
Page 90
January 27, 2004
We need to look closely at its impact at the Land Development
Code to see if the Land Development Code comes in conflict with this
ordinance and then how we will balance that conflict in terms of
priorities. I think you gave us some guidance on how you would view
that, whatever.
And then finally, you know, to make sure we have the proper
meas -- proper balance of both incentives and regulation to accomplish
the instate, and the instate being ability to have as much landfill
airspace for our grandchildren and other generations to follow us in
Collier County.
That was the guidance I received.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we -- everybody agree or
three agree that we need an educational component in this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. Got it.
Then there will be a transition period that will be a part of that.
The feature of the last ordinance had that as a year -- essentially a year
-- not essentially -- it was a year from the time you made the decision
to the time it went into effect, with the onus on staff to get out there
and work with the public and get them informed and, of course, work
with the board to help us as well to get this onboard and answer the
questions and get that buy-in we've talked to before.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Anything else from any of the
commissioners?
Well, it's five to, and we're on time. We're going to break for
lunch. We'll be back here at one o'clock for our time certain. Thank you very much.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner, we're back in session.
Where is he? I know he was here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need him. We've got --
Page 91
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
manager.
The deputy clerk -- or deputy county
Item #10A
APPROVAL OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ACTIVE
ACQUISITION LIST AND DIRECTED STAFF TO ACTIVELY
PURSUE PROJECTS RECOMMENDED WITHIN THE A
CATF, GORY- APPROVF, D W/CHANGF, S
Okay. We have a one o'clock time certain to be heard, and that's
number 10(F).
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. And that's to approve the purchase of
a 50-acre parcel of land located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway for
the purpose of providing for drainage improvements, transportation
improvements, and environmental protection.
And Mr. Feder, I believe, is going to present.
Norman?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Maybe we can hear this item after
10(A) and (B), as long as Norm isn't here. How does that work out?
MR. OCHS: That's fine, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. These all are companion
items, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
We can move ahead then to item 10(A) and 10(B). 10(A) being
the approval of the Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and
direction for staff to actively pursue projects recommended within the
A category.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let me get back to that one. Is that
okay with you, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
Page 92
January 27, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I should have asked that first.
10(A) -- oh, Mr. Mudd. I'm sorry, I don't think you were in at the
time. We don't have Norm Feder here, and so we are moving up to
10(A) and (B), and we'll just catch Norm Feder -- MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Although he was a one o'clock, we'll
just catch him a little later.
Okay. 10(A), approval of the Conservation Collier Active
Acquisition List and direction for staff to actively pursue projects
recommended within Category A. Do we have a presenter?
MS. SULECKI: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
Very exciting to be here today, and I'm very honored to be
representing the Conservation Collier Program. My name is Alexander Sulecki.
What I'd like to do today is to give you a little power point
presentation on how we got to this point. We have at least one of our
committee members here in the room. I'd like to acknowledge them
and give them an opportunity to address you if they'd like. And then,
as you will, I would like to take you through the properties, all of them
or just some of them, if you'd like, and explain any or-- any questions
that you might have on them, and then I will be asking you to look at
what we've got here today and to approve our list. So I'll start.
Okay. Conservation Collier is a taxpayer funded initiative
approved in a countywide referendum in November, 2002, and
enacted by you in December, 2002.
What is it? It's a land acquisition program designed to purchase
environmental lands in both the urban and the rural areas in
anticipation of growth.
Page 93
January 27, 2004
The voter-approved referendum authorized you to issue up to 90
-- 75 million in bonds over the life of the program, which is 10 years,
through a quarter mill of ad valorem taxes.
This fiscal year those taxes are estimated to bring in 11 and a half
million dollars, 85 percent of which we will use for acquisition and
administration, and 15 percent for land management. This has been
dedicated by the ordinance towards long-term management and
maintenance.
MR. MUDD: Resume the slide show.
MS. SULECKI: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Come down on that thing right there, resume slide
show, and hit it.
MS. SULECKI: Did I hit something?
MR. MUDD: No. It's got a -- it's got a five-minute delay or
whatever, and then it kicks out, so you're going to have fun. MS. SULECKI: All right.
You have appointed a land or-- excuse me.
Okay. Our program objectives are to acquire, preserve, restore,
and maintain vital and significant threatened natural lands in Collier
County for the benefits of ourselves and our children.
You have appointed a land acquisition advisory committee.
These are nine members representing agricultural, business,
conservation, educational, environmental, general civic, and citizen
interests. Their major task is to recommend an active acquisition
properties list to you, which is the reason, one reason, why we're here
today.
Their other responsibilities include recommendation of
expenditures and policies and procedures, and they have developed
these recommendations about how we spend our funds and how we
are going to conduct the program.
We do have some committee members here today. And before I
go through all the names here, I would like to ask them to stand, those
Page 94
January 27, 2004
that are here, as I call their names so you can see who they are.
They've come here individually signing up as public speakers.
After-- after this presentation, they may comment briefly on the
selection process and be able to answer any questions that you may
have about how the list we brought -- we bring to you today was
developed.
So let's see. We have Will Kriz. I'll ask him to stand; Will. And
Marco Espinar is here.
Do we have anyone else? No, that looks to be it for now.
Okay. Is there any way around this?
MR. SCHMITT: We're fixing it.
MS. SULECKI: So we have nine members, Ed Carlson, who's
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary manager; Ellin Goetz, the landscape
architect; Kathy Prosser, president and CEO of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida; Linda Lawson, who's the former bureau chief of
land acquisitions for DEP, and is now a practicing attorney; Marco
Espinar, a biologist and environmental consultant, also works for
many other committees for you; Michael Delate, who's a professional
engineer; Wayne Jenkins, who's the president of the Collier Sportsmen
and Conservation Club; Bill Poteet, real estate professional; and Will
Kriz, who is the former chief of land acquisitions for the National Park
Service, for 30 years, right, Will? Okay.
And also there are many individuals from county staff who have
helped us, too numerous to name, but key staff include, of course, Bill
Lorenz, and Mac Hatcher and Melissa Hennig, and I would like to
thank them for their help.
So these are our currently serving members. They bring varied
and valuable expertise and backgrounds to our table. Some of them
are busy professionals taking time out from demanding jobs to serve
their community, others have their own businesses, sacrificing time
and giving their expertise to further public goals.
A few are retired, and after busy careers, deserve to be out
Page 95
January 27, 2004
fishing or playing golf, enjoying their freedom, and yet they take their
time to attend our meetings and subcommittee meetings, review
materials, and to think deeply about this conservation project.
And as their staff liaison, I would like to publicly thank them and
commend them for their efforts.
Okay. We have a task timeline, and this shows it. The vertical
yellow line shows you where we are in the process of our first
acquisition cycle. Many tasks needed to happen to bring us to this
point.
From the referendum in late 2002, which was fiscal year 2003,
we adopted an ordinance and began our budget, assembled staff and
created an advisory committee which started their work in April,
2003.
And since April, this program has done extensive outreach,
developed policies and procedures and selection tools based on
ordinance requirements, evaluated 22 properties, some grouped,
representing 52 separate parcels, and we've done so in these initial
criteria screening reports. They're about 30 pages each. Quite a bit of
work went into them.
And we've developed a list of recommendations as to which
parcels would best serve our community needs of those that were
offered to us.
Okay. That list included approximately -- the original list -- 500
acres with an estimated fair market appraised value of $53,600 --
excuse me -- $53,600,000. I forgot a few zeros there.
The map shows you where these properties are located, and you
can see they're spread out between urban and rural areas. You may
also note that we have school and park properties located on the map
because the program seeks to consider how conservation lands can
provide the best educational and recreational opportunities by working
with other public entities.
And we're also working with your transportation department and
Page 96
January 27, 2004
public utilities, stormwater, to coordinate our efforts and try to
coordinate with other efforts like the Greenways and Trails
Committee.
The process for evaluation by the Land Advisory Committee
began with -- begins with a paragraph preparation and presentation of
these property reports. We visited each property, gathered data and
estimated management needs.
Using objective data as much as possible, we developed a scoring
scheme or matrix to help us identify those properties that best met the
criteria set out in the ordinance.
Each property received a total score that was broken into
subscores, as on your yellow property table that's in your -- the packet
that you received, and these reflect specific criteria. The score was
then used as one of several tools, including public input and member
knowledge and experience, to select properties that best met our
objectives.
The list that was developed and is before you today was assigned
three categories. The A category we are asking to actively pursue.
And because we can't pursue them all at once, we prioritize them as
high, medium, and low.
The B category won't be pursued by staff in this cycle, but it will
automatically go back into the pot and be recycled and looked at
compared with the next properties in the next cycle.
The C category we don't envision to pursue in this cycle, and
they won't be automatically reconsidered, but the owner can bring
them back if they like in a subsequent cycle.
So here's your ranked list, with the A category representing 348
acres out of the 500 considered with an estimated price tag of $31
million, less about two and a half million we're working to leverage in
matching funds from the state.
The map on the right, which you also have a copy of and which I
might direct your attention to a larger version of-- I don't know which
Page 97
January 27, 2004
is better for you to see -- shows where the A properties are located,
and you can see they're spread from Marco Island in the south through
the urban areas and out east through the northern Golden Gate Estates
and rural lands.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But you have nine properties on here.
One of them is the Erickson, and I don't see it on this map.
MS. SULECKI: It is -- it's in that cluster up there next to
America's Business Park, and you're right, I don't have the name there.
Thank you for pointing that out, but it is there. CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MS. SULECKI: So where do we go from here? Today you're
considering for approval the active acquisition list that was developed
by your appointed advisory committee along with much public input.
These are the properties that they think are a good idea to pursue. And
we, as staff, are comfortable with the process and the outcome.
Now we have to go forward with our due diligence phase to find
out what remains to be known about these properties in order to make
an offer and bring a contract back to our advisory committee and to
your board for final approval.
We are seeking partnerships with the Division of State Lands and
the Florida Forever Program, South Florida Water Management
District, and our own transportation department on several of these
properties.
We look forward to working with the Finance Committee to deal
with a financing strategy best suited to our needs, and Jim Mitchell,
director of financing/accounting for the clerk, is helping us in that
regard.
And as far as land management plans, a subcommittee is already
working on a land management plan template.
So we have four things to consider today here that we're asking
of you, and the first is to approve the recommended active acquisition
list.
Page 98
January 27, 2004
Second is to approve a necessary budget amendment for
acquisition costs, and this is because we have more properties than we
anticipated. We had anticipated about 13, and while it shows only
nine, they -- some of those are made up of individual parcels, so the
actual costs of appraisals and the due diligence is a little bit bigger
than we anticipated.
We're asking you to direct staff to actively pursue acquisition of
those properties listed within the A category. And we're asking you to
direct us to work with the Finance Committee to explore financing
options and return to you with a recommendation for a financing
strategy.
And at this time I'd like to ask if any of the committee members
-- and I see another one here, Kathy Prosser. I had asked everybody to
stand, and you missed it -- if they would wish -- they have come and
signed up as public speakers.
And if it pleases you, I'd like to ask them to come up and just see
if there's anything they have to add to what I have said to you and to
give you some insight from their perspective on this process.
And after that, I'd be happy to answer your questions about
individual properties. I have some slides. If you don't have questions,
that's fine. We don't have to go through that. But if you do, I'd be
happy to.
And, as you wish. If I may, Kathy.
MS. PROSSER: Good afternoon, members of the commission.
Kathy Prosser with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I also
have the privilege and honor to be the chair of Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
I am here first and foremost to commend the staff of the county
for the tremendous job that they have done in launching a new
program where we are launching really into new territory for our
county, and they've done a magnificent job of organizing and keeping
things moving.
Page 99
January 27, 2004
Secondly, also we'll commend other members of the committee
for their hard work. They work not only during our annual -- or our
regular -- pardon me -- our regular monthly meetings, but also in
subcommittee meetings and have given a lot of time and thought to
the properties that are before you today.
So I would only stand to urge you to consider the
recommendations that this committee has worked hard to put before
you, and thank you again for the opportunity for allowing me to chair
this great committee.
MR. KRIZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Will
Kriz, and I'm a member of the advisory committee.
First thing I'd like to do is to reinforce what Ms. Prosser said
about the staff, and particularly Alex Sulecki, whose work has been
extraordinary. She's done all the legwork. I don't know how she's
done it, but she has. And the work that we've undertaken is founded
on what she's provided us.
And she has scored all of the properties with numerical scores
representing the different -- different qualities of the properties.
In our work we've had to sort through. And in some instances,
we've exercised our own judgment in ranking these properties.
And a case in point, I might make, is that we had a property that
was reco -- that was nominated called Marco Lake on Marco Island,
and the score was relatively high, but we felt as a committee that it
didn't meet the objectives of the program. And it -- we also didn't feel
that it was threatened immediately by development because it was just
largely a lake occupying a former oil pit.
Another instance in which we had to exercise judgment was at
the comer of Pine Ridge Road and Logan Boulevard. Two properties
were nominated on opposite comers -- opposite sides of that comer.
And so we had to choose between them because we really wanted to
guard the fund. In the words of one of the commission members, Ed
Carlson, we really needed to protect the fund, and so we had to choose
Page 100
January 27, 2004
between the two parcels despite the fact that they both could been
considered. And we wanted some geographic distribution throughout
the county of the parcels selected.
So overall, we're pleased with the list that we are recommending
to you, and we hope that you see fit to approve it, and we look
forward to working on the next cycle. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioners, we have four
speakers. Would you like to hear from them or would any of you like
to comment first? Hear from the speakers first? Okay. Very good.
MS. FILSON: I have four speakers, and they all have 10(A) and
(B). I don't know if they want to speak on both issues at the same time
or be called back up again.
The first speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Brad
Comell.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And first of all, I would like to echo Kathy Prosser and Will Kriz's
comments on how well and how smoothly this program is running.
County staff is doing just a commendable job on this, and the
Conservancy has really been working with this program since its
inception, and we're really happy with the way things are going.
There's lots of opportunities for public comment. Getting the
information out there on the Web has been really very beneficial. And
we're very pleased with the list that is being presented to you today.
The committee has taken enormous time in reviewing all of the
material, and they have been very conscious about the fact that this is
public money and tax dollars. And so the list that they have come
forward with not only represents a variety of habitats, but also a
variety of geographic distribution. And we support the list
wholeheartedly.
You have properties such as America's Business Park and the
Erickson parcel which contain some really wonderful upland scrub
Page 101
January 27, 2004
habitat. You have parcels such as Malt, Gionet, and the Dixie Sky
properties that will have some partnership with the state opportunity,
so that maximizes the county tax dollars there.
North Golden Gate Estates will allow for some connection with
CREW lands, which is very important. The Wozniak property, high
visibility. That's on the Logan and Pine Ridge property, so an urban
site, high visibility, and it's something that the public supported
tremendously.
So we're here before you to ask that you take a serious look at the
A list, and please approve that as it has presented to you.
And also to touch on the next item, which is about the purchase
policy, in order for the county to partner with the state, some changes
need to be made in the purchase policy, and we ask that you approve
that also in order to maximize the county dollars. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Brad Comell. He will be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. Brad Comell, here on
behalf of Collier County Audobon Society.
And I, likewise, would like to compliment staff and the advisory
committee highly. Alex has made this a very open and easy process
for the public to participate in. And you couldn't ask for a more
dynamite advisory committee. They have so much experience, and
they're very, very capable advisers to your decision today. So I was --
I'm very impressed on how they have worked.
I do want to point out that the way the process has worked, I
think, has been an excellent balance of hard-core data and evaluation
using very clear criteria, environmental, social, locational, all the
criteria that have been identified that recommend something that
matches the goals of the program, as well as the judgment that's
required of humans looking at pieces of land. It can't be just a
straight, you know, these are the numbers and this is what tell -- they
tell us what we should buy, because it has to have some judgment, as
Page 102
January 27, 2004
you heard Will Kriz say. And I think they have done an excellent job
using that discretionary judgment and making the recommendations.
And finally, I do want to recommend to you as well the change in
the purchase policy, because some of the parcels that are on the A list
do require and would take advantage of the matching, in fact, would
not be possible without matching from other funding sources. And I
think this is to all of our benefit, it makes our conservation money go
further, and we all win with that. So thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Nancy Payton. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Wayne Jenkins.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. Good afternoon.
I, too, echo compliments and great admiration for the work that
Ms. Sulecki and Mr. Lorenz and the county staff has done to bring this
program forward and getting it off to a wonderful start. And you have
a superb committee that has shown great wisdom in making these
recommendations.
And I'm impressed that we have four members that showed up
today to support this program and to speak with you. I think that that
says a lot about the involvement and the commitment of this very
good committee that you selected.
I'm here to support the recommendations in both A and B, and I
wanted to talk about a specific parcel that's on the A-1 list, and it's
called the Talon Land, which is Twin Eagles property, and what a fine
opportunity this is, that it is next to the site of a future passive park the
county is going to be building.
It's also next to the site of two schools that are going to be built.
It is at the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it has easy access for
the rural fringe people, for urban people, urban folks, and it also has
access from Northern Golden Gate Estates across 17. There's a bridge
that goes into the parcel that the county purchased along with the
Page 103
January 27, 2004
school board.
So there's great accessibility for this very good natural site. It is
at the end of a four-mile long flow-way and wildlife corridor that
connects to CREW lands north of Twin Eagles. It also includes that
corridor, the wildlife crossing that you're building underneath
Immokalee Road. And there's also opportunities to rehydrate this land
through that flow-way.
Also there's the opportunity for additional lands next to these 80
acres, so I'm very pleased about that, and it means one less golf course
in this county, and the opportunity for school children to have easy
access to a nice, natural site.
So we support very much the Talon Land property one as well as
all the others that are on the list.
And those conclude my comments, and I urge you to quickly
adopt the staff recommendation for both 10(A) and (B). Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Wayne Jenkins.
MS. SULECKI: May I just say that this is also one of our
committee members, Wayne Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Wayne Jenkins, and I have had the opportunity and pleasure to serve
on the advisory committee.
First I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. It's
been a very learning experience for me as someone who has never
really had the opportunity to be involved in government. I was a civil
servant for many years. I just retired, so I have the time, and I'm
really looking forward to getting into this more. But I do sincerely
thank you for the opportunity.
I'd like to also at this time just to commend -- as you've heard
before, but Mr. Lorenz, Ms. Sulecki, and the staff has just done an
outstanding job, have made our work so much easier, and it's really
been a cooperative thing, and I think it's proceeding very well for our
first initial report to you.
Page 104
January 27, 2004
I'd just like to real briefly give you a little follow-up on how --
how we arrived at some of these decisions. And we voted on each
parcel that was presented as a committee. There was a motion made
on every parcel that was on our list, and a motion was made to either
put it on the A, B, or C list.
There was discussion. There was not always agreement. There's
a few on there I don't agree with. There is some more that many --
most of them I do. That's democracy, I guess, the way it works. And
I just think as a whole that we have really come up with a good list for
you.
Some of the considerations we gave to each piece was such as
access issues, the size of it. The size is something that I think caused
quite a bit of controversy with the public in attending this last meeting.
They see a score that we arrived at for each individual piece of
property. And to me it was -- it was a tool to be used as a guideline.
And to give you an example, I think Mr. Kriz referred to down
on Marco, the one that we did select in Marco, it's a three-acre parcel.
It has tremendous historic value, but in our -- our scoring system, it
was scored on acreage, so it got three points. Another place, 20 acres,
it got 20 points. So you can see it was a tool. It was not necessarily
the highest score was -- that we had to pick from.
And I think this was one of the areas that we created a little bit of
confusion with the public in their attending our meetings, but we did
try to explain it to them.
But it was a guideline for us to look at, and we did this with all
the issues such as access, size, the habitat, condition of the property,
potential uses, and the amount of restoration to the project. And also,
we're even looking -- and this will be in our-- probably more in our
second round so far as location, and we'll just spread these properties
out to the county as a whole so that it's -- all the citizens will benefit
from it, not that we'd wind up all in one area that would not be good
for somebody, say, down in Marco, or if we go with everything in
Page 105
January 27, 2004
North Naples.
But I do thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to
your debate on it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Fine.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: T. here's one property here, the
Dixie Sky property. I -- probably one of them that we want to
partnership with the State of Florida. You know, my concern is, it's
smack dab in the Fakahatchee, and the state's going to buy it anyways.
And I see that the state is going to hold the title to the piece of
property. I'm not sure if that was the intent when the voters voted on
this.
One of the things that -- there's two things that I heard during the
campaign is, well, we want to buy lands that can be -- that is a threat
of being built on. I'm not sure if this is really a threat of being built
on.
The next thing would be access by the public. Well, if the state
owns title to it, who's to say that anybody's going to have public
access? So I have a real concern about keeping that one on A list.
MS. SULECKI: Maybe it's best to answer your questions to look
into the minds of the committee members who are making those
decisions and why they thought it was important to include that,
because it was nominated to the program and it met our criteria, and so
it flowed through the process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure that you could
speak to it since you were there listening to all the members.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I can tell you that it went through the
process and it scored very highly. Why it was selected or why the
members thought it was important to include that, I probably would
rather let them describe their thought processes to you, if--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Get them all back up here again.
Page 106
January 27, 2004
MR. KRIZ: Well, Commissioner Henning, I agree with you. I
had -- I had moved to put the property on the C list, but I believe I lost
-- I lost 4-3, I think, is the way it turned out. So that's -- to me that's
one of the real borderline properties. And I'm really with you on that
and -- but I lost 4-3 on it. I don't know how you're going to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It might be 4-1, I don't know.
MR. KRIZ: You want to add, Wayne.
MR. JENKINS: I am in complete agreement with you. I'm
hoping that maybe Kathy has a little different perspective on it, but
this was one of the -- I think one of the hardest items we debated on.
And my view is exactly what you have expressed, because it was my
understanding with the Conservation Collier, that we were looking at
trying to conserve more or less neighborhood -- small passive parks,
something -- preserve some green space in neighborhoods.
And like I say, we voted. That was our recommendation. But
my personal feeling is that this -- the funds we have are very limited in
purchasing property. Seventy-six million dollars sounds like a lot of
money. But when we started looking at the properties that were
scattered and the cost of real estate, I think this is something that is in
an area that -- like I said, the state has already got this area under
consideration, and I think we could better spend our money, but that's
my personal opinion. That was discussed.
MS. PROSSER: Well, I stand as a different opinion on this, as
did the rest of the committee, which was, our feeling that even though
this is located in the area that will be protected, this was an
opportunity for us to leverage state money to buy something and to
put it into conservation, and that is basically why we wanted to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kathy-- Ms. Prosser, excuse
me.
MS. PROSSER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember the campaign, and I
know the Conservancy was the force behind it. And what I heard out
Page 107
January 27, 2004
in the public is, you know, public access -- we want to preserve land
that can be built on. I think that's why we had a good showing in the
polls.
And, you know, this green space failed before. And I'm
concerned of what we're saying to the public. Yeah, we're going to
buy this, but you can't utilize it. It will never be built on anyways.
MS. PROSSER: Well, as I -- as I suggested before, the
discussion we had at the committee level was, that this was one
opportunity where we can partner with the state and leverage a little
bit of our money to go much further to ensure it be protected. That
was the purpose and the reason why this parcel was included.
And if any members of the committee or audience are here that
want to add to that, please feel free to.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm in total agreement
with Commissioner Henning. I think that the idea is to try to come up
with -- what we can, it's going to be unique and we might lose as time
goes along. This is something, sure, you can leverage it against state
funds, but it's not going anyplace. It's there. And eventually it will
end up in state hands. Meanwhile, it's not going to be turned into
some commercial piece of property.
Total agreement with Commissioner Henning on that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Halas?
MS. PROSSER: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The other concern that I have
is this Wozniak property. I'm concerned that -- are you going to
provide -- when you buy this piece of property, are you going to
provide that the county doesn't have to go ahead and buy the
right-of-way in case we want to expand Pine Ridge to six lanes?
MS. SULECKI: I can address that, Commissioner. We have
Page 108
January 27, 2004
been working with the transportation department as far as the
widening of Logan goes and are prepared to split out that portion. We
would not buy it; the transportation department would.
I don't know how at this moment we would handle the Pine
Ridge issue, but that's something we would be working with
transportation to resolve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Because what we'd be -- end
up doing is, if you bought this property, we're taking taxpayers'
money, and then we're turning around and having to use taxpayers'
money to buy right-of-way in case we want to expand the
right-of-way of Pine Ridge or Logan. So I think that's an issue also.
And I -- I voice my concern, as Commissioner Henning has, in
regards to -- I believe that the way that the taxpayers -- or the way it
was written on the ballot was that we were going to look at properties
that might be developed, but we felt that those were prime properties
that needed to be protected.
And to get involved with -- where the state is going to go ahead
and buy that land, I don't feel that we need to partner up with the state
if the state's going to take care of that. Those funds were basically set
aside so that we could buy green space that may be threatened to be
developed that had certain habitats on it that needed to be preserved.
So when we go out into the area that the state's going to buy, I
have some serious questions on that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does Kathy want to respond to that
before I ask my questions?
MS. PROSSER: Yes, I do. In just talking to some of my friends
in the environmental community, they reminded me that the state is
not actively involved in purchasing property in that area anymore, so
that this would be an opportunity to have it purchased in a leverage
situation that, otherwise, they would not do on their own, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what our executive
Page 109
January 27, 2004
summary says.
MS. PROSSER: Who's speaking? I'm sorry. I didn't --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning was just --
MS PROSSER: I beg your pardon. I heard -- it was coming
from over here, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what it says on our
executive summary, or -- the language is on the property list that it is
part of the acquisition area.
MS. PROSSER: It's in the area, but apparently the state is not
actively pursuing those areas, actively pursuing them for purchase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that mean that someone
could go out there and build a commercial establishment? MS. PROSSER: Alex?
MS. SULECKI: I can answer that. One thing we looked at was
vulnerability, and this parcel does have an underlying zoning of
agriculture, so someone could go in and farm the whole piece.
Now, it's under a conservation easement, so any development is
restricted, I think, to 10 percent of the site, and it would have to be
clustered. So as far as somebody developing, that's -- that's as far as it
could go, but the whole thing could be plowed under.
MS. PROSSER: I do think there's also, near that area, a junkyard
of some kind. There is some activity out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that's been there for a
million years, I believe.
MS. PROSSER: Not going anywhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we state some more things
about farming on, you know, sensitive area? This is -- it's saying that
-- presently that it -- you know, the hydrology in it is quite high.
You're telling me that it's wetlands?
MS. SULECKI: For part of the year, for at least half the year.
But that's the type of fa -- of area that was historically farmed in this
county.
Page 110
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- so it has some
species on it that is wetland species?
MS. SULECKI: It's a -- I would say they use the parcel, yes,
during the summer months, and in the winter months there are -- there
remain pockets of wetland, deeper marsh areas. But it's likely -- and
dry for six months maybe. Haven't been out there recently, so I can't
say for sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My understanding, even
the farmers have to comply with areas that are wetlands.
MS. SULECKI: Well, they would probably likely have to
preserve some of the deeper marsh areas, that's correct, but most of it's
a prairie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My mm?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, it is your mm. Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me talk about another place
that is -- is certainly prime develop property, and that's the
Fleischmann property, the 50 acres, or 52 acres.
Now, it's scored using the ranking process that you have adopted,
higher than three or possibly four other properties that you've listed in
the A category, and you have decided that the Fleischmann property is
not to be considered.
While I can understand why the entire 52 acres should not be
considered, what I cannot understand is why Conservation Collier
would not have seized upon the opportunity to partner with the county
in -- in taking some property which we know will be developed if we
don't do that.
And our choice is, perhaps, to have a Super Wal-Mart there, or
are we going to have a water retention pond there for water quality
and flood control purposes, are we going to preserve some wetlands
and those kinds of things? It seems to me that that's a natural.
I would be interested in finding out why a parcel that scored
Page 111
January 27, 2004
fairly highly in your process was virtually eliminated from
consideration for partnering with Collier County in the acquisition
process.
MS. SULECKI: I can start you off with that and tell you that it
probably would have been considered except that by the time it got
through to that point in our process, we already knew that the
transportation department and stormwater department wanted the
bigger portion of it.
And I don't -- I don't think -- although I'll let our committee
member address that -- I don't think there's an unwillingness to
consider the 13 acres. I just -- there just wasn't enough information at
that point in the process, but I'll let Will -- MR. KRIZ: Will Kriz again.
We did, in fact, consider it. The first motion that was made was
to put-- to place the 13 acres on the A list. After considerable
discussion, the motion failed by, I believe, a 4-3 margin. And the
reason it failed, number one, was we had been advised on more than
one occasion by Scott Cameron, who is the realtor representing the
Fleischmann property, that the Fleischmann folks were not interested
in selling the 13 acres by themselves.
The second reason that it failed is that, unlike the other properties
on which we had cost-- cost estimates, this one was -- came up so late
that we didn't have a cost estimate in hand and we did not know what
we were committing Conservation Collier to. Therefore, I would say
that, you know, if the acreages are not the same value across the board
and if Conservation Collier were to participate, it should do so on the
basis of the fair market value of the 13 acres.
And the proper way to arrive at that is to have an appraisal of the
whole, then an appraisal of 37 acres, and the difference would be the
value of the 13 acres. And I cannot believe that that's going to be very
much, certainly not -- not a quarter of the value, not -- maybe not even
a tenth. I think it's going to be minimal.
Page 112
January 27, 2004
So, you know, I can't-- I can't believe that -- you know, that
Conservation Collier would contribute very much to the -- to the total
purchase.
As far as scoring is concerned, I think the 13 acres scored
relatively low, as -- much lower than the 50-acre parcel did as a
whole.
But we did consider it. We did consider -- initially we
considered placing it on the A list. That motion failed. Then there was
a motion to put it in the B list.
We knew, again, from Scott Cameron, that the Fleischmann folks
were anxious to proceed with the sale, and putting it off till the next--
till the next cycle wasn't going to be of any benefit, so that's how it
ended up on the C list.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the -- one of the things that
I think we tried to make clear from the very beginning when we were
considering doing something with this property -- because the Board
of County Commissioners was approaching it from a standpoint that
something had to be done and had to be done rather quickly.
And we were trying to enlist the help of a number of different
agencies in order to share the cost of the acquisition. And we did, in
fact, get Big Cypress Basin involved, I believe, and I tried to get the
City of Naples involved, unsuccessfully, however.
I guess I would feel more comfortable about this process if
someone would say to us, rather than just accepting all of our top A
list properties as we've proposed them, that we at least consider a
partnership on some portion of the Fleischmann property which would
prove beneficial to Conservation Collier.
And if that is the case, I would be quite happy to try to move this
forward so that we can determine what portion of that property you
thought was of greatest value for conservation purposes, and let us
deal with that.
I am concerned about the possibility that the committee's
Page 113
January 27, 2004
decision might have been guided by the fact that the county had
already stepped up to try to take this property out of the development
cycle.
MR. KRIZ: I don't believe that it was, but I -- but I think, you
know, the comtnission certainly has the prerogative of adding the 13
acre parcel to the list. And I certainly think that if you exercise that
prerogative, you need -- you should do it on the basis of the fair
market value of the 13 acres and not some arbitrary division of the
value.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it should be fair,
whatever that is. I don't think we should just start throwing figures out
at the committee and charging money for something that isn't justified.
I think we have to go through the same sort of evaluation process to
do that.
And I guess we can deal with that a little later since we have
now, I believe, at least stopped its progression toward development.
Now, I also am concerned about some of the other properties that
have been brought up here. But I think my bottom line is here, that I
would not be inclined to accept all of the A properties as they're
currently proposed. And I hope that doesn't offend anybody. I hope
we all understand that the reason we have an advisory committee is to
provide advice.
You know, the buck stops here, and we have to be responsible for
how those funds are expended. And we might very well reach some
other conclusions, but I hope that doesn't discourage any of the
members of the committee, because we do that all the time.
MR. KRIZ: Well, as Mr. Jenkins said, you know, we were not in
total agreement on all of those either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
MR. KRIZ: Many of them we were--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nor would we have been if we had
gone through that process. So it's -- I understand how it goes, and I
Page 114
January 27, 2004
don't -- I don't want to do or say anything that might discourage you.
And I compliment you on your good work, and I do hope we can,
together, sort through some of this and get you working on those items
you think are really the top priority items. MR. KRIZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Kathy, did you want to say something
before Commissioner Halas?
MS. PROSSER: Yes, just in response to Commissioner Coyle's
comments about the committee. Of course, I can't speak for us overall
except to say that we completely understand that it is our role to
advise and recommend and it is your role to decide. So the best that
we can do is give you the good thought process that we went through
and present the information to you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Start off with, I agree with
some of what Commissioner Coyle said.
I also realize that the taxpayers looked at this with open eyes in
regards to preserving property in Collier County that may be sensitive,
and we wanted to make sure that we obtained that property so that it
wouldn't be developed.
I have also some concerns about the Fleischmann property. And
one thing I don't want to convey here is that we're trying to stiff arm
you into buying this property for the control of our flood water. That's
not the whole idea of this -- this green tax that we passed.
But I would hope that if you thought that the Fleischmann
property -- and I'm thinking that I'm not -- you know, I'm not in your
mind, but I'm assuming that you've probably looked at the wetlands as
being the area that needed to be preserved.
And as you stated -- as the gentleman that was up at the podium
earlier stated that if we look at the fair market value of that wetlands,
it would probably be a lot cheaper than the rest of the Fleischmann
property, I could go along, probably, with that. And I think probably
Page 115
January 27, 2004
-- hopefully the people who voted for this green tax could also go
along with that so that it didn't look like we were holding you hostage,
and I hope that's not being conveyed as such.
All we're saying is that, if this is the wetlands and it's a dedicated
area, then it would be nice if maybe you could put that on the list, but
yet making sure that whatever was -- the fair market value for that 13
acres, that that would be the cost.
But the other thing, I do have a concern, is whereby there's
property that borders up along the roads. And as you know, we're in
the process of-- most of the roads are being widened to six lanes, so I
think we need to look at that closely to where we come into a
partnership so that we're not taking taxpayers' dollars to buy the land,
and then, of course the transportation department's got to mm around
and buy the right-of-way back.
So we want to make sure that we address that issue. I think that's
very, very important in any lands that are acquired by the -- Collier
County in regards to the green tax.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Mr. Jenkins, did you have something
to say?
MR. JENKINS: Thank you. Just to address, Mr. Coyle. What
you stated is what we hope you will do.
We were presented with kind of a complex problem here. As it
was presented to the board, it was 50 acres, and we felt that we could
not commit almost a third of our fund to one piece of property.
And in doing so and in speaking with the -- Mr. Cameron, the
representative, they were unwilling to separate it. So we've kind of
had our hands tied.
I still think this has great potential as kind of a passive park,
especially for the City of Naples. As we stated, we want to spread this
out in the different areas, and there's not a lot of places where we're
going to find property for -- to benefit the City of Naples.
And I think with the mangroves in there and possibly a
Page 116
January 27, 2004
boardwalk -- and you are correct, we are looking at the wetlands area.
And I think it has great potential. And if it can -- can be presented to
us as approximately 13 acres, that I think we can act on it.
But as we stated, we just simple could not vote for something not
knowing what the cost of it would be. So I do hope that you will bring
it back to us for our consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if this is the proper
time for a motion, but I think we need some -- to give some direction.
I think we're going to find continually that we're going to have conflict
with areas that we want to set aside for green space and areas that we
hope to put some infrastructure in, in Collier County.
There's two properties here that there is conflict with
transportation. And, you know, we really want to -- we don't want to
send the wrong message. We don't want to buy properties for
conservation only to come five, 10 years down the road and say, well,
you know, we need to expand this road.
So whether we go by our long-range plan and just with a footnote
on these properties and say, well, this area that we're going to put a
sewer line down or something like that, we just want full disclosure.
The -- I would like to see the Fleischmann preserve property on
the A list and work with the county transportation department to put
that whole piece together.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. I just want to assure you that we will
work with transportation. We are working with them, and it is
definitely not our intent to purchase properties to later have a conflict
with transportation or utilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. SULECKI: So we definitely are alert to that. And just to
remind you that today you're not approving the purchase of the
properties, just for us to continue with our due diligence phase of
Page 117
January 27, 2004
these.
And I just wanted to comment briefly on the -- Commissioner
Halas's concern about taxpayer money going twice. If transportation
purchased it and then we purchased it from them, they would pay us,
which would go back to the public's coffer, so to speak. So it really
wouldn't be a double payment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could finish up.
MS. SULECKI: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's very important that
the public knows that we're not just four-laning -- or cementing over
conservation land that they bought.
MS. SULECKI: Right, definitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- do we need a motion at
this time?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to take the Dixie
Highway property off the A list and put the Fleischmann property on
the A list. And, again, that won't be a 50-acre parcel. That would be
just the area that we want to preserve for restoration of water that goes
into the Gordon River.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was -- okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or something that's mutually
agreeable with the committee; is that okay?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. A second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Now discussion?
First Halas -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine. Okay.
Page 118
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The Fleischmann property, I think
we ought to just look at the wetlands area since that's what we're
trying to preserve, and think that the other portion of it, that the county
should be responsible for.
I just don't want to get into a situation where -- whereby we're
going to take this green tax and use it for the benefit of stormwater.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That was the motion though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I thought I said.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I interpreted that we were going to
take all the 50 acres of that. It just wasn't the -- just the wetlands?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, just the wetlands. He mentioned
the 13 acres, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Work with the county.
MR. MUDD: It's on your visualizer, the 13 acres, I think we
talked about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR MUDD: The eastern portions of that property that abuts the
headwaters of the Gordon River.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, we have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
And Commissioner Coletta or-- yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's me.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make sure that we
made provisions for right-of-way so we don't get boxed in down the
road, where all of a sudden -- just like you mentioned, Commissioner
Henning, that the -- that could be used against us when we get ready to
design these highways.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before we have a final vote, I
would just like to talk a little bit about the American Business Parks
parcel.
Page 119
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's expensive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a big chunk of money, and it
seems to be a heavily impacted area.
Can you tell me a little bit about what the ultimate goal is with
that property?
MS. SULECKI: I'll pull that up on the visualizer here and see.
MR. MUDD: Back to your laptop.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. Actually, one of the things we liked
about it was that it was not impacted; it was very, very pristine. It
contains a certain type of habitat, which is the scrub habitat that's quite
rare. It's a large piece, and it's very, very much intact as an
endangered species.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have a bigger-- bigger
aerial of that that you can show us?
MS. SULECKI: I don't have a bigger aerial of that, no. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the part that I'm -- that you're
looking at is the same part that I've got in our packet, it looks like it is
just laced with trails of various kinds that look like people have used
off-road bikes and vehicles to run all around it.
MS. SULECKI: It has a trespass problem--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. SULECKI: -- right now, and that's one of the things we
would hope to correct immediately if we purchase it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But how can it be pristine under
those circumstances?
MS. SULECKI: Well, the vegetation communities are still quite
intact.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are they?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those that haven't been destroyed?
MS. SULECKI: No, there's trails through them, but -- but it's
really very, very beautiful, one of the nicest pieces that I've seen in
Page 120
January 27, 2004
looking at these properties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe Commissioner
Coletta would like to have that area for his off-road vehicle track.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Looks like it's very
compatible for the two uses. Maybe duck hunting, too.
MS. SULECKI: And it is under a high threat of development,
because there is a business plan-- there's an already-approved
preliminary plat. And so if it's not purchased, it's going to be
developed into an industrial park.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any other -- oh, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this piece of property, is this
basically -- what is this, like a sand dune area, the sugar sand area in --
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it also scrub jay -- where scrub
jays reside or not?
MS. SULECKI: They could live here, but it's not big enough for
scrub jays.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what other values do
we have for this piece of property?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we had quite a number of different
habitats on it. There were primarily Xeric Oak Scrub, which is unique
and endangered. It's listed by the Florida Natural Area's inventory as
globally and locally imperiled.
It's also very diverse in habitats. It has pine flatwoods in the
south, palmetto prairie and Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm and also
marsh areas in it.
It's got very, very good restoration potential.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I was going to
ask you is, what is your plan for the restoration of this area or to
preserve it as it is, and what type of access will be available to the
people here in Collier County?
Page 121
January 27, 2004
MS. SULECKI: We don't have a management plan developed at
this time. But kind of looking ahead at the parcel when we went out
and looked at it, we could envision that there could be a boardwalk
through the wetlands in the south that we would, first of all, fence it
and get rid of the trespass problems.
And in the future, the east/west Livingston Road is going to come
into the south of that, so there'll be very good access. It's also very
near a school site, so it's a good place for-- it's an environmental
laboratory for school children.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: So we can see some walking trails through here
and boardwalks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm
calling for the vote.
No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Passes, 5-0.
Item #1 OF
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A 50-ACRE PARCEL OF
LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND
Page 122
January 27, 2004
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS,
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION- APPROVED WITH
MODIFICATION 1N PRICE
We're going to go back to the one o'clock that we didn't hit at one
o'clock, even though I know we should do 10(B), which is a
companion. Do you want to do 10(B) first? Do you feel that that's --
that's pretty simple.
MR. MUDD: I think 10 -- I don't think -- I don't know if it's
going to be pretty simple, but --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Then let's -- we had a one
o'clock time certain, and we have a two o'clock time certain and a 2:30
time certain, so we better hit those first.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The one o'clock time certain is basically
the purchase of the Fleischmann property, and Mr. Feder will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator.
What you have here on your teleprompter is the map that you just
looked at. The overall 50 acres, the primary issue that we're looking
at is to establish the Gordon River stormwater retention pond.
As you know, between 41 and Airport Road, north of this area
and throughout, there's very limited land available within which to
establish water retention.
As we get more and more concerned about Naples Bay and water
quality issues, we need to have the opportunity to retain that water
such that this pond will allow, let it slowly go over into the wetlands,
and then eventually out to Naples Bay as treated water. And with that
in mind, that's the predominant issue.
Another issue that we're looking at, as is shown in here on the
graphic in front of you, is the old alignment for Golden Gate Parkway,
Page 123
January 27, 2004
utilizing that right behind the bowling alley and the bank for the
westbound to northbound, right turn movements, bringing that out of
the intersection at Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway.
It should be noted that that is needed today. That is not a need
because of an overpass at Airport or any improvements that we do at
Airport and Golden Gate. We have issues at the Golden Gate and
Goodlette-Frank today, and this is a proposal we're looking at in
design both of intersection improvements in six-laning north of
Golden Gate on Goodlette-Frank Road.
With a new interchange definitely coming in, and then with other
improvements up and down the corridor, it also becomes a needed
improvement at this section -- at this intersection.
But that improvement is something we've discussed previously
and takes up very little portion of the right-of-way, but there are
impact fees that will pay for that. We'll work with you on the
stormwater. And as you discussed today, we do have the wetlands
areas in trying to evaluate whether or not that becomes part of
Conservation Collier.
We're continuing to work with other partners, as was mentioned
in this overall acquisition, particularly for the retention purposes.
We're working with the water management district, Big Cypress
Basin, on some funding, and we're continuing to discuss the issue with
the City of Naples.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you have, but I think this is
an item you're pretty familiar with. I do know that the county
manager has an item he needs to note to you, then we'd open it up.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes. And I'd also like Ellen Chadwell, if she's
here, to help me out, because --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: She is.
MR. MUDD: -- she's been working with their-- she's been
working with their legal team to make sure we don't miss anything.
Page 124
January 27, 2004
But when I made the offer to Mr. Cameron, who's the real estate
agent that represents the Fleischmann interest in this particular
property, I had two verbal appraisals. I had one for $18,750,000,
which was the low one; and then I had another one that was
$19,500,000.
Our policy is, you take the average of the two appraisals, and you
-- that's the offer that you make. Those two verbals I had, I took the
average, and it came out to be $19,125,000.
A week after I made that verbal agreement with Mr. Cameron
based on the average of the two appraisals, I received the written
appraisals, which are about an inch and a half thick, and that's why I
went to go see Kevin, to make sure he had -- or Mr. Hendricks, to
make sure he had copies with him, and he does.
And the low appraisal was not $18,750,000. It was $18,900,000.
And the high appraisal was the same, at $19,500,000. If you follow
our policy, it is, you take the average of the high and the low appraisal
value, and that's basically what Mr. Cameron agree to me with (sic) on
the phone.
And I want to be a person of my word for the county, and that
would change the purchase price from $19,125,000 as stated in your
executive summary, to be $19,200,000. It would be an increase of
$75,000.
And I would like the board to consider that increase of $75,000.
That is our policy. I ran off a -- I used the verbals, because we had a
constrained letter from Mr. Passidomo that said that we had to have
this thing in front of the board by the 19th of January, if you
remember correctly, and we got them to agree to wait until this
meeting to make sure we had the appraisal's firm and we had the
contract firms (sic), and we had all the signatories that we needed so
that we could make this happen.
Ms. Chadwell, did I miss anything?
MS. CHADWELL: No, Mr. Mudd, I think you pretty much
Page 125
January 27, 2004
covered the bases on the purchase price.
I would just like to point out for the record that what was
attached -- the differences from what was attached and included in
your agenda item and what we will ultimately be asking the board to
approve and sign, and that is that there'll be one more signatory on the
agreement itself. The attachments -- there'll be an Exhibit A and
Exhibit B, which will encompass the legal descriptions. There'll be a
minor adjustment as to the cost of the title policy, which we are
acquiring and those--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And would you mention your name
for the record, please.
MS. CHADWELL: Ellen Chadwell, assistant county attorney.
And if you have any other questions about the agreement, just --
I'm here if you have any.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to recognize
Cormnissioner Coyle for working on this and bringing the parties
together. At a timely basis, I would say, it is my understanding that
this was doomed for development, and so I just want to thank you.
I am disappointed to hear that the City of Naples -- the present
City of Naples officials (sic) is reluctant to step forward. What I'm
happy to hear is, from the candidates for City of Naples and the
mayor, is one of their top priorities is stormwater management, and,
you know, water quality into the Gordon River. So maybe this will
change after the election.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But again, thank you very much
for your due diligence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, thank you. I think you're too
kind, quite frankly.
Everything we do here requires three votes on this commission,
Page 126
January 27, 2004
so nothing is done singlehandedly here, so I really do appreciate all
your support on this issue and the support of the staff, who's been
working on this stuff for some time, and others in the environmental
community.
But there is an important point to be made here, that this is an
election season, and there's a lot of talk about improving water quality
in Naples Bay. And a lot of the people who've been talking about -- or
are now talking about improving the water quality in Naples Bay
have, for eight years, done nothing about the water quality in Naples
Bay.
This is one of the many steps the county government has taken to
try to solve problems with respect to not only water quality but water
quantity. And a stormwater retention pond is going to be beneficial
not only from the standpoint of being a first step toward trying to
improve the water quality in Naples Bay, but it's going to potentially
solve a lot of the stormwater problems that people are having along
Goodlette Road on both sides of the street, and particularly a lot of
city residents on the west side of Goodlette Road are going to benefit
because there will be a place for that stormwater to go.
So I will continue to work with the city to see if there is any way
we can get some funding participation to help with this stormwater
problem, because it does, in fact, benefit a lot of residents in the City
of Naples. So I'll continue to work on that, and hopefully we'll be
successful.
And with that, if you don't mind, I'd be happy to make a motion
to approve this purchase with the modification that County Manager
Mudd has suggested in the price.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got--
Page 127
January 27, 2004
MS. FILSON: We have speakers, ma'am
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. She told me that,
too. Three speakers we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are there any speakers who want
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
MS. FILSON: I have Scott Cameron.
MR. CAMERON: I only did that in case you had questions of
the property owner.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton, and she'll be followed by Marco
Espinar.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, and
I didn't initially sign up to speak on this, but I spoke before there was
discussion at the previous item about putting the 13 acres on the
Conservation Collier list, which I think I understand it's on that list, it's
not going back to the committee for any sort of discussion. You have
put it on the A list. Okay. That's good to clarify.
And then I'd also like to clarify -- because when this was
discussed before Conservation Collier, Mr. Wiley, from the county,
made some statements about these 13 acres that I found were not
consistent with the goals of Conservation Collier, and I think it's
important that we get these clarified as quickly as possible.
And one is that Conservation Collier was not a program to
supplement the county's mitigation obligations, and, therefore, I think
it's appropriate that if Conservation Collier does purchase these 13
acres -- and they rated very lowly, almost at the bottom of the list
when they were evaluated by county staff and they had zero
vulnerability -- but nevertheless, they're on the list and you're going to
proceed with purchasing them, that they ought to be purchased for
their conservation values, not as a filter marsh and not as mitigation
lands, and I would like to clarify that they won't be double-dipping
and using Conservation Collier monies for the mitigation obligation.
Page 128
January 27, 2004
And I wanted to comment on Naples Bay, that there's an awful
lot of hand ringing and whining about Naples Bay, and there has been
for decades, and nobody is willing to walk the talk. And I'm as
frustrated as you are, and you are, that they're not coming forward
with money, because helping Naples Bay is what everybody's talking
about but nobody's stepping up from the city with some cash, and
that's what it's all about.
And I also want to caution that when we talk about helping
Naples Bay, which we ought to be doing, that we're not doing it at the
expense or the cost of conservation lands or good habitat elsewhere,
and I've heard that, so I -- I'm done with my speech, and I thank you,
and I hope that you will address those issues about how those 13 acres
are going to be used and the mitigation issue. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Marco Espinar.
MR. ESPINAR: Good afternoon. For the record, Marco
Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants and one of your board
members on Conservation Collier.
I'd like to echo the same statements that Nancy just made, and
I'm a little disappointed with the previous vote.
My -- one question I do have is directed to Norm Feder, and that
is, where's your discharge point for that retention -- or retention
system?
MR. FEDER: We would look at using the wetlands as part of the
filter, but, again, working with Conservation Collier to make sure that
we don't get -- inundate it, rather we keep it hydrated.
MR. ESPINAR: Well, that makes my point right there, that's
your discharge point. When you're taking this to the regulatory
agencies, they're going to probably put some of that in the
conservation easement anyways, so now we're allocating funds to
conserve something that's going to be placed on a conservation
easement after the permitting progress is done. I don't think this is a
wise move on taxpayers' behalf.
Page 129
January 27, 2004
MR. FEDER: Rather we could allow it to be developed and then
utilize that as the overflow from that development's activities or as
their retention area and then let it go out to the bay.
MR. ESPINAR: Well, as an environmental consultant I can say,
yes, we could possibly put a Super Wal-Mart there, and yes, you could
probably have a retention system in the back. But through the
permitting process, the bulk of that will be placed in a conservation
easement and protected.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure you understand
where we are. This is a vote to acquire some property. It is not a
discussion about how to design the stormwater outfall. There will be
time to talk about that at a future point in time when all of those issues
come back before the Board of County Commissioners, nor is this a
time to talk about who is going to pay what for what portion of land
and how is that land going to be classified.
That's something that's going to be worked out as we go through
this process. Just as the members of the committee are going back to
do due diligence on those items in the A category, we will be doing
due diligence with respect to whatever portion is deemed to be
environmentally sensitive enough for Collier -- Conservation Collier
to commit some money to fund it.
So this is a vote to offer money to buy this property. That's all it
is. Are you opposed to that vote? Are you in favor of it?
MR. ESP1NAR: I'm in favor of the acquisition of this parcel for
stormwater retention.
What I am opposed to is the intermingling of funds of
Conservation Collier with this project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We haven't gotten to that point.
That's not part of this vote.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I've been very, very quiet
throughout this whole thing. I'm trying to preside rather than speak,
but I just have to say that I would, for one, protect the Conservation
Page 130
January 27, 2004
Collier dollars. I would never let anybody gouge into them for
something that would be for our own purposes rather than strictly for
the preservation of a very environmentally-sensitive area.
MR. ESPINAR: So also -- excuse me, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's okay.
MR. ESPINAR: I'm also echoing Nancy's concerns of
double-dipping and mitigation here, and --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And she's right, she's right.
MR. ESPINAR: I'm just bringing that up.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But that isn't the subject right now.
But she is right about that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's the point I was trying to
get across prior to taking the vote where I stood on this issue, that I
didn't want this to be double-dipping, but I thought the wetlands
needed to be preserved.
And we're not talking about how -- at this point in time how
we're going to mitigate that water through that area.
So I -- that's why I made that statement as I did prior to the vote,
that it would be helpful if we looked at this wetlands, preserved it, and
then the other issue on the stormwater retention would be addressed at
another time in regards to how we were going to make sure that we
didn't take in account the wetlands as -- using that as part of the
process of the waterways.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I would want to make sure that
Norm works closely with the Conservation Collier people so that
there's -- so that we come out with something that we, county
commissioners, all feel comfortable with, and that would be the last
bit of my advice.
Anything else, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor of the motion?
Page 131
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Passes, 5-0.
Let's see. It's 20 after 2, and now we'll get to our two o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, why don't we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're gaining on it.
MR. MUDD: -- can we do 10(B), and then I think that's -- that
there's some folks in the audience that are here for 10(A).
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If we can get 10(B), and get that done, and then
those folks can get about their business and then we can --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's apologize to the two p.m. people
then and go on to 10(B.)
Item # 1 OB
RESOLUTION 2004-28 CHANG1NG THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PURCHASE POLICY, CURRENTLY RESOLUTION
2003-195, TO BETTER ALLOW FOR PARTNERING WITH
OTHER AGENCIES IN THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY
ADOPTING A REVISED PURCHASE POLICY - ADOPTED
W/STIPI II,ATION RF, GARDING ACCFJSS ISSI IFJS
MR. MUDD: 10(B), Commissioner, is to -- is to -- a
recommendation for the board's direction to change the Conservation
Collier purchase policy currently resolution number 2003-195 to
better allow for partnering with other agencies in the acquisition of
Page 132
January 27, 2004
land by adopting a revised purchase policy in a resolution superseding
resolution 2003-195, and Alex will present.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you. Hello again. For the record again,
Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier.
Today, on this item we're here to address an unintended
consequence of our purchase policy relating to our efforts to partner
with the state for purchasing lands within their acquisition boundaries.
In addition to Dixie Sky, we also had two other properties, so
they're -- they still remain on the A list, so it's important that we do
this. And also our ordinance does advise us to partner with state
agencies.
So our purchase policy was developed using both state and
federal guidelines and following existing county land purchasing
procedures.
One of the important aspects of the procedure we developed, that
was, we wanted the owner to see how we arrived at our offer. In that
regard, we chose to make the appraisals available to the owner, and
this follows federal land buying procedures as well.
The state, however, by statute, keeps these confidential until a
contract is signed or until a few weeks before the matter's heard by
their board of trustees.
And our ordinance directly speaks to the intent to partner with
other land acquisition programs like the state Florida Forever
Program, and partnering supports our growth management policies as
well.
So our purchase policy, while fine for direct purchases or grant
purchase applications for matching funds post purchase, presents an
unintended conflict to partnering with the Florida Forever Program.
So the active acquisition list that we brought to you today
includes now two properties within Florida Forever boundaries. And
these properties, by the way, sometimes overlap with our target
protection areas that are established in the ordinance. For example,
Page 133
January 27, 2004
the Belle Meade area, the sending lands, and the urban areas within
the Rookery Bay project.
So we're currently working with state -- division of state land
staff to identify exactly what changes are necessary to make in our
policy to achieve those partnerships, and we would apply these
changes only to those properties located within those acquisition
boundaries of Florida Forever using procedures required by state
statutes.
For all other properties, our purchase policy will remain as you
approved it in resolution 2003-195.
So today we ask that you just simply give us direction to
appropriately amend that resolution to achieve these goals. And we
have been working with the state. We had a meeting with them
presently. And our legal department and real estate people are
working with them to bring before you a superseding resolution that
will -- in the near future, that will achieve these goals.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I don't have a problem. I think
it's great as long as it doesn't compromise the ordinance or what the
voters said was, you know, that it's in danger of being developed, their
understanding through the campaign, and public access. MS. SULECKI: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would also support it. I'm
am a little troubled by the fact we don't know exactly what changes
we want to make to the ordinance. And I would feel more
comfortable if that were brought back to us for final review before it's
enacted, but--
MS. SULECKI: It will be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: And it's not the ordinance that we're changing.
Page 134
January 27, 2004
It's simply the purchase policy. And essentially, it's going to involve
the appraisals and whether they're kept confidential --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. SULECKI: -- for those types of properties only. That's the
only change we contemplate. We just want to make sure that the
language is correct and there's no glitches later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I presume that's -- that's acceptable
from a legal standpoint, and if we can, in fact, keep appraisals secret in
this particular process, I'm wondering why we can't do that when
we're trying to acquire some other land around here.
But nevertheless, we can discuss that later. And I would just say,
hey, that's great, proceed. But I'd really like to see the final report.
MS. SULECKI: And you will, it will come before you for
approval.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question, too, if you'd
hold on just for a second.
Explain to me exactly how if we partner with the state on these
lands, my -- the people of Collier County will be able to utilize them.
Is that really going to happen, or is this going to be something where it
becomes a private preserve where we are totally unable to access it?
If we don't have access, I am against it. If we have a guaranteed
access -- can we be guaranteed access by the state?
MS. SULECKI: Well, my understanding is that the portions of
these lands -- there will always be access. There may be limits on the
types of access, but that there is access for county residents.
I think one of the biggest concerns initially was that the lands
would be inventoried by the state and then maybe later sold, but that
concern was pretty much put to rest.
Page 13 5
January 27, 2004
One of the properties down on Marco Island is -- the plans for
that are to actually open it to the public and have tours and have the
Archaeologic Society involved and some folks at the Marco Island
Historical Society involved very heavily, so there would be a lot of
public access.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I -- I understand what
you're saying, but it didn't sound definite. Can we have it in our
agreement with the state that any lands that we partner with are
guaranteed access for the public, not portions of different other lands
or this or that, but the access? The management issue is another
things, as far as when you've got access and all that. But the idea being
is that it's open-ended, maybe there will, maybe there won't. That
won't work.
MS. SULECKI: Since that's a legal question, I'm going to defer
to our legal counsel, Mike Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: That's going to have to be part of the discussion
with the state in conjunction, I think, with finalizing a resolution,
superseding resolution, to bring it back to the board, because the state
has form agreements for partnering with counties in these kinds of
purchases, and I think we're going to have to look at including some
protections in that regard in that form agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has there been a motion made
yet for this?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd make a motion for
approval based upon us handling the access issue so that we've got
assurance that the taxpayers of this county get what they paid for.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: There's a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. A second by Commissioner
Coyle. The motion was made by Commissioner Coletta.
Page 136
January 27, 2004
Commissioner Halas wants to say something, and then
Commissioner Coyle wants to say something, but we have two gals
here who have to switch places, so we need to give you five minutes.
I'm sorry to interrupt you in the middle of all this, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we -- why don't we
just take a break.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Take a break. Thank you. I'm
sorry to interrupt you in the middle of a subject. (A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a hot mic.
Thank you very much. We have a hot mic. right now. Thank
you. The meeting will come to order again.
Thank you so much. I'm sorry that I had to interrupt you in the
middle of a subject, but let's move on. Did we have another speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, we had a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion and a second. Then we had
Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Coletta, had you already finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas was
next? And then you, did you want again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I might reconsider. Go
ahead and let Commissioner Halas -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, the biggest concern that I
have, since this is taxpayers' money in Collier County, that when we
partner up with the State of Florida, that we have the ultimate say in
that property. If we don't, I'm not involv -- I'm not for this motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I was going to address.
It's my belief, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we will have the
Page 137
January 27, 2004
opportunity to make a decision whether we want to partner with the
State of Florida on a case-by-case basis. So as these things come up
then, we can look at the conditions for partnership and say yes, we'll
do it or no, we won't do it. It doesn't have to be in the so-called
administrative procedure, because you don't know what the conditions
are that are going to come up with each parcel.
But I think we have sufficient safeguards so that as each of these
things come up and we evaluate a partnership with the State of
Florida, if that partnership does not provide us the kinds of options
and flexibility we want, then we just don't partnership. I think that's --
is that right?
MS. SULECKI: That is right.
And one thing I will tell you, that they -- that is -- they're
inflexible about is that they will own the property, full title, if we
partner with them.
And we do have the multi-party agreement that we can work with
them on conditions, as you say, to bring back and decide if we do
indeed choose that. But at this point, if we don't make the conditions
right to even consider partnership, we'll never get to that point, so we
need to move through here to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to point out one thing,
too. Whoever this land is owned by, there's going to be a maintenance
cost. It could be 40, 60, $80 per acre per year to keep exotics off, to
be able to maintain it.
I don't care who owns -- well, I do care. I'd rather the state take
ownership of it. As long as we got the access and the right of use of it,
as we should, being state citizens, then I feel my needs are being met.
MS. SULECKI: That's a very good point, because they would
take the access costs that would free up those funds for management
for other properties.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion, Commissioners?
(No response.)
Page 138
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes, 5-0.
Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioners, thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Now I think we're going to the 2:00?
Item #1 OH, Item # 10I, Item #10J
DISCUSSION AND DECISIONS REGARDING THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION TO
PROVIDE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO SAFIRE AIRCRAFT
COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AIRCRAFT
MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT THE FLORIDA TRADEPORT
-APPROVED (Item #101 and #10J to be brought back on March 9~
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. That's Item No. 10(H), and that's the
Board of County Commissioners approve the following economic
incentives as economic inducements to encourage Satire Aircraft
Company to locate its new manufacturing site to the Florida Trades
Port in Immokalee.
And it has two adjoining adjunct items on your agenda, and those
were two resolutions that we have drafts for. And we wanted to make
sure that the Board, number one, were aware of these resolutions.
And 10(I) is a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of
Page 139
January 27, 2004
Collier County, Florida, supporting Satire Aircraft Company as a
qualified applicant pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes, and
providing an appropriation of $1,330,000, as local participation in the
qualified target industry QTI tax refund program and brownfield area
program, and providing for an effective date.
And item 10(J) was a resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida making findings,
designating a brownfield area within Collier County for the purpose of
environmental rehabilitation and economic development and
providing for an effective date.
I mentioned during the agenda changes this morning that Item
10(I) and 10(J) were for discussion only. Even though those items say
approval, they have not been advertised properly and will have to
come back to the Board in about a month. So -- but you need to be
aware of those particular items, because this is part of 10(H), which
are those economic incentives. And Mr. Joe Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
Well, Jim pretty much said it all. Frankly, we're here to talk to
you about economic incentives and to get your approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got mine.
MR. SCHMITT: The two resolutions that are in front of you will
come back to you on March 9th. We have to properly advertise those,
and so they'll be properly advertised, publicly vetted, and certainly the
public will have an opportunity to comment on those.
Let me preface by saying the county -- and I want to point to a
couple of folks, because I first want to recognize Tammie Nemecek.
Tammie, the Executive Director of the Economic Development
Council. Tammie and her team has absolutely done absolute superb
work in nurturing and working with this.
I want to recognize our County Manager, Jim Mudd. He was
Page 140
January 27, 2004
involved in this for the last several months, and along with members
of my staff as well.
Gene Schmidt. Gene, certainly for his efforts. And Scott
Cameron. These are the folks who were involved in working behind
the scenes. And I've got to confess, we've been pretty tight lipped
about this, because it was at the direction of the team involved. And
we've been very careful on certainly not trying to let some of this
information out, in hopes that it would not have this client search for
another county, because we frankly have been courting this client, and
we've been working with this client, but so have other counties.
We're here before you today, and the first thing we want to talk
about is that you approve the following economic incentives as
economic inducements to encourage Satire Aircraft Company to
locate its new manufacturing facility. And the terminology is the
Florida Tradeport, which is in Immokalee.
What I'd like to do now is introduce Tammie. Tammie is going
to run through a presentation and an overview of Satire, who they are,
what they intend to do. And then we'll go into detail into the specifics
in regards to the economic incentives.
These are economic incentives that, coincidentally, are the ones
that we talked about almost for six months. You passed them last --
this past November. And now we have an opportunity to at least
discuss how we can use these economic incentives to bring this firm
into Immokalee. Tammie?
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you, Joe. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present this project
to you this afternoon.
I'm going to go through a slide presentation which will go over a
little bit about the company and what the proposal is to the company,
should you approve the incentives. It's a presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners on economic incentives to induce Satire
Page 141
January 27, 2004
Aircraft to locate at the Florida Tradeport.
Satire Aircraft was formed in 1998 in West Palm Beach. They
moved in the year 2002, their corporate headquarters and their
engineering facility, to Opalocka Airport. They're currently in search
of a site to build their production assembly facility, which will
encompass about 446,000 square feet.
The company is anticipating employing about 1,000 people
between now and the year 2010. The capital investment, which
includes the building and equipment purchases, is approximately $65
million.
Florida Tradeport is among several sites that are being
considered, not only in Florida but around the U.S. There's about
three sites within Florida that are being considered, Florida Tradeport
among one of those, and about a dozen sites outside the State of
Florida within the states of Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and
Alabama.
This is a picture of the Satire aircraft. They are in prototype
development currently. They have applied for FAA certification. This
is a rendering, a computer generated rendering of the aircraft.
Satire's objectives are to have their first prototype flight in the
summer of 2004, build a state-of-the-art facility, production facility,
by September of 2005. So you can anticipate that they are on a quick
turnaround time as far as choosing the site, as well as starting
construction and completion of the site so they can begin constructing
their aircraft at that particular location. We anticipate about 350 to
500 jets being constructed each year.
These are the site selection parameters that were presented to us
as far as what the company was looking for. First and foremost,
they're looking for a pad-ready site on about 50 acres of property.
They are interested in a build to suit. And they are requesting the
incentives firm and in writing to the company as far as they're looking
at several locations, so they're looking for each of the communities to
Page 142
January 27, 2004
write -- to present those incentives in writing to them.
This is a three-dimensional view of the aircraft and the
description of the aircraft. The technology actually that's going into
this aircraft is a spinoff of N.A.S.A. technology. It was developed
through N.A.S.A. There are actually five or six companies that are
looking to build an aircraft similar to the Satire aircraft.
The market advantage for this aircraft is the cost of the craft, is
about $1.4 million compared to about 4 million for a similar craft in
today's market.
This is the proposed site layout that was presented to us as far as
what Satire was looking for, with the five buildings and assembly
building, paint building, completion, component warehouse and office
building for Phase I at 37 acres.
Phase II two is 13 acres, which will include a flight test facility,
as well as space for some of their suppliers to be attracted -- to site
around the company.
This is some of the square footage for the buildings that they will
be constructing: An assembly building, which is the largest one at
255,000 square feet; the office building, et cetera, et cetera. The
Phase II, which is scheduled between 2007 and 2008, would include
the flight test hangar and the supplier buildings.
The company anticipates that by year 2007, they'd have about
580 employees. The second phase would be completed by 2010 with
an additional 420 employees. The average wage of these employees is
right around $47,000 a year.
This is the facility schedule. One of the most important things
that they were interested in was the ability to meet their deadlines
because they are on such a short time frame. And one of the things
that we talked about to them was the fast track program that's been in
place here in Collier County. And they were quite impressed with the
fact of how the county was interested in attracting the company,
number one; and number two, that the confidence that they felt that we
Page 143
January 27, 2004
could meet their time lines.
This is the site that was proposed to the company. This is not a --
the site that they have chosen by any stretch of the imagination. What
we did is take their information and laid it out where we thought it
might be most appropriate with the airport. The existing Air Park
Boulevard ends just at the bottom of that screen there. So what would
need to be built in order to make it a pad-ready site is the roadway
going up to the 'northeast, as well as the pad and taxiways and
infrastructure that would take the water and sewer and power, et
cetera, to the site.
Shows you where the production assembly building is, the
component warehouse, the paint building, completion building, office
building, and then the Phase II sites, which would be where the
suppliers would locate.
That is the abandoned runway for the airport currently, which
would provide a taxiway to Runway 627.
The company was looking at an airport that had a 5,000 squ --
5,000 foot runway, which Florida Tradeport offers two. Their desire
is to have an 8,000 foot runway. What we proposed to them was at
least providing maybe a 1,000 foot overrun. That could be done quite
easily. But the ultimate goal is for them to have an 8,000 foot runway.
I'm going to go through the economic incentives that we're
proposing to the company, and based on the direction of the Board of
County Commissioners, of what we might be able to offer to the
company to entice them to come to the Florida Tradeport.
The first part of it is the lease agreement. They would like a
50-year lease with approximately the first 10 years provided at rent
free, negotiable thereafter at 10 cents a square foot plus CPI. The 10
cents a square foot would start in year 11, plus the CPI, so it would be
frozen at the current value of 10 cents a square foot, which is what the
Airport Authority is currently leasing the property for.
What we're requesting is that the Board of County
Page 144
January 27, 2004
Commissioners authorize the Airport Authority, in conjunction with
the County Manager, to work with the company to negotiate the lease
agreement and bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners
for final approval.
For the site preparation, because they are requesting a pad-ready
site, there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in order to
make it a pad-ready site. Just -- because we have been on such a short
time crunch, we had some preliminary numbers run as far as what the
approximate cost of the site would be in order to get it up to par for the
company. We're estimating about $8 million to put the infrastructure
in. We can apply to Florida's Economic Development Transportation
Fund, the road fund, for up to $2 million because of the job creation
created by the company to help offset that. That would need approval
from the Governor's Office prior to accessing those dollars, which
leaves the remaining $6 million to be funded locally potentially
through the General Fund reserves.
MR. MUDD: Take a breath for a second.
Jim Mudd, for the record. Commissioners, with the $6 million,
$2.7 million was -- came back during turnback from the
constitutionals, that weren't in our budget, that we did not budget
those. And those were put into reserves as a one-time windfall for the
county. So those still sit there.
And then the other $3.3 million, I'll have to work with Mr.
Mitchell to work some kind of short-term instrument in order to do
this. Again, this is infrastructure. And one of the things that you do
when you sign the lease agreement or when we sign the agreement
with the firm about this pad, as we start this, that they will have some
financial responsibility, if they choose not to come here, to help us
defray this initial outlay.
And that's what's in my mind as we go through those contracts
negotiations with them before we spend a dollar on this particular
issue. But I give you an idea where the dollars would come from.
Page 145
January 27, 2004
And after the short-term instrument, then we would budget said
difference, some $3.3 million in next year's budget in order to pay off
that short-term loan, plus interest.
MS. NEMECEK: And again, we're authorizing -- authorizing
county -- the County Manager to negotiate the terms of the agreement
with Satire Aircraft for that infrastructure cost.
And again, here's the potential site that we're looking at. And
we're looking at building roadways and lakes and pads and taxiways
that will need to be built in order to accommodate the company.
What I'm heading now into is the approved ordinances for the
incentive programs. Although the amount of money that's been
budgeted for fiscal year '04 is not enough to cover the incentives that
this company would qualify for, so while the ordinances are approved
and in place, there's additional funding that would be needed in order
to induce the company to come to the Florida Tradeport.
Again, these incentives are performance based. The company
does not receive the benefit of these incentives unless the jobs are
actually created.
Satire Aircraft, because they're proposing the creation of 1,000
new jobs within Collier County by the year 2010, could qualify for a
million dollars with this program. We would need to authorize a
budgeted amount in the future fiscal years, based on the spreadsheet
that's in your packet.
And those jobs, because they're doing two phases, in 2007 and
2010, means that the payout would be between the years 2007 and
2013.
The fee payment assistance program would help offset the cost of
the impact fees. We're estimating about $1.74 million in impact fees.
$1.55 of that is the road impact fees, the remainder of the additional
impact fees charged for a company coming into Collier County.
There is $1.35 million available through the existing incentive
program. We're requesting that that entire amount be allocated for the
Page 146
January 27, 2004
impact fee program, with the remaining $390,000 needed to be
budgeted in '04 out of the general revenue.
Broadband infrastructure, again, is an already improved
incentive, and we're requesting authorization up to the $25,000 max to
help offset the cost of the broadband infrastructure to the building.
Brownfield area program is a new program that we're working to
access through the State of Florida. How the brownfield area program
works is that typically in a lot of areas enterprise zones are designated
additionally as brownfield areas. These are areas that are abandoned,
idled, unutilized commercial or industrial properties. We're proposing
that the entire enterprise zone area be designated as a brownfield area,
as our discussions with the State of Florida has indicated that not the
entire site has to be a brownfield site, but one site within that
brownfield area would need to be a brownfield site in order to
participate in the program.
If you do decide to designate the enterprise zone in Immokalee as
a brownfield area, it would allow us to participate in the state's
brownfield bonus program that's attached to the qualified target
industry tax refund program, which allow -- which would allow for a
$2,500 job bonus per job bonus for the company locating in the
brownfield area.
There are also additional incentives that are available, once that
brownfield area designation is put in place. One in particular is the
sales tax exemption on building materials for affordable housing
projects.
Qualified target industry tax refund program is a program that
we've participated in before. We're requesting that we authorize our
local match of 20 percent, which is $1.33 million. The company
actually qualifies because they're going into an enterprise zone,
qualifies for $6,000 per job from the State of Florida. Because their
wages are above 150 percent of our local average wage, they get a
$1,000 bonus, and on top of that, with the brownfield area designation,
Page 147
January 27, 2004
you'd get another $2,500 bonus on top of that, which would equate to
$9,500 per job.
And then because the company is already located in the State of
Florida, we cannot count the existing jobs within the state. So by the
time they would relocate here, they anticipate approximately 300 jobs
already created. So we would be counting 700 new jobs to the State
of Florida, times that $9,500 per job, which equates to that $6.65
million in total, which our 20 percent local match is $1.33 million.
This is a summary spreadsheet of the incentives. Looking at the
economic impact that we anticipate from the company for the jobs
created by 2010, we're looking at a direct earnings and indirect
earnings impact, plus their capital investment of building and
equipment of over $300 million, versus around $10.45 million in
economic incentives that we're providing through these programs.
The initial year of impact is in 2004, because we'd need to get the
infrastructure done, as well as impact fees to start building the
building is 7.74. The remainder of those would be spread out between
the years 2006 and 2014.
I'm going to turn it over to Joe to provide a summary of what
BCC action is required. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Tammie. That was a great review,
and I'm -- we're really excited about this. I'm going to ask -- basically
we're going to go through the five things that I'm going to ask the
Board to at least -- they have to affirm or vote on. And then the two
remaining, which are the ordinances that have to come back.
So the first one we're talking about is the authorize the Airport
Authority to negotiate the lease, and that's.authorize Gene and Jim to
work together with Satire to negotiate this lease. So with that, the
information is there, it's up to 50 acres. First 50 years of course are
rent free and then thereafter we'll pay an appropriate amount, so --
MR. MUDD: The first 10 years are rent free.
MR. SCHMITT: The first 10 years are rent free, thank you. It's
Page 148
January 27, 2004
a 50 year-lease. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you looking for one motion
for everything, or separate motions for each item?
MR. SCHMITT: Which would you prefer, Mr. Mudd? I think
we--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like you to give me a motion
for each one so that we have an idea so we -- again, they're looking for
a letter based on Board approval back to them to -- Tammie and I have
already -- Ms. Nemecek and I have already written and cosigned a
letter to them lining these incentives out for them. And they asked to
get the Board's consensus and agreement to those particular items, and
that's what we're basically giving you today, so that they can be sure.
Because they're going to make a decision here by the 29th of this
month, is what they've told us. And so we will get this affirmation
back out for the Board tomorrow at its latest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I realize --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just say, Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coyle. I just want everybody to know where they all are in this
lineup.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm always last.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You deserve that place.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're from the City of
Naples. I'm just kidding.
I just wanted you to know that I truly appreciate everything the
staff has done. This is unbelievable. I mean, we couldn't have put
together a better scenario if we tried to write a story of how we could
make something happen.
I know it's not a done deal, but it would be my honor to be able to
make a motion that we authorize the Airport Authority to negotiate in
conjunction with the County Manager a lease agreement with Satire
Aircraft.
Page 149
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that. And we have --
MS. FILSON: Eight speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- eight speakers. So before we move
forward --
MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, I would recommend-- let me
finish the briefing first and I can go through these and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have a couple -- a few other
Commissioners that also want to talk. Do you want to wait until he
finishes the briefing?
MR. SCHMITT: Do you want to go with the speakers before we
go with these first, or does that--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Say that again, please.
MR. SCHMITT: Would you prefer to go with the speakers first
before you actually vote?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, absolutely. You have to do that. But
I just wanted to see if my fellow Commissioners wanted to -- they're
all in line to say something. Commissioner Halas wants to wait 'til the
finishing of the briefing.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This seems like it's a Scripps
deal of the year that, you know, the State of Florida bringing Scripps
Howard in and Collier County looking to bring Satire into Collier
County. And I don't think you're going to find anybody against it.
And what a welcome to the Immokalee area, the area that we're trying
to introduce high wage jobs. Thanks, Tammie.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I would like to point out
a couple of things, though. It's important that the Board members
know that although the county has the obligation to up front some of
this money, they're going to build their own buildings there. So
they're responsible for putting in some money up front, too. And that's
Page 150
January 27, 2004
important. Those buildings that we saw on that prior slide will be
buildings that they will develop.
Now, the significance of that is we've got two agencies involved
in the negotiation, the Airport Authority and the County Manager.
And it's very important that those be coordinated closely, because an
inconsistency between the two could cause us a great deal of concern
and difficulty.
And one thing I would have recommended to the County
Manager, and I'm sure he would have done it anyway, but when they
build -- the agreement should provide that when they build the
buildings on the pad that we provide, assuming this all goes through,
that these are buildings that have multiple use opportunities for the
future, okay? So that the buildings don't go to waste; that they can
support some other kind of business if this one -- this one tums out to
be not all that successful, or doesn't continue for the entire period of
time.
But I think it's a great opportunity, and I would support it. And if
you don't mind, Madam Chair, I'd just like to ask a question. Are there
any people here who want to speak against this program?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, we haven't called
up speakers yet, Mr. Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Oh, I thought you already called me, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just wondering, do you want to
speak against it?
MR. THOMAS: No, sir, I want to thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looks like we've got approval.
MR. THOMAS: I want to thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could, I'll run through the
issues again. I'll have the summary slide up. We'll go with the public
speakers and then we can vote on the issues. I think that'll be the best.
The second action is, again, to authorize the County Manager to
Page 151
January 27, 2004
negotiate with Satire Air for funding of a pad-ready site. That's as
shown below. Basically, as Tammie pointed out and as Mr. Mudd
pointed out, we would look at using some reserves, but we're talking
approximately $6 million, up to $6 million. Actually it could-- it
would be in that ballpark. But we don't have anything firm on that
yet.
This would be approved, the job creation incentive, $1 million
base creation. It's basically the -- what you had already approved for
the incentive program, and it would be paid between the years 2007
through 2010. What you would be authorizing here, you would be,
frankly, committing to furore budget criteria that would be established
in budgets, years 2007 through 2010. And that would be specified
each year in the budget. And those would be line items identified as
commitments to Satire. Of course, they're predicated on the -- that
they in fact have the jobs and we confirm that the jobs actually are in
place.
This is the other action, this is the incentives program to defer
impact fees. What we talked about here is there's currently money --
as it was pointed out in your executive summary, there's money in the
job creation incentive program, $400,000. We would ask to have that
money moved, because it will not be spent this year under this
program. We would move that money, combine it with the money
that currently exists in the fee payment assistance program, because
this is the money that they'll be looking for first. When they come in
with their building design, they'll have to pay the impact fees. We
would need a total of approximately $1.74 million. And you would
authorize us to move those dollars and you would look at moving an
additional $390,000 from general revenue to make up the shortfall.
And that's number four.
The other you would be approving also is future commitments
for the staff to budget for approved broadband infrastructure
incentives. And those are as shown. We would identify those, of
Page 152
January 27, 2004
course, in the out years, 2006, 2007 and beyond.
The other incentives we talked about, Tammie mentioned, we
would have to bring back. These have to be properly advertised. And
that is to declare Immokalee enterprise zone as a brownfield area
resolution. And we would bring that resolution back.
And the last is, of course, authorize the county staff to identify
this as a qualified targeted industry.
So with that, that's -- this is the summary list of all seven. I
would recommend you listen to any public speakers and then you can
provide -- we can vote -- you can vote on each of these issues and
provide any guidance to the staff.
So--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
MR. SCHMITT: -- subject to your questions, that concludes my
briefing. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much. That
was a great presentation. And at this time I'd like to thank the EDC
and all the other groups in the community that worked so diligently to
bring forth this great economic package to Collier County. And
especially to the people out in Immokalee.
We started out with $1.8 million in seed money, and of course
most of us Commissioners, we took a lot of heat when this came up
for discussion on the budget. And it just goes to show, with a little
effort and with the fellow Commissioners here voting in regards to
let's have this economic incentive and let's see where it takes us. And
it's amazing, with $1.8 million, where we are today. Yes, we've got to
put some other money out there, but when you look at with the
possibility of revenues when we have a thousand people out there
employed, we're looking at $47 million a year. And that money is
going to not only be in Immokalee, but it's going to be in the
surrounding area and it will be in Collier County. We'll probably mm
that money over seven times in the community.
Page 153
January 27, 2004
That's amazing at what the potential is here. And this is just the
beginning. Because I think what we're going to do is we're going to
have some spinoff of other high tech companies coming in here. I
mean, we're looking at 46 or $47,000 a year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, in that-- wage, $47,000
wage. That's amazing. And like I said, that equates to $47 million.
That's just unbelievable. And you talk about value return. People,
you did a great job. And we're here to support you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, hear, hear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second. We have eight speakers. If any speakers would like to waive,
we'd love to see your hands up in the air.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Fred Thomas. He will be followed
by Edward Olah.
MR. OLAH: I'll waive.
MR. THOMAS: First of all, for the record, Fred Thomas. I want
to personally, on behalf of all of Immokalee, thank Mudd for getting
us in the right direction. And Gene Schmidt for working so hard to do
this. And I'm going to thank you all in advance for making this
happen.
We have -- we didn't find out about it until just recently. And I
want you to know, Raymond Holland from Florida Community Bank,
Bennie Starling, Executive Director of the Chamber, Eva Deyo, the
Director of the Water Sewer District, letting us know that they're
going to be behind anything we need to do to make this work.
Gary Holloway from Radio Fiesta, Bill Klohn, they're your
tenants, man, your future buyers, our head development. And Floyd
Cruse (phonetic), one of our community leaders. We're all here to say
thank you to you for this wonderful thing.
This is a good anchor tenant, a good anchor tenant. And if you
think like any major mall, a good anchor tenant that's going to bring
Page 154
January 27, 2004
other people already to just to supply them. In fact, as soon as we can
get the goahead, we want to try to go after some of the suppliers they
haven't named and bring them here and get them interested in coming
to our community.
Remember also that we are in a very competitive location. We
have the best location in the world for this kind of business. We're
within a two-and-a-half hour car drive to seven international airports,
plus all the other executive airports around that where these planes
will be housed and have to come in for retrofits and recalibration.
So I think we've come a long way. I want to thank you all
personally. Personally. And Mr. Coletta, you'll never hear about
Barron County again. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love it, love it.
MS. FILSON: Scott Cameron?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
MS. FILSON: Yes. He will be followed by Tammie Nemecek.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
MS. FILSON: She will be followed by Eva Deyo.
MR. CAMERON: See what happens when you retire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can wear anything then, can't
you?
MR. CAMERON: That was my point. It's very colorful, Fred.
We enjoy that.
For the record, Scott Cameron, 690 Banyan Circle, in Naples.
This has been sort of a 1 O-year trip for me and I'm just thrilled to see
where it's going. I'm not going to take your time to speak in favor it.
think we've already shown that.
But I did have a great opportunity to spend some time with the
Satire Aircraft people. And one of the things that was concerning
them in some of the other locations was that they just didn't seem to
quite be getting the level of support from both the private and the
public sectors in the community that they were -- that was probably
Page 155
January 27, 2004
number one on their hit parade. In fact, they'd actually made a
decision at one point to go there, and have now ranked us very high on
the list.
And so I would like somehow to send today, and I can see it
happening right here, maybe simply a copy of the video of this
meeting, send today to Satire Aircraft Corporation a message --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excellent.
MR. CAMERON: -- of how enthusiastically they will be
embraced by the public and the private sector of this community.
And you've all been tremendous in your support of it so far. The
speakers here have also done that. I think Fred Thomas certainly said
it very well. But can we somehow send that message to Satire
Aircraft Company? Because in the next two or three days, they're
going to make a decision, and I think a message of enthusiastic
support embracing them into Collier County would go a long way
towards helping that decision.
Thank you very much for your support. Thank you to the county
staff. Manager Mudd and the people have been fabulous. And I've
got to tell you, I was blown away by the presentation that was done
between the staff and the EDC with Satire Aircraft the other day. It
was so professional. And the people at Satire just sat there with their
eyes wide open and really enjoyed watching the level of
professionalism with which they were greeted. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Eva Deyo.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a motion to direct
Commissioner Fiala to write a letter along with the tape expressing
support for Satire.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. All in favor of that particular
motion?
Page 156
January 27, 2004
MS. FILSON: Bill Klohn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
MS. FILSON: You're going to waive?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we have some discussion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have another motion on the
floor, I understand that. We have speakers left. But we'll address
discussion now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. This is a commercial
message brought to you by the Board of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I knew it.
What I would like to do is remind all of the people here who have
worked so very hard to get something done in Immokalee about the
controversy that surrounded the Board of County Commissioners
getting more actively involved in Airport Authority affairs. You'll
recall that there were a lot of people who were criticizing us because
there was a threat that we were going to take over the Airport
Authority and we were going to manage it and that sort of thing.
It's my belief, although I also don't want to give credit to anyone
particular group on this, because it really has been a community effort,
but it's my belief that the willingness of the Collier County
Commission to begin to focus on getting our airports more
self-sustaining opened up oppommities for us to accomplish what has
been accomplished.
And I would like to thank all of you who have been involved in
that process where you've talked with people you know, you've gone
out to visit people, the County Manager and a lot of other people have
done this. You've done a great job. And it just shows you what can
happen when we all start working together on the same goal. And I
hope that our effort to build these airports, which is ongoing, will be
vindicated by the attraction of organizations such as this into Collier
County.
Page 157
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner. We have a
motion on the floor and a second.
MS. FILSON: I still have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. This is just addressing the last
speaker, excuse me, addressing Scott Cameron's request to write a
letter -- okay. Everybody's got their hands up, but I'm going to try and
move this along. Let's see, Scott Cameron's request to write a letter --
MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to try to stop you from moving along.
You have a motion on the floor, Madam Chairman. There's a prior
motion that's waiting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know that.
MR. WEIGEL: And from point of order, technically -- and I
want your motions to be able to withstand any scrutiny. So the second
motion must wait until the first motion is taken care of, unless you
table --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can't take that one out of the middle
and get that one taken care of?.
MR. WEIGEL: You can table the first motion, if you wish to,
which takes a motion and a vote. And then you can go to this new
motion that you wish to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if I withdrew the
motion and we just gave direction by nods of head? MR. WEIGEL: No, well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I won't do that either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we table this motion.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, if I could just help. Let's get
the last two speakers that are done, let's act upon the first motion,
because that will say to the public that you agree with the Satire
proposal. And then if they -- if the Board so wants Madam Chair to
write a letter of encouragement with the tape, then that will happen
and it will be logical. This way the Board approve the Satire initiative
and then the letter comes after that approval. So let's take it in that
Page 158
January 27, 2004
order and let's finish those --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry for all of this confusion. I think
the Board members have been stumbling over themselves to make this
happen and so you see all of this confusion. Back into line. Okay, next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Raymond Holland?
MR. HOLLAND: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Chris Lombardo?
MR. LOMBARDO: This is the second course. Chris Lombardo
of Naples.
I thought you might be interested in knowing that Saturday
you're going to get a visit at the Immokalee Airport from yet another
company who is very interested in the same thing. We are very
excited by what we see with Satire.
I am here today representing a company known as Skytruck
Company, LLC. Skytruck Company, as of January 6th, 2004, is the
exclusive distributor of aircraft for PZL Mielecs in the Western
Hemisphere. PZL Mielecs is a large aircraft factory located in Poland
that manufactures a wide variety of cargo and utility aircraft, not the
least of which is a Skytruck M28, which is a short take-off and
landing cargo utility aircraft twin engine with Pratt & Whitney PP6s,
and the M 18 Dromedar, which is a flying hopper, of which there are
already three ground based in Immokalee.
Skytruck has been working as the facilitator for Lockheed
Martin. Lockheed Martin is the offset credit partner of PZL Mielecs
in a U.S./Polish entity.
We have been traveling back and forth from Poland for the past
year, and I have been putting a lot of pressure on the group to
recognize that what we need to do is final completion of the aircraft in
the United States. The aircraft we're talking about is an M28
Skytruck, which is currently being constructed in Poland. Skytruck,
as of January 6th, 2004, with Lockheed Martin's blessing, just put in a
Page 159
January 27, 2004
-- as part of its exclusive agreement, a commitment for 100 aircraft
over the next 10 years to be completed in the U.S.
And I will tell you that unlike Satire, our number one pick for our
completion center, which would mean the aircraft would come here in
green format to be painted, have the interiors done, avionics done,
engines hung, and then also bring in pilots for training, mechanics for
certification, and then serve as the Western Hemisphere location for
all future warranty work and maintenance work, is Immokalee,
Florida.
So we are -- in fact, on Saturday the executive team from Poland
is flying in along with the executive team from the ARP. ARP is the
Polish equivalent of the Economic Development Council. And we are
doing a site visit at 2:00 at the Immokalee Airport. And I would ask
that if any of you would like to be there, we'd love to have you there
to let them see the support.
But we anticipate -- and just so you know, the first aircraft for
this project is being constructed as we speak, right now, and is
scheduled to be completed in green configuration by June 1st. Which
means by June 1 st we have to identify our completion center. We have
made temporary arrangements in Fort Lauderdale for that, but we
want a permanent facility, and our preference is Immokalee.
And so we have at this juncture made contact with EDC and have
begun the process, and we will be presenting a similar proposal. And
we would love to a neighbor of another aircraft company, and we
think this is just a great step for the future of Immokalee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Chris.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got to relate this to the people
that's sitting here today in the audience.
When the EDC, Tammie and Jeremy, came to my office and
explained what was happening, I became very emotional. I couldn't
believe that we were -- we could accomplish this in such short order.
Page 160
January 27, 2004
And again, I just want to thank everybody.
Now what we got to do is get that bypass around Immokalee.
We got to get the 8229 bypass, and we've got everything put together
then. And I see nothing but great things happening out in that area of
the county. And so everybody jump on that bandwagon so we can get
that road out there. That's just one other avenue to get the
commodities moving in and out of that airport, and also for the people
out there in the agricultural area. So we need all your support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding also that
Boeing Aircraft Corporation wants to locate their headquarters to the
-- out here. So this is really a good news day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and
a -- a motion by Commissioner Coletta on the floor with a second by
Commissioner Halas. And we've had our discussion -- oh,
Commissioner Henning?
MR. MUDD: The first, the motion on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we voting for?
MR. MUDD: The initial -- the initial motion that the Board had
said was for item number one, which is to authorize the Airport
Authority to negotiate in conjunction with the County Manager a lease
agreement with Satire Aircraft. And that was -- and the motion was
given and seconded, and then we'll go down all seven of these and
then we'll get to the letter writing issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
Page 161
January 27, 2004
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next motion we'd like to get is to authorize the
County Manager to negotiate with Satire Aircraft for funding of a
pad-ready site.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was talking to Fred Thomas on
some funding issues, and he agreed that -- with me that the CRA in
Immokalee plays a very important part here. But I also see -- and he's
going to go to his board on some of those payback items that we're
going to front up, but also there --
MR. SCHMITT: That's already in the ordinance. The TIF
dollars do roll back and pay -- repay for some of these items out of the
-- as part of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But there also should be
some other partners.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the County Manager, I'm
sure, could work on this.
The other one is the economic incentive programs that we're -- I
think we're still doing the $2 million a year? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: That those monies should go
back to pay back.
And also, the Airport Authority is going to have a big windfall by
the Board fronting this $10 million project upfront. I think they
should be a partner in this payback. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when we come back, that's --
MR. MUDD: The CRA has -- to basically bandaid a little bit
that Commissioner Henning had talked about, not that it needs to be a
Page 162
January 27, 2004
bandaid, but just to reinforce it -- the CRA has some authorities
whereby they could help with roads and things around the airport
within their enterprise zone in order to fund those and pay back over a
long-term bond issue. Those things will be described. I need to get
with staff and talk about those particular issues.
And there's always that loan amount to the airport, and I see it
getting a little bit bigger. And so we'll work through all of those
particular issues. And as this thing starts to unfold, I'll be back to the
Board to let you know how it's going.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas for item
number two, authorizing the County Manager to negotiate with Satire
Aircraft for funding for a pad-ready site.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: The next item is to approve the job creation
incentive of $1 million based on creation of 1,000 new jobs in Collier
County, to be budgeted in the 2007 through 2011 type cycles.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor,
second. No further discussion, all in favor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 163
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next is to approve a fee payment assistance
incentive for impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we'll let you have that second,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as we get --
Commissioner Coletta gets the first on this.
MR. MUDD: And that fee payment assistance incentive is $1.4
--.74 million. Again, $1.74 million.
MR. SCHMITT: And that does -- and ifI could add, that does
involve moving funds from the job creation that was previously
approved by this board and move those funds as described in the
executive summary into this budgeted item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next item is to appprove the broadband
infrastructure incentive. And that's basically after they put the
particular items in for broadband into their facilities, that they would
be reimbursed over a three-year period of time. And it's after the fact,
so they basically have to put it in and then submit their chit to the
Page 164
January 27, 2004
county, and then we pay them back over a three-year period of time of
8,000, 8,000 and then I think it's 9,000 or something like that, or
seven; it totals 25.
MR. SCHMITT: And again, those would be out-year budgeted
items.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second, okay. Motion by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay, and then Commissioner, the other two
items, six and seven are related, but we'll do them one at a time. It's to
authorize county staff to submit the Immokalee enterprise zone
brownfield area resolution.
But I'm going to say, we're going to bring those back, both of
them are coming back the first meeting in March, the 9th of March to
you, for six and seven. And at this particular juncture, instead of
authorizing the staff to do any resolution, I would just like the Board
to give us -- kind of give us a consensus that you're in favor of these
particular programs so that when we come back and when we write
the letter, or whoever writes the letter to Safire, we'll say that the
Board is in agreement with the two programs. The resolutions will
come on the 9th of March, and that's kind of what I'm looking for right
now on six and seven.
Page 165
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go do it.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I've got five nods on six and seven?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five nods.
MR. SCHMITT: And that concludes the briefing. I just want to
add one thing. I think, as Fred says, Immokalee Airport was a
diamond in the rough. I think it's a jewel now. It's going to be a
jewel. And I think -- and I thank the folks from Immokalee for
supporting this.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thanks for being here.
Now we move on to our 2:30 item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last item. Directing the
Chair to write a letter to Satire, welcome them -- welcoming them to
the opportunity they're giving us and to send them a tape of this
meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Mr. Mudd, you can do that for us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Signed by the Chair. I have a
motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We'll get that off real
quickly. They have to make their decision soon.
We're going to our 2:30 time certain.
Page 166
January 27, 2004
Item #10G
AMENDING THE MEDIC 80 AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL
REQUESTS RAISED BY THE HOSPITAL - NCH TO PAY WHAT
IS OWED TO THE COUNTY BY 4/30/04 AND THE COUNTY
IMPLEMENT MEDICARE PLUS 10% DISCOUNT FOR
INDIGENT OUT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTS PROVIDING THEY
DO NOT EXCEED 5% OF TOTAL TRANSPORTS AND IF THEY
DO THEY PAY FULL RATE. IF NOT ACCEPTABLE TO NCH,
THE OUT OF COUNTY TRANSPORTS WILL CEASE-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That's Item No. 10(G), and that has to do with the
Board of County Commissioners consider amending the Medic 80
Agreement with Naples Community Hospital to address additional
requests raised by the hospital. Mr. John Dunnuck will present.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I feel like
this is kind of like the Bill Murray movie, Ground Hog Day. I just
seem to not be able to get this one off my plate.
We're back here today from a standpoint to discuss how we
handle post-hospital emergency transports. As the Board previously
directed last fall, they asked us to go back with the hospital and try
and negotiate a settlement agreement to address some of the needs as
far as how we've handled post-hospital transport. We had made a
recommendation that was supported by the County Commission in
December, and went back, and there are some additional items and
concerns from the hospital.
The county's goal has always been to only concentrate -- what
our position was last fall was to concentrate on pre-hospital transport
services and to start weaning off the post-hospital transport services.
Page 167
January 27, 2004
Senator Saunders is here from the hospital today to discuss their
issues, because it really comes down to some economic standpoint on
what they would like to see as a settlement as part of this agreement.
We'll be here to answer any questions that you may have.
But at this point in time, we'd like to turn it over to the hospital so
they can present their position.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Dunnuck. My name is Burt Saunders with the law firm of Woodward,
Pires and Lombardo, and I'm here representing Naples Community
Hospital.
First I want to do two things: I want to thank you for having a
time certain for this. I was -- almost a time certain. I was in Orlando
earlier this morning and drove in, so I appreciate your staffs courtesy
on that.
Also, I want to congratulate you on the economic development
package that you just sent out. I'm on the Enterprise Florida board of
directors. Economic development is so -- and diversification is so
very important. And the good news is you guys get it. And most -- a
lot of commissioners don't. So I want to congratulate you on where
you're going with that.
Health care kind of relates to economic development also, so
there's a little bit of a tie-in there.
The good news is I think we're very, very close to having this
resolved. NCH has worked and continues to work as a partner with
Collier County government to make sure that the citizens of Collier
County get the best possible health care. And so that's the good news.
As an example of that, your staff was interested in having a -- Naples
Community Hospital sign an agreement providing for matching upper
payment limit dollars, federal dollars, with your tax dollars so you
could draw down those upper payment limit dollars, those federal
dollars. That agreement was signed. The hospital didn't want to tie
any of that into these other issues, because again they're looking to
Page 168
January 27, 2004
work with you.
In addition, just so you know, I've got some information on the
amount of money NCH has paid to Collier County for emergency
medical services over the years, and it averages out about $600,000 a
year. In the year 2000-2001, it was $686,000. In 2002 it was
$591,000. But the average is about $600,000 a year that NCH has
been paying to Collier County for emergency medical services.
Also, NCH recognizes your desire to get out of the out-of-county
transport business. I'll tell you, you're never going to be out of the
out-of-county business, in terms of transports. There's always going
to be out-of-county transports that you're going to have to transport.
The issue is how do we minimize those to the greatest extent possible.
As you know, NCH will be applying for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity. They'll put two units on, hopefully by
April 1 st. Certainly by the middle of April there will be two units on
to do all of the intra-facility transports throughout the county, but also
to do as much of the out-of-county transports as is possible.
But there will be a small segment of transports that will have to
go out of county. Some of those will have to be on the hospital -- on
the helicopter to the trauma center. Some of those will have to be by
ground transport when the NCH units are unavailable. And that will
happen. It's not likely to happen very often, but it is likely to happen.
I want to tell you that I've been concerned about some of the
direction that we have received at Naples Community Hospital from
your staff in terms of some of the policies. And you just need to be
aware of these, these types of memos and things that have been going
back and forth on the policies, because I believe that they have the
potential of putting your constituents, our citizens, at risk for great
harm.
And I just want to read a couple of sentences from a
memorandum from Mr. Jeff Page to Gail Dolan that is kind of
indicative of some of the staff communications. But at the same time,
Page 169
January 27, 2004
I want to you understand that NCH is trying to work everyone here to
resolve these. But it says starting Friday -- and this was a
memorandum that went out on January 13th. It says, between 8:30 at
night and until 8:30 the next morning we will only take a transport out
of county if we can get a crew to staff, to staff it. If it is a true
emergency transport of life and death, the helicopter will be used, and
they put in parentheses, if it is available, and they will have to first call
you, then they'll have to call me. I will call Dr. Tober, and if we can't
reach agreement all of this will take place only after you have
exhausted the use of private providers.
They're talking about life and death situations where the phone
has to be answered and someone has to come transport a patient, if it's
a life and death situation. And then they continue on with no
designated zone unit will go out of county, and you're no longer the
guarantor of payment. No zone unit will go out of county. What
they're saying is that you're going to have people that have severe
trauma that may wind up at NCH, or you may have children who wind
up at NCH and need to be transported immediately to the Lee
Memorial trauma -- Lee Memorial Children's Hospital, and what
they're saying is, that transport's not going to take place.
And I just want you to understand that there are serious
implications for that. Now I don't believe staff intends this at all. But
I think that these types of memos have been going back and forth and
we need to be a little careful with them.
In terms of those very few cases -- and I will tell you, there will
be very few cases where there will be a transport out of county on a
vehicle that is not run by Naples Community Hospital -- we have to
come up with some formula for paying -- NCH has to come up with
some formula, you have to come up with a formula on how much
NCH is going to pay you for the non-paying patients that may very
well be transported. Again, this is going to be a very small number.
We have agreed to reimburse the county for non-paying patients
Page 170
January 27, 2004
at the rate of Medicare plus 10 percent. That's for all transports out of
county and all intra-facility transports that would be necessary if those
two NCH units are not available.
There's a rate, a Medicare rate for your helicopter, we would add
10 percent to that. There's a Medicare rate for ground transport, we
would add 10 percent to that. Remember, that is only for those
transports of non-paying passengers. Right now you're getting
nothing for those passengers.
The other part of this is we're in agreement to pay for all of the
back payment for the non-paying patients that have been
out-of-county transports, again using the formula of Medicare plus 10
percent.
Now, you may want to know, where did we come up with the
number of Medicare plus 10 percent? That was recommended by
your staff to deal was certain of these transports. So we just said,
okay, let's keep it simple. Let's apply the same charges to all of these
transports.
So I'm here to offer up Medicare plus 10 percent for all of the
out-of-county transports and all the intra-facility transports that will be
used -- that you will have to transport once NCH has their own two
units. Again, I think that that will be -- will be very rare that that will
happen.
I have Gail Dolan here and Dr. Allen Weiss here that can talk
about some of the practical problems of trying to exhaust all private
carriers before you call Collier County EMS, especially in those life
and death situations. There aren't private carriers out there that are
going to do those transports. The very few that may come have
indicated that it may be as much as a 45-minute delay before they can
even get there, in some cases it's longer. And so that's just not a
practical approach.
So what I'm here to offer is, NCH and Collier County being
partners in making sure that your constituents are transported to
Page 171
January 27, 2004
out-of-county facilities when they need to be, the Lee Memorial
Trauma Center, the Lee Memorial Children's Hospital, and that
Collier County is properly reimbursed for that, again at the Medicare
plus 10 percent rate. And that's -- I think that solves the problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was under the impression that our
EMS staff basically provided emergency care directly to a hospital,
whether it's your hospital or it could be the Lee County Trauma
Center, and that that basically was our statute as far as what our
obligations were, that we weren't to be involved in other aspects of
running patients from one hospital to another. Am I right or wrong?
MR. DUNNUCK: I believe we established in the fall meeting
that our obligation -- our obligation statutorily is that we provide
pre-hospital care.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner Halas, if I might comment on
that, sir. Let's assume that your grandchild winds up in the emergency
room at Naples Community Hospital, and that your grandchild needs
to be sent to the pediatric hospital or intensive care unit at Lee
Memorial or the Children's Hospital, or to a burn unit, if the child's
burned. Who's going to do the transport? Now, if you're saying
Collier County isn't going to transport out of county, we're not going
to transport our citizens out of county, that child is going to suffer
from that decision.
Now, you've been in the business of transporting out of county
for the last 20 years. We have a change in policy that has occurred
over the last several months. Now, what NCH is agreeing to do is to
develop its own EMS system so it can take care of most of those
transports. But this is brand new stuff. You've been doing this
transport for the last 20 years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there also the -- my
understanding is that NCH hasn't met the obligations as far as paying
us what they owe us at the present time. Is that true?
Page 172
January 27, 2004
MR. SAUNDERS: No, that is not tree. And I'll explain why
that's not true. NCH has received some bills and NCH has paid some
money to the county. I believe $171,000 has been paid.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When was the last payment?
MR. SAUNDERS: I believe $171,000 was paid. The issue --
and I don't know the date, but I'll get that for you. The issue is what is
the rate at which we're going to -- NCH is going to be reimbursing the
county for those back transports. We've never come to any agreement
as to what that rate would be.
Now, your staff came up with the formula of Medicare plus 10
percent for some of those transports. We're simply saying okay, let's
go back to day one -- and I don't know when day one would be, but it's
about a year ago -- and calculate what the cost would be at Medicare
plus 10 percent for all those transports. You've got $171,000. There
would be some additional money owing at that rate. So Ms. Dolan, I
don't know when that check went out.
MS. DOLAN: That went out in March 31st, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we haven't been paid for
anything since March 3 lst; is that correct? MS. DOLAN: Just out of county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we -- but we did have an
agreement, and I believe that we ended up that I think that you failed
on your portion of it where you were supposed to take care of the
amount of money that was due to us?
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner Halas, and I don't mean any
disrespect at all, but Naples Community Hospital is an institution
that's been in this community for a long, long time. They have several
thousand employees. I'm not sure what their gross revenues are. I can
give you that number real quickly. They're not going anywhere. So if
the implication is they've somehow failed to pay their obligations, that
there's a concern that they're going to pay their obligations, I think
that's not well founded. Ms. Dolan can tell you how much revenue
Page 173
January 27, 2004
they have, how many employees they have. So again, no disrespect
intended --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- but that's not really the issue here as to
whether have paid of not paid. The issue is what is the formula that
calculates how much they owe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think we did come to a -- I
think we did come to an agreement on -- we thought that we -- that
NCH was in agreement with prior commitments that we hashed out
with you, and then all of a sudden we don't seem to be connected here.
MR. SAUNDERS: Again, no disrespect intended. I've been here
for all of the meetings. There has been no agreement that has been
executed or signed off by anybody at Naples Community Hospital.
The agreement has been we will work with you, we will try to resolve
this in the most professional way possible. We have made a
suggestion to you. If you agree to that, then there's no problem in
terms of you receiving a check. And again, no disrespect intended,
but we're trying to figure out what is the formula for calculating these
costs.
Now, one of the concerns that the County Manager has expressed
to me is that if NCH reimburses the county for non-paying customers
at the rate of Medicare plus 10 percent, that what NCH may do is
simply call Collier County EMS, because it would be cheaper to pay
Collier County EMS Medicare plus 10 percent than it would be for
NCH to run the two ambulances that NCH is going to have.
I will tell you that that's not the intention of NCH at all. Ms.
Dolan can explain why that's not going to happen. They're going to
have two ambulances running. If you want to give it some time
period, like 120 days to see how many times NCH calls Collier
County, you know, we can try that for 120 days. But I can assure you
that NCH is not going to abuse this by calling Collier County EMS
just to save money on that Medicare plus 10 percent rate.
Page 174
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Let's talk about Medicare plus 10 percent.
Medicare plus 10 percent is a 50 percent reduction off of your
published resolution rates that you have for your ambulance and your
medivac services. And we can talk at a gross estimate, because that
basically is the amount of money over that $210,000 from March to, I
guess it was the end of September that we had -- we had talked about,
and that's the difference between 210 and 154, it's about -- excuse me,
it's about 25 percent, as far as the savings is concerned on that
particular money.
So off of your rate schedule that you've published and you've
approved, as we do it every year in our-- for his fees that he has to
charge for EMS, you have to understand, you're coming off of your
published approved rate structure when you do that. Okay?
And I will also tell you that medivac plus 10 gets nowhere near
what it costs to run that helicopter.
MR. SAUNDERS: And ifI might respond to that. You're
dealing with patients that are non-paying patients that traditionally
you haven't gotten anything for. You're now asking the county to
reimburse you for the cost of those out-of-county transports. And so
it's not like we're sitting here saying hey, we want to get a reduction of
the -- off your published rates off of what we've been paying -- off of
what NCH is paying. This is a brand new policy.
Secondly, in terms of the helicopter, you know, the Manager has
expressed the concern that perhaps NCH will abuse this and call
Collier County EMS. I'm telling you that's not going to happen. We
have a concern that perhaps Collier County may send the helicopter
just to increase the revenues to the county from use of the helicopter.
I'll give you a perfect example. A couple of Sundays ago, four
transports, four individuals had to be transported out of county.
Collier County sent the helicopter three times. Now, that helicopter
only had to be sent once. And you might want to know why, why are
Page 175
January 27, 2004
they sending the helicopter. Well, maybe it's because they can charge
so much for the helicopter. I don't know. I don't think Collier County
wants to play that game and I can tell you NCH doesn't want to play
that game.
So what I'm suggesting is that we have a reasonable solution.
We will not abuse that. Give us 120 days to prove that. See how
many times NCH calls up Collier County EMS to transport
non-paying patients. And I don't think you'll be disappointed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't want to see where the
taxpayers are subsidizing service -- ambulance service for transporting
patients from one hospital to another. And I think that's what we've
gotten ourselves into here is where the taxpayers are subsidizing this.
And this is a profit-making company; am I right or wrong?
MR. SAUNDERS: NCH is a not-for-profit institution. Any net
revenues that they have from their charitable giving and from their
operations goes back into providing services to the community.
I'd like for Dr. Weiss perhaps to get up and explain some of those
interesting things that NCH is doing for the community. But --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was the bottom line last year
for NCH?
MR. SAUNDERS: You'd have to ask Dr. Weiss that.
You know, again, we're dealing with a segment of charges that
traditionally this county has never charged anybody for, hasn't
charged NCH for for the last 20 years. You're talking about a change
of policy and I'm suggesting a middle ground here that I think make
sense.
Dr. Weiss, in terms of--
DR. WEISS: Thank you for the opportunity. Price Waterhouse
Coopers is our auditing firm. They will come out and will publish in
the Naples Daily News our numbers for this past year. They came up
with a figure of $41 million of indigent care rendered. That's what it
cost us. The charges are about 82 million, so about 50 percent. $34
Page 176
January 27, 2004
million was redirected into the community in terms of new equipment,
new buildings and so on, for the community's use at the hospital, and 3
million was used to pay down debt. That gave us about a $9 million
of profit in operating, of which we shared about 3 million with our
employees. Those are the rough numbers. It's 9.1, but those are the
actual numbers that -- for this past year.
So we do make a profit, but realize that it is a Community
Hospital. This is a not-for-profit hospital. Any money we make,
you've got to turn the lights on the next day, you've got to pay the
employees, goes back into the community in terms of the Cyber
Knife, in terms of the cardiology program, in terms of everything else
we do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. SAUNDERS: Let me, ifI might, just add one thing to that.
Because now I mentioned the payment limit agreement that the
hospital signed to help Collier County match some of the money that
you're already spending for health care with federal money so that you
can literally make a net profit, if you will, of about 5 or $600,000 by
matching those funds.
The reason that this community is eligible to do that is because
NCH provides such a large amount of charity and Medicaid care.
They provide a disproportionate share, if you will, in terms of the
amount of total care that they provide. That's because they are a
community hospital. They are a not-for-profit institution that
fortunately has a net operating income. If they didn't, they'd probably
have to knock on your doors and ask you for tax support in order to
provide the level of care that they provide in this community. They
don't need to do that because they run a very tight operation.
I can tell you that on the two ambulance units that they're going
to have, one of the reasons you're not going to see them calling Collier
County and saying hey, could you transport in order just to save their
operating costs, is they will operate those two ambulances a whole lot
Page 177
January 27, 2004
more efficiently than you're operating your ambulances. At Medicare
plus 10 percent, they're not going to be sitting there losing money. So
there's a difference in the way they're going to operate.
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, can I have the opportunity to
respond to a couple of these issues that are out there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I hope we do it in
integrity. I don't like the tone that's been going on here presently.
We're all here ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully we can conduct our
business as ladies and gentlemen.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. A couple of the issues I just
wanted to point out from a practical standpoint were part of the reason
why that memorandum was submitted was because we currently have
what's called Medic 50 up as a full-time unit. And typically what we
use is a 12-hour portion of that to handle seasonal calls. We had kept
it up post-season last spring for full time in order to handle the full
transports from NCH from out-of-county transports on a ground unit
basis because they had verbally committed to us to pay the full bore
amount. Coming into next season we needed to have that unit back as
a seasonal unit so that it could be out there to handle response times.
Frankly, I don't think anybody would argue in this room, we're
getting slammed out in the field right now for response time. Jeff was
just trying to let them know that that was our intent was to take that
unit and use it for the seasonal portion of what it was intended to do in
the first place.
The second issue is, you know, you have the helicopter, where
they mentioned that there were four helicopter transports and some
issues along those lines. Typically, I can't answer specifically that
case-by-case basis, but we may use a helicopter when it's a
non-emergency. And you have a provision in your resolution, your fee
resolution, if it's more convenient for us. Sometimes it may cost us
more time and effort to take a vehicle all the way up to Tampa
General or somewhere along those lines than to use the helicopter
Page 178
January 27, 2004
where it only takes us 30-40 minutes, because we need that unit here
in to handle the pre-hospital care. And that may have been the case; I
don't know specifically in those instances.
The other issue we have for you here, you know, I just wanted to
point out to you, on the ad valorem side is, you know, EMS is
subsidized 60 percent by ad valorem. As you can see, that's our
budget figures right there, the 8.12 million and the 15. The 8.1 is the
ad valorem contribution, the 15 is the overall. Our only issue, you
know, we're strictly talking about the financial implications at this
point in time of how we go about it.
In your executive summary we say -- we have a suggestion that if
the Board wants to further compromise from what they did in
December, this is what we suggest.
I think part of our concern is, is defining what the emergency
transports really are. I think there have been some limited -- I won't
go as far as say abuses -- but there's been some concerns about what
are true emergencies and what aren't. And so from our standpoint,
we'd like to have a little oversight over that issue.
And then you have another menu of items for consideration in
that respect. Talking about discounted rate for the helicopter, we don't
go as far as the Medicare plus 10 percent, we offer a Medicare plus 10
percent for the base rate, and then we have what was really the old per
mile fee schedule that you had last year, not the present one of $65 a
mile, it still offers a discount. But those are -- those are
considerations.
At this point in time you're talking a continuum of money from
our standpoint, anywhere from a discount of $45,000 to the general
fund to about $240,000 to the general fund, based upon what we can
see.
And you also talk about the perpetual concern about when other
hospitals do come on line, and frankly, Cleveland Clinic wanting the
same type of deal. Because, you know, when they came on board we
Page 179
January 27, 2004
told them, listen, handle your own transport services when you go out
of county, and they have done that for the most part. Granted, most of
the time they have paying customers over there. I don't think we
would argue that. But there is that concern that we're going to see
them request the same discounted rate, if we provide one, especially
with HMA coming on board.
Presently I have about two dedicated units that are doing these
type of transport services. So from the standpoint of them adding two
units on April 30th, that would be a good thing. That would allow two
units of mine to prac -- you know, to handle pre-hospital care, and
from that standpoint that would be a good thing.
But we wanted to just point out those issues for your
consideration as we go forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to clarify a couple of
things. Mr. Saunders has pointed out to us that we're not getting
anything from indigent patients now that we're transporting. We will
be getting something if we go with this reimbursement formula. What
is your response to that?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, our response is from the standpoint --
the first question we ask the Board to answer from the standpoint of
out-of-county transports was whose responsibility is it? Is that the
taxpayer or Collier County? And what we came up with
obligation-wise is we're not responsible for having to take those
patients out of county. So the first question you answer is if you
decide to do that, yes, we're getting something more than we would be
otherwise. But if you answer the question is it our obligation to do so,
then you wouldn't even be providing the service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The other question has to do
with the back payment -- or the payment of the earlier amounts of
money. At what point in time did the staff propose a Medicare plus 10
percent payment fee? Was it after that amount of money was already
Page 180
January 27, 2004
incurred, or was it before?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. From a historical perspective, we had a
meeting with Ed Morton, the CEO of the hospital, in about the June
time frame. And we mentioned that there was a backlog of pay from
November through about the middle of March. And at that time he
concurred to pay the full amount and we received the check in July.
We anticipated that the services were going to continue based
upon that. He expressed some concern long-term about this program
and that this was a policy change and so forth. And that's when we
brought this issue to you in the fall, at which time the Board of County
Commissioners ratified the County Manager's letter that did outline
the parameters of that program in the past.
And so from our standpoint we believe we were negotiating over
a settlement from the March 13th to the September 30th time frame on
giving the discounted rate.
The hospital has requested that we apply what we have already
received back in that same methodology, and that's where we had --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, those services were provided
without the rate -- the rate we were contemplating was the full rate
that you passed in a resolution. When the Board told me to go and
work with NCH to come up with a -- with an agreement, you told us
we had 30 days or whatnot. We came back to see you, I think it was
the first meeting in December, that we wouldn't be back until the 2nd,
which was the third Tuesday of December, with the final agreement
with that process.
And so we had a meeting with Mr. Morton and with Mr.
Saunders and some other hospital, staff and we talked about what we
could do to alleviate their particular financial concerns at that
particular case. And we -- and I asked staff to go back and look at that
$210,000 that they owed us and try to find a way where we could
lessen that impact. And that's where the Medicare plus 10 percent
came from.
Page 181
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, now, two more questions.
One, are you really concerned that NCH might, for want of a better
term, abuse the process? In other words, make more requests than is
really necessary? Is that a real concern, or is that just a remote
possibility?
MR. DUNNUCK: I think it's a concern. And I'd ask Dr. Weiss
and Senator Saunders and Ms. Dolan to -- you know, we've talked
about it. But we do believe there needs to be some oversight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, there's probably a
fairly easy way to deal with that. You might allow a certain number
of calls and then for any number of calls over that minimum number
you go to the full charge schedule or something of that nature that
might help that. But that's just a suggestion as to how we might reach
some compromise.
But with respect to compromise issues, let me get the range of
opportunities here fixed. On the one hand you're saying that we don't
really have an obligation to do anything here, okay? And at the other
end of the scale you're saying that we could do something under a
reduced payment schedule that would theoretically cost us money.
Now, what I'm trying to determine is what are the relative costs
between those two extremes? Number one, not doing anything, how
much money do we save our taxpayers? And then going to the
proposal that Mr. Saunders has suggested, which is that we go to the
Medicare plus 10 percent discount reimbursement procedure. Can
you attach some bottom line profits or losses with respect to that?
MR. DUNNUCK: I'll give it a shot here and I'll explain my
methodology.
In the full scenario where we don't do anything any longer, we
gain two units for the hospital -- for the community, pre-hospital. And
then you have the ability whether you want to take those units down
or enhance your response times, as a board. And I think we're
scheduled in 2004 to add a unit.
Page 182
January 27, 2004
And so from a unit cost it's a $700,00 per unit to add a unit in
Collier County. So you could be talking about a 1.4 million, in that
range, as far as ambulance services that we're presently providing, to
have those two ambulances that are providing those call volumes.
On the inter-facility transport right now, with their paying 100
percent, we recover, we recover fees for probably one of those
ambulances, but not both. If you want the continuum of what they're
talking about with the Medic -- the Medicare plus 10 percent discount,
our estimate in the short term, if they commit to have those two units
up on April 30th, you're talking about approximately 90 to $120,000
for the helicopter on an annualized basis, as far as what a discount
they would receive. And you're talking about 45 -- you're talking
about going back on the post payment.
If you're talking about not going forward but also talking about
the other issue they have, about $56,000 discount that they want
applied to what they've already paid us in that respect. So, you know,
you're talking about it can fluctuate around.
My concern is we're scheduled to add another unit and that's why
we wanted to bring this issue to the Board of County Commissioners,
to bring the policy level decision about doing pre- versus post-hospital
transports, and if so, how we want to go about handling it.
Right now, for the out-of-county emergency transports, what
we've agreed to in this agreement, for both the helicopter and for
ambulances, that we'd bill the patient first, like we always do, the
regular rate. It's the patient that doesn't pay and then them applying
that discount.
And the question becomes how many of those patients then are
transported up. Because if they have the two units, that may take care
of the unit issue. It's mainly going to come down to the helicopter
operations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I probably didn't understand
more of than half of that. But nevertheless, let me go at it a different
Page 183
January 27, 2004
way.
You're saying if we don't do anything, if we don't assume any
responsibility for post-hospital transport, we would save
approximately $1.4 million, is that what you're saying, because we
could have those two additional units that we wouldn't have to pay
additional money for? Is that what you're saying?
MR. DUNNUCK: It's avoided cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's avoided cost.
MR. MUDD: And then what he said, Commissioner, let me add
the other piece, and this is kind of to deflate that a little bit. He's
basically saying that if NCH brings on their two units, that you still
will have that $1.4 million in avoided cost. And the subsidy that you
would therefore, based on the Medicare or the Medicare plus 10
percent for aircraft, the subsidy that you would provide the hospital at
that juncture would be between 90 and $120,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so we're down to 1,280,000
or something like that?
MR. MUDD: No, what I said to you was -- Mr. Saunders
basically said that the hospital is dedicated to put two units on, okay?
Those two units would take our two ground units off, so Mr. Dunnuck
would have those two ground units. So he would have that avoided
cost of $1.4 million. That's off the table, just quit thinking about it
anymore. Okay? So that's a zero sum game.
The only thing he said then in his statement, to get to your
question, would be there would be a subsidy of anywhere from 90 to
$120,000 per year to NCH for the use of the helicopter at the reduced
rate of Medicare plus 10 percent. Is that what you said, Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. And part of that analysis, if
we manage what calls are going by helicopter versus what they're
using for the ground transport, you may even have additional savings
to that as well. We may not do as many calls by helicopter in that
respect. And those are the type of things. You know, it's an inexact
Page 184
January 27, 2004
science because it's based on a call-by-call basis, but those are the type
of issues that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what is your
recommendation with respect to what we should do?
MR. DUNNUCK: From a philosophical standpoint, we
recommend that we do pre-hospital care.
recommendation.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Coyle?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Finished?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
That would be our
Yeah, I'm finished.
Commissioner Halas?
We're talking-- all the time we
keep talking about Medicaid plus 10. Is that -- am I under the
assumption that everybody that we transport does not have insurance
and that they don't get paid, they don't pay the rate, the going rate for
an ambulance? Is that what we're -- when we say Medicaid plus 10,
are we assuming that everybody is indigent?
MR. SAUNDERS: No, the only transports we're talking about
are that small percentage -- they may be 20 percent or 30 percent,
whatever the percentage is -- of non-paying patients. In Collier
County you have a lot of patients that have full insurance. If they
don't have insurance, they have the financial resources to pay the bill
or they have Medicare, Medicaid or some other coverage. We're only
talking about the small number that have no coverage of any kind.
Pure indigent.
You're getting nothing for those transports right now, and NCH is
willing to pay Medicare plus 10 percent, which is really a rate that
you're getting for a lot of your transports anyway.
And Commissioner Coyle, in terms of that avoided cost of $1.4
million, NCH is going to pick up the two units. I mean, it's impossible
-- I mean, I'm trying to picture how I would be addressing this if I was
sitting in your seats. How can you say to the citizens of Collier
Page 185
January 27, 2004
County you're not going to transport any patients anymore out of
county, but you're not going to facilitate NCH being able to make
those transports. You can't do that.
So we're willing to get two ambulances and bear all that cost.
And there will be a cost. Your manager has said we're going to lose
money running those two ambulances. Okay, well, NCH is willing to
do that to get you out of the out-of-county transports and the
intra-facility transports.
There's going to be very rare cases where a Collier County unit is
going to have to be called. It's not going to be very often. There's
going to be instances where the helicopter is going to have to be
called. NCH is willing to pay for those non-paying patients. But
again, we want some fixed rate that we can understand. Medicare plus
10 percent was a rate that was kicked around by your staff and we
adopted that and said, okay, that's fine. We would rather pay
Medicare rates, but if you want to make it Medicare plus 10 percent,
fine. But let's just calculate everything at that rate so we don't have
one rate for one transport and one rate for another transport. And I
think we would go away from this as partners. That's all we're
suggesting. I don't think there's going to be that many transports, quite
frankly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it must be quite a few
transports, compared to what the amount of money that's owed here.
You know, when you said there's not, we don't use it that often, but if
you look at what's supposedly the bill, it sounds to me like we use that
-- that NCH uses us quite often.
MR. SAUNDERS: But those, those are charges at your
published rates. That's not the Medicare rates. And, you know, we
will have -- NCH will have two ambulances. I don't know how many
transports there are going to be, but I can assure you it's not going to
be very many. Let's give it 120-day period and see how many times
Collier County is called.
Page 186
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you must have some
statistics already.
MS. DOLAN: One's inter-facility--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: State your name, please.
MS. DOLAN: Gail Dolan.
And there are two issues. One is inter-facility between North
Collier County and Naples Community Hospital, and the other issue is
out of county, when one of the other hospitals cannot provide that care
for that individual, whatever it is, they have to go to another facility.
So in the original agreement, what we agreed to is a $200,000
agreement for inter-facility transports. With the new agreement, what
we're hoping to come to is a 200 -- an increment of $250,000 for
inter-facility and out of county.
Am I right so far, Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct.
MS. DOLAN: But the catch here is that your County Manager
does not want to agree to that unless -- and we also request that we do
the Medicare plus 10 percent backwards and forwards on what's
remaining in the bill.
MR. SAUNDERS: Part of the problem is when you start trying
to break this down, it gets very confusing, and that's why I've said let's
just keep it simple.
You have a certain date at which time you wanted to start
charging NCH for these out-of-county transports. Let's deal with
out-of-county for a second. That goes back to October, 2002, or
whenever it was. We're saying okay, fine, NCH is willing to pay you
for those non-paying patients from day one going forward at the
Medicare plus 10 percent rate. Now, I don't know what that number's
going to be.
You've got the inter-facility transports, there's an agreement in
place right now dealing with that. We're talking about once NCH gets
its own unit on board.
Page 187
January 27, 2004
And Commissioner Halas, I know you had expressed the concern
about that inter-facility transport. They'll have two units to do the
out-of-county and the inter-facility.
There will be those rare occasions where they will pick up the
phone and say to Mr. Page, we need an ambulance because our two
units are out of county and we have an inter-facility transport, do you
have a unit available? I don't believe that's going to happen very often
because NCH, again, will have those two units that they're going to
keep operating 24/7. They're going to help you have that avoided cost
that we were talking about, that 1.4 million. But they're going to have
to take up that cost.
And so all we're saying is, okay, for those rare occasions where
the helicopter is used or where your Collier County EMS unit is used,
let's agree to a standard reduced rate at Medicare plus 10 percent. And
I think that's a reasonable solution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have is, is
there private facilities out there that have ambulance service and also
have helicopter service?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They have the option to use them,
or not?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm going to have Dr. Weiss explain why that
may very well be an option in some rare circumstances, but I've got
information, there's one transport company, for example, Safe Care
Medical out of Fort Myers. They can provide an ALS ground unit. It
will take them at least an hour or longer to get there, when they're
available. They don't operate at night. Those are the types of
operational problems that are going to result, if we're not careful, in
your citizens, our citizens of Collier County, suffering those delays.
We've all talked about the golden hour in terms of trauma. If we don't
get a Collier County unit there when the other units are busy, and
Page 188
January 27, 2004
you've got a trauma patient, you can't call somebody from another
county to come down because you don't have the time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think if it was a trauma
situation -- and I'm just trying to get information here, I'm not trying
to, you know -- if it's a trauma situation whereby we have a medical
team that is dispatched there, doesn't our medical team make that
assessment and immediately decide whether it should be flown to a
location other than NCH?
DR. WEISS: They do. Unfortunately at night there's certain
places the helicopter can't land. And Mr. Page could speak to that. So
the helicopter at night is compromised in certain times. There are
certain traumas that are too sick to take out of county, so they come to,
typically, NCH main campus for stabilization. They can't drive past
us. They need to be stabilized and then transported out. If it's a
regular trauma and it's graded on the highway accident, which is a
typical thing, middle of the night, 1-75, depending on how sick the
patient is, they have time to get to Fort Myers, which is optimal.
Second thing, if the patient's too sick for that, they've got to go to
North Collier or to NCH. They typically don't go to Cleveland Clinic.
I think Cleveland Clinic had one need for transport away from their
hospital last year, because the sick patients don't go there. The
ambulances avoid that place because they don't have the facilities that
the main campus of NCH has. That's one thing.
The other analogy, it's really operations management, and it's a
true story. If you take an aircraft carrier, and you want all your planes
to fly all the time, you need a second aircraft carrier behind you
carrying parts. If you're willing to have your planes fly 95 percent of
the time, you can get all your parts on the one aircraft carrier.
Obviously in a war time it's important to have all your -- just one big
target there.
The same thing's true of us. If we have two ambulances, 95
percent of the time we'll be able to do all our transports. There will be
Page 189
January27,2004
the odd time when both ambulances are out of town that we'll need
help. At that time it's typically going to be a heavy-duty trauma.
Where if you call to Tampa for the helicopter to come down from
Tampa, pick up and go back, you lose that time. And that's really the
problem.
So we're talking about the odd event. How often is it going to
happen? Well, I can check -- we can run the problem, it's an
operations management problem, you know, how many -- it's the same
thing as how many bombs you need to put on a field -- it's a military
science -- to take care of all the enemy and not waste any bombs?
How many times -- we can actually calculate what that will be. It
turns out that typical time is the middle of the week, Wednesday
afternoons, Wednesday evenings, that's when the hospital is full, that's
when we end up transporting. Trauma, typically it's after midnight
Saturday night. And Mr. Page knows when, you know, the big trauma
typically comes in. Those are reproducible, time of year, time of day.
So the middle of the winter we're going to run short. That's when
every -- that's when respond time -- response times goes down, that's
when water consumption's up, everything else. That's all predictable
things. We think 95 percent of the time our two ambulances will do
everything we need to do. But there will be the odd time. And the
problem is with the odd time, if somebody is waiting in the ER to be
transported, that's when you can't fail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Try to get this off of center.
Recognizing that the county's not responsible for out-of-county
transport, inter-facility transports, and also recognizing NCH as the
only charitable hospital in Collier County, I'm sure that you can
figure, so we don't have abuse, is charge Medicaid plus 10.
MR. SAUNDERS: Medicare.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Medicare.
MR. SAUNDERS: We'll take Medicaid, that's less, but it's
Page 190
January 27, 2004
Medicare.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's 100 percent, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're in the business too
of trying to save taxpayers money.
The -- but we don't want it abused. So you know what it takes to
transport inter-facility, how long it takes, and out of county. If--
figure out a number, you know. If there's, say in one certain day or
one week there's five transports and over that we're going to charge
full rate, whatever we charge anybody else. That's what I think is fair.
I'm just throwing that out for discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, it's a good one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what we've got to do
is address the issue of the monies that are presently owed and how
we're going to take care of that so that the county gets their money. I
think that's the bot -- That's where we're at, really.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to get the money.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: And I'll keep this as cordial as I possibly can,
okay?
Back last spring we had a meeting with Mr. Morton and his staff
and we had an agreement about out-of-county transport, and it went
through April of last year, and that bill they paid for some 71 or 171 --
MR. DUNNUCK: 171,000.
MR. MUDD: -- whatever that is, in that process. And it was
delinquent through the summer and we went through the April -- or
we went through the fall cycle with the Board, which I've described
before, so I won't go through it again. You basically told me to go out
there and work and work an agreement with them to find -- to find
some common ground. We had that meeting. Mr. Saunders was at
that meeting.
Mr. Saunders was supposed to take notes at that meeting and pass
Page 191
January 27, 2004
it to all the attendees at that meeting, which we have never seen. And
with that, we came forward in December with an agreement that we
believe we struck at that meeting in my office. We gave that draft to
Mr. Saunders and he added one sentence to that particular item in
December before we brought it to the Board. We brought it to the
Board fully believing that that agreement was fine with his client.
Come January, I'm sitting in here saying now it's not okay. So I
had a meeting with Mr. Saunders in my office, and it was over a
lunchtime, we didn't have lunch together, it was a quick meeting. He
says we have problems with the helicopter costs in that particular
agreement. I said, I will go back and try to find something that we can
do for you to lessen the impact of that helicopter cost, based on the
December agreement. You have that on your packet on Page 2 of
10(G).
And I sent a letter to Mr. Morton on the 16th of January, laying
that particular things (sic) out, and there were some other items about
well, we don't want you to send us a helicopter when we only need it
-- we only need an ambulance.
And so we even put a stipulation in there that if that was the only
thing we could send and they didn't need a helicopter, we would even
give them a base rate off of the rate that we had at a reduced rate. And
I laid those particular items out.
I don't know, we've done everything we can in order to strike a
deal to try to come to some compatible negotiated thing with NCH.
What I will tell you is I've done everything I can with that
process. I've listened. I've tried to make those particular cases heard.
Medicare plus 10 wasn't on the agreement that I had last spring with
Mr. Morton, it was at the rate, and he paid that rate. Now they want
the Medicare plus 10 percent on that rate.
You're right the manager is not willing to go back there and
relive that, because that's not what I was told to do. I was told to work
on the $200,000 that they owed this county, okay, to try to come up
Page 192
January 27, 2004
with some negotiated settlement on that. And what I found so far
dealing with this particular profit organization -- they say nonprofit,
but they made $9 million; I think they're going to give that back to the
county or to the residents, whatever. But outside of that, and I'm
trying to be as nice as I can, I've done everything I can in order to
come up with an agreement to try to make this a win/win for both
organizations and protect the taxpayers of the county. I don't know
what else I can do, Commissioners, in this particular juncture.
But I will tell you, you've got a choice here in order to do it, but I
think I've done everything I was supposed to do when I was told to do
it in order to make those negotiations, and I think we've had a good
faith effort to try to do something.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it's clear that these
discussions are really not productive for either of us. The Naples
Community Hospital is a respected institution in this town and they do
a wonderful service for our population, but I can see the frustration
from the staff trying to go through this process.
I really am at the point where I don't want to hear it anymore. I
really don't. And these kinds of arguments are not helpful to any of
us. And the best thing to do is to solve it and solve it fast and let's
move on.
So I would suggest, in the interest of compromise, that Naples
Community Hospital pay us what they owe us from last year, that we
implement a Medicare plus 10 percent discount for those indigent,
out-of-county transports that are necessary, provided they do not
exceed more than five percent of total transports. And that anything
that exceeds five percent of the total transports, that we pay the full
rate.
MR. MUDD: That they pay the full rate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that they pay the full rate.
And absent an agreement on that, I don't want to be involved in
Page 193
January 27, 2004
this business. I really don't. I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm tired of
seeing people get angry about it. And I don't want to contribute to it
anymore. I just want to get it cleaned off the plate and let's move
forward. So that's my motion. And--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. And I just want to
get this -- if you owe us, pay up.
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I ask a question on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just direction on the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, just direction.
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I ask a question on the
motion? The five percent of total transports, I don't know what that --
what you're talking about when you say if it's over five percent of total
transports.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if we are called upon to
provide transport above and beyond five percent of the total transports
that are made each year, or do it on a monthly basis, I don't care, that
the rate for anything over that five percent would be at the full charge
rate.
MR. SAUNDERS: Five percent of the total out-of-county
transports --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- from the hospital, if it's over that number
then -- did you understand that? That's intra-facility and out of
county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I think it was just out of
county, wasn't it?
MR. SAUNDERS: Then in terms of the intra-facility, again, in
those rare instances, how would you handle that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I would expect you to
Page 194
January 27, 2004
handle your inter-facility with those two ambulances you have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So this is direction from the Board as
presented by Commissioner Coyle, and backed up, because we're not
making a motion; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a motion on the
direction, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could vote on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas will second
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just a question. I had a
little bit of a concern, the inter-hospital transit -- transports back and
forth, when we have a situation where both of the ambulances that
they have are tied up in this inter-county or out-of-county transports,
is there some sort of way we can respond, I mean, where we can
respond with a local ambulance, especially if it's an emergency? I'm
concerned about that little element in there, it's called health, safety
and welfare. I'm not too sure where this all falls.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know to what extent those
inter-hospital transfers are emergencies. Perhaps you can tell us.
MR. SAUNDERS: I don't think those are emergency transports.
Those are typically not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or they just schedule them, you
know, just schedule the ones again.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner Coyle, again, just a question
on the motion, if I might. I'm not sure what NCH is going to do in
terms of-- I'm not authorized to say that's acceptable or not
acceptable. Assuming that it's not acceptable, are you suggesting that
at some point in time you will stop the out-of-county transports
altogether?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's not acceptable, I would make
Page 195
January 27, 2004
that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so you're including that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just, if I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just wrestling with this a
little bit now.
So the responsibility to provide the transport falls on Naples
Community Hospital?
MR. SAUNDERS: Remember, we don't have, we don't have a
certificate of public convenience. We can't legally transport anybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't transport anybody.
MR. SAUNDERS: Not anybody that needs advanced life
support, no. You have the sole certificate for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have -- so this is in April
when you get the certificate? One more time, when can you transport
people?
MR. SAUNDERS: We cannot transport advanced life support
until we get a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the
County Commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And when is that time?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's anticipated to be in April.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about without life support,
just to transport somebody, when can you get that certificate?
MR. SAUNDERS: I think if it's ambulatory and all, it's more
like a taxi service.
MS. DOLAN: Well, if it's non-emergency transport patients,
that's fine. But intra-facility you need advanced life-support vehicles.
Because if they have an IV or oxygen, they must go in advanced
life-support vehicles.
Page 196
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you're going to speak any longer, you
need to be on a microphone.
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, if I could make a suggestion
that may help. One of the things I would suggest, first and foremost,
is that we set a time limit if we're talking about they still have
outstanding pay due -- and I understand that Mr. Saunders has to take
that back and discuss that along with the agreement going forward --
that we give them 10 days to sign off on the Medic 80 Agreement and
receive funds for those. Presently we've gone three-and-a-half months
without getting funds for those -- that facility as well. And so we're
really in the arrears, from our estimates, about $243,000 at the present
time, and that we get the payment within a 1 O-day period of time or
some period of time that you all set forth, at least for those
inter-facilities so forth. You know, you have the out-of-county issue
that you've made a very good suggestion on that I think we can live
with from the five percent, and see if they accept or reject that portion
of it, but that we give a certain time frame for the inter-facility portion.
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, ifI might make one point
comment for the record as an attorney representing a client. This
Board has never set an official policy to require a hospital in Collier
County to pay for out-of-county transports of non-paying patients.
You have never made that as a formal policy. Your staff has done
that. So as a matter of the record, I want to suggest that from a legal
standpoint I would question whether NCH owes Collier County
anything for those back transports. I just want to say that for the
record. That's not their position, it's my position as their attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to add anything further to
your direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion for direction to the Board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not sending a time
limit on when we're going to get that payment? Is that --
Page 197
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not including that in the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My feeling is I think it ought to be
included in the motion as some sort of time limit here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This can't be effective anyway until
such time as they get their certificate so they can have their two
ambulances.
MR. DUNNUCK: Right now we're providing inter-facility
transports at a discounted rate. And we have not -- they have not
signed --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'll continue doing that until
MR. DUNNUCK: They haven't signed an agreement of the
amended fee schedule at this point in time, that's part of the Medic 80
agreement that's in your attached package that now throws in
everything but the kitchen sink.
But from our standpoint right now, they have -- you know, they
have an agreement from last year at an old rate of the flat fee of
$200,000. We raised that up to $250,000 which they pay on a
monthly rate, and it expands Medic 80 to allow them to do
out-of-county transports. Right now Medic 80 is only doing
inter-facility transports.
Our recommendation would be that they pay the money in the
arrears of the Medicare plus 10 of the March to September rate, that
we don't go back and give them the discounted rate prior to that,
because Board of County Commissioners, you did ratify the County
Manager's letter to the -- Mr. Morton in that respect and ratified that
dollar amount of the full rate back in your fall meeting.
That you go ahead and set a time limit on the Medic 80 for them
Page 198
January 27, 2004
to sign off on it. Absent that, them signing off on it, including what
you're proposing for the future, which we would add into the Medic
80 under an amendment, you set that time limit. And absent that, that
we discontinue that service if we don't receive the --
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, as soon as we receive a bill
for what we owe on the Medic 80, you'll get a check. I'm not sure if
you can get a bill for us today or tomorrow, but you'll get paid for that.
That's -- again, this is not an issue of whether Collier County is going
to receive what's justly owing to Collier County. It's a question of
what, what really do we owe?
And I will tell you, just as a closing comment, Mr. Morton did
agree to make a payment to Collier County. He paid $171,000. But
he did it at a time when he was advised that if he didn't make the
payment, that out-of-county transport would cease. Now, he was
concerned that your constituents would suffer grievous harm if he
didn't make that payment.
Now, again, you know, we have a solution to this whole thing
that I think is quite simple. Hopefully the County Commission will
consider that as we go forward here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we have direction? Did you want to
include a time in that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is the earliest that Naples
Community Hospital can get a certificate for their two ambulances?
And would you be willing to proceed to do that?
MR. SAUNDERS: NCH is proceeding as quickly as possible. I
think you have to amend your ordinances to make that legally
possible.
MR. DUNNUCK: We have the ordinance drafted. It's a matter
of advertising and getting it done. We could potentially have it in
front of the Commission -- I'd have to go back and check with -- you
know, probably the second meeting in February is what we'd be
looking at.
Page 199
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The second week in February?
MR. DLrNNUCK: The second meeting in February.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second meeting in February.
So you want to set April the 1st as the deadline to solve all this?
MR. DUNNUCK: Presently our agreement's April 30th.
MR. SAUNDERS: April 30th. They're shopping for an
ambulance.
MR. DUNNUCK: I do have to tell you, Commissioners, that we
do need to take Medic 50 and take that down as a full-time unit and
dedicate it for out-of-county transport right now. And we do need to
use it for seasonal help, and then we need to go back to the older
protocol that we've had, that we had last year with the hospital to be
able to handle the seasonal coverage that we have going on right now.
The hope was that with Medic 80 being expended to do the
out-of-county, that they could use that as the -- what I would consider
the first -- first ambulance to be able to take out of county and then use
it for inter-facility secondarily, and call a private provider if needed in
between, because the inter-facilities, as they indicated, are
non-emergency, in most cases.
But I do need Medic 50. I do need to change it back around to
what it was dedicated -- supposed to be dedicated for, which is the
seasonal coverage of the community. Because --
MR. MUDD: Medic 50?
MR. DUNNUCK: Medic 50.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the -- an
amended motion on the floor. The second, would you want to amend
that as well?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We have a motion and a
second on the floor. Commissioner Coletta has his hand raised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I think we did a pretty
good job here, because neither one of them are happy with it, neither
Page 200
January 27, 2004
the staff nor the hospital. And Commissioner Coyle, I give you credit
for brokering this deal. My concern--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure it's a deal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern is health, safety and
welfare. I don't know if there's a flaw in this or not. I mean, I assume
that both parties are going to assume the responsibility to make sure
no one's left unprotected while we go through this transition period. I
will be watching this very closely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just -- I'm going to throw this out
there and see where it flies.
What would it cost the county to rent an ambulance to take care
of Medic 50 at the county's cost? To rent an ambulance and then
charge NCH for that cost of that ambulance, for the rental, until they
get theirs.
MR. PAGE: Commissioners, for the record, Jeff Page with
EMS.
That's basically what the Medic 80 contract identified. For the
cost of 250,000, sharing the resources, we could back out the pay for
our staffing portion. It would probably reduce it back to $200,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we can get that option out
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, we have a motion on the
floor and a second. Any further discussion, Commissioners? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 201
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Man, that was tough.
Yes, 10 minutes break, please.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-29 DECLARING 3 VACANCIES ON THE
PI IFil.lC VEHICI,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: This brings us back to paragraph 9.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 9(A), huh?
MR. MUDD: 9(A), and it's recommendation to declare three
vacancies on the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MS. FILSON: Who made --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Discussion? Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: Who made the motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion was made by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coyle. It was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 202
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Any opposed, like sign.
5-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-30 APPOINTING COUNCILMAN ARCERI
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10 -- or is 9(B), excuse me, it's 9(B),
which is appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal
Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make that appointment of John
Arceri. Make a motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. A motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-31 RE-APPOINTING MAURICE
GUTIERREZ AND BILL L. NEAL TO THE
BAYSHORE/AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
Page 203
January 27, 2004
COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 9(C).
MR. MUDD: Next item is Number -- is Item No. 9(C), and it's
appointment of members to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendation for Maurice Gutierrez and Bill Neal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that. Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-32 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
BAYSHORE/AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9(D), and that's a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Bayshore/Avalon
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further discussion?
Page 204
January 27, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-33 RE-APPOINTING MICHAEL J. DELATE,
MARCO A. ESPINAR AND JOHN E. CARLSON TO THE LAND
ACQI HSITION ADVISORY COMMITTF. F~- ADOPTFD
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(E), appointment of members of the
Land Acquisition Advisory.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question by Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, on this we had some
discussion today about this advisory board, and had great dialogue. I
guess my concern is, and I think it was shared by my colleagues, the
intent of the Conservation Collier. I have a concern that the -- some of
the members don't share our same feeling, which is okay, but, you
know, we see it as what the voters said.
I'm not going to -- I'm going to make a motion to approve the
committee's recommendations, but I do have concerns about some of
those comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second your motion for -- and so we'll
open for discussion.
Page 205
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you want to just recommend
one or two names, or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I won't, I won't do that, but
I think we -- hopefully we sent a strong message today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it's important that
committee members separate their responsibilities as advisory
committee members, and their responsibilities as advocates for certain
positions outside that committee. So I think it's important that we
separate those two and that they separate those two, and hopefully we
won't have a conflict. But I'll second--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I already seconded it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor of the committee
recommendation and the motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:, Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-34 APPOINTING ROBERT E. DOWLING
AND STEPHEN A. HARRISON TO THE COUNTY
GOVF, RNMF, NT PRODI ICTIVITY COMMITTF, F,- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(F), Madam Chair, and it's
Page 206
January 27, 2004
appointment of members of the County Government Productivity
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve committee's
recommendations --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of Robert Dowling and
Stephen Harrison.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #1 OD
RESOLUTION 2004-35 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AN/OR THOSE PERPETUAL
OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTEREST REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD BETWEEN U.S. HIGHWAY 41 AND INTERSTATE 75-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go on to 10(D).
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10(D) and that's adopt a
resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple title interests and/or
those perpetual or temporary easement interests required for the
construction of a six-lane section of Immokalee Road between U.S.
Page 207
January 27, 2004
Highway 41 and Interstate 75. And it's the capital improvement
element No. 73, Project Number 66042. Estimated fiscal impact is
$4,500,7 -- excuse me $4,500,700.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. STRAKALUSE: The attorneys upstairs would hang me if I
didn't get about 60 seconds worth of information on the record.
This resolution is to acquire property, if necessary, by
condemnation along Immokalee Road between U.S. 41 and 1-75. It's a
very constrained corridor with the Cocohatchee canal to the north and
significant residential and commercial development all along the
corridor. Inasmuch as this is a road project, it is truly also a utility
project, in that utilities will be relocated, upgraded and there will be
new utilities along the corridor. Some of the utilities that we're
looking at are water, reuse water, raw water, wastewater, natural gas,
electric power, fiber, cable and telephone services. They will all be
impacted along the corridor.
In planning for this project, your Board adopted various master
plans, including the water and wastewater master plans in the year
2002, as well as the transportation division's five-year work program
and the county's 2004 fiscal year budget, which allocates $28 million
towards the construction and four-and-a-half million dollars for the
right-of-way acquisition.
Each of these Board items and actions considers extensive
planning data and engineering data and public input that I'd like to
incorporate as part of this record.
Today, upwards of about 45,000 average daily vehicle trips on
Page 208
January 27, 2004
Immokalee Road contribute to the failing level of service along this
corridor. The Immokalee Road improvement requires a minimum
width of about 160 feet to a maximum of 180 feet of right-of-way at
the intersections.
In regard to the alignment of the corridor, the county is restricted
by several factors that I've previously mentioned, including the
Cocohatchee canal, the interchange at 1-75, which doesn't appear to be
moving any time soon, residential and commercial development. Any
other alignment than the one we've currently got proposed as part of
this resolution would require significantly higher cost in right-of-way,
construction and community character.
The proposed expansion involves acquiring additional
right-of-way from properties along the south side, because you have
the canal on the north side. Besides alternative routes, staff has
considered public safety, environmental conditions, threatened and
endangered species of plants and animals, wetlands, aesthetics,
neighborhood character, constructibility, stormwater management and,
of course, the cost of the project.
Discussions with the South Florida Water Management District
indicate that the project is very close to becoming permitted.
Based upon these materials in my presentation, I'd ask that you
approve the resolution in your package, and I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second. Are there any questions from Commissioners? Any
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 209
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
MR. STRAKALUSE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Aye. And opposed,
Thank you.
Passed 5-0.
like sign.
Item #10E
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR
SHELTON JAGUAR/LAND ROVER DEALERSHIP
REPLACEMENT FACILITY- APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1757078.80
MR. MUDD: The next item, Madam Chair, is Item 10(E). And
this item was continued from the January 13th, 2004 BCC meeting,
and its subject is the alternative road impact fee calculation for
Shelton Jaguar and Land Rover dealership replacement facility. And
Phil Tindall will present.
MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Phil Tindall
from the Transportation Planning Department.
As Mr. Mudd explained, this item was continued from January
13th at the request and recommendation of staff and at direction of the
Board, pending the receipt of additional information to help the Board
make a better informed decision.
In terms of the additional information that we've gone out --
when I say we, I'm really talking about the petitioner's engineer and
legal representatives -- have gone out and collected additional
information that address two basic areas.
The first has to do with whether the sites that were selected for
the study are the most appropriate and best sites to study that will
produce transportation demand characteristic data that's most
indicative of the facility in question, the Shelton Jaguar and Land
Rover dealership here in Naples, whether those are the best sites to
Page 210
January 27, 2004
study.
And secondly, if the Board should approve this analysis, would
there be any chance that Shelton Jaguar could later on subsequently
begin to sell other products that would create a more intensified use of
the land without the county being able to catch that and then go
forward and collect the additional impact fees that would then be
owed?
We're here to try to make a case that the answer to the first
question is yes, those were the most correct appropriate sites to be
studied. And the answer to the second question would be that no,
there's not any likelihood that the facility would be able to change use
without our being able to catch that and then collect the fees that are
necessary to -- that would be necessary at that time.
We have representatives of the petitioner who are here today to
present some of the detailed information. Jeffrey Nunner, a
professional engineer here in town, and also Mr. Clay Brooker, who's
an attorney, who were involved in the additional data collection.
I would like to turn this over to Mr. Nunner now, if I could,
please, or Mr. Brooker.
MR. BROOKER: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. Clay
Brooker, for the record, with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo,
Wilson and Johnson, in Naples.
Just a couple of legal formalities. First, I'd like to make -- for the
record, make sure that the record includes the executive summary and
transcript from the January 13th meeting, Mr. Nunner's full study
report that was submitted to staff, and the executive summary that was
issued for this meeting.
The first issue that was raised, or the first concern that was raised
in the last -- the January 13th meeting, was whether the demographics
were taken into account. There was some concern that perhaps Naples
is a more affluent community than the other communities that we have
taken a look at or the other dealerships we've taken a look at.
Page 211
January 27, 2004
Mr. Tindall and county staff has coming up -- come up with a
definition of affluent households to be those with an annual income of
$200,000 or more based on census 2000 data, and those numbers are
shown in the executive summary. I'd like to hand out a chart that we
have made that shows those numbers and does a little bit -- goes a
little bit further with regard to the number of vehicles actually sold at
the different locations. And if I could just pass these out to you very
quickly.
I hate to throw a bunch of numbers out at you after a day like
today, but--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: These numbers are really not bad.
MR. BROOKF. R: First of all, again, formally for the record, I'd
like to make this chart a part of the record. But you can see across the
top row Naples is listed first, and then you have the three other
dealerships we've looking at -- looked at as comparable sites or
locations. The affluent households is the next row down, and you can
see there, I believe, just on the numbers themselves, Naples has 5,000
-- or just under 6,000 affluent households. You can see by comparing
to those numbers, it is the second lowest, Fort Myers being the lowest
among the group. But we certainly fall within the range of affluent
households, if you will, of the different comparable locations we've
taken a look at. And I would submit that we actually fall a little on the
low side of the comps that we looked at.
What's also important to note, which is not shown on the chart, is
that Jaguar, currently -- if a county does have a Jaguar dealership,
there is one Jaguar dealership per county. That's the policy of Ford, I
guess, which owns Jaguar. So you can see, if you take the affluent
households' definition, these numbers are basically the market for the
Jaguar dealership for each of the comps, and we would again show
that this is the potential number of people who might be interested in
going to see a Jaguar, going to purchase a Jaguar, given the definition
of affluent household by the staff.
Page 212
January 27, 2004
The next row down, we surveyed both Naples and the other
comps to get the numbers of new vehicles sold in 2003. You can see
Naples at 341. This is new vehicles sold in 2003. It is the lowest of
the three comps we took a look at.
The next row down -- I should also say, those numbers of new
vehicles sold, it makes common sense that the more affluent
households you have, it seems the more -- the higher the number of
new vehicles sold. So everything's seeming to make sense as you
would think it through in your head without the numbers in front of
you.
The next row down, which we've called new vehicles sold per
affluent households, these percentages are basically what percentage
of affluent households are actually going out and purchasing a new
vehicle sold at each of the locations. You can see once again that
Naples is at the low end of the range of the comparables we looked at.
As a matter of fact, the average of those three comps, Fort
Lauderdale, Tampa and Fort Myers, is 6.6 percent; actually equates
with Tampa's rate, but that's the average of the three. And you see that
Naples, 5.7 percent, is lower. So actually a lower percentage of
affluent households in Naples are actually going to a Naples
dealership and purchasing a new vehicle.
The next row down is total vehicles sold. Now we've taken into
account used vehicles as well, or pre-owned vehicles as well. Again,
you can see Naples is the lowest of the comparables that we're looking
at, compared to the other three.
And the final row is total vehicles sold per affluent households,
8.6 percent for Naples. This is again well within the range of the
comparables we looked at. And as a matter of fact, lower than the
average of the other three that we looked at, which was 8.9 percent. So
Naples is actually .3 percent lower in terms of the percentage of
affluent households who are going out and purchasing a new or
pre-owned vehicle at these locations.
Page 213
January 27, 2004
This chart goes basically only towards the demographics or the
affiuency concern. We believe these numbers show, and staff concurs
that these numbers show, that the comparables we looked at, Fort
Lauderdale, Tampa and Fort Myers, are in fact comparable to what
Naples will actually produce once the replacement facility is built.
And as a matter of fact, we believe that these numbers actually state a
case that Naples is towards the low end of these three. The study,
however, does average those out in terms of trip ends.
One final comment with -- I know Commissioner Henning, I
believe, on January 13th, mentioned something about the number of
used cars sold being outside the product line. This is a Jaguar/Land
Rover/Aston Martin dealership. I can tell you for the record that in
the year 2003, less than three percent of the used cars sold on the
Naples lot fell outside the product line.
The second concern that was raised was what if there's a change
in use two weeks from now; if Mr. Shelton decides to open up a
Chevrolet dealership, what happens then? Will he have to pay more
impact fees? And the answer is yes. We fully understand the concern
that our two-inch thick study is not worth the paper it's written on if he
goes out and changes it to an intensive use two -- or more intense use
two weeks from now.
The actual ordinance itself, the consolidated impact fee ordinance
itself, covers this type of situation. I'll read from Section 74-201 (c).
And it basically says, impact fees shall be paid, or imposed and
calculated, if there's a net increase, alteration, expansion or
replacement which results in -- and now I'm reading from No. 4 --
intensification of the use so as to constitute an expansiOn of the same
use category.
I believe that language captures the event or the concern that we
would throw in a bunch of Chevrolets or less expensive type vehicles
which would actually result in an intensification or more traffic
coming to the site.
Page 214
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me interrupt you. I think
Commissioner Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what you read is what
triggers an expansion of the facility. But, you know, changing
dealerships doesn't mean that it's going to change, you know, the
footprint of the building. But I understand Amy Taylor -- Amy
Patterson has an answer to my concerns and, you know, the trigger
points and how we monitor that.
MR. BROOKER: That was going to be my next point. And she
will be able to give you a little more comfortability about that.
MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, impact fee manager, for
the record.
We do have some detailed provisions that we follow in order to
catch changes of use, because sometimes we encounter things that
don't require a traditional building permit. If the building isn't being
made larger or being altered in other ways, we've turned towards
reviewing occupational licenses, zoning certificates, sign permits, as
well as site inspections for these types of changes, and we've found
that those have been very useful.
If somebody comes in and they're going to switch to a Ford
dealership, more than likely it's going to require an occupational
license of the new person or, in this case, if it was Mr. Shelton
deciding that he doesn't want to sell Jaguars anymore, he may come in
requiring a sign permit, because if he's selling Fords he's going to need
a new sign.
The other thing is we do -- like I said, we do have site
inspections. We have a file of various properties that -- like this one
would go into our files of ones that we would do random site
inspections on because of the alternative fee calculation. We have
other things that we're watching for code enforcement violations, so
we dedicate a pretty fair amount of time to catching changes of use
and monitoring them.
Page 215
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So Amy, that comes into your
office, like a sign permit will be routed through your office?
MS. PATTERSON: It's not routed through our office, but what
we do is a monthly check of sign permits, of occupational licenses and
zoning certificates. So even if we weren't to catch it the day that it
came in, we would catch it within that month. One of my staff
members actually does this as part of their job description, checking
for changes of use. I mean, we have this -- particularly what triggered
this is that we see a lot of buildings that were built as shell office
buildings, changing to medical buildings. And if we don't see a
traditional building permit for a build-out, we have no way to know,
and medical use is much more intense than a regular office. And so
we found this mechanism to be able to check for these.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good for you. That's great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm serious.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had raised a number of concerns
last time with respect to how this was calculated. And I think the new
analysis relating to the percentage of affluent households in the area
has addressed my concern. And it appears that the petitioner has
followed the rules in calculating the impact fee, but I do have a
question of staff, and it relates to whether or not the rules we have for
calculating these things really are adequate. And since we utilize
square footage of the building as one of the factors in determining
impact fee assessment, what would happen if I owned an entire city
block and I covered it with used cars and put a 1 O-by- 10 foot square
sales office in one comer? How much impact fee would I pay?
MR. TINDALL: Well, we would assess the rate based upon the
square footage of the small sales office, simply because that's the way
the -- one moment, I may need to be corrected on this. But that is the
way it is corrected, based upon the size of the structure.
Page 216
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you see, that's a fatal flaw in
the process.
MR. TINDALL: Sure. And that is something that would merit
an analysis when we -- every three years we do update our impact fee
schedule and we incorporate those kinds of issues whenever they arise
as things that need to be tweaked and updated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm suggesting is perhaps we
ought to take a look at other factors in the future, and it shouldn't
affect this particular issue -- this particular petition. But we ought to
take a look at things like the number of cars on the lot. Because that
has a direct bearing upon the numbers of people who are likely to
come there and walk around and shop for a car. MR. TINDALL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what I would like to
suggest, if it is possible, is that sometime in the future we take a look
at things like this and factor in square footage of the facility, of the
sales office, we also should continue to take a look at the maintenance
bays, because they'll continue some traffic. But also the total square
footage of the sales lot and the number of vehicles on the lot would be
helpful in determin -- or the capacity of the lot might be helpful in
determining the ultimate traffic that's attracted to this particular
facility.
So it's just a comment. Hope you'll take a look at it, because I
think there's a fatal flaw in how we approach these calculations.
MR. TINDALL: Yes.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. IfI may? Amy Patterson, for the
record.
I've had some conversations with the County Attorney's Office
through this whole process, and we have noted that this year, 2004, is
the update year for the consolidated impact fee ordinance. County
Attorney's office has raised some of the same concerns as you, and
we've noted it and it's something that we're definitely going to be
Page 217
January 27, 2004
taking a look at this year in the upcoming update of the consolidated
impact fee ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning just said a motion
to approve and Commissioner Coyle said a second. Do we have any
further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #11
PI IBI,IC COMMFNTS ON GFNFRAIJ TOPICS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we move on to the
public comments portion of our agenda. Are there any speakers in the
audience?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, we have one speaker. Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello again, Commissioners.
Commissioners, I beg your indulgence, I need clarification on an
issue. I need some direction from you. I'd like to request that now.
I need some clarification on your position regarding our -- Zero
Waste Collier County's group's -- involvement in the process of
Page 218
January 27, 2004
developing the nonresidential recycling ordinance that you addressed
earlier today.
We have offered and requested a place at the table during the
discussions. Zero Waste Collier County Group has contributed
substantially to the waste and recycling discussions over the past
several years. As time goes on, we get closer and closer to the
position that was originally proposed by the Zero Waste Collier
County Group, based on what we've learned in the State of Florida
and beyond. We would like to continue to contribute and be involved.
We would appreciate some indication of your willingness to have us,
the Zero Waste Group, involved at the formative design stage of the
project; that is, involved in the discussion of the nonresidential
recycling ordinance before it returns back to you for your evaluation
and approval.
We perceive ourselves somewhat as being kind of a stepchild to
this process. We've been involved but not as closely at times as we'd
like to. And we think it affects our contribution in that sometimes
things get decided and they're brought here and we have to kind of
argue the point. Whereas, if we were able to sit in and talk over the
table with the staff, we'd be able to clarify our positions, offer
information and get it in that way early on, which we have done to
some degree in the past at different stages in the game. Now we're
kind of going into a new stage, we'd like to ask for your indulgence on
this.
Today you've identified some key questions that you have
regarding the design of a locally applied nonresidential recycling
ordinance. We would like to address those questions'with staff as they
work to identify the answers to your questions and evaluate options,
and as they consider implementation of different programs. We want
to help staff develop methods of mass reduction that can be applied to
our discard materials stream. And I'm not talking about like any
exclusive access for Zero Waste and I'm not talking about us being
Page 219
January 27, 2004
involved in every meeting or activity of the staff. We just would like
you to support and make clear our meeting and discussion with the
staff, maybe one or two times before the -- this comes back to you.
Maybe the first time to identify specifics and share information, the
second time to revisit what their thoughts are on it and discuss it again.
And so that's why I stuck around to do this. I had requested that
earlier, but it wasn't included in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want a seat up here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Bob, you've been--
you've done a valuable service for the county and I want you to know
I do appreciate it. We might not agree on every little level that you've
gone to, but I mean, you certainly gave us reason to think about
different items, and I think you've changed our opinion on a number of
different things over the years.
When it comes to working with staff, has staff been receptive
when they meet with you? Have they been meeting with you on a
regular basis at your request, or is this something that's been difficult
to do?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Sometimes it's been easier than others. But
I think with your direction, because I know it wasn't part of the
direction you gave them earlier, it would be even easier to do it.
Sometimes they've been real cooperative and other times not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask you this: Bob, when
you want to meet with staff to discuss something, I take it it's one
member of staff, to sit down and get their feelings for it, you ask for
an appointment, do you get the appointment or you've been refused?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, sometimes we do and then
sometimes we don't. Like most recently, we tried to meet with staff
prior to this, this presentation today, and there were two schedulings
that were canceled. For good reason, I believe. One was an illness on
Page 220
January 27, 2004
the part of one of the members of the staff. And usually we sit down
with the leadership of two or three people in recycling.
And the other one was a conflict of scheduling where a
Commissioner had requested their attention and they didn't know if
they'd be able to make our appointment, so they tried to shift us to
another time. But we had already scheduled, you know. And if a few
of our people --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, there has been a
sincere effort?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sure there will be in the
future. I don't think we need to direct them. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure that -- I'm sure that
when you come back to us and we got this in front of us, that you have
had that meeting that you needed and they'll be as receptive as they
have been in the past.
MR. KRASOWSKI: If I could-- if you could indicate support
for that, for our involvement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's just our general policy. I
mean, the staff always goes out of their way to meet with the public.
Unless there's a conflict.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, Mr. -- Commissioner Coletta, I don't
want to create any contention over of this. But like after today's
presentation there was a meeting with the staff and the Chamber to
kind of debrief on the situation and direction, and the consultant. We
weren't involved in that. But it would have been nice to see where
they're going next and just know that you -- know that our efforts are
supported by you, that you acknowledge and recognize that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were recognized by the
Chamber as being a contributor. And I'm sure if anything, it was
probably an oversight, someone didn't think of it.
Page 221
January 27, 2004
MR. KRASOWSKI: And it just wasn't in the cards, you know. I
mean, that was kind of the Chamber and the staff deal. You know, we
participated in it, but we weren't a major player invited to the table
there. You've got to get invited to the table. That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Private staff meetings are staff
meetings.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When they invite somebody
else, maybe they might want to rethink that. But I'm not going to try
to give direction on the part of the Commission to do that. I'm sure
that whatever happened probably was just one of those minor
oversights. I'm not too sure what took place.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, you know, I'd still like for
everybody to know that you want us involved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be assured, we love you very
much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, I have to hear that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I'd like to hear that from Mr. Mudd,
tOO.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That he loves you?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think Mr. Mudd is in the
mood to be loving anybody right now.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, I can give Mr. Krasowski a
guarantee that he will have ample opportunity to voice his concerns
and give us input into our recycling ordinance for the commercial side
of the house, or any other recycling ordinance that we do, for that
matter.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much. I totally appreciate
that, and the staff's efforts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Zero Waste has been
Page 222
January 27, 2004
very instrumental on, like Commissioner Coletta said, changing our
minds. And he brought up some very good points that I didn't think
that it would be brought out, is, you know, the private sector needs to
be a participant in this as far as the collection. So I would like to give
you myself carte blanche on our staff to make sure that we come back
with a good ordinance.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if my other
colleagues feel that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know what carte blanche
means. Means go to Jim's house for dinner, too?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Means do anything you want to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if I get that
privilege?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we've asked Jim Mudd -- the
Commissioners have asked Jim Mudd to work with Bob Krasowski
and Jim has said, yes, he would include him on planning and so forth.
Is there anything further, Bob?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, that's it. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it. And we're not looking for carte blanche, just what I've
asked for. But thank you very much, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Any other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
Item #12
APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT TO WAIVE COSTS IN THE
FLAGG VS. COLLIER COUNTY LAWSUIT, IN EXCHANGE FOR
THE PLAINTIFF'S AGREEMENT TO FOREGO THE RIGHT OF
APPEAL- APPROVED
Page 223
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We move on to 12, County
Attorney's report.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, pardon me, I have to clear
my throat. We have here both Assistant County Attorney, Bill
Mountford and Risk Management Director Jeff Walker to answer any
questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hear a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Coyle. The
motion was by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. MOUNTFORD:
brilliance is overwhelming.
MR. WEIGEL: Good-bye, Bill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't push it.
MR. MOUNTFORD: I won't.
And opposed, like sign.
Passes 5-0.
Thank you, Commissioners. As usual, my
Item # 15
Page 224
January 27, 2004
STAFF AND COMMISSION GF. NERAIJ COMMI FNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's see. Do you we have any comments
from the Clerk of Courts at this time?
MR. MITCHELL: I'm just looking for the 1.3 million dollars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's about it, huh? And from the
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: A kindly gentleman with white hair had spoken
to me earlier this week about some assistance with Radio Fiesta
Valentine event, a rotary club of Immokalee event, the annual event,
and their Cinco de Mayo event in May to be held at the Immokalee
Airport. At least two of these events are held on an annual basis. And
I mentioned to him that I'd be happy to come to the Board and look for
your endorsement to assist him with the permitting and all -- and/or all
the accoutrements that go with putting on events, sometimes in a short
time frame, with the site plan approval, insurances and things of that
nature, and that I would fly spec it for adequacy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we put the Golden Gate
festival in there, too?
MR. WEIGEL: If you'd like, that would be fine. But these three
are the -- the first event is on February 15th. The Rotary Club event is
February 26th through 29th. It's a carnival. And then the third event
is the Cinco de Mayo, which is not held on the 5th of May but will be
the 8th of May. And, with your indulgence I'll go forward and assist
in that regard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question: They're paying all
the fees, though?
MR. WEIGEL: They will pay all appropriate fees, provide
appropriate certificates of insurance, indicate -- lease, they will have
lease arrangements with the Airport Authority. I understand they
already have made those arrangements. These --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
Page 225
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Second it.
Motion on the floor to approve by
Any further
Aye.
Aye.
And opposed, like sign.
Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, and that's it. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Madam Chair, Commissioners,
I've got Mr. Dunnuck here, but I can do it really quickly.
We're getting very close to having an agreement with our union
for EMS, okay, as far as that's done. And they're basically taking it --
taking our proposal back to their membership for a vote. So I'll give
you that right now and the details. Mr. Dunnuck can give you off line,
I think that would be better than doing it right now while they're going
out to their membership for vote than doing it in the chamber.
And then the other item, and I know I'm not a glutton for
punishment, but in this particular case I must be. We have a problem
with the CCSL and the renourishment project for the beach. And Mr.
Dunnuck-- excuse me, Mr. Schmitt has a schedule with a minor
change to bring that item back.
And what the Board told him at the last LDC meeting was -- and
the Board voted to shelve the CCSL amendment, if you remember
correctly. When that -- when that baby went out with the bath water,
Page 226
January 27, 2004
we lost the opportunity to not have to go through a special variance
process for the renourishment of the beach for conditional use.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me explain it. Basically, when we brought
the amendment to you during the LDC hearing, it had all those pieces
in it. My intent was to bring it back at the next cycle, removing the
variance piece, which is what we then later found out that the Board
object -- or the folks objected to the not being able to process for a
variance for some kind of building or structure forward of the CCSL.
But after we withdrew that and you all directed staff to withdraw that,
as Jim just said, we kind of threw the baby out with the bath water.
What it did is, Public Utilities, in order to prevent having to go
through the variance process to place sand on the beach, which
fundamentally is dumb, because they go through all the public
process, through the DEP at the state level, through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers at the federal level. It's all publicly vetted, and
then the ordinance requires that they come back to this Board and
receive a variance before sand can be placed on the beach.
We had, in the amendment that was before you a week ago,
actually about two weeks ago, a requirement to make that a permitted
process, administrative process, rather than having to come before the
Board.
So my -- what I'm asking to do is I'm going to bring that CCSL
variance back to this Board on the 1 lth of February, as it will be an
advertised LDC amendment. I've already arranged to bring it before
the planning commission on the 19th. The EAC will hear it at their
next meeting as well.
What I ask of you this evening is -- or this afternoon, is that you
concur to have a second hearing of that LDC amendment at a
regularly scheduled BCC hearing date, or a BCC meeting, which will
probably be the February 24th meeting, and that you concur to have
that LDC amendment heard at a second hearing prior to 5:05 in the
evening.
Page 227
January 27, 2004
And that's what I'm asking, and I need a super majority to agree
to hearing -- you'll hear it, it will be advertised, legally advertised. It
will be heard during the normal LDC hearing on February 11 th. You
will then hear it at a second here hearing. Rather than convening a
special meeting just to hear that one item, we bring it back here in a
regularly scheduled Board meeting to be heard at your direction prior
to 5:05. And it will be advertised as an agenda item. And you can
certainly hear all the objections.
But we're going to do a couple of things. We're trying to make
this a permitting process rather than a variance, which is dumb. But
we also are going to take the opportunity to clean up some of the other
things in that ordinance that will make other issues in regards to
repairing and replacement of facilities forward to the CCSL as a
permitting process, rather than having to come back to the Board for
requests for variance.
In a nutshell, what this is, it is empowering the staff through
permitting process and review of the environmental impact statements
or the environmental assessments, and frankly, taking a little less
government out of the process, meaning that some of these structures
that currently exist that have to be rebuilt or whatever, they would be a
permitted process rather than a variance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe, I'm a little confused. Do you
want to bring back the same -- MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- CCSL ordinance that we rejected
last time?
MR. SCHMITT: No, it will have all the other things that
basically -- previously you directed us to prepare an ordinance to
eliminate construction forward of the CCSL. When we -- we're going
to eliminate all that, we're going to eliminate all that.
Page 228
January 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, everything that was objectionable
to that particular item --
MR. SCHMITT: Will be eliminated.
MR. MUDD: -- will be eliminated, will not be there.
MR. SCHMITT: That's right.
MR. MUDD: This new version will be vetted to the EAC and
the CCPC before you have to final vote on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And its primary purpose is to
permit beach renourishment and permitted use?
MR. SCHMITT: And some other housekeeping issues, yes. But
it basically will be a permitted process. And we'll make it very clear
and explain that the variance process that we currently do is nothing --
it's a duplication of effort because it's already publicly vetted through
the other state and federal permitting processes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this also going to tighten up new
construction that's going to be put on that CCSL line?
MR. SCHMITT: No, Commissioner, you asked us to -- that's
one of the reasons why it was withdrawn, because that was going to
prohibit -- the way it was currently written and presented there in this
LDC cycle, it prohibited any furore variances. What we're going to
continue to allow is that if anybody wants to build a new building, it
still has to go through the variance process as it exists today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what I'm getting at --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- new building.
MR. SCHMITT: New buildings will still have to come in and
request before the Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're not talking about build back
of old buildings, we're talking about build back -- you tear something
down and then you put a new building up.
MR. SCHMITT: What we're going to propose, though, let's say
Page 229
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How are we going to address that
CCSL?
MR. SCHMITT: A dune walkover -- let me -- a dune walkover.
If it's the same footprint, no impact, they have to still come in for a
variance. What we're saying is that is really a rather laborious process
and, frankly, somewhat lethargic, because it has to go through all that
review. We're saying as long as they have the same footprint, it would
be a permitted process. So a hoteler -- hotelier that has a facility
forward of the CCSL that is basically a repair and maintenance, it
would go through a permit review process, rather than having to go
through another request for a variance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay. I was talking about if
you had a hotel or something, you tear it down completely, you
physically tear it down and start over.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, no, you would have to come in for a
variance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right.
MR. SCHMITT: Something like that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 230
January 27, 2004
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And any comments from the
Commissioners? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: The -- is it Coconilla project?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Coconilla?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: That Wiggins Pass thing.' I
think it's in District 2?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it's coming back as a
different animal than what the Planning Commissioners' seen. And I
would like to give direction, since it is a different animal, to bring it
back to the Planning Commission to make recommendations on what
the Board is going to see. Am I wrong?
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, they had a proposals on the street that
had some dry storage that has since been eliminated. It's essentially
the same item that went before the Planning Commission. But I -- I've
not reviewed the staff summary or the executive summary yet,
because it's not come before my desk yet. But my understanding is it's
essentially somewhat the same -- almost the same building that went
before the Planning Commission. And Commissioner Halas, maybe
Mr. Oelschlaeger had already briefed you. I believe it's somewhat the
same building. But it is -- it's a -- it's a continuation of exactly -- or
similar to what they had before the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it similar or is it the same plan
that they had in front of the Planning Commission?
MR. SCHMITT: I believe it's similar. It's not the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, do we have-- we
have the option, if they come in here and see that things aren't going
good, where they're going to have a bait and switch, that at that time
we can then direct staff to send this down to the --
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. I mean, you can direct it at that
time if it looks like if it's something different. And we'll make it clear
Page 231
January 27, 2004
in the executive summary meeting. But unfortunately, Commissioner,
I don't have that information. I wish I would have been prepared to
address that this evening. But it's my understanding that what they
were proposing they withdrew, that was to split the property between
commercial and residential, and they were going to have boat storage,
and that's all off the table. They're back to pretty much the entire site
is a rezone from commercial to residential. And it's a building, if not
exactly the same, very similar to what went before the Planning
Commission.
And if they present something different, you can say thank you
very much, send it back to the Planning Commission. You've done
that before, remand it back to the Planning Commission for their
review. That's certainly within your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How do we know what they had and what
we're getting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt could research that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can research that. I'll send you all a note.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you for bringing that up.
MR. MUDD: So let me ask you a question real quick for Mr.
Schmitt. Maybe we can head this off at the pass.
If Mr. Schmitt looks at this thing and it looks like it's in essence
the same particular rezone, it's going from commercial to residential,
and it's keeping -- you know, they're not trying to do the bait and
switch business, it's basically coming up with a building that's a little
less dense than the one that they had before, if that's the case, to bring
that forward to the Board. If it's anything different than that, to
basically reprimand (sic) it back to the CCPC to get a review so we're
just not wasting your time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my understanding is more
palatable. And also, my understanding, the Planning Commission
turned it down.
MR. MUDD: Yes, they did.
Page 232
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and we depend on the
Planning Commission's recommendations. Now, is this more, more
fitting?
MR. SCHMITT: I have to turn to the County Attorney to make
sure we don't get yourself into the fruit of the forbidden tree here or
whatever by -- the Planning Commission is strictly that, an advisory
committee, and you need to make sure we don't judge that before you
hear the -- they have every right to bring it forward to the Board of
County Commissioners, regardless of what the decision of the
Planning Commission was. Am I correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think the
Land Development Code says that the Board of Commissioners
should take under consideration the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But my whole thing, is, you
know, a different animal. And their recommendations I regard very
high. And right now it is not to approve. So is it something that it
would change their mind? I don't know.
MR. SCHMITT: That's a good question. That is a good question.
And if it's like what Mr. Mudd said, if it's something considerably
different than went before the Planning Commission --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll let us know.
MR. SCHMITT: -- we'll let you know. And based on that, you
can make a determination right now and say that it would be
remanded back to the Planning Commission for review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could make that determination
at that point in time, couldn't we?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or, you know, we could say either
-- you know, you make it acceptable to us or, you know, we send it
back to the Planning Commission.
Page 233
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or you just keep it commercial,
don't even rezone it. You got that option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't want to get
into a situation where we're making these decisions in the summertime
when all your constituents are at their second home.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That might be a good idea. I'm
just kidding you, of course.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So our direction is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
MR. SCHMITT: I think Mr. Weigel--
MR. WEIGEL: It's a quasi-judicial matter, and so the
communications you have with staff regarding the matter are ex parte
communications, such as what you're even having right now. And
that was because we're a little beyond their procedure.
My main concern, though, is really procedure. And since it's
advertised, the normal course of things, notwithstanding a mistake by
the Naples Daily news of the last advertisement so it had to continue
over to the 10th. But it is advertised for the 10th. And so if the Board
-- the Board will have it on its agenda for the 10th at this point, and
the Board will have the opportunity to make a determination upon a
quick or a lengthy review at that hearing to determine whether they
wish to direct it back to the Planning Commission or not. And if they
do, as Mr. Schmitt indicated, it's perfectly in your parameter, your
right to do so. Then it will go back to the Planning Commission and
move itself out of the commission in due course and back up to you,
probably fairly quickly, quite frankly.
But it would be inappropriate outside of the actual advertised
hearing dates for you to manipulate or ask for -- direct the manager to
make changes in the direction of where that item is at this point in.
time. It will come to you and then you can send it where you need to,
if you wish to at that point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we wish to?
Page 234
January 27, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: If you wish to.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, based on that, I'll just make it very clear
what the differences are in the executive summary to the Board
members, if there are differing -- what was being proposed and how it
differs from what went before the Planning Commission, so you have
a clear understanding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one thing. I'll try to
make it brief. I sent to each of you an e-mail indicating my regret that
I will not be able to join you Thursday, but sharing with you a
recommendation which you might wish to consider concerning
wildlife protection.
I'm troubled by the fact that the state and the federal government
could permit, and they do permit, the sacrificing of wildlife in any
particular county because there are adequate numbers throughout the
state or in other parts of the nation. And so if carried to the extreme,
you could get to the point where all the bald eagles in Collier County
are taken, to use the term, because there are plenty of bald eagles
somewhere else. And I guess my feeling is that we have an obligation
to provide some level of sustainable wildlife in Collier County.
So what I have proposed, and I've talked with groups on both
sides of this issue over the past couple of months, and there seems to
be general agreement that they would like -- they would be willing to
sit down together and talk about creating a plan, and that plan
essentially would identify what species, threatened, endangered or of
special concern, in Collier County do we really want to try to manage
ourselves --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- how many of those species do
we have in the county; what is a reasonable population that our county
can sustain of those species, and that way give us some management
Page 235
January 27, 2004
plan that we can manage to so that we're not -- but would do a more
effective job.
And I said in that memo that maybe a committee could be
established to study that. And after talking with other people, I think
maybe I used the wrong term. What I would really suggest that you
consider is let the staff develop it and they would have public hearings
with all of the stock-- stakeholders, people could come in and share
their expertise, we could gather science from the state and federal
agencies and, if necessary, we might want to hire a consultant during
the process. And just let the staff manage the process, rather than us
trying to set up some kind of separate advisory committee, because I
suspect it will not work. As a matter of fact, many of the
environmentalists and developers have told me it just won't work. The
best way to do it is the way I just described.
So I don't know, David, to what extent we ought to engage in any
discussion about this. I'm just throwing out this idea for your
consideration. And I regret that I won't be there to tell you -- to debate
it at the time. But there are some things more important, sometimes,
than an LDC workshop.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's legislative anyway, so it's of no -- it's
of no quasi-judicial due process concern, if that's what you're
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I go along with Commissioner
Coyle on that. I think that we have to establish so that the County
Commissioners in any particular county establish what they feel. And
I think we need to have a goal here and I think that's a great idea
where we establish what the quantity is, and what we are really
interested in trying to address here is wildlife.
And being that I've been involved with the FAC, the Commission
is always allowed to have more stringent rules in those lines than what
Page 236
January 27, 2004
is put forth by the state and federal government. So -- but I think
you're absolutely right, I think we need to look at exactly what we are
going to address as wildlife that we're going to protect so that we don't
end up where if a particular bird flies over an area, that that all of a
sudden is off bounds. I think it has to be where they really are housed
at and if there is an accurate account and an accurate nesting area or
whatever else in that particular -- in those particular conditions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And while you've been agreeing with
him, do you also have something to say at the end of the meeting, or is
that it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's enough.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, yeah, I'd just like to thank
everybody that was involved in the process today in regards to the
awakening of Immokalee. And that includes all the staff people,
includes all the people out in the community that were actively
involved in this. And it also includes the Commissioners here. Let's
face it, if we didn't start off with this $1.8 million incentive package,
we wouldn't be where we are today. And I think we all need to pat
ourselves on the back. I know we took some heat over that from the
community, but I think it was -- as you can see, it was very, very
beneficial. And I really want to thank everybody that was involved in
that.
And also the EDC, they really put a -- and the Airport
Commission. I mean, this is -- they've got a good leader there in Gene
Schmidt, and I think he was really out there being very proactive in
this. And everybody that was involved in this was very proactive. So
I want to thank everybody that was involved in that, it was very
special.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Okay,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the last time I leave my
notes down here for him to read.
Page 237
January 27, 2004
I'd like to thank them also. I tell you, everything -- I echo your
sentiments exactly. It couldn't have happened without this
Commission buckling down and accepting some responsibilities to do
it. And of course we had a very supportive staff. And the people in
Immokalee, if they weren't proactive in asserting themselves, that just
wouldn't have happened.
Still we're not done yet. We have a 2:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m.
happening in Immokalee at the airport where the other possible
airplane manufacturer company will be coming in for a tour, and they
invited us to go to it. If you're going to go to it, you may want to
arrive a little early and go to Robert's Ranch, they're going to be
having a rally for the Boy Scouts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's on Monday?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, this is on Saturday.
Saturday.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2:00, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 2:00, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Get there early.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And since we got into the
species act and what we're going to be doing on that, I've got to tell
you, I want to compliment this Commission for doing a wonderful --
wonderful things in the past as far as the lands out there, the rural
lands, the rural fringe. You're to be complimented for Conservation
Collier. You've put many things in place, including the tortoise act
that is going to deal with gopher tortoises. We have supported acts for
the manatees. We've done a lot. However, now we're getting to the
point where we have to take a real good look where we're going. I
want to tell you that we've done so well that we have a record number
of panthers that can't be contained in the area that they're living in and
they're moving toward central Florida. About the only predator they
have is the automobile.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's time to have an open season on
Page 238
January 27, 2004
them, huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also two bears. They have
become so prevalent we can -- I think Mr. Schmitt could testify to the
fact that we had one of our Collier County cars wiped out in Copeland
at the last Copeland civic association meeting by a bear that came
between the road and the car. We won't go in too many details on it,
but the bear won.
The thing is, is that when we're talking about species and what
we're going to do to control it, you've got to remember, this is another
layer that's going to be put on top of all the other layers that are out
there. Now, true, big development, a little more control probably
wouldn't kill them. But we're talking about homeowners and everyone
else out there, plus our own projects that we're going to be doing in the
county.
So at all times we have to be -- keep this in mind, the fact that
there's a lot more to deal with than just protecting an eagle along the
coast. I have no problems discussing it, but I want you to know that I
do have concerns with the direction that some people want to take this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we were-- I think
what both Commissioner Coyle and myself were relating to, I think
we need to come up with a good balance. And I think we have to be
very objective in the balance that we're going to -- the direction we're
going to go. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. I'm
sorry. The last thing, I wanted to ask all of you Commissioners, we
used to have a flag hanging on this building, and there were so much
-- so many dollars involved to replace it all the time, because it was
getting mined. And I've had many people say gee, they miss the flag
up there. And I think it looks pretty nice to see on a government
building. What about if we ask the County Manager to see how much
it would cost to paint the flag up there with some type of permanent
paint up or something. Would that be acceptable to you guys?
Page 239
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That or else we could have
private organizations such as the veterans or whoever come in and
maybe set up a fund for it because that's a community project. In
either case, I know--
MR. MUDD: It cost about $1,000 a flag.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: $1,000 a flag?
MR. MUDD: You go through four flags a year as a minimum,
because they get faded real fast and sometimes we get a bad storm,
they get ripped and you get them down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about painting?
MR. MUDD: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about painting a flag?
MR. MUDD: You're going to have the same problem with bleed
out that you are with the flags sitting out there. The sun just bums that
stuff and all of a sudden it fades, so you'll be painting it a couple of
times a year. I have no idea what it costs to paint it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't they have paint like they have on
boats that, even though it's terribly expensive, but it doesn't fade or
anything? Because I know that on boats, it stays there for years, and
the water doesn't ruin it, the salt doesn't ruin it and the sun doesn't ruin
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got some extra blue. You'd
have to find the red.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll volunteer Commissioner
Henning to paint it on.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me see what I can do about
talking to some of-- some of the V.F.W., the Am Vets. Let me talk to
some folks like that to see if we can't work up some kind of a
contribution out there in order to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since we're in southern -- very,
very south of the south, we ought to consider some other flags, maybe.
Page 240
January 27, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
the more north you get.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
something like that--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: -- state flag.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Oh. The further south you go in Florida,
Like the Florida flag or
We better quit while we're
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:*****
Item #16Al
TO CONSIDER THE RESULTS OF THE "NAPLES PARK
COMMUNITY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY F1NAL REPORT"
PREPARED BY TRULLINGER ASSOCIATES, INC. AND
CONSIDER THIS PROPOSAl, DF, AD
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2004-16 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF "RIVERCHASE SHOPPING CENTER FIRST
ADDITION" - SI JFIJECT TO STIPl JI.ATIONS
Item # 16A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAJORS PHASE
THREE", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
Page 241
January 27, 2004
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SF~CI IRITY
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAJORS PHASE
TWO" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SFJCI ~RITY
Item # 16A5
BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID NO. 04-3601 - REJECTED.
"HOUSING REHABILITATION INSPECTION AND CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES" AND RFP 04-3600- "GENERAL
CONTRACTOR CONTRACT FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
REHABILITATION SERVICES"; FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO
UTILIZE ONE OPEN PLANNING POSITION TO IMPLEMENT
AND ADMINISTER THE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION
PROGRAM
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2004-17 REGARDING A FEE SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT FOR WELL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS OF
AFIANDONMF, NT AND PI,I IGGING OF F, XISTING WEIJJS
Item #16A7
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 242
January 27, 2004
COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF NAPLES TO
ADMINISTER CONTRACTS WITH TOMASELLO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
(FIRM) RESTIIDY AND APPEAl,
Item #16B 1
BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FUND TO MAKE
PAYMENT TO FOUR SEASONS BANNER COMPANY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,562 FOR THE PURCHASE OF HOLIDAY
FIANNERS AND FIRACKET SFiTS
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2004-18 AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT APPLICATION
AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS, AND ACCEPT ON BEHALF
OF THE COl INTY ANY SIICH GRANT AWARDF, D
Item # 16B3
RESOLUTION 2004-19 AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 GRANT APPLICATION
AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS, AND TO ACCEPT ON
BEHAIJF OF THE COl JNTY ANY SI ICH GRANT AWARDED
Item # 16B4
Page 243
January 27, 2004
VEHICLE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
INTEI~ITR AN/ATC PARATRANSIT
Item #16B5
BID NO. 04-3599 "TRAFFIC SIGN MATERIALS AND RELATED
ITEMS"-AWARDED TO VARIOUS FIRMS AS INDICATED IN
THE EXECI ITIVF. SI JMMARY
Item # 16B6
BID 04-3500 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) SINGLE
ENGINE SWEEPER TRUCK- AWARDED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA IN THE
AMOI JNT OF $156~447.00
Item #16B7
APPROVE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS
FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATION FOR RFP #04-3571, "GREEN
BOULEVARD EXTENSION CORRIDOR STUDY." STAFF TO
FtF. GIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH PBS&J
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2004-20 AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF
A TWENTY MILES PER HOUR (20 MPH) SCHOOL ZONE
DURING SCHOOL ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL HOURS, AS
POSTED ON SITE, ON ROADS ADJACENT TO GOLDEN GATE
INTERMEDIATE CENTER NORTH AND GOLDEN GATE
INTERMEDIATE CENTER SOUTH, AT A COST OF
APPROXIMATEIJY $1250
Page 244
Item #16B9
January 27, 2004
BID NO. 04-3586 "INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
STREET LIGHTS" AWARDED TO E.B. SIMMONDS
EI~ECTRICAIJ, 1NC.
Item # 16B 10
BID #04-3603 "PURCHASE OF LIME-ROCK AND FILL
MATERIAL" FOR THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$500,000 - AWARDED TO BIG ISLAND EXCAVATING, INC.,
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SOUTHERN SAND
AND STONE_ INC.
Item #16B 11
BID #04-3605 "PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF METAL AND
POLYETHYLENE PIPE" FOR THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $25,000 - AWARDED TO NATIONAL
WATERWORKS, INC., FERGUSON WATERWORKS, METAL
CI H,VFRTS AND CONTF, CH CONSTRI ICTION PRODI JCTS
Item # 16B 12
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH LORI
YOI JNG. REAIJTOR
Item # 16B 13
BOARD ACCEPTANCE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY A
PRIVATE DONATION OF LIVE OAK TREES FOR USE WITHIN
PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM SUPERIOR PLANT COMPANY
VAIJlIED AT $6~900
Page 245
Item # 16B 14
January 27, 2004
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,055 FOR
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE
lqI,OCK GRANT FIINDS
Item # 16B 15
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ORDER #2 FOR THE FOREST LAKES
MSTU TO WILSON MILLER, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$99,500
Item #16C 1
RE-CONFIRM APPROVAL OF A $60,000 BUDGET
AMENDMENT AND A CHANGE ORDER UNDER THE
PROJECT TO RENOURISH HIDEAWAY BEACH WITH
UPLAND SAND, PROJECT 90541, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$107_188.53
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2004-21 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMF, NT
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2004-22 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 246
January 27, 2004
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2004-23/CWS-2004-01 AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE,
PERPETUAL UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS,
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS
EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER FORCE
MAIN, RAW WATER MAINS AND WELL SITES REQUIRED
FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT'S
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER (SCRWTP) 12 - MGD
REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT,
PROJECT NUMBER 70892, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$1,300,000
Item # 16C5
AWARD ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR INSTRUMENTATION,
CONTROL, TELEMETRY, AND SCADA INTEGRATION
SERVICES PURSUANT TO RFP 04-3536, IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $1,500,000 TO THE SEVEN FIRMS AS
CONTAINED N THE EXECI JTIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16C6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FROM THE POLLUTION CLEAN-UP AND
RESTORATION CONTRACT GC 623 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$66~257
Page 247
Item #16C7
January 27, 2004
TRANSFER FUNDS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR CONTRACT NO. GC 623 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (RDEP) FROM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FUND (114) TO MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND (116) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $201,257 AND TRANSFER THE
REMAINING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,300 TO
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES IN WATER POLLUTION
CONTROIJ FI JND (114~
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER GH-FT-04-03 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN,
LLC TO PERFORM AN INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY FOR
THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA IN
THE AMOIJNT OF $251.980_ PROJECT NI~MlqER 72502
Item # 16C9
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AND RECORD A
SATISFACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT
Item # 16C 10
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
RFJAIJ PROPERTY FOR AlqATF, MENT OF NI HSANCF,
Item #16C 11
APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT SELECTION AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS
Page 248
January 27, 2004
FOR WELLFIELD RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT AND
EXPANSION PROGRAM, RFP 04-3593, PROJECTS 70158, 70899,
70900, 71002, 71006 AND 71011 WITH ESTIMATED FEES ON
THE ORDER OF $1,000,000 PER YEAR FOR FIVE TO EIGHT
YEARS
Item # 16D 1
SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR DOMESTIC
SFiCI ~RITY EQI IIPMENT
Item #16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,048 TO
UPGRADE MATERIALS USED IN THE RE-ROOFING OF EAST
NAPIJES COMMIJNITY CENTER
Item # 16D3
AWARD OF BID NO. 04-3596 TO GULFSHORE PHARMACY
FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT/SOCIAL
SERVICES MEDICATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Item # 16D4
OLDER AMERICANS ACT CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $869,125 AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A SENIOR
SOIJl ~TIONS OF SOl ITHWEST FI~ORIDA
Page 249
Item # 16E 1
January 27, 2004
ACCEPTANCE OF STAFF'S SHORT LIST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH
PARKING GARAGE, RFP# 04-3582. STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
CONTRACT WITH WAI,KER PARKING CONSI IIJTANTS
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 2004-24 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA DURING THE 2004 CALENDAR YEAR TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, DEEDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
RF, OIHRED FOR THE SAI.E OF GAC LAND TRI~ST PROPERTY
Item #16E3
CONTRACT #03-3548 AWARDED TO JONES EDMUNDS AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPING A LAND AND LAND RIGHTS GIS DATABASE
IN THE ESTIMATED INITIAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$205~224
Item # 16E4
RESOLUTION 2004-25 PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE
OF CONVEYANCES MADE BY DEVELOPERS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT
REOI IIREMENTS AND ORDINANCES
Item #1 6E5
Page 250
January 27, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-26 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE DEED CERTIFICATES FOR
THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD
MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2004
CAIJENDAR YEAR
Item #16E6
AUTHORIZE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR UTILITY FACILITIES TO
SERVICE THE GREY OAKES FIRE/SAFETY STATION AT A
COST NOT TO FJXCEED $1 5.00
Item # 16I 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 251
161 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 27, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Ao
Bo
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida' Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for November 29, 2003 through December 5, 2003.
2. Disbursements for December 6, 2003 through December 12, 2003.
3. Disbursements for December 13, 2003 through December 19, 2003.
4. Disbursements for December 20, 2003 through December 26, 2003.
5. Disbursements for December 27, 2003 through January 2, 2004.
Minutes:
o
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for October
30, 2003; December 18, 2003; Minutes of October 30, 2003.
Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for December 17,
2003.
Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for December
17, 2003; Minutes of November 19, 2003.
Pelican Bay Services Division - Budget Sub-Committee Agenda for
December 10, 2003, Regular Agenda for January 7, 2003; Minutes of
December 3, 2003; Budget Sub-Committee Minutes of November 13,
2003 and December 10, 2003;
Collier County Airport Authority - A g, enda for December 8, 2003;
Minutes of November 10, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for December 16, 2003;
Minutes of November 18, 2003.
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for December 10, 2003;
Minutes of October 1, 2003.
H:Data/Format
8. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for December 18, 2003.
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -Agenda for
January 21, 2004; Minutes of November 19, 2003.
10.
Parks and Recreation Advisory_ Board -Agenda for December 17, :~003;
Minutes of November 19, 2003.
11.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for December 18,
2003.
12.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 8, 2004; Minutes of
December 4, 2003.
13.
Citizen Advisory Task Force - Agenda for December 18, 2003' Minutes
of December 18, 2003.
14.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for December 8, 2003,
January 7, 2004; Minutes of December 8, 2003.
15.
Health and Human Services Advisory Committee :-- Agenda for September
18, 2003; Minutes of May 15, 2003.
Other:
1) Collier Park of Commerce Owner's Association - Annual meeting of the
Board of Collier Park of Commerce Owner's Association; Operating Budget for
2004
H:Data/Format
January 27, 2004
Item #16J1
STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2004
GRANT FI INDS
Item #16K1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, TEXAS INDUSTRIES, N.V.
AND COLLIER CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER IN
REFERENCE TO CASE NO. 01-4571-CA-HDH THAT IS NOW
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
FOR NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE 20 ACRE CULTURAL CENTER
PARCF. I.
Item #16K2
AGREEMENT ENTITLED "PREPAYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT", WHICH AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTS THAT PORTION OF THE HERITAGE BAY
DEVELOPMENT ORDER REQUIRING THE REPAYMENT OF
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES, THEREBY ALLOWING
DEVELOPER'S $1,700,000 PREPAYMENT TO BE DEPOSITED
INTO THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE TRUST
ACCOUNT, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE
AGREEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
COl INTY COMMISSIONF. RS
Item # 16K3
FOUR OFFERS OF JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
TAKING OF PARCELS NOS. 113, 125, 127 AND 128 IN THE
Page 252
January 27, 2004
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. G. HERBST, ETAL.,
CASFJ NO. 02-5138-CA (IMMOKAIJFJFi ROAD PROJFJCT #60018)
Item #16K4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT NOVA CAPITAL,
L.P., A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A MASTERCRAFT
HOMES LIMITED, FOR THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NOS.
102 AND 702 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,940 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF
NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 99-2165-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJF, CT #69101)
Item #16K5
SETTLEMENT AND TOLLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND ROCK OIL COMPANY IN
REFERENCE TO CASE NO. 2:03-CV-65-FTM-29DNF THAT IS
NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS
DIVISION
Item # 16K6
ACCEPT OFFER OF DEMINIMUS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
FROM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY TO SETTLE ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY'S
POTENTIAL LIABILITY REGARDING POLLUTION FROM
FORMER FLORIDA PETROLEUM REPROCESSING FACILITY
AT 3211 SW 50T}~ AVENUE, DAVIE, BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF $6,463.12 TO
USEPA AND $2,154.38 TO THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE
Page 253
January 27, 2004
IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY'S POTENTIAL
TOTAIJ I.IABII,ITY
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2004-27 RE PUDEX2003-AR-4607 JEFFREY A.
NUNNER, P.E., OF NUNNER GROUP, LLC, REPRESENTING
CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA, REQUESTING A TWO-YEAR
EXTENSION OF THE ASTRON PLAZA PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION
2.7.3.4.6, FOR A 8.56 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NAPA
BOULEVARD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD IN THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF THE 1-75 AND PINE RIDGE ROAD
INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COIJJFR COl INTY, FI~ORIDA
Item #17B - Continued to 2/10/04
PETITION AVPLAT2003-AR5000 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
IN A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON
TRACT "F" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "FOUNTAINHEAD
SUBDIVISION REPLAT" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27,
PAGES 53 THROUGH 54, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 49
SOl JTH~ RANGF, 26 EAST
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:50 p.m.
Page 254
January 27, 2004
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
. ~proved
presented
by the Board on
or as corrected
?_..g ra tt .rS/ z ¥~, z ooq, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 255