Agenda 01/28/2014 Item # 11D/'*N
1/28/2014 11.D.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to reject an offer received from Asset Recovery XVIII, LLC for the sale of 305
acres immediately adjacent to the Collier County Landfill.
OBJECTIVE: To provide relevant information regarding an offer received from Asset Recovery
XVIII, LLC (Seller) for the sale of a 305 -acre parcel immediately west of the Collier County Landfill
and to recommend that the offer be rejected at the current sales price.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 11, 2013, Item 15B, the Board of County Commissioners discussed
bringing offers received for land sales to the Board for consideration and action.
The Seller sent an email on July 29, 2013 offering the Property to Collier County for $7,700,000. A
copy of the email is attached for reference. The property is designated Industrial in the Collier County
Growth Management Plan but is currently zoned A- Agriculture. In determining the sales price, the
Seller weighed each of the following:
1. The Final Judgment of Foreclosure in the amount of $11,892,593.66 filed on September 23, 2011
2. An appraisal of the Property dated April 4, 2013 which indicated an "as -is" value of $8,500,00
and a liquidation value of $5,525,000
n 3. The County's Property Appraiser's 2012 Market Value of $7,538,750 for the Property
Since 2005, there has been potential interest in the Property and the County met several times with the
previous owner, Mr. Wallace L. Lewis. On October 26, 2010, Item IOD, Mr. Lewis came before the
Board of County Commissioners and offered to sell the Property in the $20 million range, which
represented a reduction from the original $63 million asking price. A copy of the meeting transcripts are
attached for reference. Unfortunately the asking price has always been too high to pursue an acquisition.
On May 8, 2013, Real Property Management's Real Estate Appraiser prepared a valuation in the amount
of $8,533,200 for the Property. The valuation didn't provide an adjustment for or take into
consideration the low market demand for the Property being located adjacent to the existing County
Landfill or the cost of mitigation required for the development of the Property. Additionally, the
comparable properties used in the appraisal consisted of lands that have varying degrees of
environmental and development permits and approvals in place. By comparison, the subject property
has no permits in place. A copy of the valuation is attached for reference.
While many county departments may have potential uses for this parcel in the future, currently identified
needs are as follows:
Collier County Growth Management Division (Transportation) - Proposed Wilson / Benfield
Extension right -of -way which also would provide improved access to the Resuorce Recovery Business
Park - t 50 acres. While 30 acres will accommodate the footprint and associated water management
areas for the roadway, additional acreage will be required for indirect impacts depending on the road
alignment and design.
Packet Page -232-
1/28/2014 11. D.
Public Utilities Division — 0 acres
Administrative Services Division — 0 acres.
Public Services Division — 0 acres
Big Cypress Basin — TBD
n
While future needs may arise at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners, the only currently
documented need is based on providing right -of -way for the future WilsonBenfield alignment which
will be required at some point in the future, although the timing at present is uncertain.
While acquisition of the property could provide a number of future public benefits, the requested sales
price does not appear to take into account the potential for costs associated with environmental
mitigation and obtaining the necessary development permits. With no entitlements or permits in place,
any buyer must consider the cost of obtaining these permits. For example, mitigation expenses alone
could be in the range of $3.8 Million in order to impact up to 230 acres of this property.
Further compounding a fiscal analysis of the property are recent sales of Industrial zoned land in the
adjacent White Lake Industrial Park which are platted and served by utilities. Two separate lots recently
sold for approximately $2 per foot for net developable land. These sales were distressed sales by banks,
similar to the scenario involving this property. This makes justification of the requested purchase price
very difficult.
Based on current funding and the high cost of entitlements for any future development of the Property,
staff believes the purchase price of $7,700,000 is too high. Preliminary investigation into additional '
costs associated with required environmental mitigation for both species and wetland impacts combined
with surrounding land values would support a price at or below the previously stated liquidation value of
$5.25 Million. Future needs by transportation or other county departments may warrant further analysis
should the sales price be adjusted downward accordingly.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.
GROWTH E"ACT: None at this time.
LEGAL CONSIDERATION: This item is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority
vote for Board approval. -SRT
RECOMNENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: (1) rejects the offer and
authorizes the County Manager or his designee to notify the Seller that acquisition in total at the
requested price is not supported by available data and recent sales information and (2) authorizes the
County Manager or his designee(s) to negotiate a not to exceed or less than the liquidation value sale
price, as referenced in the Seller's email dated July 29, 2013, subject to Board approval.
PREPARED BY: Toni A. Mott, Manager, Real Property .Management, Facilities Management
Department
W
Packet Page -233-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.D.
1/28/2014 11. D.
Item Summary: Report to the Board an offer received from Asset Recovery XVIII, LLC for
the sale of 305 acres immediately adjacent to the Collier County Landfill and recommend the
offer be rejected. (Toni Mott, Real Property Manager)
Meeting Date: 1/28/2014
Prepared By
Name: MottToni
Title: Manager - Property Acquisition & Const M,Facilitie
1/13/2014 3:24:36 PM
Approved By
Name: pochopinpat
Title: Administrative Assistant,Facilities Management
Date: 1/13/2014 4:26:07 PM
Name: CarnellSteve
Title: Administrator - Public Services
Date: 1/13/2014 6:32:10 PM
Name: YilmazGeorge
Title: Administrator, Public Utilities
Date: 1/13/2014 9:08:36 PM
Name: CampSkip
Title: Director - Facilities Management,Facilities Manage
Date: 1/14/2014 8:44:20 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 1/14/2014 12:49:35 PM
Name: TeachScott
�. Title: Deputy County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 1/14/2014 4:39:58 PM
Packet Page -234-
Name: PriceLen
Title: Administrator, Administrative Services
Date: 1 / 16/2014 4:08:51 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 1/17/2014 9:57:00 AM
Name: PryorCheryl
Title: Management/ Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Manag
Date: 1/18/2014 1:39:46 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 1/21/2014 1:51:26 PM
Packet Page -235-
1/28/2014 11.D.
1/28/2014 11. D.
MottToni
Subject: FW: CONFIDENTIAL: 305 Acre Parcel Adjacent to County Landfill
From: M, Alan David [ mailto :Alan.DavidMnaBNYMelion.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:55 AM
To: YilmazGeorge
Cc: Rich Yovanovich (ryovanovi cyklawrirm.com) <ryovanovichacyklawfirm.com >; Applebaum, David P
< david apgiebaumca&bnymellon.com >; Ballou, Darlene < Darlene Baliou aBNYMellon,com>
Subject: 305 Acre Parcel Adjacent to County Landfill
George,
At the conclusion of our meeting on July 8, 2013 regarding the 305 acre parcel adjacent to the County landfill
( "Property ... #157;) you asked Asset Recovery XVIII, ( "AR,,. #157;) to provide the County with a price at which
AR is willing to sell the Property and transfer title to the County within a short period of time.
in determining the sale price, AR weighed each of the following:
1, The Final Judgment of Foreclosure in the amount of $11, 892; 593:66 filed on September 23, 2011:
2. An appraisal of the Property dated April 4, 2012 which indicated an "as -is ... #157; value of
$8,500,000 and a liquidation value of $5,525,000; and
3. The County Property Appraiser's 2012 Market Value of $7;538,750 for the Property.
Aiso considered by AR is that it has not marketed the Property or listed it with a broker and its belief that the
value of the Property will increase in the near future.
Though not afactor in determining the sale price, AR considered the County's recent internal "as -is ... #157;
$6,500,000 appraisal of the Property in assessing the reasonableness of the price established by AR after
weighing each of the above factors.
AR is willing to sell the Property to the County for the price of $7,700,000 with a closing to occur not later than
November 30, 2013.
I look forward to nearing from you.
Alan M. David
Vice President
MUNB Loan Holdings. LLC
A BNY Mellon Company
1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami. FL 33131
T 305 372 4681
alan day dmCd)bnvmelion.com
The information contained in this e -mail, and anv attachment, is confidential and is intended solely for the use
of' the intended recipient. Access., copying or re -use of' the e -mail or anN' attachment, or any information
contained therein, by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-
mail to the sender and delete it from your computer. Although we attempt to .sweep e -mail and attachments for
viruses,, we do not guarantee that either are virus -free and accept no liability for any damage sustained as a
result of viruses.
Please refer to http• /, disclaimer .bnvmellon.comieu.htn-i for certain disclosures relating to European legal
entities.
Packet Page -236-
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mark.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mark.
Item 41 OD
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA, SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL TO A
MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 200 FEET ABOVE GRADE TO
GAIN ADDITIONAL DISPOSAL CAPACITY, SAVING RATE-
PAYER FUNDS AND MAXIMIZE EXISTING RESOURCES -
MOTION TO APPROVE W /STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item IOD is a recommendation to authorize Waste
Management, Incorporated, of Florida to submit an application to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection to increase the height
Page 79
Packet Page -237-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
of the Collier County landfill to a maximum elevation of 200 feet
above grade to gain additional disposal capacity, saving ratepayer
funds and maximize existing resources.
Dan Rodriguez will present.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Dan
Rodriguez, for the record, your Solid Waste Director.
We're here on one of the next big projects associated with your
Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy.
As outlined in your executive summary, we're coming before you
to ask permission to authorize Waste Management to apply to Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the expansion, elevation
expansion, of your Collier County Landfill, as outlined in your
Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy.
Commissioners, this is your county landfill. It's one of the -- next
to your natural resources here in Collier County, from a business
standpoint, this is one of your most valuable assets. It provides
disposal capacity to the community not only for our generation, but
for future generations as well.
And as you're well aware, they're not building any more landfills
in the State of Florida. And if they are approving them, they're very
few. In fact, in the last 20 years, there's only been one landfill
approved for MSW, in the last 20 years.
What this board has done in the last ten years is outstanding.
You've extended the life of our landfill. Just ten years ago we had less
than three years remaining. We were filling it very quickly to the tune
of about 400,000 tons a year. You've cut that in half to 209,000 tons
just this past year. Annually it continues to decrease; however,
because they're not building any new landfills, we still need the
capacity, disposal capacity, for our community for future generations
as well.
This landfill was permitted in 1975. It start ed accepting waste
back then. It's 283 acres. And as I mentioned earlier, it takes about
Packet Page -238-
1128/2014 11.D.
October 26, 2010
209,000 tons a year.
This board had the foresight ten years ago to include in the
Growth Management Plan specific direction, a mandate that requires
staff to increase the permissible elevation of the landfill to gain
additional airspace capacity.
As part of that Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy that
you adopted ten years ago, you updated it back in 2006, December
5th. It's a comprehensive plan, Commissioners, and it's not just about
landfilling. It's about recycling.
And this plan, as you see here, has four components, source
reduction, material reuse recycling, it's about diversion, it's about
optimizing existing assets and resources and obtaining additional
facilities. Vertically expanding the landfill, it's in your direction, will
optimize this current asset.
We also follow the guiding principles that you laid down for us
to be environmental and growth management compliant, to preserve
landfill airspace, but also to bring best value services, and operate at
the highest standards. The award that you saw this morning for cells
one and two reclamation is a national award.
Here's the big picture. Collier County still generates about
822,000 tons of waste a year. The very good news is that only 25
percent is landfilled. Huge reduction from ten years ago. 75 percent
of that is diverted or recycled.
As you read in the papers, you hear from many voices, why is
Collier County so dependent on the landfill? We're not. We actually
have a very comprehensive plan to do more with recycling. You
approved single stream recycling five years ago, well before any
communities in Florida, and only a few nationally. percent
The residents of Collier County have about an 80 p
recycling rate, and we're making progress with the commercial
businesses in Collier County as well. landfill is permitted at 108
Vertical expansion. Currently the P
Page 81
Packet Page -239-
1/28/2014 11.D.
October 26, 2010
feet. What we're asking the board to do is to raise the elevation to 200
feet. That additional capacity will give you 19 years of additional
disposal capacity. Most importantly, it has a dollar value of $100
million.
To build a new landfill in the State of Florida, as I mentioned
earlier, is very tough to do. First of all, you'd have to find the area to
do it. You'd need at least 1,200 acres to have the appropriate buffers,
and then you have to get it passed by the citizens of that local area, as
well as FDEP, the Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water
Management, and many other regulatory agencies. needs for the
Project benefits. It provides long term disposal neeou that as
community. Commissioners, this is an insurance policy y
leaders, which you've done very well the last ten years to ensure that
our community will have disposal capacity, not only for this
generation, but future generations.
This is the chart that we're all familiar with. This is the AUIR
chart; however, there's a small change in it. The large blue line to the
far right is the additional disposal capacity that you would gain from
raising the elevation of the landfill. oin out to 2039. With this
Currently we have disposal capacity g g
approved recommendation, we would get disposal capacity out to
2058
In addition, FDEP's rules and regulations associated with
permitting a landfill are becoming more and more strict. There're
currently 30 permits alone just to operate one landfill we must Comply
with. Fortunately for us, we've partnered with Waste Management,
and they provide a very good service and ensure compliance with
those permits.
The other benefit is the fact that our recycling program is very
good in Collier County. As you know, two years ago the State o
Florida adopted new mandates that require municipalities above
^ 40,000 people by the year 2020 to reach a recycling rate of 75 p ercent.
Page 82
Packet Page -240-
1/28/2014 11.D.
October 26, 2010
As I mentioned earlier, we're well on our way with residential.
We're above that by 5 percent. We're well on our way with
commercial.
The regulations for managing landfills are getting stricter.
They're going to require us to recycle more and more waste.
Commissioner, that's a short presentation; however, the facts are
pretty much there. It's a best value decision. We're asking a board
recommendation to authorize Waste Management to comply with the
Growth Management Plan, as well as our Integrated Solid Waste
Management Strategy to apply for a permit modification that would
extend the height of the landfill to 200 feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dan, we have some public speakers and
commissioners who also want to ask questions, but I would just like to
make one suggestion.
In your presentations, you should -- you should deal with the
actual figures. You're not asking to raise the height of the landfill
another 100 feet. You're asking to raise it 70 feet. All you're doing is
trying to get some additional space on. top so if you have some need to
put a tower or a -- any other gas -- burning gas off the thing, that you
will have room to do that.
So you're not increasing the landfill 100 feet. You're increasing
it 70 feet; isn't that true?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, Commissioner. Thank you.
It's 70 feet actually is the increase in height.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. So that's important because
that's 30 feet less than most people are expecting.
So how about the commissioners? Now you want to ask your
questions now, or would you rather wait for the public speakers?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then we'll have public
speakers. How many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've just one public speaker, and that is
Page 83
Packet Page -241-
1/2812014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
Wallace Lewis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will be -- the presentation for speakers
is limited to three minutes.
MR. LEWIS: Before I start I'd like to point out for the record
that I've emailed a copy of my comments to all the commissioners this
morning, and also to county manager. And I'd also like to thank the
county's -- sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Could you state your name for
the record, please?
MR. LEWIS: I will. I'm sorry. My name is Wallace L. Lewis,
Jr., and my sister, Marian H. Jerace (phonetic), I'm also representing
her as property owner.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, County Manager, we've owned
the p roperty adjacent to the landfill for -- it's a 305 -acre parcel. It's
abutting and it's immediately west of the existing Collier County
Landfill, and we've owned it for over 50 years�u minute there and
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I pause y a p we're
ask the staff to point out, if you can, on this area, what property
talking about. its that green property . Okay.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Dan.
Excuse me. County staff approached us, sending us a
ose oft in
representative to Miami about four years ago for the purp ne x
to purchase the property for a horizontal expansion of the landfill
door.
And we've held discussions with the then County Manager Jim
Mudd. In July of 2008 he stated in our meeting that he did not went to
g
et into what he -- what happened in the north parcel, north of th
landfill, where that was purchased and then it couldn't be used for an
o
expansion of the landfill, and so he wanted time for due diligence s
that he could expand onto this property and be sure that the expansion
,.� could be done and permitted and didn't want to put the dollars out an d
not know that.
Packet Page -242-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
So we gave him a period of due diligence and met again in
January. And in January he was going to send it to the commission.
He told staff to have it ready for -- you know, for a June -- June
proposal to the commission to purchase the property.
Of course, in February, as you all know, he -- was discovered
that he was sick, and ever since, you know, we've been trying to work
things out with the current economy with the staff and so on.
Because time is so short -- I had a lot of points, and I'd appreciate
it if you would review those. But I think that it's important to know
that we are there; we are adjacent to this. This is the only opportunity
the county has to expand as opposed to build a new landfill.
This is an expansion. It's not a new landfill. It doesn't have the
same permitting problems. And this -- I'll finished in just a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay. I interrupted you twice. Go
ahead and take a little more time, if you'd like.
MR. LEWIS: This was originally one section, Section 36. The
landfill property was owned by my uncle, and that half was cut out of
this section. Basically, geologically, et cetera, everything is perfectly
the same, just about, as the existing landfill. So we're not dealing with
an unknown.
If you have to build another landfill later on another piece of
property, as Dan said, it's a 1,250 -acre minimum. By going next door
in this case, you're actually getting a 300 percent increase because the
land in between can be filled as well as the valleys in between the
peaks can be filled, and so there's a great savings there.
Because of the time, I just -- I wanted to cover the last point,
which basically, as a landowner, I'm obligated to tell you that this
property has -- shares a boundary with the landfill a mile long.
And so arguably I think we're the most affected piece of property
in Collier County. And we had been in the process until 2008 when
we were talking to Jim of permitting this for a business park, and we
had been through most of the permitting with the Army Corps of
Page 85
Packet Page -243-
1/2812014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
Engineers and also with South Florida Water Management.
Both Transportation Department wants to use part of this
property for about 34 acres for the 1 -75 overpass, you know, bypassing
951 and the intersection, the Wilson Boulevard project, and also South
Florida Water Management wants to use this property also to divert
the Golden Gate Canal, again, for water purity, et cetera. So we have
many parts of the county that are interested in portions of this
property.
And right now we've gone from an original price of 63 million
down in the 20 range. You know, we've offered terms, five -year
terms, more if we need to. But five year terms with minimum interest
that you're paying to a bank, whatever that is. hank very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. T you ry
Commissioners, I believe Commissioner Coletta was first, then
Henning, and then Halas. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta. s thin
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, there's some g
the county hasn't done right, and there's some things the county's done
very right.
One of the things that this county, at least for the last eight years,
has done very well, and that's handling our waste stream. And the fac t
that we are able to produce -- or get rid of a product that s offensive to
most people in an efficient manner. A good part of that waste stream,
what's the percentage again, is recycled?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Seventy -five percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seventy -five percent of our
waste stream is recycled. So this has extended the landfill out a
number of years.
Is the landfill a blight upon the community? Well, let me tell you,
back a number of years ago, they came up with this idea of coming up
with incineration, and they spent a considerable amount of money.
--
The county actually made a contract with a company out of Sweden
I believe, but it's a little while ago, so I may have that wrong.
Packet Page -244-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
At that point in time, the public rose up and their indignation was
great. They did not want to have smoke stacks, they didn't want to
have this pollutant going into the atmosphere. So they had to pay off
the contract to be able to satisfy it, and they stayed with landfilling.
Then a number of years ago when they -- before they had the
foresight that our present staff has, they decided they would move the
landfill to the far part of Collier County because it should be moved.
And at that point in time there was a lot of problems with odor. There
was; there was a lot.
The problem was is that there was a tremendous uprising within
the regents of the far eastern part of the Collier County area. There
was people that came to the meetings that were very indignant about
the idea of a new landfill being created where it wasn't before.
Well, on top of that, we have the problem of trying to permit it.
What is it, one's been permitted in 20 years?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One landfill's been permitted in
20 years. You'd spend millions of dollars just trying to get to the point
you could permit it.
Now, my problem is that there was a -- recent -- recently in the
Naples Daily News there was a commentary by a noted citizens came
out and pointed out a lot of facts that were very misrepresented about
what this is all about and the direction it's going. And the suggestion
would be, is that we should be able to, through extortion or something,
get the land we need for a landfill to be able to build it in the other part
of the county. Not going to happen. Property rights exist in this
county; they have for a long time, and they will in the future. far
Also, too, the citizens do not want it. We have no problem, as
as our citizenry go, where the landfill is today. They've taken care of
the odor some eight years ago, thanks to Jim Mudd, who was in
charge of that department at the time. We have total acceptance out
there.
Page 87
Packet Page -245-
10,1111.
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
When they held the meetings about the landfill, how many
people showed up to be able to see about the expansion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seven.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the increasing of the height?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. We had our first meeting in 2008.
Two people showed up, and then we had another meeting just recently
where seven showed up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the article I've got in front
of me from the Naples Daily News right now is totally no public
i
misrepresentative of the facts that are out there. There s p
indignation about the landfill where it is now. The people are very,
very happy with the fact that we're the lowest within the state; is that
correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: As it related to rates, we have some of the
lowest rates in the state and nationally.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA. Lo west rate within the state.
And if we were to go to some new technology, as was suggested in
this column, now, do you really think that's going to lower our cost? Is
that going to get us where we need to be? Seventy-five percent of
Now, let me tell you what's happening. hat I've heard now
the stream is recycled. I can guarantee you from
in the talks -- and we have talks going on between our economic
development group and in some entities out there, about taking our
garbage stream and turning it into gasoline, ethanol, and its well
underway. It looks like a great possibility. Meanwhile, there's a
possibility of other places that are going to be using garbage for fuel,
which I don't recommend we ever get into. Make it to the point they
won't have enough to be able to fire their furnaces, and they may take
it for nothing, for nothing more than the cost of transporting it. So all
these elements are working forward. Meanwhile, everything s well
under control. I commend you for this• next to the landfill, I wouldn't
As far as the land that's out there n
Packet Page -246-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
recommend expanding the landfill on it. But at some point in time, if
there's some other uses like was talked about, that may be a subject for
another day.
I commend you for what you're doing. You got it right. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some questions.
Is it true that we're in negotiations with Lee County about
shipping our waste up there to the incinerator?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually we're in discussions. About two --
I'm sorry, four weeks ago I met with Solid Waste Authority in Lee
County to talk about other diversion recycling opportunities that may
exist, and they actually took it to their board to get a recommendation
from their board to have discussions with us, further discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you planning on
shipping up to Lee County?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't have any plans at the moment.
We're just certainly -- we're discussing the options at their facility.
There are items that we take to our landfill that have to get buried.
They're called class three materials, brown goods, furniture,
mattresses, carpeting. They take up a lot of airspace.
And as outlined in the Integrated Solid Waste Management
Strategy, we're looking for opportunities.
So if it has to be buried, there may be an opportunity for us to
utilize their waste -to- energy facility to take those items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's different than what this
board has previously said in the past about handling our own waste
instead of shipping it out of county.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually it's in line with the strategy, which
one of the components -- let me get to that real quick here.
One of the four component, optimizing existing resources, but
Page 89
Packet Page -247-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
also diversion, the number two category, which includes utilizing
someone else's landfill or processing facilities and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have more information
on that you could provide me?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't. It's actually just discussions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: About diversion?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING- You're saying that's a board
policy?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's part of the strategy, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you give me the rest of the
policy on that diversion?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I can provide you with the strategy,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the board's adopted diversion
policy?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
The next thing is, obviously you're going to change the board's
approved Site Development Plan on this land. What will it look like
when you submit it to DEP?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's actually an application to FDEP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: FDEP.
MR, RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, and its a modification of the
existing permit. We're currently zoned for solid waste activities.
We're currently authorized to have a landfill. FDEP is the
organization that will determine how high and large and how we
operate that landfill.
So these approvals have already been approved from the original
laydown of the landfill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So can you provide me
� the site plan that you plan on submitting to FDEP?
Page 90
Packet Page -248-
1/2812014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
MR. RODRIGUEZ: With the board's approval today, that will
set the trigger for Waste Management to engineer and design that.
And as soon as that's completed, we can certainly get that to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as the line of say, now --
I mean, our executive summary says to go to an elevation of 200 feet.
It's permitted at 108 feet right now, correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you stated to
Commissioner Coyle, you're only going to increase it 70 feet?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not 200 feet that you're
asking then?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right. We're asking for 178 -foot maximum
elevation at this time. And the 200 feet gives us the additional space
for gas wellheads, if we have to put towers for monitoring, notification
of aircraft, things like that, as well as any other equipment that they
see fit to manage that landfill when it's in final closure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So those will be the structures
that will be associated with this site.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those structures that you just
mentioned?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the present rezoning on
the landfill is reuse and recycling and landfilling. You're doing
off -site reuse and recycling per your application a few months ago to
the board. So you'd just be using this for landfill?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. This particular request to the board
recommendation is just for landfilling by raising the elevation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the last four years, has the
tonnage into the landfill for bearing has increased?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, Commissioner. Every year, from ten
Page 91
Packet Page -249-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
years ago, it has decreased. This year we saw -- I'm sorry -- we've
seen the smallest decrease, and that's by about 6,000 tons from last
year. But it's still decreasing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How did -- I mean, according to
your graph, it looked like everything was -- the tonnage was
increasing, or did you have tonnage on there?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Let me pull that graph up. What happens --
this is the total waste stream for the county. The number at the top
fluctuates based -- this includes private businesses that haul material
waste. These reports are given to FDEP, and we get the information.
So there may be other businesses that get captured, but it's a total
waste stream.
So the total waste stream will fluctuate up and down, where the
landfill consistently, what's being buried, has decreased for the last 10
years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the graph that I was
talking about.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was the graph that showed the
number of years, different years.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Is this the graph you're referring to,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Which one shows the
tonnage?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. There's actually -- this just shows the
years and the balance of remaining tons available for disposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the actual life
expectancy is increasing of the existing site?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. So we're -- and
where does it come in -- okay, 20 -- vertical expansion -- no, you want
to correct that, that it's not actually 200 feet you're looking for. Comes
Page 92
Packet Page -250-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
in at 2028. So we actually have 18 years life left of the existing
landfill.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. We actually have, based on this chart,
currently up to 2039.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2039?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct, of years left.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2039 until -- d
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Then it's full to capacity bas e on y our
current policy and program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now does that include infill
also?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas •
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to ha ve Jim Delon ail that all of
come up to the mike and talk about -- in regards to the email
us received in regards to the purchase of this land, and may be we can
get some clarification on that.
There's always two sides to every story, and so I want to get the
other side of the story.
d, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
MR. DeLONY: For the recor
Administrator.
I think that you heard the side that dealt with the landowner who
wants to sell his land, and the land is adjacent to your current landfill.
If you'd put the slide up, Dan, please, that has the picture of your
landfill and shows that property. t a landfill you're going to
And the argument is, is that you g ° it available or sale, and
need a landfill. I have property, and I have
that's the basis of the understanding
The reason we went to see Mr. Lewis in the beginning was in the
very early stages prior to your workshop on Integrated Solid Would
Management to look and find as many options as possible so I
Page 93
Packet Page -251-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
present those to you as solutions to our, at that time, I thought a very
important and compelling problem for our county, and that was, we
were running out of space.
We looked at this, among many other things, in terms of
horizontal expansion, in other words, moving either north or west or
south in terms of the original footprint, current footprint, of the
landfill. Elevation, which we're talking about today, was one of those
options, and many, many others. And that's how we began
negotiations with Mr. Lewis and his property.
Throughout this process, we've had many discussions, and we
have worked very hard to come to an understanding of the potential o f
this property to serve the needs of the solid waste program.
Right now it's not such that I would make that recommendation
to you. We're not at that point. And the one reason that I would not
make that recommendation to you is certainly nothing about Mr.
Lewis' property, but the fact that you have property currently with the
landfill, 80 acres to be exact. And if you would look at your screen, I
would point that -- on this screen here, it is that area, this area here,
which is in the southwest corner of the current landfill that we could
expand our landfill horizontally.
What property you own, we own, and that we have the ability to
do any offset -- any mitigations or any other associated development
to bring that horizontal expansion into being.
So my recommendation would be to look at our own internal
access before -- assets before we would look at purchasing others.
Sir, I don't know if I've answered your question, but I did try to
provide both sides of the story.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have some additional questions for you
about that.
Discuss the permitting issues related to this property that was
Page 94
Packet Page -252-
1/28/2014 11.D.
October 26, 2010
offered to you for sale.
MR. DeLONY: It's very problematic for me to discuss them with
any certainty. The property has never been asked -- the permitting
agencies have never been asked to permit for a landfill operation.
Regrettably, in terms of using this property as an expansion of
our existing thing, there is a problem. And if you'll look at this map,
you can almost see it in there on the western side -- excuse me -- yes,
the eastern side of Mr. Lewis', property, you see there's a little line
there. That's the wet side of the property. About 100 acres -plus, in the
documentation I've seen is really considered jurisdictional wetlands.
Those wetlands, which are on the -- are adjacent to our current
landfill site, would have to be mitigated at considerable expense, if
we're able to do it.
There is additional entitlements on this property associated with
the endangered species as well as stormwater issues that I -- would
have to all be addressed as part of the developmental plan if it were
your decision to expand horizontally into this particular footprint or
this set of properties, all of which are going to carry a cost, you know,
and that -- various costs associated with it. But certainly if your initial
cost acquisition is -- I believe, Wally, you said $20 million was your
current offer?
MR. LEWIS: In that range.
MR. DeLONY: And then you'd have to put those mitigation
costs up on top of that. That could be considerable. I don't have an
estimate. We've looked at it only cursory, Toni. Have we got --
anywhere from 9 to $13 million would be a current estimate just to
strip the entitlements off the land so we can move it into an
operational landfill facility.
And again, I'm sorry to give you those numbers, but I have
give you a range. We do not know. The permitting activities t hat
have been done for this property was developed, I believe, into some
type of commercial space, or like an office park or, excuse me, a
Page 95
Packet Page -253-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
commercial park. And that's my understanding of that.
Did I answer your question, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I think you did.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you please explain to
me what 200 feet above grade means on this particular site?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. The current landfill -- if you were
standing out there today, the current height of everything there is 108
feet. That's what we're authorized. So that's 108 from grade, from
elevation from --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's grade?
MR. DeLONY: -- zero. From zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, zero.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: From zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's even with the street rather
than --
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even with the street rather than even
with --
MR. DeLONY: Again, it's elevation zero, 108 feet from
elevation zero, ground zero. You know, elevation zero. And it's 108
feet above zero.
For example, your home would probably be today 11 feet, okay,
maybe 13. Okay. That -- above zero, sea level.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'd like to make a motion to
.-. approve this application to be sent to the Florida Department of
Page 96
Packet Page -254-
1/28/2014 11. D.
October 26, 2010
Environmental Protection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the staff s recommendations, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
And we're going to break for lunch. We'll be back at 1:02.
MR. OCHS: We have a 1:02 time certain then, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a 1:02 time certain, right.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You ready, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. We're going to go to?
MR. OCHS: Item l OH, sir --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: IOH.
MR. OCHS: -- which is your one p.m. time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #I OH
Page 97
Packet Page -255-
1/28/2014 11. C
00298480005 alp NO SITE AI)DRIr:SS
+t / 0*4 A T RECOVERY XVIII LLC
`X CARLTON FIELDS PA
,
F
z e l l 3'14PO BOX 019101
.....
S ,� .............. ....................... .«..:..... ,, ..: "....., . ......�... .. ...,.,...__.. ......_ .... _,___....�.. »...,...___...... .. ..._.::,. -»
JP...NSF
�;MiMi _ .�P'33131 -9101
AFL
� !tr'*r "`°T" .•e a... y _ ° �tz.-gar — .+�. -3c 4:+ !
_ ..
:�+ Yap{
'4 �tF�r ,„ rL , i'� '` !r i x xs.�4'•^ �l 4a1'+,:i;!
} t>' 8: {F'�E�i 2sF=rF"�j
l,.a• *. ....... �._..� ....�......,ias&4 ,. h.am.,. ... ..._. t. ���s: �t- ,a:.........,i...�':�:»:..., . »,. .. . #6 nom.- c..>_.:.v,- .......t w,.>.:.:.a_...s.�.. _ ..,, v,, .cb1..:sa...._.._FneiE!1::.nvi .=,.- 6.._.,a .-.. _ ,.
463E 492636 fl01.0,004636 36 49 26 301.55
{ 36 49 26 BEG NW CNR SEC 36 E 2647.82DT, S 5089.75FT, NWLY ALG ARC OF CUR
• � y ��� #eF; E
,f ?:CONC TO NE 2381.11FT, NWLY + SWLY ALG ARC OF CUR TO S 305 68FT, N 1 DEG
FT, N 2673.79FT TO POB
SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPARABLE No-1 7-COMPARABLE. N£?.2 COMPARABLE Nt7.,3
Address: NO SITE ADDRESS
9220 COLLIER BLVD
4697 OIL WELL RD
NO -SITE ADDRESS €
Proximity o
Subject
WILILOWRUN
WINCHESTER LAKES
SABAL BAY t MINTO
Sales price
$32 500row
OF 512:540.000
Y '
'$68,000,000
wl"�
Unit Price
58;000 ac ',
19 ODD ac '
�
37.000 ac
PRGtR1 =RTY APA'R
-
Date Source
REC
Property b2praiser Saies.Data
Property 8mmmer Sales Data
pprajaer Sales Date
Date of Sale &
DESCRIPTION
DESCRPTION Adiustment
DESCRIPTION
' Adlustmant
_EE222qy2A
DESCRIPTION
Adlustmeril
Time Ad €ustment
_.
LIS't31riG I Minus 20%
LISTING
Minus 20%
12t29112
� $0
Location
CR 951 FSECK RD
CR 951 $0
OIL WELL RD
PLUS 20%
EAST NAPLES
0 °k• $
ZONING
A / IND OVERLAY
A.I PUD ! $0
Al CU
Phis 40%
PUD
MINUS 1
utilities Available
Electric / Water
E ;,k, + $0
Enuai
$L
Equal
SD ,
Size /Acres
305'.6'+/-
550 " $0
854 me
$0
1.838 ac
PLUS
View
acreage
sera l $0
scram
$D
acreage
SO j
ACCESS
ACCESS I
A xw $0
Acoess
$0
Access
SO
States or'Financog
Casty $0
CASH
CASH
Concessions
Net Ad j. Dial
t •11.600
7,600
0
iSn�d t8d value of
2 '600 AC
,I.
37, DOD AG
46,400 AC
Indicated Unit
Value
j'
comments on Market Data: The subject property is approx 305.6acres +I- acres_ there .is approx 102 acres of wetlands. Taking
203,6ac x $37,000 is $7,533,2.00 plus102ac x,$9.804 is V,00D,D00 adding both values, resulting in $8,533.200 dollars
•:;
The $37.000 peEacre is the averse estimated value The hi h end ofi the range is _305.6 x$37,000 is 311,307,200 dollars. ,
Taking into consideration the comparable market data and the current condition of:the subject ° property is estimated to
be $8.533,200 dollars. There 'are two factors not taken into consideration first is a low market demand for the subject
property due tothe location, a4lacentto a landfill. The second factor is the costof mitigation for the subject property.
Roosevelt Leonard
5/08/2013
Packet Page -256-
H,%? _ � -!ems s •� � �� �} ��"""� 1
=^AFi b a
a' v
4�� oY '4i�irYF' fi'_x, el]R"• � F" � -• 'h { �� �.t
re ash t y �, a
elk
Fv-
a ASW*