The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02/22/2011 Item # 6A 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. Office of the County Manager Leo E. Ochs, Jr. 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Naples Florida 34112-5746' (239) 252-8383' FAX: (239) 252-4010 February 9, 2011 Mr. John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way #412 Naples FL34112 Re: Public Petition Request by John Lundin requesting that the Board of County Commissioners pay his legal fees in the amount of $8,738.68 for the lawsuit "Lundin vs. Coyle et al"; Case 10-6034- CA, Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Court Dear Mr. Lundin, Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of February 22, 2011, regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on-going Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it has been presented. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ~~~~ Mike Sheffield Business Operations Manager MJS:mjb cc: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Packet Page -24- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. BrockMary ~rom: jent: To: Subject: Attachments: TorreJohn Wednesday, February 09, 2011 5:37 PM BrockMary FW: Request to Speak under Public Petition BCCpublicpetition.pdf From: Qothiclilies@aof.com rmailto:aothiclilies@aof.coml Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 5:33 PM To: OchsLeo; TorreJohn; HillerGeorgia Cc: Ifreeman@naolesnews.com; dhusty@news-press.com; ramills(Ci)naplesnews.com; diosborn(Ci)naolesnews,com; kalbers@naplesnews.com; jlvtle(Ci)naplesnews.com; ahale(Ci)naolesnews.com; rwilliams(Ci)f1oridaweeklv.com; russell@tuffnews.com; dnalbers@bonitanews.com; kmbishoo(Ci)naolesnews.com; news@colliercitizen.com; tmiguel(Ci)naolesnews.com; tlaten@naplesnews.com; features@naplesnews.com; pplewis@naplesnews.com; editor@naplessuntimes.com; bannereditor@bonitanews.com; mclark(Ci) naplesnews.com; jfochoa(Ci)naplesnews.com; AAswift@naplesnews.com; bbatten@naplesnews.com; mmchan(Ci)news-oress.com; dholmes(Ci)fortmver ,gannett.com; rtennant(Ci)Fortmyer .9annett.com; szoldan(Ci)Fortmver.aannett.com; fgluck@news-oress.com; fgluck@Fortmyer.gannett.com; acisner(Ci)eaale.facu.edu; cithomps@eagle.fgcu.edu; ihaves@edison.edu; iamonrov@eagle.facu.edu; marisa.brahney@nbc-2.com; onolan(Ci)wftx4.com; news@fox4now.com; newstips@abc-7.com; chris.cifatte(Ci)winktv .com; renee.stoll(Ci)winknews.com; winknews(Ci)winktv .com; mike.baldvga@abc-7.com; darrel.adams@abc-7.com; jamie. vuccas(Ci) nbc-2.com; iudd.cribbs@winktv.com; jason. nguyen@winknews.com Subject: Request to Speak under Public Petition Request to Speak under Public Petition (attached) Collier Board of County Commissioners Attention: Leo Ochs, County Manager Date of the Board Meeting you wish to speak: Feb. 22, 2011 Reason you are requesting to speak: Commissioners Jim Coletta and Donna Fiala violated the Florida Sunshine Law on July 16-17, 2010 on a "fact finding tou,. to Jackson Labs in Bar Harbor, Maine. I perfonned a civic duty in the public interest by exposing the Sunshine Violation by filing a lawsuit. Action you are asking the Commission to take: I request the Board of County Commissioners to pay my legal fees for the lawsuit "Lundin vs. Coyle et a"" (Case No. 10-6034-CA) Circuit Court 20th Judicial District, in the amount of $8, 738.68. The lawsuit has been voluntary dismissed. John Lundin 407-920-2422 (Back up Documents) Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Feb. 4, 2011) Plaintiff's Attorney Invoices Government-In- The-Sunshine-Manua/, pg. 51-52, 70-72 (2010 Edition) CollierBCC minutes, pg. 73-75 (June, 8, 2010) Fax to Commissioner Fiala (June 15, 2010) Commissioner Coletta Request for Board Approval (July 16-18,2010) Commissioner Fiala Request for Board Approval (July 16, 2010) Naples Daily News, "Two Commissioners support Jackson Labs" (July 18, 2010) Collier BCC Minutes, pg. 1-13 (July 27, 2010) Naples Daily News, "Jackson Lab: Commisioners approve loan (July 27,2010) ~) Photographs: Coletta and Fiala at Jackson Labs "fact finding tour" (July 16-17, 2010) 1 Packet Page -25- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. Reauest to Speak under Public Petition Please print ~OHN LUND\N Address: 3Q"r fLANfATlDN WA\.1 '"* 1/~ --1VAfLt~ 'fL 3411~ J ) Phone: 407 - 0 J..O- ~4~ ~'E:a - 9 2011 Name: Date of the Board Meetina vou wish to speak: FEB. d.~/ ~ f) II Must circle yes or no: Is this subject matter under litigation at this time? Yes @ Is this subject matter an ongoing Code Enforcement case? Yes @ Note: If either answer is "yes", the Board will hear the item but will have no discussion regarding the item after it is presented. Please explain in detail the reason vou are reauestina to speak (attach additional paae if necessarv): (bl~1"tt\+ (-'1M \JIOlftT'eJ) 1a~ flo~o.1.~N5Hf~ /.tt.W .. Please explain in detail the action vou are askina the Commission to take (attach additional paae if necessarv): .1 V' ~l H:\Mary-Jo\Public Petition Request Fonn - 2008 new fonn.doc Packet Page -26- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION JOHN LUNDIN. PlaintitT. vs. CASE NO. 10-6034-CA FRED W. COYLE, FRANK HALAS. JIM COLLETf A, DONNA FIALA, and TOM I-IENNING. as the duly elected Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Defendants, / PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Plaintiff hereby gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was fumished vi~ U.S. Mail IJ Facsimile IJ Hand Delivery to: Jacqueline Williams Hubbard, Esquire, Office of the County Attorney, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 81h Floor, Naples, Florida 34112, and Gregory T. Stewart, Esquire, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 on this 4'day of February. 2011. By: SEEN CARTA. ESQUIRE F "Cia Bar No.: 126494 Packet Page -27- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. HENDERSON & CARTA ~~d~ ROBERT P. HENDERSON STEVEN CARTA. 1619 JACKSON STREET POST OFFICE Box 1906 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902 . BOARD CERTIFIED-REAL ESTATE October 01,2010 TELEPHONE (239) 332-3366 FACSIMILE (239) 332-7082 John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way, Unit 412 Naples FL 34112 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: RE: Board of Collier County Commissioners/Sunshine Law Invoice #6186 Professional Services HrslRate Amount 1.00 350.00 350.00/hr 2.20 770.00 350.00/hr 3.20 $1,120.00 ($3,500.00) ($3,500.00) ($2,380.00) 9/29/2010 Conference with J. Lundin. 9/30/2010 Draft Complaint; review and redraft Complaint; draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J. Lundin. For professional services rendered 9/30/2010 Retainer - Thank you (Check #: 130) Total payments and adjustments Credit balance Please make checks payable to STEVEN CARTA, ESQUIRE Packet Page -28- HENDERSON & CARTA ~d~ 1619 JACKSON STREET POST OFFICE Box 1906 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. RO:BERT P. HENDERSON STEVEN CARTA · November 02,2010 TELEPHONE (239) 332-3366 FACSIMILE (239) 332-7082 . BOARD CERTIFIED-REAL ESTATE John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way, Unit 412 Naples FL 34112 FOR PROFE:SSIONAL SE:RVICE:S: RE: Board of Collier County Commissioners/Sunshine Law Invoice #6228 Professional Services 10/1/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin; telephone conference with J. Lundin; review e-mail and _ from J. Lundin; telephone conference with J. Lundin redraft Complaint and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply. 10/4/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and redraft Complaint. 10/7/2010 Review and redraft Final Complaint Review e-mail from J. Lundin. 1')/B!2r)'10 Revi'3,'; e-mail ann County r:!or.ulTle.,ts frlJm J. L1mdin; review e-mail and telephone conference S. Kolpil-.iBC, [elephone conference with News-Press Reporter; draft e-mail to J. Lundin. 10/11/2010 Review e-mail from T. Pires, draft reply and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; telephone conference with T. Hanson/Naples Daily News; telephone conference with J. Lundin; review e-mails to T. Pires; telephone conference with T. Pires; review e-mails from T. Pires; telephone conference with L. Finch/Naples Daily New 10/12/2010 Review e-mails from J. Lundin. 10/13/2010 Draft e-mail to J. Lundin; teler:>hone conference with J. Lundin: telephone conference with J. Wong/ Portland Radio Packet Page -29- Hrs/Rate Amount 1.40 350.00/hr 490.00 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.90 315.00 350.00/h( 1.50 525.00 350.00/hr 0.20 350.00/hr 0.90 350.00/hr 70.00 315.00 John Lundin 10/15/2010 review e-mails from J. Lundin; draft e-mail to T. Pires and review reply. 10/18/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply. 10/20/2010 Review e-mails and attachments from T. Pires, draft reply and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review e-mail and photos from T. Pires and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply. 10/25/2010 Review Notice of Appearance and returns of service; review e-mails from T. Pires and draft e-mails to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J. Lundin;review e-mails from T. Pires and dJ. Lundin and draft reply, 10/26/2010 Review e-mails from T. Pires and J. Lundin. For professional services rendered 11/2/2010 Payment - Thank you (from Trust) Total payments and adjustments Balance due Please make checks payable to STEVEN CARTA, ESQUIRE Packet Page -30- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. Page 2 Hrs/Rate Amount 0.50 175.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.60 210.00 350.00/hr 0.90 315.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 7.90 $2,765.00 ($385.00) ($385.00) $2,380.00 HENDERSON & CARTA ~d~ 1619 JACKSON STREET POST OFFICE Box 1906 FORT MYERS. FLORIDA 33902 ROBERT P. HENDERSON STEVEN CARTA · . BOARD CERTIFIED-REAL ESTATE December 01, 2010 John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way, Unit 412 Naples FL 34112 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. TELEPHONE (239) 332-3366 FACSIMILE (239) 332-7082 FOR PROFE:SSIONAL SE:RVICE:S: RE: Board of Collier County Commissioners/Sunshine Law Invoice #6246 Professional Services 11/1/2010 Draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review photographs from J. Lundin. 11/2/2010 Telephone conference with J. Lundin 11/8/2010 Review e-mail from J. Hubbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin. 11/9/2010 Review Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, legal research regarding "judicial notice" and draft e-mail to J. Lundin. 11/10/2010 Telephone conference with J. Lundin; legal research legal analysis and draft Motion for Attorney fee's and draft correspondence to J. Hubbard; review e-mail from J. Lundin regarding article; draft e-mail to J. '_undin. 11/12/2010 Review e-mail from J. Hubbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; telephone conference with J. Lundin. 11/17/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply and review e-mail from J. Lundin. 11/22/2010 Review e-mails from J. Lundin regarding lawsuits. 11/29/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply; telephone conference with J. Lundin. 11/30/2010 Review e-mail and Request for Admissions from T. Hubbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; telephone conference with J. Lundin. Packet Page -31- Hrs/Rate Amount 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 1.40 490.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 0.30 105.00 350.00/hr 0.30 105.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. John Lundin For professional services rendered Hours 4.40 Additional Charges: 11/15/2010 Service of Process/Complaint upon Defendant Total costs Total amount of this bill Balance due Please make checks payable to STEVEN CARTA, ESQUIRE Packet Page -32- Page 2 Amount $1,540.00 90.00 $90.00 $1,630.00 $1,630.00 1 HENDERSON & CARTA ~d~ 1619 JACKSON STREET POST OFFICE Box 1906 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. ROBERT P. HENDERSON STEVEN CARTA' "BOARD CERTIFIED-REAL ESTATE January 03, 2011 TELEPHONE (239) 332-3366 FACSIMILE (239) 332-7082 John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way, Unit 412 Naples FL 34112 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, RE: Board of Collier County Commissioners/Sunshine Law Invoice #6273 Professional Services 12/1/2010 Review e-mail and answer to Request for Admissions; draft Response to Request for Admissions and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J, Lundin and draft reply/ 1217/2010 Review e-mail from J. Lundin regarding NDN Story and draft reply; review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply. 12/15/2010 Review e-mail and Request for Production of Documents from J. Hubbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin; tele;phone conference with J. Lundin; review correspondence from J. Hubbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin. 12/16/2010 Telephone conference with T. Pires; draft e-mail to J. Hubbard and to J. Lundin; review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply, 12/17/2010 Review e-mail from J. Hubbard and draft reply. 12/20/2010 Review Request for Production of Documents and draft response; draft e-mail to J. Lundin. For professional services rendered Previous balance 12/16/2010 Payment - Thank you (From Trust) Total payments and adjustments Packet Page -33- Hrs/Rate Amount 1.00 350.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 0.70 245.00 350.00/hr 0.70 245.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.70 245.00 350.00/hr 3.70 $1,295.00 $1,630.00 ($1,085.00) ($1,085.00) 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. John Lundin Page 2 Amount Balance due ~ $1 ,~o.oo ~ ---- ( i~f',{) Please make checks payable to STEVEN CARTA, ESQUIRE Packet Page -34- 1.,\ \\ C 1......11.1.; oJ-' 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. ~;rf'EVEN (;A l~rI'A, ]{;SQ. ~ne'p a~ ~w :: I:::; 1.'1 HS'!' ~'I'J{EI';"'. ~I '1'1'1<: III I J'I 1ST 1 lJo'I"II ..': III IX illll 1"01:'1' MYI';W";, FI.OI:lI.l,\ :\:111":: "'1,;1.1.;1'1111:"1';: 1:!:l\U :~:I~-7~i7 F,\C'SI:\III.E: (:::lm :\:\~.ill~1 1';.;\1" II.: SI''\ 1~'I'.\ II i(~:,\C 11..1 '1.1:\1 H/J"H II ('~;WrWII.;n.IH;.\J. I~S'l',\'l'J'; February 07,2011 John Lundin 3524 Plantation Way, Unit 412 Naples FL 34112 RE: Board of Collier County Commissioners/Sunshine Law Invoice #6315 Professional Services Hrs/Rate Amount 0.30 105.00 350.00/hr 0.40 140.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 0.20 70.00 350.00/hr 1.10 $385.00 2/1/2011 Review e-mail and interrogatories from J. Habbard and draft e-mail to J. Lundin. 2/2/2011 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply; draft Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 2/4/2011 Review e-mail from J. Lundin and draft reply. 2/7/2011 Review e-mail from J. Lundin an ddraft reply For professional services rendered Additional Charges: 2/2/2011 Postage 2/3/2011 Postage 2/4/2011 Postage 0.44 0.88 1.32 Total costs $2.64 Total amount of this bill $387.64 Previous balance $2,836.04 ($1,325.00) 2/1/2011 Payment - Thank you (Check#: 093) Packet Page -35- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. John Lundin Page 2 Amount Total payments and adjustments Balance due ($1,325.00) $1,898.68 Please make checks payable to STEVEN CARTA, ESQUIRE Packet Page -36- t{ V ~~. \,. L ~t t:f, t".:. ~.; t:t: I,' .'.~.-i-.'......"..'... ~'.' :Jt ~k:, .~~;:: GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE-MANUAl For example, s. 120.525(2), ES., relluires that agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act must prepare an agenda in time to ensure that a copy may be received at least seven days before the event by any person in the state who requests a copy and who pays the n:asonable cost of the copy. After the agenda has been made available, changes may be made only for good cause. ld. Therefore, agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act must follow the relfuircmt:nts in lhat statute. See Inf. 01" to Mattimore, February 6, 1996 (notice of each item to be discusscd at public meeting is not required under s. 286.011, ES., although other statutes, codes, or rules, such as Ch. 120, ES., may impose such a requirement). Mort:owr, evt:n though the Sunshine L.'\w does not prohibit a board from adding topics to the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting, the Attorney General's Office has advised boards to postpone form~ll action on any added items that are controversial. AGO 03-5.l "In the spirit of the Sunshine Law, the city commission should be sensitive to I ht: cummunity's concerns that it be allowed advance notice and, therefore, meaningful participation on controversial issues coming before the commission." Id. 3. Does the Sunshine Law limit where meetings of a public board or commission may be held? a. Inspection trips The Sunshine Law docs not prohibit advisory boards from conducting inspection trips provided that the board members do not discuss matters which may come before the board for offlcial action. See Bigelow v. Howze, 291 So. 2e1 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (where two of five county commissioners, as members of a fact-finding committee, went on an inspection trip to Tennessee they should not have discussed what reconlll1t:lldations the committee would make while they were still on their trip, but should have waited until such discussion could occur at a meeting held in compliance with the Sunshine Law). And see AGO 02-24 (two or more members of an advisory p;l"OUp created by a city code to make recommendations to the city council or planninp; commission on proposed development may conduct vegetation surveys without subjecting themselves to the notice and minutes requirements of the Sunshine Law, provided that dley do not discuss among themselves any recommendations the committee may make to the council or planning commission, or comments on the proposed development that the committee may make to city officials). .. . The "fact-finding" exception to the Sunshine Law, however. does not apply to a f'.b~with "lIltlrmlte decision-making authority." Su Finch v. Seminole County Sc!JooL ;:t~Bo- 995 So. .2d 106H W!a. 5t~ DCA 20(8), in which the court held that a district .";:;.school board VIOlated the Sunshme Law when the board, together WIth several school '~:. ofJicials and two members of the media, took a bus tour of nei~hborhoods affected :C by the board's proposed rezoning. School board members were separated from each :.. o~on the hus, did not express any opinions or their preference for any of the rezoning plans, and did not vote during the trip. However, since the board was the ulrlfiio:'tte decision-making body, the conduct of the bus tour constituted a violation of ~unshine I.aw. Luncheon meetings 51 GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE-MANUAL Public access to meetings of public boards or commissions is the key clement of the Sunshine Law and public agencies are advised to avoid holdinJl; meetings in places not easily accessible to the public. The Attorney General's Office, therefore, has suggested that public boards or commissions avoid the use of luncheon meetings to conduct board or commission business. These meetings may have a "chilling" effect upon the public's willingness or desire to attend. People who would otherwise attend such 1\ meeting may be unwilling or reluctant to enter a public dining room without purchasing a meal and may be financially or personally unwilling to do so. Inf. Op. to Campbell, February 8, 1999; and Inf. Op. to Nelson, May 19, 19RO. In addition, discussions at such meetings by members of the board or commission which arc audible only to those seated at the table may violate the "openness" requirement of the law. AGO 71-159. Public boards or commissions are, therefore, advised to avoid holding meetings at places where the public and the press arc effectivdy excluded. AGO 71-295. Cf City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 3R, 41 (rIa. 1971), in which the Florida Supreme Court observed: "A secret meeting occurs when public officials meet at a time and place to avoid being seen or heard by the puhlic." c. Meetings at facilities that discriminate or unreasonably restrict access prohibited Section 286.011 (6), ES., prohibits boards or commissions subject to the Sunshine Law from holding their meetings at any facility which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status, or which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility. And See s. 2H6.26, (':S., rdating to accessibility of public meetinh'S to the physically handicapped. Thus, a police pension board should not hold its meetings in a filcility where the public has limited access and where there may be a "chillingu effect on the public's willingness to attend by l"elJuiring the public to provide identification, to leave such identification while attending the meeting and to reGuest permission before entering the room where the meeting is held. AGO 96-55. And See /\GO 05-13, concluding that a city may not reGuire persons wishing to attend public meetings ro provide identitication as a condition of attendance. This is not to say, however, that an agency may not impose cerrain security measures on members of the public entering a public building, such as requiring the public to go through metal detectors. !d. Tho Attorney General's Office has also expressed concerns about holding a public meeting i~ a private home in light of the possible "chilling effect" on the public's willingness tc? attend, See Inf. Op. to Galloway, August 21, 2008. d. Out-of-town meetings The courts have recognized that the mere fact that a meeting is held in a public room does not make it public within the meaning of the Sunshine Law. B~r;efo/l! v. Howu, 291 So. 2d 645, 647-648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Fora meeting to be "public,u the public must be given advance notice and provided with a reasonable opportunity to attend. Id. Accordingly, a school board workshop held outside county limits over too miles away from the board's headquarters violated the Sunshine Law where the only advantage 52 GOVERNMENl to the board resulting from the ou expense due to the fact that the b site) did not outweigh the interest~ to attend, Rhea v. School Board ~ 1994). The court refused to adopt held at a site more than 100 miles I balancing of interests test is the mt predominates in a given case. As 5 having a reasonable opportunity to the Board's need to conduct a worl at 1385. In addition, there may be othel held. See e.g., s. 125.001, F.S. (mee be held at any appropriate public p meetings may be held at any appro 03-03 and 75-139 (municipality may its boundaries). Conduct which occurs 01'~ t of the Sunshine fM'IW is a see. )Ie violations are prosecuted in the co conducts its official business. Secti( 4. Can restrictions be placed on a public meeting? a. Public's right to attend or reo (1) Size of meeting facilities .. The Sunshine Law requires th "open to the public." For meetinw public boards and commissions sho where the mt:eting will be held wit held at a facilitv which can accomm when a large p'ublic turnout can rea rClJuirement of S. 286.011, I~S., by 1 huge public turnout is anticipated f, meeting room cannot accommodr. lIse of video rt:chnology (e.g., a tel appropriate. I n such cases, as with ( opportunity for public participation (2) Inaudible discussions A violation of the Sunshine LT board members discuss issues bef to the public attending the rr.~: nonetheless violates the letter. 1 Packet Page -38- GOVERNMENT-IN-THE-SUNSHINE-MANUAL Gtt!fCotmty, Florida, 600 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (court rejected plaimiff's argument that she was denied a fair and impartial hearing because rhe board only hridly deliberated in public before a vote was taken, stating that there was no evidence that the board had privately deliberated on this issue); and Law and Informatioll St'rvim /1. City ofRivi~ra Beacb. 670 So, 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (patent speculation. absent any allegation that a nonpublic meeting in fact occurred, is insufficient to statl' a cause of action). Future violations may be enjoined by the court where one violatioll has heen found and it appears that the future violation will bear some resemhlance to the past violation or that the danger of future violations can be anticipated from the course of conduct in the past. Board of Public Instruction of BrowIlrd Cottllty II. Damn, 22-1- So, 2d 693 (Fla. 1969). Su W00d v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (rIa. IlJH3) (trial court's permanent injunction affirmed). Campart Leach- Wells v. City of Bradenton, 734 SI t, 2d 1168, 1170n.l (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which the court noted that hacl a citizen appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for temporary injunction based on a selection committee's alleged violation of the Sunshine l.aw, the appellate court "would have had the opportunity to review this matter before the project was completed and to direct that the City be enjoined from entering into a final contract with the developer until after such time as the ranking of the proposals could be accomplished in c< 1I1lpliance with the Sunshine L'lw." Although a court cannot issue a blanket order enjoining any violation of the Sunshine ] .aw on a showing that it was violated in particular respects, a coun may enjoin a future violation that bears some resemblance to the past violation. Port Everglades Autbority v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local /922-/, (l.'i~ So, 2d 1169, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The future conduct must be "specified, with such reasonable definiteness and certainty that the defendant could readily know what. it must refrain from doing without speculation and conjecture." Id., guoting from Bwtrrl of Public Instruction v. Doran, supra at 699. Declaratory relief is not appropriate where no present dispute exists hut Whlot'l' governmental agencies merely seek judicial advice different from that advanced hy Ih..: Attorney General and the state attorney, or an injunctive restraint on the prosl'cutorial discretion of the state attorney. Askew v. City ofOcala, 3-1-8 So. 2d 30H (1'1:1. 11)77), 6. Validity of action taken in violation of the Sunshine Law and subsequent corrective action Section 286,0 II, ES., provides that no resolution, rule, regulation or formal act ion shall be considered binding except as taken or made at an open meeting. Rccohrrllzing that the Sunshine Law should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices, the courts have held that action taken in \'iolation of the law is void fib initio. Town of Ptllm Beach v. Gmdison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974); Blackford 1/. Schoo/ Board ofOmnge County, 375 So. 2J 578 (Fla. 5th DC1\ 1979) (resolutiuns made dming meetin!-,'5 held in violation of s. 286.01/, ES., had to be re-examined and re-discussed in open public meetings); Silz'er E-.;pl'~ss Company v. District Board of LOll/a hilJIIl/al Trwtees, 691 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (agency enjoined from emering into a 70 GOVER contract based on a rankir accordance with the Sunsl (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (coni board failed to properly t1I ^ violation of the SUI to be invalidated, because a resulting official action law or resulting prejudice Association, Local 1922-1 , I Properties, Inc. v. City of Tn So, 2d 343 (Fla. 1979) (cit from claiming contract im Law). Where, however, a p ratify or ceremoniously aCI at an earlier secret meetinf the decision of the board, Liberty County, 39H So. 2d by independent, final actio Beach, H23 SO. 2d 167, 17' 2d 515 (rIa" 1st DCA 19f 735 (Fla, 4th DCA 1982) subscl.Juent formal action decisions or ceremonial al BoaI'd 995 So. 2d 1068, 1 sch,)[)j board was cured ~ plan was the subject of e: Cf Board ofCoutlty Comrr. DCA 1995) (no evidence to reconsider and deny a public hearing held a few Thus, in a case invo commissioners after an : the lease, a court held tr. of count\' commissioner: efti lrt wa~ madc to make the hoard approved a Ie: the advisorv committee, advisory c~mmittee had Park, [nc" 647 So. 2d 85' adoption of the open go the I:jorida Constitution, 861. I t must be cmphasiz a violation of the Sunsh .1. t rejected plaintiff's Ie board only briefly as no evidence that formation Services v. speculation, absent ient to state a cause violation has been nblance to the past ~d from the course ~unty v. Doran, 224 1983) (trial court's '{1tUnton, 734 So. 2d d a citizen appealed lsed on a selection Irt "would have had ,Ieted and to direct the developer llntil ihed in compliance .y violation of the pects, a court may 1st violation. Port al 1922-1, 652 So. ;pecified, with such lCilly know what it [uoting from Board e exists but where at advanced by the n the prosecutorial 08 (Fla. 1977). nd subsequent n or formal action ting. as to frus trate all . the law is void ab Blackford v. School tions made during 1 and re-discusscd of Lower Tribunal m entering into a. _U~2/2011Item 6.A. contract based on a ranking established qy a selection committee that did not meet in accordancewith the Sunshine-Lllw); andTSI Southeast, Inc. v. Royals, 588 So. 2d 309 (FIa. 1st DCA 1991) (contrnct for sale and purchase of real property voided because . hoatdfailed to properly notice the meeting under s. 286.011, ES.). A violation of the Sunshine Law need not be "clandestine" in order for a contract ~\. to be invalidated, because "the principle that a Sunshine Law violation renders void \;......e-..resulting official action does not depend upon a finding of intent to violate the .:; law OJ: rc.'iultin~ prejudice." Port EverglatUS Authority v. International Longshoremen's ~:. Association, LOC(11 1922-1, 652 So. 2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Bllt See Kilkarn ~.. Properties, Inc. II. City ofTttllahassee 366 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied,378 . So. 2d 343 (pIa. 1979) (city which had received benefits under contract was estopped from claiming contract invalid as having been entered into in violmion of the Sunshine L'lw). Where, however, a public board or commission does not merely perfunctorily ratify or cerClll1 'niously accept :\t a latcr open meeting those decisions which were made -'at an eaJ.'lier secret meeting but rather takes "iodependcot..liaal action in the sunshine," the decision of the hoard or commission will not be disturbed. Tolar v. School Board of Liberty County, 398 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 1981). Sunshine Law violations "can be cured by independcnt, final action completely in the Sunshinc." Bruckner v. City of Dania B~ach, 823 So. 2e1 167, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). And See Yarbrough v. Yollng, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); B.MZ Corporation v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So. 2d 735 (Fla, 4th DCA (982) (where no evidence that any decision was made in private, . subsequent formal action in sunshine was not merely perfunctory ratification of secret decisions or ccrcmonial acceptance of secret actions); Pinch v. Seminole COUTlty School Board, 995 So. 2d 1068, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (inadvertent Sunshine violation by school hoard was cured by subse'Iuent well attended public hearings where rezoning "~plan wa.~ the subject of extensive public comment and debate before being adopted). ..' Cf Board o/County Commissioners ofSarllJota County v. Webber, 658 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (no cvidence suggesting that board members met in secret during a recess to reconsider and deny a variance and then perfunctorily ratified this decision at the public hcarill~ held a fcw minutes later). Thus, in a casc involving the validity of a lease approved by a board of county commissiol1l.:rs after an advisory committee held two unnoticed meetings regarding the lease, a CI lUrt held that the Sunshine Law violations were cured when the board of county commissioncrs held open public hearing:; after the unnoticed meetings, an effort was made to makc available to the public the minutes of the unnoticed meeting:;, the board appflJ\"cd a lease that was markedly different from that recommended by the advisory committee, and most of the lease negotiations were conducted after the advisory Ct lI11mittce had concluded its work. Monroe COllnty v. Pigeon Key Historical Park. II/C., (147 So. 2d 857, 860-H61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The court also said that the adoption of lhe open ~ovcrnment constitutional amendment, found at Art. I, s. 24 of the Florida Constitution, did not overrule the TolaT "standard of remediation." Id. at 861. [t Illllst he t:l11phasized, however. that only a full open hearing will cure the Jefect; a violation of the Sunshine Law will not he cured by a perfunctory ratification of the 71 GOVE.RN MENT - IN-THE -5 U NSHIN E - MANU AI. action taken outside of the sunshine. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. /1, Cm/msl !>~lllings Bank, 535 So. 2d 694 (pIa. 3d DCA 1988). For example, in Zorc I). City (JIVe/'(} BetlclJ, 722 So. 2d 891, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 19/)9), the Fourth District explained why a subse'luent city council meeting did not cLlre the council's prior violation of the SUllshine Law: I t is evident from the record that the meeting was not a full rccxaminati/ In of the issues, but rather, was merely the perfunctory acceptance of the City's prior decision. This was not a full, open public hearing convened for the purpose of enabling the public to express its vicws and participate in the decision-making process. Instead, this was men:ly a Council meeting which was then opened to the public for commcnt at the City's request. There was no significant cliscussion of the issues or a discourse as to the Ian!:,lUage sought to be included. The City Councill11l:n were provided with transcripts of the hearings, but !lone reviewcd the language previously approved, and the Council subsel]L1ently votcd lo deny reconsideration of the wording. Similarly, a public hearing held by a count)' commission following ;1Il advisory committee's violation of the Sunshine L'lw failed to cure the "Sunshine Law problem" because the county commission did not "review the complete deliberative proCl'SS fully in the sunshine." Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority v. Board of GmlllY C'ofJ/llliJsioners, Monroe Cotmty, Florida, No. CA-K-OO-1170 (FIa. 16th Cir. Ct. May /(1,20111). "\X'here there are secret or non-public meetings by an advisory board. . . thl' problem can be cured, but only by scheduling a new meeting of an appropriate deliberativl' bod)' which will cover the same subject matter previously covered in violation of the Sunshine Law." Id. A11d see Gateway Southeast Properties, IlIe. v. TrnvlI of Medii:)" 14 I': I .. \X'. Supp. 20a (Fla. 1 lth Gr. Ct. October 24, 20(6) (subseLJuellt public meeting did Ilol cure the defects of earlier closed meeting where no evidence ...vas presented or cOllsidered at the subse'luent open meeting and no questions were asked or diKcussions pursued by council membcrs). 7. Damages In Dasc(Ju v. Palm Beach County, 988 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th De/\ 200H), rl'llil'1/J rlt'Jlied, 6 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 2009), tbe coun held that an employee who had prevaikd ill her lawKuit alleging that her termination violated the Sunshim: Law was not enritled to rCCllver back pay as an elluitable remedy since the only remedies provided for in the Sunshinc Law were a declaration of the wrongful action as void and reasonable attorney li.'l's. 72 ~;: ~,,"i -~:--' ..; t l~.." . .~; - , ( r f f r -, t'. r, ~ t t J; I"" ~'t G0' A. WHAT IS A PUB, AND COPYING 1. What materials a Section 11 9.011 (12), F. all documents, p; recordings, data p form. characteristi or ordinance or i agency. r~, fi V ~{,~~, ,. The Florida Sup' materials made or rect: used to perpetuate, cc: Schaffer, Reid and Asso. regardless of whether the Legislature has ex. Company, 372 So. 2d ' Records Act, is found ti. r' r; l:r ii ~, ;~: t The term "public statutory definition sta' software, or other matI transmission" can all c is irrelevant; the mater agency in connection' National Collegiate Ath [st DCA tiled Oetobe! but applies, as ...vell, to Hood, 906 So. 2d 122( 20(5), in which the c( 2000 presidential elect nor "perpetuate, comt becomes a public rec( received b\' tht: superv voting." fd. Clearly. as manage, and store infe Yet, the comprchensiv information open to it i" The broad definiri General Opinions and have been found to cc ~ .. 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. . June 8, 2010 . CO?vfMISSIONER FIALA: Would you --when you're doing that, one of the things that -- it seems to have been a great loss, and that is, first of all, ComCast put the government channel, all .of the government channels, all the way down at the end of the 90s, and it's difficult for people. We used to get a lot of people commenting and watching. We like that. We like people to watch our meetings and participate in them. Once they put it down i~to the 90s, the channel surfers didn't come across it anymore. So maybe the new company, nwnber one, would put it up into a channel area where people could see it, and the second thing is, when people who have tried to save money on cable have then switched to either digital or dish, they can't get the government channels at all. So in keeping with this, when you start discussing this with the other cable companies, would you add that the government channel should be allowed? MR.OCHS: Yes, we will. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, if thatagrees-- if the other commissioners agree, of course. .CHAIRMANCOYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It sounds very reasonable. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, do you have any other comments? I'll just jump to you since you were started. The only thing I have is my standard, very quick, update on Jackson Labs discussions. Two things happened just recently . We had a Project lnnovation meeting-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you haven't got to me yet either. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I wasn't intending to get to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner e . Page 73 Packet Page -42- -\ " \ "~J ..~ .. , , . ~ - 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. June 8, 2010 HeMing. . COrviMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow sent a memo to the BCC about traveling to Orlando. I had intentions to go but will yield to the other commissioners that want to go. So that's off my calendar knowing that we have to have just one commissioner travel. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER COLEIT A: And if it's going to be one, it should be you because you're one that's -- I'm sorry, but it should be, because you're going to have a number of dignitaries from our area going up there. You've been on top of this since day one, so it needs to be you; but, however, with that said, I do reserve the right to be able to go back on my own at some future time to be able to view this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, our plan is -- and I'm going on the bus with all of the people because a member of Jackson Labs will be on the bus, and I don't want to leave them alone. I think we should have a representative on that bus with them. So I'm going to ride up on the bus there, and hopefully they'll let me ride back. But our plan was to arrange for all of you to go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually I've made arrangements for me to go already, and separately. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to go, but I was told it would be a violation of the Sunshine Law. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We are prepared to take you up there individually if you wish. The EDC will coordinate that for you. COMMISSIONER COLEIT A: Let's refer to our COWlty attorney. How can we do this? Can we advertise this ahead of time? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, no. It can't be a public meeting because it's too far away from here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not having two commissioners there at the same time. We're talking about them going up independently at different times -- Page 74 Packet Page -43- '-'...,-..... ~~ I I - ~ 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. I June 8, 2010 MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COLEIT A: Oh, oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- so that we don't have to advertise it; we won't have a conflict. And the same thing could apply to trips to Bar Harbor, too. So, you know, I'd hate to create a situation where we have even the suspicion that two commissioners are going to be at the same place at the same time, because that always creates roomers, and I don't care how careful you are. But we have discussed this at the EDC and at staff level, and the staff is going up there independently, too, to talk with some of the people, and we're setting up video conferences with the people in Orlando so that we can have discussions with them about what their experiences were and how they went about negotiating an arrangement and how successful it's been. We don't want to have to be running up there every week to do that, so we're going to try to set up video conferences with them. So yeah, please, if you want to go see these things, there are ways to do it individually without complicating the Sunshine Law. So you just let the county manager know. And EDC is going up there from time to time. They have committed to arranging a tour for you whenever it is convenient for you. So by all means, take advantage of that. And we'll deal with the sunshine thing by handling it that way and having individual meetings. Okay. Everybody happy? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, anything you want to add to that? MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Okay, I think it was Commissioner Henning. We're never sure ifhe's finished. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll let you know later. I'm not sure. Page 75 Packet Page -44- ) -. " 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. PACSIMlLE TRANSMIITAL PO~ BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 PHONE (239) 252-8097 FAX: (239) 252-3602 DATE: July IS, 2010 TO: Comllli~sloner Donna Fiala FAX # 207"!288-2719 FROM: Sue Jacobs SUBJECT: Jackson Labs This message consistS of G page(s), including this cover page. Hi Roger and Pat: Would you please be so kind as to get this to Commissioner Fiala when she comes in tonight? Thank you so much. If you have any problem receiving all or part of this mess. please telephone the: CommilifiOl) office at (239) 252-8097, Packet Page -45- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. ,JacobsSusan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: KlatzkowJeff Thursday. July 15, 2010 2:j9 PM JacobsSusan; PrietoEvelyn Mltchalllan FW: JacKson Lab - blog posts (FYI) Please speak with your %eSpective Commissioners. My undor5tanding is that the Naples Daily News is sending a reporter and a photographer. To the ex.tent possible, Commissioners Fwa and Coletta should not be in a position where they can be photographed logether this trip. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252-8400 from: JacobsSusan sent: Thursday, July 1S, 2010 2:05 PM To: KJatzkowJeff Cc: ochs_' SUbJect: FW: Jackson Lab - bIog posts (FYI) Sue JacODS Executive AIde Board of Collier County Commissioners Commissioner Donna Fiala. District 1 W. Hannon Turner Building, (F) 3301 Tamlaml Trail East . Naples, FL 34112 (239)252~097-phone (239) 252-3602 - fax su~niac9~s@collierRov.net ~ Please ccnsIder the envirQnmcmt before pr1nting thI$ e-mail. Under Flo~ Law. tomall -'dreAeS are public F8OOI'US. If you dO not wam yoI.I' e-mail 4Iddnl$$ /'IIeQed In ,..~ to . puClIio *'OIds reques~ do not send electronlC; m.. to 1tI1& entity.lnslead. oortlaol this office by telephone or In \lilting. From: PrletoEvelyn Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:44 PM To: JacobsSUSan Subjecb Jackson Lab - blog posts (FYI) QPamarmv writes: Commissioners Coletta and Fiala's Utact finding tourll to Jackson Labs in Maine on July 16 & 17 is a violation of the Florida Sunshine Law. Under the Florida Sunshine Law (2 or more) Advisory Board members are allowed to go on "fact finding toursu. 1 Packet Page -46- . . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. . But (2,or more) elected County CommIssIoners are not allowed to go on coumy pala .,.act T1nolng tours. , It you can document a Sunshine law violation, you can file a complaint along with your documentation with the State Attorney's Office. Alternatively, or If the State Attorney won't prosecute, you could hire an attomey to take the county commission or individual commissioners to court. As a general rule, the Sunshine Law applies to any discussion of pubfic business between two or more members of the same board or commission. This means that two commissioners can sociaUze with one another and can, as in the case, actually travel together without viofating the law so long as while together they don't discuss public business. Also, if the two commissioners met with Jackson Labs for the sole purpose of receiving information and didn't discuss the project among themseives, It's hard to prove they violated the law. Advisory committees formed for the so'e purpose of fact-finding are not generally subject to the sunshine law. The fact-finding exception, however, doesn't apply to an advisory committee comprised of commissioners. Barbara A. Petersen, President First Amendment Foundation illahassee, FL 800/337-351e James Parker Rhea Director First Amendment Foundation 336 E. College Avenue, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 224-4555 jim @fforidafaf.ora Florida Sunshine Law Can two members of a public board attend social functions together? Members of a public board are not prohibited under the Sunshine law from meeting together sooially, provided that maUers which may COme before the board are not discussed at such gatherings. "hat are the requirements of the SunShine law? · · he Sunshine law requires that 1) meetings of boards or commissions must l Packet Page -47- · be open to the public; 2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given, 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. · and 3) minutes of the meeting must be taken. What qualifies as a meeting? The Sunshine law applies to all discussions or deliberations as well as the formal action taken by a board or commission, The law, in essence, Is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the publlo board or commission. There is no requirement. that a quorum be present for a meeting to be covered under the law. What agency can prosecute violators? The 10081 state attorney has the statutory authority to prosecute alleged criminal violations of the open meetings and public records law. Certain eMl remedies are also available. ~Y'~~ ~_Jtilfeto~ :Rm.~ ~t!fctN#tJJ~ C<<1llr CtJ~ j'own&meItt Center >>01 ~~!.f.tsst... ~ ![L1U1U 2..19.tSJ..IOST (p) tJ' Ll9.2S2SS4 fj) ~~~.ntt unaGr Floride l.aw, e-mail add..........publlc:r~..lfyoudonot-.nl ~ur lil-matll~ress .....lHCIln r~ '0 8 putlllc I8COl'l1f; requeet, do not.end electl'Ol'llc m8ll to IIlI3 .mtty. Insteed, c:ol1tact thil office by "'phonr~ Of In writing. 3 Packet Page -48- A . ~ - F10rida officials to tour Jackson Lab - Bangor Daily News PRINT THIS, CLOSE WINOOW Florida offldals to tour Jackson Lab 11lfJ/l0 12;00 &lU ByM.~,_~ BDN Staff BAR HARBOR, Maine -There's a lot of talk in Collier County, P10rlda these days about a proposal to raise $130 million in taxpayer dollars in order to bring a Jackson Laboratory research facility to the Naples area. .rve never seen so much pllblic reaction," Collier County Commissioner Jim Coletta said in a telephone interview Wednesday. -rhere are a large number of people who are very, very supportive of going forward and about the same number who don't want us to go forwa.ni at all." In preparation for their July 27 decision deadline, Coletta and his colleague Donna Fiala are headed l:o Maine this weekend, separately, to get an on-the- ground look at the laboratory's operations in Bar Harbor. "I want to see with my own eyes what's going on on the ground, n Coletta said. The two commissioners are traveling separately, staying in separate acconunodations and maintaioing distinct agendas in order to comply with Florida's .sunshine law" that prohibits elected officials from meeting privately to discuss official business. Their trip to Mount Desert Island coincides not only with a high-profile visit by a vacationing President Barack Obama and his fam.1ly but also with Jackson Laboratoty's own annual business meeting and alumni reunion that attracts dozens of former students, scientists, donors and others to the facility. Coletta and Fiala will have their choice of pre-arranged student presentations, facility tours, awards dinneni, meetings and other events to attend, as well as some specialllttention from laboratory officials, said spokeswoman Joyce Peterson. "'Ibis is a very good opportunity for people to learn about the lab," she .said. The Jackson Laboratory has proposed building a genetic research facility in Naples, m. Laboratory officials have indicated that if the project goes forward it will employ approximately 200 people within the next several years. The project could form the hub of an expanded research park in the area and provide a significant boost to the regional economy, Coletta said. He said the county already has heard from a number of biomedical firms expressing interest in the project. One study has shown that such a research park could generate u:p to 7,000 biotechnology research jobs in the area. "Collier County has been looking for some sort of venture for aome time to take Wi to the next le'\'eI," Coletta said. The region's traditional reliance on tourism and construction, he said, is not enough to stabilize the economy. The state of Florida. has committed $130 million to bring Jackson Lab to the area, with $50 million. already approved in the state budget hUp:/lwww.bangordailynews.comldetai1l1487 i'2 .~~_~.~ ~K~:4~- n. _. .. ~~ '" 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. 7/1512010 Florida officials to tour Jackson Lab - Bangor Daily News 1>6___~___...._..__._......_.__ "We'll be required to put up another $130 million," Coletta said. H coxnmi5Sioners approve the project, that money could be raised in the form of increased property taxes or an excise tax on electrical bills, he said. The revenue-raising initiative could be spread over a number of years, he said. But feelings are running high in Collier County. .According to local news coverage, many residen,ts oppose the tax increase generaIly, whIle others say government incentives should be used to help local businesses and not to bring in out-of-state Org~lltiOns. At 11 public meeting in June, about 50 emJ?loyees from a local medical devices manufacturing firm protested the project, some canying signs reading -Keep the Mouse Moochers in Maine," according to lllocal news outlet. The Jackson Laboratory is one of the largest producers in the world of genetically altered mice for research pwposes. n also is home to a mammali3J1 genetics program that attracts researchers and students from. around the world The Jackson La.boratory employs about 1,200 people at its Bar :Harbor home. Officials there have said the nonprofit organization has no plans to leave . Maine and expects to increase its payroll by 200 positions within the next decade. In 2001, The Jackson Laboratory opened a satellite facility in Sacramento, CaliC., that employs about 100 people. Fiala said in an e-mail tl1a.t she ~edto fly into. tb,e :Hao.cock Gou.nty-BIlr Harbor Airport on Wednesday night. Coletta planned to arrive Friday afternoon. He said he would not be surprised to encounter minor delays related to the Obamas' travel plans but that he hoped the commissioners' business trip would Dot be otherWise complicated by the first famlly's vacation. Related Stories Floridilln~ nrnt,...clt 'Mnt1lCA ,nnnrh..n:' frnm MAin," Packet Page -50- Plll~P, ? nf? 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. .iJ I, .. " .. . ~E 2/~2J~Ofl_I~~m 6.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMISSIONER REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for a Commissioner to attend function/event and approve payment by the Clerk. CONSIDERA TIONS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-410, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that attendance at the functions of fraternal, business, environmental, educational, charitable, social, professional, tracIe, homeowners, ethnic, and civic association/organizations serves a valid public purpose, provided that said functions reasonably relate to Collier County matters. COMMISSIONER: Jim Coletta FUNCTION /EVENT: FactfindingtourofThe Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. Airfare and hotel deposit. PUBLIC PURPOSE: Meet and interact with business and community leaders. DATE OF FUNCTIONIEVENT: July 16-18, 2010 FISCAL IMPACT: $1,060.13 - Funds to be paid from Commissioner's travel budget. RECOMMENDA TION: That the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with Resolution No. 99-410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner Jim Coletta to attend function serving a valid public purpose. PREPARED BY: Susan Jacobs, Executive Aide to the BCC APPROVED BY: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager, BCC AGENDA DATE: June 22,2010 Packet Page -51- ~ . ;. 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. ^9ltriCa Item NO. 1 bH~ July 27,2010 Page 1 of9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMISSIONER REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE OBJECI1VE: For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for a Commissioner to attend function/event and approve payment by the Clerk. CONSIDERATIONS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-410, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that attendance at the functions of fraternal, business, environmental, educational, charitable, social, professional, trade, homeowners, ethnic, and civic association/organizations serves a valid public purpose, provided that said functions reasonably relate to Collier County matters. COMMISSIONER: Donna Fiala FUNCTlONIEVENT: The Jackson Laboratory National Council Awards Dinner PUBLIC PURPOSE: Meet and interact with business and community leaders. DATE OF FUNCTIONIEVENT: July 16,2010 FISCAL IMPACT: $65.00 - Funds to be paid from Commissioner's travel budget. RECOMMENDA nON: That the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with Resolution No. 99-410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner Donna Fiala to attend function serving a valid public purpose. PREPARED BY: Susan Jacobs, Executive Aide to the BCC APPROVED BY: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager, BCC AGENDA DATE: July 27, 2010 Packet Page -52- , (... PI1OTOS Tw~ Collier commissioners support Jackson Lab, 8ar Harbor trip persuasive: Naples Dally News 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. tot naplesnews.com ?rtr1!or.frlcndly ::;\ory Read more at naplesnews.com PHOTOS Two Collier commissioners support Jackson. Lab, Bar Harbor trill persuasive By LIZ FREEMAN Sunday, July 18, 2010 BAR HARBOR, Maine _ The trip to Maine this weekend likely did the trick for two Collier County commissioners. After separate tours of Jackson Laboratory's genetics research campus, meeting its scientists and listening to presentations about the future of genetics-based medicine, commissioners Donna Fiala and Jim Coletta all but said they are ready to bring the nonprofit Jackson to Collier. If nothing changes by the time the commission meets July 27, a majority vote to go forward appears clear _ Chairman Fred Coyle has been the board's point person on the project and Commissioner Frank Halas has indicated he supports it. Still, both Fiala and Coletta say they need to delve into how to raise $130 million in local money, to match the same amount expected from the state. "Yes, I have to say that," Fiala said, when asked if she was sold on the Jackson proposal. "I have to say that I am. I'm leaving here very comfortable with what this lab can do for the future of Collier County. I have to know the funding source, obviously it would be very important" Before going to Maine, Fiala said she didn't know how she stood. "I really didn't know what to expect," she said. "I was just as ready to say 'no' to this as I was to say 'yes. '" The Jackson project has been spearheaded by the Economic Development Council to help diversify Collier's economy away from real estate, tourism and agriculture. In general, businesses and civic associations are backing the project while some in the community say Jackson's business plan is shaky and giving $260 million to the nonprofit organization is corporate welfare. They welcome the lab to Collier but not at taxpayers' expense. Jackson proposes to create 200 jobs, phased in over time, after opening a genetics hnp: //www.naptesnews.com/news/20 10 /jul/18/two-cofller-commlssioners-support-j&ckson-lab-bar-/?print-1 Packet Page -53- Page 1 of 3 , 't. ~ ,," ~. Pl10TOS Tw~ Collier commissioners support j~ckson Lab. Bar H~rbor trip persu~slYe : N~ples D~11y News 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. ~ research center on 50 acres on Oil Well Road that would be donated by the Barron Collier Co. The bigger idea is that the lab would serve as an anchor to attract other biomedical groups to the area to foster a research park with thousands of new jobs over the long term. Orlando, Palm Beach and Port St. Lucie are among communities in Florida that have embarked on similar endeavors with varying levels of local and state support and private dollars. Collier County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, who had one day in Bar Harbor to get a tour and meet with Jackson officials, said he previously had thought it was more of a mouse production facility than a scientific research center. "I am far more impressed with these people that I was with Sanford-Burnham," he said, referring to a nonprofit research group in Orlando that he visited recently with others from Collier. "It's just a feeling. This would be a wonderful facility to have in Collier if there was no cost to Collier County. It would be open arms." Fiala said she hasn't been following the work of the citizen-based Productivity Committee, which is examining the economic feasibility of the project. The group also is exploring options for generating the $130 million. The committee has put together a list of options of property tax levies that could include bonding or pay-as-you-go funding, a franchise fee with Florida Power & Light, a combined franchise fee and property tax, or a sales tax increase. Fiala arrived in Bar Harbor on Wednesday and spoke with residents and city leaders to get a handle on what Jackson means to the community with an economy that is based on tourism and fishing. The lab has been in Bar Harbor since 1929 and is the largest employer in the area. "I haven't heard anything bad," Fiala said. "I would think before anyone would complain about Jackson Lab they ought to do their due diligence like I just did and tell me why they don't like it." Coletta was accompanied to Maine by Nick Healy, president of Ave Maria University, which would be Jackson's neighbor in Collier County. At a recent commission meeting, Coletta expressed concern about Jackson potentially doing research some day using embryonic stem cells. He asked Coyle if the lab would commit to not using embryonic stem cells; Coyle responded that would be a deal-breaker. In Maine, Coletta said Jackson officials explained they can't commit to what lab leaders in the future may want to do or not do. "They do have an ethics council in place and are willing to put one in Naples with http://www.naplesnews.com/news/20 101 jul/18/two-collle r-commlssloners-5upport-jackson-lab-bar-l?print-1 Packet Page -54- Page 2 of 3 "', ~ PIjOTOS Tw~ Collier commissioners support Jackson Lab, Bar Harbor trip persuasive: Naples Dally News 2/22/2011 Item 6,A. 'M members of the community to weigh in," he said. From another standpoint, Coletta said; if Jackson doesn't go to the Ave Maria location, it could go "in a secular community that may not have the same standards." Coletta said he tried not form an opinion before but is excited now about the possibilities, especially science educational opportunities for Collier children by Jackson. In Maine, the lab has prqgrams for local children and for students nationwide to come to Maine for a summer science program. "At this point in time I am leaning toward the positive yet to go forward, I am waiting for the final issue of funding." Coletta said part of Jackson administrators' problem selling the Naples project is their honesty, which works against them when they say they can only commit to creating 200 jobs in 1 0 years. "They don't have control over what could happen beyond that," he said. "They work from a platform of total honesty but it makes it difficult to sell the final product." READ MORE FROM THE DAILY NEWS FACT-FINDING TRIP TO BAR HARBOR . Good neighbor: Jackson Lab work 'a badge of honor' to Bar Harbor . Discovery Days at Jackson Lab draws Naples group. Obama in town . PHOTOS Jackson Lab: Bar Harbor. Maine. to Collier County would be 'two- way street' .iI'" 2010 Scripps Newspaper Group - Qnl;ne http://www.napll!snl!ws.com/news/2010/ Jul/18/two-collier-commlsslonen-support-jackson-lab-bar-/7prInt-l Packet Page -55- Page 3 of 3 , . . , . r " 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, July 27-28,2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Frank: Halas Tom Henning Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Leo Dchs, County Manager Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 Packet Page -56- , , . . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 Item #9B CONTINUING THE REPORT FROM THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE REGARDING THEIR ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT AND POTENTIAL FINDING OPTIONS FOR JACKSON LABS PROJECT COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering, from what you had said initially and what I've learned on my own here is that the state cannot -- although the state challenged us, each for -- you know, they would give 130 million if we would give 130 million. I understand that. But the state then said, they can't really pledge that until they get money from the federal government, which they had expected months ago and still haven't received. So here we are talking about the funding, but we don't even know if we're going to get it. Is this the right time to talk about it or -- that's my question to you -- or should we be pursuing what other -- what other industries or what other units would want to participate in this cluster until we know what funding would be available to us? CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is that if you -- if you intend to use ad valorem taxes to do this, we have to resolve that today because we have to set a maximum ad valorem property tax. But if we can find a way to meet our financial obligations for the first year, we don't have to make that decision now. We can make it next year. So if you want to make the decision on the property tax and you want it to be part of the funding package, you would have to make that decision today, and then in September we would have to make a [mal decision to either charge an incremental increase in property tax or not. And by September you mayor may not know whether the state has the money yet either. So there is the potential danger of taxing the residents and not having a commitment on the state funding. You Page 3 Packet Page -57- 0' . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 could -- we could always refund it to them the next year if. it turns out that it's not needed. But if the increase is very, very small, like a tenth of a mill, it wouldn't have a major impact. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So a tenth of a mill equates to how much? MR.OCHS: $6.1 million. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how much does that -- on $100,000, how much is one tenth ofa mill? Ten dollars? Ten dollars. So that would be $10 a year. I mean, sometimes we have to -- we have to understand what it's actually-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What just it's going to cost me, not you, just me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right, that's right. And the utility franchise ~ax would cost the average customer about $3 a month. So in both cases, they're very low, but for those people who are just philosophically opposed to having tax dollars go for private companies, you're never .going to get it too low, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'm going to just give you a thought. Now, I'm not going to be giving you my thought as a . . commISSIoner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to be giving you my thought as a taxpayer, a mom, and my kids are all living here in town, and they're taxpayers, and my grandkids are coming up to be taxpayers shortly. And, you know, I'm thinking, if it's going to cost me $50 a year, say -- I mean, I'm going big time now, $50 a year rather than $10 a year. Fifty dollars a year and I get Jackson Labs down here to create new jobs and maybe discover in just a few short years the answer to cancer -- they're getting close anyway -- and maybe, just maybe, they Page 4 Packet Page -58- " 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 can save one of my kids' or my grandkids' lives, or your kid or your kid or your mom; $50, that's not much to pay at all, is it, when I could save somebody else's life? To me, that's the thing to be thinking about here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then I would suggest to you that if you want to consider the property tax option, that we do that at the time that we're discussing setting the millage rate later today, and I hope we'll get it done before 6 o'clock tonight. Is that about right, County Manager? MR. OCHS: On the time or on the combination that you're talking about? I mean -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time? MR.OCHS: If you want to wrap up by six, yeah-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got two time certains -- MR. OCHS: -- I would suggest that we handle that item before you adjourn today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have three time certains. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay, all right. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either the county manager or Mark Isackson, how much money would we have to allocate the first year to have pay as you go? What are we looking at roughly? MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioner, based on the payout schedule that the Productivity Committee looked at, for FY11, you would need to fund $28 million. So that would equate to, by my math -- Mark, you can check me -- about .45 increase in the millage to raise that kind of money in fiscal year' 11. So it would get you almost to your rolled back millage rate, a little over four mills, and you're at 3.564 right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do we have any money that would be available in reserves, or would it be too much to ask for the first year in that? Page 5 Packet Page -59- " 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 MR. OCHS: Commissioner, what -- essentially what you have is you have three potential funding sources if you want to move forward on the project. You have ad valorem taxes, there's been discussion about an electric utility franchise fee, and the third option -- and it's a very short-term option, but it's an option available to you for fiscal year' 11 -- if you don't want to consider an ad valorem increase or even a franchise fee imposition given the uncertainty of the federal legislation and the commitment of the state funds, would be to look at your internal funds and see if you could execute some internal loans, interfund loans, and you could raise that money through interfund loans for fiscal year' 11, but I want you all to understand that those internal loans have to be paid back just like outside loans. So you would have to make a decision in fiscal '12 about how you would want to finance the balance of the commitment not only to the proj ect over the next ten years, but how you would pay back those interfund loans in a period of two or three years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is, maybe we just ought to face up to the fact and quit trying to kick the can down the road. MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioners, it's not so much kicking the can down the road. The real uncertainty, as I see for the board right now, is getting out ahead of the state funding which, of course, the whole idea was for the board to match the state funding. We don't know sitting here right now whether the state funding is going to hold up or not because of the delay in the passage of the FMAP legislation up in Washington. Now, the Congress is in session for another week, and they break in August. And if they don't act on it this week and they -- you mayor may not know, as Commissioner Coyle said, in September when you finally set your budget whether there's been any progress or not made Page 6 Packet Page -60- " . , 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28, 2010 on an FMAP. They may -- they may wait to act on it 'til after the fall election. So those are -- the only reason I bring up this interfund loan possibility for one year, it would avoid you having to make long-term commitments like bonding without knowing whether the state funding was going to come through or not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because if the state funding does not come through, it's -- that's a deal breaker. MR. OCHS : Well, it may be deal breaker or it may take the state legislatures the session in '12, you know, next year in '11 when they meet again, they may have to rework the current legislation, because I don't think -- I don't think -- if the FMAP funding is not approved, I don't believe that the state funding can go forward given the provisions in the current state law. I think it's tied to theFMAP funding. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the other thing too is all the people that are sitting out in the audience in support of this program, this project, they need to get ahold of their elected officials that represent us in Washington, D.C., and hopefully put some heat on them to shake loose some funding so that we can go forward with this project. That's what needs to really happen here and -- because I feel that this is a once-in-a-lifetime possibility for -- not only in Collier County, but in Southwest Florida, and whatever we -- whatever it takes, we need to try to move forward. And maybe this one-time deal of getting funding from within the different departments may be good, but then, of course, we've got to meet our obligations, and we can't forego not paying these funds back. So, you know, you've got to pay them -- you get it now, but it's not free money. It's like using a credit card. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And you know, listening Page 7 Packet Page -61- -' . t 2/22/2011 Item G.A. July 27-28, 2010 to everything that's taking place and understanding there's a lot of balls still in the air -- by the way, thank you for all that you're doing being the point person for the commission. I know it's a big load on you, and you've still got a lot in front of you to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got a lot of arrows in my back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: God bless you, yeah. I would be very receptive with working with the idea of an interfund loan because of the reason we can implement that with the least amount of pain to our residents as we get a chance to evaluate what's taking place so we can draw it down as we need it rather than have to tax somebody up front and make one big hit on them. Give us a chance to be able to wait to the last minute to make sure everything's together to be able to do it. Is it very involved to be able to draw this money down? MR.OCHS: No. It takes some staff time though in working, you know, internally to identify which funds would be in a position to make those loans and what the impacts of that would be on the programs in the -- in all those operations, but it's very doable, Commissioner. Again, just -- I must reiterate again to you all that this is a, you know, a short-term solution. Really only suggesting it because of the uncertainty of the state funding. So if the state funding firms up down the road, you are going to have to, in fiscal '12, make a decision long-term if you want to continue and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We may never have to make that decision. It may be determined by Washington not to send the money down, or any number of other events could take place that won't allow us to go forward. Who knows? MR. OCHS: Correct. But if it does, you have to -- you have to make funding decisions on the project going forward and the payback of this interfund loan over a series of -- Page 8 Packet Page -62- " 2/22/2011 Item G.A. July 27-28, 2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for remaining millage neutral and not getting into an excise tax on the utilities at this time and doing an intemalloan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I have to tell you that the internal loan by itself is not going to do the job; however, if we -- if we instruct staff to make the necessary preparations for the funding of the fIrst year's commitments and have them available, have those tools available to us so that when the state money is available, we'll be ready to go, then that's not a bad way to go, is just instruct the staff to make the necessary preparations and to evaluate the financing options we have and be prepared to make a recommendation to the board, and we can do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It could be, but Commissioner Coletta is the one who suggested it. Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yes. I take your language and turn it into a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You second your own motion that I made for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But let me go a step further. The one thing I don't want to do is to make any of the partners in this business cluster feel that the whole thing is going to get flushed if the state doesn't come up with their money. There always is an opportunity for private financing, and we should continue pursuing that. We could look for it for private fmancing everywhere we can. And so this is an opportunity that we should not give up just because the state or the federal government is not going to provide the Page 9 . , Packet Page -63- . : I 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28, 2010 money. But by the same token, we don't want to get out in front of that because the state government might have the feeling that, well, if Collier County has so much money to throw around, we just won't bother to contribute our amount to it. So it's a touchy situation. So we have to indicate our commitment to a successful project, and if that means looking for -- continuing to look for private financing, that's what we ought t~ be willing to encourage. And so the motion is on the table. It will provide the staff guidance to evaluate the funding options that we have available that can be implemented fairly quickly whenever the state declares their money is available so that we can move quickly to exercise this opportunity, provided that there are sufficient partners to make it an economically viable investment, okay. So that's the whole package. Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things that I want to make sure of is that if we do use funds within the county government that are used for -- that are in reserve, that we don't cut ourselves short in case of an emergency. That's the most important thing. Now, if we don't have the funding there that we can provide to move forward with this project and also make sure that we've got ourselves covered, then I guess I'm going to have to go along with Commissioner Coyle, that maybe we ought to look at the franchise fee as another alternative so that we don't put ourselves into a situation where we may regret later on because we don't have the resources to take care of -- if we have an emergency. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we won't have to start that until we find out whether -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: State money. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- there's state money available and everything is going to proceed. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Page 10 Packet Page -64- . . . f . I 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? So it puts us at no risk. It doesn't require us to make a commitment to tax anybody. MR. OCHS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now that leaves us with the issue of the property tax millage rate. We'll discuss that later. Don't worry-- let's not complicate it. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only option that you have is a utility tax, which is a regressive tax. It hurts the people that cannot afford it the most which, by the way, those funds is already in the economy, the local economy now. So it will be taking those funds away from the local economy. The next thing is, if you do transfers, if you're looking at the enterprise funds, I would question the legality of using enterprise funds other than what they're supposed to be for, okay? MR. OCHS: That will be part of our analysis, sir, but I believe we can do that. You've done it before as a board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Do you want to speak again? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's not on the motion, sir. It's on direction from staff. And you said we're on Page 3 of the book now -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- as far as where we're going to end up as far as negotiations go? CHAIRMAN COYLE: But this will get us to Page 4. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, there was some very good suggestions, not that I agree with every single suggestion the Productivity Committee made. But there was a number in there, a number of them that I'm sure are going to be given consideration as you go forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely. They're all in the hopper. Page 11 Packet Page -65- " . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28, 2010 Every one of those recommendations has been discussed with Jackson Labs. It is part of the negotiation process, and we would expect to proceed with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just a couple of things, and I know you're going to bring this up for consideration when you're talking to them again. We have Oil Well Road, and we have a considerable amount of money going into it. When we put the -- you put together the deal with the state as far as the money, they said they'd recognize a certain percentage of infrastructure and improvements that would go towards that. If we could see about picking that up and try to lower the burden of debt. That would be very much appreciated. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're certainly going to consider that, but the issue is that Jackson Labs needs a certain amount of cash to build a building, and you can't build a building with'credits against infrastructure. So we're dealing with all of those issues, and they are all going to be part of this agreement, and it's all going to be publicly vetted, and we'll have meeting after meeting of -- hopefully it's not like this -- but we'll have meetings like this to talk about what those agreements are and how we've worked it out. It's a work in progress. Okay. Are we set? You have the guidance you need? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, there was a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Y Oil need to vote on the motion and the second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll just vote on the motion. I'm not going to vote on the second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 12 Packet Page -66- . ' 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. July 27-28,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion. 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? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Henning -- they look so much alike. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm the youngest one on the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I look the youngest. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just like Halas and I look alike. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we now have a time certain from two o'clock. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We work in virtual time, folks. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you want to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Didn't we just take a break? MR. OCHS: Two minutes to clear the room, or -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll take about three minutes to clear the room. (A brief recess was had.) Page 13 Packet Page -67- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. - http://www.naplesnews.com/news/201 O/juI/27/jackson-lab-collier-county- commission-approve-Ioanl Jackson Lab moving forward: Commissioners approve short-term loan for first-year funding By JENNA BUZZACCO-FOERSTER, LIZ FREEMAN Tuesday, July 27, 2010 NAPLES - Jackson Laboratory's plans to come to Collier County remain on track with county leaders deciding to make a short-term loan to the project while they wait for the fate of state funding. The Collier County Commission voted 4-1 Tuesday, with Commissioner Tom Henning casting the dissenting vote, to have staff draw up a first-year loan of $28 million to Jackson so lab officials can continue working to bring more business partners to a future biomedical park near Ave Maria. Commissioner Tom Henning was the dissenting vote. The move also allows the Maine-based nonprofit Jackson and supporters to work on bringing more private dollars to the project. Jackson officials have said the project needs $28 million for first-year funding to get started. lilt is very doable but I have to reiterate it is short-term funding," Leo Ochs, the county's manager, told the board of the loan. Commissioner Frank Halas said the decision gives local residents' time to put pressure on federal lawmakers to pass a second stimulus package to states. The state Legislature approved $50 million this past spring for the Jackson project contingent on a second stimulus Packet Page -68- .- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. package from the federal government. Congress has been stalled on another stimulus bill. "Whatever it takes, we need to try and move forward," Halas said. "Maybe this one-time, inter-county loan is good." The Barron Collier Co. has agreed to donate 50 acres to Jackson on Oil Well Road and donate another 250 acres to the University of South Florida, a future hospital, Edison State College's planned charter high school and others for the future biomedical park. The plan is for Jackson to serve as the anchor to attract others, with the first announced partner being USF in Tampa for research, education and clinical collaboration. Tammie Nemecek, chief executive officer of the Economic Development Council, said the board's decision signaled a good day. It shows Collier leaders are still interested in bringing Jackson to the community and developing a biomedical cluster. "For other organizations, it is so important that Collier County is still interested and let's see what other partnerships can be formed," she said. Others against the project were upset commissioners rejected putting the issue to a referendum, where ultimately the county needs to come up with $130 million for Jackson to come. If the state's match of $50 million comes through, state lawmakers in later years would have to come up with the remaining $80 million. Chris Carpenter, a 12-year resident who held up sign against tax dollars going to Jackson, said she believes commissioners were afraid to put it on a referendum out of fear it would be voted down. "It is an enormous amount of money and I think they should have put it Packet Page -69- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. to a vote of the people," she said. "This is our money." Daniel Cook left the commission chambers wondering how the county would come up with the rest of the money and when those decisions would be made. "How's it going to be funded1ive or 10 years down the road?" Cook asked. Local resident John Lundin said he was amazed to hear Commission Chairman Fred Coyle say the project may be able to move forward somehow with private support if the federal dollars, as the state's match, do not materialize. He also said Coyle squashed Commissioner Jim Coletta's efforts to do a small property tax rate increase for political reasons. "He did it purely for his (primary) re-election on Aug. 24," Lundin said. Coyle is up against Lavigne Kirkpatrick for the District 4 commission seat. K.P.. Pezeshkan, vice president of business development and marketing for Kraft Construction, said the board's decision allows Jackson to keep working on other partners. He said he didn't think the citizen-based Productivity Committee had enough time to weigh the impact of the USF partnership announced last week. The committee had been studying the economic viability of the Jackson project for seven weeks. 1l0ur industry is almost dead," he said, acknowledging that Kraft has been supportive of Jackson. He traveled to Bar Harbor, Maine, two weeks ago when Jackson held an annual weekend fund raiser and educational program. Packet Page -70- 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. "I don't have the job but I would like a shot at the job," he said, in reference to Jackson wanting to build a 165,000-square-foot building for a genetics research center. That could get 400 to 500 construction workers back to work. The county scheduled a 10 a.m. public hearing to debate the contentious Jackson project and 109 people signed up to speak. Steve Harrison, chairman of the productivity committee, gave an overview of the groups's conclusions that a consultant's report had overstated job projections of 7,500 jobs in the park and another 4,000 indirect, but permanent, jobs. The committee pointed out numerous risks with the project, not the least of which is the potential that the county would have to spend more than $130 million and get a low rate of return on the investment. The consultants, the Washington Economics Group, were retained by the EDC. Scott Bonham said that Jackson Lab has been in Bar Harbor for 81 years and questioned whether it had fostered any biomedical clustering there. He implored the board not to use taxpayer money for the laboratory. "The people of Collier County must not become sugar daddy to Jackson Lab or anyone," he said. "Commissioners, the proposed action is pure speculation (and is) gambling with the money of couples, families. In my mind this is a stupid move. Do not do it, please." Dr. James Talano, president of the Collier County Medical Society, told the board that looking beyond the local economy is essential at these hard times. The medical society supports going forward but two-thirds of its members said taxpayer dollars should not be used, he said. "I have come to the conclusion that their mission is helping humanity," he said. "Jackson Lab can only improve the knowledge and Packet Page -71- . . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. understanding of diseases with how they affect our citizens." Local businessman Kevin Thomas, founder of Alternative Laboratories, said he was originally against the project but had a complete change of heart. "I would like to buy 10 acres. I would like to move my facility out there," Thomas said. "I'm in. I want to participate in the park. I'm ready to go, where do I send my check?" Marielena Montesino de Stuart, an Ave Maria resident, said Jackson has been misleading and the project would only help the Ave Maria project that has faltered. "(The Jackson project) is nothing but an immoral and undemocratic bailout of (Tom) Monaghan and the Ave Maria project," she said. Georgia Hiller, a county commission candidate for District 2 in North Naples, called for a referendum and said the issue at hand is about public policy. She referenced two recent articles, one..about how Broward County Commissioners had approved $60 million in bond funding that 10 companies. which competed for the bonds, will have to pay back on their own. The second article was about how Palm Beach leaders are struggling with a $100-million shortfall this year, in part due to bond debt for bringing Scripps Research Institute there in 2003. After a lunch break, many speakers did not return and the last speaker addressed the board shortly before 3 p.m. Packet Page -72- Packet Page -73- Packet Page -74- . 2/22/2011 Item 6.A. Packet Page -75- Packet Page -77- Packet Page -78- Packet Page -79-