BCC Minutes 09/28/2010 R
September 28, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 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
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ian Mitchell, BCe Executive Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Office
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
September 28, 2010
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Frank Halas, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 2
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5, CRAB Vice-Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1, CRAB Chairman
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA
ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE
UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
Page 1
September 28, 2010
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Michael Bannon - Crossroads Church of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation congratulating Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc.
for their contributions in recycling. To be accepted by Jennifer 1. Nelson, Sr.
Director of Retail Operations and E-Commerce, Tom Feurig, President and
CEO and Jody Jacoby, Salvage and Recycling Supervisor. Sponsored by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 2
September 28, 2010
B. Proclamation designating October lO, 20 lO as the 10th Annual Put The
Brakes on Fatalities Day. To be accepted by Nancy Frye, Community
Traffic Safety Team, David Buchheit, Community Traffic Safety Team
Chairman, Sheriff Kevin Rambosk and Sgt. Robert L. Crouch, FHP.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation to recognize the Freedom Park project team for receiving the
Team Project of the Year Award for 2009 from the Florida Association of
County Engineers and Road Superintendents (FACERS). Presented to team
leader Senior Project Manager Margaret Bishop by Alan Holbach, FACERS
Board member.
B. Update the Board of County Commissioners on the status of the Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program.
C. A presentation to Collier County Parks & Recreation for winning the 20 I 0
Florida Recreation and Parks Association Agency Excellence Award -
Category I. This prestigious award will be presented by Mr. Don Decker,
President, Florida Recreation and Parks Association. To be accepted by
Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Tim Hancock regarding an agreement with
the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
B. This item continued from the September 14. 2010 BCC Meetin2. Public
Petition request by E's Country Store at Oil Well Road and Immokalee
Road.
C. Public Petition request by Ms. Kathleen H. Reynolds of the Early Learning
Coalition of Southwest Florida regarding request for funding.
D. Public Petition request by Mr. Harrison Hubschman regarding water
detention area south of Michigan Avenue at 12th Street.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
September 28, 2010
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to approve a Compliance Agreement between the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County, including
Petitioners-in-Intervention, setting forth proposed Remedial Amendments to
the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, pertaining to
Section 24 in North Belle Meade.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost
and Credit Update Study, dated March 11,2009, which is an amendment to
the adopted Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study;
amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule as set forth in the Cost and
Credit Update, which provides for a reduction in rates; amending the Parks
and Recreation Impact Fee schedule in accordance with the adopted
indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, which provides for a
reduction in rates; accepting the calculation of the indexing percentage for
the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee in accordance with the adopted
indexing methodology, utilizing a two-year average, but providing that the
current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates remain in effect rather than
increasing the fees as calculated; and providing for a delayed effective date
of October 8, 2010, in order to provide time for filing with the Florida
Department of State and notification to the local municipalities of the new
rates.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item continued from the Julv 27. 2010 BCC Meetin2. J. Peaceful
L.C. 7770 Preserve Lane - Request for 12 parking spaces. (Commissioner
Henning)
B. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners in support of
Congressional action regarding Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
programs. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Page 4
September 28, 2010
C. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Historical and Archaeological Preservation
Board.
F. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to complete the Annual Performance Appraisal for the
County Manager. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager)
B. Recommendation to review and approve the FY20 II Annual Work Plan for
the County Manager. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager)
C. Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Collier County and Dr.
Marta U. Coburn, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner dba
District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide medical examiner
services for Fiscal Year 2011 at a cost of $1 ,041 ,300; a reduction of
$52,200. (Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Services Director)
D. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Liability, Automobile, Workers
Compensation, Flood, Aircraft, and other insurance and related services for
FY 2011 in the amount of$I,718,637; a reduction of$100,125. (Jeff
Walker, Risk Management Director)
E. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution replacing and superseding
Resolution 2010-25, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department
Facilities and Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy, in order to increase
Boat Launch Facilities fees from $5 to $8 at all Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department Parks and Marinas. (Barry Williams, Parks and
Recreation Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 5
September 28, 2010
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review and
approve the proposed FY 2010 - 20 II Action Plan for Jeffrey A. Klatzkow,
County Attorney.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners indicate its intent
to extend the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Jeffrey A.
Klatzkow, and fix the end date of the first extension term as September 30,
2013.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Ridgeport Plaza (Bluefish Japanese Steakhouse).
2) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 4C,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Page 6
September 28, 2010
3) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Madison Park Phase Two
Tract M and N Replat.
4) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of City Gate Commerce Center,
Phase Two Replat of Lots 5 and 6.
5) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Quarry Beach Club Addition.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for ABC Fine Wine and Spirits.
7) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Heritage Bay Vistas
Subdivision, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
8) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Verona walk Phase 4D,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
9) Recommendation to accept and approve the completed alternative
road impact fee calculation, the review conducted by Tindale-Oliver
Page 7
September 28, 2010
and Associates, Inc., serving as the impact fee consultant for Collier
County, and the resulting Road Impact Fee rate of$10,937 per 1,000
square feet for the Naples Daily News building located at 1100
Immokalee Road. Also authorize a reimbursement of Road Impact
Fees in the amount of$384,010 as a result of the revised impact fee
calculation.
10) Recommendation to approve the second amendment to the agreement
between Collier County and the Economic Development Council of
Collier County for continuation of the Economic Diversification
Program by providing a contribution to the EDC of up to $400,000 for
Fiscal Year 2011, and authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to sign the amendment on behalf of Collier
County.
11) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of $43,244.35.
12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement (LAP) with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) in which Collier County would be reimbursed
up to $950,000 for the design, construction, engineering and
inspection of an experimental wildlife crossing on CR 846/Immokalee
Road, approximately 2.5 miles east of Oil Well Grade Road.
13) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of $234,046
to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) for Contract #09-5262
County-wide Engineering Civil Transportation Stormwater for the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP), Davis
Boulevard and Weir Improvements (Project No. 51101).
14) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a road right-of-way,
drainage and utility easement (Parcel No. 256RDUE) required for the
expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from two lanes to four lanes
between Wilson Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard. (Project No.
60040.) Estimated fiscal impact: $9,450.
Page 8
September 28, 2010
15) Recommendation to increase RFQ #10-5414 - Sabal Palm Road
Extension Project Delivery of Lime Rock Materials in the amount of
$4,359.01 for a total bid of$52,799.01 to Better Roads.
16) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the FY 2011-2020
Collier County Transit Development Plan (TDP) Ten Year Major
Update.
17) Recommendation to recognize FY 20 I 0-20 11 State Public Transit
Block Grant additional revenue in the amount of $720,259 to Collier
Area Transit Fund (426) and authorize all necessary budget
amendments.
18) Recommendation to recognize FY 2010/2011 Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311 additional revenue in the amount of
$254,584 to Collier Area Transit Fund (426) and authorize all
necessary budget amendments.
19) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in
which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $358,800 for
sidewalks on Boston Avenue from 1st Street South to 9th Street
South. (Project #33122)
20) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in
which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $750,000 for
Intersection Improvements on SR 29 at Lake Trafford Road (Project
#33124).
21) Recommendation to award ITB# 10-5482R - Lely MSTU Irrigation
Reuse Water Source Renovation to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation,
Inc. in the amount of$54,480.95.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve the submittal ofa 2011-2012 Florida
Page 9
September 28, 2010
Recreation Development Assistance Program Application, sponsored
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for a total
amount of $200,000. (Companion to Item #16B2).
2) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approves a Resolution authorizing an amendment to the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA Redevelopment Plan Capital Improvement
Program schedule to include the proposed Gateway Triangle
Stormwater Pond Pathway project to comply with Florida Recreation
Development Assistance Program grant application requirements.
(Companion to Item #16Bl).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with SMS Hezekiah,
LLC, and accept a Right of Entry for a groundwater monitor well and
environmental monitoring purposes in an amount not to exceed
$6,550.
2) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for the 1995
and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special
Assessments where the county has received payment in full
satisfaction of the liens. Fiscal impact is $38.50 to record the
Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to approve a Policy Statement to collect monies
owed to Collier County for the repair of utility and other assets
damaged by vendors and contractors that are doing business with
Collier County.
4) Recommendation to award Annual Contract for Well Drilling,
Testing, and Maintenance Services, pursuant to RFP #10-5409 to
Diversified Drilling Corporation, All Webbs, Well Masters, Labelle
Well Drilling, Southeast Drilling, and Youngquist Brothers,
Incorporated in the estimated annual amount of $250,000.
5) Recommendation to extend Contract #06-3972 and add funds in
the amount of $300,000 (estimated $60,000 annually) with Tele-
Works, Inc., for ongoing system maintenance and enhancements to
Page 10
September 28, 2010
the Utility Billing and Customer Service Departments Interactive
Voice Response Software System over a five year period.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a request to apply and accept a Home
Depot Grant in the amount of $12,000 for improvements to East
Naples and Eagle Lakes Community Parks.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
subrecipient agreement with the Shelter for Abused Women &
Children (SA WCC) providing for a $113,000 Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) homeless assistance
grant to aid with the cost of daily operations and supportive services
provided by SA WCC. No general funds are being utilized for this
CoC project.
3) Recommendation to approve a Submerged Lands Lease with the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State
of Florida at the Cocohatchee River Park Marina at a first year's
annual cost of $6,646.16.
4) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of a piece of land
located at 425 I st Street North, Immokalee, from Collier County to
the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.; at no cost to the
County.
5) Recommendation to approve Annual Reports for years 2005 through
2009 to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles for the Choose Life Specialty License Plate and authorize the
Chairman to sign the reports.
6) Recommendation to approve the submission of an application for a
Criminal Justice, Mental Health & Substance Abuse Reinvestment
Implementation Grant in an amount up to $750,000 from the Florida
Department of Children & Families, authorize the Chairman to sign
the application and attached assurances.
7) Recommendation that the Board provides after-the- fact approval for
Page 11
September 28, 2010
the submission of the 2011 State of Florida Challenge Grant
application, which was submitted to the Department of Children &
Family Services Office on Homelessness (DCF) in the amount of
$100,000. This grant application has no effect on ad valorem or
general fund dollars.
8) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of water utilities, and the conveyance of an easement for
telephone and related services located at Goodland Boat Park, 750
Palm Point Drive, Goodland Florida, at a cost not to exceed $98.
9) To approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the
Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition (CCHHC)
Subrecipient Agreement for the State of Florida Challenge Grant
approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) on December 15, 2009 Item 16- D5. This amendment will
allow for a revision of the Agreements budget in Exhibit A by moving
funds between line items to allow CCHHC to fully expend Challenge
grant funds. Total Challenge grant amount is unchanged.
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
subrecipient agreement with St. Matthew's House for the Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG) project previously approved for United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding in
the 2010-2011 Action Plan. The total amount of the federally funded
grant is $95,097. There is no effect on ad valorem or general fund
dollars.
11) Recommendation to approve a final status report from the Lake
Trafford Restoration Task Force; sunsetting this committee on
September 28,2010.
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign five
(5) lien agreements for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units located in
Collier County. Approval of this item will transfer previously
approved deferral agreements from developer to owner occupants
with a continuing fiscal impact of $73,611.30.
Page 12
September 28, 2010
13) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign an Amendment to Lien Agreement for Deferral of 100% of
Collier County Impact Fees for Owner Occupied Affordable Housing
Dwelling Units to correct the lot number and street address of a
previously recorded Agreement.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with M.T. Club, Inc.
for the installation and operation of County-owned communications
equipment at a first year's rent of$IOO.
2) Recommendation to authorize the submittal of a $15,000 Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Gopher Tortoise
Habitat Management Assistance Request to fund exotic plant removal
at the Conservation Collier Railhead Scrub Preserve.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign the Assumption Agreement from
Professional Staffing-ABTS, Inc. d/b/a Able Body Labor, to MDT
Personnel, LLC, for temporary labor services.
4) Recommendation to award Bid #10-5513 - Sublet/Parts Bid for
Collier County to multiple vendors for Fleet Management services,
repair parts, accessories, and end items with total expenditures
estimated at $750,000 annually.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Richard F. Berman as to 1/3 interest and Raymond and Terry
Bennett also known as Terri Bennett, husband and wife, as to 1/3
interest and Frank J. Celsnak and Marlene J. Celsnak Trustees U/D/T
dated 27th December 1991 as to 1/3 interest for 1.59 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program; at a cost not to
exceed $16,500.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Israel Oliva and Josefa Oliva, husband and wife for 1.14 acres
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program; at a cost
not to exceed $9,100.
Page 13
September 28, 2010
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Remedios Kuntzevich for 2.73 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $17,000.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Jacob Vincent for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $12,000.
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ocean Investment Management Corp., a Florida corporation, for
1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program
at a cost not to exceed $12,000.
10) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2011 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan inclusive of additions, deletions or
modifications from July 1,2010 forward, and to continue authorizing
the creation of new classifications, modification and/or deletion of
classifications and assignment of pay ranges from the proposed 2011
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, using the existing Archer
point-factor job evaluation system, subject to a quarterly report to the
Board of County Commissioners.
11) Recommendation to use contract RFP #07-4148 (Collier County
Security Services) on a temporary basis for Energy Management
(Building Automation) Services for an estimated amount of$50,000
12) Recommendation to award Request For Proposal #10-5510, Annual
Contract for General Contractor Services, to the following firms:
Wright Construction Group, Inc.; Surety Construction Company;
Vanderbilt Bay Construction, Inc.; Bradanna, Inc.; and PBS
Construction, Inc.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Agreement between Collier County and the Florida Division of
Emergency Management accepting a Grant award for $79,355 for
Emergency Management Program Enhancement and approve the
Page 14
September 28, 2010
associated budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Marco Presbyterian Church to coordinate
relief efforts at the time of a disaster.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing removal of 15,376
ambulance service accounts and their respective account receivable
balances which total $11,549,642.92, from the general ledger of
Collier County Fund 490 (Emergency Medical Services). Although
the amount was recognized and recorded as Bad Debt Expense during
Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, it cannot be removed without Board
adoption of an authorizing resolution.
4) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments appropriating
approximately $306,198,545.35 of unspent FY 2010 grant and project
budgets into fiscal year 2011. (Required Pursuant to Section 129.06
Florida Statutes)
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting as the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Chairman
to execute the First Amendment to Contract #06-3903 Car Rental
Service at the Marco Island Airport with Enterprise Leasing Company
of Florida, LLC.
2) Approve a request to write off uncollectible Accounts Receivable
incurred by the Airport Authority in the amount of $830.98.
3) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact acceptance of the
attached Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant offer for
$6,068,990 for construction of a taxiway and aircraft apron (south) at
the Marco Island Executive Airport, and associated budget
amendments.
Page 15
September 28, 2010
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement of
meal expenditures at functions serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended fact finding trip to The Jackson Laboratory from July 14,
2010 through July 18,2010 in Bar Harbor, ME. $72.60 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended 2010 Excellence in Industry awards luncheon at the Naples
Hilton on September 21,2010 in Naples, FL. $20 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended The Public Relations, Marketing, and Advertising
Professionals of Collier County (PRACC) Luncheon on September
16,2010 in Naples, FL. $30 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
4) Proclamation presented to the Marco Island YMCA acknowledging
the new name as 'Y' across the world, and celebrating a "Brand New
Day" on September 20,2010. Provided to Keith Dameron. Sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 4,2010 through September 10,2010 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 11, 20 I 0 through September 17, 20 I 0 and for submission
Page 16
September 28, 2010
into the official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to Authorize the Extension of the Tax Roll Before
Completion of the Value Adjustment Board Hearings Pursuant to
Section 197.323, F.S., and Tax Collector's Request.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $69,900 for Parcels 121 & 721 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Rafael Liy, et aI., Case No. 05-752-CA (Collier Boulevard
(951) Project No. 65061) (Fiscal Impact $31,521.80)
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $67,250 for Parcel 809 in the lawsuit styled Collier County
v. Myrtle Preserve, LLC., et aI., Case No. 07-0463-CA (Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project No. 51101.1) (Fiscal Impact
$91,717.50)
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution designating the Driver
License Building at 725 Airport Road South as the Guy L. Carlton
Driver License Building.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution designating the proposed
Florida Power & Light greenway from north of Rattlesnake Hammock
Road to Radio Road as the "The Rich King Memorial Greenway".
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution designating the proposed
Vanderbilt Drive Greenway, from 111 th Avenue North to Bonita
Beach Road, as The Frank Halas Greenway.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
Page 17
September 28, 2010
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all participants are
reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition V AC-
PL20 1 0-817, Hodges University, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
Countys and the Public's interest in a 40- foot wide drainage easement over
Tract-B on the plat of North brook Plaza, a subdivision according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 31, pages 65 and 66 of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida, situated in Section 19, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and being more specifically depicted
on Exhibit A, and accept the replacement drainage easement depicted and
described on Exhibit B.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 86-28, as
amended, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, to re-adopt Finished
Floor Elevation criteria which were inadvertently repealed by Ordinance
2009-59 and allowing for interim standards.
C. Recommendation for approval to amend Ordinance No. 2009-32, as
amended, (Environmental Advisory Council Ordinance), to maintain
consistency with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Conservation and
Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policies 6.1.1 (13) and 6.1.8, and
Land Development Code (LDC) amendment to subsection 10.02.02.A.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members: DRICLO-PL2009-95:
CDC Land Investments, Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of
Roetzel & Andress, LP A, is requesting an essentially built-out agreement in
order to close out the Collier Tract 22 Development of Regional Impact and
be relieved of any obligations for the DRI. The property is located at the
northeast corner of US 41 and Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.(CTS)
E. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
Page 18
September 28, 2010
Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all participants are
reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition V AC-
PL2010-965, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's
interest in a portion of a 20- foot wide Lake Maintenance Easement over Lot
36, of Park Place West, a subdivision according to the Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 32 and 33, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, situated in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, the subject portion of easement to be vacated is
more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A.
F. Recommendation to approve the annual rate resolution to establish the fees,
rates, and charges for the use of Collier County Solid Waste Facilities,
including landfill tipping fees, recycling center fees, residential multi-family
and commercial waste collection fees for FYll. This resolution adopts the
rates that fund the FYll budget for solid waste collection and disposal.
G. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-PL2009-58 Largay
Properties, LLC, represented by Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire of
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting approval of a Conditional
Use for a Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery in the
Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to Collier County Land
Development Code Subsection 2.03.01 A.1.c.12, The subject 5 acre tract is
located on the east side of Pheasant Roost Trail, south of Frangipani Avenue
in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
H. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2009-10 Adopted Budget.
I. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 20 I 0-11 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
September 28, 2010
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting of
the Board of County Commissioners is now in session.
Could you please stand for the invocation by Reverend Michael
Bannon, Crossroads Church of Naples.
REVEREND BANNON: Psalm 84: 11, 12 says, the Lord God is
a son and a shield. The Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing
does he withhold from those who walk uprightly. Oh, Lord of Hosts,
blessed is the one who trusts in you.
Would you pray with me, please.
Lord God, thank you for being such a gracious God who is
concerned about the affairs of people. Father, I pray that you would
teach us to trust you in all things, that your name might be glorified.
Father, I pray for our County Commissioners who have the
awesome responsibility of the affairs of this, our county. Father, I
pray that you would bless them this day with great wisdom, great
compassion, discernment, that the decisions that they make this day,
the things that they discuss, might be for our good.
Help us, Lord God, as residents of this county, to be a people
who strive to be good citizens, to live in harmony with one another, to
promote this community and its betterment.
Father, we commit this time and the things that happen here to
you. Be glorified in them, I pray. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, you have some changes to the agenda this
.
mornIng.
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, eONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
Page 2
September 28, 2010
AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Good morning, Commissioners.
These are agenda changes, Board of County Commissioner
meeting, September 28,2010.
First change is a request for a continuance of Item 6B, continued
to the October 26, 2010, BCC meeting. This is a public petition
request by E's Country Store at Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road.
Again, that's at petitioner's request.
Next change is to continue Item 6D to October 12,2010, BCC
meeting. Again, a public petition request by Mr. Harrison Hubschman
regarding water detention areas of South Michigan Avenue and 12th
Street at the petitioner's request.
Next change is continue Item 16D4 to the October 12,2010 BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to approve conveyance of some land
in Immokalee to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center. Staffhas
a little bit of cleanup work to do on that document.
And I have two agenda notes, Commissioners, this morning.
Item 16A 7, we have a transposition error. The first sentence states,
the project cost is $204,326. The correct amount should read,
$240,326, and that change is at staffs request.
And the last note is Item 12B. It's to add the following sentence
to the end of Section 7 entitled, Litigation, to read: We will also
evaluate the degree to which the County Attorney's Office and outside
counsel achieves satisfactory outcome on litigation. That change was
made at the county attorney's request.
That's all the changes I had, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Okay. We'll start with commissioners,
Page 3
September 28, 2010
and we'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Skip me for now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. How about Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no changes to the
agenda. And under the -- the only thing I have to report is under the
summary agenda, 17G. I received emails on it, I received staff report,
and that concludes what I have to offer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And with the exception of 17G, where I have received
correspondence from the Planning Commission staff report, I have no
disclosures for either the summary or the consent agenda.
I do have one comment to be made concerning one item on the
consent agenda, and that is the approval of $400,000 to the Economic
Development Council. I would like to seek the board's concurrence in
providing guidance with respect to that allocation.
Just this last week a writer to the Naples Daily News claimed that
our money had been spent by the EDC for reports by economists, and
that simply isn't true. That money was provided from other sources, I
think the Chamber of Commerce, and was not allocated from Collier
County Government.
But I would like to get the board's concurrence that we attach a
condition to this money that it not be used for the purpose of hiring
economists who make predictions that we can't necessarily depend
upon and are generally slanted toward an effort to eliminate impact
fees.
So is there a sufficient guidance --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just on impact fees? It's just
sliding -- any study that is not quantifiable, let the private sector do
that.
Page 4
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's -- I don't know what that might
be, but we're approving money to the EDC, and I'm just saying, they
should not use it for hiring an economist to lobby us about reduction
of impact fees as they have in the past, and they continue to do it as
late as last week.
So if we have three nods.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll attach that condition to that
approval.
And that's the only change I have to the agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chairman.
As far as the consent agenda, I don't have any items on that. And
as to the summary agenda, the only item that I have ex parte on is Item
17G, and that is a staff report that I was given yesterday in regards to
that.
So that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no additions,
corrections, or changes to the agenda. And for the summary agenda or
for the -- for the -- yeah, summary agenda, the only declaration I have
is 17G. I received correspondence, and I also spoke to staff about this,
seeking some information, just to make sure when I vote that it's the
way that I want it to be. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had staff communications on
1 7 G, also would like to pull 16K5 from the consent agenda to the
regular agenda.
MR.OCHS: 16K5 will become Item 12D.
eHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that D, Delta?
Page 5
September 28, 2010
MR. OCHS: D, Delta, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the agenda as
amended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the agenda as
amended --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.
Page 6
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 28, 2010
Continue Item 6B to October 26. 2010 BCC Meetin~: This item continued from the
September 14, 2010 BCC Meeting. Public Petition request by E's Country Store at Oil Well
Road and Immokalee Road. (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 60 to October 12. 2010 BCC Meetin~: Public Petition request by Mr.
Harrison Hubschman regarding water detention area south of Michigan Avenue at 12th
Street. (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 1604 to October 12. 2010 BCC Meetin~: Recommendation to approve the
conveyance of a piece of land located at 425 1st Street North, Immokalee, from Collier County
to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.; at no cost to the County. (Staffs request)
Note:
Item 16A7: Impact on this item has a transposition error. First sentence states "project
cost is $204,326"; correct amount should read $240,326. (Staff's request)
Item 12B: Add the following sentence to end of Section 7 entitled Litigation: We will also
evaluate the degree to which the County Attorney's Office and outside counsel achieves
satisfactory outcome on litigation. (County Attorney's request)
9/28/2010 8:39 AM
September 28, 2010
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS - EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS
That brings us to service awards, County Manager?
MR.OCHS: No service awards this morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Then we'll go with
proclamations.
Item #4 (One Motion Taken to Adopt Proclamations later in the
meeting)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN RECYCLING. ACCEPTED BY JENNIFER I.
NELSON, SR. DIRECTOR OF RETAIL OPERATIONS AND E-
COMMERCE, TOM FEURIG, PRESIDENT AND CEO AND JODY
JACOBY, SALVAGE AND RECYCLING SUPERVISOR
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER FIALA - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The first proclamation is proclamation
4A, congratulating Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida,
Incorporated, for their contributions in recycling. This proclamation to
be accepted by Jennifer I. Nelson, senior director of retail operations
and e-commerce; Tom Feurig, president COE; and Jody Jacoby,
salvage and recycling supervisor.
This proclamation sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Good morning.
Page 7
September 28, 2010
MS. NELSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Thanks a lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. You get your
picture taken now.
(Applause.)
MS. NELSON: My name is Jennifer Nelson, and on behalf of
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, we want to thank the
county commissioners for this honor. Our mission at Goodwill is to
provide job-related services to people with disabilities and other
barriers to employment -- you better give that to us -- and we do that
through our repurposing and recycling efforts. The revenue that we
generate from that not only goes into our job-training programs, but
we're also able to employ residents, for example, of Collier County in
need.
So we're really honored to receive this award. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You didn't receive all of them.
MS. NELSON: Okay. Well you better give them to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't hand them all out.
MS. NELSON: You better give them to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're going to get your hands
full of these. Now we're going to have another picture.
MS. NELSON: Oh, another picture?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. NELSON: Come on, guys. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now everybody gets to hold
something.
MS. NELSON: Now we all get to hold something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll get it right this time.
MS. NELSON: Thank you all so much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
Page 8
September 28, 2010
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 10,2010 AS THE
10TH ANNUAL PUT THE BRAKES ON FATALITIES DAY.
ACCEPTED BY NANCY FRYE, COMMUNITY TRAFFIC
SAFETY TEAM, DAVID BUCHHEIT, COMMUNITY TRAFFIC
SAFETY TEAM CHAIRMAN, SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK AND
SGT. L. CROUCH, FHP. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER
COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, Item 4B is a proclamation
designating October 10, 2010, as the 10th Annual Put the Brakes on
Fatalities Day. To be accepted by Nancy Frye, community traffic
safety team; David Buchheit, community traffic safety team chairman;
Sheriff Kevin Rambosk; and Sergeant Robert L. Crouch from the
Florida Highway Patrol.
This item sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here you go. Congratulations. Thank
you.
Sheriff, good to see you. How you doing?
Good morning, how are you?
Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING THE FREEDOM PARK
PROJECT TEAM FOR RECEIVING THE TEAM PROJECT OF
THE YEAR A WARD FOR 2009 FROM THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ENGINEERS AND ROAD
SUPERINTENDENTS (FACERS). PRESENTED TO TEAM
LEADER SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER MARGARET BISHOP
BY ALAN HOLBACH, FACERS BOARD MEMBER -
PRESENTED
Page 9
September 28, 2010
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda, presentations. 5A is a presentation to recognize the Freedom
Park project team for receiving the Team Project of the Year Award
for 2009 from the Florida Association of County Engineers and Road
Superintendents.
This item is to be presented to team leader senior project
manager, Margaret Bishop, by Alan Holbach, FACERS board
member.
Please come forward.
MR. HOLBACH: Good morning, Honorable Chairman,
Members of the Board.
FACERS is Florida Association of County Engineers and Road
Superintendents, and represent all public works throughout the state
and take pleasure in reviewing on an annual basis team projects that
are submitted, nomination, and making a selection.
The award is presented to a team that's held in the highest
professional regard, having made a significant contribution to local
public works. Contributions for the -- or criteria for the award includes
timeliness, innovation, leadership, impact on budget, and impact to the
community.
It is my honor to present the Team Project of the Year Award to
Collier Transportation Services Division, Margaret Bishop, team
leader.
(Applause.)
MS. BISHOP: Good morning, Commissioners. I was supposed
to give a brief overview of the project.
MR.OCHS: You are, for the record?
MS. BISHOP: Oh, Margaret Bishop, Collier County Growth
Management Division.
I was fortunate to be a member of the team to receive the award
for the Team Project of the Year for Freedom Park. Thanks to
Page 10
September 28,2010
Norman Feder's leadership, the park became a reality.
This project involves several divisions and departments. Not
only was transportation involved, but Marla Ramsey and Barry
Williams' teams at Parks and Recreation, Len Golden Price, and Skip
Camp's teams at Conservation Collier and Facilities were involved.
The designer was CH2MHill. The contractor was Kraft
Construction Company, and the construction inspection was
performed by PBS&J.
Our funding partners were Florida Communities Trust and the
South Florida Water Management District.
Freedom Park is especially unique because it's a park that
improves water quality. Road runoff and water from surrounding
neighbors is pumped from the Goodlette-Frank Road ditch and runs
through a series of created wetlands that filters the pollutants by
biological uptake.
Water is discharged through a control structure and sheet flows
over the natural wetlands. This treatment train cleans the water before
it is discharged to the Gordon River that goes to Naples Bay and
ultimately the Gulf of Mexico.
In addition to this 50-acre park, other amenities include the 2,500
square foot education building. The park has seen 18,000 visitors
since it has opened in last October.
Parks and Recreation holds programs, camps for kids, seminars
for adults, and maintains a base of volunteers.
I spoke to the created wetlands. The other half of the park is
natural wetlands. You will see boardwalks and trails and a passive
park setting, and it is designed to attract native wildlife.
There are interpretive signs along the boardwalk that explain the
features of the park such as how the water circulates and the role of
wetlands, plus some of the wildlife and plants that are there.
We have water quality monitoring programs to see how we are
doing with removing pollutants. The signs explain the importance of
Page 11
September 28, 2010
planting native species, exotic removal, and the importance of
protecting the watershed.
Finally, it is the site of the Freedom Memorial, the namesake of
the park. This memorial is a tribute to the 9/11 victims, funded by
private donations. There's something for everyone, whether you are a
science teacher, nature enthusiast, birder, photographer, artist, or
someone who wants to take a seminar or just take a walk through
nature.
I'm honored to have been part of this project and want to thank
Norman Feder for making it happen and his leadership.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Margaret.
Item #5B
UPDATING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE
STATUS OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY
(PACE) PROGRAM - PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5B is an update to the Board
of County Commissioners on the status of the Property Assessed
Clean Energy Program. Ms. Len Price, your division administrator for
Administrative Services, will present.
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. Queued this up,
and then it disappeared. Okay. So we'll have technical difficulties for
a moment.
For the record, Len Golden Price, Administrative Services
Division administrator.
In May you asked us to come back to you with a proposal to put
together a P AeE program. Just as a reminder, P AeE is a program
that was passed by the state legislature as well as several places
Page 12
September 28, 2010
throughout the nation to allow homeowners to borrow funds to make
energy improvements and in Florida also wind resistance
improvements, and these loans are paid back through your -- as
non-ad valorem property taxes over a period as long as 20 years.
It's similar to special taxing districts except that it would be
voluntarily; a homeowner would choose to do this rather than it being
imposed, like utilities improvements and the like.
What would we need to put together a program like this? We
would need some technical services, be able to identify what's eligible
and what the best bang for the buck would be, we would require some
financial services for the funding, bonds, et cetera, from legal services,
as well as some administration. And the law that was passed in
Florida allows for the use of a third-party administrator to put the
program together so that there would be little impact on county
staffing, all of which could be repaid through -- as part of the payment
back for the loan and the improvement itself.
The process in general would be that we would get ourselves
started, put together a team, scope it out, have some public input,
public workshops, launch the program, and put together the financing,
work with the tax collector to make sure that the liens were set aside
and that the programs were paid back.
Why did I not bring to you an actual program today? That would
be because the federal housing finance assoc- -- agency, rather, has
put a stop and a hold on all PACE programs across the nation because
of concerns that these loans would be primary loans in the event of a
foreclosure, and their interpretation that the entire lien would have to
be paid off at the time that there was a foreclosure.
There are a couple of bills that are working their way through the
House and the Senate right now to try and address those issues. The
Department of Energy, as well as the White House, have issued some
guidelines that we hope will allay these fears, but in the meantime,
they're still out there, and these projects have been placed on hold all
Page 13
September 28,2010
across the country.
On today's agenda further -- further on today's agenda, I think,
Commissioner Coletta has put forth a resolution asking for your
endorsement of support for these bills so that we can be able to move
forward on these types of projects whether or not we decide to go
forward ourselves.
In Florida, several places have started programs. Some of them
are on hold right now. In Leon County, which is Tallahassee, they
started their program with $50,000 for energy audits where
homeowners would receive an audit and determine what -- the best
way that they can improve energy conservation in their home. That is
going to be their precursor or prerequisite for their PACE program.
Only those projects that are eligible -- found to be eligible under the
audits would be able to move forward for the second -- for the second
phase.
St. Lucy County is planning to do the same thing, and in Miami,
their program right now is on hold.
One of the things that we're looking at right now is to see if
there's grant funds available where we might be able to start
something similar to that, and we believe that we could do that with or
without a PACE program. So even if the legislation never allowed the
program to go forward, we might be able to help the community
through grant funds to obtain audits to determine what would be the
best use of any improvement money that anyone might choose to
bring forward.
There are some alternatives out there that we might want to
consider, and we're starting to look into those, but in the meantime
we're watching the legislation carefully. The expectation is sometime
after the mid-term elections in November, these things might really
start to take hold. And the main belief right now is that we are going
to be able to resolve this situation and be able to move forward, at
which point we'll be able to bring you a proposal for a program, and
Page 14
September 28,2010
you can determine at that time whether Collier County wants to move
forward.
Open it up at this point for any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Once again, the whole premise behind the PACE program is to
be able to provide a clean, safe energy to our residents at a reasonable
cost that's written off over a 20-year period. The savings would be
instantaneous the first year because of the way the payments would be
structured.
I wanted to thank staff for moving this forward. I especially want
to thank Steve Hart and his support group for keeping this thing alive
and in the public view.
I hope that this commission will support the resolution that's on
there and let the legislators in Washington, D.C., know that this
program's important, not only to the country, but at Collier County as
an individual entity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That resolution is not part of this
particular item, is it?
MS. PRICE: No. I believe it's --
MR. OeHS: No.
MS. PRICE: -- on the commissioners' items. It's one of them on
number 9.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We'll be coming to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we'll get to that.
One of the questions I have is, where are you going to get the
money to initiate this? You know, when you come back to us, we're
going to need a budget impact, and I'm a little concerned about
spending money up front, hiring additional staff, creating new
departments, without really understanding what the activity is going to
be.
And number two, I would like to suggest that as part of your
Page 15
September 28, 2010
analysis, you take a look at how we can accomplish many of the same
things by revisions in our Land Development Codes, particularly for
new construction and major renovations.
We -- if we're careful and we don't increase the costs of
construction, we might achieve some of these benefits by putting
requirements in our Land Development Code. But I'm not suggesting
that we increase the cost of construction in order to achieve that.
I believe it's possible to accomplish that goal, and it would be
helpful if you were to include that in your analysis of alternatives
about how we can keep this program going, okay?
MS. PRICE: We will definitely do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would that be acceptable to the other
commissioners? Do we have three -- okay . We have three nods.
MS. PRICE: And that will be part of our presentation as we
move forward, the funding, as well as what you suggested.
And I think Mr. Hart wanted to address some of your questions
right now in terms of upfront financing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. HART: Thank you. I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
And I'm going to ask you a question about financing in just a
second, but before I do that, let me express to you our gratitude as
your citizen energy panel for the work that Len and Alex have done
since you asked them to do this, just outstanding work, and the county
attorney as well, and the finance director, and lots of people in the
county staff have been involved in this, and they're doing excellent
work, and we very much appreciate it.
The answer -- and, Mr. Chairman, I love your idea about
incorporating some of these energy-saving ideas in the Land
Development Code. I think that is an excellent idea, and I'm sorry we
hadn't thought of it before, so -- brilliant mind. Thank you very much.
But to answer your question about --
Page 16
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I get an award for this?
MR. HART: Yeah, you get an award for that.
But to answer your question about financing, you know,
historically speaking, when I say historically, since the concept of
P ACE first emerged ten, 12 years ago, local governments have raised
this money through bond issues.
The Florida Legislation, which was adopted in the spring, it
foresees what the legislature believes is an improvement to that
mechanism by allowing local governments, cities, and counties to go
out and seek third-party interim financing, say a coalition of banks, a
combination of banks and grants, wherever that funding might come
from that would get the program up and running, and then at some
point when enough property owners and liens are in place, then take
the money out for a bond sale, which means, at the point of a bond
sale, everything is guaranteed and it's really a no-risk bond sale, and
that's the contemplation that the Florida Legislature saw as an
improvement.
What the legislature insists is that this not be a financial burden
to counties, that it not be a financial burden to homeowners, and that,
indeed, it is a win-win because it creates jobs for people, for workers,
as they are making these energy-efficient improvements to homes and
buildings.
And so it's just -- you know, this is one of -- this is one of the best
and most innovative ideas of government, public-private partnerships
that has come along in a long, long time. And we don't fully
understand why the federal mortgage regulating agencies have such a
problem with it, except that you and I both know that there's --
somebody is afraid someone's ox is being gored somewhere, and we
can imagine it comes down to a money issue.
But I -- everybody that we talk to, everybody that I talk to, feels
certain that these roadblocks at the federal regulatory level are going
to be overcome one way or the other, either through negotiation or
Page 1 7
September 28,2010
through the legislation, that is in both the House and the Senate, and
so it's just a question of when. We feel confident it will; it's just a
question of when.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's hope that all the other roadblocks
that exist in Washington will be removed, too, soon.
MR. HART: Wouldn't that be wonderful?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. PRICE: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, before I move to 5C, may I get a
motion to move the proclamations from morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. OCHS: I need a motion and second for your proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Proclamations today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, for all of the past proclamations.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I thought you were talking about the
proclamation for this, which we're coming to later.
MR. OCHS: No, 4A and B. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Oh, the 4A and B proclamations.
Motion to approve. There's a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You got it from Frank, got a second
from me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Halas and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
eOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
eOMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 18
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The proclamations are approved
unanimously.
MR.OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY PARKS &
RECREATION FOR WINNING THE 2010 FLORIDA
RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION AGENCY
EXCELLENCE AWARD - CATEGORY 1. THIS PRESTIGIOUS
AWARD WILL BE PRESENTED BY MR. DON DECKER,
PRESIDENT, FLORIDA RECREATION AND PARKS
ASSOCIATION TO BE ACCEPTED BY BARRY WILLIAMS,
DIRECTOR. PARKS AND RECREATION - PRESENTED
MR.OCHS: That now moves us to Item 5C on your agenda. It's
a presentation to Collier County Parks and Recreation for winning the
2010 Florida Recreation and Parks Association Agency Excellence
Award in Category I. This prestigious award will be presented by Mr.
Don Decker, president of Florida Recreation and Parks Association.
To be accepted by Barry Williams, director of Parks and Recreation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. DECKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Decker?
MR. DEeKER: -- Commissioners. Thank you for having me
here today. My name is Don Decker. I'm the president of the Florida
Recreation and Park Association, also the director of Parks and
Page 19
September 28,2010
Recreation for the City of Western Florida.
It's a pleasure to stand before you and be given the opportunity to
acknowledge the achievements of the Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department. I very much looked forward to driving across
Alligator Alley this morning because I really enjoy Southwest Florida.
I'm a frequent visitor to your county in large part because of your
parks and recreation amenities.
There's no question that you have tremendous facilities and
programs, world-renowned beaches, cozy neighbor parks, and
first-class sports facilities are just some of them, but your
programming is making a difference, too, particularly during a time
when it is most needed.
While our schools are struggling to offer anything but core
subjects, you are offering arts, music, sciences, nature, and fitness
programs that will help build crucial life skills and well-rounded
citizens.
In these areas there's no question that Collier County is visionary.
But I'm one who's always valued the human resource above all others.
Walt Disney said, you can dream, create, design, and build the most
wonderful place in the world, but it requires people to make the dream
a reality.
I didn't ask Barry beforehand, but I suspect if I asked him, he
would tell you that his employees are what make the difference. From
the maintenance worker who meticulously cares for the baseball field
to the lifeguard who makes sure your swimmers are safe, this is where
the excellence lies.
I was struck by the values of your department listed on your
Parks and Recreation website, the first four, honesty, integrity, public
service, and accountability are often cited when you overhear
discussions about what is wrong with government. I believe this
recognition serves as a very public endorsement that the eollier
eounty Parks and Recreation Department employees are committed to
Page 20
September 28, 2010
providing quality recreation services to the citizens of Collier County
while maintaining the highest values.
But you need not take my word for it. Your department is one of
90 agencies across the nation that has received accreditation from the
National Recreation and Park Association and the reaccreditation
achievement this past year came with a remarkable perfect score.
Collier resident Kim Cane in her written endorsement of the
award application spoke of the special memories her sons have
already developed by participating in Collier County Parks' programs.
And we would like to hire Commissioner Fiala, because she could not
have put the benefits of Parks and Recreation any better when she
said, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department fosters a
sense of belonging and a pride of ownership by offering opportunities
for personal growth and community involvement.
In the shadow of these glowing reviews, my comments pale. But
on behalf of the members of the Florida Recreation and Park
Association, it's my pleasure to congratulate Collier County and, in
particular, the employees of the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department for winning the 2010 Florida Recreation and Park
Association Agency Excellence Award.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come on down.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I might just say a few
words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By all means.
MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, I just want to say thanks to Don
for coming over across the Alley and honoring us with this award.
We are very excited. And I told Don before that we had a very
supportive board of our park system, and I wanted to thank each of
you for the support that you've given us over the years. We wouldn't
Page 21
September 28, 2010
have a park system like this if it weren't for you.
Also, I wanted to quote -- there's an old Norwegian saying that
says, many hands make the load light, and I wanted to thank our chief
Norwegian back there, Ms. Marla Ramsey. Ms. Ramsey, with Leo
Ochs, we have a wonderful senior leadership team that keeps us on the
straight and narrow, and we want to thank those guys in particular for
working with us and being patient with us as we make plans and we
look for the future.
But the thing I wanted to say most of all, our staff -- and Mr.
Decker had said it correctly. We wouldn't be anywhere without the
fine staff that we have. And our leadership team today, I just want to
say thank you for all that you've done over the last few years, and all
of our staff in Parks and Rec. made this award happen. So thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Barry.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We better get to something controversial
pretty soon or we're going to be finished before noon.
MR. OCHS : Well, right on cue then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: That takes us to public petitions.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY MR. TIM HANCOCK
REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS-
MOTION FOR PETITIONER TO WORK WITH STAFF TO
FORMULATE AN AGREEMENT AND BRING BACK TO THE
BCC - APPROVED
MR. OeHS: eommissioners, Item 6A is a public petition request
Page 22
September 28, 2010
by Mr. Tim Hancock regarding an agreement with the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Commissioners. I believe the
controversy items start next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. But those are both
continued.
MR. HANCOCK: I was glad to see this presentation this
morning. I have two daughters, and we're not just frequent users of
the county's park system, but we travel all over the state with Travel
Youth Athletics, and we have so much to be proud of here in Collier
County with our Parks and Rec. system by far; by far the finest in the
State of Florida. So congratulations to you and your park staff.
The request today is basically to seek board direction with
respect to a 1.7-acre aggregation of two parcels at the intersection of
US 41 and State Road 29 on the southeast corner -- I'm sorry --
southwest corner.
The area of critical state concern, which is further adopted in
your Growth Management Plan, was created in 1974 by the state
legislature, and it was a large blanket thrown over a big part of Eastern
Collier County with environmental intent attached to it for protection
and preservation and to limit development encroachment; however,
sometimes when we take a very satellite view of a large area, we miss
some small areas.
And the areas of Everglades City and Chokoloskee you excepted
from the ACSC, but this body has seen changes in the area of critical
state concern for more localized issues. In 1985 Port of the Islands
had an agreement that kind of carved out some specific exceptions,
and more recently this board was involved, in 2005, in recognizing
that some of those rules in Plantation Island weren't quite fair and
reached an agreement with Department of Community Affairs for
Plantation Island.
What we have here is, we have a comer parcel that is about .8
Page 23
September 28, 2010
acres. It has an existing gas station on it and is grandfathered. The
piece immediately next to it, which you can kind of see a semi truck
sitting on part of it in that aerial photograph, totals just under one acre.
That piece has been historically impacted since prior to the adoption
of the ACSC. I have aerial photographs, which I've shared with
several of you and was a part of your package dating back to 1973,
that show the site is pretty much in the same condition it was back
then.
And the request we have for you today is that this -- these parcels
are designated in your Growth Management Plan as being eligible for
rural commercial development. As a matter of fact, they're
specifically mentioned as being allowed for that type of development.
Part -- in part because of the existing gas station, also in part because
I don't think you can imagine putting a house on that piece. So it
makes sense to have that kind of use there. But the ACSC and that
designation are in conflict.
What we're asking for is we're asking for this board to give
authorization to staff to work with us to craft an agreement with the
Department of Community Affairs that would come back to you for
final adoption that would establish reasonable development limitations
for this parcel in light of its prior impacts.
The second part of this request -- and I met with Nick at the
request of Commissioner Coletta to make sure that because this is a
one-owner property and only affecting one owner, there is staff time
involved, and want to make sure that we are fair in compensating staff
and the county for the time involved in assisting us with this.
And in discussing it with Nick, what we developed was, the
review of this is going to be something very similar to what would be
an official interpretation. It's going to require some assistance from
the county attorney and from planning staff.
The application fee on an 01 is a thousand dollars. So we're
proposing a one-thousand-dollar application fee, if you will, to address
Page 24
September 28, 2010
staff time. And should staffs time exceed that, the applicant would be
required to compensate staff for that, so that way we're not draining
the county's budget or asking anything in particular from you.
That's the nature of the request. I have met with several of you
on this and be happy to address any questions you have at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions by the board?
I have just one question, Mr. Hancock, and that concerns the
extent of the property itself. The designation on the overhead indicates
that the property extends into some wetlands, and it looks like a
channel there. Does the property owner actually own those
submerged lands?
MR. HANCOCK: They are contained within the legal
description. Submerged lands is, as you know, a tricky item.
Our intent is not to develop the mangrove fringe. It's really just
to develop on the upland portion of the site that you see here.
Anything else would be limited to the possibility of maybe a narrow
boardwalk through an area that is already impacted or would not
impact the mangroves. But beyond that, really the focus here is on the
upland portion of the site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd be willing to bring this
back for discussion on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a couple of seconds and maybe a
question. Second by Commissioner Halas.
Is there a question, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to seek some input
from the county attorney. This is something that requires -- what's the
simplest way to be able to handle this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Not sure yet. We're going to have to get
Page 25
September 28,2010
with Mr. Hancock and staff over at Horseshoe and see what the most
expedited process would be.
eHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner--
MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't something we do every day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, would you consider
a possible amendment to your motion or additional guidance to staff
that we approve the request to work with staff to formulate an
agreement that would come back to us for approval? At least we could
get you started rather than waiting till the next --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that cuts another step out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that was your intent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a great idea. Thank you very
much. I will amend my motion to say that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will be in my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. It's in the amended
motion and the second.
Commissioner Coletta, did you finish?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That covers it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is the application
fee of a thousand dollars. But if we find that there's more time
involved in this, I think maybe we ought to also include in the motion
that whatever other expenses are in there, that the petitioner will pay
for that; is that fair for you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And he's placed that on the
record.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that is fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a good thing to include.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that includes all advertising costs and
the like.
eOMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. HANeOCK: And also, just so you know, even if we reach
Page 26
September 28, 2010
this agreement and the board does adopt it, we still have to come back
for the land issues under a rezone, so those will be addressed at a later
time also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. Very well.
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: It is approved unanimously.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, Item 6B has been continued.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY MS. KATHLEEN H.
REYNOLDS OF THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGARDING REQUEST FOR
FUNDING - PRESENTED; DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH
COALITION TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES TO
FUNDING - CONSENSUS
MR.OCHS: That takes us to Item 6C on your agenda, a public
petition request by Ms. Kathleen H. Reynolds of the Early Learning
Coalition of Southwest Florida regarding requests for funding.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, we have two people who have
filed speaker slips. It should be pointed out to them that they'll be
speaking under Item 11 on the agenda.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: And what that really means is we don't
Page 27
September 28, 2010
take public speakers for petitions and, unfortunately, what you'd have
to do if you wanted to speak in favor of this, you'd have to wait till the
end of the meeting today. That's problematic.
MS. REYNOLDS: I think it would be, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would the board indulge me if I were
just to ask the two speakers if they support this petition rather than
having the presentations?
Who are the two speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: We have Mr. Remington and Mr. Robinson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Robinson here?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
MR.OCHS: Over here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you both in favor of this petition?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
MR. REMINGTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you. And I thank all of you for the
time that I've had in meeting with you and really trying to explain the
complexities of early childcare funding.
I was a school superintendent for a lot of years, and I thought that
was complex. It's nothing compared to funding for early learning,
believe me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You ain't seen nothing yet.
MS. REYNOLDS: Our request to you is that you ask -- allow us
to have staff see if they can identify a funding source for a hundred
and -- the required match for Collier County of $141 ,000 that would
then allow our board of directors to commit $2.3 million. Let me say
that again, $2.3 million of federal money for the working poor in
Collier County.
The total package allows 500 people who are currently employed
in Collier eounty -- these are not new jobs. These are people who are
working, and the only reason that they're working is because we're
Page 28
September 28, 2010
able to subsidize childcare. Without -- I've learned at this late stage of
my life, without subsidized childcare, people cannot go to work.
I am growing in awareness of the complexities of childcare
funding in this state. The bottom line of the requested match of
$141,668 is that it supports 500 people. Not new jobs. These are
people who are already working in Collier County.
The cost to the Board of eounty Commissioners is approximately
$300 per job for individuals, again, presently working and
contributing to Collier's economy.
The Early Learning Coalition receives from the state $5,731,078
to expend for subsidized childcare in Collier County. Of that number,
$3,369,940 is committed by our board of directors to mandatory
expenditures for children determined to be at risk or for children from
families receiving temporary cash assistance.
$2,316,138 has been set aside by our board of directors, of which
John Remington is the chair, governor-appointed chair of the
coalition, for the working poor category in Collier County. These
funds can be expended only if the 6 percent match of $141,668 is
received in matching funds or in-kind contributions.
Matching funds, in most instances that I am familiar with across
the entire state, do come from the Board of County Commissioners.
The return of a little more than $16 for each dollar in match in general
is seen as an excellent return on investment. The intent is to keep
people employed, and this population would no longer be able to work
without subsidized childcare.
Subsidized childcare for the working poor as stated is a function
of the ability of the board of directors of a coalition to garner required
match- funds for in-kind contributions.
In the working poor category, 94 percent of funding comes from
federal dollars, and that's keeping, right now, 500 jobs filled in Collier
eounty. The remaining 6 percent is required by the state for the Early
Learning Coalition to use that 94 percent.
Page 29
September 28,2010
The request to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners is to authorize staff to identify a funding source from
grants or for some other funding stream that would permit these 500
people to stay employed and to continue to contribute to Collier's
economy.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Ms. Reynolds, have you
approached the school board in regards to this? It seemed to me this
would be an area of their concern since this would be in regards to
pre-kindergarten and basically trying to get these children on the fast
track so -- the learning ability so when they go into school, regular
school, they would be well prepared.
Our stand has been in the past that we really don't want to get
involved with nonprofits because once we open the door, then we'll
have 600 nonprofits beating on our door.
I think that if you -- I'm not sure if you've checked with the
school board. Have you checked with the school board on this?
MS. REYNOLDS: I have not checked with the school board.
And the agency that we work for, our bosses, if you will, in
Tallahassee, is the Agency of Workforce Innovation. This is not --
this particular portion is not part of VPK, and the focus here is on
economic development. That's why, in order for us to receive
subsidized childcare for the working poor -- these are the people who
are serving you coffee in the morning, working in Publix, cutting your
lawn, making the beds in hotels.
In my experience -- and I don't have a list -- but the majority of
coalitions receive their match-funds from Board of County
Commissioners because it's understood that this particular component,
this $2.3 million that I'm talking about that the state will give us for
working poor to keep people working in this county, is about
Page 30
September 28, 2010
economic development.
And I ask you please to consider that, $141,000 to bring down
$2.3 million. From my perspective, gentlemen, that's a pretty good
deal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But do you understand where we're
coming from, that we've had a number of nonprofits that's come
before the Board of County Commissioners and they've stated in the
past where they'd like us to get involved in this, and we basically have
had a pretty steadfast rule that we're not going to get involved with
nonprofits, because we don't know then where to draw the line.
MS. REYNOLDS: I do understand that, but I would vouchsafe,
there is probably no nonprofit that has come before you and said, if
you can authorize an expenditure of $141 ,000, you will get in return,
for people working in this county, $2.3 million. I do not believe there
is any other nonprofit that can make that statement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just for clarification purposes, let me ask
you a question. Are you asking us to take a look at the current grant
allocations that we get for the purpose of maybe reallocating some of
that for this purpose, or are you asking us to donate additional money
to this program? .
MS. REYNOLDS: I'm asking you to look at all of the funding
streams that you have available, including grant funding, and to see if
somehow there isn't some way that this county could come up with a
required match of$141,000 so that we could keep the 500 people
currently working under this subsidized childcare funds, could
continue to work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. REYNOLDS: I have no -- I don't care where the money
comes from. I'm just asking.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: But you know we do.
MS. REYNOLDS: I know that you do, and I'd really appreciate
Page 31
September 28, 2010
your looking for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Thank you very much for being here today. I understand what
you're saying, for the dollar that's invested, there's a return of $20 for
every dollar?
MS. REYNOLDS: A little over $16 actually, 16.47, I think it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But it's a substantial
amount of money. And the whole thing is, it's used to allow working
people to stay and work.
MS. REYNOLDS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It also would hire a number of
people to be able to keep them gainfully employed during these tough
economic times. So a little bit of economic incentive is built into this.
However, my Commissioners have been telling you about the
budget, and the budget is extremely tight. I mean, this is -- it's
unbelievable how much cutting we did to be able to get to where we
are today to be able to offer some relief for the residents of Collier
County .
However, there is some things that I need to clarify. One, we
have made exceptions in the past. We've made exceptions for
everything from school nursing, David C. Lawrence Center, the--
there was other issues. The bus system that we have within Collier
County. Even though we get a lot of funding for it, we spent tax
money on that to subsidize it to make it go forward. So it's not
unheard of for this county government to extend itself past the bounds
of what's mandated and what isn't mandated where we go.
What I'd like us to look at is -- I realize the budget's tight and the
idea of reallocating any money within our present budget is just about
an impossible thing at this point in time; however, with that said,
there's some amazing things that can be done when good men put their
Page 32
September 28, 2010
minds together, and women, too, by the way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And women, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I caught that in time, thank God.
MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put their minds together to be
able to see what can be done.
What I'd like to do is see if we could direct staff to sit down and
be able to see what the possibilities are and report back to us. It
shouldn't be that difficult.
Like Commissioner Coyle mentioned, the reallocation of grant
money that's coming in might be a great possibility. I mean, one time
we got a clinic underway; not by spending the taxpayers' money that
we received through ad valorem, by redirecting and getting
recognition for money that we spent on mandated programs to be able
to be credited towards our fair share of it.
So when you actually get down to it, there's a lot of possibilities.
And what I'd like to see us do is direct staff to come back with
something at a future meeting to see what the possibilities are to be
able to try to move this very important program forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. REYNOLDS: I appreciate that very much, because I would
say, if these 300 -- ifmy board cannot expend this money because we
can't get the match, your increases for things like welfare and -- et
cetera will increase. There will be an impact if we cannot support
these currently working 300 individuals. So I would be extremely
grateful if you'd take a look, and we're not in a rush.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just some real specific
questions. You stated this was a federal grant?
MS. REYNOLDS: They're childcare -- CeDBG, ehild
eare/Development Block funding. And the State of Florida -- and it's
Page 33
September 28, 2010
not true in all states -- now requires a 6 percent match for those
funding. So 94 percent is coming down from federal dollars, 6 percent
local match.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any reason that you
didn't come to the board during our budget hearings?
MS. REYNOLDS: Probably just due to my naivete. I certainly
have come to the board before about this issue. This is not my first
appearance here. And I did try very hard, Commissioner Henning, to
make an appointment to see you and discuss the matter some time ago.
I have met with every other one of the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just didn't want to waste
your time again. I knew that you were going to appear today. And I
know that you're a very busy person.
MS. REYNOLDS: I am, as you are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So just specific questions. The
-- and you refuse to go on to the school board?
MS. REYNOLDS: I'm not refusing to go to the school board. I
will go to the school board. But I can tell you that, working with 30
other people in my role across the state, in just about every other
instance it is the Board of County Commissioners that does support
this because they do understand it is an economic development
program, just as your Economic Development Council is.
So yeah, we will do whatever we have to do so that our board of
directors doesn't have to give back the $2.3 million.
But the first stop for the coalitions is pretty much standard to go
to the Board of County Commissioners unless, of course, the county is
destitute, truly really broke, and there are some counties that get a
waiver from the state for this. This is not one of those counties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
eOMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I agreed with you,
Commissioner eoyle, and also with eommissioner eoletta, and I
Page 34
September 28, 2010
thought, possibly as we -- if we'd vote to ask staff to see if they can't
find some money in there, maybe we could look into Housing and
Human Services who already helps those lower income bracket
people, and possibly there could be -- some of the grant funds that
come into that department that could be used for something like this.
As Commissioner Halas said, we -- we try to stay away from
funding any not-for-profits, but possibly there's a way to work with
grant dollars to help these people. I worry about children being left
alone because there's no childcare for them. And you read that all too
often, or left in a car while the parents are working.
So hopefully we can find something like this, but we'll have to
ask staff to look into their grant programs and see if money can be
found. So we'll have to ask the county manager to direct staff to do
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there -- do we have three nods to
direct staff to work with the coalition --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to come up with some alternatives, if
there are enough nods to do that?
County Manager, you've got at least three nods, probably four or
five; four at least.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's one thing I would like to point
out. We're talking about considering grant funding right now, and
many times the public doesn't really understand what that means.
When we get grants from the federal government, we're actually
getting taxpayer money back to Collier County.
MS. REYNOLDS: eorrect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the bad things about government
is when we pay taxes, the taxes go to local government, they go to
state government, they go to the federal government, and then those
higher levels of government allocate some of it -- they take out their
Page 35
September 28, 2010
cut up there, and they allocate some of it back to local governments.
So if we refuse to pursue grants, we're merely wasting taxpayer
money. So we try to pursue as many federal grants as we can so that
we can bring our tax dollars back to Collier County. To do otherwise
is irresponsible.
So although we might be looking at ways of helping fund your
coalition, it should not be interpreted as an additional cost on
taxpayers, because it isn't an additional cost on taxpayers.
So with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- explanation, the staff has the guidance
they need from the board to work with the coalition.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. REYNOLDS: And I appreciate that very much. I just want
to be clear though; this would not be funding the coalition. This is a
commitment of funds to incentivize continuation of employment, and
that is not an unheard of activity. For $300 we get ajob, and for this
amount of money, we continue to have 500 people in Collier County
employed.
Thank you very much for your time. It's much appreciated, and
I'll be in touch with your County Commissioner -- with your county
manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just, if you don't mind one bit of advice.
MS. REYNOLDS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twice now you've been before us at least
MS. REYNOLDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and we've suggested you talk with the
school board. Please, please talk with the school board.
MS. REYNOLDS: I will take you up on that recommendation.
Thank you.
Page 36
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 6D is also continued to your
next meeting.
Item #9A
1. PEACEFUL L.C. 7770 PRESERVE LANE - REQUEST FOR 12
PARKING SPACES - MOTION (AS THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS) TO RECOGNIZE THE USE OF UHAUL RENTALS AS
AN ALLOWABLE USE AND SPACES ALLOWED PER THE LDC
- APPROVED AND MOTION (AS THE BCC) TO GIVE
PETITIONER 6 MONTHS TO RESOLVE CODE CASE AND
THEN BCC COULD CONSIDER WAIVING FEES - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: That would move us to Item 9 on your agenda, sir,
9A. This item continued from the July 27,2010, BCC meeting. J.
Peaceful L.C., 7770 Preserve Lane, request for 12 parking spaces.
This item was brought by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. At our last
discussion item for this, there was concerns about a number of parking
spaces. There was concerns about landscaping. I have a site plan, and
I'll be happy to share with the other commissioners.
The building and its use has a calculation for parking spaces,
retail uses, office use, postal office, market, bakery, cleaning, kitchen
restaurant, storage, interior.
There's a total of 56 spaces, and the number of spaces allocated
to the required uses is 40, so that's 16 extra spaces that can be used for
other businesses.
Also, it was provided to me by staff that under the PUD language
under permitted uses included personal self-storage center group under
SIe 4225. 4225, under our Land Development eode, is a C-4 use
permitted, or a conditional use under it. Also under the PUD it states,
Page 37
September 28, 2010
any other commercial uses or professional services which are
comparable in nature with the foregoing use and which the
development service director finds it compatible with the district. And
I understand staff doesn't have an issue with this. There is a
self-storage unit right behind the -- where the U - Hauls are being
utilized today.
There's one other issue that I really don't think that we need to
address because it's under code enforcement. A prior tenant did some
site work that is confused about the -- whether it was issued a permit.
The owner of the property is taking care of the issue with that, getting
-- obtaining the permits.
The previous engineer of record passed away, so the owner
needed to get a new engineer and is going through the process of
cleaning it up, taking it to code enforcement, and let the Code
Enforcement Board rule on that. That's a separate issue. Originally
brought this up for the use ofU-Hauls.
And I can tell you there are people in the area -- and in fact,
somebody that I know -- that went down there to pick up aU-Haul.
So I think the board previously, Mr. Klatzkow, recognized that
this is a use within the PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: The board has the ability, sitting as a Board
of Zoning Appeals, to find that this use is compatible within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And would that be
necessary to have a motion on that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to hear from the speakers?
The speakers are not doing the petition on their own? This is your
petition?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's actually a -- not a petition.
It's just trying to keep somebody in business up there.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Okay. We have a -- two public speakers,
Page 38
September 28, 2010
I believe.
MR. OCHS: No, just one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One public speaker. Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Michael Saadeh.
MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. Just briefly.
I've approached Commissioner Henning to try to place the item on the
agenda. I'm not a lobbyist today. I'm at a capacity -- I've never been a
lobbyist. I'm just here as a capacity as a friend of Mr. Chami. I've
seen him go through some hardships with his business, some of it
with, you know, permitting issues, others with just financial issues.
And he recently had some family tragedy as well. His mother
passed away last couple weeks, so I've offered to come in and help
him and get this thing squared away.
Realize he doesn't have a lot of time himself based on his
schedule, trying to support the business and his family, so I
volunteered to walk through the items with the staff and with the
board and continue on the other issue that was brought up separately,
this code enforcement. I'm trying to help him get the engineer in place
and get the permits in place to clean that up and see it through fruition.
Again, as just a -- as a friend and as a concerned citizen. I have no
financial or vested interest in this whatsoever.
So I ask you today to please focus on the item at hand with the
spaces having 16 spaces more than what's required for the use would
be more than ample to allow him 12 spaces utilized for U-Hauls so he
can continue to run that business through his business.
Otherwise, if you have questions, I'll be happy to entertain
anything you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas was first, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand the concern here, but
Mr. ehami has basically, in the past, has not been cooperative in
getting some of the issues taken care of. I think that before I can vote
Page 39
September 28,2010
for this thing in a positive manner, that ifhe gets the other two code
cases taken care of, then I -- for all practical purposes, I would then
vote in favor of the additional parking spots, but I believe that that
should be taken care of first. Whether or not -- because of the past
experiences we've had, and -- so if he can get those taken care of, then
comes back, then we'll-- or gets it taken care of and it's assured by
staff it's done, then I can vote for the parking spots. But I can't vote
for the parking spots with these two outstanding code cases.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I hear you. I think
that was part of the concern when it came before us before was the
code violation cases and the fact that they weren't being resolved;
however, with that said, we're in unusual circumstances that prevail
out there as far as our business community and trying to survive in this
very difficult climate.
What I would suggest, when the time does come for a motion,
that we offer him a six-months' ability to be able to do business as he
amends the other code cases, then it would come back to us for review
at six months whether we can continue it.
If he has completed the code cases and they're no longer an issue,
it could be put on the consent agenda, and then we'd be done with it,
and he'd be able to proceed, and this way he'd be able to go forward
now as he works his way through taking care of the code cases, with
the understanding that within six months, if he didn't do it, it would
become part of our regular agenda and he would be back before us
.
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, first let me ask what
Commissioner Henning feels about that proposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, right now
the -- there was a ramp that was put in that created the code case, and
other things. It had to deal with a particular businessperson within the
Page 40
September 28, 2010
building who is no longer there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, in order for him to fill that space that
was previously rented, he's still going to have to comply with the code
cases prior to renting it out?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, that is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so no matter what, he has
an incentive to correct those items in order to rent it out. This issue
with the U - Hauls is an ancillary use to a service station, gas station, or
whatever.
You know, if the board wants to, if they're leaning more towards
not ruling on this until he fixes the code case up to six months, I'd
rather continue the item. But I know Mr. Chami has been here quite a
number of times, and I would like to get it off the books and let staff
and Mr. Chami work out those code issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I get an explanation as to where
we are with respect to that? Mr. Saadeh, you want to speak on behalf
of Mr. Chami for this issue?
MR. SAADEH: Commissioner, my understanding is -- not that
it's relevant -- but there's only one case, not two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SAADEH: And the code case right now is making that
space that was utilized for pool services back up to code and get the
proper permits after the fact and whatever.
You know, actually, you know, we have no objection to Mr.
Coletta's motion as long as he can continue to operate for six months.
We're more than confident that the code case will be resolved way --
you know, by the six-month time or sooner, and then it can go on the
summary agenda or executive or, you know, whatever agenda you
would want without having to have another meeting on it. That would
be acceptable. There's only one code case.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Yeah. I -- like some of the others, I am
tired of hearing this case, and I also don't want to create an undo
Page 41
September 28, 2010
financial burden on Mr. Chami's business, particularly during today's
economic problems. And I'm sure he's -- would be just as happy not
to come back.
MR. SAADEH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I'm looking for a way where we can
meet the requirements of all the commissioners so that we can get this
out of the way, and one of those might be, if we said, okay, you can
use 12 parking spaces -- you have an additional 12 parking spaces to
use. Is he asking that it be used specifically for U-Haul trucks?
MR. SAADEH: No, sir. He's just trying to comply with what
the staff is saying, that -- to have the U - Haul use, we would like you to
have, you know, additional spaces earmarked. That's the reason he
did the study, and they realized that he's got 16 spaces available that
were extra over and above what's required.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So--
MR. SAADEH: So as long as staff is satisfied, we have no
problem with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe were to recognize that there are
adequate parking spaces there for his contemplated business, then that
would be -- that would solve one problem; is that correct?
MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take these in sequence.
Nick, tell us about it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm trying to help you if I can,
Commissioners. I hope I don't make it worse.
There are two existing code cases. One is for the land use item,
which you as the Board of Zoning Appeals can make a call on that.
The other one is a building permit violation. Both of them are
accruing fees as we speak.
He has hired a new engineer. Staffhas spoken with the new
engineer. They're hoping to submit next week on that, and then we'll
go through the review process on the building permit.
Page 42
September 28, 2010
Just approving the parking spaces, you'd have to do that as the
Zoning Board of Appeals. And in doing so, it would go back to the
Code Enforcement Board, and that case would just disappear. It
would be found in error because you approved the use.
Then the other issue, he would just go through the building
permit process.
Now, the other issue on the building permit, it's accumulating
fees, and so the board has some, I would say, leverage in the sense that
he's going to ask for those fees to be waived when he comes into
compliance. And if he doesn't do that anytime soon, then the board
has the discretion not to want to waive those fees. So I think he has
some incentive to come forward. And by talking to his engineer, he's
working on the project.
So you could grant that Zoning Board of Appeal's decision that
it's a legal use, and then let him know that if he doesn't expediously
(sic) work towards fixing that building permit issue, that you're not
going to be that lenient on waiving any fees, if there are any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we specify ifhe -- ifhe solves the
cases, the code cases, within a specified period of time, there will be
no fees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think he -- you could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell us what a reasonable period of time
.
IS.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In fairness to both parties, I would say
let's give him six months.
Sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much -- why would we want
to give him six months? Can't he just pay the permit, and then we can
move on with this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's going to have to submit the
permit plans. There could be review comments, and we want to work
with him on that. You could be less than six months. You could go
Page 43
September 28,2010
three just to keep him -- you know, hold everybody's feet to the fire.
We would review it quickly.
But a set of plans will come in, and we'll review them. And
based on comments we've given him, they should be clean. But you
could go as little as three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I feel that if we go ahead
and give him the opportunity to use those spaces today, then it's like,
how are we going to hold his feet to the fire in regards to this?
I think what he needs to do is get this taken care of with the idea
that as soon as it's taken care of, he then gets his 12 parking spots for
his U-Haul trailer.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the board's decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, one of the ways to hold his feet to
the fire is with the code enforcement fees that are coming up. Ifwe
say to him that we'll waive those fees if he gets it done within a certain
period of time, that's -- that is substantial incentive for him to get it
done, I believe. Would the staff agree with that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would agree with that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We need to bring this to
some sort of conclusion. We've got two different paths we can go on.
One would be -- the simple one would be, within six months to
resolve this. And if it's resolved, then it would be on the consent
agenda recognizing that fact to go forward.
We could also include in there that we would waive the fees that
was -- the -- what do you call it, the fines --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the penalty fees, as part of
that -- as that one continuous motion. And I'm a little reluctant to
make that motion without hearing from my fellow commissioners.
But I think that would encompass everything in there in one and
help us move this forward, you know, to give him the incentive to go
Page 44
September 28,2010
forward. I don't want to see us take away those spaces and tell him
that when he gets everything done he can have them back. It may be
the straw that breaks the camel's back if we do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let me make a motion
and see where it goes.
Acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, I make a motion that we
recognize the use of U - Hauls within this PUD in a particular parcel
not to exceed any parking spaces per our Land Development Code.
It's very important.
And acting as the Board of Commissioners, to give Mr. ehami up
to six months to straighten out the code case, and staff would bring
that back at a further time and -- for the board's consideration to waive
those fees. So that takes care of the use and the concerns about the
code case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have a problem with the
motion. Just one thing. If we have to come back to consider waiving
them at the end of the six-month period, then that's another step that
we get involved in the whole process, and would that really be
necessary? I mean, if he complies, can't we just say now would be the
time that we direct staff that, if he does complete it within six months,
that those fees would be waived?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe that we've had these
similar issues on the agenda previously -- correct me if I am wrong,
Leo -- that we need to take action on code cases?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. They typically come under your consent
agenda when the board makes that kind of decision on a fee waiver.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is my motion proper to the --
what we have done in the past?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's consistent on the code issue.
eOMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
eOMMISSIONER eOLETT A: I'll be happy to second your
Page 45
September 28, 2010
motion with the -- with the premise that if it fails, I'd like to make a
different motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could I ask for a clarification of
the first motion? And let's try to take these -- now that we've got an
understanding of what they're both going to say, we'll, of course, have
to take them separately. Bit if we'd just take the first one with the
board acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your question is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What -- would you clarify the first
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the first one is to
recognize that U-Hauls, rental trucks, is an allowable use within the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that does or does not deal
with the allocation of parking spaces? Will it solve the concern about
the parking spaces?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And it also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does everybody agree?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's allowed the number of parking spaces
under the LDC.
CHAIRMAN eOYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he can't exceed them.
MR. KLATZKOW: He cannot exceed them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would just like to -- you don't need
to include this in your motion, but I would like to say to Mr. Chami,
and especially Michael, that it would certainly look very good for Mr.
Chami ifhe managed to get this done in less than six months. It
would show his interest in doing that, and also to keep his property
looking good, especially that landscaping, rather than let it deteriorate
.
agaIn.
Page 46
September 28, 2010
MR. SAADEH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just wanted to put that on the
record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the way, it does look really
.
nIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now it does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take the first motion, okay. There's
a motion to -- for the Board of Zoning Appeals to make a ruling that
U - Haul use is consistent in this PUD, is a consistent use within this
PUD, and it's made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, question. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does it take three or four votes
to make this pass?
MR. KLATZKOW: Three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Now let's take the second motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the second motion is
demand that Mr. Chami brings the code case to closure within six
months and direct staff to put it on our agenda within that six-month
period, and for the board's consideration to waive those fees once the
Page 47
September 28,2010
code case is closed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that if you change
demand to require.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Require. That's an amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please significant by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope we don't ever have to do this
.
agaIn.
MR. SAADEH: Should be done. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2010-196: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REGARDING PROPERTY
ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAMS - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 9B on your
agenda. It is a resolution of the Board of eounty eommissioners in
support of congressional action regarding Property Assessed Clean
Page 48
September 28, 2010
Energy; that's the PACE program. This item was brought at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
Commissioners, this relates to the presentation you heard earlier
from Ms. Price.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by eommissioner Fiala.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A, one?
MR. CORNELL: I'll waive. I like the direction it's going.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Brad.
Okay. Now, let's all vote no against the motion.
All in favor -- oh, you had a question, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.)
eHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2010-197: APPOINTING PAUL L. GETTER AND
Page 49
September 28, 2010
LISA F. CANNON TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 9C is appointment of members to the Black
Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Paul Getter and
Lisa Cannon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve Paul Getter
and Lisa Cannon.
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: It passes unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2010-198: RESOLUTION APPOINTING ROBERT
F. MESSMER TO THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9D, appointment of members -- member, excuse
me, to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Robert F.
Messmer.
eOMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
eHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's a committee
Page 50
September 28, 2010
recommendation.
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: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2010-199: RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING
ELIZABETH PERDICHIZZI AND CRAIG WOODWARD TO THE
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 9E is appointment of members to the
Historical and Archaeologic Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation, Elizabeth Perdichizzi and eraig Woodward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion made to approve
committee recommendation by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
eOMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Aye.
Page 51
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2010-200: RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING
STEPHEN J. HRUBY, SALLY A. MASTERS AND KENNETH
KELL Y AND APPOINTING STUART WARSHAUER TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9F, appointment of members to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to reappoint the
members, would be Steve Hruby, Sally Masters, and Ken Kelly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there was a -- one member to fill a
term to expire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stuart Warshauer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's part of the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. And there's a motion by
Commissioner Henning to accept the committee recommendations to
make the three reappointments, and Stephen Warshauer to the vacancy
created by the resignation.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Page 52
September 28, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: It is approved unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, would you like to take a break at
this time for the court reporter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be perfect, yes.
MR. OCHS: How long, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forty-five minutes. No, we'll do a
ten-minute break.
MR.OCHS: Okay.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session.
Where are we going now, County Manager?
MR.OCHS: We're going to Item 10 on your agenda, sir, County
Manager's Report.
Item #10A
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY
MANAGER - APPROVED
MR.oeHS: Item lOA is a recommendation to complete the
Annual Performance Appraisal for the county manager.
Page 53
September 28, 2010
Commissioners, consistent with my employment agreement with
the board, the agreement calls for the development of an annual work
plan and then a subsequent self-appraisal submitted by the county
manager and then a review by the County Commission.
All of those items have occurred within the time frames laid out
in the employment agreement. The board has completed their analysis
and review. We've compiled the results. They're hi your executive
summary, and the last thing to do is to complete the evaluation this
.
mornIng.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: So I'm available to answer any specific questions or
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, Leo? You
have done an outstanding job this year. And even going through
everybody's lists, I couldn't see any suggestions for you to do a better
job because you're already doing a great job.
And from what I hear, even from the employees, they love
working with you. Of course, they've worked with you for 23 years.
So I just want to say, great job, keep up the good work.
MR.OCHS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve what? Your
job performance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The acceptance --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Annual Performance Appraisal.
MR. OCHS: Completing -- excuse me. Completing the annual
performance review, as I indicated in my evaluation and again in the
executive summary, due to the difficult budget conditions and the
guidance that was given by the board this fiscal year that no
Page 54
September 28, 2010
employees are to receive any raises or merit pay, I certainly want to
follow form.
Also, before you take the vote, I would be remiss if I didn't thank
the board for this past year for the support and the encouragement and
the direction that you've offered to me and to our staff. It's certainly
an honor to work for this board and pleasure to work for the
community, and certainly also an honor to work with this great staff,
because this good review is really a reflection of their efforts on my
behalf and certainly on the board's behalf. So I thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's certainly true. And on behalf
of the entire board, I'd like to express my appreciation for what you've
done under very, very difficult circumstances.
And you understand that one of the dangers of getting such a
high performance appraisal your first year is that the only way to go is
down from there.
MR.OCHS: Thanks for that reminder, sir, again, that
encouragement, very well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know that you're working six hours a
day (sic), at least 12 hours a day, but that still leaves Sundays.
MR. OCHS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we expect an additional commitment
from you for next year.
MR. OCHS : Well, the staff always says about weekends around
there, that it just means there's two more workdays till Monday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's the way it is, yes.
Okay. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve, and I think the second was Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN eOYLE: Aye.
eOMMISSIONER eOLETTA: Aye.
Page 55
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10B
REVIEW OF THE FY2011 ANNUAL WORK PLAN FOR THE
COUNTY MANAGER - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Thank you. Item lOB is a recommendation to
review and approve the Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Work Plan for the
county manager.
Again, Commissioners, consistent with the employment
agreement, the agreement calls for the submission of an annual work
plan to be presented to the board prior to 1 October every year. You
have that plan in Item 1 OB. You'll notice that the format is similar to
prior years' goals, and they've been updated to reflect the priorities for
fiscal year' 11 and the funded programs for fiscal year' 11.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like your direction in the
recent past about, you know, the economic development task force.
There's some key things dealing with issues that are here today. And I
appreciate you recognizing those and encourage you to keep your eye
on the ball.
MR.OeHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. That's all.
Page 56
September 28,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 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: It passes unanimously.
Item #10C
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR. MARTA
U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER DBA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER,
INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINER SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011 AT A COST OF $1,041,300; A REDUCTION
OF $52.200.00 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes us to Item 10C on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an agreement between
Collier County and Dr. Marta Coburn, M.D., Florida District 20
Medical Examiner doing business as District 20 Medical Examiner,
Incorporated, to provide medical examiner services for fiscal year
2011 at a cost of $1,041,300, which represents a reduction of $52,200
from the prior fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
eOMMISSIONER eOLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN eOYLE: All in favor, signify by saying --
Page 57
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have time for questions.
We're moving along. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question. Did Marta,
Dr. Coburn, keep the wages frozen in her department just like
everybody else?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Her wages have
remained frozen. Her work here has been done with -- her reductions
have been done as operational cost reductions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you very much.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: Dan Summers, for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Dan. Thank you very much.
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: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got the motion maker and second,
did you? Okay.
Item #IOD
PURCHASE OF LIABILITY, AUTOMOBILE, WORKERS
COMPENSATION, FLOOD, AIReRAFT, AND OTHER
INSURANeE AND RELATED SERVleES FOR FYII IN THE
Page 58
September 28, 2010
AMOUNT OF $1,718,637; A REDUCTION OF $100,125.00-
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Item 10D is a recommendation to approve the
purchase of liability, automobile, workers' compensation, flood,
aircraft, and other insurance and related services for fiscal year 2011
in the amount of$1,718,637, which is a reduction of$100,125.
Mr . Walker will present if required, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second
by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: Good presentation. It was -- it's
approved unanimously. Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2010-201: RESOLUTION REPLACING AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2010-25, THE eOLLIER eOUNTY
PARKS AND REeREATION DEPARTMENT FAeILITIES AND
Page 59
September 28, 2010
OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY, IN ORDER TO
INCREASE BOAT LAUNCH FACILITIES FEES FROM $5 TO $8
AT ALL COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT PARKS AND MARINAS - W/PUBLIC
NOTIFICATION AND SETTING THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS
NOVEMBER 1.2010 -ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10E is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution replacing and superseding resolution 2010-25, the
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and
Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy in order to increase boat launch
facility fees from $5 to $8 at all Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department parks and marinas.
Mr. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation directer, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Barry. Go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation director.
I wanted to show you a visual of the most recent boat launch
facility that we have available in Collier County. This is, of course,
the Goodland boat launch, 77 spaces that we have at that location. We
also have 22 boat slip wet slips.
Commissioner Fiala, we had a -- kind of invited the neighbors
when we opened in August, and we were getting nothing but
extremely favorable responses. The Goodlanders are very pleased
with the facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Barry, I've heard the same thing
over and over, so I join in to say, it's a beautiful park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WILLIAMS: And we will do a good job with managing
that park in terms of -- in season, in particular, with the activity on the
island. If the boat ramp does fill, we'll certainly be looking at ways to
manage that. So we'll keep that commitment that was made to the
Page 60
September 28, 2010
Goodlanders.
What I wanted to share with you was just a discussion of our
justification for an increase. And while we realize that the times that
we're in, a boat launch increase, and a considerable one with $3, may
seem extraordinary, what we'd like to point out is a couple of things.
And first of all, just the amount of money the board in terms of
developing water access for boaters for the 25,000 or so boaters that
are -- that have registered boats in Collier County, over the last couple
of years there have been considerable investment by the board in
providing boater access. And the couple of examples that I listed,
Collier Boulevard boat ramp in particular, the board, in their wisdom,
took care of a major safety issue that we had on 951, a very popular
location where boaters would, because of lack of parking space,
basically be on the side of the road and causing a great deal of traffic
concern.
That project, with that being open -- Bayview Boat Park is
undergoing a renovation now, which will expand that location. Our
good partners at Coastal Zone Management are working through that
project, and we're just about ready to begin that.
Goodland Boat Park, of course, we mentioned, and Port of the
Islands Marina. A couple of years ago the board chose to purchase
that facility.
So over the last couple of years, there's been a total of over $10
million that have been spent in boat launch facilities, a considerable
investment for those that use this particular type of facility.
When we put our budget together this year, what I wanted to
share with you is just a simple table that we put together that describes
where we currently are in terms of capturing fees associated with the
boat launch operation. And what I have for you under each of the
price points is data that reflect what our net cost to the general fund
would be.
And just to walk you through a couple of these -- for example, at
Page 61
September 28, 2010
our current $5-a-launch price point, we have $145,000 that we get in
other types of fees, and these tend to be fines associated with people
parking -- not parking where they need to be, our boat slip rental, as
well as our residential and commercial permits. So that's 145,000 that
we're looking to get budgeted next year that we will seek.
FYI!, at $5, we're estimating 46,000 launches. That should
generate $230,000. Our cost to operate the boat ramp, which includes
staff cost, the maintenance staff that are involved in the boat ramp, the
rental of the boat slips, the percentage of staff cost associated with
that, we're looking at roughly a half million dollars for the operating
cost associated with the boat ramp.
So when you look at that $500,000, you subtract the revenue that
we have coming in, we're looking at a net loss or a subsidy, if you
will, of25 percent of the boat launch operation, so $122,000.
At $8 -- and that's our recommended price point. We feel like the
$8 price point -- again, the $46,000 -- 46,000 launches will generate,
at $8, 368,000. That will give us just a little bit over what our
operating costs are for the year.
So with that, we are bringing forward a recommendation to
increase the boat launch fee. We have done, and last year in
particular, talked -- with the help of Mr. Coletta -- with a variety of
folks in the fishing recreation aspect, Naples Fishing Club in
particular, to kind of ask them where our fee was in relationship to the
other fees that were being charged.
We don't seem -- it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable fee. The
$5 that we've had, we've had since 2004, and so it's a fee that we've
not looked at over the last six -- five or six years very closely. And
when we're looking at the other private boat launch facilities, we're
looking at, on average, people charging 10, $15 for a boat launch. So
we think it's within a reasonable amount for folks to pay to launch into
our area waters.
So with that, I wanted to stop and just -- to see if you had any
Page 62
September 28, 2010
questions or concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners do have questions.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a question. On Page 2, I
believe it is, you were talking about boat launch facilities, and then
you were talking about the costs, $100 per vehicle for commercial
permits, and then you also spoke of commercial entities purchasing a
$500 permit. How much were they before?
MR. WILLIAMS: We're not recommending a change for those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MS. WILLIAMS: The $100 for the residential permit is where
Joe Sixpack with their boat and trailer can go for $100 and have a
permit for the entire year.
The commercial aspect is, if you have an individual who's
launching at our location for a commercial reason, they can pay either
$100 and pay the boat launch fee every time they launch, or they can
pay a one-time fee of $500 to get unlimited launches.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm more than a six pack.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Usually takes me an eight pack
of water to get through a day.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When will this -- if the board
approves your recommendations, when will this take effect?
MR. WILLIAMS: This would take effect immediately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that enough time to tell the
community they need an extra $3?
MR. WILLIAMS: We would do extensive advertising in the
various -- not advertising, but communication. We would certainly
Page 63
September 28,2010
issue a press release. We have a variety of outlets that we have that
we would communicate to the boating public.
We would talk to the folks that are most in the know for the
residential permits, Naples Fishing Club comes to mind, and let them
know through those normal channels that we use in terms of
communication.
We could delay if there was a desire by the board to delay
implementing it to give adequate time. Certainly we could look at
that. But typically, if the board were to determine that -- would make
-- accept this recommendation, it would be effective today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe other fee resolutions,
that we gave something like a 30-day. I just think it's going to be --
you're going to have some unhappy people when they go to the -- I
know it's only an extra $3, but some people don't prepare for extra.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I agree with you. I think we need to
set the implementation date sometime after the approval date either --
you know, 30 days seems very reasonable to me if that meets with the
pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that's more than
reasonable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A lot of money. The -- if the
board approves this, does this mean you'll have the Goodland boat
ramp open up before redfish season?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, the Goodland boat ramp is open. We
are closing for a few days. There are some finishing touches that we're
making in preparation for the open house on October 9th. It will be
open for season.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will be open for red fish
season?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
eOMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good.
Page 64
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala with the modification of
the 30-day advertising period before for implementation.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to share an
observation. I'm an active member of the Naples Fishing Club, and
this is an issue that's been coming up for a long time. Whenever we
had Barry or someone from the county come forward to speak to us,
they would mention the fact that eventually the rates were going to
have to be increased, that they've been held for -- how many years
now has it been $5?
MR. WILLIAMS: Six years, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, which is unrealistic. If
you go to Everglades City, it's 20 to $25 to launch a boat. So when
you get down to it, it's been a real bargain. And when we talked about
it, they passed on the information that when they go fishing, their cost,
just to get out the door to be able to cover costs and everything,
between 100 and $150 for a day.
When you get through with the cost of the bait, which can be as
much as 30, $40 -- it's unbelievable how much it costs -- then the
maintenance to the boat and the gasoline to be able to move it.
Another $3 on top of the whole thing is almost negligible as far as it
goes.
The part I like about it too is that we probably in the past have
overcharged the commercial aspects of the community, and this time
we're not raising the rates on them. We're keeping that where it is.
And would you please, for the benefit of the commissioners and the
listening audience, tell us what it is we charge commercial fishermen
and people that work on the water preparing docks or whatever?
Page 65
September 28, 2010
MR. WILLIAMS: We have two rates for commercial launches
at our boat launch locations. One is $100 where you pay and then you
get -- you pay the launch fee for commercial. So if our launch fee was
$5, you'd pay $100 initially and then pay $5 each launch, which
doesn't seem like a big bargain. But then what you have is another
rate for commercial where you could pay $500 and get unlimited
launches for the year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's been the same rate
now for how long?
MR. WILLIAMS: Six years, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think probably we had it
overpriced in the beginning. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we don't want to go back and
retroactively reduce it. Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot one item. Does that fee
include your --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The fish?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Fileting the fish. No.
Does that fee -- this fee take under consideration the capital
maintenance costs of these facilities?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. The fees that we get for user fees
offset our operating expense related to keeping the boat ramps in
operation. It doesn't take into consideration capital improvements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have capital
improvements, but you -- more in particular you have capital
replacement costs, such as an air-conditioning or a roof or something
like that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well-- and just to clarify. We do have in the
5,000 operating costs, there is what's called operating capital, and that
may be for simple maintenance in and around the facility. So there is
Page 66
September 28,2010
some of that built in.
The capital costs I'm talking about are the ones -- with the slide
that I showed, the $10 million, that capital -- that larger capital dollar
that we're using to build the facilities. It doesn't take into consideration
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: But the operating capital it would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That -- oh, the operating
capital it does, but not to replace what -- air-conditioning and the sod
or --
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me give you an example. Bayview boat
ramp, we're doing a renovation at that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not quite following me.
You need to stripe some of those parking lots. You need to budget for
those. You need to replace an air-conditioning unit. You need a
budget for those, a long-term budget for all those items. That's a part
of doing business.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You look at Community
Development, when they consider fees, they consider all those -- all
those fees. And I appreciate -- you've done a very good job of
showing us on your daily operation, but you also have capital costs.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me just try --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope later on that we can,
with the board's approval, take a look at those capital costs and make
it a determination whether these fees need to be adjusted in the future.
I think Commissioner Coletta had a great observation of the
private sector in the community of what they charge. They charge it
based upon, you know, all their costs, so -- anyways. That's what I
would like some -- get some direction.
Page 67
September 28,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- yeah, I don't--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, you're going to have to
put ladders on those boat docks at Goodland.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me just clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At low tide.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me try again, if I could. The capital -- we
do have capital costs built in the operating budget, operating capital.
And typically the threshold are those items under $25,000, you know,
that would include things like restriping, resod.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: You know, replacement items like that.
When I say we don't have capital improvements, the Bayview
example is one I go back to. That's a project that's going to be $1.2
million. So those type of capital improvements aren't necessarily built
into the fee structure.
But the operating capital items, the year-to-year maintenance
repair-and-replace kind of items are.
MR. OCHS: I think, Commissioners, where Commissioner
Henning is going is that capital maintenance in between those two
areas, and that is, replacement of air-conditioning, air handlers, or
chillers or replacements of the roofs. Those are typically part of your
301 capital facilities budget that's managed through Facilities
Management for all of your facilities. But that is an ad valorem
funded account.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we really should take a look
at it every year.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. And reassess where we are
with it. Okay.
Now, would the motion maker consider including in the motion
making this effective November the 1st, which is slightly more than
30 days out?
Page 68
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's a good start time, November the
1st.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the Goodland boat ramp will
be open for redfish season.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second will include that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
And so we have a motion to approve. 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: It passes unanimously.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11 on your
agenda. That's public comments on general topics.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Yours comes under commissioners'
communication at the end.
eOMMISSIONER eOLETT A: I know that, but I have some
people that wanted to bring items before us, and I told them that we
Page 69
September 28, 2010
had an item on here that didn't start until one clock, and we would be
going after that. If we could continue that until after the last agenda
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wouldn't have a problem doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wouldn't either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like somebody was
misguided. Just kidding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people do you have
coming in this time, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One that I know of, but he's got
150 supporters.
MR.OCHS: So we'll hold off on 11 till this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Item #12A
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY -APPROVED
MR.OCHS: That moves us to Item 12 on your agenda,
Commissioners, county attorney's report. 12A is the Annual
Performance Appraisal for the county attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. This will be the first of three items,
Commissioners. This is the Annual Performance Appraisal for the
county attorney. It's required by my contract, the same as the county
manager's contract.
I've prepared a compilation of the scores. They're on the
overview there. And at this time the county attorney's waiving any
merit adjustment and general wage adjustment in keeping with the
times and what everybody else is experiencing here.
Page 70
September 28, 2010
And I'm open to questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions? Motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: It passes unanimously.
Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, I appreciate all the time
that you've spent working with me individually over many of the
different issues that come before the county. Although we don't agree
on everything, you are the attorney, and I recognize that.
But thank you very much. You've done an excellent job this past
year.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir.
Item #12B
Page 71
September 28, 2010
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FY 2010-2011 ACTION PLAN FOR
JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW. COUNTY ATTORNEY -APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, go to Item 12B now.
MR. KLATZKOW: 12B is, again, the annual approval of the
action plan. Again, it's required by my contract, as is the county
manager's.
I spoke with Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coyle had
asked me to add to that a performance evaluation with respect to
outcome on litigation. I've done that. It's reflected in the change sheet.
And other than that, I'm here to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think it's a good action plan,
and it's in keeping with the improvements that you have been trying to
make in your department, so I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: It passes unanimously.
Item #12e
Page 72
September 28, 2010
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDICATING ITS
INTENT TO EXTEND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW,
AND FIX THE END DATE OF THE FIRST EXTENSION TERM
AS SEPTEMBER 30.2013 - APPROVED
MR. KLATZKOW: And now last but not least, the request to
extend my contract. The extension term would be to September 30,
2013. I am not asking for any changes in the contract. Compensation
would remain the same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: It is passes unanimously.
Congratulations.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You are now a new hire.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir.
eOMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have 12 -- what do we have,
Page 73
September 28, 2010
12 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where can we go now?
Item #12D
RESOLUTION 2010-202: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
PROPOSED VANDERBILT DRIVE GREENWAY, FROM 111 TH
AVENUE NORTH TO BONITA BEACH ROAD, AS THE FRANK
HALAS GREENWAY - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioner, you had an item this morning
moved under 12D, which was formerly 16K5, moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
16K5 is a recommendation to adopt a resolution designating the
proposed Vanderbilt Drive Greenway from 11 th A ve- -- excuse me --
III th Avenue North to Bonita Beach Road as the Frank Halas
Greenway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason I pulled it -- well, a
citizen requested it. But we have a naming policy that this Board of
Commissioners approved, and it's a three-page requirement by
citizens. And I just -- I think that, you know, the Board of
Commissioners are not any better than the citizens that we set policy
for. And I hope that we can keep to that policy of the citizens and
apply it to ourselves also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I -- you know, let's
get right down to brass tacks. This has to do with decisions that have
to be made by the board. We're always seeking advice from advisory
groups. We get feedback from them.
And in all honesty, I have received zero complaints. One request
to pull it from the agenda, which you honored before I had a chance to
Page 74
September 28, 2010
make that suggestion. And I have received no complaints, no
objections to it. And we have the latitude to be able to act within this.
Didn't we do this with Jim Mudd for very good reasons?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- is there any speakers on
this item?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. After that speaker, I'd
like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker's Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Doug Fee. As you know, I live up in the Wiggins
Pass and Vanderbilt Drive area.
This is the area where the proposed pathway is to be located. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this item before you today.
And let me first say, this is not an easy thing for a citizen to have
to stand up here trying to give you reasons on why this should not be
done today.
The naming of any governmental facility after a person is an
honor not only for that individual, but also for the community for
which the facility is located.
I'm here because I believe that the agenda issue of naming the
pathway after Commissioner Halas is, at the very least, premature. I
have a copy in my hands of an executive summary of the policy to
name county-owned facilities that was approved on May 13, 2003.
This policy was approved, and it allows for special naming and
dedication of community -- Collier County-owned buildings.
There are certain requirements that this board must follow in
order to do this. On Page 2, it requires an application to be submitted
to the county manager by the use of the attached form. Each
sponsored application, when complete, must contain the names,
Page 75
September 28, 2010
address, and signatures of not less than a thousand persons. I believe
in this circumstance, a key word in this policy is county-owned
facility .
As you know, the proposed pathway is only in the planning and
evaluation stages. As a board, you have not been presented the
findings from the public meetings, nor the actual design of this facility
from the engineering firm. At a future Board of County Commission
meeting, you will be hearing the merits of building this pathway and
approving the financial contract.
So as of today, September 28th, you do not have an approved
pathway to be named. Once we have an approved facility, that is
when we should seriously consider naming, with the proper
application for doing so.
I urge you commissioners not to disregard your own policy on
naming facilities. Having said that; however, if you want to consider
today naming something after Commissioner Halas, one could name
the Vanderbilt Bridge, Cocohatchee River Bridge, the Frank Halas
Bridge with the proper application and signatures. The point is, it's
complete. It's built. It's ready. He did a lot for that bridge. So you
should consider something that's already built.
Quickly, my second point is, you are going to hold a meeting in
the future in regards to the pathway. There will be community
members who will come down to this meeting room and tell you the
merits of what you are approving. There are definitely safety issues
on our roads. We have no cycling paths. We have -- we had the
original death bridge. In my opinion, we still have a death roadway.
South of the bridge we do not have cyclists lanes. So I wouldn't
want to be a sitting commissioner with a pathway that's off the road
being named with the risk of someone driving and still hitting a
cyclist. So we can call the pathway whatever you want to call it, but
please, let's look at all the safety issues within the neighborhood, slow
this thing down, spend the money properly, making sure that we have
Page 76
September 28, 2010
all the safety issues issued and answered before you approve the
pathway.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Now, Commissioner Coletta, you wanted a continuation of your
remarks from before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. Thank you very
much, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that -- one
suggestion in there I absolutely loved was naming the bridge after
him, too. I would -- I don't know, is it too -- is it too premature to
include the bridge in a motion along about the pathway?
MR. KLATZKOW: I prefer we advertise it so we can get the
public to respond if they wanted to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Like today they
responded?
MR. KLATZKOW: Like today, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I make a motion that we
approve the agenda item as is, and I would like to give consideration
of looking at the idea of naming the bridge that was mentioned at
Vanderbilt Drive after Commissioner Halas. That was a wonderful
suggestion also, in addition to the pathway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, actually it's a motion to approve the -- it's a
motion to approve the agenda item.
You've had your public petition.
MR. FEE: I just wanted to know if it improved the -- if it applied
to the application and the signatures.
eHAIRMAN COYLE: It applies to the executive summary in
Page 77
September 28,2010
the petition.
And a second by Commissioner Fiala, but commissioner
Henning has some comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta,
just a question. Based upon your comments, surely you're not saying
that board members or the board is -- shouldn't follow a policy that we
apply to citizens? Are we better than the citizens?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you're
right. We're not better than the citizens. We represent the citizens.
And the citizens are here today, and we're listening to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, shouldn't we at
least have the same policy set before us? I mean, I'm going to go
along with the agenda item, but to make other recommendations to
further, you know, water down the policy that we're setting on citizens
is -- I don't think the board should be doing that.
eOMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't agree with you,
Commissioner Henning. I think you missed the point of where this
was going. This was an advertised meeting. We have had this noticed
way in advance, received one em ail asking nothing more than to pull
the agenda item. There's no concern upon the citizenry out there as far
as this item goes.
You know -- and we didn't question this before when it came up
for Jim Mudd at the time. You know, I guess we have to make some
value decisions as we go forward in these things, and we base it upon
the kind of response we get.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we apply the
same policy to the citizens as we do then?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if there was an actual
complication with this whole thing, I'm sure the county attorney
would be advising us at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the board can do anything,
it's just the matter of, you know, are we -- do we hold the same
Page 78
September 28, 2010
standards as citizens, what we're asking of them?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we asked the citizens to
come and testify before us, to send us emails, to calls us up, or to set
meetings with us, and that didn't happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll give you the policy --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so maybe you can understand
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've read it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a -- I'm curious as to why this
didn't come up when we named the Guy Carlton building at the last
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or the Jim Mudd building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It -- was there an objection to
that? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me answer your
question. It was a citizen -- I mean, we approve policies all the time.
It was a citizen that pointed it out to me and says, why can't you at
least adhere to your own policy?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When, when the Guy Carlton building
was designated or just--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When the Frank Halas name came up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Specifically answered your
question. You asked, why is this being an issue now and it didn't
come up under naming the building after Guy Carlton. So my answer
is, a citizen pointed it out to me, the policy that the board passed, that
we're not even adhering to. So the question is, are we better than
citizens? Shouldn't we at least follow our own policy?
eHAIRMAN eOYLE: I think that's the wrong question, but
nevertheless. I think we've argued it.
Page 79
September 28,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That was an answer to your
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just don't understand that. We've
voted on each one of those. I don't understand what the difference is.
I'm trying to -- I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's not
coming through.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, we passed
a policy for naming facilities, and the requirements are three pages for
the citizens, they need to abide by, before it comes to the Board of
Commissioners.
What we have done -- and we've done it on the consent agenda --
is just direct staff by passing the policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand how we're
bypassing the policy . We're still voting on it, right? And it was -- you
know, I just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, is the policy that we're
applying to ourselves less or more than what we asked our citizens?
MR. KLATZKOW: By custom, you developed two policies over
the years. You have a policy where a citizen comes forward trying to
name something, and you require a petition for that to see if there is
sufficient support in the community for that. But you have also, on
your own, named various things, Nancy Payton Preserve comes to
mind, Jim Mudd -- there's been a number -- and you've done that on
your own, so that you have a policy when it comes to the public. You
really do not have a policy on the board-initiated namings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We have a motion and
a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 80
September 28,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't tell me we're going to have an
hour-and-a-half lunch?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might have longer than that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: An hour and 37 minutes.
MR.OCHS: That completes this morning's agenda,
Commissioners, with the exception of number 11, which we're going
to come back to this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could do commissioner
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do -- you want to do
commissioners comments now, everybody? All right. We'll have to
start with Commissioner Fiala.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner Fiala has no
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a task here that was set
before me by the Productivity Committee. Obviously we all know
that we have about a 13.6 unemployment rate as of August here, and
we can't always depend on tourism to be the real strong leg of the
Page 81
September 28, 2010
stoo I.
Counties across the State of Florida are scrambling to encourage
new industry and business development. And so this became an issue
that was discussed by the Productivity Committee, and what they're
trying to -- what they are asking is that -- to seek the approval of the
board to work with county staff and the EDC to conduct a
comparative study of economic incentive packages being offered in
Florida counties with similar demographics as Collier County and to
take a look at those counties that have been successful in attracting
new business and industry.
The Productivity Committee objective with this study is to
propose changes with our economic incentives in order for Collier
County to remain competitive and attract new businesses and industry
and to create jobs.
The Productivity Committee has asked me, as the board's liaison,
to seek the board's approval to conduct this comparative study.
And that's the end of my statement. And we need some nods
probably from the board, if they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would this be something we
have to bring back to the next meeting to be able to do it, or is this
something we can handle in-house now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's probably something we
could handle in-house now since the Productivity Committee wants to
get actively involved with, along with the EDC, to look at all the
incentive packages that other counties have that are comparable to
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the expense for this would
just be the Productivity Committee and a little bit of staff time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it would be -- the majority of
it, I think, would be the Productivity Committee, is my understanding.
Page 82
September 28, 2010
Mike, can you add to this?
They didn't ask for any funding whatsoever?
MR. SHEFFIELD: No. They simply want to do this
comparative study, and they're looking for the board's, you know,
approval to conduct this study to compare with other like counties,
similar counties to Collier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's look at what the incentive
packages are, and then I think they're going to come back to the board
in regards to saying what areas that we may need improvement in, if
there are any areas.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is something they
volunteered to do on their own, which is wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're volunteering this on their
own, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a nod from me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about you, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You got -- you got one, two,
three nods. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are you doing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am concerned about doing that. We
created the Productivity Committee for the purpose of taking a look at
efficiency in Collier County Government, and we selected the people
to participate on that looking for those kinds of qualifications.
We did not look for qualifications for business development and
economic diversification. We know that there are already a few people
on the committee who are adamantly opposed to any kind of
incentives for economic diversification.
And I am not convinced that we have the mix of skills on the
Productivity Committee to address issues like business development
and incentives. I just don't see it happening.
Page 83
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how about the EDC? I think
they want to include the EDC in this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that, I think, is one of the
problems. They want to include the EDC in this. Well, the EDC
might want to make their own independent evaluations and they, in
fact, already have. They have looked at things across the entire state.
They have worked closely with the state agencies that are involved in
economic development and diversification. They have been out
talking with those people. And there has been, for years, substantial
disagreement between the members of the Productivity Committee
and EDC.
So I am concerned about that, and I think it is an example of
where we have an advisory committee that is reaching beyond the --
the task which they were originally created for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, you bring up some
points that's -- that might be valid. It's been what, four years now
since I've served to the Productivity Committee? And so some things
may have changed.
They do have some faith in the EDC to be able to help bring a
balance between all these elements. However, with that said, since
there is a little bit of question about what we're talking about, where
we're going, I think we need just a little more consideration on it.
What I would like to do is to bring it back at another meeting
where we can discuss the item fully. I still think it's a good idea. It's
just that since you brought up some concerns, I would like to be able
to weigh all these things out in a regular meeting during a regular
meeting agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of -- the real point I'm getting at is
that we shouldn't make a decision just because somebody in the
Productivity Committee wants to get involved in that. I mean, I've
Page 84
September 28,2010
even had a proposal from the Productivity Committee to restructure
the entire negotiation process with Jackson Labs and the other
business clusters.
Well, you know, we're pretty far along with that process, and I
wasn't particularly impressed with that recommendation. But -- so I
don't know where the Productivity Committee is going with this thing.
And secondly, it is the important and probably overriding
consideration that this should be properly vetted with the people who
are in the business of economic diversification. We ought to get the
EDC to come here and talk with us about how they feel the
Productivity Committee could be -- could be helpful in doing this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I offer a suggestion maybe?
Maybe the best thing to do is to put this on one of our upcoming
agendas and invite both the EDC and the chairman, Steve Harrison,
from the Productivity Committee, to give their views and hopefully
maybe their -- then we can get some clarification, exactly what their
intent is, and I think that probably would clear the air.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we include the Chamber
of Commerce also?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The EDC. Yeah, Chamber and EDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, both -- all these items, there
could be the chamber, EDC, and the chair, sitting chair on the
Productivity Committee, and they could give us a presentation so
there's more clarification in regards to what's -- what the motivation
here is.
And I think the real motivation is that we're looking to find ways
to hopefully stimulate employment here so that we can get -- instead
of the 13 percent, hopefully we can get down to 16 (sic) percent
unemployment, or even lower.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not 16.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean 6 percent, excuse me, 6
Page 85
September 28, 2010
percent. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And do we want our
economic development arm from the county to also be a part of this or
not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think the EDC is absolutely
critical to this thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't mean EDC. But then we
have our own person who interfaces with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes, David Jackson.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are some serious issues here.
There really are some serious issues here, and I think we must be very
careful about what we do with this. The Productivity Committee is an
advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you don't want to put the
Productivity Committee into a position of dictating policy or
controlling the direction of the Economic Development Council --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're just asking the question
here, Chair. They're not really saying they want to go ahead and do
this. They're just asking for -- if we go along with this -- we can just
tell them, never mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you what I would really like
for somebody to do. There's a lot of talk about impact fees and the
fact that impact fees are holding back the economy, and we know
that's not true.
So what I have challenged the Chamber of Commerce to do is to
identify a developer or group of developers who will begin building
within the next 90 days if they get some kind of relief from impact
fees, like make impact fees payable upon Certificate of Occupancy,
and that way the cost is transferred to the owner, the purchaser.
You know, ideas like that are the things that the Productivity
Page 86
September 28, 2010
Committee should be dealing with, not -- not overreaching policy
issues of economic diversification and how you go about doing it.
And that's -- that's really my concern.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, Commissioner, when I
first got onboard with this commission and I read Productivity
Committee, I thought they were involved with productivity. I was -- I
thought that they would be looking at the different departments.
Actually I sent them a note and suggested that maybe they look into
our Community Development Department. I thought it needed help to
be more productive, and I thought that they were really regarding
Productivity Committee. I didn't realize they were actually a budget
committee.
And it seems that although we had commissioned them to be a
Productivity Committee many years ago, they've changed what they
are to become something totally different, and maybe we ought to be
addressing what a productivity committee is or what we expect a
productivity committee to be in this discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a good observation, but -- so
where's that leave us? We want to get -- schedule this for a--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Upcoming meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- a coming meeting so that we can have
the EDC and any other organizations involved in economic
development and diversification here to speak to let us understand
where they think the Productivity Committee should be.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, if I may, just -- this mayor may not
help this particular issue. But I wanted you to know that I've asked Mr.
Jackson from my staff to convene a meeting of the chairpersons of the
EDC, the chamber, the Economic Recovery Task Force, certainly my
own staff, including Mr. Jackson, Ms. Patterson, Mr. Casalanguida,
because all these groups are out there now working on a number of
economic and business development initiatives, all well intended, but
I'm getting the sense that everyone is working hard, moving down
Page 87
September 28, 2010
paths at different paces, and I wanted to make sure that we have some
better coordination and identify areas where there may be overlap.
And I'm just offering that as a suggestion. You may want to
allow me to have that meeting and discuss this topic as well and then
have that entire group come back in front of the board with some joint
report and recommendations instead of just, you know, having kind of
a free-for-all at the podium.
That -- I've asked David to set that up for October in hopes that,
you know, we can pull a plan together that incorporates all the
stakeholders' input in their areas of interest and expertise. And I offer
that as a suggestion as opposed to just scheduling it under a, you
know, an Item 9 for discussion without a lot of clear direction or
recommendations at that point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd be willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think that's a--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, I think you hit
the nail on the head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. OCHS: So the board can look forward then to that report
certainly before the end of the year, and hopefully in November.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
And you have anything else, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing I have is a policy
decision, implement a policy decision, that I think needs to be acted
upon fairly quickly. I don't know how many of you were even aware
of the conflict between EMS and North Naples about North Naples
setting up an EMS storage area or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read about that in the paper.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the newspaper. But it's been elevated
Page 88
September 28, 2010
all the way to the State of Florida. And, quite frankly, I'm getting
frustrated with these kinds of things happening. We're the ones who
established the policy, and if somebody's going to lodge a complaint
against a fire district, we're the ones that should do it or at least act
upon the circumstances prior to these things appearing in the
newspaper.
So what I would like to do is ask the county manager to provide a
directive to EMS to make sure that any, any disputes with agencies
external to Collier County Government be brought to the Board of
County Commissioners for consideration and action before they
appear in the newspaper and before people start writing letters and
making accusations, because it makes us all look like a bunch of
dummies, and it undermines the public confidence in what we're
doing.
So if the board would provide us sufficient support to direct the
county manager to provide that operating procedure to EMS, then that
would be very helpful. What do you think?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should always be discussing it
before we start duking it out in the newspaper.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county manager and I had
the same conversation. If we're going to give that directive, we also
need to give that directive to the -- or to Dr. Tober.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, because that--
what North Naples -- the decision they made went to their board, a
governing board elected by the people, and just like we are. It's just a
common courtesy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 89
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just maybe that's how it got to
the newspaper in the first place was somebody outside of our EMS but
yet heading it, so -- like Dr. Tober, for instance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner Halas, did
you have anything more to say about that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm very concerned about
how the fire department wants to take on this responsibility but yet
they don't want to take on the responsibility of picking up the -- the
transporting and picking up the funding.
Obviously we had an item that came before us today on the
consent agenda where we finally approved about $11 million worth of
losses because of transportation of people, either by helicopter or by
ambulance and so on, and yet the fire department wants to get
involved in this but they don't want to take on these type of
expenditures.
So I've got a -- I've got a real concern. I'm not sure -- they seem
to want all the gravy, but they don't want to take on all the heartache
that goes with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think that the fire
departments wanted to take it on, they're just -- they're just not able to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not to transport.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're not able to transport.
They're -- you know, it's not their fault that they're not transporting;
they're not allowed to. So I don't think we should be laying blame on
them for something they're not even allowed to do by law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's what they're trying to get
is transport. They want their own medical doctor and everything else
involved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then that means we've got six or
seven or eight of them, and that's what makes it difficult.
Page 90
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If they'd consolidate, it would be an easy
decision, but they won't.
And that's all I -- just to make sure that this policy gets proper
emphasis, could you -- could you draft the policy and submit it to us
for recommenda- -- for approval? That means it applies to our
employees as well as EMS employees? Can we do that?
MR. OCHS: Sure. As opposed to you having a separate letter to
the medical director?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. OCHS: I'm happy to do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay.
And Commissioner Coletta, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
Nick, would you come up for a moment, please. I'd like to talk
about several issues, and one of them's the Golden Gate Master Plan.
We did the major overhaul back in 01/02, if I'm not mistaken, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's going to be coming up to the
point where pretty soon we're going to have to be concerned about
putting it back on the schedule. And what I'd like to do is have --
direct Nick to be able to come back with when this should take place,
how it would fit into it -- what the implications of what it would be as
far as budget cost, what years should it hit, and just be able to give us
a brief report so that we can give further direction from there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's one of those things that has
to be -- that has to be done. We have some major difference of
opinion throughout parts of the Estates now.
The referendum that's on the ballot will help to some degree to
settle one little part of the whole equation; however, with that said, I'd
like to be able to get this out to the community in a meaningful way
Page 91
September 28, 2010
and be able to start planning when this process is going to take place,
at what point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess I don't understand what you
really want us to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would like to have Nick
come back to us and tell us about the Golden Gate Master Plan as far
as when it would -- when it would be a ten-year anniversary for it, for
the major overhaul that we did, so that we can start looking to the
future for a future budget for planning it in and giving thoughts to it,
just to be able to give us a brief report on it so when we start to move
the issue forward -- at least in our minds as we start to move through
it. And you've got to take the first step. You can't drop the whole
thing on the community at one point. And we still have enough time
to be able to plan it out effectively when it would have to hit to be able
to plan it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're asking for a schedule essentially?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: More or less. To be able to
come up with a schedule that will give us some guidance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can't he do that in writing? Can't you
provide us a memo outlining the schedule for that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- so that we all understand it without --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- without having to schedule a
presentation of any kind?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because you only have 15 minutes -- we
only have 15 minutes now to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. It's not going to take
long. No, I didn't want him to give us a presentation now, but that will
be of no value if we haven't got the ability to discuss it before this
. .
commISSIon.
Page 92
September 28, 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For a little clarification on what the
commissioner asked, you have a Comprehensive Plan. It's evaluated
every five years as part of your EAR. Your Golden Gate Area Master
Plan is a subset of that or part of the Compo Plan. It hasn't been done
in ten years. And he said, you know, what's a reasonable amount of
time to have a specific section of your Compo Plan looked at. I said,
ten years is usually a good amount of time. It's done as part of your
EAR but not set up with a subcommittee to look at a specific area.
So I said, I could certainly look at that and look at what a typical
time frame would be, the cost, the schedule it would be in, and report
back to the full board and let you know what impact it would have to
the staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we'd be looking at a
presentation that would probably be way less than ten minutes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do it in a memorandum and, you
know, simple discussion item just to give you an idea. I don't think it
needs to be full presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's very important to the people
that I represent that we get this into discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And now, stay right there, Nick,
for just a minute.
Also, too, we -- we're -- the issue over Everglades interchange is
growing to a new level with the additional overlay study that's going
to be required that's been triggered by three or four state agencies that
have raised concern together. And I don't know how the process came
to be that they raised similar concerns at the same time.
This additional overstudy's going to take probably another year,
possibly longer. It's going to encompass an area of 20-some miles,
and it's going to go back at a point in time back in the '40s to be able
to see what the cumulative effect has been and what it may be with
this interchange. It's more of an effort to try to -- it's not delay it, to
Page 93
September 28, 2010
end it once and for all.
We had a community meeting about two years ago out in the
Estates at Palmetto Ridge, I believe it was, and it was attended by
about 4- or 500 people where they got an update of what was taking
place. Staff has been planning another meeting on either the 3rd or 4th
of November.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 3rd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In order to make this meeting
more effective and to help our citizenry better understand what we're
up against, I'd like to direct the Chair to write letters to the agencies
that have expressed this concern to come in and be able to explain to
ourselves and the citizenry what the problems are with the proposed
interchange and also to send similar letters to all the environmental
agencies or organizations in the area and the different parks and
preserve areas to have their particular people there so that they may
offer some testimony too.
It's a real problem. And unless we can confront it up front and
come to an understanding what we're dealing with, the Everglades
interchange is moving farther and farther out, and it will be there for
our great grandkids rather than people that need it today.
What I'd like to do is to have you direct the Chair to write these
letters. Of course, it will have to be with his approval as far as how
the letter is worded, but an invitation from him would carry a lot more
meaning than it would from myself or staff.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you understand, Chair, what
you're getting yourself into?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I have no idea. That's what I'm
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to question it
myself. Do you mean that you want him to invite people to come here
to talk about why they're lodging opposition to an Everglades
Page 94
September 28, 2010
Boulevard --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're close. Not here to
the commission, to come to the public meeting to be able to explain
what their concerns are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What public meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public meeting that we're
planning out at --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The one that we're going to have
out at the Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Palmetto Ridge in November
for the public to be able to interplay with all the problems that are
taking place to move this interchange forward.
And that invitation is absolutely important, because just to hold a
meeting and try to give a briefing to the public, and then they start
asking questions that staff has no right answering or are unable to
answer -- and also it makes it to the point where we probably can
better understand what their concerns were, and maybe we can address
them up front and shorten the time span of what this study will be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to be conducting the
meeting? Who's going to be in charge of it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, it will be staff. I can
provide some clarification that will help you.
As part of your IJR application for I-75/Everglades, there's two
public meetings scheduled. We've had one.
General public has expressed frustration to staff that we're the
environmental folks that are trying to stop this project. You know,
they feel that staff is not moving quickly enough on this.
N ow they've triggered a cumulative effects study, which is a
12-month study as part of the PD&E ETDM screen. I'm using some
acronyms. Your early screening process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I tell you what. Tell us -- tell me
when the meeting is --
Page 95
September 28, 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Early November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- prepare a draft inviting anyone who is
interested in discussing this issue to come there and make their
positions known and to provide any written information in advance to
support their positions.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'll get it out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's all right, sir, I'd like the
letters to be individually addressed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a problem with that if you'll
just tell me who to send them to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Each individual.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there's one more issue, if I
may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually there's two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you're going to have to hurry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. Lunchtime's still
10 minutes away, and I'll talk fast.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but we've got Commissioner
Henning to get to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amendment IV. We've all
talked about it before. I don't think there's a commissioner here that's
endorsing the amendment.
The Florida Association of Counties has come out -- and its
membership took a vote. I was there. It was a voice vote. There was
nobody in favor of Amendment IV when the vote was taken,
100-some people in the room. We heard from a number of speakers
on the issue. And they have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you want us to do?
Page 96
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I'd like you to do is either
come up with your own resolution opposing Amendment IV or to
recognize Florida Association of Counties' resolution and back that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That means we're taking a
position on a constitutional amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we can legally do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that something that we want to do
though, is the question. I don't see many nods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought we already -- I think
Commissioner Henning wants to say something. I thought we already
did this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I'm concerned
about setting precedence. I'm not in favor of the amendment and have
spoken on it to several people, but I think that's up to individual
commissioners and not the body of the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I was asked to
bring it before the board, and I have fulfilled that obligation. And if
there's no support with it -- I think I have one more item and then--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you want us to each write letters
individually or did --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Like Commissioner Henning
stated, you know, that would be within your prerogative to be able to
do that.
There's one other thing. Nick, where'd you go? Hey, Nick?
Come on. We're ready to go to lunch.
There's something that came to my attention that I want to just
bring up to you in brief, and I got to be honest with you, I don't have
quite all the figures and numbers about it yet, but it's concerning a
possible misuse of government funds that could have been better
directed someplace else.
Page 97
September 28,2010
F or some time now we've had East Naples running our fire
inspection service, our permitting service, out of the county buildings
at Horseshoe Drive. It's come to my attention that they're in the
process of building a $5 million building. Originally it was one
inspector, they increased the staff to two. Now that the economy's
down and there's no building taking place, they're building a $5
million building, and we have community development with
numerous empty offices throughout the whole place.
Now, I really do think that we need to ask the question, what's
happening, because we are collectively a part of this. We've been
offering the -- I guess the office space for free or for a negligible cost.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think there's some rent involved, but
I think it's minimal costs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And once again, too, I don't
want to cast any stones until I have all the facts, and I'd like to see if
we could get a brief report at a meeting sometime in October when it's
convenient for staff to be able to bring back the actual numbers and be
able to confirm or have it denied what I've heard as far as that goes,
because that's very serious.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if the fire district will respond to
the staff, I'm happy to try to collect the information. But the fire
district's not obligated to give the staff anything as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public information request can't
be denied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah? Okay.
MR. OCHS: What do we -- what is the request? What
information are we seeking, whether or not this project is, in fact,
happening?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whether the project is taking
place, the justification for a $5 million building. I mean, they must
have come up with some rationale behind it when they were able to
get this service provided for next to nothing out of the county's
Page 98
September 28, 2010
existing building.
Space isn't a consideration. It's been there. And how many
people are working there now, which originally during the heydays it
was two people working in the whole office running the service.
What are they doing now that needed a $5 million building?
Once again, I don't have all the facts. I really would like to know
what it's all about. I don't have the time to research it on my own.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we just ask the staff to
get the -- try to get the information necessary to confirm or deny it,
and then they can provide us a report?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds fine. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gee, I just went to the
groundbreaking. I don't remember it being a $5 million building, but
then I don't even remember if that was discussed. I know that they
have not two people in there, and I think that they're going to have
other office space in there. But I think we ought to certainly confer
with them before -- yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, absolutely. You can't come
to any kind of conclusions without talking to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That does it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Months ago the board directed
staff to try to encourage other companies that provide internet,
television, and telephone to locate here in Collier County. Just to give
you an update, recently you've seen a company named Pathworks
partnershipping with a major company to put that infrastructure in.
Also, we have the Marco Island Cable Company, and they have a
sister company that is going to be connecting or has connected a
community off of Whippoorwill. And in the near future, you will be
hearing about a major, major company building infrastructure in
Page 99
September 28, 2010
Collier County to provide that service.
The -- and what I've learned is, one of the biggest expenses is the
infrastructure, putting that in, and there's an ability -- we're going to
meet with the county attorney, staff and I, to find some possible
funding ways.
But one of the things is -- suggested is the CRAs take a look at
putting fiber through their community and actually owning that fiber
and entice companies to come in there to get either better service or a
cheaper rate than what is offered to them now.
But it's exciting. I'm really looking forward to these companies
and the technology that's much better than what we have today, much
faster, high definition and it just goes on and on. So, provide you a
report in the future.
It was brought to my attention by a couple people the concerns
under commissioners' communications about taking action, and their
concern is, there's no opportune time for public comment, and just
express to my colleagues that you may want to consider putting items
on agenda nine so we can get, you know, the public input on those
items.
And I'm looking forward to Friday being the first day of redfish
season, going down to Goodland and trying out that new boat ramp.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Anybody have
anything in two minutes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to the fire building that's
being put up. I think this is -- I'm not sure if it's $5 million, but I think
one of the big things is getting fire out of CDES, because I think in the
past when a lot of blame was put on your our staff, that we weren't
being responsive to getting permitting done.
Page 100
September 28, 2010
When we found out exactly who was causing the problem, it
ended up being a fire issue. And I think the sooner that fire can vacate
that area, the better off it's going to be for the reputation of our staff
that works diligently in CDES.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
We'll break for lunch. We'll be back here at one o'clock. So you
didn't get your hour and a half.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We almost had an hour and 37
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We almost had it, then we blew it all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we have an hour and one
minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the commission
meeting is back in session.
Item #8A
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER
COUNTY, INCLUDING PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION,
SETTING FORTH PROPOSED REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS TO
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, PERTAINING TO SECTION 24 IN NORTH BELLE
MEADE - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, we're going to item
number 8.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. These are your advertised public hearings.
First advertised public hearing is Item 8A. It's a recommendation to
approve a compliance agreement between the Florida Department of
Page 101
September 28, 2010
Community Affairs in Collier County, including petitioners and
intervention, setting forth proposed remedial amendments to the
Growth Management Plan, ordinance 89-05, as amended, pertaining to
Section 24 in North Belle Meade.
Mr. David Weeks will make the presentation.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David
Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning section within the Growth
Management Division.
You have before you a proposed compliance agreement which
staff is recommending that you approve.
Very brief background, in 2007, the commission adopted
amendments to the Growth Management Plan based upon the 2004
Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The Florida Department of
Community Affairs, DCA, found some of those amendments not to be
in compliance with state law.
One part of those amendments pertained to the subject properties,
Section 24, Township 49 south, Range 26 east within the North Belle
Meade overlay of the rural fringe mixed-use district.
After that non-compliance finding other parties intervened into
the process. We've been in settlement negotiations since, and we're
here before you today to present the compliance agreement that, again,
staff is asking that you approve.
I presume you'd want to know, what does the compliance
agreement do? What does it accomplish? For all of the landowners
except for the three intervener property owners, their density will be
limited to one dwelling unit per parcel, and their other land uses
besides residential will be limited to those as you find in the sending
lands designation, which is a variety of conservation uses, agricultural
uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act.
F or the three intervener property owners, it varies somewhat, but
most specifically they are allowed to develop at one dwelling unit per
five acres, what they have been historically allowed to develop as, if
Page 102
September 28, 2010
they cluster their development.
The agreement also, for those non-intervener property owners,
would require them to preserve 90 percent of the slash pine trees on
their property. The intervener property owners will have to preserve
80 percent of the existing native vegetation on their property and will
have to pursue a Safe Harbor Agreement with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and develop a Habitat Management Plan for the
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
So in short, the intervener property owners will retain more
developer rights than the other property owners within Section 24 and
will be held to a higher requirement for protection measures for the
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Almost all, all but three of those non-intervener property owners,
will not be negatively affected by the density being limited to one
dwelling unit per parcel, and that's because all but three of those are
less than 10 acres in size.
So they, at the density of one unit per five acres, they would have
no greater density than one dwelling unit per parcel. But there are
three parcel owners that will have their density reduced without any
compensation mechanism.
Commissioners, I think that's the meat of it. If you approve this
compliance agreement, it will need to be signed off by all of the
parties, and then subsequent to that, staff will be bringing back to you
amendments to the Growth Management Plan to implement the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. How many speakers
do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Six speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Six speakers. Are any of the six
speakers opposed to approval of this plan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the names and let me --
Page 103
September 28, 2010
MR. MITCHELL: Rich Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was looking for a way to shortcut it. If
everybody is in favor of approval, then we don't need to be told six
times, do we?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. We're just here in case you have
any questions on behalf of Hideout or Buckleys regarding the
agreement. Obviously we support it because we're a party to the
agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we just go through the list and ask
the people to tell us whether they're --
MR. MITCHELL: John Cowan.
MR. DURANT: I'm Mike Durant. I'm the attorney for Mr.
Cowan, and we have no objection at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton in support for the Florida Wildlife
Federation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nancy.
MR. MITCHELL: And Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Likewise, in support for Collier County
Audubon.
MR. MITCHELL: That's all your speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any further decision?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if any of you want to come up and
say anything, I'll be happy to listen to it. I just thought if you were
going to all be agreeable, there's no point in taking the time to have
Page 104
September 28, 2010
you, all six, tell us the same thing, okay.
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: It passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2010-38: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMP ACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COST AND CREDIT STUDY,
DATED MARCH 11, 2009, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ADOPTED COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEE UPDATE STUDY; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE AS SET FORTH IN THE COST AND CREDIT
UPDATE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES;
AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO-YEAR
AVERAGE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES;
ACCEPTING THE CALCULATION OF THE INDEXING
PERCENTAGE FOR THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Page 105
September 28, 2010
IMP ACT FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO-YEAR
AVERAGE, BUT PROVIDING THAT THE CURRENT
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATES REMAIN IN
EFFECT RATHER THAN INCREASING THE FEES AS
CALCULATED; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 8,2010, IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE TIME FOR FILING WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND NOTIFICATION TO LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES OF THE NEW RATES - APPROVING STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS #1 THROUGH 6 OF STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS - ADOPTED; DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK
FOR INCENTIVES PACKAGES AND BRING BACK TO THE
BCC - CONSENSUS
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 8B on your
agenda this afternoon. I'm not going to read this whole thing, but
essentially this is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending
the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance dealing with
adjustments to three impact fees today, the transportation impact fee,
the Parks and Recreation impact fees for both community and regional
parks, and your correctional facilities impact fee.
Before Mr. Casalanguida gets started, I need an alibi for the
board. I had also planned to have the school board impact fee
considered on this agenda item, but when I called Ms. Patterson to ask
her to put that on this particular item, she indicated that, and correctly,
there was a public advertising requirement, so we're going to have to
schedule that item for your next board meeting. I apologize for that.
But I talked with Ms. Curatolo, and she understands, and she'll be
available for that on the 12th.
Nick?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is--
Page 106
September 28, 2010
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If -- you know, you're going to advertise
it, there could be some people who oppose it, so we'll hold off on
taking any action at all.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Nick. Go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Nick Casalanguida with the Growth Management Division.
As you know, we're in an indexing year with this three impact
fees with community parks. We're seeing a down of minus 4.7
percent as an average, regional parks, minus 11.9, whereas
correctional facilities is actually up 3.4 percent, but your staff is
recommending zero change in that.
With roads, an interesting thing happened. I have the fortunate
benefit of working with Amy Patterson, who's one of the most ethical
people I work with, and she came to my office going through the
indexing and says, you know, Nick, we're coming up with about 5
percent reduction. And I said, well, that doesn't make any sense. She
said, I know that. She said, well, let's look at taking the PPI out, and it
came down to about 12 percent, and I said, well, we're --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you tell everybody what the
PPI is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Producer price index.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And what happened is, we said, well,
our average road costs come down about 20, 25 percent. So I said, we
need to look at this a little bit more. And she dutifully contacted
Tindale Oliver and said, you were going to be in the area of a cost and
credit update.
So your staff is the one that suggested to our consultant, knowing
what the board in the past has told us to be as accurate as possible, that
we should really be looking at this, and gives you a true number of
Page 107
September 28, 2010
what that impact fee should be.
In doing so, we're looking at a 32 percent reduction
approximately across the board in road impact fees, and additionally
another 10 percent as the road impact fee goes from a utility relocate
component to a -- from roads to utilities. So a total reduction of
approximately 42 percent is what we're bringing forward now with
roads.
That said, I have Steve Tindale from Tindale Oliver & Associates
who will make a brief presentation and give you -- some details for
you, and then we have Amy for some follow-up and some
housecleaning for the record, and I'm sure we have some public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to ask your questions
now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Tindale. If you'd
like, I'll be very brief --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. TINDALL: -- with the presentation.
Can I just click on this thing?
First we're going to go through the transportation, and what we're
looking at is cost and credit. That's just two of the components of the
fee to do the update.
We're briefly going to talk about the adoption phases, the cost
component very briefly, the credit, discuss the demand fee, and then
the actual change we're proposing.
We're talking about moving forward with this in two phases, the
first one being where you'd continue to use utility costs in the fee and
adopt a lower fee, and the second fee would be when the utility people
go through their rate analysis and get that changed, then you'd adopt
the second reduction, which would be the second phase. So we're
talking about a two-phase process in the adoption.
Page 108
September 28, 2010
Very briefly on the cost component. We looked at right-of-way.
The land value itself is not a -- people think about it, that's a huge part
of it, but it makes up about 30 percent of the overall cost to acquire
right-of-way. There's other items. So with -- even with a 40 percent
reduction in land values, you'd expect a 12, 13 percent reduction in the
right-of-way costs. So I just wanted to point out that the land value
itself is not, you know, even 50 percent of what it costs to acquire
right-of-ways, the administrative fees and other types of things you go
through.
The construction cost, we review bids, the local bids, the
statewide bids, the district one, and you just can't believe the amount
of data we have to look at with the volatility of what's gone on with
construction costs. It's very -- fairly complicated. But we have an
extensive amount of data all over the state that we use to come up with
the estimated cost of what it's going to cost you to build roads.
The cost decrease is basically, in the right-of-way, was 31
percent. The non-right-of-way components we're saying is a 32
percent reduction in the cost. So the first overall change in cost is the
31 percent, weighing those two in terms of their effect.
When you pull the utilities out, that non-right-of-way cost moves
from 32 to 40 percent, and then the fee gets reduced down 38 percent.
So that's the two phases we're talking about, a 31 percent reduction,
and then a 38 percent reduction.
We were asked to briefly look at right-of-ways. You are
urbanizing, and as you're building future roads, your capacities,
because of the signalization, is somewhat decreasing, and we're just
suggesting sometime in the near future you need to start looking at the
other components, and one of them is right-of-way.
Your right-of-way numbers right now are very conservative.
They're somewhat overstated. And at some point in time we're
suggesting you look at that.
And I've got some graphics just showing what we're using, your
Page 109
September 28, 2010
fee, and what -- some of the right-of-way in terms of adding capacity
in some of the communities.
The credit component, you are proposing to spend less money
now. As we look into the future -- you have historically in the past.
In the past, you were spending $51 million of non-impact fee money.
Between moving your ad valorem money around and some other
items, the credit is dropping from the 51 million a year to 34. And we
have given the development community credit for future investments.
They can't charge them twice.
So what happens is your construction cost goes down, but
because your credit -- your taxes that your spending is going down a
little bit, it kind of moderates that total reduction a little bit because of
the -- less of the current capital expenditures.
There was four changes in the trip generation rate. I'm not going
into the details, but every time we do an update, if you had 20 studies,
now they have 30 studies, and the trip generation rate for some of the
land use had changed, during that update we'd modify those four lane
uses.
The trip lengths. We, again, looked at it. We think the trip
length, again, in the fee currently is conservative. We did some
computer modeling and looked at some current local studies. And,
again, we think sometime in the near future you need to go back and
check your trip length. We weren't asked to do that in this. We were
looking -- just those first two components. But we just documented in
the appendix that we think this, right now, it's very conservative.
The impact fee, the demand and the cost and the credit, basically
the costs are down 31 percent. We left the capacity alone. The credit
will make the fee go up a little bit because you have less credit, and
the bottom overall change is the 33 percent.
In Phase II, we're looking at the same -- same cost being 38
percent, and the overall change, as I said earlier, is 41 percent, which
is a fairly dramatic reduction.
Page 110
September 28, 2010
We're just showing some -- where you are versus where you're
headed. And we didn't mean to, you know, make a big point of it, but
we think the two or three counties that are higher than you are surely
going to have to go through an update, and their numbers will start
dropping down to where you're right in there pretty well average with
the other counties.
And that's the quick version of the presentation of the work we've
done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala? You had a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I wanted to --
thank you. I want to ask Amy, but she's going to be coming up.
When you come up, I'm -- we talked a little bit yesterday, and I
was wondering if you could please tell us how the impact fees have
affected construction one way or another and how many paid upon
units, you know, impact fee paid units we already have on the market,
or would you like to wait?
MS. PATTERSON: It's at the board's pleasure, if you want to go
through the rest of the technical questions, and I can address some of
these programs specific.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only question I heard was the one
from Commissioner Fiala, so let's try the answer to that one.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay, sure. As far as how have impact fees
affected the overall construction, of course it's relatively hard to say
because we're in an extreme economic downturn. What we do know
is we put a program in place two years or year and a half ago to help
with commercial relief of impact fees for changes of use, and what
that does is provides that business -- or buildings three years old or
older no longer have to pay these change-of-use impact fees except for
utilities, and they can open up businesses of higher intensity use in
existing space. That program is performing well.
At our last annual report, we had 40 businesses take part in that
Page 111
September 28, 2010
program. Twenty of them were actually new businesses to Collier
County; the other 20 were businesses expanding in Collier County.
The other question that you had, and I'll -- I have a map actually
showing the vacant commercial space that I can throw up on the
visualizer that might help. Just looking at, what's the inventory of
existing space right now for commercial. We're going to -- it's kind of
a tricky map, but move it around so they can see the different areas.
Try to get this on here the best that we can, but this is going to
take a shot of Collier County, and you're looking for -- all of the blue
dots are showing vacant or available commercial space. And I don't
know if we can see, looking at the East Trail particularly or up around
the Naples Boulevard area, there's an abundance of available
commercial space.
All of the blue dots represent something that's on the market
either for sale or for lease, and there's lots and lots of those dots. We
have there -- we have additional maps that hone in on Immokalee.
Some of that information was provided by the CRA out there as to
what their inventory looks like. We have the same thing for Marco
Island.
So the long and the short there is that we have a whole lot of
vacant commercial space built. Your other question related to unbuilt
number of units and commercial square footage, and unique to
transportation is that we collect a portion of the transportation impact
fees up front at site development plan or plat.
So we have a running balance of those upfront payments, and we
translate those to the available square footage or units. And we know
that right now on our balance sheets that we have $66 million plus of
upfront payments that have yet to be tied to a building permit. That
translates to about 11,000 units or $2.3 million -- or .37 million square
feet of commercial space.
Now, taking this down to another level, we can look at how many
of these have enough money paid up front to cover the total
Page 112
September 28, 2010
transportation impact fees related to their project. That translates to
about 4,500 residential units or about 1.2 million square feet of
commercial space out there that's to be built in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And emphasize, that is for the entire
transportation impact fee.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Those last two numbers I gave you
means they have enough money right now prepaid to cover their entire
transportation impact fee at -- before this reduction goes into place.
These numbers are going to change. With a 42 percent reduction in
fees, they're going to have a whole lot more units that they can cover
because the rates are lower.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we have 4,500 single-family
units on the market that are already paid for but have never been built;
is that what you said?
MS. PATTERSON: Those are residential units, so that would be
a mix of single- family and multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: That are paid -- their transportation impact
fees are paid, but those units remain to be built, so there's not a
building permit associated to those yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And how much commercial
did you say?
MS. PATTERSON: 1.2 million square feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oil Well Road, was that
contract this year? Did we let that contract this year? And that wasn't
a part of the construction costs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Construction costs were considered
for Oil Well Road, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it said -- it says in
here that we considered other years but not this year. But it was
Page 113
September 28, 2010
included?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe -- Steve?
MR. TINDALL: We used -- we used current year for counties
because we have a lot of data. The state, at the time we did the study
__ the state has finally built a road. But in the year 2010, when we
were going to publish this, the state had not widened one road in the
State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wonder why.
MR. TINDALL: They just hadn't put a bid out and constructed
one for eight or nine months.
Now, we have got a state bid since then that matchings what we
were doing. We feel a little bit more comfortable. So for the state
construction costs, we were on a downward trend, and we're looking at
that, and we estimated where we were.
N ow since we've actually published, they have put a bid out that
matches what we've done. So we made a point that for the county
roads, we were able to use multiple years plus the current year. But for
state roads -- and the state had bid -- essentially the state had bid
components of roads in terms of asphalt and base, and we could build
an estimate for 2010 if we thought they went out to bid, and we looked
at that, but we did not have a bid, and now we have a bid that matches
pretty well where we're proposing the construction costs to be. But we
wanted to highlight, we did not have a bid, a current bid statewide for
the state roads.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you consider our CIE or
AUIR as far as impact fees, use that component?
MR. TINDALL: Sure. The types of roads you're going to build,
both your AUIR, the CIE, and long-range plan, we look at the -- are
you building two to four lanes? Are you building two to six lanes?
Where are you building them? Are you building them in the urban
area or the rural area in terms of right-of-way? So we looked at both
the AUIR, your CIE, and every project in your long-range plan as far
Page 114
September 28, 2010
as what mix of types of projects you're going to build in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do you do that with all the
impact fees --
MR. TINDALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- funds, okay.
Last question, and it goes back to your statement about the
advertising for school impact fees. And I understand that the school
board is recommending to the Board of Commissioners to reduce that
50 percent?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, for two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For two years. Is there any way
that we can consider making that retroactive today?
MR. KLATZKOW: When that comes to you, should you decide
to implement that, you can do it retroactively . You might want to do
it the same date as this one, which is October 8, 2010, just so that
everything falls on the same date. But yes, you can do it retroactive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one is applying October
8th.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our next meeting is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: October 12th.
MR. MITCHELL: October 12th.
MR. OCHS: 12th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So should we give direction to
make these and the school's active October 8th?
MR. KLA TZKOW: You need to hear the school. I mean, you
don't want to predetermine that without hearing public speakers, for
example. But at the next meeting, this will come back to you. We are
advertising it. At that point in time you can make it retroactive to
April 8th -- October 8th, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: October 8th or April 8th?
MR. KLATZKOW: Or April 8th if you choose, yes.
Page 115
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'd like to get a
little clarification about what we're going to be doing with the utility
fee that's part of transportation now and the transfer of it, and then I
have some questions after you explain to me exactly what our
intentions are on this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. We're one of the only counties
in Florida that has the utility component in the road fee. And so what
we're doing as we move our program east, we're also considering that
as a factor.
But our utility relocate component would come out of the utility
-- the roadway transportation impact fee, and then it'd be -- utilities
would do a study to look at where it would be appropriate to put in the
utility impact fee or the rate for the utility user, and that might be a
blend of both. But the utility folks would have that determination.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, right at this point in time,
this fee is attached to transportation, and it's collected from just about
the whole county with the exception of an area around Everglades
City where we have no impact fees for transportation. There's no
intentions to build roads in that area; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's collected everywhere -- our road
impact fee is collected everywhere in the county that -- that utility
component is in our road impact fee everywhere right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's also collected in
Immokalee in the --
MR. DeLONY: Water/sewer district only.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want to make a correction
on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. What I said is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I mean, it's also--
Page 116
September 28,2010
that impact fee for relocating utilities is collected in Immokalee also?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Wherever we collect road impact fees,
it is in that fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the way that the
wording has right -- we have on this particular thing is that that
money, regardless of the fact if it's collected throughout the county,
can only be used for county utilities, which basically exists west of
951; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: County utilities exist east of 951 a
little bit as well, too, on Immokalee Road, so there are some utilities
east of951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, they do. I'll be
most of the rural part of the county, Golden Gate Estates, Orangetree
area, Immokalee -- I'm trying to think of some other examples __
Marco Island, they're all paying this fee, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. And the nexus is that they
travel on urban roads as well, too, so that's the reason why they pay
that fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They do. They travel on urban
roads and they also travel on rural roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what -- the point I'm making
is, transferring it to the utility itself will limit the geographical area
that this money's collected in the future just to the utility part that's
served by the Collier County Utilities, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, I want to know if
that's correct or not. A nod of the head would help.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: I'll take care of that.
For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities administrator.
At direction, what we're -- what's being proposed is to remove the
Page 11 7
September 28, 2010
road impact fee associated with the utility relocates __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: -- from the current impact fee. I'm going to be
bringing you back the utility impact fee sometime this next __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and I understand that, Mr.
DeLony, and --
MR. DeLONY: And I'm going to bring it back. And in that fee
for the water/sewer district will be those funds identified that are
needed to take care for relocates based on his 1 O-year plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And so the new funds
that will be collected at some time in the future will be limited to
Collier County Utility geographic area, beginning and end?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The problem is, we've
already let the horse out of the barn. The residents of the area that I
represent, the greatest part of that geographic area, including
Immokalee and Orangetree and Waterways that are served by other
utilities have been paying these funds. And I mean, that's a lame
excuse to say that eventually they drive on an urban road and they're
going to pay for it.
What I'm submitting to you is fair warning that when it comes
time that your department tries to bill the people of Orangetree,
Waterways for the putting of the pipes under the road, there's going to
be a darn good legal argument to make with the fact that they've been
paying those impact fees.
You can switch it now, that's fine. But I do have another thing I
want to get to, and I want to ask you about. But it's -- that horse is out
of barn now, and it's long gone. We'll deal with that situation when
we come to it. But you have to be aware of the fact that this was
totally improper, and it's just one of those things that we're going to
have to deal with in the future.
Now, let's talk about this impact fee that's going to move back to
Page 118
September 28, 2010
the urban area to deal with the rate users for the county's sewer and
water. That rate is how much now?
MR. DeLONY: The -- for ERC, somewhere around about
$7,000 now, there and about, 6,000 something, between 6- and $7,000
right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six, $7,000.
Now, let's talk about the usage itself. And if you can't answer
that, we'll get somebody else to do it. How much of that money do we
need to build new plants in the next seven years?
MR. DeLONY: Well, I'm not prepared to bring you an impact
fee study today, but that is identified and approved by the board as our
past impact fee study that was done in 2008. The master plan was
approved at the same time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
MR. DeLONY: And -- but in terms of what is on the books __
and you'll be doing AUIR here in either November or December,
you'll see that obviously there's no expansion, but you have to
remember that that impact fee also covers the debt that we incurred
over the last six, seven years of expansion of the water/sewer district's
capabilities, consistent with our concurrency model. So whether it's
going forward--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Again, you're talking about that
element --
MR. DeLONY: It's not going towards new plans.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- of it, just the element that has
to do with the replacing of the lines underneath the roads or any kind
of roadwork and the impact there. I'm not talking about your full
impact fee. I want to address just that one issue and that issue alone.
MR. DeLONY: The impact fee amount that is in this -- when we
sit (sic) down here before this meeting today and sit down and parsed
out the road plan for the next 10, 15 years, or 20 years, excuse me, and
we looked at what would be the amount of money to be generated
Page 119
September 28, 2010
over that period of time in the water/sewer district area for relocates
associated with roads, it was about $18 million over that period of
time, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's then.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We're talking about now
and what we're up against, and we're not expecting to build another
plant for a long time to come. We have an adequate capacity out
there.
What I'm thinking about is that we ought to consider the fact that
we take this particular fee and sunset it for a period of maybe three to
five years for reconsideration at that point in time rather than just
passing the fee on. I think we ought to really give consideration on
that.
MR. DeLONY: And, sir, I would recommend that we can talk
about that when I bring you back the impact fee for the water/sewer
district and see within the context of that, the impact of that particular
sunset in terms of what it would do to that fee, not primarily to the
instance of the cost of the fee, but what it means in terms of our ability
to reduce the debt load that's already in place that the impact fees take
care for. The money's already been spent and borrowed, and the
impact fees to be collected are retiring the cost of that debt and the
interest to that debt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Does that include the
debt for the pipes under Oil Well Road for the Orange Tree Utility?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, it does not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we ought to retire that
fee.
MR. DeLONY: It was not calculated as part -- it was not
calculated in the prior calculation. And the allocation of money that
I've looked at so far, working with transportation, is not in that -- in
that $18 million I spoke to either.
Page 120
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let me ask you this, Mr.
DeLony, and I don't want to, you know, take all the time away from
this commission.
At this point in time we're talking about removing it from road
transportation; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: The recommendation of the study that you have
in front of you moves the relocation cost of utilities in the water/sewer
district back to the impact fee for the water/sewer district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, that's if -- this is
going to all be done in one step today. This isn't going to be done in
several steps in the future, in other words, to set that fee? In other
words, anything -- anybody goes down and they -- after we get
through with this meeting, or whatever date that this takes effect,
probably, what, October 1st, they'll go down to the licensing,
permitting department, and they go to pay their impact fees, that
impact fee will now, at that point in time, be in the sewer/water part of
their bill?
MR. DeLONY: The proposal that you had from Mr. Tindale, I
believe that the presentation, there was a chart, actually talked to a
Phase I that holds it where it is right now, and then when the utility
brings in its impact fees later this year, we pick up those costs, and
then there would actually be the reduction taken at that time. As I
recall, there was a Phase I and Phase II, so it will be at that __
implementation of Phase I, and then implementation of Phase II.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do appreciate your attempt to
answer my questions. I still feel very uncomfortable with the
direction we're going on this.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering, is there
-- is there a reason that we have to make the decision today? It
Page 121
September 28, 2010
mentioned October 8th a couple times, but then we -- it did say we had
to wait for the utility fee to come back and until the county manager
reports back on Page 3 with his findings mentioned and then after the
DSAC had adequate time for a full review. It said they didn't have
any time.
It sounds like there's a lot of things left hanging, and we're trying
to make a decision without those things being cleared.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Little clarification. The study has
been done, so the 32 percent reduction, you almost want to implement
that immediately because you want to give the people, the public, the
benefit of that reduction. The only reason for the delay in the 10
percent was to allow the utilities to do the calculations and present the
fee at the same time, so it would be a switch at the same date.
So the 32 percent would go into effect on October 8th, 10 percent
as soon as Mr. DeLony's shop showed up and said, okay, we've got
our impact fee calculation, here's our adjustment, the board adopted
that, then the 10 percent would kick in for roads, and then his
adjustment would show up in the utility fee.
So that's the only thing we're waiting for. The other two items,
the capacity added and trip length is for us to do a study and bring it
back to the board in our next update and let you folks get a chance to
review it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Thomas Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
your time this afternoon. For the record, Tom Lykos. I'm president of
a local remodeling company here in Collier County.
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the impact fee
study. My purpose today is to share a business owner's perspective
with you.
In 2004 new single-family home construction peaked at 4,111
Page 122
September 28,2010
units. In 2,009 the total of new single-family homes fell to 614.
That's about a 3,500-unit drop in new single-family homes per year.
Not only has the community lost nearly 10,000 construction jobs,
but also approximately 7,000 jobs in nonconstruction sectors of the
economy, like retail, restaurant, and professional services.
I've been fortunate enough to survive this economic downturn;
however, I've seen many good small businesses, small business
owners, lose their companies and even lose their homes.
Many business owners in the community are holding on looking
for a sign that things are going to get better.
I ask that you reduce the impact fees by 50 percent not only to
stimulate our economy but also to show the business community and
our residents that you recognize our plight and will take the steps
necessary to do all that you can to stimulate our economy and put our
residents back to work.
Let's create jobs, let's create demand, and let's create prosperity
for everybody in our community. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Melissa Ahem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we call two people so we can reduce
the delay between speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. David Aldrich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, why don't you come up to this
podium, and then we can alternate here.
MS. AHERN: Good afternoon. I'm speaking today from a
construction viewpoint. Our business has decreased by 85 to 90
percent, and we went from 90 employees to two in about 18 months.
The new single-family resident opportunities that we've had
presented to us, unfortunately, just aren't appraising out. Most of
these vary between say probably 15- and 40,000, and this is where we
can really help by decreasing the impact fees.
So for this reason, I support the chamber's request for a 50
percent reduction. Thank you.
Page 123
September 28, 2010
MR. ALDRICH: Thank you, Commissioners. David Aldrich,
Collier Building Industry Association.
I just have a few points to point out in the current study. The
current study references an 18 percent reduction in the credit. We are
currently receiving only, obviously, 82 percent of the credit which is
funded to the gas tax.
Impact fees were not bonded. Gas taxes are paying these bonds
covering the debt service. Credits are averaged over a 19-year period.
We could not find a logical reason for these 19 years to be done -- for
this to be averaged over the 19 years. There was no logic for that
argument.
Currently, the blended values of state and county are being used
for the right-of-way values. These blended -- are blended between
urban and rural. Going forward, we feel most of our transportation
development's going to be in the rural area of the county, not urban.
So we feel that number is skewed.
The study also uses a blended cost for state and county roads.
The cost per-lane mile is $6.28 million, which is being lowered to 4.22
million. That's a 33 percent reduction. I remind you, this is down
from over 9 million in the past.
The state is currently at 4.7 million. Our county uses an 88
percent value of the state value.
Our question is, is why are we using the state number when we
have our own county number? The state number is much higher than
what we can be using in this study for the county calculation.
Currently, per-lane mile, there is a carrying cost of $170,000 for
interest. Why is there an interest of impact fees when impact fees are
supposed to be prepaid or pay as you go?
Currently, interchanges -- why aren't developer contributions
being counted for our interchanges? That is -- we did not find that in
this study.
There are two things I'd like you to take into consideration going
Page 124
September 28, 2010
forward. Utility charges. We don't see the need going forward to
bury utilities for the next 20 years. Our development is going to be in
the rural areas of the county . We've already determined that the
utilities will not be buried in those roads, so we don't understand why
now we're going to take an impact fee off your transportation and
create a new one in utilities when we feel there won't (sic) not be the
need for burying those utilities out east of the town.
Lastly, the trip counts. There are ten thousand, two thou- __
10,200 vehicles per day, which have been reduced to 9,100. Rural
capacity is between 17,000 and 18,000, and this is where most of the
road construction will occur is out in the rural county.
The study is citing more traffic signals, but that will not be the
case in these rural areas. I ask you to look at these inconsistencies in
the study. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I'd like to get some answers
to those questions. But, you know, one of the things is that this __
wasn't this submitted to DSAC? Why weren't these questions raised
when it went to DSAC? We would have had answers today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Some of those questions were
raised by one of the DSAC members, Mr. Jarvey, who submitted a
questionnaire, and we responded in-kind to that questionnaire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, can you give us answers to
those now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can cover some of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, we can't take that information on
the fly and just say, yes, you're right or you're wrong, you know. We
have to have some substantiation if we're going to make a change
here, and we're here getting ready to approve an update.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Don't disagree, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you get a list, a flood of 12
questions that are technical like that on the fly, I feel the same way.
Page 125
September 28, 2010
I'm trying to understand each one of them --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- listening to them as we go.
Things like the utility component that we talked about a little bit,
if you're outside the water/sewer district you won't pay a utility
component charge as part of your impact fee; you don't have one in
there. So as the program moves farther east and it's not in the
water/sewer district, no one would pay that fee, as opposed to, right
now you would pay that fee, again, using that urban area cost.
The capacity per-lane mile, we discussed that a little bit. We're
bringing you back a study, and we're not adjusting the capacity. As
Mr. Tindale Oliver (sic) had shown you, we're at the lower end or the
average end right now of the statewide numbers that are being used,
and we're going to bring back to the board a study on capacity added.
We're conservative in our trip length. We've shown you that
we're at 5.88 when the rest of the state is using seven to nine, so we're
conservative in that location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You're not
contemplating a change in trip length in this calculation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not with this calculation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. So we're going to come
back with that information to show you that we're conservative on that
as well, too.
The carrying cost. That's one item that was discussed as well.
We have a carrying cost for our projects that we incur. Public Utilities
does as well, too. That's been brought up many times.
Cost of interchanges, those are numbers that are provided by
DOT estimates. And the question was, why don't we use developer
contributions for that? All of the money that's identified in our
program is broken into our fee, whether it's private or public, so that's
all in our fee.
Page 126
September 28, 2010
And I can't remember all his questions, but--
MR. TINDALL: One was credit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One was credit.
MR. TINDALE: We looked back five to ten years, we looked
forward five years and ten years, and I think we did exactly what he
said. To only look forward five, we'd come up with the same number
we come up with that, when we look back, it was like 14 cents, when
you look forward, it's like 9 cents, and the current is about 11, and we
put 11 in there.
So what he just recommended wouldn't change the number, and
we wouldn't use such a small time period to do it. But I guess if the
number had went down during that time period, he probably would
not recommend using the one time period he's recommending. But
doing exactly what he said on the credit would not change it. We just
on the fly calculated it, and it would be almost identical.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Gary Butler has ceded his time to Bill
Spinelli, and he'll be followed by Bruce Anderson.
MR. SPINELLI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bill Spinelli. I've given a copy of my notes over
in case anybody is interested in them.
I'm here today to address the 2010 Transportation Impact Fee
Study and the related recommendations from your consultant and the
county staff.
The request from the Greater Naples Area Chamber of
Commerce policy leadership is to reduce the transportation impact fee
by a minimum of 50 percent across the board and postpone indexing
for two consecutive years.
The chamber requests that the commission modify its impact fee
public policy so as to promote job creation and grow Collier County
economic activity in balance with the competing needs of our Smart
Growth Management Plan policy.
Page 127
September 28,2010
We respectfully request that the commission direct staff to work
in cooperation with the broader base civic community and the private
sector to present an economic incentive plan which includes
significant reductions or elimination of impact fees entirely for
projects that create desired jobs.
The goal of this policy is to rework current, less effective
incentives and boldly encourage the industry clusters of our future to
locate here in Collier County with the high-quality jobs that they
create.
Why lower the impact fee by 50 percent instead of30 percent?
Reason number one. In reviewing the impact fee cost and credit
assumptions in the current study, it is clear that staff and the
consultant are following nearly decade-old framework to maximum
the amount of transportation impact fee. This approach does not
consider Collier County needs to compete for every job-creating
opportunity with neighboring counties and communities outside of our
.
regIon.
There are many counties in Florida that have imposed impact fee
moratoriums for a year or longer and are now starting to extend those
moratoriums as the lower impact fees, taxes, quote-unquote are
working for those communities to create opportunities.
Very recently the mayor of Lee County, or better said of the City
of Fort Myers, is proposing a five-year moratorium of transportation
impact fees.
The next time a major new employer like Naples Community
Hospital looks to expand, as it did with DSI Labs, we hope to extract
those 1 OO-plus jobs in Collier County, not have them move to Lee
County. Maybe we can convince Arthrex to expand right here in
Collier County with their next 150 jobs.
Reason number two. A point of significant concerns is the
provision to back average costs for two years in a declining cost
environment. This will result in the impact fee being approximately
Page 128
September 28,2010
10 percent artificially high for the first year and then dropping 10
percent in year number two.
The concern is that business will choose to wait until your
number two for your lower fee and thus postpone starting the project
and the job creation for yet another year.
Reason number three. This 50 percent reduction includes the
elimination of utility relocation fee of approximately 10 percent
instead of moving these costs to a utility impact fee. The future
roadways are more in rural areas that do not include this type of cost.
Some historical perspective. As you know, this study is
presented in accordance with the county's adopted impact fee
ordinance. This ordinance was framed several years back in order to
maximize the amount of impact fee collections and to fund
much-needed infrastructure.
At the time the county had fallen behind in executing its
infrastructure plans, and there was urgent need to catch up. We had
road segments at failure and several more segments approaching
failure. Collier County had a real problem that called for a
high-priority response.
In the early part of this past decade, Collier County, under this
very commission's leadership, embarked on the largest road building
project in county history. I think this commission can take credit for
recognizing and addressing the urgent priority at that time. It is fair to
say that you have successfully solved the crisis.
Some pertinent facts. Since 2004 Collier County has spent more
than half a billion dollars on road projects and intersection
improvements. We have built approximately 400 lane-miles of roads
in Collier County since early last decade. This does not include the
$430.5 million 1-75 expansion started on October of '07 and completed
in 2009.
The 2004 AUIR proposed transportation five-year work program
detailed 23 projects totaling $502 million. It used high BEBR
Page 129
September 28, 2010
population estimates detailing the county's population growing from
300,000 residents at the end of'04 to 381,000 residents at the end of
'09, and on to 412,000 residents at the end of'010.
BEBR estimates Collier's actual population at the end of2009 is
only 332,000. We have 50,000 less people than the 381,000 projected
in the 2004 AUIR $500 million work plan.
We also have a highly functioning six-lane 1-75 that was not
known when we adopted that plan. Based on -- am I __
MR. MITCHELL: You have a minute.
MR. SPINELLI: Okay. It might take me a little more than a
minute if that's okay. It's not okay. Okay.
Based on the county estimates using 20 percent peak traffic
counts, Collier has 150 miles of extra capacity on its existing roads.
That equates to an extra 60- or 70,000 people coming here.
Having quality roadways and ample capacity for growth is a
good thing for future job creation, as long as we can get the impact fee
where it needs to be.
Population trends for the last five years -- 30 years, ending 2003,
5 percent a year; '04, 4 percent; '05, 3-and-a-half percent; '06,
two-and-a-half; '07, 2; '08 and '09, no population growth. The age of
population-growth-driven economy is over. It's behind us.
I will skip down to the end here. I guess I'll be done, if there's no
more time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can take another 10 seconds, if you
can -- can you get your closings?
MR. SPINELLI: No. You know, I really can't, but that's -- I
guess what I'd like to say is, I suggest there is a new priority for the
next decade of the 21 st Century, as our population growth has slowed,
stopped, and maybe even declined pending the results of the 2010
census.
I hope the commission will help redirect public policy to meet
the needs of the next decade as you did to meet the needs of the last
Page 130
September 28, 2010
decade.
Thanks for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Anderson. First of all, I want to compliment staff on taking
the initiative on reducing impact fees. It's a good thing, another of the
fine changes that have come about.
I want to support staffs proposed reductions, but let's not delay
on removing the utility relocation factor today. Most other local
governments don't include it, and you shouldn't wait until you
consider how you want to handle with utility impact fees or user rates.
Take it out today. If you delay, you're only going to serve to
delay homeowners, new homeowners, builders, or new businesses that
might come to town that will put off their permitting process because
they know another 10 percent reduction is on the way . We don't need
to encourage additional delay on economic recovery.
So I would ask you to go ahead and remove that today. I think
that's a good compromise between -- with the 50 percent that was
earlier suggested. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The last two speakers are Steve Harrison and
Mike Timmerman.
MR. HARRISON: I'm Steve Harrison, chairman of the County
Productivity Committee. You've had us review these from a
methodological standpoint, as we have done for the last two years.
In this case in the transportation fee, there was one of the
assumptions that has been characterized as conservative, that being the
average trip length. And our view and recommendation was that,
perhaps, it's too conservative.
The average trip length, which is studied periodically, is
somewhere between 9.8 and ll-and-a-halfmiles, and we're building
into our gross requirements only 5.88, which I think Mr. Tindale said
is about 60 percent of what it was in the last study.
Page 131
September 28, 2010
We questioned him as to what are other counties doing, and I
guess the central tendency is around 80 percent. So there's a risk here
that we're not adequately providing for what's happening to our trip
miles.
We asked him to consider doing an update on the trip-length
study and as part of that increasing the average number of miles to like
7, 24 which would bring it to, I think, 80 percent of the former study
and in line with what most other counties are doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Steve.
MR. HARRISON: Any questions?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Mike Timmerman.
I was asked by the leadership at Naples Chamber and CBIA to
help them kind of look at the AUIR and the transportation impact fee
just from a standpoint of an economic incentive. And I think Bill kind
of commented a lot on the results that we came up with.
Bottom line is, our population has continued to grow, but not
growing at the same rate it has for the last 25 years. I've been here in
Collier County for 27 years and seen an awful lot of changes occur.
One of the things that we're finding is that we've built the
infrastructure. We have the capacity in the urban area that will sustain
a new population of 60- to 70,000 people, and that analysis was done
based upon the average trip length, and so on, for each of the different
uses.
The reduction of the impact fee is an impediment that hurts
businesses that are looking at the county. As you know, we went
through and kind of looked at the different impact fees from different
counties, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Palm Beach and Martin counties.
Really the goal is to try to go ahead and provide that impediment.
And I know that some people think that, well, by reducing the impact
fee, there's not going to be a real big change in what's going to end up
happening, but anytime that we can go ahead and reduce an
Page 132
September 28, 2010
impediment for any kind of development, any kind of jobs that can be
brought to the county, anytime somebody looks at the county and sees
the fees they've got to look at and fees they've got to pay, anytime
they go through and look at that, that's something that gets them to
start looking. It's kind of akin to, right now, we're all sitting down and
waiting kind of to find out what's going to happen with the Senate and
the House regarding the Bush tax cuts. Everybody's kind of waiting to
see what happens as far as their moving forward with any kind of
investment.
It's a similar situation here. What it does is it sends the message
that we're encouraging people to go ahead and move to Collier
County, we're encouraging businesses to move here and helping with
our employment and with our economic diversity.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. That was the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: That was the last speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Real quick. In this calculation,
did we use right-of-way costs in the urban area?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'm looking at those
numbers. They are blended. You're looking at urban and rural.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are we acquiring
right-of-way in the urban area?
MR. TINDALL: I'll tell you exactly what we did. We took the
right-of-way estimates, and we looked at the amount of development
along the roads that we had right-of-way costs for, and then we looked
at every road you're going to build, and we looked at whether there is
any single-family homes along those road, whether -- how much was
developed, and it wasn't just rural or urban is -- is the roads you're
getting ready to build in the next ten years, are they in an area where
you don't have use of land, or is there structures of land there?
So we were very conservative, what we were doing, and we
Page 133
September 28, 2010
made sure that the right-of-way estimate was based on the reality of
the actual development levels.
And when you go out there and build a road and there's no
development along that road, it is much cheaper. But when you go out
there and there's single-family homes, there's a difference. So we
looked at the combination of the rural costs and urban costs and
specifically the amount of development along the roads you were
projecting to estimate the right-of-way, well beyond just taking an
urban cost and a rural cost. We looked at specifically the development
levels along the projected roadway construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if the answer is in
that explanation.
MR. TINDALL: So the answer is, we used urban and rural, but
we did it based on the development levels that were actually at the
sites.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What roadways in the urban
area are we -- need right-of-way?
MR. TINDALL: Vanderbilt Road extension Phase I, and Golden
Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to DeSoto.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are in the rural area.
MR. TINDALE: Well, it's -- we got a -- we got a suburb- -- we
got an urban area, we have an urban service area, and we have a rural
area. So these are the ones we used. I think they're in the urban
service area of your transportation plan. They may not be in your
mind what you call, you know, the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the average cost per
acre for your urban, what you're citing Vanderbilt Beach extension
and Golden Gate Boulevard?
MR. TINDALL: Golden Gate Boulevard, the average cost
per-lane mile was a million dollars. We had one project, which was
Oil Well Road, where the average cost was 600,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's just stick with
Page 134
September 28, 2010
acquisition of right-of-way. How do you -- how do you determine the
cost for those two roadways, Vanderbilt Beach extension and Golden
Gate Boulevard?
MR. TINDALL: We went through your right-of-way people in
terms of the number of parcels, the development of the parcels, the
administrative costs, and the land values. They have like six variables
we go through. And from what we can go -- and we checked this two
or three years ago and we checked it again -- the actual land value cost
runs less than 50 percent of all the costs in terms of the acquisition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you -- prior you just said
that it was 30 percent of your total cost.
MR. TINDALL: No. I said if the -- let me see exactly what I
said. If you -- it's on that slide. It's 40 percent and 30 percent, and
ends up being a 12 percent effect, and I'd have to go back and check
which one of the two is in terms of the weight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our executive summary,
you're stating how you arrive to these costs. One is construction cost
and one is land cost.
MR. TINDALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to get an answer on
what your land costs are and what you consider --
MR. TINDALL: You can go back on each one of those and get
the numbers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me show -- we can go through the
index. She's got appendixes there. But as part of the cost and credit
update, what we do is assign a staff, or sometimes it can be myself.
We actually will sit with our right-of-way folks, and there's two
components to that right-of-way cost.
All the actual purchases that have gone before the board in the
last six months to a year, we look at all of those. When we talk about
right-of-way costs, when you say per acre, most of our costs aren't the
acreage land value. It's the attorneys' fees, the appraisals, and things
Page 135
September 28, 2010
like that that add into it as well, too.
So sometimes, like we met with DSAC and the other folks, they
talk about the raw land costs. And then we say, when you buy a -- I'll
give you an example -- a 15-foot sliver on, say, Golden Gate
Boulevard that's 155 feet long, that land value may only be $10,000,
and we may spend another 5- or $10,000 just in attorneys' fees and
processing of that purchase. So that's where it gets a little confusing,
because some says, what's your raw acre land cost, well, that's what
the -- that's what we have, but we also include attorneys' fees,
appraisals, damages, things like that, to replace fences or other
structures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it -- wrong word. Not
acre, maybe raw land costs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Total acquisition costs is what I would
use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where are the -- where is the
land when you consider urban right-of-way purchases? Where is that
land?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, in our urban area, what you
define as urban, we'd be purchasing right-of-way on Collier
Boulevard.
So in terms of our back right-of-way purchases, any right-of-way
that our right-of-way section has purchased on Collier Boulevard in
that section we had in our five-year plan, which may come out, that
Golden Gate to Green, all those purchases are provided as backup
information as well, too.
So we look at everything we do, and we provide that to the
consultants, say, these are all our purchases that we've done in the past
12 months since we've done our last update to update -- to give them a
correct update, and that's what I believe we provided to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But most likely you won't do
Collier Boulevard.
Page 136
September 28, 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, right now the bad news is -- and,
you know, we're going to get more into it in the CIE and AUIR, but --
we have a $7 million grant that we may lose as part of this reduction.
That's just a reality of what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's my -- I guess it's my
assumption that you use that right-of-way cost for the calculations for
these impact fees.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, but you do it -- even though
you may not be able to fund it because you're not collecting enough
impact fees, you still have it in your ten-year plan -- or in your plan to
do, so it's still a road that you're going to build at some point in time.
It gets pushed out.
It's almost circular, if you think about it. The more I reduce it, the
more things get pushed out. Then your argument would be, since it's
pushed out, don't count that project. But sometime you're going to get
to that project. That's the delicacy of it, I would say. But we're still
going to do that project at some point in time. Hopefully we can keep
it in our five-year plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- wasn't I before you,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're doing in alphabetical order now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Henning, for your attempt to get the
mike in front of me. I have my own. I don't need yours. Thank you
very much. You have two of them. That's pretty neat.
Let's talk a little bit about what the world's all about. We have
this coming up because it's the fair thing to do. We raised impact fees
by these rules, these very rules that we're now decreasing them, so it
only seems logical we'd follow that; however, everything has a cause
Page 137
September 28, 2010
and effect to it.
Nick, what is going to happen when we roll back to these impact
fees as far as our work program goes out there and the future? We just
-- we need to know that also, plus I have a couple more comments,
questions.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, unfortunately, between
you and Commissioner Henning's district, you face the brunt of the
reductions because that's where we are when you look at about a 42
percent reduction on a $68 million program, almost cut in half.
You look at Collier Boulevard which is in year' 13 where we
worked hard to get a $7 million grant, may come out of the program.
The bridge on 23rd, right-of-way acquisition on Golden Gate
Boulevard, on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is going to slow way
down. Those are the repercussions all, mostly within your district and
Commissioner Henning's district.
The challenge is, you still have to respond to DCA and say that
you're going to meet Chapter 163, Rule 9J5 at concurrency. They
could find us in noncompliance next year and say, you're not doing
anything with Collier Boulevard, and Golden Gate Boulevard has
been in your new sixth year for the past three years and hasn't come
in. What are you going to do about it? And we're going to say, we're
going to keep buying right-of-way a little bit at a time. At some point
in time that's not going to be the right answer for them. They're going
to ask for a little more effort from the county to take care of those
problems.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the repercussions of this will
be more towards the eastern part of the county than the urban part of
the county?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Other than 951, which is urban, it will
be more towards the eastern. Your programs to the east, that pipeline
production line, is going to slow way down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's talk about the
Page 138
September 28, 2010
-- Bruce Anderson made some very good points regarding the fee
that's added to the impact fee that we were talking about transporting
over to utilities about, maybe that's something at this point in time we
should sunset. Although, I don't think I'd be willing to go that far. I'd
be willing to put it on some sort of suspension for, you know, two to
five years until we could re-evaluate when that time comes.
Why not have it where the utilities in that area that it's impacted
along with transportation have to come up with some reasonable way
to be able to handle the cost rather than assign an impact fee; why
wouldn't that be a logical way to be able to work?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two things to answer your question.
Bruce's recommendation was to do the instantaneous 10 percent
reduction right away. And talking between staff, I think you're going
to have utilities coming back fairly quickly. We're okay with that. If
you didn't want to -- if you wanted to encourage development to come
now and you do the 42 percent reduction today, I think staff
understands we'll be back real quick with utilities to do that. We'd be
okay with that. That would eliminate that, I want to wait another
month or two to submit a project.
To answer your second question, anytime you defer anything,
somebody else is going to have to pay that eventually.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Honestly, that's the truth.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's the fairness of the whole
issue and how this whole thing shakes out. First we're going to be
trying to accumulate money to be able to cover, well, past debt, which
we've got to cover regardless, but also to anticipate a future that we're
not quite at yet -- ready to be able to approach yet, to be able to justify
putting money aside. That's what's got me concerned.
If we come up with a policy that says, okay, when we have to
replace utilities under a street, rather than charging new development
alone for that, let's approach this in a more global scale and say that
Page 139
September 28,2010
that's going to have to be covered by the utility along with
transportation to some degree, and make it fair across the whole
county, whether it be Marco Island or Immokalee or anyplace else in
the county that's not under county utilities would have the same kind
of ground rules to be able to work with. That would only be fair.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what Administrator DeLony
pointed out to you as a real good answer to you was that, let him bring
you the impacts when he does the utility study, because I think -- a lot
of speculation on just doing a deferral. I think you'd want to see how
it would impact the utility user, the ratepayer, and how it would
impact the utility impact fee. You'd probably want to see it when you
looked at the utility impact fee without making that decision today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'm going to be
listening to what my fellow commissioners have to say on this subject.
It's still of great concerns to me.
But in 2009 the board directed that the updated -- the trip length
not be used in the calculations of the updated fees. Now, under the
agenda recommended here, item number six, we're directing the
county manager and/or his designee to work with the county impact
fee consultant to collect additional data related to trip length and
capacity-added components and report back to the board with their
finding of the analysis. If we already directed not to do this, why are
we coming back now?
We're trying to lower the rate that's right in lines with what we
need to do to be able to meet the rules and regulations we've put
together, and now we've got staff coming back with a
recommendation, let's look at it one more time by going back and
picking up something that we recommended just a year ago not to do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I go off of memory -- and I'll check
the record just to make sure I'm correct -- I believe it was
Commissioner Coyle that said you only had four data points, you
didn't have enough information. You guys need to go back and look
Page 140
September 28, 2010
at this in more detail.
And we could have brought it up at this meeting but felt it would
be not appropriate because of the reduction you're looking for. You're
looking at possibly coming back a year or year and a half from now
for the board in consideration to look at what the actual trip lengths
are.
Probably taking, you know -- in fact, it's on the screen -- the
samples that we have. Taking four or five more samples and actually
showing the board what we have compared to what we actually
measured out in the field and what other counties are doing, and it's
always the board's discretion not to use that information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, I understand. And I just
want to point out that I'm only working from the agenda that's in front
of me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it was pretty specific in the
way it says that we directed. It didn't say how we directed. I
appreciate any clarification that you give us on this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I can clarify it a little more. The
point is, had you used the trip length adjustment last time, it would
have been -- increased the transportation impact fee, I think, by around
12 percent.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would have -- yes, it would have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- and we were saying, that sounds
ridiculous, particularly in view of our efforts to move commercial
facilities further east to serve the communities that were growing in
population.
We couldn't rationalize. It sounded counterintuitive to me that
we would increase the trip length when we'd actually expanded the
availability of commercial services further east for our population
there.
Page 141
September 28, 2010
It still sounds counterintuitive to me that it should increase and,
furthermore, I still have a problem with the points you have selected
for analysis. But nevertheless, I'm willing to wait for some
justification with respect to that.
So I just want to add that so that Commissioner Coletta has a full
understanding of why we did not use the increase in trip length that
would have resulted from our past update, and it's the same logic that
we -- that you have agreed not to use --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- an update this year to do the same sort
of thing.
But at some point in time we have to agree on a proper trip length
figure. And if you come up with that data over the next 12 to 18
months, then it's perfectly logical we should consider it, but -- and I'll
save my comments till later.
But Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you, Chair.
I've heard all this -- the arguments. I've heard what the people in
the audience have brought forth.
One thing you've got to remember is that if we want to get
aggressive in cutting impact fees, then we have to have also a
commitment from the community that we will get aggressive to
increase them if the time comes.
Let's face it -- and I'll have Amy Patterson help me along with
this. I believe we've got like 22,000 homes or better that are in
foreclosure, that the impact fees have been paid on. We're not selling
-- those -- the homes are not moving in this community.
And Amy can help me out on this. Did you say that we presently
have 1.2 million square feet that's vacant?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commercial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of commercial?
MS. PATTERSON: No. I said -- Amy Patterson, again, for the
Page 142
September 28, 2010
record. 1.2 million square feet that has paid their up-front
transportation impact fees and have yet to build.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how much do we have
total -- do you have the figures on how much of commercial is vacant
at this time in Collier County?
MS. PATTERSON: We had the map with the points that were
provided.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I want -- you don't know the
square feet?
MS. PATTERSON: We don't know the total square footage
available.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there is a substantial amount
out there that is vacant and nothing's happening?
MS. PATTERSON: There's a lot. On the map that I had up
earlier, the blue dots that showed available, and Victorian blend.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't that interesting that we are the
ones that are getting the -- getting hit upon that we're against
development or we're against the business community, but isn't it
really the truthful fact that the lending institutions are not lending the
money to fill the requirements or to get all of the foreclosed homes off
the market.
There are probably potential buyers out there that impact fees on
those homes are already paid for. So all they're going to pay for is just
the homes.
We've got a commercial property that's sitting out there idle that
is not being used because small businesspeople need some cash flow
to get something started, and yet that isn't happening.
So to come in here and tell us that we're the ones that are
stymieing the growth here -- and yet when I look at -- and talk to
fellow commissioners throughout the state, when I get involved with
F AC who have lowered their impact fees, I said -- or even abolished
them for years, I said, how has that stimulated growth? Nothing has
Page 143
September 28,2010
happened. Because the lending institutions in this country are not
lending the money or they make such strong stipulations in regards to
the amount of money that they want to lend out that the small business
guy says, I can't meet those requirements.
So -- the other thing that gets me is that we have a debt service.
And then there was some comparisons with other counties. If we
compare ourselves with Sarasota County, the way that they counteract
their debt service is they've got a one-cent sales tax.
And then we look at the county just north of us, Lee, Lee ends up
where they have tolls that helps -- to help payoff their debt service,
road tolls, and they also have other fees such as a franchise tax. So
they have a way of combating to make sure that they meet their debt
service requirements. We don't have any of those here.
Now, maybe if you can go out in the community and say, you
can raise a one-cent sales tax and you're successful at it, we can look
seriously at abolishing all of our impact fees. But we've got to have
something to take care of growth. And I believe that the constituency
has made it very, very clear in the past that growth has to pay for
growth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. Well, I was going to say
something along those lines, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Say ditto.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said it all. I also -- I was just
wondering, and I was going to wonder out loud, if -- Tom Lykos, I
think -- Tom Lykos said -- it kind of made -- insinuated that the reason
there has been nothing built and the reason that there's all this
unemployment is because we have impact fees and, you know, they
never mentioned anything about the state of our economy or the
economy of the world, and that made -- that cut -- I felt like he was
more or less accusing us because of impact fees for all of the problems
with the construction industry, and yet here we have all of these units
Page 144
September 28, 2010
paid for, 4,500 units paid for, paid for and ready to go, except they
haven't built one of them, and that's all construction that could be
built, and same with 1.2 million, already paid for in commercial and
have never been built.
It's not like, you know, they're not building it because of us.
They're already paid and ready to go, but there's not a market out there
right now.
It's the economy that has everything to do with all of this stuff as
well. We've tried to help. And when we eliminated any impact fees
on commercial buildings that were standing and people wanted to go
in and change whatever use they had on there, it was good that we
stimulated a little bit of growth, 40, that was good, that was
something.
We have millions of square feet that aren't used, but that's okay.
You know, we're hoping that that will come along. And we're trying
to do what we can to stimulate that growth.
And I'm willing to work this, but I'm not willing to take the
criticism for, because of impact fees, construction isn't happening,
because that isn't the case at all.
I'm willing -- I think Bruce Anderson made a good point about
the 42 percent now rather than waiting around for the other 10 percent.
I don't know how we can do that, but I think that that's something we
should consider.
Those are my words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's my turn. You know, I'm
getting so tired of this argument. I really am. You know, it's been
going on for years, and it's very, very clear what's happening here.
Those people who want to eliminate impact fees are using an
economic recession as a way of leveraging that outcome. That's all
that's happening here.
These will be the same people who go to Senator Bennett and
say, Senator Bennett, we'll support your bill to eliminate impact fees
Page 145
September 28, 2010
in Florida and all the counties in Florida for two years or five years or
whatever.
It's -- and there's no evidence at all to support the position. It
seems that no matter how much we do with respect to easing the
burden on people, letting them pay impact fees at the time of CO,
letting them pay it over time, vesting them for payments they've
already made, and reducing them by as much as 50 percent is never
enough.
And the same economists who say that Collier County doesn't
have enough revenue sources wants to eliminate one of the revenue
sources. And where's the money coming from?
And so for all the people who are out there listening, I'll tell you
where the money will come from if they're successful in eliminating
the impact fees. It's coming out of your property taxes. That's exactly
what's going to happen. And there are many people who are in this
room today who are fighting to accomplish this who have said that in
the past, that impact fees should be funded from property taxes.
And I don't know why we keep having this fight. I don't know
why the Chamber of Commerce keeps tolerating it, quite frankly.
The point is exactly what Commissioner Fiala said. It's not--
there's no building here because you won't build it because you can't
sell it. That's why there's no building here. You can't sell it.
So I will challenge you, just as I did those who attended the
Chamber of Commerce meeting last week, that if you want to build
something and you want to start constructing in the next 90 days and
you're going to hire people to do that, then I will fight to give you
some substantial incentives to do that.
But if you want us just to waive impact fees for a couple of years
and see what happens, I'm not going to buy into it. And I'll tell you
why. It takes us five to seven years from start to beginning (sic) to
build a road segment. If we start -- we put a stop to the revenue
stream for two to three or four years, then we're not going to be able to
Page 146
September 28, 2010
fund that, and we'll be back in the same position we were in at the
beginning of this decade where we don't have enough infrastructure,
and I don't want to go there.
But if you want incentives for doing something right now, I'll
fight tooth and nail to try to get them to you and to get you back on
your feet, to get you -- to starting to hiring employees, I'll do whatever
I can to help you do that. But I am not going to waive impact fees or
substantially reduce them beyond the point we've already agreed just
so somebody can hop onboard that train and not build anything for
another five years.
So that's not what we're interested in doing, and I don't think
that's what you're interested in doing. We want to create some
immediate jobs.
And then finally, the method of calculation of impact fees is done
in accordance with case law and experience by the consultant
throughout the State of Florida. That doesn't mean that the consultant
can't be wrong. But in the ten years I've been here, I have never seen
a successful challenge to the calculations of our impact fees.
If you have reason to believe that we're doing something wrong,
by all means tell us in time so that we can take it into consideration
and change our process, and we're happy to do that.
So with that, let's get this over with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We know where it's going.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I heard all three of you, and basically you're absolutely
correct, but we're not talking about doing away with impact fees.
We're talking about adjusting them by the same rules that we
increased them. So we need to stay focused.
And yeah, the argument's getting a little old on the other side
about impact fees being a detriment to construction. When
Page 147
September 28, 2010
construction was totally out of control, impact fees did nothing to
bring it down. The market just soared to the point that it's killed itself,
and killed itself for many years to come.
But impact fees are an important part of our financial structure in
Collier County; however, with that said, we got to make sure that we
show due diligence as far as giving the hope to the community out
there that depends upon construction who is backed into a comer now
to a point where they can't move. They've seen tremendous losses
take place within their businesses, they've seen many of their fellow
builders go out of business and leave the area. That's something that
took place that we have to be aware of.
Before us we've got a proposition that's pretty realistic. It's based
upon the fact that the same rules apply going up as coming down, and
that's a substantial decrease. And who does that decrease hurt the
most? It hurts my district. So if there's anyone that should be fighting
to try to keep impact fees above what staff recommended, it should be
me.
But most of the people that work in construction and depend
upon it for a living also live in my district. So it's a double whammy.
You can't -- you can't get away from it.
So I'm going to make a recommendation that we follow staffs
recommendations, but I've got one question here. On item number
two, it says, an additional average reduction of approximately 10
percent will be reviewed and considered by the board after the
appropriate changes are made to the utility impact fee rates.
So that will be coming back to us?
MS. PATTERSON: That's the staff recommendation.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time, we
can go through the argument about whether it's still valid or not,
correct?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
Page 148
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the last part, item number
six, direct the county manager or his designee to work with the
county's impact fee consultant to collect additional data related to trip
lengths and capacity-added, components, and report back to the Board
of Collier County Commissioners.
My motion is to items one through five and to eliminate six.
Well, the seconding is deafening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But -- well, I'll ask a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not add the 10 percent right now
that we expect to be coming up shortly anyway? Why wouldn't you
add the 10 percent utility fee also so that you have just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's not part of the
recommendation, staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that, but I'm asking you why
not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, because I really think that
we need to discuss it more, about the logic of adding that at a point in
time that it may not be needed and see if maybe a better working
relationship for that element could be worked out between
transportation and the utilities.
Not everything has to be done with an impact fee. And how
much road construction is going to take place for the next five years
where it's going to impact the utilities?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, I think maybe if
you left number six in that I could support that, because all it is is just
the findings to figure out what's going on. It isn't anything to make a
stipulation that we're going to move that direction. But I think it gives
us a better understanding of exactly what the whole equation is. I
don't think it would be detrimental.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, you're
saying that would come back for future consideration?
Page 149
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're going to be spending
money for that particular study, and my concern was the fact that we
directed them before not to do it, and now we're -- I didn't want staff
to put one in on us after we gave a direction. But if you feel like this
should come back for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- further thought, would that
get a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll put it back in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In fact, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, is it your
understanding that we collect impact fees at CO?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'm saying we could do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just heard the things
that this board has done, and one of them is collect impact fees at CO.
Thanks for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't in this recommendation
though, is it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not. It's not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that coming back to us to put this
in the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. The intent was to provide
incentives to people who would start building right now. As you say,
there are a lot who have paid almost all their transportation impact
fees --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Paid it completely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So -- they aren't building. So
Page 150
September 28, 2010
maybe if we worked out some arrangements to either allow time --
well, we already do the time payment thing. So -- or to permit
payment at CO, then that would mean that the builder doesn't have to
up- front the payment.
So if they're going to start building within the next 90 days, I
would be very happy to vote in favor of letting them do that so that
they can get started and start building.
Now, do I think it's going to happen? The answer is no. We
could waive impact fees and it wouldn't happen. But I'm willing to
make that gesture just to give it a chance. That's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to bring it on a
future agenda?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would be happy to put it on -- or even
direct staff to take a look at doing that right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you include the item of
having impact fees collected at the time of CO?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you -- I don't think you want to do
it with this approval of the impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got to do that -- we've got do that,
but the thing that I would like to suggest is that -- if we get three nods
-- is to tell the staff to take a look at incentives that would -- would
encourage people to begin construction now or within the next 90
days. And if they did so, we'll be willing to grant certain incentives
for them doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At CO.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Including that as well as any other kinds
of incentives that make sense.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got my light back on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no. Not again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disconnect it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really do.
Page 151
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can't we get this resolved?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disconnect it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're almost there. It's only
2:30. We can go all the way to six. There's no problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was talking to someone the
other day that was going to give me a new comparison with other
counties with these impact fees corrections. Has that been done by
anyone?
No, that's okay. That's for another day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, really. Who compares?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're more than
competitive now though, I'll be honest with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who cares how our impact --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's one of the
arguments they've been using.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- fees compare to Miami? Well, that's
the point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think we're right down
there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no two counties are the same.
You've got to take into consideration the -- and that's why I object to
all of these cookie cutter pieces of legislation that treat every county
exactly the same. We have different challenges, we have different
land costs, we have a different distribution of population. There are
lots of reasons.
We didn't have a single increase in impact fees during the period
from 1990 to '99 or 2000. And how did that compare with other
people? Who cares?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we have a low tax rate --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- tax base, as well as we don't
Page 152
September 28, 2010
collect fees or tolls on items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, I mean, you know, it's hard to
compare because it isn't apples to apples.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. All in favor--
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, Commissioner, I'm sorry. Forgive
me, but I wanted to make sure Commissioner Fiala got her question
answered. She had asked a question about this 10 percent --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I was just --
MR.OCHS: -- it was added now or later, and I wasn't sure that
discussion finished.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know when we're
going to get that back. I would have preferred it to be right on this -_
on this agenda, but that isn't the way the motion is going.
When are we going to hear back on that 10 percent?
MR.OCHS: We would be back -- we plan to be back to you
before the end of the year with the update on the utility impact fees.
But you -- again, just for -- so the board understands, you could -- you
could reduce that transportation impact fee by the full 42 instead of 32
today . We're still coming back with the impact fee for utilities in that
same time frame, and you can deal with the question then about what
Commissioner Coletta wanted to talk about, about how you want to
treat that relocation component of the utility impact fee at that point in
time, but it's the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, I'd prefer that. Okay, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But the motion as it currently
stands doesn't have that provision in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
Page 153
September 28,2010
specify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, it passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Fiala in opposition.
Now, with respect to the second part --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is there -- is there sufficient support to
provide guidance to the staff to investigate an incentive package
which will reward people who will create jobs and begin construction
within the next 90 days?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Including everything we
discussed in that particular discussion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Including any incentives that the staff
thinks are appropriate that might help.
MS. PATTERSON: Permanent jobs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do you have permanent jobs in
construction?
MS. PATTERSON: Right, you don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You only have permanent jobs in
construction if you've got permanent construction. That's the problem.
And, unfortunately, most contractors don't have permanent
construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 154
September 28, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a question by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we also need to put on there
that it has to meet a certain percentage of the wages here in Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To make it beneficial so that it's
not dealing with $5-an-hour jobs or $4-an-hour jobs. So I believe it
should -- we should also look at some guideline in regards to
percentage of the income that could be earned.
MS. PATTERSON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would you put that into a motion
as far as incentives for this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want a motion or you just want
direction to the staff? Because we haven't advertised that portion, and
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- it might be better just to have the staff
come up with a proposal and bring it up for public hearing, and then
we could vote on it at that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And accept public input.
Okay? Are we all set?
MR. OCHS : Yep, and we'll take into consideration
Commissioner Halas's remarks, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
So you've got enough nods, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public comments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Are we finished with all --
Page 155
September 28,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, because we have 11. Remember
Jim Coletta wanted -- I mean Commissioner Coletta wanted to bring
back public comment, number 11, at the end of the meeting because
he had somebody coming in. I'm just reminding you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think what we should do is just
overrule that.
Okay. What do we do now?
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
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: We're adjourned.
*****
* * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Page 156
September 28, 2010
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR RIDGEPORT PLAZA (BLUEFISH JAPANESE
STEAKHOUSE) - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE 4C,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MADISON PARK PHASE
TWO TRACT M AND N REPLA T - LOCATED IN SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE COMMERCE
CENTER, PHASE TWO REPLAT OF LOTS 5 AND 6 - LOCATED
IN SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY BEACH CLUB
ADDITION - SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST
Page 157
September 28,2010
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ABC FINE WINE AND SPIRITS -
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HERITAGE BAY VISTAS
SUBDIVISION, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE
4D, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
APPROVAL OF THE COMPLETED AL TERNA TIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, THE REVIEW CONDUCTED BY
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., SERVING AS
THE IMPACT FEE CONSULTANT FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
AND THE RESULTING ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE OF $10,937
PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Page 158
September 28,2010
BUILDING LOCATED AT 1100 IMMOKALEE ROAD. ALSO
AUTHORIZE A REIMBURSEMENT OF ROAD IMP ACT FEES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $384,010 AS A RESULT OF THE
REVISED IMP ACT FEE CALCULATION - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16AI0
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF
THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM BY
PROVIDING A CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO
$400,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER
COUNTY - WITH THE AMENDMENT EXTENSION EXPIRING
ON SEPTEMBER 30. 2011
Item #16All
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,244.35-
COLLECTED SPECIFICALLY FROM PA YMENT-IN-LIEU,
PROJECT REVIEW FEES, AND FAIR SHARE PAYMENTS
FROM THE APPLICATION AND MONITORING PROCESS
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2010-179: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 159
September 28, 2010
TO EXECUTE A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT
(LAP) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY
WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $950,000 FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION OF AN
EXPERIMENTAL WILDLIFE CROSSING ON CR
846/IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILES EAST
OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD
Item #16A13
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,046 TO CAMP
DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. (CDM) FOR CONTRACT #09-5262
COUNTY-WIDE ENGINEERING CIVIL TRANSPORTATION
STORMW A TER FOR THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP), DAVIS BOULEVARD AND
WEIR IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 51101) - FOR
DRAINAGE RELATED PROBLEMS IN THE AREA OF EAST
NAPLES DUE TO CONTINUED GROWTH IN THE AREA
Item #16A14
PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL NO. 256RDUE) REQUIRED
FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES BETWEEN WILSON
BOULEVARD AND DESOTO BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO.
60040) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $9,450 - FOLIO
#39382520004
Item #16A15
Page 160
September 28,2010
INCREASE RFQ #10-5414 - SABAL PALM ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT DELIVERY OF LIME ROCK MATERIALS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,359.01 FOR A TOTAL BID OF $52,799.01 TO
BETTER ROADS
Item #16A16
AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2011-2020 COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) TEN YEAR MAJOR
UPDATE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A17
RECOGNIZING FY 2010-2011 STATE PUBLIC TRANSIT
BLOCK GRANT ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $720,259 TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FUND (426) AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
WHICH ALSO REQUIRES A 50% LOCAL MATCH EACH YEAR
Item #16A18
RECOGNIZING FY 2010/2011 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 ADDITIONAL REVENUE
IN THE AMOUNT OF $254,584 TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
FUND (426) AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - WHICH ALSO REQUIRES A 50% LOCAL_
MA TCH EACH YEAR
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2010-180: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 161
September 28, 2010
TO EXECUTE A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP
TO $358,800 FOR SIDEWALKS ON BOSTON AVENUE FROM
1 ST STREET SOUTH TO 9TH STREET SOUTH (PROJECT #
33122)
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2010-181: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO EXECUTE A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP
TO $750,000 FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 29
AT LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD (PROJECT #33124)
Item #16A21
AWARD ITB #10-5482R - LEL Y MSTU IRRIGATION REUSE
WATER SOURCE RENOVATION TO HANNULA LANDSCAPE
& IRRIGATION. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $54.480.95
Item #16Bl
SUBMITTAL OF A 2011-2012 FLORIDA RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION,
SPONSORED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $200,000 (COMPANION TO ITEM 16B2) - REQUIRING THE
CLOSURE OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: NORTH
COLLIER REGIONAL, GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK
Page 162
September 28,2010
AND DELASOL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND THE
IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX - REQUIRING A CRA
GRANT MATCH
Item #16B2
CRA RESOLUTION 2010-182: COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVES A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE TO
INCLUDE THE PROPOSED GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
STORMW A TER POND PATHWAY PROJECT TO COMPLY
WITH FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(COMPANION TO ITEM 16Bl)
Item #16Cl
AGREEMENT WITH SMS HEZEKIAH, LLC, AND ACCEPT A
RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR A GROUNDWATER MONITOR WELL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PURPOSES IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,550 - REQUIRED FOR
COMPLIANCE AND WITH CONDITIONS OF A WATER USE
PERMIT GRANTED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2010-183: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR THE
1995 AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Page 163
September 28, 2010
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SA TISF ACTION OF THE
LIENS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $38.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - FOR FOLIO #39329040000
Item #16C3
POLICY STATEMENT TO COLLECT MONIES OWED TO
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE REPAIR OF UTILITY AND
OTHER ASSETS DAMAGED BY VENDORS AND
CONTRACTORS THAT ARE DOING BUSINESS WITH
COLLIER COUNTY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C4
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR WELL DRILLING, TESTING, AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING SERVICES, PURSUANT TO
RFP #10-5409 TO: DIVERSIFIED DRILLING CORPORATION,
ALL WEBB'S ENTERPRISES, INC., WELL MASTERS,
LABELLE WELL DRILLING, SOUTHEAST DRILLING
SERVICES AND YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC. FOR THE
ESTIMA TED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $250,000 - PROVIDING
SCHEDULED WELL DRILLING, TESTING, MAINTENANCE
SERVICES AND EMERGENCY WORK
Item #16C5
EXTEND CONTRACT #06-3972 AND ADD FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $300,000 (ESTIMATED $60,000 ANNUALLY)
WITH TELE-WORKS, INC., FOR ONGOING SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE UTILITY
Page 164
September 28, 2010
BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENTS
INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SOFTWARE SYSTEM OVER
A FIVE YEAR PERIOD
Item #16Dl
APPL Y AND ACCEPT A HOME DEPOT GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $12,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EAST
NAPLES AND EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARKS -
BUILDING BENCHES AND SHADE STRUCTURES
THROUGHOUT EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK AND
EAGLE LAKES PARKS
Item # 16D2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN (SA WCC)
PROVIDING FOR A $113,000 HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC)
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT TO AID WITH THE COST
OF DAILY OPERATIONS AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
PROVIDED BY SA WCC. NO GENERAL FUNDS ARE BEING
UTILIZED FOR THIS COC PROJECT
Item #16D3
SUBMERGED LANDS LEASE WITH THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AT THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER
PARK MARINA AT A FIRST YEARS ANNUAL COST OF
$6,646.16 - TO CONSTRUCT & OPERATE A SIXTEEN (16) SLIP
DOCKING FACILITY WITH A BOAT RAMP AND LAUNCH
Page 165
September 28, 2010
Item #16D4 - Continued to the October 12,2010 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
CONVEYANCE OF A PIECE OF LAND LOCATED AT 425 1ST
STREET NORTH, IMMOKALEE, FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO
THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.
AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY
Item # 16D5
ANNUAL REPORTS FOR YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009 TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND
MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE "CHOOSE LIFE" SPECIALTY
LICENSE PLATE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE REPORTS - FOR FUNDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO NOT-
FOR-PROFIT AGENCIES WHOSE SERVICE INVOLVES
COUNSELING AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT
WOMEN WHO ARE COMMITTED TO PLACING THEIR
CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION
Item #16D6
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
MENTAL HEALTH & SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT
IMPLEMENTATION GRANT IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $750,000
FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN &
FAMILIES, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
APPLICATION AND ATTACHED ASSURANCES - FUNDING
USED TO PLAN, IMPLEMENT, OR EXPAND INITIATIVES
THAT INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY AND AVERT INCREASED
SPENDING ON CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE
Page 166
September 28, 2010
Item #16D7
BOARD PROVIDES AFTER- THE-F ACT APPROVAL FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF THE 2011 STATE OF FLORIDA CHALLENGE
GRANT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
DEP ARTMENT OF CHILDREN & F AMIL Y SERVICES OFFICE
ON HOMELESSNESS (DCF) IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000.
THIS GRANT APPLICATION HAS NO EFFECT ON AD
VALOREM OR GENERAL FUND DOLLARS - FOR HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE
Item #16D8
EXECUTE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR CONVEYANCE OF
WATER UTILITIES, AND THE CONVEYANCE OF AN
EASEMENT FOR TELEPHONE AND RELATED SERVICES
LOCATED AT GOODLAND BOAT PARK, 750 PALM POINT
DRIVE. GOODLAND FLORIDA. (COSTS NOT TO EXCEED $98)
Item #16D9
AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY'S HUNGER AND
HOMELESS COALITION (CCHHC) SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CHALLENGE
GRANT APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBER 15,2009, ITEM
16-D5. THE AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW FOR A REVISION OF
THE AGREEMENTS BUDGET BY MOVING FUNDS BETWEEN
LINE ITEMS THAT WILL ALLOW CCHHC TO FULLY
EXPEND CHALLENGE GRANT FUNDS. THE TOTAL
CHALLENGE GRANT AMOUNT IS UNCHANGED - FOR
Page 167
September 28, 2010
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
Item #16DI0
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE
FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) PROJECT
PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED FOR US DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDING IN
THE 2010-2011 ACTION PLAN. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
FEDERALL Y FUNDED GRANT IS $95,097. THERE IS NO
EFFECT ON AD VALOREM OR GENERAL FUND DOLLARS
Item #16Dll
A FINAL STATUS REPORT FROM THE LAKE TRAFFORD
RESTORATION TASK FORCE AND SUNSETTING THIS
COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 28. 2010
Item #16D12
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN FIVE (5) LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY.
APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WILL TRANSFER PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS FROM DEVELOPER
TO OWNER OCCUPANTS WITH A CONTINUING FISCAL
IMPACT OF $73,611.30 - FOR THE FOLLOWING LOTS AND
DEFERRAL AMOUNTS: LOT2, REGAL ACRES FOR $14,591.26;
LOT 69, LIBERTY LANDING FOR $15,246.26; LOT 11, REGAL
ACRES FOR $14,591.26; LOT 3, REGAL ACRES FOR $14,591.26
AND LOT 5. REGAL ACRES FOR $14.591.26
Page 168
September 28, 2010
Item #16D13
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO LIEN
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS TO CORRECT
THE LOT NUMBER AND STREET ADDRESS OF A
PREVIOUSL Y RECORDED AGREEMENT - CORRECTION
FROM LOT 82, TRAIL RIDGE TO LOT 79, TRAIL RIDGE
INCLUDING THE ADDRESS CHANGE FROM 13605
KOINONIA DRIVE TO 13593 KOINONIA DRIVE
Item #16El
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH M.T. CLUB, INC. FOR
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF COUNTY-OWNED
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT WITH A FIRST YEAR'S
RENT OF $100 - FOR AN ANTENNA & RELATED EQUIPMENT
SPACE ON THE ROOF AT THE MARCO TOWERS, 60 WEST
PELICAN STREET
Item #16E2
A $15,000 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION (FWC) GOPHER TORTOISE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE REQUEST TO FUND EXOTIC
PLANT REMOVAL AT THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE - TO IMPROVE THE HABITAT
OF GOPHER TORTOISES
Item #16E3
Page 169
September 28, 2010
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM
PROFESSIONAL STAFFING-ABTS, INC. D/B/A ABLE BODY
LABOR, TO MDT PERSONNEL, LLC, FOR TEMPORARY
LABOR SERVICES - VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WILL
UTILIZE SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT
Item # 16E4
AWARD BID #10-5513 - SUBLETIPARTS BID FOR COLLIER
COUNTY TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR FLEET
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, REPAIR PARTS, ACCESSORIES,
AND END ITEMS WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED
AT $750.000 ANNUALLY
Item # 16E5
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICHARD F.
BERMAN, AS TO 1/3 INTEREST, AND RAYMOND AND
TERRY BENNETT, ALSO KNOWN AS TERRI BENNETT,
HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO 1/3 INTEREST AND FRANK J.
CELSNAK AND MARLENE J. CELSNAK, TRUSTEES UIDIT
DATED 27TH DECEMBER 1991, AS TO 1/3 INTEREST, FOR
1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$16,500 - WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL
PROJECT. UNIT #65
Item #16E6
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ISRAEL
OLIVA AND JOSEFA OLIVA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, FOR 1.14
Page 1 70
September 28, 2010
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$9,100 - WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE
MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E7
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH REMEDIOS
KUNTZEVICH FOR 2.73 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $17,000 - WITHIN THE RED
MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E8
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JACOB
VINCENT FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $12,000 - WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HEAD
MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH OCEAN
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $12,000 - LOCATED IN THE
WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL PROJECT
Item #16EI0
Page 171
September 28, 2010
RESOLUTION 2010-184: APPROVING THE 2011 FISCAL YEAR
PAY & CLASSIFICATION PLAN INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS,
DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS FROM JULY 1, 2010
FORWARD, AND TO CONTINUE AUTHORIZING THE
CREATION OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, MODIFICATION
ANDIOR DELETION OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND
ASSIGNMENT OF PAY RANGES FROM THE PROPOSED 2011
FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, USING
THE EXISTING ARCHER POINT -F ACTOR JOB EV ALUA TION
SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO A QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16Ell
CONTRACT RFP #07-4148 (COLLIER COUNTY SECURITY
SERVICES) ON A TEMPORARY BASIS FOR ENERGY
MANAGEMENT (BUILDING AUTOMATION) SERVICES FOR
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $50.000
Item #16E12
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #10-5510, "ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES", TO
THE FIRMS: WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.;
SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; V ANDERBIL T BAY
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; BRADANNA, INC.; AND PBS
CONSTRUCTION. INC.
Item #16Fl
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Page 1 72
September 28, 2010
ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FOR $79,355 FOR
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT-
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT,
SERVICES OR HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
Item #16F2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE MARCO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO
COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A
DISASTER
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2010-185: AUTHORIZING REMOVAL OF 15,376
AMBULANCE SERVICE ACCOUNTS & THEIR RESPECTIVE
ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE BALANCES WHICH TOTAL
$11,549,642.92, FROM THE GENERAL LEDGER OF COLLIER
COUNTY FUND 490 (EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES).
AL THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS RECOGNIZED AND
RECORDED AS A BAD DEBT EXPENSE DURING FISCAL
YEARS 2006 AND 2007, IT CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT
BOARD ADOPTION OF AN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS APPROPRIATING
APPROXIMATELY $306,198,545.35 OF UNSPENT FY 2010
GRANT AND PROJECT BUDGETS INTO FISCAL YEAR 2011.
(REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 129.06 FLORIDA
STATUTES)
Page 1 73
September 28,2010
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2010-186: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16Gl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC), ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT #06-3903, CAR RENTAL SERVICE AT THE
MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT WITH ENTERPRISE LEASING
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC - AMENDING THE
CONCESSION FEE AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY
THE CONCESSIONAIRE
Item #16G2
WRITE OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
INCURRED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $830.98 - FOR UNPAID AND THE OUTSTANDING DEBT
OF THE NAPLES AIR CENTER, SKYDIVE NAPLES AND
MR. GOMEZ
Item #16G3
AFTER- THE-FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GRANT OFFER FOR $6,068,990 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXIWAY AND AIRCRAFT APRON
Page 174
September 28, 2010
(SOUTH) AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT,
AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEAL
EXPENDITURES AT FUNCTIONS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED FACT FINDING TRIP TO THE
JACKSON LABORATORY FROM JULY 14,2010 THROUGH
JULY 18,2010 IN BAR HARBOR, ME; $72.60 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 2010 EXCELLENCE IN
INDUSTRY AWARDS LUNCHEON AT THE NAPLES HILTON
SEPTEMBER 21,2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $20 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N.
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE PUBLIC RELATIONS,
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING PROFESSIONALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY (PRACC) LUNCHEON ON SEPTEMBER 16,
2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT MCCORMICK &
SCHMICK'S. IN THE MERCATO AT 9114 STRADA PLACE
Page 175
September 28, 2010
Item #16H4
PROCLAMATION PRESENTED TO THE MARCO ISLAND
YMCA ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEW NAME AS 'Y' ACROSS
THE WORLD, AND CELEBRATING A "BRAND NEW DAY" ON
SEPTEMBER 20,2010. PROVIDED TO KEITH DAMERON-
ADOPTED
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 176
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 28, 2010
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) South Florida Water Management District:
Tentative Budget FY 2010-2011.
B. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of July 12, 2010; July 26, 2010 Fuel Pricing Committee.
2) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of April 20, 2010.
3) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of July 21,2010.
Minutes of July 21,2010 - no quorum.
4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 29, 2010; May 20,2010 Clam Bay Subcommittee;
June 10,2010; June 17,2010 Clam Bay Subcommittee.
5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of June 24,2010; July 22,2010.
6) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of June 16, 2010.
7) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of June 2, 2010; July 21,2010; August 4,2010;
August 13, 2010 Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee;
August 19, 2010 Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee;
August 27,2010 Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee.
8) Environmental Advisorv Council:
Minutes of August 4, 2010.
9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of January 13,2010; February 10, 2010; March 17,2010;
April 14, 2010; May 19,2010; July 7,2010.
Minutes of November 18, 2009; January 13,2010;
February 10,2010; March 17,2010; April 14, 2010; May 19,2010.
10) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of July 12,2010; August 10,2010.
Minutes of May 11,2010; July 12, 2010.
11) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of March 23, 2009; May 20, 2009; July 27, 2009;
September 28,2009; December 7,2009; January 25, 2010;
March 22, 2010; May 24,2010.
Minutes of March 23, 2009; May 20, 2009; July 27, 2009;
September 28,2009; December 7,2009; January 25, 2010;
March 22, 2010; May 24,2010.
12) Hisoanic Affairs Advisorv Board:
Minutes of April 29, 2010.
13) Historical/Archaeolof?:ical Preservation Board:
Minutes of April 15, 2009.
14) Immokalee Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of February 24,2010; March 24, 2010; May 26,2010;
June 23,2010.
Minutes of January 27,2010; February 24,2010; April 28, 2010;
May 26,2010.
15) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Develooment Agency:
Agenda of July 21,2010; August 18,2010.
Minutes of June 16,2010; July 21,2010.
16) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of July 21, 2010; August 18,2010.
Minutes of June 16,2010; July 21,2010.
17) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of May 6,2010.
18) LeI Y Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of July 15,2010; August 19,2010.
Minutes of May 20, 2010; July 15,2010.
19) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of July 7,2010; July 9,2010 budget subcommittee;
August 4,2010; August 5, 2010 budget subcommittee;
September 1, 2010; September 2,2010 special session.
Minutes of May 26, 2010 community improvement workshop;
June 2, 2010; July 7,2010; July 8, 2010 budget subcommittee;
August 4,2010; August 5,2010 budget subcommittee.
20) Radio Road Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of May 18,2010; August 17,2010.
Minutes of April 20, 2010; May 18,2010.
21) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of March 4,2010; April I, 2010; May 6,2010.
Minutes of February 4,2010; March 4, 2010; April 1, 2010.
22) Water and Wastewater Authority:
Minutes of May 10, 2010.
C. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of July 16, 2010.
2) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program:
Minutes of July 21,2010; August 2,2010.
September 28, 2010
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2010
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 10,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 11,2010
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 17,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
EXTENSION OF THE TAX ROLL BEFORE COMPLETION OF
THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS PURSUANT
TO SECTION 197.323, F.S., AND TAX COLLECTOR'S
REQUEST
Item #16Kl
FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,900 FOR
PARCELS 121 & 721 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. RAFAEL LIY, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-752-CA
(COLLIER BOULEVARD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061) (FISCAL
IMPACT $31.521.80)
Item #16K2
STIPULA TED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$67,250 FOR PARCEL 809 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. MYRTLE PRESERVE, LLC., ET AL.,
Page 1 77
September 28, 2010
CASE NO. 07-0463-CA (LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 51101.1) (FISCAL IMPACT
$91.717.50)
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2010-187: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
DRIVER LICENSE BUILDING AT 725 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH
AS THE GUY L. CARL TON DRIVER LICENSE BUILDING -
RECOGNIZING THE VISION AND DEDICATION OF THE
FORMER TAX COLLECTOR
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2010-188: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
PROPOSED FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT GREENWAY FROM
NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO RADIO
ROAD AS THE RICH KING MEMORIAL GREENWAY - AFTER
THE LATE RADIO AND TALK SHOW HOST WHO'S
MAINSTAY COLLIER COUNTY UNTIL JUST BEFORE HE
PASSED IN 2003
Item #16K5 (Moved to Item #12D During Agenda Changes per
Commissioner Henning)
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2010-189: PETITION V AC-PL2010-817, HODGES
UNIVERSITY, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND V ACA TE THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 40-FOOT
WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER TRACT-B ON THE PLAT
OF NORTHBROOK PLAZA, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO
Page 178
September 28, 2010
THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 31,
PAGES 65 AND 66 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT
A, AND ACCEPT THE REPLACEMENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT B
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2010-36: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-28, AS
AMENDED, THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
ORDINANCE, TO RE-ADOPT FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
CRITERIA WHICH WERE INADVERTENTLY REPEALED BY
ORDINANCE 2009-59 AND ALLOWING FOR INTERIM
STANDARDS
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2010-37: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2009-32,
AS AMENDED, (ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE), TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSERVATION
AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (CCME) POLICIES
6.1.1 (13) AND 6.1.8, AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 10.02.02.A
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2010-190: PETITION DRICLO-PL2009-95, CDC
LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE
ANDERSON, ESQUIRE OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LP A, IS
Page 1 79
September 28, 2010
REQUESTING AN ESSENTIALLY BUILT-OUT AGREEMENT
IN ORDER TO CLOSE OUT THE COLLIER TRACT 22
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT AND BE RELIEVED
OF ANY OBLIGATIONS FOR THE DRI. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF US 41 AND
IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA (CTS)
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2010-191: PETITION VAC-PL2010-965, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A 20-FOOT
WIDE LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT OVER LOT 36, OF
PARK PLACE WEST, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES 32
AND 33, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE
SUBJECT PORTION OF EASEMENT TO BE VACATED IS
MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2010-192: ANNUAL RATE RESOLUTION TO
ESTABLISH THE FEES, RATES, AND CHARGES FOR THE USE
OF COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITIES,
INCLUDING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, RECYCLING CENTER
FEES, RESIDENTIAL MUL TI-F AMIL Y AND COMMERCIAL
WASTE COLLECTION FEES FOR FYll. THIS RESOLUTION
ADOPTS THE RATES THAT FUND THE FYl1 BUDGET FOR
Page 180
September 28,2010
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2010-193: PETITION CU-PL2009-58, LARGA Y
PROPERTIES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE OF COLEMAN, YOV ANOVICH &
KOESTER, P.A. AND D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP OF Q.
GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., IS REQUESTING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A COLLECTION
AND TRANSFER SITE FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY IN THE
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
SUBSECTION 2.03.01 A.l.C.12 THE SUBJECT 5 ACRE TRACT
IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PHEASANT ROOST
TRAIL, SOUTH OF FRANGIPANI AVENUE IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2010-194: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2010-195: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 181
September 28,2010
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:37 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSIEX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTP&T~~':4rD"""',"
Dwl'cmJ -ii,ltitotK, CLERK
it.,.",I,';--
These minutes approved by the Board on o~ 2 Co I [D ( 0
as presented ~./\. or as corrected
./
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 182