Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/14/2010 R BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2010 December 14, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 14, 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 Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) AIRPORT AUTHORITY 0,,"'\ II, /.. r.'~, I . 'j 0' f' ( . I ~ ....... J, ,,\ AGENDA December 14,2010 9:00 AM Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 4 Georgia Hiller, BCC 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 MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. Page 1 December 14, 2010 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 3329 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. Father Dwayne Varas - St. Paul's Episcopal Church B. Swearing in ceremony for Commissioner Hiller, District 2. The swearing in will be conducted by former State Representative Mary Ellen Hawkins and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dwight E. Brock. Members of the North Naples Fire District will provide an Honor Guard. C. In honor of the the swearing in of Commissioner Hiller, District 2, The Village School of Naples Chorale will perform a version of America the Beautiful. 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.) B. October 26, 2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes C. November 1,2010 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Workshop Page 2 December 14,2010 D. Selection of a Vice-Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to temporarily serve until the January 11,2011 Board meeting. 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation recognizing December 14, 2010 as Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart Day. To be accepted by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. Sponsored by Commissioner Jim Coletta. B. Proclamation designating December 14, 2010 as The Ritz-Carlton Naples Day. To be accepted by Ed Staros, Vice President and Managing Director of the Ritz-Carlton Resorts of Naples. Sponsored by Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller. C. Proclamation recognizing Northgate Club Apartments for their continued contributions and efforts in recycling. To be accepted by Coleen Fernandez, Manager of North gate Club Apartments, Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Management Director and staff. Sponsored by Commissioner Tom Henning. D. Proclamation designating November 30,2010 as Conservancy of Southwest Florida Dalton Discovery Center Day. To be accepted by Troy Frensley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Sponsored by Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the Collier County "Business of the Month" award to Moorings Park for December 2010. To be accepted by Dan Lavender, CEO. B. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member of the Month to Maurice Gutierrez for his contribution to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU. c. Presentation by Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc., to the Freedom Memorial Fund. Page 3 December 14, 2010 D. Recommendation to recognize Natalie Smith, Fiscal Technician, Utility Billing and Customer Service, as the Employee of the Month for October 2010. E. Recommendation to recognize Michael Cox, Senior Operations Analyst, Administrative Services Division, as the Employee of the Month for November 2010. F. Recognition of Awards to the Collier County Water Department The 2010 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Plant Operations Excellence Award and the 2010 Florida Section American Water Works Association Water Distribution Award. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request by Randy Johns of Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc., requesting a 12-month extension for the pylon sign at the Florida Sports Park. B. Public Petition request by Randy Johns of Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc., requesting a 48-month payment plan for impact fees for New Hope Ministries. Item 7 and 8 to he heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m., unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. Due to an advertisin2 error with Item #7B~ this item has been continued to the January 1L 2011 BCC Meetin2. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members: A resolution amending Resolution Number 05-235 (Development Order No. 05-01), as amended, for The Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact (DR!) located in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida; by providing for: Section One, amendments to Development Order by revising Exhibit C: SRA Master Plan to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and Town Center 2b, to relocate Town Center 2b to Oil Well Road and to relocate an access point on Oil Well Road; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Page 4 December 14,2010 Issued Development Orders, transmittal to Department Of Community Affairs and effective date. (Petition DOA-PL2010-1751) [Companion to SRAA-PL2010-1988](CTS) B. Due to an advertisin2 error~ this item has been continued to the Januarv 11~ 2011 BCC Meetin2. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members: A Resolution amending Resolution Numbers 2004-89 and 2005-234A for the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area to revise the SRA Master Plan to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and Town Center 2b; to relocate Town Center 2b to Oil Well Road and to relocate an access point on Oil Well Road. The property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida. (Petition SRAA-PL2010- 1988)[Companion to DOA-PL2010-1751] 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item continued from the November 9~ 2010 BCC meetin2 at stafrs request. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve MPUD to allow for the development of a maximum of 234 dwelling units including affordable housing and a maximum of35,000 square feet of commercial retail and office uses. The subject property, consisting of 22.83 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Related to Item 16A4) B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members; PUDA-2007-AR- 11961 : Voila, II, LLC, represented by Margaret Perry, of WilsonMiller, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Y ovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting an amendment to Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to allow a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a maximum of 456 senior housing units on the residential Page 5 December 14, 2010 portion and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial development and/or senior housing units at a floor area ration (FAR) of 0.60 on the 8.93 acre commercial portion of this 37.5 acre total project. Senior housing units include independent living facilities, assisted living facilities and/or skilled nursing facilities. The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) between Wolfe Road and Loop Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.(CTS) C. Recommendation to approve Remedial Amendments to the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, to implement a previously approved Compliance Agreement between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County, including Petitioners-in- Intervention, pertaining to Section 24 in North Belle Meade. D. 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 studies entitled the Collier County General Government Buildings Impact Fee Update Study and the Collier County Library Facilities and Items/Equipment Impact Fee Update; amending the Library Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Eight of Appendix A, in accordance with the findings of the update study, which provides for a reduction in rates; amending the General Government Building Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Nine of Appendix A, as set forth in the update study, which provides for a reduction in rates; and providing for an effective date of December 20,2010. E. 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 studies entitled the Collier County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Final Report and amending the Law Enforcement Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Ten of Appendix A to allow for a phased implementation of the rates. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Status report on the potential Jackson Laboratory Project. (Commissioner Coyle) Page 6 December 14,2010 B. In light of the recent letter from the State of Florida Director of Office of Tourism and Economic Development pointing out Jackson Labs has failed to apply for funding, I will call for a motion on December 14, 2010 to stop wasting County staffs time and taxpayer's money on Jackson Labs. The Jackson Labs local funding has divided the community and it's time to put this issue behind us and move forward by continuing doing what local government does best, provide service to its residents. (Commissioner Henning) c. Request to reconsider Agenda Item Number 10D which was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the October 26, 2010 BCC Meeting regarding the proposed vertical expansion of the Collier County Landfill. (Commissioner Henning) D. Request to reconsider Agenda Item Number 10E which was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the October 26, 2010 BCC Meeting regarding the North Collier Recycling Drop Off Center. (Commissioner Henning) E. Request to reconsider Agenda Item Number 10H which was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the October 26, 2010 BCC Meeting regarding North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's Application for COPCN. (Commissioner Henning) F. Request by Florida Association of Counties to fill a vacancy on the Board for District #37. (Commissioner Coyle) G. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council. H. Appointment of member to the Consumer Advisory Board. I. Appointment of a member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. J. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. K. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. L. Appointment of a member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. Page 7 December 14, 2010 M. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff on selection of preferred alternative to address access to E' s Country Store on Oil Well Road, currently under construction. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management) B. Due to an advertisin2 error with Item #7B~ this item has been continued to the Januarv 11~ 2011 BCC Meetin2 and will be heard after Items #7A and #7B. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Eastern Collier Research Park Unit 18, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division) C. Recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to Collier County Ordinance 92-60, as amended (Tourist Development Tax) and advertise the proposed amended Ordinance for approval at a future meeting to reduce the Tourism Emergency Reserve Fund 196 ceiling and eliminate the year end sweep of funds from Tourism Administration Fund 194 to Fund 195 and 183, and redirect those funds to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for tourism destination marketing and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director) D. Presentation of the 2010 countywide affordable housing inventory. (Michele Mosca, Principal Planner, Land Development Services Dept., Growth Management Division) E. Recommendation to award Bid Number 10-5596, SRO Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main Repair to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $1 ,812,000 complete the first stage of Phase IV of the South Reverse Osmosis Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main Repair Project, Project No. 70030. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator) F. Recommendation to award Contract #10-5599 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., in the amount of $341 ,534, for Construction Engineering Inspection Services for the first stage of Phase IV of the South Reverse Page 8 December 14,2010 Osmosis Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main Repair Project, Project No. 70030. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator) G. Recommendation to award Contract No. 10-5593 West Eustis Avenue Stormwater Improvements to South West Utility, Inc. in the amount of $266,188 plus a ten (10) percent contingency of $26,618.80 totaling $292,806.80, Project Number 51024. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering) 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. Recommendation for the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to authorize the creation of a grant funded Full Time Employee (FTE) position (Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) Manager) for Fiscal Year 2011 and hire a qualified applicant. B. Recommendation to approve a partnership between Community Redevelopment Agency and the Immokalee Housing Collaborative (Collier County Housing Authority, Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida, Immokalee Housing and Family Services & I HOPE) to update the 2004 Immokalee Housing Condition Inventory (to include mobile homes); authorize expenditure of $22,000 from Fund 186 to pay just over 50% of the total costs of the project, and authorize any necessary budget amendments. C. Recommendation to approve the price structure for the Immokalee Airport proposed by the Airport Executive Director pursuant to the authority delegated in Ordinance 10-10 and the Airport Administrative Code and apply said structure to Cross Country Soaring. 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 9 December 14, 2010 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 Funding Agreement No. HGMP 1785- 027 -R with the Florida Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $49,200 providing funding assistance to the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Haldeman Creek Stormwater Improvement and Lock Louise Weir Reconstruction project and approve all necessary budget amendments recognizing revenue for the project. 2) Report on the status of compliance efforts by Queens Park Community Services Association, Inc. pursuant to Board direction on January 12,2010. 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility facility for Cortile at Mediterra, Parcel 118, 16971 Cortile Drive and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developers designated agent. 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Heritage Bay Clubhouse, Phase A, 10154 Heritage Bay Boulevard and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developers designated agent. 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 Faith Landing, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Page 10 December 14, 2010 6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of City Gate Commerce Center, Phase One with the roadway and drainage improvements within Tract R-2 being privately maintained, and Tract R-l being maintained by Collier County and authorizing the release of the maintenance security. 7) Recommendation for the County Manager or designee to permit removal of existing seawall and dune restoration without requiring applicant to amend Coastal Construction Control Line Variance Resolution 82-179. 8) Recommendation to direct staff to amend the Collier County Land Development Code to allow one sandwich board at the entrance door of a business establishment. 9) 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 Johnnycake Cove, Lot 8 Rep I at. 10) 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 Berkshire Commons Parcels 3A & 3B. 11) Recommendation to approve an impact fee reimbursement requested by Bayfront, Inc. totaling $193,454.24, due to the cancellation of two building permits. 12) Recommendation to approve an Encroachment Agreement for Lot 17, Grey Oaks Unit Nineteen. 13) Approve the scrivener's error updating the information contained in Change Order No.7 for the agreement between Collier County and Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates Inc. 14) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Satisfaction of Lien, related to impact fees, due to the deferred impact Page 11 December 14, 2010 fees being paid in full, in accordance with the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program, as set forth by Section 74-401 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, and the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program, as set forth by Section 74- 203 (i) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. 15) Recommendation to award Bid #10-5507 Storm Drain Cleaning, Documenting & Repairs to Shenandoah General Construction Company for an estimated annual expenditure of$100,000. 16) Recommendation to approve Funding Agreement No. 4600002213 with the South Florida Water Management District in the amount of $775,000 providing funding assistance with two (2) Stormwater projects and to approve an agreement with the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District necessary to facilitate funding assistance with the second of the two projects and authorize the necessary budget amendments. 17) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize carry forward for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of$4,350. 18) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with The Shores at Berkshire Lakes Master Homeowners Association, Inc. for work performed along Easement along Santa Barbara and Radio Road (hereinafter referred to as Easement). 19) Recommendation to approve proposed route modifications and implement the previously approved secondary transfer station at Collier Area Transit Facility on 8300 Radio Road. 20) Recommendation to accept a Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 FY2010/2011 grant award in the amount of$230,115; utilize the unspent portion of the FY2009/20 1 0 Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 grant award totaling $30,570 and approve the purchase of three (3) paratransit vehicles in the total amount of $260,688. 21) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the execution and submittal of the Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Page 12 December 14, 2010 FY20 11120 12 grant application and applicable document. 22) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the submittal of the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 FY201112012 grant application and applicable document which can only be used for capital expenditures of bus purchases. 23) This item was omitted from the agenda. 24) Recommendation to approve two (2) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreements for Lake Trafford Road from SR 29 to Carson Road, for the volunteer group, Immokalee High School College Reach Out Program and for Lake Trafford Road from Carson Road to Little League Road, for the volunteer group Immokalee High School Future Business Leaders of America, with a total of four ( 4) recognition signs at a total cost of $300. 25) Recommendation to review and accept the Ave Maria Stewardship District Five- Year Fiscal Monitoring Report. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a joint CRA/BCC Walkable Community Study, and jointly submit the study to the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for inclusion into the Collier County MPO Pathways Master Plan. 2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Shoreline Stabilization Grant Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2736 Riverview Drive and 2772 Riverview Drive, total of$9,725) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of $714,765 for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Variable Frequency Drive Upgrades to Gulf Coast Construction of Page 13 December 14,2010 Naples, Inc., Bid Number 10-5563 Project Number 71063. 2) Recommendation to approve a Work Order under Contract #08-5011 Underground Utilities Contracting Services in the amount of$373,800 to Haskins, Inc.; Project #73307. 3) Recommendation to execute the Equipment Security Agreement to secure the payment plan debt between Fine & Dandy Service, Inc., d/b/a NAPKING, and the Collier County Water-Sewer District as a one-time exception to the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, for the wastewater impact fee and the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested fee for building Permit Number 2010070017. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve award for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10- 5597 for Concession Stand Food Products to Cheney Brothers Inc. Estimated expenses of $1 00,000 annually. 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Funds Subrecipient Agreement with Florida Non- Profit Services, Inc. (FNPS) approved on July 27,2010. This project was previously approved to purchase and rehabilitate a single family home in Immokalee. This amendment is to update language in Exhibit A, which includes Section A- the Scope, Section B- the Budget, Section C- the Work Plan, and Section D- the Payment Schedule to contain updated terms and to revise Exhibit C, containing additional grant requirements. This project will continue to meet the original objective approved on July 27,2010. 3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Letter of Understanding with Larry Ray, Collier County Tax Collector, outlining Tax Collector and Library joint use facility in Everglades City, Florida. 4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Mortgage and Note Modification Agreement with Creative Choice Homes XIV, Ltd. to extend the term of a State Housing Initiative Page 14 December 14, 2010 Partnership program loan for an additional eight years. The new maturity date will be November 1, 2018. 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the 2008-2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement with the City of Naples approved on October 27,2009. This amendment is to revise Exhibit A, Sections B- the Budget and C-the Project Milestone Schedule, in order to facilitate reimbursement. 6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement with the City of Naples approved on September 15,2009 (Item #16D9). This amendment is to revise Exhibit A, Sections Band C, to update budget information and extend project milestone schedule dates in order to facilitate reimbursement. 7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one (1) Subrecipient Agreement for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project previously approved for Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) funding in the 2010-2011 Action Plan. 8) Recommendation to approve payment of $600 administrative fine to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for violation of Florida Administrative Code #62-296.401, which provides regulatory guidelines for Air General Permits. 9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the 2009-2010 Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Subrecipient Agreement with the Shelter for Abused Women & Children (SA WCC) approved on September 15,2009. This amendment is to revise Exhibit A Sections A-the Scope, B-the Budget, and C-the Project Milestone Schedule to contain updated budget information in order to facilitate reimbursement. 10) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal of the Fiscal Year 2010 Continuum of Care (CoC) Grant application in the amount of$413,441 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) for CoC programs assisting and Page 15 December 14, 2010 benefiting the homeless population in Collier County. This grant application has no effect on ad valorem or general fund dollars. 11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement providing for a $35,000 State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) grant to the Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida, Inc. (HDC). This agency will provide Homebuyer Education Counseling and Pre-Purchase, Extended Credit and/or Foreclosure Prevention Counseling to benefit persons earning less than 120% of Family Median Income of Collier County. 12) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal of a 2011 Older Americans Act Grants in the Services for Seniors Program sponsored by the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida and approve the necessary budget amendments totaling $545,000. 13) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida supporting the County's Four Grant Applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Long Range Grant Funding Requests for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and authorization of any necessary budget amendments. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Health Reinsurance coverage for calendar year 2011 in the amount of $687,648, a reduction of28.7%. 2) Recommendation to award RFP# 1 0-5442, Group Insurance Brokerage and Actuarial Services to Will is of Tennessee, Inc., d/b/a Willis of Florida in the estimated amount of $94,000 per year. 3) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2010 Grant Report providing an annual update of grant funding activity. 4) Recommendation to accept the deed and approve transfer of title to Habitat for Humanity upon payment of all County taxes, assessments, and Code Enforcement hard costs relating to property located at 5408 Page 16 December 14, 2010 Carlton Street, Collier County, Florida. 5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution revising the Board of County Commissioner's Policy for Operation of Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens, by updating the cremation policy language for unclaimed and unclaimed indigent deceased in Collier County. 6) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders. 7) Recommendation to award Bid #10-5581 - Motor Oils, Lubricants, and Fluids to Combs Oil Company as primary vendor and Evans Oil Company LLC, Florida Detroit Diesel-Allison Inc., and Palmdale Oil Company Inc. as secondary vendors with total expenditures estimated at $80,000 annually. 8) Recommendation to ratify Items #6, #9 and #10 from the November Administrative Change Order Report. 9) Recommendation to develop regulations relating to public use of County lands designated as preserves and to provide user fees for private events conducted at preserves. F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to approve the annual renewal of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Advanced Life Support Transport for the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department and authorize the Chairman to execute the Emergency Services Permit and Certificate. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review and approve the Fiscal Year 2011 Strategic Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and approve all necessary budget amendments. 3) Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment # 1 for Contract #09-5321 Tourism Grant Agreement with Marco Island Historical Society and Collier County to extend the agreement until September 30,2011 and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract Page 17 December 14,2010 amendment. 4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grant, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget. 5) Recommendation to accept report to the Board of County Commissioners covering Budget Amendments from reserves in the amount less than $25,000. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Friends of the Library Annual Casino Night on November 5, 2010 in Naples, FL. $35 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 the 2010 Golden Gate Citizen of the Year event at Vanderbilt Country Club, Naples, FL on November 11, 2010. $40 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the SCORE Annual Recognition Luncheon on December 6, 2010 in Naples, FL. $30 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Marco Island Historical Society Holiday Party and Annual Meeting on December 7, 2010 in Naples, FL. $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Page 18 December 14, 2010 Attended the East Naples Civic Association Monthly Luncheon at Hamilton Harbor Yacht Club on November 18,2010 in Naples, FL. $18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) Annual Program Kickoff and Recognition Luncheon on December 6, 2010 at Bear's Paw Country Club in Naples, FL. $30 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce Christmas Gala on December 5, 2010 on Marco Island, FL. $75 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 8) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended 25th Anniversary Ritz Carlton, Naples event on December 3,2010 in Naples, Florida. $25 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 9) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Commissioner Coletta attended the Leadership Collier Alumni Holiday event on December 9,2010 in Naples, Florida. $35 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October 30,2010 through November 5,2010 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 6, 2010 through November 12, 2010 and for submission Page 19 December 14, 2010 into the official records of the Board. 3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 13,2010 through November 19,2010 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 20, 2010 through November 26, 2010 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 5) Recommendation to accept the report of interest for the fiscal year ending September 30,2010 pursuant to Florida Statute 218.78 and Purchasing Policy XII.E. For the year ended September 30,2010 no interest was paid. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a Retention Agreement for legal services on an as needed basis with the law firm of Bryant, Miller and Olive to meet County Purchasing Policy contract update requirements. 2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution designating the proposed North Collier Recycling Drop-Off Center, as the North Collier Recycling Drop-Off Center/John A. Yonkosky Building. 3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $27,000 for Parcels 168FEE and 168TCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Scott Faunce., et aI., Case No.1 0-2684-CA (Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact $22,905) 4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $241 ,000 for Parcel 125FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Pascal J. Murray, et. aI., Case No. 07-4784-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Project #60091 (Fiscal Impact $44,471). 5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of$29,250 for Parcels 159FEE and 159TCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Timothy Maloney., et aI., Case No.1 0-2690- CA (Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact $18,750.50) Page 20 December 14, 2010 6) Request by the Collier County Health Facilities Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue bonds for healthcare facilities at Moorings Park. 7) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue bonds for healthcare facilities at Naples Community Hospital. 8) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue bond anticipation notes for healthcare facilities for a continuing care retirement facility known as The Arlington of Naples. 9) Recommendation to authorize an amendment to Ordinance No. 75-16, as amended, relating to the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners, clarifying the timeframe for the election of a Chairman and/or Vice-Chairman, as applicable, after the General Election and designating who shall serve as the temporary Chairman in the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman with respect to all matters outside of meetings. 10) Authorize the County Attorney's Office to make an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, DDRM Countryside, LLC, in the amount of$155,001 for the acquisition of Parcels 105 and 705 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Highland Properties of Lee and Collier Limited, et aI., Case No. 06-0563-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project #62081). (Fiscal Impact: $35,101 if accepted). 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI- Page 21 December 14, 2010 JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. Recommendation to approve Petition V AC-PL2010-772, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest of an unused utility easement located over a portion of Lot 18 on the plat of Erinwood Phase One, a subdivision according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 3 and 4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and being more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A with the condition that a temporary construction easement to the Water- Sewer District to access the utility facilities, upon request, will be granted and run with land. B. Recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, designating the Close-Out of ten (10) adopted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which have fully completed development pursuant to their development orders constructing up to the authorized density and/or intensity and have been found by county staff to be compliant with their specific developer commitments. C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, (Tourist Development Tax) to reallocate on a one-time basis $1,000,000 from TDC Category A Beach Park Facilities Fund 183 to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for tourism destination marketing and authorize all necessary budget amendments. D. Sheriff request to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a County ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment of new pain management clinics within Collier County while the County Attorney's Office and County Staff, working with the Sheriff and other community partners, analyze the needs and bring back to the Board at a future advertised public meeting an ordinance that restricts or regulates pain management clinics. E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget. 18. ADJOURN Page 22 December 14,2010 INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 23 December 14, 2010 December 14, 2010 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is now in session. Will you please stand for the invocation by Father Duane Varas from St. Paul's Episcopal Church. FATHER VARAS: Let us pray. Blessed are you, God of the universe, whose glory is everywhere. We commend Collier County to your merciful care, that being guided by your providence, we may dwell secure in your peace. Grant to our commissioners and all in authority wisdom and courage to know and to do your will, fill them with your love of truth and righteousness and make them ever mindful of their calling to serve the people of this county. Almighty God, send down upon those who will participate in these deliberations the spirit of wisdom, charity, mercy, and justice, that with steadfast purpose, they may faithfully consider and promote the wellbeing of all people. Help us remember that what we do to the least among us we do to you, God. Loving God, we ask especially your blessings upon our newest commissioner to be sworn in today, that her service be a reflection of your mercy and your justice. We humbly ask all these things of you, God, who is creator, liberator, and sanctifier. Amen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I'm now going to turn the proceedings over to our -- Mr. Ian Mitchell. Item #lB SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR COMMISSIONER HILLER, Page 2 December 14, 2010 DISTRICT 2. THE SWEARING IN WILL BE CONDUCTED BY FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE MARY ELLEN HAWKINS AND THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, DWIGHT E. BROCK. MEMBERS OF THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT WILL PROVIDE AN HONOR GUARD - SWORN IN MR. MITCHELL: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, on the 16th of November -- on the 16th of November, this commission started a new portion of its life, and for the next two years, we -- Commissioner Coyle has started a new term, and today we're welcoming a new commissioner for District 2, Commissioner Georgia Hiller. And so now we're going to have, as is traditional, a swearing-in ceremony for Commissioner Hiller. Commissioner Hiller? The swearing in ceremony is going to be conducted by Circuit Court (sic) Dwight E. Brock and a famous Collier resident, Mary Ellen Hawkins who, from 1974 to 1994, served in the legislature. We have an Honor Guard as well of the North Naples Fire Service. Commissioner Hiller? MR. BROCK: I would like to introduce a very wonderful lady , Mary Ellen Hawkins. She has been a mentor to Georgia Hiller, and I'm so proud to have her with me to assist me in swearing in Ms. Hiller. Ms. Hiller, I will now administer the oath of office with the assistance of former State Representative Ms. Mary Ellen Hawkins. I would ask you to place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand. Ms. Hawkins? MS. HAWKINS: Do I raise my hand? MR. BROCK: Ms. Hiller, do you solemnly swear. Page 3 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I, Georgia Hiller, do solemnly swear. MS. HA WKINS: That I will support, protect, and defend the constitution and the government of the United States and of the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a long sentence. That I will support, protect, and defend the constitution and the government of the United States and the State of Florida. MS. HAWKINS: That I am dually qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That I am dually qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state. MS. HAWKINS: And that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of county commissioner of Collier County, on which I am now about to enter. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I will well and faithfully perform the duties of county commissioner for Collier County, on which I am now about to enter. MS. HAWKINS: So help me God. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So help me God. MR. BROCK: Congratulations. (Applause.) MR. BROCK: Presenting you -- MS. HAWKINS: Something to hang on your wall. COMMISSIONER HILLER: My oath of office. Thank you very much. MR. BROCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where are my children? Children? George? Ladies and gentlemen, my children, Anna Hiller and George Hiller. Couldn't do it without them. (Applause.) Page 4 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much. Item #IC IN HONOR OF THE SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONER HILLER, DISTRICT 2, THE VILLAGE SCHOOL OF NAPLES CHORALE WILL PERFORM A VERSION OF AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL - PERFORMED MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, the next portion of it is, we're honored today to have the chorale of the Village School who are going to sing My America to the music of America the Beautiful. They'll be led by their music director, Linda Swears. (The presentation was given by the Village School.) MR. MITCHELL: Mrs. Swears, if you could approach. The chairman has a presentation for you. MS. SWEARS: Where's the chairman? Do I go up? MR. MITCHELL: This is a certificate to honor the fact that they've sung so beautifully today to Commissioner Hiller's swearing . In. And now Commissioner Hiller has some flowers to present. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For Jennifer. Thank you. Head mistress of the school. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in the spirit of the season, we also have something for the kids. George, can you come up here? Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: What Commissioner Hiller is going to present to the children is the Constitution of the United States, and she's signed it all in commemoration of today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to say thank you to all of you who came today. I want to thank the Honor Guard from the Page 5 December 14, 2010 North Naples Fire District and the Village School singers for making this a very memorable event. I'm here to serve and deliver. The office is officially open. (Applause. ) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, the meeting is now handed back to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell. And congratulations, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, do you have any changes to the agenda for us today? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. Item #2A TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR.OCHS: Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, December 14, 2010. First change is to withdraw Item 4A. It's a proclamation recognizing December 14,2010, as Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart Day. The congressman was unable to be here today. He had to be in Washington, and we'll attempt to reschedule that at a time that works for the congressman. Next item is to move Item 16A8 from your consent agenda. It will become Item 10H. It's a recommendation to direct staff to amend the Collier County Land Development Code to allow one sandwich board at the entrance door of a business establishment. This item is moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. Next change is to move Item 16A25 from the consent agenda to Page 6 December 14, 2010 Item 101. It's a recommendation to review and accept the Ave Maria Stewardship District Five- Year Fiscal Monitoring Report. That item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. You have two time-certain items, Mr. Chairman. Item 8B (sic) will be heard at three p.m. today. That's at Commissioner Henning's request. And Item 1 aD will be heard at 11 :30 a.m. this morning at Commissioner Fiala's request. I have two brief agenda notes. The first is, Item 8A references in the agenda index being related to an Item 16A4. That reference was made in error from a previous meeting, so we'll delete that at the staff request. And Item 16A13 should read as follows: Approve the scrivener's error updating the information contained in change order number six, not change order number seven, for the agreement between Collier County and Van Buskirk, Ryffel, and Associates, Inc. That was at staff s request. That's all the changes I have this morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County Manager. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll proceed to the Board of County Commissioners. We will start with Commissioner Henning this morning for any further changes to the agenda and for ex parte disclosure only with respect to the consent agenda and summary agenda at this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations, Commissioner Hiller. I would like to -- I have no ex parte communication on today's consent or summary agenda, but I would like to move the change Page 7 December 14,2010 orders, which is Item 16E6, to the regular agenda, and I also would like to move 16E8, recommendation to ratify item six, nine, and ten of the November administrative change order report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I have nothing to change as far as the agenda goes, and I have nothing to declare. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. And I have no further changes to the agenda, and I have no ex parte disclosure with respect to the consent agenda or the summary agenda. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have a question for Leo. Leo, were you able to make those changes that I mentioned, those little spelling errors and things like that? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We made those corrections. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. They're all taken care of. MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I have no changes, corrections, or additions to the agenda or -- to the consent agenda or the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have -- I have two ex parte communications. One with respect to the Davis Reserve PUD, meetings, emails, and staff reports. And then with respect to PUDA-2007-AR-11961 represented by Rich Y ovanovich, I've had meetings as well as staff reports. And I have one comment with respect to the consent agenda, and that is with respect to the industrial revenue bonds that we are Page 8 December 14, 2010 proposing to approve today. I would like to commend the entities, Moorings Park and NCH, which have applied for industrial revenue bonds at no cost to the taxpayer, no burden to the taxpayer. They are developing on their own ticket. That's the way to go. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hiller. Just for procedure, we will do the ex parte disclosure for the regular agenda later also. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We traditionally only take ex parte disclosure for consent agenda and summary agenda at this time. That, I think, concludes our changes, and I will accept a motion for approval of the consent -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have some speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the agenda, consent -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have speakers to the-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many speakers do we have and on what items? MR. MITCHELL: We have seven speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seven speakers on what items? MR. MITCHELL: It is on 17 -- 17D. CHAIRMAN COYLE: 17D, okay. Very well. Let's call the speakers. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Joseph Zaks, and he'll be followed by Anne Frazier. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If you would both come up, one at each podium, we can move this along a little faster. And Mr. Zaks, you'll be first. MR. ZAKS: Okay. Good morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. Page 9 December 14, 2010 MR. ZAKS: It's been a while since I've been here, and good to be back again. You have on the consent agenda an item which would put into effect an ordinance banning pill mills, and I couldn't expect that anybody would speak in opposition to that. You've probably heard an awful lot of statistics. I thought I'd bring you a story. Rick was born in 1991. And Rick was a pretty good student and educated in Collier County. In December of2009, Rick was working out at the gym and complained of a back pain, and the trainer said, well, I have a pill that will take care of that. And Rick was introduced to Oxycontin. His first pill was one-third of a 30-milligram pill. By June of 20 1 0, Rick had been arrested twice; Rick had been in the emergency room with an overdose twice. In June he was arrested again and brought before the judge. And the judge heard his case, put him on probation. By the way, it was Rick's birthday and -- when he was arrested. And he went on probation, and within the next month Rick had been in the emergency room three more times. Approximately five weeks after going on probation with Oxycodone, Roxicotin (sic) -- Oxycontin and Xanax in his system, he passed out on Bayshore Boulevard and a tow truck almost ran him over. It was three o'clock in the morning. He went to NCH. That was his fifth emergency room visit. He was arrested for violation of probation, possession of controlled substances, possession of narcotics, paraphernalia, and a week ago was released through the drug court program, a fantastic program. Probably his last chance. Statistically only 14 percent of the people who have his experiences will return to normal life. Anything you can do to help our children would be appreciated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Viora Lilly (sic), Page 10 December 14,2010 and she'll be followed by Scott Salley. Viora Lilly? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Lilly (sic), you're going to be first. MS. LITTLE: Good morning. Good morning commissioners and -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MS. LITTLE: -- congratulations to Ms. Hiller. I'm Viora Little. I'm a volunteer with Drug Free Collier and the volunteer coordinator for a program called Operation Medicine Cabinet, and I hope a lot of you have heard of it. It's a pharmaceutical take-back program that alerts all citizens about the huge danger of unsecured medicines in our households. Our message is, lock up all your medicines at home and properly dispose of them. Together with the Collier County Sheriffs Office who is here today -- we couldn't run this program without it. Law enforcement has been absolutely super and supportive and helps us in every way. This moratorium today is another step towards public safety. It's a red flag to those who would come to Collier County and practice bad medicine. It is not, in any way, meant to distract or to regulate good medicine. We have lots of good medicine here and many reputable doctors here. In fact, several of those doctors work hand in hand with Drug Free Collier and the Collier County Sheriffs Office. Dr. Marta Coburn, who's our medical examiner, is here today. She's absolutely been unparalleled in what she does. Dr. Colfer, our public health director, Dr. Paine, who's an anesthesiologist, all of these people work hand in glove protecting our citizens. I'm a past president of the Collier County Medical Society Alliance. My husband, who's retired from neurosurgery, is the past president of the Medical Society -- of the Medical Society as well. He -- now both of us volunteer. I'm a nurse anesthetist by profession, so I have really a lot of insight into the good use of drugs. This is not the good use of drugs, and we need to stop it. Page 11 December 14,2010 Dr. Talano, who is the president currently of the Collier County Medical Society, has tasked a Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force to develop a proactive stance in our community. Please consider this moratorium today as a step towards saving lives in our community. Make no mistake, all of us have been touched personally. I have two friends in anesthesia who died from accidental drug overdoses, one of whom was pregnant at the time. I have three grandchildren here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. LITTLE: Any questions? (No response.) MS. LITTLE: Okay. Thank you so much. MR. SALLEY: For the record my name is Scott Salley. I serve as the current president of Drug Free Collier. Chairman, Commission, Commissioner Hiller, my message is very brief. We all know the downfall of elicit and illegal drugs, but my comment this morning is based on geography. We're in a war. We're in a multifaceted war against drugs of all type, and unfortunately the main artery that runs through Collier County, 1-75, connects to the largest area of transfer of prescription drugs and pill mills, and that's Broward County. They know it, we know it. Ladies and gentlemen, we're in a war we didn't choose, but by geography we have to fight. And the tactics we'll use is for another day, another time, and a different uniform. But today I just hope that you understand our location, and I'm sure you do, and what we have to do to win this war. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Scott. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Christine Holmes, and she'll be followed by Marta Coburn, Dr. Marta Coburn. MS. HOLMES: Good morning. My name is Christine Holmes. I'm a licensed mental health counselor in the State of Florida. Thank Page 12 December 14, 2010 you very much for your time this morning. I've been working at the David Lawrence Center for over 14 years now in the area of treating substance abuse, both for children and for adults. And I'm here to plead to you all that this pill mill moratorium can safe lives. We're seeing the devastating epidemic effects of prescription drug abuse on our adults and on our children. Fifty percent of the clients involved in the drug core program right now are addicted to opiate medications. So I hope that the story of Mr. Zaks is heart warming to you and that we can save some lives. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Dr. Coburn, good morning. DR. COBURN: Thank you, Commissioners. And Commissioner Hiller, welcome. I hope that you feel welcomed. You certainly have been -- you ran a very successful campaign, and I think this testimony this morning was very, very nice on your behalf. I thank you for this opportunity . You know that in the 20 years that I've been the chief medical examiner I've come before you very, very few times, hardly ever, with the exception of the budget meetings. But I feel very strongly about this because I am a physician, and I do have great insight. I think that medical examiners are tasked with affecting change. That is why we study the dead so that we can help the living. And this issue is one of the things that I've proposed for myself as one of the goals that I wanted to attain when I first took over as district medical examiner. I knew that we had the tools and the information, and we needed to use that effectively, but we could not do that alone. It was far beyond my scope of expertise and my ability to reach all of the sectors that we needed to reach. And that is where Drug Free Collier has been extraordinarily Page 13 December 14,2010 successful. And with your help here today, it will be one step closer to that means -- to that end. We need to understand that this problem is multifactorial, as are all difficult problems, and that this problem is not a law enforcement problem, and it's certainly not a medical examiner problem. The only problem this causes for the medical examiner is the fact that we have to ask for an increase in our budget every year just to cover the amount of drug tests that are required because of these drug deaths. Every year it causes this -- it costs this county thousands and thousands of dollars in drug tests because we have to screen, we have to verify those screens, and then we have to quantitate what is found before we can determine what actually caused the death. Weare not here today to come down on doctors nor are we here to come down on legitimate businesses. We are here to stand against the illegal and indiscriminate use of prescription pain pills which are affecting our society. Our young children will tell you, and the public at large will tell you, that they have great faith in doctors, and they feel that when a doctor writes a prescription, it's a legitimate prescription and something that will not hurt you but is meant to help you. Now, we understand that people will abuse drugs, but do we need someone facilitating that? Do we need someone whose practice is unethical? We don't need that in Collier County. I know that that is not the kind of county that we have worked very hard to attain and to keep. It impacts our businesses and it impacts our families. And so I'm here today to urge you to vote for this moratorium. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dr. Coburn. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Lydia Galton, and she'll be followed by Dr. Gregory Paine, who will be the last speaker. MS. GAL TON: Good morning. I'm Lydia Galton. I'm president Page 14 December 14, 2010 of the League of Women Voters. First of all, I want to wish Georgia Hiller the best of luck. And I will be very brief. The League of Women Voters fully extends its support to Drug Free Collier and to the sheriffs office in its effort to eradicate pill mills in our county. It's obvious that young people are affected by drugs, but so are older people, and the statistics show that the elderly are becoming more and more and more addicted to pain kills -- killers, and they are attaining them illegally. So I think anything that you can do to help eradicate this problem will be applauded by all of us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. DR. PAINE: Good morning. My name is Gregory Paine, and I'm a board-certified anesthesiologist, a pain management, fellowship-trained, and board-certified physician. I've been in Collier County for five years and had my training in the military where I left as -- my last post as the assistant director of the Navy's only fellowship program. I bring to my practice my miliary ethos. I've been working with the Collier County Sheriffs Department, as well as last night -- I'm also a Lee County physician, and met with Lee County law enforcement as they are considering a similar proposal. We, as physicians -- today I'm representing both the Collier County Medical Society as well as the Lee/Collier County Chapter of the Florida Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. We, as physicians, have seen firsthand the carnage caused by the rampant spread of prescription substance abuse and welcome the opportunity to partner with law enforcement and local government to eradicate this problem in our community; however, the urgency for action must be balanced by a wise and prudent course of action. In principle, we fully support the institution of a moratorium on Page 15 December 14, 2010 new pain clinics in the county as an emergency measure until a reasonable and effective ordinance can be formed. That ordinance must not impede the practice of medicine but rather prevent the establishment of criminal enterprises under the guise of providing medical care. We must allow law enforcement the tools to rest and be able to prosecute those using a medical license as a front for trafficking in narcotics. Unfortunately the current moratorium language has got some issues in it that affect legitimate pain physicians that I'd just like to bring to the board's attention, too. First of all, you have to understand that these criminals, these medical charlatans out there, will continue to morph and find loopholes in the law. Senate Bill 2272 is already experiencing this. What you have is, these physicians won't register as a pain clinic. They'll set up shop as a family care clinic or as an urgent care clinic or some other nebulous title and still run a prescription mill or a pill mill out of that. The current language in the bill does not address that. So I agree that this is a good start, but we're still going to have a problem with these people setting up shop in our backyard. They've even gone as far as to advertise on their front door that they offer injections or physical therapy on site. That's just a ruse because their clientele simply wants their medications. Additionally, no protection is provided in the current moratorium to take care of physicians whose practice disbands, in which case they have to set up another practice, or for whatever reason they need to move their practice, and there needs to be some allotment for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Doctor, your time has expired. DR. PAINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you wrap it up? I'd like to get your comments concerning this proposed ordinance in writing, if you Page 16 December 14,2010 would not mind. Could you spend some time giving us something in writing concerning your recommendations for improvement of this process? DR. PAINE: Yes, sir. And the only request that I have is, as we go forward that we, as the professional societies, be afforded a little bit more time to help to formulate an ordinance that is going to -- so that we can provide valuable input to create an instrument that is in the best interest of patients, physicians, law enforcement, government, and the citizens of Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. DR. PAINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We appreciate your help. Thank you. MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR.OCHS: Sheriff Rambosk has asked for an opportunity to address the board briefly, sir, on this item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Good morning, Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. SHERIFF RAMBOSK: -- Commissioners, new Commissioner. The item before you is identified as a pain management ordinance. That is not from the perspective that we're here to talk to you about today . We're talking about pill mills coming to Collier County, Florida. We're talking about a DEA study that two years ago identified Florida as the pill mill state. We have been ahead of prescription drug diversion for many years now with regard to enhancing our enforcement, invoking prevention programming, Drug Free Collier, and probably our greatest asset, as Dr. Paine just mentioned, is working together with our local physicians who are professional medical providers. That's not what we're asking to look at here. With the new legislation that will require a prescription Page 1 7 December 14, 2010 monitoring system -- which we believed would have resolved why we're here today and we would not have needed this except for the fact that it's not being funded at this point because of the economic downturn. That has got to be funded. Our local legislators have supported it. We are going to ask them to continue to support with funding. But until that time happens we, as a community, need to stand up and say, we're not going to tolerate this in Collier County. In Broward County and on the east coast within a two-year period, they went from 20 pain management clinics or pill mills, as I'll call them, to close to 80. That's not necessary. So with that in mind, we definitely want to work with our medical professionals, your staff -- we want to thank your legal staff -- and we'd like to ask your approval to move forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, SheriffRambosk. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, before -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the last of our speakers? MR. OCHS : Yes. Before you set your agenda, just go back to the two changes from Commissioner Henning, for the record. 16E6 will become 10J on your agenda, and 16E8 will become 10K. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the agenda as amended, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning to move the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve the agenda as amended, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 18 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, please signify by saying no? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Page 19 Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 14, 2010 Withdraw Item 4A: Proclamation recognizing December 14, 2010 as Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart Day. (Staff's request) Move 16AS to 10H: Recommendation to direct staff to amend the Collier County Land Development Code to allow one sandwich board at the entrance door of a business establishment. (Commissioner Coyle's request) Move Item 16A2S to 101: Recommendation to review and accept the Ave Maria Stewardship District Five-Year Fiscal Monitoring Report. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Time Certain Items: Item 9B to be heard at 3:00 p.m. (Commissioner Henning's request) Item 100 to be heard at 11:30 a.m. (Commissioner Fiala's request) Note: Item SA references in the agenda index being related to Item 16A4. This was noted in error. (Staff's request) Item 16A13 should read as follows: Approve the scrivener's error updating the information contained in Change Order No.7 6 for the agreement between Collier County and Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. (Staff's request) 12/14/2010 8:45 AM December 14, 2010 Item #2B BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 2010 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to the October 26,2010, BCC regular meeting minutes. Are there any changes by members of the board to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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 #2C BCC/TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOR Page 20 December 14,2010 NOVEMBER t 2010 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: November the 1st, 2010, BCC Tourist Development Council workshop minutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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 #2D SELECTION OF A VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO TEMPORARILY SERVE UNTIL THE JANUARY 11, 2011 BOARD MEETING - MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER HILLER TO SERVE AS TEMPORARY VICE- CHAIR UNTIL JANUARY 11,2011 - FAILED; MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO SERVE AS TEMPORARY VICE-CHAIR UNTIL JANUARY It 2011 - APPROVED Page 21 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to Item 2D, selection of a vice-chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to temporarily serve until the January 11, 2011, board meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we appoint Georgia Hiller, filling the term of second district, Frank Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I had my button on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. You can't see it probably over these things. But I had -- I thought I was first on that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's probably my fault. I should have seen it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I apologize. The motion is on the floor. Commissioner Henning has made a motion to appoint Commissioner Hiller as the vice-chairman for the period between now and January the 11th, 2011. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's two. Any opposed, by like sign? Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 22 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, aye, sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just say why I'm opposed? I feel it's not fair to her actually. She's been on the dais for 45 minutes. It's just not fair to just hoist something like that on anybody when-- you know, when they've only begun. It's good to get yourself in -- you know, to get the feel of the -- what you're doing. I mean, it's hard to even know where the bathrooms are when you first start. I remember when I started. I didn't know where in the heck to go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the first thing I found out. That's the most important thing you can learn here. Okay. Is there another motion? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I motion Jim Coletta to be vice-chair -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for one meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala for Jim Coletta to be the chair (sic) for the period of less than 30 days COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Vice-chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or vice-chair for the period of less -- I wish we could do the chair right now. Second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say one more thing, if Page 23 December 14,2010 you don't mind. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When I first started on this -- and it was a January meeting -- and somebody had nominated me to be vice-chair, and I never got a second, and I sat there and waited and waited. And finally I said, hearing no second, I said, I don't think that that motion passes. So I know what it feels like. It's -- but I was there for a little while. So understand it is not about you. It's just the time frame. Thank you. Item #3 SERVICE AWARDS CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to service awards. County Manager and Mr. Mitchell, we're going to make the service awards from here; is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there are no service awards today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR.OCHS: No service awards. CHAIRMAN COYLE: These are all for something different. MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. MR. MITCHELL: They are. Item #4 PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS MR.OCHS: We're moving on to Item 4 on your agenda, sir. It's proclamations. Page 24 December 14, 2010 Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 14, 2010 AS THE RITZ-CARLTON NAPLES DAY. ACCEPTED BY ED ST AROS, VICE PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE RITZ- CARLTON RESORTS OF NAPLES. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER GEORGIA A. HILLER - ADOPTED MR.OCHS: 4A was withdrawn, so it moves to 4B. It's a proclamation designating December 14, 2010, as the Ritz-Carlton Naples Day. To be accepted by Ed Staros and managing director of the Ritz-Carlton Resorts of Naples. This proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. Mr. Staros, if you could come forward, please. (Applause. ) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Quite an accomplishment. MR. STAROS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. STAROS: We just hired 80 more full-time, in Collier County, employees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you need to say that in a microphone. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah. Be sure to announce that. But first we need to get a picture of you, and then we're going to charge you for a copy. MR. STAROS: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. STAROS: We just had our 25th anniversary on December 4th, and I'm happy to say that as I'm standing here in front of you today, 80 new Collier County employees are in orientation at the hotel right now getting ready for our season. Page 25 December 14,2010 (Applause.) MR. STAROS: And I predict it's going to be a very, very good season. Thank you very much. Thank you, Georgia. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NORTHGATE CLUB APARTMENTS FOR THEIR CONTINUED CONTRIBUTIONS AND EFFORTS IN RECYCLING. ACCEPTED BY COLEEN FERNANDEZ, MANAGER OF NORTHGATE CLUB APARTMENT, DAN RODRIGUEZ, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR AND STAFF. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER TOM HENNING - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 4C is a proclamation recognizing Northgate Club Apartments for their continued contributions and efforts in recycling. To be accepted by Coleen Fernandez, manager of Northgate Club Apartments; Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Management director and staff. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Henning. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may as well hold them all while we're taking a picture here. There we go. And here's a plaque. MS. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to say something? MS. FERNANDEZ: I'd like to just say thank you very much, and I just don't represent Northgate Club. I also represent Southwest Page 26 December 14,2010 Florida Apartment Association. And through our association, all of our apartment communities in Collier County do recognize the recycling program. We also use a Nylon 6 recycling carpet that we also recycle. And I'd like to just say thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause. ) Item #4D PROCLAMATION DESIGNATION NOVEMBER 30, 2010 AS CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA DALTON DISCOVERY CENTER DAY. ACCEPTED BY MS. LATIF, CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER GEORGIA A. HILLER - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 4 D is a proclamation designating November 30,2010, as Conservancy of Southwest Florida Dalton Discovery Center Day. To be accepted by Grant E. Fisher, environmental education program supervisor. And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need a picture. (Applause. ) MS. LATIF: Hi. I'm not Grant Fisher, but I work with Grant Fisher in the Education Department at the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and we're very excited about all of the wonderful changes going on at our nature center, and I hope you all come by and see us. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Item #5A Page 27 December 14,2010 PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY "BUSINESS OF THE MONTH" A WARD TO MOORINGS PARK FOR DECEMBER 2010. ACCEPTED BY DAN LA VENDER~ CEO - PRESENTED MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item S on your agenda, presentations. SA is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month Award to Moorings Park for December 2010. To be accepted by Dan Lavender, CEO. Dan. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dan, if you wouldn't mind, let me make the presentation to you. And if you have members of your staff you'd like to have come up here, please have them come up. I just -- I'm sure Dan is going to tell you this, but Moorings Park has been an important part of our community for over 30 years, been providing very valuable continuing care for retirees in our community, and they're a wonderful company, and we're glad to recognize them as the Company of the Month. So I will make this presentation to you, Dan, and express our appreciation for the fine job you do. It's good to see all of you here today. (Applause.) MR. LAVENDER: Again, we thank you for honoring Moorings Park in this manner. Just to tell you a little bit about Moorings Park, we are an A-plus Fitch-rated continuing care retirement community. As Commissioner Coyle talked about, we've been here over 30 years. We've been the only A-plus-rated CCRC in the country since 2006. That's a testament to our proactive and strategic board of directors, and to our predecessor, Gunther Gosh, who joined the board after 17 years as serving as the president and CEO in 2009. We're the home to almost 700 residents in Collier County. When you add in our home health and rehabilitation services, we serve over Page 28 December 14,2010 750 senior residents throughout Collier County. We're located just south of Pine Ridge on Goodlette-Frank Road. We are very much a mission-driven organization, and our mission is to provide facilities and services and programs for successful aging and to do it in a professional and compassionate manner. And when we talk about successful aging, we take a holistic approach. We're trying to develop programs and services that enhance the mind, body, spirit and engagement with life of seniors. We have an 83-acre campus. You can see on the screen a few of our independent living apartments. Moorings Park's special because it's a collection of residents that are active and thoughtful achievers that know that they can continue to live in Collier County and Naples with the finest healthcare available right on our campus. We also have the Chateau that not only serves our residents, but is also available for all the citizens of Collier County that have rehab stay in a skilled nursing facility. We've continued to grow since 2004 where we added 54 residents. We grew again in 2007 . We just broke ground again in 2010 for 29 new residences. We now have over 640 staff members. And even with the economic downturn, that's grown by over 100 over the last seven years, and will continue to grow with the new independent living residences. Here you can see a rendering of our new facility that had already broken ground and is expected to open in mid 2012. Giving back to the community is a core value that has been set by our board of directors. We're very proud to have been the recipient of the 2010 Communitas Award which recognizes community outreach and the leaders and social accountability and giving, and giving back to the citizens of Collier County will continue to be one of our core values. So again, we're honored to be recognized in this manner by the Economic Development Council and by the County Commissioners. Page 29 December 14,2010 Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Dan. (Applause.) Item #5B PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING MEMBER OF THE MONTH TO MAURICE GUTIERREZ FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 5B is a presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member of the Month to Maurice Gutierrez for his contribution to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU. Please come forward. (Applause. ) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. GUTIERREZ: If I may, Commissioners, just a quick thank you for all the support we get from the commissioners in our behalf of Bayshore and MS TU to bring Bayshore back into the reality of a really nice place to live. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for all the good work you do. (Applause.) Item #5C PRESENTATION BY PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC., TO THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL FUND - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5C is a presentation by Page 30 December 14, 2010 Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Incorporated, to the Freedom Memorial Fund. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'd allow me just to make a quick comment about this. Paradise Advertising has voluntarily contributed a substantial sum of $50,000 to help us in the completion of the Freedom Memorial, which you will recall is being built through private funds at Freedom Park in honor of those killed in the terrorist attacks of9/11 and for all of the members of our armed forces who have made significant sacrifices to preserve our freedom. We are greatly indebted to Cedar Hames and his staff at Paradise Advertising, and they haven't stopped there. They're also providing a contribution to the Marco Island Historical Society at some appropriate time in the future to commemorate that significant achievement by the people of Marco Island. So Cedar, I invite you to come up and give me some money. How about the members of the committee? Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does the sign say? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says 50,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is that what it says? We never get to see. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things I think that's very important -- I mean, Commissioner Coy Ie is being very generous recognizing everybody's efforts in this. But let's be honest about it, if it wasn't for Commissioner Coyle, this project never would be where it is today. Thank you very much, Commissioner Coyle, for bringing it to the point -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jerry Sanford is chairman of our Page 31 December 14, 2010 Freedom Memorial Task Force and has been responsible for a lot of the hard work that got us to this point in time. So Jerry, please tell us about this. (Applause.) MR. SANFORD: Thank you, Commissioner. On behalf of the members of the Freedom Memorial Task Force and the citizens of Collier County, I'd like to thank Mr. Cedar Hames for his generous donation to our project. The seed was planted in 2004 to construct a lasting memorial here in Collier County. And once completed, the Freedom Memorial will serve as a tribute to the spirit and character of every American who has helped preserve our nation's freedom and remember all those who were lost on September 11, 2001. It will also serve as an important reminder of the sacrifices being made every single day by the men and women on the front lines around the world and here at home who are protecting us during this time of peril. It will become a gathering place not only for local residents, but also for visitors who will pause and remember and pay tribute to the enduring spirit of freedom. Never forget September 11, 2001. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jerry. MR.OCHS: Cedar? MR. HAMES: There's not much I could add to that other than to say we're very proud to be here and present this to an incredible organization. And we've donated -- in the past we've been able to donate manpower, but it's a real pleasure to be able to contribute this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Your gift is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Item #5D Page 32 December 14,2010 RECOGNIZING NATALIE SMITH, FISCAL TECHNICIAN, UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2010 - PRESENTED MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5D, which is a recommendation to recognize Natalie Smith, fiscal technician, Utility Billing and Customer Service, as the Employee of the Month for October 2010. Natalie, if you could come up, please. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Natalie, congratulations. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Natalie has been with the county since 2006 working in our Utility Billing and Customer Service section. She's been instrumental in driving forward the Utility Billing and Customer Service enterprise contact management project. This proj ect requires that she captures, stores, and converts all of our paper files into digital storage. She's a crucial player in the overall success of her team and all of their educational outreach activities in the community with our customers. She's goes above and beyond to assist utilities ordinance education and compliance investigators in the field. She's always counted on to come through when there's a problem and always willing to take on additional responsibilities whenever asked. She is, indeed, a team player, an asset to the county, and truly deserving of this award. Commissioners, I present to you Natalie Smith, Employee of the Month for October 2010. Congratulations, Natalie. Page 33 December 14, 2010 (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Natalie. MS. SMITH: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thanks, Natalie. Item #5E RECOGNIZING MICHAEL COX, SENIOR OPERATIONS ANALYST, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2010- PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 5E is a recommendation to recognize Michael Cox, senior operation analyst with Administrative Services Division as Employee of the Month for November 2010. Michael, if you could come forward, please. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a plaque and a check and -- MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Michael's been an employee of the county since 2006 working in our Administrative Services Division. He's considered one of the leaders of change management in our organization. Among many of his projects includes his efforts to eliminate paper storage and use electronic records throughout the organization. He's an active member of our Step-up Committee where he works on different process improvement projects throughout the county, excels at these projects by thinking outside the box and finding ways to assist with technology in all areas of county government, increasing efficiency and organizational effectiveness. Again, Michael is one who's always positive, always working to positively impact our agency, a true asset to the organization, and very Page 34 December 14,2010 deserving of this award. Commissioners, it's my honor to present Michael Cox as your Employee of the Month for November 2010. Congratulations, Mike. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5F RECOGNITIONS OF AWARDS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER DEPARTMENT; THE 2010 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLANT OPERATIONS EXCELLENCE A WARD AND THE 2010 FLORIDA SECTION AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION WATER DISTRIBUTION AWARD - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5F is recognition of awards to the Collier County Water Department with the 2010 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Plan Operations Excellence Award and the 2010 Florida Section American Water Works Association Water Distribution Award. Mr. Paul Mattausch, your director of the Water Department will present. MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Mr. Ochs. County Commission, good morning. I would -- I would like to ask my plant -- south plant staff to come up. And as they're coming up, I would like to read a statement that the -- from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. There was -- there was nobody that could be here this morning to make this presentation, but they did send me a statement that I would like to read to you. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection would like Page 35 December 14, 2010 to congratulate the Collier County South County Regional Water Treatment Plant for winning the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Plant Operations Excellence Award for 2010. We were proud to nominate the facility for this award, and we are pleased to learn that this facility received the top honors. The South County Regional Water Treatment Plant is an impressive drinking water facility with a staff that is knowledgable, courteous, and extremely helpful. Our inspections staff in particular has been impressed when visiting the facility this past years. The facility's maintenance program is thorough and effective and the system source water wells are consistently in good repair. This saves our inspectors a lot of ink when preparing the inspection reports, which we think everybody can appreciate. Collier County has made it a point to keep the FDEP district office informed of any maintenance work or abnormal events, and they are always quick to respond when we request follow-up or further information. In this regard, we are very proud of the open communication that Collier County has with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and they should serve as a templet of helpfulness and cooperation for other systems to follow. The South County Regional Water Treatment Plant and its staff has proven their reliability when it comes to quick and adequate response to emergencies and their overall efficiency should serve as a high watermark -- I don't think there was any pun intended there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. MR. MATTAUSCH: -- but should serve as a high watermark for large community water systems. We are proud to regulate a system as helpful and efficient as the Collier County South County Regional Water Treatment Plant and look forward to another great year working with your excellent staff. Page 36 December 14, 2010 Thank you, sincerely, Philip Reed, South District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And if I may, I'd like to ask our public utilities division administrator, Jim DeLony, to join up here. And I want to -- I want to show you this plaque that we received in Tallahassee from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And thank you, Jim. I appreciate that. I appreciate you coming up here. I'd like to just quickly introduce this team. This is part of the south plant's team up here. From your left to right, Randy Lewis, current interim plant manager; Timothy James, Terry Staller, Mike Birmingham, Bob Galliher, Ray Ognibene, Mike Costanzo, John Gillett, Kevin Lauper, and Steve Messner. And Steve was the plant manager for about half of this period, and he's currently serving the interim in the wellfield management team, and Pam Libby, our operations manager. And I would like to -- I would like to have you thank these people. (Applause.) MR. DeLONY: Get as tight as you can now. Better the picture. The closer together, the better the picture. There you go, Paul. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Commissioners. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, just before everybody leaves. I just want to say -- if you don't mind me butting in a little bit. If anybody hasn't taken a tour of the South County Water Treatment Plant, it's a treat. You walk in there, and the thing is sterile practically. It's so clean and so well organized, and everybody is friendly and helpful. And I'm taking another tour, by the way, of their water plants, because I think it's a -- it's something everybody in our county ought to see. Page 37 December 14,2010 So thank you for a great job, fellows. Thank you so much. And Pam. Fellows and Pam. (Applause.) MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. We're looking forward to having you visit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. MR. MATTAUSCH: I would like to introduce Richard Anderson to you. Richard Anderson is the current chair of the Florida Section of the America Water Works Association. Richard? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Paul. As he said, my name is Richard Anderson. I'm the chair of the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association. I want to thank you for giving me just a few minutes today to bring some more good news on your utility department and some well-deserved recognition for your staff. It is my privilege to be here today to present Collier County with our prestigious Water Distribution System Award. Since 1989, this award has been presented by our Manufacturers and Associates Council on behalf of our 2,600 members. Collier County Water Department was selected for this honor in recognition of your outstanding performance in the following areas: Water quality, operational records, maintenance procedures, professionalism in your public relations and customer service areas, safety programs, emergency preparedness, and cross-connection control. Your utilities should be congratulated for these achievements and for achieving recognition from industry leaders. So at this time it is my great pleasure to present the Florida Section A WW A Water Distribution System Award for division six to Collier County for 2010. (Applause.) Page 38 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no photographer. They ran out of film. MR. DeLONY: I'll just wave. (Applause.) MR. MATT AUSCH: Richard, thank you very much for being here this morning and for presenting this award. By the way, this award was given in Orlando at the Florida Section meeting on, I believe it was, December 2nd. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. MR. MATTAUSCH: And on December 7th we received the plant award in Tallahassee. To get one or the other of these awards is really a significant accomplishment. To get both in the same year, as a couple of the people said with DEP and with the Florida Section of American Water Works Association, we must be doing something right. I would like to thank this board for your continued support in the treatment and distribution of high-quality drinking water to our customers. I've taken every opportunity in front of this board to boast a little bit about your Water Department team, and these were not just empty words, as you've seen this morning. Our regulatory agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Premier Professional Association for Water Professionals in the State, the Florida section of the American Water Works Association, have confirmed what I've been saying all along, we really are the best in the state. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, and congratulations to you and the entire department. Thank you. Is there any significant award you have not received? MR. MATTAUSCH: We're working on that, Commissioner. And actually, in winning the award from the Florida Department of Page 39 December 14,2010 Environmental Protection, we move on to the southeast EP A region. And so we're keeping our fingers crossed, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Keep up the good work. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, before we move on to Item 6 on your agenda, I failed to ask the board for a motion and second on your proclamations this morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the proclamations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve the proclamations, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Now, County Manager. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RANDY JOHNS OF PHOENIX ASSOCIATES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING A 12- MONTH EXTENSION OF THE PYLON SIGN AT THE FLORIDA SPORTS P ARK- MOTION ALLOWING AN EXTENSION UNTIL THE BRIDGE IS WIDENED OR THE LAND OWNER AGREES Page 40 December 14, 2010 TO RELOCATING THE SIGN AND STAFF TO BRING BACK AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That moves us to Item 6 on your agenda, public petitions. 6A is a public petition request by Randy Johns of Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Incorporated, requesting a 12-month extension for the pylon sign at the Florida Sports Park. MR. JOHNS: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MR. JOHNS: Randy Johns, Phoenix Associates. As you know, the sign that we have at Florida Sports Park has been there since 1984. Mike Davis was the one that installed it through Signs Tech. The county cannot find the permit; neither can we. So code enforcement has put us in violation. I came to you guys last year and got an extension of our variance for 12 months. It runs out this month. Weare under negotiations with the new landowner right now to find a new location for our sign on 951. We have not completed that contract yet, but it is in the near future. So I'm asking you guys now to give us an extension until the widening of the bridge going into the Florida Sports Park proceeds. South Florida said that we could leave it there until that bridge widens. That permit's been approved now, but they don't know when it's going to go forward -- because of the economic turndown, they don't know when the construction's going to start there. So it could be one year, it could be five years. I don't know. So I was just asking if we could keep our sign there until the widening of that bridge. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta, would you like to hold your questions until after the staffs response, or do you Page 41 December 14, 2010 have something you'd like -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. That's fine. I have no problem. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just real quick. Ifwe're waiting for South Florida Water Management to widen the bridge, why don't we extend the request, not for one year -- and I appreciate, Randy, seeing you every year on this issue -- but why don't we direct staff to extend it until the bridge is widened? MR. JOHNS: That's what -- we would like that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Casalanguida? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Commissioners. I've spoken with the Water Management District. They have no objection. Staff does not have any objection either. If it's the board's direction, I'll bring it back as a summary agenda item. Typically we won't do this on public petition. I'll just bring back a one-pager, and we can put that language in there, and you could act as the Zoning Board of Appeals and make that motion if you want. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I suggest a potential modification to that? He's in negotiations with the adjacent -- an adjacent property owner. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifhe negotiates a location with the Naples property owner, that will be solved, and so we could say the earlier of the two things, either he negotiates a location with the new property owner or until the bridge is widened. Would that be acceptable to you, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Job well done. MR. JOHNS: Yeah, that would be fine. Page 42 December 14,2010 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy to bring it back as a summary agenda item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staffs okay with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then could we make that Commissioner Henning's motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have a second by Commissioner -- was it -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hiller. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Hiller? Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you had a question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, basically it followed -- the same thing I was following with working with Randy for some time that the best way to go, for the simple reason is, they don't own the property the sign's on now. It's extenuating circumstances that do not apply. And it's very important to note that this is -- it's not something that's special privileges for Florida Sports Park. It's special circumstances that exist. So it's not granting a special privilege that will cause a run on the bank that may throw our whole system off. But I think it's a very good idea that Nick Casalanguida brought forward, that we bring it forward as a regular agenda item so that if there is anyone that has an objection, they can raise it, although I can't picture anyone having an objection. And this should be something that would be permitted for whatever period of time it takes to either have the bridge replaced by Water Management, at which time they'll Page 43 December 14,2010 demand the sign be removed, or that the property becomes available through negotiations, which are ongoing at this point in time, for another location for the sign along 951. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Great. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Mayas well stay there. Go ahead, County Manager. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RANDY JOHN OF PHOENIX ASSOCIATES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING A 48- MONTH PAYMENT PLAN FOR IMPACT FEES FOR NEW HOPE MINISTRIES - STAFF TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH AL TERNA TIVES AND ISSUING A TEMPORARY CO - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. 6B's a public petition request by Randy Johns of Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc., requesting a 48-month payment plan for impact fees for New Hope Ministries. Page 44 December 14,2010 Mr. Johns? MR. JOHNS: Thank you. I'm here to represent the New Hope Ministries today. Back in 2006 I applied for a permit to build a multi-purpose building at New Hope. At the time that we applied, we said that it was going to be an accessory building to our main church. During the process of us building this multi-purpose building, we were to enlarge our sanctuary. But due to the economic turndown, we have not been able to finance that construction, so we have not started it. Today we are ready to pick up our CO for our multi-purpose building, and the impact fees that now are going to be required to be paid because we didn't enlarge our sanctuary -- or we have to sign an affidavit we're not going to rent to the public or bring anyone into the building unless they're members. So I'm coming today to ask you guys to give us a payment plan. I would like to revise that to a ten-year payment plan because it's $245,000, and right now the church doesn't have it. Our loan has matured, and we can't go back and revise it. And we just need some help, because I've got them in a situation now where they've got a big building to finished. They can't open that building unless I pay the impact fees, and we don't have the money right now. So I'm just coming to you guys to try to help me get out of this situation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'd like -- you want to ask a question before the staff makes a presentation? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, go ahead. I was going to ask questions of staff that would lend towards a presentation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Your chance is hitting now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Appreciate it. Nick, when we're talking about impact fees, of course one of the concerns that the county would always have is the fact that, how do Page 45 December 14,2010 you grant an exception? What would be the reason for a special exception without opening up the doors for the rest of the community in such a way that would raise all sorts of problems in bringing in a revenue stream that would be predictable? I would assume that there's several different ways to do it, and I would like to hear from you, and if it sounds like there's something that we can work with, I'd like to make a motion at that time to bring this back for the regular agenda at a future meeting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think first he's got to -- the Certificate of Occupancy's waiting to be picked up. We could issue a TCO if it was the board's direction, a temporary certificate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you speak up a little bit more -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Nick. We're not picking you up. Is the mike on? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I don't think the mike's picking up, Commissioner. There it goes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that was mine. MR. OCHS: Try the hand-held. Speak right into it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's working. The first issue is the temporary CO. We could issue that with the board's direction. With regard to the impact fees, we always risk, when you have under public petition, people requesting payment plans that don't fall into the typical ordinance deferrals or things like that. Amy has said -- and I'll let her elaborate a little bit more in a minute -- that we can look into the requirement for charitable organizations. They may qualify based on some new information we received. The issue is, if you're going to want us to look at this as an option, I'd like to bring it back and tell you what the impact would be for all charitable organizations rather than, you know, looking at this just right now as a public petition. Page 46 December 14,2010 So if we issue the TCO, that would give you 90 days to look at that. We may find that they qualify under the existing ordinance, and that would solve everything. If they do not and you wanted us to bring back some ideas of how to work with charitable organizations on a payment plan, two things I want. You know, are you asking me to do it for all impact fee categories or just, you know, roads? But I think he's got more than roads in terms of this building. But that's where we are today right now, and I could do that within 90 days if so directed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I may, I got-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may finish up. Nick, there's some -- we'd have to recognize some sort of a special circumstance to be able to bring us to that point. And I believe that special circumstance is, what would be the public benefit? And the public benefit would be is that, for reasons that I'm not sure why, they spent a considerable sum of money to harden this building and to make it a hurricane shelter that will be used by the community. So when this is brought back, if my fellow commissioners agree to do so, could you work that into the equation to see if that would suffice for a public benefit? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could. I think we talked about looking at nonprofits. Again, whenever we start doing deferral programs -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- or payment plans, we risk that. But I think we'll bring you back a full report, and I will look at that as an option. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I, as one commissioner, would like to see it come back with the idea that we have the -- we have an obligation to continuously review what we're looking at, not that we're going to change it, but to be able to see what the other Page 47 December 14,2010 options are that are out there, and I would make a motion to bring it back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Fiala, to bring this back for a regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nick, why wasn't the impact fees collected at permit? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe we had put a permit hold on it because they were coming in with the second building, and that's the way it was set up in terms of the -- we would not issue the CO unless the impact fees were paid. And I think Amy might have a little more background on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You're not supposed to issue permits until the impact fees are paid. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. Amy Patterson, for the record. The circumstance with this -- and we've been working with the applicant since the site plan process. This was classified as an accessory building. It was going to have only overflow seating in the interim period until they permitted the sanctuary expansion, and it was not going to be used for outside people, only for church activities. So we have had this situation before. When classified as an accessory building, they do not -- they're not subject to impact fees because they don't create additional demand. The CO hold was placed on the permit to ensure that they had applied for the sanctuary expansion prior to the CO of this building. And they came to us and explained their situation that they're not moving forward with the sanctuary expansion and they've had some opportunities to use a portion of this building for some public activities. And so intention has changed from that at site plan Page 48 December 14,2010 and building permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. Now I understand. Well, it is an accessory use to the church, and I don't know of a church that doesn't invite the community in. So to me it sounds like it's a misunderstanding, you know, the application of this building. The impact fees are supposed to be collected at permit. Because of the misunderstanding, now it is found money by the county. We wasn't anticipating these funds, so it's an added value because of the misunderstanding. So I don't know why we're going to take a look at making a policy for all not-for-profits when the real issue is, it was a misunderstanding, the county's now going to collect extra impact fees. I would rather see this as a special exception because of errors on both parts. Mr. Klatzkow? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should just bring this back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can deal with those details when we bring it back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we're talking about deferrals of impact fees for not-for-profits, and I have a little bit of a concern about that because in our CD -- CBG (sic) funds or our housing funds, we defer payments, and over and over again we're having to amend that because of, gee, I didn't know or, hey, because of the economy I don't have the funds. I think that we need to deal with this issue and this issue only. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm always concerned when we defer impact fees, especially for nonprofits, because then we come to you saying, we need to foreclose on a church, we need to foreclose on a housing project, and it's very -- it makes it very difficult for the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Page 49 December 14,2010 MR. KLATZKOW: The item needs to come back because there's a lot of facts here. You may be right, sir; they may not have to pay impact fees under the ordinance. We'll have to sit down with the applicant and go through it and make sure. And staff will make the determination, we'll review it, and we'll come back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I understand Mr. Johns wants to -- again, that church always welcomes the community. MR. JOHNS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what it's all about, a church, is to bring people in to God. So obviously it was a misunderstanding on both sides. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before I speak, it looks like Mr. Casalanguida has a comment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think we look at each use whenever there's an impact fee. If it is an intensification of demand on infrastructure, that's the way we look at it. And we've always been pretty -- I don't want to say the word lenient, but if it's an ancillary use, then it's not an intensification. If it's a primary use, then they would pay impact fees. So we can look at that with what their intended use is, and if it is, that's the case, then we would -- they wouldn't pay the impact fee. But if it becomes a primary use under the ordinance, then they would pay that fee. Now, what I mentioned to Amy in a sidebar is that if they paid the fee and then they went to a primary structure and this became an ancillary use, that credit could be applied to the primary structure. So either way they would get the benefit. We would just want to look at it consistent with the ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to add a comment, Page 50 December 14,2010 and that is, I agree with Mr. Klatzkow; there is a fundamental risk to deferring impact fees, not only legally, but from the perspective of the county's finances. In effect, the county is being asked to carry the capital cost of those impact fee deferrals, and that has to be factored in our budgeting, and I don't think that is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do collect it. We do consider interest with -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, we do. We would as part of this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion, I think, although it hasn't been clearly stated. We have a motion to bring this back for a full public hearing where the staffwill present appropriate alternatives. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. I just want to -- is it ten years you were asking for? MR. JOHNS: Yeah, ten years. Now, my other option to this is, I go ahead and sign this affidavit that's saying that, you know, we're not going to go out to the public and, you know, who's going to monitor that now and tell us that every person that comes there has to be a member? I mean, I can sign. I didn't want to go that route, but if that's the only choice I have to get a CO, then I'll sign the affidavit. But then whose job is it to monitor our members? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think we'd look at that. I mean, that's one of the things -- discussions we'll have. If the intent is to sign an affidavit, and then the intent for a church is not to provide an intensification, we usually -- you know, we take that-- MR. JOHNS: Well, it's not our intent, but right now we don't have the $245,000. I don't have the option, and I'm going to be forced into signing this affidavit, because a TCO is fine, but also in your Page 51 December 14, 2010 motion you didn't mention anything about our TCO, so I'd like to revise that. But that TCO's not going to help me with the bank and payoff our subs, and that's where I have another issue right now is trying to figure out how to get past that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I think within 90 days we can figure this out, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, of course you can. I mean, we can't deal with all those problems today. The way this works is that we generally don't make decisions on public petitions. We merely hear them to see if we should bring them back for a full hearing, because there are other people in the community who might want to have something to say about the decision we might make. So trying to make a decision on the fly today is not in the public's best interest. So we've got a motion, and -- to bring it back, and I think that motion will pass. But the one thing you have to remember, as we discussed yesterday, is you mentioned the possibility of using the building for the purpose of generating rental income for people who wanted to use it for special purposes. MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's something that tends to take it out of the realm where you're merely inviting the public to attend your religious services. So there's a distinction there that needs to be considered, and we need to develop an appropriate policy to deal with. And I think the staff and the commissioners are fully supportive of trying to find a solution for you. MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have a motion to bring this back for an advertised public hearing and staff to present alternatives. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Page 52 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that suitable? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you want to call this a motion from Commissioner Henning since he first brought the issue up, and seconded by Commissioner Coletta, or is it vice versa? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: He made the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He made the motion and Commissioner Fiala seconded. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for trying. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I was just trying to clarify it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the last motion. I made the motion and Commissioner Fiala seconded it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta made the motion, Commissioner Fiala seconded it. All in favor -- is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Page 53 December 14,2010 Thank you. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good luck. We're going to take a ten-minute break. We'll be back here at 10:42. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager? We have a quorum. Item #9A STATUS REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL JACKSON LABORATORY PROJECT - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9 on your agenda, Board of County Commissioners. 9 A is a status report on the potential Jackson Laboratory project. Commissioner Coyle-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- has asked for this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question before you begin? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask who hired the extra court stenographer here? She doesn't seem to know who hired her, and I was just wondering why she's here. It would just be nice to know, because this is a matter-of-public-record meeting, and so it would be nice to know who hired her. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Transparency is wonderful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nobody knows. MR.OCHS: I have no idea, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody know? Page 54 December 14,2010 MR. KLATZKOW: I could take a guess, but I have no idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no guesses. We would want to know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're very welcome here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, so much for transparency. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We're happy you're here, it's just, we would love to know why you're here. THE COURT REPORTER: So would I. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we find out? MR. OCHS: You can ask her. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, she doesn't know who sent her she said. She's just getting paid from the office. MR.OCHS: We will-- we will attempt to find out, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Nothing wrong with curiosity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Unless you're a cat. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I am going to give a status report. It will be brief. It will be nothing more than any of you have read so far in the newspaper and seen in my interview with the editorial board. As you will recall, the legislation that was passed by the past legislature approved a certain amount of money to support the Jackson Labs project this year with promises of future increments of money over the next two years. Not a particularly ideal situation for us certainly. But the procedure was very clearly spelled out. The state would accomplish their responsibilities, and that is the Enterprise Florida organization, which works directly for the governor would conduct an analysis of the project to determine if it is economically feasible and is worthy of getting the state dollars. Page 55 December 14, 2010 And if that happened, the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economics Development would negotiate a contract with Jackson Laboratories, and once that OTTED contract was negotiated, Collier County would get their opportunity to conduct an analysis of the economic justification for committing money to the project. And then if we found that it was positive, then we had the opportunity to negotiate a contract with Jackson. Well, it's never gotten to the county. And we have, in the past, taken a position that we would stand ready to perform on our obligations under the legislation to make a fair and complete evaluation of the project itself. There have been allegations that Jackson Laboratories has not applied for the funding, and that is simply false. That idea was generated because of a misleading letter from the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development. The director of that agency said, we have not received the application. Well, of course, the director of that organization did not say that it was still in Enterprise Florida for evaluation. So the Jackson Labs has been following the procedure, albeit apparently very slow, and the responsibility for that is not mine to determine. But the point is that it -- the project has never made its way out of Enterprise Florida. And once it goes out of Enterprise Florida, it will go to OTTED, and then we will get our chance. So as a result of all that, Collier County took the position several months ago that we would not begin negotiations with Jackson Labs until we had all of the information that we had requested in order to perform an effective economic evaluation, nor would we begin negotiations until we had seen all of the contracts that Jackson Labs had signed, to include OTTED, Enterprise Florida, the contract with the landowners, and any other contracts they might have signed. And obviously, they cannot provide any of that information now, so we are waiting until something happens. Page 56 December 14, 2010 The -- with the change in administration, that project is right back where it was late last year. And Governor Scott will have an opportunity once he takes office to make a decision as to whether or not the state wants to proceed with this project. And if they do, then I would expect that this session of the legislature would like to have something about how they do that. So it's entirely possibly we'll go through an entire session of the current legislature to make a decision as to how and to what extent the state would participate in that. So the point is that the project could go forward, but there are a number of obstacles, as I have said from the very beginning, a number of very serious obstacles. So we are waiting for the people who are supposed to make decisions in Tallahassee to make the decisions. If they make the decision not to proceed, we will make the decision not to proceed, I would presume. But my personal recommendation to the board is that we not undercut either the governor or the legislature by initiating an early termination at a time when we're not sure what they're going to do. Our entire legislative delegation went to bat in Tallahassee to try to get funding to diversify the economy of Collier County. They performed a remarkable job in Tallahassee getting that legislation, and it would be a slap in the face of every legislature (sic) -- every member of the legislature who was on our side in getting that legislation passed. So at three o'clock today, at Commissioner Henning's request, a time certain, he will make -- or he's notified me that he will make a motion that we terminate our involvement with Jackson Labs. So I would encourage that you be here at three o'clock and we'll debate that. There is no public input on the status report because it's not an action item. There's no vote. There's absolutely nothing associated with this until we get to Commissioner Henning's motion Page 57 December 14,2010 this afternoon at three o'clock. So do the board members have any questions? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: All persons wishing to speak on items on the agenda must register prior to speaking. Speaker must register with the county manager prior to presentation on the agenda item to be addressed. I don't see prohibitive of staff -- or the public from speaking on an item if it's just a status report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have -- we have never had public speakers on status reports to the recollection of the county manager or the county attorney. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we should notify the public of how you want to conduct the meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In writing, because this was advertised in circulation in the Naples Daily News. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, we do not take public speakers for public petitions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we direct? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not -- you can make a motion that we hear the public if you wish. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, can we direct? I -- just so the public is clear, and if we want transparency, can we direct the staff to change our public notification process? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can make a motion and let the board vote on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't want to. I think it's imperative of good government for the public to be -- participation in the public process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public can participate in this process at -- under the title of public input at the end of this meeting, or they Page 58 December 14, 2010 can speak at those action items at the time that action is being considered. Okay. Do you want to make a motion of some kind? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if you don't want the public to speak on your item, I honor your wishes. I just hope that in the future we can stick to what is advertised. That's all. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we are. MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, I was the one. I don't know how many signed up to speak at Item 9. I would certainly like to speak then prior to Mr. Henning's -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely. MR. CHANDLER: That's the one -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the action item. MR. CHANDLER: Fine. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Absolutely. Anybody who is interested in speaking about this issue can speak at it at the action item, which is the time we're supposed to be speaking about it. And we -- if that's not convenient for you, you can speak under public comment at the end of the meeting. That's why those things are scheduled that way. So -- very well. That brings us to 9- -- MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could I -- sir, we have two speakers registered. Mr. Chandler and Mr. Billington. So I've moved both those public speakers to Item 9B, which will be heard at three o'clock. MS. MURRAY: I registered to speak on 9A. MR. MITCHELL: 9B you registered for. MS. MURRAY: 9B. Oh, I did, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR.OCHS: Commissioners, 9--- CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9B? MR.OCHS: No. 9B is your time-certain, three o'clock. Page 59 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's right. MR.OCHS: That would take-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coy Ie, there is a great deal of information on Jackson Labs. I'd like to submit an article for the record that was written by Dave Trecker that summarizes an extensive list. The economic information on Jackson Labs was submitted to the county's Productivity Committee and was evaluated by that committee, and the determination was made by that committee that this project will not return a positive return on any investment of our taxpayers' dollar. Why would we move forward when we have that evidence? There's no need to wait for further information to make an economic determination. The economic determination has been made. And as to your statement that we should not engage in any negotiations with Jackson Labs until that time, it begs the question, why are we moving forward in court with respect to a bond validation that states that the Board of County Commissioners is going to build a lab, what appears to be at five times at what the cost ought to be, and that we will lease it to Jackson Labs for nothing? Why are we taking action if we have no information? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Commissioner Hiller, there is a point of order here, but I'll answer your question. The reason is that all of the information is not available, nor did the -- nor did the Productivity Committee have all the information available. Nobody has the information available which will indicate to what extent Collier County will share in the revenue stream generated by Jackson Labs from the sale and! or licensing of proprietary products or from spin-off organizations. There are opportunities for hundreds of millions of dollars, if it is successful. Nobody had that information, nobody has it now, and there might Page 60 December 14,2010 not be a chance to ever get that information if Governor Scott says he's not supporting it. But what you're asking is a decision that will be based on Commissioner Henning's motion, which has not been made, at three o'clock this afternoon. It has nothing to do with my status report. So any questions concerning why we should move forward should be reserved for that debate, and we'll be happy to do that then. You know, it's just -- this is a status report. I'm telling you what I think, and I'm trying to get you up to date on what is really happening. There haven't been any negotiations with Jackson Labs about this contract, because we have said we're not going to do that in the dark. That is -- we're not going to do it without full disclosure of your contracts with other people. And so that's where it stands. Now, your decision -- your question about whether or not we terminate everything in advance of the governor's decision, in advance of a court decision, is a proper question to be debated at three o'clock. Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask one more question with respect to your status? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask why the Ausley and McMullen letter that was received by County Attorney Klatzkow on December 13th and the statements made therein are not included in your status report? And I'm going to enter that letter into the record, and for the benefit of the public, what that letter says is, in short, that the initial legislative appropriation of 50 million for Jackson Laboratories has failed as a legal matter, and then it goes to explain why that is the case. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that was from the opposing counsel of Arthrex Corporation that has filed suit to block the funding. I am not going to take the opinion of an opposing counsel as an opinion to be exercised against the governor and the legislature. That is an issue Page 61 December 14, 2010 to be dealt with in Tallahassee. If it, in fact, has failed, then let the governor and the legislature deal with that. Why would I jump into the middle of that court case and say, okay, I'm going to undercut the governor and the legislature? That is their job. If the legislature doesn't want to proceed with this and they agree with that legislat- -- that legal interpretation, then I'm perfectly happy to abide by that decision. Item #9C REQUEST TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10D WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE OCTOBER 26, 2010 BCC MEETING REGARDING THE PROPOSED VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL - FAILS DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9C is a request to reconsider agenda item number 10D, which was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners at October 26, 2010, BCC meeting regarding the proposed vertical expansion of the Collier County Landfill. This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, County Manager. It was brought to my attention, and I did read in the Waste Management contract to manage the landfill, that they are to be there for the life of the landfill. So, in essence, we are extending a contract forever, further extending it out. Also, the -- it was brought to my attention by a constituent, they are seeking lands to take part of our waste and make lumber out of it. And I think that it's best for us to look at alternatives than to vertically expand the landfill. Page 62 December 14, 2010 So I make a motion that we bring this back, direct the county manager to bring it back according to the -- our ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning to reconsider the decision by the Board of County Commissioners to vertically expand the Collier County Landfill or to apply for a permit to vertically expand it. And is there a second? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies for lack of a second. Would -- Commissioner Henning, rather than just avoiding this item entirely, would you like for the administrator of the division to provide us a brief overview of why it's important to do this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So much for transparency. So -- all right. The motion fails for lack of a second. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Then there's no comment. I just wanted to say how much it saved the taxpayers, but no need to go into that now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got public comments. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Randy Johns, and he'll be followed by Jim Carter. MR. JOHNS: Good morning. I'm representing a company from the West Coast that has West Coast Technology that would like to come in front of the board before you vote on raising this to go over their technology to recycle your landfill. They have a technology that can extrude up to 350 products from your landfill. They also wanted me to tell you that they were willing to come here. They're well capitalized. They're going to build a 550,000-square-foot building, bring 350 jobs here. Their average pay Page 63 December 14,2010 will be between 50,000 and $95,000, and they would like to come here from California at the end of January and give you guys a demonstration of what they've got. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Johns. But do you understand this is a request for a permit -- MR. JOHNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to expand the height? It is not a request for an extension of a contract. MR. JOHNS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Am I correct, Mr. DeLony? Would you like to come up here? I will ask you to come up here and give us the appropriate information. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He looks like a Christmas elf: doesn't he? MR. JOHNS: It was my understanding that their contract goes with that landfill if it gets increased. MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities administrator. Our integrated solid waste management strategy is keyed on the highest and best use of all of our resources to include the recycling stream and our inferior space. The reason this is important, in my view, to have this permit in hand is that it gives us assured disposal irregardless of what means and method this board directs we take with regard to our waste stream. The -- when I first came here, we were out of air space, and that is not the time to negotiate with someone who has any idea -- and Randy, nothing to do about your side. I'm not aware of it; looking forward to hearing about it. With regard to best value, my view is, our -- and the recommendation we had made earlier was, let's get this approved. Let's have this in our pocket. And then from that standpoint, move forward with the best-value means and method with regard to handling our waste stream now and in the future. Page 64 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say let's get this approved, you're only talking about getting a permit -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to increase the height -- MR. DeLONY: That's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in the event it is necessary? MR. DeLONY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to increase the height, you come back to us; is that not correct? MR. DeLONY: There's a process associated with this permit. It's a public process that we'll have to go to DEP with regard to it. And at some stage of the game, that permit decision will be made. And what you've given me authority is to pursue that permit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And the permit then provides you an alternative in the event you cannot find someone who will do things cheaper, and you're not -- don't have your back against the wall. And furthermore, you don't have to increase it to the ultimate limit of the permit. You're only asking for a permit as a backstop. MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. We have a requirement through the 9J5, in the -- in the -- and the Growth Management Plan is measured by the annualization (sic) and inventory report to be concurrent in our ability to dispose of solid waste now and in the future. And I've been before this board many times and explained, you know, how that works in terms of preserving that air space. So absolutely, this is just part of that integrated strategy that I spoke to earlier, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And my advice would be, if you know somebody who's interested in bidding on it, have them talk to the man who's got to make the decision. MR. JOHNS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. Page 65 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll sort that out. Now, I've -- who was first here? Can you tell -- was it-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Hiller. Ladies go first. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Mr. DeLony, how is the permit tied to the contract with the contractor. MR. DeLONY: The permit is a stand-alone item. The contract with the county is another item. Our particular contract is a life-of-site contract. I don't have the date in my head, but it was back in the '90s that this board decided to go to a life-of-site agreement with Waste Management, Incorporated, of Florida. Do you know that date, Dan? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. MR. DeLONY: Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you. It's always great to have great staff. Seven February 1995. And since that time, it's been a marriage, of some sorts, with them because of that life of site, and we've had __ and there's members of this board who speak -- can speak with great detail as -- about the experience of that. But today I can promise you that they're accomplishing their mission, their contract, at the correct standards and at the correct contract price. Again, a life -- that particular contract is a life of site. So as long as that site's in being and is operated as a landfill, is my understanding from the contract, they are our contractor. There are terms and conditions associated with a contract that speaks to termination largely for nonperformance on one party's part or the other. I think I've got that correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as a result of the proposal to Page 66 December 14,2010 vertically expand this, in effect what we're doing is extending the life of this contract? MR. DeLONY: In essence you would, because if you have a life-of-site agreement and you extend the life of site, obviously, and by extension you would extend that contract unless there was terms and conditions counter to that, and I know of none. COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, is there any provision in that contract that ties it to the current life of this site, or does it extend automatically if the life of the site is expanded? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know, but my understanding is, all we're asking for is a permit, not a decision actually to increase the capacity. So that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I just want to make sure I understand what's going on for future reference. MR. KLATZKOW: I would have to get you that information, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Mr. DeLony didn't ask -- answer your question, and it had to take Commissioner Hiller to ask the question again to get a proper response for the -- one of the questions. Now, the other transparency question you were asking is, you're just going for a permit. You're going to come back to us for us to approve it. You didn't get an answer to your question. So I'm going to ask the same question. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. You'll be --I'll be bringing that permit back to you at the end of that process -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have to approve -- MR. DeLONY: -- for your direction, yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I -- with that being said, I'm going to -- no. I mean, it failed, so automatically the item is not Page 67 December 14, 2010 approved. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the understanding, what was on the executive summary, but since you have committed to bringing it back, I'm fully in support of that. But I think that we need to do other alternatives besides landfilling. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me carry that one bit further. Ifwe make the decision, the Board of County Commissioners makes a decision that the vertical expansion of the landfill of 20 feet is as far as we're going to go and that we want an alternative landfill after that, that is the end of the landfill; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: If I understand your scenario that once we had the airspace, whether we use it or not becomes the matter of a decision by this board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. DeLONY: If I understand the scenario just painted. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. DeLONY: Now, we're already doing that. We ran out of airspace. We created more airspace, but we're not utilizing it at even half the rate we were using it in 2000. So, you know, your policy dictates that we divert, reuse, recycle, find alternative power and best-value uses other than haul and bury, and that is -- that is the heart of our integrated strategy in terms of our solid waste program in Collier County. And so by the nature of the fact that we get this permit, should the board decide to approve it once we get it, then absolutely, you know, we will not stop looking at best-value alternatives. But having this assured disposal keeps you concurrent with your Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it gives us time to evaluate alternatives as technology improves in the future? MR. DeLONY: You will never have -- you should not have your Page 68 December 14, 2010 back against the wall ever when you're negotiating that type of arrangement, and this gives you 19 more years of room until such time as you can arrive at that -- at that alternative to haul and bury. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. DeLony, where do we rate within the state structure as far as what we charge people to be able to handle solid waste at our landfill? MR. DeLONY: I don't know if I have that -- do I have that data here today? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Residents and all that as far as-- MR. RODRIGUEZ: I can speak to that. MR. DeLONY: In terms of the total cost on a residential fee, no one's cheaper in terms of our assessment on a residential level, no one, with our level of service. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now-- MR. DeLONY: The 174 and change that we assess each homeowner in Collier County for our residential collection service, our franchise mandatory collection, there's no one cheaper at our level of service. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so you're always looking for ways to bring down the cost even more, I understand that. And I think Mr. Henning -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- can be commended for-- Commissioner Henning -- for bringing this up for discussion, because it's always great to be able to go through this one more time. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, recycling is one of the reasons why our landfill has been extended out from what it was. Originally when we came aboard in 2000, we were told the life Page 69 December 14,2010 expectancy of the landfill was less than a year or two years. It was unbelievable. We were very upset about it. The county got very proactive finding ways to make things work. Under Jim Mudd's leadership, and then later years, they found ways to extend the present landfill in a way that would go way off into the future. They removed the biggest problem that we had out there, which was the odor. The local-- the residents within a -- oh, a 10-mile radius were greatly affected by the odor for many years. That problem's been put aside. Now we're, at the present time, we're looking at recycling, and even in a more aggressive way. And I understand that sometime in the near future the state may be coming after us to recycle 75 percent of the waste stream; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At that point in time there'll be no reason to even consider another landfill. Present site would probably last us for 40, 50 years, if not longer; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: Sir, I can't commit to that in terms of an alternative landfill site. As we grow and move further and further to the east and get further and further away from our current landfill operating position where we are there at Exit 101, obviously the haul distances get much greater for removing that -- what we can't recycle, divert, or take out of county or those dis- -- and so it may become uneconomical or infeasible just moving that from east to west. So an alternative site in the east is something, I think, that this board has directed me to continue to look at and evaluate, and you at the instate would make a decision whether that's the proper course of action or not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. And as we're pursuing that and we're going down the road, we have to be realistic in the fact that a new landfill hasn't been permitted, or there's only been one permitted in the last 20 year, or some number like that? Page 70 December 14,2010 MR. DeLONY: They're very difficult, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very difficult, and it's getting more difficult as we go forward every day. Also the cost of permitting, plus buying the land -- no one's going to donate land outright -- and preparing it would be astronomical, and it would raise the rate of refuge removal and disposal way above where we are now; is that not correct? MR. DeLONY: Absolutely correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I mean, it doesn't hurt to look at all these alternatives. I think the greatest alternatives that are out there is the private sector, and I commend this county for doing what it has done and offering those opportunities for recycling everything from white items to gypsum board to lumber, recycling concrete, all in the private sector where we don't have to be personally involved in it, and they can show a profit at their own pleasure and however they run their business. So I'm kind of lost why this discussion comes up every now and then. If there's a way to improve upon it and anybody can offer a solid suggestion rather than just looking at something, I'd rather your time not be wasted and your limited staff be sent down a road that's going to have no return on it as far as a positive outcome for the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me how much money we are saving the taxpayers by going vertical? MR. DeLONY: Well-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had given us an estimate before when you -- MR. DeLONY: First of all, I guess it's not what we're saving; it's what we're spending, I guess, would be my first question, if I may. And I know -- I want to answer your question. And so let me answer it as best I can. I know what it's costing us Page 71 December 14,2010 to do this, relatively nothing. To pick up 19 years of disposal space for nothing more than the permitting fees is pretty -- pretty remarkable. When you think about, that a cubic yard of landfill space, just a cubic yard -- and that's about the size of a washing machine -- is somewhere between 50 and $75 in terms of cost if you think about starting today and building one. So -- and so I can tell you what it's cost us. And then any foregone cost would be the value of that 19 years of assured disposal that we gain. So I don't have that here. I don't know -- let me look back at my staff. Did you -- actually, Dan has got a big number on this page here. I'd almost pass it to you versus -- Dan estimates it at $300 million, so I would say that's a lot of money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I remember -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in the presentation. MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. And I believe that's what we said in our presentation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's wonderful. And is it true that we have one of the lowest solid waste pickup rates in the entire State of Florida? MR. DeLONY : We're the lowest with our level of service, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. DeLONY: We're the lowest for our level of service. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the thing is -- I just wanted to say, one of the things that you've done, fantastically well, by the way, is extended the use of our landfill or the life of our landfill for ever so much longer, and cut down the odor, which was ever so bad when Jim, Tom, and I took office. It's so much better now. I took a whole tour up on top of the hill. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And she ate lunch up there, too. Page 72 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: They provided lunch for us, yes, free of charge. And anyway, you've done a great job because of the cell recovery, cells one and two. MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And cleaning those things out and sorting all that stuff and getting rid of it and relining those things, as well as the huge push that you've had on recycling, something that we'd never had before. So I think that that's all admirable, and it needs to be in this equation. So anyway, that's all I needed to say. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Pass. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to Item D. Item #9D REQUEST TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10E WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE OCTOBER 26, 2010 BCC MEETING REGARDING THE NORTH COLLIER RECYCLING DROP OFF CENTER - MOTION TO RECONSIDER - FAILS MR.OCHS: 9D, sir. 9D is a request to reconsider agenda Item 10E, which was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the October 26, 2000 -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, but I -- wasn't there another speaker, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. The other speaker withdrew. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry, Page 73 December 14, 2010 go ahead. MR.OCHS: That's all right. So this is a request for a reconsideration regarding the North Collier Recycling Dropoff Center. This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board in the past has created a -- the biggest recycling park right next to the landfill. I hope that our staff would talk to Mr. Johns on the company he's trying to bring in located right next to the landfill. But on this item, the -- it was very concerning to me. On our agenda, it said that staff has all the permits for this project when we awarded the contract. Come to find out during the meeting, they did not have their permits, they did not have Site Development Plan approved, they did not have vertical permits. My concern on that item was the constant ever-lasting change orders because of a rush to get this approved before the new board takes over. And then further, it was pointed out to me by some citizens, you're going to build a 3,200-square-foot building, land cost and building cost of $2 million? That's astronomical. And it was provided to me by some Realtors, is the cost of that building should be far less than a half a million dollars. So I'm going to make a motion to reconsider this item and direct the county manager to put it back -- bring it back on a future agenda according to our ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Henning for a rehearing on the approval of the North Collier Recycling Dropoff Center. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Hiller. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you like to call the public Page 74 December 14,2010 speaker now? MR. MITCHELL: Jim Carter. MR. CARTER: Good morning, Commissioners. Congratulations, Commissioner Hiller. It's nice to have you representing our district, and to your reelection, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. CARTER: Commissioners, I'm -- name is Jim Carter. I'm president of the Pelican Marsh Foundation, the master association for some 4,500 residents in North Naples. It's adjacent to this proposed recycling center. We are not against recycling in Pelican Marsh; however, we've had great difficulty in the way that this idea was processed and the options that we understood that were available that were not fully considered. And the question keeps coming back in our community, was this a need to get this done right now in this place at that time, or was it political? And the overwhelming opinion by our community, it was political. So we're asking that this be brought back, look at the other options, do some spreadsheet analysis on the feasibility of how much it would cost at a different site, the cost to the building, and get the community involved. We would be more than happy to participate in any way that you would ask us to participate. In the past we were not asked to participate. We think this is kind of a slam-dunk thing. The permit bothered us enormously that it supposedly was done in 30 days, but Commissioner Henning has enlightened me here this morning. I thought it was approved in 30 days, because it took us 90 days to get a simple -- a canopy established in our tennis area in Pelican Marsh, which is four steel poles and some canvas. We were told in this process, because it wasn't on the original site plan, that we had -- it was an insubstantial change. That cost us 500 bucks. The next thing I know, we had to go through fire, and they Page 75 December 14, 2010 says, is this fireproof material? Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, where that was located, it could have burned in a heartbeat and never hurt anybody. So we feel that it took us an awful long time to get a real simple project done and yet something that has a major effect in our community and surrounding communities was rushed through, slam dunk, no questions asked. So if you're going to change the permitting process -- and we would like to know the magic formula for other projects so we can get done in 30 days. We would appreciate that if you would please reconsider this, get the communities involved before rushing into expending this amount of money for a recycle collection center. Again, we're not against recycle collection centers. We think it's a great idea. But what's the master plan? And what's the rush? And where's the timetable? I think these are questions we think nearly need to be answered. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Henning's light was on first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just -- I mean, I'm not sure if this building is even needed. I mean, we offer curbside recycling, you know, to all the residents. If somebody wants to do a bigjob, I mean, they can -- they can hire somebody to do that. But I just want to point out, a 3,1 OO-square-foot building, 217,000 in industrial. Here's another one, 2,400 square feet, 250,000, and the list just keeps going on. Here we're building -- here's one for 4,200 square feet for $360,000. And here we're building one for land cost and building cost of $2 million. It just does not make sense. Page 76 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could we have Mr. DeLony come up here and tell us why it's so costly. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department director. If I could get the question, again, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle asked, why does it cost so much to store junk? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. Actually, Commissioner, the -- the facility we're building is a model similar to the one on Marco Island, and it's the appropriate-size building for the types of different materials that we're going to keep there. You have site development costs, which were outlined in the bid tabulation that was given to you back in October, of 600- -- I'm sorry. The building cost is 614,000, and then the site development costs were 415,000. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And why is it so expensive? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioners, we're building a 50-plus-year facility. This will serve the taxpayers of the community for years to come. It's really just block building with a metal roof with garage doors. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How do you justify the cost if it's just a simple block building with metal doors? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, as far as justify the investment in this building is based on the airspace that we save as well as what we're doing to protect our environment, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And why couldn't you get the same thing for less money somewhere else? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We've looked. We've looked at other real estate. We've looked at the geographical area. And in North Naples, this is the ideal location. It's at a government-owned facility. It's consistent zoning, industrial -- light industry. So it fit all the criteria that we needed so that we could get the participation that we need Page 77 December 14, 2010 from the community. There are over 60,000 residents near this area, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. We, along with URS and the architect, Dalas Disney, were responsible for the site design and the building design for this particular project. If I can kind of cut to the short answer. What you may see for industrial buildings that are available for 360- or $420,000 that may be of what appears to be a comparable square footage are buildings that we would have to tear down and start over. The reason being, that the particular operation of a building like this has to be designed in order to work in a small area. The second thing is that -- for example, where you may just see open dumpster areas where folks will dump off cardboard. I recently had to go down to the Naples Airport facility after a move and dump off a truckload of cardboard. That area has to be picked up by sizeable trucks. Not all industrial sites have the concrete poured to the thickness that is appropriate to handle dumpster pads. So when we talk about site costs, we're not talking about just dropping fill in, compacting it, and putting asphalt on it. We're talking about making sure that structurally the integrity is such that it accommodates the types and style of vehicle that are going to use it. F or example, if you just pour asphalt and you have the heavy-load truck on it turning its wheels, it will tear up the asphalt. You'll spend the next 20 years repairing asphalt on a monthly basis. So what you have to do is you have to design the subgrade structure, the concrete, in order to adequately handle what it's going to receive. The second thing is that many of these rooms -- and Mr. Disney can speak to this with more specificity. Many of these rooms have particular types of ventilation that are required. Remember, this is not just something where you drop oft: you know, a cardboard or glass or typical recyclables that we have at our curb. This is where things such Page 78 December 14, 2010 as herbicides, antifreeze that's been sitting in your garage for two months, things -- oil and whatnot are dropped off. They have to be in specified containers with proper ventilation systems and fire suppression systems. All of that adds to the cost. I dare say, many buildings built 20 years ago are in industrial parks that currently stand do not meet the fire suppression requirements. You'd have to start over. So I would love to -- you know, your staff has tried to be cost effective. The project was bid fully, and the bid documents were based on an existing facility that works extremely well on Marco Island. Could you do it differently or cheaper? Honestly, not if you're going to do it in that style. If you want to take a different approach to how to handle and accept these materials, then that would be a different scope of work altogether. As far as location, the location -- and one thing to understand about these types of dropoff recycling centers is, this is not typically a capacity issue. In other words, you don't wait until the one down the road is full and brimming over the top in order to build the next one. The board direction to solid waste staff to basically move forward with these types of projects are to create throughout the county convenient locations that not only handle parts of the waste stream for purposes of diversion and recycling, but more importantly also, protect the environment by giving a safe place for herbicides, pesticides, paint, oils, gasoline, to be dropped off instead of dumped. We are improving the environmental conditions throughout the county. Just last week two individuals were arrested for illegal dumping in the Estates, and I was happy to see that. Had we had more or appropriate locations throughout the county where materials could be dropped off and disposed of properly, maybe we don't have those problems. Page 79 December 14, 2010 So convenience is a key issue. What you see before you is part of the developing strategic plan. That plan should be coming to you, I believe, in the next 30 to 60 days. MR. DeLONY: It will be in this spring. MR. HANCOCK: In the spring. It's been in the works for some 18-plus months, and that is a total comprehensive plan for the county. This is just one small part of it, these types of facilities. This is called the northwest service area. What we did is we looked at a combination of population and convenient drive times to establish service areas within the county where, within each of these, a facility like this, at the right time with the right population contributing, would be appropriate. In this service area what you see here are, the areas in yellow are only those areas that are appropriately zoned for this use. Currently that is property zoned "I" industrial or "P" public use without further limitation. As you look at that from the concentric circles, there's one area to the north, which is in the Old 41 industrial park area; there's one area to the south, which is the Pine Ridge industrial park that kind of wraps the Costco and Naples Boulevard at the Pioneer Lakes projects. The only other one is right there smack in the middle of the service area, which is property you already own on a collector or arterial roadway so that it's ease of convenience for dropofffor residents and high visibility. So pardon the expression, but it was a bit of a no-brainer that this site jumped out, and that's why we pursued and went with it. If we go to the north, we end up serving Lee County. If we go to the south, we're awfully close to the Airport Road facility and probably not serving the residents in the north part of this service area very well. So those are a lot of the factors in a very short summary that went into why we're here, why the cost is what it is. And with any specific Page 80 December 14,2010 questions you have about building design, I would defer to Mr. Disney as the architect. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coletta, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My questions have been answered. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to reply that although it was mentioned that we have recycling pickup right at our doorstep practically, that recycling pickup does not include batteries, fluorescent lights, oil, grease, paint, herbicides, and so forth. And so I just wanted to mention that even though we do have curbside pickup, and it's a wonderful asset, it really can't answer all of these things, and so I believe the motivation behind our recycling department was to bring a recycling center closer to the people in the area rather than having them to drive from wherever they are all the way out to the landfill to deposit all of these things. It was just a convenience. And not only that, personally now, I wouldn't want to make it any cheaper because I feel the people in the area deserve the very best that they can get, and our people expect it, I mean demand, that the building be clean, safe, odorless. And in order to do it, you have to do it right. MR. HANCOCK: And Commissioner, you make a good point. This building was subject to your architectural guidelines in the Land Development Code because it's on an arterial roadway. The buildings you referred to in the middle of an industrial park built 20 years ago are metal frame, metal siding, and I doubt the folks that live in this area would be pleased with that type of an aesthetic to a government facility . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two questions. The first is, you said that there were alternative designs that could have been put forth Page 81 December 14, 2010 to lower the cost? Can you describe those alternative designs. MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am. What I said was, there may be ways to do this cheaper, but we followed the model on the Marco Island piece, which has been both effective and is a national award-winning facility. So, you know, there's always cheaper ways to do things, for example, replacing block and stucco with metal siding. That would be cheaper, but is it appropriate? And in this case, you're design team felt it was not. So we don't have -- MR. DeLONY: It's not allowed. MR! HANCOCK: That's true. It's not allowed. My point being, if you want to take a different approach to how to handle these materials, we can certainly do that. But in handling the materials that this facility is designed to handle, this seemed to be the most cost effective way to do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: When I look at your map up here, it looks to me like there are a lot of overlapping concentric circles, and it seems when you boil it down to syrup, the service area for this facility is actually very small, and I don't think it's actually benefiting us to make this large of an investment in these hard economic times to serve a relatively small population area when you look at how much the airport transfer station is serving. How do you justify that? MR. DeLONY: I'll take that. For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities administrator. Ma'am, I think we justify it in terms of, well, what was spoken earlier in terms of its proximity to those who need the -- who require and need the service. I believe that the concentrics of those circles -- and I hope that you can see there that you're talking about capturing, I believe, all that northwest service area very quickly and very efficiently with this facility. Page 82 December 14, 2010 There's -- I believe we estimated somewhere around about 70,000 folks that are going to be in proximity of this facility, within four to six miles. And that is critical, I believe, in sustaining the kinds of things that we've always spoken to in terms of both convenience and protecting our environment and ensuring these materials do not end up in our landfill. The airport site itself is -- it certainly serves an area. This will serve another area and will be very effective in doing that; and, therefore, that's the recommendation we've made with regard to that-- with this location, ma'am. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, I note the consternation. Let me see if I can help with that. What is shown on this map are concentric circles, as the crow flies, if you will. The overlap occurs at approximately a four-mile radius from each facility. Now, that's as the crow flies. What we did is what we call a drive-time study. We looked at how long it takes us to get from one place to another within these service areas. The term convenience on a retail basis typically means something within a five- to ten-minute drive time, and if we're going to have convenience centers, we thought, why not use the retail component; five, ten, 15 minutes is what would deem to be convenient for most people. The reason you see overlap here is, one of the unique elements of Collier County is, you can't always get there from here. There are places in which there may be something closer as the crow flies, but when you get in your car and actually drive it, it take more time to get to the Naples facility, for example, than it would this facility, and that's how we defined the dividing line between the service area, which location would be physically closer based on drive time? And so the overlap is as the crow flies. The actual drive time overlap is where the boundary of the service area is provided. Page 83 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: It stills seems, when I look at this diagram, that this transfer station is serving a relatively small population, because by comparison the airport transfer station is overlapping what this station is proposing to do. And quite frankly, you know, to, once a month or maybe once every six months, to drive, you know, 15 minutes to drop off a battery doesn't seem to me like a tremendous inconvenience when I'm comparing the cost to the taxpayers of $2 million that could be used otherwise. I mean, as an example, that money could be loaned to the General Fund and could be used, as an example, to build a civic center in East Naples it's been wanting for eight years. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Hiller, to reconsider this item. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion fails 3-2, with Commissioners Coletta, Coyle, and Fiala voting against the reconsideration. We had an 11 :30 time certain, didn't we? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go with that. And depending upon how long the staff presentation is, we should get -- we might still be able to get to the -- Item E before we break for lunch, unless we've got Page 84 December 14, 2010 lots of speakers. Do we have a lot of speakers for Item E? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No speakers for Item E? MR. MITCHELL: 10E is this? 9? CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10E. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9E. MR.OCHS: 9E. CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9E, 9E. MR. MITCHELL: We have one speaker. Sir, we have one speaker for Item 9E. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can do E, and then do the other one right after lunch before we get into 8? I mean, I don't mind -- you know, I had requested that, but I don't mind waiting until after lunch. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there -- are there people who are waiting for the 10 -- 11 :30 time-certain item? MR. OCHS: Not to my knowledge, sir, no. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is anybody waiting for the briefing on affordable housing? No. Item #9E REQUEST TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10H WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE OCTOBER 26, 2010 BCC MEETING REGARDING NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S APPLICATION FOR COPCN - MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND BRING BACK AT THE NEXT BCC MEETING FOLLOWING THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE'S PINAL REPORT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's take the 9E, reconsideration Page 85 December 14, 2010 regarding the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's application for a COPCN. Maybe to shortcut that, I would -- would say that it was the board's intention that this be reconsidered after the Blue Ribbon Committee issued their report, Commissioner Henning. Would you -- would you be amenable to that approach? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a process to where the board can reconsider items, and during the hearing and at the end of the meeting, it was not stated that that item is going to be reconsidered. So the proper thing to do is to put it on the agenda and get a vote on that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there are two issues. I will support your vote for reconsideration of this item. I would -- and that requires that the county manager place it on the agenda, which is the second meeting in January. He doesn't have the authority to move it out any further. The problem we have is that the Blue Ribbon Committee is not likely to give their report until that meeting, and it is within the power of the Board of County Commissioners, I think, to say to the county manager, we want it reconsidered but we want it reconsidered the meeting following the report of the Blue Ribbon Committee. And so that's what I'm really getting at, and I'm trying to explain that now so that we can shortcut a long discussion of it because I'll -- I think it should be reconsidered. It's just that, why reconsider it unless we've heard what the proposal of the Blue Ribbon Committee is, and I think we can make a more informed decision if we have their final report. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I agree with you. I believe it should be reconsidered, but I think right now it's just a little bit early. I would much rather have all of the facts so that when we do talk about it again and it comes before us, we'll be better informed. Would you agree to that, Commissioner Henning? Page 86 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with the statement. We just need to get there, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: It's within the commission's perview to direct the county manager to bring this back at any time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I'll make a motion that -- for reconsideration, bring it back. So the Blue Ribbon Committee we're going to hear on the 14th of January? CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what they've told the county attorney (sic). I have not spoken to them about it, but, County Attorney (sic), is that what you understand to be the case? MR.OCHS: They said they were going to come back in January, sir, so it will either be on the 11th or the 25th. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: Those are your two meetings in January, and then I would anticipate scheduling the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we say, to be safe, that we want it brought back the meeting following the meeting where the Blue Ribbon Committee provides its final report; is that okay? And that way if they come at the first meeting in January, we'll reconsider it at the second meeting in January. MR. OCHS: But no later than the first meeting of February? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We have the purview to do it at an indefinite time determined by when the Blue Ribbon Committee reports it. But if the Blue Ribbon Committee doesn't report in January, I'm going to be anxious to proceed, okay. MR. OCHS: The pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we need to make sure that they understand that there's some degree of urgency to get this done, okay. Does anybody want to speak further on that? Commissioner-- who was first, Commissioner Hiller? Page 87 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've already done it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the scope of the Blue Ribbon Committee study that will affect our decision on bringing this forward? CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Blue Ribbon Committee was -- had contracted with a professor at Florida State University to do a study concerning the most efficient way to provide Emergency Medical Services in Collier County, taking into consideration the various fire districts, the county's EMS function, and the city -- the municipalities' EMS functions, and that report is supposed to be available in January. And any decisions which we might make in restructuring responsibilities will certainly impact that report and, conversely, the report could impact what decisions we might make on the COPCN. But the important issue is that we have as much information as we can get so that we can make a decision that is in the best interest of the people of Collier County. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To finish my motion -- and I respect commissioners' wishes for more information prior to making decisions, so I'm going to make a motion to bring this item back after the Blue Ribbon Committee -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- reports to the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The meeting -- the meeting immediately following the Blue Ribbon Committee's report so that we don't delay it any further than that, okay. Okay. Commissioner Henning's is seconded by Commissioner Coletta. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one public speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a public speaker who wants to speak or want to waive? Page 88 December 14, 2010 MR. BILLINGTON: Waive. MR. MITCHELL: It's Duane Billington. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: He's just waived. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then all in favor, please signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. MR. OCHS: Sir, that takes us back to 10D, your time-certain item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you do that and do it justice in a short period of time? MS. MOSCA: I can go as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute. Commissioner Fiala doesn't want to cut it short. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm willing to stay a little after 12 to get it done. How much time do you think would -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I have a few questions. Although staffhas done a superb job, I have to say that, and worked beautifully, I just have a few questions. Do you want to do that before or after lunch? It doesn't make any difference to me. MR.OCHS: It's the pleasure of the board. I would say let's go ahead and start it, and if you have some questions that aren't answered, we can carry it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd rather not break it up. I think -- Page 89 December 14,2010 Commissioner Fiala has been waiting a long time for this report, and I think it should be done in its entirety in one session so that there's nothing lost in the process. I would rather go ahead with some things that, perhaps, won't take long, postpone this until after lunch. We'll do it the first thing after we get back from lunch, okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Did we ever get an answer to my question in the beginning about the extra stenographer here? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MR.OCHS: No, ma'am. We talked to the Clerk's Office, and they only have -- they're only paying for one court reporter, and that's the one they traditionally have here. So it wasn't the Clerk's Office that ordered the second court reporter. That's all we know so far. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that interesting? Transparency again, huh? Wow. I'm sorry that you -- it's not your fault. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're just caught in the middle of all this, you know. Don't take offense to any of it. We're happy you're here. But the one -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just curious as to why. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The one thing that will give us all great pleasure is that it has to be a lawyer, right. The -- okay. You want to continue with F? MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #9F REQUEST BY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE BOARD FOR DISTRICT #37 - MOTION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER FIALA - APPROVED Page 90 December 14,2010 MR. OCHS: 9F is a request by the Florida Association of Counties to fill a vacancy on the board for district number 37. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have received a letter from the Florida Association of Counties. It says if we don't make a motion to fill this vacancy within 30 days from the receipt of the letter, which was a couple of weeks ago, that they will have to designate someone from our political district to fill that vacancy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to jump in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I beat you. This is a very important position, and Commissioner Halas has been very diligent in going to their meetings. I think it's three times a year. And it's a global thing. It affects the whole of Florida. I think you'd be a tremendous representative. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be good. You know, I only have one misgiving, and that is, I won't miss a meeting here to go there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, of course you won't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I won't leave early. I just have that thing about it. But if everybody will accept that, and then -- and I can turn in my expenses to get up there and back, I'll do it, because I know it's very important. I just wanted to make sure I do the job justice. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a special account set up for F AC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it doesn't come out of your regular travel account. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was there a motion somewhere? Page 91 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, I made it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for Commissioner Fiala -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to be the designee to fill that vacancy, and second by Commissioner Hiller. Is there -- there's a public speaker, is there? Or you didn't turn the light off. MR. MITCHELL: Sorry. I didn't turn the light off. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous that Commissioner Fiala is our designee for Florida Association of Counties. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2010-240: APPOINTING GINA DOWNS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9G is an appointment of a member to the Environmental Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we readvertise that, and the reason is, is the vacancy is a technical member of the environmental advisory board, and I'd much rather Page 92 December 14,2010 have assistance of the technician. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What were you going to say, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, no. The vacancy is for a nontechnical member. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the person that she's replacing is a technical member. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, but the committee is unbalanced. The ordinance for the committee says there should be five members, three will be technical and two will be laypeople. There was a situation where most of the positions were filled by technical people. This is being addressed, and so this is a lay position. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, just to clarify that. It's just guidelines. The board could appoint whomever they wish to these things, and you had general guidelines as to how many experts you want and how many laypeople you want. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you -- is this on from last time? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I wanted to comment on the reporter. I'll mention something about that after. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Thank you. I make a motion that we appoint Gina Downs to the Environmental Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala, that we appoint the only applicant, Gina Downs, to the Environmental Advisory Council. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 93 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9H RESOLUTION 2010-241: APPOINTING GARY MCNALLY TO THE CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9H is appointment of a member to the Consumer Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion we appoint Gary McNally. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to appoint Gary McNally to the Collier County Consumer Advisory Board, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Page 94 December 14, 2010 Item #91 RESOLUTION 2010-242: APPOINTING GINA DOWNS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 91 is appointment of a member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to appoint Gina Downs -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as the committee recommendation so stated. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta, to appoint Gina Downs, which is -- who is the committee recommendation for that position. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It -- the motion passes unanimously. Item #9J Page 95 December 14,2010 RESOLUTION 2010-243: APPOINTING KEVIN WALSH, THOMAS DECKER AND JOSEPH LANGA WEL TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR.OCHS: 9J is appointment ofa member to the Collier County -- excuse me. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to nominate, or to approve Kevin Walsh, Tom Decker, Joe Langkawel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Henning, to appoint the committee's recommendations of Misters Walsh, Decker, and Langkawel. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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 #9K RESOLUTION 2010-244: APPOINTING RANDOLPH M. MOITY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Page 96 December 14,2010 MR. OCHS: 9K is appointment of a member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to motion that we accept Randolph Moity. I'm sorry though that I'm probably massacring his name. But anyway, it was the City of Marco's nominated candidate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta, to recognize the City of Marco's nomination for their candidate on the Coastal Advisory Committee. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. Item #9L RESOLUTION 2010-245: RE-APPOINTING DOUGLAS PORTER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS. - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 9L is appointment of a member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to appoint Douglas Porter, reappoint. Page 97 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, to reappoint Mr. Porter to the Collier County Citizens Corps. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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 #9M RESOLUTION 2010-246: APPOINTING LIEUTENANT DAN LEE WITH COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVE) AND DANIEL ROSARIO WITH SEMINOLE CASINO (LOCAL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE) TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED MR.OCHS: 9M is appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to follow the committee's recommendations and appoint Lieutenant Lee and Daniel Rosio (sic). CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Page 98 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rosario, yes; second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala, to appoint Lieutenant Lee and Danial Rosario to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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. Anything you can do in two minutes? MR. OCHS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two minutes I said, two minutes. Okay. Then we are in recess for lunch. We'll be back here at 12 noon (sic). MR. OCHS: One p.m. CHAIRMAN COYLE: One o'clock, one o'clock. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very generous of you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Board of County Commission meeting is back in session, and we need Commissioner Fiala. MR.OCHS: Yes. See if we can track her down. This was her item. She'll be here in a moment, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We can wait. Page 99 December 14,2010 MR. OCHS: Ready to start, sir? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only when Commissioner Fiala gets here. This is her item. She wants to hear this report. She has questions. So we'll wait. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm here. I'm here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know what she was doing? MR. OCHS: I wouldn't hazard a guess. CHAIRMAN COYLE: She was looking where my candy was located because she always waits until I leave the office back there, and then she scrummages around and finds my candy and eats it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He squirrels it away and hides it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If anyone wants to know, it's in the freezer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Terri, they're already gone. Item #10D PRESENTATION OF THE 2010 COUNTYWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY (MICHELE MOSCA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT., GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION) - MOTION FOR STAFF TO INC ORP ORA TE DATA IN FUTURE EAR BASED PLANNING AND PROVIDE THE BOARD AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANNUAL REPORT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to go to 10D. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. This is a presentation of the 2010 Countywide Affordable Housing Inventory. Ms. Michele Mosca, your principal planner from your Land Development Services, will present. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. F or the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the comprehensive Page 100 December 14,2010 planning staff. At the board's June 22nd meeting, staffwas directed to prepare an affordable housing inventory of all market-rate or unrestricted residential units in the county based on specific criteria. MR.OCHS: Go ahead, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to be your PowerPoint today. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. Thank you. This criteria included reviewing a year's worth of closing sales data from the property appraiser's database. The year selected was May 2009 through May 2010. It's important to note though that the data did not include mobile homes in the study. The next step was categorizing the units into very low, low, and moderate affordable housing ranges based on the State Housing Initiative Program, or SHIP, income limits. Staff then established a discount factor to apply to the total wide -- countywide, rather, residential units by comparing the sales price to the total just value or the market value and then averaging the percentage, that change, and applying it to all qualifying properties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, Michele. Can I just ask you question. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say these figures are based on the SHIP criteria? MS. MOSCA: The income limits. So it's base on the income limits for two- and four-person households. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But not built with SHIP funds? MS. MOSCA: No. These are unrestricted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yesterday (sic) -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. These are market-rate units. Staff then looked at the entire inventory and categorized the Page 101 December 14,2010 qualifying residential units into the affordable housing ranges, including debt loads for two- and four-person households with a monthly recurring debt of 0 and $300. The monthly debt is representative of a car note, student loan, credit card, et cetera. And you can note the difference in affordability of those mortgages with those carrying a monthly debt. It's significantly higher what they can afford. And it's approximately a difference of 47,463. This particular slide represents the affordable mortgage amounts for very low income category. That's 50 percent of the median household income of72,300. That's the 2010 median income for Collier County. This next slide represents the affordable mortgage amounts for the low income category. That's 80 percent of the median household income. And you can see the difference in the two- and four-person households. The next slide represents affordable mortgage amounts for the moderate income level or 120 percent of the median household . Income. The next three slides represent the lowest range, which would be your very low, a selected middle range, and the highest range of 120 percent of the affordable housing units inventoried by category. This particular slide represents the two-person households earning 50 percent of the median income with a 300 monthly reoccurring debt. As noted by the results, the highest number of affordable units within this range is within commission District 1, Commissioner Fiala's district, followed by commission District 3, Commissioner Henning's district. This slide represents a four-person household earning 80 percent of the median income with a 300 monthly reoccurring debt. The results identify the highest number of affordable units within this range is within commission district number 3, Commissioner Page 102 December 14,2010 Henning's district, followed by commission District 1, Commissioner Fiala's. Finally, this slide represents a four-person household earning 120 percent of the median income with a 0 monthly reoccurring debt. The results include the highest number of affordable units within this range is within commission district number 3, Commissioner Henning, followed by commission District 1, Commissioner Fiala. The housing -- the housing -- I'm sorry. The number of potential affordable housing units from the lowest range which, again, is a very low, to the highest range, which is the 120 percent, represents 2 percent of the units and 65 percent of the units respectively within the county. It is important to note that these results include a potential supply only as staff is not able to determine which units are available, and staff is not aware of the occupant's income levels. Based on the inventory, staff is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners accept the methodology that's provided within this presentation documentation and direct staff to include the inventory as part of our support data for our Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Michele. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has a question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I had some questions about the data, but I went back and I did my own research. I was concerned that maybe this date was weighted and that it would not really represent what was happening out there. So I took into consideration an element that is very heavy in Immokalee and other places in Collier County, and that has to do with mobile homes, which also are affordable. However, when I add it into the mix, the change was almost Page 103 December 14,2010 negligeable. The district that had the most, when you combined all the four-person households along with the two-person households and along with the mobile homes, was District 3 with 33,585 units. District 1 was just slightly behind that with 33,027, which puts them almost on an even keel. But it was surprising, I thought District 5 was going to probably exceed anybody else when you added the mobile homes in, but it came in number three with 26,082. So the validity of the study as it is is pretty close to factual. I'm just not too sure where we're going to use it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to use it by transferring money out of your district and giving it to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So everybody in Immokalee's got to make a contribution to East Naples? CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you wouldn't mind. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just really for the audience sake more than anything else -- and Michele and her whole department have been wonderful about working with me on this. My contention has long been that although you see all of these districts and you think District 1 is East Naples, it's only a part of East Naples. It's the center slice. F or instance, Estey Avenue and Bayshore and Thomasson, for instance, they're all in commission District 4, but -- although they're located in East Naples, they're in the commission 4 district count. And when you get into, say, Radio Road and that area in there, they're -- it's located in East Naples, but it's in commission District 3. And you go to all of the Habitat villages beyond 951 along U.S. 41 and all of the mobile homes and everything in that area, although it's located in East Naples, it's considered District 5. So that's been my contention. And there's nothing that they can Page 104 December 14,2010 do about it. This is how East Naples is divided up into four districts. It just makes it look a lot different than what it is, because people think District 1 is only -- you know, is all of East Naples, and it is not. So I wanted to clear that up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'm -- from Commissioner Fiala? Are you finished, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right this minute I am, thanks. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we direct staff to include this in our EAR-based amendments, submit that to Tallahassee. Also I think it would be good to do a snapshot as we progress, like a yearly semiannual snapshot of affordable housing and where it . IS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that. I agree with Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Before we take a vote on this, I'd just like to take a minute or two to try to explain to the public what's going on here and why we had this study. We have, for years, been struggling to meet the affordable housing requirements mandated by higher levels of government on Collier County, and the only affordable housing that we could count was that affordable housing that we helped create and controlled, and that meant that all of the affordable housing that occurred naturally in the community that we didn't control wasn't included in the inventory, so it left us reporting substantial shortages of affordable housing. And so we continued to have to try to meet those mandated guidelines, and we just -- particularly what the economic downturn, it was something that caused us to be overbuilding affordable housing because we have so much naturally occurring affordable housing now Page 105 December 14,2010 because the median price of the homes has declined dramatically over the past several years. So we needed to develop a more comprehensive view of our needs for affordable housing so that we didn't waste taxpayer money building affordable housing that wasn't really needed. And so that's why we went through this process, and we found out what we thought we'd find out, that there's a lot of affordable housing in Collier County and it is has occurred because market prices have dropped dramatically. So we're going -- there's a motion then to incorporate this into our planning so that we can perform our planning in a more effective manner. So Commissioner Fiala? You had -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I appreciate everything you've said, and I totally agree with you. I would like to add -- because I was going to really say this in the next subject, so you just get to hear it now. It's either here or the next subject anyway. What happened was, as Commissioner Coy Ie was saying, we would only be able to count the housing that -- built with SHIP funds, State Housing Improvement Project funds. And so that means -- that wasn't created till what, 1996. So nothing that was built before 1996 was in the count. And places like Golden Gate Estates, for instance, well, all of those were built single-family homes, and so they didn't have SHIP funds. So none of those were counted. So way back when we were presented with our crisis mode -- everybody's in crises. We're 30,000 units short. We weren't 30,000 units short at all. They were all sitting on the ground. They just weren't in the count because the state said the count that they wanted was those that were built with SHIP funds. And so I fought that bitterly, but all we could go by was the figures that we received, not the actual figures. And so that's what Commissioner Coyle is referring to, and we'll get into that in the next Page 106 December 14, 2010 subj ect. And so we demanded that people build affordable housing units because we were 30,000 units short, and we weren't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with Commissioner Fiala. I had studied the issue at the same time, and I concur with her analysis. She was exactly correct at that time, and her opinion was incorrectly disregarded. I want to comment on two issues. First, the numbers that staff just provided us in their analysis. In an explanation that I have in front of me summarizes that the above ranges of countywide totals, 4,209 and 127,144, represent 2 percent and 65 percent of the total dwelling units in Collier County, which is 196,241. We have an abundance of affordable housing. We do not need to do anything to promote supply. We need to do what we can to help demand. And so any programs that are offered by the state that can incentivize demand really need to be researched and focused on so we can start reducing the excessive inventory we have. Another statistic is, the inventory of actually restricted housing units is 7,649, another extremely large number. And the conundrum, in conclusion, is that the University of Florida, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, indicates that we have a need for an additional 732 affordable housing units each year beginning in 2010 to 2015, which would be -- well, I don't want to get into the details. It speaks for itself. So I think from a public policy standpoint we have to look at the affordable housing element of our Comprehensive Plan and be very careful in how we award affordable housing density bonuses and what kind of demands we place on developers to develop affordable homes. On the other hand, I want to repeat and emphasize, we need to help purchasers get into those homes where they qualify, you know, Page 107 December 14,2010 based on income, and we do have programs out there that can help on the demand side. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I need to -- thank you so much. You just opened the door. I'm sorry I'm taking so much time. But anyway, you're absolutely right. These Shimberg numbers, by the way, were based on the numbers that our staff gave them that were flawed in the first place, so they came back with a flawed report. But secondly, you're talking about all of the plethora -- the plethora of all of the affordable housing units on the market. And what's happening right now, folks -- and this is happening all the time -- they're buying them to the courthouse steps and they're buying them for cheap to practically nothing, and they're renting them out. And what's happening is, they're renting them out; you get five, six, seven -- I just -- I have to tell you, one had 27 people in it that was just raided recently; 27 people, 18 of them are under age. And that's what's happening with -- when you have -- when you have a tremendous amount of extra affordable housing units that aren't needed, you get these people that buy them up as speculators, and then your neighborhoods start going downhill. So I totally agree with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to get to a vote one of these days. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not soon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I agree with everybody. I think we're all on the same page on this. There's -- if we're going to do anything for affordable housing, it should be the renovation of existing housing out there like they're doing in North -- in East Naples there, like they do in other places in this county. Page 108 December 14,2010 It makes sense. Instead of taking money and trying to build new units to compete with the other units you can't fill, make sure that those money and those dollars are directed in a fashion that's going to really serve the public and take units off the market that are in the way at this point in time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you say we vote on this now? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I want to talk some more. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: One recommendation. The way you've grouped everything into this broader category called affordable housing, and then you've got, you know, very low income, low income, and moderate, I would suggest you go back to HOD regulations and look at the definitions, because affordable housing, I believe, is what you're defining as moderate. And I'm not -- and you can verify this, you know, through your research. But I think it would be a good idea to be consistent with what the other researchers use in terms of how they categorize these types of affordable housing. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, these are standard definitions. They're mandated by the state, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. We look at 30 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand that, but it's how you label those categories. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, where did you draw the labels from? Like where did you -- because typically the term affordable housing is applied to the moderate income housing category, and very low and low income are labeled as such. Page 109 December 14, 2010 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll check it. MS. MOSCA: We'll check it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning to accept this and incorporate it in our planning, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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. Now, in the interest of preventing a great travesty here, we have people sitting here who are paying a lawyer to wait until we get to their item. And if we don't go to it next, that lawyer is going to earn a lot of money today sitting around. So anything I can do to keep Rich Y ovanovich from making more money today, I'll be happy to do. Item #10A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TO ADDRESS ACCESS TO E'S COUNTRY STORE ON OIL WELL ROAD, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION - MOTION Page 110 December 14, 2010 APPROVING ALTERNATIVE #5 (MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE #4) THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD'S CHAIRMAN - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'd like to take Item lOA and see if we can't get through that fairly quickly, and then we'll proceed with our other business. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. lOA is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff on selection of preferred alternative to address access to E's Country Store on Oil Well Road, which is currently under construction. Mr. Feder will present. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, administrator of Growth Management Division. Commissioners, I'll seek to be brief. We have a presentation we can make if it's the board's desire. This is an item that's come to you a couple of times under public petition as part of the construction of Oil Well Road, the four-lane section between Immokalee and Everglades Boulevard. We do have now a median, where there was none under a two-lane configuration; therefore, the E's General Store now faces the prospect under current design configuration of a right-in, right-out only on Oil Well. They do have a right-in, right-off (sic) also on Immokalee Road. They've come requesting, because of their feeling of need for access basically traveling westbound on Oil Well Road, a left-turn directional median opening. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have a map to show us that, Norm? MR. FEDER: Yes, I think -- what Rich is showing you there is essentially north to the top; west, of course, to the left; and east to the right. Page 111 December 14,2010 What you've got -- what you've got there shown is essentially E's, which is at the corner today. They do have a right-in, right-out that's fairly close to the intersection today. With the median, where it has a left turn into Waterways, basically traveling eastbound, they're requesting, as you see here in green, basically the median be open allowing them to get a directional left that they would share cost properties with the Orangetree shopping center to get access to their property from those people that are traveling westbound on Oil Well Road. The process that we've gone through on this is, you've got four alternatives identified in your package from purely a transportation standpoint, safety, with two schools in the area. Our desire would be to keep, as we've designed it, the median without an opening; however, we recognize that we're impacting E's General Store, and for a period of time there's capacity that could accommodate allowing them this access. Alternative two that you have is, the quickest way to address that would have been to have the left-turn opening come directly into Valencia Drive, what you see right here, which is now closed as part of an agreement with the community as we were developing the Oil Well Road project, and the community didn't want to see that future commercial which wraps around and comes back into this area, have traffic come through their neighborhood. So that is alternative two, but working with Commissioner Coletta, that was a grave concern to the community that we actually sought closure of that even in the first project. The last meeting we had, we had brought forward to you basically what you're seeing here, now you see colors on it because of phasing options I'll go through in a second, but essentially you had a concept that would establish the left-turn median opening, have it go across property -- it's Mr. Bolt's property -- but it's the Orangetree PUD shopping center, that he's going to give easement so that E's can Page 112 December 14,2010 then get access onto their development. The concept overall would be, then you would have the right-in, right-out moved further to the east away from the intersection, that's the red that you see right here, and that that would become the access point for that future commercial shopping center. Additionally, with the neighborhood concerns, Valencia would be -- remain closed off, and they would provide easement for a turnaround for emergency vehicles and the like at the end of what would now be a cul-de-sac on Valencia Drive. We had brought that to you the last board meeting, thought we had everything worked out, and E's was not in a position to build all of these improvements at one time. They requested a phasing plan, and part of the phasing is that on Oil Well Road itself, we were not to impact the commercial development at E's. We're going to develop a barrier wall with guardrail and handrail. They're saying that they'll now give us that easement, the easement across, as well, Bolt's shopping center property to allow us to reduce our cost of construction by a slope. Doing that, there is some savings to be realized to the county. At first the discussions in alternative four, which Rich will probably want to speak to in a second, was that those savings be used to build the median opening and left turn, but also to build the diagonal or the road that would come in off of that to access to E's. We had major concerns with that, and the idea that while the savings accrue to the county, typically that shopping center, when it does come forward, would build all of those issues, and those are on-site or site-related improvements that we didn't feel the public should be building. That was our major concern to alternative four. We think that that's resolved. And with that, what I will do is recognize, Commissioner Hiller worked strongly what us and with the applicant, along with the efforts of Commissioner Coletta, and I think they have Page 113 December 14, 2010 a proposal that, depending on what I hear Rich say today, I think we can concur with. So I'll let Rich speak to the mike now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich for the petitioner. And we have -- we basically have come to a modified -- it would now be alternative number five, which is really alternative number four, but addresses the concerns staffhad raised concerning who paid for the on-site related improvements. And we've basically agreed, if everything goes well, there'll be a savings for the Oil Well Road project of about $100,000. It will cost 50- or $60,000 to build the left-turn lane, which would leave somewhere between 40- or $50,000 that would go to the county in lieu of our original proposal to be used by E's for the on-site related improvements. And then we've also -- we've agreed to basically nine -- nine business points, their first business -- and they're on the visualizer for you. I hope you can see them -- that the improvements would be phased and constructed in two phases, and Norman already took you through the two phases and what's in that. So items one, two, and three really talk about the phasing. The cost savings would go to the county after they build the left-turn lane, which is business point number four. E's would be responsible for the design and permitting of all the Phase I improvements. So we'll deal with your contractor to make sure there is, in fact, a savings and there's not a delay in time. So we'll do the design permitting and -- design and permitting of Phase I. The county will actually construct the turn lane, and we'll construct the on-site improvements. All of the necessary easements between the shopping center developer and the county will be conveyed to the county within 30 days of the designing of the agreement. All of the necessary Page 114 December 14,2010 easements between E's and the shopping center developer will also be conveyed between ourselves within 30 days of the agreement, so that will be for both Phase I and Phase II. So all the necessary easements will be in place from the get-go, and you won't have to worry about future issues regarding that. The county -- and I've talked to the County Attorney's Office. We had broken down the closure of the median into two issues, one related to safety and one related to operation. The County Attorney's Office has requested that we just have one condition related to the closure of the median, and that would -- if there's a safety-related issue or an operational-related issue, it would come back to the Board of County Commissioners for the closure of that median. And if there was an emergency situation where they needed to close it first, it would come back for ratification depending on -- depending on the timing of that scenario. So I think we've addressed the ability for the county to close that median opening for safety- and operational-related issues. And finally, I had forgotten on the business points until Mr. Klatzkow reminded me this morning, was that since E's is an existing gas station, there will be some easements that will be across that property, and we would provide indemnification if there were any contamination-related issues related to that easement property. And then -- and finally, the agreement would call for, since it's an existing parcel of property -- it's really not a business point, but wanted to point this out to the commission. Since it's an -- E's is an existing site, you have in your Land Development Code, when you take right-of-way related to that, if the buffer is reduced because of that right-of-way, you don't have to replace it. So we, at the end of the day, will have a five-foot-wide buffer on this property after we give the county the necessary easements in the future for the right-turn lane. So the staff asked me, or the County Attorney's Office asked me, to point that out because that would be Page 115 December 14,2010 included in the agreement. I want to thank Norm for working with us, and all of the commissioners for helping us, especially Commissioner Coletta in his district, and Ms. Hiller in the end also. But this has been a tough issue, and the community is, I think, very appreciative of what we've been able to accomplish with the leadership of the commission. And I hope you can direct your staff to -- I hope you can accept these business points and then leave it to your county attorney to put these business points into the county's form agreement. We're on kind of a short time frame because construction's already occurring out there, and we need to really get the permitting done quickly so that the contractor doesn't actually start working on those southern two lanes and then we lose the ability to do the cost saving and keep this business open. I hope that addresses the questions and concerns you may have regarding this, and we're asking the commission to approve the business points and direct your attorney to craft the agreement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a couple of questions. First, Norm, if I may? MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we're looking at is -- it's been a long process getting here. MR. FEDER: It has been. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my God, what has it been, two months? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anything that's missing from here as far as costs -- costs that we may incur because of the fact we're starting when we are now, or are we in plenty of time as far as that -- the road construction goes? MR. FEDER: I think we are. I think Rich's point is well taken. Page 116 December 14,2010 The quicker the better, but they're going to work with the contractor on their portion of it. We're going to work with the contractor after they've signed on the median opening. We should be okay on that if we can proceed expeditiously. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And can you explain to me what we mean about phasing in the -- over there at Valencia, the turnaround? MR. FEDER: Yes, yes. There's a couple of important points, and a couple of things I wanted to raise to what Rich hit on. But what you see here in green is proposed in what's being called Phase I. So in Phase I they would provide us all the easements that you see here in green and in red. We would, with their redesign, get with our contractor and modify the approach here utilizing the slope easement, therefore having savings of the wall, the handrail, and the guardrail. We would, once they're done with that, work with the contractor to build the turn lane and the median opening. They would then build this other section in green for connection. When the developer of the shopping center comes in, the concept is, those items in red, most important in many respects for us is, the right-in, right-out, very close to Immokalee today, would then be moved further -- excuse me, I keeping moving this -- further to the east away from the intersection, and that's critical to us, and we wish we were getting it now, but because of costs, we're being told that we can only do this in two phases. The one critical issue -- I'll go to the points, and I hope I'm not surprising Rich with this one. I didn't think I was -- but the design also on the turnaround, while we agreed that that would be a Phase II construction or the county would have to construct it quicker, that needs to be in that initial design if that is possible, because we're going to have to build that. The minute you set up that, in fact, you're going to have the Page 11 7 December 14,2010 median opening in that turn-in, as it's depicted here. You're going to have to keep Valencia closed, and we can't afford not to have that turnaround built for emergency response. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The think the way we were agreeing to address that was, if the county determined that they needed to build the turnaround sooner than Phase II, the county could build the turnaround, and we would reimburse the county the costs associated with Phase II when we actually went forward with the construction of the shopping center. So you can build it earlier, and we would re- -- we would reimburse you for that building when we came forward with Phase II. MR. FEDER: And the only thing I'm asking differently is, when you're working to design the changes here, this roadway and the left turn, which you said you're doing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would include the design for the turnaround is what you're asking, yes. MR. FEDER: The design for the turnaround. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. MR. FEDER: Okay. If we have that, then-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So got that squared away. MR. FEDER: -- we can build on our own. We'd have to build that, and then we'd have to seek reimbursement from that from the shopping center when it came forward, just so the board knows that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we legally do that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're a party to this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. They are? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a three-party agreement. Remember, one of the things you insisted was that we make sure we had all of the property owners as a party to this three-party agreement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So every -- they're a party to this. Page 118 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. MR. FEDER: The other thing I'd like to get on the record is while -- as Rich noted -- and the points are here. Excuse me. I've got that upside down. Have I got the right one, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. FEDER: Okay. Basically what I wanted to point out-- yeah. This is the one that Rich changed. Excuse me. What I wanted to point out and just get on the record is while, as the attorney noted, we're not looking for separate issues now on possible closure for safety or operational aspects, I want to make sure the board is very clear that if we find, again, for health, safety, welfare, that there is a safety problem out there, we have the right to immediately close it and then come to the board to seek ratification of that, and I think that's what Rich was telling you. The second part though is on operational. We were talking to them about trying to keep it open at least two years, but again, the key issue on operations -- and I just wanted to get on the record -- is that as soon as traffic queues start to back up beyond this area, which creates a problem also for the left-in to Waterways, at that time we would-- we'd look at the issue of bringing to this board the need for closure. But I wanted this board to understand there would be some criteria and that that is well anticipated to happen, but hopefully happen in the future, as both of us are assuming at this point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, do you agree with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, and that was the revision I mentioned earlier. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would that be part of the approval. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's part of the revised business points I put up, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Klatzkow, is this sufficient Page 119 December 14,2010 for an agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me just set a predicate. Norm, do I have time to bring this back to the board for the next meeting or not? MR. FEDER: We need to move very quickly because the contractor's out there. They're finishing that north side of the roadway and starting to get on the south. I need Rich to -- how quickly, Rich, can your designer design it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're actually working on the design now, but it takes time to permit and modify permits that are out there, so we're really pushing it if we were to come back and not have an agreement until January. MR. FEDER: Can we bring it back to the board for ratification in January with the understanding -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yeah, but you can't unscramble an egg. Once you start the project, bringing it back to the board for ratification is, you know -- MR. FEDER: I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And of course, you'd be proceeding at your own risk. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, I wouldn't mind if the board designated one of you to -- who was going to sign to review the document to make sure you were comfortable with it rather than us just doing it. Normally it's the Chair, but I know Commissioner Coletta's involved with this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, okay. I'll make a motion that we approve the modified number five option here, and that we have Commissioner Coyle be the designee as the Chair to be able to sign off on it as the -- if he sees that it's complete. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll throw it in the hopper with Jackson Labs and work it all out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. You've got plenty of Page 120 December 14, 2010 time. Just give up eating. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So was that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a motion, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one public speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we've got some commissioners who want to speak also. But I have a concern. I'm really, really happy that you reached an agreement, but you don't have anything to present to us to make a motion about. And the only thing we can say is, we want to do what you just said, and what you just said and what we write down into a contract could likely be slightly different. So there's nothing definitive about a motion, and so you're going to have me, one commissioner, look at it and see if it's what it's supposed to be. I don't mind doing that. I'll do the best I can with it, but you have to understand when you come before this body and you don't have a clear motion, just have business points and what you think you'd like to do, it's really very tenuious until you get it into a legal document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I have a standard form developer's contribution agreement I utilize. I will use that as the base. Pretty much these will be the business points, and the rest of it -- much of the rest of it, sir, will be boilerplate that this commission has seen many times before. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have reason to believe that all three parties will accept our interpretation of these business points. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. And we've already submitted a substantial draft to your county attorney based upon the format that you're familiar with seeing. We just couldn't get it all in a final format by today, but we understand the risk. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm happy to give it a shot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Appreciate that. Page 121 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just telling you, this is not the way I like to do business. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And neither for us, but we're just on a short time frame to get it done. MR. KLATZKOW: And just one last point. And I agree with you, I hate doing things like this, too. I'd much prefer getting back to the board. These obligations will run with the land. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely, absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: My comments have been stated by you and by County Attorney Klatzkow. I think it's essential that all contracts be brought to the board, drafted for approval as written, so in this case, because the road is moving forward and these negotiations have taken a very long time, an exception is being made, but by no means should this ever be the standard. And one other comment. I think we need to make provision for the county attorney to have enough time to review contracts before they're presented to the board. So I would like to recommend that County Attorney Klatzkow come back to the board at our next meeting and suggest how much time you need to review a contract and that be set as the standard before something is brought to us for vote. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, who is going to do the improvements off the road right-of-way? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you talking about this green area right here, Commissioner Henning? Page 122 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one of them, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Everything that you see within the property itself, this portion of the red -- actually all of the red is going to be constructed by the shopping center developer, and this portion of the green will be constructed by E's. The only thing the county will be constructing is this portion of the left-turn lane within the county right-of-way. Everything else -- if you decide to build the turnaround, you'll build this turnaround, but right now it's an obligation that we build it unless you build it earlier and then we would reimburse you for it. But all of the red is contemplated that we would build it unless you choose to build the turnaround at an earlier time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What easements do we need? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You will need -- you will need easements for the turnaround, you will need an easement for this right-turn lane, you'll need slope easements to get rid of the stem wall and guardrail that's in the current plan, so we will give you all of those easements. Those are the easements you will need. We will need from the shopping center developer this portion of the green and this portion of the red. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And will that include maintenance easements? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only thing you're going to be required to maintain is the green left-turn lane and Oil Well Road. Since you'll already own that, you'll already have the necessary maintenance easements. And yes, if -- on the turnaround, you'll have the necessary maintenance easements as well for the turnaround. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Usually when we have-- when we repave a road, we repave the turn lanes also; is that a correct statement? MR. FEDER: Yes. Associated with the roadway, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So wouldn't you want a Page 123 December 14, 2010 maintenance agreement on that part? The part in red, which -- the turn lane. MR. FEDER: The turn lane in red won't be built until the shopping center comes forward. The commitment being made by E's is to move their right-in, right-out further to the east, away from the intersection at that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- why are we -- why do we want a maintenance easement across the turnaround? MR. FEDER: The turnaround, I need a maintenance easement because that section of road in Valencia would be on their property -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's their? MR. FEDER: -- a public road. It is, right now, part of the Orangetree PUD property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. FEDER: And they would then be giving that easement to us as part of a public roadway. So I don't need a maintenance easement. I'm not sure I know what you're saying. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why do we want to -- why do we want that turnaround as public? MR. FEDER: Turnaround is public because we're closing off Valencia Drive, which is currently a public roadway. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. FEDER: We need to make sure we give them emergency response access as well as Waste Management trucks and others the ability to turn around. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it. MR. FEDER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Notice Norm's tie. Everybody see his tie? Cars? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I hadn't noticed it. MR. FEDER: I was doing well until then, right, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Let's hear the public speaker, Page 124 December 14, 2010 please, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: There's just one public speaker. Peter Gaddy. MR. GADDY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Commissioner Hiller, welcome to the board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. GADDY: I just want to point out that Burt and Bias are outstanding members of the community, together with E's Country Store. They participate in a number of events with both the civic association, of which I'm president, and with the other civic association, HOGGE, they're very important to the Golden Gate Estates community. They are the largest employer in Golden Gate Estates. We'd like to keep those jobs. Thanks for finding a way. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rich, I just want to confirm one issue that we had discussed, and that was that both property owners were going to waive any claims against the county in the future for having closed off access from Valencia to Oil Well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct, and that's in the draft agreement we provided to the county already. But you're correct, that was -- that's a requirement of the agreement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion to approve a modified alternative four, I presume. It's called alternative five -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that you will present to the county attorney, I will review it to assure compliance with what's on the record today, and we'll proceed as quickly as possible to get this all permitted and moving forward, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Page 125 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's done. Now before we go to the next item, Commissioner Hiller had expressed an interest in telling us something about the court reporter, and we didn't give her a chance before we broke. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yes. What I was going to say about the court reporter as to transparency, the obligation of transparency is on behalf of government to the people. The public has a different interest. They have the right to privacy. This lady is a private citizen. She has the right to privacy. What she's doing here, why she's here is none of our business. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that clarified it. Okay. Thank you very much. Item #8A COLLIER DAVIS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT ANDREA OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DAVIS RESERVE MPUD TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 234 DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND A MAXIMUM OF 35,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL Page 126 December 14, 2010 RETAIL AND OFFICE USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 22.83 ACRES, IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND COUNTY BARN ROAD, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (RELATED TO ITEM # 16A4) - WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A BOARD INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AFTER WHICH TIME THE PETITIONER WILL RETURN WITH A (PUD) REZONE REQUEST THAT INCLUDES REMOVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL ELEMENTS AND LIMITING DENSITY TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) UNITS PER ACRE - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to 8A, County Manager. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is your advertised public hearings. 8A, this item continued from the November 9, 2010, BCC meeting at staff s request. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Collier Davis, LLC, represented by Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates zoning district to the mixed-use planned unit development zoning district for a project to be known as the Davis Reserve MPUD -- excuse me -- MPUD to allow for the development of a maximum of 234 dwelling units, including affordable housing, and a maximum of35,000 square feet of commercial retail and office uses. The subject property consisting of22.83 acre is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. And the petitioner will present, I believe. Page 127 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is right in the front row here. Would all the people who are going to provide testimony in this hearing stand and be sworn in, please. That means everybody. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now for ex parte disclosure. We'll start with Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've had meetings, emails, staff reports. That should be about it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've reviewed staff reports. I've had meetings with Bob Pritt. I attended a homeowner association meeting with the Glen Eagle folks. I've had lots of emails from constituents. I've spoken with Mark Strain, with other Planning Commissioners as well, and I've done a lot of research on this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have received emails, correspondence concerning this item going back to four years ago, I guess, when we first heard this. I have met with the attorney for the petitioner, Mr. Bob Pritt on September the 27th, 2006 and on December the 13th, 2010 to discuss this item. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. And like you, I've had numerous emails on the subject. I've also met with the petitioner and reviewed the staff report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I reviewed -- I seen partial of the Planning Commission meeting, talked to some of the Planning Commission members, reviewed the Planning Commission's staff report. I've had a voluminous amount of emails from the public, and they're all in my record if anybody would like to view them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am. Page 128 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we begin, this has been such a controversial subject, and I think I've come up with a solution that would be a workable solution. I presented my idea to Bob Pritt the other day. He didn't seem to think it was too bad either. And I've talked to a few other people about it. So I was wondering if I might present this idea, and maybe this would be a good answer to -- to something that the residents have had a deep concern about. Would that be okay? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. One of the main objections from the residents in the area is the density; way too dense. They were concerned also about the commercial, and there were many other things about it as well. What I suggested to Bob, why couldn't we go back to what the land was originally suggested for, and that's four dwelling units per acre, period; four dwelling units per acre, but that would mean because this has become a part of the Land -- Growth Management Plan, we have to make a GMP amendment in order to take out all of the extra things that were added, all the extra density and commercial and affordable housing component and so forth and bring it back to just market rate, four units per acre. But I think the neighbors -- as long as the dwelling units would be in harmony with the other communities surrounding the area, such as Countryside and Kings Lake and Eagle -- Glen Eagle, if it would feel like it's in keeping and in harmony with the community, I think it might be an acceptable solution. And so then I talked with our staff member and said, but it would cost the developer $50,000 in order to have a Growth Management Plan amendment, but much of the -- much of the planning and much of the paperwork had already been done when it was put into the GMP, and I asked Nick if there was a way that we could work with this developer to give him credit for all of those things and just charge Page 129 December 14, 2010 for the time that we have involved or will be involved as well as the advertising. And so, Nick, are you someplace? Ah, there you are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. Yes, ma'am, you did discuss that with me, and that is something we said, if the board Opined that they want to do that, we could look at that simply. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Bob, have you talked with your developer? MR. PRITT: On behalf of Barry Goldmeier, the concern that we have is the cost of having to go back through a Compo Plan amendment, a developer-initiated or a citizen-initiated Compo Plan amendment because of the cost. The cost is over $25,000. We probably -- and there's no guarantee that it would be approved by the board, and you couldn't give a guarantee. What I -- what I propose and -- what I would propose and suggest is that the board consider doing what you have done before. You made a -- after this Compo Plan amendment went through and the affordable housing provision was put into the Compo Plan, the board did make a board-initiated Compo Plan amendment or GMP amendment itself in 2007, and that's what we have here today. I would ask that the board consider directing staff to consider a board-initiated Compo Plan amendment to take out the affordable housing provision, and we would be happy to work with the board or the staff on anything else that you think ought to be done with the GMP provision for this subdistrict and would be very willing to hold off on the application until such time as that was resolved by the board. I was somewhat surprised by the conversation a few minutes ago that the -- that maybe the report was flawed back when we were asking for the Compo Plan amendment. I did not know that until just minutes ago on that. Whether it was or wasn't, I think that we really Page 130 December 14,2010 don't need affordable housing in the Growth Management Plan now in 2010. Things changed since 2005. I think everybody would say that. So without -- you know, without passing blame around or anything like that, I would just ask that the board would consider instructing staff to take that out, and we will be happy to work with any other aspect that -- of that subdistrict GMP that the board or the staff would like to have us take a look at. Barry, could you agree to that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I -- let me weigh in on that for just a moment. Mr. Pritt, you're absolutely correct. This was a board-initiated action, and we did it on the basis of information that we were required to use by the state in calculating affordable housing requirements. We have sufficient information today to depart from those guidelines, I think, and I think it's entirely appropriate that the board initiate the Growth Management Plan provision for this particular petition. It will not set a precedent because this was an unusual situation, and -- but I would say that before the board could make a commitment to incur those expenses to do that, we would need to have some reason to believe that Commissioner Fiala's solution would gain your support and would be acceptable to your client and would be acceptable to the community. But I think that is the perfect solution, and I would be willing to support it if we can get the sense of the community and get the sense of your client about agreeing that you go to the base density for this development. MR. PRITT: I would have to have Mr. Goldmeier address the board on that, because I think that's not -- or that's a little -- we're talking about a major reduction in density, and I don't think that we would want to go to that point until we see what the GMP would then say, and then bring it back -- the matter would still be in front of you, Page 131 December 14,2010 then bring it back. And if it had to be amended in a significant way, possibly even go back to the Planning Commission -- but bring it back for review after you have completely vetted the issue of what to do with the Davis -- Collier -- or the Davis/Barn district, subdistrict. I'll be glad to have him address you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you -- please understand our -- my position. We're going to spend significant time and effort doing this at no expense to you without any assurance that once we do it, it will be acceptable to you and the community. I would like to get some indication today during this hearing rather than spending the time and money to make the Growth Management Plan provision, and then two years from now we find that everybody changed their mind about all the other things. So we need to have some indication of where we're likely to go if we choose to do that, to make that move. Commissioner Fiala was asking questions, and I interrupted her, and Commissioner Coletta has some questions to ask. So I will turn it back over to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I see Mr. Goldmeier continue to shake his head. We could just vote no on it and let it go. (Applause. ) MR. PRITT: Could we -- could I have Mr. Goldmeier talk to you directly? MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much for the opportunity. Barry Goldmeier, 1000 Mariner Drive, Key Biscayne. And by the way, I appreciate your suggestion, and the place -- the one and only issue that I'm objecting to is going to the base density. That would have been nice six years ago. I would have accepted that six years ago. But here we are $700,000 spent in pursuing this site plan and this kind of -- this kind of project which has been entirely lost with all the political rhetoric and the mischaracterizations of the project, because you as a board have not heard what project it will be. You have only Page 132 December 14, 2010 heard what I would consider to be mischaracterizations, and those mischaracterizations came from the fact that this board inserted an affordable/workforce housing requirement in the project, and from that -- from that point on everything else was lost. Now, just as a little history, we came -- I came to this county, and I've done a very successful project, an affordable housing project in Immokalee which, by the way, today is 98 percent occupancy, unlike -- and some of that is because of the design and the high quality of the product, and I'd imagine -- and I think that Commissioner Coletta's familiar with Main Street Village. And when we built that project, we were asked by county staff, can't we come to county proper, can't we come west? We acquired a site to do an affordable housing project on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and while looking at that, we found this site, which is far too nice and far too well located to be an affordable housing project to do a conventional housing project, because we don't only do affordable housing. And we began down the road to do a type of product that has been very successful elsewhere in Florida. It's a traditional neighborhood design project. We met with county staff and described and showed pictures and plans of what a traditional neighborhood design project is, and somehow that was all lost also. Our Compo Plan amendment came out as a mixed-use project with bonuses to do a mixed-use project but with no T&D elements as part of that, yet we persisted, and we went to meeting after meeting trying to describe how a traditional neighborhood design project is actually superior to the other projects surrounding us. And my way of basically stating that is in Collier County I've only seen three or four traditional neighborhood design projects. There's one called Ole' off of -- off of 41, there's one called Mercato off Vanderbilt Road, and there's one near downtown called Bayside, I believe, and those projects are traditional neighborhood design Page 133 December 14,2010 projects. And guess what, they're all very expensive, high-end projects. Now, the reason that they're expensive, high-end projects is because it costs a lot more to do a traditional neighborhood design project. First of all, you have to have your services in the back of the project and your parking in the back of the project. Secondly, instead of basically putting decor and architectural features only on the front of the building, because now you have a building which has a front and a back, both of which are viewed, you have to put your architectural features on the front and the back. And the result is a much more attractive and successful type of product which has only been built in high-end projects. Now, where -- we wanted to attempt that in a mid-range project, not an affordable project, not a high-end project, but something in between. And those traditional neighborhood design elements would have been very successful, but nobody has been able to even comment on that, aside from one or two people on the planning board, because the entire characterization of the project has been, it is an affordable housing project. Now, we would be -- and by the way, I'm very appreciative, Commissioner Fiala, of your suggestion. The only place where you lost me is going down to the base density. This project, this location at the -- at a major intersection on a major road into Naples is too valuable a piece of property to build estate homes. And in fact, it is -- if you want to talk about the characteriza- -- the character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood is apartment projects. You have Napoli across the street, you have behind it -- you have Falling Waters and you have Glen Eagle, which has a very dense multifamily project apportioned to it, so -- and you have right across the street a four-story ALF. So we are in fitting with the neighborhood. Secondly, we are not bordered by any other residential project. Page 134 December 14, 2010 We have a church on one end and we're -- we have a school, Seacrest school that wraps around us, and those are our neighbors. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the autism school. MR. GOLDMEIER: Sorry? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the school on autism, school for autistic children. MR. GOLDMEIER: I don't -- Seacrest school, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, next door to Seacrest, right on the back of your property. MR. GOLDMEIER: I'm sorry. I'm unaware of that, Commissioner Fiala. But we are bordered by churches and schools, let's say. And I do believe if this board were to consider the project and not just throw out the density as an issue -- because it's only a number -- and to consider the quality of traditional neighborhood design projects, that you'd see that we would bring you something that's very appealing, and I would point -- and I could -- I have pictures with me of Ole', which is basically the same kind of project, different -- different architectural style, but same type of project, which I think has been well received in this community. And all we're talking about is numbers and a number as far as who is affordable. Well -- and how many affordable do we have to have, and also a number which is density. And your -- you've all had to run in political contests. You're familiar with characterizations and mischaracterizations, and all we're asking to do is to be able to bring you a traditional neighborhood design project, and you judge it on its merits, not by a number. That's -- that's all. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's hear from the public speakers. How many do we have, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Seven, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we continue this discussion, because I think that -- because I would like to hear from the public after we give some direction or give some concepts. After all, we're Page 135 December 14,2010 the decision makers but, you know, they're going to live with it. So this is all new news to me, so -- and I have questions and maybe some discussion with the board members to see if we can come to a conclusion and then have the public give us some guidance. Would that be okay, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll do it any way you want to do it. It's always been our practice to try to collect the information from the public before we form our opinions, and I think it's very helpful to do that, quite frankly, rather than us forming our opinions among ourselves and then listening to the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I have some ideas that I think that we can -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's take them in sequence then. Commissioner Coletta was second, was next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you, I'll wait till after the public speaks. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller, were you before Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got to go before him last time. It's his time now. Okay. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Goldstein (sic), what-- MR. GOLD MEIER: Goldmeier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Goldmeier, I apologize. Please, come up here. What can we -- on a traditional neighborhood, as we talk about Mercato or Bayfront, what kind of limitation of height or how many stories can we limit? MR. GOLDMEIER: Three stories, and we would -- we anticipate having it two and three stories but with a three-story height Page 136 December 14,2010 limitation. We agreed to that for the planning board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And what -- what kind of square- foot commercial would you be talking about? MR. GOLDMEIER: Anywhere between 15,000 and 35,000. We don't view the commercial as being traditional commercial which would generate high traffic. We view this as a live/work community. In -- it -- look, we share an office -- we share an entrance with the church next door, and then we have another entrance way down, you know, close to the entrance to Seacrest school. And this is not a practical site for a large commercial user. We're envisioning architects' offices, we're envisioning tutors, we're envisioning nail salons, you know, things like that, to serve the local community, because this is not a high-access site. And also, that's part of the concept of the project, to cut down on traffic and to have something that is self-contained that is walkable, ridable with bikes, and my architect can explain it to you more thoroughly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I think the explanation -- if we can commit to that limitation in height, you're going to also limitate -- there will be a limitation on your density. MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And comparable to the surrounding there would be -- would be comparable because in Countryside we have three stories, I -- maybe four. I'm trying to recall. MR. GOLD MEIER: In Glen Eagle you have a four-story product, and also at the entrance to Glen Eagle, you have an ALF, which is four stories. We envision a much less dense product, but a different kind of product which, as I said, has gotten totally lost in this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- well, you know, the traditional neighborhood concept has really worked in the projects that you mentioned. Those are the only traditional neighborhoods that we Page 137 December 14,2010 do have in Collier County, and they have worked. MR. GOLDMEIER: That's all I came here to build. That's what we tried to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ifwe could remove the affordable housing component -- MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and let's do market rates with the height limitation, that's probably what I would-- MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- be in favor with -- MR. GOLD MEIER: I'll even agree to growing the units, because we had a small-size unit which was an artifact of having the affordable housing requirement, because being able to -- that was necessary because when we had an affordable housing requirement, we had to have a smaller unit, and there's been objections to the size of the units, and we will work with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's hear from the public with -- and try to get some direction on that, and I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, you want to speak now or after the public or both? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, both. But I'll start with a couple of questions. First of all, Mr. Mitchell, could you put this on the overhead, or could you -- MR. OCHS: Is that the density map, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a detailed density diagram. MR.OCHS: Let me try this and see if it's the same thing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the same thing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is? MR. MITCHELL: It is the same. MR.OCHS: Is that what you have, ma'am? Page 138 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted the public to see what the densities of the surrounding projects were before they discussed this. The second question I have -- and subject site is at the end of the blue pen. The question I have is the definition of your traditional neighborhood design. You describe Mercato, but then you say you have a very small commercial portion, only about -- at the most 35,000 square feet. So how does your project compare to Mercato? MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, this is part of what happened to the application. We came in with -- to do a TND, and staff presented us with a mixed-use -- they modeled the Compo Plan amendment after a mixed-use project, and so our request to do a traditional neighborhood design became a mixed-use project. And Mercato is primary -- it's very high density and it's primarily retail and commercial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. GOLDMEIER: But that's just an example of how the parking is hidden in the back, and the streetscape is an attractive streetscape. And I have here pictures, if you'd like me to show you, of Marcato and Ole' and all the other ones if that would be helpful to this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I know exactly what Mercato look likes. I'm just trying to relate what Mr. Pritt has shown me, which is depicted in a very small rendering on the overhead, to what you're describing. I really am having a hard time correlating the two. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, we have full-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, other than that, you're saying you're not going to have driveways facing the road? MR. GOLDMEIER: Correct. We're going to have the -- if you COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I guess I don't see how density plays into which side of the building the driveway is going to face. MR. GOLDMEIER: It has to do with the fact that a traditional Page 139 December 14, 2010 neighborhood design project is a much more expensive project to build. And in order to combat the economics of that, you have to have a higher density. But the density is, in fact, presented in a much more attractive manner. And I have here pictures ofMercato, I have pictures of Ole', I have pictures of all the traditional neighborhood design projects here. We have a fully designed project that we've done on the East Coast that I can show floor plans and renderings. I can -- I have pictures of the project, of a similar project. But as I said, all of this has gotten lost. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you go back to that density map? So I'm going to talk now. Now, zooming in again on Davis Reserve. All right. Davis Reserve is 10.25 units per acre, to the north Glen Eagle is 4.14 units per acre, Berkshire Lakes is 3.99, the Estates is one dwelling unit per 2.45 acres, and the county manager has covered up Napoli Luxury Condo. It's four units per acre. Now, tell me how you think that 10.25 units per acre is no more dense than your surrounding communities. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, Glen Eagle has a golf course, and that's taken into consideration. Napoli is -- has a much -- it's a very wet site with a tremendous amount of preserve, and they -- they were only able to build on little islands that were -- that were upland islands remaining there, and so the size of the site is not truly indicative of the density because the upland islands that are remaining have the appearance of the same type of density or greater. Because I know that -- I know that developer's a Miami developer, and he builds that proj ect on the East Coast, and that is a -- you can do that same product, and that same product's been done in an 18-unit-per-acre density, and -- because all we're looking at is the upland islands, not taking -- again, numbers. All of the wetlands surrounding it is just an Page 140 December 14, 2010 -- you know, just distorts the numbers. And the ones with golf courses, you really have to consider the building pads, not the golf -- without the golf courses. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an interesting perspective, thank you. Let's hear from the public. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Bob Martell, and he'll be followed by Paul Lighton. MR. MARTELL: Welcome, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. MARTELL: My name is Bob Martell. I'm the president of the master association of Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club. We've been mischaracterized during this whole six-year process as being opposed to the affordable housing component, and that's not true. From day one, we've been against the enormous high density of the project. That has been our objection for the past six years. U sing the affordable housing component to get bonus units is just that, in my mind. If you talk about Ole' as an example -- I know a little bit about Ole'. Waste Management can't get in those roads, so they have to use alternative means to collect the trash in there, and that's a very high-density unit also. So I'm not going to be repetitive, but I am telling you that our objection is high density. It doesn't fit with the community. It hasn't fit since day one. I would be amenable to the four-per-acre proposal that Commissioner Fiala proposed, and that's all I have to say. I just think it's wrong. I'm really concerned that the Planning Commission, who pointed out 23 or 24 reasons to turn it down, are being asked for you to overturn them. It really concerns me. Thank you for your time. Page 141 December 14,2010 MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Paul Lighton, and he'll be followed by Evan Steingart. Could we use both podiums, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Steingart, are you here? MR. STEINGART: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please come to this podium, and you will follow the first speaker. MR. LIGHTON: Welcome, Ms. Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. LIGHTON: My name is Paul Lighton. I'm a member of the board of directors of the Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club. I'm one of the soldiers, the eloquence of Mr. Martell, I can't even come close to. On the other hand, I have attended the various meetings. I know that one of our commissioners has attended most of them. To say that we have been mischaracterized, I think, has probably -- is probably refutable by her. On the other hand, we do worry about density . Yes, we have a golf course, but that just limits the number of houses that we could have put in there. The fact is, we have a lot of houses in Glen Eagle, 1,234 units on a very large place, and it is a density of only four. It -- no matter how you look at it, you're looking at the number of people and cars that have to go in and out of a very small area onto the County Barn Road, where there have been fatal accidents, and we really feel that the density issue is the most important issue, and I think most of the other developments around there feel the same way . We're a bunch of corporations. We're simply making our point known to you fellows. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next speaker is whom? MR. MITCHELL: Robert Davis. Mr. Steingart, you start. Robert Davis? MR. STEINGART: Yes, good afternoon. My name is Evan Page 142 December 14, 2010 Steingart, and I'm with Napoli. I've also been responsible for bringing all the communities together, which is Glen Eagle, Napoli, Countryside, Falling Waters, and Seacrest schools. And everybody is united against this project because of the density. That is the main issue. And not to be repetitive, but the -- we also feel that the retail space is completely unnecessary, 35,000 square feet of retail space, when we have hundreds of thousands of square feet of unused retail space in East Naples. I think that what we're asking the commission to do is exactly what Commissioner Fiala has suggested, and that's lower the density. If we lower the density, I think that you would find the community to be a lot more, I would say, less against this project. You know, we also have a fear that we've -- we've not gotten some straight answers from the developer . We've gotten some vague answers as far as, are the units going to be rentals, are they going to be condos? We've heard 700 square feet as the size of the units. We-- you know, we have not seen a comprehensive site plan. We really are being asked to use our imagination a lot in this -- in this proj ect. And I think that East Naples deserves better. If you look at the surrounding communities, they're all low density, amenity rich, and we want to keep the tax base strong. I own properties in Glen Eagle and in Napoli, and my tax bill has gone way down, which, hey, that's good for me; it's not good for us. And we want to keep the tax base strong. We want a quality development that is low density, and we need your help. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Gerald Silva, and he'll be followed by Ms. Cummings. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Ms. Cummings here? MS. CUMMINGS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you come to this podium, please. Page 143 December 14, 2010 You can begin, sir. MR. SILVA: Yes. My name is Jerry Silva. I'm president of the master board, Countryside Gulf and Country Club. And over the past several years we've attended many meetings. There was one in particular that Commissioner Fiala was at. It was very contentious. We reached out to the developer and tried to bring the parties together in a less explosive atmosphere. We wanted to work with him. We continue that desire to work with him, and it's nice to hear that there's been a certain element of compromise suggested. What we still hear though is a lack of commitment on the part of the developer to embrace this compromise. A density of four units per acre, I think, would be more acceptable to the surrounding communities; however, I haven't heard as yet a commitment from the developer to go along with that. I think if that commitment were firm and fast, that it would be a more acceptable solution. Additionally, there are concerns as to whether this developer will follow through with his development plan and whether we will eventually see the concept that he has stated. At a meeting that we held, there was a suggestion by him that he may bring in another developer as a codeveloper or conceivably even sell the project off once the zoning was changed. That's a concern. If we're going to have a promise made, it must be a promise kept. We would urge you to take these issues into consideration in your deliberations. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. CUMMINGS: Good afternoon, my name is Maika Cummings, and I am an owner/resident at Napoli Condominiums. My concerns are that -- well, after listening to Mr. Goldberg (sic), I appreciate his concept for building a traditional neighborhood. I am familiar with the Mercato proj ect and with the Ole', and they are very beautiful; however, I'm concerned with the timing of the building this very big proj ect. Why now when the economy -- when Page 144 December 14, 2010 the real estate is, you know, market's low? I mean, I can't -- I own several units. I've been trying for the last five years to sell just one, and I cannot do it. So I don't understand again, when the economy is so low, why build more. Also someone said before, we don't need any more retail space. We have the Santa Barbara shopping centers, the big W ai-Mart Supercenter, and if you go there, which is not even ten minutes from Davis project, most of the days, you know, those retails stores are either closed or you don't see hardly any business. So I don't think the time is appropriate for this development. Also, the congestion that it will create in the area -- County Barn is a two-lane road, and we have fatal accidents. So what is the builder going to do to ensure that we are not going to have terrible problems with traffic? Because right now, we have problems. So this is what I have to say. And I'm sorry Mr. Goldberg (sic), but I will say, no, please, not now. Maybe five years from now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Barbara Walters, and this is your last speaker, . SIr. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Barbara Walters? MS. WALTERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You look different in person. MS. WALTERS: I'm sure you're going to tell me I look much younger and prettier, right? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do, you do. MS. WALTERS: Thank you. Welcome. Thank you, County Commissioners. My name is Barbara Walters. I am a director of the Glen Eagle Master Board, and I'm also president of the Chatham Square One Condominium Association in Glen Eagle. I've spoken before before the planning committee. And I'm not Page 145 December 14, 2010 very -- even though Barbara Walters is great on her feet, I'm not great. I need some notes. The County Planning Commission acts as the gatekeeper for all the development projects. And as we all know, they are responsible for making sure the site plan is properly done and all of the relevant laws and ordinances are adhered to. Once they approve the project, it is nonbinding. The developer is trying to get the County Commissioners to essentially overrule the Planning Commission. I am in agreement with what Donna Fiala had talked about with the one unit per acre or four per acre. I'm going to cut it short because a lot of things were already said, but we've met many times with Mr. Goldmeier, and he has stated that he will probably flip this site, which doesn't make it that he wants to be kind to the neighborhood, that he wants to work with us. It is much too dense. There is no comparison to -- that site to Mercato. Ole' is -- Ole' is centered in the Lely area, and we are on a corner of County Barn Road and Davis, which is a much smaller area. There's no comparison. So my feeling is that I hope that you will go ahead and listen to the Planning Commission and either work the numbers better for the density for all of the community -- because we don't need retail at all. We have empty spaces on Davis. We have empty spaces on Rattlesnake. We have empty spaces at Kings Lake, and we have tremendous empty spaces at the Wal-Mart major shopping center. How many more offices do we need for tutors, et cetera, that Mr. Goldmeier said are going to open up stores? They'll be empty, just as they are on Davis. So please think of the owners, think of your constituents when you vote on this project. Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mark Strain is here from the Page 146 December 14,2010 Planning Commission if we want to hear from him. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to hear from him. You can if you'd like, call him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want him to say something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Strain, as Chairman of the Planning Commission, would you come up. Commissioner Fiala has some questions. MR. STRAIN: Did you want me to read this whole book? COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you wouldn't mind. But I first just need a little break. MR. STRAIN: I don't blame you. Mark Strain, for the record. I'm not sure what you specifically want to address, but I did hear some interesting things, and I have some information that may help. Commissioner Coletta proposed a motion on this back in June 7th of2005, and he established it at 91 units at that time, and Mr. Coyle said numerous times about the motion, it's just a stipulation that if we should, by chance, by a very, very slim chance, if we ever approve any density here, than it would have to come some -- at least some, and then we went into the discussion about the percentages for affordable housing. So the motion that you made then was locking it in at 91. If they were anything above that, it was under particular circumstances. And Mr. Coyle, at the parting of that motion, after it was finished voting on, he said, it passes unanimously -- and by the way, you were chairman then, too, Mr. Coyle. Don't come back for any base density. I mean any increases in density. So I think you laid the groundwork pretty clearly that 91 is the number. Now, they're coming in for more for a variety of reasons, and that's something that I don't know if they have a right to expect that based on the direction that you-all gave quite a long time ago. Page 147 December 14,2010 As far as the Planning Commission's issues, we had, I think, a lot of deep concerns that the public has expressed. There wasn't the detail that we were used to seeing in a project that had the specificity that was in the Growth Management Plan for this project. It talked about, in the GMP, references to the County Community Character Plan. We saw no defense of how this ties to the community character plan. Granted, some of the renderings that were produced for us may have some elements in it, but it wasn't defined like it should have. There were some issues -- and there were 22 issues, and I have to say, Mr. Andrea -- and I talked to Mr. Pritt before the meeting -- we met in Commissioner Fiala's office, and out of the 22 issues, they've corrected most of them. There's about five outstanding. But the parking and the orientation of the buildings, the density, the breaking up of the mass of some of the -- of one of the buildings that's left, the clarification on, if it is affordable housing, how does it fit into the project, when does it start, when does it end? Because it's outside the bonus -- the affordable housing agreement, so you've got no -- you've got no strings to attach it to affordable housing. Those are all things left undone. But had the project been a more comprehensive presentation addressing more detail, showing how it ties to the community character plan, showing how the cross-sections of the potential berms that would internalize the parking or move the buildings to the edges of the roads, some of those things would have helped go a long way to a better presentation at the Planning Commission, and that's why it was suggested numerous times to consider a continuance. That was, from what I could tell, four times offered. And it wasn't until after the vote that the attempt was made, okay, well now let's have a continuance. It wasn't offered that way. It was before the vote. So I don't know what else specific you'd like from me, but that's the generalities of where we were. And I'm speaking -- most of the issues are as myself as chairman of the Planning Commission. I Page 148 December 14,2010 cannot speak for the Planning Commission, but I did check the minutes before I came here to try to be as accurate as I could. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe're going to have a debate that's going to take more than another five minutes before we resolve this, we're going to take a break. Is there anybody here who believes we can resolve this in five minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a break until 1 o'clock (sic) -- till 2:47. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. Commissioner Hiller had a request of Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except Commissioner Hiller isn't here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mark, stay for a sec. She's got to be here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, she is. MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, if I might, are we on the record? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are the record. We continue to be on the record. MR. PRITT: By the way, I did not order the court reporter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That rules you out. MR. PRITT: Yeah. I'm under oath, I didn't -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's good. Then when we take the next meeting -- the next break, the imaginary court reporter doesn't get a break, okay, so -- MR. PRITT: We've done some talking during the break. It's always nice to have a break in these proceedings, and I wonder if Mr. Casalanguida could address the board. Page 149 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: It depends on how he addresses us. MR. PRITT: Your Honor, yes, sir, yes, ma'am. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. Commissioner, we've spoken to the applicant, understanding that you've offered to do a county sponsored Compo Plan amendment. And a question came up as, well, why, you know, go through this process and be a year later on the same conundrum of what the density is, and asked the applicant what the key issues are in hearing what some of the public has said today, the commercial and affordable and workforce housing, the components that are in there. If those were eliminated, both of those, and it came back to almost eliminating some of the requirements in the subdistrict and going straight to a density per acre in the neighborhood of five to six -- because you can't make that decision today; you want to hear all the facts going forward -- that is acceptable, I believe, to the applicant, and it would eliminate a lot of the concerns I've heard. So if that was the case, then you're kind of -- a range that you've discussed, talked about, we would sponsor the Compo Plan amendment and then come back to you finally with a recommendation of somewhere between five and six based on our discussion. If that is still too high for the community, then I don't know if the applicant is going to agree to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many units is that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I will defer to the commissioner who represents this district, and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it doesn't exceed 92 units. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then that's above that then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's four units per acre. MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Page 150 December 14,2010 MR. PRITT: The reason we're -- if I may. The reason we had come up with between five and six, if you look around here, you'll see eights and -- eights, fours, 3.99, four, 3.55. Falling Waters is at 5.07. So we're just trying to come within those ranges and would ask that you approve that, and -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you eliminate the commercial, how many units are you adding to this project instead of the commercial? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're approximately 22 acres. So at five you're about 110. So eliminate -- you're at 234 requested right now, plus 35,000 square feet of commercial. So you're cutting the density for residential by more than half at five. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me work from what the developer has as a matter of right, which is 91 units. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which approximates about four units per acre, plus 35,000 commercial. So if you eliminate the 35,000 commercial, how many units, residential, are you adding to the base of91? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At five you're adding about 20; at six you're adding from 90 to about 136, about 40. So between 20 and 40 more above the base of 91 if you eliminate the commercial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Twenty? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty to 40. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Twenty to 40? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, between five and six. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're basically taking it to 110 or 130? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In that range. COMMISSIONER HILLER: With no affordable housing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And no commercial. Page 151 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And no commercial. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to ask Mark Strain a question, Ms. Hiller, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Strain -- over the break Mr. Strain had suggested an alternative solution as well. Would you like to -- it's somewhat similar to what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was more in -- it addresses the affordable housing. I suggested that you do have, I think, a basis to a reduced -- or to eliminate the affordable housing. At the time it was approved, it was done without the adequate studies that we now have today. There's a statute, Florida Statute 163.3177, and it has a requirement or a condition of the housing element. It says, the creation or preservation of affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services and avoid the concentration of housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. And it's not the way our GMP reads, and I would believe that the statute supersedes or has a value over the GMP. The GMP is less aggressive in its -- or in its manner. It says, we shall seek to distribute affordable housing. Well, when you look at the statute and it's aggressive in the way it talks and addresses how you will disperse affordable housing, you may not have had the ability really back in 2006 or -5, whenever this came through. It was to call for affordable housing in the GMP at that location to begin with because the studies may not have shown it. And I was suggesting that maybe if you want to get out of the affordable housing issue to help get this thing back on the road, you could eliminate it based on the fact that it has an internal consistency with our statutes. But that is a legal matter that I posed at the Planning Commission, but it -- we didn't get that far with this proj ect as far as Page 152 December 14, 2010 an approval goes, so it never got to -- it never got legs. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think there's any need to have a requirement of affordable housing in this project, either on a state statutory level or a county level. The only requirement was because the Compo Plan required it, and if we eliminate that from the Compo Plan, I think we're fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we would still have to go through a Compo Plan amendment to eliminate that requirement? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. But the Compo Plan amendment should be easy . We could pretty much just repeal the whole thing and just -- just to pick a number, if you wanted to do 110 units or 120 units, whatever you wanted, just put in a very minimal Compo Plan, and that will be it. It will be market rate. Now, that market rate could be relatively affordable. I mean, it's market rate. It can be high end, it could be whatever the market bears, but it won't be a requirement to workforce housing or anything. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things. The first one, pretty darn simple. I forgot to mention, under Planning Commission recommendations, it says Planning Commission voted against this in a 2-6 vote, but it only names five people. So I looked all through the minutes of the Planning Commission, and Commissioner -- Commissioner Homiak, Karen Homiak was there and really made a lot of comments during this proceeding, so we want to just make sure that she gets on the record as being there as well. Okay. That was my first thing. Second thing, I'm thinking about the density. I'm listening to what you have to say, you know, and I want to work on behalf of the residents of Commissioner Henning's and my district. These are important to them. And what I want to make sure is that we, you Page 153 December 14,2010 know, the -- the lower the density, the better housing you seem to build, right? And so -- but I want to work with you, too, and I -- but I want to ask these people in the audience. I can't probably go six, but I would go five if the audience would say that that would be acceptable to them. I see some nods. That's five units. That would be about 110 units on this acreage and no commercial. Okay. I've got a lot of nods. So I would make a motion then that we would -- that we would accept this agreement that we go through a Growth Management Plan amendment as Commissioner Coyle had suggested and outlined for us and that we -- we change the composition of this property to -- to just include 110 residential dwelling units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no affordable element? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No affordable housing and no commercial. MR. PRITT: Before you make the motion, could I just ask one thing? I'm asking. I'm not -- well, I guess I'm negotiating, but I'm asking. This country was built on compromise, good or bad or anything like that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's start with three units then. MR. PRITT: No, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it. MR. PRITT: The Falling Waters -- again, as I pointed out, Falling Waters itself is higher, some of the others are higher. You would be setting a maximum. Could I ask you to not have the maximum lower than it might turn out that would work, and we'll bear in mind that this is a maximum, if I could ask you to keep it at six, but we understand coming out of here that that's a maximum. We may not wind up getting that. But for compo -- for the GMP purposes, could you at least consider doing that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: What amenities are you proposing Page 154 December 14,2010 to add to this? MR. PRITT: He's going to -- MR. GOLDMEIER: That's the right question, because it's not always the case, when you have a lower density, you have a better product, because you don't have as many units to spread your fixed costs over. And if you just look at the pure economics of the situation, if you want to have a better product and a more attractive product, you have to be able to cover the costs somehow. And I'm just looking for the opportunity to go between five and six. And if we do have a -- such a great project that knocks everybody's socks off and the density's -- but we're doing certain things, for instance, with the amenities and with the architecture, then maybe we could earn an additional unit per acre. But if not, it's -- you know, it's five, what you expect. Let me knock your socks off and try to get another unit per acre out of you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have your socks on? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have my socks on. It didn't knock them off yet. MR. GOLDMEIER: That was only an expression. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're red, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I appreciate that. And actually, we're negotiating, and I'm stuck at five, I'm sorry. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if there's a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was there -- was that a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that we would seek some guidance from our legal counsel. They have a petition before the Board of Commissioners for rezoning. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And would it be proper to act Page 155 December 14,2010 upon that? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think they're about to withdraw it, that application, based on going back for a new Compo Plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, they -- before we -- we need to make sure they're withdrawing their petition and they're okay with us doing a Compo Plan amendment for that parcel of property . COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point, okay. MR. GOLDMEIER: And we're specifically asking to remove the affordable and the workforce housing element and the commercial element. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct. MR. PRITT: It probably will not be-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to make a -- we're going to make a really, really good attempt at making sure we get your name spelled properly when we finish up these minutes. MR. GOLDMEIER: For the phantom or for the real court reporter? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who knows. I can't communicate with the phantom, but I know that Terri will get it straight. MR. GOLDMEIER: It's G-O-L-D-M-E-I-E-R. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nick, you've got something to tell us? We need to move on here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just want to be clear, Commissioner. You've offered them to do the Compo Plan. They're going to have to do the rezone themselves. That's -- Compo Plan is 111 general fund. The rezone is a different fund, 131. All those different folks -- kind of different folks working on it, some are the same. But I just want to understand that. That's all. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's clarify what rezone will be Page 156 December 14,2010 necessary if we make the changes that we are going -- we anticipate making. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'll need a traditional rezone when you come forward to identify the development standards after the Compo Plan is approved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the normal expense for doing that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're going to be around the same range as that Compo Plan between advertising and staff time. Anywhere from 15- to 20-, 25,000. So that would be their cost to do the rezone. I think the board's been very gracious to offer up the Compo Plan, and I think they recognize that, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: To what extent can we accomplish a rezone in this hearing today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could not. You would have to hear the Compo Plan first, and then the rezone would follow that. Now, the only thing I could offer up is to say they pay for the advertising and straight staff time, but I need to cover at least costs on the rezone. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But yet we had a rezone before us today and not a Compo Plan amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's true, sir, but you're going to have to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you were asking us to make a decision on a rezone today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think they're going to withdraw their rezone with the understanding that you're going to do a Compo Plan -- pay for the Compo Plan going forward. That's my understanding, is these folks are going to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what the executive summary says, but nevertheless, if that's where we have to go -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Page 157 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- then that's where we have to go. Mr. Pritt, do you have any comments on that? MR. PRITT: What Nick said is fine. MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, I accept. MR. PRITT: Okay. And I want to make sure Barry's on the record, too. I don't want him beating me up afterwards. MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. Nick is very gracious, and we accept his proposal. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. So what you're going to do is withdraw this petition, the Board of County Commissioners are going to commit to a government-initiated growth plan amendment to remove the affordable housing requirement, and you are going to request a rezone which eliminates the retail and commits to a maximum of five units per acre residential? MR. GOLDMEIER: No, no, no, not a minimum. That's an absolute number. MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. GOLDMEIER: An absolute number, not -- I don't want to MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry. I missed the question. MR. PRITT: No. The Comprehensive Plan amendment would take out the traditional neighborhood development requirement and would take out the affordable housing requirement. It would be more in the line of a -- what you'd call a straight piece, right, and that would be in the Compo Plan. And I believe that there was a maximum of five units per acre or -- we'll take out the -- MR. GOLDMEIER: Minimum. No, no. It's an absolute five-unit-an-acre number. MR. PRITT: What's your understanding? MR. CASALANGUIDA: My under- --let's see if I can clean this up. My understanding, they're going to withdraw their PUD petition today. The board has said, staff, bring forward a re- -- or a Page 158 December 14,2010 Compo Plan amendment that comes forward. And I understand in talking to the applicant, that it's going to be at five units per acre in the Compo Plan with no commercial and no affordable housing. At that point in time, upon approval of the Compo Plan, they will proceed forward with a PUD rezone where they'll pay absolute costs, advertising and staff time, to set the development standards for that rezone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, exactly. MR. PRITT: That's right. I apologize -- I apologize, client. I didn't mean maximum. MR. GOLDMEIER: That's okay. MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. That would be it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's your motion then, Nick? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There was a raise for staff in that motion, sir, as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, just -- and I'm sorry, but you'll have the right up to five. You may decide to do four. We don't want to say you have to do five. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. PRITT: That's correct. That's what I was trying to say, but I said it wrong. MR. GOLDMEIER: I was looking at it as a minimum of five. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. MR. GOLDMEIER: As absolute number of five. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maximum of five units per acre, right. MR. PRITT: Sorry? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maximum of five -- MR. KLATZKOW: You will have the right to do up to five. MR. GOLDMEIER: I don't want to come back here -- MR. KLATZKOW: You won't. Page 159 December 14, 2010 MR. GOLDMEIER: -- for four. MR. KLATZKOW: You will have the right to do up to five. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. PRITT: You have the right to do up to five. MR. GOLDMEIER: It's a right, it's a right. MR. PRITT: If you choose to do four, that's up to you. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay, that's right. It's a right. MR. KLA TZKOW: You'll have a right. MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you, Jeff. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. You get to exercise the right for up to five. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I don't have a second on that motion yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it. Oh, Commissioner Henning has seconded it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just to clarify, not to exceed five. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. That's what it is. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: At long last, it is unanimous. Thankeyou. Page 160 December 14, 2010 (Applause.) MR. PRITT: Thank you all for your patience. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go to B? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Item #9B IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT LETTER FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POINTING OUT JACKSON LABS HAS FAILED TO APPLY FOR FUNDING, I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION OF DECEMBER 14,2010 TO STOP WASTING COUNTY STAFF'S TIME AND TAXPAYER'S MONEY ON JACKSON LABS. THE JACKSON LABS LOCAL FUNDING HAS DIVIDED THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S TIME TO PUT THIS ISSUE BEHIND US AND MOVE FORWARD BY CONTINUING DOING WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOES BEST, PROVIDE SERVICE TO IT'S RESIDENTS - MOTION FOR STAFF TO NOT ENGAGE IN ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR NEGOTIATIONS WITH JACKSON LABS UNTIL AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE BY JACKSON LABS - FAILS MR.OCHS: Commissioners, 9B is your three o'clock time certain. It reads as follows: In light of the recent letter from the State of Florida Director of Office and Tourism and Economic Development pointing out Jackson Lab has failed to apply for funding. I will call for a motion on December 14, 2010, to stop wasting county staffs time and taxpayers' money on Jackson Labs. Jackson Lab's local funding has divided the community. It's time to put this issue behind us and move forward by continuing doing what local government does best, provide service to its residents. Page 161 December 14, 2010 This item was added at Commissioner Henning's request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I want to read an email from September -- September 1 st from Mr. Chuck Hewitt. Fred, I'm in the process of planning the travel schedule, and from what I can tell, the Legislative Budget Council is almost -- likely to act on the project on October 15th, although we should be in positive recommendations (sic) from Enterprise Florida and OTTED well before that. In light of the timing, I am not planning to attend the commission meeting on September 14th. If you think there's any reason that we should, I'll be there. Please let me know the circumstances. On November 15, 2010, the chairman sent Mr. Chuck Hewitt a letter. Based upon a recent telephone conversation, it is my understanding the negotiations between Jackson Labs -- Laboratories and OTTED are about to begin. And December 2nd, to a Justice Harding from OTTED, Chris Hart, please be advised the Office of Tourism and Trade Economics will not be in the position to provide an award to Jackson Lab before the end of2010 calendar year. Prior to making innovation incentive programs award, OTTED must receive application from organization of participating program. To date, OTTED has not received an application from Jackson Laboratory. To our best knowledge, Jackson Laboratory is still engaging in internal discussions regarding the funding. Now, I -- I'm a little concerned that the commissioner trying to bring this to the board is being told one thing but, in reality, Jackson Labs has not been able to submit an application from OTTED, like it says in the state language. And I know our legislators would not want us to shorten our time frame 180 days for the board to review before expending $130 million. The time frame of 180 days has come and gone. It has come and gone. And the language in the bill was clear that local Page 162 December 14,2010 government has 180 days to respond on the match. But it's also clear that it states if the stars don't align by March 1 that the award's not going to happen. And I don't want for us to keep shortening the time frame for our staff to take a look at it -- of the agreement from Jackson Lab, for the Board of Commissioners individually, independently review the agreement and see if it's a -- wise expenditures on behalf of the citizens of Collier County. After all, we don't have these funds. We have to raise their taxes in some sort of fee or tax. This issue of Jackson Lab has divided this community because there has not been transparency on the issue, and we need to stop and start building our community back and start looking at real alternatives to diversify our economy. So, therefore, I make a motion that we direct staff not to engage in any court action or any discussions until we get an application from Jackson Labs for a matching fund of$130 million. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning to instruct staff -- and I presume that also means commissioners -- not to have any discussions with Jackson Labs or to perform any other actions associated with the project until we receive a contract from the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development. Did I get that right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, according to your letter, that's what you asked Mr. Hewitt for is -- because we want to mirror what the contract with OTTED is. But there's one part that is not true in my motion is, Commissioner, if you want to engage in conversation with Jackson Labs, who am I to stop you from doing that? That wasn't a part of my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll take that part out, okay. Now, just to be absolutely clear, that wasn't just what I told Mr. Hewitt. That's what we have insisted upon, that we will not enter into Page 163 December 14,2010 any negotiations with Jackson Labs until there is a signed contract from OTTED and that they have answered all of our questions concerning information, but that's beside the point. The question -- the motion as I stated it then is correct with the exception that it does not apply to me, and I have no problem with it either way, quite frankly. But it was seconded by Commissioner Hiller. We have speakers. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've ten speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we call the speakers, please. MR. MITCHELL: We'll be using both podiums so people will keep moving. Noreen Murray and Duane Billington. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Noreen Murray. Welcome, Georgia. It's nice to see you up there. I can understand a real reluctance by the commissioners who have invested so much time and effort into attracting a business that would diversify our economy and give us real opportunity for change. There are two scenarios. The state -- a successful contract is negotiated with the state, and we go forward looking at the Collier County piece, or it's not. Let me address both. There is work that could be done right now regarding research and fact finding in the absence of the contract. And the primary issue is, you may be doing this or thinking of this, but you're not telling us, and that's a real problem. I know Jackson Labs hasn't told you everything you wanted to know. But if you know things that we don't know, it would be better for the community to get everything on the table. I think you should task the Productivity Committee with, right now, examining NIH funding. Jackson's original business plan and any subsequent business plan they come up with is going to include a very substantial dependency on NIH funding. We can't predict the future, but we can look at how much funding Page 164 December 14, 2010 has been allocated, how it's been allocated, where around the country it has been allocated. They've already designated 55 centers of translational medicine. The personalized medicine field is a subset of translational medicine. What are the odds that a great deal more money to new places that are not centers is going to be allocated? Because that's critically important. The other thing that Commissioner Coyle alluded to this morning in the status report is, one of the things we don't know is the possibility of hundreds of millions of dollars resulting from commercial products that might come out of the research. Well, the reality is that basic science, which is what Jackson's proposal is for, seldom leads to hundreds of millions of dollars, because if there was even a decent probability that that were the case, for-profit investors would be lining up to give Jackson Labs money. So depending on that is foolish. We're looking at NIH funding and donor funding if we go forward, and what is the probability that those things are going to happen? If we don't go forward with Jackson Labs, I would encourage you not to give up the search for economic development. The EDC has been underfunded since its inception. If the EDC could go to the marketplace and say, we have a hundred million dollars to spread around, bring us proposals. You five people would have, I think, a significant number of possibilities that would help us diversify our economy, but I've been hearing too much that the Jackson Labs is our last/best/only opportunity. And please don't view it that way whether the state doesn't go forward or your own economic analysis decides it's not the right way to go. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Murray. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a comment on two points, Ms. Murray. There is absolutely nothing that I know that hasn't been Page 165 December 14,2010 publicly reported. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Secondly, we have not given up on any others. We are constantly having discussions with other companies not connected with Jackson Labs that could bring jobs to Collier County, and we hope that soon we will be announcing the names of some of those. So we're not giving up. We haven't latched on to one. We're looking at many. But there just isn't anything to report to you. Okay, thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington, followed by John Chandler. MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, my name is Duane Billington. This Jackson Labs thing's been going on for quite some time. I've been to all the productivity meetings, all the meetings here down at the County Commission, and really this thing has been pretty thoroughly vetted by the Productivity Committee. They said, using Westinghouse economic report, this won't work. The report says it won't work. We're not going to get a positive return on our money. As a taxpayer, if we're going to be investing $130 million, we ought to get a positive return. Something else that the WEG report didn't consider, they used everything in the terms of gross product, gross productivity. They didn't consider that in order to come up with that 130 million, we're going to have to take that out of our economy to give it to Jackson. That 130 million's being used when people go shopping; it's being used when people are donating to their charities. This is all discretionary funds, and all those activities that involve discretionary funds that support businesses and support charities in the county are going to be impacted by that loss of 130 million. Now, that 130 million's going to be over a period of time, but Jackson needs 50 million up front. So we have to wonder, well, Page 166 December 14, 2010 what's the impact of that going to be, if it's 50 million up front and then the other's on a gradual basis? Well, I had Vladimir Ryziew, one of the members of Productivity Committee, do a productivity workup on this, and for the total 130 million, a one-year impact -- because monies get repeated in our economy -- would have an impact ranging between 194 million and $130 million. On 50 million, it would be between 75 and 82 million. That's going out. Now, this wasn't considered in the WEG report. All they use is gross productivity. But we're starting out with this as a negative. This has been vetted. There's questions, if this goes forward, well, what kind of conditions are we going to put on it? Who's going to be making a determination of what those conditions are? Should there be citizens involved in that or should this just be staff? Where did the basis for all this come from? And I'll continue in a minute. Mr. Vonier, who has signed up to speak, has been kind enough to give me his three minutes. Bill V onier. MR. MITCHELL: Who? Okay. MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. I'll go forth with this. There was other information that was in the WEG report that, when they were questioned where did they come from, well, the basis came from the EDC. The EDC hasn't been able to show where the -- where they got those figures. They're projecting 750,000 square feet for a teaching hospital, a total of 7 - -- 2.8 million square feet of building space in total for everything out there. Janet Vasey from the Productivity Committee did an analysis. That'd be 33 buildings the size of the building that we're in right now, the eight-story building, or a building of the same footprint four stories tall would be 66 buildings. And the original was based on 700 available acres. Well, we're down from 700 to 50 original, plus another 200, so that's 250. I mean, we have nothing solid to go on, but yet we're spending staff time, staff Page 167 December 14, 2010 money, and it's all money going out the door if this doesn't -- if it doesn't happen now, this is all wasted money. And if you look at what -- what's been happening in Lee County with what their economic development effort has been, maybe we ought to just fire the EDC and rent time from the staff that the people that Lee County has been putting -- has put together, because they are just blowing our socks off, pardon the expression. It's insane to continue going forward with this where all we're doing is we're hurting ourselves. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: John Chandler will be followed by Harold Hall. Mr. Hall? MR. CHANDLER: Good afternoon, folks. My name is John Chandler. I'm a retired corporate executive. During the course of my 40 years in business, I literally reviewed thousands of capital investment proposals. My memory's probably not as good as it used to be, but I would have to say that the current Jackson Lab proposal is the worst I've ever seen. The Washington Economics Group report, which is based on very optimistic assumptions, shows that 23 years after the project is initiated, the taxpayers will have only received $74 million back on their original investment of 130 million. This excludes interest payments on any bonds that the county might issue. If you count the $80 million of interest that would be on $130 million of bonds over 30 years, the payback period on this project is 45 years; not an investment I think any of us would make. Worst yet, the Washington Economics Group report has a glaring omission and a major erroneous assumption. The glaring omission is, as Mr. Billington indicated, it counts only the positive impact of pumping $130 million into Ave Maria area. It does not count the $130 million coming out of the pockets of all of the taxpayers in the Page 168 December 14,2010 county . The erroneous assumption is that this one investment will attract a great number of related businesses and that none of those businesses will receive any taxpayer subsidy. Experience in other Florida counties has been that no follow-on biomedical company has been brought in without a massive subsidy. We start with 130 million to Jackson Lab. There's going to be -- the next one will be 100 million, maybe the next we'll get it down to 90. We're going down a very bad path here. If you need more proof that the proposed deal is an extremely poor one, consider this. Over the last three years, the economic development activity in Lee County has consisted of providing subsidies to nine different companies with an average cost per new hire of $11,000. The county is currently planning to pay Jackson Lab $533,000 per new hire. Let me give you some advice. Take the current proposal off the table. It's far too one-sided. Insist on being included in all negotiations. This is a three-way deal. It's foolish not to be part of the negotiations. Three, tell Jackson Lab that they must hold their philanthropic campaign first before we provide funding, not vice versa. Four, inform the Collier Company that their contribution of land needs to be supplemented by a major infusion of cash. Lastly, you always need to give the EDC some strict guidelines so that we never again find ourselves this far down the road on such an unacceptable proposal. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Hall will be followed by Farrell Kupersmith. MR. HALL: Harold Hall, East Naples. I just want to talk about the 130 million plus interest. And my bottom line is, Collier County cannot afford that now. Page 169 December 14,2010 You have overspent impact fees by many millions of dollars that -- I don't know about the current figures -- but very likely interfund transfers that needs to be repaid is probably well over 50 million. I don't know where it might be now. These numbers have to be met somehow. Also, you are well aware that next year we're going to suffer decreased appraised values for tax purposes again. Where are you going to get this money? I'm telling you that I'm -- no doubt the Jackson Lab proposal offers a lot of potential long term. I mean, long, long term, you know, ten, 15, 20, 30 years. Collier County needs some relief economically right now, not ten years from now; in the next year or two. In my opinion, that's what you folks should be really zeroing in on. Maybe 130 million, plus tax, plus interest, might be a doable amount in two years, five years. I don't know. I do not think it's a doable amount right now. I admire you folks for looking long term. That's good. County Commissions should do this, and you do that. But County Commissions also need to look short term, and I'm not sure that you're doing it. I don't mean to sound too critical. But, you know, I'm looking at a time when -- with a budget coming up and the next budget, you folks are going to be over a barrel. Productivity Committee's going to be screaming with you trying to tell them to find ways to cut the budget. I don't think you should go further with Jackson Lab at this point. Thank you. (Applause. ) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Kupersmith will be followed would Rainey Norins. MR. KUPERSMITH: Farrell Kupersmith. I'm a citizen of Collier County. By way of background, I retired as a senior partner from a firm that provides professional services around the world. We Page 170 December 14, 2010 have over 100,000 employees. I spent a career evaluating capital budgets and business plans, and I came to make some points. I'm going to try and emphasize the points that already (sic) haven't been made. I came to be critical of transparency, but I accept Commissioner Coyle's remark that everything that has -- he knows has been disclosed. In a way that only accentuates my discomfort with this proposed project. The cost is severely understated. We ought to quit calling it $130 million, because there's nobody who's going to buy bonds with a zero percent interest rate. The cost over the life of this project, with all due respect to the previous speaker, cannot be financed with a total all-in cost over 30 years, at far in excess of $200 million, far in excess, and that's just the Collier County portion. I also think, although it's not this body's responsibility, that all of us as citizens of Florida ought to be thinking about that number as a double, because it's -- we're only putting up half of what the total proposed investment would be. Against the 400-plus million dollars -- because nobody, again, is buying bonds from Collier County or the State of Florida with -- that doesn't carry an interest coupon. One has to weigh that has been publicly disclosed as the committed rate of return. And when I say committed, I put that in quotes because I'm not aware of any contractual commitments. These commitments really more relate to expectations from Jackson of several hundred jobs. Several hundred jobs, as a minimum expectation, spread across $400 million is one pretty poor deal. I definitely support the commission's efforts and objective of diversifying the economic base, but $400 million against a couple hundred jobs is a pretty poor return. Anything that happens above and beyond that, frankly, is speculation on the part of the commission. The partners who've been named so far -- and I don't want to demean any of them, but I'm going to speak factually. Athletic Code Page 171 December 14, 2010 is a start-up company. Edison Community College says they're going to put a charter high school out there. Florida Gulf Coast University is a welcome addition to the community. They fill an important need, but I don't think they'd make anybody's list of research facilities that anybody would think of or turn to as part of a $400 million investment. The only facility that does do research is the University of South Florida, which is more than 100 miles away. The notion that they are going to be a medical school here as part of this feasibility evaluation is at this point rank speculation. I guess my point, bottom line is, is that the primary beneficiaries of this in terms of the couple hundred jobs that have been expected out of Jackson really is Barron Collier and Ave Maria, because if the project goes, the land that Barron Collier has in the area is going to be worth a whole lot more, and Ave Maria, even during the peak, before the real estate bust occurred in '05 and '06, found selling real estate a tough sell. If this project goes based on Collier's commitment of several hundred million dollars, which is the real number, not the 130, they're going to be the beneficiaries. The -- I urge the commission not to have so much ego invested in how far down the path you've gone as to not be willing to step back and recognize that right now we have a deal that benefits one side and very little upside for Collier County with an awful lot of downside. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Rainey Norins will be followed by Bill O'Neill. MS. NORINS: Rainey Norins. Good afternoon, Commissioners and Chairman Coyle. I'm here today to represent myself but also my vast number of business friends and associates that I have worked with over the past Page 1 72 December 14, 2010 25 years that I've lived in Naples. And I also want to start off by saying that I greatly respect the courage and the fortitude that the three sitting commissioners have had over -- the four sitting commissioners have had over the past couple of years as this has been considered and carefully thought about. I know that there have been some vicious attacks on you in person, here in this room, by emails, by telephone calls, somebody you meet on the street, and I just want to say how proud I am of you for sticking up for what you feel is right and for what you feel is a good proj ect for our community. There are thousands of people in organizations that are in leadership positions here who want this project to go forward. There's still hope. There's still time. And the one thing that I would like to leave you with today is that, you know, we're about this close from having things out in the open or ready for a decision so, please, let's not stop one inch from the door. Let's open the door and let's see what's behind it. And not only see what's behind it, but when you're making your final decision, remember how many people you have heard from in your own emails and calls who have been rooting for you behind the scenes, out here in public, telling you that we respect you and we want you to do the right thing for us. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I just ask one question? Mrs. Norins, aren't you a fundraiser for Jackson Labs? MS. NORlNS: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is your title? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please. MS. NORlNS: Four years ago I was named on the national council that was founded here to raise funds for the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, and this was to raise funds for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and I'm very proud of the record Page 1 73 December 14, 2010 that the national council has had here, because had we not started our outreach about who the Jackson Lab -- what facility this is, what research company this is, what research lab it is, the EDC would not have discovered it. They discovered it at one of our luncheons. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're actively involved in fundraising at the current time to satisfy Jackson Labs' or the state's requirement that there be $180 million charitable -- MS. NORINS: No, no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- giving match from the local community? MS. NORINS: I support that as a citizen, but my role with the Jackson Laboratory on the national council is raising funds to find cures for diseases at the lab in Bar Harbor, Maine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is anyone directing the initiative to raise $180 million in local charitable giving as required by the state at this time? MS. NORINS: I don't know because I'm not on that side of the equation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. NORINS: You're welcome. MR. MITCHELL: Bill O'Neill will be followed by Tammie Nemecek. MR. O'NEILL: Good afternoon. I'm Bill O'Neill from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress and the immediate past chairman of the Economic Development Council. I'd like to add my thanks for all the people here and in the community who've stood by and supported this effort for Jackson Lab, and most of whom, the vast majority of whom, see no possibility for any mid-term or short-term or long-term personal gain on this. I'm a volunteer. I've been a volunteer. We've done this because of what -- we see the need for economic development in the future in this county, and we think that this is the right thing to do for the Page 174 December 14,2010 county . We do -- I think we bring a sense of history to this. Certainly we are looking at other opportunities here. But this was not an easy thing to find. We don't have opportunities like this banging down our doors. This was -- this was something that we had to find ourselves. This is what -- this is the kind of thing that we were charged to do, and this was -- this is what our job was, to bring these kinds of opportunities and present them. As to the motion that's here today, it wasn't quite what I expected, because I thought that the vote was up or down on JAX lab now. I suspect that the effect of approval of the motion today would be just that, because I don't know how -- I don't know how the process can continue if we simply put our pencils down and don't do any further work on it, and so that's what I'm going to address. I think that the -- there certainly is going to be an appropriate time for an up or down vote on this. This is, unfortunately, because of the procedure, a time-consuming process. That's perhaps unfortunate, perhaps fortunate, because of the checks and balances that get introduced in that process. Until we have the chance to address the detailed real deal, we don't know what there is to vote on. Until the dollars involved and the funding method is set, we don't know what the impact is on each individual. The EDC has played by the rules. Jackson Lab has played by the rules. I'd ask that the commission and the county continue to play by the rules, follow this through. Thank you. (Applause. ) MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek, president and CEO of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. Welcome. Page 175 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: I have a high deal of respect for everybody in this room and everybody that has an opinion related to how we move forward as a community. We spent an enormous amount of time through an initiative called Project Innovation which reached out to the community to ask, what do you want? The answer was, we want to think differently; we want to act differently. We want to declare that this community is better than we have today. We have, you know, sitting back there with Jack Wert, we have a great tourism industry; we have a great construction industry, a great agricultural industry that we've relied heavily on to secure jobs for our children. And the EDC has worked with the Board of County Commissioners for a very long time in order to help decide what we want to be when we grow up as a community. In 2008, during our workshop with the Board of County Commissioners, we were directed and worked with you in order to say, we want to identify a catalyst company or research institute, something that can help bring economic stability to Collier County. The idea behind bioscience, biomedical, health and life sciences has been the forefront ofEDC's targeted industry cluster initiative for more than 12, almost 13 years. The industry itself, from an existing business base, has grown. We have a high concentration of health and life science companies already here in Collier County and in Southwest Florida. The ability for us to grow from that base is critical. We cannot grow from something from scratch, but we can grow from what we already have here. The data shows that. Over the last three years, Southwest Florida has performed worst than any other region in the State of Florida. We are dead last in the state in economic performance based largely on the job loss that we've Page 176 December 14,2010 seen in all of these industries that we've relied on over a great deal of time. So the decision today is, do we continue in the process? In I would say that this community cannot give up. This community needs to identify the opportunities, vet them thoroughly, and that is what the commission is doing today, and I thank you for doing that. If we say no, it doesn't mean that we're saying no long term, but it means that we're saying this may not be right. I don't think we're even at that point in the discussions at this time. The Jackson Laboratory has applied to the State of Florida for funding. The legislature has said this is important. We want this to happen. We want this particularly to happen in Southwest Florida because you are the hardest-hit area. We have follow-on funding that's going to have to occur at the state level, and we're not quite sure exactly how that's going to factor out. There are a lot of decisions that still have to be made, and the community has come out to say no before any of those discussions have heard (sic). I implore you to consider continuing the discussions; let the application go through Enterprise Florida. There is a new structure that's going to be created at the state level. We don't even know what that's going to look like. Governor-elect Scott is going to be the lead economic developer for the State of Florida. What does that mean? And how is this project going to fit in the state strategy for economic development? Let's give our community a chance to figure that out. And what it looks like at the end of the day will be the decision that you will have to make, and that will be something that I don't know, and I cannot articulate exactly what that will look like right now, but let's at least stay in the discussion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tammie, can I ask you just a couple of questions based on what you said? MS. NEMECEK: Yes, ma'am. Page 1 77 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were talking about recession proofing and, you know, investment in biomedical; is that the proper term ? MS. NEMECEK: Health and life sciences -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Health and life. MS. NEMECEK: -- has been the target industry cluster for about 12 years. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How has -- how has health and life sciences recession proofed Orlando, Kissimmee, and how has it recession proofed Palm Beach County? Right now OrlandolKissimmee is rated tenth in the nation for foreclosures. I know that Palm Beach County is, you know, having major financial difficulties. I'm not really sure I see how this investment in this particular industry is going to recession proof us. Can you explain that? MS. NEMECEK: If you look at the scorecard that we've created -- it's created through our foundation. We created one in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It's the Florida economic scorecard. And what we did with that scorecard -- typically we would look at areas outside the State of Florida. We'd say, you know, how does our region compare with XX region or X region? Our -- our desire with that Florida economic scorecard is, you know, we're all living under the same rules in the State of Florida. We have to all live under DCA, and we all have to live under South Florida Water Management District. How do we at least compare with our sister regions around the state? And even in the State of Florida, as hard hit as maybe some of those other areas have been, Southwest Florida has performed consistently over the last three years -- and Collier County is not the best performing county in the region -- it has performed worst than any of those other regions. And there's a reason for that. There's a reason, because they've been able to attract certain areas of industry Page 178 December 14,2010 clusters. They've been able to develop those over time. Those aren't things that started yesterday. These are things that have been growing in their community for the last 20 years. And this is where Collier County and Southwest Florida is at this point. We're not there. We are -- but baby steps in this process of developing our economy and deciding where we want to go. Even at the point in time when Collier County said, we want to attract a catalyst institute to our community, you know, it takes time in order to decide, what does that look like? How would we ever go after it? Who would we talk to? All of these things have to take time, and I think that's the hard part is -- that we're dealing with right now -- is that you have a lot of uncertainty in the economic base of Collier County. And when you're dealing with all of that uncertainty, it makes it really hard to think longterm. I appreciate the discussion of, what are we doing today in order to create jobs. The realization that unless you're going to take, you know, and purchase infrastructure, as we've done, as you've seen on a national standpoint, and put people to work short term in a construction industry, you've got to wait until business develops in order to create those jobs. So creating jobs today, I think, has been a part of what we've worked for in economic gardening, is working with our existing business base and those small entrepreneurs to say, hey, what can you do today in order to create jobs, and that can be three or four or five jobs today or tomorrow. You approve -- County Commission -- you weren't on the dais at that point in time, but Haynes Corporation, for example, which is moving business from California to Collier County and creating another 20 to 45 extra jobs in Collier County that otherwise wouldn't be here. Those things are occurring right now . You don't hear about them, but they are occurring right now. Page 1 79 December 14,2010 But I would tell you that Southwest Florida, by far, does not have the significant infrastructure at this point in time in order to grow. That is what you're creating with these opportunities. What kind of research and development can we create? How can we bolster Florida Gulf Coast University? How can we take Edison State College and make that better? How can we improve the education system in order to grow children that can go into these jobs? COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking all about nonprofits. MS. NEMECEK: How can we-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, nonprofits-- MS. NEMECEK: I'm talking about education. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But nonprofits, which are a cost to the taxpayer. They're not-- MS. NEMECEK: I'm talking about education systems. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand, but I'm just mentioning -- MS. NEMECEK: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that's -- I mean, you're talking about developing nonprofits. MS. NEMECEK: But-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm more interested in developing for-profits. MS. NEMECEK: Yeah, but who's going to work there if you don't educate your children? COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no question, we need a technical workforce. MS. NEMECEK: Yeah, you've got to go back to the -- to how are we going to -- how are we going to elevate the education system, how are we going to inspire for-profit and not-for-profit activity in the community, and how are we going to build this tax base beyond just a residential tax base, which has proven itself not to be able to sustain the quality of life that we want to have here. That's why we have the Page 180 December 14,2010 issues with impact fees. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Interestingly, if you look at the clustering in Southwest Florida, it parallels the clustering in the entire state. And I would submit, your arguments are not exactly what has happened. In fact, what happened is, we had a hyperinflationary market locally, which is why, when it fell, the drop was larger, but overall I would say that the -- how should I describe it? The overall wealth of this community at the outset was much higher than anywhere else in the state. I mean, we were one of the wealthiest, most successful communities. So are you now saying that these industries that have clustered here paralleling the state clusters are no longer something we should consider as a base for this community and -- MS. NEMECEK: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that somehow we shouldn't help them or support them during these times and look outwards while these people are suffering in these hard economic times? MS. NEMECEK: What I'm really proud of, from the EDC's standpoint, is that we're able to partner with significant organizations in Collier County that are the crux of the economic base. EDC, Collier Building Industry Association, the Naples Area Board of Realtors, tourism, Jack Wert's office. We have a joint website that we're working on right now that supports both economic development and tourism. Tourism is economic development. I think that this -- that this community -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without a doubt. MS. NEMECEK: -- has done an enormous amount of work in order to build a great community. The question is, is what's next? How do we continue to support those three legs of our economic stool while building a fourth, a fifth, a sixth? What do you want? It's not yeah, but we can't get it done, it's yes and let's get it done. Let's get it done for the future generations. Page 181 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask one last question, since I have you at the podium. A lot of the -- MS. NEMECEK: I could stand here all day. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would be my pleasure. A lot of the other counties seem to be very successful at attracting businesses. I'm not sure that we're doing the same while this Jackson Labs debate is going on. It seems like we're missing an inordinate number of opportunities that could be creating jobs today. Lee County has been very successful, and I question why we're not achieving the same success. Broward County, I believe it was in December, issued industrial revenue bonds to the tune of 60 or $70 million to ten companies, meaning no burden to the taxpayers. The dollars would all be repaid by those companies, and I believe a thousand jobs were created as a result. Can you tell me what you're looking at as alternatives and why we haven't been achieving the same success? MS. NEMECEK: I don't know if you've seen any of our reports or at least our last quarterly reports. You would not believe the amount of excellent entrepreneurial activity that's occurring in Collier County . We have about 120 companies right now that are existing businesses. They're not -- they're not large. Collier County's not built of large businesses. There's a lot larger businesses in Lee County. So when you talk about 20 percent growth for somebody who has 30 jobs in their existing business, you're talking about six jobs adding it on to their -- may not seem like a lot to a lot of people, but for that entrepreneur that has to add those six jobs, that's huge. It's a huge investment. And so if you look at some of our reports, specifically around economic gardening, and talk to some of the folks that are participating in economic gardening, it's an entrepreneurial approach to creating jobs, and it focuses not necessarily on just the bricks and mortar, because I think that turns -- it turns it into a fallacy if you just Page 182 December 14, 2010 look at the bricks and mortar. If you just look at the land and the land values and the bricks and mortar, you're forgetting about all that innovation that occurs inside that building and the entrepreneur that has to create that great knowledge in order to transfer it to wealth, in order to hire people and ultimately create jobs in the community. So you've got a number of businesses in the community that are all working together in this entrepreneurial ecosystem in order to create these jobs. I mean, I'll give you an example of the -- just the pathway that we have to lead. I was at a meeting of 25 EDOs, head EDOs from 25 different states around the country, and talking with several them, the majority of them are saying, you know, hey, halfmy board lives in Naples. Absolutely right. Where they're investing their time, effort, energy, and money is in their hometowns back north. Gentlemen's $75 million venture capital fund, Tim Cartright has worked his -- has worked very hard to -- in order to raise a million and a half in venture capital so that we can seed industry here in Collier County. And half the -- half the people that are part of that $75 million fund up north in Wisconsin have homes in Collier County. I think by looking at these big pictures, doing game-changing type of opportunities, you get people to believe in your community, that the community wants these things to occur, and then you get them to invest more readily here locally where their part-time home is or where their six-month-and-a-day home is versus maybe back up north where they might have lived for a number of years or might have gone to college or gone to university. We have a lot of work to do. It's not an overnight success. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How about a level playing field? MS. NEMECEK: Level playing fields are always great, and competitive -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Jackson is making it a very unlevel playing field. Page 183 December 14, 2010 MS. NEMECEK: How is that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think giving 130 million plus the millions that have been described additionally -- I mean, when I ran the numbers it came to about 500 million that ultimately would be the end cost to the public for this project. I think it's a prime example of, I guess you could call it, crony capitalism, maybe corporate welfare. These little 120 companies that you're talking about, what are they getting? Are they getting anything? MS. NEMECEK: Oh, they get resources from the State of Florida through the economic gardening program -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they getting 500 million? Are they getting -- I mean, where's the fairness in this? And how much money will be left over to recruit these companies that you hope someday maybe will come here? MS. NEMECEK: What you're investing in are catalysts in order to expand the cluster that already exists here. That's what you're trying to do with these types of investments, and they do prove themselves to have a return on investment. There's data that can help support that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see -- I don't see that investment being made. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Hiller, can we get back on point, please? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a motion before us. This is not the time to develop an economic diversification plan between you and Ms. Nemecek, but it would be helpful if you would identify for Ms. Nemecek those many, many business opportunities that you say that she has missed. So if you can please tell her -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not now. Please tell her in writing. Page 184 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: All the ones the other counties got that we didn't get. Very simply. MS. NEMECEK: Well -- and our position at this point in time -- and it proves itself every time I come and ask you for -- would you be willing to support this company because they don't necessarily fit into the model or the incentive program that you've set forth is that every opportunity that's interested in Collier County that needs your support, your assistance, is being brought before you. So-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll read the heading. Collier business looks at Lee. MS. NEMECEK: Right. That's Arthrex, which we're currently working with. We've got conversations going on with them, and have. You've done -- Collier County has done seven expansion projects with them. They're a great company, and we can't wait to help them . agaIn. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Appreciate it, Tammie. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other public speaker? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we have one more public speaker? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there another one? MR. MITCHELL: No, that was the last public speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that Mr. Hewitt (sic) would be here today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why would Mr. Hewitt be here today? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because he's speaking at Ave Maria tonight, and I got an invitation on that. MS. de STUART: Mr. Hyde. Page 185 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hyde, from Jackson Labs. MS. de STUART: He is going to be there tonight. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The other thing, are you aware that President Obama signed into law a bill that failed to extend the Medicaid assistance program at a rate of 6.2 percent, which the legislators was counting on that added Medicaid monies to fund this project? CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the point? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The point is very clear, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, explain it to me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've been following this. The point is, the legislation -- the legislators put into law an added Medicaid funding into the bill to support the biomedical. The president didn't put it in. It had to come from the Feds, and it's not in there for the 2010/2011 funding. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's fundamentally untrue. But the point is, what you -- the point you're really trying to make is that the Medicare allocation to the State of Florida from the federal government for this past budget year was less than what the state legislature was anticipating. That is an issue that goes beyond our control. If the state, in fact, believes they have violated the law and it is proven they have violated the law, then I would assume that their allocations to Jackson Labs would be found inappropriate, and the Jackson Lab project would not go forward. It is not my job to tell the state legislature and the governor that they have violated law in constructing their budget. If, in fact, they have, and there's a lawsuit filed by Arthrex that alleges that, then the courts will make that determination. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know where you got, out of violation, breaking the laws, of my comment that the president didn't sign a bill that didn't include the extra Medicaid money to Page 186 December 14, 2010 support biomedical science in the State of Florida. I'm not saying anybody broke the law. I'm saying the funds was not signed into law by the president. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The lawsuit filed by Arthrex against the State of Florida alleges that they inappropriately approved money because the full percentage that was allocated, that they expected to be allocated, was not allocated to Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They dropped that lawsuit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They haven't dropped the lawsuit, because just yesterday we received a letter from their attorney concerning it. So let's deal in facts. Your motion has to do with stopping the process of evaluating with -- evaluating the Jackson Labs project. Let's deal with that. We've got a motion on the floor. So let's deal with that issue and deal with the issues that this board has jurisdiction over. We can't control what the federal government and the state do. If it turns out to be improper or insufficient, that takes care of itself. So why do we want to debate those kinds of issues? Let's deal with your motion. Do you have anything more to say about your motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I want to clarify my motion -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so it's not mischaracterized by anybody. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The clarification, and it's very clear, is to -- until we get an application for funding from Jackson Labs, staff is not to spend any time on it, whether it be in the courts or during the course of the business day. Okay? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's your motion. And, Commissioner Hiller, you were the second. Page 187 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You accept that clarification? Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So if I understand Commissioner Henning's motion correct, that means that I would be limited to my ability of discovery as far as talking to Jackson Labs? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what he said. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will not agree to that motion. If that motion passed, I refuse to abide by it. No one's going to take away my right of discovery. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it technically would not, but the point is, it also -- it means that the County Attorney cannot explore the legality even of a bond issue. It means that the staff cannot receive and analyze any additional information associated with Jackson Labs. If Governor Scott says, when he is inaugurated, that he thinks it is a good proj ect and would like to proceed, the staff cannot do that. If the legislature carries over the money into this session and says, okay, we're going to now allocate not just 50, but $100 million, you will not have the opportunity to proceed with it. It is a foolish concept, and I'd like to make a very brief statement about the positions that some of you have taken. Your criticisms have generally derived from the fact that you have assumed certain things to be true based upon your past experiences or based on what you've heard about this project. The really disturbing point is that many of you expressed those concerns six months ago when you first heard of the project. You didn't like it then, and no amount of information is going to change your mind. Absolutely nothing is going to change your mind. I have a different perspective. There is absolutely nothing about this project so far that convinces me that it can succeed, but I'm not going to close my mind to additional information in the event something does happen that permits us to achieve a favorable result. Page 188 December 14, 2010 I'll tell you right now, there are major, and I'm talking about major, omissions from some of the analyses that you have provided to us, and it's not because you're not aware of it. It's just because you don't wish to consider it, and there's nothing we can tell you that would convince you otherwise. But my position is that the state legislature said they will provide funding -- when there's a contract between OTTED and the state, the county will have the opportunity to do their due diligence, get their questions answered, and negotiate a contract if it turns out to be a good deal. We haven't even gotten to that point yet. And I can tell you right now, none of my questions have been answered concerning this project. Despite repeated requests, none of my questions have been answered. But does that mean I'm just going to close the door and not listen from now on? Some of you will do that. In fact, some of you did that six months ago, but I personally am not going to do that. I'm going to carry out the responsibility that the state legislature placed on the Board of County Commissioners. And as long as the governor and the state legislature wants to help diversify the economy in Florida, particularly within Collier County, I'm going to try to do what I can to get that accomplished. But I will not make a decision without gathering all of the information. And if at the end of the time we're unable to gather all of the information, then my recommendation would be that we not proceed. So I don't understand the rush, the anger, because we have not committed the county to anything. Tax holders have not been committed to a penny any time during this process, nor do we intend to do that. So we are being very careful about this. But until the governor or the state legislature says that they're not going to proceed with this, then I'm going to keep trying to gather the information and perform the responsibility we've been given. Page 189 December 14, 2010 So with that, I'm going to call the question. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion fails 3-2 with Commissioners Coyle, Coletta, and Fiala voting against the motion. Thank you very much. We're going to take a break now, for -- not for the phantom court reporter. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County Manager. Where do we go from here? MR.OCHS: Sir, with you and the board's indulgence, we would like to jump a little bit around in Item 8, your advertised public hearings, to take care of Items 8D and E, your impact fee updates. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #8D ORDINANCE 2010-46: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDIES ENTITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY Page 190 December 14,2010 FACILITIES AND ITEM/EQUIPMENT IMP ACT FEE UPDATE; AMENDING THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE EIGHT OF APPENDIX A, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE UPDATE STUDY, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES; AMENDING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE NINE OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE UPDATE STUDY, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 20, 2010-ADOPTED MR.OCHS: First would be 8D. It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending your impact fees related to the library impact fees and your general government building impact fees. Ms. Amy Patterson will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Amy. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, again, for the record. I have with me our consultants from Tindale Oliver, Mr. Steve Tindale and Nilgun Kamp. We have a presentation that we can go through, or if you want to go straight to questions, the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got your report here, and for this particular item, all the impact fees that you're considering under this particular item are going down; am I correct? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a wonderful thing to do. Motion to approve. We've got a motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, a second -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 191 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala. Now we have -- if we have any questions by commissioners? Do we have any speakers, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. We have no speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner, do you have any objections to the impact fees going down? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. You did a really, really good job, Amy. MS. PATTERSON: Thanks. MR.OCHS: Let's see how she does on the next one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now let's do the next one. Item #8E ORDINANCE 2010-47: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN 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 STUDIES ENTITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT AND AMENDING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT Page 192 December 14,2010 IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE TEN OF APPENDIX A TO ALLOW FOR A PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RATES -ADOPTED W/PHASING MR.OCHS: 10E is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances known as your consolidated impact fee having to do with the update of your law enforcement impact fee. Ms. Patterson will present. MS. PATTERSON: Again, I have the people from Tindale Oliver here. This may be one that you want to see a brief presentation on, or if you'd like me to go straight to questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing Mr. Oliver can tell me that will justify the conclusions of this particular item; however, I'll let the other commissioners ask the questions. MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have a couple. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And we're in law enforcement, right? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We sure are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One of the things I wondered was, we've been very fortunate in having a reduction in crime that's wonderful. Actually for the last few years each year. Also, our Sheriffs Office has been great in keeping his office trim and doing away with phantom FTEs, if you will, and that's a good thing. Also he's been great, and because there's not as much crime, he's been able to reduce the jail down to just one jail rather than two, so there's also a reduction in operating expenses there. Page 193 December 14,2010 On top of which, this study is based on total -- let me see -- on the height of season. And being that I can't -- maybe I don't know, but I can't see any other buildings that even need to be built at all, because we've already got the newest buildings that we've put onboard, and I think we're all set to go. So I would believe that this impact fee should be able to be lowered as well, even though I know you're doing it in stages and the first couple are lower, but our -- you know, we have the ability to drop it a little bit, and I'd like to see that happen. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. You do have the ability to drop it. We do have a large amount of debt associated to our law enforcement construction over the last several years. That's what-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked if it was paid for when I talked with staff, and they said it's all paid. MS. PATTERSON: The entire law enforcement? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I understood. Maybe I misunderstood. Did I misunderstand? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. What I was trying to explain was one of the components that drives this fee up is your capital inventory that's been credited to this impact fee over the last three years since the last update study. Amy could talk a little bit about what's driving the rate here. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. Now, with impact fee, there's two different things that we have to consider is those buildings that we're including on the inventory that are paid for, either because we've incrementally paid them down or they were paid for by another funding source. Those are added to the inventory and have a positive effect on the fee, and when I say positive, meaning that it increases the fee. It doesn't mean to say that everything that we've built over these last number of years is paid for. That's not true. There is outstanding debt on a number of the buildings. It's that the inventory that comprises the Page 194 December 14,2010 impact fee only consists of those buildings that are either paid for by us making payments or the portions of those buildings or buildings that have been paid for by another funding source, and we do provide a credit for those as well. So we do have outstanding debt that's being paid with these impact fees that are coming in now. They're going to pay for existing debt. MR. OCHS: Could you give some examples. MS. PATTERSON: An example of one that was paid for by another funding source would be the special ops building. There was an arrangement that the sheriff had money set aside to pay for a good portion of the construction of that building. So as it was -- as that value was placed based on the inventory, there was a credit calculated to avoid a double charge on growth, but it still is additional square footage being placed on the inventory. Some of the other buildings that have been constructed, substations and other things, they'll be paid down over time, and we can add square footage incrementally as time goes on and we're able to pay down that debt. So two different things. The major component that's driving this increase -- well, there are three things. We just talked about buildings -- is equipment. There's been an investment in equipment over the last five years, since the last full update of this impact fee, that has been paid for, not with impact fees, with other funding sources, and it has a big value, and that value is on the inventory. And the third thing is the credit. This is one of our very newest fees, and I should probably turn to Steve to explain this better than I can. But there was a very large credit component in the beginning because all of these activities were being paid for with taxes. When we adopted the impact fee in 2005, the board had a policy that we would do -- we would provide these growth-necessitated capital improvements, to a large extent possible, with impact fees. Page 195 December 14,2010 And as we've started doing this, the credit has become smaller and, therefore, it's less of a -- less of a reduction on the fee, or it provides an increase to the fee as you shrink that credit. I was as surprised by the results of the study as you probably are. But as we examined this, we went through the inventory in detail with outside counsel and with the sheriffs. We have scrubbed this inventory backwards and forwards with Productivity Committee and with the DSAC. It's technically accurate. Now, whether that's your policy is a different issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would rather it be fundamentally inaccurate. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It doesn't make sense, but I'm sure you calculated it properly . We don't have any new capital construction projects planned for the next five years in the law enforcement area. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Our jail is not overcrowded. There is no forecast demand for another jail or an expansion of a jail for some time down the road, and you're telling me that the fee is going to go up because you've added to the inventory things that we have already built or acquired, capital expenditures. You know, the questions that pop into my mind are, how did you arrive at the value of those things? Is it the value that -- is it the amount of money we paid for them in the past at that point in time, or is it the forecast cost -- MS. PATTERSON: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of replacing it or building additional facilities in the future? And if the answer to that is no, I'm asking why not, because that's what is most realistic with respect to what our expenditure is going to be. MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Tindale. Let me Page 196 December 14, 2010 take one shot at this perfect storm. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. TINDALL: Because when it was calculated -- one thing we do is we like to deal with reality and common sense, so if I can -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You missed this time. MR. TINDALL: Well, let me -- and we're not recommending you adopt this fee, but we had to go through the same consistent calculations or we're going to be -- you know, we're starting to play games. So let me just explain to you kind of the trap we were in. One is, what's unique? Why is this different? Because it is. So we agree it's different and it's strange, so let's talk about it. This is the only fee that you recently adopted. All the other ones have been around for years. And so you went through a process of not spending a lot of taxes and only using fees. So you have a certain amount of growth, you have a certain amount of revenue, and the fees stay constant and your level of service stays constant. All your other fees have been around, except for government buildings, but most of them. So this one's new. So that's one thing that's different. It is one of your newer ones. So you walk in, and you've got a very aggressive program going on to capitalize. And you talked about operating cost versus capital cost. You've got an operation going on that's making major local tax money investments in capital, and it's a policy decision for the last four or five years. So you've been taking taxes and impact fees. That's a policy decision. And you have capitalized and you have equipped and you've modernized, and now you've got an asset sitting out there that is very sharp, doing a really good job, that has been capitalized in value dramatically during that five-year period. N one of your other -- none of your other fees have done that. No other fees have you invested that percentage of increase in the tax base and the impact Page 197 December 14,2010 fees. And you've done that. Now, you've done that for four or five years. And because of that, when you technically sit down and say, if I look forward and I want to continue this policy of, you know, of this major investment, and do I need to continue to really intensify the capital investment and the technology, then this would say, if you want to repeat what you've just done, this is what you would do. You adopt this fee, and you'd keep doing that. And as you do that, every three or four years you're going to go through the cycle of, wow, what have we done to ourself? Now, that doesn't mean you have to. I mean, that's a policy decision. So this is one of the rare instances of all the ones you've done that you have taken a substantial amount of revenue with a little bit of population growth and you've capitalized and increased the value of your asset with those taxes. Now, then what you said was, you know, I don't need to assume those taxes in the future, which makes sense, but then what that does is, the developer doesn't get credits. So it's a perfect storm. You've made a decision, I think you've got a phenomenal operation going on, you've capitalized it, and now you're changing directions saying, I'm not going to continue to spend that level of capitalization in taxes. So the combination of changing the way you're doing business, increasing the value per person dramatically, and then making the right decision of, I'm not going to continue that with taxes, creates this perfect storm. Now, do you need to continue that with impact fees? If you've got a major program you've done in a four-year period that usually you would do over 15 and that's your decision, I've done what I would do usually in 15 years in four or five, I don't want to do this for the next 15 years, one, you've already decided they have -- to cut the taxes and, two, you don't want to continue that, then don't adopt this fee at Page 198 December 14,2010 that level that continues that last five-year period. It's just a -- you know, a policy decision on your part. From my knowledge in watching the operation, it is well worth the investment. You know, I've been impressed. I was impressed three years ago when I met your -- I guess the sheriff was coming in two or three years -- and I'm really impressed with what you've done, but you don't have to repeat that. I mean, you can be in a stage now that says, one, I'm not going to continue to invest current taxes in it and, two, I don't need to capitalize the impact fee at this level. I can -- I can reduce this fee by 50 percent or whatever you want to, and take this investment you've made in this very short period of time and benefit from it for the next five to ten years, you know, back off on it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, you see -- MR. TINDALL: So -- but it was done, and it was, from a business decision, I think a good decision, and you're just saying, I don't want to repeat that. I don't want to do what I did before, you know. I don't want a major tax and 100 percent fees. I'm in good shape. I don't need to build buildings. You know, I've got my equipment really up to speed, and now you can make a decision to take that last time period and not just, you know, say, I'm going to adopt a 100 percent fee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's make sure we put this in perspective. When most of the commissioners took office, there was a huge deficit in infrastructure. MR. TINDALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: In particular, the sheriffs jail was overcrowded. MR. TINDALL: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They were putting people in temporary facilities. MR. TINDALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we had to invest in something at that Page 199 December 14, 2010 point in time. And you're absolutely right, I personally don't intend to continue investing at that same rate or same level because we had a lot of deficit to make up. What I would appreciate very much is a reasoned analysis over the next five or ten years that would tell us, well, what's the jail population likely to be at that point in time -- MR. TINDALL: Well, that's correctional facilities. To be honest with you, I mean, we've got two -- we have a -- I think the correctional facilities fees -- MR.OCHS: That's a separate fee. MR. TINDALL: -- were dropped dramatically. This is the -- this is that new equipment, the new inventory. You know, a really sharp group of people now doing something they weren't doing four or five years ago, and two investments, impact fees and a major investment that you've not -- if you can think of roadways, you'd have had to spend maybe a billion dollars to change the roadway asset as much percentage-wise as what you did for this asset. I mean, relatively speaking, the percent change in this asset is huge, and costs have come down dramatically. But this relative change in the asset overwhelmed it, and it's a good decision. I've seen what you-all have done, and you don't -- you don't necessarily need to have to continue at 100 percent of the investment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How do we get to the point where we're -- we can say with some degree of certainty at what level we want to continue this out into the future? MR. TINDALL: It's almost -- to be honest with you, that's -- we've -- we're developing -- and we haven't even talked to you about it -- an equation that when your growth rate slows down and you're still investing some taxes, that that slower growth rate with some level of investment taxes then calculates, you know, the demand and slows down the fees. And I've got a couple clients now where we're out looking at -- we're not growing at 6 percent in a year. We're growing at 1 percent a Page 200 December 14, 2010 year. And if I have any form of taxes with the slow growth rate going in there increasing my asset, how does that deal with needs in the investment? And that's a -- kind of a smart growth question in terms of the new -- the new life we're going to be experiencing of not growing at 5, 6 percent a year in a lot of our communities. Tonight I would suggest to you, discount the fee and, you know, we can come back and look at the slower growth rate. You do have a reasonable tax base still going into that -- into that sheriff office, and they could absorb some growth. So that's kind of a management decision about, you know, actually looking at the policy decision of the investment level over the next few years. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the DSAC has actually agreed with your recommendation to phase it in. MR.OCHS: Yes. MR. TINDALL: That gives you some time, that major first cut gives us some time to answer your question about the next phase. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're suggesting that if we approve this on a phased schedule, you'd come back to us when? MR. TINDALL: I think before you go up for the next __ CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next -- before the next year starts? MR. TINDALL: -- the adjustment. Then we ask the question about needs and growth rates and the level. That would be a time period to deal with the policy issue of the next phase. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the impact would be roughly 88,300 for the first year? MS. PATTERSON: An 88,300 -- $88,300 reduction to our current collections. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Reduction, yes. MS. PATTERSON: And we would be coming to you anyway because of the required indexing cycle. So we could look at how the Page 201 December 14, 2010 annual indexing layers in with the prescribed phase-in. It would give us a better indication, because this is not the only fee that was scheduled to go up this year. Correctional facilities experienced the same thing because of the same reason, and that's the equipment values. So if we're going to continue to see this trend, then maybe this __ you know, we'll be able to look at this picture with another year under our belt. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would be interested in, perhaps, seeing that. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need some clarification. What type of equipment are we talking about? And let me explain where I'm coming from. In my mind, as the board, with respect to this county, public safety is number one. So if we're going to make an investment, our priority is to invest in public safety. Where is the need? What kind of equipment are we looking at? What do we need to help the sheriff with that we don't have? Is our equipment obsolete or is there -- are there issues that we have that require new equipment? Can you give us some background to explain the need? MR. TINDALL: I can briefly tell you. New computers in the cars and some technology in the last two or three years, you've made that investment. Your sheriff has brought the Sheriffs Department up dramatically in terms of that investment, and that's what's happened to the value. The value per person now that you have in capital, your operating costs may now be under control and some efficiencies, but the value invested has been dramatic because of that three- or four-year capital investment of taxes and some collection of impact fees. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we can't use impact fees collected today to pay for past investments. Page 202 December 14,2010 MR. TINDALL: No. But if you've got a much better investment per person, you can replace that when you add a police officer or you grow. And the question is, do you need any police officers in the next two or three years? And if you don't, because your growth rate has dramatically come down, then you need to start adjusting this 100 percent fee. So there's two different issues going on. One is, have you capitalized it and is the value per person going up? The answer's yes. But now you're growing at a growth rate where you can absorb it a little differently in terms of a 100 percent fee. Almost two distinct sequences of events that have occurred. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But these fees are not being pledged against debt. These are not pledged fees. MS. PATTERSON: They're not pledged, but they're being used to repay the debt. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand that. But they're not pledged. MS. PATTERSON: No, they're not pledged. But the other-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this is preexisting debt also. MS. PATTERSON: This is preexisting-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would be so beneficial if the sheriff was here to explain why there's a need for this investment and the phased approach, because it may very well be that there is built-in obsolescence and he sees the need for placement in year three, which is why there is this phasing. MS. PATTERSON: The phasing was developed by staffas a recommendation in order to soften the increase. It was our -- because a lot of times when you have an increase, if it's an increase across the board, the board can simply elect to just not adopt that increase. They can keep the current fees in place. The peculiar thing with this fee was, we had 14 categories because of the demand factor that were actually going down. So just Page 203 December 14, 2010 keeping the fee the same was not an option because we had to deal with those 14 categories. So we offered the phase-in with the 60 percent as we could bring every fee down, because you have to be fair to all categories. So the 60 percent implementation of the rates is actually a decrease to every category, and then we slowly bring in the increase. Those 14 categories actually get a larger reduction in the early year than they would in the full implementation, and then we phase up to still that decrease that was calculated by the study. It was this staff: not the Sheriffs Office, that suggested the phases implementation as an option, because we understand the economic situation out there that an increase of this type may not be palatable. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there's no legal problem with the lack of matching? MS. PATTERSON: No. We've discussed all of this with outside counsel as well as with our county attorney. And the phase is something that other counties have utilized as well and that we actually utilized when we implemented the government buildings impact fee in 2004. It was a brand new fee, and it was a way to bring it in slowly. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, my concern is the Board of County Commissioners is now responsible for the calculation of impact fees, so we need full assurances that those impact fees are being properly calculated. And we're relying on, you know, Mr. Tindall to come up with accurate answers so that we are legally compliant and that we do satisfy the double nexus test. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. We also, like I said, as we vet this through, we have outside legal counsel that are experts in impact fees, and so this -- particularly because of the increases, we spent a lot of time with council going through the report, going through the calculations, going through the inventory lists. DSAC had questions about, if there were any replacement items Page 204 December 14, 2010 on there, making sure that that wasn't true, double checking with the sheriffs department to make sure that we were in line with everything on there being a growth capital asset. So I mean, there's been a lot of time spent on this and making sure that these fees were appropriate. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Mr. Tindale, you -- hi. We've never met before. I just want to clearly understand that you are the professional we're relying on and that there's no indemnification that you have as against us with respect to any of these calculations, that it's fully your responsibility . MR. TINDALE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that we're relying on your professional judgment with respect to these calculations. MR. TINDALL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Might these fees change in three years depending on revised inventory calculations? MR. TINDALL: Yes. And I think -- but I think in the future with the slower growth rate, we're going to, in advance, explain these types of things in terms of why things occur and probably deal more with policy, especially at a slower growth rate. Of course, your slower growth rate's also going to generate slower revenues. There is some balancing in that. But the answer is yes. I think it's going to be much more moderate. The good -- kind of good news and the bad news is -- the good news, as far as the future is, there's less taxes being spent on this asset along with fees. So guess what happens in the future? That inventory and that capitalization slows way down. So right now reducing that -- you know, that future investment gives us lower credit. But long term, two or three years, because you've got impact fee money and a lot less taxes going in, then that Page 205 December 14,2010 asset's going to grow much slower. So, yes, it may be some adjustment, but much more moderate than this last three to -- this last three to five years and all the things you're doing, and what I see in the state, has been a really interesting process to see in that investment, and it has created this issue. But it's very clear in my mind that you've made some decisions and you've done it, and now you've moderated that future decision and those credits are down, those projected -- they're projecting much less taxes being spent on capital along with a little bit of impact fee revenue, so it will be much more moderate as far as, as we move forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And from what I understand, this is actually the maximum fee. MR. TINDALL: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can always lower this __ MR. TINDALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- today even, right? MR. TINDALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're just figuring it maximum high, right? MR. TINDALL: Right. We like to do it across the board, and then as she mentioned, it's been five years since we've looked at some of the demand. So there's some things you need to do to make it match everything else that we've done with the other fees. But yes, you can discount across the board, and there's no legal issue. Don't go pick and choose classes and create that issue for us. But across the board is a very legal process to do and a very common process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: This has nothing to do with jail, does it? MR. TINDALL: No. MR. OCHS: No, sir. Page 206 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jail or expansion of jails or-- MS. PATTERSON: No, sir. Jail's a separate-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are correctional __ MS. PATTERSON: Correctional facilities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So Commissioner Coyle's impact -- discussion was just off base, and it has nothing to do with this. And not to dis- -- mislead the public or anything. It has to do with things like when you build a -- MS. PATTERSON: Substation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- substation and you have deputies, new deputies come on, and that equipment? MS. PATTERSON: New police car. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, new police car and the equipment that goes into that. It has nothing to do with jails? MS. PATTERSON: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the recommendation by DSAC is to phase this in. MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll make that motion to do so, so we can move on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning to approve the staffs recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 207 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. MR. TINDALL: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, thank you. Item #101 RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT FIVE-YEAR FISCAL MONITORING REPORT - MOTION TO CONTINUE AND REQUEST THE CLERK OF COURTS TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND RETURN WITH FINDINGS AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING - APPROVED Mr. Chairman, as we discussed in the break, we had one other item under county manager's report where there was a consultant in that had to leave town before they -- sometime this evening. So, again, with the board's indulgence, if we could hear Item 101, which was previously 16A25 on your agenda. It was a recommendation to review and accept the Ave Maria stewardship district five-year fiscal monitoring report, and that item was moved off of consent at Commissioner Hiller's request. And Michele Mosca -- MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff I could either go through some of the requirements of the five-year review or take questions, whatever the board's preference . IS. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Take questions. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Page 208 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. Michele, what is your background? Do you have a financial background? MS. MOSCA: I don't. No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not an auditor? MS. MOSCA: I'm an urban planner. No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're an urban planner. So you really don't have the background to evaluate a financial analysis? MS. MOSCA: I've been working on the fiscal impact analysis. I was actually trained on the model several years back, but my background is not in economics. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of my concerns when I looked at the modeling that was used this year as compared to what was presented in 2005 is that the formats are materially different and that there's no reconciliation between the two formats or the formulas and the assumptions that are used where I can see really what's going on in the intervening period and where we are today in comparative numbers. So I'm actually very concerned about that. In fact, one of my concerns was that when I looked at the 2010 report, there weren't any projections beyond 2010. I was very concerned by the decrease in projected revenues. I was -- and by the way, I guess the numbers in 2005 was 57 million as a positive impact to the county, and this year we're talking about 11 million as the positive impact to the county. And just for fun, just for fun, I took road impact fees, not all the impact fees, because I read your whole analysis and I saw, you know, basically how pretty much all the impact fees have declined as, you know, what we expected from Ave Maria. And I ran a few numbers, and I have a few schedules that I would Page 209 December 14, 2010 love to discuss with you, if I may. MS. MOSCA: Certainly. Commissioner Hiller, if I may, the purpose of the exercise in front of you is simply to identify the development that has occurred within the past five years only. It doesn't provide for any additional absorption schedule with the projections that you spoke about. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a very, very important analysis, because the impact on the county and the obligations on the county, if it turns out that the impact analysis proves to be a negative rather than a positive, is problematic. We're facing decreasing revenues across the board. We're projecting another 10 percent decrease in property values next year. This district is supposed to be financially independent. And I'm looking at numbers that are not, as I see it, supporting that future positive fiscal impact. So I'm very, very concerned. If -- I looked just at road impact fees, for example. The projected road impact fees for the last five years was 28.5 million. They're currently reported at 9.5 million, okay. We've got -- we're already building. We're already building those roads. We have a lack of matching. The anticipated revenue stream that we expected to receive to offset our construction costs are not materializing. Who's factoring in the cost of capital that we're now bearing for funding this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Hiller, if I could, Nick Casalanguida, for the county. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And another consultant is here, too, so we can address questions to him as well. One thing to consider in this FIAM analysis, as well as the issue discussed with roads, they're almost two separate items in the sense that, by agreement, we agreed to pre fund this road at a time where things were obviously better. Page 210 December 14,2010 Now, if we wanted to go into a review and analysis of the DCA as compared to what's done, staffhas looked at what the county attorney and their folks -- and the comments come back as we made this agreement in the light, and we knew what we were up against when we did this, not factoring in that we'd have an economic downturn. The amount of money paid for roads on this fiscal analysis really looks at -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you -- just before you move on to the next point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you say you, through the developer agreement, agreed to pre fund this road, I happened to -- I read that agreement as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not sure I come to the same conclusion. But did you factor in the cost of capital or prefunding this road, the lag time, the time value of money, if you will, between funding it up front and the time we're going to get paid by the developer? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, we didn't. You know-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- that was not __ COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's a cost that has to be factored into the analysis? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does, but aside from the FIAM in terms of -- because there are two different things. I know they seem like they wouldn't be, but they are. When you look at -- the FIAM for road impact fees, you look at how much money they've paid in road impact fees, and it's a factor of how many units they've built. So as long as they're paying their road impact fees and our road impact fee calculations are correct, they are paying for their impacts Page 211 December 14,2010 per vehicle per new development on the road. Now, when you -- when you look at that with respect to the building of Oil Well Road, you'd say, how does that happen? Again, they're two different things. So if your question is, did we get ahead of what we thought the development would be? It looks like we did based on the recession we're in right now. We expected many more dollars in impact fees to pay for Oil Well Road construction. That said, we're not building Oil Well Road just for them. We're building it for other people as well, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I completely understand that. And it goes back to my question during the MPO, which was, you know, where are these revenues and the cost of this advanced funding factored into that, you know, feasi- -- financially feasible portion of our work plan or our long-term plan, whichever way you want to describe it? I don't care which horizon you're looking at. And I really am concerned that our costs are substantially higher than stated. And I just picked roads as an example, and I'm going to go ahead and introduce the few calculations that I did as exhibits. The point I'm getting to is that I think that this analysis needs to be reviewed by a professional. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it really ought to be reviewed by someone with a financial background who can analyze the assumptions made by Ave Maria's consultants and really do a comparative analysis between the format that was initially used and what we're seeing today factoring in, you know, the delay and the cost to the county of bearing the burden of that delay to come up with a realistic assessment of what's going on. There's a lot -- there's a lot at play here. We're talking, you know MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think when you factor roads into this Page 212 December 14, 2010 specially, when you look at the other fees -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that was just one example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One example. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, all the other ones are down, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, please. You have some serious concerns. Give him an opportunity to answer it, please. You've named a number of serious concerns you have, but you haven't given him an opportunity to respond to them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're very kind to point that out, Commissioner Coyle. My point is, is that I don't want Mr. Casalanguida to feel that this is all about transportation. In fact, it isn't. That's just one small example, which is why I don't really want to dwell on the transportation issue, but just use it as a small example to show that there's general concern. And my point is not about the details of what we discuss. I think those details need to be reserved for an analysis with a consultant or someone who has a financial background, be it the Clerk of Courts or, you know, an external auditor who can review this to come up with a correct analysis. So I really don't want to belabor the details. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Well, let me ask a question from staff Mike, we adopted a 2007 FIAM model that the board adopted; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think that the analysis model was adopted by the board how this thing would be plugged in, and there is -- the model gets the import, staff verifies those imports are correct, and really they work with impact fee office to determine how many housing units, how many impact fees were collected, then they look at services rendered by -- you know, obviously they don't have public water/sewer. They provide that. So that's not an analysis. Page 213 December 14, 2010 But fire, EMS, roads, all the fees that -- the services that we provide, and we look at that through that FIAM model. So if we've adopted a model that we're going to use and we've verified the inputs, I don't know what else an outside person could look at. I'm certainly open to that discussion if that's what the board wants. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reconciliation to the baseline and the assumptions used in that modeling, because that -- you know, tweaking assumptions just by a little bit is going to impact us by millions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I guess, with board direction, how would you like me to proceed, understanding we've adopted a model and we've verified the inputs and outputs. Would you like to have -- give questions to the consultant, their consultant, or-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have the consultant here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: He is here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we have -- the consultant is an expert; is he not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe he is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then why don't we just have the expert answer some of the questions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may comment. The consultant works for Ave Maria, and we need to have our own independent consultant who will, you know, be representative of the board. So while I appreciate this consultant's input, he does have a fiduciary to his client, not to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And I'm certainly open, if the board wishes, that the staffhire someone else to do the FIAM. If that's the board's will, we'll move in that direction. But if you have questions, then maybe he could answer them or make a brief presentation. Page 214 December 14,2010 MR. FISHKIND: For the record, I'm Hank Fishkind. I'm the president ofFishkind & Associates. We developed the fiscal impact model, and be delighted to answer any questions the board may have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Fishkind, I have asked a number of questions. You may have heard them. Maybe you can comment on what I was addressing earlier. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. I'll do my best. First in terms of financial background, I have a PhD in economics and statistics. We developed these models initially under contract to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. They've been vetted by the Urban Land Institute. Most recently similar questions from a commission, Sarasota, came up about our modeling. They had the model reviewed by AECOM, and they found that the model does produce accurate and reliable results. As your staff has indicated, the model was produced in -- by our staff: working with yours, to calibrate the model. It's basically an Excel workbook. It drives off of your budgets. Your concern relative to projections in 2005 compared to where we are today really are driven by the recession itself. 2005 we're looking forward. That's what we had to do. Today, of course, we have the actuals. We can look and see how much development occurred. We also have your budget. So it's really a matter of arithmetic to determine the operating costs and the operating revenues, which is what the model does. In terms of capital, we drive it off of your impact fees, because we take an accrual-type approach, if you will, and so that's the essence of the modeling. Yes, revenues are down, but costs are down dramatically as well compared to what we projected earlier. And so the fiscal surplus per unit, somewhat smaller than what we projected, largely because the home prices are somewhat lower, but we're still showing an annual fiscal surplus of more than $400,000 on an Page 215 December 14, 2010 operating basis, which is significant. So I think that the expectation of an erosion of home prices of some 10 to 15 percent, I think, is reasonable, but it won't change the outcome of the model nor the conclusions that I would draw from it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is that it was positive because of grants, not because of what you're describing. Maybe I'm mistaken. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, ma'am, you are. On an operating basis, the modeling certainly show -- operating basis, ma'am -- a substantial surplus. On a capital basis, yes, there are some grants. The model's on an accrual basis. Even if you take the grants out, we'll still be substantially fiscally positive. The model's looking on a long-term basis to calculate your average cost over a 30-year horizon. I think it's reasonable to believe that the county will get, in the future, some level of grants as it got in the past. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the grants were factored in the 2005 model? MR. FISHKIND: Grants were factored in 2005, grants are factored in 2010. I think if we did this analysis in 2015, we will find that you got some grants, and it's reasonable to account for them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the modeling is not the issue. The issue is the assumptions made in your modeling and how you reconcile the base year to the current year where the formats are materially different. MR. FISHKIND: I heard you. And as I said earlier, in 2005 we're projecting forward. The purpose of this exercise is not to project forward. It's to see what we did over the last five years. Since we had no history in 2005, of course we'll have to project forward. But today we have the benefit of being able to look backward, and that is what the calculations are, and that's what your ordinance prescribes, it . reqUIres. Page 216 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. Is there any need to project forward? Is that something you do, or is that something we request of you? MR. FISHKIND: Yes and yes, but not for this exercise. But yes, certainly we project forward. We consult with a number of local governments who have fiscal issues similar to what you face. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So overall, how would you describe the health of Ave Maria based on the F-I-M (sic) that you produced? MR. FISHKIND: We're producing positive fiscal results for the county, substantial positive fiscal results for the school board and for the fire district. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. FISHKIND: Certainly . Would there be another question or comment I might -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's not another fiscal analysis going to be done or shared with the county for the Town of Ave Maria; is that correct? MR. FISHKIND: We haven't done another one, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. There's no -- in the future, there's none going to be -- MR. FISHKIND: I thought that every -- that there's a periodic checking. I think it's every five years in your ordinance, Commissioner Henning. So I think the answer to your question is yes; five years from now you'll go through this exercise again, I believe, . SIr. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can -- since we're using hopefully the same model, we can do a comparable at that time? MR. FISHKIND: Sure. You could look and see how much fiscal surplus you have. How much per unit would probably be the Page 217 December 14, 2010 best way to judge, since the number of units are going to change over time, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The -- and I don't know if I'll be here in another five years. But I think it's worthy of doing that comparable, with that long-term historical perspective. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. Well, it would help you not only with Ave Maria, but I would suggest you might want to do it for the current land base you have, because it will help you with your general analytics and formulating of your budget separate and apart from Ave Maria. And your staff certainly has that model, and they're very competent. They can certainly do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. FISHKIND: Certainly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to reconfirm to -- just to summarize, for my benefit, that the data inputs and the standards and the multipliers that you used in 2005 are the same that you're using now in 201 O? MR. FISHKIND: The basic data inputs and multipliers are the same. They're based on your budget. Your budget has changed since 2005 so, of course, the calculations change. They change every single year. But other than that, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything is the same. Thank you. MR. FISHKIND: All the inputs, yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have one public speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington. MR. BILLINGTON: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Duane Billington. And if the time is Page 218 December 14, 2010 needed, Bill V onier's granted me his time. I recently posed some questions to staff about some items in the report that Mr. Fishkind was so kind to elucidate. And one of the questions I asked had to do with how many acres of right-of-way the developer gave credit for and how much per acre the credit was granted. Well, right-of-way, for farmland, apparently, in Collier County was a grant of $50,000 an acre. I know of no farmland in Collier County now or in the 35 years that I've been here, vacant farmland, that has a value of $50,000 an acre. The most recent purchase I can think of -- well, to give the u.s. Sugar purchase by Water Management District, those agricultural acres were bought for 7,500 an acre. And I would submit that if we have bad information going into this computer model, you're going to have bad information coming out. And my question really is, how was this $50,000 an acre figure derived at for what I assume is unimproved agricultural land? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can certainly look into that in a little more detail, but I can tell you that the developer was given no credit as part of the DCA for the road construction for that money. Now, for the model, when you figure in condemnation, I'll have to look at that in detail, because when you -- it's not just a straight land value cost -- I should be addressing the board. I apologize -- it's the value of the cost of what the developer can quote as if we went to the free market and had to condemn the property our average costs for right-of-way when we would go forward. So he would look at probably the Oil Well Road right-of-way that we purchased through the condemnation process and say, what was the average cost per acre to get that property. I can certainly do that, but I know the developer was given no credit for the right-of-way donated per that agreement. Page 219 December 14,2010 MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. Are there other items where the developer submitted the financial data for the Fishkind analysis, and were these looked at by staff or verified? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The staff looked at everything that was provided in that analysis. I know they worked with Amy in the impact fee office to talk about how much impact fees were collected, what the values were. And if there's anything in there that's questionable, we'll certainly take a look at it. I think staff was fairly comfortable using the adopted model that there was enough of a plus that they didn't feel anything in there was drawing a red light to it or flag to it. So if there's an item in there, I'd be happy to look at it and absolutely come back to the board if something seemed out of the ordinary and threw us in a negative number, but I don't anticipate that to happen. MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. Could you explain to me better what that credit referred to for the right-of-way contribution as a way -- I'll read you my -- the answer I was given. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. MR. BILLINGTON: The total amount of right-of-way donated in the development contribution agreement, DCA, is 156 acres. The value assigned by the developer in the DCA is $7,800,000 for the right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, we're talking about the DCA versus the FIAM, because what he's taken for a credit in terms of -- a property value credit in terms of a donation, a tax write-oft: he assigned that value to him. We can look at that, but that's not the value we're applying in the FIAM model. It's everything to do with our impact fee that's there. So I will take a look at it. We didn't give him any impact fee credits, so the county gave the developer no valuation for that property. He didn't -- he was not able to apply it against his impact fees. So I will take a look at that reference. Page 220 December 14,2010 MR.OCHS: Are we answering-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's actually a very interesting point, Mr. Billington, because when I look at this analysis, out of their total capital revenue of27.8 million, that right-of-way contribution is 7.8 million, and the road impact fees are 9.5, approximately, million. So you're looking, you know, just in those two items as the bulk, if you will, of the capital revenues. So I thank you for bringing that out. I think it's significant. MR. BILLINGTON: Well-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because an incorrect valuation with respect to an input like that obviously materially affects the bottom line. MR. BILLINGTON: Right. Garbage in, garage out. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess you could summarize it that way. MR. BILLINGTON: And as a taxpayer, I would feel much more comfortable -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we are out of time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BILLINGTON: What about the second three minutes? MR. MITCHELL: There was nobody else signed up. Nobody else ceded time to you. MR. BILLINGTON: The gentleman, Mr. Vonier. MR. MITCHELL: He left. He didn't cede you time. He just asked me to tear up his -- MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. How much of my time was eaten up by staff? I had about a half a minute. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, maybe I could address that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can address it quickly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Page 221 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Otherwise, I think you should get any questions that Mr. Billington has and respond to them in writing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: How about I do that, sir, and if I find any discrepancy, I bring back an update, if there is one, to the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely. MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. And I want to thank Commissioner Hiller for suggesting that this be reviewed by somebody that we hire instead of the developer's hired gun. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, just real quick. I don't see anything wrong with -- Crystal, can you take and look at the data provided and see if there's any other information that you can pull out of it and give us some more insight of the -- either the cost or the benefit? MS. KINZEL: We haven't looked at this at all, Commissioner, but I can certainly run it by the clerk. And if that's the board's desire, I'll run it by Dwight and we can -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does anybody have a problem with the clerk taking a look at it and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a very good recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to make a motion to approve this item, if you don't mind, and also ask the Clerk of Court to take a look at the results of the FIAM, and if there's anything odd, report to the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I agree with that. I think we need to have a mechanism for getting it back for our reconsideration if something is found wrong with it. In other words, if we approve it and there are some significant issues, we need to have some way of getting it back before the board so we can get those things corrected. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure -- I mean, Page 222 December 14, 2010 the report is a report. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could continue the item, Commissioner, and pending any -- I mean, I don't think there's anything imminent that you have to approve the report today. If you have questions about it and you want to bring it back and -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, would you mind amending your motion to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, continue this item, report on the Ave Maria FIAM, request the clerk, that's asking, to take a look at the model and see if they concur with the outputs. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The findings. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a second, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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 #8B ORDINANCE 2010-48: PUDA-2007-AR-11961; VOILA, II, LLC, REPRESENTED BY MARGARET PERRY, OF WILSONMILLER, INC. IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO SONOMA OAKS MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO Page 223 December 14, 2010 ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 114 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND/OR A MAXIMUM OF 456 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS ON THE RESIDENTIAL SENIOR HOUSING UNITS AT A FLOOR AREA RATION (FAR) OF 0.60 ON THE 8.93 ACRE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THIS 37.5 ACRE TOTAL PROJECT. SENIOR HOUSING UNITS INCLUDE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND/OR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCA TED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) BETWEEN WORLFE ROAD AND LOOP TOAD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. (CTS) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us back to your advertised public hearings. We would move to Item 8B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that right? MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Voila. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is this again, Leo? I'm so sorry to interrupt. MR.OCHS: 8B, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. MR.OCHS: This is the Sonoma Oaks mixed-use planned unit development. It's a request to amend the PUD to allow for a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a maximum of 456 senior housing units on the residential portion and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial development and/or senior housing units at a floor area ratio of 0.60 on the 8.93-acre commercial portion of this 37.5-acre total project. Senior housing units include independent living facilities, assisted living facilities, and/or skilled nursing facilities. Page 224 December 14,2010 The subject property's located on the west side of Collier Boulevard between Wolfe Road and Loop Road in Section 34, Township 48, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would everyone who's going to give testimony please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now for ex parte disclosure by commissioners. Can we start with Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have reports -- Planning Commission report, I watched the Planning Commission meeting, and I think this is a real simple issue that -- only have one question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had a meeting all the way back in 9/30 of '05 with Craig Nagel, Tom Craig. I had a meeting on 5/18 with Dr. Vernon Ray of the Oliver Group in '07, another meeting with -- on 6/22/09, Richard Y ovanovich, and another meeting on 12/13/10 with Richard Yovanovich, and that pretty well covers it, other than I reviewed the staff report and had another phone call from Richard Yovanovich on 12/13. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He was really busy, wasn't he? I wonder if he billed for all of those things. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He'll probably bill me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have had meetings, correspondence, emails, telephone calls, all part of my public folder here. You're welcome to go through it if you'd like. I've met, on September the 26th, 2005, with Bruce Anderson and Bob Mulhere, and on June 20, 2007, with Dr. Vernon Ray and Dixie Stevens, and on December the 9th, 2010, with Rich Y ovanovich. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm afraid that my records didn't go back, or -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can use mine if you'd like. Page 225 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I use yours? Everything he said plus -- plus the staff report, and I met with Rich Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've had meetings and calls from Mr. Y ovanovich, with and from, and staff report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- this is an existing PUD, correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I think the only thing that we need to hear is the changes, and the changes are adding ALF, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only change is to add a continuing care retirement community as a potential option. And I believe the reason we're not on summary agenda is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had one planning . . commISSIoner -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had one planning commissioner who objected to the height on the commercial portion of the project having the same standard of 61 feet, zoned 69 feet actual on the commercial portion of the property, which is closest to Collier Boulevard. We subsequently submitted a change to the PUD to make it the same height as all the other commercial allowed uses, which is 42 feet zoned and 50 feet actual. So that's really the only change, and we think we addressed that Planning Commissioner's concern. And had I -- had we had an opportunity to do that, I think we could have probably addressed it at the Planning Commission and hopefully have been on summary agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- Mr. Bellows? Do you see any other changes to this existing PUD? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Now, the petitioner has described the changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 226 December 14, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: It's really to add the ALF and, I believe, two additional dwelling units in the residential tract. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I forgot -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't tell me it all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was a survey when we were truing up based upon the actual size of the residential piece, so it went from 112 to 114. Sorry, Commissioner. I did forget that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks. Mr. Chairman, whenever you're ready to close the public hearing, I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. Did you hold a neighborhood information meeting, and if so, were there any problems with the height of this building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, ma'am. I mean, yes, we held a neighborhood information meeting, actually many neighborhood information meetings, and no, there were no issues regarding the heights. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they felt it was in keeping with the neighborhood, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I think they were happy that we were doing a CCRC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we adopt the amended PUD ordinance, Item 8B, with the changes, and the height different -- difference of the commercial down to the __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty-two feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- forty-two feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zoned, yes, sir. Page 227 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Forty-two feet zoned. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zoned height. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zone height with, of course, those two extra housing units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Units, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wouldn't approve those, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to argue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve with the modification of the specified height by Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 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. Item #8C ORDINANCE 2010-49: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, TO IMPLEMENT A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMPLIANCE Page 228 December 14, 2010 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY, INCLUDING PETITIONERS-INOINTERVENTION, PERTAINING TO SECTION 24 IN NORTH BELLE MEADE - ADOPTED MR.OCHS: Commissioner, 8C is a recommendation to approve remedial amendments to the Growth Management Plan, ordinance 89-05 as amended, to implement a previously approved compliance agreement between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County including petitioners and intervention pertaining to Section 24 in North Belle Meade. Mr. David Weeks will present. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Item #10C Page 229 December 14, 2010 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 92-60, AS AMENDED (TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX) AND ADVERTISE THE PROPOSED AMENDED ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL AT A FUTURE MEETING TO REDUCE THE TOURISM EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND 196 CEILING AND ELIMINATE THE YEAR END SWEEP OF FUNDS FROM TOURISM ADMINISTRATION FUND 194 TO FUND 195 AND 183, AND REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS TO TOURISM PROMOTION FUND 184 FOR TOURISM DESTINATION MARKETING AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Commissioners, your next item is Item 10C. It's a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Collier County ordinance 92-60 as amended, tourist development tax, and advertise the proposed amended ordinance for approval at a future meeting to reduce the Tourism Emergency Reserve Fund 196 ceiling, and eliminate the year-end sweep of funds from Tourism Administration Fund 194 to Fund 195 and 183, and redirect those funds to your Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for tourism destination marketing and authorize all necessary budget amendments. Mr. J ack Wert will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four of us have been through this at the workshop with the TDC. If Commissioner Hiller needs some additional information concerning this, we'll take some time to do that; otherwise, I have one question. It will be the same question I asked you then. MR. WERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want a very, very clear statement that this action will not jeopardize any beach renourishment projects. MR. WERT: Beach renourishment projects should not be Page 230 December 14,2010 affected by this action, and we have been through that with the Coastal Advisory Committee, Gary McAlpin's department, and so forth. So we think that this is a sound move for us to find some destination marketing dollars we desperately need. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Was there a question -- motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners, very much. And welcome, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another good presentation. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it was, it was. Item #10E RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID NUMBER 10-5596, SRO Page 231 December 14, 2010 WELLFIELDRAWWATER TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,812,000 COMPLETE THE FIRST STAGE OF PHASE IV OF THE SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD RA W WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 70030 - APPROVED; DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE NEW LANGUAGE TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE PURCHASING POLICY AND BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING Item #10F RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #10-5599 TO STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $341,534, FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE FIRST STAGE OF PHASE IV OF THE SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 70030 - APPROVED Item #10G RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #10-5593 WEST EUSTIS AVENUE STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH WEST UTILITY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $266,188 PLUS A TEN (10) PERCENT CONTINGENCY OF $26,618.80 TOTALING $292,806.80, PROJECT NO. 51024 - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10E is a recommendation to award bid number 10-5596, SRO wellfield raw water transmission main Page 232 December 14, 2010 repair to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Incorporated, in the amount of$I,812,000 to complete the first stage of Phase IV of the south reverse osmosis wellfield raw water transmission main repair project. Project Number 70030. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is the one that we have filed a complaint against the suppliers of the pipe and the installation of the pipe, and I hope we're going to recover some money for it, but it has to be repaired, right? MR.OCHS: Yes. MR. SONIAC: Yes. For the record, Mark Soniac, principal project manager. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second. MR.OCHS: Commissioners-- MR. CARNELL: If I could, could -- Steve Carnell, purchasing director. The next three items all have some common policy issues. What we would ask you to do is to hear the presentation on all three, and then we'd ask for three motions after the three presentations, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I should have -- Steve asked me to do that before we started. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker on this item as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll hear the next three items, and then we will try to make a decision that is not contradictory. MR. DeLONY: Let me help you with the first two. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: This one you just heard read into the record, and Page 233 December 14,2010 we discussed it with regard to its purpose and how we got here and where we are with regard to this recovery. This is the first of two items to deal with this project. This is the construction of what we're calling the first part of Phase IV, which is our recovery phase, and we broke up the 23 wells into two packets so we could have -- we could restore as quickly as possible as many as we can, and then we'll come back to the board here sometime this spring for the second part of Phase IV for -- this is for 11 wells, and then we'll bring back for the next 12. So we'll have some lessons learned. And we have done all the due diligence with the County Attorney Office's assistance to ensure 100 percent cost recovery both in our reproach and deployment as we proceed into this restoration project. Where it's complicated -- and I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Carnell -- in terms of the policy decisions that affect the award of this contract and the award of the subsequent contract, which is for construction, engineering, and inspection on this project. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Carnell now. MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir. Steve Carnell, for the record. As you can see on the screen, we had over 1,300 vendors who were notified of this opportunity, and we had 96 bid packages downloaded, and four bids were submitted, and you can see the summary of the bids in front of you. The key here issue -- and this is the issue we've got on all three of these agenda items that we need some coordinated uniform response here. The documentation -- if you'll remember, the board, in October, had directed the staff to not only have our bidders sign an affidavit indicating that they were complying with federal immigration law and that they were voluntarily signing up for the federal homeland security E- Verification identity system, we asked -- at that time the board directed that we go a step further and that we obtain first-hand Page 234 December 14, 2010 verbatim documentation that the vendors/bidders/contractors were doing that, and we were directed to get that with their bid submissions. In this case also -- prior to that the board had asked us to distribute a letter to our vendor base, asking our vendors at that point, voluntarily, to submit the information. So we had two kind of different directions, same objective, going on simultaneously. The low bidder on this job, Mitchell & Stark, submitted the E- Verify validation, the documentation that they were, in fact, signed up in the system separately in response to the letter that the staff issued at board direction, but they did not attach it to their bid submission. And we, at board direction, put very unequivocal language in our bidding documents that you must submit it with your bid document. So what we have is an irregularity or defect here with Mitchell & Stark's bid, but we believe as a staff that Mitchell & Stark complied with the spirit and the intent of the board direction because they had provided us the actual information that we wanted, just simply under separate cover, and we received it about a week or two prior to the bid . openIng. So what we are -- just so you understand, we did get a protest from the second low bidder essentially -- and it's in your backup -- but the protest simply said, well, the low bidder didn't submit the required documentation. Brought up a couple other issues as well, which we addressed. And my decision and response is all part of the backup. And we're here today to simply tell you that we believe that the board should waive the irregularity, that what Mitchell & Stark's failure to include with their bid was not a fatal flaw, and that it has no effect on the competition, and that by taking into account the documentation they had submitted prior to the bid opening under separate cover, that they are compliant essentially with the board's requirement and, of course, Mitchell & Stark's bid is $738,000 lower than the next bidder. Page 235 December 14, 2010 So that's our recommendation on that particular contract. Now, on the contract for the construction engineering services, which is -- we have a separate presentation here, but just if you'll listen to me, I think I can cover the gist of it very quickly . We had three proposers, and one of them gave us the required E- Verify documentation with their bid package -- I'm sorry -- with their proposal, two did not. Now, one of the two that did not did provide it under separate cover the same day the proposal was due. And this is a little different. This is a CCNA selection where we're evaluating qualifications as opposed to a price bid opening. So in this case we had to make a decision as to who we could then evaluate in our public Sunshine-Law-based selection committee process. And in consultation with County Manager's Office and County Attorney's Office, we made the decision to include Stantec. Stantec was the firm that submitted their E- Verify documentation separately. It wasn't with their proposal, but it was under separate cover. You know, here's a summary of the proposals right here. And URS was a firm that did not submit their documentation with their proposal and had not submitted it under separate cover either, so that what we did was we excluded or rejected the URS proposal based on the previous board directive, but we included the Stantec submission because we did have the documentation in hand through separate cover at the time the proposal was due. So what we're here today to do, we have convened the selection committee, and they ranked the two firms and ranked Stantec first, and we are prepared to move forward on this. What we'd like direction from the board today to do is to formally select Stantec as the top ranked firm, and then we will bring a contract back to you in the January meeting for action at that time. That's where we are with Stantec. And then again, there's one more item. It's really -- it's agenda-- Page 236 December 14, 2010 the following agenda item. MR.OCHS: lOG. MR. CARNELL: Yes, thank you, lOG. And this is for the award of stormwater improvements on Eustis Avenue. And Mr. Ahmad is available if you have any specific questions about the project. If I could, I'll just go right to the E- Verify question. The facts are different, but it's the same policy issue. Here we had 12 bidders, nine of them submitted -- or eight of them submitted the required E- Verify documentation with their bids, but unfortunately the two lowest bidders did not. And in this case, they not only didn't submit it with their bid documentation, but they also had not submitted it under separate cover or by any other means. So we have no -- we had no documentation gathered from them at the time of bid opening. If you -- again, in the strict adherence to the board policy, they would be nonresponsive. What we'd like to do today is to have you consider each of these three situations. We've made recommendations to you. In this case we're adhering to the existing board policy and -- on the Eustis Avenue project and recommending rejection of the two lowest bids and going with the third lowest bidder, who is Southwest Utility, and their price is about $18,000 higher than the low bid. But I will tell you, on the Eustis Avenue project, if the board wishes, we can obtain the -- we actually have asked the low bidder if they can provide us the documentation for E- Verify compliance, and they said that they can. And so if the board wishes, we can go back, you can make a contingent award to the low bidder, and we can go and ask the low bidder for that information, and we can move forward from there and you can save $18,000. In essence, the bottom line on all this -- and this is why I wanted you to hear all three of these items together before you vote -- is that going forward, we think the best of both worlds here would be if you Page 237 December 14, 2010 give the purchasing department the latitude in instances where these forms are omitted in the actual physical bid to go back after the bid opening or after the proposal closing, and ask the vendor/contractor/consultant in question for the documentation within a reasonable time. There's precedence for this. We do this frequently with certificates of insurance, with copies of licenses, references, other pieces of information. The common thread in all of this is that none of these documents have any direct bearing on the competition. They don't affect how the vendor or the contractor prices or makes their offer or proposal to us. And by doing this, we believe it will give you the latitude to be able to award to vendors who are, in fact, compliant with your E- Verify policy, who are, in fact, registered but simply omitted the information at bid time. And we would bring the results to you, and we'll disclose each time this happens, and we'll put it in writing in the executive summary so that you can see it, I mean be aware of it. And if somebody -- if somebody doesn't provide the documentation to us, then we'll recommend a rejection of that vender and we'll go to the next one and recommend accordingly. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I -- obviously I'll answer any questions from the board. But if you're ready for any motions, we can make three motions for approval, and you can decide what you want to do on each one of them individually here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think my light on -- was on -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- was the first question that was CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want me to turn it off? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, or you could leave it on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Turn back on. Page 238 December 14, 2010 Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. You know, I listened to what you said, and I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, to micromanage your department to the point that the lack of a document or the document coming in a second envelope is not with the intent of what we're trying to accomplish. What we're looking for is a level playing field for local vendors that requires them to hold to the laws of the United States of America, especially when it comes to hiring illegal aliens. We're looking for the lowest possible price that we can pass on to the taxpayers that we represent, and it sounds like you're doing everything to get there. I'd like to make a motion that, one motion, to approve all three items, and also to have you come back with an action plan how you can -- or maybe you might not need that. We might be able to cover it right in the motion -- that we also empower you to be able to handle these minor oversights that are dealing with records that are either not sent in the same package or that people can get to you in a timely fashion so that we can take advantage of the lowest bid and keep everything flowing. I'll tell you right now, I haven't done it now for what, ten years, 12 years, but I used to be in the system with the county to compete for different parks and recs. events with tents, and the process then I thought was involved. Today it's got to be horrendous. And so any way we can make it that it will work easier for everyone and still meet the intent of what we're trying to accomplish, I'm 100 percent for it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, if you don't mind, if we approve all three items, the recommendations of the staff for all three items, then you're losing an opportunity on lOG to go with the lowest bidder. MR.OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. Page 239 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm wondering if we can -- and let me just state a general principle here, and I think it will be consistent with what Commissioner Coletta wants to do. Our intent was that no bidder should get a competitive bidding advantage by failing to deliver an incomplete package and then be able to make up for it a few days later or a week later or whatever. We were hoping that what you'd do is get a complete package and evaluate the complete packages. And I agree with you that at least the first two are incidental issues. They actually submitted the documents to you. They just came in a different envelope. The third one is somewhat different, but I understand your point; if you can call them up on the telephone and get the E- Verify information in a relatively short period of time, there's no reason you shouldn't consider them. So I agree, as I think Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll amend my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Coletta does, too. And if I could just say, let's go through it -- let's give you a general statement of our guidance on this and then go through and have three separate motions very quickly. And if I could try the general statement, which is exactly what I said. If you can get the E- Verify information quickly before the evaluation is completed on the bid packages, then you have the authority to get it. What I don't want to see happen is you complete the evaluation, you know who the bidders are, and then you make a decision as to who you go ask for E- Verify, okay? I don't want to see that. So you understand where I'm going on the first general statement, okay. And if we've got three nods from members of the commission on that general guidance -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I didn't --I'm sorry. I didn't follow the last part, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. If Steve or his office Page 240 December 14, 2010 can get the E- Verify and all other information together before the bid evaluations are completed, then he should have the flexibility to go out and ask for additional information, okay. MR. CARNELL: Provided that it doesn't materially affect the competition. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Affect the competition, that's right, and -- otherwise he has to go with what he's got, okay. I'm sorry. Did I clarify it or did I make it worse? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're doing quite well, but what about the other things such as the license they already have that they didn't file the copy of or some of the other ones they say they've been treating as an incidental item and catching up with it at the time of the bid? CHAIRMAN COYLE: If it doesn't have an outcome on the bid evaluation itself as far as the scoring is concerned, then I don't have a problem with him going out and getting the additional information. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And these items don't count into the score; is that correct? MR. CARNELL: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. CARNELL: And if I could, Mr. Chairman, say it, you want us to -- the board wants us to solicit this information up front as part of the submission, in other words, get it -- as much as we can up front from the get-go and don't simply start gathering it after the fact from the apparent winner, but get it from everybody up front. But in instances where somebody omits it but they're otherwise responsive, otherwise qualified, and they're in a position to potentially be the low bidder or be the most qualified firm, that we can get that information during that intervening period before we formulate the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's critical to do it before you formulate the staff recommendations. After that it gets a little dicey. Page 241 December 14,2010 MR. CARNELL: I understand. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does anybody have a prob- -- Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to ask the county attorney to opine on this issue. MR. KLATZKOW: The only suggestion I would make to the board is that we incorporate this as part of the purchasing policy so that everybody out there who's bidding on things knows what the rules of the game are. I think it would avoid dispute. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I presume that's what we would do. If we gave him guidance, he's going to document it, right? MR. CARNELL: Yes. It's already-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you may as well bring it back to us in a consent agenda and let us see it. MR. CARNELL: Yep, yeah. We intend -- we've got some changes to the policy coming forth in January, and we'll make it as part of that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate the opportunity to vet this further with you, because this is something we've already started working on. I've done a little more research on E- Verify and to what extent it really protects us with respect to being compliant with the federal guidelines, laws, if you will, and I'm not sure it really is protecting us. I've spoken to the Sheriffs Department. And one of the things I would like to do is have the opportunity to meet with staff and the Sheriffs Department to determine where in the contract we should provide for E- Verification and what other security we should include in our standard contracts with respect to hiring legal workers, and then at the same time, review the overall, you know, procurement standards and to what extent we can delegate our authority and what's ministerial. MR. CARNELL: And just so you know, we're already in Page 242 December 14, 2010 discussions with the Sheriffs Department about that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wonderful. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now let's go back to the first item and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve 10E. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have two public speakers on these items. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have two speakers. Who are the two public speakers? MR. MITCHELL: On 10F we have Mark Minor, and on 10E we have Brian Penner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about taking them separate? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- we're going with 10E right now. Do we have a speaker on 10E? MR. MITCHELL: We do, sir, Brian Penner. MR. PENNER: Waive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Waive, okay. MR. MINOR: I also waive. I'm Mark Minor. I waive mine as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll go with the motion on E, which is a -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just have one question on 10E. Why is the bid so much lower than all the other bids? I mean, it's such a material difference. You know, the other bids are, you know, 2.7 million, 2.6 million, 2.5 million, and this one is 1.8. MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Page 243 December 14,2010 administrator. Ma'am, to be frank with you, the engineer's estimate for this job was about $2 million. So where we're at with regard to the lowest responsive bidder, we're really not that far oft: where 10 percent would be about $100,000 to the engineer's estimate. So really beyond that I can't speak to it in terms of the cost of the services. I think we've got a good, tight spec there. We know we've got some potential unforeseen site conditions with regard to some of the pipe quantities as we go forward, because I've not been able to test that pipe, but we have our unit price for that replacement, so it would be a quantity change as opposed to a change in terms of the actual change order. But my view is, is that we did have the engineer of record for this job look at this closely and review the bids and review the responses of the bidders, and I feel comfortable that we've got a market-driven price at the recommended amount. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But a quantity change would affect the total. MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. And that would be unforeseen in this case here. Until we pressurize that pipe, I don't know exactly how much pipe has been destroyed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're assuming the liability for that? MR. DeLONY: No, we're not, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The contractor is absorbing it in the 1.8? MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. In this -- in this particular case, all costs associated with the restoration, whether it's this amount or any other amount, our intent is to pursue full cost recovery from either the constructor or the engineer of record or whomever it is that has __ wears that liability. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we won't be seeing a whole Page 244 December 14, 2010 bunch of change orders? MR. DeLONY: Don't really know. I can't say that. Because as I said, there's 33,000 linear feet of pipe. This first phase of the job affects about half of it. When that pipe failed, I was able to find some of the breaks in the pipe. We replaced about 1,200 linear feet of pipe. But again, of that 33 -- of this case -- give me help -- 15,000 linear feet that's in this scope, I have not pressure tested that entire reach of pipe. So that's just one unforeseen site condition that I know of that potentially I could have additional broken pipe. That would cause a quantity increase in the amount of pipe we have to physically rep lace. So we've accommodated that in terms of the bid to where we have a quantity price associated with linear replacement of pipe. That's one area of unforeseen site condition that I am anticipating. Hope we've got it, but I've got that covered as part of the risk analysis on this particular contract. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the other three contractors were not anticipating those unforeseen conditions in their higher bids? MR. DeLONY: I can't speak to that. Yeah, I just cannot speak to that. I mean, they gave us unit pricing on those tasks that we outlined in the contract. Those prices were competitively driven by the procurement process, and we got the resident -- requisite amount bidded by each of them, and we awarded to the lowest possible price. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can help here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing that Mr. DeLony is not telling you is this work was done just a year or two ago, and when he's talking about a reimbursement and going after the contractor or designer or the -- in the pipe, that's the person who put the pipe in, the manufacturer of pipe and so on and so forth. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So you're going to Page 245 December 14, 2010 recover and -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. MR. DeLONY: This particular project-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate what you're saying. MR. DeLONY: -- was under warranty when we had the failure. We were still within the warranty phase. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And three of these items are. MR. DeLONY: Oh, in this particular -- I can't -- in the case of the second item, which is the CEI, is going to help us in terms of documenting and recording the recovery and the restoration. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand. Thank you very much. MR. DeLONY: But this would be -- again, I'll be back in front of you again with a subsequent construction for the next 12 wells. There's 23; 11 in the first phase, 12 in the second. And we're -- and the reason we broke it up is to get the lessons learned so we can make sure we can contain the cost, and that gives us a higher potential for a full recovery when we have to go to a trier of fact, I'm sure, or at least some type of a settlement, to do -- to accomplish the full cost recovery that I promised you when I came to you back in October. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR.OCHS: Recommendation on 10E, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We got a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We got a motion and second on 10E. MR.OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 246 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I make a motion -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we award contract 10-5599 to Stantec Consulting. MR. CARNELL: Sir -- oh, go ahead, Leo. You want me to __ MR.OCHS: Commissioner, we've got a revision in that recommendation. As Steve mentioned, we've got to split this up into two parts. We have to get you today to short -- approve the short listing of the consultants, and then we'll come back in January with the recommended contract. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to continue this? MR. CARNELL: Just want to -- no. We want you to select Stantec, recommend selection of Stantec, and direct us to bring the contract back to you in January. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recommend selection of Stantec. MR. CARNELL: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And bring back the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second to the motion though? We've got a motion to do-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second, I'll second. Page 247 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve the selection of Stantec, and second by Commissioner Fiala. And now Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stantec wasn't the CEI on the first job that exploded? MR. CARNELL: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, but WilsonMiller was. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. They're now one in the same . companIes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, they are? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I was just -- I was kidding. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what he's kidding about. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. That brings us to lOG. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we find that Gulf Coast Underground submit all the proper documents as required by the policy and award the contract to Gulf Coast Underground. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that is seconded by? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? Page 248 December 14, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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. CARNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Steve. Thanks for bringing this all to our attention. Just don't do it again. Item #10H RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW ONE SANDWICH BOARD AT THE ENTRANCE DOOR OF A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT - APPROVED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10H on your agenda, which was formerly 16A8. This was moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. It's a recommendation to direct staff to amend the Collier County Land Development Code to allow one sandwich board at the entrance door of a business establishment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I just have a simple question. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. Diane Flagg, for the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Diane, I just want you to assure me that the staff really understands what they're doing when they're making Page 249 December 14, 2010 this recommendation. Now, I understand Immokalee, I understand Bayshore Drive where there's special events, but I want you to visualize every strip mall in Collier County with a sandwich board sitting in front of every business in that strip mall and where they have a parking lot in front, that line and wall of sandwich boards will be lined up along the streets or highway, and I want to ask you if that's really what you want to do. MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, what the request today is, is really a two-part request. One is to request a stay on enforcement because businesses such as this -- and there's multiple businesses throughout our communities that are relying on this advertising that looks just like that, that we would have to, under the current code, tell them they have to remove that sign. And what we're asking you to do is to allow us to stay the enforcement on these -- because there are certain areas in Collier County that do allow that signage -- and to tell us to take it through the next Land Development Code cycle. If at the point that it becomes a proliferation of signs that is unwieldy or just doesn't seem to be working for the community, that will be vetted through the LDC process. But right now, our businesses are telling us that these signs help them in this extremely difficult economic time, and it's -- we really __ you know, it's -- we haven't gotten complaints other than other businesses saying, am I allowed to put that sign out there, and we have to tell them, no, it's against -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to get requests from all the others until you make it legal. And when you stop enforcing it, you're going to get requests from everybody. And if that's what you think is appropriate, I'm not going to tell a company they can't do something that they think is necessary for them to stay in business. But I just want you to appreciate the potential ramifications of this decision. And once you've given this right up to somebody, it's Page 250 December 14, 2010 very, very difficult to take it away if it becomes an issue of clutter and unsightliness. . MS. FLAGG: We will vet this, again, through the LDC cycle when it comes around. So this -- right now what we would be doing today is staying the enforcement, and then allowing businesses to have that little sign out front will be vetted through the LDC process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. If you look at the picture on the wall, up above the door you'll see an open sign. It's a neon open sign. Back about, what was it, eight years ago, Commissioner Fiala -- were you here for that, Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Oh, yes, I was here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was one of the most contentious issues I've ever seen, a simple open sign and how it was going to bring the quality of life of Collier County to its knees. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And barber poles, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that was barber poles. That was barber poles that was going to cause a problem. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And ever since then none of us will dare go back to a barber. But keep in mind, what we're looking at is another tool. Remember, what would be better, to have this or to have them put some teenage kid out front on the side of the road bouncing a sign up and down with a monkey suit on? CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're going to do both. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe so, but times are tough out there. And I have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the things we could do in a provision like this is include a sunset provision, say, put it out there for a year, let it sunset after a year. Ifwe like it and there are no problems and there's no clutter and everyone benefits, then just renew Page 251 December 14,2010 it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We should do that with all our Land Development Code amendments, by the way. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Some of the most unsightly things in any city occurs by incremental changes. But nevertheless. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. When you're putting this together, would you mention something about, you know, looking at it every year? MS. FLAGG: I can actually bring you back a report if it doesn't make it through the LDC cycle within the year, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you. MS. FLAGG: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? Aye. So it passes 4-1. Item #10J RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY Page 252 December 14, 2010 STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10J. It was previously 16E6 on your consent agenda, a recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders. This item was moved at Commissioner Henning's request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, real quick. If you look at change order one, we're almost doubling it on there. The others, there's a lot of them I really have a lot of concern. Number two, number three, number four are continuing. I mean, it's an '07 contract, it's an '07 contract, '07 contract. And there is one here, Golden Gate Community Center field lighting. It's an -- 2006 contract that we're extending to put the lighting in to 2011. I could tell you, this is the community that has a -- they pay for all these out of their taxing, MS TU. They've been -- they've been wanting this forever. They've been -- where are our lights? When is our lights going to get approved? And here we are, we've got people unemployed; why aren't we releasing that money and getting people to work? I mean, that's just absolutely insane. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good question. Does anybody have the answer? Hello? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes director. Which particular change order are you referring to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number one, it's Eustis Avenue, I believe it is. Let me see. No, Price Street. Intersection improvements out to u.s. 41. That's -- the original work order was 27,000. Now you're up to 52,000. That's doubling of a work order for specific improvements, stormwater improvements. And I have a real Page 253 December 14,2010 concern about that. MR. FEDER: I'd be happy -- for the record, Norman Feder, transpor- -- Growth Management Division administrator, excuse me. Basically what you have there is you had an in-house project that was brought forward because of a safety concern. Eagle Creek homeowners association, with a new Lowe's coming into effect there at Price Street, the site distance, there was a problem. Staff went quickly to try and do an improvement there. They used as-builts as their indicator relative to where a water main was. As they got into construction, they found that they were too close to that water main. They had to do some stormwater improvement and some shoring up of the water main. They had to stay within the right-of-way there. They couldn't get into Price Street. So that did increase the cost. Again, it was for a safety improvement and doing it quickly because of the onset of Lowe's opening and what that would do for site distance is why we got in that position. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Feder. MR. FEDER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I appreciate that. And those things do happen. I guess the concern I have on a lot of these, these are old contracts to get a certain thing done, and they're being continued and continued and continued. And Commissioner Fiala's question was, does anybody have an answer? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially with the lighting, which could be a safety concern, why hasn't it been done up till now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not really a safety -- so much a safety concern. It's just, they can't utilize that field at night, and what they want to do -- that's where the bandshell is. And what they want to do is have concerts out there. And it could be a safety issue -- well, they just don't have concerts out there because there's no lighting. And that bandshell's been out there for years. Page 254 December 14,2010 But can I just ask the county manager to take a look at these and tell them to get 'er done? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'll take care of it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Going on to the next one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What park was that? I'm trying to find it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Golden Gate Community Center. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. MS. RAMSEY: It's number six, Commissioner. Marla Ramsey, for the record. There's -- I can't answer the reference to the 2006, but there is a lead time to the poles that were picked between the community center advisory committee and those involved with it and the manufacturing of those poles, and I'm told that, by a communicator, that the project will be done in January. So it's in the process, and very close to it, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Get 'er done. MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- change order number four on the second change order, Mr. Perryman, you can help me on out on this. Install-- I'm not sure what that word is. MR.OCHS: Which item number, sir? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's number four, which would be the second series of change orders, I think. Mr. Perryman wrote __ I believe he did. MR. PERRYMAN: For the record, Clint Perryman, project manager for Coastal Zone Management Department. I believe you're referring to the Bayview Phase I project? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. Page 255 December 14, 2010 MR. PERRYMAN: Okay. I apologize for any of my scribble scrabble here. In any case, it says, install pilings, replace the existing boat ramp, and apply contract credits for the field changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this the same boat ramp that's being torn up and widened? MR. PERRYMAN: This is correct, the Bayview Park boat ramp, that's correct. The scope on that project, Commissioners, we are expanding this boat ramp by increasing it to 37 lineal feet. The entire project is broken into three phases. This particular phase is one, and we're replacing the entire seawall, as I mentioned, expanding the boat ramp and, of course, we're installing a fixed dock and a floating dock. This is at Bayview Park. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. PERRYMAN: We had credits applied to this contract when we started the demolition in the excavation process, we realized that all of our tiebacks were good, and we realized a credit on the contract by $11,000. And in the course of expanding the existing boat ramp, it was determined that some of the exposed rebar was corrosive, and so we made a design decision through the engineers and the contractors to simply replace the boat ramp as opposed to simply expanding __ you know, building the new one onto the existing one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered my question. Thank you. MR. PERRYMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just get 'er open, will you? MR. PERRYMAN: Yes, sir; yes, sir, Commissioner, indeed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let's go with -- let's try to get Chris Curry and Penny out of here. MR.OCHS: Commissioner, we don't have a motion yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so-- Page 256 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought it was just get 'er done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I make a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the change orders. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: We only have one more -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the -- number 10. It won't take but a minute. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #10K RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #10-5581-MOTOR OILS, LUBRICANTS, AND FLUIDS TO COMBS OIL COMPANY AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND EVANS OIL COMPANY, LLC, FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL-ALLISON INC., AND P ALMDALE OIL COMPANY, INC. AS SECONDARY VENDORS WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED AT $80,000 ANNUALLY Page 257 December 14,2010 - APPROVED W/CHANGES MR.OCHS: Sir, that's Item 10K. It was previously 16E8 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to ratify Items 6, 9, and 10 from the November administrative change order report. Mr. Carnell can cover those, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I appreciate Mr. McAlpin providing the information of the breakdown, but my real question was, okay, what is the responsibility of the engineer and contractor? And I think that's -- what the guidance by the chairman was, is get those answered by -- continue this and get those answers to the board. And I understand that you -- now I understand you don't want to talk about it on the record? MR. CARNELL: Well, just for everybody's edification, we do have concerns that we believe the engineer is responsible for some improper failed performance here, and we are in discussion right now with the engineer about that and pursuing recovery and will be updating the board subsequently. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could somebody just tell me at a future date, not put it in writing possibly? MR. CARNELL: Sure, sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing is, I just don't agree to allow the purchasing staff to proceed with amending contracts, remove absolute requirements -- that's the part I don't like -- removing absolute requirements to attain multiple quotes for every job for 50,000 contract -- $50,000 contract. Every -- these handyman contracts, every job is different, and I want to make sure the taxpayers are getting the best value. I know it doesn't seem like a lot for $50,000, but to most it is. So I mean, I just can't approve the items the for handyman services nine and ten. So I'll make a motion to approve the old Item 16E except for Page 258 December 14,2010 Item 9 and 10. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve-- MR. CARNELL: I need to just clarify something, I'm sorry. The board has already approved amending two of the four contracts. This is the remaining two. So you're going to have an inconsistency if you don't approve it for two but approved it for the other two. And just so everybody's clear, these contracts were the product of formal competition. We had very robust competition. Had 15 bids, and we awarded to the top five, the board awarded to the top five. The bulk, the majority of the projects are less than $3,000 in our experience so far. This is a handyman. This is a fix-it guy, if you will, very small maintenance-type activity. And so what we're saying to the board is, we've already had formal competition, and we don't believe that, as a rule of thumb, that we need, in every absolute case, to get price quotes, particularly for jobs that aren't even $3,000, which a majority of them have been, when we're using properly vetted competed contracts. And that is the current policy. The board's policy is that purchases of $3,000 or less do not require competition, but this -- we've already bid it. You've had competition among the marketplace to get your top five firms in terms of price. And so when the staff goes and picks somebody, they're picking somebody at the top end of the scale in terms of price, best price. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree with contracts below 50,000. But this says, contracts up to 50,000. MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, yes, sir, but we've been through a process for -- that applies to purchases over $50,000. We've had the maximum competitive process to establish the contracts. And that's another good point. No orders -- if we had an order that was more than 3,000 -- the limit is 50-. If it's more than 50-, we're going to go to separate bid, open bid. MR.OCHS: That's consistent with the current policy. Page 259 December 14,2010 MR. CARNELL: That is the current policy, correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's the current policy, then why is this on the agenda? It isn't the -- MR. CARNELL: Because we had, sir -- if I could. We had a mix-up. The bidding documents reflected the policy. The bidding documents said that we would award to the winning bidders, and it did not anticipate or contemplate getting quotes subsequently every time we did a job. When we did the contract, we inadvertently put a statement in there saying that we may obtain quotes. And the way it's read, it could be interpreted to mean you must. And rather than getting put in a situation where we were obligated to get quotes, what we're actually -- actually what -- and if this helps any, sir, we're -- we will get quotes for larger jobs that -- and again, larger means, 3- to 50-, somewhere in there. Ifwe think it's going to be well over $3,000, we may get quotes, but for the smaller jobs, we're saying we don't need to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, I agree with that, but -- MR. CARNELL: How about -- let me make it really clear for you. This will nail it for you. It's late in the day. If it's over -- if we get a quote back from one contractor and it's more than $3,000, we'll get two more -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CARNELL: -- on the contract. Will that work for you, sir? And that would be totally consistent with the policy at this point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I'm looking for. MR. CARNELL: All right. Then we'll take care of it. Let's just -- we'll just make it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you're going to withdraw your motion and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to amend it, but you Page 260 December 14, 2010 have some more discussion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd rather get a motion that we can discuss. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to approve the old Item 16E8 and -- with the clarification from our purchasing director to include that guidance. MR. CARNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve with-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- guidance that has been provided and is on the record, second by Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like Crystal Kinzel from the Financial Department to comment. MS. KINZEL: Thanks, Commissioner. And I think what you were asking me to clarify, we are working with county staff on the change orders, and we did have a meeting with administration and purchasing. And part of the issue that we're having at the Clerk's Office is regarding the delegation of the ministerial versus the discretionary policy. On the contract specifically, this item, we had a concern -- and I realize and understand that two might have gone through previously, and these two came to our attention, but the five contractors that were bid are not at the same rates; is that correct, Steve? So where we have a concern is that even though the board approved these five vendors, they are all at different rates. So each job that would be let may be at a different rate and, again, then staff would determine what vender is used. That doesn't give us the clear guidance that the board has approved those amounts as specific to those projects. And, again, we're working through staff to clarify that and tried to come up with a compromise to ensure that we have board intent clearly stated on each Page 261 December 14,2010 of the projects and board approval as well as compliance with your policies. And we're in the process of working. So Commissioner Hiller just asked me to clarify where we were in that process, and we've got some work to do. But we are having some issues with that and some concerns about that authority. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what -- the clarification by Mr. Carnell is he will obtain bids, those two extra bids, over 3,000. Some of those ministerial issues we need to set price points, and I think that's a very good place to start, $3,000. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is approved unanimously. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item lion your agenda, public comments on general topics. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no public comments. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #14A Page 262 December 14,2010 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO AUTHORIZE THE VREATION OF A GRANT FUNDED FULL TIME EMPLOYEE (FTE) POSITION (IMMOKAEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND HIRE A QUALIFIED APPLICANT - APPROVED MR.OCHS: That moves you to Item 14A on your agenda, sir. It's a recommendation for the Collier County Board of County Commissioners acting as the CRA to authorize the creation of a grant-funded full-time employed position for fiscal year 2011 for the Immokalee Business Development Center. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will turn the gavel over to the chairman of the Redevelopment Agency, and she will conduct the meeting for these items. MS. PHILLIPI: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Penny Phillipi. I'm the executive director for the Immokalee CRA. And this is basically some cleanup that we're doing. As you know, you approved -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? MR. MITCHELL: We have a public speaker. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Marvin Courtright. MR. COURTRIGHT: My name is Marvin Courtright. I'm a resident of Collier County and a small businessperson in Immokalee. And I just have some questions, please. The individual that you will be hiring, will he be processed through human resources? Page 263 December 14,2010 MS. PHILLIPI: Absolutely. MR. COURTRIGHT: He will be, okay. Does it require posting for the job? MS. PHILLIP I : It has been -- it has been posted, advertised, and we have 50 applications currently. MR. COURTRIGHT: It's already been posted, okay. MS. PHILLIP I : Yes, sir. MR. COURTRIGHT: Does the job descrip- -- does he have a job description? MS. PHILLIPI: Yes, sir. It's attached to this item. MR. COURTRIGHT: It's attached to the item. May I ask this: Is the individual-- well, where will the individual be housed? MS. PHILLIPI: It will be housed at the Immokalee Airport per the local agreement between the Airport Authority and the CRA board. MR. COURTRIGHT: Thank you. That's in consideration of a previous arrangement -- MS. PHILLIPI: That is correct. MR. COURTRIGHT: -- between you and the county to-- MS. PHILLIP I : Between the CRA and the Airport Authority, that is correct. MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay. And the job description itself, is it specifically only addressing aviation and airport, or does it have other responsibilities? MS. PHILLIPI: No, sir, it's a business development center that will act as a business incubator for the mentoring and developing new businesses regardless, exactly. MR. COURTRIGHT: On the airport? MS. PHILLIPI: Exactly. MR. COURTRIGHT: On the airport? MS. PHILLIPI: That is correct. Page 264 December 14,2010 MR. COURTRIGHT: So that's basically what he's being hired for, and that's his job description -- MS. PHILLIPI: He or she, he or she. MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay, pardon me. Whoever, okay. The reason I ask this is because the Airport Authority is seriously under attack. The airport in Immokalee is seriously under attack by the CRA. And I want to point out one thing. There are 14 businesses paying money today to the county to have the privilege of being on the Immokalee Airport. There are 45 aircraft/hangar in Immokalee paying hangar rent. Customs building is there, pays good money. Florida National Guard is coming to the Immokalee Airport. Hopefully they'll be a -- there will be an aviation museum at the airport. The Sheriffs Office is at the airport. All of these make money, yet as of today, we're being evicted from our hangars, we're being -- everything is being changed, and it's a direct result of the CRA and our new executive director. And I just -- I want to go on record with that position. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Whoops, I'm sorry. You're supposed to say that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. Thank you. Do you have any comments to make on that, Penny? MS. PHILLIPI: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: No more speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Page 265 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That passes 4-1 (sic). We have another one for the CRA? MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 14 B is a recommendation to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Didn't it pass unanimously with the commissioners present? CHAIRMAN FIALA: But there's one missing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it didn't mean he voted no. It just passed 4-0. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, did I say -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: 4-1. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. It was 4-0. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That implies there was a negative. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. It's getting late. That's okay. You have some more things to do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I do? Item #14B RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENDY AND THE IMMOKALEE HOUSING COLLABORATIVE (COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, IMMOKALEE HOUSING AND FAMILY SERVICES & I HOPE) TO UPDATE Page 266 December 14, 2010 THE 2004 IMMOKALEE HOUSING CONDITION INVENTORY (TO INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES); AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $22,000 FROM FUND 186 TO PAY ruST OVER 50% OF THE TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Madam Chairman, 14B is a recommendation to approve a partnership between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Immokalee Housing Collaborative to update the 2004 Immokalee Housing Condition Inventory, authorize expenditures of $22,000 for Fund 186 to pay just over 50 percent of the total cost of the project, and authorize any necessary budget amendments. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eloquent, just eloquent. MS. PHILLIPI: Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: That would close out your CRA business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now you've got one more. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now I'll close the CRA meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And the Board of County Page 267 December 14, 2010 Commissioners is back in session. Mr. Curry? Item #14C RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PRICE STRUCTURE FOR THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT PROPOSED BY THE AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED IN ORDINANCE 10-10 AND THE AIRPORT ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND APPLY SAID STRUCTURE TO CROSS COUNTRY SOARING - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. 14C, sir, is a recommendation to approve the price structure for the Immokalee Airport proposed by the airport executive director pursuant to the authority delegated in ordinance 10-10 in the Airport Administrative Code and apply said structure to Cross-Country Soaring. Mr. Curry will present. MR. CURRY: Good evening, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good evening. MR. CURRY: I just want to share a little background on this issue. When I arrived at the airport, or was hired in July, one of the tasks that was given to me by the Board of County Commissioners was to try and make the airport as self-sustainable as possible. This view is consistent with FAA grant assurance number 24. The Collier County airports are currently subsidized by the county taxpayers. I appeared before the board last month by way of public petition. The issue involved the use of the Immokalee Airport by Cross Country Soaring, a for-profit business based in Minnesota. Let me say that as far as the airport rates and charges, a rates-and-charges structure for the airport has not been approved since Page 268 December 14,2010 2002. Generally your rates-and-charges structure would cover all the different entities that would use the airport, and the structure would be present and it would be in place. That's not the case for the airports at this particular time. The gentleman that owns the Cross Country Soaring operation is Mr. Ingraham. During my conversations with Mr. Ingraham, we discussed 15 percent of gross receipts which is consistent with percentages currently used by rental car agencies at the airport. I have amended that charge structure to 10 percent in order to better accommodate his business entity. Let me give you some sheer numbers. Mr. Ingraham has requested to use the airport for three months. Ifhe used the airport from January through March, he would garner about $18,600 in revenue. These are the numbers that he presented to the airport. The airport would receive $200 for commercial operating fee and $60 per month for tie-down, for a total of $380 for three months' use of the airport. This averages about $155 a month. Under the 10 percent percentage rate, based on his gross revenue, the airport would earn the $200 for the operating fee, $60 per month for the tie-down of the glider, and an additional $1,860 for a total of $2,240. The administrative code that you currently have in place allows the executive director to set rates and policies that do not exceed 365 days. If the structure is more than a year, then I should bring the rates-and-charges structure back to the Airport Authority; therefore, based on the item that's presented before you, I'm not sure if it is the appropriate means for the board to act on this at all because it is already authorizing the Administrative Code for the Executive Director to set the rates and charges consistent with market value rates. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You finished, Chris? MR. CURRY : Yes, I am. Thank you. Page 269 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Jeff, I need some help with this one, because I did go over this with Mr. Murray, and he's not only spot on, but he's back here to assist the Airport Authority or the Board of Commissioners on an issue that had a public petition. If you look at Page 4 of 17, that policy was adopted by the Airport Authority, okay, and that policy states what Mr. Curry said; he's supposed to set the rates for short-term contracts such as this one. And if you go to the Ordinance, Page 14 of 27, Section 7, non-interference, consistent with Ordinance 93-72, which is the old County Manager's Ordinance, and Ordinance 96-40, as amended, Collier County Personal Ordinance, members of the Airport Authority may communicate with employees, officers, agents, under the direction, supervisor of the director, and it goes on and on. The call's about the county manager's ordinance, which we know what the punishment is if it's violation (sic). I don't think we have any business, because of a public petition, to deny or adopt the recommendations, because we gave that -- Airport Authority gave that to the Airport Director. And until the Airport Authority amends policies, I don't want anything to do with this item personally, and let the Airport Director do its job. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I don't have an issue with that approach at all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Having said that, I don't have an issue with the board ultimately setting all fees throughout the county . We're not doing that, apparently, at this point in time. But you, as the Airport Authority, could say, we want you to come back and we want to review these, and then set those fees. As we stand right now, I agree with you. Page 270 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Curry did say that, he wants to bring them back -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- those fees, because they haven't been updated. So what do we do on an item if we don't want to take action on it? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't take action. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just don't do anything? MR. KLATZKOW: Yep. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's always good with me. When the government doesn't do anything, it's not a bad thing. MR. KLATZKOW: It's very rare, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No comment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It's not a question of government doing nothing. You do nothing when there's a reason to do nothing. In this case, while I agree with Chris as far as bringing this airport into the realms of 20 1 0, I also recognize the reason that you're here today is because of the fact that there is some disagreement within the airport advisory group. That group is a voluntary group of people whose opinion we need to hear on a regular basis. And also too, the citizenry out there when they have a problem with something. Now, the rates have not been established yet. Like you said, you have to come up with a whole array of rates. They've never been approved by the authority since two thousand and -- MR. CURRY: 2002. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 2002, eight years ago. That's a long time for this thing to sit in limbo. It's going to have to be coming back. Meanwhile, there's going to be that human element out there. And we represent humans. We don't represent a government entity Page 271 December 14,2010 that's out in the world and we just say, okay, that's it. Chris has final say on this and no one can argue with it. We're here today to be able to hear from the people that have some objections to this. That's the whole reason why we're going through it. They've been -- it was supposed to be four, and I think there's three left now. I believe it's three. And that's the whole reason why we're here at this moment in time. Let's hear them and then give guidance on this thing and represent the people that are looking for the representation that they need. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have registered speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We have three registered speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's hear the registered speakers. MR. COURTRIGHT: It's Marvin Courtright. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already heard him. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we've got to hear him again. MR. COURTRIGHT: This is another subject. MR. MITCHELL: And he'll be followed by Jim Murray. MR. COURTRIGHT: Again, Marvin Courtright. And Commissioner Coletta -- there you are. Thank you for your comment and remembering that we -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're done. MR. MITCHELL: You're finished, sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. MR. COURTRIGHT: And I want to make sure that you understand that Ms. Phillipi has presented one of the greatest documents that you could ever ask for in regard to the CRA, and she accomplished it on her own with the help of the local community. Now back to the subject at hand. We as a community -- and I mentioned how many businesses there are there. And the problem for our new executive director is how to come into a brand new job in a community that is so close knit and has been on that airport for years Page 272 December 14,2010 and who have 45 airplanes in hangars and have businesses and thousands of dollars invested and arbitrarily establish a rapport and understand what is going on at that airport. He's exactly right, and you all are. He's -- his mandate is to direct that airport. Unfortunately, he's been handed a second mandate by the county, make money, make money, because you're all hurting. We all are. I got news for you. Airports never make money. Sure, we've got all kinds of grant money, but we have to pay part of that grant money back. And if you reviewed it and looked back over the years, we've had seven executive directors since the formation of the Collier County Airport Authority, seven of them. How can there be any continuity in the management of an airport under those conditions? Again, we had a great Airport Advisory Board, a great airport board. We -- cut us off right now. I used to be on the Airport Authority. I was on it when it was formed. I sat right up there with you folks. Now we mayor may -- we didn't, but -- well, let me turn this part of it over to the next speaker. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker Jim Murray, and he'll be followed by Mark Schuteman (sic) -- Schumann. MR. MURRAY: Good evening, Commissioners. Welcome, Commissioner Hiller. Jim Murray of Airport Authority Advisory Board speaking for the board. Chris Curry's jumped into a literal hornets nest here. And normally when he makes a presentation, he is going to be speaking for himself as the Executive Director and for the Advisory Board. On this particular issue -- and I'm only addressing Cross Country Soaring -- there's a difference of opinion. The basic feeling is, and the board was -- the Advisory Board was unanimous on it, and I promised I'd come here and express it to them -- is that an operation like Cross Country Soaring produces very little revenue for the airport. There'll be some tie-down fees, few Page 273 December 14, 2010 people buy -- fly in and buy gas, they buy a few cans of sodas and a couple of candy bars. But if they train 70 glider pilots during the course of this -- 50 to 70 during the course of this summer, each one comes in, very often brings his family, will be staying in town for, very often, a week, they'll be in -- generally in hotels in Collier County, be having their meals there, and that is -- that is the sole reason why we believe that an operation like Cross Country Soaring will be of great benefit to the airport by introducing the airport to people from around the country. We understand that as things stand, Chris has total authority and responsibility to set these prices. And generally, we are not going to disagree with it. In this particular case, we believe, the board believes, that Cross Country Soaring should be able to operate without the additional fees. They will not be costing the county anything. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I would feel a little bit bad if I had a glider business and I had to pay but somebody else didn't, or if I had any of the other businesses on the airport but we just gave one company the privilege of not having to pay the fees -- MR. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but everybody else would have to. MR. MURRAY: Well, I think the other people who, through the operations on the airport, including the glider operations, are based on the airport, they pay hangar rent, they buy gas. There are no other particular fees they pay. The one that Chris mentioned, which is true, is the rental car operations, which the administration has now worked a deal with the Immokalee Airport as well as Marco where we have it, where they will be paying a commission fee, and this is not consistent with that; however, it is consistent with the other airport and airplane-based Page 274 December 14, 2010 operations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the Airport Authority actually feels it's okay in one instance to give this privilege, but in no other instance at any of the other airports? MR. MURRAY: I don't think we've had anything -- in my time on the advisory board, I don't think we've had another situation like this come up that I can recall. And it's -- as I say, this is strictly the advisory board's opinion on this one issue. It doesn't involve any of the other things that are going on in Immokalee or any of the rest of it. We feel that it's of benefit to the county and eventually to the airport. And as they say, that was the advisory board's opinion, and I told them that I would bring that to here. That is nothing to do with my regard for Chris or his professional performance. We're good friends. We get along fine. Just a difference of opinion in that one instance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have another speaker? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. Mike Schumann. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. Commissioners, I'm Mike Schumann. I'm a glider pilot, and I'm also a Collier County taxpayer. I'd like to start off by clarifying one thing. We're not asking for any special favors for Cross Country Soaring. What we're asking for is that Cross Country Soaring is treated the same as every other entity in Collier County that's an aircraft-related entity. Right now at Immokalee Airport for many, many years, there is a commercial glider operation called High Country Soaring, and they pay tie-down fees and buy fuel there and whatever. They're not being charged any extra charge on their gross revenues or anything else. Cross Country Soaring is the identical operation to High Country Soaring. They provide flight training, they provide glider rides, and all we're asking is that their charges be identical to what is currently being charged High Country Soaring, which is for the services that Page 275 December 14,2010 they use, tie-downs and whatever. Now, as a Collier County taxpayer, I totally agree with the goal that we should try to get our airports to become self-sufficient, okay. The reality of the situation is that Cross Country Soaring coming in here for the season doesn't cost the airport a dime, okay. There's no people support required, there's no expenditure on the part of the airport required. This is all incremental revenue. They cannot come in and make this business fly if they're being subjected to a 15 percent or a 10 percent fee. So what's going to happen is they're not going to be here this season, and the actual revenue to the airport is going to be lower because they're not going to be paying tie-down fees and a use fee that they did last year. I understand it's minor -- you know, we're talking a couple hundred dollars. It's not a lot of money, but it's still going to be less revenue than we have otherwise. And the reality is, last year we had 25 glider pilots from around the world come into Immokalee, okay, that spent money in the community. Some of them were talking about, geez, I should really think about retiring here. I mean, there're so many secondary effects to having this kind of operation out there, and we're just throwing that out with the bathwater. And to Mr. Henning's comment, you should not be reviewing these kind of issues at your meeting. The fundamental problem here is that we don't have a price list, you know, that basically you can look at like the Naples Airport does where all the fees are laid out and everybody just goes by a list. That's all-- that's what we really need. And I would encourage you to make sure that that happens. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me say something here. You know what's happening here? Same thing that happened to us, the Board of County Commissioners, in 2001 after an entire decade of not updating our impact fees we decided to increase the impact fees, and Page 276 December 14, 2010 you would have thought that everybody in the county was going to go broke. And there was a lot of screaming, a lot of anger, and they finally got over it. The point is, if you've been getting something free, any charge is going to upset you. Well, you know, I don't think people should get free things from the airport, and until we establish a method of operation at the airport that is professional and clear, like the Naples Airport where they have a schedule of charges -- which Chris is trying to institute, right? MR. CURRY: Yes. I'll bring all the new charges to you in January. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And that's one of the things that has been lacking here. Naples Airport (sic) functions more like a flying club for the benefit of its members than it has functions like an airport for Collier County and a place where we want to establish a professional reputation and business operations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Naples Airport? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Immokalee Airport, Marco Airport, Everglades Airport, all of those. But what I think we need to do is to let Chris understand that we support him in this role. He's a knowledgeable guy. He understands what needs to be done. He has, so far, shown the courage of his convictions to implement guidelines and professional procedures at the airport and to begin running it like an airport, not like a club. And I can't tell you that we're going to be wildly successful and we're going to make a lot of money off that, but the one thing we need is a mindset change in our airports, and Chris is providing that transition for us, and I think it's a good thing. And until I see otherwise, I'm going to put my confidence in Chris to make those decisions. And I would just like for us to let him know that he has our backing and support. And with that, Commissioner Coletta, you were next. Page 277 December 14,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chris, I appreciate you going through this. It's -- your advisory board is absolutely important as can be to you, and I know you realize that. And that's why occasionally you're going to have these things that are going to come to us even though you have this authority. Just a couple quick questions to clarify, because we want to make sure the playing field is level within the airport. The other glider operation that's there on a regular basis, are they going to be part of this new price structure that you're coming up with? MR. CURRY : Well, a lot of the complaints has been that the operation currently at Immokalee is the same as the Minnesota-based glider operation. I beg to differ. The current glider operation, they do a series of things that's different than Cross Country Soaring. They provide aircraft charter, aircraft maintenance, glider tow, glider instruction, and they are a base tenant on the airport. They've been there for seven years. They contribute about $13,000 a year to the Immokalee Airport. So they do not have to be treated the same because I think their business entity offers a lot more on a consistent basis to the airport; therefore, their structure does not have to be the same. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So when you make up this menu of prices, it's going to have some sort of explanation in it how everything fits together so there's some predictability? MR. CURRY: It will. I think the line item is under transient airport use, 10 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, Chris, I agree with Commissioner Coyle, you're doing a great job. There's going to be some pain in making this adjustment as we go forward. The old way of doing things where the control of the airport was basically in the hands of the people that were using it has changed some. It doesn't mean we're not going to listen to the advisory board, we're not going to -- we're always going to listen to the tenants. Page 278 December 14,2010 And I know you're going to keep your ears open and your mind open to anyone that comes forward in the future. And I make a motion to approve this. MR. CURRY: Let me just add one thing, Commissioners. You know, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Murray. I seek advice from him on a lot of different issues, so does the rest of the advisory board. And, you know, we said that the majority of times we're going to agree on most of the issues, and sometimes -- sometimes we won't. An allegation was made previously that I have evicted someone. I've never evicted anyone from the airport as of yet. The issue that the airport has is that because we have received the federal grant money and in accordance with the administrative code, I'm supposed to set policies consistent with fair-market value. And if we're not setting our rates and charges consistent with fair-market value, not only am I in violation of the administrative code, I'm in violation of the FAA grant assurances that we have. So what you see happening with some of the price increases is that they are so outdated, some tenants on the airport are paying 60 or 70 percent less than fair-market value. So what I'm trying to do is give those tenants the benefit of the doubt, not raise them 70 percent, but clearly put us on a path where we're trying to approach fair-market value prices, and that's consistent with our administrative code and FAA grant assurance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner Coletta for approval -- well, I think we generally agreed that you have the authority to set these. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thought of it as an agreement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's have a motion to affirm our support of your decision to establish some uniformity of charges at the Page 279 December 14, 2010 airports. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second your motion then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning already did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't know. You just made my motion, Commissioner Henning seconded the motion. And so all in -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's getting confusing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. Do you have anything, or is that left on from before? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I just wanted to make one comment and that is the fact that, Chris, I do understand that you are bottom-line driven and you have to be and that we have to look at the cost component. So at some future time I would ask that this board be given the opportunity to review an analysis of your costs, particularly labor costs, which are contributing heavily against your bottom line. MR. CURRY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have that opportunity in just a few months when we start getting the budget pulled together. MR. CURRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? Good. Now, we have a motion to affirm our support of Chris in his efforts to establish a standard pricing model for the airports in Collier County. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 280 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's approved unanimously. MR. CURRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Chris. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to general communications. Do you have anything, County Manager. MR.OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Say no. MR. OCHS: I do have one item, and -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the wrong answer. MR.OCHS: Well, this one has to do with the City of Naples, so CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is definitely the wrong answer. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I received an email from City Manager Bill Moss on December 8th of this month asking, on behalf of his council, for consideration of a j oint workshop between the city and the board early in 2000 (sic) for the specific purpose of discussing parks and recreation and the cost of parks and recreation in the city and the county. And you've dealt with this before. Apparently they want to -- they want to talk again about it. So I told the city manager that I would bring this to the board. So COMMISSIONER HENNING: What else you got? MR. OCHS: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What -- what's the time frame again? MR.OCHS: Well, they were hoping to have a workshop with Page 281 December 14,2010 our board sometime in January or February, sometime before you and the city council set your budget guidance for the coming fiscal year. Just to remind the board, you have a current interlocal agreement with the city where you provide a million dollars a year to the city to help them support not only the beach parking, but also their parks and recreation system. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Okay. Can we find, say, a Wednesday immediately following one of our board meetings and spend some time talking with them? I mean, I think out of courtesy we should agree to meet and talk if they have anything. But let- -- why don't we ask for agenda items. MR. OCHS : Well, the mayor -- I did speak to the mayor briefly about this, sir, and he said to give the board assurances that the only -- you know, they didn't want to get into a long list of items, unless you wanted to; they could limit this to a couple of hours and just that item, unless -- unless the commission wanted to get into a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just that one item, the funding for recreational facilities? That's all that we want to put on the agenda; is that it? MR.OCHS: Well, that's all the mayor was interested in speaking about. Ifwe want to do a broader agenda, I could certainly put something together. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think we need to give our commissioners an opportunity to suggest any topics they'd like to talk about. MR. OCHS: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to -- why don't we ask the commissioners to give to you any topics which they would like to see discussed there, and we'll pick a -- pick a Wednesday. Since we generally leave Wednesday mornings open, maybe we can pick a Wednesday morning to meet with the city council. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the 26th of January, which is the day Page 282 December 14,2010 after the board meeting. The early meeting in January you've already spec'ed that time out with the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. MITCHELL: -- Immokalee. MR.OCHS: Commissioner, what I could do is poll the individual board members for potential topics and then work with your calendars and Mr. Mitchell to find a couple of dates that might work for you, and can send those to the city and see if we can't get something set up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. All right. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that it? MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, a couple things. First one, I hear you have a birthday on Friday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Saturday. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Saturday? Happy Birthday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. That was very kind. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second thing is, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah, and happy holidays to everyone. Have a wonderful, wonderful holiday, and remember to care about one another and show your love to your family. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bah humbug. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you hear that, Cheryl? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I'll get in trouble for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know. You should. Page 283 December 14, 2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- I would like to add something to our executive summaries because of recent history. I would like each executive summary to identify if there are any other agencies who have an interest in the item that is under consideration, and this really comes up as a result of the request from the Conservancy. There are instances where the Conservancy has signed agreements with landowners or PUDs, and sometimes when they come before us that is not revealed to the board, and either on the application for the petition or in the executive summary, can we identify any other signatories to a particular PUD approval or document or restriction or preserve so that we understand that other people might be affected by this decision before we hear it? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that possible? MR. OCHS: I don't see why not; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And along with that, I'd like to have each -- have the county attorney indicate on each executive summary whether a -- no -- each applicable executive summary whether or not a simple majority or supermajority vote is required so that that is prominently disclosed by the county attorney under their review and we have a clear indication of it. And I would like to also ask Ian to put that information on the annotated agendas that you give each of the board members so that they see that on the annotated agenda, okay. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that should do it for me for the day. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do have a couple of things. The first one was, back on November 9th, I attended a, what do you want to call it, a seminar on Arthrex, and also Georgia Hiller was there, so was our County Manager and the Assistant County Manager. Page 284 December 14, 2010 It was a tremendous presentation that was put on. It followed the history of the company, everything they were doing. There was nothing that I would call a negative in any way. It was -- I've always been quite a fan of Arthrex. And the director there, the owner of it, Mr. Schmelling (sic), Reinbolt, he's always been a hero-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Schmieding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. He has always been a hero. I've admired the guy for a long time. I've been meeting with him offline several different times, you know, to try to draw a difference between the difference of opinion that we may have over Jackson Lab and his company. I mean, when you get down to it, you've got to -- this is the el primo company in Collier County. There's nothing like it. He has a program for his employees that's second to none. I don't think you'll ever find anyone that will ever duplicate it. But what it was, this presentation when they put it on, they videotaped it, and it was extremely impressive. And afterwards I went up to him and I asked him if it would be possible for the video to be offered to Collier County to be able to put on our channel to be able to show exactly what this company does. And at that time he was a little reluctant, and he said he had to think about it. Well, he's come back since then and he's said yes, he would like to make those videos available. And I would like very much for us to be able to run it on our television -- on our TV station so that we can -- we can show the whole world exactly what Collier County has to offer. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great idea. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The other -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question for you though. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Page 285 December 14,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is a complaint that has been lodged because you and Commissioner Fiala went to Bar Harbor, Maine, to visit with Jackson Labs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, you're telling me that three commissioners showed up at Arthrex, and there's no complaint concerning that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Well, the Naples Daily News never got any pictures, so I don't think we're going to have any problems. You're right. There is a comparison between -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Isn't that interesting? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the two. I guess it's whatever issue somebody may have out there and what kind of case they want to try to build around it. But I mean, and that's something that's working itself out. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Mr. London should be interested in that, so I would invited Mr. London to file another complaint-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that three commissioners actually showed up at Arthrex for a meeting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wasn't a commissioner yet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds terrible. But nevertheless. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I have one other-- I have another item, too. On the 4th of January I'm going to be going to Washington, DC. I've been invited by both David Rivera and Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart to witness their swearing in. I'm very excited about it. Well, I was very involved in their campaigns, and I know many of you were also. Also while I'm there I'm going to be visiting with the senior policy analysis -- analyst for the u.S. Department of Transportation to Page 286 December 14,2010 discuss one of the -- two big issues for Collier County, one of them being our interchange -- now, mind you, this is not a congressional person. This is a policymaker -- to try to find more information from the federal point of view that will lend itself to our argument in the future. And the other thing I want to talk to him about -- and by the way, I've been working with Dan Summers and Pedro Ramos from the Big Cypress Park out there over the emergency center out there on 75, and I'd like to be able to take that to transportation, too, and get a little bit of idea from them what their role will be into it. Also, I'm trying to get an appointment with the National Park Service on some of the same issues. With that, I'm going to be sharing a room -- two separate beds, by the way -- with John Norman, who was the former aide for David Rivera when he was a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want pictures of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I already told John I'm going to bring my shorty pajamas and he kind of gagged a little bit. But in any case I, with this commission's indulgence, I do have a travel budget, and I would like to take the cost out of this to be able to cover my trip as a public purpose. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just want to make sure that John Norman picks up his share of the room cost. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll get proof for you. Do you want pictures? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got to put it on the agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it will be when I come back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But at this point in time, I just wanted to put it out there. And also, like I have done before when I've Page 287 December 14, 2010 gone to Tallahassee, I'll furnish you with a report when I come back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want a report. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're still going to get it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can refine it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to even hear about what you and John Norman did in that room. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one very short item. You brought up about the Conservancy. As you know back last month we held a meeting out at the Sabal Palm Elementary School out in the Estates regarding the interchange. We had a tremendous turnout. It was at least 400 people there. It was great, tremendous amount of support. Mario Diaz-Balart came all the way over from Miami to join the meeting. We had Kathleen Passidomo show up. Matt Hudson, of course, was there, and there was a tremendous amount of support. Now, one of the issues that I have is the fact that I want to be able to go to the board of three different organizations, the Wildlife Federation, the Friends of Wildlife, and the Conservancy, to be able to go to their board with Nick to be able to explain to them exactly what the human element is we're concerned about, because these three organizations have basically drawn a line in the sand that they will not in any way endorse, support, and will do everything they can to keep the interchange from taking place. Now, I've been refused, and the reasons I've been refused has been varied, you know, that this -- it's ongoing. Every kind of imagina- -- every kind of reason you can imagine other than the fact that they don't want to meet with me and spend the time. Originally I was told the Conservancy wouldn't meet with me because they don't meet with anyone but their own staff people, and then -- and made a real issue about that. But the whole thing is, is that Page 288 December 14, 2010 the letters that I got were not offering me what I was looking for. And I'd like to be able to direct the chair to write letters asking that they grant us the privilege of this opportunity just to be able to talk to their board of directors. It would -- they have the -- they have that ability when they come before the commission. And it's because these organizations are so important for the success of this interchange. There's been few things that happened in Collier County in spite of the lack of support from these organizations. It always happens because of the support. And not having that support up front is very concerning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think Henning was first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a process that it must go through, and we don't want to circumvent that process. And part of that process is a modeling to do with the environment out there. And my understanding, it is supported by the residents to not circumvent the process to get the permits out there. And I know this is important to Commissioner Coletta, but we should allow our staff to do what they do and not intervene in the process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I've got to respond to that. I'm not doing anything to fight the process. We realize we have to go through the -- the study to be able to justify it, and the -- what do you call it -- the enhanced study on steroids that we have to go through, new one that's never taken place before. We accept that. The problem is, we can get through the process. Without the support or at least the no objection from these local environmental groups, it's going to be hell on wheels for many years trying to get there. And what I want to try to do is through -- appeal to them for their support and to work with them as closely as possible. I've always Page 289 December 14,2010 made myself open to them. I have a friendship with a number of people in those different organizations, and I just want to be able to meet with their board of directors, no threats, nothing more than an appeal to be able to tell them what our intentions are, because in all reality, when we get through, the mitigation that will be done will far outweigh the improvements that exist now as far as being able to prevent future panther deaths, to be able to provide for all sorts of environmental protection. The interchange itself is going to provide -- it's going to provide access and egress for a population that's basically already been vested to be able to grow within that area, and it's been needed for like 20 years. Now we have the problem with the fact that we have to deal with all these things. And I just want to make sure, when we get to the end of it, that we're not going to have the Conservancy and the wildlife federation and the friends of wildlife coming up with untold millions of dollars to sue this county and to keep this thing going on forever so this is something that our children and our grandchildren will probably not see, and it will cost everybody, including the taxpayers, a considerable amount of money. I'm just looking for an avenue to be able to reach out to them in a nonthreatening way. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I understand your interest. What if they say no? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then it's not for the lack of trying. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think you've already tried, haven't you? You've already asked them, and they won't meet with you. I'm just -- I feel a little uncomfortable writing a letter to them asking that they meet with you at this point in time because I'm not certain that we have all of the information available which would be definitive enough to convince them to change their mind. Page 290 December 14, 2010 And the -- I think the last thing we want to do right now is to provide them another reason to say no. I think you might be better served if you wait just a little while and see if we can't develop additional information and maybe even couple your meeting, your request for a meeting, with a visit by one of our congressional representatives when they're in town. And Mario Diaz-Balart, you know, if you talk with him when you're going up to Washington, maybe you talk with him and see if he would go to these organizations with you and meet to see if you can convince them to be more supportive. But I have a feeling that they're going to require more information than is available at the present time before they're going to meet with you or even give you a commitment. But my -- my gut belief is that this is going to be one of those circumstances where you wind up fighting this out, because I don't think they're ever going to agree with you on it. And you'll have our support, but I don't know that we can get you any support from some of those organizations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate that. And I will take that to heart, and I will try to approach it from that particular direction. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll report back to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, I'm trying to do this not in a threatening way. I'm trying to remove future obstacles from this interchange from happening. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. All right. Commissioner Henning? Page 291 December 14, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Well, first of all, Happy Birthday, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You hold the title that I held for a number of years. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only person here under 60. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You will be the youngest County Commissioner on the board, even this Saturday you will still be the youngest commissioner on the board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes my birthday feel a lot better. CHAIRMAN COYLE: By a long shot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: By a long shot. But I also want to wish everybody Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year. The -- there is one thing, and I -- you know, I appreciate -- I realize that I don't win issues, and it's not about winning or losing. In this case that I bring issues on, it's about the debate. And one thing that came out of to day's meeting on an item that I had on the agenda was the vertical expansion of the landfill. Because that process was on the agenda, I found out that a local resident is trying to bring a business into Collier County to take some of our waste stream rotting in that landfill and make a product that's going to go into lumber yards like Lowe's and Home Depot and so on and so forth. I want to explore that, because one thing that Mr. Johns says that I didn't realize when I talked to him briefly the other day, he's talking about jobs of 50- to $60,000. So just asking the board if they have any problem with me putting staff together and Mr. Johns and a company wanting to locate here, to explore it, and if we can make this happen, I think we can extend the life of the landfill out for beyond the youngest Page 292 December 14, 2010 commissioner's life on the board here, a hundred years or 120 years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, she's going to be around then. Tell him. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Go for it, man. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And wouldn't that be great that we -- even if we have the capacity -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I could tell my great, great grandchildren that I was here the day you came up with this idea. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you could even tell them that you ate lunch on the top of that 71- foot tall landfill, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anyways, continuing on what I was going to say is, keep that vertical expansion but never have to utilize it. Isn't that great? So anyways, I'm going to do that unless there's objections. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And report back to board. With that, I'll make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Hiller, your light is on. I hope we can turn it off. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to say thank you to all of you and to staff for a really wonderful first board meeting, and Happy Holidays and Happy New Year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Happy Holidays, everybody. We're out of here. ****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner Page 293 December 14,2010 Coletta and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. HGMP 1785-027-R WITH FLORIDA'S DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR $49,200 PROVIDING FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) HALDEMANCREEKSTORMWATERIMPROVEMENTAND THE LOCK LOUISE WEIR RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND TO APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR THE PROJECT - WITH A NON-FEDERAL SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,400 TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE RELIEF FOR APPROXIMATELY 11,135 ACRES IN THE LEL Y CANAL BASIN SYSTEM Item #16A2 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE EFFORTS BY THE QUEEN'S PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. PURSUANT TO BOARD DIRECTION JANUARY 12, 2010 - COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MET FOR CODE VIOLATION CASE NO. CEVR20080013071 WHICH REQUIRED REMOVING EXOTIC PLANTS FROM HA WAIl LAKE LOCATED IN THE QUEEN'S PARK SUBDIVISION Item #16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR CORTILE AT MEDITERRA, PARCEL 118,16971 CORTILE DRIVE AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS Page 294 December 14, 2010 DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR HERITAGE BAY CLUBHOUSE, PHASE A, 10154 HERITAGE BAY BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT- ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES WILL NOW BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER Item # 16A5 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FAITH LANDING, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WITH THE SECURITY AMOUNT EQUALING 110% OF THE PROJECT COST OR $3~ 172~251.50 Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 2010-227: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE ONE WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN "TRACT R-2" BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND "TRACT R-1" BEING MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY Page 295 December 14, 2010 AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A7 COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE PERMITTING REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING SEAWALL AND DUNE RESTORATION WITHOUT REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO AMEND COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE VARIANCE RESOLUTION 82-179 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #10H (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16A9 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF JOHNNYCAKE COVE, LOT 8 REPLAT- DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER Item #16A10 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BERKSHIRE COMMONS PARCELS 3A & 3B - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER Item #16All IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST BY BA YFRONT, Page 296 December 14, 2010 INC. TOTALING $193,454.24, DUE TO THE CANCELLATION OF TWO BUILDING PERMITS - FOR CITY OF NAPLES PERMIT NUMBER 403744 AND NUMBER 403745 REQUESTED BY BA YFRONT~ INC. Item #16A12 AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT 17, GREY OAKS UNIT NINETEEN - THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDES THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE GREY OAKS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND A HOMEOWNER THAT INTENDS TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL & DECK Item #16A13 SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO UPDATE INFORMATION IN CHANGE ORDER NO.7 FOR AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND V AN BUSKIRK, RYFFEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. - CHANGING INCORRECT WRITTEN RECORDS FOR ITEM #16A4 FROM THE OCTOBER 26, 2010 BCC MEETING; CLARIFYING A CHANGE ORDER NO., CHANGING THE CONTRACT TIME-FRAME & INCREASING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR CONTRACT #45-88581 Item #16A14 SATISFACTION OF LIEN RELATED TO IMPACT FEES, DUE TO DEFERRED IMPACT FEES BEING PAID IN FULL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-401 OF COLLIER COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES AND THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION IMPACT FEE Page 297 December 14,2010 DEFERRAL PROGRAM, SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-203 (I) COLLIER COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A15 AWARD BID #10-5507 FOR STORM DRAIN CLEANING, DOCUMENTING & REPAIRS TO SHENANDOAH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $100,000 - FOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS AND RELATED SERVICES NEEDED ON ALL COUNTY MAINTAINED STORM DRAINS Item #16A16 FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 4600002213 W/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR $775,000, PROVIDING FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR TWO (2) STORMWATER PROJECTS AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NECESSARY TO FACILITATE ASSISTANCE ON THE SECOND OF THE TWO PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - FUNDS UP TO $775,000 FOR THE NORTHWEST ROYAL WOOD CULVERT & WHITAKER ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND THE NORTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FLOW-WAY RESTORATION MASTER PLAN PROJECT Item #16A17 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS IN TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX Page 298 December 14,2010 FUND (313) FOR $4,350 - RE-APPROPRIATED IN THE TIS REVIEW & PUD MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNT PROJECTS Item #16A18 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR WORK PERFORMED ON AN EASEMENT ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND RADIO ROAD -W/IRRIGATION AND ALL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES ALONG A NOISE WALL BUFFER PERFORMED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION Item #16A19 PROPOSED ROUTE MODIFICATIONS AND OPENING OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECONDARY TRANSFER STATION AT THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FACILITY AT 8300 RADIO ROAD - THE ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS AND STATION OPERATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2~ 2011 Item #16A20 ACCEPTING A FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 FY2010/2011 GRANT AWARD FOR $230,115; UTILIZING THE UNSPENT PORTION OF THE FY2009/2010 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT AWARD FOR $30,570 AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF THREE (3) PARATRANSIT VEHICLES FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $260,688 - A 10% LOCAL MATCH IS REQUIRED TO REPLACE THREE (3) 2006 PARATRANSIT VEHICLES SCHEDULED FOR REPLACEMENT Page 299 December 14, 2010 Item #16A21 RESOLUTION 2010-228: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION & SUBMITTAL OF A FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 FY2011/2012 GRANT APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENT Item #16A22 RESOLUTION 2010-229: AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 FY2011/2012 GRANT APPLICATION & APPLICABLE DOCUMENT; ANY AWARDS MAY ONLY BE USED FOR THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF BUS PURCHASES Item #16A23 - OMITTED FROM THE AGENDA INDEX Item # 16A24 TWO (2) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS FOR LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD: SR 29 TO CARSON ROAD, WITH THE VOLUNTEER GROUP, THE IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE REACH OUT PROGRAM; AND LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD FROM CARSON ROAD TO LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD, WITH VOLUNTEER GROUP, IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE BUSINESS LEADERS OF AMERICA, AND FOUR (4) RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $300 Item #16A25 - Moved to Item #101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16B1 Page 300 December 14,2010 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF A JOINT CRA/BCC W ALKABLE COMMUNITY STUDY, AND JOINTL Y SUBMIT THE STUDY TO THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COLLIER COUNTY'S MPO PATHWAYS MASTERPLAN -ASSESSING PEDESTRIAN'S NEEDS ON LOCAL ROADS IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES TO EVALUATE BIKE, PEDESTRIAN AND PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE P A THW A YS PLAN Item #16B2 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROV AL AND EXECUTION OF A SHORELINE STABILIZATION GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (2736 & 2772 RIVERVIEW DRIVE: TOTALING $9,725) - FOR TWO ADJACENT WATERFRONT PARCELS ON HALDEMAN CREEK THAT HAVE PRE-EXISTING SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES Item #16C1 AWARD BID #10-5563, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $714,765 FOR NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE UPGRADES TO GULF COAST CONSTRUCTION OF NAPLES, INC., PROJECT NO. 71063 - TO REPLACE ARCHAIC VFD'S USED TO CONTROL THE SPEED OF PUMPS THAT Page 301 December 14, 2010 DISTRIBUTE WATER TO THE NORTH SERVICE AREA Item # 16C2 WORK ORDER FOR CONTRACT #08-5011 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR $373,800 TO HASKINS, INC., PROJECT NO. 73307 - TO REPAIR AND UPGRADE PERFORMANCE OF COUNTY WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS AT THE LELY GOLF ESTATES AND RIVIERA ESTATES DEVELOPMENTS Item #16C3 AN EQUIPMENT SECURITY AGREEMENT SECURING A PAYMENT PLAN DEBT BETWEEN FINE & DANDY SERVICE, INC., D/B/A NAPKING, AND COLLIER COUNTY'S WATER- SEWER DISTRICT; A ONE-TIME EXCEPTION TO THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED, FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AND AN ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY INVESTED (AFPI) FEE FOR BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2010070017 - BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THIS AGREEMENT GRANTS A 10- YEAR INTEREST FREE (MONTHLY) PAYMENT PLAN & INITIATES A LIEN AGAINST BUSINESS EQUIPMENT Item #16D1 AWARD INVITATION TO BID #10-5597, FOR CONCESSION STAND FOOD PRODUCTS TO CHENEY BROTHERS INC., WITH ANNUAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES OF $100,000 - FOR CONCESSION SALES TO THE PUBLIC AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK Page 302 December 14, 2010 Item #16D2 AMENDMENT TO A COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO) SET-ASIDE FUNDS SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES, INC. (FNPS) APPROVED ON JULY 27,2010. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED TO PURCHASE AND REHABILITATE A SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME IN IMMOKALEE. THE AMENDMENT UPDATES LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT A, THAT INCLUDES SECTION A- SCOPE, SECTION B- BUDGET, SECTION C- WORK PLAN AND SECTION D- THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE TO UPDATE TERMS AND TO REVISE EXHIBIT C, WHICH CONTAINS ADDITIONAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROJECT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE APPROVED ON JULY 27~ 2010 Item #16D3 LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LARRY RAY, COLLIER COUNTY'S TAX COLLECTOR, TO OUTLINE A TAX COLLECTOR AND LIBRARY JOINT USE FACILITY IN EVERGLADES CITY, FLORIDA - THE TAX COLLECTOR WILL REMAIN 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALARY & SUPERVISION OF THE EMPLOYEE FOR FY 2011 Item # 16D4 MORTGAGE AND NOTE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV, LTD., EXTENDING THE TERM OF A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM LOAN FOR AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT YEARS WITH Page 303 December 14, 2010 THE NEW MATURITY DATE OF NOVEMBER 1, 2018- REGARDING A 298 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 8650 WEIR LANE~ NAPLES Item #16D5 AMENDMENT TO A 2008-2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES APPROVED OCTOBER 27, 2009. THE AMENDMENT REVISES EXHIBIT A: SECTION B-THE BUDGET AND C- THE PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE TO F ACILIT A TE REIMBURSEMENT - AGREEMENT AMENDMENT #1 FOR THE "RIVER PARK COMMUNITY CENTER" PROJECT AT 301 11 TH ST. NORTH Item #16D6 AMENDMENT TO A 2009-2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES APPROVED SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 (ITEM 16D9) - REVISING EXHIBIT A, SECTIONS BAND C, TO UPDATE BUDGET INFORMATION AND EXTEND PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE DATES TO FACILITATE REIMBURSEMENT Item #16D7 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDING IN THE 2010- 2011 ACTION PLAN - FUNDS WILL BE USED TOWARD Page 304 December 14, 2010 CONSTRUCTION OF A CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT; ADDING 16 BEDS TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER TO CARE FOR PATIENTS WHO ARE INCARCERATED UNDER THE BAKER ACT DUE TO MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES Item #16D8 PAYMENT OF A $600 ADMINISTRATIVE FINE TO FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR VIOLATING FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 62-296.401, PROVIDING REGULATORY GUIDELINES FOR AIR GENERAL PERMITS - FOR AN AIR EMISSION INSPECTION AT DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES THAT FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIRED MINIMUM CREMA TOR TEMPERATURES Item #16D9 AMENDMENT TO A 2009-2010 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN (SA WCC) APPROVED SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 BY REVISING EXHIBIT A: SECTION A- SCOPE; B- BUDGET; AND SECTION C- PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE, AND UPDATING BUDGET INFORMATION TO F ACILIT A TE REIMBURSEMENT Item #16D10 AFTER THE F ACT APPROVAL TO SUBMIT A FY 2010 CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC) GRANT APPLICATION FOR $413,441 TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR COC PROGRAMS ASSISTING & BENEFITING THE HOMELESS POPULATION IN COLLIER Page 305 December 14,2010 COUNTY. THE APPLICATION HAS NO EFFECT ON AD VALOREM OR GENERAL FUND DOLLARS - RENEWS FUNDING FOR COLLIER COUNTY HHVS, TO MAINTAIN THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM; THE SHEL TER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN, INC.; ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE; AND THE NEW PROJECT WITH COLLIER COUNTY'S HOUSING AUTHORITY PROVIDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT Item #16D11 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A $35,000 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM (SHIP) GRANT TO THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SW FLORIDA, INC. (HDC). THE AGENCY WILL PROVIDE HOMEBUYER EDUCATION, PRE-PURCHASE, EXTENDED CREDIT AND/OR FORECLOSURE PREVENTION COUNSELING TO BENEFIT PERSONS EARNING LESS THAN 120% OF FAMILY MEDIAN INCOME OF COLLIER COUNTY - PROPOSES EDUCATING A MINIMUM OF 100 PERSONS Item #16D12 AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL OF A 2011 OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANTS IN THE SERVICES FOR SENIOR'S PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $545,000- TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S FRAIL ELDERLY INCLUDING MEAL SERVICE & IN-HOME CARE Item #16D13 Page 306 December 14, 2010 RESOLUTION 2010-230: SUPPORTING FOUR (4) COUNTY GRANT APPLICATIONS TO FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR LONG RANGE GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO FUND THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: WIGGIN'S PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN; THE BAREFOOT BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT; SOUTH MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT; AND COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT Item #16E1 PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $687,648; A COST REDUCTION OF 28.7% - FOR CHOSEN COVERAGE WITH ZURICH INSURANCE AND RECOGNIZING A SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS BY INCREASING THE SELF- INSURED DEDUCTIBLE Item #16E2 AWARD RFP #10-5442, GROUP INSURANCE BROKERAGE AND ACTUARIAL SERVICES TO WILLIS OF TENNESSEE, INC., D/B/A WILLIS OF FLORIDA IN AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $94,000 PER YEAR - FOR PROFESSIONAL BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR A THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY L 2011 Item #16E3 Page 307 December 14, 2010 ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 GRANT REPORT PROVIDING AN ANNUAL UPDATE OF GRANT FUNDING ACTIVITY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E4 ACCEPT THE DEED AND APPROVE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY UPON PAYMENT OF ALL COUNTY TAXES, ASSESSMENTS & CODE ENFORCEMENT HARD COSTS RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5408 CARLTON STREET, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - WITH PAYMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20~000 AND CLOSING ON/BEFORE MARCH 31~ 2011 Item # 16E5 RESOLUTION 2010-231: REVISING BOARD POLICY ON THE OPERATION OF LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS, TO UPDATE CREMATION POLICY LANGUAGE FOR THE UNCLAIMED AND UNCLAIMED INDIGENT DECEASED IN COLLIER COUNTY Item # 16E6 - Moved to Item # 1 OJ (During Agenda Changes per Commissioner Henning) Item #16E7 AWARD BID #10-5581 "MOTOR OILS, LUBRICANTS, AND FLUIDS" TO COMBS OIL COMPANY AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND EVANS OIL COMPANY, LLC, FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL-ALLISON INC. AND PALMDALE OIL COMPANY, INC. AS SECONDARY VENDORS WITH THE TOTAL ANNUAL Page 308 December 14,2010 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF $80,000 - TO MAINTAIN THE COUNTY'S 2700 FLEET VEHICLES AND MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT Item #16E8 - Moved to Item #10K (During Agenda Changes per Commissioner Henning) Item #16E9 PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC USE OF COUNTY LANDS DESIGNATED AS PRESERVES AND TO PROVIDE USER FEES FOR PRIVATE EVENTS CONDUCTED AT PRESERVES - REVISING EXISTING ORDINANCES AND DEVELOPING A FEE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION FOR POTENTIAL PRIVATE EVENTS, LOW INTENSITY FUNCTIONS AND CONSERVATION RELATED EVENTS AT THE SEVEN CONSERVATION COLLIER PRESERVES Item #16F1 ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE EMERGENCY SERVICES PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE - FOR THE YEAR 2011 Item # 16F2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVIEW & APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2011 STRATEGIC PLANS FOR THE NAPLES, Page 309 December 14,2010 MARCO ISLAND AND EVERGLADES CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAUS (CVB) AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16F3 CONTRACT #09-5321 AMENDMENT #1, TOURISM GRANT AGREEMENT WITH MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND COLLIER COUNTY EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT - ALLOWING THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY TIME TO COMPLETE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL GRANT APPLICATION Item #16F4 RESOLUTION 2010-232: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANT, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F5 ACCEPT THE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FROM RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT LESS THAN $25,000 - TO REPLACE CLOSED FY 2010 PURCHASE ORDERS Item #16Hl COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING Page 310 December 14, 2010 ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE FRIEND'S OF THE LIBRARY ANNUAL CASINO NIGHT ON NOVEMBER 5, 2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT SAINT KATHERINE'S GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH~ 7100 AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD Item #16H2 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 2010 GOLDEN GATE CITIZEN OF THE YEAR EVENT AT VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES, FL ON NOVEMBER 11, 2010. $40 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 8250 DANBURY DRIVE~ NAPLES Item #16H3 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE SCORE ANNUAL RECOGNITION LUNCHEON ON DECEMBER 6, 2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE BEAR'S PAW COUNTRY CLUB~ 2500 GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y~ NAPLES Item #16H4 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL Page 311 December 14,2010 SOCIETY'S HOLIDAY PARTY AND ANNUAL MEETING ON DECEMBER 7, 2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE ROSE HISTORY AUDITORIUM, 210 HEATHWOOD DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND~ FL Item #16H5 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION MONTHLY LUNCHEON AT HAMIL TON HARBOR YACHT CLUB ON NOVEMBER 18,2010 IN NAPLES, FL. $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 7065 HAMIL TON A VENUE~ NAPLES Item #16H6 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED SERVICE CORPS OF RETIRED EXECUTIVES (SCORE) ANNUAL PROGRAM KICKOFF AND RECOGNITION LUNCHEON DECEMBER 6,2010 AT BEAR'S PAW COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2500 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY~ NAPLES Item #16H7 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER Page 312 December 14,2010 OF COMMERCE CHRISTMAS GALA ON DECEMBER 5,2010 ON MARCO ISLAND, FL. $75 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE BISTRO SOLEIL~ 100 PALM STREET~ MARCO ISLAND~ FL Item #16H8 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE RITZ CARLTON EVENT ON DECEMBER 3,2010 IN NAPLES, FLORIDA. $25 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 208 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD~ NAPLES Item #16H9 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER ALUMNI HOLIDAY EVENT DECEMBER 9, 2010 IN NAPLES, FLORIDA. $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET 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 313 THERE WAS NO MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE AGENDA ITEM #1611 SUBMITTED FOR THE DECEMBER 14, 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING December 14, 2010 Item #16J1 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 30,2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 5,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J2 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 6, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 16J3 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 13, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 19,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 16J4 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 20,2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 26, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J5 A REPORT OF INTEREST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,2010 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 218.78 & PURCHASING POLICY XII.E. FOR THE YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30~ 2010 - NO INTEREST WAS PAID Item #16Kl Page 314 December 14, 2010 RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE TO MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT UPDATE REQUIREMENTS - FOR SERVICES IN THE AREA OF GOVERNMENT BONDS AND FINANCE Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2010-233: DESIGNATING THE APPROVED NORTH COLLIER RECYCLING DROP-OFF CENTER, AS THE NORTH COLLIER RECYCLING DROP-OFF CENTER/JOHN A. YONKOSKY BUILDING - SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION SEPTEMBER 30~ 2011 AT 10500 GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD Item #16K3 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN AN AMOUNT OF $27,000 FOR PARCEL 168FEE AND 168TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SCOTT FAUNCE., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-2684-CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT #68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $22,905) - A .152 ACRE PARCEL FOR THE EXPANSION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GREEN BOULEV ARD TO GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD Item #16K4 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,000 FOR PARCEL 125FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PASCAL J. MURRAY, ET. AL., CASE NO. 07-4784-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION Page 315 December 14, 2010 PROJECT #60091 (FISCAL IMPACT: $44,471) - A 1.01 ACRE PARCEL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY Item #16K5 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,250 FOR PARCELS 159FEE AND 159TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TIMOTHY MALONEY., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-2690-CA (COLLIER BLVD. PROJECT #68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $18,750.50) - A .291 ACRE PARCELFOR EXP ANSION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GREEN BOULEV ARD TO GOLDEN GATE BOULEV ARD Item #16K6 RESOLUTION 2010-234: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY HEAL TH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS FOR HEAL THCARE F ACILITIES AT MOORINGS PARK - TO FUND A PORTION OF THE COSTS NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT 29 ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS WITH RELATED FACILITIES AT THE MOORING'S CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY Item #16K7 RESOLUTION 2010-235: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS FOR HEAL THCARE F ACILITIES AT NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - TO HELP FUND COSTS ASSOCIATED W/CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT UPGRADES, RENOVATIONS AND TO REFUND ALL OR A PORTION OF CITY OF NAPLES HOSPITAL REVENUE BONDS Page 316 December 14,2010 Item # 16K8 RESOLUTION 2010-236: AUTHORIZING THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BOND ANTICIP A TION NOTES FOR HEAL THCARE FACILITIES FOR A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY KNOWN AS THE ARLINGTON OF NAPLES - FUNDING A PORTION OF PRE-DEVLOPMENT, ARCHITECTURAL AND MARKETING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY ON 39-ACRES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN THE LEL Y RESORT COMMUNITY Item #16K9 AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 75-16, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CLARIFYING THE TIMEFRAME FOR ELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN AND/OR VICE-CHAIRMAN, AS APPLICABLE, AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION AND DESIGNATING WHO SHALL SERVE AS THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN WITH RESPECT TO ALL MATTERS OUTSIDE OF MEETINGS Item #16K10 AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, DDRM COUNTRYSIDE, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,001 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 105 AND 705 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF Page 317 December 14,2010 LEE AND COLLIER LIMITED, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0563-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT #62081). (FISCAL IMPACT: $35,101 IF ACCEPTED - LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF RADIO RD. & SANTA BARBARA BLVD. INTERSECTION - FOLIO #28530360001 Item # 1 7 A RESOLUTION 2010-237: PETITION V AC-PL2010-772, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND PUBLIC'S INTEREST OF AN UNUSED UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED OVER A PORTION OF LOT 18 ON THE PLAT OF ERINWOOD - PHASE ONE, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 3 AND 4, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED & DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" WITH THE CONDITION THAT A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO ACCESS THE UTILITY FACILITIES WILL BE GRANTED TO THE WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UPON REQUEST AND RUNS WITH THE LAND Item #17B RESOLUTION 2010-238: DESIGNATING CLOSE-OUT OF TEN (10) ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS CONSTRUCTING UP TO THE AUTHORIZED DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR SPECIFIC DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Page 318 December 14, 2010 Item #17C ORDINANCE 2010-44: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS AMENDED (TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX) TO REALLOCATE ON A ONE-TIME BASIS, $1,000,000 FROM TDC CATEGORY "A" BEACH PARK FACILITIES FUND 183 TO TOURISM PROMOTION FUND 184 TO USE FOR TOURISM DESTINATION MARKETING AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #17D ORDINANCE 2010-45: ESTABLISHES A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT RESTRICTS OR REGULATES PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS Item #17E RESOLUTION 2010-239: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET ***** Page 319 December 14, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~w.~ FRED COYLE, Chairman A TTES!. \"~;\j, DWI~~:~9€K, CLERK .i:;~' ",?,.t~:i,' ,...,~>~~. \, ,,::, ..' .. '" .~ '. ~ :., .\~ ., . .~~i<'J"\\"~ ''- . "~.~.)' . ~:~~:s=~tl!slipPOo:ed by the o~:r:o~:!~ ~lL~ '2011 h . , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 320