BCC Minutes 02/22/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
February 22 , 2011
February 22, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 22, 2011
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, Operations Manager, CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
February 22, 2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Vice- Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice - Chairman
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller, BCC Commissioner, District 2
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
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO 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.
Page 1
February 22, 2011
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.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356,(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. Pastor Marty Moon - Gospel Baptist Church
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. January 25, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 2
February 22, 2011
1) 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Gregory Tavernier, Water Department
2) 35 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Timothy Billings, Growth Management Division Operations
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
1) 5 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Michele Antonia, Animal Services Advisory Board
b. Patricia A. Huff, Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board
C. Julio Estremera, Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency
d. Douglas E. Porter, Collier County Citizens Corps
e. Russell D. Rainey, Collier County Citizens Corps
L Kirk P. Colvin, Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee
g. James E. Broughton, Development Services Advisory
Committee
h. Reed Jarvi, Development Services Advisory Committee
L W. James Klug III, Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Board
2) 10 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. John P. Ribes, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
3) 15 YEAR ATTENDEES
Page 3
February 22, 2011
a. Barbara Minch Rosenberg, Industrial Development Authority
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating February 22, 2011 as Naples Children and
Education Foundation Day. To be accepted by Dr. Christine Davis, Dean of
Student Services, Edison State College. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
B. Proclamation designating the week February 20 - 26, 2011 as Engineer's
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Alison Bradford, PE,
Ralph Verrastro, PE, Norman Trebilcock, PE and Marlene Messam, PE.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation designating February 25, 2011 as Collier Area Transit's
10th Anniversary Celebration Day. To be accepted by Michelle Arnold,
Alternative Transportation Modes Department Director, Glama Carter,
Public Transit Manager and the Collier Area Transit Team. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Michael Gates, Environmental Health and
Safety Specialist, Risk Management Department as the Employee of the
Month for January, 2011.
B. Recommendation to recognize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. as the Advisory Board
Member of the month for February for his outstanding work on the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
C. Presentation by the industrial gas turbine company, Turbo Services Inc.,
interested in locating at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Turbo Services
will provide a brief overview of their company, a mock -up of their proposed
facility at the Immokalee Airport and the potential benefits they will bring to
the surrounding community.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition Request by John Lundin requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners pay his legal fees in the amount of $8,738.68 for the lawsuit
Page 4
February 22, 2011
"Lundin vs. Coyle et al "; Case 10- 6034 -CA, Circuit Court, 20th Judicial
Court.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item was continued from the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Water -
Sewer District Impact Fee Rates, established by Ordinance No. 2007 -57, as
amended, by reducing the water impact fee by $370 (- 10.3 %) to $3,205 per
Equivalent Residential Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $275
( -7.9 %) to $3,220 per Equivalent Residential Connection, for a total
reduction of $645 ( -9.1 %), with an effective date of March 1, 2011.
(Companion to Items #813 and #8C)
B. This item was continued from the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending Schedule Seven of
Appendix A to Section Four of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -73,
as amended, the Collier County Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing,
Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance. This amendment includes a
proposed decrease in rates for Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested, with
an effective date of March 1, 2011, for Schedule Seven. (Companion to
Items #8A and #8C)
C. This item was continued from the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance) by amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule,
which is Schedule One of Appendix A, to reflect the Phase II rate schedule
as set forth in the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and
Credit Update Study" adopted on September 28, 2010, which provides for a
reduction in rates; and providing a delayed effective date of March 1, 2011.
(Companion to Items #8A and #813)
D. Recommendation to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 86 -28,
as amended, relating to flood damage prevention, in order to adopt, to the
Page 5
February 22, 2011
extent applicable, the regulations and policies set forth in the State of Florida
Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory
Committee.
C. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, expressing opposition to
House Bill 589 Relating to Emergency Medical Services due to its proposed
preemption of County Commission authority. (Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt the FY 2012 Budget Policy. (Mark Isackson,
Director, Corporate Finance and Management Services, County Manager's
Office)
B. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to review and
approve the Parks and Recreation Master Plan prepared by Tindale- Oliver
and Associates, Inc. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director)
C. Recommendation to declare an economic emergency and approve the use of
Tourist Tax Emergency Advertising Funds up to $500,000 for promotion of
the group market in FYI I and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
(Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
D. This item continued from the February 8, 2011 BCC MeetinE.
Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #10-5541 to Paradise
Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for Tourism Marketing Services and
authorize the Chairman to sign the standard contract in the amount of
$2,350,000 following County Attorney Office approval. (Jack Wert,
Tourism Director)
E. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Action Plan and required
Page 6
February 22, 2011
certifications to the FY 2010 -2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development One Year Action Plan to accept $3,884,165 allocated to
Collier County by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (Dodd -Frank Act). (Marcy Krumbine, Housing, Human and Veteran
Services Director)
F. Recommendation to award Contract #10 -5572 for the Wiggin's Pass
Permitting, Modeling & Inlet Management Plan to Coastal Planning &
Engineering, Inc. (CP &E) and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract
in the amount of $177,811. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management
Director)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approves and authorizes the Chairman to
execute Change Order No. 1 to DeAngelis Diamond Construction,
Inc., Contract #09 -5234 in the amount of $104,797.20 for the
construction of a 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility at the
Immokatee Regional Airport, pending United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) approval.
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Page 7
February 22, 2011
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for First Congregational Church, 6225 Autumn Oaks
Lane and authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release
any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Fairfield Inn, 3804 White Lake Blvd., and authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Cannes in Pelican Bay, 6525 Crown Colony, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Quail West Phase 3, Unit 7 and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of $102,419.68.
6) Recommendation to approve the selection committee's ranking of
submittal for feasibility study and design for pedestrian or bicycle
facilities at the I -75 and Immokalee Road Interchange (FDOT Project
#416237- 1- 38 -01) and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations
with AIM Engineering that will be brought back for Board approval.
7) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the cooperative
agreement with the South Florida Water Management District,
Agreement No. C- 11759, extending the agreements period of
performance for three months.
Page 8
February 22, 2011
8) Advising the Board of withdrawal of Ave Maria Petitions: DOA -
PL2010 -1751 (January 11, 2011 Board item #7A); SRAA- PL2010-
1988 (January 11, 2011 Board item #7B); and 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 (January 11, 2011 Board item #IOB).
9) Recommendation to approve two (2) Adopt -A -Road Program
Agreements for Main Street from Brown Way to Lake Trafford Road
for the volunteer group, Immokalee High School Junior Achievement;
and Main Street from Jerome Avenue to Brown Way for the volunteer
group, Immokalee High School Teen Trendsetters, with a total of four
(4) recognition signs at a total cost of $300.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (2525A/B Linwood Avenue - $2,739)
2) Recommend the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approves
CC &E Investments, LLC and agents to access CRA -owned property
in the Gateway Triangle to install and monitor a ground water
monitoring well for remediation activities at 2068 Davis Blvd;
authorize the CRA Chairman to execute the access agreement;
authorize the Executive Director to coordinate with appropriate
entities to ensure the security of subject property.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a lease with Green Effex, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company, to operate a commercial and residential landscape
service on CRA owned property located at 1991 Tamiami Trail East,
in the Gateway Mini - Triangle for an annual rent of $18,000 to be paid
in equal monthly installments of $1,500 for the term of 14 months.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
Page 9
February 22, 2011
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11 -5638 for
Waterway Signage to Annat Incorporation d/b /a Municipal Supply
and Sign. (Estimated expenditure: $50,000)
2) Recommendation to accept funding from the Collier County 4 -H
Clubs Foundation, Inc. in the amount of $63,825.00 for the 4 -H
Outreach Program managed by the Collier County University of
Florida/IFAS Extension Department, authorize Chairman to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding, and approve a budget amendment in
the amount of $70,825.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Children and
Families, accepting a Challenge Grant in the amount of $63,397 and
authorize necessary budget amendments associated with this action.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to the 2010 -2011 Home Investment Partnership Program
(HOME) Subrecipient Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County approved October 26, 2010. The amendment is to
revise Exhibit A, Scope of Services, in order to incorporate
procurement language in the scope.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to the 2009 Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-
housing (HPRP) Subrecipient Agreement with the Housing
Development Corporation of Southwest Florida (HDC) approved on
September 15, 2009. This amendment reallocates budgeted line items.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) Mortgage and Note Modification Agreement for Single Family
Rehabilitation to correct the total funds disbursed on previously
recorded security instruments.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #08DB -D3-
Page 10
February 22, 2011
E.
F.
09- 21- 01 -A03 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County to reallocate $99,007.46 in unused project funds.
8) Recommendation to approve a change order to Contract #10 -5561,
ARRA Green Lighting for Parks — Eagle Lakes, to Electrical
Contracting Services, Inc. for $303,000 to add two additional
community park sites.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Right- of-Way Consent Agreement
and Memorandum of Right -of -Way Consent Agreement from Florida
Power & Light Company for access on, over and across a portion of
Freedom Park.
2) Recommendation to accept the report on the Information Technology
Equipment on -line auction held October 5, 2010 and the Fleet Vehicle
equipment on -line auction held November 16, 2010, resulting in gross
revenues of $23,312.50.
COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for the funding of Medical /Rescue Equipment and Supplies in the
amount of $39,565 and to approve a Budget Amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Department of Homeland Security Grant Agreement #11- DS- 9Z -09-
21-01- between Collier County and the Florida Division of
Emergency Management accepting $12,000 for Emergency
Management Program Enhancement and authorize the necessary
budget amendment.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a
"Recommendation for Reappointment" of Dr. Marta U. Coburn as
the District 20 Medical Examiner.
Page 11
February 22, 2011
4) Recommendation to approve a Locally Funded Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) whereby Collier
County will provide FDOT with brick pavers and $6,683.58 for
installation at the crosswalk located at U.S. 41 at Pelican Bay
Boulevard and a resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the
agreement.
5) Recommendation to accept a report to the Board of County
Commissioners covering budget amendments impacting reserves in an
amount totaling $25,000 or less.
6) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget.
7) Recommendation to advise the Board that the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District Board, at its February 10, 2011 Meeting,
approved the inclusion of the County's requested COPCN language
into the proposed local bill providing for voluntary merger of the
independent fire districts.
8) Report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) pursuant to
direction under Item #IOC at the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting,
providing an accounting of all public funds spent on the Jackson
Laboratory Project.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting as the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Chairman
to execute an Aircraft Detailing Concessionaire Agreement with
Corporate Jet Care, LLC, to provide aircraft detailing and cleaning
services at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Page 12
February 22, 2011
Attended the Marco Island Prayer Breakfast on February 1, 2011 at
the Marco Island Marriott on Marco Island, FL. $20 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attending the Alligator District Adult Recognition Dinner at Hodges
University in Naples, FL. $25 to be paid out of Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Eastern Collier Chamber Monthly Breakfast Meeting on
February 2, 2011 at Roma & Havana Restaurant in Immokalee, FL.
$15 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coyle requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Commissioner attended the Neighborhood Health Clinic Block Party
on February 19, 2011 at the Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club, Naples,
FL. $200 to be paid from Commissioner Coyle's travel budget.
5) A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, concurring with the determination of the Southwest
Florida Expressway Authority to discontinue its operations and
undertake the process to dissolve as an authority; acknowledging
intentions of the Authority regarding disbursement of the remaining
proceeds of loans made by Florida Department of Transportation and
Collier and Lee Counties to the Authority; establishing an effective
date.
L MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
22, 2011 through January 28, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
Page 13
February 22, 2011
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
29, 2011 through February 4, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 5, 2011 through February 11, 2011 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels 1 l OFEE and 110SE in the
condemnation action styled Collier County v. Meridian Broadcasting,
Inc., et al., Case No. 08- 1253 -CA, 'free Farm Road Project #60171.
(Fiscal Impact: $122,050)
2) Authorize the County Attorney to advertise an ordinance for future
consideration amending Ordinance No. 1989 -98, which ratified the
establishment of the Ochopee Fire District Advisory Board, in order
to revise requirements relating to appointment and composition.
3) Recommendation to approve a Retention Agreement for legal services
with the law firm of Woods, Weidenmiller & Michetti, P.L.
4) Approve an Agreed Order awarding expert fees in connection with the
acquisition of Parcels: 701R, 901R, 801N, 902AN, 902RA, 902RB,
703, 803RA, 803RB, 903, 704, 904, 705, 905, 830, 930, 831, 931,
832R and 932R in the lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v.
Vision & Faith, Inc., et al, Case No. 05- 1275 -CA, SCRWTP RO
Wellfield Expansion Project #70892. (Fiscal Impact: $73,390)
5) Approve an Agreed Order awarding expert fees in connection with the
acquisition of Parcels No. 806, 906, 807 and 907 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County, Florida v. Vision & Faith, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-
1275-CA, SCRWTP RO Wellfield Expansion Project #70892. (Fiscal
Impact: $22,548)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION 1S FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
Page 14
February 22, 2011
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 -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members: PUDA- PL2009 -742,
Barefoot Beach Property Owner's Association, Inc., represented by R. Bruce
Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., requesting an amendment
to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, adopted in Ordinance No. 85 -83, to
relocate approved un -built dwelling units from Area DC -1 "The Cottages at
Barefoot Beach" to Lely Barefoot Beach Unit One, Blocks A -K. The
subject site is located on the south side of Bonita Beach Road in Sections 5,
6, 7 and 8, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget.
C. This item has been continued to the March 8, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2006 -56, Rock Road Improvement Municipal Service Taxing
Unit, per the Board's January 25, 2011 direction under Agenda Item #16A2,
to amend the geographical boundaries of the MSTU to remove properties
that no longer derive benefit from the MSTU's stated purpose and create
an Advisory Committee to provide input to county staff as to future
projects within the MSTU.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
Page 15
February 22, 2011
February 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is now in session.
Would you please stand for the invocation by Pastor Marty Moon
of the Gospel Baptist Church, please.
Item #IA
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR MOON: Let us pray. Gracious Heavenly Father, we
thank you for this morning. You've given us another day to live, to
serve, and to be used by Thee. I pray this morning that you bless this
meeting, pray for the commissioners this morning, that you bless each
one, their families, that you would guide and direct, that you would
give wisdom.
For your word says, if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God,
who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not. So we ask for
wisdom, help us to realize the importance of each decision, the
direction that you would like to give, responsibility, Lord, that we
have in making decisions that affect not only our lives but the lives of
others.
So I pray, God, that this meeting will be to your will. Help us to
trust in you, realizing, Father, that kingdoms come and go, rise and
fall, but you will always be.
We praise you this morning and bless your name. Guide and
direct, we pray, in this meeting.
In the name that is above every name, the name of Jesus Christ.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Pastor Moon.
Now please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, tell us about the changes to the agenda today.
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED — APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission.
Agenda changes for Board of County Commissioner meeting
February 22, 2011. First change is to withdraw Item 9D. It was a
request to reconsider Item IOG regarding North Naples Fire Control
and Rescue District's application for Certificate of Pubic Convenience
and Necessity. That is made at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change is to move Item 16A7 to Item IOG on your regular
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an amendment to the
cooperative agreement with the state -- excuse me -- with the South
Florida Water Management District extending the agreement's period
of performance for three months. That item is moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
The next item is to continue Item 16F8 to the March 8, 2011,
BCC meeting. It's the report to the board concerning the accounting
of all public funds spent on Jackson Laboratory project. That request
being made at staff s request. We have one more minor change to
make on that -- on that spreadsheet.
One agenda note this morning, Commissioners. Item 17A is
quasijudicial, and ex parte disclosure is required. All participants will
be required to be sworn in.
And we have two time - certain items this morning -- excuse me --
today. Item IOB will be heard this morning at 11 a.m. That is the
item on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and Item I OD, which is
Page 3
February 22, 2011
the item for rehearing of Paradise Advertising and Marketing contract
will be heard at 2:30 p.m.
Those are all the changes I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Hiller. Commissioner Hiller, any further changes to the agenda and ex
parte?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes. And I'm waiting on
my ex parte backup.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Regarding ex parte, on 17A
I've had correspondence on that but nothing else. No changes to the
agenda.
I would like to make a little explanation, though, if you don't
mind, and that is, in the newspaper it said that on this COPCN that I
had called a meeting. And actually let me just state, someone called
me and asked me if I could put the item on hold.
I found when I called the county manager and the county
attorney it could not be done that way. It had to be called a
reconsideration. I was not planning on ever doing any type of
reconsideration, but I was following it legally.
The people did meet, and I suggested that the people that called
me would call the North Naples Fire, and they did, and they met.
They had a great, great meeting and resolved all of their issues. And I
just want to say that I -- I know it didn't read correctly, but that's
actually what happened.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Fiala.
I have no further changes to the agenda, and I have no ex parte
disclosure.
Page 4
February 22, 2011
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I have no changes to
the agenda. And with ex parte disclosure Item 17A, I received
correspondence on it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes to today's
agenda.
I did receive the staff report on 17A, and that's all the ex parte
communications I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And no changes to the agenda,
right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Is there a motion to approve today's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve, second by Commissioner
Fiala. Any discussion?
(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: The motion passes unanimously.
Page 5
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 22, 2011
Withdraw Item 9D: Request to reconsider Item IOG regarding North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District's Application for COPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity)
originally heard at the January 25, 2011 BCC Meeting. (Commissioner Fiala request)
Move Item 16A7 to IOG: Recommendation to approve an amendment to the cooperative
agreement with the South Florida Water Management District, Agreement No. C- 11759, extending
the agreement's period of performance for three months. (Commissioner Hiller request)
Continue Item 16F8 to March 8. 2011 BCC Meeting: Report to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) pursuant to direction under Item IOC at the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting
providing an accounting of all public funds spent on the Jackson Laboratory Project. (Staff's
req uest)
Note:
Item 17A is quasi - judicial and ex pane disclosure is required, all participants will be required to be
sworn in.
Time Certain Item:
Item 10B to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item IOD to be heard at 2:30 p.m.
:22/2011848A 1
February 22, 2011
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2011 — BCC /REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, with respect to the January 25,
20111 BCC regular meeting minutes, are there any proposed changes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta to approve.
Any discussion?
(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: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #3A
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS: 25 YEAR AND 35 YEAR
ATTENDEES — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have two service awards this
February 22, 2011
morning and several advisory board member awards, if the board
would be kind enough to join us in front of the dais, and we'll handle
all the awards up front, if that's okay with the board.
Commissioners, our first employee service award recipient for 25
years of service, Greg Tavernier from the Water Department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Greg. Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Greg, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Picture.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, celebrating 35 years of service to
county government, Tim Billings from our Growth Management
Division. Tim`?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for your service for 25
years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
ADVISORY BOARD SERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR, 10 YEAR
AND 15 YEAR ATTENDEES — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to your advisory
board member service awards. We have several five -year service
award recipients. The first today is Michele Antonia for five years on
Page 7
February 22, 2011
your Animal Services Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Shake my hand. I'm
an animal lover.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Got get a picture, too.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: For five years of service on your
Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board, Patricia Huff.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Five years of service with your Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency, Julio Estremera.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Julio.
MR. ESTREMERA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Five years of service with Collier County Citizen
Corps, Douglas Porter.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations, Major Porter. Thank
you very much for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Five years of service also with the Collier County
Citizens Corps, Russell Rainey.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your service.
Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Good to see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Russell.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your service.
February 22, 2011
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Five years of service with the Isles of Capri Fire
Control District Advisory Committee, Kirk Colvin. I believe Mr.
Colvin's not here today.
Our next five -year recipient for Development Services Advisory
Committee is James Broughton.
Is he here?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, James. Congratulations.
Thank you very much for your service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
MR. OCHS: Get your picture, Bud.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never saw anybody as tall as Tom
Henning standing up here. That's cool.
MR. BROUGHTON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Five years of service on the Development Services
Advisory Committee, Reed Jarvi.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Is Reed here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think he's here.
MR. OCHS: Not here today.
And your last five -year advisory board awardee, from the Golden
Gate Community Center Advisory Board, W. James Klug, III.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, James. Appreciate your
service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, celebrating ten years of service on
your Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, John Ribes. John?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, John.
MR. RIBES: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your service.
We appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service. Good
to see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks, John.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
MR. RIBES: Give me a hug.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: And finally this morning celebrating 15 years of
service on the Industrial Development Authority, Barbara Minch
Rosenberg.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Barbara.
MS. ROSENBERG: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your 15 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Feels like 30 though, right?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards, yes.
Item #4A
Page 10
February 22, 2011
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 22, 2011 AS
NAPLES CHILDREN AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION DAY.
ACCEPTED BY DR. JEFF ALLBRITTEN, PRESIDENT OF
EDISON STATE COLLEGE, COLLIER CAMPUS. SPONSORED
BY COMMISSIONER FIALA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4 on your
agenda, proclamations. Item 4A is a proclamation designating
February 22, 2011, as Naples Children and Education Foundation
Day, to be accepted by Dr. Christine Davis, Dean of Student Services,
Edison State College. This proclamation sponsored by Commissioner
Fiala.
Please come forward to accept your award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come on down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll present it here, and then you'll get
to speak to us afterwards. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
After the photo, you can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Take the little tab off there first.
MR. ALLBRITTEN: Thank you so much, Commissioners.
Obviously I am not Dr. Christine Davis. I'm Dr. Jeff Allbritten. I'm
the President for the Collier campus.
Thank you so much for honoring the NCEF Foundation. This
Thursday we'll be presenting them with the LIFE Award. They're --
they're an example of an amazing organization who really exemplifies
the best public /private partnerships. As many of you know, through
their very generous gift, we were able to build the pediatric dental
clinic in partnership with University of Florida and also our Early
Childhood Development facility which is serving the needs of many,
many hundreds and even thousands of children in Collier County.
So thank you again. I appreciate this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for being here today.
Page 11
February 22, 2011
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK FEBRUARY 20 -
26, 2011 AS ENGINEER'S WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY ALISON BRADFORD, PE, RALPH
VERRASTRO, PE, NORMAN TREBILCOCK, PE AND
MARLENE MESSAM, PE. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER
COYLE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating the week of
February 20 through 26, 2011, as Engineers' Week in Collier County.
To be accepted by Alison Bradford, PE; Ralph Verrastro, PE; Norman
Trebilcock, PE; and Marlene Messam, PE. This item sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to accept it? You are.
Good morning.
MS. BRADFORD: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much.
And if anyone would like to say a few words, just pick a podium,
either one.
MS. BRADFORD: Thank you. On behalf of the Florida
Engineering Society as the vice - president, I'd just like to say a couple
words.
This is actually the 60th observance of the National Engineers'
Week. The celebration of National Engineers' Week started in 1951
by the National Society of Professional Engineers in conjunction with
President George Washington's birthday.
President Washington is considered the nation's first engineer,
Page 12
February 22, 2011
particularly for his survey work. The purpose of Engineers' Week is
actually to call attention to the contributions to society that engineers
make and a time for engineers to emphasize the importance of
learning math, science, and technical skills.
So I'd just like to say thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 25, 2011 AS
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT'S IOTH ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION DAY. ACCEPTED BY MICHELLE ARNOLD,
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR, GLAMA CARTER, PUBLIC TRANSIT MANAGER
AND THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TEAM. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COLETTA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating February 25,
2011, as Collier Area Transit's 10th Anniversary Celebration Day. To
be accepted by Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes
Department Director; Glama Carter, Public Transit Manager; and
Collier Area Transit team.
This item sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to accept this?
(Applause.)
MS. ARNOLD: If I can just say a few words.
Thank you so much for the proclamation.
I just want to say that it's -- the cornerstone of CAT's success is --
the "purr -fect" ride -- has been the CAT team's adherence to its motto,
"Safety first and customer service always."
Page 13
February 22, 2011
Absolutely nothing takes a backseat to the safe operation of our
system, but right on the heals of the safety comes our customer
service. Without satisfied passengers, CAT would not exist today.
So while managing and operating the system's safety, CAT's
team is always trained to ensure that every interaction with
passengers, stakeholders, and the general public is a positive one and
embodies CAT's dedication to providing perfect rides every day.
Thank you so much for this honor. I would invite you all to
celebrate with us on Friday at 10 o'clock. Please come out and partake
in our celebration for our ten years of service.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Michelle.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I could have a motion to approve
the proclamation, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All proclamations, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All proclamations, of course.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(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.
Page 14
February 22, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The proclamations are passed
unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING MICHAEL GATES, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND SAFETY SPECIALIST, RISK MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
JANUARY 2011 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda this morning, presentations.
5A is a recommendation to recognize Michael Gates,
Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, Risk Management
Department, as Employee of the Month for January 2011.
Michael, please come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Michael. Here's a plaque,
a Letter of Appreciation, a token of our appreciation. Thank you very
much.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Mike has been an employee of
Collier County since 2009, working in our Risk Management
Department. He is assigned to the Public Utilities Divisions where he
focuses his efforts on water and the solid waste departments.
He was responsible for updating the EPA and the OSHA
programs that mandate facilities like water plants and landfills to
follow very strict guidelines.
He swiftly developed a long -term plan, organized functional
teams comprised of plant management and maintenance staff, and
Page 15
February 22, 2011
immediately began updating protocols. Doing this with his own team,
able to save more than $20,000 in outside consulting fees.
Mike is a member of the State of Florida's local Emergency
Planning Committee, and he's pursuing his certified hazardous
materials manager designation currently.
He's truly deserving of this award, and it's my pleasure,
Commissioners, to present to you Mike Gates, Employee of the Month
for January 2011.
Congratulations, Mike.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Mike.
MR. GATES: Thank you.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Congratulations.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. AS THE ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBER OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING WORK ON THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5B is a recommendation to
recognize Anthony Pires, Jr., as the Advisory Board Member of the
Month for February for his outstanding work on the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Tony, are you here?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Mr. Pires. There's
something for you. And you get a free parking pass for a month. The
parking space is located across the street in the shopping center right
next to the restaurant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
Page 16
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tony, would you hang around for
the public petition thing? Your name is mentioned a lot in there, so it
would be nice if you were here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations, Tony.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, may I say
something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we're -- Mr. Pires is
just one of many -- several citizens involved in our local government
providing advice to the Board of Commissioners. We're fortunate
enough to have Tony Pires, like others, to advise us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY THE INDUSTRIAL GAS TURBINE
COMPANY, TURBO SERVICES INC., INTERESTED IN
LOCATING AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT.
TURBO SERVICES PROVIDED A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
THEIR COMPANY, A MOCK -UP OF THEIR PROPOSED
FACILITY AT THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND THE
POTENTIAL BENEFITS THEY WILL BRING TO THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5C is a presentation by
Industrial Gas Turbine Company Turbo Services, Incorporated.
They're interested in locating at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
Turbo Services will provide a brief overview of the company and
mock -up of their proposed facility at the Immokalee airport and the
potential benefits they will bring to the surrounding community.
Page 17
February 22, 2011
I think Mr. Curry will kick this off for you, Commissioners.
MR. CURRY: Good morning, Commissioners. Chris Curry,
Executive Director of Collier County Airport Authority.
I would like to introduce you to the management team of Turbo
Service, President Tom Stout and Michael Parker, Special Projects
Management.
Turbo Services is a company located in Margate, Florida, who
are interested in building a turbine engine testing facility at
Immokalee Regional Airport.
A presentation was provided to the Airport Advisory Board last
week, and they voted unanimously to recommend that airport staff
continue to work with them to bring this project to fruition, and they
are here today to provide you a presentation as well.
And before they start, I would also like to introduce you to Tom
Vergo, who is the airport manager at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
MR. PARKER: Hi, folks. My name is Michael Parker. I work
for Turbo Services, and Tom Stout, and thank you for having us here
today to present our company as a possible tenant of the Immokalee
Regional Airport.
We're excited to build a new facility there and ultimately hope
that you feel the same way.
We have had the pleasure of having Chris Curry and Thomas
Vergo come to our facility in Margate, which is near Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, and they got to see it. We've been working with Mr. Coletta
and Beth Sterchi as well of the Economic Development Council. So
the process of entering Collier County as a business couldn't have
gone better so far. And, again, we appreciate it.
We are looking at building a test facility. This image here shows
a mock -up of a picture of what the inside of a test facility would look
like.
We -- our company was founded in 2002. We repair and
overhaul industrial gas generators. They're former flight engines, as
February 22, 2011
the public might know, because they would have been found on a
Boeing 707 or a DC -8. And in this application, they're used to
supplement power for power generation companies like Florida Power
& Light.
We overhaul them. We provide parts and service. We do it
in -house and in the field. We sell them in whole, and we also own and
lease them to clients.
We train our clientele in maintaining and running these engines.
We provide emergency service. We have a website at Turbo
Services.net, and coming soon is our Immokalee Regional Airport test
facility.
This image shows what the inside of a facility control room
would look like.
And moving on. We chose Immokalee because the airport, its
management, and the county have been very agreeable towards new
growth and growing the airport in particular. The cost of living in
Collier and Immokalee is reasonable, as is working there.
For our particular company, coming from Margate, Florida, its
closeness to the highway system is perfect, because we'll have to
shuttle finished engines from Margate to Immokalee, and it's a great
stream to do that.
The FBO facilities, Thomas Vergo, and everything is also ideal
for us because we have a corporate flight department and a fleet of
aircraft that we'll use to travel back and forth as well and move clients,
executives, to the test facility to witness test runs of the engines.
Working with the county and the airport management is very
important to us because there's been a lot of approvals that we've
needed, starting with the advisory board, now the commissioners, and
on down the line. Ultimately our goal is to get every approval that we
need, conclude our site selection and lease, build the facility, and
begin testing.
The real reason as a business that we want to build this facility is
Page 19
February 22, 2011
to create a new revenue stream for our company. Right now we have
nowhere other than competitor locations to test the engines, and we're
very excited to have our own facility to do it at. In doing so, it will
become a new self - sufficient revenue stream for the company. And
besides being able to test our own engines, we'll -- this opportunity,
being at Immokalee, will enable us to be able to test third -party
engines, which is where it would become profitable for us.
And in doing so, as we make that transition to test third -party
engines, is the door that opens to be able to hire new employees for
this division and employ local people of Collier County and
Immokalee. And so that's really a really crucial break -even point that
we're anticipating reaching and looking forward to reaching.
Of particular benefit to the county and the airport and having us
there is increased airport revenue and fuel sales for the FBO and
airport, because both our corporate aircraft and our running of the
engine consumes fuel. We'll have the lease. The traffic is increased at
the airport. The airport and county get international recognition,
because our clientele for these engines is the world over. I mean, it's
-- we have visitors in this week from Alaska, and we have them in
regularly from Australia. So I mean, this -- this test facility is both big
for us and we believe will be big for the county.
We'll require local companies to build our facility there,
including contracting and construction companies, and then
operationally supplying shipping, advertising companies, and we'll, of
course, have to stay in town as we're here, benefitting restaurants and
hotels.
And along with that transition to testing third -party engines
would include hiring of more people, and that benefits the local
economy as well.
As a company we like to get involved wherever we are. I've
highlighted several examples here of divisions within Collier County
that would be good fit for our business to get involved with, including
Page 20
February 22, 2011
the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council,
Development Foundation Venture Forum. Of particular interest to me
and our company is the manufacturing extension partnership, because
that's -- that's in line with the industry that we're in. Of course, we'll
be together with all the other airport tenants and social in that avenue
as well.
We're a small company. Building these -- these gas generators
and overhauling them is a very niche market. This is probably not
something you hear about every day, but it is very important to the
power - generation industry.
Our competition are much, much larger companies that have
huge overhead and makes us very different, because we are small. We
have a staff right now of 15, but yet we overhauled 41 of these engines
in 2010. We own and operate 32 of them. And as a prime example of
our business, as an engine comes to us to overhaul, we'll typically
lease an engine to a client, and that creates another revenue stream.
So it's a constant flow of business here.
Our organizational structure is pretty similar to many small
companies, with Tom Stout as president and CEO at work and
involved in every aspect of the business every day. He's, of course,
even -- he's even here right now. So he's great to work with, and he's
involved in every part of us.
We met -- before looking into building at Immokalee, we met
with our clients and with other owners and operators of test facilities
to come up with the best plan, the most cost effective and the most
effective plan of building a test facility at Immokalee, and in doing so,
this is what we've come up with.
Looking at it from the sky, where we would build on the
Immokalee airport site is just northeast of the FBO and hangar facility,
to the west of the lake where you see the yellow pin on the picture. It
-- we worked with airport management to come up with that particular
site. It will fall between prospective tenants for the airport, which have
Page 21
February 22, 2011
also been approached with our business model, and I think I can get a
nod that they're, thus far, agreeable to it. And it's an ideal site that
we're happy with as well.
Here's one more perspective of it. If looking at it from the east to
the west here, you'd have the Department of Agriculture to our south
and the National Guard to our north, we'd fall right in the middle in a
very perfect setting for the company.
Here's a rendering of what our building would look like. It is
very functional in purpose. It's to be a bunker to literally test these gas
turbines. Building it this way as a bunker is both to minimize noise
and to promote safety in the event of any failure. The building has to
be strong enough to support anything that could happen.
An aerial perspective of how it would look is like this. This is
preliminary. These aren't final plats or plans, but this is the concept
that we intend to do there. We'll be working with the same surveyors
and site planners for the airport that the airport's been using to do a
final plat and a final Site Development Plan within land development
codes, which we've researched all of that for this particular airport.
That would be done subject to commissioner approval of moving
forward with this project.
From the top rendering here, just another image of how it would
look. On the interior of the building, you really just have the engine
itself, which the intake is towards the top of the screen and the exhaust
is towards the back. The intake is actually the noisier side of a gas
turbine, and, therefore, will have an additional sound barrier wall to
cut down on any noise that would be there.
Now, bringing us to the noise -- and I realize that picture may be
a little bit hard to see. We sent a team to our last engine test run with
a decibel counter to record the noise that was produced at the building
-- and it's a building similar to that which we would build there at
Immokalee -- and our decibel readings around the building were, for
the majority, a hundred decibels except at the intake where it was 120
Page 22
February 22, 2011
to 122 decibels, but the building we tested at did not have an
additional sound barrier wall. So we would anticipate our readings at
Immokalee to be even lower.
The reason I mention these numbers here today is because I
imagine we'd be asked about that, and also because, on doing my
research at Immokalee, I found that there's drag racing on the airport
and looked up the sound levels of that. And drag racing produces 140
decibels, and it seems to be a liked activity within the community.
It would be -- they operate more frequently than we even will.
And our test - engine runs would last a two -hour run with a 30- minutes
extremely noisy moment. Drag racing goes kind of on and on at 140.
So I don't -- in our research we believe that our noise levels are within
what would be acceptable for the community.
We would like to be a good neighbor, which is why we picked
our site. We've been speaking and working with everybody to make
sure that we are.
As a company we'll have a spill plan, a fire plan, take all the
safety precautions needed and maintain the insurance that we already
have.
We picked this site on the perimeter parcel. It will consist of a
very strong foundation. We're working right now on specific lot
dimensions and parcel dimensions to negotiate a lease to put before
the commissioners. That would be the next step in our progressing
towards building this facility here.
And we also picked this site because it has great utilities right to
it of water and sewer, and it's a logical position for us on the airport.
This is exactly what a Pratt and Whitney FT4 engine looks like.
This picture was taken in our overhaul facility in Margate. It typically
spins. It didn't on this presentation for some reason. But it's about 20
feet long, and it's an impressive site. We kind of look forward to
having everyone there for the grand opening.
I put together a corporate gallery of our company. In our shop
Page 23
February 22, 2011
we have the guys which work on engines, and we invite clients to
come and train to work on the engines as well. We maintain inventory
and spares. We go to client sites. The top -right picture there is in
Montego Bay, Jamaica, to we install and service and maintain engines.
As I'd mentioned earlier, we also have our own flight operations
within our company which consist of C planes primarily, and it's a lot
of fun and a fun activity we're going to bring to Immokalee airport.
And just to end our presentation, this is -- and I can prepare this
for anybody that would like it -- it's the principal officers of our
company, their contact information. And we're available to meet and
speak with the community of Collier County about our project. We're
excited about being here, and we thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. We're excited
about you being here, too.
MR. PARKER: Well, good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that was before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was before.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to make a couple
of notes. One step at a time we're getting where we need to be in
Immokalee. It seems like it's been forever. I appreciate the fact that
you're making a commitment to come there.
Once again, any way that I can help, don't hesitate to call.
MR. PARKER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chris, I just wanted you to
know that I appreciate the fact that you came to work for Collier
County, and we're finally starting to see some positive results with this
entity and with the Cellzar expansion that's taking place there and a
number of other entities out there that have expressed the sincere
interest i Immokalee airport.
Page 24
February 22, 2011
I think this commission is going to be very pleasantly surprised in
the next year, everything that's going to be accomplished. Once again,
welcome to Collier County.
MR. PARKER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY JOHN LUNDIN REQUESTING THAT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PAY HIS LEGAL
FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,738.68 FOR THE LAWSUIT
"L UNDIN VS. COYLE ET AL CASE 10- 6034 -CA, CIRCUIT
COURT, 20TH JUDICIAL COURT — DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 6 on your
agenda this morning. It's public petitions.
6A is a public petition request by John Lundin requesting that the
Board of County Commissioners pay his legal fees in an amount of
$8,738.68 for the lawsuit Lundin versus Coyle, et al, Case
10- 6034 -CA, Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Court.
MR. LUNDIN: Hi. My name's John Lundin. I'm here today to
request that the Board of County Commissioners pay my legal fees in
the lawsuit that I filed, Lundin against Coyle, et al, in the 20th Judicial
District Court in the amount of $8,738.68.
I allege that Commissioner Coletta and Fiala violated the Florida
Sunshine Law on your trip to Bar Harbor, Maine, on July 16th and
17th of 2010. You went thereon a fact - finding tour to determine if
you were going to support the Jackson Labs issue.
I feel that my lawsuit was a civic duty, and I performed in the
public interest in exposing the Sunshine violation.
I voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit on February 4th of this year
because the Jackson Labs project is dead here in Collier County. So if
Page 25
February 22, 2011
you were convicted, the cure, which is the punishment, would not be
relevant.
I'd like to justify why I'm asking for the money by quickly going
through the evidence that I supplied in the court case. First I'd like to
quote from the Florida Sunshine Manual, the 2010 Edition, which
deals with inspection trips, which is what you took to Jackson Labs.
And I'd like to quote, "The fact - finding exception to the Sunshine
Law does not apply to a board with the ultimate decision - making
authority." And you were the ultimate decision - making authority to a
vote for Jackson Labs.
And it's based on court case law, Finch versus Seminole County
School Board in 2008 where the Court held that the school board
violated the Sunshine Law when the board, together with school
officials, took a bus tour of neighborhoods affected by the board's
proposed zoning.
School board members were separated from each other on the
bus and did not talk to each other or express any opinion about the
rezoning issues; however, the board was the ultimate decision - making
body, and the conduct of the bus tour constitution (sic) a violation of
the Sunshine Law.
The reason that Finch versus Seminole County was a violation of
the Sunshine Laws, because the public wasn't there on the bus trip to
observe the decision - making process.
Similarly, when Commissioners Fiala and Coletta went to
Jackson Labs, the public wasn't there to observe anything that you
observed.
Next I'd like to quote from the County Commission meeting on
June 8, 2010, which was a month before you went on the fact - finding
tour.
Commissioner Coyle was talking about his bus trip to Orlando,
and he said, "Well, our plan is, I'm going to go on the bus with all the
people because a member of Jackson Labs will be on the bus."
Page 26
February 22, 2011
And Commissioner Coletta said, "I wanted to go, but I was told it
would be a violation of the Sunshine Law." Now, remember this is a
month before you went to Jackson Labs.
And Commissioner Coyle replied, "No. We are prepared to take
you up there individually if you wish," talking about the trip to
Orlando which Commissioner Coletta did not go on. Only
Commissioner Coyle went on that trip.
And then Commissioner Coletta said, "Let's refer to our county
attorney. How do we do this ?"
And then Attorney Klatzkow responded, "No. It can't be a public
meeting because it's too far away from here," referring to the trip to
Orlando.
And Commissioner Coyle responded, "We're not having two
commissioners there at the same time. We're talking about them going
up there independently at different times."
And Commissioner Coyle continued, "And that the same thing
could apply to trips to Bar Harbor, too," referring to the trip you took
to Bar Harbor a month later.
So you know, I'd hate to create a situation where we have even
the suspicion that two commissioners are going to be at the same place
at the same time. So yeah, please, if you want to go to these things,
there are ways to do it individually without complicating the Sunshine
Law, referring to Commissioner Fiala and Coletta's trip a month later
to Bar Harbor, Maine.
Next I'd like to quote from an email from July 15, 2010, from
Sue Jacobs to Commissioner Fiala. It's a series of other emails which
she forwarded to Commissioner Fiala.
The first one was from Attorney Klatzkow on July 15th. "Please
speak to your respective commissioners. My understanding is that the
Naples Daily News is sending a reporter and a photographer. To the
extent possible, Commissioners Fiala and Coletta should not be in a
position where they can be photographed together on this trip to Bar
Page 27
February 22, 2011
Harbor, Maine."
And in continuing in the email, Evelyn Prieto forwarded the
email where -- on the Naples Daily News I blogged. I have a blog
name. And I said, "Under the Florida Sunshine Law" -- this is on July
15th, which was a day before you went on your trip. "Under the
Florida Sunshine Law, two or more advisory board members are
allowed to go on fact - finding tours, but two or more elected County
Commissioners are not allowed to go on a county -paid fact - finding
tour."
The fact - finding exception does not apply to advis- -- doesn't
apply to an advisory committee -- commissioners.
And next I'd like to show the approval by the county for
Commissioner Coletta to go on the fact - finding tour on July 16th.
This was submitted, and it documents that Commissioner Coletta went
on a fact - finding tour to Jackson Labs on July 16th to 18th.
Also, Commissioner Fiala requested permission to go, too, on a --
she called it a -- the Jackson Labs National Council Awards Center to
meet near active business leaders on July 16th.
Okay. Next, a day after Commissioners Filetta (sic) -- Fiala and
Coletta went on a fact - finding tour, the Naples Daily News did an
article on July 18th titled, "Two Collier Commissioners Support
Jackson Labs; Bar Harbor Trip Persuasive." In the article it said, both
Coletta and Fiala said they need to delve into how to raise $130
million in local money to match the same amount expected from the
state.
Fiala said, "Yes, I have to say that" -- when asked if she was sold
on the Jackson Labs proposal, "I have to say that I am. I'm leaving
here in Bar Harbor, Maine, very comfortable that (sic) this lab can do
to the future of our county."
And before going to Maine, Commissioner Fiala said she did not
know how she stood. So your trip to Bar Harbor, Maine, convinced
you to vote -- to support the Jackson Lab proposal.
February 22, 2011
And later on in the same article, Commissioner Coletta is quoted
as saying, "At this point in time, I am leaning towards the positive, yet
to go forward I'm still waiting on the final issue of the funding."
So it seems pretty clear that both of you on this trip to Bar
Harbor, Maine, made the decision to support the issue. And it wasn't a
public meeting. You went there -- you went there separately, but you
both attended some of the same events together.
Now I'd like to go to the July 27th/28th, 2010, Board of
Commissioners where you actually, after the trip, you discussed
funding for Jackson Labs.
Commissioner Fiala, "So here we are talking about the funding,
but we don't even know if we're going to get it."
And then Commissioner Coyle said, "The problem is that if you
-- if you intend to use ad valorem taxes for this, we have to resolve
that today because we have" a -- "we have to set a maximum ad
valorem property tax. So if you want to make the decision on the
property tax, it must be part of the funding package. So there is the
potential danger of taxing the residents and not have a commitment
from the state funding."
Chairman Coyle went on to say, "Yeah, that's right, and a utility
franchise tax would cost the average customer about $3 a month."
Commissioner Fiala responded, "Fifty dollars a year, and I get
Jackson Labs down here in Collier and create new jobs."
My point of this is to show that you did discuss raising taxes on
Jackson Labs after you went on the trip.
And then also on Tuesday, July 27th, the Naples Daily News
printed an article, "Jackson Labs Moved Forward. Commissioners
approve short-term funding. The Collier County Commission voted
4 -1 to draw up a first -year loan of $28 million to Jackson Labs so
officials can continue to bring more business." So you did actually
have a vote to vote money for Jackson Labs. I just wanted to
document that.
Page 29
February 22, 2011
Also -- now, originally when I came here back in July, I tried to
claim that Commissioner Fiala was in a same picture as Commissioner
Coletta, but then when I researched the law with my attorney and we
discovered that Fitchter (sic) versus Seminole County says you can't
even be at the same event together.
Pretty much the Naples Daily News documented that
Commissioner Fiala was at this event in this exhibit hall and that
Commissioner Coletta was at the same event. So both of you were at
the same event.
And it is our contention, my attorney, that this is similar to Finch
versus Seminole County, and this was the basis of my Sunshine
lawsuit.
And in order to justify you paying me my fees, I just want to -- if
I would have continued with the suit through trial and probably
appeal, it probably would have cost me about $40,000 and it probably
would have cost your attorneys about 40,000.
So I've (sic) withdrew the suit and -- with the idea of not having
the taxpayers spend $80,000.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. John, I bear you no
ill will. I mean, this is one of the things that citizens should do
whenever they think there's been any kind of grand discussion (sic)
taking place; however, you just let the whole case go like it was a
court that was hearing it at this point in time.
And there was many things that you said in there that were only
half truths and didn't really get to the truth of the matter. One was fact
that Commissioner Fiala didn't -- and I did not travel in the same
vehicle. We were separated by quite a distance at all times. At --
whenever the -- they were showing the presentations that were taking
place in the auditorium, I stayed out in the -- in another area and
Page 30
February 22, 2011
viewed it on a large- screen television, keeping in mind the fact that I
didn't want the perception of Sunshine Law's violations to be seen.
Also, we had our county attorney with us who could testify, if we
ever got to court, to the fact that there was no interaction between
myself and Commissioner Fiala.
John, I am extremely disappointed you dropped the suit, I really
am, because now you left everything up in the air. I don't think you
stood a chance in the world of that suit ever succeeding. And what I'd
like to see you do is reinstate the suit, and then maybe we can come up
with a deal here whereby if you do prevail, we would reimburse you;
however, with that said, if we prevail -- and I know you're not going to
do this for this reason, because we are going to prevail -- that you'll
reimburse the county for the $40,000 that is going to be spent to get to
that point.
If you're a true believer in your convictions, then you would take
some serious consideration of this offer.
MR. LUNDIN: Well, if you would have studied the case law of
Finch versus Seminole County, you would see what you did is an
exact replica of what they did, and they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't see it that way, John.
I'm sorry, but you're doing the case here in front of the commission.
There's a tremendous amount of argument that can be made on the
other side.
And, you know, I can engage the county attorney, and, in fact, I
think I will, because you have put things on the public record that are
only half truths, in some cases total mis -- distortions of what actually
happened.
If I may, Chair, may I engage our county attorney?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a right to do that. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jackie, would you please
respond for the record.
MS. HUBBARD: Good morning, Commissioners, yes.
Page 31
February 22, 2011
A couple of things you should be aware of. One of them is that
the first thing Mr. Lundin did was to file a criminal complaint against
you with the sheriff. The sheriff investigated the complaint, and the
sheriff actually called, on July 10, 2010, the woman who was
identified as Commissioner Fiala in the photograph in the back, if you
recall. And the sheriff spoke to her -- her name was Jennifer
Krecklow -- and she said she was the unidentified female in a third
photograph presented to the sheriff by Mr. Lundin.
And according to Ms. Krecklow, she is from Cleveland,
Tennessee, and was visiting Jackson Labs with her father, Ray Taylor,
of Tuscan, Alabama.
Now, Mr. Lundin filed a suit against the commissioners on
October 12, 2010, which is after the sheriff determined there was no
merit to the criminal complaint and there was no violation of the
Sunshine Law.
Now, when we received the complaint in our office, we reviewed
it and decided that it had no merit and that we would attack it with a
motion to dismiss, which we promptly filed. In addition to the motion
to dismiss, we secured affidavits from each of the commissioners that
are stated under oath that the permission that was requested by Ms.
Fiala and Mr. Coletta was their personal permission to permit them
personally to go to Maine, not to travel to Maine as a fact - finding
person for the board. They wanted to elicit information for
themselves on a personal level. They were not sent by the
commission.
Now, this happens on a routine basis by the commission. The
commission approves requests pretty routinely given by
commissioners who wish to attend an affair. Two of the
commissioners wish to attend it. They weren't sent by the board. The
board simply approved them to go, which meant that their travel --
they would be reimbursed for their travel and their per diem.
Now, it's very interesting that after we filed our motion to dismiss
Page 32
February 22, 2011
and set it for a hearing, Mr. Lundin and his attorney voluntarily
dismissed the action.
Now, there's a significance to that. The significance is found in
Rule 1.420A(l), which basically says that you can go ahead and
voluntarily dismiss your action, and you can bring it back. It would
be considered a dismissal without prejudice unless there has been a
hearing on a motion to dismiss the action filed once, and the notice to
dismiss operates as an adjudication on the merits when served by a
plaintiff who has once dismissed, in any court, an action based on or
including the same claim.
So rather than run the risk, I believe, of losing the motion to
dismiss, you decided to terminate the litigation or attempt to terminate
the litigation. In any event, our office is still of the impression that the
lawsuit has no merit.
So at this point, based upon really not a conversation with any of
the commissioners -- but I did read the Naples Daily News this
morning -- the county --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're only interested in fact, please.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay. The county has the ability to now seek
attorneys'-- an attorney fee award from Mr. Lundin based upon his
voluntarily dismissal. And we have 30 days to seek that dismissal,
and the time hasn't passed. He served his motion of voluntarily
dismissal on us on February 4th, and we have 30 days to file a motion
for fees and costs, which we will proceed to do if so directed by the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the information I was given by the
county attorney on Friday is incorrect, right?
MS. HUBBARD: No. It's correct to the extent that we're talking
about a 57.105 motion. A 57.105 motion we don't believe is
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But he still has the right to
reinstate the case, correct?
Page 33
February 22, 2011
MS. HUBBARD: He does at this point, yes. He can reinstate it,
but we can go ahead and file a motion for fees and attorney -- fees and
-- attorney fees and costs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's my sincere hope that
he does reinstate the case.
MS. HUBBARD: I don't know what they're going to do. But if
you vote -- if you instruct our office to so file this motion, we will file
this motion for attorney fees and costs.
Are there any questions about the law regarding this?
MR. LUNDIN: Can I respond to her claims that she made, right
a way, very quickly?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. She just asked a
question, then I'll give you a chance to respond after that. You asked
us if we had any questions.
MS. HUBBARD: If you have any questions of me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Anybody have questions of
Jackie? Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
MS. HUBBARD: Commissioner Hiller, how are you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Very well. Thank you so much,
Jackie.
A couple of questions, and this is both to you and Attorney
Klatzkow. Did you -all issue an opinion on this that you published and
gave to Commissioner Coyle?
MS. HUBBARD: Not that I'm aware of
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is Commissioner Coyle
referring to about Friday?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I had -- well, if you'd like, I'll explain
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I had a conversation with the county
attorney about whether or not we have the right to seek reimbursement
Page 34
February 22, 2011
for the taxpayers of Collier County for a frivolous lawsuit, and he said
the time has expired.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so you gave an opinion
essentially? I mean, it's verbal opinion, but you still issued an
opinion.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had a conversation to that extent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you issued --
MR. KLATZKOW: However you want to paraphrase that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the only reason -- it goes
back to our -- the debate that the board had earlier on about, you
know, whether you issue an opinion and who has right to that
information.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I mean, I have conversations with a
number of commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a question of conversation.
It's a legal opinion.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that this was an opinion. This
was just a conversation we had.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
I need more clarification on the definition of fact finding, and I
would appreciate if you could elaborate on that, because I don't clearly
understand where you draw the line between fact finding and a
commissioner individually wanting to get information for themselves.
MS. HUBBARD: That's precisely where the line is drawn.
Commissioner Fiala definitely went on a fact - finding trip.
Commissioner Coletta went on a fact - finding trip. They did not go on
a fact - finding trip on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
they went on behalf of themselves.
Commissioner Fiala had a lot of questions that she wished to ask
residents of the town, business owners, people who interacted with
Jackson Labs. This was not something the Board of County
Commissioners asked her to do. This is something she wanted to do
Page 35
February 22, 2011
on her own and on her own volition. She wasn't instructed by the
Chair of the commission or by the commissioners themselves.
She said, I would like permission -- and I'm paraphrasing here --
to go to Bar Harbor, Maine, to conduct a -- facts, a search for facts for
-- on her own to make her comfortable with how she might vote.
Commissioner Coletta did the same thing; he also wanted to go.
It was fact finding, but it was not fact finding on behalf of this
commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it was permitted by the board?
MS. HUBBARD: It was -- all of their trips and all of their
requests for funding and being reimbursed are approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it was on behalf of the
public?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, I think this is definitely a public purpose
whereas reimbursing this gentleman, in my opinion, serves no public
purpose whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Separately and apart from his
reimbursement, I just want to focus. And the reason I want to know is
because I'd like to have this information for myself so I understand --
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- your interpretation of the law for
future reference, because, I mean, obviously this is very material. I
mean, we're all going to want to find facts. And, you know, I guess
I'm having a hard time distinguishing when a member of the board is
individually engaged in fact finding versus being, you know,
something fact -- like a fact - finding tour approved by the board. I'm
just -- do you have case law that distinguishes the two set of facts?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, I can tell you that if you go on a
fact - finding mission on behalf of the board, you're obligated to come
back and give a report to the board. This was never requested of Ms.
Fiala or Mr. Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they did give a report.
Page 36
February 22, 2011
MS. HUBBARD: No, they did not. Mr. -- I don't believe Mr.
Coletta did. I think Commissioner Fiala may have talked about her
trip.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She did at length, and I remember
she talked about how they manufactured cages for mice and, you
know, different things like that.
MS. HUBBARD: She does have, you know, a right to freedom
of speech.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, of course. Well, actually
that's for the benefit of the public, giving a report.
MS. HUBBARD: And it wasn't to the benefit of -- in my
opinion, anyway, Commissioner Fiala should be commended for
taking her personal time going up to Jackson Labs to look the scene
over and spend time with people who are in business there and people
who interact with Jackson Labs, and she received invitation -- I mean,
information that she found useful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, for example, in the case of
Jackson Labs, Commissioner Coyle held forums, public forums, and
Commissioner Coletta attended those forums and listened to what
Commissioner Coyle had to say, and Commissioner Fiala would
attend those forums. And those are, essentially, you know,
fact - finding experiences even though there was no public funds
expended, and that's perfectly all right?
MS. HUBBARD: I'm not familiar with --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jackie, Jackie.
MS. HUBBARD: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Juts a minute. Let's clarify something.
What public forums did I conduct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me give you an example.
There was a meeting held on -- by the President's Council, and you sat
at the dais with a number of other individuals, and you were all
discussing Jackson Labs and promoting Jackson Labs and what
Page 37
February 22, 2011
Jackson Labs did and the benefit to Collier County.
I happened to be in the audience listening to that presentation. I
was not elected at that time.
And Commissioner Fiala sat one person over from me listening
to the same information that we were all listening to, which was a
presentation of facts --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that wasn't a forum that I conducted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- about Jackson Labs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were part of it. You were part of
the panel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. The proper term is, "Commissioner
Coyle participated in a forum."
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct, absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coyle did not conduct a
forum.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. Let me correct that
for the record. I like -- I prefer the way Commissioner Coyle
expressed that, that is correct.
But I do want a clarification of this, because this is going to come
up a lot. And I want to know legally, you know, based on statute,
based on case law, where we draw the line.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, I think that's very interesting, because
Mr. Lundin's suit is two counts. Everybody is aware of the first count,
which is the violation of the Sunshine Law. The second count is for
declaratory relief, and he's asking the Court to tell him just where the
line is to be drawn.
So at this point it seems to me we're talking about a factual issue.
I wasn't present at any of these meetings that you're talking about, so I
don't have any information about that. I do have information about
this particular trip.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I'm not interested in
February 22, 2011
finding fault with what happened. I want the basis in law to support
what happened so that I can be justified myself in, you know, future
actions that are similar to what happened here.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, one of the things that you should be
aware of is that there's plenty of law that says, "Two commissioners
may attend an event." What is disallowed is for those two
commissioners to talk to one another at this appearance where they are
about a matter that's pending before the board.
The biggest hole in Mr. Lundin's case is the fact, one, he
misidentified a woman as being Ms. Fiala when she doesn't even look
like Commissioner Fiala and, second, there's no evidence whatsoever
of Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala ever engaging in a
conversation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood.
MS. HUBBARD: -- during the entire weekend that they were
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to focus on the
fact - finding aspect. And I appreciate everything you're saying. I just
want to focus on the law with respect to fact - finding missions by
members of the board where members of the board go to either a
certain destination or a certain function in order to find facts.
MS. HUBBARD: The law seems --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jackie, just one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, could I ask that
perhaps we have that as a separate topic of discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like that. I think that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the question is certainly one that
needs to be answered.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's getting off the track of the
current case.
Page 39
February 22, 2011
Mr. Lundin, we went out of order. We have some commissioners
who have been waiting to say something for some time now, so we
need to get back in order here. So, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if he wants to respond to that,
though, I'd like to hear his response.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't want to try the case here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. LUNDIN: Why not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know. Is that your
intention?
MR. LUNDIN: It's a public forum. Why can't we discuss the
merits of the case?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought that you were asking for
reimbursement.
MR. LUNDIN: Well, I'm justifying my reimbursement based
upon the facts of the evidence, and that's why I want to present the
evidence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't presented many facts, Mr.
Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: Let me respond to what she said. I'll respond to
the three issues she said that are incorrect right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, would you like to
go first, or would you like Mr. Lundin to ask --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Let him go first, and then I'll
respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Mr. Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: First I'd like to respond. You said the two
commissioners did not go on a fact - finding tour, but it's documented --
MS. HUBBARD: That is -- that's not what I said.
MR. LUNDIN: Could I respond?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, you're misquoting me from the
beginning.
Page 40
February 22, 2011
MR. LUNDIN: Please don't interrupt me. I did not interrupt
you.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, you are wrong.
MR. LUNDIN: Well, stop interrupting me, please, Attorney.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, you're incorrect.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me interject here. If he wanted a trial,
he could have had the trial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I agree 100 percent.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, what he's done is he's dropped his
case because he had no case, all right, and now he's coming here to
publicly embarrass this board with a request for funding, trying his
case in the papers.
I mean, you go through his documents, and you see that he was
contacting the papers left and right on this.
This wasn't about Jackson, and this wasn't about Sunshine. This
was political, all right. And I don't know what else to say, but, you
know, we can have a trial here, but he had his chance for trial. He
dropped it.
Commissioner Coletta made an offer. I think it's a fair offer, all
right. If he wants to try the case, we'll pay his fees if he wins; he'll
pay our fees if he loses. But to try it here is not an appropriate forum.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LUNDIN: I'm not trying the case here. I'm asking you to
reimburse me for the fees in the case that I have voluntarily
withdrawn, and I'm just trying to justify why you should pay me with
the evidence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've told us you did it because you
felt there was a violation of the Sunshine Law.
MR. LUNDIN: Correct. And now she's made three statements.
I'd just like to quickly respond to the facts she stated. It will take me
Page 41
February 22, 2011
one minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. LUNDIN: Okay. The commissioners did go on a
county- sponsored, county -paid fact - finding tour. It was not a personal
trip. It's documented right here. I supplied the documents.
Two, when I filed the criminal complaint, the woman who called
the Collier Sheriffs Office, all they did is take a phone call from this
woman claiming she was the woman in this picture.
I had the photographs professionally analyzed and blown up, and
I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that was Commissioner
Fiala in those two photographs. You can laugh all you want. I spent
25 years analyzing digital photography. There are four physical traits
in these pictures that say it's you.
And if you study Finch versus Seminole County, you didn't even
have to be speaking to each other. You had to be at the same event at
the same time. That's the essence of Finch versus Seminole County.
And it mirrors this image.
And my attorney was the best Sunshine Law attorney --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're almost done with your one
minute, so let's get to the third item.
MR. LUNDIN: Okay. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. At some point in time I might ask
the county attorney to explain to you why Finch -- the Finch case does
not apply in this case, but nevertheless. You'll believe what you want
to believe, so it really doesn't matter.
MR. LUNDIN: I believe my attorney. He's the best Sunshine
Law attorney in Southwest Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll bet he is.
MR. LUNDIN: He was recommended by the First Amendment
Foundation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got your opinion. I've got
Page 42
February 22, 2011
mine.
MR. LUNDIN: Your attorneys really have no --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, sir. I can't take this
down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you.
First of all, if that was my picture in the paper, I would -- I would
love to go to trial, because the first person I'd call would be the
photographer from the Naples Daily News. They were there the
whole time, and he would state, nope, that wasn't her.
Second of all, I would call Liz Freeman who was -- she was there
to cover this whole thing, but she was also there to view what was
going on.
I loved the fact that she was there, because no matter where we
went, she was there. And that was a great thing. Not only that, one
night Shirley and I went out to dinner on Saturday night. We couldn't
go to the place we wanted to because they didn't have any lobster.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Shirley who?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shirley, my girlfriend, who went up
there with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shirley and I went -- stayed together
the entire time. If you didn't see Shirley in the picture, I wasn't in
there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a
nickname for Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- and -- so then we went to
another restaurant. Liz Freeman called. She said, "Hi, where are
you ?"
I said, "At dinner."
She said, "Where are you ?"
I didn't even know what the name of the restaurant was, so I
Page 43
February 22, 2011
walked out with my cell phone in my hand and told her where we
were. And I said, "Why don't you come down and join us."
But she was just checking on us, which is great, because
Commissioner Coletta was at another restaurant where the president
was located, and -- but I was at just a little tiny -- I don't even
remember the name of the place. But I thought that was wonderful
that she was there.
Thirdly, as I say, Shirley was there the entire time, and we made
sure that, you know, we were always seen together and always moved
around the area together.
The county attorney was there, and he flew up with Jim Coletta,
and that was great because he never left his side, and so they always
knew what was going on. That's why I'd love to go to court.
And then the fifth is, my hairdresser said -- this is kind of funny.
My hairdresser said, "I can tell that isn't you. I do your hair. That's
not you in that picture."
And if you take a look at the picture he has of me there and of
this lady, my hair grows longer and shorter depending -- and lighter
and darker depending on which picture you're looking at, because the
lady has darker longer hair than I have. So I guess I did that in the
matter of hours up there or something. I thought that was interesting.
Also, I wanted to know, throughout your invoice here, I notice
you mentioned Tony Pires repeatedly. So then are you going to come
back and ask us to pay Tony Pires' bill as well?
MR. LUNDIN: No. He did not charge me anything for the
information he gave me. He did it as a public service, just like I filed
this lawsuit as a public service, because you three wanted to raise our
taxes $130 million, and people had to stand up and do something to
stop you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
you mind?
MR. LUNDIN: Excuse me.
I'm really not finished yet. Would
101MAE'l
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as I said, I wish we could go to
court. And I just wanted to tell you that that was not me in the picture.
Jim Coletta and I were -- in fact, one night we went to a dinner. I
didn't even know he was -- had arrived. I'd been there a couple days.
And I went there to talk to townspeople; I went there to talk to
chamber people, to tourism people, to businesspeople. I wanted to
know how Jackson Labs affected them in that community. That's why
I went. I wanted to know these things.
Anyway, they called out my name, saying, oh, yeah, I was in the
audience, and I raised my hand. And then they called out Jim
Coletta's, and here he was way across the room. I didn't even know he
was in the room. That's how close we were, by the way. It was
interesting.
So, it's -- well, anyway, I hope we can go to court, but I would
not pay this bill because that's a frivolous lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Shirley is a
citizen of Collier County and went up there to find out more about
Jackson Labs, as you did?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- and she -- you
split a room with her?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. We stayed in separate rooms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- you know, the
discussion here is very concerning. I wasn't going to say anything, but
when somebody mentioned about suing a citizen for reimbursement
on what that person feels is his civic duty, that is chilling of free
speech in my opinion.
And, first of all, it's not on the agenda. This is frightening to
members of the public to wish that their elected officials serve the
public the way they see fit.
I'm appalled. We've never done this before. Asked for attorneys'
Page 45
February 22, 2011
fees, and especially to our citizens.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, I have a federal case in which I saw it
and received an order for attorneys' fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Against a citizen?
MS. HUBBARD: Against a former employee of the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's totally different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Commissioner
Henning. I really am equally stunned by the suggestion being made
here today.
I also wasn't going to really speak to this matter; however, at this
point, I will make a formal request for an opinion on what defines a
fact - finding expedition on the part of a single member or multiple
members of the board, because I have real concerns about what is
legal in this regard, without any reference to what has happened to --
you know, in the past with respect to the conduct of the other
commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I have a -- well, I'm going
to ask you a question, and you can answer my question as well as tell
me anything else you want to tell me.
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In looking at the invoices, there are some
invoices that are paid by check, presumably from you, and then there's
some that are paid from trust. What does that mean?
MR. LUNDIN: Originally when I retained the lawyer, I gave
him a $5,000 retainer, and I paid it to his trust. It was Stephen Carta
Trust. That was like the down payment retainer on the suit. I paid --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It says here $3,500 retainer.
MR. LUNDIN: It was actually 1,500 more for extra expenses. I
have a letter from the attorney where he requested a $5,000 retainer up
front, and it was paid to his trust because it was before he took any
action on the case.
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you.
MR. LUNDIN: And I understand, Commissioner Coletta and
Fiala, you feel like your name has been wronged here and you wish I
would take this back to trial. I have a better idea. Similar to you had
an arbitration hearing a few months ago when you had a debate on
supermajority versus regular majority, why don't you authorize an
arbitration between me and the county, and we can do this as a county
arbitration instead of going to court. I mean, arbitration is better than
actually going to court.
I will supply an attorney for my arbitration; you supply the
attorney for your arbitration. Let's do it just like you had Judge Bell
here determine that the county didn't need a supermajority for a
zoning in east Collier County. I think it's a similar situation. And then
you can clear your name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've made your proposal.
Commissioner Coletta has made his.
Let me correct one other thing. You made the statement that we
had, in fact, approved funding for Jackson Labs when we discussed
with the staff the possibility of, perhaps, paying as you go over a
period of years.
That was not an authorization for payment. It was an
authorization for the staff to evaluate that as a potential source of
funding depending upon how the funding negotiations turned out with
Jackson Labs, which never really happened because --
MR. LUNDIN: You're correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LUNDIN: But the point was that you took a vote on
Jackson Labs. And when there's a Sunshine Law violation, any vote
taken after the violation would be considered void and null.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That simply is not correct, because -- for
the reasons that have been stated, but I'm going to leave that up to the
lawyers to argue.
Page 47
February 22, 2011
But very briefly, your error is that a quorum of the Board of
County Commissioners was involved with the lawsuit that you have
quoted as a precedent for this. That was not the case here.
So there was no way that two members who did not constitute a
quorum could have made a deciding vote. But nevertheless, that's
beyond the point.
There are some things that need to be talked about here. There
are circumstances similar in nature that occur every day here in Collier
County.
Now, if people are going to sue because there are two
commissioners in the same room, then we're going to be faced with
lawsuits forever. There are at least three, maybe four, who are at the
Republican Executive Committee meeting every time. That's a good
target for you. You know, you --
MR. LUNDIN: That's not a violation of Sunshine Law if you're
not discussing county business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're listening to your counterparts
discuss county business.
MR. LUNDIN: But a Republican meeting is not about county
business. It's a Republican party.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't been there. Okay.
MR. LUNDIN: No, I haven't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the other -- the other issue is that at
the Productivity Committee meeting there are two County
Commissioners who seem to be regularly going there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a noticed meeting.
MR. LUNDIN: That's a noticed meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was -- there are a lot of noticed
meetings.
MR. LUNDIN: They're open to the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they're not -- not all of them are
advertised that two or more commissioners are going to be there,
February 22, 2011
okay. They should be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They are advertised that way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are now advertised that way. And
you showed up at an EMS advisory board meeting that was not
advertised for two County Commissioners.
And so we have those circumstances --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you left.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I left because I felt it was a violation of
the Sunshine Law for you to be there, and I wasn't going to subject
myself to that.
And by the way, you were advised by the county attorney that
you shouldn't do that unless it's advertised, and you ignored that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, that's not what he said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But nevertheless, the point is, this is --
this is an important issue. If you're going to have commissioners
participating in meetings here locally that are not noticed, then we're
going to be faced with these kinds of lawsuits by anybody who just
wants to cause trouble.
So for that reason, I think it is very important that we do the right
thing and try to seek recovery for the taxpayers of Collier County
because of a frivolous lawsuit that had no merit from the very
beginning, and this man knew that --
MR. LUNDIN: No. Finch versus Seminole County --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or should have known that.
MR. LUNDIN: -- is established case law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, sure, it is. Okay.
Now, you were next, Commissioner Fiala. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You spoke of two
commissioners in the same room. Many, many, many, many years
ago I was just brand new on this agenda, or on this board, and Pam
Mac'Kai was still on the board, and I went to -- I didn't know too, too
much about Sunshine. I was only a few months old. And I went to
February 22, 2011
this thing at the Conservancy --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That must have been about 1902.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I went to the Conservancy where
Pam was the speaker, and she was talking about the rural lands, and
she was talking about designations, and I didn't understand them. So I
really was interested in it. I raised my hand to ask the question, and in
the paper the next day Eric Stats (phonetic) wrote that it was a
violation of Sunshine. Of course, I didn't realize you couldn't ask a
question. I learned very quickly, you can't ask a question when
somebody's in the room. That's how I learned it.
And I read more and more, and the county attorneys have also
provided a lot of that information about violations to make sure that
we -- you know, we understand all of that.
But anyway, so it's interesting. You can be in the same room as
long as you don't ask that commissioner a question that might in some
point -- at some point in time affect their -- their opinions.
And so, bless Eric's heart. He was just wonderful for even
mentioning it, although he came in a little bit sad, but that was okay.
The fact finding, and that's an important -- oh, by the way, at this
-- up at Jackson Labs, I was amazed at how many local people were
up there. Something must have been noticed, because there were a lot
of local businesspeople up there at the Jackson Labs thing. Whether
they be supporters or investors, I don't know that, but I was amazed at
how many people I knew up there. So there was certainly a lot of
public from our community there. And Liz can tell you that, because
she saw them, too.
And lastly, with fact finding or information gathering, I don't
know if there's a change in words maybe -- you know, I'm not a legal
person. I just -- I'm just a plain old person. And, you know, I wanted
to find out as much information as I could. I wouldn't know what
words -- if you use information gathering, it's better than fact finding.
I don't really know that. I need to be -- I need to learn that from our
Page 50
February 22, 2011
attorneys so that I say the right words next time.
I just wanted to know more, to learn more information before I
ever moved forward. How can you vote on something if you don't
even know any background, if you don't know how it affects a
community? That's really important.
Last thing, I read in the Sarasota Herold Tribune the other day --
I thought this was really interesting. They had a really big column on
Jackson Labs. They're trying to get Jackson over there, and they're
fighting with the Tampa area to get them. And Pricewaterhouse stated
in that article that the personalized medicine part of the biomedical
community, just -- and they stipulated personalized medicine -- in this
country last year created $232 billion worth of business last year, and
they expect it to raise 11 percent every year so that by the year 2015,
according to Pricewaterhouse, it will be a $450 billion business. So
I'm glad Sarasota's going after them. It will benefit them.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a ten - minute break.
We'll be back here at 10:41.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session, but I don't have a live
mike, so nobody knows that.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we're back in session.
Commissioner Coletta, you had your light on. You want me to
skip you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I didn't finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you didn't finish?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last question --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let Commissioner Fiala
finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a continuation for
Page 51
February 22, 2011
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But only a second. I just wanted to
see if one of the attorneys sometime at some point can talk to us and
tell us the difference between fact finding and information gathering
just so that we have it clear, and is one legal, one isn't legal. You don't
have to tell me today, you know.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'll give you a memo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That would be wonderful.
Thank you. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me be brief here, but
I want to express my opinions on some things here.
As far as us considering suing party here, you know, for the court
costs that's there, I'm opposed to that, and I'll tell you why. Not that I
don't think we're justified; however, it could be a real thin line
sometime in the future when somebody else brings something
forward. I'm just a little bit leery about suing them.
But once again, I'd like to institute an offer to him to reinstate the
case and let it follow to its conclusion, and at the end we could -- we
could settle up with whoever the victorious party is -- would get the
settlement back of all their costs from the other party. I know we'd
prevail, so I feel very comfortable in making that offer.
But give it some thought. It's not something you have to make at
this time, but I really don't think we need to have a long, drawn -out
discussion, because we can't discuss it on today's agenda and give
direction to the attorney. We'd have to bring it back at another time.
Probably be about a two -hour meeting. So I'm just going to plain tell
you up front now that I am not going to be supportive to sue for the
reimbursement for the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, are you opposed to paying
his legal fees?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm opposed to paying his legal
Page 52
February 22, 2011
feels unless he prevails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I can't -- this is a petition,
public petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, you really can't
make a motion on it unless you're going to advertise ahead of time.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is, do you want to bring this back
to pay him?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to bring it back. I
think the ball's in the court of the opposition here to be able to do what
they want to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, I'd like
clarification on some allegations that you made. You said that at
Republican club meetings that commissioners are engaging in
discussing county matters?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have been at the Republican Executive
Committee meetings when county matters were discussed on
numerous occasions. I don't know what was discussed the last
meeting, but I have been there when they have done so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just to clarify, are you saying that
commissioners are listening to people presenting on county matters, or
are you saying commissioners at Republican events are talking
together about county matters?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm saying that commissioners are
listening to, perhaps, in some cases, other commissioners making
comments about county matters.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
And then you said that commissioners attended meetings together
where I'm assuming you're suggesting they both spoke to county
Page 53
February 22, 2011
matters that were not noticed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not saying that. As far as I'm
concerned, the fact that two commissioners are at a -- the same
meeting that is unnoticed, it is not necessary that they speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For there to be a violation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So like, for example, the
meeting where you were on the panel about Jackson Labs and
Commissioner Fiala was in the audience or where you were on the
panel and Commissioner Coletta was in the audience, that's a
violation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I would say that was a meeting that
was conducted by someone else, not a -- it was not a county advisory
committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have the right to notice other
people's meetings. I'm talking about county advisory board meetings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in your opinion it's okay if two
commissioners are present at a meeting if it's not a county meeting but
merely somebody else's meeting? But if it's at a county meeting, two
commissioners cannot be present in the same room?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unless it is noticed. That is my opinion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So you would consider that
a violation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would consider it a violation for two --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have any examples like
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of when two commissioners were at a
county advisory meeting?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where it wasn't noticed?
Page 54
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The meeting where you attended the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and I was present
as the liaison to that committee. I felt it would be inappropriate to
discuss at that meeting any issues that were likely to come before the
Board of County Commission because you, merely by listening to
what we were saying, would have an understanding of what I was --
how I was going to vote on the issue.
And I think that, as the grand jury's report says that you have
read, it is the entirety of circumstances that determines how people are
going to formulate their opinions that is of interest to the public. So,
yes, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, what's your
opinion on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: My opinion is this. The Sunshine Act is a
shield for the public. In this county we use it as a sword, all right.
We're constantly making allegations that are baseless, in my opinion,
of Sunshine violation after Sunshine violation. We take it to the
newspaper, the newspaper publishes it, and it smears people.
And this county has a very different view of what the Sunshine is
compared to the rest of the state. You know, I go to a Florida
Association of County Attorney meeting, I tell people what we do
down here; they stare at me in disbelief. Their commissioners will,
you know, go to their legislatures as a group. We can't down here
because it will be declared a Sunshine violation.
Their commissioners will attend the same advisory committee.
They don't care. Down here it's a Sunshine violation.
Just as we have a super ethics ordinance down here, it's as if
we've got this unwritten super Sunshine ordinance down here as well,
which we don't.
So I don't know what to tell you. I mean, it's -- we're dealing in a
very different world in Collier County, and it's very, very difficult for
you as a board to deal with it, and it's very difficult for me as a county
Page 55
February 22, 2011
attorney to deal with it other than saying, just try to avoid the same
room together because somebody's going to make an allegation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much.
I would just like to make a comment for the record, and that is, at
that EMSAC meeting that I did attend, that was a meeting that was
publicly noticed that -- and Commissioner Coyle does sit on that
advisory board.
I called the county attorney before I made the decision to
participate and advised him that I would be sitting in the audience
without making comment and that Commissioner Coyle would be on
the advisory board and would be, you know, speaking to matters that
were on the -- not the board's agenda but on the advisory board's
agenda, and County Attorney Klatzkow advised me that as long as I
sat in the audience and made no comment that it was perfectly
acceptable for me to be there.
Commissioner Coyle proceeded to enter the room, saw me there,
and he said, "Who's going to go, me or you ?"
And I said, "You."
And so he left before the meeting started, and I remained. I did
view the entire meeting. And when it came to public comment, I
spoke as a member of the public, and as such, there is no violation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I would say that wasn't exactly the
words that we used. I said, "We have a problem. This was not
noticed for two commissioners to be present and that either you or I
should leave."
And you said, "Well, I'm going to stay."
And I said, "Fine. Then I will leave," and I left.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I prefer the way Commissioner
Coyle has described it. He has a very accurate memory of the facts.
So let the record reflect what Commissioner Coyle has just said, and I
accept his words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that was a question to you, or
Page 56
February 22, 2011
was there a question to you, County Attorney, concerning that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Coletta was next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. And then
let's see if we can't bring this thing to an end before dark.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. I mean, this has been
interesting to say the least. We probably learned something from this,
although I'm still trying to find out what it was.
But one suggestion I've got. In Immokalee, what Penny Phillippi
does with every single meeting that takes place in Immokalee, whether
it's the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary, she has -- she puts out a
news release and she puts down, and one or two people of the different
advisory boards, and she lists each one of them, the CRA or the other
ones that they have in Immokalee.
She lists each one of them so she's trying to be a little proactive
with the fact that if something had come up and it was some sort of a
problem -- we might want to consider with a number of our public
notices that go out that it presumes that there might be more than one
commissioner present. Doesn't mean there will be.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you can't -- you can't notice every
meeting that there might be two commissioners present, because then
you lose the purpose of it. I mean, the purpose is to give the public
notice that you're going to have two commissioners there, not that you
might have. I mean, it's almost like the boy that cried wolf. After a
while, people stop listening to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. I'm just trying to
satisfy the point of the law that we don't understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: We meet the law, okay. Mr. Torre works
very hard with my office to meet the law, you know, when it comes to
these public meetings. I have no doubt of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
Page 57
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wonder about -- you know,
we could even be concerned that we're all watching the same TV
program when Jeff Lytle is interviewing one of the commissioners and
asks them pointed questions about something coming up, and we're all
hearing the reply. I wonder if that's a Sunshine violation. I mean, it's
being taken to the point where we're going to be fearful to do anything
anymore, I mean, to even watch something or go anyplace. And it's a
political maneuver. It's so sad to do that when it shouldn't be that at
all.
I'm afraid, you know, if we have any important subjects that will
be coming before us, are we allowed to discover or seek out
information, or is that wrong, too? I mean, we're taking this to an
extreme, and that's too bad. It shouldn't have to go to an extreme.
Anyway, that's all I had to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, our only purpose right now is to
decide whether or not there are three commissioners who want to
bring this back for a public hearing to reimburse Mr. Lundin for his
attorney fees. That's the only thing we have to determine here today.
So, please, let's bring this to an end.
MS. HUBBARD: May I be excused then, Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller. Unless somebody
has a question for you, Jackie, I don't have a problem. I don't need to
know any more about this.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay. The question that was pending was
whether or not you wanted us to proceed, so if you're not ready to
make that decision, then I will proceed as if you did not instruct me to
proceed to secure attorneys' fees and costs.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have no direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no direction at all so far.
Commissioner Hiller, you were next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'd like to say that I agree
February 22, 2011
with what Commissioner Coletta and Fiala have just observed and
recommended, and I'd like to also say that it does work very
practically. The county attorney does a good job of noticing meetings.
For example, I attend the Productivity Committee, and the county
attorney and Mr. Torre notice those meetings as having two
commissioners present, and there are no problems with that. So I want
to thank you for managing that very well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I heard that there's three
commissioners not wanting to seek reimbursement of fees. I mean, I
think that's very clear. Besides the fact, on the agenda, which was
continued, was the reporting on money spent by Jackson Labs, okay.
And I want to point out the legal -- outside legal fees for Mr. Lundin's
lawsuit on the reporting was over $18,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also want to say, also want to
say, is the board directed and voted by the supermajority not to
expend any monies or -- on Jackson Labs at a previous meeting. And,
you know what, we're doing it here today right now. So I'm ready to
move on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask you a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- unless we want to discuss this
over and over again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you saying that you would like
to pay Mr. Lundin his expenses?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just wanted to clarify, because
it kind of sounded like you were saying that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said three commissioners did
not want to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, right. And I've said it. I
Page 59
February 22, 2011
thought it was very clear. I'm sorry that you wasn't here.
Commissioner Coletta said it, and Commissioner Hiller said it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you don't
have anything else to add?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then is there anyone who wants
to bring this back for the purpose of approving the payment of Mr.
Lundin's legal fees?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No one wants to bring it back, so
we're finished with this thing.
Okay. Let's go to the next item.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2011 -38: APPOINTING MURDO SMITH FOR A
REMAINING TERM TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD, EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2013 —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, Next item is 9A, appointment of
member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to accept the
committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to accept the nomination of Murdo Smith for an appointment to the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
aye.
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
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: Murdo, it's all yours.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011 -39: APPOINTING JAMES DAVID KING, II
(RESIDENT CATEGORY) TO THE HALDEMAN CREEK MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9B is appointment of member
to the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to accept the committee
recommendation of John -- James David King, II, to serve on the
Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee by --
motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 61
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 #9C
RESOLUTION 2011 -40: EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO HOUSE
BILL 589 RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DUE TO ITS PROPOSED PREEMPTION OF COUNTY
COMMISSION AUTHORITY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9C is a recommendation to approve a
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, expressing opposition to House Bill 589 relating to
Emergency Medical Services due to its proposed preemption of
County Commission authority, and Commissioner Henning placed
this item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize the bill is not
on there, but what it does say is, it preempts, like the county manager
just said, the board from independent special districts; if they're
seeking a COPCN, we can't stop them. And last time I checked,
there's no comparable bill in the Senate, but I would like to -- for the
board to send the attached resolution to our delegation to nip this in
the bud.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have public speakers; how
many?
MR. MITCHELL: Two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the public speakers.
Page 62
February 22, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: The first public speaker is Chris Carpenter.
They (sic) have given their time to Duane Billington, who will be your
last and only public speaker.
Mr. Billington.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Duane Billington. I'd like to thank Commissioner Henning
for bringing this before the board. It certainly needs to be done.
You know, this is kind of a Band -Aid. Earlier this month we
kind of let the -- left the gate open to the cattle pen; all the cattle are
out. So by issuing and agreeing to give North Naples a COPCN,
you've set the precedent. It's a dangerous precedent.
What that has done has -- it jerked the rug out from underneath
the Blue Ribbon Committee and their recommendations. You put a
stipulation on the consolidation bill to try to patch that up by saying
that North had to come back for a review every year. Well, if North
doesn't agree or if they don't consolidate, they can't be bound by the
language of that particular bill. So you left a hole open there, too.
You know, it's a shame that on this particular issue where we're
talking about a world -class EMS system, we made decisions down
here to help pay back firefighters for their support for reelection to
help kindred souls on the commission.
I'm really disappointed that in this EMS issue that -- where there
was no rush, no need to make these decisions with the Blue Ribbon
Panel being right on the edge with coming up with recommendations,
and these leaders of the community, the leaders of three different
hospitals coming up with procedures, that you -all chose not to follow
that.
And, again, I thank Commissioner Henning for doing what he's
doing in this particular case, but, you know, the horse is already out of
the barn. God help us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was the last speaker?
Page 63
February 22, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: That was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
support 9C, but I also looked -- just to get back to the agenda item --
and if we can make sure that everybody does -- there is no companion
bill in the Senate. So that's good.
Anyways, motion to adopt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
Okay. We have a motion to adopt -- or motion to approve the
recommendation to express our opposition to House Bill 589.
And there's discussion. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who proposed this bill?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a -- let's see. I'm sorry. I
got it right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's a retired firefighter, legislator.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Lieutenant, retired
lieutenant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is he from?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike Haridopolos.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
COMMISSIONER HENNING
He's from the Tampa area. Oh,
Hooper.
MR. OCHS: Edward Hooper, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No further discussion, all in
favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously.
Item #IOB
THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN PREPARED
BY TINDALE- OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC - MOTION
MADE BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO APPROVE THE
REPORT AS -IS WITHOUT THE CAVEATS FROM THE
ADVISORY BOARDS, INCLUDING NO CHARGE FOR
COLLIER CITIZENS BEACH PARKING COSTS AND TO HAVE
STAFF PREPARE A REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THE
MSTU'S AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS —
COMMISSIONER COLETTA WITHDREW HIS MOTION; SAME
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HENNING — FAILED;
MOTION TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS TO GATHER
PUBLIC INPUT, THE BCC MEMBERS ALONG WITH STAFF,
TO BE HELD IN THE EVENING: ONE ON THE NORTH AND
ONE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE COUNTY, WITH STAFF TO
BRING BACK THE MASTER PLAN FOR BOARD DIRECTION
FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC'S INPUT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to your 11 a.m.
time - certain item. It's Item I OB on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to review and approve the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates, and Barry
Williams, your Parks and Recreation Director, will begin the
presentation.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Page 65
February 22, 2011
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
What we're bringing forward to you today is a request to review
recommendations that came out of a master plan process.
Before I introduce our speaker who -- our consultant who will
walk you through the presentation; however, this is a requirement that
has come from the Growth Management Plan in the Open Space
Objective 3.1 to complete a master plan by 2010. So we're working a
little behind the deadline, but we think we have a product that will
have some recommendations that will meet your approval.
One of the things I want to mention, too, is that parks looked a
couple years back in looking at the community character, and there
was a consultant that worked with us back then that looked at
developing a community character plan for parks. Unfortunately that
wasn't approved by the Board of County Commissioners, but a lot of
the tenets that came out of that were carried forward in today's
recommendation.
So we feel like that -- there's been a lot of work over the last
decade to kind of look at how your park systems should be and
establish ourselves in the community in a way that benefits the
citizens of Collier County.
With that, though, what I'd like to do is just turn the presentation
over to Mr. Steve Tindale. Mr. Tindale's with Tindale- Oliver &
Associates and was the lead consultant working with us in developing
this master plan.
So with that, Mr. Tindale.
MR. TINDALL: Good morning. Again, I'm Steve Tindale with
Tindale- Oliver & Associates. I'll try to be as brief as I can this
morning.
Have I got someone to operate this?
Very quickly, we're going to go over a little bit of the information
provided in terms of the master plan. We provided some demographic
projections both to the stakeholder, the committee that reviewed it,
'._ M 60A
February 22, 2011
show you some existing and planned inventory, talk about the needs
analysis, talk about what we did at the focus group, which we had a lot
of good input from the community, and then the actual
recommendations.
We basically -- the primary purpose of the master plan is to go
through a process of what is needed through a needs analysis, what we
currently have planned versus what's needed, and then actually come
up with what the public -- get some input from the public, and
developed the recommendations. And the last thing I'll give you is the
recommendations during this presentation.
In terms of demographics, we looked at location of existing
residence, projected growth, and some information related to age and
income distribution, which would affect the types of parks that maybe
the demand would be placed on.
One of the comments we had during the public meeting was that
they found this to be very interesting in terms of them getting the
perspective of where we are and where we're headed with our growth
and where we're planning our facilities.
This graphic basically shows, if you look at out east of 951, that
most of the growth is occurring, and most people know that, out east
of 951. The lower projected areas, of course, are on the west side.
This shows a little bit about the distribution over a period of time,
increasing -- not only did we have the growth in that area, the age is a
younger group that's moving into the -- to the east side. Again, this,
again, shows you some differences between the ages.
These graphics basically showed that you have a higher
percentage of the younger people on the east side and the older
established neighborhoods along the water in the Naples area, but still
good information just to see that trend over the last 20 years. And,
again, the lowest number of the people over 65 was out on the east
side.
The income, we had three pretty very specific areas where we
Page 67
February 22, 2011
have the lower median - income households. This has to do with the
automobiles, the mobility, and things that would maybe affect people's
access to recreational facilities.
We went through an inventory. The inventory does not include
the resource -based parks. It's the user - oriented parks, the parks --
people are providing county parks and recreation, and the focus in the
master plan is on those user parks in terms of community and regional
parks.
The elements of it are both -- of course, the land and then the
facilities that go on the land. And so as we went through it, one was,
where do we need to go through the land purchase and the acquisition,
the location, and then the other is what is -- what you put on that --
that land in terms of facilities: Water access, athletic fields, hard
courts, aquatic facilities.
The planned acquisition we looked at, and it took me a while to
understand this. This is planned transfers. You've done an
unbelievable job of getting transfers between departments and
different agencies, and you're not out spending millions and millions
of dollars on land acquisition. It's mainly a transfer of use in terms of
one public agency to another public agency, which is really important
to understand.
So the question is, are you getting the transfers at the right
location? Is that where you do need the land? Not how much money
you are spending on that land recently. So these -- the acquisitions
have not been through a major investment in terms of what's being
projected.
And then, beside the land acquisition are the actual location of
the proposed parks, and we listed the proposed parks in terms of -- to
what would be facilities and what's projected.
We went through a needs analysis in terms of the lands. In your
community parks you're set for and you're meeting your standards.
And through this acquisition program, you're carrying out your land
February 22, 2011
needs in terms of acres and your AUIR out through year 2020.
Now, the question is, where is the acreage needed? Is the land
tied and what you're doing tied to where your projected growth is, and
are they -- as a needs and what you're projecting matching up to where
the acquisition is going, and is the county effectively planning that out
in terms of this acquisition?
And, again, what we did is we overlaid the projected growth, and
you can see the very high growth areas, and we compared that to
where you're acquiring the land and, sure enough, there was a match
between where the growth's going and where your land - acquisition
program is headed. So that -- we saw a really good match between
those two -- two items.
Same with the capital projects that you are planning that the
growth areas -- excuse me -- high growth areas and the capital
investments in what you at least have projected down on paper are
matching up really well. And we showed -- again, we showed some
of this to the committees when we went through it in terms of the
public meeting.
You have some growth management objectives, a 15- to
20- minute drive time. We thought it would be nice just to look at your
facilities and that objective as we kind of plotted out, how are you --
how is that matching up in terms of your distance from the parks. And
we created these graphics showing first where the parks are
themselves. And you can see that between the drive time and these
graphics, you're doing a pretty nice job of meeting your standard of
meeting that drive -time standard.
Did the same thing for your athletic fields. It's a pretty good
match. You do have those areas of growth, and you're matching the
athletic fields.
Hard courts, not quite as -- not quite as good in terms of actual
coverage, but not bad. And, of course, the very expensive aquatic
facilities. There's no doubt you've got major areas where you're going
February 22, 2011
to have to drive a further distance to get to your mayor aquatics
facilities in terms of matching the standard you've adopted and those
facilities.
And your -- just your miscellaneous assets we've put in here just
to show where they're located.
The needs analysis went through a feeling of what you currently
have and how much are they currently being utilized. To project what
you need to do in the future to one level you need to find out how well
you're doing today. So we've actually looked at utilization and
compared that to availability, and we did that for the athletic fields.
In going through each one of these -- and it was interesting when
we're talking to the -- during our public meeting, we got the same
sense verbally that when it came to baseball fields and the application
and the demand, you're in pretty good shape.
When it comes to softball fields, I think we had the president of
the softball group, and they seem to be reasonably satisfied with what
was going on, and our data indicated that.
We have the Little League fields in terms of the usage. And the
one thing that came out during our workshop was football and soccer
fields. And sure enough, when we looked at utilization, your
standards, they were being overutilized. And so we kind of got a
match of people's perception versus the actual utilization rate in terms
of what was going on with your facilities.
Multi -use courts, again, moderate, and your utilization issues.
And what we thought we'd do is just show an example of the issue of
utilization in some of these fields. This is one, and I come to realize,
this is the same field being overutilized, and then what it would look
like with the right rotation. So it's almost to a point you have safety
issues if you've got some of these facilities being overutilized.
The financial overview as far as the review of it, we looked at
some primary funding sources. Your tourist -- your Tourism
Development Council is used for your beach access. You have your
Page 70
February 22, 2011
impact fees and miscellaneous grants, and that's what you're using in
terms of your process.
We did have -- we went through the focus group, invited 74
people, had about 25 people show up. We went through three
questions with them: What do we want? Where do you want it? And
how would you get there?
And we wanted to use their input to kind of get a feeling with the
needs analysis and what they were actually feeling in terms of the
community with the focus group.
Their -- what do they want? They want to maintain a
high - quality park, maximize existing land, more staff, more emphasis
on maintenance, and they all said, but now we realize that's very
expensive. So they moderated what they were saying with the realty
of the economics and what was going on. They seemed to be very
pleased with what they had, wanted more of it but understood that
there was some economic reasons that they had to be careful with their
wish list. It was an interesting discussion we went through with them.
We looked at in terms of where do they want it. We listed out
the different options in terms of the planned capital projects, and you
can see that -- each group in terms of their interests and what they felt
was the priorities.
To me, the only one that really came out that -- on the -- one of
the two was the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. The rest of
them came out as fairly high priority, but no big jump in terms of the
rating system.
In terms of how we get there, it was very interesting when we
started talking about paying for it. Everybody liked the existing
revenues; they were okay. Impact fees, the -- your development
council tax, grants, they all said, it's fine. When it comes to any
potential new revenue, which I guess you'd call it tax or an assessment
or a fee, there was no consistency whatsoever in terms of the group's
interest. One group was, like, for everything, and one group was no to
Page 71
February 22, 2011
almost everything, and the other group was kind of, like, maybe. And
so there was no real -- real consensus at all as far as changing how
you're financing them or going into a different approach in terms of
how to get there in terms of future revenues.
The recommendation that came out of both the -- again, the
analysis of where you're growing your current needs and the focus
group is what I'll go through now, the specific recommendations.
The first one is a development of the Big Corkscrew Island
Regional Park. We have five reasons there; lack of presence of
regional park in the area, greatest population growth, high
concentration of the families, provide relief of that athletic fields that
we talked about in terms of those areas, and there is no aquatic
recreation facilities currently available.
The second was Eagle Lakes. Reasons for it -- and I think the
focus group kind of identified this in a different manner but was
saying these same identical things: Very, very high concentration of
persons per household, younger residents. The demographics support
a community center in the area. The splash park is currently available.
There is an emphasis. They knew about the CDBG grant in
saying, if you got money and this is a priority, put the two together in
terms of matching up different resources you might go to, and the
community center was the highest priority for the park. It was
obviously -- it was a part of the recommendation.
Athletic fields -- and again, if you remember those visuals, there
was a general sense during the focus group and a general sense of our
data that that's one area that as -- over time you need to continue to
emphasize.
Countywide you have your whole football, soccer, multi -use
fields that are overutilized at this point in time. The Immokalee --
Immokalee area came out with the issue with some of the facilities,
North Naples is overutilized, and basically that utilization issue
needed to be addressed. And it was, again, interesting that the focus
Page 72
February 22, 2011
group, that was the one area that they seemed to highlight with what
they were sensing and feeling about the different facilities.
Development of the Manatee Community Park, the active
recreation facility's needed. Growth in the area in terms of relieving
that, plus there's a currently -- current overutilization of the football
and soccer fields. It was noted that this was not consistent with the
conceptual design. Apparently it's preliminarily been done, but to --
that was pointed out. And basically, active facilities are needed to
relieve those issues.
The development of Vanderbilt Extension Community Park has a
lot of triggers. You know, it's tied to an unfunded road, and there's a
lot of things that need to happen, but there's a general sense of a
recommendation of at least keeping that as a recommendation.
The other comment was they -- and it was interesting because we
had the school there in terms of really working on joint use, and it
seemed like the middle schools seemed to be the ones that worked the
best. The young -- the elementary's a little tough and the high school's
a little tough, but the middle schools -- and there's a great interest in it.
And that was one of the things the focus group said is, if you are ever
going to coordinate and do local things together, now's the time to
continue to do that. So that was one of the recommendations, put a
very high priority on continuing to work with the interlocal
agreements with the school system.
The boat - and -beach access report in terms of going through that,
in the recommendations is the Barefoot Beach Preserve, the -- in
general, the beach - and -boat access, I think, there -- everyone was
concerned about the -- just the whole access, continuing to be able to
get access to the water and the beaches and to -- and there was --
pursuing at least the ability, through the Land Development Code, to
continue making progress with that.
The -- again, there was discussion about parking and
transportation service, the beach access as being an issue. Looking at
Page 73
February 22, 2011
-- again, looking at even fees for the parking in terms of operational
revenue and, again, continuing to expand the boat launch and boat
trailer parking. We had, I think, people with canoes and kayaks and all
types of things dealing with just being able to get access and making --
you know, make access to the waterfront in our focus group.
That's very briefly the background, the analysis, the needs
analysis, the focus group, and then our summary of our
recommendations.
I guess we're here to answer any questions if there is any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Barry probably could
answer these questions.
But I'm happy to hear you say you captured a lot of users of the
park and their comments, because they agree with your findings.
What is an interactive water feature or splash play area proposed
at Corkscrew Regional?
MR. WILLIAMS: Appreciate the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have more.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Interactive water feature, we have
one at Eagle Lakes, we have one in Vineyards Park --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- North Collier Regional Park. They're
basically a water fountain that shoots water up in the air. The cool
thing is, the kids love them. I mean, the little kids in particular.
They'll stand over them, get a shot of water in the head. You know,
it's fun. So that's what that is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one thing that I really -- I
highlighted here, and people are telling us over and over again, is we
don't have enough ball fields. And that's what we had planned for
Manatee Park at one time; is that correct?
Page 74
February 22, 2011
MR. WILLIAMS: Manatee Park has gone through a couple of
iterations. The latest conceptual plan approved by the board --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, originally.
MR. WILLIAMS: Originally, yes, sir, we had plans --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, originally. And then it
came to the board, then the board decided, politically decided, to do
something else.
MR. WILLIAMS: The board adopted a conceptual plan as a
passive park, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And, wow, were we
wrong on several fronts. Your master plan says it, the public says it,
and it's putting a drain on the rest of our parks, and that's
demonstrated. And you show the growth of utilization of people down
U.S. East 41, where Manatee Park is; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your -- your park users
you're identifying as families, right, kids mainly?
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's what you heard.
MR. TINDALL: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- wow. Okay. Well,
hopefully we can get some ball fields in Manatee Park.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that will obviously be a policy
decision of the board. I think what the consultant was pointing out is
that there's growth in that area and there's utilization issues with active
multi - purpose fields. You obviously have several options as a board.
You can continue the conceptual plan as it exists in Manatee. If you
do, that simply -- I think what the consultant is saying to you is that
that means at some point in the future you'll have to be looking for
some other land that could maybe serve the active recreational needs
that are identified in the future in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it says we have a need now.
Page 75
February 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what it says. And that's
what's --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- concerning.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, one other thing that came up
in the advisory -board discussions was how the conceptual plan was
arrived. And there was a great deal of input from the neighbors
around Manatee Park about their concerns of -- and what they would
like to see the park to be.
But one of the things that came up was discussions about looking
at, perhaps, with Manatee, the land associated with Manatee Park, if
there was a desire to have a park, a more active recreation park
somewhere else, there might be some opportunities down the East 41
corridor. So I just offer that to you. That came up in a discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's Fiddler's Creek, right, the
concerns from Fiddler's Creek?
MR. OCHS: Either that or future 6Ls, sir, way down the road, in
case they ever develop residential out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Now, didn't Fiddler's
Creek have an obligation to provide park space in their DRI, or was
Manatee Park it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Marla's saying to me that Fiddler's Creek, the
obligation would be for the folks that lived at Fiddler's Creek.
Commissioner, if I may, I just wanted to point out a graphic that I
put on the visualizer -- and it's an eye chart. My apologies. But,
Commissioners, if you can see, this is Manatee Park's current location.
It's surrounded by residential neighborhoods, 55- and -older
communities, Fiddler's Creek. And so this is the 6L area that is being
discussed.
And I guess the point is, not trying to put a round peg in a square
hole, you know, the thought is, there was discussion about how, you
Page 76
February 22, 2011
know, the activities relate to the park, the roadways, et cetera, that
would bring people to the park, how that was limited in that area,
whether it's a good idea or not to divest yourself of that property.
We've owned that property for almost 30 years. We have the Model
Airplane Club flying on it now. They have for a long time -- but
divesting ourselves of that property and looking for a property that's
not surrounded by residential for active recreation, that was a point
that came up in the advisory -board discussion, so I did want to point
that out to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, that's a very
interesting concept. I would hope that we can maybe seek out
property before. And it's always like that -- the idea, I never knew that
road was going to be built, you know. But it's always been on our
plan that this is a park. Part of a park is kids playing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know what, and that's
not a bad thing. At least they're playing instead of things that they all
shouldn't be doing.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, another point, if I could,
about the advisory board. The discussion was looking at Manatee
Park as well. We have a number of parks where we're abutting
residential. Vineyards Park is an example. North Collier Regional
Park next to Wilshire Acres, and it's not uncommon for us to go
through these discussions with our potential neighbors about what
impact that we would have if we were to be beside them.
So, you know, re- approaching these neighborhoods again and
talking about, there's new technology that we have, in particular in
terms of ball -field lighting that really limits the glare and the spill of
lights into neighboring communities.
So there's some other things that we can offer in terms of looking
at -- if the decision is to continue the plan with Manatee Park and do
Page 77
February 22, 2011
something different with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I have a couple more
general questions, and then a few specific ones.
I understood from Mr. Tindall's presentation that you did not take
this to the public, but instead you had limited focus groups; is that
correct? There has been no public forum on this?
MR. TINDALL: Yeah. We had the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. It was an open meeting, but we sent out invitations
to, I think, 74 people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you haven't had a meeting
dedicated for public, you know, viewing of this plan, comments from
the public at large? Set aside the advisory board, because I don't
consider that the type of meeting that I'm envisioning.
MR. TINDALL: Well, I'm not sure what your question is, but
that's what we did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like in prior years, but in prior
years, you -- and I don't mean inviting just a few individuals. But did
you have a publicly noticed meeting where the public at large was
invited to view the terms of this plan and comment and --
MR. TINDALE: You want to address that? I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- review it?
MR. WILLIAMS: We did. The Parks and Rec Advisory Board,
we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not an advisory board meeting.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, we didn't, other than the focus group
where we invited select people representative of the community, the
folks that we associate with that use the parks. We chose the civic
association presidents throughout the community and invited them in
mainly as a focus group to hear the data and give us their opinion on
Page 78
February 22, 2011
the data.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm very concerned about that,
because I think something like this, where there's so many citizens in
the community that care about what parks there are in their areas and
what kind of services those parks will be -- provide, to not have the
opportunity to be able to review this plan in detail in a meeting
dedicated to the public is concerning to me. And, quite frankly, I feel
that needs to be done before this plan is approved. I was not aware of
that. I didn't quite understand what happened.
The other thing that I would like to mention is that we're about to
get the census information in, which is going to give us accurate
population numbers. And, again, I think we're ahead of the ball or the
curve or -- what's the expression that we always -- what do we --
what's the expression you taught me, Leo? We're ahead of the curve?
MR. OCHS: Ahead of the curve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ahead of the curve, thank you.
We're ahead --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Behind the eight ball.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Behind the eight ball, ahead of the
eight ball, whatever the right term is -- ahead of the curve on this,
because the census numbers have not come out yet, and I really think
that this report should reflect those census numbers.
The next thing I'd like to bring up is something that, as a result of
my experience on the MPO that's done with respect to, you know,
projects through the MPO that I really like, and that is that they have
boiled their projects down to what's financially feasible.
And what I would like to see in a master plan like this is a
financially feasible component and then a someday, maybe wish list.
And, you know, everybody is entitled to dream; however, we have to
be realistic. And in our financially constrained times, I think it's
essential that we have a financially feasible analysis that prioritizes
how we can allocate our limited resources. And that's why the
Page 79
February 22, 2011
public's input is so important, because it's the public's input at large
that will help us determine the priorities based on demand.
Another thing that I've brought up and I will tie back to this
report is the -- what's considered existing inventory versus what we
need. And this was a discussion that we had in -- in the EAR board
meeting, and it's a discussion that we've had also when we developed
park impact fees. And one of my concerns there is, what do we
actually consider as being existing inventory of parks, and is our
analysis of what is included in that parks inventory correct?
There has been a lot of discussion, for example, with respect to
park impact fees, that the calculation of what we have by way of
regional parks is not necessarily representative, that we are ignoring
parks that, even though they're owned by the state, should be
calculated in our inventory, but for the fact they're owned by the state,
they're not. And that, I think, throws off our planning.
And that, I will say, concludes my macro statements and -- that
give me rise for concern about accepting this master plan today.
And I had a few issues that I want to just bring out quickly on the
more, sort of, project- specific level. One concern I have is the fact --
and I've heard this expressed a great deal -- that with respect to
facilities, bathroom facilities at the beach, there seems to be a scarcity
in the City of Naples, and I think that needs to be addressed, and that
hasn't been considered.
The other concern I have is, I mean, under no circumstances
would I like to see the taxpayers of Collier County paying beach park
fees -- parking fees. Let me clarify that. You know, I think that being
entitled to use our parking facilities and getting a sticker without
paying a fee is something that needs to be preserved.
And then the other thing is, just some general comments about
programs out there. There are -- one of the important points about
parks, and Commissioner Fiala has raised this, is that it is for our
youth. And, you know, what are youth going to do if they don't have
_- •1
February 22, 2011
a park facility to enjoy in their spare time, particularly at -risk youth?
And I don't think there has been sufficient concentration given to the
needs of at -risk youth in Collier County, and I'd like that considered.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, I think you
were next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to say, I agree with
absolutely every single point you made. I mean, you were right on
target --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on each and every one of those
points. I agree, we need to go out to the public and let them all --
everything you -- everything you said is perfect. Mine is only
secondary compared to your presentation.
But let me say that the greatest amount of growth, I think, is
taking place out east. I definitely think you need a Big Corkscrew
Park, because that's where the growth is happening. And I agree with
that. I think that needs to be done.
I also think that you need to build a community center at Eagle
Lakes so that you can finish that off. These children have no place to
play. And as you well know, there's fields there, but if they get hit in
the head with the ball, they have nobody to run to because there's no
attendant in the park, because there is no community center.
We have three parks in East Naples. It's a wonderful thing. One
of those parks has a community center. Eagle Lakes is the only
community park in the entire system that has no community center.
And I -- and you've got a lot of children in that -- I mean, tons of kids
in that area who really can't drive anyplace. They can -- they can only
bike or walk, because these kids are disadvantaged children, let me
say, and we need to do that.
And there are ways, I think, that we can cooperatively work with
CDBG funds as well as a few impact fees and still build a park in the
February 22, 2011
Estates. I mean, there's got to be a compatible way to do this so that
both needs are met, not choose one or the other. You start building a
regional park, and you're going to be paying for it for years, and you're
still going to leave it without a community center. But there's got to
be some funding mechanisms in place to serve both of these
tremendous needs.
Secondly, you talk about Manatee Park and ball fields. You
know, the people that are in these surrounding areas, not Fiddler's, but
all the mobile home parks over there, they've been there as long or
longer than we've had the park grounds there. Those mobile homes in
that area are pretty old in many cases, and that's fine. It's a wonderful
thing there.
But it's totally surrounded by retirement community on all four
sides. You know, there's a little bit of the school that touches into one
of the things, but all of the children that go to that school are all
bussed because they don't live in that area.
So is a sports field compatible with a retirement community?
Especially -- even though you talked about the lights and how you can
control some of the lights, you can't control the loudspeakers. They
don't start till six o'clock. You have one little road going in and one
little road going out. That's it. And they don't start coming into soccer
fields until six o'clock and after, we all know that, because these are
young people who are out working first, and they go to these parks.
Well, the retired people, that's their time to relax, eat dinner, sit
on their patio, and they go to bed early. And with loudspeakers
blaring -- heck, I know from Eagle Lakes Community Park, they can
hear them all the way -- a mile away all the way over in Lely Resort.
So if that's the case, and this one is surrounded by them, I don't think
that's compatible.
Number three, do we have in this entire system a park for people
who are retired? A place -- a place for them to take their grandkids, a
place for them to take them remote - control fishing -- or boating,
February 22, 2011
rather, and fishing with their grandkids and biking and a community
center that has dance classes and so forth for retired people. We don't
have anything like that in the entire system. We all know that.
But that would be perfect for the Manatee Park. That's what we
voted on before. That's what the surrounding community would use,
and it's much needed also, especially needed because we don't have
anything like that in Collier County. We certainly have a lot of retired
people who could use it.
And a dog park, by the way. Dog parks should be in there, too.
We don't have anything like that in this area.
They say that -- I've been told by parks people that Eagle Lakes
is the most utilized park in the entire system with over 50 soccer teams
going there, and with no community center. I think that's unforgiving,
really. We need to do that. Community center, fitness center, and
swimming pool, to give these kids -- they don't have a swimming pool
in their yard. They don't have a swimming pool down the street.
There aren't any swimming pools. The kids need those things.
The kids in Immokalee have it, and it's a wonderful thing. We
have to rebuild it and make it even better because it's a very popular
thing. I'd love to see the kids in East Naples have one as well.
And it would also give Lely High School a place to swim and
practice and so forth. You don't want kids going to the beach who
don't even know how to swim.
But anyway, so these are some of the most important things that I
want to mention. Certainly I'm going to reserve the time for later on.
But I say, do both. We can find a way to serve both needs. Both
are tremendous needs. I would hate to put my need before them or
their need before me, but we need to work together.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do have three speakers, but
Commissioner Coletta is next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Sir, I was going to suggest
February 22, 2011
the speakers go first. I'll follow them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Hiller, you have a
problem with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Just a heads -up for staff, I
need to find Exhibit C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exhibit C within our agenda
packet, so -- but I want to ask questions on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May -- Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment to what
Commissioner Fiala just said?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before the speakers speak, since
it's fresh in everyone's mind.
I agree with everything you just outlined, and I would like to say
everything you just said, Commissioner Fiala, makes clear the case
that we have to have public meetings to bring out all these issues. The
fact about -- you know, that you mentioned about the dog parks.
There's a whole group of citizens out there who are very passionate
about their pets and have no place to take them. And if they walk in a
public park, they're given a ticket if they have a dog with them, and
that's really unreasonable. We do have enough land for
accommodating that kind of service.
So what I would like to recommend -- and, of course, we can
reserve this for future discussion -- is that it is absolutely imperative
that we have two major public meetings to vet this plan at the north
end and the south end of the county, incorporating east and west in
each of these meeting, and that it should be noticed so that all the
commissioners are there as well so that the citizens can speak to their
representatives and tell them what they want. We need to hear what
February 22, 2011
the people have to say. And, of course, staff should be there to
address all the technicalities.
So 1 want to thank you for bringing it out, all the facts that really
need to be publicly discussed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I just
need clarification on something. Were you looking for Exhibit C or
Appendix C?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says Exhibit C in our
executive summary. It's a cost analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. There was an Appendix
C. I didn't know if --
MR. WILLIAMS: I believe it's on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I say one last thing? I really
think that these public meetings that we have should be at night,
because I think it's really important that the families who use these
parks are able to attend, and these are families of parent -- you know,
that include working parents. So we need to accommodate them. So
these should be evening meetings.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Phil Brougham, and
he'll be followed by Duane Billington. We can use both podiums,
please.
MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. BROUGHAM: Chairman Coyle and Fellow
Commissioners, my name is Phil Brougham. I'm a resident of East
Naples and also a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, but I do not represent the parks board in any capacity this
morning.
What is before you this morning is a very comprehensive Parks
and Recreation Master Plan which is essentially a 10 -year strategic
February 22, 2011
plan, and as such, it captures and projects population trends by age
and location within the county, as well as comments on current needs
within the county park amenities, and you've seen that in a
presentation this morning.
I support this master plan, and I would urge your approval of it
today. I do, however, wish to point out that the master plan does not
recommend priorities in terms of developing park or park amenities.
It's pointing out the need.
You may hear speakers today commenting on whether the
construction of Big Corkscrew Regional Park is of higher priority than
constructing the community center and pool at Eagle Lakes. I believe
there is no debate that Big Corkscrew and Eagle Lakes community
center and pool are both needed by their respective communities.
I don't believe that issue needs a decision today, nor does the
executive summary request a decision on that question. That decision
will be made by this commission as funds become available in the
future and the county staff brings forward options for utilization of
those funds.
However, I do feel strongly that you consider at that point in time
that you best serve the taxpayers by completing all the amenities
planned for existing parks before jumping forward and starting
construction of brand -new parks.
In my opinion, leaving a legacy of partially completed parks and
dormant expensive land behind while embarking on new park
construction is flawed strategy and bad public policy.
You have available land at Eagle Lakes Community Park long
targeted for a community center, which has never been built. Eagle
Lakes is one of two community parks in the county that does not have
a community center, and it is sorely needed for a variety of reasons to
serve East Naples and the hundreds of people living nearby.
I realize existing funds are inadequate at this time for any project;
however, at some point within the 10 -year master plan horizon, those
February 22, 2011
funds will be available, and a decision by this body will be necessary.
I trust you will consider how to best utilize funds to benefit the most
residents in the shortest period of time.
Thank you.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington. I
appreciate all your comments up there of things. It seems like this is
being approached in an excellent manner.
In regards to potential arm wrestling over funds and whose park's
more important and what we should do where, there's one thing I'd
like to suggest. And I'm going to cite as an example the Golden Gate
Community Center. There was a need for that center. It serves a
multitude of purposes. It serves as -risk use. It's a meeting place. The
facilities are very well used.
And the really unique feature about this is the community in
Golden Gate came together and formed an MSTU, and we funded the
construction of that facility, and it's being operated by Parks and
Recreation.
So before we delay regional parks that are needed to construct
community centers somewhere, I think that's one item that needs to be
incorporated into the thought process.
If the community is behind it and needs it that well, well, maybe
they -- maybe they should consider that MSTU option.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just make a quick comment
on what Mr. Billington just said? I'd like to thank you for bringing
that up, because as you know in the presentation, they mentioned --
the presenter, and I believe it was Mr. Oliver, mentioned TDC funds,
impact fees, and grants. And the option of MSTUs was not presented.
So I want to thank you for bringing that up, because that is an
excellent suggestion.
MR. BILLINGTON: Well, thank you, and I appreciate your
comments on this issue.
. IM
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was part of the report, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I know, but he didn't present
it, and I think it's important to publicly notice that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Point of procedure, if I may?
No offense, Georgia, but please be recognized by the Chair. I mean,
I'm waiting patiently for the speakers to get through, and I want to
address these issues, too. If you've got the right to be able to come in
whenever you want, I'll reserve that same right, and we'll have nothing
but discord for the rest of the meeting. I would appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's your turn now.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we have another, okay. All right.
MR. MITCHELL: Marysia Batty.
MS. BATTY: Good morning. I'm coming from a very different
point of view, and excuse the accent. But I am American.
I'm a grandma, clearly. I have a son and a daughter. We moved
out -- my husband and I moved out into the Estates about 15 years
ago. My children went off to college, and blow me down, they came
back. Isn't that wonderful. And my daughter has a family, two sons.
They live out past the extension office.
It is a long way to go and find activities for those boys. The
oldest one is just coming up for five, so, you know, it is the future.
The idea that we could have a park locally was just brilliant. We
need it. My family's lucky. I'm available, and I can take the time and
take them somewhere, but there are countless numbers of other
households where both parents work and then they come back home,
and then to take those kids somewhere is a real, real effort. There is
nothing out there for our kids.
And I understand that, you know, if there is a problem, I really do
appreciate that the master plan shows us as a priority, because other
communities have something. We don't have that.
We need a place we can connect, where we can begin to become
February 22, 2011
a community. There is no place where we can go and connect with
other families that's public. We can only sort of meet each other and
hope we can connect and make some sort of community there.
So thank you. Thank you very much for your really
comprehensive work.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to take a break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Well, make sure you got
the speaker on, Commissioner Henning, so you can hear this. I guess
the questions -- no, there are speakers all through the building, so I
mean, it doesn't matter where he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Even in the restroom.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
Yeah. I'd like to address a couple of issues. I think the master
plan as it's put together is about as comprehensive as it could ever be.
Now, yeah, we can rehash this with community meetings sometime in
the future. Do I have some objection to that? No, I don't. I think
you'd probably get some pretty good turnouts. It'd probably be the
same people that are supportive of their own local parks, and it might
be something we want to think of down the road.
However, just as we got together now, this master plan has been
put together with the input of a tremendous amount of the community,
it ran over a period of time, it's been discussed many times in the past,
and it's an ongoing process.
We're not at a final decision now. We're going to be moving --
this one's going to be leading into -- what's the next study?
MR. WILLIAMS: The Master Mobility Plan, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And the Master Mobility
Em
February 22, 2011
Plan takes what was learned here and it encompass that within that
Master Mobility Study, which is a study to try to make the county a
little more efficient in future planning as far as the amount of mileage
that people have to travel.
MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time they're
going to take a lot of considerations. That vast stretch on 41 that
doesn't have any services to offer as far as parks, and also the interior
part of Golden Gate Estates. Those things are going to come into it,
come into play.
There's a couple things, though, I need to point out. And I think
if anybody came here expecting a food fight between Commissioner
Fiala and myself, I'm going to disappoint you, because I think we're
more in agreement than we're in opposition, but I got to make sure that
we understand where we're going and the rules of the game that we're
going to use to get there.
The -- under the scope of services, Task 3, need assessments
requirements for the master plan to prioritize the County Parks and
Recreation System. The results will be documented in the Parks and
Rec Master Plan. And that was done by the focus groups.
The goal of the focus groups was twofold; first to provide
educational information. I'm taking this right out of my -- the
literature you gave me -- information on the master plan process to
select particular -- participants and, second, for the participants to then
identify and prioritize the Parks and Recreation needs of Collier
County.
This was conflicted when the Parks and Rec Advisory Board
made their recommendation. One, that was a caveat, as they said, to
the master plan itself, and that reads, the Parks and Rec Advisory
Board requested in approving the master plan that the
recommendations are not prioritized according to importance.
So we have a little bit of a conflict between one and the other. I
February 22, 2011
mean, the master plan was very supportive of Corkscrew and was also
supportive of Eagle Lakes. There's no doubt about that. So we do
have a conflict within that. And I hope when it comes time to approve
this master plan and remove those three caveats out of there so that we
see it and we can make a judgment decision based upon the facts that
were presented. It doesn't mean we're going to accept those facts
when we go doing our planning in the future, but at least we'll be able
to have something that was the intent of that whole group that went
through it rather than trying to politically neutralize recommendations
with the three caveats that are there.
That's one of my hopes; however, with that said, here, let's get to
the real problem. The real problem is access to parks in places where
they do not exist now and to be able to bring other parks up to a
certain level of performance that will meet the needs of the residents
in that area. Am I wrong? Every way we're going with it, right,
Barry?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the plan is meant to meet the
countywide needs for Parks and Rec, and recommendations are based
on that for an overall look at the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's focus on the
two elements that are most foremost in our minds today Big Island
Corkscrew Park and the Eagle Lakes Park community center. Okay.
There's a couple things that are evident. One, there's no money to
really speak of. There might be some funds coming in from -- what
are those funds, CB --
MR. WILLIAMS: Community Development Block Grant funds,
yes. We deporting those for Eagle Lakes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if Eagle Lakes qualifies
under the new census, which most likely they will, they'll be up for
consideration for this grant; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that grant would pay how
Page 91
February 22, 2011
much of the community center costs?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there's been some back and forth with
the Human Housing Veteran Services Department about exactly that
dollar amount. We know that that dollar's going to be less than what
we initially anticipated. We're hearing about 900,000 to a million
dollars. That's potential. It's Community Development Block Grant
funds that are available for the entire county though. We would be
competing with other organizations that would be seeking those funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But if we're successful,
what would 900,000 bring us as far as a community center?
MR. WILLIAMS: It would probably bring you just that; it
would bring you a community center.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would? So, I mean, that
would cover it. And the only thing we would have as a deficiency
going forward would be the amount of people that you'd have to
employ to run the place?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Would you explain to us
what the problem is with raising funds from impact fees, which have
been the main source of income for parks?
MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. I can show you a chart, I think, that
might be helpful. And as you know, impact fees have lessened over
the years. And what this chart will show you is just kind of where we
are.
This is what we used as our checkbook, so to speak, you know,
what projects that we have in play. And you can see the current
projects that we have funding for that are in a project that are active,
we are pursuing that -- these projects. We're at various stages of
permitting construction.
And then if you go down, though, to this line, I'll show you the
$3.1 million, and see FY12. Basically what we're doing is, after these
projects are taken out, that 3.1 million is our debt service. This is our
Page 92
February 22, 2011
impact -fee revenue that we anticipate, 1.5 million, and it gets you to
the end of the year with 2.1 left in reserve. You basically carry that
number forward, and as you go through the years, what we're seeing is
a decrease in the ability to pay our debt. We're looking at 2013.
We're basically going to have to find $900,000 to pay our current debt
with where impact fees are going.
Now, if impact fees improve -- if impact fees improve, if they're
coming in better than what we anticipated, that number will change.
But right now when we project out for the five years, we're looking at
-- we're running in under water, so to speak, as we move out into the
out years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what you're doing is
you're using some of the reserves we have actually targeted for some
of the other parks out there to make your debt requirements to be able
to satisfy debts for year by year, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, what we're suggesting is, some projects
let's not pursue. Let's keep the money in the current project. If we
need to use that, if impact fees don't rise and we need to find money to
pay our debt, then we could look at those projects as potential.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's stay specific to two
target areas, Eagle Lakes and Big Island --
MR. WILLIAMS: Big Corkscrew Island Regional, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, those two projects. What
kind of money is still dedicated to those projects, and how do they
stack up as far as being susceptible to cover debt cost?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Eagle Lakes, there's no money in a
specific project for Eagle Lakes. There is a little over $2 million in
the Manatee project that is in -- that, in essence, the board decided to
keep that money in that project, but keep it for reserve in case it was
needed for paying debt.
The Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park, I believe there's
roughly $500,000, $500,000 in a project specific for Big Corkscrew
Page 93
February 22, 2011
Island Regional Park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And how susceptible is
that money compared to the one at Manatee?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure I understand your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, Manatee has got
two million, Corkscrew's got a half million. Now, when you have to
draw your debt down, are these two equal in consideration as far as
the funds being raided?
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Service
administrator.
I'm going to answer your question a little bit differently than you
asked. Because, if you look at the list that's up on top, you'll notice
that there's some projects that we have on there, and I'll use Signature
Land as one of them. And I know that's an eye chart, and I apologize
for that. But there's about $520,000 sitting in that. That would
probably be the first one that we would pull the funds --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MS. RAMSEY: -- from.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which one would be the first
one?
MS. RAMSEY: It's called Signature Lands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that?
MS. RAMSEY: It's -- and it's got the $530,000 associated with
it. That would probably be the first one that staff would recommend
that we would use to apply toward the debt service, because it is a
project that isn't -- is near and dear to some people's hearts. It's sitting
out there as an opportunity to do some additional boat --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Parking.
MS. RAMSEY: -- parking up near Cocohatchee, and that was a
partnership that we were working with Signature on. That is -- has not
come to fruition at this point in time, and so that would be the first
.,__
February 22, 2011
funding that we would use. And we would do something very similar
to all the rest of the funds that are sitting there. We might have some
cost savings in some projects.
For example, Goodland Boat Park is done. Once we've finished
off that and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not.
MS. RAMSEY: So once we've finished off and paid all the bills
associated with that, then there might be some savings in that one, and
we would target that as the next one.
So you can see as we go through the process and as projects are
finishing and as funding looks like it's farther out maybe, you know,
five -- five or more years, we will take that first.
So I'm not answering the question you asked, but I'm telling you
how staff would look at --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
MS. RAMSEY: -- pulling the funding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, great. So in other words,
it's still a little bit open for discussion?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No decisions have been made.
Okay. I'll tell you where I'm going with all this as far as it goes.
And I know you don't have a crystal ball. You can't tell what the
economy's going to do, but we do know that we -- we're not going to
see a tremendous recovery in the housing market or commercial
property for a number of years to come. I mean, it's inevitable. I
mean, anybody that projects we're going to be able to have a positive
flow of income to be able to cover debt and give us something to be
able to work for -- work towards as far as building something new and
they think it's going to happen within a five -year period, I think they're
whistling Dixie. They're not going to get there.
So the realization is, is you've got to satisfy a debt. After the
debt's satisfied, you've got to be able to be assured you're going to
Page 95
February 22, 2011
have enough capital coming in to be able to adequately finance the
next venture to be out there. We already know Eagle Lakes more or
less vested with their community center through the special funds that
are out there that will be coming in. And I'll help any way I can for
that direction.
So that leaves Big Island Corkscrew (sic) as a place of special
concern. If we're looking at another 10 years before they can even
break ground for this park, that's not what these people out there are
looking for. I mean, no one wants to say, okay, well, my children
won't enjoy it, but my grandkids will someday. People aren't
visionaries like that. They're looking for results today or in a
reasonable turnaround time.
What I'm going to propose is probably going to be called heresy,
but I think it's already been alluded to by Mr. Billington. I would love
to have staff come back with this direction from this board to be able
to come back and show us if it's economically feasible to be able to
create a voter - approved MSTU for a couple of areas in the county that
may want to be able to progress their park forward in a shorter period
of time. And right off the bat, just thinking this forward, this MSTU
would be bonded out with the idea that it will sunset when we have
impact fees kick in to be able to pick up the debt at that time and be
able to get us to the point where maybe we can start the park in a
reasonable period of time; however, with that said, too, we have to
realize we already got a two -year increment in there before it would
even be eligible for -- to be considered by the people in that particular
area, because that's when -- the next time we have a general election
taking place.
We'd have the choice, of course, of putting a board MSTU on the
area, but something of this magnitude I really wouldn't be in favor of
that.
But I would like to see a couple things. One, I'd like to see the
board direct staff to come back with just an initial report to see if it's
February 22, 2011
economically feasible. It might be to the point where it's not going to
work for a couple different areas within the county that are looking for
something sooner than later to be able to look at the possibilities of an
MSTU.
And, two, I'd like to make a motion to approve the report as is
without the three caveats that were put in there by the advisory board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion on the table.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that went over.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it for discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have any comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. About his motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What the first and second is
approving is a beach parking fee; is that your intent?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in the -- that's in the
master plan; that's in the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you pointed it out,
Commissioner Henning. As far as any additional charges to the
residents of Collier County for beach parking, absolutely not. Free
beach passes should exist now and in the future. That's part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, yoi
didn't lose a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I guess --
I lost my second, huh?
Yeah, I guess you did.
i didn't lose a second; no, you
Okay. Now, there is an
Page 97
February 22, 2011
opportunity in the recommendations -- because it does talk about
funding -- is explore MSTUs in the -- Mr. Tindall's report, it did show
that there was support in certain areas for that, and maybe that should
be added to the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll clarify my motion.
That's why I wanted to be able to come back and give us a more
comprehensive report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can put it in the
recommendations because, again, they're talking about funding
sources on the -- in the master plan. On Page --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I have no problem
adding it to the master plan, but I'd like it also as a standalone so staff
has specific directions to bring it back rather than sometime off in the
very distant future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it's in the master plan,
they have to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true, but there's -- it's not
specific as far as a timeline goes on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the second agree with
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I don't agree that the plan as
it currently stands requires that anybody increase parking fees or any
other permit fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me show you the
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item No. 8.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pages -- Page 365, No. 4.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See -- do you see it there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I see it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's -- this is the last
page of the recommendations.
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But it doesn't say that they're
changing it. They say, if the system were changed, it would generate
approximately X amount of money. It doesn't say that's what you're
planning to do.
We have the option of not only deciding what the priorities here
should be, but we have the option of deciding how we use the money
to the best advantage. They're merely saying they'll look at all
available alternatives and report back to us about which ones we
should choose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Let me finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll read it to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Beach parking fees. Collier
County adopts a policy for free beach parking fees with beach parking
passes. It's a system that charge -- requirement (sic), both the
residents and visitors on a monthly passes (sic), and available for
operation needs and meeting existing future levels. You're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, of course I'm right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- now, in the report
-- talking about the motion -- it shows a deficit of ballparks. Existing
ballparks overutilized. Previously staff has recommended the
ballparks to be at Manatee. We changed that. And I guess
commissioner of the district -- out of the respect for the commissioner
of the district, that's what we did, but we didn't address the deficit of
ballparks.
And staff has -- what they're saying is, you know, put the
Manatee Park up for sale and look for a park further to the east for an
-- active ballpark fields. I think that should be part of the
recommendations also. That would free up $2 million to future --
dedicated to Manatee to hit what we need to be doing, you know, at
the -- at the two parks that are contested.
Page 99
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't take issue with what you're trying
to do. My only point is that we can deal with that when we start
prioritizing how we spend the money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We can approve the plan, and
they're going to have to come back to us and say, okay, I can't do all
this, I don't have enough money, and we're going to be making those
kinds of decisions at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Manatee is part of the
master plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so is Eagle Lakes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. But what I'm saying is, is
give staff direction to sell it and look for other properties. That would
free up $2 million right there for the park in Golden Gate Estates and
for the Eagle park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't have a problem with that. I'd
just like to see the staff come back in a separate session and say, here's
what we recommend. Here's how we -- here's how we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. As long as we hit it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Here's how we'd like to get the
money to do what you want us to do.
Is there anything wrong with that?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. And just to point out, the master plan
recommends, you know, you have a need for ballfi- -- or
multi - purpose soccer /football fields in East Naples. Manatee's a
property that you own. You do -- it points out, the master plan, that
you've agreed to conceptually to that being a passive park, so there's a
conflict there. If you agree to the master plan today, we recognize that
Page 100
February 22, 2011
conflict. These suggestions, these discussions that PARAB came up
with, I mean, we can -- we can come back and look at some of that
and bring that back to you if you so desire.
But right now, with the recommendation, if you were to approve
that recommendation, you know, it -- I think it would suffice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Suffice to do what?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you've basically got a recommendation
for Manatee Park. And, again, it says Manatee Park is -- you do need
athletic fields; however -- and you do have Manatee Park, and
Manatee Park is in your inventory. That's an obvious place to go;
however, you do have a conceptual plan approved by the board.
So you're recognizing the fact that you do need athletic fields.
You're looking at the inventory that you have. The conflict that you
have as far as Manatee Park being approved as a -- conceptually as a
passive park, there's a conflict there. It's not something that
necessarily needs to be determined today, I guess is my point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's my point, too.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because in order to do that, you have to
do an additional analysis that is not contained in this document.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But my only concern is, if it's adopted as
part of the master plan as it is now, are there any roadblocks to getting
to where you think we all need to be?
MS. RAMSEY: Again, for the record, Marla Ramsey, Public
Service Administrator. No, sir, I'm not seeing any roadblocks in here.
What I'm seeing is that there's a game plan that's been put on the table
that needs to be vetted, and it needs to be vetted through your Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board as a minimum. So staff will now need
to take the recommendations, and they'll have to put some priorities,
some dollar amounts, some operational costs, some additional things
to it, take it to the advisory board, make sure people know what we're
Page 101
February 22, 2011
going to be discussing when and have some very serious discussions
about the plan that sits before you.
This is -- this is what I would call a jumping -off point, so to
speak. It does give us a nice basis to start from. So it's a starting
point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's one of the problems that I'd like to
try to avoid. Every time we go out to the public with a bunch of
options or recommendations, there is the perception that we've already
made a decision and that's what we're going to do. The public gets
very upset even though it hasn't come to the Board of County
Commissioners.
So maybe we should do this in two steps. One, take -- if we -- if
we approve this plan today, and I hope we will, you take this plan and
you have a public hearing, and you just lay out various options and
you get public input on those options, and then you come to us and
you make a recommendation about what you think we should do and
how you can get the money to do it, and we'll have another public
hearing at that point in time so people get to respond to both things.
They get input into the general scope of priorities and expenditures,
and then when we make our final decision, they get to come here and
tell us what they think we should do, and then we'll make a final
decision as a result of that.
And if we could make that very clear to everybody so they don't
jump the gun and assume that you're moving ahead with your own
agenda and what they have to say doesn't really make much
difference, okay. Does that make sense?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 12:12.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm getting hungry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can -- I can wait until they come
Page 102
February 22, 2011
back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no. I want to get rid of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, I like going to the
public. But a question. I have a couple questions actually.
Were the school ball fields that we have interlocal agreements
with included into -- into this thing? They're --
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- all included.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, they were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good. Is there an
opportunity for us to swap land over at 6L Farms for a ball field or a
ball field complex out there when they move into the -- into that
phase?
MS. RAMSEY: I haven't had that specific conversation with
them recently, but I have had conversations with the consultant as a --
maybe five, six years ago when they were looking to do a
development. And I did have a conversation with them about active
lands at that point. We did talk about 60 acres. They talked about
three 20 -acre parcels, not one 60 -acre parcel, which was a little
concerning to me because I like things to be underneath, you know,
one area rather than split around.
So we have had some dialogue with them. I have not discussed
with them, would there be some interest in a land swap now, nor have
I looked into, you know, what the cost or the price of the land would
be that we currently have versus how much it would cost to buy land
across the road.
All of that, again, is fairly new on our agenda and something we
will definitely look into if you so direct us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. I was just -- I thought
sometimes a land swap that doesn't cost us anything would be a great
opportunity for us to build those ball fields before anybody's living
there.
Page 103
February 22, 2011
A good -news items. As I'm thinking this thing through -- and
we've talked about CDBG funds, but that will only build a basic
building. It doesn't do anything, right. Now, there's a lot of building
going on at Lely Resort. We all know that and I'm -- you know, we
cheer them on and they're doing a really good job, and there's also a
huge development that's just going through the permitting process
right now that will also generate impact fees.
So we've got Lely Resort and the new development that's coming
on board that will be generating impact fees, probably more than we
could ever use to finish out. Because CDBG funds do not pay for
swimming pools or fitness centers.
MS. RAMSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So possibly there would be enough
-- impact fees can't be used for debt service. It can only be used for
new projects. So could we -- could that possibly be then dedicated to
finishing that? And then take the other ones as they come in and start
building the Big Corkscrew right away so that you would have a
funding source for that. We do know that these things are coming.
And then there's talk of another one moving also, all in East Naples,
and I'm delighted with that. And I think that that -- I'm sure that you
share all of these monies with different districts. It's not important
where it's located --
MS. RAMSEY: One lump sum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it's just that it's coming in. And
we need to build their park, too. So just -- CDBG funds will take a big
hunk of it, finish it off with impact fees, and use those impact fees for
the other park. To me that sounds like a good plan.
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner, you're right. But, again, I'll
direct you to the chart on your screen here.
If you look at where we're projecting your impact fee to be in
fiscal '13, '14, and '15, we're already in a deficit position in terms of
income revenue in versus your fixed -- your fixed debt of over $3
Page 104
February 22, 2011
million a year in your impact -fee fund.
So, again, when we talk about cost feasible, I want to be very up
front with you that -- again, and that's presuming these projects are
built, but we've already told you that we're holding off on some of
these as a contingency to meet this deficit in your impact -fee fund. If
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So could we have a more --
MR. OCHS: -- these new developments come on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- realistic figure so that we know
what actually is going to be built? Like some -- this one that you had
mentioned just before -- what was it called even?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Signature.
MS. RAMSEY: Signature Land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Signature. We don't even know
anything about that. Could we actually use figures that are not only
immediate, but are a definite possibility in Goodland once it's paid
off? You know, subtract that? I mean, let's give us something real to
go by. We all know about figures, and let's get a more real figure that
we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is real.
MR. OCHS: These are real figures, ma'am. But what I hear you
saying to me is that -- let's get more real about the prospects of all
these projects going forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: And we can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right, because --
MS. RAMSEY: Put a timeline to it is what you're asking us to
do, and then make a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's --
MS. RAMSEY: Put a timeline to the projects that are listed there
and find out which ones we want to take off the list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The most important thing is that we
Page 105
February 22, 2011
know we've got some impact fees now coming in and that -- I'm
thinking that we can, you know -- they can't be used to pay debt
service, right?
MS. RAMSEY: No. They can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So if they're coming in, can
we then cover some needs that are real needs in the community?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, the impact fees are being used
for debt service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MS. RAMSEY: I just needed to clarify that. I didn't think you
heard that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three million dollars a year.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, about 3 million a year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's what we do when we
prioritize, okay.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When we sit down and prioritize these
things, then we'll tell you where we don't want you to spend any
money right now. And if you've got it already allocated to something,
you're going to take it out of there and move it to something else we've
prioritized, right?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly what the priority process
is. But let's clarify one other thing. While we're backfilling the debt
service, are we doing it as a loan as we are doing in some of the other
areas?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not?
MR. OCHS: Because they are not in a deficit position like some
of your other impact fees. There are no loans from the General Fund
supporting park impact -fee debt right now, and that's -- and they've
Page 106
February 22, 2011
worked very hard not to get in that position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you don't want that to happen in the
future?
MR. OCHS: Well, yeah. And that's why I have to be the bad
guy and keep telling you -all we don't have the money to build these
other facilities that we'd like to build for your constituents, but you've
got to watch your debt first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But my question is, if you find ways to
backfill that without ad valorem property tax money, can you do it as
a loan so that you get paid back by impact fees when you start getting
impact fees?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we do that? Because that gets
the cost back where it should have been in the first place. I mean, it
wasn't your fault that impact fees trailed off and the development
industry wasn't -- you know, wasn't doing real well. But when it
comes back -- and it will one of these days -- why shouldn't we be
able to pay back those loans?
MR. OCHS: We intend to have them paid back, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay, all right. Just
wanted to make sure.
We've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, maybe I better clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, I would if I could get
somebody to vote. You're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was just going to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- clarify the motion and see if
we might be able to move it forward. I know we've still got two
speakers.
Page 107
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion's to approve the
parks and rec, the master plan, as it's written without the three caveats
on there, the political caveats. And if you don't have a problem with
it, be able to -- even though it addresses the fact that we're going to
have in the -- as far as looking at alternate means of financing parks
sooner through possibly an MSTU, to be able to also give direction to
staff within a reasonable period of time to bring back some numbers to
see if it's even feasible to be able to consider it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, could I just try to make a
friendly motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or revision to this. There's nothing
about what the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board suggested that
would have a bad affect upon the motion, right? It says that the
recommendations are not prioritized according to importance.
Nothing wrong with that one, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Well, why --
Because we've already recognized that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because we've already recognized that.
It also says, "Give consideration in utilizing existing lands when
moving forward and strategically managing funding." Wow, we're
going to do that when we do the priorities, right?
And No. 3, "Consideration of the recommendations being
consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods." There's
nothing wrong with that, okay. So what I'm really saying is, I don't
see the caveats made by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as
being bad things, because we'll certainly do those things when we
make decisions concerning priorities in the allocation of funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the "not to prioritize,"
that's my biggest hangup.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's saying that we recognize that
1•
February 22, 2011
they are not prioritized according to the report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they're not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Barry? Barry? What did the
recommendations from -- the advisory groups you put together, the
breakout committees, what were the recommendations? Did they
prioritize or they did not prioritize?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, they were asked to list in order of
importance one to five.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's prioritizing.
MR. WILLIAMS: And so they listed that, and that's the table
within your -- in the master plan itself. That wasn't -- but, again, the
recommendations that were brought forward with the advisory board's
recommendation that they not be prioritized is where you stand today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I understand that, but the
master plan itself standing alone does prioritize -- the simple fact that
it lists -- it asks the advisory groups there to -- the focus groups to be
able to do so. So, I mean, they did do it. They did prioritize; did they
not?
MR. TINDALL: I guess -- I don't want to sound like I'm
mumbling, but this is what I think -- my opinion on what they did. It
was clear when they voted that the one park came out number one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what was that?
MR. TINDALL: That was Big Corkscrew Regional Park. There
was one, one, one, two, one. None of the rest of it, other than, we're
really short of soccer fields and some of the utilization issues. Those
are the two items that come out.
So in terms of a competitive list of, you know, seven or eight
things in a priority, that was the thing to come out of those. Those are
the two things in my mind and the documentation that they prioritized
were those two things. Other than --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
Page 109
February 22, 2011
MR. TINDALL: -- I think the main priority was they do agree
that you're not heading in the wrong direction. This is a nice master
plan that gives you a lot of, you know, direction to go through, and
that's where they were. They didn't really sit down and go through
each one of those items and prioritize.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but they did prioritize both
Big Island and Eagle Lake, correct?
MR. TINDALL: I think the -- no. I think it was mainly the -- if
you'll look at that one chart -- can we pull that one chart up? You've
got develop Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. You've got one,
one, two, two. The rest of them were across the board, other than
consistently talking about the shortage of soccer fields and football
field and active fields.
But if you'll look at that chart right there, nothing came out
dramatically as a prioritization except that one for all the groups.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. TINDALL: So I think in general, we got a sense that they
agreed with the master plan, the general direction. There was nothing
we were missing. There's no big holes in it, to move forward with it.
But that was the only one that we saw that was consistent across the
groups.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the fact that we're having
this discussion now gives recognition to that fact --
MR. TINDALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that it's been prioritized. It --
maybe not across the board totally with everything --
MR. TINDALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but they did prioritize it with
the Corkscrew Island Regional Park as being No. 1. So now we're
going to say not to prioritize it, but it still can't undo what's been done
by a citizen base of -- how many people were involved?
MR. TINDALL: Twenty -four out of 74 that got invited.
Page 110
February 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, these were the rankings of the focus
groups, not the recommendations of the PARAB.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that.
MR. OCHS: They're both legitimate, but what we have in the
executive summary were the three --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and my concerns -- my
concerns is the fact that political motivation sometimes steps in.
There's been a lengthy study done in the master plan, and then the
caveats were added to it to take away from the findings that were
there. That's my own opinion.
Now, you know, I'm sure that we could argue all day about that,
but like Commissioner Coyle said, it's past lunchtime.
MR. TINDALL: Well, I mean --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask, do you want them prioritized
right now by our motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. The only thing I want to do
is let what they've put into the master plan stand alone, beginning and
end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- I think that's fine, and I don't
think that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board caveat will
change that.
MR. TINDALL: It won't do anything.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. It's part of the plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: It's part of the documentation of the plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, once again, you know, the
people I represent are very concerned that they're not going to get a
fair shake on this when it goes forward. And I'm not saying that
everybody is doing the wrong thing. It's just the way this particular
thing came up at the very end. And if you read it, if you really read
Page lll
February 22, 2011
into it -- and maybe I'm paranoid on this. But if you read into it, it's
trying to nullify what the report was and how it got to where it was in
a very user - friendly way. My own opinion, you know.
MR. TINDALL: Okay. Well, we wrote it. And to be honest
with you, I think what the group did was not in conflict. And I was
asked a question about the focus group, not about the whole report. I
think the report does not prioritize the project. It is a master plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And just to be able to
help everybody along so that we can bring this to some sort of
conclusion, I withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll pick up Commissioner
Coyle's motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I was a second. But you're going
to pick up the same motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll second the motion.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to readdress the
conversation we had earlier about impact fees. And I think
Commissioner Fiala is owed a clarification.
The impact fees are not pledged against debt service. So you're
correct, and what was represented as them being pledged and
encumbered to pay debt services is not the case.
And also, the statement that was made, and I believe -- I think it
was County Manager Ochs who said that we could basically lend the
money and then use future impact fees to repay that. I don't think that
would be possible. I'd like to know the legal basis that we could do
that by, because I really don't think that we could do that.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's just my thought on that.
So I wanted to clarify that for you because those are available funds to
pay for infrastructure that is needed triggered by growth.
Page 112
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, by the way, let's just make sure
there's no misunderstanding. They are being used to pay debt service.
They're not pledged against --
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
pay debt service.
They're not required to be used to
MR. OCHS: Right. So you'd need to find $3 million somewhere
else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Until you get impact fees. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, let me add one
other thing about the impact -fee discussion. It goes back to the point
that I made earlier, which very much concerns me, because we have
an analysis that is considering an inventory which is in excess of what
the impact -fee inventory is considering. And I know Mr. Oliver (sic)
MR. TINDALL: Tindall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tindall. Is it Tindall - Oliver?
Sorry. Mr. Tindall - Oliver (sic) has done the impact -fees analysis, and
I think there has to be, you know, consistency.
So if we're going to use, you know, an approach that considers all
parks, it -- for example for regional, for purposes of this master plan
study, then I think you have to be consistent in your impact -fee
analysis. It can't be six of one, half a dozen of the other, because there
has to be consistency in the rationale.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 113
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it fails. The plan is not approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what -- before you go,
maybe somebody might like to make a second motion to be able to
address their concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll be here for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already had an hour and a half to
address their concerns.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're just warming up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You'll be here for a long
time. This is a political thing. There's no science based on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to say -- may I make a
comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that okay with you,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. You addressed the Chair,
which is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I did last time also,
but thank you. I just want to make sure you're okay with it.
I'd like to say the reason that I've turned it down is because I
would like to see a public meeting on this master plan. I like what
Commissioner Coyle said about having future public meetings as well,
you know, at the various levels that a plan would be implemented, but
I feel it's absolutely essential that we have more than focus -group
meetings. And the public should have a right to have input on the
overall plan before it's approved by the board. I want to hear what the
public has to say as a whole, and that's the reason I'm voting no today.
I think that our staff worked very hard on this plan, and I
appreciate what they did, but I really want to hear what the people
have to say.
MR. OCHS: We don't -- we don't have any objection to that.
Page 114
February 22, 2011
We just -- if you want that to be part of your motion, ma'am, we're
happy to take it out on the road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to approve it before I
hear the public. So my motion would be, let's have a public meeting
in, you know, the various locations in the county, get public input,
revise the plan accordingly, then present it to the board --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and that's what -- that would be
my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, wow. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where I was going, too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, awesome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly what the last motion
would have provided. That's okay. Go ahead and do it your way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then the motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The last -- the last motion would have
gotten a list of priorities established through public input.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's after this plan would
be approved, and this plan is already prioritizing. That's the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not prioritizing, but nevertheless,
okay. It's lost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a motion? Have I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't heard a clear motion. Go ahead
and restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
have a series of public meetings to incorporate the citizens of Collier
County to get their input on this plan as is being presented today, that
those meetings be held in -- at the north end and the south end of the
county to consider citizens to the east and west, that those meetings be
Page 115
February 22, 2011
held at night so people who are working at the day can attend, that all
the commissioners attend these meetings so they're available to answer
questions, and that after these meetings are conducted, that the input
that we receive is then processed by parks and incorporated into this
master plan, and then this master plan be brought back to the board for
reconsideration after public vetting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one clarification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are these called meetings?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- let's -- I think they should
be noticed meetings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. You're saying all
commiss- -- the commissioners should attend these --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- meetings. Are they called
meetings?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you mean by called?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, they're acquired
(sic) meetings, or they're just fact - finding meetings?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, good question.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your motion recalls -- is asking for a
fact - finding meeting with the Board of County Commissioners
attending or not attending at least two meetings, different parts of the
county in order to discuss the public's view of this. No action will be
taken at these meetings. It's more like an evening workshop, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would think that -- it's a public
workshop but more loosely organized instead of sitting at a round
table.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second your -- if I could. Can
we limit it to two meetings? I think that will really --
Page 116
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I agree with you. I think we
only need two meetings. That's why I said in a location to the north
and a location to the south that's central to the north and south so east
and west can easily attend.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, could I get --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- just a little clarification, I'm sorry, but -- so the
board will be conducting these two evening meetings?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. OCHS: Instead of the staff?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With the staff. I think the staff
needs to be there, and I think the staff needs to be an active participant
at these meetings because if there are any, you know, specific
questions that are technical, staff should be able to answer them. You
know, if there are more general questions as to, you know, why as a
matter of public policy we'd like parks here versus there, we should be
able to answer it. This is -- we should be as available as possible so
the public can ask any question that they want to ask and have the
resources available there to answer them.
And I think the best way to do it would be if staff did an
overview in more detail than was presented today so the public has an
idea, and that we take this master plan and put it on our website and
let the Naples Daily News announce to the public that, you know, the
master plan is there for viewing and that it will be, you know, publicly
vetted, all of which is included in my motion.
I hope you can type fast enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You okay with this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I am fine. Let's go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
Page 117
February 22, 2011
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
Okay. You set up a whole bunch of meetings, and then you'll
wind up right where you were in the first place, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's only two meetings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no. Just wait, just wait.
Okay. We're going to break for lunch, and we'll be back at 1:35.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session now. We're going to continue
-- no, we're finished with parks. Where do we go now?
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2011 -41: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER -SEWER DISTRICT IMPACT FEE RATES,
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2007 -571 AS AMENDED,
BY REDUCING THE WATER IMPACT FEE BY $370 (- 10.3 %)
TO $3,205 PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION,
AND THE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BY $275 ( -7.9 %) TO
$3,220 PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION, FOR
A TOTAL REDUCTION OF $645 ( -9.1 %), WITH AN EFFECTIVE
DATE OF MARCH 1, 2011. (COMPANION TO ITEMS #813 AND
#8C) — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: We go to Item 8A, sir.
Page 118
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8A.
MR. OCHS: Advertised public hearings. This item was
continued from the February 8, 2011, BCC meeting.
Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the Collier County
Water /Sewer District impact -fee rates established by Ordinance No.
2007 -57, as amended, by reducing the water impact fee by $370,
which is a 10.2 percent decrease, to $3,205 per equivalent residential
connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $275, which equates to
a 7.9 percent reduction, to $3,220 per equivalent residential
connection, for a total reduction of $645 or 9.1 percent, with an
effective date of March 1, 2011.
Mr. Wides is here to present or answer any questions the board
may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have questions?
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. Mr. Wides, are you going to
present anything, or would you like me to --
MR. WIDES: I'm prepared to either answer questions or present.
I do have a brief presentation if you'd like to hear that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the board's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been on the agenda now twice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So go ahead and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I read it last time. I read it this time.
Okay. You want a presentation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should have a short
presentation, and then I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's do it, Tom.
MR. WIDES: Again, Commissioners, for the record, Tom
Wides, Operation Director for Public Utilities. I'm here this afternoon
with our rate consultant, Rob Ory from PRMG, and also members of
our management team for the water /sewer district.
Page 119
February 22, 2011
In particular, on this item, just to remind us all of the guiding
principles that we've used over an endearing period of time for the
water /sewer district. First off, we need to remain in compliance with
our special act, the provisions of our special act under which the
district was formed. We've tried to uphold where possible that growth
shall pay for growth, and also that we want to maintain the impact fees
that are fair that represent the cost of capacity that is allocated to
growth, and that's important. The cost of the capacity gets allocated
towards growth.
We want to make sure that we maintain the utility as a financially
stable utility, financially sustainable. We've been able to maintain for
a good period of time our double -A rating in the bond market. We
also, of course, with that strong rating, are able, when we need to --
when we need to borrow money, we're able to secure favorable
interest rates. And in this environment today, it's hard to even get any
borrowings.
We have no intended borrowing out in the next 10 years;
however, we know at some point in time we want to maintain that
rating.
We want to keep the user rates low over the long -- over the
longer term. We don't want to be spiking them up and down. We've
been pretty successful at that. And then, finally, of course, we talk
about the user fees, which we covered last -- our last meeting.
Moving on, just to give you an idea of the involvement that we've
had to date, we provided a series of reports, attended meetings back in
October -- beginning back in October of 2010. We had three meetings
with the Development Services Advisory Committee, four meetings
with the Productivity Committee and a subcommittee that they -- that
they, in fact, formed to review our studies.
We had a meeting back, I believe, in November with the
Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee talking about our
impact fees and the basis for calculation and, finally, we had the
Page 120
February 22, 2011
impact fee reviewed by outside legal counsel also, the methodology.
We've had written responses and had a chance to share those with
multiple comprehensive questions that came from the Productivity and
from the DSAC, and we also prepared a technical paper responding to
a CBIA request to understand more about how and why we use and
calculate our impact fees.
The summary of our recommendations -- and I'll repeat this again
in a few moments -- were, we're looking for approval to adopt the
calculated lower impact fees effective March 1 st. We also have a
companion agenda item here today, which is Item 813, and that's
addressing lower AFPI, allowance for funds prudently invested, which
we would expect to adopt at the same time as we adopt the impact fee.
Finally, of course, we'd be back in a couple years here, as
required by our special act, to, again, do an update to the impact fees
themselves.
For your information and as pretty much a reminder, back in
2008 we reduced the combined water and wastewater impact fees by
$269, about 3.4 percent. And we -- at that same time we lowered the
AFPI.
We've updated the new fees because of the basis for our
methodology for calculating our fees. We've updated for the new
spending that we see over the next few years, plus continuing to try to
recapture the prior capital costs that we put in place, and we're looking
at a 10 -year period.
This might be a bit of an eye chart, but basically what we're
saying here is, in total, the impact fees for water and sewer combined
today as we walk into the room is $7,070, 7- 0 -7 -0. The recommended
combined impact fees would be $6,425. That's a reduction of $645 or
approximately an additional 9.1 percent.
And as you'll note at the bottom of the page, since 2008, if you
can include that along with the recommendation we're making today,
over that period of time we've reduced the fees by a total of 12.5
Page 121
February 22, 2011
percent or almost $914.
If I may, just to speak to AFPI for a moment here, that is agenda
Item 813, but we have it pulled into the discussion. Here again, we're
reducing those fees or proposing to reduce those fees by $208.80 or
12.3 percent and, again, that's on top of a reduction from 2008.
Finally, again, our -- just to recap. On our peer- review
discussions, we met with the Productivity Committee after those four
meetings. They unanimously approved the Collier County
Water /Sewer District Impact Fee Study. The one comment they had is
they wanted to -- wanted us to continue to review our level -of- service
standards, which we do each year as part of our AUIR activities.
The DSAC, after the third meeting with DSAC, we had a vote of
the 10 -4, our impact fees; three against, and one abstained.
Finally, as I mentioned early, the outside legal counsel reviewed
the impact -fee study and the methodology, and in the end we did
follow his guidance.
And, again, our recommendations today are threefold: Number
I. to adopt the calculated impact fees effective March 1, 2011. As
part of Item 813, again, would be to recommend we adopt the AFPIs.
And that, again, would be effective March 1, 2011.
Finally, we will be back in two -plus years to re -- to re- review the
impact -fee studies again.
And that, Commissioners, from a short form, is our prepared
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Georgia.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation. I -- when this was on the
agenda at the last meeting at the same time that the fees -- the utility
fees were being approved, I had raised some questions, and then I saw
that the item was removed and brought forward to today.
Page 122
February 22, 2011
And one of my questions -- and this related to another decision
we made at that last meeting, and that was the transportation impact
fees. And what had been told to me in preparation for that meeting
was that transportation fees were going to be adjusted downwards in
part because the costs attributable to the utility relocates was being
eliminated from transportation impact fees and was going to be shifted
over to utility impact fees, and that, as a result, there would be an
upwards adjustment in utility impact fees but an overall downwards
adjustment related to the change in population, growth trends, if you
will.
And, of course, what I wanted to see as a result of that disclosure
was a reconciliation to show me how much transportation was being
reduced by and a corresponding increase on the impact -fee side -- the
utility impact -fee side.
As a result of a series of email communications, all of which I'm
going to introduce on the record, I'm left with very serious concerns.
I also had the opportunity to read the Nabors Giblin
memorandum, which is dated February 14th which addresses this
issue in part. And it would seem to me, based on the review that I've
done of the information that's been presented to me, it does seem that,
in part, earlier on, that utility relocate costs were included in utility
impact fees as well as in transportation impact fees. And I know that
you have an explanation for that.
But then the thing that actually has really concerned me is that
now these transportation impact fees that have been reduced, whereas
before I was told they would be in addition to utility impact fees, now
I'm being told they're not in utility impact fees.
And the opinion that I've read presented by Nabors Giblin doesn't
approve what's being done because Nabors Giblin said, you know, I
don't -- you haven't sent me all the information, and they've qualified
their opinion quite heavily.
In fact, one statement that I'm going to read from their report,
Page 123
February 22, 2011
which is on Page 4, provides -- and it's in the second paragraph on that
page -- "However, the proposed expenditures which are classified as
relocation or replacement are not growth- related expenditures," and it
is my opinion that they should be excluded from the calculation of
water and wastewater impact fees.
The other -- the other section that I will cite is Page 6 where it
says, you know, "I've requested verification and explanation of the
modifications in classifications," et cetera, and then it says, "I have not
received a response."
And in sum, the conclusion of that legal opinion on Page 7 is
qualified based on whether or not these replacement or relocation
costs have, in fact, been included in the final number.
So my understanding is -- as of right now, is that those relocate
costs are not being included in your utility fees -- I'm sorry -- in your
impact -- utility impact fees but instead are now being included in
your utility fees.
Now, there are two problems with that. One is we've already
voted on the utility fee, and that was done, I believe, at the last
meeting, if I'm not mistaken; wasn't it, Leo? Was that -- did we
already vote on the utility fee?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought we did. So now you're
basically suggesting that they're going to be included in the utility
fees, but we already voted on that, and that number was not included
in that calculation.
But what's even more concerning to me is that I have a legal
opinion here that says this should not be included in impact fees. And
so my question is, we have transportation impact fees that clearly
included these utility relocate (sic) in prior years, and it would seem to
me that that's -- that's not legally valid.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. Ma'am, I'm going to try to break this down. You had a
Page 124
February 22, 2011
long discussion there, and I'm going to try to get to your questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Let's -- for the record, in this proposal there is
no relocation cost in the utilities impact fee. There's an addendum --
there's a letter in your packet -- if you would please refer to that --
from Mr. Ory dated 15 February. It's actually the first enclosure. And
if you will go to the third page of that document --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What Page in our agenda?
MR. DeLONY: That will be packet Page 87. If you go to Page
87, you will lay -- he lays out carefully --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can put it on the overhead.
MR. DeLONY: Exactly -- ma'am, I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we put it on the
overhead.
MR. DeLONY: All right. That lays out exactly where we are
with regard to this fee calculation and the inclusion or noninclusion of
relocation costs. Now, this is dealing with the utility piece.
The matter with regard -- that you asked at the end of your
discussion was, well, if you can't put them in the utility impact fee,
how can you put them in the transportation impact fee? I can't answer
that because I didn't -- I'm not -- I'm not the guy on the transportation
side, but I know that when we did this back in 2002, it was fully vetted
and found legally sufficient.
In fact, that was one of the motivations behind this decision in
2002 was that if growth was to pay for growth and we're not able to
put these impact fees -- all but for the construction of the road, the
lines would still stay there. Okay.
Then let's put them in the road impact fee where growth is paying
for growth as part of their impacts -fee calculation. And for a period of
time, from 2002, as I recall, up until last October, those costs
associated with line relocations, used and in useful as opposed, you
know, upsizing or anything else that would be eligible for growth
Page 125
February 22, 2011
impact fees from UDISA (sic), were borne by the transportation
impact fee.
In October this board directed those fees be moved from the
transportation impact fee to public utilities.
We took that guidance, we took that direction, and we did
everything we could to try to keep those impact fees in our
public- utilities impact fee. And all the discussion that you saw on that
14 February letter from Nabors Giblin says you can't do it, Jim. You
can't do it. So we had to recalibrate.
Because it was our opinion, and it was the opinion of our
consultant and others, that they were eligible to some extent. And to
that extent we did it. But when Giblin -- when we got the opinion
from Nabors Giblin in the discussion with the County Attorney's
Office and the county manager, we decided to go with the opinion of
Nabors Giblin that's the 14th of February, the one you read from.
And the response that you're going to see on the 15th is the
readjustment made by Mr. Ory for the impact -fee calculation you see
on today's record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I appreciate that. I do
understand that, and thank you for that clarification.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That still leaves my questions
unanswered.
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am. I haven't finished talking, but if
you'd like me to restate what you asked me. You said, now, Mr.
DeLony, you didn't put it in the impact fees. Now it's over in the user
fees. We already voted on the user fees. I think that's what you said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's part of the issue.
MR. DeLONY: It's been $7 million. And if you look at your
financial impact on your executive summary under financial impact, I
think it was $7 million and some odd -- you know 7.3, something like
that. There is sufficient funding in our capital program, or we can
Page 126
February 22, 2011
defer our capital program to manage that until we do our next rate
study.
Now, I don't have any -- any concerns about shifting those costs
to our user rate in terms of sufficiency of funding at this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- yeah, go ahead. I understand
exactly what you're saying. So you're going to pull it out of reserves
and you're not going to adjust the fees. The point being, though, is we
voted on the fees, and this was a matter that was not brought to our
attention, and there was no intention at the time that we voted on the
fees to pull those money (sic) out of reserves.
MR. OCHS: I believe that's correct. But, Commissioner, as Mr.
DeLony just explained, it was their belief and the rate consultant's
belief that we could put most of the relocate costs into the impact fee.
And, subsequently, with the discussion that we had with outside
counsel, we've made a different recommendation to the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I completely
understand that. The issue still remains that we approved a fee which
did not contemplate the cost of the relocates in the overall budget,
whether or not that money is coming out of reserves or the regular
budget. That's Issue No. 1. 1 mean, that's just a matter of fact,
because you made -- you discovered that your methodology, in fact,
was not correct after I had raised the questions, and now we have
already approved those utility fees, but the basis for our approval did
not factor this new information in. So that's No. 1.
But No. 2, it goes back to the other question that I raised, and that
is, we have been charging impact fees that have on the utility side
included relocates in certain years. I saw a schedule -- you had, like,
600--
MR. DeLONY: Ma'am, there was -- if I may? There was a
strong decision made by this board, 2002, that all relocation of utilities
be in the transportation fee. There was -- one allocation was made
that was in the 2004,1 believe, time frame.
Page 127
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have the notes.
MR. DeLONY: That was made on the advice of the attorney's
office that said that those were continuing projects prior to 2001, and
that's the reason those funds stayed where they were.
There were also aspects of those road projects which would --
made us eligible for impact fees. I have those numbers and specifics.
It was Vanderbilt Road, as I recall, and one other one. But those were
fully vetted and found to be sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Found to be?
MR. DeLONY: Found to be sufficient in terms of were they're
located as far as charges, yes, ma'am. And that was in the two
thousand and -- 2004 study, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how do we -- then okay --
MR. DeLONY: And I would just let you know, that was all in
the user -fee side. I just want to let you -- I know that you got this
chart from me. And if you will look, you'll see that it's in the user -fee
side, if you'll look at that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was on -- let me just look at --
MR. DeLONY: Yeah. You have that chart.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which schedule specifically? Are
you looking at -- I'm looking at that very first one you sent me, the
very --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. I'm going to put it up on the
teleprompt (sic) now. It's a little difficult to read. See if you can
home in on 2004, Tom.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Like, for example, I'm
looking at the relocation projects. Oh, yeah. I see that you've got it in
the -- on the user -fee side.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, I see exactly what you were
saying.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the -- now -- okay. Yep, I'm
with you on that. Got it.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, if I may?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. DeLONY: Here's the bottom line. Now, we've done right
then -- all along, and in October we made a change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
MR. DeLONY: We've made --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've done it right on the utility
side.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. I just want to be -- when I say we,
I mean everybody. I mean where these costs were generated and
solved between the two impacts fees has been right since the
beginning.
There were two changes. In 2002 there was a direction of this
board to put it over in transportation, and in 2010 there was a
recommend- -- the board directed to put it over in utilities. We've
handled that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. DeLONY: I did the very best I could once it came over
here in 2010 to try to mitigate growth- related construction on users. I
was found (sic) that I couldn't do that, not to the extent that I thought
we could, and that's the reason we had to rewire this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I completely understand.
MR. DeLONY: And then with regard to the rates -- let's just go
to that real quick, because you said there was a concern. We're going
to be back here in two years, and we're going to relook the rate study.
That $7 million may not come in about -- there may not be an
expenditure of funds in that -- in the two years that that $7 million
would weigh on us. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Construction plans, construction starts.
But if there was a concern inside that two -year window, I'll be
Page 129
February 22, 2011
the first to come to you with that concern. But right now what I know,
I think our rate case is sufficient to carry us through this two -year
window and -- with the recommendations that we made and that you
approved at the last board meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think the reserves are
sufficiently high where the burden of the additional costs for these
relocates could be pulled out of reserves so that the rate doesn't have
to be affected and the public doesn't have to be adversely burdened,
because we have very high reserves.
MR. DeLONY: Right now we have sufficient reserves for the
level and certainty, as well as our bond covenants and other capital
needs for the utility. We've worked very hard since 2007 to be cost
controlled and revenue centric so we wouldn't have to go out and
spike rates.
But I can't control the unknown. This morning gasoline's over
$3. When we started this study back last year, gasoline was 2.50 or
2.70. So I don't know some of the unknowns.
It's obvious -- this $7 million change, is what I'm trying to
communicate to you, is among many other factors that were
assumptions in the rate case that will be fact here two years from now,
and I'll be back in here to talk to you about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I can summarize what you've
said very simply --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- what was determined after I
raised the question was that, in fact, you could not include it in impact
fees. It had to come out of utility fees, and that since we had already
voted on the utility fees at the prior meeting, it then had to come out of
existing reserves since the rate was already set, and that the citizens of
Collier County will not be affected by a rate increase, notwithstanding
the shift of this expenditure onto the utility -fee side?
MR. DeLONY: I'm not going to make that representation,
Page 130
February 22, 2011
ma'am, because I'd tell you this: If we can't -- if we don't have
sufficient funds at any time to cover these utilities requirements for
funding, I'm back in here. Now, do I think in the next two years I'm
going to be back in here because of this $7 million change? No,
ma'am. That's my assessment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
Now, let me ask you another question. Do I have your assurance
that at no time was there double counting of the expenditure related to
relocates on the utility side as well as the transportation side, that it
was always charged only through transportation?
MR. DeLONY Ma'am, this is the number one concern of
everyone who's reviewed these studies for the last nine years, eight
years, is to make sure that the customer only pays once and he pays
fair and reasonable.
And I can assure you that has been the endeavor from day zero
with regard to all these matters. Not just this matter, but all matters
associated with these impact fees. Every step of the way it was fully
vetted, not only in the public level, at this board level, but through
your various county -- advisory committees, we've had legal counsel.
So I can tell you with all the assurance and all the knowledge that
I have is that we've worked very hard to do that. I can promise you
that in 2002, '3, and '4, there were many, many folks from the
development community and others that were in here just asking that
same question, and we were very due diligent as staff in assuring that
we gave that correct response.
And so, ma'am, I can tell you we haven't double counted
anybody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then it goes back to the other
unanswered question I have that relates to transportation. I mean, if
the opinion of counsel is that these relocates could not be included in
utility impact fees, how could they be included in transportation
impact fees?
Page 131
February 22, 2011
MR. DeLONY: I'm going to give that to the county attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, they're two separate things. When
-- Mr. DeLony's impact fees is to pay for increased population, okay.
If he needs to expand his pipes from like, I don't know, 18 inches to 24
inches, whatever it is, because of incoming population, then -- if that's
the reason why we're replacing pipes, that's impact -fee worthy.
MR. DeLONY: Utility impact fee.
MR. KLATZKOW: Utility- impact -fee worthy. Now, when he's
got to relocate pipes, that's a different story. That comes out of his
ongoing cost --
MR. DeLONY: User fees.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- of doing business, all right.
This county had an aggressive road - building project that we
started back in 2002, 2003, and at that time it was the county manager
-- county manager's opinion, with our office's opinion and upon signed
off by this board, that since the whole purpose of relocating the types
was to put in the new roads, okay, and the whole purpose of the new
roads was for increase in population, then the relocation of the pipes
was transportation related and was only done because of the increase
in population. That's why we were expanding the roads, all right.
It was not a novel idea. We weren't the only ones doing it, but it
was a minority approach, all right. So instead of putting this on the
backs of the existing rate holders, this massive relocation project, we
decided to have growth pay for growth.
Now we're in a position where we no longer have this massive
need to increase roads, we're going back to our normal road - building
project. In a normal road - building environment, the conservative
approach would be, he moves pipes, he pays for the pipes the way
most counties do it, and that's why we're putting it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is the
relocates, when they were done under transportation, were related to
growth and now all of a sudden these relocates are not related to
Page 132
February 22, 2011
growth?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What I'm saying is that the relocate is
-- the only reason -- but for the increase in the population, but for the
road widening projects -- and we had -- and Norman can correct me --
but eight or nine different road projects going at the same time
between Goodlette and Pine and 951.
MR. FEDER: You had 11 at one point.
MR. KLATZKOW: You had 11 projects at one point, okay. To
simply take that cost and put it on the existing rate base would have
been a phenomenal increase in rates. It was felt that it was palpably
unfair to do that since the whole point of relocating the pipes was to
expand for growth, all right.
Now, what I'm saying is that now that we're no longer in that
environment, okay, we decided that we'll go back to a normal range
and we'll go back to having utilities do it.
Can you still do it from transportation? Yes, you can, okay, if it's
-- if it's just for growth. But the normal way most counties do it -- and
we like to be in line with what most counties do -- is to have this as a
public- utility expense on the user end, not on the impact -fee end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what I'm hearing you say is that
you didn't want to burden the users with utilities fees, so instead you
burdened the development industry, and the rationale was that it was
growth related?
MR. KLATZKOW: But for the growth we had, we never would
have moved those pipes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it was growth related?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the -- was that the opinion
that Nabors Giblin gave us at that time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. They've been our counsel on impact
fees for years and years and years, and they are the leading firm on
this.
Page 133
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What you're saying is, none of the
relocations now -- but that all of the growth relocations prior to today
were all related to growth, and now the relocates prospectively, none
of which are related to growth --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, our five -year plan going back a
couple years ago was massive growth in this county. Our five -year
plan now is very, very different. I mean, I could argue three years ago
that we had to do this because you had to get these things in place for
the oncoming population. I don't know you can really make that same
argument now.
MR. DeLONY: Wait -- just to help you a little bit here, ma'am.
I'm not relocating pipes because of anything other than a road job. I
mean, if the road is going -- if the road's being expanded for growth or
whatever reason, we move pipes, we move pipes. All but for that
road, it'd stay in the ground where they are, unless we have to upsize.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, for example, we have all these
new roads that are being built right now. Those relocates have nothing
to do with growth? Because I thought all the roads that we're building
are growth related. I mean, like, for example, Oil Well Road and all
these other roads out there, those are not roads that we're building
because of growth?
MR. DeLONY: I want to be clear on the record about that, now,
ma'am. That's not in the water /sewer district, that particular road you
spoke to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, forgive me.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I apologize.
MR. DeLONY: I want to -- and so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just if you could give me an
example that is.
MR. DeLONY: Well, for example, we widened -- let's see,
what's a good one, Norm -- Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's a good
Page 134
February 22, 2011
one. I mean, it's right in the heart of the district. There were pipes
that were alongside that old -- you've been here long enough to know
what it looked like before we started. And we had to move those
pipes outside of that. And there was extensive relocation costs
associated with Vanderbilt Road.
In fact, with one stage of the game -- and I'll say this, and I think
a couple commissioners might agree with me that the only difference
between a road project and a utility project in Collier County was
asphalt, because there was so much relocation required as we built this
county going forward, as described by counsel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what roads are in the pipeline
now that fall within your jurisdiction that are being built because of
growth?
MR. DeLONY: I have a list of them here I could put up on the
teleprompter, but they're insignificant compared to what Jeff was
speaking to earlier. But they are costed out.
The county manager would tell you that this list is not -- is the
look -ahead list. It's not necessarily exactly what we're going to do, but
I have to plan ten years in advance as to what the cost will be when I
do a rate study.
And so if we've got that -- you've got that list there for me,
please. And here's the list coming up, ma'am.
And, Norm, if you want to speak to this, you're welcome to do
so.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
your Growth Management Administrator.
You've got Davis and 951, state facilities, which would have
been addressed anyway. You've got 41/951, and you've got a section
of 951 between Golden Gate and Pine Ridge. That's the only thing we
have in road projects within the five years.
The other things you're showing, there are other things coming
out of the state perspective. Beyond that I think the East Trail on 41 is
Page 135
February 22, 2011
another one that's being looked at.
Another key to what Jeff presented to you also is the fact that up
until more recently, while there's also the slowdown in expansion of
the road program and, therefore, the movement of utilities, you also
have a road program that's moving outside of the utility service area,
whereas before it was predominantly within that utility service area.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Norm.
Commissioner, I just want to trailer that, if I may. And I know
I'm supposed to be waiting for the question, so I'll just anticipate
you're going to ask me this question.
That $7 million that you see in your fiscal impact, that's over the
next 10 -year period, and that's the best guess, best estimate, of what
Mr. Feder and his staff can tell us is the way we're going. It will be
individual decisions on a project -by- project basis by this board. We
may not -- you know, we're going to incur those costs, and that's our
best guess at this time.
I also want to put on the record, so you'll know, and just full
disclosure, that there are two kinds of relocate costs in my business.
There is the kind that Norm causes, and then there's the state, the state
DOT. Those costs have always been in our user fee.
We can't get impact fees from the state. So when the state has a
project and they say, okay, we're going to widen Davis Boulevard or
some other state road and there's utilities that need to be relocated
because of that widening or those -- that -- conflicts associated,
whatever, that's borne by users. I want to make sure you're clear on
that, because I don't want you coming back later and saying I didn't
tell you that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the disclosure.
So if I understand correctly, of the relocates historically where
everything was charged to impact fees and nothing was charged to
user fees, those all were growth - related relocates?
Page 136
February 22, 2011
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was next, you or Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is kind of simple after all that.
So I just wanted to know why the three people in DSAC voted against.
MR. DeLONY: I really can't say.
Do you know, Tom? Can you represent that?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, for the record again, Tom Wides.
I was there for all those meetings. There was discussion that
there should be no impact fees, okay. There was discussions that the
impact fees didn't drop as much as others did, but we still had to do it
based on what we could calculate and we could see based on the plant
and equipment that we had in place. So it's almost to pick one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand what
Commissioner Hiller was asking, and I need to see this chart. I can't
see it on the visualizer where it is. I need to see what projects. You
said Davis Boulevard.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You also said that Davis
Boulevard is already being charged user fees for that state road,
correct?
MR. DeLONY: It would be the part that the -- that is going to be
the cost to the county that I can't -- that we're talking about in this
regard. It's all going to come out of user fees in the end here with this
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're correct, but I'm
Page 137
February 22, 2011
wondering if you already have that money, and you're calculating
you're going to need that money, so you didn't reduce the user fees as
much as you should have.
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I didn't double count the user fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can I be reassured that?
MR. DeLONY: Because I -- because I know what we put in
those studies, and I know what costs were allocated for those projects,
and none of it was double counted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, the reason -- when the
transportation impact fees come -- came and we removed those
relocation (sic), because Norm says, you know what, we don't have
any projects that we're going to do within the water and utility area.
And you got --
MR. DeLONY: These are the projects that I did receive from
transportation that were in the water /sewer district, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And you didn't --
you're anticipating you're going to need another $7 million over the
next five years; is that what you're saying?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, not additional. It's in -- in this chart you
see the schedule of expenses over the period of record, ten years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're collecting -- the
bottom line is you're collect- -- you always have collected, and you
just said that for state projects?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Norm is not doing any projects
within the water and sewer district that relocates need to happen.
You're going to have to show me -- there's one, Collier Boulevard and
Green. You have a pipe there?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, we do. All these projects you see listed
there have an effect on utilities as we know them right today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you didn't anticipate that?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, not in our -- no, sir. Not in -- not in our
Page 138
February 22, 2011
user fee, if that's what you're saying I'm double counting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeLONY: They would have only been in our impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Normally would have been in
transportation impact fee?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Okay. Now I understand
it.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The transportation -- I mean,
there's a lot of fees -- thank you so much. There's a lot of fees --
impact fees that have gone -- like Norm's went down 50 percent.
There's -- Amy, help me out. We had 20 percent in, I think,
parks and rec?
MR. OCHS: I think 11.9.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it 11.9? We have 9 percent
here, anticipating no growth.
Amy, what was those percentage; do you remember?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record.
Government buildings, law enforcement, EMS, they each went
down in the range of 20 to in excess of 30 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. PATTERSON: Libraries, 40 to 60.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we have impact -- we have
one utility fee -- water and sewer's going down 9 percent, but yet
we're using -- we should be using the same calculations for the need
for that expansion of that.
And can you tell me -- try to explain to me what the --
MR. DeLONY: Let me see if I can -- if I can break it down for
you. A large measure of the costs associated with the impact fee is
retirement of existing debt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A large?
Page 139
February 22, 2011
MR. DeLONY: Okay. The majority of the money that will be
generated will go toward the debt repayment that has currently been
held by the county, by the county utility, for growth- related
construction that we currently have in place, available capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: There's also forecast -- and your AUIR doesn't
track this because we think it's a little optimistic in terms of what we
see. The AUIR, I believe, told me that you should anticipate about
2,000 ERCs on a population basis each of the next several years, and
we believe that that's optimistic. We think it's closer to 1,000, and that
tracks pretty well, and it's in our executive summary exactly how we
got to that number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe you're right.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, what about the existing
capacity not being utilized; is impact fees paying for that?
MR. DeLONY: The impact fees paid for the initial construction,
and we borrowed the money. The impact fees will be used to offset
that debt associated with buying those facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- is it the AFPI fee
that pays for that -- the maintenance of that, and who's charged for
that?
MR. DeLONY: You have two components of debt; you have
principal and interest. The AFPI is the component that allows us to
pay for the interest. If I don't have a -- I'm not allowed to use the
impact fee directly to collect the charges for interest on
impact- fee - related debt. So we're using essentially a fee for that. And
we started that in 2006, because, otherwise, we'd have to take that
interest payment from the users.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeLONY: And so this gets closer to "he who benefits pays"
in terms of assessing the AFPI fee.
Page 140
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- this consultant is stating
that other communities in the State of Florida's using this AFPI.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they also charging impact
fees?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So no impact fees is used
to -- is being charged -- or no maintenance fees is being charged in the
impact fee?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: There's just one speaker, and that is William
Spinelli.
MR. SPINELLI: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record,
my name is William Spinelli. I'm here today as a local homebuilder
and as a private citizen.
I appreciate very much the conversation. It seems like the staff
has done a considerable amount of work and tried to get their hands
around this, but I just want to make a couple quick points.
We start the conversation with the same basic premise that we're
going to charge the largest impact fee that we can hire consultants to
create under the auspice that growth must pay for growth.
Maybe it's time to think about that differently when we have tens
of thousands of people without jobs and without work and ready to
lose their homes.
Second comment. I'd like to understand the legal opinion that
came from the attorney as it relates to why we can't charge this fee
anymore but at one time we could. I don't think we fully understand
that. And I think there should be a time to determine when that
happened. Should we have stopped to charge that fee in October
Page 141
February 22, 2011
when this conversation started? Because people have still been paying
it over on the transportation side. Should it have been a year before or
two years before or three years before? Because that's when the
population stopped coming here, okay.
I'm just going to read through some of my general comments.
There seems to be a lot of funds moving between different
accounts in governments, transfers, loans, from utilities to cover this
shortfall or that shortfall. Specifically in the utilities side of the thing,
I think it might be helpful to understand, what is the total amount of
debt that we've borrowed in anticipation of all this water and sewer
that we needed that's excess? How many people will that serve?
What's the debt service that the community's paying? Are the impact
fees enough to pay for it, or are we using other monies that some day
we're going to have to figure out to repay back? If that's not the case
in this fund, I know it to be the case in others. Okay.
So those are my comments. It might be helpful. The
commission may choose to try and find some more information
related to what's happening with this. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have staff answer
those questions, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He already did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but one more time.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Ut- -- the
impact -fee study answers all those questions specifically in terms of
what is our total debt load. The answer's specifically, what is our
current system capacity that's available, you know, as we go forward,
and it lays that out in terms of the finances associated with retiring that
debt.
Now, it -- and that's the purpose of that study -- and lays that out
carefully. Now, I can't speak to the other issues that were raised, but
those specific answers and the result of that analysis is the impact -fee
Page 142
February 22, 2011
calculation which I have presented to you today and what
subsequently -- previously had been submitted to you from the
transportation folks in terms of removal of a hereto - before
impact- fee - related expense that's been now moved to public utilities.
Not in our impact fees; in our user fees.
So I think those answers -- and we -- in our public outreach,
those were the questions that were answered and asked and hopefully
explained throughout all that.
And, you know, we'll be back in front of you two years from now
laying it out all again. We'll be back in here in AUIR in October,
November when we'll look at -- you know, we'll look at our growth
plan and we'll be looking at our capital feasibility of that growth plan,
ensure that our adequate financing is in place.
I hope I've answered all those questions, but I don't know that I
did, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you have, Mr. DeLony.
And one question regarding the impact fees. If we do see a decrease
in growth more so, or we hold the present level of growth where it is
now, which is next to zero, we have to wait another two years before
we can evaluate the situation?
MR. DeLONY: Typically you want to -- you want to have a
period of consideration long enough -- you have -- you can't be doing
an impact -fee study every year. I mean, at some stage you're going to
have to have predictability so your development community can know
what your costs are and predict those costs as they make their
development plans.
Our special act requires that we come back to you every three
years minimally for an impact -fee relook. I'm recommending two
years this time, because the volatility that we currently have purely in
our population numbers -- and we're going to get a census here in the
next year that's probably going to change many of the hereto - before
assumptions with facts.
Page 143
February 22, 2011
And I felt like if we went three years instead of two, I would miss
the opportunity of bringing it to nexus based on that new census
population of what would be our go -ahead plan for ensuring
concurrency and our capital infrastructure associated with water and
sewer.
And that's the reason that you have a recommendation for a
two -year relook this time, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. DeLony.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to -- I have one more
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You make mention of the census.
It's actually coming out in the next few months.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't think it's appropriate,
based on the statement you just made, to approve this today. If we
know the census numbers are coming out in a few months, you should
re- evaluate the study in light of real numbers. Why should we sit
around and wait two years when we have the census numbers in two
months?
MR. DeLONY: The board made a decision in October reference
the transportation impact fees and directed me to be back here at this
time with my impact -fee study.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're only talking a couple
of months.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. But, again, that's the direction I
received. Do I believe it's going to be, in the short term, as impactive
as the long term? I really can't say, ma'am. Is it going to affect the
fees one way or the other? I don't think it's going to affect it
significantly more than we already have now.
One of the things that I would like to put into consideration for
Page 144
February 22, 2011
all of you -all, and it's in your study, is that we're already charging less
in impact fee in terms of actual dollars for our facilities than what we
paid for it in some respects. So I believe our nexus is good. I really
believe we have an excellent nexus in our rates and our study. But in
regard to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why have you -- why is it less?
MR. DeLONY: Because our ability to sell it off in terms of level
of service has gone -- has gotten better. Our level -of- service
standards, people aren't demanding as much on an ERC basis, and
we're able to sell those ERCs at a lower rate.
We also know that our construction costs as we go forward --
because this is a forward- looking plan -- are much less than those
which we incurred previously.
So you've got -- you've got that working into it. That's -- you
remember, we look at the next ten years of change, we write the
prescription for the cost of that change, we add the debt, and that's
your impact fee. So you've got some -- you've got some really -- and
with regard to our cost and where we're at, I don't believe that we are
inconsistent. I was speaking more to Commissioner Coletta in terms
of the future, in terms of its capacity that was spoken to by the
speaker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, based on what you just said,
you're anticipating fewer users and you're anticipating lower costs.
MR. DeLONY: I'm anticipating our rate of change, that would
be new users, to be much less than what's been forecast hereto before.
We were at 3- and 4,000 ERCs a year in growth. Now we're down
around about 1,000. So that's a significant change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And lower costs?
MR. DeLONY: The cost associated with the initial construction
-- yes, ma'am. Right now the trend is down from what it was in 2006
and'7 when we incurred most of these costs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So based on what you're saying --
Page 145
February 22, 2011
let me just look at one schedule, one second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the -- what did (sic)
the ERC that was calculated in the model?
MR. DeLONY: Thousand per year for the next -- for the growth,
a thousand ERCs per year for the next two years -- or how far did you
go out, Rob? Five years.
And that's about -- and that's -- I think that's -- I think that's
consistent with what we've seen the last two years, even in this
downturn. We're hoping for better. But that's -- I believe that's the
correct approach in terms of how we're going to retire the revenue,
regain the revenue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're -- the projections in
your study -- I was just -- I finally found that one schedule. The
projections in your study are exactly the same projections that
transportation is using in their study in terms of growth?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That shouldn't be, because
they're two different areas.
MR. DeLONY: Well, let me be clear about their assumptions
and our assumptions. First of all, in our case we're population driven
on a per - gallons basis. Their analysis is done on something other than
population. So if they're exactly the same, that would by -- that would
be very difficult to say. Are they consistent? Yes, ma'am. But to say
they're exactly the same, no, ma'am; different approaches, same
outcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're consistent in terms of
them looking at trips, which are a function of population.
MR. DeLONY: I'm not going to make that -- I'm not going to
make that jump. A trip is a trip, an ERC is an ERC, and I don't know
that they're the same.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're certainly not the same, but
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
Page 146
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- there should be, you know, a
correlation between the basis for both.
MR. DeLONY: You want to speak to that?
MR.ORY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, one simple explanation is that you
don't supply water to the entire county, to the entire population.
MR. ORY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The transportation people supply roads
to everybody in the county. That's why it's different. Okay.
MR. DeLONY: We're at your pleasure, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you make a motion, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta for approval, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
A question by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just a comment. My source
of information, person said that maintenance is being used as part of
the calculation of impact fees. I'm going to vote for the motion, and if
1 find that the information is correct that was told to me, then I will
reconsider it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fair enough.
Okay. 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, like sign.
Page 147
February 22, 2011
(No response.)
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2011 -42: AMENDING SCHEDULE SEVEN OF
APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -731 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING,
OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE.
THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES A PROPOSED DECREASE IN
RATES FOR ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY
INVESTED, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 1, 2011,
FOR SCHEDULE SEVEN. (COMPANION TO ITEMS #8A AND
#8C) — ADOPTED
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Chair, point of order. I need Item 8A and
8B as part of that motion. I assumed that they were.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He didn't read them off; County
Manager didn't read them both off.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. It is a companion item to B, if I might read
B very quickly. Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: 8B is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
amending Schedule 7 of Appendix A to Section 4 of Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001 -73, as amended, Collier County Water /Sewer
District Uniform Billing, Operating, and Regulatory Standards
Ordinance. This amendment includes a proposed decrease in rates for
allowance for funds prudently invested with an effective date of
March 1, 2011, for Schedule 7. And it is a companion item to 8A and
8C.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(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 carries unanimously for 8B.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask just a question of the
board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because of what happened -- and I
just want to clarify. What's -- is utilities going to come back for a
budget amendment, or how is this going to work to move the money
from reserves for relocates if they do come up?
MR. DeLONY: What I'll do, ma'am -- just to answer your que-
-- is if they come up and we don't have the money, I'll come to you for
a budget amendment at the time that we do. But right now I'm not -- I
don't intend to do that until I see that need on the horizon, and I will
come back to you for that approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Thank you so much.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, would you like to take care of 8C,
the companion?
Page 149
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to our time - certain.
MR. OCHS: Time - certain?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unless, Board Members, do you think
you can get through 8C real fast or not?
MR. OCHS: 8C is the companion to moving the relocate back
into transportation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the transportation component of the
same issue.
MR. OCHS: You had heard this once before in October. It's the
pleasure of the board, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's try to get through it quickly then.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2011 -05: AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE) BY AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A, TO
REFLECT THE PHASE II RATE SCHEDULE AS SET FORTH IN
THE "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
COST AND CREDIT UPDATE STUDY" ADOPTED ON
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION
IN RATES; AND PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE
OF MARCH 1, 2011. (COMPANION TO ITEMS #8A AND #813) —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 8C is, again, real quickly, recommendation to adopt
an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances, Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
by amending the road impact fee rate schedule, which is Schedule 1 of
Appendix A, to reflect the Phase II rate schedule as set forth in the
Page 150
February 22, 2011
Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update
Study adopted on September 28, 2010, which provides for a reduction
in rates, and providing for a delayed effective date of March 1, 2011.
Amy Patterson is here to answer any questions or make a
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, this is just the other side of the
coin that we discussed.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The elimination of the relocate charges
from transportation.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you assure us that there has been no
double counting in that process from the transportation side of the
house?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And your calculation of the rates
is supported by legal counsel as well as the impact -fee consultant?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only thing I want to clarify is
that what you're reducing was based on your historical analysis which
factored large growth?
MS. PATTERSON: What we're reducing is the utility cost per
lane mile, which is recent within last -- those are bids within the last
three years.
When we did the cost and credit update, we took a look back at
projects to come up with the -- the overall cost per lane mile. We just
broke it down into the individual components. We also looked
Page 151
February 22, 2011
forward to see what are representative projects going forward. So it's
a little bit different than -- you might want to turn to Norman for this.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. Again, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation -- Growth Management Administrator.
Commissioner, I think the key is that each time we do a study --
and we recently did an update on the study -- those fees are
established in there, so that rate, the current rate is what we're taking
out, is everything that was utility related so that going forward there'll
be no utilities in the transportation impact fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(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: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #I OD
RFP #10 -5541 TO PARADISE ADVERTISING AND
MARKETING, INC. FOR TOURISM MARKETING SERVICES
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
STANDARD CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,350,000
Page 152
February 22, 2011
FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE APPROVAL -
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MARCH 22, 2011 BCC
MEETING, WITH THE CURRENT CONTRACT CONTINUING
AND HAVE COUNTY MANAGER, COUNTY ATTORNEY AND
STAFF TO BRING BACK A FULL REPORT OF THE FINDINGS
OF THE NEW EVIDENCE — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now that brings us to our time - certain
item, which is l OD.
MR. OCHS: It's IOD, sir. This item's continued from the
February 8, 2011, BCC meeting. Recommendation to approve the
award of RFP No. 10 -5541 to Paradise Advertising and Marketing,
Incorporated, for tourism and marketing services, and authorize the
Chairman to sign the standard contract in the amount of $2,350,000
following County Attorney Office approval.
Mr. Wert is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Five, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, okay.
MR. OCHS: Jack, you need the computer or --
MR. WERT: It's frozen up right at this moment. Let's see if we
can get this up here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wasn't this brought back by
Commissioner Hiller?
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then why don't we let Commissioner
Hiller ask her questions or make her statements.
MR. OCHS: It's the pleasure of the board, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we going to need some time? How
much time do we think we need, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I mean before you're ready to go.
Page 153
February 22, 2011
Should we take a break now or not?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think they're just setting up the --
you might want to take a minute break and let staff set up their --
MR. WERT: I'm ready.
MR. OCHS: We're ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you --
MS. RAINEY: I have to be connected first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, Jennifer, can I please have a
copy of what you just printed out, the timeline, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll take about a five- minute
break.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we ready? Commissioner Hiller, are
you ready?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you. Is the mike on?
Can you all hear me?
MR. OCHS: You have a live mike, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Let's go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The reason I brought this matter back for reconsideration is
because after the last meeting, information came to my attention that
made it necessary for me to bring this back in order for me to be able
to change my vote.
And what I'd like to do today is share with you the information
that I am basing my decision on to change my previous approval of
this contract.
I know there has been a lot of question with respect to the
donations that were made by Paradise. And when the press has asked
me about, you know, what I intended to speak of today, I told them
Page 154
February 22, 2011
that there were a number of factors that were causing me to change my
mind. And the donation only plays one part of the reason that I am
changing my decision.
With respect to the donation, one thing that I did was I prepared a
timeline which will be on the overhead for your viewing. And let me
also just say, I've put together a package of information that came to
my attention subsequent to the approval of this contract that I am
going to make available to the public at their request so we have
everything organized. No one has to go hunt and seek. It's all there
for you, including a summary analysis that I did with respect to the
contract as it relates back to the proposal and to the RFP.
And the reason I mention the donation -- going back to the
timeline we have on the overhead -- is because, when I was reviewing
the question of the donation and as I was reviewing the information
related to this contract after the vote, what I found was there was
reference to the pledges of the two $50,000 in the proposal made by
Paradise. And if you all want to take a look at the timeline on the
overhead, it basically gives you an overview that summarizes
basically what happened and what led to the approval at the January
25th meeting.
At that January 25th meeting, we did not -- the board, I should
say, did not receive a copy of the contract till about between four and
five clock the night before, really leaving no time to properly analyze
the terms of the contract.
The RFP was not included as backup. The proposal was not
included as backup. And so, as a result, there was a great deal of
information that did not come forward that did not allow me to
properly cast my vote.
Going over the timeline with respect to the donation, just in
summary -- and I'm not going to address all the points. I'm just going
to hit on a few points that, you know, are affecting my decision here
today.
Page 155
February 22, 2011
The -- Paradise's offer was -- to reduce its commissions was
made on January 25th at the Tourist Development Council meeting in
2010, which is a year ago. And at that time Paradise offered to reduce
its commissions by way of a discount on its condition conditioned
upon them receiving another million dollars added to advertising,
redirecting funding from the beach reserves.
And Paradise at that meeting also offered to take the TDC's
directions as to the donations. And the TDC essentially directed at
that time that Paradise should, in fact, collect the commissions from
the Board of County Commissioners -- I'm sorry -- from the county, I
should say, and then donate a hundred thousand in cash donations
back to the Marco Island Museum.
And subsequent to that, the very next day, the Board of County
Commissioners went ahead and they approved the $50,000 from
Paradise to be directed to the Marco Island Museum. And that was to
be used as a matching gift, because the City of Marco was -- had made
an offer to contribute funds towards the purchase of displays. They
were short of funds, and the City of Marco very generously offered to
put up the money if there was a matching gift on behalf of the county.
And so 50,000 from Paradise's donation went towards that match.
And then on March 15th, the TDC approved 1.975 million and
increased advertising funding to -- paid to Paradise for its services.
On April 13, 2010, the BCC approved 1,875,000 as a change
order on Paradise's contract with Collier County for advertising
services as a consent - agenda item, and the funds were moved from
emergency advertising and beach reserves.
Then on April 27, 2010, there's an email from Commissioner
Coyle's aide indicating Paradise had sent a pledge letter for 50,000 for
the Freedom Memorial.
And then on May 25th there was a report on the BCC's
increasing to the advertising budget.
And then on July 22, 2010, a selection committee was appointed,
Page 156
February 22, 2011
and that selection committee was the selection committee appointed to
make the decision as to who would get the next year's tourism
advertising contract for the county, and that is the contract that we
approved two meetings ago to Paradise Advertising.
And this was one of the first very significant facts that really
caused me concern about how this contract was selected. The
selection committee that was appointed included Jack Wert, the
director of tourism, who approves the expenditures pursuant to this
contract, and three of Jack Wert's employees.
There was only one person on that committee, one voting
member of that committee, who was not part of the tourism division,
and that was Jamie French from CDES operations.
And one of the things with respect to selection committees, when
it comes to procurement, as a matter of policy, you don't want to stack
selection committees with the staff that will be servicing the contract.
You try to basically have a -- you know, a broad spectrum of
employees represented on that committee so it doesn't become a
biased decision. And I mean, I think that speaks for itself. It's for
obvious reasons. So that was one of my first issues of concern.
Then on July 16, 2010, the TDC approved a million- dollar
budget increase for additional tourism advertising, again, with
Paradise being the beneficiary. And then on August 20th, the RFP for
the advertising for this particular contract closed.
And then between the period of September 29, 2010, and October
49 2010, Paradise was selected as the contractor for this fiscal year,
which is fiscal year 2011, with a potential three -year term by the
selection committee made up of the director of tourism, Jack Wert, his
three employees, and that one employee from another division.
On December 7th, Paradise issued two checks for 50,000 apiece,
one from the Freedom -- one for the Freedom Memorial and one for
the Collier County Museum earmarked for the Marco Museum.
And then on January 24, 2011, last month, the TDC approved
Page 157
February 22, 2011
Paradise's contract as recommended by the selection committee and as
presented by Jack Wert; however, the contract was never included in
the backup information presented, and basically the TDC approved it
without having seen it.
And then on January 25th, which is the meeting where the Board
of County Commissioners approved this contract, it was again
presented with, in this case, the contract being given to the board the
night before, and that was really at my request because I was very
concerned. I didn't want to. approve, you know, this without having
actually seen the contract, and I was told that it was a standard
contract. Well, I can assure you this is very far from a standard
contract.
The contract was approved on that date based on the information
that was presented.
So I then had time to review the contract. And when I reviewed
the terms of the contract -- and I had asked staff give me, you know,
their summary of what this contract was about, and that was prior to
my vote at that meeting.
When I actually had time to sit down and review the contract,
what I found was that the representation made by staff did not match
what, in fact, the terms of this contract provided. And I then went
back and I got the underlying proposal that was submitted by Paradise,
and I got the RFP that was issued on the date that I specified or I
highlighted in the timeline, and I found that they were all inconsistent,
that, in fact, the information requested in the RFP and presented in the
RFP did not match what was in the proposal and that what was in the
contract did not match what was in the proposal and did not match
what was in the RFP. And so I, obviously, became very concerned.
And I'm going to go over in part some of the issues that I thought
were concerning. But, you know, for the benefit of the commissioners
here today and for the benefit of the public, I prepared a five -page
summary that basically compares each of these documents item by
Page 158
February 22, 2011
item for your review. And I think you will come to the same
conclusion as I did once you review that analysis.
There's another factor which I became aware of also subsequent
to my vote which also added to my decision to change my approval of
this contract, and that was I found out that, in fact, the staffing that we
had made our decision upon when we approved this contract -- and
one of the elements in the RFP was basically a requirement that the --
the proposal include who would be servicing our account, because
obviously when you're dealing with something like advertising
services and creative services, it's very important to know who you're
dealing with, what their resume is, and how you will be staffed, you
know, by the advertising agency.
You know, artistic talent is a unique talent, and you just can't
replace one person with another when you're looking at that kind of
service.
And I found that there -- an article had been written in the Tampa
Bay Business Journal, and essentially the article provided that Mr.
Harries and Mr. DiMascio, as I understand, the two principals of
Paradise, had been in litigation. In fact, they were in litigation at the
time that they came before the Board of County Commissioners. And
there was -- the suit was actually filed by Mr. DiMascio, who's the
vice - president, or I should say the former vice - president and creative
director of Paradise Advertising, and the claim was for dissolution of
the corporation due to irreconcilable differences.
Now, that was not made known to the Board of County
Commissioners, and that suit was filed December 7th.
So after the selection by the selection committee, after -- I'm
sorry, before the -- yeah, after the selection by the selection
committee, however, before it came before the TDC in January and
before it came to -- do I have that right? Yeah -- and before it came to
the Board of County Commissioners in January.
The suit was actually settled on, I believe it was -- and you can
Page 159
February 22, 2011
correct me if I'm mistaken -- but it was -- it was, I think, settled, like,
January 27th. And I actually -- I have the court docket, so you all are
welcome to see this. If I'm mistaken by the date, the actual docket is
in my records. That was not disclosed.
And why this is very significant is because in the proposal the
person who was represented as our creative director for this account
was Mr. DiMascio. And it's my understanding Mr. DiMascio has now
left the firm, and Mr. DiMascio has created his own firm.
And it's also my understanding that the two employees who
service the Naples office are also gone. And I'm not sure if they went
with DiMascio or not. But the bottom line is, the key personnel
related to this contract are no longer with Paradise.
Now, I'd like to go back to what I was talking about earlier, and
that is the reconciliation of the terms between the RFP, the proposal,
and the contract. And I'd like to begin with the budget and basically
what this contract was advertised as -- you know, what was -- what the
proposal was and what actually came back in the contract that we
approved.
And it's actually broken down in three categories: Promotion and
advertising, emergency funds, and museum. The RFP provided that
promotion and advertising, it would be a $2,100,000 budget, and then
for emergency funds it was up to 1.5 million as needed, and with
respect to museums, there was no budget for museum advertising and
that it could be allocated -- what it said specifically, the budget may be
allocated to advertising, promotion, and public relations from a
separate fund and added to the above dollars.
Now, obviously the first problem with that is that when you put
out an RFP, you don't say, okay, here's our total budget, tell us how
you're going to spend the whole thing. So I mean, just from an RFP
development standpoint, I had some concern with that.
But that doesn't go to the heart of the issue, which is that the
response in the proposal and the response in the contract came back
Page 160
February 22, 2011
completely different.
The proposal came back with the following: With respect to
promotion and advertising, there were actually three budget options
presented. One was 2 million, one was 2.825 million, and one was 3
million for advertising and production. On top of that, there was
300,000 that would be billed annually for administration.
The proposal also included a statement that these services will
cost 2.4 million which consists of 2.1 million net of discounts for
print, TV, online ads, plus 300,000 for account administration, plus
creative and digital services to be billed hourly within budget by the
job.
The contract says something completely different. The contract
says that the agency will receive 300,000 as a flat fee for
administration, basically $25,000 a month; that the agency will also
receive 2 million billed net of discounts, but it doesn't say net of
commissions; that the discounts will be passed to the county; and then
over $2 million that the county would be billed at gross reflecting a 15
percent commission, and this time there's no mention of discounts.
With respect to emergency funds, as I said, the RFP said 1.5
million as needed. The proposal came back as follows: No extra
charge as part of the fee and that the PR staff would be available as
needed, and that, number two, the creative and digital would be billed
hourly within budget by job.
The contract provides something completely different. The
contract provides that, again, that $25,000 a month, you know, for a
total of $300,000 a year in administrative costs would apply towards
the emergency funding, that that 2 million billed net of discounts and
for over 2 million billed at gross reflecting the 15 percent commission
without any mention of vendor discounts would apply. Completely
different than what was in the proposal, completely different than
what was in the RFP.
And then with respect to the museums, as I said, there was no
Page 161
February 22, 2011
mention of a museum budget. And then in the proposal, it was silent
as to museum pricing, but separately it did state creative and digital
billed would be billed hourly within budget by job. And then in the
contract, it was stated as 50,000 billed at gross, reflecting a 15 percent
commission and silent as to discounts.
Now, in the RFP here's what was provided with respect to the
scope. The scope specifically said that payment would -- that
basically the billing should be either less than 15 percent commission
or a fee in lieu of these commissions. And as I've pointed out to you
from the earlier discussion, that clearly was not the case in the
contract.
In the proposal there is no percentage specified for commissions
at all. It states a hold- the -line position and then talks about pro bono
work and mentions, you know, the donations, lists the pledges to the
Marco Museum and to the Freedom Memorial, and -- yep.
So, basically, the significant issue here being that the proposal
did not provide for the commissions, did not provide for a fee in lieu
of commission, and the contract, as I mentioned to you earlier, does
not reconcile to what was in the proposal or what was in the RFP.
Again, citing that 300,000 fee, you know, the billings up to two
million where the county pays commissions, and then over two
million where the county pays at gross reflecting a 15 percent
commission, with emergency being billed the same way.
The RFP also required, you know, a full -time staffed office, and
this was agreed to in the proposal; however, the issue then became,
you know, to provide information about staffing. And as I mentioned
to you earlier, there was a problem with respect to that, because the
staffing that was represented in the proposal is not the staffing that
will be available to us pursuant to this contract.
And, you know, there is a provision in the contract that does
relate back to staffing and key personnel, and it does state that we
have the ability to approve a change in personnel; however, this
Page 162
February 22, 2011
contract was presented based on staffing which was historical to this
contract and, obviously, the most important person being that creative
director.
As one constituent emailed me and said, to the extent that we're
-- that, you know, you don't have the creative director and the Naples
staff present, I mean, you don't even -- you know, you might as well
just rebid the whole thing just on that alone.
The RFP required the financial ability to pay media and
production. The proposal included a -- it included an accounting letter
Dun & Bradstreet reference, but the contract, by contrast, has a
provision requiring the county to issue a liability letter to vendors
which is contrary to the reimbursement provision.
The RFP addressed a subcontractor portion to this budget and
required disclosure of who the subconsultants or subcontractors would
be. And Paradise's response in their proposal was that they indicated
no subcontractors would be required and did not name any
subcontractors in their proposal. This was on Page 4 of their proposal.
And then with respect to the contract, the contract is completely
silent as to, you know, subcontractors or subconsultants.
Item 6 of the RFP under the scope addresses the fee for service
basis including all staff -time billing only for creative time and
out -of- pocket costs with no markups applicable for vendor or
subcontractor services.
And what the proposal provided for was that there would be the
300,000 fee which includes certain hourly staffing, and a 2 percent
material fee without any statement as to what this relates back to. The
contract, by contrast, provides all materials and services will be billed
at cost.
And then there were provisions with respect to billing and
mileage and phones and fax and copying and, essentially, there in the
RFP it said no extra billing would be allowed, and then in the proposal
it was essentially silent, and then in the contract it started adding all
Page 163
February 22, 2011
these provisions related to all these items. For example,
travel /mileage reimbursed pursuant to statute, you know, actual
telephone long- distance charges, actual fax charges, in- office
photocopying, and actual photocopying charges during travel.
Now, there's, again, in the proposal, you know, in Tab 2, a
request for the description of the proposed team and the respective
roles and, of course, as I had mentioned earlier, that's where the
proposal includes, you know, Mr. DiMascio and the Naples' office
staffing and then where the contract, you know, provides conditions
regarding changes in key personnel and where nothing was brought to
the board's attention with respect to that.
Now, the RFP in Tab 3 addresses the total project costs and
estimated days duration including hours and basically wants that
information provided and, there again, it goes back to that the proposal
has three different budgets. And as I mentioned earlier -- and the
timeline presented in the proposal runs from October 2010 to
September 2011, but the timeline in the proposal does not conform to
the contract start date, which is February 2011.
The contract, by contrast, does not provide for a total project
cost. There is no maximum dollar amount. There is no estimated
calendar days duration, no estimated hours, and the contract obviously
is dated February 2011, which is, you know, different than the
timeline, and there's no adjustment for that change.
Now, there is an issue with respect to staffing, because one of the
things that was basically stated in the proposal, that there would be a
hold- the -line with respect to the fee and the commission structure, but
what was not stated in the proposal was that there would be a
hold- the -line with respect to the hourly rates for the creative and
design that would be billed hourly.
And so I went to see what happened between the last contract and
this contract, and I have an analysis here. And basically what
happened was that the increase over the prior contract was very
Page 164
February 22, 2011
substantial. There was, on average, a 35 percent increase with respect
to the billable rates. There are 13 new billable positions which are
added to the prior contract's positions with hourly rates ranging from
100 to $250 per hour, and that's very significant, and the reason being
is because obviously with that $2 million threshold with an increase in
staffing at, you know, substantially higher rates, getting to that $2
million threshold, which puts you into the gross billing, is a very
significant factor.
Now, in Tab 7 of the RFP, there are -- there were standard
documents included that addressed, for example, conflicts of interest.
And one of the things I found out, again, subsequent to my approval,
was that this particular company actually represents counties that are
in competition with us. So, you know, obviously there is a conflict of
interest when you've got an advertising agency doing tourism
advertising for gulf coast counties that we are competing against for
tourism dollars.
The contract, by contrast, has absolutely no provision whatsoever
for any conflicts which, to me, is concerning.
Now at the end, the RFP and the proposal both were included in
this contract by reference with completely contradictory provisions to
what the contract provided. So I was -- I was very concerned about
that.
I actually went back and did a little bit of analysis on these
billings and what the contract allows for, and I found that Paradise is
making a lot of money. I mean, this is a really good deal for Paradise.
And I would submit it's not really a good deal for Collier County,
because in addition to the $300,000 which it received annually and --
that we don't get time sheets for so we don't know how much of that
$300,000 for administrative is actually being, you know, used for
administration. I mean, because we just get a flat charge monthly of
25,000, we don't know if it's two hours, 20 hours or 100 hours.
That is in addition to the billings that we receive up to $2 million
Page 165
February 22, 2011
that can include commissions from the vendors. Because as you may
recall, I said the contract provides that the billings are net of discount.
So the 300,000 for the administration which, you know, if you
calculated, is 15 percent of 2 million, would seem like it were the
commissions but, in fact, isn't necessarily the commission because
Paradise still can collect commissions from the vendors that it uses.
And I actually pulled an invoice. I went through a number of
invoices and just pulled one as a sample. And, in fact, that is what
happened during that period where Paradise was receiving a
commission from a supplier, or whatever you call them, and also was
receiving the, you know, $25,000 a month from us.
And then obviously when you're looking at over 2 million,
you've got the 15,000 -- I mean, sorry, the 15 percent that they're
getting, again, in addition to the 25,000 a month. But in this case,
Paradise gets to also retain the discounts.
And just out of -- just out of curiosity, I went to the discounts to
see what the total discounts were that we collected last year, since
we're supposed to at least get some of those discounts. And on $4
million in sales, we got about $10,000 in discounts back which, to me,
seems very low.
So at the end of the day, looking at the totality of all these facts, I
just had to come to the conclusion that this is a project that really
needs to be rebid and that I can't vote to support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a ten - minute
break to give the court reporter a little time to rest. This has been a
fast and furious process.
We'll be back here at 3:32.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission is back in session.
Where did this come from? Is this -- what happened -- wait a
minute. What happened to the previous presentation?
Page 166
February 22, 2011
MR. WERT: I believe that went away, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, get it back. I've got questions
about it.
MR. WERT: We'll try to get it back.
Can we get Jennifer to bring that back, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I don't know how you
can ever get staff to respond to something they've never seen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very concerned about it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light was on first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I was talking about
Commissioner Coyle's direction that he's going, and I was just going
to say, the only thing I can see is the continuance so that staff can have
a chance to review it and reply. They have -- from what I understand,
nobody's been given any advance notice what the presentation was all
about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So much for transparency and the
Golden Rule, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the Golden Rule in this
case is what?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Commissioner Hiller says that she
lives by the Golden Rule and transparency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light is on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what the Golden Rule
is, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you know what the silver rule
Page 167
is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not interested.
February 22, 2011
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, transparency is about
government, not our representative of the people.
But anyways, Commissioner Hiller brought up different points
than I want to bring up. But I do have a question for Commissioner
Hiller.
On this new contract -- by the way, 1 didn't receive the new
contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You did not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I did not receive a copy of
the contract.
Is Mr. DiMascio listed in the contract?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No key personnel are listed. But
the -- the -- just to clarify, the proposal and the RFP, as I mentioned,
are incorporated by reference specifically in the contract, so they
become a part of the contract. So they are part of the contract by virtue
of reference by incorporation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I have a -- I reviewed the
January 25th TDC meeting, as I stated the last meeting, and it was
very obvious that the TDC members were talking about in -- along
with this RFP, this contract with Paradise about a $100,000 donation.
Members of the TDC were talking about it, members of the public was
talking about it, and you just need to separate those issues.
You know, this pay to play is not what we need to be doing in the
public. And two great projects, you know, the Freedom Memorial, the
museum; two separate issues. Advertising contracts does not play a
part in allocation of TDC funds, okay. I mean, it just really -- for me
it really tainted this whole contract with Paradise.
.:
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you go back to the very
beginning.
MS. RAINEY: I'm at the top of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The top.
MS. RAINEY: Of which one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want the very -- the first slide that you
had up here when you started. It goes back to January 25th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The timeline?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it right there. That's where we
need to go.
Now, the only thing that's missing here -- well, a lot is missing
here. But, Commissioner Hiller, can you boil down into just a couple
of quick statements what is it you're alleging here and what do you
want as a resolution?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Are you -- this has nothing
to do with the timeline. Are you talking about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- alleging -- the timeline?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to stay here just a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Stay here? Can you clarify?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to have this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In front of you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- sit here for just a few minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, sure.
I'm not alleging anything. I'm making certain statements based
on the facts that have been before me. And these are all the same facts
that staff has had but did not give to us.
So my concern is multifold, and it's the total of the information
that has come to me that causes me to want to change my vote from
being in support of this contract to being in opposition to it.
MEMO
February 22, 2011
In short, the proposal -- let me just restate that. The RFP and the
proposal and the contract do not match each other. That concerns me.
The fact that the key personnel that I believed would be servicing this
contract are no longer with this firm and are now with some other firm
concerns me.
The fact that the -- the fact that these donations were made gives
an appearance of a conflict and is just one of the factors contributing
to the others.
The terms of the contract as written, I think, are unfavorable to
Collier County. And I think that in these difficult economic times, we
certainly could have a better contract than the terms that have been
provided here.
So those are -- you know, that's a short summary of the facts that
give me reason to want to change my vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, you used the word "facts" on several occasions, and I
would just like to direct you to the statement on January the 25th,
2010. Did you verify these yourself, or is this just information you
were provided?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me just say this: What I
did was I've got the -- I got two things. I got the TDC minutes, which
I'm entering as an exhibit, and the BCC minutes from January 25th
and January 26th -- and these are on audio, which will be entered into
the record -- and I also got the minutes that were typed of those
meetings and that were approved, which I'll also enter into the record.
In fact, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take everything that I
have in my book here, and it's going to be inade a part of the public
record today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. It would have been better if
we'd made it part of the public record to begin with.
But I'll just direct your attention, the public's attention, to the
statement that says that the TDC directs Paradise to collect the
Page 170
February 22, 2011
commissions from the county and then to donate $100,000 in cash to
the Marco Island Museum. That is an absolutely false statement. And
I will read to you the minutes that address that issue.
And it starts out by a statement by Mr. Wert saying that he had
talked with Mr. Haines, and Mr. Haines had made a good -faith offer to
donate some money to the Marco Island Museum.
Susan Becker says, "I like the good -faith offer, but it is extremely
contentious for us to use your advertising requirements by taking
money from the beach reserve and now to reallocate that which we
wanted only for advertising to a museum." This "is something I don't
understand."
And then Mr. Medwedeff says, and I concur with Ms. Becker.
"We struggle all year round advertising for our destination, and that if
there is money for marketing, we should be spending it on promoting
our destination primarily."
Mr. Sorey says, "Well, these dollars belong to Paradise, and
Paradise is making the contract that -- as I understand it is -- Paradise
is making a contribution. I guess Jack," referring to Mr. Wert, "you
could just carve that out and not flow it through here. Pay it to
Paradise, and then they can make a tax- deductible contribution to the
museum. So I don't know, why do we even need to get into that
discussion ?"
Mr. Medwedeff: "That is a great point."
Mr. Sorey: "Based on what has been presented, it seems to me
the only thing appropriate for the TDC -- and I make a motion that we
support this concept -- the $100,000 we've already approved, the
Paradise money belongs to Paradise, and we would encourage them to
go forward with that. Ms. Ramsey's money comes from a fund which
we do not control; therefore, I think the motion that is appropriate here
is only that we would support and recommend to the BCC that we
would encourage them to approve this concept to go forward, but I
don't think we need to do anything other than that."
Page 171
February 22, 2011
Mr. Medwedeff: "I agree. There is nothing else here for the
TDC to decide, especially if Paradise is going to use their money how
they see fit to use it."
Mr. Sorey again: "I think the simplest thing is that we pay
Paradise and they do with the money what they have contracted to
do."
Okay -- Commissioner Coyle: "Okay. We have a motion. Is
there a second ?"
Mr. Medwedef£ "Second."
Commissioner Coyle: "Seconded by Mr. Medwedef£
"I would like to have some discussion on this. I think Cedar
wants to say something about this. I think he wanted to make sure that
his primary purpose was to help the TDC, and his gracious offer of
turning back $100,000 certainly does that, but it really is his money.
"Would you like to donate it to the historical museum if we're not
offended by that ?"
Cedar Haines: "I will defer to the board to make that decision."
Commissioner Coyle: "I think that the motion on the table at the
present time essentially says that's your money" -- and you want to
donate it to someone -- "and if you want to donate it to someone, you
certainly may do that."
And Mr. Sorey says: "And we would encourage you to do that."
"And we would encourage you to do that, and that the $100,000
previously granted by us doesn't need to be recertified, and other than
that, we don't have any involvement in this. So if you would like to
donate that money to the Marco Historical Museum, would that
disappoint you.
"No, not at all," from Mr. Hames.
So here was the TDC saying the money belonged to Paradise
Advertising -- would you turn that back on.
MS. RAINEY: I did, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Paradise Advertising had the
Page 172
February 22, 2011
authority to make their own decisions about how they used the money,
and apparently they did because afterwards they didn't send all the
money to the historical museum. They sent 50,000 to the Freedom
Memorial and 50,000 to the museum.
So the facts are very clear. The TDC did not direct Paradise to
do this, and Mr. Haines understands that and, in fact, wrote a letter to
the Naples Daily News rebutting Ms. Hiller's guest editorial that he
made the decision voluntarily.
Now, what you just heard from Commissioner Hiller was a
prosecutor's opening statement with information that she had not
shared with anyone else. The best way to deal with things like this is,
if any of us suspects something has gone wrong here in government, is
to provide the information that supports your concerns and let the staff
have an opportunity to review it and give you answers.
If they're unable to give you acceptable answers, then certainly
more serious action might be taken. But to spend the time tarnishing
the reputation of people like Jack Wert and the members of the
selection committee and Cedar Haines and his company on the basis
of just statements and accusations is something that we heatedly
debated last time this came up by Ms. Hiller.
It comes up with some degree of regularity, and I would like to
point out that we, as County Commissioners, are not prosecutors. We
are here to try to improve government and make it run more
efficiently and to resolve the issues, and that doesn't necessarily mean
we do it in secret. I like transparency, too.
So there have been many statements made. Horrors. Paradise
makes money on this contract. Terrible thing, really terrible thing.
And the people who are in the tourism department making decisions
on their contracts? I mean, that's as bad as a homeowner making a
decision on what builder they want to have.
A change in the staff or a disagreement between two partners, the
question to be asked is, "Jack, have you been getting the service you
Page 173
February 22, 2011
expected from Paradise Advertising ?"
MR. WERT: For the record, Jack Wert, tourism director. Yes,
sir, Mr. Chairman, we have. For nearly eight years now, we have
gotten superior service, quality work, award - winning work. And I've
told this board many times before, awards are great; it works. We
grow every single year because of this partnership we have with this
company.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And because the amount of the
contract this year is higher than the amount of the contract last year,
that's a terrible thing, right? Well, it was $800,000 cheaper than the
next bidder. So what do you do? You're going to throw Paradise out
because they had a change in personnel and go pay 800,000 more
dollars for the next bidder on this contract and lose six months of
advertising?
You see, these statements that have been made here today are not
designed to resolve a problem. They're designed to tarnish people, and
that's the fundamental problem we have here.
So what we need to do is to get this information to the staff and
let them review it and then make a report publicly about how many of
these facts are really facts.
Now, Commissioner Coletta, your light was on first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I probably spent 12 to 15 hours going through the agenda, and I
would have gladly spent another three hours reviewing this if I had it
ahead of time. I got chastised a couple meetings ago because I put
something on the agenda on a Friday rather than a Wednesday, and I
was told to move it to the next meeting, which was no problem. Okay.
We have rules to live by.
Now, grant you, the item was on the agenda, but this information
being held to the last minute -- and this is one of the most detailed
reports I've ever seen come before the commission, but it takes a little
while to get your arms around it. You just handle the first item very
Page 174
February 22, 2011
well, but the rest of it is still up for grabs.
You can't let this go without having a meeting in the sunshine
and have time for the staff to be able to digest it and come back.
Now, there's a couple things I would like to see. I'd like, one, to
continue it -- and this is a motion -- two, have the county manager and
staff go through this and review everything to be able to see if there is
anything that's been done that's incorrect or on the -- bordering on
something that would be illegal. I'd like the county attorney to sit in
on this so that he can make a separate report to us as to what he
viewed.
If there's something wrong, we need to know it. I don't think
there is, but then again, too, when you see something like this, you
never know until you get through the whole thing.
But I would strongly, strongly recommend that this commission,
whenever we have new evidence brought to us at the last minute, that
that item be automatically continued to the following meeting so that
everybody can play in on it. I mean, this is totally unfair how this
thing was dropped on us. Obviously this thing had been done
sometime ahead of time.
We should have this information in our folder to be able to make
comparisons back and forth and to try to seek out the answers in our
discovery as we go forth in it.
So my motion is to continue and have staff review this, have the
county attorney sit in on it, and then bring it back to us at the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to continue
with a full report by the staff. Can you do it by the next meeting, or
are you going to need longer than that?
MR. OCHS: No. We can do it by the next meeting, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Page 175
February 22, 2011
Okay, discussion? Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the motion to continue 101);
is that what the motion is?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: IOD with the new evidence that
was submitted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle,
where did you obtain those minutes from the TDC meeting of January
25, 2010?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I got them from the tape, transcribed
from the tape.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's not the official
minutes of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know that there are any
official minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. We sign off on them, and
it's put on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you -- why don't you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's put on our agenda, and
we approve it, all of our advisory boards. So I'm just curious where
those minutes came from.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They came right off the tape.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had somebody transcribe
them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who transcribed them? Should
we make that a part of the official record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put it on the next agenda so we
can --
Page 176
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course. There's never any question
about that. I wouldn't have read it if I hadn't intended that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We ought to put down who all has
transcribed everything here today, you know, who's prepared these
things as well, I mean --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. There are no secrets here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a little hard to figure when you're
finished, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You keep on interrupting me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have the floor, and I'll let
you know when I'm finished, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it is normal procedure to
have one member of a department when you talk about a contract RFP
in there. It is not normal to have more than one. You have a selection
committee of three or five. That is the checks and balances.
Now, if you want a true checks and balances of what
Commissioner Hiller brought up, you would allow the attorney to look
at the contract, look at what was on our agenda for approval, and
advise us of what was on our agenda, and what is in the contract is
what we approved. That is checks and balances.
I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
You understand what we need, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The only technical clarification Mr.
Carnell reminds me of is, do we have board concurrence to continue
the current contract until we come back on March 8th?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that part of my motion,
because we are not at a position at this point in time that we can miss
any of the advertising opportunities that are out there.
Page 177
February 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it will be part of my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. First of all, you know, with
reference to what Commissioner Henning said, Commissioner
Henning is absolutely correct. There are board - approved minutes, and
those board - approved minutes make reference to the statements that I
have in the timeline. In fact, on Page 5 of the January 25, 2010,
board - approved minutes, it says, "Jack Wert presented" -- and I'm not
going to read all the minutes pertaining to this matter, because they
will be made a part of the record. But it says, "Jack Wert presented
the executive summary. Marco Island Museum funding discussion
dated January 25, 2010, for review. He noted, Paradise Advertising
and Marketing has offered to donate up to $100,000 of the media
commissions to increase marketing efforts for the TDC to be due on
the additional $1 million allocated to marketing from the redirection of
beach reserves. The firm's intent is to allow the TDC to reinvest
$100,000 into marketing efforts."
Then the minutes say, there was discussion -- "Discussion
occurred on the concept of redirecting Paradise's advertising donation
from marketing to the funding of the museum exhibits."
"Mr. Sorey moved to support the concept for funding of the
Marco Island Museum Exhibit project and recommended the Board of
County Commissioners approve the concept. A hundred thousand
was previously approved for allocation to the exhibits by the TDC."
And then it says, "Paradise Advertising funds belong with them
for utilization as they see fit, and the 150,000 from the general fund
capital reserve is available; however, the funds are not in the purview
of the TDC."
Then it says, "Cedar Hames, Paradise Advertising, noted he
would rely on the council's direction regarding the proposed $100,000
donation. The council encouraged Paradise Advertising and Marketing
Page 178
February 22, 2011
to donate the 100,000 in question to the Marco Island Museum exhibit
pro) ect."
And that was carried unanimously 8 -0.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, I'd like to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I brought this forward
was to change my vote. The information I'm presenting today is my
explanation for why I am changing my vote on the approval of this
contract, to make you aware of what I have determined.
What you choose to do with this information is entirely your
business. Everything I have is a matter of public record. And all of
this information was also available to you since it was all public
record prior to this meeting.
I took the time to read the contract. I took the time to read the
proposal. I took the time to read the RFP. I found out about the
article in the paper. I also, interestingly, found out about a contract
which Paradise currently has with Seminole County, and I will tell
you, they have a much better deal than we do.
To give you a few examples, Seminole County will receive net
billing for all media and production costs. This reflects a 15 percent
discount for the county.
Another statement. All out -of- pocket costs will be billed at net.
Hang on a second. Paradise will absorb transportation costs, lodging
and maintenance expenses incurred by members of the agency staff
when traveling as part of the regularly scheduled client meetings.
Paradise will also continue to absorb costs for long- distance
telephone calls, postage, copies, and handling of routine client service
communications. I mean, that's just one example, and I'm happy to
give you a copy of this as well.
Bottom line is, this is in no attempt -- this is in no way an attempt
to do anything other than explain to you all why I want to change my
Page 179
February 22, 2011
vote. And by the way, I intend, like I said earlier, to put everything
that I have into the record. I have disks with the actual audio of the
minutes of the TDC meeting as well as the BCC meeting, which I
would happily make available.
And now, like I said, as far as the donation goes, I don't intend, to
use your term, prosecute it. I don't care what's done with respect to
that. That's not within my purview. That's for some other agency to
do. It's certainly not for the county attorney to address. That would
be addressed by a legal agency outside of the Board of County
Commissioners if there is any legal issue with respect to that.
I don't know if there is. I'm just saying it's an issue of
appearance, and it has, you know, influenced my decision making to a
degree, but not in total. Because obviously I knew about it, I voted on
this contract knowing about it, but it was the facts subsequent to the
meeting that caused me to change my vote, specifically those things
that I highlighted today about the RFP, about the proposal, about the
contract, about the article about the dissolution of the partnership or
the association, if you will, in the paper, as well as what I found out
about, you know, other counties having contracts with Paradise and
how a -- those are competing counties to us, as well as the fact that
these other counties are getting a better deal than we are. And I care
about the taxpayer, and I don't think that this is the best contract to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And she's
just answered your questions, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I want to bring --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, no, no. I'm talking about your
previous question. The -- apparently the minutes that you have are
summary minutes. They are not verbatim minutes. I have verbatim
minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But those were never approved by
the board, were they, Commissioner Coyle?
M_ U1
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like for me to bring in the
tape and let you watch it to see which one you think is more accurate?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm not asking a question of
accuracy. I'm asking whether or not the Board of County
Commissioners approved the minutes that you have in your hand right
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no idea whether those are the ones
that were approved, and I really don't care, because this tells what
each person in the TDC said on that day. It's not a summary of
someone's interpretation of -- now, go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, instead of
having another contentious item on the agenda, what Commissioner
Hiller has stated several times, she just wants the opportunity to vote
no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So instead of bringing this back
and rehashing it again, why don't somebody make a motion --
withdraw your motion, make a motion to approve this, and allow
Commissioner Hiller to vote against it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's -- may I respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Well, Commissioner Fiala
was -- no, I'm sorry. You were first. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before I lose my thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. That would have been fine
under normal circumstances. But we have so much damning evidence
that there's been a wrongdoing taking place. To just say let's dismiss it
and forget it and go forward is something we can't do. I mean, there's
numerous things in there that allude that there's been all sorts of either
shortcomings or possible lying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was just a suggestion. That's
all.
Page 181
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning. I couldn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a suggestion, that's all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It was a great suggestion.
But I can't walk away from this now. I got something in front of me I
don't have the answers to. And I need to get the answers. Grant you,
it's going to take a tremendous amount of time. It's going to open a lot
of old wounds. I don't know how else to get there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And although you just wanted
to change your vote, in your letter to the editor it made it sound like
there was something that we were doing, Commissioner Coyle and I
were doing, to encourage this. We had nothing to do with it. I wasn't
even at the meeting, for goodness sake.
But people wrote letters in response thinking -- and all you
wanted to do was change your vote, but by your letter, you insinuated
that we were doing something illegal or immoral or something. And
you might—
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so -- you know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- naturally, feelings get -- you
know, get a little excited about all of that stuff, and we want to defend
our character.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I completely appreciate that. My
editorial does nothing of the sort. It merely states the facts and states
that, you know, this all came about because I wanted an ethics
ordinance addressing these types of donations, and I just gave the
example where, you know, very clearly, had these monies been given
by way of a discount as Mr. Haines had originally offered, then the
county could have done one of two things. The county could have
either, A, saved that $100,000 or, B, they could have -- the
Page 182
February 22, 2011
commissioners, I should say, could have publicly voted on how those
dollars would be redirected.
And, you know, whether or not the board would have decided to
redirect those $100,000 towards the Marco museum or to the Freedom
Memorial, we would not know. And that was exactly what I said. I
think my editorial speaks for itself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it does.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, would you like to hear the public
speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Let's give the public a chance to
talk.
MR. MITCHELL: We'll use both podiums.
Gerald Ladue followed by Rosalie Rhodes.
MS. RAINEY: Commissioner, can I put this away, or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. I'm finished. Thank you.
MR. SPEERS: Rosalie had to leave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ali, okay. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Then the next speaker will be Greg Speers.
MR. LADUE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Coyle. For
the record, my name's Gerald Ladue. I'm the artist and the designer of
the Freedom Memorial that's going to be erected here in Naples. There
are many projects, organizations, and fundraising efforts that are
supported by the members of this community, and the grassroots effort
to build the Freedom Memorial is but one of them.
At various events we have continued to be met with donations of
all kinds. The support and respect for this project has been
heartwarming to say the least, whether it be monetary or volunteering
of time or energy.
I've been involved with these fundraising efforts since the end of
2005, but Mr. Hames has been involved since its inception, as have
other community leaders, such as Peter Thomas, Reg Buxton, Jerry
Sandford, Rich Gibbons, along with other task force members and
a
February 22, 2011
volunteers, and Mr. Coyle.
Cedar Hames' donation to our memorial was brought to the task
force's attention in late April of 2010, and it was with that donation
that made it possible to clad a small portion of the granite blocks to
our flag's foundation, the foundation of which was made possible by
donations from the Collier County citizens and from citizens across
the country, as well as tourists from other countries.
Everyone has had their own personal reason for seeing this
memorial completed. Some have had friends and family that were
directly affected by the events of 9/11, our own Gulfcoast Firefighters
lost 343 members, their brothers, that day. Others are honoring their
loved ones that have fought and served for our country fighting for our
freedom.
Mr. Hames had another good reason, and that, I am quot- -- and
that I am quoting from his February 4, 2011, letter to the Naples
Newspaper. "I elected to donate $50,000 of those funds to the
Freedom Memorial, which I personally feel very strongly about,
especially as this is the tenth anniversary of the tragic event of 9/11.
The council members made it very clear that the use of these funds
was strictly at the discretion of Paradise Marketing."
Even with the generous donation from Mr. Hames and Paradise
Marketing, our memorial is still not complete. It's yet halfway done.
But at this time I want to thank Mr. Hames and all the other friends of
the Freedom Memorial for their generous donations which have
helped us overcome many obstacles in the process of building this
everlasting tribute to the victims and heros of 9/11 and members of
our armed forces.
And, lastly, I have to end by adding something to one of our local
businessmen's slogans. Please keep in mind that this memorial is of
the people, by the people, and for the people of this patriotic
community.
Thank you very much.
O_.
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SPEERS: Hi. Greg Speers, East Naples Fire Department,
with Commissioner Rich Gibbons, but not here this afternoon
representing East Naples Fire Department but the Freedom Memorial
Task Force Committee. Many of us here are founding members of,
that and with Commissioner Coyle, been at this for about six years
now, and we're not giving up.
So as artist Jerry Ladue said, you know, we've got a ways to go.
But instead of questioning or challenging the legitimacy of Mr.
Hames' very generous donation, I'm going to take this opportunity to
thank him again for that and, you know, it's -- so thank you, Mr.
Haines. It was very well intended, and we hope we can keep the
money.
But, you know, it's kind of ironic here. A couple of months ago,
December 14th, all of us were here with Mr. Haines with a huge
ceremonial check for the $50,000, and it was quite an occasion, and
actually the same day Commissioner Hiller was sworn in. So a special
day for a lot of us folks.
But, you know, I can say, if it -- you have bigger issues, I guess,
you're dealing with as far as the Paradise Advertising contract. So
whatever's to be is to be. That $50,000 private donation we certainly
could use. We've got between $800,000 and a million dollars to go,
but we're not going to give up on it. We've been at it six years. If it's
another six or another 60, one day we're going we're see that become a
reality in Collier County.
I saw a letter to the editor challenging Commissioner Coyle. A
gentleman said, well, gee, why isn't that done yet? Well, the reason it
isn't done is money is a little bit slow coming in, but the granite itself
is 3- to $400,000, not to mention the other amenities that Jerry has
included there, including the flag post with -- the flagpole with the
globe and eagle on it. When all this is done, it's going to be
magnificent and outstanding. So we're going to see it done.
Page 185
February 22, 2011
And I'd like to not only thank Mr. Harries, but all of the other
folks that have given money for the memorial, you know, the Collier
County Retired Firefighters with their two annual fundraisers and all
the folks that have bought a brick and given a dollar.
In closing -- I can see my time is up. Here is a statement that
you'll find on the website Collierremembers.org, and it's -- the reason
we want to see this come to fruition. Freedom Memorial will serve as
a lasting reminder of the daily sacrifices people make to defend and
preserve our freedom, safety, and way of life.
The memorial will, likewise, remind us of all the valiant actions
everyday citizens are capable of when faced with imminent danger
and insuperable odds. May it forever stand as a tribute to the courage
of the American people and ensure that their memory and gratitude of
the heros of 9/11 will never fade.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Greg.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Elaine Hamilton,
and she'll be followed by Lou Vlasho.
MS. HAMILTON: Good afternoon. Elaine Hamilton, executive
director of United Arts Council.
I'm here today to speak on behalf of Paradise Advertising and to
encourage you to renew their contract. After hearing the discussion
today, I would still like to share with you some thoughts. I will not be
available for the March meeting, so I'd like to share some things with
you.
First of all, I come from an advertising background. I spent 15
years in the corporate world dealing with advertising agencies, and
I've worked with some of the best agencies in the country. I know a
good advertising agency when I see one. Paradise Advertising is a
great agency.
They've helped put Collier County on the map with the Paradise
Coast brand. The agency has earned the right to have their contract
:.
February 22, 2011
renewed. They've given above and beyond what they were required to
do, often providing pro bono work to local nonprofits, including those
in our arts and cultural community.
From everything that I've read and heard, they have violated no
laws, and they followed all the rules. All of their actions appear to be
completely within the guidelines they were given and certainly were
actions that are common practice in the advertising agency client
relationships.
I went through three agency reviews in my advertising career,
barely surviving all of them. And believe me, this is absolutely the
worst time for us to even consider this. Reviews and agency changes
take up valuable staff time, and you can lose quite a bit of momentum
in your message. We're just beginning to see the benefits of a strong
brand at a time when Collier County tourism desperately needs it.
To address a couple of comments that were made today, talent at
advertising agencies is like a revolving door. It has been forever. And
there was a reference to, if a creative director leaves, you might as
well change agencies. That would be disastrous.
In fact, I've worked with Paradise Advertising for a number of
years now. I've never even heard the name DiMascio. I didn't know
there was one there named that. We've always worked with Cedar
Haines. We've worked with people that, again, I think are still there as
far as I know.
As far as competition and conflict of interest, in my opinion, you
want an agency that has experience dealing with tourism in related
counties.
In my opinion also, the flat -fee retainer seems to be fair. The use
of commissions is a standard practice.
So, again, I hope you'll be able to separate the politics from this
situation. I hope that you'll vote to renew the agreement with Paradise
Advertising. They deserve it, and the citizens of Collier County
deserve it.
Page 187
February 22, 2011
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Lou Vlasho, and he'll be followed by Craig
Westward (sic).
MR. WOODWARD: Commissioners, good afternoon. Lou
Vlasho, Pelican Bay, also spent a good deal of time on 5th Avenue
South in the City of Naples.
I almost passed after watching the exercise you went through, but
I thought, in deference to Ceder Hames and Paradise, I'll take a minute
and tell you a couple of things. I won't give you all the comments I
had planned.
I've known Cedar Haines for a number of years. I know he grew
up in Naples. I know his family had a business long ago when he was
a youngster on 5th Avenue. I also know he's had an office on 5th
Avenue for at least eight years.
About a year ago the Naples Community Redevelopment
Agency, the CRA, and the Downtown Naples Association, the DNA, a
subset of the Naples Chamber of Commerce, wanted to get a
promotional program going for the CRA.
We had set up a budget in the realms of $100,000 that would be
shared equally. The program was called the Unique Flavor of
Downtown Naples and Fabulous 5th Avenue. Paradise developed the
program. It ran for three months and was a huge success. It generated
a campaign effectively of over $150,000.
Paradise contributed $54,000 in pro bono services. Not only did
we get a 50 percent larger campaign than we budgeted or paid for, we
also received $212,000 in editorial value. Combined, Paradise got us
$266,000 more than we paid for. We got a really good deal.
Paradise contributes in many ways to our community and does so
an ongoing basis. Cedar Hames and Paradise are known for giving
back to our community. You've heard some of that today.
The generosity of Paradise is a normal thing, and we are
February 22, 2011
fortunate to have them working for us in Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Lou.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somebody's got a phone near a
microphone or something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know.
MR. WOODWARD: Yeah, a buzzing noise?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. WOODWARD: It's not me. There it goes.
Craig Woodward. I'm past president of the Marco Island
Historical Society which built the Marco Island Museum, which has
been discussed today. We raised four- and -a -half million dollars and
built the museum. It's completed now.
The discussion on the exhibit monies is what was brought into
play here with the donations for exhibits.
It's uncontested, I think, that the contract that Paradise had
allowed Mr. Haines to keep all of the commission monies, and he was
a good guy who said, hey, you know, because of this windfall,
because of the extra money that was being invested in advertising
from the beach money, he saw that, you know, he was -- he should
give back. And so, you know, he offered to give back the 100,000.
The quotes that were mentioned from the TDC meeting that Mr.
Coyle mentioned, it was a TDC no -- you know, we don't really want
to handle that. If you want to donate it, it's your decision. And so, he
donated that.
And I think it's refreshing that what we're doing is we're reading
quotes from public meetings, you know, with public officials in the
open, sunshine. You know, these are advertised meetings where
anybody could have gone. This is not a pay -to -play situation like you
hear about in some communities where stuff is underhanded. We're
all reading quotes from public meetings, which I think is very
refreshing. It was all out in the open.
February 22, 2011
To me it was not a surprise that we were one of the donors (sic),
the Marco Island Museum and -- because of Cedar Harries' interest in
Collier County history.
You may not know this, but there were very few films made in
Collier County, and one of those films, I think it was the first film
which starred Gary Cooper, was Distant Drums. Mr. Harries donated
to the Collier County Historical Museum an original screenplay of
Distant Drums. And I asked him how he got a copy of this, and he
said, because he was selected when he was a boy growing up here to
be an Indian in the movie. And I think he got disqualified because he
was blond and blue -eyed, and a little Seminole kid kind of won out on
it.
But nevertheless, he ended up with the screenplay of the movie
and donated it to the museum system.
You know, when I read in the Naples Daily News that they want
these donations returned, I'm thinking, let's not -- you know, let's not
lose our original screenplay that he donated. And I don't want to lose
the $50,000 that was donated for the exhibits on Marco.
That money, as you may know, was used to be a match money
with the City of Marco. And I had structured that match. I went to
them and got the 250,000. It was originally 350 -, but you guys match
250 -. And we have 600,000 because of that package that we're now
allocating and working on exhibits.
So I encourage you, you know, to support this. I don't want this
to be a situation where the good guy finishes last. It all started with
his offer to make a donation, and I hope you do that.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The last speaker will be Cedar Harries.
MR. HAMES: Thank you. I can respond to every question. I
hope I can do it in three minutes or that you allow me a minute or two
more.
First of all, the fee is based on 15 percent commission of the $2
Page 190
February 22, 2011
million. We net back -- we don't take any commissions. We don't
take any markups. It's all billed net to the client, and all estimates and
vendor costs are attached to the billing. There's no -- talk about
transparency. There's -- there's no way to hide anything, nor would we
want to.
But bottom line is the fee is $2 million. We bill 1.7 million of the
2 million. So, in essence, the county is getting our 300,000 fee paid
for. We would -- normally an agency would charge a fee plus take a
commission on it, and we are netting back $300,000, which offsets the
fee. That's number one.
Number two, the $2 million that was a windfall over and beyond
the fee -based $2 million, the emergency funds I'm referring to, were,
by contract, allowed 15 percent. And, of course, as you know, that's
the one that I came back and said, well, I'll do it for 10 percent, thus
the $100,000 donation.
As far as increase in hourly rates, that's true. We've brought it up
to speed. We hadn't increased in several years; however, Jack Wert
receives a written estimate on everything we do. We don't spend a
nickel without him signing off on an estimate.
So he's looking at -- it doesn't matter what the rate is; if he
doesn't think it's a fair price, he's not going to sign. So it's very
transparent.
Then when we bill, let's say, for a production spot or print ad or
something, we attach all the vendor costs. They're all net. There's no
markups. It's all there. There's no gray area here.
So as far as miscellaneous costs, the fact is, we can charge you
contractually, but we don't. It's been almost nine years. We haven't
charged for copies or any of that stuff. So there's definitely some
confusion here.
As far as -- I think I've answered the financial things, but if I
missed something, please bring it up.
As far as the change in staff --
Page 191
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I go ahead and ask a question
based on what you just said?
MR. NAMES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you give me permission,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
You know, I hear what you're saying, but that's not what your
invoices reflect. I'm looking at an invoice right here that clearly
shows that you're paid an agency commission, and that on top of that,
you know, you're getting the 300,000, and that's for a disbursement
under the $2 million amount.
So based on that where, like you point out, the 300,000
represents 15 percent on 2 million, what, in fact, you have here is --
and I'm not sure what the percentage is on this. Well, does someone
have a calculator?
Crystal, could you please calculate this. What is 1,323 on 8,822?
Here, just take a look at this; give me the percentage on that.
MR. HAMES: I can answer that, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you? No, I'd like the number.
I want the number, please.
Yeah.
MR. HAMES: I can explain that. First of all, it's a four -- this
year, this last year, 2010, was a 4,000 -- or I'm sorry, $4 million
budget, so that's $600,000 worth of commissions. Three hundred
thousand, of course, came to us in the way of a fee. On the other $2
million, we did, in fact, get the 15 percent commission, as per the
contract.
And as you know, the reason that the checks were late in coming
is that I couldn't cash flow $100,000. I wished I could. But when the
commissions came in, as soon as they came in and I was paid by the
county, that's when I turned around and wrote the checks for 100,000.
Page 192
February 22, 2011
That's why you're seeing commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except that this is before that. I
think this is -- this is dated -- this invoice is dated January 2010,
before that all happened, so that wouldn't be the case.
MR. HAMES: January 2010.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the -- no.
MR. HAMES: But the commissions were on that fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MS. KINZEL: It's 15 percent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's 15 percent. Yeah, so it's 15
percent.
MR. HAMES: Right. So that's the commissions on the
emergency funds, the extra $2 million. Of course, we charged the
commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this is all done annually,
correct? So I mean, your -- it starts every year? Your -- you know,
that 300,000.
MR. HAMES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the 2 million and 2 million
starts October 1st.
MR. HAMES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the date of this invoice was in
-- essentially at the -- at the end of the first quarter, if you will, of
2010.
MR. HAMES: 2010, right. I don't know the specifics on there,
but I will tell you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just giving you an example.
And I wanted to pick one specifically that would be under that $2
million threshold. But, you know, let me make a suggestion. Why
don't you just work with payables and, you know, reconcile these
commissions and -- because, I mean, I'm looking at an example which
shows that basically, you know, based on the description of the
Page 193
February 22, 2011
contract -- and the contract is very clear. I don't have it in front of me.
Where is that contract? Hang on a second. Bear with me one
moment, please.
And let me -- where is that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Cedar, you're not going to get anywhere
with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really wanted to hear the rest of his
presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I should be next, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this is a very important point,
because he wanted to explain this, and I think he should be given the
opportunity to explain it. I mean, that's important. Where is the
contract?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think he's being given an
opportunity to explain it. He doesn't have the documents you're
talking about in front of him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here, pass it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're just trying to prolong the issue.
So do you have anything more you'd like to say?
MR. HAMES: Yes, if I may, just at least address the staffing.
On -- in December my business partners filed to close down
Paradise. The same day that he filed, he opened up a new agency. I
bought him out. There have been three people that I've replaced and
out of 22 people.
The creative director -- by the way, Jack Wert has not only
approved them, but he sat in on the interview process for all three
people.
The creative director is nation -- national search, an
award - winning -- internationally award - winning, like the Cannes Film
Festival and such. This is a substantial upgrade over our previous
creative director.
As far as the manager replacement, this lady over here, Lee
Page 194
February 22, 2011
Goddard, worked with the Miami CVB, the Kissimmee CVB, St.
Augustine CVB, and Virginia and has a great deal of destination
experience, and she's certainly an upgrade.
And the lady who's working out of the Naples office has a
masters in journalism and advertising- agency experience. So these are
all upgrades over the previous people.
And as far as the 15 percent, the bottom line is that if -- when you
look at the net amount, we took a 300,000 -- in fact, it was less than
300,000, but we paid the 100,000 anyway. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, may I clarify
something?
MR. HAMES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, what transpired with
the county really has nothing to do with you, because the fact is, you
know, the county was the -- the county developed the RFP. I mean,
yes, you responded, but then it was county that drafted the contract
and presented this contract.
So, you know, if the contract does not match the proposal, that's
not your fault, but it's a problem, okay. If the proposal doesn't match
the RFP and it's essentially nonconforming, that's not your fault either.
That's the county's problem.
But that doesn't change my position that I have a problem with
these things, and this doesn't go to a question of legality, because I'm
not here to determine the legality, but I'm looking at it from the
standpoint of, you know, what was put out for bid, what the response
was, what the contract is.
And at the end of the day, the contract isn't what I would have
expected based on the other two documents.
So that you understand, this is not directed at you. It's a matter of
what happened, the process, the facts, the documents that are public
record, and I think that's important to clarify.
And with respect to the donation, I'm not sitting in judgment of
Page 195
February 22, 2011
what you did. It does have, you know, an appearance of -- that gives
me concern, but I'm not basing my decision on that. I really looked at
the totality of the facts to change my mind. I mean, I looked at, for
example, the Seminole County contract and compared the deal and
things of that nature, the leaving of the personnel and so forth, so I just
want you to understand that.
MR. HAMES: Okay. Then the -- you got a better deal than the
Seminole County one. I don't -- I'm not quite sure, maybe I can -- I'd
be happy to address that. But definitely you have a very good deal. In
fact, that 300,000 hasn't changed in seven or eight years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you so much.
MR. HAMES: And the RFP is pretty standard. And we do a lot
of these, and it's pretty standard, and I'm not aware of any differences
in them, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we -- the motion's to continue
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and we're doing the whole
thing now. We're totally unprepared to be able to handle it. If we
can't get this underway, then I'm going to have to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was our last speaker, right, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
continue?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir. I
just -- I found out from Jack that, unfortunately, he's going to be
working doing a trade show that's out of town March the 8th, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I go?
Page 196
February 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: -- if we can come on March 22nd with our report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in my second, but let me ask a
question. So say, for instance, the whole thing is about Commissioner
Hiller wanting to pull her vote. So she pulls her vote, so the approval
of the contract still remains 3 -2 rather than 4 -1; is that correct? So the
contract -- I mean, do we even have to bring it back if the contract --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We do?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think we legally can. Can I
-- Commissioner Coyle, may I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta wanted to go first,
but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, once again, there is too
much that's been put out there that can't go unchallenged. We have to
be able to answer that. If we don't, we're going to have people coming
forward six months from now and saying, man, you let that thing go
down the tube. You never challenged it. There was a question that
was put there, and you never challenged it. We are to answer
everything that's on there. If we can't, then we have to deal with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I feel the same way.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm not sure, as a matter of
law -- and the ordinance is very clear. I don't think you can continue
something which is brought forward on a reconsideration. I think you
have to vote on it today. And, you know, they gave you, you know,
like, two meetings ahead. I don't think you can -- I don't think you
can, yet again, continue something that's being brought forward. I
mean, the procedure is very clear in the ordinance that the vote has to
be today.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't recall the ordinance saying you can't
Page 197
continue the item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
signify by saying aye.
February 22, 2011
Motion to call the question.
All in favor of the motion, please
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Okay. Let's get on with business.
County Manager, where do you want to go from here?
Item #8D
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 86 -28, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION,
IN ORDER TO ADOPT, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE, THE
REGULATIONS AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
ORDINANCE - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE BCC
MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, we go back to Item 8D on your agenda this
afternoon. It's a recommendation to approve an ordinance repealing
Ordinance No. 86 -28, as amended, relating to flood - damage
prevention in order to adopt to the extent applicable the regulations
and policies set forth in the State of Florida Model Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance.
And Mr. Robert Wiley will make the staff presentation.
MIME
February 22, 2011
MR. WILEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Robert Wiley, your Land Development Service Department.
And as the county manager said, we're here to talk about the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. It has been previewed by the
Floodplain Management Planning Committee, by the Development
Services Advisory Committee, the Collier County Planning
Commission. All of them have voted with recommendations for
approval in forwarding, so I'm here to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You -- I talked with the county
manager, and you received some questions from me concerning your
reaction to the CCP (sic) disagreeing with you and the FMPC. And
your response to me was that you didn't think those were significant,
that you couldn't work with those two agencies and resolve the issues
without any difficulty if we approve it as it is; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Coyle, that's correct. I
responded to the county manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. And,
Commissioner Coletta, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Was that from last time?
Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I thought I had mine on.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you pressed his button.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wiley, what's the -- Page 17
of the ordinance, the duties and responsibility of the floodplain
administrator, No. 2, review all development permits, including
review certified plans, specific compliance. A, is -- is a fence a
development permit?
Page 199
February 22, 2011
MR. WILEY: No, sir. This is talking about the development
permits that staff currently receives. Primarily it deals with building
permits. It can be also a part of a plat. Anything that requires a review
addressing impact within the floodplain. But a fence itself is not a
structure; therefore, it would not be a part of this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- but a building permit --
you have to get a building permit to put a fence up.
MR. WILEY: You do have to get a fence - construction permit,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you have to get a --
MR. WILEY: Okay. If you want to call it a building permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to get a building
permit --
MR. WILEY: But I'm talking about a house or a building, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILEY: Basically what happens is, as all applications
come in, there is a review of staff so that it is considered when it
becomes a part of the floodplain review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a definition of
development permit in this ordinance?
MR. WILEY: We should if you look in your definitions. If you
look on Page 5, development permit means, for the purpose of this
ordinance, the local site development or building permit as applicable,
and it goes from there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you aware that you need a
building permit to reroof a house?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILEY: That does apply here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you aware that you need a
building permit for installing landscaping in a commercial area or
replacing it?
Page 200
February 22, 2011
MR. WILEY: I do not know all the definitions. I do not work in
the Building Department, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, the definitions that
are put in here, you're saying building permit. There are several
building permits that I cannot understand why you would need to
review those.
(Cell phone ringing.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll get that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida. It's as applicable. And our floodplain administrator is
the county manager or as delegated through his authority.
We have a gentleman, Jim Turner, on our staff who reviews the
building permits or county engineer. If it's not applicable, we
wouldn't -- we wouldn't have a staff member review that for
applicability.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that isn't what the ordinance
says. You have to show me where common sense applies.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think it's been -- as it's been
applied currently in your ordinance, sir, right now no one reviews a
fence permit for flood - damage issues. I think under your definition
where it says "as applicable," "development building permit as
applicable" would be where I think we would use some judgment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we could do a
better job of writing this --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to tell you the truth.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know that we need to pass
something. The building permit that Robert Wiley approves needs to
be identified, and we could do it simply in a resolution.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand the concern. I'm trying to
Page 201
February 22, 2011
figure out the best way to do this. This is where I wish we had an
administrative code where we could handle issues like this that would
be approved by the board. We can do it by resolution; that's one
approach. And we don't have to pass this today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, we don't have to pass this
today?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I don't think we're under any -- and
Nick can correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think we're under any
time crunch.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can be continued if you want to
correct it in the ordinance itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, if you're in an
AE Zone, do you need to have a review for a ceiling fan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, but I can tell you working
with some of the folks with the building - permit side of the house, they
wouldn't look at that. If it's not something that affects the
development standard that would compromise the flood -zone
ordinance itself, they wouldn't look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know, but that isn't what
the ordinance says. It says, you need to -- floodplain administrator --
and I'm assuming you're going to tell us who that is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently it's me, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Right. The --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently. That could change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, "All permits."
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know what it should
say -- because the FEMA guidelines that guide administrative
ordinance -- you have this, Mr. Wiley, don't you? It's a 74 -page
guidelines from FEMA how to write an ordinance.
MR. WILEY: I have a lot of documents, sir. I'm not sure exactly
where you got that one, but --
Page 202
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Have you -- I've never
found a -- what has been put out there in the community as a sample
ordinance. Have you seen a sample ordinance from FEMA?
MR. WILEY: We started with the model ordinance that was
developed by the State of Florida and then edited by FEMA. That's
the basic documents that we use for starting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you forward that to
me, please?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because in Wisconsin, they
don't have an administrator for floodplain, and that -- they're utilizing
that. So, I mean -- and I think we need to identify who is going to be
the -- this administrator because, in my opinion, we're creating another
administration position, and it doesn't say that.
Now, if it would say -- if it was community development or
Growth Management/Environmental Department's administrator as far
as the definition, then that would clarify who that is.
And furthermore, we need to say that administrator is not going
to review those.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it needs to say that the
floodplain manager will manage the ordinance with his employees or
whatever.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Under the definition of
administrator, it's the county manager or designee. I think in
discussion with the county manager, we discussed it would be me
running the Building Department and the Engineering Services section
of the house. So it wouldn't be a new position, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't be a new position. It
would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But you're not going to
Page 203
February 22, 2011
review all those, everybody knows that, but we need to understand it.
Also -- and it says the interpretation of the ordinance will be by
the floodplain administrator. And the -- and the model --
administrative ordinance from FEMA, it says, ambiguous language or
differing interpretation can lead to application and permit office to
disagree.
Your ordinance should have a process to refer these
disagreements to a board of zoning or adjustments in which the
interpretation of the ordinance is settled in -- and disputed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. We have -- I believe we
followed our variance process in this ordinance. It's very similar to
the current county variance process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. No, that's -- that's the
interpretation of the ordinance, and it costs, what is it, $2,000 to
appeals to the board?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's a variance, sir, they're seeking,
that's correct. But if it's just an interpretation, it just goes through staff
like any other interpretation we do. We would issue a staff opinion in
conjunction with the County Attorney's Office.
We would -- we would treat this ordinance just like we would
treat the Land Development Code, sir. If there was an interpretation
issue, we'd go to the zoning director or to the county engineer or to --
work with the County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to have to provide
a fee resolution for this ordinance, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do we have a fee resolution? It's the
existing fee resolution, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. You're going to
have to incorporate the floodplain ordinance within here, such as
review of -- for a ceiling fan within an X Zone, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, we do that as part of our fee
schedule now.
Page 204
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the interpretation of
the administrator, floodplain administrator, is that in the fee
resolution?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do that now through our normal
business process. Whatever is in our fee resolution now, the way we
administer the code is the same fee resolution we'd use for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So next time we update
it, we'll just clarify it so everybody knows.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you recognize there is an
appeal process to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I would like to see this
continued until we can clean it up a little bit more.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we can get some guidance in the
continuation, sir, I'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need to identify what
establishes the developer permit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- I think that is very, very,
very important. And I understand what you want to do, but the way it
says it is, if I pull a fence permit, it has to go through the floodplain
administrator.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, it does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll just go down there just
to do it, too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think -- the way it's been applied, sir,
so you know, is if someone comes in to pull a developer permit,
whether it's a site development plan or a building permit, if -- our staff
is trained to understand something that would affect the flood zone.
All building permits where vertical construction consists of or
horizontal permitting plans, you know, if something's going to impact
Page 205
February 22, 2011
this ordinance, it's followed appropriately through that channel. But if
it's not, staff uses some good --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the Florida Statute says the
county manager or county administrator shall strictly enforce the
board's ordinance.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not liberally -- a liberal
interpretation. It's strictly. That means Nick is going to be really busy
reviewing permits. And I know that isn't what it means.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So would you like clarification on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: May I make a suggestion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you make some changes in the
wording, run it by Commissioner Henning, and then if everything is
okay, put it on the consent agenda next time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have any other problems?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I do, but, you know, with
that said, we can discuss those.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, Nick is very
reasonable. And I think we just need a little bit more clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 206
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Uh -oh, you wanted to say something
before?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask a question, just
for clarification.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I don't mean to drag it out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please. It says in here that it should
be noted that the proposed FEMA maps become effective. The
construction standards and provisions of this proposed ordinance will
then extend. It doesn't say then -- but will then extend to a significant
portion of the county.
So that -- in essence, what that says is that the new FEMA maps
are going to spread it out a lot further and more people are going to be
stuck with flood insurance, right, that have not been before?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As federally required, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to -- I mean, I
don't know that people realize that, you know, there's some big bills
coming their way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They want to drive everybody off the
coasts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Way even inland.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know. That's just our unlucky
situation.
Okay. County Manager, where do we go?
MR. OCHS: Did we vote on that motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Continue it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we voted on it, we voted on
it. I asked my question after the vote.
Page 207
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It was -- I guess unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Hold on, Mark.
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: IOA?
Item #13A1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO DEANGELIS DIAMOND
CONSTRUCTION, INC., CONTRACT #09 -5234 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1045797.20 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
20,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, PENDING UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
APPROVAL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: No. If we might ask for your indulgence to move
to 13A1, which is the Airport Authority. Apparently they have a
person here who wanted to speak on this item, but they have to -- they
have to leave at five.
So with the Chairman's indulgence, if we could go to 13AL Is
that all right, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That will be fine. Who's going to
do this?
MR. OCHS: That's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, approves and
authorizes the Chairman to execute Change Order No. 1 to DeAngelis
Diamond Construction, Incorporated, Contract No. 09 -5234 in the
amount of $104,797.20 for the construction of a 20,000- square -foot
manufacturing facility at the Immokalee Regional Airport, pending
United States Department of Agriculture Approval.
And your executive director of your Airport Authority, Mr.
M
February 22, 2011
Curry, will present.
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Curry,
Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority.
I'm here to ask the Board of County Commissioners to ratify the
agreement between the USDA and the Airport Authority for a bid that
was awarded actually in 2008. And the -- the money was allocated in
2008 by the USDA. It was actually awarded in 2009.
So after some considerable time, we're here now to finally move
forward with the construction of the facility; however, over that period
of time, there has been some changes in the costs based on the original
bid for the project.
The initial amount allocated for the project was approximately
$1.5 million with 500,000, or 495,000 being provided by the USDA,
and Collier County had to provide a million dollars for this.
I have with me from DeAngelis Diamond Mr. David Kovalik and
Jay Waltbillig, and also the design professional, Mark Minor with Q.
Grady Minor to help the board substantiate some of the additional
costs because of the time lapse between the bid being awarded in
2009, and now we're finally ready to execute it in 2011.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to give us the
implications of delaying any longer, Chris, or is someone else going to
do that?
MR. CURRY: I can summarize that for you. I've had some
informal conversations with the USDA. And, again, a lot of this took
place prior to my arrival. But they have stated to me, based on the
agreement that was made in 2008, and the amount of time that has
lapsed, we could be in jeopardy of having the grant rescinded by them
at this time.
They have also indicated to me informally that if there was a
consideration to rebid, that they would have to approve of it, granted
$1.5 million was allotted for the project, and with the additional cost, I
think we're talking about 857,000.
Page 209
February 22, 2011
So it's considerably less than the amount of money, even with the
change order, that was a lot for the project from the start.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Bring on the people
you're going to have speak to us. Are they still here?
MR. CURRY: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I don't know if they were registered or
they're just available if the board had any questions. It was my error,
sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you had a presentation.
MR. MITCHELL: We do have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have one speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: One speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call that speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Marvin Courtright.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's left.
MR. MITCHELL: That was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was good.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Second.
Motion to approve by me and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
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: She can't get one until 5 o'clock.
not due for a break until 5 o'clock. Okay. We'll take a break.
be back at five clock. How does that sound?
Page 210
You're
We'll
February 22, 2011
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Chris.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session now.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2011 -43: ADOPTING THE FY 2012 BUDGET
POLICY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item IOA on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to adopt the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Policy. Mr.
Mark Isackson from the County Manager's Office will make a
presentation.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
record, Mark Isackson, County Manager's Office.
Annually staff appears before you seeking your guidance and
direction concerning policies that will affect preparation of the annual
budget document.
In addition to adoption of the annual policies, as well as
continuing policies from the previous -- from previous years, there
will be a resolution that the board will be asked to adopt which
essentially requests that the Sheriffs Department, Supervisor of
Elections, and the Clerk to submit their budgets on May 1, 2011.
Also, as part of the direction this evening, the board will be asked
to establish the budget workshop hearing dates, and the suggestion is
June 16th and June 17th, as well as the September public- hearing
dates, which are September 6th and September 22, 2011. These dates,
pursuant to statute, do not conflict with the schools' public- budget
hearing dates.
Page 211
February 22, 2011
On February 16th, staff was before the Productivity Committee
for about an hour talking to them about the annual policies which are
before you this evening.
Commissioners, if you might indulge me, I have a short
presentation which discusses how the budget landscape has changed
over the past few years. I can get into that, sir, or what's the board's
pleasure?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Move to approve the --
staffs recommended budget procedure and change the date from July
28th to the two weeks prior. No --
MR. ISACKSON: I thought I answered that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll remove that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve the
fiscal 2012 budget policy by Commissioner Henning, second by me.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I sat in on the Productivity
Committee meeting where all of this was discussed, and I've reviewed
the material.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you happy?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one thing on Page 218.
Submission of tentative FY2012 budget to the board, July 15th; is that
correct?
MR. ISACKSON: Sir, that's the -- by the TRIM statute, we're
required to submit to you a tentative budget leading up to your
adoption of the tentative millage rates. That's the document that you
will get, along with the millage rates. You will, in turn, approve that
at your only meeting in July, which I think Commissioner Henning
referred to as the 28th, which is a Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I was just concerned when I seen
Page 212
February 22, 2011
July 15th, and I heard people mention another date. Okay. I
understand now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do it on July 15th?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR.00HS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, darn it.
And the only other question I had, if I may, sir, county road
beautification within the municipalities, how are they paid?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, I'm not sure, sir, about what the City of
Naples does or Marco Island. I know what we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, I mean, on county roads,
do --
MR. ISACKSON: They're paid for out of our 1 I 1 fund, MSTD
111 fund, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the unincorporated --
MR. ISACKSON: The unincorporated area General Fund, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that does not pay for
the median beautifications within the municipalities, though, does it?
MR. ISACKSON: That has nothing to do with the
municipalities, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Did I get it answered?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think you did.
Just one comment. I'd like to draw attention to something that
appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently comparing private
industry and local and state government workers comparing their
salaries and their contributions to the medical premiums. And I am
happy to see that we've taken action to bring us in line with
private - industry workers specifically in the area of medical premiums
where 20 percent are paid by the employees in private industry. And
Page 213
February 22, 2011
in most -- well, let's say the average for state and local government
workers is 11 percent.
So Collier County moved to a 20 percent contribution a long time
ago. And here's the really surprising part is that private - industry
workers make about $19.68 an hour, whereas, state and local
government workers make $26.25 an hour. And you have frozen wage
increases and wage -plan adjustments for the last three years or so.
And so you're to be congratulated on taking those actions to bring
us closer in line with private - industry standards.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You done good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
And, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The one thing I wanted to
mention, Mark, is that when we go to work through the budget
process, that departments need to keep in mind that they need to cut if
they need to cut, that merely because we're saying, you know, 3
percent across the board doesn't mean if there's the opportunity to cut
more out of the budget that that shouldn't be done.
And I think that's very important, because there are some
departments that are going to have a hard time cutting, and then there
are those that are going to readily be able to do so but will be reluctant
to do so.
And so I almost want to suggest that when we review the budget,
we take a zero -base budgeting approach and make the departments
justify their current budgets based on need, not merely that they've cut
3 percent and therefore they've satisfied this public - policy objective.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that's a much different approach
than you've taken in the past or that was recommended in this policy
document, but it's the pleasure of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It -- I'm not sure that from the standpoint
Page 214
February 22, 2011
of philosophy it's that much different. I mean, if you could cut 10 or
15 percent in one department and leave another department
untouched, you would do that, wouldn't you --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if you could?
MR. OCHS: And we have done that in the past.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: These reductions will be targeted --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, they're targeted. They're just not
across the board.
MR. OCHS: Based on maintaining essential health, safety,
welfare services as a priority obviously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. OCHS: So Commissioner Hiller's statements are well
made, and certainly we will look to do that. But when she mentions
zero -base budget, we'd normally bring you, you know, a budget that is
prior year's budget forecast for the year and then a recommendation
going forward. It doesn't start at zero every year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We always have the option of saying to
you, you've got to cut more, and then what you do is you come back to
us and say, here's the implication of your request.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what you're doing is giving us a
starting budget. We're going to take a look at it and decide what to do
with it, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wouldn't cause you any problems,
would it?
MR. OCHS: No, not at all, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may clarify, Commissioner
Coyle, that it's -- the intent being that you are able to justify the
Page 215
February 22, 2011
existing budget, not merely because it existed last year, but because
it's justified this year, and that to the extent, as I said before, as
Commissioner Coyle pointed out, if there can be cost savings beyond
the 3 percent, they must be taken.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely, Commissioner. I understand your
intent.
aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
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: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved. Thank you.
Item #IOC
RESOLUTION 2011 -44: DECLARING AN ECONOMIC
EMERGENCY AND THE USE OF TOURIST TAX EMERGENCY
ADVERTISING FUNDS UP TO $500,000 FOR PROMOTION OF
THE GROUP MARKET IN FYI I AND ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to IOC on your agenda,
Commissioners. It's a recommendation to declare an economic
emergency and approve the use of tourist -tax emergency advertising
Page 216
February 22, 2011
funds up to $500,000 for promotion of the group market in FY2011,
and authorize all necessary budget amendments. And Mr. Jack Wert
will present.
MR. WERT: For the record, Commissioners, this is Jack Wert,
your Tourism Director.
And let me pull up -- and I'll just -- I will be brief, but I just
wanted to do a quick overview of what we are attempting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 10 minutes right there.
MR. WERT: What's that`?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 10 minutes of talking.
MR. WERT: That's 10 minutes. I'm not going to read it. I am
not going to read it.
Just overall, we have been through a process that ended with a
public hearing in January to make a change in the county tourist -tax
ordinance, 92 -60, to reduce the ceiling on our Emergency Advertising
Fund from a million- and -a -half dollars to a million dollars to give us
the ability to free up a half -- that half- million dollars in the future for
additional advertising.
And starting with October Ist of the next fiscal year, there will be
a transfer from our operating- account surplus, and replenish that
Emergency Advertising Fund up to a million dollars now, which will
free up some additional dollars from that other -- from that surplus in
our operating account.
The purpose of this item today, Commissioners, is that, yes, that
will happen starting the first of the fiscal year. We need those funds
this year for a very specific purpose, and that is to help us promote the
meetings market.
This is a market that is really important to this destination. We
have been through a couple of very difficult years with that business.
You recall back in'09, the corporate- meeting business virtually just
stopped, and it took a long time for us to bring it back, and it's still not
back at all where we'd like to see it, nor our meeting properties like it
Page 217
February 22, 2011
either.
So the use of those funds would be divided into a couple of
different uses. First, we do familiarization tours of our area. We bring
meeting planners here to see the product firsthand, and that really does
work, but we've never really had the dollars to adequately do what we
need to do.
There are a lot more meeting planners we'd like to bring here. So
there is a portion of this -- of these dollars that would go toward that
175,000.
We'd also like to do more in events in feeder markets. Boston,
for instance, could be a great market for us. New York, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., those kinds of places, if we go there and we have a
reception, perhaps, and tell our story about the Paradise Coast to
meeting planners -- again, we have a great one -on -one, face -to -face
selling opportunity to attract future meetings here.
Another thing that we would like to enhance here -- and this is
really -- this year, this is what we'd like to do with those dollars this
year -- is when we get a request for proposal from a meeting planner,
thinking about our destination and probably 20 others that they're
looking at, there are certain things that they ask for in those RFPs for
the destination marketing organization, in this case the Convention
and Visitors Bureau to, perhaps, sponsor a -- an opening reception or a
closing reception, something like that. We need the dollars to be able
to do that and pledge as part of that RFP back to that meeting planner
that the -- that the DMO will help support that.
We also have a new program that we're just initiating this year,
again, to help meeting planners, but in this case, to make sure that they
get more prospective attendees to actually register for the conference
and come.
So this Group Assistant Push Program, or GAPP, enables us to
provide website links, stories, videos, e- newsletters, things that they
can send out on behalf of their organization but selling the destination,
Page 218
February 22, 2011
which today is so very important.
We'd also like to enhance our efforts through our Public
Relations Department and our outside PR firm to get on more of the
best lists. And you may recall a few years ago, Naples was the best
small -art community in the country, and another year, 2005, we were
the best all -round beach community in the U.S. Things like that really
do help our efforts in bringing people here. People certainly do react
to that.
And then we'd like to also, on the return-on- investment side, be
sure we are really measuring and reporting back to you on the Tourist
Development Council exactly what this particular effort entails and
what it delivers and what kind of spending we get. So that's how that
500,000 would be spent.
And I want to make it very clear here. These are all efforts that
go -- that our staff is helping to initiate. We will work with some of
our group- meeting hotels. In the case of an out -of- market event, we
would go there with their sales team and jointly sell the destination as
a place to bring the meeting.
This does not go to Paradise Advertising. They are not -- there
are not dollars here for additional advertising. That's not what we're
looking for. We feel the program we've got against the group market
right now is satisfactory. We'd like to enhance it and really get a push
this year to see if we can get more of the group- meeting business.
And I'll just tell you, very quickly, the reason that the group
market is important is a couple of things. First of all, they really do
spend more money. The revenue from the tourist tax alone is larger
for a group meeting -- in a group- meeting attendee than it is for a
leisure traveler. So it makes sense to enhance that market for us.
But more importantly, if it's a big- enough meeting, then one hotel
doesn't handle it. And so you have several other surrounding hotels
that also get business from bringing that meeting to the destination.
Our return on investment, as we've looked at it right now -- and,
Page 219
February 22, 2011
Commissioner Hiller, you asked for this -- what we might be able to
do. This is just a preliminary quick look. And, again, I want to use
some of those dollars with our research company to make sure we're
using the right methodology. But being very conservative here, we
think that this effort this year we could attract at least five new
meetings to this destination.
I will tell you that that is conservative to the point that we are
adding three new ones a month. But I'm trying to be conservative here
and just show you what a return would be.
Average delegates to those meetings, 200. An average
three -night stay, an average daily rate of $250, additional spending in
the community of $100. So if you take all those, put them together,
and divide by -- 475 is actually the dollar amount that we would really
say is used to promote the group- market directly. I didn't include
research in there. And so the return on investment is 2 -1.
We would at least get from those five meetings, in direct
spending -- this is no multipliers -- direct spending, $1.2 million.
Investing 475,000 of that, that's a -- the return that we would very
conservatively estimate, and we will bring back the results of this
program to all of you and show you and the TDR both.
In terms of how we fund this, the current balance in our
Emergency Advertising Reserve Fund is $1,040,000. Now, it could
have been a million and a half, but in fact, we didn't have enough in
reserve dollars this year in our operating fund to fund it back to a
million and a half.
And we spent it down pretty -- pretty dramatically last year.
Because of the oil spill we had in the Gulf over the summer, because
we had, again, that corporate- meeting business issue and a worldwide
recession, we spent a lot of those dollars that we came to you, you
gave us permission to use those emergency dollars, and we did so.
But we will hold back $500,000 of that emergency fund for use
this summer if we have hurricanes, wildfires, whatever it might be that
Page 220
February 22, 2011
we need to mitigate information and do an extra push. We'll leave that
500- in there. We're asking you approve the other 500 -, and that
would go into our operating fund, and that's our request as approved --
as recommended by the Tourist Development Council July 24th of
this year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to take off my shoe in a
minute.
MR. WERT: I saw you pounding, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. First of all, Jack, I really
want to thank you very much for being responsive so quickly to my
request for additional information after our meeting on Friday.
A couple of points. We have approximately a $2 million tourism
advertising budget, approximately. And as you pointed out to me in
the meeting, about 25 percent of that goes to groups, which means
approximately 500,000.
What you're asking for is a 100 percent increase on top of what
we already have allocated towards group sales. That's very
significant. While I consider group sales extremely important, I think,
you know, based on your statement that we currently have a
satisfactory program, that we don't really have an emergency. What
we want to do is enhance what we have.
And it -- what I don't see in your presentation is how many more
groups over what we are currently recruiting with advertising dollars
would we be recruiting by this -- you know, as a result of this
initiative.
I mean, if we're talking about five more groups, then I would
submit that you don't need 500,000 to recruit five new groups,
notwithstanding, you know, the favorable return on investment. I
think the return could be substantially higher than what you show for
five groups.
And I'm not really sure, you know, about this investment of staff
Page 221
February 22, 2011
going on trips and so forth. I mean, there might be some value to that,
but I think we have to be very conservative about doing this.
So what I would like to suggest is an alternative, because I don't
think we have an emergency. But I do see the justification for
increasing the budget allocated towards tourism, is that instead of
moving monies out of emergency right now at the beginning of the
year where we don't have an emergency, rather change the allocation
of the total that we have budgeted and increase it from 25 percent to
33 percent, see what kind of increase we get in group sales as a result
of that increased allocation, and then gauge what we should do
accordingly after we see what happens there.
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, if I might just quickly respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WERT: Very brief. Certainly, Commissioner Hiller, that is
something that we can follow. Most of our budget is already
committed for this year, so we will need to take those funds away
from our spring and summer campaign, which we are in the process of
planning right now, which will most likely mean that later -- middle of
the summer we will run out of money. We will have no message in
the marketplace from July until October of next year. That is very,
very, very concerning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that?
MR. WERT: Because if you're not in the marketplace, you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. But why would we not have
the funds to do that?
MR. WERT: Because we only have $2 million plus the dollars
that we got from the beach park facilities. Those dollars are already
allocated, and we are spending them --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the total?
MR. WERT: Two million to -- the total budget is $3.2 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's 3.2.
MR. WERT: Most of that is already committed -- I shouldn't say
Page 222
February 22, 2011
most. A good deal of it is committed for the first two quarters. That is
running right now in our northern markets. Terribly important for us to
be there.
The second part of our promotion year is the spring and summer,
and we are planning that right now. The point I'm trying to make is
that in order to do an adequate job within the State of Florida, which is
where we promote in the spring and summer, we can really not afford
to take any dollars away from that campaign.
These are dollars that we feel -- you say it's not an emergency. It
absolutely is an emergency. This is an emergency situation that we are
in. We are in a worldwide recession still. The group- meeting
business has not come back the way it is, and there are other
destinations that are doing a much better job than we, and that is
because we don't have adequate dollars right now in the
group- meeting market to attract those bus- -- those meetings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. We have a very large budget.
I mean, 3.1.
MR. WERT: We have one of the smallest budgets among our
destinations that we compete with by far.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really?
MR. WERT: By far.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's important to know.
MR. WERT: We are absolutely one of the smallest. And,
Commissioners, I know we've talked about this in the past. That's
why we keep coming to you for additional dollars and showing you
that virtually we cannot compete the way we have been in the past.
We continue to lose market share. That's why we need these dollars.
Now -- and if I might, Commissioner, if you want to change the
amount we take out of reserves, okay, but please, we really need those
dollars as they are allocated right now for the spring and summer
campaign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, in other words, you're saying
Page 223
February 22, 2011
changing the allocation from 25 to 33- and -a -third percent -- in other
words, instead of a quarter to one -third of the budget being allocated
to group sales can't be done?
MR. WERT: No. I'm saying we certainly can do it. Something
has to suffer, and that's what I'm telling you will suffer is the spring
and summer campaign, which is almost all leisure business, a huge
importance to this area. And without it, we're going to be back to the
way we were several years ago. I don't think any of us want to go
back to that.
We are on a plus track of really getting more visitors here, and I
honestly think that we need these dollars to do this adequately. This is
-- if nothing else, let's suggest that this is similar to what we did with
the funds that we got from the Beach Renourishment Reserve Funds.
We said, this is really a test. Come back to County Commission and
TDC, show us what you were able to do, and we'll consider, you
know, whether it's a success or not.
We did that. I pledged to you we would do the same thing with
this group, these group dollars, come back to you and report. Maybe
the next year, if it doesn't work, we don't do that. We continue to put
the dollars that we are into the leisure market, which is also -- it is 70
percent of the visitors that we get here. They just don't spend as
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We haven't targeted the
business group yet, have we, Jack?
MR. WERT: We are targeting it now, but not at all the way we
should. And I will tell you in the past, Commissioner, we haven't
because the hotels really feel that that's their market, but now we're
helping them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they have really had problems.
Now, I come from that industry, as you well know, and I've been in
public relations for the tourism industry for a long time. I worked the
Page 224
February 22, 2011
group market over at the Marriott for quite a while. And that group
market is the backbone of their hotel business.
And as we -- as we're coming back, we see a lot of tourists here
now, but they still haven't attracted that group business, which is vital.
And I think we ought to go for it for one year and at least see what we
can do about generating it.
And you were talking about your group planners, but what about
travel writers? Have you been -- have you been working with the
travel writers? Great, okay.
MR. WERT: Yes, ma'am, very much so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just want to make sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jack, I think you're doing a
marvelous job. I just hope they're holding in there. I know that the
industry has suffered greatly over the last three years.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to ask, how many
groups are you planning to attract over and above what you are
attracting with the current 25 percent allocation out of that 3.2
million? That's how much is allocated.
MR. WERT: Okay. Currently we are booking on the average of
about 10 to 12 new groups a month to this destination. So I'm saying I
can at least increase that by five or more, and that's why I was being
conservative. I didn't want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A month?
MR. WERT: Yes, yes. That's how many group meetings we are
attracting. Now, they don't all come that month, but that is an RFP
that has been approved by a hotel and a meeting planner and a
Page 225
February 22, 2011
contract is in place. That's the kind of return we're already getting on
it. And we get probably in the area of 25 or so RFPs a month from
different meeting planners. We're actively soliciting that. We go to
meeting - planner trade shows, we get leads from our publications that
we're in. Lots of different ways.
But we are really actively helping that group - meeting market to
grow here in the community. We just think we need more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically for doubling the
investment, we're going to be increasing the return by 50 percent?
MR. WERT: Well, that's what --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to --
MR. WERT: I think that that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Realistic?
MR. WERT: No, I don't think that's realistic. Here's a good
example. In the leisure market, our return on investment is 20 -1. I
will absolutely say that we can do that. I know that doesn't make any
-- but leisure travelers and group travelers are much the same in our
destination. They are the same kind of people, the same demographic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to understand. Right
now you're getting -- you, the -- our investment is returning ten groups
a month?
MR. WERT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Our current investment?
MR. WERT: It's some kind of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 25 percent allocation right
now of the total tourism advertising budget is returning ten groups a
month that --
MR. WERT: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as a result of our direct
initiative, not the hotels, but ours, is what's coming to Collier County,
and you're suggesting that by increasing that budget 100 percent, we're
going to increase the number of monthly groups from 10 to 15.
Page 226
aye.
February 22, 2011
MR. WERT: That's what I think.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
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.
Okay. Thank you, Jack.
MR. WERT: Thank you.
Item #I OE
THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3
ACTION PLAN AND REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS TO THE
FY 2010 -2011 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN TO ACCEPT
$3,884,165 ALLOCATED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY THE
WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT OF 2010 (DODD -FRANK ACT) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item I OE is a recommendation to
approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program 3 Action Plan and required certifications to the
FY 2010 -11 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
one -year action plan to accept $3,884,165 allocated to Collier County
by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protective Act of 2010,
Dodd -Frank Act.
Page 227
February 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. How was
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was pretty good.
Second.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't know if we
really need the Barney Frank/Dodd supplement monies. The market
-- people seem to be purchasing those homes that are available. And
these are acquisition and rehabs where a lot of money's going, correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're competing with private
market to purchase these homes and rehab? Well, purchase them
really.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, both, rehabs, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't -- the county
employees don't rehab them. They -- Marcy's got some great
contractors to do that, and that is the public. But I'm talking about
people who bid on homes to purchase them to rehab them and put
them on the market. That's my thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we see in the newspaper --
of course, this is the Naples Daily News -- that there are less
foreclosures out there. And what I'm being told is, private sector's
purchasing these homes and rehabbing them. So I think -- I'm not sure
Barney Frank's money is needed here. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the philosophy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And it is true, a lot of the
private sector is buying up those things and they're rehabbing them,
but they're renting them out, and they're not raising the level of
standard in these communities.
February 22, 2011
And one of the things I have to give our people a lot of credit for
is, they -- they raise the level of standard and give young families an
opportunity to improve where they live, and that's so important. It's so
important to communities, surrounding communities.
Also, can these dollars be used then to just eliminate blighted
things that need to be demolished, even if we don't build anything
there, but clean up some of the -- some of the stuff in some of the
communities?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Marcy --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked the question. Can it be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
And, yes, Commissioner Fiala, the funds -- 10 percent of the
funds that we get that come in for Neighborhood Stabilization
Program for the third section can be used just to eliminate blight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't want to jump
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she's finished.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was -- I was just waiting for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I agree with Commissioner
Fiala. And this is -- the point is is that out there in the private sector,
these people that are buying the homes up that aren't renting them are
selling them, but the people that can afford them are of a different
class than the ones we're bringing it into. The people that we're
supplying the homes to, we're giving them a chance at life where they
might never be able to get a conventional mortgage; is that correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: That is correct, Commissioner Coletta.
Page 229
February 22, 2011
If I could take just a moment to go through my first couple of
slides, it might give you an overview of what we've accomplished
with the NSP1 program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's never that late in the day. I'd
like to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to lose Commissioner Fiala
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I've got a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if you wait much longer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It will be real quick.
Just -- the NSP3 program, we're being awarded $3.9 million,
approximately, and the application before you is for that action plan.
But we want to review our successes with you. We received $7.3
million to improve neighborhoods by acquiring the foreclosed and
abandoned properties. To date, we have purchased 48 single - family
homes, 31 multifamily units, and 10 vacant land or properties that we
had to demolish blighted structures.
And we've -- we've provided affordable housing, we've leveraged
the grant award, and we have abated all the code violations on those
properties.
Here's a little pie chart, shows you the graph. So to date 13 of
these homes have been sold to happy homeowners who could now
afford a home, we have six sales pending, and we've paid out almost
$1.2 million to local vendors which included 72 contractors,
subcontractors, and other tradespersons. That does not include the
supplier of the cabinets, the supplier of the A/Cs, you know, and that
goes on and on.
And we have certainly, Commissioner Fiala, reduced blight in a
number of different neighborhoods.
Let's put a face to the people that we've helped. Here's a family
that has become one of our homeowners. Born and raised in Collier
County, is a mechanic for the school board. They have five children,
Page 230
February 22, 2011
and they outgrew their Habitat for Humanity home, so they graduated
to an NSP home.
And we made this possible. The house sold for $92,100, and we
gave them assistance to get into the home secured by a second
mortgage of a little over $27,000.
So let's just look at the numbers. Commissioner Coyle, you love
numbers, so here you go.
We've provided --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I love profits.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not numbers.
MS. KRUMBINE: We're not on the same page then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know that. You're in the
government.
MS. KRUMBINE: Exactly. Assistance for buyers, just under
$400,000. Those are, Commissioner Coletta, exactly helping people
get into homes that would not be able to do it just in the regular
market.
We've brought in -- we've resold the homes. So contrary to a lot
of other jurisdictions -- a lot of other jurisdictions are giving -- are
buying the homes and then not reselling them. But we're generating
some money back. It's a revolving fund of $928,000.
Now, there is a portion of our funds that aren't eligible for
recapture. Any carrying costs that we have, paying for electricity,
homeowners' insurance, if there's a delta between the appraised value,
we can't go over that, so none of that could be recaptured.
So that comes to about an average of $5,200 per house that we're
not making a profit on, Commissioner Coyle.
So those are some of the -- I got a smile out of you. There you
go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm getting weak.
MS. KRUMBINE: You're getting weak.
Page 231
It's late.
So that -- and you're
February 22, 2011
getting hungry, and so am I.
So that's our success. And we want to continue that success by
going on to NSP3. You have the application in front of you, and I
want Commissioner Coyle to be able to go home and have dinner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, for approval.
And further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #I OF
CONTRACT #10 -5572 FOR THE WIGGIN'S PASS PERMITTING,
MODELING & INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN TO COASTAL
PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. (CP &E) AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1779811 — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
MARCH 8, 2011 BCC MEETING —APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item IOF is a recommendation to
award Contract #10 -5572 for Wiggins Pass Permitting, Modeling, And
Page 232
February 22, 2011
Inlet Management Plan to Coastal Planning Engineering,
Incorporated, and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract in the
amount of $177,811.
Mr. McAlpin from your Coastal Zone Management Department
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. OCHS: -- is here --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a suggestion before
we get started.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, this was something
where I had asked the County Attorney's Office to give me an opinion
on what went on with the CCNA and, unfortunately, the county
attorney, or the assistant county attorney that was working on it, had
some family issues and we couldn't meet till the end of the week, and
she was only able to compile the information from my review as of
today.
So I would like to make a motion to continue this to the next
meeting, and that way she and I can review the information to ensure
that it's all legally compliant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to continue by
Commissioner Hiller, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 233
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Good job, guys. You managed to escape again.
Item #IOG
AN AMENDMENT TO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
AGREEMENT NO. C- 11759, EXTENDING THE AGREEMENTS
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR THREE MONTHS —
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to IOG, and
Commissioner Hiller requested this to be pulled from the consent
agenda. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The reason why I asked for
it to be pulled is that I understand that there's litigation going on
between the county and the county and the Water Management
District, and I'm concerned that the Water Management District may
be using that litigation to influence the delay. And I know that we're
talking about an extension here, but I want to make sure that, you
know, in the interest of the public, that under no circumstances is the
Water Management District in any way using this agreement to exert
influence over the litigation that's affecting us.
And I just -- I want those assurances, and that's why I pulled this
from the consent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, and let me also add one thing.
I mean, I think there's -- that totally off the subject of this item, but
Page 234
February 22, 2011
sort of -- well, I shouldn't say it's off the subject, but just tangential to
it, is that there has been a lot of discussion about the creation of an
independent water district separate and apart from this district.
And, you know, I just want to let people know there has been
discussion about that in the public forum. And for what that's worth --
I don't know if that has any future. But just a thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is your -- your requested
disposition of this item, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That we have discussion about
this, and then, you know, make a motion to approve or disapprove as
the case may be. I would let those guys talk about it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioner, I think Clarence
is here from the Water Management District. He may be the
appropriate person to talk to regarding issues regarding the district, the
settlement, concerns the district has.
We are in the process of working with the district to re -up this
agreement. We have a three -month timetable, and then impacts that
go past that.
I know Clarence is probably cringing at me saying that, but it
would probably be appropriate that you talk to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Clarence is going to tell us, of course
they're not using this for leverage.
MR. FEDER: The only thing, if I could, Commissioner, that I
would add to that is, we are going to continue trying to work through
this next three months to get an agreement forward. After about one
month, if we're not making progress, we feel that we have to come to
you and give you some idea of the implications of what it might be,
whether we go out to asset manager or whether there are other issues.
And so we're going to be in that mode.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've already asked you to inform me of
the implications of their actions, and so, you know, we could go ahead
and approve this, and there wouldn't be any issue at all. You'd still
Page 235
February 22, 2011
have to come back to us.
But go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got something to add before
you speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarence, before you say
anything --
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they got a Big Cypress
meeting taking place on Friday. Big Cypress, even though it is a
separate part from Southwest -- or South Florida Water Management,
it can still overrule any decisions they make. They've done it before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Big Cypress National Preserve, you
mean?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is to --
MR. OCHS: Big Cypress Basin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Basin, BCB, oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the basin. So, I mean,
we're putting Clarence in a very precarious position. And rather than
test fate, I would just as soon excuse him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. You're excused. Dismissed.
MR. TEARS: I had some statements. I didn't mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but I think it's best that
we try to keep these things kind of distanced at the moment and let
staff work on it, and then come back at another time. I know you
wouldn't mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He sat here all day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you had so much fun, right?
You wouldn't have missed it for anything?
MR. TEARS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There might be something coming out
Page 236
February 22, 2011
sometime this next week or so that would change things significantly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. But just, please, a
little time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right. Just a little time. Let's
be patient, and that way we won't get anybody angry with us. All
right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So is the board comfortable with
approving this three -month extension and there's no compromise?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I don't think there's -- I don't
think we lose. The staff will be back to us fairly quickly with a -- with
some additional information and requests for advice and requests for a
decision by the board, and we'll have a chance to make a decision then
as to what we'll do after that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: That's pretty much it today, isn't it?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have Item 14, public comments
on general topics. I don't know if anyone's registered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. MITCHELL: We've no -- nobody registered for public
comment.
Page 237
February 22, 2011
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Takes you to 15, staff and commission general
communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: I only have one item, Commissioners. Last
meeting we talked about coming back to the board with some cleanup
amendments to your COPCN ordinance, and I had indicated we could
come back on your meeting of March the 8th. I would ask for a little
bit more time and for the board's permission to allow us to work with
your Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board as your
appointed advisory board to bring the draft changes to that ordinance
to that board for review and subsequent recommendations onto the
County Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay with me. You got three nods?
MR. OCHS: Okay. I see three. Thank you. That's all I had, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have one matter that came in today
actually, and it's an offer being made by the South Florida Water
Management District for settlement --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- in the lawsuit we have with them,
coincidentally enough.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was faster than we thought.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was remarkable. Anyhow --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm clairvoyant.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- given the circumstances, I'd like to
declare a shade session, and the notice that we hastily prepared is on
there, and under the statutes I need to read this to give the public
Page 238
February 22, 2011
notice that pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, that I will
be asking this board for advice in a closed attorney - client session at
the next meeting, Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at a time certain of 12
noon in this building.
In addition to the board members, Mr. Ochs, myself, Litigation
Section Chief Jackie Hubbard will be in attendance, and the board will
be discussing primarily the settlement offer that's been made.
The settlement is confidential. I will, before this meeting, give
each of you a copy of it so you'll have it beforehand, but I'd ask that
you keep it amongst yourselves until we can have the shade session.
That will be for the next meeting.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can discuss it among ourselves
later, can't we?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. We had that discussion earlier
today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A fact - finding mission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, fact - finding mission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but you said that they used
the sunshine as a sword, so we should be okay.
I'd like to make a motion to approve, but I'd also like to ensure
that in this shade session that we comply with the law, have the entire
discussion recorded or, you know --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we've done this in the past.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And then seal and then let
the public see it just to be sure that, you know, everybody's aware of
what's going on.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We've done this many times in the
past, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No doubt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
Page 239
February 22, 2011
second by Commissioner Henning to approve the shade session.
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.
That's it, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if you received an
email from a Daniel Wilkoff concerned about fluoride in the public
water.
And I emailed him back, and I said -- he wants -- he wants for the
board to stop putting the chemicals in there that creates fluoride.
And I emailed him back, and I says, well, you know, it's my
understanding the federal government requires you to do that.
He gave me a long dissertation. But I went to the EPA website
and typed in fluoride, and it's not a requirement by the government.
So, Mr. DeLony, can we work on this maybe? I mean, if we're
putting something in there that doesn't need to be there -- and it creates
-- excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime can lead to
increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults and many results affect
-- leading bone (sic) to pain and tenderness.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Sir, with regard to that matter, I'll take that and provide the board
a report with regard to the inclusion of fluoride or not at the board
meeting. If you'd give me till the 22nd, Mr. Ochs, I'd appreciate that.
Page 240
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't know if you
really need to do that. Maybe if we could just correspond --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- back and forth with this
constituent, maybe we can --
MR. DeLONY: I have not -- I have not seen that email, so if you
could make sure that I get that, I'll make sure that we respond
accordingly, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Because that's -- what
chemical creates the fluoride? It's sodium?
MR. DeLONY: Fluoride.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sodium fluoride?
MR. DeLONY: Fluoride.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just fluoride. You buy tons of
that, right?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. It's very little that we add to the water.
It's -- and it's done on an EPA standard as well as all those standards
that are endorsed by the dentist and the AWA, the American
Waterworks Association, and everybody else in the country. But I'll
provide you all that detail in my response to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Well, I'll be talking
to my dentist on Monday so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, dentists prescribe that stuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, they just paint my teeth --
MR. DeLONY: Actually, just for the record, each day, even
though I know our -- fluoride is in our great county water, which I
consume vast quantities of, I still do a mouth rinse with fluoride twice
a day to ensure, as I get older, I have all the problems associated with
-- those with us as we begin to get there -- in terms of gingivitis and
other issues that deal with my gums and my teeth.
And so with regard to that matter -- but we will respond to your
email with regard to your question, sir, if that's a satisfactory response.
Page 241
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great.
MR. DeLONY: I have not -- but I have not see that email to
date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, I wasn't
going to send it to you. I was going to do my own research, and I did
that this weekend. You wasn't available on Monday, but we'll do it
now.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you were supposed to drink the
fluoride. You know, I drink gallons of it.
MR. DeLONY: That's wonderful, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, seriously. One time I injured my
ankle very badly. It was a very bad sprain, and it ballooned up like
this.
MR. DeLONY: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I couldn't get a shoe on the foot. So a
friend of mine said, get some epsom salts --
MR. DeLONY: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and it will take that swelling out. And
I drank about two quarts of those epsom salts, and it didn't help my
foot at all.
MR. DeLONY: It felt better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After that I don't want to
comment. But I do have something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. On the -- let's just see the
date. March 22nd we're going to be leaving, a number of us, to go to
Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not you and Commissioner Fiala is it
again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. It's a little different.
What it is is we're going up there. We already understand the fact
Page 242
February 22, 2011
when we get there we're not going to be calling on legislators totally
together. We're going to go up, each cover different legislators to be
able to go and visit, and we're all going to have certain missions to be
able to perform, so we're not going to constitute a public meeting at
any one place.
But I have a request that -- it's not unreasonable, but I wanted to
bring it up to you. Commissioner Hiller wanted to know if she could
ride up with myself and the county attorney in the county car to
Tallahassee. And I want to bring it up now so that it's all out in the
open and we have an open discussion and we engage the county
attorney. Because if it isn't a problem, it would save Commissioner
Hiller from having to fly or drive herself up.
You want to comment on it, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's absolutely appropriate. We won't be
discussing county business at all. I mean, I'll bring an MP3 player, we
can listen to music, we can discuss the news nationally if you'd like,
internationally, everything but county business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to sing opera
all the way up.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got Willie Nelson.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. In that case I'm not
going. I'm just kidding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I don't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or maybe I should say, that's why
I definitely am going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I -- then that's settled. I
mean, we brought it up, we discussed it out in the open. We're going
to go forward.
That's it. To you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm also going up, and I'm flying up
Page 243
February 22, 2011
-- yes, I'm flying up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got a plane?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm your representative for
FAC, and this is a FAC --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And so I'm going up there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a FAC?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it's a FAC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I managed to -- actually, I managed
to get a really good, good, good rate, so I'm pretty lucky about that.
And I'm hoping to spend --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You should go twice then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway. So, yes, I will be on that
trip, except I'm not traveling with everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't blame you, if they're going to be
singing.
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When I heard that, I decided no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good idea.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been a good day.
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Henning, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 244
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are finished.
* * * **
* * ** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, 6225
AUTUMN OAKS LANE AND RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR FAIRFIELD INN, 3804 WHITE LAKE BLVD., AND
RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #I 6A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR CANNES IN PELICAN BAY, 6525 CROWN COLONY, AND
Page 245
February 22, 2011
RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #I 6A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST PHASE 3 UNIT 7 AND
RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item # 16A5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,419.68 — FOR
THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS,
TIS REVIEW, PUD MONITORING /TRAFFIC COUNTS, FAIR
SHARE INTERSECTIONS AND VANDERBILT DRIVE
IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A6
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF SUBMITTALS
FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIAN
OR BICYCLE FACILITIES AT THE I -75 AND IMMOKALEE
ROAD INTERCHANGE (FDOT PROJECT #416237- 1- 38 -01) AND
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIM
ENGINEERING, WHICH CONTRACT WILL BE BROUGHT
BACK FOR BOARD APPROVAL — ALSO INCLUDES PUBLIC
MEETINGS AND IMPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY
Page 246
February 22, 2011
Item #16A7 — Moved to Item #IOG (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6A8
THE WITHDRAWAL OF AVE MARIA PETITIONS, DOA -
PL2010 -1751 (JANUARY 11, 2011 BOARD ITEM #7A), SRAA-
PL2010 -1988 (JANUARY 11, 2011 BOARD ITEM #713), AND
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 (JANUARY 11 2011 BOARD ITEM #IOB)
Item #I 6A9
TWO (2) ADOPT -A -ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS FOR
MAIN STREET FROM BROWN WAY TO LAKE TRAFFORD
ROAD FOR THE VOLUNTEER GROUP, IMMOKALEE HIGH
SCHOOL JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT, AND FOR MAIN STREET
FROM JEROME AVENUE TO BROWN WAY FOR THE
VOLUNTEER GROUP, IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL TEEN
TRENDSETTERS, WITH A TOTAL OF FOUR (4)
RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $300
Item # 16B 1
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (2525A/B
LINWOOD AVENUE - $2,739) — FOR ROOFING REPAIRS TO
THE EXTERIOR BUILDING
Page 247
February 22, 2011
Item #16132
CC &E INVESTMENTS, LLC AND AGENTS TO ACCESS CRA-
OWNED PROPERTY IN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TO
INSTALL AND MONITOR A GROUND WATER MONITORING
WELL FOR REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AT 2068 DAVIS
BLVD; EXECUTING THE ACCESS AGREEMENT; THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO COORDINATE WITH
APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY — REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEANUP ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNDERGROUND FUEL
STORAGE TANK SYSTEM AT THE LOCATION OF A FORMER
CTIGO STATION
Item #16133
THE LEASE WITH GREEN EFFEX, LLC, A LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE SERVICE ON CRA OWNED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN
THE GATEWAY MINI - TRIANGLE FOR AN ANNUAL RENT OF
$18,000 TO BE PAID IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
OF $19500 FOR A TERM OF 14 MONTHS — BEGINNING
MARCH 1, 2011 TO MAY 1, 2012 WITH A PROVISION FOR A
ONE YEAR LEASE EXTENSION
Item # 16D 1
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #11 -5638 FOR WATERWAY
SIGNAGE TO ANNAT INCORPORATION DBA MUNICIPAL
SUPPLY AND SIGN (ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE: $50,000) —
February 22, 2011
PROVIDING READY -MADE SIGNS FOR THE COUNTY'S
WATERWAYS
Item #16D2
ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
4 -H CLUBS FOUNDATION INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$63,825.00 FOR THE 4 -H OUTREACH PROGRAM MANAGED
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA/IFAS
EXTENSION DEPARTMENT, THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,825
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACCEPTING A
CHALLENGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,397 AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS ACTION — PROVIDING HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
THROUGH ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE, THE SHELTER FOR
ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND YOUTH HAVEN
Item #16D4
AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 -2011 HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY APPROVED ON OCTOBER 26, 2010. THIS
AMENDMENT IS TO REVISE EXHIBIT A. SCOPE OF
SERVICES, IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE PROCUREMENT
LANGUAGE IN THE SCOPE — CONTRACT #M- 10 -UC -12 -0017
Page 249
February 22, 2011
(HOME REHABILITATION PROJECT)
Item #16D5
AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2009 HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION AND RAPID RE- HOUSING (HPRP)
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
(HDC) APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. THIS
AMENDMENT WILL REALLOCATE BUDGETED LINE ITEMS
— CONTRACT #5- 09 -UY -12 -0024 (CREDIT REPAIR AND
BUDGET COUNSELING PROGRAM)
Item #16D6
ONE (1) MORTGAGE AND NOTE MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION TO
CORRECT THE TOTAL FUNDS DISBURSED ON PREVIOUSLY
RECORDED SECURITY INSTRUMENTS — FOLIO
#362302000000 — 5183 17TH AVENUE SW
Item #16D7
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
AGREEMENT #08DB- D3- 09- 21- 01 -A03 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY, TO REALLOCATE $99,007.46 IN UNUSED
PROJECT FUNDS — CREATING A NEW REVISED BUDGET
FOR THE COUNTYWIDE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION
PROJECT
Item #16D8
Page 250
February 22, 2011
CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT #10 -5561 ARRA GREEN
LIGHTING FOR PARKS — EAGLE LAKES TO ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. FOR $303,000 TO ADD TWO
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY PARK SITES — TO INCLUDE
EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK AND VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARK SPORTS FIELDS
Item # 16E 1
A RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT
FROM FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR ACCESS
ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF FREEDOM PARK —
TO SECURE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AREA FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A WALKWAY
ALONG GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD
Item #I 6E2
REPORT ON THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
EQUIPMENT ON -LINE AUCTION HELD OCTOBER 5, 2010
AND THE FLEET VEHICLE /EQUIPMENT ON -LINE AUCTION
HELD NOVEMBER 16, 2010, RESULTING IN GROSS
REVENUES OF $23,312.50 — FOR THE DISPOSAL OF FOUR HP
COMPUTERS, TWO FORD VEHICLES, THREE TRANSIT
BUSES AND THREE MOWERS
Item # 16F 1
RESOLUTION 2011 -33: A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
Page 251
February 22, 2011
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE
FUNDING OF MEDICAL /RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,565 AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT — FUNDS NOT TO BE USED TO SUPPLANT
THE EMS BUDGET
Item #161`2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
AGREEMENT #11- DS- 9Z- 09- 21 -01- BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, ACCEPTING $12,000 FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — FUNDS TO BE USED
FOR COUNTY RESPONSE TRAINING AND TO UPDATE
LOCAL DISASTER PLANS
Item #16173
A RECOMMENDATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT OF DR.
MARTA U. COBURN AS THE DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL
EXAMINER
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2011 -34: A LOCALLY FUNDED AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) WHEREBY COLLIER COUNTY WILL PROVIDE THE
FDOT WITH BRICK PAVERS AND $6,683.58 FOR
INSTALLATION AT THE CROSSWALK LOCATED AT U.S. 41
AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
Page 252
February 22, 2011
Item #16F5
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES
IN AN AMOUNT TOTALING $25,000 OR LESS — FOR A
DONATION TO THE AMERICAN RED CROSS - COLLIER
CHAPTER TO FUND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, PUBLIC
SAFETY EDUCATION AND OTHER LARGE SCALE INCIDENT
SUPPORT ACTIVITES (BA #11 -125)
Item #16F6
RESOLUTION 2011 -35: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 -11
ADOPTED BUDGET — FUNDS RECOGNIZED FROM SWFWMD
(BA #11 -127) AND INSURANCE PROCEEDS (BA #I1 -135)
Item #16F7
ADVISE THE BOARD THAT THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT BOARD, AT ITS
FEBRUARY 10, 2011 MEETING, APPROVED THE INCLUSION
OF THE COUNTY'S REQUESTED COPCN LANGUAGE INTO
THE PROPOSED LOCAL BILL PROVIDING FOR VOLUNTARY
MERGER OF INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16178 — Continued to the March 8, 2011 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 253
February 22, 2011
AN ACCOUNTING OF ALL PUBLIC FUNDS SPENT ON THE
JACKSON LABORATORY PROJECT — STAFF HOURS $762.50,
STAFF COSTS $55,141.49, OUTSIDE CONTRACTUAL COSTS;
TRAVEL AND MEETING MINUTES $54,710.39, TOTALING
$109,852.38
Item #16G1
EXECUTION OF THE ATTACHED AIRCRAFT DETAILING
CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT WITH CORPORATE JET
CARE LLC TO PROVIDE AIRCRAFT DETAILING AND
CLEANING SERVICES AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT — CONCESSION FEE OF FIFTEEN PERCENT (15 %)
OF GROSS RECEIPTS TO BE PAID BY THE CONCESSIONAIRE
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND PRAYER
BREAKFAST ON FEBRUARY 1, 2011 AT THE MARCO ISLAND
MARRIOTT ON MARCO ISLAND, FL. $20 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT
400 SOUTH COLLIER BLVD.
Item #I 6H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE ALLIGATOR
DISTRICT ADULT RECOGNITION DINNER AT HODGES
UNIVERSITY IN NAPLES, FL. $25 TO BE PAID OUT OF
Page 254
February 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED
AT 2655 NORTHBROOKE DRIVE
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE EASTERN
COLLIER CHAMBER MONTHLY BREAKFAST MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 2, 2011 AT ROMA & HAVANA RESTAURANT IN
IMMOKALEE, FL. $15 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 1300 N. 15'rx
STREET SUITE 2
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER ATTENDED THE
NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CLINIC BLOCK PARTY ON
FEBRUARY 19, 2011 AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF
CLUB, NAPLES, FL. $200 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COYLE'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H5
RESOLUTION 2011 -36: CONCURRING WITH THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY TO DISCONTINUE ITS
OPERATIONS AND UNDERTAKE THE PROCESS TO
DISSOLVE AS AN AUTHORITY; ACKNOWLEDGING THE
INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY REGARDING THE
Page 255
February 22, 2011
DISBURSEMENT OF THE REMAINING PROCEEDS OF LOANS
MADE BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIES TO
THE AUTHORITY: ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #16I1
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 256
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 22, 2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of November 8, 2010; December 13, 2010.
2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 9. 2010.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of October 7, 2010; October 21, 2010; November 18, 2010;
December 2, 2010; December 7, 2010 special session.
4) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 1, 2010; DSAC Public Utilities /RPZ
Subcommittee December 6, 2010.
5) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 9, 2010.
Minutes of October 12, 2010; November 9, 2010 no quorum.
6) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of December 15, 2010.
7) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of December 15, 2010.
Minutes of November 18, 2010 joint meeting w /EZDA.
8) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 8, 2010; December 13, 2010.
9) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 16, 2010.
Minutes of November 18, 2010.
10) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of October 18, 2010.
11) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 6, 2011.
Minutes of December 2, 2010.
February 22, 2011
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 22, 2011
THROUGH JANUARY 28, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 29, 2011
THROUGH FEBRUARY 4, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 5, 2011
THROUGH FEBRUARY 11, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS I l OFEE
AND I IOSE IN THE CONDEMNATION ACTION STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. MERIDIAN BROADCASTING, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 08- 1253 -CA, TREE FARM ROAD PROJECT
#60171. (FISCAL IMPACT: $122,050) — FOR THE WIDENING OF
WOODCREST DRIVE
Item #I 6K2
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
1989 -98, WHICH RATIFIED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
Page 257
February 22, 2011
OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, IN ORDER TO
REVISE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT
AND COMPOSITION
Item #I 6K3
A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF WOODS, WEIDENMILLER & MICHETTI,
P.L. — TO CONTINUE UTILIZING THEIR EXPERTISE IN
CONSTRUCTION LAW, CONTRACT DISPUTES,
EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES AND LITIGATION
Item # 16K4
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 701R,
901R5 801N, 902AN, 902RA, 902RB, 703, 803RA, 803RB, 903,
704, 904, 705, 9059 830, 9309 831, 9319 832R AND 932R IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V. VISION
& FAITH, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 05- 1275 -CA, SCRWTP RO
WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT #70892 (FISCAL IMPACT
$73,390) — NEEDED FOR PART OF THE 20 -MGD WELLFIELD
EXPANSION TO SUPPORT THE TREATMENT FACILITY
Item #16K5
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 806,
9063807 AND 907 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA V. VISION & FAITH, INC., ET AL, CASE
NO. 05- 1275 -CA, SCRWTP RO WELLFIELD EXPANSION
PROJECT #70892 (FISCAL IMPACT $22,548) — NEEDED FOR
Page 258
February 22, 2011
PART OF THE 20 -MGD WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO
SUPPORT THE TREATMENT FACILITY
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2011 -04: PUDA- PL2009 -742, BAREFOOT BEACH
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PUD, ADOPTED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -83, RELOCATING APPROVED UNBUILT
DWELLING UNITS FROM AREA DC -1 "THE COTTAGES AT
BAREFOOT BEACH" TO LELY BAREFOOT BEACH UNIT
ONE, BLOCKS A -K. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF BONITA BEACH ROAD IN SECTIONS 5,
65 7 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY FLORIDA
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2011 -37: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 -11 ADOPTED
BUDGET — FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILDFIRE PROTECTIVE
CLOTHING AND FIREFIGHTING FOAM (BA #I 1- 129)
Item #17C
CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 8, 2011 BCC MEETING. AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 2006 -56, ROCK ROAD IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT, PER THE BOARD'S JANUARY 25,
2011 DIRECTION UNDER AGENDA ITEM #16A2 TO AMEND
THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE MSTU TO
Page 259
February 22, 2011
REMOVE PROPERTIES THAT NO LONGER DERIVE BENEFIT
FROM THE MSTU'S STATED PURPOSE AND TO CREATE AN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT TO COUNTY
STAFF AS TO FUTURE PROJECTS WITHIN THE MSTU
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:54 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS CINDER ITS CONTROL
Lo. C'J'
FRED COYLE, CHAIRWAN
f
ATTEST F
DWIGHT E4-, [BI(K, CLERK
tf� if tA' Et : e
ese mutes ap:
_ v
lived by the Board on 22 41 "2 as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER.
Page 260